I am a lay judge, so speak clearly and at a speed that I can understand. Speaking quickly is fine so long as it's comprehensible. I like it when debaters use evidence to back up their arguments and logical analysis. Speak to me while you are talking, and be respectful during cross.

For Speech, I need to feel the energy in your presentation. Eye/camera contact is important. Annunciate and make sure your moves are sharp and distinguished. Evaluation criteria will be :

• Clarity & purpose
• Structure
• Engagement
• Voice and character match where applicable
• Depending on the type of speech, relevant examples, facts, etc.

If online, make sure you are in a well-lit room and that camera is treated like the judge/audience. I expect all competitors to have their mikes switched off while others are speaking.

1. I can handle speed, I would discourage you from spreading if it sacrifices your clarity.

2. I will always weigh a thoughtful analytical response more heavily over a card dump.

3. Always be respectful of your opponent. Use your knowledge, intellect and reasoning skills. Not intimidation or mockery.

I am a parent judge who has experience judging the Public Forum debate. I prefer clear argumentation that directly relates to the topic and for students to provide voter issues for me in the final rebuttal speeches. I don't like it when debaters dodge questions in cross-ex.

Speech (Original Oratory):

1. Please speak slowly (not too slow obviously), so I can understand you. After all, you are talking for 10 whole minutes on something that I didn't know you were talking about.

2. I should be able to see that you are passionate about your topic. You get to craft your own, 10 minute speech on whatever speaks to you. Take advantage of that, and make it reflect in your performance!

3. If you forget some words, just use some of those impromptu skills to come up with something that flows (and is on topic, obviously). Nothing's worse than a long pause. . .

4. Normal speech aspects apply: vary your voice (please do not sound like a robot), use hand gestures, inflection, etc.

Debate (Public Form):

I have been judging debate for a couple years now, so below is what I've constructed based on my judging experience:

1. I never accept "What is your evidence" or "My opponents have not provided any evidence" as an only rebuttal to your opponents' case. Please continue to refute it even if they don't provide evidence. Explain how even if they do provide valid evidence, you win on the argument.

2. I am not an opinionated judge. I look for thoroughness in explanation and supporting your side. Explain impacts and tie them to framework! If at times an argument is clashing, such as both sides have opposite evidence, the impacts are where you should focus, if you want to win that argument.

3. Please explain your points too and provide links. Simply reading evidence and saying "I have evidence that negates my opponents' claim" does not make me buy the argument. Aka, provide analysis.

4. Do not speak too fast just to get in more information. Remember, I am the one who is judging. If I can't understand what you're saying, this puts you at a lower chance of winning the round. Also, enunciate and stress important points if you want me to write them down.

5. I do not flow cross-fire unless you want me to. Please do not speak over your opponents during cross-fire. Respect. It is pretty common to get heated in this type of debate, given the restricted time and "unlimited" prep. Ultimately, if your rude, it will be reflected in your speaks for sure.

6. It is OKAY to drop arguments, but with REASON. If you do drop something in the round, you must explain, or else, it will harm you.

I like more evidence than not but I do not accept questioning the credibility of evidence as a refutation. Refute the arguments and impacts.

Paradigm for Speech Events:

I value the following aspects during judging:

- In terms of content of the speech, a clear line of sight from [ the central theme to supporting arguments to reasoning and evidence] would help me follow the speech.

- Creativity and uniqueness of arguments

- In terms of style : Reasonable pace with thoughtfully inserted pauses.

I do take notes, as detailed as possible.

Paradigm for Debate Events:

This will be my 4th year judging PF. Parent judge, so nothing crazy/too tech. I do take copious notes, and I'm probably tech>truth to some extent. Anything outright false/offensive will not be considered.

Procedural fairness is quite important to me, so don't steal prep, go over time, miscut evidence, or bring up new things in later speeches.

A few things:

- Please extend warrants in back half speeches (if your link chain is conceded and fully extended in the back half it's GGs)

- Don't be rude in CX, but don't be boring either (stay professional)

- Warrant your evidence, contextualize everything to your arg

- Don't run trivial args, run something that actually matters or just introduce your weighing early on (case/rebuttal)

As always, ask me any questions you have before round. (my kid wrote this so clarify if needed)

Most important items if you have limited reading time:

PREF CHEAT SHEET (what I am a good judge for)--strategy-focused case debate, legitimated theory/topicality, resolutional/tightly linked Ks > project Ks > rhetoric-focused case debate > friv theory > other Ks not mentioned >>> the policy K shell you found on the wiki and didn't adapt to your event > phil > tricks

IN-PERSON POST-COVID: I live with people who are vulnerable to Covid-19. I do wish people would be respectful of that, but ya know. You do you.

ONLINE DEBATE: My internet quality has trouble with spreading, so if I'm adjudicating you at an online tournament and you plan to spread, please make sure we work out a signal so I can let you know if you're cutting out. NSDA Campus stability is usually slightly better than Zoom stability. You probably won't see me on Zoom because that consistently causes my audio to cut out.

Be good to each other (but you don't need to shake my hand or use speech time to thank me--I'm here because I want to be).

I will never, ever answer any variations on the question, "Do you have any preferences we should know about?" right before round, because I want the tournament to run on time, so be specific with what you want to know if something is missing here.

PREP THEFT: I hate it so much. If it takes you >30 sec to find a piece of evidence, I'm starting your prep timer. Share speech docs before the round. Reading someone's evidence AND any time you take to ask questions about it (not including time they use to answer) counts as prep. If you take more than your allotted prep time, I will decrease your speaks by one point for every 10 seconds until I get to the tournament points floor, after which you will get the L. No LD or PF round should take over 60 minutes.

***

Background

I'm currently DOF for the MVLA school district (2015-present) and Parli Director at Nueva (new this year!). My role at this point is predominantly administrative, and most of my direct coaching interactions are with novice, elementary, and middle school students, so it takes a few months for new metas and terminologies to get to me in non-parli events. PF/LD should assume I have limited contact with the topic even if it's late in the cycle. I have eight years of personal competition experience in CHSSA parliamentary debate and impromptu speaking in high school and NPDA in college, albeit for relatively casual/non-circuit teams. My own high school experience was at a small school, so I tend to be sympathetic to arguments about resource-based exclusion. A current student asked me if I was a progressive or traditional debater in high school, which wasn't vocab on my radar at that time (or, honestly, a split that really existed in HS parli in those years). I did definitively come up in the time when "This House would not go gently into that good night" was a totally normal, one-in-every-four-rounds kind of resolution. Do with that what you will.

