I am a lay judge, and have been judging for over three years. Although I am aware and cognizant of the framework debate, the technicalities of it are not as important to me as the clarity of your argument and speaking. Please make sure to be polite to your opponent (being rude or abusive does affect your speaker points), signpost clearly, and speak at a reasonable pace (NO spreading or circuit debate please!).

2024 Update: Hello! The below paradigm, which I have left for reference, was written 5 years ago immediately proceeding the end of my high school career when I did some national circuit judging. I am now a graduate with a full-time job and only judge Urban Debate Leagues. The below paradigm was written by a far more vindictive and knowledgeable version of myself, however the general themes will likely hold true. My speed tolerance will certainly not be what it once was. I encourage very clear sign posting, focused collapsing, and strong argumentative narratives in overviews, now more than ever.

_____________________________________________________________

I debated for 6 years at Harvard-Westlake, graduating in 2019, and am currently a freshman at USC majoring in Business Administration with expected minors in Risk Management and Photography but do not debate. As a result, my influences in debate include Mike Bietz, Scott Phillips and Jasmine Stidham, as well as the teammates I graduated with whom I feel obligated to shout out, being Vishan Chaudhary, Ari Davidson (Warning: Large stylistic differences), Matthew Gross and Spencer Paul. I was also influenced quite a bit by the outstanding lab leaders I had at Debate.LA, including Jenny Achten, Joel Lemuel and Brian McBride (RIP).

I'm well aware that long paradigms are generally useless for before round purposes. I tried to keep it short but debate is complicated and people may want the opportunity to hear more of my thoughts before a tournament. Refer to bolded words for mega abridged, pre-round version.

In-Round:

Put me on the email chain: willberlin@gmail.com

I tend to decide debates very quickly/as quickly as possible. This is not because I don't care enough to give you the time and energy you clearly deserve. This is because I don't believe the judge should be doing too much work so if there's a side I feel I should vote for after the speeches, I'm probably just going to check my flows to make sure I didn't ignore something of glaring importance and then vote. Much like how often after a speech a debater can get a vibe for if they've won or not, I generally can feel this as a judge too. What does this mean for you? Be sure you give clear judge directions in your later speeches and tell me the really important issues and arguments you are using to win the round. The more obscured your NR/2AR strategy is to me, the more likely I am to not comprehend the entirety of its nuance or truth value that you feel warrants the ballot.

I try to intervene as little as possible in my decision making, as good judges should, about will possibly take out my frustration through speaker points if I feel I'm voting on something really lame. Throughout my career, the sheer quantity of 2-1 decisions I saw really put into perspective how this activity is at its core subjective, despite our wishes for it to not be. That being said, everything said in Argument Specific Stuff is ways in which the way you argue may agree or disagree with me personally, which may subconsciously affect my decision making, as I am a human being.

I will call clear on you if I'm not getting it. If I have to do this repeatedly I will grow frustrated. Slow down on your tags and your author names, especially if you're going to be referencing cards by author name in the rebuttals. I like to be able to tell when you're moving from card to card, and this, along with numbering, is the best way to do it. I will not flow off the doc unless I feel I didn't catch you because of something outside of your control.

Prep ends when the doc is compiled or you are done prepping. Sending the email is not on prep but if I feel you are taking too long or stealing prep I will be angry.

I will never give a 30, there is no cap on perfection. A 29.9 is received when a speech is so good I don't know how to suggest to improve it, but it could theoretically be better so it doesn't get a 30.

I have been alleged by some to be a pretty funny guy and would appreciate some humor here or there which could possibly be compensated with a slight speaks bump. I never gave extremely robotic technical speeches, so I like to hear some personality in the round. I hate UCLA and Notre Dame. Politically, I lean libertarian so it would be cool to hear some policy arguments leaning in that direction, a rare occurrence in the majority liberal debate community. Please note I do not mean I want to hear the Libertarianism Kant NC. Quite the opposite actually.

I am unwilling to accept the liability of minors disclosing any form of assault or abuse to me. If this occurs I will stop the round immediately and inform real adults who are mandatory reporters. Please just don't make this a part of the round, as it puts everyone in the room in an awkward emotional and legal situation. If you need to talk to someone, although I can theoretically assist you, please just turn to any of the real adults at a debate tournament who I would just direct you towards anyways.

Argument Specific Stuff:

I was relatively flex, reading mostly policy stuff with some Ks.

All the policy args are fine. I think its a freezing cold take that a DA with higher truth value is refreshing, but I as a judge will give any DA full credence and vote on it as such until the Aff tells me why I shouldn't. I think Phillips had this on his paradigm at one time, or maybe he just said it to me or maybe I'm just going crazy, but if an argument from one team is short, blippy and bad, then the other team should not feel obligated to, and will likely lose the round if they, give it the same amount of time as a good argument. If you have just a few strong arguments on a dumb one, and you look up and can tell I'm liking what your saying, don't be afraid to move on.

I like a creative counterplan quite a bit, but don't go too far. The Aff team should not be afraid if theory is the A-strat against weird and abusive counterplans. If a counterplan sounds heinous to you and you don't know how to generate responses, it probably sounds heinous to me too, so articulate that.

On T, I like to see good evidence comparison on the definitions, otherwise it becomes very difficult to resolve. Having been the victim of many *creatively* worded topics throughout my career, I am capable of being persuaded that semantics should not come first. In order to do this you must prove why your model is good not only for the education in the specific round but also good for the topic and distribution of affs as a whole. This isn't to say you should go for reasons why your aff specifically gets to break the rules, rather you should propose reasons about why a strict interpretation of the wording of the topic is bad for the health of the topic as a whole, likely because it is excluding your aff which is a core of the discussion. An example of this is how the community majority believed that arm sales were not topical on the 2019 Jan-Feb topic, but the topic was obviously better with their inclusion.

