I have included my preferences below. If you have questions that are not answered below, ask them before the round begins.

- I evaluate arguments on the flow.

- I am a tabula rasa judge; I will vote on almost any argument that is topical, properly warranted and impacted. If an argument makes no sense to me, it's usually your fault and not mine. In the absence of an explicit framework, I default to util.

- I am fine with moderate speed. Although I personally spoke very quickly when I competed, I will misflow tag-lines and citations if they are rushed, and I prefer a more understandable debate. If you want my ballot, you will be better served talking clearly; too much speed will hurt your speaker points.

- If there is no offense in the round, I will presume first speaker by default, not con. This is because I believe PF puts the first speaking team at a considerable structural disadvantage. If both teams have failed to generate offense by the end of the round, the onus should fall on the team going second for not capitalizing on their advantage. This is my attempt to equalize the disparity between the first and second speaking team.

- I do not take notes during crossfire and only pay attention selectively. If something important comes up, mention it in your next speech!

- I will typically only vote on something if it is in both summary and final focus. If you read an impact card in your case and it is not in summary, I will not extend it for you, even if the other team does not address it. Of course, there are inevitably exceptions, e.g. defense in the first FF.

- No new evidence is permitted in second summary (it's fine in first summary). This is to encourage front-lining and to discourage reading new offense in second rebuttal. Additionally, new carded analysis in the second summary forces the final focus to make new responses and deviate away from its initial strategy. The only exception I will make is if you need to respond to evidence introduced in the first summary. New analytical responses are fine.

- First summary doesn't have to extend defense, but it is responsible for extending turns/any offense. Second summary and both final focuses need to extend defense.

- I try to be visibly/audibly responsive, e.g. I will stop flowing and look up from my computer when I don't understand your argument and I'll probably nod if I like what you're saying. I will also say 'CLEAR' if you are not enunciating or going too fast and 'LOUDER' if you are speaking too quietly; don't be caught off guard.

- I will only ask to see evidence after the round in one of three scenarios. (1) I was told to call for a card in a speech (2) Both teams disagree over what the card says and never fully resolve it (3) I'm curious and want to read it.

- I usually won't keep track of your speech and prep time. It is your job to keep your opponents accountable. If there is any particular reason you cannot keep time, please let me know and I will try to accommodate

- I will evaluate theory arguments and Kritiks if they are well warranted enough. As a warning/disclaimer, if something doesn't make sense to me, I may not feel comfortable voting on it. This means you will probably have to over-explain advanced and complex arguments (this applies to non-progressive arguments as well).

- I evaluate the debate on an offense/defense paradigm. This does not mean you can wave away your opponent's defensive responses by saying "a risk of offense always outweighs defense," because terminal and mitigatory defense are not the same thing. Terminal defense points out flaws in the logic of an argument while mitigatory defense accepts an argument as a logical possibility and attacks its probability or magnitude. I personally dislike 'risk of offense' type arguments because I think they encourage lazy debating, but I will happily vote on them if they are well executed. You must answer responses that indict the validity of your link chain if you want to access offense from an argument.

- I reserve the right to drop you for offensive/insensitive language, depending on its severity. Some things are more important than winning a debate round!

- If you plan to make arguments about sensitive issues such as suicide, PTSD, or sexual assault, I would strongly advise issuing atrigger warning beforehand. I believe debate should be a safe space, and while I don’t necessarily believe inclusivity should compromise discussion, the least we can all do is make sure everybody is prepared for the conversation.

- I expect all exchanges of evidence to take less than 2 minutes. If you delay the debate any longer while looking for a specific card, I may dock your speaker points for being disorganized and wasting time. If someone requests to see your evidence, you should hand it to them as soon as possible; don't say "I need my computer to prep."

- I don't care if you have WiFi on, as long as you're not communicating with anyone outside of the round. Feel free to download a PDF or look something up on Google – whatever makes for a better/fairer debate. The exception to this rule is if certain tournaments have very explicit rules prohibiting internet access (e.g. NCFLs).

- Be nice to each other!

edited for toc

Overview:

I do not have a preference for any style of debate, but I no longer consider myself a "circuit" judge. When in doubt, assume I'm a traditional judge (as in: I like good case debate and I'm most familiar with it). I am not tabula rasa but I will evaluate any/all arguments as objectively as possible (exception: hate speech/exclusionary rhetoric). Ultimately,you should read what you think will win you the round. My original paradigm is included below for you to peruse.

If a team has made the round unsafe for you or has excluded you from the round then please call them out to the best of your ability. I have a commitment to the flow but debate equity is much more important. I also understand that there will be instances in which calling out your opponent is not feasible; if you feel comfortable doing so you can PM or email me and I'll contact tab/ombuds for further instructions (and will be mindful of confidentiality). No matter what happens, I'll try to be reasonable. I align w/David‘s paradigm the strongest on this front, which I've also linked for reference.