Approach to judging

-The framework and how it is leveraged to include/exclude impacts is absolutely the most important part of the round.

-It's impossible to be a true "blank slate" judge. I will never add arguments to the flow for you or throw out arguments that I don’t like, but I do have a low tolerance for buying into blatant falsehoods, and I fully acknowledge that everyone has different, somewhat arbitrary thresholds for "buying" certain arguments. I tend to be skeptical of generic K solvency/insufficiently unique Ks.

-My personal experience with circuit LD, circuit policy, Congress, and interp speech events is minimal.

-I am emphatically NOT a games/tricks/whatever-we're-calling-it-these-days judge. Debate is an educational activity that takes place in a communal context, not a game that can be separated from sociocultural influences. Students who have public speaking abilities have unique responsibilities that constrain how they should and should not argue. I will not hesitate to penalize speaker points for rhetoric that reifies oppressive ideologies.

Speaker point ranges

Sorry, I am the exact opposite of a points fairy. I will do my best to follow point floors and ceilings issued by each tournament. 30s are reserved for a speech that is literally the best one I have seen to date. Anything above a 29 is extremely rare. I will strongly advocate to tab to allow me to go below the tournament point floor in cases of overt cruelty, physical aggression, or extremely disrespectful address toward anyone in the round.

Argument preferences

Evaluation order/methods: These are defaults. If I am presented with a different framework for assessment by either team, I will use that framework instead. In cases of a “tie” or total wash, I vote neg unless there is a textual neg advocacy flowed through, in which case I vote aff. I vote on prefiat before postfiat, with the order being K theory/framework questions, pre-fiat K implications, other theory (T, etc), post-fiat. I default to net benefits both prefiat and postfiat. I generally assume the judge is allowed to evaluate anything that happens in the round as part of the decision, which sometimes includes rhetorical artifacts about out-of-round behavior. Evaluation skews are probably a wash in a round where more than one is presented, and I assume I can evaluate the round better than a coinflip in the majority of cases.

Impacts: Have them. Terminalize them. Weigh them. I assume that death and dehumanization are the only truly terminal impacts unless you tell me otherwise. "Economy goes up" is meaningless to me without elaboration as to how it impacts actual people.

Counterplans: Pretty down for whatever here. If you want to have a solid plan/CP debate in LD or PF, far be it from me to stop you. Plan/CP debate is just a method of framing, and if we all agree to do it that way and understand the implications, it's fine.

Theory/Topicality: You need to format your theory shells in a manner that gives me a way to vote on them (ie, they possess some kind of pre- or post-fiat impact). I will listen to any kind of theory argument, but I genuinely don't enjoy theory as a strategic tool. I err neg on theory (or rather, I err toward voting to maintain my sense of "real-world" fairness/education). I will vote on RVIs in cases of genuine critical turns on theory where the PMR collapses to the turn or cases of clearly demonstrated time skew (not the possibility of skew).

Kritiks/"Progressive" Argumentation: I have a lot of feelings, so here's the rapid-fire/bullet-point version: I don't buy into the idea that Ks are inherently elitist, but I think they can be read/performed in elitist ways. I strongly believe in the K as a tool of resistance and much less so as a purely strategic choice when not tightly linked to the resolution or a specific in-round act by the opposing team. I am open to most Ks as long as they are clearly linked and/or disclosed within the first 2-3 minutes of prep. Affirmatives have a higher burden for linking to the resolution, or clearly disclosing if not. If you're not in policy, you probably shouldn't just be reading policy files. Write Ks that fit the norms of your event. If you want to read them in front of me, you shouldn’t just drop names of cards, as I am not conversant at a high level with most of the lit. Please don’t use your K to troll. Please do signpost your K. On framework, I err toward evaluating prefiat arguments first but am willing to weigh discursive implications of postfiat arguments against them. The framework debate is so underrated. If you are facing a K in front of me, you need to put in a good-faith effort to engage with it. Truly I will give you a ton of credit for a cautious and thorough line-by-line even if you don't know all that much about K structural elements. Ks that weaponize identities of students in the round and ask me to use the ballot to endorse some personal narrative or element of your identity, in my in-round and judging experience, have been 15% liberatory and 85% deeply upsetting for everyone in the round. Please don't feel compelled to out yourself to get my vote. Finally, I am pretty sure it's only possible for me to performatively embrace/reject something once, so if your alt is straight "vote to reject/embrace X," you're going to need some arguments about what repeatedly embracing/rejecting does for me. I have seen VERY few alts that don't boil down to "vote to reject/embrace X."

"New" Arguments: Anything that could count as a block/position/contention, in addition to evidence (examples, analytics, analogies, cites) not previously articulated will be considered "new" if they come out in the last speech for either side UNLESS they are made in response to a clear line of clash that has continued throughout the round. I'll consider shadow extensions from the constructives that were not extended or contended in intervening speeches new as well. The only exception to this rule is for the 2N in LD, which I give substantial leeway to make points that would otherwise be considered "new." I will generally protect against new arguments to the best of my ability, but call the POI if the round is fast/complex. Voters, crystallization, impact calculus and framing are fine.

Presentation preferences

Formatting: I will follow any method of formatting as long as it is signposted, but I am most conversant with advantage/disadvantage uniqueness/link/impact format. Paragraph theory is both confusing to your opponent AND to me. Please include some kind of framing or weighing mechanism in the first speech and impact calculus, comparative weighing, or some kind of crystallization/voters in the final speeches, as that is the cleanest way for me to make a decision on the flow.

Extensions: I do like for you to strategically extend points you want to go for that the opponent has dropped. Especially in partner events, this is a good way to telegraph that you and your partner are strategically and narratively aligned. Restating your original point is not a response to a rebuttal and won't be treated as an answer unless you explain how the extension specifically interacts with the opponent's response. The point will be considered dropped if you don't engage with the substance of the counterargument.

