I am a parent judge and this is my third invitational.

1. Speak clearly and a moderate speed. Accentuate the points with voice inflections.

2. Be respectful to each other

3.Best arguments win which are supported by evidence. Clearly tell me why you think you have won the round.

4. Framework- tell me why yours is better.

5. Voting issues- State then at the end of your last speeches

6. Value- uphold your value . I’ll measure which one applies to resolution after I hear all arguments. Which debator convinced me that he/she best supports value.

7. Criteria -will be used to measure the value

8.Style- Make significant points clear!!! Not at the same time, emphasize with voice inflections.

9. Drops- If contentions were dropped by opponent call it out to me, Accentuate it!!!

10. Have fun and Good Luck!!!!

Avoid logical fallacies and personal attacks. You can be aggressive in your argumentation as long as you remain respectful.

Evidence should be well sourced. If there’s a bias in your source, I will probably notice.

A good case is dynamic and able to respond to your opponent’s contentions. If you just talk fast and try to make as many points as possible in the allotted time, I will stop listening.

Consider the real world implications of the things that you suggest. If you argue about these things as if they matter, and try to actually convince me that the world you present is better than your opponent’s, you have a strong chance at winning.

• Speed: I am a traditionalist. I understand that in order for LD to be effective it requires a certain speed, however this is not a circuit debate (aka single-person policy). If I (and your opponent!) cannot clearly hear your cards and your evidence, it is as if you did not say it! If you go too fast and I cannot flow then you DROP those contentions and evidence.
• Jargon: I'm not a fan of it. Just use the terminology you are addressing (e.g. solvency or topicality),
• Argumentation: Remember that LD is a theoretical debate. You're not solving for anything (that's policy). Because it's a theoretical debate, you establishing your value is far more important than any hypothetical problem you create and for which you attempt to solve. Although a "K" may come up, remember I am a traditionalist.

As a Lincoln Douglas Judge I am a very traditional judge from a very traditional area of the country. With that, comes all of the typical impacts.

I am not able to flow spreading very effectively at all.

I, very rarely, judge policy, but those would be in slower rounds as well. Because of that, though, I am at least somewhat familiar with K debate, K AFF, theory, CP's, etc.

For me to vote on progressive argumentation in LD, it has to be very clearly ARTICULATED to me why and how you win those arguments. Crystal clear argumentation and articulation of a clear path to giving you the ballot is needed.

I’m a parent judge with 3 years of judging experience on the local and national circuits. I have a few preferences that need to be followed during a round in order to persuade me:

First, no spreading. If you sound like you’re struggling to breath, how am I going to be able to understand you? Please keep your pace to a conversational speed so I can flow. If I miss something on the flow, I can’t vote based on it.

Second, traditional debate is what I’m used to. I’ve judged many local Florida tournaments where tradiational debate is the go to style of debating. This means having a value, value criterion, good philosophy, and solid evidence. I’m not all too familiar with K’s, LARP debate, theory, counterplans, or DA’s.

The important thing to keep in mind is to keep it civil. You’re not going to impress me by belittling your opponent in cross examination, or rolling your eyes when the other person speaks. Keep it kind.

Also, have fun and don’t be nervous! Having confidence is a huge key to winning. If you sound confident, you’re more than likely to convince me. That doesn’t mean you can run fake evidence though.

I like good debates. If you can't spread well, then don't.

Debate:

I am a parent lay judge who looks for effective critical thinking and communication skills. I enjoy the interplay among debaters who demonstrate mastery of the information and clarity of thought.

Speak at a pace such that your arguments can be appreciated. Talking too fast can actually detract. If I don't flow your argument, I cannot evaluate in my final decision. If you see me put down my pen, it means you are speaking too quickly.

Strong preference for debate on the merit of the issues, rather than employing critiques. Focus on the issues, rather than on being "creative."

Show respect for your opponent and the judge and demonstrate civility in your interactions. If you ask a question in rebuttal, please allow your opponents to answer.

LD - No spreading. Debate, in any form, is about making a point. Please do not try to convince me you are smarter than everybody in the room by speaking fast. If I cannot understand you, I cannot judge.

Speech:

Observe the criteria for the specific event. I look for gestures and vocal modulation that enhance the presentation. Eye contact is important.

I am a parent and lay judge and I have judged LD the past three years.

I’m an engineer by training and finance professional. As an older adult I need clear speaking to hear well so spreading will be lost on me. I will flow, and I will ask to slow down if I’m not able to capture the information.

Be respectful. Rudeness loses speaker points.