On theory, I default to drop the argument on everything except conditionality and disclosure* and it will be very difficult to convince me to drop the debater on anything else. *Disclosure is obviously a big term and every case is different, so in some instances where I sense limited foul play I may be able to be persuaded to drop the argument, but this is really dependent on what happened in round. Theory on really mall stuff with near no proven in round abuse will likely be written off by me after the slightest of responses, especially if it's drop the debater.

On framework, I'll obviously listen to both sides of the framework debate but I must warn that I tend to believe that Affs should defend the topic. That being said, my job is to vote for the winning debater, which I fully intend to do, but you may be fighting an uphill battle in convincing me you have won as the Aff team on framework. I do believe procedural fairness is a voter. Aff teams choosing to not defend the topic should make arguments about why their chosen subject matter/style of debate is good/important, while also making arguments about why traditional debate/the topic is bad. Since non-T affs disrupt my standard methods of analyzing rounds, I need the 1AC to provide me with some sort of direction on what counts as offense and how I should evaluate it. I find cheeky I meets from the aff team to be annoying and a waste of their time. If you're obviously not defending the topic, don't try, you're just wasting your time. I'm also a big fan of PICs against non-T affs. If the aff team gets to choose to debate whatever they want then they should be able to defend the entire content of the aff from pics. Ks are also obviously a valid strategy against non-T affs.

On Ks, I'm not very well versed in post-modernism and will be unlikely to vote on it unless I get a clear story. My main issue with pomo is I often feel the impact never gets articulated as something without jargon that a normal person can understand, which as a result makes it very difficult for me to care enough about the arguments to vote on them. I would also very much appreciate an articulation of the alt in plain English and a good link story, those two things holding true for all k debate. I consider myself a pretty practical guy and am definitely not enamored by critical leftist theory like many, so arguments on Ks which take a step back and call into question the actions of an alternative from a more realistic standpoint are persuasive to me.

I'm really not into phil and think utilitarianism is the best model for debate and the only logical model for policy makers. So if you are to defend a non-consequentialist framework, you need to be able to explain why this theory is good for policy makers, not just rational actors, or else you're going to lose to arguments about how debate is about policy. On util, I am very open to listening to debates about what kind of impacts should be prioritized but will default to epistemic modesty if there is no debate about it.

Tricks are for kids. This at the bottom because tricks are the lowest form of argumentation.

I follow the flay pattern. I like to focus on the flow of the argument and also place emphasis on the presentation of the content.

Ideally, each contention should be called out before you deep-dive into it so that I can correlate the substance/examples of your argument to your contention.

If the above is taken care of, I can easily make out what you are presenting, regardless of whether you speak fast or slow.

In CX, please be courteous to your opponent and allow them to finish responding to your question(s).

I’m a parent judge with little experience. Don’t spread.

I am an experienced judge who has been judging on and off since 2015.

1. What is my preferred rate of delivery?

   Rapid Conversational Speed

2. How important is the criterion in making my decision?

   It may be a factor depending on its use in the round.

3. Rebuttals and Crystallization

   I prefer voting issues being given as the student moves down the flow.

4. How do I decide the winner of the round?

   I decide who is the person who persuaded me more of his/her position overall.

Warming: I have no engrained view on LD since my experience is light.

Contact information: chuangk@berkeley.edu

Competitive Background: My competitive background is 3 years of circuit policy debate at Morrison Academy Taichung being coached by Michael Koo and associates. As a HS debater, my argumentation was primarily soft and hard K on the Aff [Plans with K advantages, K Affs that defend a plan, K Affs, and various performance Affs] and Neg [Neoliberalism/Cap K, Semiocap K, Race K, Habeas Viscus K, University K, & Afropessimism K]. I have been everything in terms of positions [2AC, 2NC, & Double twos] I am currently a Freshmen debating and studying political science at UC Berkeley.

Speaker Points

Content and style are the largest determinants of your speaker points. Content is intuitive, the more your arguments helps to persuade me the higher your points. Some this I am looking for are well-warranted explanation, strategic execution, and strategic vision. Style often buttresses or hinders how I perceive the content of your speech. As such, style is arguably a pre-requisite for. What I am looking for in terms style would include 1.) Organization [VERY IMPORTNANT] 2.) Clarity in delivery [VERY, VERY, VERY IMPORTANT] 3.) Ethos [be persuasive and sound confident in your BS]

Want Extra Speaks?

1. Mastery of your argument: Know your scholarship well. If your debating policy, know the intricacies of the political process and America’s position on the particular issue. If your debating K, know the scholarship, history, and associated authors like the back of your hand.

2. Cross Examination: CX is not a time for you to spend 3 minutes to ask clarifying questions. It is a time to reveal how stupid your opponent or set up arguments for your next speech through specific and targeted questions. I enjoy good CX that do just that.

3. Tensions/Double Turns: Whether on the neg or aff, people tend to present arguments or authors. EXPLOIT THEIR CARELESSNESS!!! Point out the double turn and impact it. I love when you point contradictions between Cap and Framework or Marriot & Gordan are exploited.

4. Bold strategies—I love it when u exploit a mistake they make and go all in the 2NR and 2AR.

Summary

1. Ethos—this will manifest in the ways you conduct yourself in round. Sound like your know your shit and look like your gonna win.

