Background:

- Judged Public Forum all 2016-17, 2017-18, and 2018-2019 school years.

- Debated Lincoln-Douglas in High School at Houston Memorial and debated Policy at The George Washington University (attended college on a partial debate scholarship, quarters at ADA Nationals, numerous speaker awards).

- Graduated cum laude from The American University's Washington College of Law. Professionally, worked for corporations, law firms, government, and trade associations (doing policy advocacy and government relations).

- Flow Judge but don't just go off of the flow in final focus. Evaluate the round and develop a big picture.

- Full biography: https://www.linkedin.com/in/sonnyabbasi

Public Forum Philosophy:

1. Clash is very important. Respond to the other team's points. Do not ignore the other side's arguments.
2. Speed is okay as I am a former policy debater. If I can't understand you, I will yell "clear".
3. Extend arguments--I won't do it for you.
4. Tell me why you should win the round--don't expect me to do focuses in my head for you.
5. I prefer evidence and logic not just spewing of cards. If I wanted that I would be judging policy.
6. Explain your arguments including links to impacts.
7. This is simple but stick to the resolution.
8. Explain why your framework is important.
9. Show me how to evaluate the round. Go for certain arguments that you are winning in final focus and weigh those against the opponents' arguments.

Background:

I debated PF for four years at Acton-Boxborough Regional High School in Massachusetts. I'm currently a sophomore at Georgetown University and I've coached for a variety of camps and schools over the past couple of years. This isn't fully comprehensive of my preferences as a judge, but definitely feel free to ask me questions before the round.

Things I like:

- Consistency between the summary and the final focus. This also means full extension of arguments (ie warrant and impact extension) in both speeches.

- Weighing. Make sure it's comparative, not just general reasons your argument matters. Beyond just regular magnitude, scope probability, I think the best teams go deeper with their weighing (ex: Strength of Link, Clarity of Impact, etc). Weighing should start as early in the round as possible.

- Frontlining in the second rebuttal. I don't think you need to do a full 2-2 split in the second rebuttal but you are obligated to respond to any new offense brought up in the first rebuttal. I definitely think it is strategic to frontline the argument you are going for.

- Extensions of defense. Every back-half speech is obligated to respond to your opponents' case and with a three-minute summary, this is certainly doable.

- Jokes. Making me laugh gives you a nice bump in speaks, just don't try to be funny if you're not.

Things I don't like:

- Speed. I can handle some speed but I don't write too fast and have always preferred slower debate. Along the same lines, I have never been a fan of really blippy rebuttals where you read a lot of random cards.

- New offense in the second rebuttal. I am not a fan of new offense being read in rebuttal as an overview (weighing overviews are nice though). I think turns are great, but if you're speaking second in the round, I require that you weigh any turns that you read. This is specifically to encourage you to not read a bunch of blippy turns in second rebuttal. I think it is strategic for the first rebuttal to weigh their turns as well, but I don't require it.

- Theory. I definitely think theory and other types of critical arguments have a place in this activity, but only in certain, very limited circumstances (ie read theory when there is clear, substantial abuse in the round). If you think something abusive happens, call it out. In general though, I don't have a lot of experience with critical argumentation and those types of debates will probably naturally end up with you getting a) a worse decision and b) less educational value from me as a judge.

- Tabletotes. They honestly just look silly and are a pretty weird flex.

I am a parent judge with experience judging PF and speech. I enjoy debate arguments that can be flowed logically and don't rely too heavily on evidence in order to be understood. Not a fan of spreading. I appreciate spirited debates but expect everyone to be respectful of one another. Thankfully, this is rarely an issue.

Best of luck!

Background:

I am a parent judge who has been judging for around 3 years and consider myself a flay judge. I'm trained as a scientist so logical argument supported by evidence is what I am looking for. I usually read up about the topic beforehand, so I have some knowledge about it.

Preferences:

I am more tech over truth but the argument needs to be believable for an easier win (I am a little more tech than you might imagine)

Please collapse and weigh your arguments against your opponents' arguments (Quality > Quantity)

I flow but I won’t flow if you’re too fast or hard to understand

I vote of the flow but good speaking always helps

I will call for cards usually if they are important for your case in the round. I take evidence very seriously and will drop you if I find it misconstrued.

Theory: I know nothing about theory or how to evaluate it. If you run it there is a high probability that I won't evaluate it.

Don’t be rude or offensive and don’t interrupt during cross or you’ll get dropped

*assume I don't know the topic or the literature/arguments surrounding the resolution*

Email: achoi07650@gmail.com

1. Tech v. Truth

- varies on a case-by-case basis but will mainly default to tech

- always assume I don't know anything

- generally not an interventionist judge

2. Positions

Disads - cool

Counterplans - cool except in PF

Kritiks - cool

Theory - cool, but run it for a legitimate reason and not as a time-suck or abusing someone who doesn't know how to respond (@ novices/middle schoolers)

Topicality - will rarely vote on it

3. Speed + Evidence

- any speeds fine but plz it's public forum shouldn't be spreading

- I probably won't call cards but you never know

- plz don't plagiarize + know the rules of evidence

4. Speaks

- will give high speaks for nice round :)

- if y'all chill expect 28+

- if y'all rude/disrespectful/purposely making someone feel uncomfortable expect nothing higher than a 25

5. Basic stuff

- please weigh

- I ain't tolerating problematic behavior in my rounds. You know what this means. Please be respectful, this event ain't life or death depending on a win.

- I beg, please don't excessively call for cards. I take the whole round into perspective and a card probably will not change my decision and if it will, I'll call for it myself. However, do what is in your best interest.

6. Digital stuff

- Usually tournaments say camera on (I believe) but if not I don't care whether or not your camera is on or off. I will keep my camera on unless something wild occurs.

- If you experience lag I may interrupt your speech for you to repeat something. Don't be flustered if I ask you to repeat something it is important for me to hear it :).

- Say if you need me to accommodate something. I'm fairly flexible as long as it is agreeable with everyone and the tournament staff/guidelines.

APDA 2019-2020 update (May 2019):

APDA:

1. My first intuition (with rare exceptions to follow) is to be a technical/flow judge. This means I vote on the moral framework best warranted (hopefully) or most consented to by both sides (in absence of warrants). Without sufficiently explicit weighing arguments, I'll vote on what I think outweighs, and my intuitions are probably different than yours.

2. If both sides agree that I should vote on the prefiat/theory/kritical debate, then I will do this. If one side, at any point, says, "evaluating prefiat arguments on the flow begs the question on how to evaluate prefiat debate," then I will consider the question about how to evaluate prefiat debate inadjudicable, and I will intervene and evaluate prefiat content the way I think is correct (eg if you did something I think merits dropping, then I will drop you, otherwise I will not). The remaining speeches can still persuade me about what I should think is correct.

[August update] - I expect the above quote to be stated during your first opportunity to do so following a new prefiat argument from your opponents, and for the introducers of the prefiat level not to say the above quote. If you attempt to engage with the prefiat level, then I won't allow you to kick it.

3. It is your responsibility to make sure everyone is able to write down and understand your arguments. If I understood your argument, but I do not think your opponents understood it (within reason), then I will presume the most charitable interpretation for them. The exception to this is PMR arguments which are not new, in which case you can use whatever jargon you need for me to understand the argument, since your opponents can't respond anyway.

4. New arguments in PMR get sniff tested. This means that if I think they would be easy to beat in an additional opp-speech, I will apply those easy responses.

List of things that correspond to my intuitions, or which I like, in no particular order:

Epistemic intuitionism, ethical nihilism, political libertarianism/conservatism, consistency, the rules of debate, fairness, not using excessive speed, reverse voter issues, APDA debate being about whether or not case statement is more likely true or false, and debating about economics or philosophy.

[August update part 2] 5. Speaks are subjective, and they do not exist in the best of all possible worlds. The speaks I give you will reflect this injustice. This means my speaks distribution has a high mean and a high variance.

PF:

I have spent more time on the college parli circuit than PF, so my judging style is likely to lean toward that (although I make a concerted effort to judge for the style I'm watching).

I have a strong preference for arguments that impact to util, because my presumption is that this is what PF debate is about, but this can be overcome with sufficient winning framework warranting. I will not call for evidence unless it is necessary for my RFD and contested. I will notice when you make new arguments in the FF and discard them. Tag arguments you want me to vote on through the Summary and FF, because I won't vote for anything not extended throughout (unless neither team has any standing impacts). Plans are not allowed in Public Forum debate. If you want me to like you, bring the original evidence, not just the cards, and do not paraphrase it in your first speech.

Buddy Lets Talk

Being a Judge is a real power trip for me.

Also don't mind my facial expressions or head movements, if I shake my head don't think that I disagree with what you are saying, It's probably me trying to stay focus. Same with me nodding my head like yeah.

Speaker Points:

Rule #1: Be respectful to your opponent a little sass here and there is fun but don’t harass/insult your opponent. This is a competitive environment, not a hostile one. Disrespectful behavior will be frowned upon.

Rule #2: Be Clear. I am fine with speed but I need you to speak clearly so I can flow your arguments. Be especially clear on the name of your authors. If I can’t understand what you are saying I will yell CLEAR, if I missed the author’s name I will yell AUTHOR. I will only yell 3 times so be wary.

Rule #3: Debate is a journey and a journey is helped by signpost and roadmaps. Could you imagine trying to find this building without any signpost or roadmaps, it would be chaos.

Rule #4: Explain your arguments to me as if I accidentally stumbled into your round on my way to flag football. In other words do your best to make sure I understnd the arguments your making and then do better just to be safe. But that doesn't mean you should repeat yourself because I will be annoyed and then frown.

Speaker points are scaled to whatever division you're competing in. So what I rank high in novice will be around average in JV and below average in Varsity

Everyone starts at 28

30 – Play of the Game

29 – Hay that’s pretty good, I think you deserve to break

28 - You did a good job but there is room for improvement

27 – It was hard to understand what you were saying, spend some time practicing. OR you were disrespectful to your opponent.

26 – You were disrespectful AND I thought you were a bad speaker.

25 - I will tell you at the end of the round why I am giving you this, in all probability I won’t give anyone a 25.

Policy:

If you are doing an email chain I would like to be added

make sure all your arguments have clearly articulated links, internal links, and impacts and by the rebuttal speeches, I would like impact analysis.

When you extend authors be sure to extend what the warrants to the cards are not just the taglines since I probably won't remember what was highlighted in the cards.

Evaluation: I default to a util calculus when looking at the round unless you give me another way to evaluate the round, you know ROB or a framing contention. (these args should be impacted as well) And I will probably look to the framing debate first unless it's lame and then I'll go back to util.

Topicality:

I've been in my share of T debates and I will probably err to the AFF on these unless the aff doesn't do a lot of work on it or messes it up. But if you go for T in the 2NR you have to give me a whole story about why your interp is good, how the aff harms debate, and what the aff could have done.

Theory: I'll just copy what my coach wrote.

Besides conditionality, theory is a reason to reject the argument and not the team. One or two conditional options is probably good for negative flexibility, any more is pushing it a little. Granted, conditionality theory is all debatable. The rest of theory you will have about 1% risk of convincing me they are voting issues.

CP: Ya I'm down for that make sure you clearly explain what your CP does in the 2NC.

DAs: Oh YA I'm really down for that. When your debating against a DA offense is a pretty good thing to have, but I will believe in 100% no link args and defensive args against internal links. DAs can have try or die args but I will be weighing the probability of the DA between the probability of whatever the aff went for to which I will take extended defensive args into account.

Ks - I mostly did K debate in college so I am good with any type of K. Make sure to explain why the alt is preferable to the plan and why I should weigh the K first.

Walk me through it, I'll find it more persuasive you can explain the K yourself rather than reading new cards on it.