I greatly value the impacts of contentions and clashing of arguments. You need to support the impact with logic and evidence. Extending arguments throughout the round is important to me in deciding who wins the round. Clearly state how this debate should be weighed.

State the contentions that stayed alive throughout the round.

Good Luck! Be Confident and clear and respectful – easy things that you can control.

LD Paradigm

Thank you all for competing! My background is traditional Congress & proprietary constitutional law debates formats. I also have acute presbycusis (keen hearing loss & sensitivity). As such, I prefer clear articulation, and do not allow spreading. Rationale being this allows for clarity of arguments and allows me to not only understand your contentions and subpoints, but also to hear them on a more basic level.

This holds true for cross examination. Please note that I must be able to distinguish whether an answer was unsatisfactory or whether it wasn't answer sufficiently. As such, sufficient time must be given to the responder to articulate to core of the response. Your rebuttals offer good space to incorporate the information gathering done in cross examination. Remember cross examination need not be a battleground for arguments.

Note that the below was written in a parliamentary debate context, where I spend the vast majority of my time judging. I've judged LD, PF, CX, WS in the past, but not for several years, so I may not be as familiar with the conventions as I used to be. All the below should still apply.

ABOUT ME:

I competed for Ridge in extemp for four years, and for Rutgers on APDA for four years. I've coached (lay) policy, PF, extemp, Congress, and parli for Ridge (on and off) since 2016, and I coached North Star Academy in policy for one academic year. I served as NPDL Reporting Director in the 2022-2023 season. I have degrees in political science and accounting. I work in analytics for an insurance carrier in Connecticut. I use he/him pronouns. I really love debate.

GENERAL/OVERVIEW:

Debate is collaborative, adversarial truth seeking. I like all kinds of arguments (but I like good arguments best). Be kind to each other! Rounds should be safe spaces, I will drop you for bigotry.

SPEED:

I don’t have any issue with speed in principle. Personally, I’m not great at understanding circuit-level speed, but I’m happy to say clear as often as needed. If your opponent makes a good-faith request that you slow down, you should slow down. If you don’t do so, I’ll almost certainly drop you.

STRUCTURE:

Framework debate is very important. I think that everything said in a round, including framework, is an argument, and arguments shouldn’t simply be asserted. Why should I prefer your weighing mechanism? Why is your actor the correct one?

Please signpost very cleanly. I never want to wonder what argument/subpoint/section of your speech you are on.

I very, very strongly prefer rebuttals that are almost entirely off-flow. PMR and LOR are opportunities for you to write my ballot for me. These speeches should weigh impacts, crystallize, and show me why you won the round.

Unless directed otherwise by tab policy, I will consider all new arguments in rebuttal speeches if they are not called out in points of order. Even if tab policy directs me to protect the flow, if I'm unsure if a point is new or not, I will likely default to assuming the argument is not new. All of this is to say: if you think a point is new, call a point of order!

If you go over time, I will stop flowing at the end of grace (for formats with a grace period). I will cut you off if it gets to be particularly egregious.

For virtual tournaments, if you're running a plan or counterplan, I would appreciate it if you paste the plan text in the chat function.

COUNTERPLANS:

I don’t have any issue with CPs, but I dislike plan inclusive counterplans and counterplans that are very minor modifications to the plan (eg, do the plan but do it two weeks later). I don’t dislike them enough to intervene against them, and I have voted for them in the past, but I think they’re probably bad for debate and will be amenable to arguments to that effect. In any case please put your CP text in the chat for virtual tournaments.

THEORY/K/TOPICALITY:
I like all three! I like K affs! I like well done theory in response to Ks! But see above: I like all arguments. You should run these if you think they are appropriate for the situation. I was not a K debater, and I am not especially familiar with any of the kritikal literature, but I am happy to listen to whatever you read. In any case, with any of these arguments, please make sure the critical components (eg alt, ROB, interp, violations, etc) are highlighted and easy to flow.

Post 2023 NPDL TOC note: I find myself voting for K teams relatively often because they often give me really clear roles of the ballot, while teams responding to a K are often a little less clear about the ROB. My aim is to intervene as little as possible, and where one team tells me what my ballot is for and the other team doesn't, I'm very often voting for the former. So, if you're responding to a K: don't just tell me why the K is bad, tell me what my ballot is for, and why I should vote for you. It's perfectly fine if your answer to that is the ROB is to vote for the team that proves the resolution true/false! I really can't stress enough how important this is.