Tag-teaming: It's fine but I won’t flow anything your partner says during your speech--you will need to fully repeat it. If it happens repeatedly, especially in a way that interrupts the flow of the speech, it may impact the speaker points of the current speaker.

Questions/Cross-ex: I will stop flowing, but CX is binding. I stop time for Points of Order (and NPDL - Points of Clarification) in parli, and you must take them unless tournament rules explicitly forbid them. Don't let them take more than 30 seconds total. I really don't enjoy when Parli debaters default to yelling "POI" without trying to get the speaker's attention in a less disruptive way first and will probably dock speaker points about it.

Speed: I tolerate spreading but don't love it. If your opponent has a high level of difficulty with your speed and makes the impacted argument that you are excluding them, I will be open to voting on that. If I cannot follow your speed, I will stop writing and put my pen down (or stop typing) and stare at you really awkwardly. I drop off precipitously in my flowing functionality above the 275 wpm zone (in person--online, you should go slower to account for internet cutouts).

Speech Docs/Card Calling: Conceptually they make me tired, but I generally want to be on chains because I think sharing docs increases the likelihood of debaters trying to leverage extremely specific case references. If you're in the type of round where evidence needs to be shared, I prefer you share all of it prior to the round beginning so we can waste as little time as possible between speeches. If I didn't hear something in the round/it confused me enough that I need to read the card, you probably didn't do a good enough job talking about it or selling it to me to deserve the win, but I'll call for cards if everyone collapses to main points that hinge on me reading them. If someone makes a claim of card misuse/misrepresentation, I'll ask for the card/speech doc as warranted by the situation and then escalate to the tournament officials if needed.

Miscellaneous: If your opponent asks for a written text of your plan/CP/K thesis/theory interp, you are expected to provide it as expeditiously as possible (e.g. in partner formats, your partner should write it down and pass it while you continue talking).

I am a lay judge. Please speak at a normal pace.

I am a lay parent judge - this is my first year judging debates. I do not flow. Please do not spread, speak clearly and slowly and do not use too much jargon - you will lose me. I prefer civil and respectful debates - be courteous and respectful to your opponents and partners. I like to see clearly articulated arguments with well documented evidence. Have your cards ready in case I ask for them.

I do not disclose unless required by tournament rules.

Good luck and have fun!

I judge based on the arguments that are presented in the round throughout the speeches and how each argument is weighed by each team. I prefer that you speak clearly so I can understand.

I have four years of judging experience at local and online tournaments. I will consider the following extensively:

Significance of value & value criteria and how these goals were met with your framework and argumentation.

How well a debater can prove the validity or invalidity of the resolution.

Communicate with clarity. If I do not understand an argument, I cannot consider it in my decision. I am fine with fast conversational pacing, but spreading is not okay.

Novel arguments introduced in the rebuttal will be disregarded.

Evaluation is based on debaters arguments and NOT personal bias.

I am a Parent Judge and been doing this since 2017, I mostly judge debates. I am convinced with the team/person who were able to convince me regarding the resolution. I would like the debater's not speak too fast, but clearly. I am of the opinion of being respectful of others opinion and wait for their turn to speak. I am mostly swayed who is able articulate with cool head. I am interested most of the topics and does some research.

I prefer debaters presenting, reinforcing their arguments and rebutting their opponents’ arguments with solid logic and reasoning as well as authorized evidences.

I value respectful and strong discourse in crossfire, but not rude or overpowering.

Thanks and good luck,

Lanyun Liu

Tech savvy truth telling/testing debaters who crystallize with clarity, purpose persuasion & pathos will generally win my ballot.

My email: wesleyloofbourrow@gmail.com

For CHSSA: Flow judge, please weigh impacts in rebuttals, please win line by line, please make arguments quickly and effectively, and make the largest quantity & quality of arguments that you can. Thanks.

Updated Paradigm for NDCA & TOC

My intent in doing this update is to simplify my paradigm to assist Public Forum debaters competing at the major competitions at the end of this season. COVID remote debating has had some silver linings, and this year I have uniquely had the opportunity to judge a prolific number of prestigious tournaments, so I am "in a groove" judging elite PF debates this season, having sat on at least half a dozen PF TOC bid rounds this year, and numerous Semis/Finals of tournaments like Glenbrooks, Apple Valley, Berkeley, among many others.

I am "progressive", "circuit style", "tabula rosa", "non-interventionist", completely comfortable with policy jargon and spreading, open to Kritiks/Theory/Topicality, and actively encourage Framework debates in PF. You can figure out what I mean by FW with a cursory reading of the basic wikipedia entry "policy debate: framework" -- I am encouraging, where applicable and appropriate, discussions of what types of arguments and debate positions support claims to a superior model of Public Forum debate, both in the particular round at hand and future debates. I think that PF is currently grappling as a community with a lot of Framework questions, and inherently believe that my ballot actually does have potential for some degree of Solvency in molding PF norms. Some examples of FW arguments I have heard this year include Disclosure Theory, positions that demand the first constructive speech of the team speaking second provide direct clash (rejecting the prevalent two ships passing in the night norm for the initial constructive speeches), and Evidence theory positions.

To be clear, this does not mean at all that teams who run FW in front of me automatically get my ballot. I vote all the time on basic stock issues, and in fact the vast majority of my PF decisions have been based on offense/defense within a role-playing policy-maker framework. Just like any debate position, I am completely open to anything (short of bullying, racism, blatant sexism, truly morally repugnant positions, but I like to believe that no debaters are coming into these elite rounds intending to argue stuff like this). I am open to a policy-making basic Net benefits standard, willing to accept Fiat of a policy action as necessary and justifiable, just as much as I am willing to question Fiat -- the onus is on the debaters to provide warrants justifying whatever position or its opposite they wish to defend.

I will provide further guidance and clarifications on my judging philosophy below, but I want to stress that what I have just stated should really be all you need to decide whether to pref/strike me -- if you are seeking to run Kritiks or Framework positions that you have typically found some resistance to from more traditional judges, then you want to pref me; if you want rounds that assume the only impacts that should be considered are the effects of a theoretical policy action, I am still a fine judge to have for that, but you will have to be prepared to justify those underlying assumptions, and if you don't want to have to do that, then you should probably strike me. If you have found yourself in high profile rounds a bit frustrated because your opponent ran positions that didn't "follow the rules of PF debate", I'm probably not the judge you want. If you have been frustrated because you lost high profile rounds because you "didn't follow the rules of PF debate", you probably want me as your judge.