2. Be clear—it isn’t my responsibility to understand you if you’re unclear. If I didn’t flow your argument or didn’t’ hear the argument, it isn’t an argument. I will make it explicit and tell your that you’re being unclear. If I remind you to be clear more than three times, I will not flow your arguments or cards after that.

3. Speed— Debate is about communication. Remember, it is not about the words per minute, but the words communicated per minuted (Jared Atchison). You can go as fast as you can, but you need to be clear and not pronouncate your words. CLARITY > Speed. ***Something that will help with clarity are pausing between arguments and sign posting when you do so.

4. Arguments—It isn’t an argument without warrants.

5. ***Comparative Analysis***—do the work for me. Show how your argument undermines theirs. The team that does more comparative analysis tends to win.

6. Don’t Cheat—no stealing prep, card cutting, and etc.

7. Cards—cards are only as good as you can explain them. I will read cards to settle techinal questions and factual statements, but make sure you convey what your card actually said.

8. Debate is a technical game—this means y’all got to do line by line. tech>truth. I will vote on a technical concession even if the result may seem debatable.

9. Framing—Throughout the debate, THE TEAM THAT CONTROL THE FRAMEWORK THROUGH WHICH I VIEW THE ROUND WINS. I tend to filter line by line through the framework, so I might discount some arguments (Your impact turns on F/W will be discounted if they win debate is a game and in round fairness is an independent impact)

10. Sorry, my face is an open book. If I think your making shitty or stupid arguments, my face will reflect my thoughts. Use this to your advantage.

Case

1. Traditional Aff

a. Make sure your internal links are hyper-specific and advantages are reverse casual.

b. Impact calculus can make or break debates. When doing the impact debate make sure to have comparative analysis.

c. Don’t tell me they dropped an impact when they have turned your internal link. Internal link turns are often the most devasting arguments that can win you debates

d. If the 2AC or 1AR make skippy responses on case, there is a high probably I will prefer the negative if a substantive analysis is provided.

e. Neg Team: don’t drop case!!!! You should have a substantive answer on case. Put offense on case.

2. Non-Traditional Affs

a. I ran these Affs so I am fine with it.

b. These debates often come down to your performance in CX. Make sure to clarify your position in CX well. Explain how I should perceive your solvency. Is it an epistemological intervention that only shifts things in this round or are you defending a movement outside of the round.

c. It needs to be related to the resolution to some degree. I expect a clear reinterpretation of the resolution. If not, I am inclined to vote for framework absent an excellent explanation of how the resolution is violent.

d. I will be considering poems, songs, dance, and etc as evidence. As such, there needs to be an explanation of your performance.

e. If you have a performance, you better extend it throughout the round and use it as an argument.

f. Neg: If you don’t have specific arg ready on case, generic ones are better than leaving it conceded.

Kritik

1. I am pretty well acquainted with most identity based kritiks and policy Ks (Cap K, University K, & Semiocap K). This means I will have a higher standard when judging your explanations.

2. I kinda suck at understanding High Theory args [D&G, Baudrillard, and Psycho K] so that means you shouldn’t rely on termology to win round, but actually explain shit.

3. A lot of these debate come down to framing. Tell me how I should judge the round and why their paradigm is fucked up. At the same time, tell me how the framing influences how I should view the line by line.

4. Perms are extremely strategic and deadly to the Kritik. However, they are useless if the Aff doesn’t provide an explanation how the permutation works and what does it look like. At the same time, it is the Neg responsibility to explain why it is mutually exclusive.

5. I need to specific links that disprove the Aff in some form, whether it be content or form. During the block, you need to pull quotes from the Aff and show how it invest in a certain ideal or make shit worse. If there is no specific link, you are probably gonna lose the round unless they concede your links.

6. The alternative is under-utilized in debate. Even when there is a good explanation of it, it fades away in the block. Instead, you should use the Alter to 1.) prove why perm is mutually exclusive. 2.) use it as a PIC 3.) explains how it shifts my paradigm as a judge 4.) answer you don’t do shit args in the line by line.

Framework and Theory

1. When you are running framework, you should shy away from the cheaters should lose rhetoric. Instead, you should focus on the contrasting models of debate both teams and the benefits (legal education, in round fairness, and etc) that the Aff prevents. Nevertheless, if you win a technical concession, I will vote for framework.

2. I think debate is the most education when it’s about the topic. However, I think there is multiple ways to interpret the topic.

3. REAL WORLD EXAMPLES WIN ROUNDS. Use real world examples from the debate community to prove points. Examples make these theoretical debates make the debate a lot more grounded.

4. Don’t concede or under cover the TVA, debate is a game framing, and do on the neg/SSD, and their impact [fairness in round or legal education]. To do so would warrant a negative ballot.

5. Truth testing, and procedural fairness are strategic arguments, but they are INTERNAL LINKS NOT IMPACTS. Please focus your impacts on education or the lack thereof

6. If the theory violation is frivolous, reasonability is a really persuasive. Resonability is a reason why the Affirmative can win without offense, given that they prove that Aff is topical enough that topicality debate shouldn’t be preferred over education about the Aff content.

Warning: DA & CP/CP Theory ain’t my forte. I only ran them during my novice year. That being said, I will flow them and vote on them if you win the technical debate.

Disadvantage

1. Short DA are strategic, but full of BS. Aff teams need to turn their internal links instead of reading impact defense against them.

2. Unless the uniqueness is outdated, I tend to think link control uniqueness.

3. Turns case arguments on the impact debate are often mishandled or under-covered by the Aff. As much above, the impact debate is extremely important.

4. Have a clear link and internal link story.

Counterplan

1. -Solvency deficits along with taking out their net benefit is the surest way to win against a CP + DA strat.