K Affs: your aff must do something, have an advocacy and some solvency, and it would be nice if you engaged the topic in some way. Walk me through your args, be clear on them. The rest I will just put what my coach wrote

I vote on who wins the argument so framework v. critical aff that engages the topic is still an option for the negative. There is nothing worse than figuring out what the affirmative does in the 1AR-2AR.

Individual survival strategies are not predictable or necessarily debatable in my opinion (i.e. "This 1AC is good for the affirmative team, but not necessarily a method that is generalizable).

REMEMBER – Have fun.

email- seanmanofaction@gmail.com

FOR LD

Judging:

You need Framing – tell me what I should be looking for in the round, and I will always look this debate first before I evaluate anything else

For most LD debaters that means a Value and a Criterion

For those that read Ks, skateboard and eat Go-Gurt that means a Roll of the Ballot

For those that read plans – tell me why util is good

And for those special people that read plans that solve structural violence why is that the most important issue

If you don’t give me some kind of framing or don’t have a debate about what framing I should prefer, you are in an uphill battle and probably won't win.

On the contention level:

Have some clash – address the warrants or impacts to the each argument

It will only help you if you give me reasons to prefer your evidence over your opponents.

You should also take some time to give a brief overview of your arguments, preferably at the beginning of each speech.

Theory:

I have a very high threshold for theory

Don’t debate theory unless there is actual abuse going on in the debate, you need to give me a full story how what they are doing is harmful to debate.

I have never seen a good definition debate and I don’t expect to see one.

Don’t initiate a theory debate unless you are 100% confident that it is something you can win the round off of.

If you claim that your opponents evidence was miscut/tampered with, give me proof and I will look at it the evidence in question.

And that’s all folks, feel free to ask me questions before or after the round.

P

I coach beginners (elementary/ MS) debate, so I'm very familiar with PF, but I work on a very novice level, i.e. 3rd- 8th graders and we typically do more simple topics.

I have a basic understanding of jargon, but you're better off putting things in lay terms. I'm not good with speed, I'll zone out and not process anything you're saying, so I'd suggest speaking a smidge above conversational pace if you want me to truly take in your case. I get it if you want to speak fast to get a lot in, just be sure to repeat the main things you want me to take away to ensure I've got it. If you want to take the risk, that's up to you! :) I really don't recommend it.

I'm usually swayed by more compassionate, emotional arguments and will typically vote for the side that helps more people in a more tangible way. I like when you tell me specifically what to vote based off of.

I don't judge very often, so I definitely am not a perfect judge, but I'll do my best! PLEASE don't expect me to be a tech judge. I am not! I flow, but I miss things at times. I don't have rules about what needs to be in what speech, but obviously you can't bring up something new at the end.

I'm easily charmed by a good public speaker, and have noticed that if someone is a good speaker I'm more receptive to their arguments. I try to keep it to the content when picking a winner, but I've noticed this about myself and am not always conscious of it, so I figured it's beneficial for you to know if I'm your judge.

I always figure it's best to be polite and professional. I think it reflects better on you if you stand for your speeches and keep your own time. It's not a make or break, but you'll come off a lot better in my eyes if you do these things.

If you have a specific question, feel free to ask! :)

Hi! I am a parent judge, so please speak slowly and clearly. I will try my best to flow the round and vote on an argument, but presentation will also play a factor in my decision.

I work for the United Nations, so I have some background knowledge on this topic.

Please don't be rude, sexist, racist, homophobic, etc.

I do not need to be on the email chain.

I'll be voting off the flow. Please extend warrants, impacts, and evidence. WEIGH your impacts, if you don't then I have to try to weigh them myself and I don't want to have to insert myself into the round whatsoever. Do the work for me. Your final focus should write my RFD for me. Be respectful towards each other and engaged in the round. I'm a pretty standard flow judge. Hopefully you read this before rounds, but if you don't, feel free to ask me a couple questions at the beginning of the round.

Arturo Féliz-Camilo

I studied and practice law, hold two law degrees and teach History. I'm familiar and like the economic/social/historical arguments. I've been coaching (mostly PF) since 2013 for New Horizons Bilingual School in the Dominican Republic.

I love debate, and the strategy game. I love to see a good clash of ideas and interesting/novel analysis. I'll buy any argument as long as you link, warrant, and support it with relevant evidence. Still, I think some arguments are just in bad taste.

I believe communication is key. If I can't understand it due to speed, I won't flow it. I won't ask you to slow down. I almost never intervene. Debate should not be about brute force your opponents into submission, but about a clash of ideas.

I really enjoy a civil CX. Ask for evidence if you must, but don't make the round an evidence match. If you call for evidence I hope you're planning to do something with it. I listen to CX but won't flow it. I'll note cool stuff in the hopes it makes it into your speech.

It's ok to offer an off-time roadmap, just don't take a minute doing so. Quickly give it and move on. Don't ask. Just do it.

Explain, analyze, and warrant your case, don’t just read it. Weigh, impact, link, extend, boil down, crystallize. Feel free to sign-post/roadmap. Absent a framework and weighing I'll go with what stands in the end.

I'm not in love with Ks or Theory. Run them at your own risk. I like to think that we should debate under the agreed upon rules. I will buy arguments on technical aspects of PF, as a matter of order and fairness. I think too many debaters are running disclosure in a dishonest way. All that said, I will buy anything that makes sense, including abusive behavior, bad faith misgendering, and anti-violence. I am not absolutely closed to theory, but I'll usually only buy it if it's run in good faith, and not as a strategy to win a round.

Pettiness will not win me over, but you gotta stand your ground. Sassiness is awesome, but the line between the two is just so thin.

You want to win your round? Be smart, creative, fun, thoughtful, and strategic. Outweigh, outsmart, outperform, outclass your opponent.

Add me to your evidence chain arturo@arturofeliz.com

Contact:

Email Cayman1@gmail.com if you have questions. If the questions are about a specific flow, please mention the round/flight/tournament.  Please don't try to reach me via any social media you find me on; I'm not likely to check them in a time-sensitive situation at a tournament.

Online Judging:

Unless tournament rules say otherwise or both teams are sending actual speech docs over SpeechDrop, everyone needs to be on the Email chain. I'll still read evidence sparingly unless asked to, but it's important that everyone is on the chain to verify what evidence gets sent when (and that it was sent to all participants instead of accidentally choosing 'reply' vs 'reply all'.) Because these rules and norms are relatively new and still in flux, I'm inclined by default to drop the card and not the team if one side can't fully/correctly comply with an evidence request.

I probably won't be looking at Campus/Cloud/Zoom very much during speeches. My ballot/comments, timer, flow, and any relevant evidence are already competing for screen space.

Since automated flips are time-sensitive and inflexible, if you have any questions for me that may influence how you flip, I'll try to get into the virtual competition room early with time to spare. If you're in the room and don't see me there, Email me. Normally, I try to avoid answering questions about specific hypotheticals where one team can hear me and the other can't, but I'll make an exception under this ruleset if one team needs to know before their coin flip timer expires and then I'll make an effort to fill the other team in as similarly as I can before the round starts. Also before the round starts, I'll verbally confirm who won the flip and which choice each side made, in case it becomes relevant to mid-round arguments.

However fast y'all think you can go without sacrificing clarity is modified by both your microphone and your opponents' speakers. I'll let you know if you're unclear to me; if your opponents are unclear to you, either clarify in cross or err on the side of asking for more evidence from the last speech.

If you're waiting for a card to start prep, please don't mute yourselves until prep starts. Prep starts when the requested cards (if any) arrive in the Email chain (or when debaters are obviously prepping) and stops when someone from the prepping team un-mutes and says to stop prep. If your opponents gave you the wrong card, I'll reset prep to where it was when you started, but if you just want to ask for more cards, please do so all at once rather than constantly trying to pause and un-pause prep.

Should you feel compelled to run a theory argument, please make sure that the interpretation and standards take the current online format into account.

If y'all want to ask your opponents clarifying questions during your own prep time, you're welcome to do so, but it's up to them whether to answer.

Cross can get especially messy when feedback and dueling microphones are involved. Please be mindful of the technical issues that talking over each other can cause and interrupt sparingly.

Background:

• Policy and LD since 1998
• Parli and PF since 2002
• WSDC and WUDC since 2009
• Big Questions since it became a non-meme event*
• Coach for Howard County, MD teams (Atholton, Centennial, Marriotts Ridge, Mt Hebron, Oakland Mills, River Hill, etc.) 2007-2020
• Capitol Debate camps & travel team from 2008-2013
• James Logan Forensics Institute from 2012-2013
• SNFI Public Forum 2010-2019
• Bethesda Chevy Chase 2019-2022

J-V, NCFLs, NJFL, Round Robins, etc.:

• If I'm judging you in a format where you don't get prefs or strikes and judge assignments are random, it's more my job to adapt to you than your job to adapt to me. Issues with stylistic choices or execution are more likely to find their way into the ballot comments than into the speaker points.
• Do what you do best; don't second-guess yourselves and do what you think I want to hear if it's not what you're good at.
• Don't take your norms for granted. If you and your opponent have different ideas of what debate should be or how it should be evaluated, tell me why the way that you do it is superior, the same way you would with any other argument.
• If you have a panel, do what you have to do to win the panel. If the easiest way to win is to pick up the two lay parent-judges sitting on either side of me and doodling on their ballots while trying to look attentive, so be it. I won't hold panel adaptation against teams. Making me feel engaged and useful is not why you're here.
• Some leagues ban disclosure. Some leagues ban verbal feedback. Those rules are bad for education and bad for debate. If you have questions about your round, find me after the round and we'll talk about what happened.

Evidence:

• I don't like calling for cards. If I do, it's either because of a factual/ethical dispute between teams about what the author actually says, because the round had a total absence of weighing outside of the quoted impact cards, or for educational reasons that aren't going to affect my RFD. How teams spin the cards matters, as does how well teams seem to know their cards.
• I assume ignorance over malfeasance. If you think the other team is being unethical, be able to prove it. Otherwise, correct/educate them by going after the evidence or citation instead of the people.
• Smart analytics beat un-smart cards every time.
• If you haven't read the article or chapter or study that your evidence is quoting, you probably shouldn't be using that evidence yet. When I'm evaluating impacts, it does you no favors to add a second sub-level of probability where I have to wonder "But do they know that the evidence actually says that? If so, did they make X argument on purpose?"
• Saying the word "Extend" is not extending evidence. You're extending arguments, not authors, which means there should be some explanation and some development. Repetition is not argumentation.
• If you're using digital evidence, it's your responsibility to be able to show the other team. It is not your opponents' responsibility to own laptops or to bring you a flash drive. I'm fine with teams using Email to share evidence - with the notable caveat that if I catch you using internet access to do anything outside tournament rules, your coach and the tab room are both going to hear about it. "Can I Email this so I don't risk getting viruses on my USB?" is a reasonable question most of the time. "Can I get on Messenger so my assistant coaches can type up theory extensions for me?" is NOT an acceptable interpretation of that question.
• Prep stops when you stop working with the evidence: either when the flash drive leaves the computer or when you send the Email and stop typing or when you stand up with the evidence in hand.

Speed:

• I care more about clarity than speed. If I can't understand you, I'll let you know.
• If you can't understand your opponents, let them know in CX/CF/Prep. Deliberately maintaining an incomprehensible speed to stop your opponents from refuting arguments they can't comprehend is probably not a winning strategy especially in Parli and PF, where speech documents and wikis don't check.
• Quality > quantity. "Spreading" isn't some arbitrary brightline of WPM; it's when you're talking faster than you can think. Doesn't matter which event. Don't get discouraged just because your opponents are faster than you.