So there is my most recent update, best of luck to all competitors as we move to the portion of the season with the highest stakes.

Here is what I previously provided as my paradigm:

Speed: Short answer = Go as fast as you want, you won't spread me out.

I view speed as merely a tool, a way to get more arguments out in less time which CAN lead to better debates (though obviously that does not bear out in every instance). My recommendations for speed: 1) Reading a Card -- light-speed + speech doc; 2) Constructives: uber-fast + slow sign posting please; 3) Rebuttals: I prefer the slow spread with powerfully efficient word economy myself, but you do you; 4) Voters: this is truly the point in a debate where I feel speed outlives its usefulness as a tool, and is actually much more likely to be a detriment (that being said, I have judged marvelous, blinding-fast 2ARs that were a thing of beauty)...err on the side of caution when you are instructing me on how to vote.

Policy -- AFFs advocating topical ethical policies with high probability to impact real people suffering right now are best in front of me. I expect K AFFs to offer solid ground and prove a highly compelling advocacy. I love Kritiks, I vote for them all the time, but the most common problem I see repeatedly is an unclear and/or ineffective Alt (If you don't know what it is and what it is supposed to be doing, then I can't know either). Give me clash: prove you can engage a policy framework as well as any other competing frameworks simultaneously, while also giving me compelling reasons to prefer your FW. Anytime you are able to demonstrate valuable portable skills or a superior model of debate you should tell me why that is a reason to vote for you. Every assumption is open for review in front of me -- I don't walk into a debate round believing anything in particular about what it means for me to cast my ballot for someone. On the one hand, that gives teams extraordinary liberty to run any position they wish; on the other, the onus is on the competitors to justify with warranted reasoning why I need to apply their interpretations. Accordingly, if you are not making ROB and ROJ arguments, you are missing ways to get wins from me.

I must admit that I do have a slight bias on Topicality -- I have noticed that I tend to do a tie goes to the runner thing, and if it ends up close on the T debate, then I will probably call it reasonably topical and proceed to hear the Aff out. it isn't fair, it isn't right, and I'm working on it, but it is what it is. I mention this because I have found it persuasive when debaters quote this exact part of my paradigm back to me during 2NRs and tell me that I need to ignore my reasonability biases and vote Neg on T because the Neg straight up won the round on T. This is a functional mechanism for checking a known bias of mine.

Oh yea -- remember that YOU PLAY TO WIN THE GAME.

Public Forum -- At this point, after judging a dozen PF TOC bid rounds in 2021-2022, I think it will be most helpful for me to just outright encourage everybody to run Framework when I am your judge (3 judge panels is your call, don't blame me!). I think this event as a whole desperately needs good quality FW arguments that will mold desirable norms, I might very well have an inherent bias towards the belief that any solvency reasonably expected to come from a ballot of mine will most likely implicate FW, and thus I am resolved to actively encourage PF teams to run FW in front of me. If you are not comfortable running FW, then don't -- I always want debaters to argue what matters to them. But if you think you can win a round on FW, or if you have had an itch to try it out, you should. Even if you label a position as Framework when it really isn't, I will still consider the substantive merits behind your arguments, its not like you get penalized for doing FW wrong, and you can absolutely mislabel a position but still make a fantastic argument deserving of my vote.

Other than "run FW", I need to stress one other particular -- I do not walk into a PF round placing any limitations whatsoever on what a Public Forum debate is supposed to be. People will say that I am not "traditional or lay", and am in fact "progressive", but I only consider myself a blank slate (tabula rasa). Every logical proposition and its diametric opposite is on the table in front of me, just prove your points to be true. It is never persuasive for a team to say something like "but that is a Counterplan, and that isn't allowed in PF". I don't know how to evaluate a claim like that. You are free to argue that CPs in PF are not a good model for PF debates (and lo and behold, welcome to running a FW position), or that giving students a choice between multiple styles of debate events is critical for education and so I should protect the "rules" and the "spirit" of PF as an alternative to LD and Policy -- but notice how those examples rely on WARRANTS, not mere assertions that something is "against the rules." Bottom line, if the "rules" are so great, then they probably had warrants that justified their existence, which is how they became the rules in the first place, so go make those underlying arguments and you will be fine. If the topic is supposed to be drug policy, and instead a team beats a drum for 4 minutes, ya'll should be able to articulate the underlying reasons why this is nonsense without resorting to grievances based on the alleged rules of PF.

College Parli -- Because there is a new topic every round, the threshold for depth of research is considerably lower, and debaters should be able to advocate extemporaneously; this shifts my view of the burdens associated with typical Topicality positions. Arguments that heavily weigh on the core ground intended by the topic will therefore tend to strike me as more persuasive. Additionally, Parli has a unique procedural element -- the ability to ask a question during opponent's speech time. A poignant question in the middle of an opponent's speech can single handedly manufacture clash, and create a full conversational turn that increases the educational quality of the debate; conversely, an excellent speaker can respond to the substance of a POI by adapting their speech on the spot, which also has the effect of creating a new conversational turn.

lysis. While this event has evolved considerably, I am still a firm believer that Value/Criterion is the straightest path to victory, as a strong V/C FW will either contextualize impacts to a policy/plan advocacy, or explain and justify an ethical position or moral statement functioning as that necessary advocacy. Also, V/C allows a debater to jump in and out of different worlds, advocating for their position while also demonstrating the portable skill of entering into an alternate FW and clashing with their opponent on their merits. An appropriate V/C will offer fair, reasonable, predictable, equitable, and functional Ground to both sides. I will entertain any and all theory, kritiks, T, FW. procedure, resolution-rejection/alteration, etc. -- but fair warning, positions that do not directly relate to the resolutional topic area will require a Highly Compelling warrant(s) for why. At all times, please INSTRUCT me on how I am supposed to think about the round.

So...that is my paradigm proper, intentionally left very short. I've tried the more is more approach, and I have become fond of the less is more. Below are random things I have written, usually for tournament-specific commentary.