2. Must show how it is competitive in the block or else the perm will be devasting.

3. Don’t run conditionality if they don’t have 4 different off or above.

2022

Similar preferences to those below. I still value clarity and clash. For Congress, I value presentation, delivery, and style as well. Most of all, be your authentic self. Make passionate arguments you care about. Discuss the real-world impacts. Be respectful of your opponents and have fun!

Stanford 2020 and 2021

Here are some preferences:

I prefer traditional NSDA LD debate. If you spread, run theory, and/or kritiks, I will do my best to keep track but I do not yet have the experience to judge it yet. I'm getting better at it, though, so if you have more "circuit-type" argumentation, be sure to signpost and explain.

It is also my belief that skilled circuit debaters can be just as skilled at traditional debate (take a look at NSDA Nationals 2011 and 2018). And this year's NSDA National Champion competed at this same tournament a couple years ago. So there is lots of crossover.

Signpost. I will flow, but you can help by keeping the debate organized.

Crystallize. Break down the debate. Tell me what you think are the most important voting issues. Weigh arguments and impacts.

Have fun debating the big ideas of this resolution. It matters and your opinions matter, so challenge everyone in the room to consider this topic both philosophically and practically.

Stanford 2019

Please put me on the email chain: hcorkery@eduhsd.k12.ca.us

English teacher. Long time baseball coach; first year debate coach!

Here are some preferences:

Stay with traditional NSDA LD debate. If you are on the circuit, I respect your skill set; I’m just not ready for it yet. If you spread, run theory, and/or kritiks, I will do my best to keep track but I do not yet have the experience to judge it yet. And it is my belief that skilled circuit debaters can be just as skilled at traditional debate (take a look at NSDA Nationals 2011 and 2018).

Signpost. I will flow, but you can help by keeping the debate organized.

Crystallize. Break down the debate. Tell me what you think are the most important voting issues. Weigh arguments and impacts.

Have fun debating the big ideas of this very important resolution. I am a Marine Corps veteran and I understand the real-world impacts of foreign policy decisions. Your opinions matter so challenge everyone in the room to consider this topic both philosophically and practically.

Stanford 2018

Public Forum debate was designed with both the public and the lay judge in mind. For this reason, I'll judge your round based on the side that presents the clearest, best-supported, most logical argument that convinces the public and the public's policy makers to vote one way or another on a resolution.

I appreciate it when you explicitly state when you are establishing a "framework," making a "contention" or claim, providing a "warrant" or "evidence" and analyzing an "impact."

For speaker points, I value poise, eye contact, gestures, and pacing (changing your voice and speed to make effective points).

Finally, since this is JV Public Forum, we need to have a "growth mindset" and understand that this level of debating is developmental. JV Public Forum debaters are trying to improve and ultimately become varsity debaters. Winning is obviously important (I've coached sports for 20 years), but in my mind there is a clear distinction between JV and Varsity levels in any activity. JV is developmental competition. Varsity is the highest level competition.

I am a parent judge. I appreciate well-spoken and confident debaters. Speak slowly and be logical. Signpost your evidence clearly. Tell me exactly what I'm voting on. Keep your arguments simple. Ask me any further questions about my judging preferences right before the round begins.

I am currently the assistant debate coach for Claremont High School. I have been judging and coaching on and off for the last 8 years since I graduated from high school. In high school I primarily did circuit LD but also did parliamentary debate making it to the semi finals of the NPDL TOC. My background is in science so I will more often than not need extra explanation for philosophical arguments, that doesnt mean I wont vote on them but I am less likely to vote on underdeveloped arguments or simply off a tagline. Also, coming from LD i believe that the framework debate is very important in setting up how the judge should evaluate arguments. Absent of any framework I will resort to net benefits. I have no issues with either theory or Ks, but prefer debates to be accessible to both debaters. For example, I have no issues with flowing speed but if you are spreading simply because you think it will prevent your opponent from responding I will dock your speaks and assume you were too afraid to debate the actual topic at hand. The same should apply to theory and critical arguments, if you are using these arguments because they have a legitimate educational, or otherwise (fairness, preventing harms, etc.,) purpose in the round I have no problem voting off of them.

I am an experienced new judge, and I lean to more traditional debating. What I am looking for in a round is slower and clear speaking. No spreading. I will flow, but if you are speaking too quickly, then I cannot get it written down. I will look at the flow at the end and determine whose argument was still standing at the end of the round and/or which argument solves and has the proven impacts.

You must treat others with respect and dignity. While I will judge you on your arguments, I will mark down speaker points for those lacking decorum.

I am a parent judge though I have judged Parli numerous times at other tournaments in Oregon and at NPDI last year.

Please speak slowly and clearly and only run technical arguments (like theory) when absolutely necessary and explain them when you're using them since I'm not very familiar with them.

I will do my best to judge you on the merits of your arguments rather than your speaking style. I will vote for the team that is most convincing.

Please be respectful to your opponents and have fun.

Hello everyone,

I’m a lay parent judge who has been judging for several years now. I don’t enjoy spreading or people being rude. Voters are important for me because I want to be convinced why I should vote for you. I do flow the debate so if your opponent drops something you should let me know.

I am a parent judge in my second year of judging . I prefer to see a traditional debate with a slow communication emphasis and a conversational rate of speech. I want the debaters to tell me exactly why I am casting my ballot for them and why I should prefer their arguments to their opponents.

I do not accept sent cases. Please do not spread. Speaker quality is very important, be respectful during cross but I do not dock a speaker if they cut off their opponent.