You should not read my paradigm to mean that I am not amenable to Ks bad arguments: I am perfectly willing to vote for Ks bad, and am open to RVIs deployed to that effect. That said if your standard response to Ks is disclosure theory it's probably best to ask the team if they're planning on running one.

I do not especially like frivolous theory (tropicality, note the r, makes me sad) and will do my best not to vote for it.

TECH vs. TRUTH:

I guess I’m slightly on the tech side of things? I don’t think I have ever judged a round where I thought “since I’m a tech judge, I will vote x, but if I were a truth judge, I would have voted y.” I think arguments need to be warranted to have any weight in my decision, though.

I will always adhere to tab/tournament policy re: evidence.

POIs:

I think you should take one, I don’t care if you take more than that (I would actually encourage you not to take more than that).

ENDNOTES:
I’m always happy to answer any questions before the round, or about my RFD/feedback after the round. I love judging and I’m very excited to be judging your round.

Hi -- I'm a parent and a lay judge. I did not debate in high school, nor in college. I've been judging for a few years. Two years of MS parli, one year of HS PF and one year of HS LD. In PF, I'm looking for the most persuasive argument you can make.

In all formats, I am partial to empirical arguments. While LD is about morals and ethics, and while PF is about topicality, I am helped in both cases by seeing how an idea or an argument is applied in the real world.

In LD, I can understand about 90% of the words you say if you spread, but I have trouble processing your cases at that speed - it's just a bunch of words I mostly recognize. You can talk fast, though, and being a New Yorker I will understand that, at least.

Good luck!

I am a Parent judge, but my son has been debating in VLD for the past few years so I feel comfortable evaluating many different rounds. At the same time, please do not speak very fast and please be respectful of your opponent. I will evaluate your arguments with an open mind, no matter how intuitively false they are. Please try to build on your thesis and try not to miss refuting your opponent's key arguments.

I am a newer debate judge who much prefers traditional arguments. I will drop any argument I do not understand, so I will drop most progressive arguments. Along that point, I will drop any argument that I cannot comprehend, especially if it's too fast. I cannot flow for speed, and competitors should speak clearly. I ask that both debaters are respectful in and out of round.

I ask for reasonable points with clash. I ask for persuasion and logic. I ask for impacts and weighing. Explain to me why your argument matters more. Please do not use jargon. Explain all your points.

Speaker Points will reflect how well you debated and how well you conducted yourself during speeches and throughout the entirety of our interaction and that with your opponent.

hi! i'm angie khadijah. i studied philosophy at columbia (barnard class of '22) and competed on the houston circuit for 4 years @ cinco ranch high school. i've worked for the NYCUDL, judged at national circuit tournaments, and currently work with the Brooklyn Debate League (BDL) -- i'm passionate about speech advocacy!

questions about my paradigm? wanna chat? confused about my decision? feel free to email me! angie@brooklyndebateleague.org

tldr; give me a weighing mechanism so you don't leave the round confused by my decision. impact thru everything. link chains are super important. i will always look for the clearest path to the ballot and try to be as tab as possible.

speed is totally fine, but clarity is essential in this activity. use jargon when its needed please.

i will drop a debater who wields anti-Black/racist/unapologetically insensitive etc. speech or behavior if their opponent asks me to. this is a speaking activity: you are responsible for your words.

LD

please add me to the email chain: angie@brooklyndebateleague.org

i am down to hear anything. this is your space, please use it how you'd like. i recognize the labor and time invested in this activity by so many of you, and sincerely thank you for sharing it with me.

i like kritikal debates, though i aim to be an approachable and reasonable judge for all levels/styles of debate :)

i am *not* the judge for you if t is your entire neg strat. i am not as well versed on t as some other judges and often find complex theory debates to be frivolous. i will hear anything, but want to remain fair to you!

i vote tech > truth but will definitely discuss truth-y issues if its problematic or if you wanna philosophize after the round.

i love performance and GREATLY appreciate all attempts to make the debate space less elitist + more radical.

impacts and links are important to me!

i avg 28.5 speaks. earn a 30 by being unique and memorable :)

yes i disclose and always try to give constructive feedback to both sides

PF

summary is the most important speech of the round, followed by rebuttal.

weigh! impact! tell me how to vote!! i love unique args.

i vote off my flow, looking for the clearest path to the ballot.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

debate is about education imo. feel free to talk about this space w me before or after round (or in round...do what you want)

HAVE FUN!! seriously, this activity is great and i hope to foster an inviting and intellectually rigorous space in all my rounds.