Event-specific stuff:

• CX:
• Check the judge philosophies Wiki.
• If your strategy relies on preffing only judges like me and then telling other teams they can't read their arguments in front of the judges that you've preffed, then please rethink your strategy.
• I've coached and run a wide variety of arguments. One of the easiest ways to lose my ballot is to be dogmatic and assume that because I've coached it, I like it, or that I think it's intrinsically true. If you have guessed an argument that I actually enjoy running and/or believe in, that still doesn't mean you'll be held to a lower standard on it.
• With the (hopefully obvious) exception of status theory, I'd prefer to be able to reject the argument instead of the team. You probably want to hedge your bets by telling me how the round changes if the argument is(n't) rejected.
• Kick your own arguments; don't leave it up to me to decide what should or shouldn't be kicked unless you're actually ok with either option.
• L-D:
• The majority of L-D I've judged in recent years has been fairly traditional/local; it's probably the event I judge least at bid tournaments on the national circuit, so it's probably best to treat me as a recovering policy judge.
• I try not to intervene on theory. If you're winning it, I'll vote for it, even if doing so makes me feel dirty, as long as it's warranted/impacted/developed like any other winnable argument. That said, my theory norms have been largely calibrated by the arguments' CX analogues., so if you think there's something L-D specific I should be aware of (no 2NC's role in disclosure, the absence of a second CX when determining whether answers are binding/whether clarifications are sufficient, the difference between neg block and NR in creating side bias, etc.) be explicit about it.
• In-round discourse probably comes before theory, T/FW probably come before other theory.
• I'm not convinced there's such a thing as a "pre-standard" argument. An argument might operate on a higher level of standards than anything else currently in the round, or on a mutually conceded standard, but it still needs to be fully developed.
• PF:
• I strongly prefer for the second-speaking team to adapt their definitions/burdens in their initial speech and frontline in 2RB to create clash. I won't auto-drop you for using the 2RB the same as you would have the 1RB, but you're not doing your partner's 2SM any favors.
• Deliberate concessions early in the round can get you a long way. Just know and explain where and why they're strategic.
• Cite authors when possible. The university your author went to / was published by / taught at / is not your author. The way to get around a dearth of source diversity is to find more sources, not to find as many different ways as possible to cite the same source.
• Teams that start weighing in RB typically have an easier time getting my ballot than teams that just spit out a bunch of constructive arguments and wait for reductive speeches to weigh anything.
• CF should be focused on asking actual questions, not repeating speeches or fitting in arguments you didn't have time for. "Do you agree", "Isn't it true that", "How would you respond to", and "Are you aware" are rarely ingredients of genuine questions. Good CFs will clarify and focus the round by finding where common ground exists and where clash matters.  If you think something in CF matters, mention it in your team's next speech.  If you or your partner have no intention of referencing something in your next speech, 
• SM cannot go line-by-line in most rounds. There's literally not enough time. There are more and less technical ways of looking at the big picture, but you do need to look at the big picture.  My standards for SM coverage (especially 2SM) have increased since the speech length increased 50%, so spending the extra time on comparing warrants and weighing is probably better than re-ligitating the rebuttal
• GCF is a hard place to win the round but an easy place to lose the round. Make sure that you and your partner are presenting a unified front; make sure that you're investing time in places that deserve it, make sure that if you're trying to introduce something new-ish here that you tie it into what's already happened this round.
• FF shouldn't be a notable departure from SM. Offense matters, especially if you're speaking first.
• Parliamentary:
• Naming arguments is not the same as making arguments. I can't easily vote on something that you haven't demonstrated intellectual ownership of.
• My threshold for beating arguments is inversely proportional to the silliness of the argument.
• "but [authority figure] says X" is not an argument. Especially in an event where you can't directly quote said person. I don't want to know whether Paul Krugman says the economy is recovering. I don't want to know whether Nietzsche says suffering is valuable. I want to know why they are right. Your warrants are your own responsibility.
• Intelligently asking and taking POIs is a big factor in speaker points.
• Most rounds come down to how well the PMR answers the Opp block. If the Opp block was much better done than the MG, there might be no PMR that could answer well enough, but that's rare. Parli seems to have much more potential for teams that are behind to come back than most other events.
• I'm generally tech > truth. In Parli, however, depending on how common knowledge the topic is and whether internet prep is allowed, a little more truth can beat a lot more tech. Don't be afraid to stake the round on a question of fact if you're sure it's actually a question of fact.
• I should not have to say this, but given the current state of HS Parli, if I am confident a team is lying and I already intend to drop them for it, I may double-check the relevant fact online just to make 100% sure. This is not me "accessing the internet on behalf of" the team I'm voting for; this is me going the extra mile for the team that I was already intending to vote against anyway. Suggesting that the losing team should be given a win because I gave them a second chance before I signed my ballot is asinine.
• If you have a collection of 2 or 3 Ks that you read against every opponent, I don't think that aligns with the intention of the format, but I can certainly be convinced that fidelity to that intent is overrated. That said, you should make an extra effort to engage with your opponents and show how your criticism creates clash rather than sidesteps clash.
• Limited-Prep
• Extemp - Source diversity matters. I will look ev up online if it sounds sketchy. I do care that you give a direct answer to the actual question you drew, but not every question is written in a way that deserves a definite yes or no answer: if you don't, your speech should still contain elements of nuance and advocacy beyond "...well, yes and no" and should show me why all the simple answers would have been wrong.
• Impromptu - I don't have a strong preference for one structure over another, but some prompts lend themselves more to certain structures. Not everything needs to be forced into a 3x1 or a 2x2 if it doesn't fit the procrustean bill. Recycled anecdotes and tropes are somewhat inevitable, but canned speeches defeat the purpose of the event.
• Interp/Platforms/Congress
• How did you end up with me as a judge? I'm so sorry. You're probably sorry too. Someone probably desperately needed a judge to stop the tournament from running grossly overtime, and all the other potential volunteers either ran faster or hid better than I did. We'll both make it through this somehow. It'll be a learning experience.

I did PF during high school and did BP in college. Coached PF for a bit too.

I'm a pretty basic flow judge who will be open to most arguments that are brought up.

What makes me unhappy:

1) Progressive arguments like K or theories. I think those ruin the entire point of PF, which is to be at least somewhat accessible and be an actual debate. I'll evaluate them, but I'll be unhappy doing it :(

2) When debaters just spit cards with no underlying logic and expect me to vote on it. I don't care if a random professor or journalist said something. You personally need to be able to explain the logic to me of why your point is right and your opponent's is wrong.

3) Lying about/blatantly misrepresenting evidence. If you catch someone doing this, tell me to call the card at the end of the round.

4) Being rude/overly aggressive

What makes me happy:

1) Weighing your arguments as much as you can. Just tell me why your arguments are more important than your opponents, and give me legitimate logical reasons for it. If nobody does this, then I'll have to choose for myself which arguments I find the most important, and I'm sure that will make people unhappy.

2) Humor. If you throw in some entertaining quotes from Seinfeld, Brooklyn Nine-Nine, or another sitcom in a relevant way, I'll like you. No pressure though.

Lastly, remember that this is just a game. Have fun with it.

Hey, I debated for Westwood High School in ATX for 4 yrs and graduated in 2018. I attend American University in DC now and have done some parli. In high school I did mostly LD but w/ some stints of extemp, policy, world schools etc. I was mostly a K debater. I've worked at several camps in Texas.

Pref shortcut:

Traditional: 1

Ks: 1

LARP: 2

Theory/T: 2

Framework: 3/4 (depending on the type)

Tricks: 4/Strike

Please email me with questions and add me to the chain: abigailgrifno@gmail.com

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

General

Ks are cool, my favorite is probably Cap or variations of it. I read mostly cap and fem so I am most familiar with that. I think performance debates are cool; but I think they gotta be related to the resolution in some way. I also think some performances verge on becoming trick debates, where the performance is used more as a tool to ensure your opp can't respond rather than actually attempt to engage in a meaningful dialogue. Performances that allow for neg ground via things like defending implementation or a specific strategy fair better with me.

Theory/T: don't be frivilous. I think reasonability is under-utilized. RVIs shouldn't be the A-strat and neither should 1ar theory.

Framework: please explain it and if you read something super fringe, I probably will lean towards something I understand better (ie consequential-based). If it's something simple like Kant, virtue ethics, or social contract, I can follow but you have to do very thorough extensions. Something even more fringe means you need a very thorough explanation.

LARP: Its fun. I think PICs are really strategic and allow for great debates, especially against plan affs. Those are probably my favorite debates. DAs, CPs, plan affs etc are all good.

Tricks: not a fan, I think they are bad for education. If you win the round, expect lower speaks.

Trigger warnings: If you read anything that could be triggering or is graphic in nature you should give a warning. I suggest posting one on your wiki, which I would consider sufficient so long as your opponent has access to it. I don't think someone has to necessarily be triggered for a theory shell to be legitimate; encouraging people to read trigger warnings is good. If something is statistical in nature, I don't think you should on face feel obligated to give a trigger warning. If the triggering content is available on the wiki, I think it is in everyone's best interest that if you are offended/triggered by something, you let your opponent know prior to the round. If someone is triggered in round and the round is unable to continue, it will be an auto loss and 25 for the person who read the triggering argument.

PF

I prefer progressive debate, any amount of speed

Flashing/PDFs/Cards: this should all be available on demand and specific quotes should be immediately accessable. I will start docking speaks if it appears you aren't giving evidence or are making it difficult to find evidence within a PDF.

Tech > truth, with that being said I think bad arguments are easy to beat and my threshold is lowered for your responses. Impact turns for racism, sexism etc are unacceptable.

Plans/fiat: as a mostly policy/k debater these types of arguments are definitely acceptable but must be warranted and have some sort of solvency advocate

Collapse: please collapse to specific arguments, ie one of your contentions, one case turn etc. Overviews are great for this, please use them.

Framework: I will default consequentialism, but structural violence versus util is very debatable. If for some reason, you decide to run something that is not consequentialist, please just justify it and it will be evaluated.

I flow rounds. Alerting me to clear contentions and off time road maps assists me in completing my flows. I am absolutely not capable of flowing if you SPREAD, in fact, if you choose to SPREAD, I will stop flowing and listen. I prefer to hear you present your arguments verses reading your prepared material. The documents will provide me the name of your source when I review before making a final decision. I favor up to date resources as changes happen daily, when presenting your argument I focus on the year of the evidence to include in my flow. Cross fires should be civil. I generally look to typical speech characteristics when determining speaker points, such as speaking with clarity and articulation. I also consider the general characteristics of giving a speech such as how you present yourself through your demeanor both individually and as a team, as well as with your opponents.

About Me

I'm a lay judge and the parent of a debater.

I generally can handle a good rate of speech but cannot follow you if you speak too fast.

General

I may or may not disclose right away.

I’m fine with people watching the round.

Please keep track of speech and prep time yourself.

Signpost and road-map help.

Off-time road maps are fine but please keep them short.

I will follow your points and sub-points (as much as I can) and keep track of whether they are refuted, and the effectiveness of their rebuttals.

Bad/nasty behaviors and hateful comments will not be tolerated.

What I vote for:

• Ability to reason and convince

• Ability to articulate

• Clarity and consistency of speeches

• Soundness in logic

• Weighing in rebuttal

• Credibility/quality of sources/evidences

• Good extension and linking (of your arguments) from summary to final focus

• Team cohesion and manner

I'll try my best to judge fairly. Good luck and have fun.

I wrote this kinda in a rush so don't pay too much attention to minor errors

I'm a flow judge

speed is fine as long as you are clear

1st summary doesn't need to extend defense except frontlines

weighing would be super nice -- otherwise I default on strength of link, impacts by themselves, etc

idc about cross -- if something happens then bring it up in speech for me to weigh it :)

...

I am the Director of Debate at Georgetown University ('21-present), before which I was the Assistant DOD (2017-21). I am also an Assistant Coach for Westminster. Before that, I debated for 4 years at Georgetown. In high school, I debated only regionally, for a tiny high school in West Texas.

Please include me on the email chain: bwk9@georgetown.edu

***Update: November 2022***

My prior paradigm was 5+ years out of date. The following are patterns in my judging that you should be aware of when debating in front of me.