I am a parent judge and this is my first year at debate. I consider myself knowledgeable about each topic that comes around. I am okay with talking fast and I try my best to take notes and keep up.

kuhukg@gmail.com

I debated LD for four years at Newark Memorial and I went to the TOC my senior year.

I will evaluate any argument you choose to run as best I can. Some warnings:

I am a terrible, terrible flower. That means it is probably best that you go a little slower than you normally would just to make sure I flow that 10-second blip in the 1AR that will become a key piece of offense in the 2.

I ran a lot of K's in high school so I'm at least somewhat familiar with the lit. However, I still feel that debaters have an obligation to clearly explain their positions to their opponents during CX and speeches. If the position is seriously poorly explained and your explanations demonstrate a lack of understanding of your case, I may consider just not evaluating the position, and at the very least, I will seriously dock your speaks. On the other hand, I really enjoy good substantive K debate and I tend to inflate speaks when I'm happy.

My threshold for RVI's is probably as high as my threshold for theory. Which is to say, it's probably lower than most judges'. But don't take this to mean that I'll just vote for you if you run the RVI. Just as many things have to fall into place for me to vote for the RVI as for me to vote on theory or any other argument. I default competing interps.

I won't evaluate presumption unless there is some VERY clear argument made as to why there is NO offense in round. But in general, I think that this is almost never true and think that any argument linked to a framework (perhaps even a theory standard weighed by fairness/education) is probably a better reason to vote than presumption.

Make sure you have fun! I know debate is a super competitive and difficult activity but make sure you're not taking yourself too seriously in round - it is just a game. I also feel that if a debater is having fun, they're more confident and the round will be overall more fun to watch, which will be reflected in your speaks.

That's all that I can think of right now, but if you have any other questions, just ask me before the round. Good luck!

Stanford 2021

Former college policy debater at UC Berkeley

I mostly did K debate that's definitely my area of expertise but argument flex is fine I can flow and understand just about anything

I would slow down for more complicated theory args and if you don't make them a significant portion of the final speeches I am not likely to vote for them

don't be offensive

ask me specific questions if you have them

don't have a lot of rounds on the topic

2020 update

mggreenbury@gmail.com

Not much experience on this topic

Been away from the scene for the past semester. Don't worry, I can still listen to speed, but you might want to assume I'm not fully aware of all the topic details.

I like K debate. Prefer poststructuralism or whatever you call it - would probably be what I have the most experience in. Performance debate is cool. Policy debate is good too, just not what I did for the most part. Good plans with solid solvency mechanisms vs intriguing CP/DAs are always engaging to judge for me but politics debates are boring so if you come with generics you better do it right. I consider myself open minded but I do find myself unpersuaded by the same generics FW args that teams have been reading since 2015. Try explaining things in new ways, using new words and examples. I will reward that.

almost all ideas are fair game, except those which offend or harm other people. please use common sense in this regard or I'll dock speaks.

2019 update

very few rounds on the policy topic, please explain any acronyms or details that one might assume a judge with experience on the topic would understand

speed is fine

argument flexibility is fine and good

focus on explaining things; less is more

”debate does not necessarily take the form of a disagreement; it can yield a more complex disimplication or displacement”

i don’t vote on things not In the final speeches

2017 for Stanford

Very few (<20) rounds on the topic. Mostly policy, weirdly, but it's been three months. Please explain any terms (locations, documents, events, concepts, etc.) that may require more experience.

Aside: the term high theory now for me demonstrates the general implosion of meaning.

Out of competition since last season. Everything below still true, with the caveat that my appreciation for the the decorum and the ethos of debate has diminished. I think you can interpret that how you want. Creativity and clarity are awarded with speaker points.

Lastly the authors of flavor for the rhetoric department are Schmitt, Heidegger, and Hegel. Please do not read a critique of Bildung.

2016 Update

About two dozen total rounds on the 2015-2016 HS topic. Mostly on the non-topic but plenty of K affs with plans and a few policy debates.

I do and prefer K debate for the most part, but I am still interested in hearing policy arguments. I understand and like them, at times.

I vote on T/FW, but I think most teams would be helped by substantive and explicated impact calc vs the aff, articulating a strong T version solves arg, etc. You can't just extend T like you would in front of a judge who ideologically prefers your args.

If you're too fast I might ask you to slow down. You should do you. Within reason, try to offend me.

Most familiar in high theory arguments: afropessimist, feminist, queer theory, and Marxist-derivative literatures. I sort of major in critical theory at Berkeley so sometimes I just happen to know a lot about Ranciere or Edward Said depending on the semester.

Feel free to ask any other questions.

1. I want a values debate

2. Be polite to one another

3. Have fun and make solid arguments

I am a parent judge with little to no experience in this event.

i am a parent judge

I have been judging for one year

Preference

Please go slowly

Please avoid debate jargon

no spreading

be polite to one another

have fun and make solid arguments

- Be confident in your speech and have an authoritative command of your argument.

- Support all your arguments with strong, coherent evidence.

- Stay away from fallacies in your arguments and avoid broad generalisations.

- Take your time when speaking. Ensure that both the judge and opponent are digesting the contents of your argument.

- Ensure you are making eye contact with the judge and opponent at times to engage them in your argument.

- Have fun!

Parent and volunteer. I manage a technology team and before that I was a Marine Corps officer. At work, I have heard many debates to justify for or against approval for something. I make my decisions based on rational and clearly articulated arguments with facts supporting those arguments.

I have only judged traditional NSDA LD debates. So if you plan to spread, I will do my best to listen and still jot down notes. At the end, I will make my decision based on my notes, what I ultimately understand the arguments were, and who convinced me the most.