I consider myself to be a traditional debater. I like hear a good, well spoken argument. It is important to see that the debater understands what they are arguing rather than simply regurgitating information as quickly as they can.

I don't like spreading and will not side with an argument that I can not clearly understand.

Progressive debate is not my preference but if it is done well and the argument is still clearly made, I will not mark down for it or vote against it. I will also add, be wary of "one size fits all" arguments. Be sure that your critiques, if you have them, fit the resolution that you is being debated. We are here to debate the current resolution only, the fact that "other problems exist in society" is a given, if a particular issue affects the resolution and can be used as a reason why it should not be passed or even considered then I consider that a valid argument but simply stating that the world isn't perfect for xyz reason is not a reason for me to vote in your favor

Dana Mollica

Hello! My name is Matt Murno.

In order to win here are some things you should do:

Things you should do:

1. I feel like weighing has been decreasing a lot throughout the years, so if you are in front of me you should have clear weighing at the end of your speech and link to the winning FW.

2. It’s been a while since I have heard spreading, so I would prefer more conversational speed, but nothing much faster than that.

3. Voters are huge for me, I want clear numbered voters linked to the FW.

Things you should NOT do:

1. Don’t spread, I won’t be able to understand you.

2. Don’t be too techy, I’m truth>tech, so if an arg is definitely false I won’t vote on it even if it was dropped (I.e. racism doesn’t exist)

3.Don’t read args like racism, sexism, etc good.

4.Be respectful to your opponent.

5.Don’t read theory or K’s, you can make those kinds of arguments, like an AFF about something K-ish like feminism or racism but not something super complicated. For theory, don’t read a shell, I might consider paragraph theory if it is reasonable and not frivolous and VERY CLEAR what I’m voting on and why.

yes please put me on the chain, use this email: arieldoesld@gmail.com

They/Them pronouns

I did HS LD for 4 years at Fort Lauderdale High graduated in 2016 then did college policy for a couple years after.

I think debate matters a lot, and when people see it like a place to collect trophies to justify being rude as hell or problematic, it’s disappointing to me and your speaker points (I don’t care why you debate, just respect why other people come here too). This also means pay attention to people social location and don’t fill the round with microaggressions.

Most debate I did was focused on K debate. That’s just honestly going to be the round where I am the best judge for you in terms of education. judge adaptation is usually BS, and you’re most likely to win when YOU do whatever you do best. I’ve been judging for long enough that I’m able to competently judge a traditional Policy or LD round.

My paradigm used to have a bunch of debate opinions I held, a lot of them I still do, but if you make a good argument, or an argument I think is bad but well warranted, that’s going to matter a lot more than some random opinion I have. If you want to know any specific argument preferences I have, feel free to ask me any time until the round starts, and I’ll clarify whatever you need.

I evaluate rounds based off the flows, I consistently vote on warrants that are cleanly extened through rounds being more sufficient than repeating the tag from the 1ac to the 2ar without explaining how you should win from that. The more you explain why your arguments are true AND why that means you should win, the more likely you are to get my ballot.

I'm pretty much always going to give an RFD for debaters but if you don't pay attention or seem like my input doesn't matter, your RFD will be very short. I love making sure debaters understand how they lost my ballot instead of walking away and telling their teams that they don't know how they lost on something that wasn't even in my RFD.

I didn't think this was something that had to be made explicit BUT:

** If your answer to arguments about oppression include minimizing violence that is very clearly established (antiblackness, colonialism, anti-queer violence, there's a lot more im missing, but if you have to question it, it probably falls into this group) you will not win anything you think your defense gets you, and your speaks will be directly related to how uncomfortable those arguments make me.

I judged PF and Congress last year and am doing LD judging this year. As a parent judge, I really enjoy and value the professionalism and courtesy displayed by the debaters at such a young age. For me, a lot of arguments are not necessarily a clincher. I would rather have lesser arguments, but argued clearly, passionately and with authority. Needless to say, keeping civility through the debate is a must.

General: EXTEND IMPACTS. If you extend claims and warrants then don't bother extending at all. I won't judge based on how passionate you are...so don't expect to win my ballot because you get excited and start yelling in the round.

Framework: Don't spend time on a framework debate. Please clearly extend your framework so that I have something to evaluate the round with. Extend impacts of your framework and LINK INTO YOUR OPPONENT'S FRAMEWORK IF YOU CAN!! (that will probably make it easier for you to get my ballot).

Speed/jargon: Speed is generally fine, but DO NOT SPREAD. Jargon is also fine. Please speak clearly and annunciate well. If I can't understand you, do not expect to pick up.