Worlds @ Coppell:

I have taken care to educate myself on the particulars of this event, reviewing relevant official literature as well as reaching out to debate colleagues who have had more experience. My obligation as a fair, reasonable, unbiased and qualified critic requires me to adapt my normal paradigm, which I promise to do to the best of my abilities. However, this does not excuse competitive debaters from their obligation to adapt to their assigned judge. I adapt, you adapt, Fair.

To learn how I think in general about how I should go about judging debates, please review my standard Judge Paradigm posted below. Written short and sweet intentionally, for your purposes as Worlds debaters who wish to gain my ballot, look for ways to cater your strengths as debaters to the things I mention that I find generally persuasive. You will note that my standard paradigm is much shorter than this unique, particularized paradigm I drafted specifically for Worlds @ Coppell.

Wesley's Worlds Paradigm:

I am looking for which competitors perform the "better debating." As line by line and dropping of arguments are discounted in this event, those competitors who do the "better debating" will be "on balance more persuasive" than their opponents.

Style: I would liken Style to "speaker points" in other debate events. Delivery, passion, rhetoric, emotional appeal. Invariably, the power of excellent public speaking will always be anchored to the substantive arguments and authenticity of advocacy for the position the debater must affirm or negate. While I will make every effort to separate and appropriately quantify Style and Content, be warned that in my view there is an inevitable and unbreakable bond between the two, and will likely result in some spillover in my final tallies.

Content: If I have a bias, it would be in favor of overly weighting Content. I except that competitors will argue for a clear advocacy, a reason that I should feel compelled to vote for you, whether that is a plan, a value proposition, or other meaningful concept.

PAY ATTENTION HERE: Because of the rules of this event that tell me to consider the debate as a whole, to ignore extreme examples, to allow for a "reasonable majority" standard to affirm and a "significant minority" standard to negate, and particularly bearing in mind the rules regarding "reasonability" when it comes to definitions, I will expect the following:

A) Affirmatives will provide an advocacy that is clearly and obviously within the intended core ground proffered by the topic (the heart of hearts, if you will);

B) Negatives will provide an advocacy of their own that clashes directly with the AFF (while this is not completely necessary, it is difficult for me to envision myself reaching a "better debating" and "persuasion" standard from a straight refutation NEG, so consider this fair warning); what the Policy folk call a PIC (Plan-Inclusive Counterplan) will NOT be acceptable, so do not attempt on the NEG to offer a better affirmative plan that just affirms the resolution -- I expect an advocacy that fundamentally NEGATES

C) Any attempt by either side to define their opponent's position out of the round must be EXTRAORDINARILY compelling, and do so without reliance on any debate theory or framework; possibilities would include extremely superior benefits to defining a word in a certain way, or that the opponent has so missed the mark on the topic that they should be rejected. It would be best to assume that I will ultimately evaluate any merits that have a chance of reasonably fitting within the topic area. Even if a team elects to make such an argument, I still expect them to CLASH with the substance of the opponent's case, regardless of whether or not your view is that the substance is off-topic. Engage it anyways out of respect.

D) Claim-Warrant-Impact-Weighing formula still applies, as that is necessary to prove an "implication on effects in the real world". Warrants can rely on "common knowledge", "general logic", or "internal logic", as this event does not emphasize scholarly evidence, but I expect Warrants nonetheless, as you must tell me why I am supposed to believe the claim.

Strategy: While there may be a blending of Content & Style on the margins in front of me as a judge, Strategy is the element that I believe will be easy for me to keep separate and quantify unto itself. Please help me and by proxy yourselves -- MENTION in your speeches what strategies you have used, and why they were good. Debaters who explicitly state the methods they have used, and why those methods have aided them to be "on balance more persuasive" and do the "better debating" will likely impress me.

POIs: The use of Questions during opponent's speech time is a tool that involves all three elements, Content/Style/Strategy. It will be unlikely for me to vote for a team that fails to ask a question, or fails to ask any good questions. In a perfect world, I would like speakers to yield to as many questions as they are able, especially if their opponent's are asking piercing questions that advance the debate forward. You WANT to be answering tough questions, because it makes you look better for doing so. I expect the asking and answering of questions to be reciprocal -- if you ask a lot of questions, then be ready and willing to take a lot of questions in return. Please review my section on Parli debate below for final thoughts on the use of POI.

If you want to win my vote, take everything I have written above to heart, because that will be the vast majority of the standards for judging I will implement during this tournament. As always, feel free to ask me any further questions directly before the round begins. Best of luck!

Background: I debated for 4 years at Notre Dame High School. Debated for Cal for 1 year.

Judging: I try to be tab.

- Also if your rhetoric is sexist, homophobic, harmful in other manners - your speaks won’t be good. Just be respectful.

- I’ll try to give 27-29 for speaker points so impress me if you want more than that.

Debate:

Case Debate: that’s good

Cps: great. Don’t do time-delay or advantage cps - those are usually not good. Perms are fine.

Impacts: terminalize them - also, good link stories help me buy your impacts. If going for Nuclear War/Extinctions - please have a good link story. Also please do IMPACT WEIGHING IN YOUR VOTERS.

Ks: Please don’t. I can't keep up with the level of spreading that is usually required to execute a K properly.

Theory: It is fine. Just make sure you have good voters and how it operates in the round. If you’re running theory to skew your opponents out - reconsider. Also if you are going for theory, you should collapse to it in your voters.

Presentation

• Signposting will be helpful for everyone in the round
• Tagteaming is okay but be reasonable.
• POIs: useful: take at least 1 per speech?
• Speed: moderate speed; your opponents have the right to yell SLOW or CLEAR.

Other: Texts of CPS/Plans should be available to your opponents in round

Questions: Message me on FB or ask before the round.

P.S: Don’t try to shake my hand =) ... guess this doesn't matter now

*Format for this paradigm was copied from Steven Herman*

Hi, I'm a parent judge and I prefer debaters who speak slowly and clearly. You can run either traditional arguments or progressive such as kritiks. The most important thing that I look for in the debate round is the framework and the impact debate. Most importantly, be respectful and have fun!

Please speak clearly and not ultra-fast.

Please outline your planned discussion before jumping in, when possible.

Thanks!

I prefer speak clearly with a clear logic frame, state your opinion with evidence and data.