Have fun and fiat lux

Archbishop Mitty '18

UC Berkeley '22

USC Gould Law '25

About me

I did PF in high school pretty competitively. If you have any other questions for me just ask before the round!

*PLEASE MAKE EVIDENCE EXCHANGES QUICK AND ONLY DISPUTE EVIDENCE IN SPEECHES*

PLEASE WEIGH.

preflow before round please.

*Note on prep time: if you are prepping while you are waiting for a card, you need to run prep.

Technicalities

• I will not evaluate arguments without warrants! Extending warrants in summary and final focus is very necessary. It's not enough to say "extend x author or x statistic" without the warrant.
• For me to vote on an argument please 1) Warrant it and 2) Weigh it.
• First Summary: It is not necessary to extend defensive arguments in first summary. The exception is if they frontline said arguments in second rebuttal, in which case you should respond to the frontlines.
• Second Summary: All defensive arguments you extend in final focus must be in second summary or I will not weigh them.
• Everything in final focus should be in summary. Two exceptions. 1) Again, first final focus can extend defense that was not responded to in the second rebuttal. *That does NOT mean first FF can make NEW analysis/weighing about that defense! 2) First final focus can frontline a response that was not brought up until the 2nd summary.
• Second rebuttal should spend some amount of time answering first rebuttal. While you should prioritize answering case, some response toward first rebuttal is ideal.
• Weighing: Start weighing in summary, including first summary. Don't just weigh impacts. Link-level weighing is just as or even more important. Collapsing in summary and final focus is crucial.
• Impacts: Always terminalize your impacts. If possible, I prefer concrete numbers that directly relate to your argument (1000 lives). This makes it easier to weigh as well. If you are extending/weighing scalar impacts (i.e. x increases y by 20%) try to contextualize that percentage.

Evidence

• Evidence ethics in debate and especially in PF are a big problem in my opinion. I strongly prefer quoting sources, but if you are paraphrasing make sure it does not misconstrue the intent of the author.
• Have your evidence readily available. If you cannot locate a card within a few minutes, I will strike it.
• I’ll call for evidence after the round has ended in two scenarios: 1. I was explicitly told to call for a card in a speech or 2. A card was consistently disputed in the round.
• If upon examination, there is legitimate abuse of evidence, I am automatically dropping you and docking speaker points.

Speaking

• My average is ~28.5. I assign speaker points based on strategic decision-making in round.
• I’m fine with speed, but no spreading. That being said, clarity precludes speed; only go as fast as you can while speaking in a comprehensible manner.
• Signpost clearly, especially in summary and final focus.
• You will lose points if you are overly aggressive or rude.

Ks/Theory: I honestly do not have much experience with Ks and theory, so I would really prefer you not run it because I will have no idea how to evaluate it.

Lay judge -

- Impact calculus is important, leave time in the 2AR and 2NR for you to compare your impacts with your opponents

- Speak clearly, spreading is fine but isn't preferred. Mumbling words fast isn't debate nor spreading

- The less LD slang, the better.

- Speak with evidence, it is clear when something is made up

Put your cases in the file share, along with any speech documents you have.

I am a parent judge with little to no experience. If you read anything I don't understand without explaining it I will just disregard it.

I have limited exposure to judging debate in the past and have participated in some debate classes. My experience with flow debate is little to none. Please speak and argue to the best of your ability.

I am a parent judge. who has judged few tournaments in the past. I appreciate well-spoken and confident debaters who can articulate their arguments well. Please be friendly and respectful to your opponent. Absolutely no spreading.

I am a parent judge.

I am a parent judge with >7 years of judging experience in LD, PF, Parli and Policy debates as well as individual events. As a typical lay judge, my primary emphasis lies in evaluating the logical coherence of arguments, which should be well-supported by solid evidence. I flow and prefer clear speaking with no spreading. Additionally, I believe in the significance of maintaining respect towards opponents throughout the round.

Creative Construction (Start / End )

Stay within Context even while Cross Ex.

Exhibit Confidence

Logical Flow

Right Intentions

Content over Speed

Quality over Quantity

I prefer clear speeches, though they don't have to be super slow. I welcome great professional cross-examination that doesn't need one to be rude to others.

I debated LD at Millard North for 4 years and qualified to the TOC my senior year.

I’ll evaluate any argument as long as it has a coherent claim, warrant, and impact. I don’t have a preference for any style of debate, but I’m more familiar with philosophical frameworks/theory/T than K and LARP positions. You should debate however you want to.

I’ll always defer to what’s on the flow and any shared assumptions in the round before defaulting on paradigm issues. I’m fine with speed — just make sure to go slower on texts that you want me to flow verbatim.

Make sure to clearly explain how different layers of the flow interact with each other, describe how any offense you’re winning relates to the layers, and weigh aggressively, especially in the final speeches. I’d like to intervene as little as possible, which means I won’t give very much leeway to arguments that don’t have a clear implication with weighing (e.g. independent voters and “constitutive of debate” claims that get thrown around haphazardly).

I think it’s a bad norm for judges to write lengthy, pedantic paradigms that constrain the way people debate, so feel free to ask questions before the round if there’s anything specific I can clarify.

Good luck — don’t forget to have fun!

Lay Judge with one year of experience. Limited exposure to circuit, but a strong intuitive grasp of argumentation and will be able to follow your logic. Adjust accordingly.

I am a parent judge with 5 years of experience.

I expect the participants to speak slow but most importantly clearly

I want to understand the debate so explaining arguments help me understand why you should win more.