K: Ks are whatever. I don't hate them but I don't particularly like them either. But hey, you do you. If you run a K, please make sure that you are being clear - if I don't understand your K, I won't vote on it. Alts are encouraged but not necessary.

Theory: Don't run theory just for the fun of it. Only run theory if your opponent is ACTUALLY being abusive.

Tricks: Don't do it. Just don't.

~Updated for Feb 2022~

FYI I have not judged in approximately a year and I have not interacted with debate in just as long. I would recommend taking this into account while prepping strats and speaking MUCH SLOWER than you usually would.

Conflicts: Walt Whitman, Lexington, Hunter, Hamilton RM

Send docs: 19.prasadm@gmail.com

I did LD and PF at Lexington HS (MA) 2015-2019.

Disclaimers:

Hello! This is ZOOM debate which means it is GLITCHY and GROSS pls SLOW down!

Used to be Yale 2020, now thoughts on e-debate in general: I'm tired, I am burned out, and I get very bored listening to badly explained Baudrillard Ks multiple rounds in a row. If you do pref me, know that double flighted tournaments make my eyes *burn* and I will be flowing on paper for most rounds if it's a double flighted tournament. I used to care a lot about the things listed below. To some extent I still do, but I haven't taught/intensely thought about debate since summer 2019 so at the moment I'm not very invested in specific types of arguments or up to speed with whatever is trendy this season. Judging over Zoom is exhausting and it's honestly pretty hard for me to flow that well with little voices screaming out of my laptop. Please, please, please, for the love of all things good, SLOW DOWN. At least for tags. I'm begging.

PLEASE TRIGGER WARN APPROPRIATELY!!! If you don't know how please ask!

Postrounding is a no <3. Questions about strats are fine, but you won't change my ballot.

LD:

Short version.

Ks we love. LARP/policy is solid. Traditional is also good. Phil is kinda meh, you'd need to explain it very well. Please leave your tricks, skep, and frivolous theory at home, I don't trust myself to evaluate them. Probably okay at evaluating T/theory if there is a persuasive abuse story. If you read T/theory the shell needs to have an impact. Disclosure and email chains are good. When you extend or make new arguments don't forget to implicate them! Tell me what comes first and why.

Long version.

I used to vibe p hard with Mina's paradigm and I share a lot of her views on debate. I was also heavily influenced by Paloma O'Connor, CQ, and David Asafu-Adjaye. As a result, I'm not a fan of the whole "debate is a game" mindset and doing whatever it takes to win a round. Debate is about education, not about your record. Also -- I'm sorry, fairness is not a voter.

Kritiks/Non-T K affs/Performance

I mostly ran these as a debater so these are my favorite arguments. I really like hearing performance affs but you also need to be able to point to something the aff actually does.

That being said, don't read random Ks in front of me just because of my paradigm. I need to see a clear link and know what the alt does. Links of omission are ~questionable~ and I'm sympathetic to args against them. I'm also extremely picky when it comes to people reading and other kritiks relating to indigenous scholarship. I think a lot of authors are bastardized and commodified in debate and I see this the most with indigenous scholarship. Not uber familiar with all K lit, especially newer pessimism arguments.

New microaggression independent voter args that seem to be trendy and function on some sort of level between theory and K, but probably above policy?

Impact these out if you're reading them. I'm not going to vote off of a blippy one line claiming something is an "independent voter" or a "voting issue" and no implication of the argument. Also, don't just drop all the other flows because you think something is an independent voter -- I don't think this is very strategic; explain how it interacts with the other flows and which layer of the round it should be evaluated on. I don't really enjoy voting off these arguments...tbh they make me kinda uncomfy, but if they're warranted and impacted I will.

Plans/CPs/DAs/LARPy policy stuff

These are cool, low key would like to judge more of them. Just be wary of super long link chains. I default to comparative worlds in most debates (esp when framing becomes murky) so this is probably the type of debate best equipped for that.

T/Theory

I did not like these arguments as a debater and I generally do not enjoy judging them. I'm also not very good at judging them so PLEASE make the abuse story very clear and SLOW DOWN A LOT.

Post Big Lex 2020 edit: I'm honestly starting to hate these arguments less. I'm not completely opposed to T and would probably be down to judge more non-T K affs vs T rather than bad/awkward K v Ks.

Yale 2020: Idk if this is a new thing but y'all aren't impacting your shells. Like great you just spent a minute reading T, but didn't tell me what to do about it. DTD or DTA, but if not idk what I'm supposed to do with the shell lol.