Details:

- Faster speeds are fine, assuming both teams are okay with it. I will call clear and slow if needed. However, I will not be happy if you spread out your opponent at a non-bid tournament in prelims - I may intervene if it is clearly impacting the quality of the debate. See the in-round equity stuff above.

- I will be annoyed if you "kick the lay judge" in elims (what if I was the lay judge??) but I won't intervene.

- For the purpose of the round you should assume I don’t know anything about the lit base of your kritik. I am not super comfortable with evaluating performances but I understand why they may be necessary.Please clearly define alternate FWs because otherwise I will not know how to evaluate!

- My default layering is t>fw>k>case. I am a bad theory judge when it comes to tricky stuffbut I am not anti theory as a whole. You will lose me with frivolous theory that isn't explained/warranted well. I'm not familiar with tricks, NIBs, IVIs, and the like. I have a low threshold for RVIs but an even lower threshold for responses to them. Pref a different judge if you love in depth theory debates because I won't be much help in terms of feedback.

- No stance on conditionality or any type of counterplan.

- I will not call for cards unless they're heavily contested, and also will not flow cross. Keep evidence disputes short - I'll interrupt if the disagreement is getting out of hand.

- I'm very generous with speaker points (29+). Obvious exceptions if you say something blatantly racist/homophobic/xenophobic/violently ad hominem to your opponents.

- I will disclose in prelims if all teams ask/agree. Oral RFDs will be short because I'm more coherent in writing.

- Ask me for my email before the round if there is an email chain.

- I don’t have the best poker face, but I will try not to be distracting.

- Referring to me as "Judge" is fine. From my earliest paradigm: "don't shake my hand, a bow will suffice."

Try to have fun because I know how stressful this activity can be. Good luck and happy debating :-)

Did PF for 4 years, won nat quales, top 4 at nats.

how to get my ballot:

1. DEBATE THE TOPIC
2. weigh when you can
3. Run theory at your own discretion, if I suspect that you don't understand what you're saying, I will 25 spks you
4. if arg not in summary it should not be in final focus
5. don't be a menace, but clashing during cross is good
6. 2nd rebuttal should have frontlines
7. don't lose

i did PF in high school (2014-18) and coached for ~2 years after.

i have not thought about debate in the past 4 years, i don't have topic knowledge, and am not comfy with technical/theory-ish things in PF. please treat me like a flay judge! i like seeing lots of impact calc, meta/weighing throughout the round along w/ a clean narrative — doing all of these well will mean i give u high speaks (29+). i will lower speaker points for teams that are mean :(

you can wear whatever is comfortable for you in rounds. i don't believe in having to wear a suit for tournaments.

more importantly, i hope you are having a good day :)

sanjim@berkeley.edu

Updated: September 2023

In debate, the most important thing to me by far is fairness. Fairness gets a lot of lip service in debate and is frequently treated like any other piece on the game board, which is to say that it is wielded as a tool to win rounds, but that isn’t what I mean. I don’t think fairness is an impact in the same way nuclear war or even education are. Fairness is a legitimate, ethical consideration that exists on the gameboard and above it, and as such, weighs heavily in how I make decisions.

In the context of the game itself, all arguments and strategies exist upon a continuum from a mythical “completely fair” to an equally mythical “completely unfair”. I am willing to vote on the vast majority of arguments regardless of where they fall on this continuum, but it is certainly an uphill battle to win those that I perceive as falling closer to “completely unfair.” Arguments that I would say are meaningfully unfair include:

- Conditional Strategies (Especially multiple conditional advocacies)

- Untopical Affirmatives

- Vacuous Theory (think Sand paradox or anything a high school LD student would find funny)

- Arguing Fairness is bad (obvi)

- Obfuscating

In the context of things that occur above the board, I similarly observe this fairness continuum but am even less likely to vote for these unfair tactics because I view them as a conscious decision to exclude people from this space. I view the following as falling closer to the unfair part of the continuum:

- Refusing to slow down when spreading

- Using highly technical debate strategies against new debaters

- Being bigoted in any way

I tend to find myself most frequently voting for arguments that I perceive as more fair and that I understand and feel comfortable explaining in my RFD. With all of this said, I have voted on Aff Ks, theory I didn’t especially like, and conditional strategies, I just want to be upfront that those ballots are certainly more the exception than the norm.

Background: I am the director of debate at Diablo Valley College, I competed in LD and NPDA at the University of the Pacific for 3 years and then was an assistant coach for the team during grad school. I can hang, I just hate sophistry and vacuous debate.

I did Policy in HS and College. I coached Middle/HS LD for six years, and am now coaching Policy for UWyo.

I am collecting anonymous feedback and data about my judging. If I've judged you and you'd like to contribute, please fill out the form!