Respect other participants and I will respect you

add me to any email chains

ajayrawal@hotmail.com

I competed in CX then Paril debate from 2005-09. I now coach LD, Parli, and PF. Open minded, progressive friendly judge.

A. I hate spreading.

A Case against Spreading in LD

B. I appreciate good turns.

What Exactly Is a Good Turn?

C. I judge you on 5 things.

5 Keys to Success

Mr. P. J. Samorian
Mr. Samorian is the Communications Department Chair at American Heritage Schools Palm Beach Campus. His teams compete in Lincoln Douglas, Public Forum, Congressional Debate and Individual Speech Events, Worlds School Debate with possible Policy Debate addition. AH Achievements: LD State Champion, Declamation State Champion, Sunvite PF Champion, Emory PF Champion, NSDA/NCFL Finalists in IE and Congress, Grapevine PF Champions, Bronx Congress RR Champion, Blue Key PF and LD Champions, GMU Congress Champion, Blue Key 3rd Place Sweepstakes, NSDA district champions. He is the former Director of Forensics at New Trier High School in Winnetka, Illinois. He was the Director of Forensics at Loyola Academy in Wilmette, Illinois for 18 years and before that was an Assistant IE Coach at Glenbrook South High School in Glenview, Illinois under the direction of William (Mark) Ferguson. He coached the NFL Poetry Reading National Champion (1993), NFL Congress(Senate) Runner-Up (2000), ICDA State Congress Champions (2000), IHSA State Congressional Debate Runner-Up (2008), and his team won one of five NCFL Eleanor E. Wright Debate Awards (2009). He has coached finalists and champions at Wake Forest, Grapevine, The Glenbrooks, Blue Key, The Barkley Forum, U.C.Berkeley, Sunvite and Harvard. Mr. Samorian is an NSDA Triple Diamond coach. He holds a B.A. from Northern Illinois University and a M.Ed. from Loyola University Chicago. He attended Glenbrook North High School in Northbrook, Illinois where he was involved with drama and music. He was involved with hosting five NCFL National Tournaments in Chicago, and was the President of the Chicago Catholic Forensic League and has served on both the Northern Illinois NFL District Committee as well as the IHSA State Debate Committee. He was the director of public forum for Millennial Speech and Debate (Georgetown and Boston College) and was the Co-Director for Public Forum Debate at the Harvard Summer Workshop. He has hosted NSDA webinars on different aspects of congressional debate. He has been the director of public forum at Georgetown as well as teaching and directing programs in Business, Stem, and Debate for Capitol Debate at Notre Dame Baltimore, American University Washington DC, Yale University, Babson College, Dartmouth College, The Hun School. He is currently the PBMSFL Treasurer and serves on the congress TOC advisory committee.

FOR ALL DEBATE EVENTS, the flow is so important. You have to listen and make note of what your opponents are saying. I am flowing, so you should be as well. Then it is important that you DO something with that information.

I am open to any argument you may make and then ask that you support that idea.

If you are going to spread, please sign post and accent key terms you want me to get down on my flow.

I work hard to not let any of my personal opinions have any place in the round.

I prefer that debaters be strong in their conviction but not be abusive in their treatment of others.
I also require you to be truthful. Present accurate evidence. I have been witness to false information and it really bothers me that you would just present it as though it is true and keep going until someone questions it.

Persuade me that you are right and your opponents are not.

I DO NOT SHAKE HANDS AT THE END OF A ROUND (Obviously in person debate) This was posted BEFORE Covid and still applies now.

LINCOLN DOUGLAS
I prefer that contestants stick to the philosophical arguments in the round. It bothers me when LD turns to a plan of action. (With exception of a topic that requires a plan...) While topics are sometimes hard, I am looking for the theory that is supporting what you are saying. To this end, you may consider me "old school" when it comes to LD. Yes, I do think that Locke, Hobbes, Rousseau and others should provide foundation for the direction you are going. That doesn't mean I am not open to other theories and philosophies, however if you do run theory or other arguments, know why you are running them. Please don't run them because you do that at every tournament so you don't have to prep each topic!!! An entire round of arguments not related to the topic will not win my ballot. Ignoring a judge who says "clear" when you are spreading, will not win my ballot. Clear, persuasive arguments will win my ballot. Arguments that are constructed and carried through the debate will win my ballot. Weighing at the end or your final rebuttal could win my ballot. I do not shake hands at the end of a round.

PUBLIC FORUM
I like the original intention of this event that it should be a debate that would take place in a public setting and would have ideas and delivery that any person off the street could understand. To this end, I don't want you to be a policy debater. While I do want structure to what you are saying and evidence to support your ideas, it is the PUBLIC approach that I prefer. Are you clear? Do your points make logical sense? Are you able to persuade me that your side is the side that is best for our current population? I have been extremely bothered in the past few years with students who are falsifying evidence. I judged a semi-final where one team built an entire case around one key piece of evidence. Their opponents called for the evidence during the round, but it was never produced. The judge next to me called for the evidence after the round and sure enough, they were blatantly misquoting the evidence. I have also researched evidence that simply does not exist. Have some integrity. Do the work needed to prepare yourself for the topic. I do not shake hands at the end of a round.