Blake 2020: If you read disclosure against a trad/small school debater who is not familiar with the wiki I will probably not vote on the shell,,, like bruh why?

T v K

I went for K over T a lot as a debater but I'm gonna try to be tab about this and say both sides are gonna need hella warrants and hella weighing when making these arguments.

Tricks/a prioris/friv theory

just no <3.

Speaker Points

I start at a 28.5 and then move up or down depending on what y'all do. Go slow at first and let me get used to you before you go full speed. I'll say clear 2-3 times but if nothing changes don't expect my flow to be that great and I'm not gonna check the speech doc to play catch up. Be strategic and don't be rude and you'll probably be happy with your speaks. Read: adapt to your opponent if they have considerably less experience than you. I am not afraid of giving a mean debater with a good strat a 26.

PF:

I didn't do a ton of PF because I don't think it's very nuanced/not well-structured. Biases aside, just make good extensions, do a good amount of weighing and READ ACTUAL CARDS.

I am generally a traditional judge. Speed is not such a big issue for me, but if you start spreading or speak erratically, I won’t flow. Just make you can articulate your words clearly and your argument itself is clear as well. However, I will most likely not flow if you start spreading.

Please respect your opponents. Just make sure you do clear signposting and show why you are winning the round over your opponent. The addition of new arguments where they should not be present is grounds for both speaker point reduction and won't be flowed towards any progressive argumentation of contentions that mention your new argument. I will vote off of the flow. Lastly, slow down at taglines/plans, and I focus on the quality of the argument rather than the number of your arguments. Overall, this debate is about having fun and gaining knowledge, so make sure that every round is focused on this.

For BQCFL:

I am only aware of the LD topic, I have not judged any rounds for it

For PF, I previously judged for Yale, so I know a few of the arguments for this topic

If you wish to have one, please set up the email chain before round so you can hit send at start time.

ellelaurenreed@gmail.com

Conflicts: Sehome HS, Bellingham HS, Squalicum HS (WA)

* are new/significant

*UPS 2023- I will vote on anything yall are likely to read and am somewhat in the literature for coaching. I've noticed a lot of good LARRP debaters on our circuit, but haven't judged a very high level LARRP v LARRP round in a while, so if you plan on doing any kinda crazy stuff like plan tricks or plan repair maybe explain it in a tiny bit more depth.

*online debate note* from my limited experience judging online, I/my wifi seem to generally be able to follow a pretty good speed, though if you are very fast your mic will probably clip words. Know your mic quality, it changes how fast you can go and be clear. I will 'clear' 2-3 times, watch chat messages. I flow speeches not docs. Also, somehow, some of ya'll steal prep more than in-person with less stuff to do, don't do that.

Overview-
-Do good and win arguments. The more rounds i judge, the less i feel like the type of argument/style of debate you do matters as much in my evaluation of a round as i expected it would when i first started judging.
-Read what you want, if it has a warrant and some kind of framing mechanism to impact into.
-Also, don't intentionally be a bigot if you don't want to lose w/bad speaks. *This includes the cards you read and strategies you go for*
-Feel free to go fast, but signpost, differentiate tags, be clear, and SLOW DOWN AT INTERPS and PLANS! I flow speeches, not docs, and it is just good debate/spreading to differentiate tags and cards this way. also somewhat applies to important analytics
-*dont be sus: don't clip. dont message/talk to your friend or coach about the debate round in progress. dont have teammate in the room whispering tips to you. It really isn't complicated. I've disqualified teams over all of these. Most of the time, the team doing this stuff would win straight up if they would just think and debate normally. I may give you a warning, especially in JV, but I don't have to.

I try to base speaks on how well you debate, with some focus on technical performance but more on strategic choice, with 28.5 being average. Not too stingy, but i think point inflation is bad and rarely give 29.5 and above. I appreciate really good debates and try to reward good/ outstanding performances, technically or in 'the vibe'. Creativity gets rewarded pretty heavily

if you think my paradigm is odd and want to ask questions about it, feel free to.

specifics-

I debated LD in HS and got a few bids. I also did policy debate for NYU in college. I am probably more familiar with LD still, but I've judged and debated a lot of good CX rounds. I mostly read critical or performative arguments (especially in policy), and thats the style of debate I understand the best generally, but in HS i was very flex and fundamentally I will vote on whatever.

*note here for Washingtondebaters *- i mostly debated on the east coast and Texas, so i am way more familiar with tricks, phil, and pomo than the average judge on our circuit, despite my somewhat policy background. Feel free to read any of this stuff (well please) and i will appreciate it.