All of the items below, EXCEPT for the "D-Rules (not subject to debate)" section, are simply DEFAULTS in the absence of debaters making an argument that I should evaluate these things differently. I would prefer that the DEBATERS tell me how to evaluate things and why, in which case these priors should rarely , if ever, come into play.

D-Rules (NOT subject to debate)

1. Please include me on the email chain.

2. In high school debates, all of the participants are minors, and I will not hesitate to intervene in a debate if anything legally or ethically dubious is occurring. This includes any bullying, displays of sexism or racism, etc. Relatedly, there are arguments which are appropriate for the college context but that I will not--and, legally, cannot!--countenance in a HS debate (one example: the reading of uncensored explicit evidence a la Preciado).

3. Consider me dead inside with respect to any preferences regarding argumentative substance. However, I have very little tolerance for either arguments or ways of engaging that make any participant feel unsafe, and will intervene if necessary.

4. Allegations of an ethics violation will immediately end the debate. No take-backs. I will then inform the tabroom and follow the tournament's prescribed procedures, or in the lack of such procedures will unilaterally determine whether it rises to the threshold of an ethics VI. If so, the accuser will win; if not, the accuser will lose. If allowed for by the tournament rules, I will make a subjective determination regarding whether the violation (or accusation, if the accuser loses) was engaged in knowingly and/or in competitive bad faith, and if so will assign the lowest allowable speaker points. To help guide this determination: egregious or persistent clipping is a D-Rule. So is evidence falsification. Poor evidence "hygiene," e.g. ending in the middle of a paragraph, is a D-rule, but is unlikely to warrant the additional "poor speaks" sanction if it does not change the meaning of the card, whereas if it cuts out a strawperson it is likely to warrant the "poor speaks" sanction. Minor good-faith mistakes in evidence citation are very unlikely to rise to the threshold of a D-rule if it is left up to my discretion by tab and/or the tournament rules.

Things to Know About Debating In Front of Me

1. Instead of focusing only on extending and answering arguments, it would behoove debaters to begin their final rebuttals by clarifying what the comparative RFD for the Aff/Neg should be, identifying the key questions to be resolved in the debate, and then going through the process of resolving them. You can think of this as providing me a roadmap for how I should approach adjudicating the debate once it ends. Absent this, I will come up with my own roadmap, but it is substantially less likely to work out in your favor and also I will be grumpy about it.

2. I have found that the way that arguments are characterized early in the debate often bears heavily on how I interpret and resolve disputes over them in the final rebuttals. This has accounted for numerous panel splits in debates I've judged the past couple years. If, for example, an argument is articulated in one way in the CXes (all of which I flow), I will tend to treat that articulation as binding; or, if a plan or counterplan is characterized in a given way in the 2NC and the 1AR does not push back on that characterization, I will adopt that understanding of the plan or counterplan and hold the line against 2ARattempts to rearticulate it.

3. Evidence: I value quality of argument and evidence. A smart, well-warranted analytic is far more valuable than a bad card. Research is at the core of what makes policy debate unique and valuable relative to e.g. Public Forum, Parli, etc. However, evidence matters only insofar as it provides reasons to believe you about your arguments (e.g. qualifications, warrants, etc.); it never constitutes an argument itself.

4. I will not read your speech doc, a practice which I've observed account for other panel splits in recent years. I will spot check specific pieces of evidence if they are contested in CX or in speeches. I will read cards I am directed to after the debate, but it is up to you to have leveraged them effectively in your speech--and, how good a card needs to be to get the job done on a given issue is inversely proportional to how well you debate it. If debaters want their evidentiary advantage to matter--as it should--they should do more evidence comparison, including as it relates to source quality, etc. The sole exception to this: if evidence is selectively underlined to an argument not even contemplated by the original, I reserve the right to unilaterally discount it (think here of the difference between underlining a movie script or selectively underlining words in unrelated sentences to concoct an argument never made in the source, vs. cutting a cards as a strawperson - the latter I will very unhappily accept if the other team does not contest it, albeit at the cost of speaker points, whereas the former I will probably not accept, if I notice it, even if the other team does NOT call it out).

5. Conceded arguments are true arguments. However, 1.) A complete "argument" consists of a claim, a warrant, and an impact--assertions are not arguments, and thus are not "true" even if dropped. 2.) Receiving the full weight of an argument does not matter in-and-of itself--you must still unpack why that dropped argument impacts the rest of the debate, and if that explanation was not there initially then the implication component of that can still constitute a new argument to which responses are allowed.

6. CX filibustering: Some amount of it is part of the game, but if this is taken to a silly extreme, then I will not hesitate to pull a Dallas Perkins and tell you to "ANSWER the QUESTION" so as to enable a meaningful debate to occur

Argument Defaults

1. Absent arguments to the contrary, CX and 2AC clarifications of plan mandates constitute binding amendments to the plan text, making them presumptively legitimate sources of counterplan competition. (Merely saying that something is "normal means," however, does not make it a mandate, and thus is presumptively not a legitimate source of CP competition.)

2. My defaults are that conditionality is a.) an all-or-nothing thing and b.) is good. However, I have become increasingly open to contestation of either premise.

3. Plan vagueness is out of control, especially in high school, and I will gladly vote Neg on that, either as a voting issue in-itself or smart circumvention arguments or DA links about the way in which the vague plan would be most likely interpreted and applied.

4. Counterplan vagueness is also out of control. If your CP text boils down to, e.g., "do innovation" rather than outlining a mechanism for how to bolster innovation, and the Affirmative points out that that is meaningless, I will agree with the Aff.

5. Kritiks: By default I assume that the K is not a DA plus a CP and that therefore the debate is a referendum on whatever the Link/Alt is critiquing, e.g. the Aff's reps, epistemology, political paradigm, etc. I can be convinced of plan focus/FW-no Ks, particularly if it is grounded in arguments about the resolutional burden of proof and the Negative's reciprocal burden of rejoinder, though meeting in the middle is often the path of less resistance. I am also willing to adopt very Neg-friendly frameworks, e.g. 'you link you lose,' but with the proper Aff responses I will find them ultimately unpersuasive. Absent Aff FW arguments that render them applicable ('pragmatism good,' for instance, or arguments about reciprocity of burdens), I do not intuitively understand why arguments like 'movements fail,' 'transition wars,' 'alt not feasible / no one is persuaded,' etc. would be relevant considerations--but with them, I do.

Argument Defaults - K Affs

5. K Affs: I prefer that the Affirmative be "topical" slash affirm the resolution. I am pretty good for topical K Affs, insofar as I think that there is substantial room for play regarding what topical AFFIRMATION means/entails, and that the wording of the resolution does not necessarily prescribe that topical "affirmation" take the form of defending the narrow causal desirability of implementing a specific topical policy proposal.

However, if your approach when reading a K Aff is to impact turn topicality, the part I struggle with is how debate can be workable once we have left the resolution behind. To deal with this, please speak DIRECTLY to that question in some manner in the 2AR -- whether by explicitly saying that it's better for debate not to be workable, explaining why it will not become unworkable, clearly defending some alternative limiting principle for what the Affirmative win condition is in place of the resolution, or something else -- AND have that be clearly traceable to arguments you set up in the 2AC and 1AR.

6. Framework v. K Affs: I do find there to be a meaningful difference between "topicality," i.e. the Affirmative must affirm the resolution and did not, and "framework," i.e. the Affirmative did not debate or affirm in the specific manner the Neg would have liked for them to. It would behoove the Neg to leverage those differences in response to Aff offense that presumes the latter or blurs the line.

I find "fairness" unpersuasive as a terminal impact. However, this is primarily a function of Negatives explaining it poorly, because I am extremely compelled by the argument that an axiomatic precondition for debate to operate is that the Affirmative must meet their burden of proof arising from the resolution, and that until they do so there is no logical basis for the Negative having any burden of rejoinder. All of which is to say: definitely feel free to go for fairness, BUT please take care to explain why it logically precedes everything else, AND to explicitly no-link the Aff's various lines of offense, rather than just making assertions about "procedural fairness."

Alternatively: feel free to say whatever "substantive" FW offense you'd like--I do find link turns to K Affs to often be truer than the K Affs themselves--BUT please do not just assert words like "clash" or "second and third level testing" without explication of what exactly you mean, why it is unique to your model of debate/foreclosed by the Aff's, and what the impact is; AND be aware that in so doing, you run the risk of making Aff impact turns LINK which otherwise would not.

I generally do not care about "T version," except insofar as it is explained in terms of what SPECIFIC lines of Affirmative offense are solved by the being able to read the Aff topically. (For example: "we need to go to X section of the library" is probably solved by T version, and arguably solved BETTER insofar as that model preserves a stronger ability and competitive incentive to dig into that issue than does the Aff's model). I DO think that that if a given Aff is COMPATIBLE with topical affirmation, that makes it easy to moot all of their offense while retaining a clear net benefit by saying that they should've have simply read the same Aff TOPICALLY (in essence, the same function that "T version" plays in a T debate vs. a policy Aff). In contrast, K Affs which are INcompatible with topical affirmation is generally better dealt with in front of me by "do it on the Neg" rather than a TVA.

Correspondingly: I tend to think that the best K Affs are centered not on K's of the resolution or topical Affs, but of BEING TOPICAL slash a model of topical debate--in which case the Neg will need to win that their model of debate is better, and a T version will only be useful in very specific, isolated instances for specific reasons.

1. dazzle me!
2. if you call me "your honor," i'll boost your speaks
3. if you flip first, i'll boost your speaks. you confident thang!
4. :)

Anything that doesn't violate the rules of PF or the rules of being a decent person is generally fine by me. If you don't have time to read this long paradigm, just ask in round!

Hi there! I am a former PF debater from Edgemont NY and graduated in 2020, and I currently attend Cornell University studying Industrial and Labor Relations. I'm a relatively traditional Northeast flow judge if that means anything to you (I am kinda flay but vote on the flow, big emphasis on warrants). Specifics:

- Don't be blippy because I'm not excellent at flowing and therefore might not catch something; I highly value good warrants. The less intuitive the argument, the more warranting is necessary

- I prefer you to have your camera on, if possible

- I'm tech > truth as long as there are warrants (however I will tell you if I think something is ridiculous, but it won't affect my decision)

- Bad strategic oopsies probably cap you at a 28.5

- I prefer you to speak at a pace where a speech doc shouldn't be necessary, my understanding of the round/ability to flow trades off with how fast you speak. The way you read your case/speech docs matters and contributes to your speaks

- I'm really really receptive to unconventional and creative arguments that are strategic and effectively run, high magnitude/low probability impacts are cool as well-- but use risk of offense weighing

- Also a really big fan of crafty & weird in-round strategy if executed well. I will reward with high speaks

- Terminalize all your impacts and extend all your warrants/the entire argument especially in the last speeches. Full warranting is essential to extensions-- literally pretend I've never heard the argument before.

- It's hard to vote off things I don't understand

- If your opponent's extension is bad, point it out or i will evaluate it

- Concede delinks in the speech right after to kick out of turns

- Second rebuttal doesn't have to frontline anything

- You can't delink yourself to kick out of turns if your opponents didn't read the delinks

- Offensive overview type stuff is fine in rebuttal if implicated in some way against the opponent's case

- I don't flow card names

- I may or may not pay attention in cross

- Defense is sticky through first summary (if unresponded to, terminal defense can be extended from rebuttal to first final focus. I think it's uneducational for debaters to win while extending through ink)

- Ten second grace period after time

- I don't have a very good understanding of progressive argumentation, nor am I very comfortable evaluating it. I'm unlikely to vote for theory unless there's abuse. ex: paraphrasing/not disclosing/the like do NOT qualify as abuse, but lack of content warning qualifies as abuse (please utilize content warnings). If anything, don't read a shell, just explain the abuse in paragraph form. I prefer substance debates, but if the round isn't that I'll do my best to evaluate everything fairly

- New weighing is fine in final focuses, but preferably earlier

- Weighing is only substantive to my ballot if it would actually sway a policy decision: ex: short circuit and magnitude weighing is substantive, "clarity of link," "timeframe," and certain theoretical "prerequisites" are not substantive unless justified to be substantive (this is a confusing point so please ask if you need clarification)

- Won't call for evidence unless asked to and my decision depends on it, and on that note, no evidence > bad evidence

- If there's no visible offense at the end of the round then I default to whoever lost the coin flip. Or, if I cannot find a way to vote on the flow I will vote with an arbitrary lay rfd, or vote for whoever I think debated better. That being said, while I intend to be tabula rasa, I will always try my best to resolve a muddled situation even if it requires some sort of minimal intervention. With that, I encourage risk of offense weighing when a situation is muddled!