I prefer very well structured argument and convincing argument.

I expect respectful behavior. I value well-structured cases and clear arguments.

Been judging speech and debate competitions for about 7 years. I'm a theatre teacher, so I tend to gravitate towards IEs. I'm pretty lay when it comes to debate. I've judged enough over the years so that I can follow along with fast speaking, but not with spreading. I really really love it when arguments are clear, contentions are loudly numbered, and definitions are offered to me if the topic has to do with international relations or foreign policies. Be nice to each other.

I am a parent judge and participating in PF events since last 2.5 years.

I value qualitative evidences, their relevance to the contention being made and how well candidates are countering their opponents’ arguments to support the overall case.

Some points for contestants to note:

- I will drop brand new argument or front-lining evidence brought fresh in 2nd Summary speech, only if Pro team brings it to my notice in their 1st Final Focus speech

- I will not weigh brand new argument or front-line evidence brought fresh in 1st Final Focus speech

- I will drop speaker points for bringing in brand new argument/front-line evidence in 2nd Final Focus speech and also will not consider such evidence / argument

- Please note it's okay to disagree with opponent's views but do every effort not to ridicule them

- One would like to keep check on language and emotions

Hello, I am a parent judge :-)

1. Please talk a bit slowly

2. if you are using acronyms - please explain what they stand for.

I am a parent judge, and am fairly well read on most world affairs.

I prefer clear communication, so please do not go too fast. I also would like decorum, so please be polite and do not speak over each other. I would also recommend that you respect your fellow debaters, and not whisper or talk when your opponents are speaking.

I must be able to understand and agree with your logic to vote for you. I expect you to back up your statements with evidence - any evidence that is not challenged may be viewed as "good" evidence - however, I may ask for evidence in certain cases. An exception to the above is well established, and well-known facts. I realize that this may appear to be a bit subjective, but if someone challenges an opponent on what could widely be recognized as well-known facts, that would not be helpful. Additionally, I also expect that you have a good understanding of the topic, and the arguments you are making - so good preparation will hold you in good stead.

Finally, establishing a greater impact, through a combination of your argument, debating skills and ability to effectively counter your opponents' argument will help you in securing my vote.

I've debated for 7 years and have judged on/off for 4 years.

I will be flowing.

Good luck !

I don't really judge anymore. If you are a debater and want to see my paradigm for some reason, email me firstname dot lastname at gmail.

I need warranting of arguments. I will not vote on an argument if it does not have a warrant.

Impact out everything as much as possible. I will not vote on an argument without an impact. It's one thing to show the pros and cons of the resolution - take it a step further and show me the real world implications of your claim. Impacts, impacts, impacts.

I am a big fan of weighing. If you weigh your arguments versus your opponents and show me why your arguments and impacts outweighs your opponents, you will have a good chance of winning the round. Show me that your impacts are bigger than your opponents.

Use crossfire to your advantage. I don't directly vote off of crossfire (I don't flow cross), but it does give me an indication of which teams know their arguments and the topic they are debating and which teams don't.

In the Summary and Final Focus speeches, collapse to the arguments you want me to take in to account when I make my decision on the round. Write my ballot for me in your final speeches - tell me why you win and why your opponent doesn't.

Debate is hard. I expect every debater to work hard before, during and after each tournament. In return, you should expect I work hard to evaluate any debate I judge and make the best decision possible. I have an obligation to work harder than debaters in every single round to provide you this experience.

Hi I'm a new judge so please speak clearly and be courteous during the debate! I value clear to the point arguments with lots of facts rather than opinions.

(updated 11/8/18)

I competed for Los Altos High School for four years, mostly in public forum and occasionally in parli. I got halfway to TOC in both events in senior year, so take my experience as you will. If you have questions not answered in this paradigm, just ask me in round.

## All events

Be nice to each other. Sass is fine, but try not to be mean. Also, don't be sexist/racist etc. (although that should go without saying).

Moderate speed is ok, as long as your opponents and I can understand you. I'll yell at you some way if you're going too fast.

I don’t consider any arguments that are new in the two (final focus in PF, PMR in parli).

I like clear impacts and analysis. Although I’m comfortable voting off risk of offense, I will be very annoyed if you say “you affirm if there’s a 1% chance the aff works because it’s try or die” without giving me any kind of explanation why this is something you have to try or die for, and why that risk of offense outweighs whatever the neg brings up. So basically, do weighing. I really like it if you terminalize impacts and give me easy ways to vote for you.

## PF

I don’t really mind if the second speaking rebuttal doesn’t respond to the first rebuttal. I think it’s more strategically sound to do so, but I’m fine with the second speaking team’s frontlines coming out in the summary speech.

### Evidence

I will call for evidence that has been disputed throughout the round, and also any cards that sound sketch. If your evidence blatantly contradicts itself (especially if something you did not read in round contradicts something you did read), or is blatantly taken out of context, I will be all the more likely to drop the relevant arguments.

In terms of in-round citations, I would very much like it if you gave the author’s name, some sort of credentials, and the date.

### Theory

Though I’ve never hit an actual theory shell in my career, I’ve seen it become more common in the Bay Area circuit in recent years. As a result, I am familiar with the structure of theory arguments, but don’t particularly like them in this event. Yes, legitimate abuse exists and yes, there is no real brightline for “frivolous theory,” but I think most of the time you should really be sticking to case responses or turns. That said, I default to reasonability (unless someone gives me a reason to prefer competing interps), and will still vote on theory if you articulate it well.

## Parli

### Neg block

Since new responses brought up in the LOR are effectively the same as arguments brought up in the MO in terms of giving the gov team a chance to respond, I usually will evaluate new responses made in the LOR to MG arguments, but no actual new arguments. You can probably convince me otherwise in round.

### Theory/Topicality

Signpost and articulate your standards well. I default reasonability, but will go with competing interps if someone gives me a good reason to.

### Ks/K affs

I never debated (or even watched) K rounds, so my knowledge of K literature is about as limited as you’d expect. I do know how they work though (at least in principle), and am willing to vote for them as long as I’m able to understand it and your opponents look like they’re able to interact with it.