I also think disclosure is in general good and the best responses to disclosure theory are kritical rather than about small schools or fairness. about disclosure- i do not like deployment of disclosure theory outside of norms. If the aff has not been broken, or the debater has not competed at a tournament yet (or even worse, at all this year), I will likely reduce speaks for reading disclosure, even if i will vote on it. I really really don't like contact info theory as a way to establish a violation for a debater who is otherwise disclosing and following norms. I will absolutely reduce speaks for this in all instances. Other stuff (full text vs cites, must disclose to black/other group of debaters/ other reasonable deployments) is totally fine.

i wont vote on- the resolved a-priori (other a-priories are fine), arguments cut from the SCUM manifesto, *trans-exclusionary feminism/gender args*, oppression of any kind good, evaluate theory after the 2nr (some debate about what to evaluate when is fine, but this being shelled out is a really tough buy for me).

I strongly dislike how the DSRB 'must talk about personal experience/positionally' framework shell is deployed in some (both LD and CX) rounds. If you read this arg, at minimum, your performance should meet the interp. Reading it, for example, with a ton of tricks, nibs, skep, and fairness first without any discussion of your own identity is anti-black and insulting to the context these arguments originated in (and, often, very violent in round). I have not intervened against this argument, but I have and will reduced speaks. I am also very very open to voting on prefcon and other offensive arguments when this shell is deployed in an anti-black way.

Don't be violent, and pay attention to social position. I dock speaks for microggressions, sometimes subconsciously, so try to not. (for example; there is nothing less impressive to watch in a debate round where a dude condescends a woman on something she understands better than he does)

defaults- presume neg (i think me writing aff here previously was a typo), flips if neg reads an advocacy. other ones are probably not important: ****Im more likely to discard a flow/impact as irresolvable and look for other offense in other places, rather than default on a million paradigm issues to make a ballot story make sense****

I'm cool with more weird/innovative arguments and i tend to like them a lot, as well as impact turns like extinction good that some judges don't like. make sure your justifications are good (and no fascist stuff please)

PF

*this section was written several years ago. I don't know how it holds up to the current meta, assume my ideas are still similar, if maybe somewhat more mellowed out*

I do NOT evaluate rounds based on persuasion. I evaluate the flow. If i should evaluate the round different, that's possible, but you have to win a warrant for your role of the judge. Any progressive stuff yall want to do is cool, but don't do it really badly. None of yall can spread too quickly so go whatever speed. Also uuuh 'rules of pf' isnt an argument in 99% of cases

I really do not like paraphrased evidence. PF already has huge issues with evidence integrity, and paraphrased evidence can say whatever you want it to say. Analytic arguments are almost always better because they normally actually have a warrant and don't teach bad academic practices. I also call for cards after the round and will go through the effort to check cites- do not fabricate evidence in front of me *this also applies to any other debate event when allowed by tournament*

ALL basic debate things actually do still apply to yall. For example- no new in the 2 (your arguments other than weighing/comparison in the final focus u want me to vote off of must be in a previous speech, and ideally before the summery. To clarify further, you also do not have to extend all arguments from earlier speeches, rather you should collapse down to your best arguments), dropped arguments are conceded arguments (including the first speech for whoever is speaking second!), you need offense to win a round, ect.

Another issue i often have in pf rounds is that teams expect me to take something bad-sounding for granted as an impact. You should not to this- 1. you de facto have to warrant all of the pieces; a) that your impact exists, and (b) that its bad, and (c) that its worse than your opponents impacts. 2. Things you think are intuitively bad may not be the same as what i think is intuitively bad

Hi, I'm Matthew Repecki, I am a freshman at Rochester Institute of Technology.

What will give you higher speaks

1. Being a clear speaker

2. Signposting your arguments

3. Give clear voting issues

4. Weighing your extensions vs your opponent's extensions

5. Reading topical arguments and K's

What you will lose speaking points for

1. Being rude to your opponent

2. Sitting during your speeches and cx unless you are not physically able to stand, looking at your opponent during CX and not at me, News flash your opponent is not writing the ballot I am.

3. Arguing with me after the round, it is ok to ask questions though

4. Reading frivolous Theory or Tricks

5. Being late, I nor your opponent want to be kept waiting around, get to the round early and wait outside if you are flight 2.

Speed

I am perfectly fine with speed as long as you are clear

Tricks

Just don't read them in front of me..... at all

Theory

I am fine with Theory and I think RVI's are fine to vote on as a check against abusive theory.