- I generally have a pretty similar debate philosophy to my former coach Caspar

- Feel free to ask me questions about my paradigm/decision/message me on facebook!

debate well and good luck! :))

Hi there,

My name is Luke Lamey and I'm a sophomore in the SFS at Georgetown University, majoring in International Politics. I debated Public Forum throughout High School and competed on the National Circuit my Junior and Senior years.

You can run whatever you want. If you choose to run anything that is not directly on the flow, even if it is an off case observation at the start of your rebuttal, please tell me so I can flow it on another piece of paper. I will evaluate any off case position within the context of the on case arguments in the round (in other words, you can't have contradicting advocacies).

The team that will win my ballot will be the team that is able to condense on one main argument and impact it to be larger than any other argument in the round. I'd rather have one big reason to vote for you than three little reasons. In the final focus, I would like you to spend a portion of it explaining your offense in the context of your opponents, and why it outweighs. You have to begin going for one main argument no later than the summary speech.

If you choose to run a framework, which I definitely prefer, make sure to continually link back into your framework throughout the round. Don't ignore the framework debate. If one team runs a framework, I'll evaluate the round to that framework unless it is addressed by the other team. If both teams run frameworks, clash them for me.

I will call for evidence that is either referenced multiple times in the round or a team asks for me to call for it.

Lastly, PLEASE BE NICE. One of my biggest problems with National Circuit Debate is that it tends to foster condescending attitudes. You can be nice to your opponent and still be competitive at the same time. If you or your partner are being exceptionally snarky, annoying, or blatantly rude during the round, you will be dropped.

Please let me know if you have any questions!

Luke

Some background:

I did PF throughout high school and parliamentary debate (APDA) at the University of Maryland. I've coached students in PF, Parli, LD, and Policy and I've judged all debate formats, though I'm most up to date with PF.

Some general things:

1. Don't be rude.

2. Rounds are evaluated based on argumentation. Speaks are evaluated based on contribution to the ballot.

3. I can handle speed as long as you remain coherent. I will never intentionally penalize you for spreading but you take on an increasing risk that I miss something on the flow the faster you speak. Send me a speech doc if you want to be safe: thnliu288@gmail.com

4. I will stop flowing when time is up (yes, you can finish your sentence). Keep track of each other's prep time.

5. I don't flow cross but will pay attention. For me, cross often helps clarify things (remember, I'm not an expert in the topic you're debating). If there's something from cross you'd like me to evaluate in my decision, bring it up in your speech.

Some notes on debate and flow

1. Please signpost and road-map. Telling me where you are on the flow will ensure that I am also there.

2. Tech > truth. The further from "truth" your argument strays though, the lower the threshold I have for what qualifies as a response. For instance, "no they can't" is an acceptable response to "elephants can fly".

3. I (tend to) only evaluate arguments made in the speech where they belong. Constructive arguments belong in the opening speech. Responses should be made in the first speech they can be made in (generally the subsequent speech). New arguments don't belong in the final speech.

4. Extend (and frontline) the offense you want me to flow through. If you forget to extend it, I'll probably forget to vote on it. Blippy extensions are fine in principle, but often insufficient for a ballot in practice. The more you think I should prioritize an argument, the more speech time you should allocate to it.

5. I will only call cards if you explicitly ask me to and they matter for my decision. Hint: they almost never do.

6. Tell me how to weigh arguments or I will weigh them myself. I'm bad at weighing.

Specific argument preferences/biases

1. I am receptive to pretty much any type of argument, so long as you tell me how I should evaluate it.

2. Progressive arguments (Ks, theory) are cool. However, I offer no guarantee to keep up to date with the latest acronyms or terminology, so err on the side of explaining things more thoroughly.

a. Be very explicit when telling me how to evaluate the argument. This is especially true for anything pre-fiat - if you don't tell me what I should do (and warrant why), I'll probably do something you didn't want me to.

b. I prefer "drop the argument" to "drop the debater". I'll consider whatever you run, but I'm more inclined to buy the former.

c. Used to be categorically against RVIs, have come around somewhat. I'm down to vote on them, but it's context dependent.

d. Still very against tricks, very receptive to theory on tricks bad. If I have to vote on them, you are almost certainly getting a low speak win.

3. Tabula rasa is fake. Debate involves a common pool of knowledge assumed to be true unless challenged. If challenged, it becomes another argument to be evaluated in the round. For transparency, my "default settings" are: policymaker role of the ballot, debates should be fair and educational, the world exists, science is correct, the earth is flat, words have meanings, consequences matter, equality good, rationality real, people have free will. Feel free to make arguments challenging these assumptions, but keep in mind that you incur the burden of proof.

4. Feel free to ask questions before the round. I don't claim to be perfectly unbiased, but I am very willing to clarify any pre-existing beliefs I may be bringing into the round.

5. My gut is not your gut. If you ask me to gut check something or rely on my intuitions, I'll do that but you may not like the outcome. The safe thing to do is just make warranted arguments.

6. If you say "baba yetu" in your speech, I'll sky your speaks.

I debated for four years at Walt Whitman High School (MD), where I now serve as a PF coach. This is my fourth year judging/coaching PF. The best thing you can do for yourself to cleanly win my ballot is to weigh. At the end of the round, you will probably have some offense but so will your opponent. Tell me why your offense is more important and really explain it—otherwise I’ll have to intervene and use my own weighing, which you don’t want.

Other preferences:

- If second rebuttal frontlines their case, first summary must extend defense. However, if second rebuttal just responds to the opposing case, first summary is not required to extend defense. Regardless, first summary needs to extend turns if you want me to vote on them.

- Second summary needs defense and should start the weighing part of the debate (if it hasn't happened already).

-I will only accept new weighing in the second final focus if there has been literally no other weighing at any other part of the debate.

- I don't need second rebuttal to frontline case, but I do require that you frontline any turns. Leaving frontlining delinks for summary is fine with me.

-I highly suggest collapsing on 1-2 arguments; I definitely prefer quality of arguments over quantity.

- I love warrants/warrant comparisons. For any evidence you read you should explain why that conclusion was reached (ie explain the warrant behind it). Obviously in some instances you need cards for certain things, but in general I will buy logic if it is well explained over a card that is read but has absolutely no warrant that's been said. I also really hate when people just respond to something by saying "they don't have a card for this, therefore it's false" so don't do that.

- Speed is okay but spreading is not.

- Don’t just list weighing mechanisms, explain how your weighing functions in the round and be comparative. Simply saying "their argument is vague/we outweigh on strength of link/we have tangible evidence and they do not" is not weighing.

- Not big on Ks and theory is only fine if there is a real and obvious violation going on. Don’t just run theory to scare your opponent or make the round more confusing. With this in mind, please trigger warn your cases. Trigger warning theory is probably the only theory shell I will ever vote on, but I really really don't want to because I hate voting on theory. PLEASE TRIGGER WARN YOUR CASES AND/OR ASK YOUR OPPONENTS IF THEY READ SENSITIVE MATERIAL PRIOR TO THE ROUND BEGINNING TO AVOID TRIGGERING PEOPLE AND THEN RE-LITIGATING THE TRAUMA FOR THE ENTIRE DEBATE. If you care about protecting survivors, you will ask before the round if a case has sensitive material. Also, I hate disclosure theory. Just ask your opponent to share their case if it is a big deal to you.

- I highly encourage you not to run arguments in front of me about people on welfare having disincentives to work, or any other type of argument like that which shows a clear lack of understanding/empathy about poverty and the lived experiences of low-income people.

- I like off-time roadmaps, but BE BRIEF.

The only time I’ll intervene (besides if you don’t weigh and I have to choose what to weigh), is if you are being sexist, racist, homophobic, ableist, etc. or are blatantly misrepresenting evidence. I’ll drop you and tank your speaks.

Also, I know debate is often stressful so try to have fun! Let me know if you have any other questions before the round or if there is anything I can do to accommodate you.

Flow judge who appreciates civility, especially in cross, which should be used for asking and answering questions, not speech making. Generally, a question may be followed by a follow-up, after which it is the turn of the other side. Starting the first constructives with key definitional and framework arguments is a good idea, as is providing, in FF, your view on how the impacts should be weighed. Try to terminalize your impacts in terms of values, including human life, equity, the environment, etc. Debaters should keep their own time only, and provide their account of how much prep time remains after each instance in which they take some and reconcile it with me if I have a discrepancy. Evidence should be represented with scrupulous accuracy, and the source should be fully identified, including the credentials of the writer, the date, and the publication. If I call for a card and observe that the evidence is old and you didn't give a date, I'll be concerned. Likewise, if you use evidence in a way that's misleading, I won't be pleased, e.g. if you use it to make a general claim when it's talking about a specific instance that bears little relation to the contention it's being used to support. Evidentiary challenges should be presented to me immediately after the final speech. Stylistically, debaters should speak clearly and audibly, while avoiding shouting. Speed will always be an issue, and debaters are urged to pace themselves mindfully of their opponents and judge(s).

Policy Update

Please see the above, as applicable, especially as regards civility. I prefer that issues of framework, topicality, definition, and interpretation be dealt with up front. Creativity is fine, but it must be firmly grounded in the reasonable. New arguments should not be presented in the rebuttal speeches, although there's always a judgment call when they're coming in as blocks. Clash is good; clash nullification is problematic. Plans should be substantive and intended to further policy objectives, not trivial and intended simply to confound the opposition.

World Schools Debate Update

I suggest clarifying what is at stake in the debate early on, i.e. if the motion carries, what would be the implications beyond the specific impacts. For example, in a debate on restrictions on hate speech, there might be a lively debate about whether or not the Prop model would, say, have the impact of reducing bias-motivated violence, but I'd also be interested in a framework and definitional analysis of whether hate speech is an instance of free speech, and, more broadly what we'd be both gaining and giving up philosophically if the motion were to carry. Similarly, I'd be interested in hearing about what the standards would be to make a determination that speech was in a prohibited category and who would make these judgments. In other words, this discipline affords an opportunity both to consider PF-style impacts and also the broader, philosophical dimensions of the topic. I'm also interested in each team's thoughts on burdens, both the other side's and its own. What do you think you have to prove in order to win the round? What should your opponents be required to prove? Of course, examples are important, but often I need to know the context, what you're trying to prove, and how the example proves your point. In the example above, perhaps there's a country that has criminalized a certain category of speech. Is there a particular historical or cultural context that we need to know if we are to understand why they did so? Is the example generally applicable, i.e. would its example be desirable in many countries with different histories and cultures? I'm fine with your collapsing a round to your view of the fundamental clashes that should determine the outcome, but I suggest you not ignore an opponent's argument, even if you elect not to extend your analysis of it, i.e. point out why you're dropping it; otherwise, I might think you've overlooked it or are conceding it without showing why doing so is strategic. In terms of style, with eight minutes, there's no reason to talk rapidly or, heaven forfend, begin shouting, or go overtime. You can show your passion through the clarity and cogency of your argumentation, but try to remain calm. Ultimately, you win the debate by persuading me that your side of the motion's world is more desirable than your opponent's--for the reasons you have successfully argued. On POIs, my preference is that a debater signals a POI with their hand, whereupon the speaker, when they notice the signal, either takes the point or gently waves it down. Since the speaker now knows that the opponent has a point, it is not necessary for the opponent to resignal the original point or a different one; however, it's courteous for the speaker to pause before waiting too long to take the POIs they wish to recognize. I do tend to think that each speaker should take two per constructive. Having taken two, if the opponents wish to pose one or more additional points, the speaker may say that they will be taking no further points during that speech. Just a suggestion.