Background

- Parli for 4 years (Evergreen Valley '17)

Case

- I will default to evaluating a debate on net benefits and through a comparative worlds paradigm

- Please tagline your arguments, and it would be even better if you signposted between each part of ULI

- Weigh your arguments. I don't have a clear preference between probability and magnitude, so just warrant out why I should prefer one over the other

Theory

- I will default to Competing Interps over Reasonability, but I'm open to hearing arguments why reasonability is better

- Frivolous theory will win you a round, but will cost you in speaks

- Please repeat your interp twice

- I prefer to vote on proven abuse, but I'm open to hearing arguments about potential abuse (ie: potential abuse of conditionality)

- I am open to hearing RVIs, especially if you feel theory was read as a time suck. However, please justify why theory should be an RVI and tagline your RVI as one

Kritiks

- You can read them on either side, just clearly explain your advocacy if you're reading a kritikal affirmative

- Pretty much only comfortable with capitalism kritiks so if you are going to read something else please explain your thesis clearly

- Please read specific links.

- Explain why voting for the alternative is specifically key in this instance

Speaks

- Speaks will reflect efficient use of time, clarity of argumentation, and strategic decision making. If you're explaining the same argument 4 times or not making good use of the block by simply repeating the 2NC, I will dock speaks

- If anyone in the room needs to tell you to clear (enunciate arguments) or slow (slow down your arguments) multiple times, I will dock your speaks

- Don't say racist/sexist/generally problematic things unless you want me to tank your speaks

- Please do not call any human being 'illegal' (part of above)

Miscellaneous

- No hand shakes are necessary, if you really feel the need to thank me a fistbump will suffice

- Off time roadmaps are encouraged for getting arguments in order, but please do not include content in them

- I think teams should take 1-2 POIs per constructive speech. If you say, "I'll get to you at the end if I have more time" and haven't taken a question yet, I am fine with allowing that question to be taken after the speech is up.

Fact Checks

- I don’t fact check evidence unless there’s a heavily contested piece of evidence or argument that a whole contention (or maybe the entire round) boils down to.

- I will also fact check upon request.

Updated 10/02/2020:

TLDR: Lay judge who takes notes.

I take notes and evaluate the debate to the best of my ability — I will be fair in the debate. Please extend arguments throughout the debate. If I hear that an argument is not extended through the 1AR or 2NR, I don’t vote off of it. Also, if your opponent drops / does not extend an argument, please point this out in your next speech. Tell me why I shouldn’t evaluate it (as simple as: it wasn’t extended so drop it because the ballot should not consider arguments that aren't extended).

Please add me to the email chain. My email is dheerajswa@gmail.com.

Truth matters because it persuades me more - do what you will with that.

I cannot stress this enough: please refrain from spreading. I don’t have enough practice in understanding super fast talking so I probably won’t understand what you’re saying. You can risk it, but I will dock off speaks for it. If you want, you can ask what an appropriate speed to talk is at before the round starts.

Types of arguments I am comfortable with:

• Stock/lay (advantages/contentions and disadvantages)

Type of arguments that I don't understand:

• Kritiks
• Theory
• Counterplans also risky

I am a parent judge . This is my fourth year judging PF debates.

Speak clearly and articulate your points well. Please don’t spread.

I pay attention to cross-X sessions and how your are countering the opponent’s cases/arguments with proper evidences.

Please be courteous and respectful to your opponents.

Good luck!

About Me: I am a new judge and new to debate in general. I know very little about the topics you are discussing so make sure to clearly state your arguments.

General Philosophy: Feel free to run any argument you want as long as you have evidence to support it. I will remain open-minded.

Rules: I am not very accustomed to the general rules of a debate round or the rules laid out by the tournament guidelines. If your opponent violates a rule, please bring it up respectfully and show the rule on the NSDA website.

Speaking: Please stand when you speak and speak with a loud clear voice. If I can’t understand what you are saying, I won’t accept it as an argument. Signposting would be preferred. Please do not spread. Be polite to your opponents or you will lose speaker points.

I'd like to see debaters speak clearly and keep their arguments to the point. The arguments that come up in the final focus should be the arguments that you would like to focus on the most. Enunciate your words and use evidence to back up your reasoning. Speak up so we can hear clearly as well.

A parent judge with a few years of experience judging various tournaments and events. I care about presentation and the real-world impacts of your arguments.

TL;DR: I think I'm slowly becoming a flay judge :(

Taken directly from @Gabe Rusk for Emory 2022 (there are only two modifications, listed at the very bottom):

Drug Debate

FYI Emory's rules on prep and evidence exchange: 4 minutes of prep (RR is still 3) and"When requested, teams have one minute to produce evidence. If requests for multiple pieces of evidence are made, the exchange should occur in a comparable time frame. At the end of the minute, if the team cannot produce the evidence, preparation time for that team will then be used to locate that evidence. The team may choose to have the evidence dropped from the round if they choose."

First, the detailed implementation of the resolution isn't obvious. Whilst we can't offer plans in PF we can speculate on what is the most likely form of implementation. Legalization can take many forms and can be based on existing proposals in congress, based on state models, or even models abroad. If your argument is contingent upon a facet of legalization that is not reasonably inherent to the process please provide evidence and warranting to why this would be a likely feature. I.E. lobbying watering down regulations, substance abuse programs being mandated as a portion of tax revenue, therapeutic legalization for certain drugs only. These are all features that require additional support in my opinion and are not inherent to a generic legalization process. Just provide the evidence or warranting to why they would be likely. Also on the reverse please don't quip that legalization wouldn't look like that. Why? You need competing evidence or warranting to why that feature wouldn't be included.

Second, for the classic debate about price, use, and abuse. Both sides are trying to access increasing or decreasing trends as a result of the resolution. Do not. I repeat do not just throw back and forth case studies of prices going up or down. Use going up or down. Abuse going up or down. Compare them! Is one case study better than another? Do you have a meta study? Do you have a study that is most recent or longitudinal? I am especially not sympathetic to the lazy argument that "your evidence is just from a state or country that decriminalized so it's irrelevant to this debate. Legalization and decriminalization is different." Of course it is but legalization is the erasure of all penalties including criminal and civil within the regulations the governments set up. Explain to me why the distinction matters in this evidence debate and do not just say they are different. What if the evidence debate is close? What warranting makes more sense? This also gets to net or gross weighing of impacts. Y'all.... it can be simultaneously true that abuse, use, and prices go up and down but at different times or have total net differences. Please be clear on when these trends happen, why that matters in the short and long term, and more importantly what the net effects are.