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

I am a parent judge, and this is my third year judging JV Lincoln Douglas and JV Public Forum. I did not debate in HS or College and have enjoyed judging as an adult. I'm a Licensed Customs Broker with a Masters in International Business. The past 20+ years of my career in International Logistics (Imports and Exports) and Global Trade Compliance.

My paradigm is simple, follow the rules of debate and present your argument based on the resolve. Articulate your argument clearly, if you are speaking at a fast pace and are not enunciating your words I may miss what you are trying to say while I flow. Do your best to provide a convincing argument that proves your philosophy is better than your opponent's.

Most importantly...breathe. You got this!

I was a PF debater. I will flow everything but cross. Be clear, weigh, and interact with your opponents' arguments. Also, humor and unique arguments appreciated. NO new arguments/cards in FF.

For LD treat me as a lay judge, NO spreading.

Make me laugh = ^speaks

About me: I am a parent judge in LD, PF, and Parli. My professional background is in IT.

Basics:

• Tell me why and on what grounds you’re winning -- this matters a lot
• Tell me how I should evaluate the round. Give me the standards
• ALWAYS make comparative claims about the other teams evidence & arguments (in relation to yours). Direct clash is important
• Speed is good, but clarity is far better. Be efficient with your speeches. If you can’t speak quickly without slurring, don’t speak quickly
• LD and Policy Specific -- Favorite strats to least favorite. Respect this order, but avoid if possible.
• Politics/Case
• Impact turning the whole case
• Topic specific T
• Politics/Process CP
• PIC with internal net benefit
• Ks
• Be nice. I will not give good speaks to people who act inappropriately in rounds or to their partners/team. Being offensive is not funny. I refuse to accept abuse in round.

General

Performance/Non-traditional: I default to traditional.

Speaks: 28 is average. I doubt you'll get a 30. Try not to talk into your paper/flows/laptop because I won't say "louder" unless it's really extreme and I might be missing arguments. Speak clearly and persuasively.

For both LD and PF, I am a very traditional judge. Extreme speed, overuse of jargon, and trickery are not appreciated and could cost you the round. Win the round on the strength of your argument, the veracity of your evidence, and the clarity of your presentation. I will disclose ONLY if required by the tournament host. I will offer no oral critiques. Both of those are the purpose of the ballot.

10+ Year Coach and 500+ Round Judge

Traditional LD Judge

HS LD Debater

---

I enjoy a substantive framework with well-supported contentions that clearly link.

I will consider off-case positions but am reluctant to vote off of them.

Don't spread. If I don't flow it, I won't evaluate it. Be clear throughout the round.

Don't make new arguments/applications in final speeches. I will only consider original lines of arguments/turns.

Be passionate and believe in your arguments. I will reward you with speaker points.

Be respectful. Don't insult your opponent at any point.

---

Frameworks: Choose ones that respect human worth. I'm not tabula rasa. Human extinction is not good.

Arguments: I like specific examples, real-world comparisons, and solvency. Statistics can be spurious so make sure you know the studies for your arguments to survive (what they measured, time-frame, methodology).

Critiques: Not likely to vote off them, but read clearly we'll see.

Counterplans: Be specific, have solvency examples.

DAs: Link them to some framework or else.

Compete in APDA for Princeton.

Debated British Parliamentary for 5 years in the UK at high school.

---

Don't spread. If I can't flow something I won't credit it.

Don't find theory very persuasive.

Even if claims are commonplace and well-known, and I understand what you are trying to say, if you say the headline of the claim instead of explaining it fully I won't credit it very much.

As a parent, I judged VLD, NLD, and PF tournaments, such as State Final, Princeton, Harvard, Yale, Big Lex, etc. in the last 4 years. I am well versed on the elements in traditional LD debate with background knowledge in philosophy, politics, economics, legal, religion and so forth within traditional LD debate format. I focus on the logical arguments and clear delivery of messages in your framework and contentions. I am not very familiar with progressive debate, and I will give low speaker points for spreading.

I have judged at the Princeton Classic twice before, both novice and varsity LD.

I competed in traditional LD throughout high school, competing in the NCFL Grand National Tournament in 2016. I want to emphasize that I did traditional LD, not circuit. Thus, I'll be focusing on the logical progression of your argument, the value clash, and how eloquently you can present your argument.

I want you to speak at a conversational rate (with some flexibility of course), use minimal jargon aside from the essentials, and generally keep the debate intelligible enough that an outsider could walk in and get the general gist. Let me make something perfectly clear: if you spread, I will dock points. Do it at your own peril.