Very lay judge, speak slow and have fun.

PARADIGM: Lincoln/Douglas

"Traditional" parent judge.

GOOD: You pick a few compelling points; thread them together rhetorically; respond in the moment to challenges; and thereby formulate an argument. Your even pacing and signposting demonstrate organization, clarity, and the understanding that your case and rebuttals must be compelling to the judge; not merely to you or your competitor.

BAD: Disregard for history. Remember, LD is named after two giants of American rhetorical practice, who squared off in a series of values-based debates on the most divisive issue of their time. Those debates occurred in the public square, with the intent of compelling voters to adopt a cause. Lincoln did not use K's. Douglas did not use Progressive Theory Arguments. And neither of them spreaded. (Speed-talkers in this event cannot or will not prioritize. Yes, you're operating within a time constraint. Use that not as an excuse to cram in more stuff and talk faster. Rather, use it to winnow out all but the most persuasive points.)

Good luck!

Lay judge but fluent in english. Experience judging several tournaments.

Over warranting everything and explaining overexplaining arguments clearly will win you the round. I like true arguments that are tied to real world scenarios.

Clearly explain the impacts of your contentions, and the internal links within them; the less work I have to do filling in the blanks for your case, the more likely you are to win. Use your summary and final focus to explain to me why your side is winning the debate, don't just use them as extra rebuttal speeches (if I have to go all the way back to both teams' constructives to decide who's winning because rebuttal, summary, and final focus didn't make it clear enough, there's a lot more room for me to think you out of a win). If you don't extend an argument through summary and bring it back up in final focus, I miiiiiight weigh it but even if I do I'm going to weigh it less heavily than if you extended it through summary and final focus. At least frontline responses to turns in second rebuttal. If you want something from crossfire on the flow, mention it in a speech. Speed is fine (make sure to really clearly enunciate names; I can generally figure out a somewhat unclear word, but if a name isn't clear it's a lot harder to figure out from context). Fine with K's. Tech over truth. Don't make your off-time roadmap much longer than "our case then their case" (i.e. "I'm going to weigh our first contention against their second and then..." is too long). Mostly did Congress and Parli in high school (with some LD, briefly), some British Parliamentary in university (don't ask), and I coached Public Forum for a few years. Academic background in Economics.

I am your typical "lay" judge. I take the "Public Forum" concept literally, meaning your target audience is a member of the general public with a certain amount of knowledge and bias on the topic. I will try my best to consider only the evidence/arguments presented in the round. I believe truth matters, I vote mainly on the amount of knowledge you show on the topic and how convincing your arguments are.

Speaking:

- Speak clearly and slowly

- Be courteous to everyone in the round

- Humor and jokes will be rewarded

- Avoid too much debate lingo

Content:

- Signpost

- Weigh and weigh clearly, tell me why your argument is better

- A card can say whatever it says, but I don’t care unless you can logically warrant it

- If you have a problem with a piece of evidence, say it in one of your speeches.

- If you want to refer to something you said earlier, don’t just use the card name, explain the evidence again

- You are welcome to run non-conventional arguments, I will try my best to keep an open mind. However I am biased against them, see the first paragraph.

- Misc

Keep track of your own time, and your opponent's if you can.

Pretty typical flay judge.

If you believe that something in the round is important, tell me. It also better be in every speech possible.

I’m okay with some speed, but remember that speed has a tradeoff with clarity. If I can’t understand you, I can’t flow you, thus I can’t vote for you.

Keep jargon at a minimum, Public Forum is meant to be accessible to the public. Using jargon does the opposite.

I did PF all 4 years of high school, so I am comfortable with speed and debate jargon. First summary doesn't need to extend defense, and second rebuttal should respond to some of the defense in first rebuttal.

Not a fan of off-time roadmaps, you should signpost clearly enough for me to know where you are.

In terms of what I will vote for, strong warranting and weighing is a requirement for me to vote for you. I need you to set up a good comparison in terms of what you and your opponents are arguing and why to prefer you. Don't just list weighing mechanisms, but tell me why your impacts outweigh their impacts. You also must(!) engage with your oppponent's warranting and any claim you make in a round must have some kind of warranting to back it up.

If you are racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. I will drop you and dock speaker points. If you have a question about something that isn't covered here, feel free to ask me before the round.

I debated Public Forum for Edgemont Debate for five years.

My biggest pet peeve is when debaters say they are going to weigh and then don't give a comparative analysis. The point of weighing is to give me a couple sentences I can put on my RFD and vote off of. Please don't give me blanket statements such as we win on magnitude, that doesn't do anything for me. Tell me why your higher magnitude impact matters more than their higher scope impact.

Warrant. Please. Cards without warrants don't mean anything, and every argument does not need a card. I am much more likely to buy an argument with logical warranting than a card that just gives me a statistic.

Collapsing is good. Winning more offense doesn't make you more likely to win the round. I'll be much happier if I get one piece of offense with great warranting and weighing as opposed to getting three impacts and four turns with minimal warranting and rushed weighing.

I'm good with speed so long as you are articulate. If you mumble or slur your words while going really fast I will most likely end up flowing something wrong. That's on you.

I base my speaks predominately on how strategically affective your speeches were (how the speech helps you win the round/did you flow through ink etc). If you win the round for your team in rebuttal I'm giving you a 30.

I reserve the right to drop speaker points, or drop your team entirely, based off of any unsportsmanlike conduct. This includes, but is not limited to, misconstruing evidence and offensive behavior. Just be nice people.

For LD:

I have debated exactly 0 LD rounds, so please keep that in mind. I get the basics of LD and I have judged a few rounds, but if you are running something nuanced that you think I might not grasp, I'd rather you over explain it than under explain it.

Hope Sauceda

Houston Urban Debate League

University of North Texas, Political Science & International Development,  2013 – 2016

University of Nevada Las Vegas, Communication Studies (present)

The TLDR:

As a coach and former debater, I have real issues with judge philosophies. I largely think that they are not reflective of how a judge thinks about debate, what a judge knows about debate and/or how a judge actually adjudicates a debate.

So, all in all don’t take any judge philosophy as a binding document or the holy grail for winning/losing a round. Ok, side note over.

I have been debating since my sophomore year in high school (so, since the 10-11 military/police presence topic). I am by far no “expert” in debate, but I have had a lot of experience coaching and teaching debate. I have had the experience of debating “traditionally” affirming topical policy affirmatives, multiple disads/cp combos and the occasional addition of the k/critical disad (capitalism). In my later college career, I moved towards a variety critical arguments untopical aff’s, soft left/right aff’s and 1-off K’s (anti-blackness mostly) and 2-off (“the K” & T or “the K” & DA). So, I have had experience with a wide variety of argumentation and argumentation styles.  I don’t think my debate background should limit you from running the arguments you choose; I strongly believe that debate is what you make of it and you should feel comfortable running whatever arguments you want. But, everybody needs to win arguments and, more so, reasons why those arguments mean I should vote for you (like what the impact/meaning to those arguments).

Prep time: I will keep a timer and record of prep time, as should you. Make is LOUD and CLEAR when you are beginning and ending prep. 

Evidence Sharing: Ummmm, its 2016, we have Gmail. If there is an internet connection use an email chain. If you use a flash drive, make it quick. I will assume that when you end prep you are ONLY saving. But, if I feel as though otherwise, I will verbally let you know.

Speaking:  At the bare minimum, you should be clear above all! I can’t flow if I don’t know what you are saying (obvi). Speed is cool just don’t let it tradeoff with clarity. Your analytical/tag speed should not be the same as your card speed. Use ethos, pathos and logos!

The Tea:

Speaker points:  *there are levels to this * Excellent speaker points means you can demonstrate a combination of smart, logical, proficient arguments. Excellent speakers have mic skills (some jokes, swagg, confidence, pettiness, facial expressions and eloquence). Excellent debaters have vison and an understanding about argument interaction. Excellent debaters will make a real arguement (claim - warrent). Excellent speakers will efficient and clear when explaining and deploying arguments. Excellent speakers will be clear and not trade speed for clarity. Excellent speakers will utilize various techniques (pauses, inflection, eye contact and rhythm) to enhance their overall performance.

Excellent – 29.1 – 29.5

Great – 28.8 – 29.1

Good – 28.5 – 28.8

Alright – 27 – 28.4

Bad – 0 – 26  (racism, misgendering, sexism, clipping…ect)

AFF –  My short tidbit for the aff.  It does not matter how you present your arguments but you should be held to solving for something (big or small). I think that resolutional or not there should be a purpose for why you presented a set of arguments and the meaning for said arguments. Aff’s should be clear in the CX of the 1AC – like I get it you’re not going to spill all the beans (why would you) but some spillage is necessary. I think in CX of the 1AC if they are asking specific questions about the aff you should respond accordingly. Too much vagueness and be perceived as a lack of knowing your case. I think that aff’s should utilize impacts and impact calculus as leverage against negative positions. Perms are your friend and solvency deficits are there to help you.

T/FW – now-a-days these seem to have blended into one. Be clear on your interpretations of words/definitions and models of debate. You need to explain what the consequences are a model/practice/definition in debate. I think you need an explanation about your views on “what debate should be/do” or “what definitions justify”. T/FW are about the larger educational frameworks that we should be engaging in. I think that the way we engage has large implications on education (on multiple levels).

*STAR THIS: I have not judged many rounds on this topic so, debating T/FW interps is a major key for scope 

Other notes on T/FW -The substantive portions of T/FW are better than the theoretical (i.e the K is cheating).

-On T, should probs talk about what the aff/neg research divide looks like under each interpretation.

-What aff’s exist/Don’t exist, what is competitive/viable, does something important get excluded?, educational benefits/disadvantages?

-Arguments such as limits and ground are internal links and not impacts.

-Largely think that competing interpretations and reasonability are equally subjective terms because they are both judge-decided

-On FW – perms are not a thing – I think these are just a combo of  a) we can co-exist/we don’t preclude b) sequencing args or c) reasons to prefer your interp/model

The K – Generally, you should not assume that I will unpack terms and concepts for you (Example: I will not “fill in” the meaning of unflinching paradigmatic analysis or historical materialistic analysis … you must explain it!). Don’t assume that buzz words are replacements for analysis and explanation (Example: uttering “cap is bad” or something was “anti-black” does not substitute for a contextual explanation of why that is true. For, the K link explanation is big for me. You should be explaining your links in the context of the aff/perm (always), and perms should always be explained in the context of the link scenarios. Don’t forget about your impacts and implications…that’s a major key. Alt solvency is preferable, minimally have an alt that can solve your links. Optimally, the alt would also solve some part of the aff too.  

K competition – so, I hear these terms/blubs such “competing methods” or “comparative methods” as they relate to perm/method evaluation. These terms mean very little without an explanation of WHAT the standards are and HOW the criteria function.