Third, uncarded or unwarranted claims. Due to the rhetoric around this topic in the real world I have found judging rounds to be plagued with more asserted claims than with other topics. You can't just say LSD is bad. You can't just say weed is good. Provide evidence and warranting for claims just like you would other topics. There are a bunch of built in biases we have on topics but I think you are assuming based on decades of bad media and policy exposure there are claims that need no support on this topic. Maybe but it's rare. "We turned their LSD good argument because it's bad!" Ok this debate can be fruitful. Compare the studies? Are there meaningful differences in who was studied? When? Is there decent evidence on both sides? Engage the warranting. For example, you could explain to me biochemically what is going on in a brain that does heroin and why that creates a neurological and biochemical dependency cycle etc. Give me something to compare.

Big Things

• What I want to see: I'm empathetic to major technical errors in my ballots. In a perfect world I vote for the team who does best on tech and secondarily on truth. I tend to resolve clash most easily when you give explicit reasons why either a) your evidence is comparatively better but more often when you tell me why b) your warranting is comparatively better. Obviously doing both compounds your chances at winning my ballot.
• Weighing Unlike Things: I need to know how to weigh two comparatively unlike things. If you are weighing some economic impact against a non-economic impact like democracy how do I defer to one over the other? Scope, magnitude, probability etc. I strongly prefer impact debates on the probability/reasonability of impacts over their magnitude and scope. Obviously try to frame impacts using all available tools but it's less likely I will defer to nuclear war, try or die, etc on the risk of magnitude. Probability over magnitude debates unless I'm given well warranted, carded, and convincing framework analysis to prefer the latter.
• Weighing Like Things: Please have warrants and engage comparatively between yourself and your opponent. Obviously methodological and evidentiary comparison is nice too as I mentioned earlier. I love crossfires or speech time where we discuss the warrants behind our cards and why that's another reason to prefer your arg over your opponent.

Little Things

• What needs to be frontlined in second rebuttal? Turns. Not defense unless you have time. If you want offense in the final focus then extend it through the summary.
• Defense is not sticky between rebuttal and final focus. Aka if defense is not in summary you can't extend it in final focus. I've flipped on this recently. I've found the debate is hurt by the removal of the defense debate in summary and second final focus can extend whatever random defense it wants or whatever random frontlines to defense. This gives the second speaking teams a disproportionate advantage and makes the debate needlessly more messy.
• DA's in general or second rebuttal? You mean the borderline new contentions you are trying to introduce in the round that are tentatively linked at BEST to the existing arguments in the round order to time skew/spread your opponents thin? Don't push it too much.
• I will pull cards on two conditions. First, if it becomes a key card in the round and the other team questions the validity of the cut, paraphrasing, or explanation of the card in the round. Second, if the other team never discusses the merits of their opponents card the only time I will ever intervene and call for that evidence is if a reasonable person would know it's facially a lie.
• Calling for your opponent's cards. It should not take more than 1 minute to find case cards. Do preflows before the round.
• My favorite question in cx is: Why? For example, "No I get that's what your evidence says but why?"
• My favorite phrase in debate is: "Prefer our warrant or evidence because" or "comparing our warrants you prefer ours because..."

ONLY MODIFICATIONS

• I'm NOT familiar with kritical, theoretical, and/or pre-fiat based roads. Really wish I was though.
• I'd prefer if you don't spread, but if you do be prepared for the chance that I may not process all of it. Even with clearing or speech docs I'm not that fast anymore. And yes, speech docs will probably be necessary for accessibility and accommodation.

I have been a judging PF from 2018 onwards. I have judged varied tournaments from Novice to Varsity levels.

Present your story clearly.  My preference will be clarity over ambiguity.

I don't mind if you speak fast.

I also weigh based on maturity of the thought, clear communication and metrics relating to your argument

I am a flay judge in that I have lots of experience judging, but I'm not an actual flow judge. I know how the debate process works, and I've judged in over 15 tournaments.

Good rhetoric and lay appeal and I will most likely vote for you. If you don't know something or are otherwise unsure/unready for something just fake it until you make it; I like seeing confidence.

I will not flow cross-ex but I will be paying attention. If you bring something up in cross-ex and want me to flow it, remember to say it in speech as well. Emphasize important points with speech inflections, as well as bring up things you want me to remember/write down several times. Don't put down your opponent (like in LD) and don't bully during cross-ex, although remember to be assertive and stand up for your partner (during grand) if you have to.

Speech

It doesn't matter to me what you do while you speak, as long as you make eye contact regularly. Sit, stand, meditate, doesn't matter to me. Please try to signpost as much as possible, it really helps, and it makes it a lot easier to follow what you're saying. It also helps your speaks (now you're listening, huh?). Gesticulate, use ethos, pathos, logos, talk loud, whatever you have to do to get my attention and my vote (and high speaks).

Kritik

Since I'm not a professionally trained judge, I don't have any specific policy against K's, but don't expect me to go with your point of view without strong rhetoric. I must need to know exactly WHY their view on a policy is wrong, and WHY your take matters more. If I were you, I would not run a kritik.

Etiquette

Insulting your opponent is DIFFERENT FROM arguing with them. You can say the same thing by yelling as you can by assertively speaking to your opponent. Please do not argue/yell/bully your opponent. That is a sure way to lose speaks and maybe the entire round.

Speed

I, like the vast majority of other judges, will have an easier time listening and understanding to you if you speak slower. Note: I prefer slower speaking, but I can handle faster speed to some degree. I may look confused/stop writing/not take note of important parts if you are going to slow; that means I do not understand you, and you may need to slow down.

Other

I can promise you that I will understand these issues more than most judges. Please make sure to time yourselves, if there is a discrepancy between the prep time, speech time, etc., try to work it out yourselves, although I will interfere if too much time is taken.

Thanks for reading this information, although I know it's long and boring. Good luck!

I have served as a Speech and Debate judge since 2017. I will flow in debate, and prefer a well-paced presentation, with clear logic behind evidence. Eye contact helps as well.