Above any ideological loyalty or stylistic preference is my appreciation and need for clean, organized, structured debates.

natalieforensics@gmail.com

Mechanics of Evaluation

I try my hardest to be tabula rasa, but I'm also a person. I vote on dropped arguments more than most people.

Major things that make me different from other judges:

I'm somewhat hard of hearing - try to talk way louder than you would. This is usually only a problem during physical (not online) tournaments and in rooms with much echo. If you are unclear, I'll yell clear twice before I stop flowing. Don't slur your words together. Use complete sentences while avoiding filler words. If you've never recorded yourself giving a speech and tried to flow yourself, chances are you think you are far clearer than you really are.

Tech and Truth - it's not hard for me to see the connections between arguments. I vote on many conceded args with impacts, and heavily undercovered args. I guess that makes me more of a tech judge, but I also will be very grumpy about arguments that don't make sense, so I'll vote on them but I'll complain about having voted on them.

1ar/2nr/2ar dynamics - I like to protect the 2nr. If the arg wasn't in the 1ar or the 2ar pivot is outlandish, it can be a problem for me. That being said if the 2nr spin on the block strat is heavy, 2ars should be pointing that out as a reason to justify new 2ar args.

Speech docs- I hate having to follow along on the doc. I think debaters' flowing skills have rapidly deteriorated since judges were added to speech docs. But now, with mixed modalities, it's very much necessary. That being said, I'm not gonna base much of my decisions on your evidence unless there's a disagreement about what it says - the parts that are most relevant should be paraphrased and cited by author name and the speech they were introduced in the rebuttals.

It's also silly how often people spread through their analytics (especially on theory) as though they're highlighting within a card and expect the judge to follow along on the speech doc.

Try to be pleasant - It's not gonna swing my ballot unless it's turned into an argument, which usually has to do with critiques of how people talk.

Events that happened out of round -This is a gray area for me. I guess on some level I think you should be held accountable for things that happened that can be proven to have happened. On the other hand, how many times does someone have to lose on something for them to be free of their past? I guess that's for y'all to debate about and me to find out.

-

Ideologies and their Juxtapositions

K v K Debate

This is the format that the algorithm has determined I'm destined to judge the most...

Be organized. Distinguish between claim warrant and implications. Writing the story of the ballot can be crucial. Detailed perm theory about what the aff does or does not get to permute is essential for me.

Framework/T-Usfg

When I vote on Framework, there's usually an offensive answer to "you don't address the aff impacts" via a conversation about how affs that have no tie to the topic or completely foreclose upon state engagement to trade off with opportunities to learn about the values of state engagement or ways in which the topic hurts the people the aff is talking about. I do think that soft framework with interps such as "aff must defend a tangible strategy," "aff must have a connection to the resolution," "aff must be in the direction of the resolution," etc. with most of the same justifications as regular framework can be solid round winners in front of me. My neg ballots on this usually start with "the topical version of the affirmative resolves most of the aff's offense and has better inroads into dialogue/clash and advocacy/policymaking skills for the following reasons:" or because the aff undercovered switch-side debate.

Plan v K Debate

Aff: Don't over-rely on framework, perms and theory. Read these arguments when they really make sense, not out of fear of engaging the substance of the K. Make sure that the K actually violates the rules you want to set up before spending time setting up those rules.

Neg: Don't be lazy! Read specific, offensive links with well-explained alts that are both paradigmatic and can be translated into action that helps people. You can advocate for specific solutions (that may or may not be state policies) as examples of a broader and more general alternative. Find a good balance between examples, explanations, and warrants/proof.

Discourse/rhetoric links: this is my jam. Neg teams answering these - perm and framework go a long way, but honestly people should sometimes just defend their rhetoric. You're not gonna have a defense of every word you use so offensive args about why the 1ac performance is net good even if it's messy or not ideologically pure. The defense of the performance of the 1ac is the key here, and what impacts it addresses. Labeling it as "the value of the performance of the 1ac outweighs the negative harms of their links" really goes a long way with me because it's a clearer contextualization of what "policymaking good" and "research on this topic is good" are actually doing for you besides getting you out of "roleplaying bad" debates. This isn't a theory arg either - you're just weighing the costs vs benefits of the 1ac speech act, in addition to a robust strategy about why my ballot should prioritize the outcomes of the plan over the performance of the speech.

Critiques based on consequences: winning the impact/root cause debate is key? Idk what else to say here.

Traditional

I did this style in High School, and while I coach a team that predominantly does traditional debate, I don't spend much time thinking about this side of the topic. My favorite traditional debates have been more technical than most. Since I'm more unfamiliar I tend to be a lot more tech over truth, given as I'm not exactly doing regular work on your politics disad or specific uniqueness claims. I am also not very knowledgeable about what many acronyms on the topic mean.