Perms – legitimate perms include all or some parts of the aff and some part of the alt/CP – I am not the one to go for “aff’s don’t get perms” you would be better off explaining why the perm does not function, why the perm is illegitimate and why there are disadvantages to the perm. The aff should do this as well (inversely – why the perm functions best, why its legitit and what the net benefits to the perm are + impacts)  

CP’s –First, I would prefer your counterplan to have a net benefits. I would prefer your counterplans to not link to the net benefit i.e most CP/politics debates (this combo is winnable no doubt) but, it grinds my gears. Second, I would like your CP’s to solve some part of the aff. CP’s kinda have too! Third, I prefer CP’s to be competitive. I am usually hesitant to vote on: Plan+ CP’s (assuming a legitimate perm), “Ban the Plan/Delay (esque) type CP’s. I have encountered super abstract CP’s (Wipeout & Anarchy) and they should be avoided. Other general comments: PIK’s are fine, multiple planks are fine, advantage CP’s are cool (note: specificity > generic toolbox), Intn’l/Agent CP’s are fine too.

DA’s – these are good like who doesn’t like a good DA + case combo. But, I am stickler for specific link explanation. With a generic piece of evidence, you can still contextualize your links to the aff. I think for disads impact calculus and a link story has gotten lost. I think these should be clear parts of the debate.

On politics, I don’t think this is a real disad! But, I still ran it, debated it and voted for it as such. I think there are lots of logical issues with politics disad that people don’t capitalize on they simply pull out there 5 – 9 card PTX block instead of making some of the “real world” arguments. For me politics is all about the uniqueness and the uniqueness of the link. Please try to read good evidence. If your cards are less than 10 words highlighted, we will probs have an issue. If you cards don’t have warrants you will probs be in a bad spot. 

Please do not use progressive arguments in PF rounds; speak at an average rate and be nice to each other.

third-year out coach for Walt Whitman. debated for Edgemont PF for 5 years.

flow judge, tabula rasa with an exception for accessibility 

1. I don't care what your style of debate is in the first half--> just be non-blippy and non-messy in the back half, and you will make me happy.

2. Feel free to go wild with args and collapses. Win the round, and you win my ballot but do it with style and you'll win my heart (and a 30).

3. If both teams agree, I'll judge based on a different paradigm so long as I have the ability to. Literally, go wild.

4. my speaks are based on how strategically good your speech was.

5. speed is good if ur clear, and not blippy. 

6. most things are up for debate--> I drop speaks, not the ballot for things I consider bad debate... eg: 2nd rebuttal disads w/out an implication, or clarity of impact weighing without warrants

7. I have a low threshold for extensions, so make an argument that I should drop unwarranted extensions (e.g. your opponents extend a claim but not the warrant). 

8. theory/kritiks- be accessible, I like shell theory over paragraph theory, I'll evaluate anything. I'll drop speaks if I can tell you are purposefully not being accessible 

9. don't be discriminatory, read content warnings for sensitive topics, and respect pronouns provided by tab. 

10. The only rule for fairness besides accessibility that I default is no new in 2nd ff. Otherwise, warrant out WHY certain rules in debate are unfair (not frontlining in 2nd rebuttal, new responses in 1st summary, etc) and what I should do with it (drop it). 

I'm a parent judge. I am lay, very lay, very very lay!

I debated Public Forum from 2015 to 2018 at Newton South. Among other things, I made it to finals at Blake, top spoke at Lexington, won and top spoke ISD, and went 4-3 at the gold Tournament of Champions during my senior year. My academic focus is in finance and mathematics, though I have studied economics and political science in depth as well.

You will do fine if you treat me as a normal flow circuit judge. I have one major quirk: I evaluate contested arguments over dropped ones, unless you weigh whatever argument your opponent drops. Blatantly offensive language or behavior will not be tolerated. Read on for minor details and preferences.

LD

I will not evaluate arguments extended from the AC to the 2AR without 1AR coverage, and it is insufficient to just say "extend ___." I am okay with barebones extensions, especially if the NC does not cover case heavily, but I need some level of warranting. I am essentially a single-issue voter, and I would prefer a hard collapse, especially in the NR. I enjoy kritik and theory debates, although I do not have much experience judging them, so you should justify the voters/role of the ballot arguments clearly.

PF

Tactics

I am fine with extending preempts from any point in the round, front-lining in second rebuttal, and asking clarifying questions during prep time. If neither the second rebuttal nor the second summary covers a defensive argument read in first rebuttal (but not in first summary), the first speaking team may extend that argument into final focus. Reading independent arguments in rebuttal (especially second) pisses me off a lot, and I will be extremely hesitant to vote off them. I am friendly to progressive arguments, although I will not drop the debater unless theory is read as a shell and extended. I am unlikely to drop the debater on paraphrasing or disclosure theory unless it is very well-warranted. When weighing, you should show how, even if you afford them their entire impact, yours is more important. Please do not just tell me that your number is bigger than theirs.

Voting / Speaks

I will award speaks based off your influence in the round, creativity, efficiency, and wit. Cross will rarely win you a round with me, but it will lose you speaks if you are rude. I am a single-issue voter, meaning that I will evaluate a single well-warranted argument rather than the sum of several blippy arguments. I will proceed linearly through the following hierarchy of requirements until I find an argument that one team has clearly won: 1) warranted at each step of the link chain; 2) extended fully > extended only in summary > extended only in final focus; 3) weighed > contested > uncontested. You may point out that arguments were dropped/not responded to; however, I also have a flow and will dock your speaks if you do so inaccurately (pet peeve), so you should probably just take that time to weigh.

All Events

Outrounds

If you're reading this, you're probably doing well—congratulations. There may not be speaks, but if you're genuinely rude, I can usually find a reasonable way to drop you, so be civil. I will adapt to panels and will not tolerate speed, jargon, or progressive arguments when they might exclude (particularly parent) judges.

Evidence

I don't call cards too often unless the round really comes down to it, but I run with the assumption that everything is vaguely miscut, taken out of context, or misconstrued—thus, I value the logic and warrants behind arguments far more than the card. In other words, cards simply prove that your argument is a component of the academic conversation and not total BS.

Misc.

I do not flow cross, so please reiterate anything important in the next speech and emphasize anything major. Roadmaps are fine, but I am sick out of my mind of hearing "our case then theirs," so please only do this if your order is non-linear. If I'm not looking at you, I'm probably flowing on paper or another monitor. Please keep speed reasonable (<250wpm), though I will call clear if I cannot understand you. Jargon is fine if you use it correctly, but it serves only to describe the argument you make, not as an argument in itself. For example, saying that something is a turn does not make it one, and I will probably drop your speaks if you continually tag argument types incorrectly.

I welcome a polite interrogation of my decision, but keep in mind that I submit before disclosing, and thus it is more for intellectual value than your record. I will try to give you a justification of my decision, and I may critique your arguments and speeches based on time. Feel free to email me for feedback or my flow: sinclair.jhb@gmail.com . If anyone is interested, I am open to coaching on a session or long-term basis.

Good luck!

Background:

I debated for four years in Public Forum for West Windsor-Plainsboro South and I'm currently a sophomore at Georgetown University. I will vote off the flow unless you blatantly miscut a card in which case you will automatically lose. Please feel free to ask me anything else before the round if I don't cover it here.

Things I like:

-Consistency between the summary and the final focus. These two speeches should be parallel in that they re-iterate the same points that you think win the round for you. This means proper extension of arguments (ie warrant and impact extension) in both speeches.

-Weighing. You're probably not going to win every single argument in the round, so I want to give me tangible reasons as to why the argument you should win the round based on is more important than your opponents'. Beyond just regular magnitude, scope probability, I really like teams who get more creative with their weighing (ex: Strength of Link, Clarity of Impact, etc). Good weighing will usually win you my ballot and give you a speaker point boost. Weighing should start as early in the round as possible.

-Cross-fire. I think this really shows how good you are as a debater and not how much you can read off your laptop. Good cross-fires will boost your speaks and if you get a concession please use it throughout the rest of the round (that's what actual debate is about).

-Unique cases. Listening to the same cases for the entire tournament can get boring, but if you have something that's new and interesting I'll boost your speaks by 0.5-1.0.

-Jokes, just don't force them.

Things I don't like:

-Speed. I can handle some speed but I don't write too fast and have always preferred the original PF speed. You can usually get the same quantity of arguments out by just improving your word economy instead of picking up your speed.

-Theory. Despite popular opinion I think debate is about the actual topic and the research everyone gets to do before a tournament. If you read me theory I just think you are trying to avoid debating your opponents. If there is a serious problem in a debate I will take it to Tab anyway (you will win as well), so just focus on the actual substantive debate.

-Off-time road maps. If I hear "their case then ours" your speaks are most likely getting docked.

-Preflowing after the coin toss.

be a nice debater

don't be annoying

I have been a PF debate coach at Ivy Bridge Academy for the past 7 years and I also did policy debate at Chattahoochee High School and UGA. Here are things that are important to me in debates and will influence my decision:

1. Debate is fundamentally about winning arguments, so make good arguments. I will do my best to evaluate your argument as objectively as possible but make sure contentions are well-developed with clear warrants, evidence, and impacts. The more unrealistic the argument, the less likely I’ll vote for it, but I do also believe it is the burden of your opponent to clearly articulate why the argument is wrong.

2. Frontlining - while not doing this isn’t technically against the rules, I highly encourage it and will reward teams that do it effectively with better speaker points. I don’t consider something dropped in the 2nd rebuttal, but I do expect teams to cover everything you plan on extending. I also like teams condensing to one contention in the second rebuttal if it makes strategic sense.

3. Summary - condensing down to a few key voting issues is important to me. If you don’t do weighing in rebuttal, then it should start here. Anything, including defense, must be in the summary if you want me to evaluate it. Don’t drop responses or contentions in these speeches. I will reward summary speakers who make good strategic decisions and manage their time well.

4. Final Focus - Clear voting issues and weighing are important to me. I will only evaluate arguments extended in the summary here. Having a clear narrative and focusing on the big picture is important, as well as answering extended responses. This is also your last chance to win key responses against your opponent's case. Make sure to not just extend them, but explain them, answer the summary, and what the implications are if you win x response.

5. Paraphrasing - I’m fine with it, but you need to be able to produce either a card or the website if asked. If you can’t produce it in time or deliberately misrepresent the evidence, then I will ignore the argument, and in extreme cases, vote the guilty team down.

6. Weighing - this is important to me, but I think debaters overvalue it a bit. The link debate is more important in my opinion and realistic impacts are as well. Try and start the weighing in the rebuttal or summary speeches. Comparison is key to good weighing in front of me.

7. Crossfire - any argument established in crossfire must be brought up in the subsequent speech for me to evaluate it. I will reward creative and well thought out questions. Please don’t be rude or aggressive in the crossfire. That will definitely hurt your speaker points. Civility is very important to proper debate in my humble opinion. You can sit or stand for the grand cross.

8. Speaking - I will give higher speaks to passionate speakers who are good public speakers. I did policy, so I’m fine with speed, but I don’t like spreading unless you absolutely have to cover. Please clearly signpost which argument you are responding to and when you are moving to the other side of the flow or weighing.

9. Prep - I will do my best to keep track of it, but please, both teams should also be tracking the time.

10. References - any well-executed Biggy, Kendrick, J. Cole, Drake, or Childish Gambino reference will be rewarded. Don’t overdo it though and I reserve the right to decrease points if it’s way off point.

11. Speech docs - if you share your case with me, then it will help me flow, understand your arguments, and I won't have to call for ev, so I will give both speakers 2 extra points if they do so.

Background:

4 years of debate in HS, two years policy, two years LD; State and national qualifier in extemp & LD; California state champion in extemporaneous speaking; debated at Northwestern briefly, though quickly moved on to journalism

PF - For PF I stick closely to the judging instructions, clarifying this is a style of debate meant for the lay audience. It is not policy. I have no use for spreading. I'll flow and note arguments dropped, carried through, etc, but speaking style, clarity and quality of argumentation matter.

Mostly a flow judge who appreciates, in cross, civility, clear questions, and direct answers to said questions—experienced in Worlds, PF, LD and Congress. Speak clearly; don't play stupid evidence games. I'm not into K's or attempting to win a round on things not topical to the round. Sometimes in PF I won't flow all the way through focusing more on who wins the offense of the round.=

Congress specific: Advance arguments, challenge one another and know procedure. I will vote up great POs, great congressional-style speakers, and those who are functioning in debate mode (not just speech mode).

Hi! My name is Ben, I debated for Half Hollow Hills for four years. I am an experienced judge and debater. Open to anything.

— This paradigm is written by Carter —

Hello!

I am a parent judge!

My background is in Software Engineering and Aerospace Engineering. I follow the news but don't have extensive knowledge on the topic.

That said, while I'm mostly tabula rasa, arguments should be well developed from the uniqueness to impact with good warranting. Don't expect me to fill in the dots for you.

I understand the basis of collapse and conceded arguments, and will be flowing throughout the round.

Things that make me happy:

Extended narratives: Don't just extend card names and restate what they say. The best practice is to give warranting and piece evidence together to make your argument crystal clear in the back half.

Warranting: Explain how each evidence links to the next and how evidence reaches its conclusion. E.G. don't just state a % increase in x results in a % increase in y, but explain how the two are connected and then give the quantitative.

Comparative Weighing: Don't just assert that you outweigh on magnitude, severity, etc but actually give the comparative of the two impacts and then warrant why the mechanism is important. Good weighing is a great way to my ballot.

Humor: Have a fun time and make the round enjoyable for me. Jokes shouldn't be forced, just don't take the round so seriously.

Signposting: Don't give an extensive roadmap — I'll probably forget. Just tell me where you're starting and signpost so I can follow.

—

Things that make me upset:

Ks, Theory, Tricks: Don't think this a good idea, just read substance.

Speed: Don't think this a good idea either.

Being mean: Cutting your opponent off in cross or generally being mean.

Overall, make my ballot easy and treat me as an above-average lay judge.

I will disclose after the round.

Updated for Princeton 2018

Email: paveldtemkin@gmail.com

Debated for:

PF: Princeton HS, NJ (2012-14)
APDA: Rutgers University, NJ (2015-2018)

Coached for:

PF: Stuyvesant HS, NY (2014-15)
PF: Bergen County Debate Club, NJ (2018-present)
APDA: Johns Hopkins University, MD (2018-present)

Lincoln Douglas Paradigm

I'll be as non-interventionist as I physically can be, sometimes to the point of mind-boggling obstinacy. If you explain every step in the link-chain I will be happy, if you don't you won't be happy.

Speed: Moderate. May ask you to CC me on the email chain.

Framework/Theory/Kritiks/T/DAs: Fine. Please be clear, especially in the very first links and the very last impacts.

Philosophy: I studied analytic philosophy, so I'll be very familiar with that literature, in particular metaethics and epistemology. I have read some continental/critical stuff, but have less familiarity.

Literally do not care what you do in a round.

Public Forum paradigm

A few remarks:

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

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

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

In all cases, I will call for the evidence and decide for myself. I will sometimes call for evidence in round, after a team asks to see it during prep; do not be alarmed, I'm doing it to discourage abusive misquoting.

Speaker Points

I tend to be fairly low-speaking. What matters, in rough order of importance:

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

read whatever you are most comfortable with I will adapt. I graduated from George Mason University as a qualifier of the 73rd NDT and a double octo-finalist at CEDA. I am most familiar with critical arguments specifically debility, setcol, cap (as everyone should be), and any PoMo stuff.

Also if I spell things wrong in this paradigm, if its disorganized, or if in the RFD/comments I make grammatical/spelling mistakes, I am sorry but I am dyslexic so just ask me to clarify if you are confused by me. I will not take offense to this, I understand that the way I think can be hard to follow. But also remember that this means I will require a high level of clarity in the speeches that are harder to follow/less formula based, most prominently 1AR/2NR/2AR. Really this just means slow down and explain your arguments.

UPDATE: Your 2NR/2AR should be how I write my RFD if I vote for you. Take me doing work out of the decision as much as possible, to me that is the best way to win a debate.

I know I say that I will judge anything and that is true...... but think about me like this, I am a former K debater that currently works in international human rights specifically with populations who are recovering from genocides and mass atrocities so when looking at a debate, yes nuclear war is scary but I think that the cyclical suffering of billions due to preventable structural factors is scarier... Anyone who says they arent bias are lying so i mention all of this to make it clear what my bias's are.

I have been out of debate for almost 3 year at this point. I have no knowledge of this topic and I am assuming that at CEDA I will not need any. With that being said, I debated on exec authority so I know NFU like the back of my hand lol.

Also please put me on the email chain: xmacknationx@gmail.com

I am a parent judge with three years of judging experience.

Some preferences:

- Cases should be well structured; evidence and arguments should be laid out cohesively

- Students should be firm and polite without being rude

- Both sides should track their own time

- I will not evaluate new arguments made in final focus

- Cross should focus on the important arguments in the debate round

- I prefer reasoning backed by evidence over analysis without evidence

- Please don't speak too fast

Updated for TOC 2018

Yes, put me on the email chain: jonghak.won@gmail.com

Georgetown University '21

West Ranch High School '17

Assistant coach for Debatedrills, conflict policy: https://www.debatedrills.com/debate-drills-dropbox/#why-dropbox

All the stuff after this is negotiable, here are the two things that aren't:

1. No cheating: that means no card clipping, stealing prep, disclosing the wrong aff, lying about your disclosure, etc. Prep ends when doc is compiled.

2. Debate is a safe space: I will not tolerate any blatantly offensive arguments. That means no racism, sexism, homophobia, etc.

Violations of either are grounds for auto-loss and the lowest speaks I can possibly give you

General:

Policy ---------X------------------------------ K

tech ------------------------X--------------- truth

lots of mediocore cards --------------------------------X------- a few quality cards

link first --------------------X------------------- uniqueness first

terminal defense exists --X------------------------------------- 0.000001% = EXTINCTION!!!

good ev comparison ---------------------------------------X lots of good ev comparison

conditionality good -------X-------------------------------- conditionality bad

50 states cp good -------X-------------------------------- 50 states cp bad

limits -------------------------------X-------- aff ground

fairness is an impact ---------X------------------------------ fairness is an internal link

always value-to-life ----------X----------------------------- never value-to-life

your k backfile answers ---------------------------------X------ nuanced, specific k answer cards

"post-dialectic sociogenesis of rhizomatic subjects"--------------------------X--- explain your K

"insert this rehighlighting" -----------------------------------X---- I read what you read

read no cards during rfd -------------------------------X-------- read all the cards during rfd

clarity ----X---------------------------------- who doesn't like clarity?

politeness -X-------------------------------------- hs students screaming at each other

LD specific:

contrived theory debates -------------------------------X-------- substantive topic debates

competing interps -------------------------X-------------- reasonability (default)

no RVI's (default) --------------X------------------------- yes RVI's

drop the debater (default) --------------------X------------------- drop the argument

tricks -------------------------------------X-- substantive clash

slow on dense analytics ------------X--------------------------- have me not flow

Marshall Thompson phil knowledge --------------------X------ Jonas Le Barillec phil knowledge

epistemic modesty ------------X--------------------------- epistemic confidence

"neg abuse outweighs aff abuse" -----------------------------X---------- actual theory args

putting a prioris in the middle of an analytic paragraph -------------------------X seriously wtf

point fairy ------------------------------X--------- hates LD speaker point inflation

Extra notes:

1. Disclosure: I will use a carrot and stick with speaker points to incentivize good disclosure practices/start gently nudging the community toward more standard/thorough disclosure standards:

cite entries for all relevant affs and offcase positions: +0 (this is the bare minimum)

round reports with details of relevant speeches for all rounds (1ac, 1nc, 2nr, 1ar if necessary; you don't have to do a cite entry for every single one): +0.1

have info entered for all rounds you've had (round reports, opponent + judge + tournament info) with open source docs: +0.2

full open source docs attached with all cards from rebuttals and constructives clearly marked: +0.2

absolutely zero disclosure: -1 (yes, that's minus one whole speaker point)

poorly formatted disclosure -> not clearly demarcating which entries are for which topic, misleading information, poorly formatted cites, etc: -0.2

Please speak slowly so I can clearly understand you. Please focus on / reemphasize your main points and rebut other side’s main arguments instead of flooding me with information about everything. Depth than breadth. Sometimes less is more :)

I am a parent judge -I will write down what i think is important, but if you go too fast, I might not catch what you say and miss things -I will try to be fair, but explain what you say - if I don't understand something I wont vote off it -Emphasize what you think is important to the round and why it is important -Rudeness is not tolerated and be nice to your opponents

Background:

Currently a sophomore at Georgetown University. I have experience with APDA and I used to compete in the PF national circuit under Thomas S. Wootton High School.

TLDR: I flow. I like it when teams interact with their opponents' args. Warrant and impact things out. DO the work and you are more likely to get my ballot.

Preferences:

1. Speed:

I can handle 800-word cases but if you plan on going faster, don't expect my flow to be perfect unless you provided a speech doc. If you plan on spreading, please provide speech docs to everyone.

2. Extensions:

Everything in final focus should be in summary if you want me to evaluate it. The only exception to this is the 1st speaking team does not have to extend defense in summary. I'm not a big fan of new responses in 2nd summary. If you make new responses and your opponents call you out for it, there's a big chance I won't give it full weight.

Also, don't just extend card names. Extend the warrants.

3. Evidence:

Make it clear in speech if you want me to call a card. I will drop cards that I feel are misconstrued from the flow.

4. Cross:

I generally don't flow cross. If you get any concessions out of your opponents during this time please point it out in speech.

5. K's:

Not very familiar with them. I'm also very skeptical about whether they should be used in PF or not. I would advise not running them unless you can explain it really well.

6. Theory:

I'm more familiar with theory but I will only vote off it if something was actually abusive. I'm more receptive to things like condo bad but not such much to things like disclosure theory. Like K's, you need to explain this well if you want me to vote on this.

What I want to see:

1. Extend Impacts:

It is hard to evaluate an argument if the impacts are not extended. Don't make me do work for you.

2. Weighing:

The less weighing that is done the more I have to evaluate the importance of impacts based on my own beliefs. Tell me why your impacts matter more. Things like magnitude, scope, time frame, urgency, uniqueness, clarity of link, etc are all very helpful (although don't just use them as buzzwords actually explain to me how they apply).

3. Signpost:

Please be clear on where you are on the flow. A roadmap also helps especially if you're going to be reading overviews or starting with frontlines in rebuttal.

4. Clash:

Please interact with your opponents' arguments. Otherwise, I will have to intervene to resolve debates which will result in a decision you are probably unhappy with.

5. Warrants:

Provide clear reasoning for your arguments. I am more inclined to buy an argument the better warranted it is.

How I tend to vote:

I tend to find myself voting more on probability/link level when I find no distinguishable difference in the impacts.

I'm more inclined to vote for a team that has a stronger link story that is well warranted and/or has done more work to frontline responses on the link.

I also tend to lean towards teams that engage with their opponents' arguments. I hate it when teams extend through ink. Even if your opponents are being nonresponsive, still explain to me why those arguments are nonresponsive.

I only vote off of risk of offense as a last resort in scenarios in which both team's links get super muddled.

I generally evaluate the round by going in order of highest impact args to lowest and asking myself if I feel comfortable voting there or not. I usually don't feel comfortable voting on certain args if there are very glaring responses that you dropped/did not frontline.

Misc:

I tend to be more tech > truth.

I also default to util unless you provide a different way of weighing that is well warranted.

Speaker points will be based on how well you debated rather than how pretty you spoke.

Please don't be rude or offensive.

If you have any questions feel free to ask me before the round.

Non-native English speaker. Speak clearly or I won't be able to follow you.

Please signpost clearly throughout your speeches -- I want to know where you are on the flow at any given point.

During crossfire, keep things civil. Don't get too heated against your opponent, stay calm and collected, and maybe sprinkle in some humor!

And throughout the debate, remember that you're trying to convince me to sign the ballot for you.