CONGRESSIONAL DEBATE
Yes, I was around when the event was called Student Congress and it has been an honor to have been a part of the evolution of the activity. I think there are many roles that congressional debaters play. To that end, there are many styles of speeches that I enjoy when judging a congress round. The authorship should explain the legislation and set the tone and standard for the round. The first con should be equally as strong. Both should have strong supportive evidence and equally strong explanations. Every speech after that should further debate with new evidence and should also extend or refute previous speakers. For me, politics are a waste of time. That being said, I also don't like it to be a speech competition. It should be a series of debate speeches on both sides so that at the end of debate on each piece of legislation, I have a better idea of the issues and in a sense; I have been persuaded to one side or the other. If you are speaking near the end of the debate, then a top-notch crystallization is in order and very much enjoyed when done well. If you are a presiding officer, I want it to run so smoothly and fairly that I never have to step in. A good PO brings energy to the room and fosters an atmosphere of healthy debate. I enjoy students who have their own unique style and don't just copy what everyone else is doing and saying. Play to your strengths. Recent developments in more complicated scenarios have been interesting as has the development of 30 second questioning periods (direct questioning). Traditional questioning is one question one person, it should not be called indirect questioning.... Congressional Debate is still evolving and I think we should enjoy the growth. Some styles work better than others, but I am not convinced there is just one way to speak or preside. I enjoy some of the regional and league differences. I serve on the TOC Congressional Debate Advisory Committee. I do not shake hands at the end of a round. Can we please put an end to frowning chairs? Congress does not have an equal number of speeches for or against a piece of legislation so why should we. It is natural that one side will have more than the other. So stop frowning. If you cannot extend, refute, or produce new arguments, then don't rehash, vote to move on to the next legislation and speak early on that. EVERYONE SHOULD BE PREPARED ON BOTH SIDES. Then strategically you should choose which side will benefit you the best and speak on that side.

INDIVIDUAL EVENTS
I don't think anyone checks the wiki for IE philosophy. LOL I mean, its not like you could change your cutting of speech because I am in the back of the room. IE was my first love and passion. Do well in performance. Be honest and true and you will win me every round. I often write an IE ballot as though I am coaching you. So, if I give you ideas and then see you a month later and have to just write the same exact ballot again, what did you learn and do my notes even matter at that point. IE students often try to read the judge. You can't really read me. I may be writing feverishly to give you as many suggestions for improvement as possible, I may be writing how much I am enjoying every moment, or a may stop writing because I don't have much to say because you are so amazing. I also rank as I go so there is no advantage or disadvantage to your speaking order.

ONLINE SPEECH AND DEBATE - At first, I had enjoyed moving to online speech and debate. I was involved in rules development, ideas for communicating online and framing ideas. I worked all summer with online speech and debate and so understand glitching etc but you also need to make sure no other devices in your home are on and that your framing doesn't include anything moving, like a ceiling fan, as they will detract from the strength of your signal. FOR DEBATE EVENTS, I prefer that you present your speech seated. I think in person standing is fine, but when you stand online we often lose facial expression, gestures are hard to see, walking off camera isn't good, and your voice may drop off. FOR SPEECH EVENTS-For many, ok, most, events you must stand and that is perfectly fine. Have fun and enjoy that we are still able to keep our activity vibrant and growing. 2022 Update - I am tired of being online and I am crossing fingers we will soon return to in person speech and debate. I AM IN FAVOR of students who are finding creative ways to perform online and I am not in favor or adults making new online rules that limit creativity. (Ex: Moving toward or away from the camera for emphasis)

I am a parent/'lay' judge. Please weigh your arguments and explain them. I would prefer if you spoke in fast conversational speed. I will flow all arguments. Please maintain respect throughout the round.

-Parent judge. Both of my children did LD debate so I have over 4 years of experience in judging LD

-I love interesting and unique arguments and philosophy

-Clearly articulated arguments without spreading or rushing through are preferred

-I love literature as I am an author myself

-I don't really understand circuit but if you explain your argument properly I can follow along

-Strong speakers usually win my ballot over others

-Please don't be rude or aggressive to your opponents

-I try my best to flow speeches

-Passion for the topic goes a long way. Do debate because you enjoy it don't seem forced :/

-I'm not strict I will go along with what you say but just please be mature and kind towards your opponents and please don't interrupt especially in cx.

Happy Debating !

-

I am a parent judge and I love LD format of debate. I do flow during the round.

Framework: Please try to reinforce throughout your debate

Do's:

Speak at a moderate pace. Use a tight, strategic case delivered with elocution.

Listen carefully to your opponent.

Be very mindful of impact, including cost v. benefit.

Offer a framework that is narrow enough to be defensible, broad enough to have impact.

Use contentions that connect your philosophical framework to real examples and statistics.

Don'ts:

Don't sneer or shake your head at your opponent--stay poised and professional.

Don't make logical leaps, especially ones that distort your opponent's case or lead to ridiculous outcomes.

Don't debate "circuit" style: my opinion is that a firehose of words is both unnecessary and clutters up most cases.

Do NOT use the strawman technique, or misquote your opponent to present a distorted or weakened version of their case.

Don't spend too much time on weak or overly vague frameworks, such as "justice" or "morality." Whose justice? Whose morality?

My vote is guided by the ballot rules.

Maintain good decorum, always.

Don't forget to have fun!!

Don't spread. I'd prefer if you spoke slowly and clearly with logical arguments. 

I am a lay parent judge and have judged at multiple local tournaments. I prefer understandable argumentation, with clear crystallization, weighing, and connected logic. I also prefer clear speaking over spreading, as I do not have much experience in judging circuit debate. Please be polite to your opponent during your round, and don't forget that debate is a learning experience!

lay judge no spreading

I am not comfortable with spreading, so please speak at a moderate pace and be clear. I cannot judge what I cannot understand. Demonstrate your knowledge of the topic. Please do not just throw statistics out, explain how they matter. That being said, do also ensure you have evidence based arguments. Have structured speeches. Warrant and weight your arguments.

Keep track of your own timings. Enjoy the round!!

This is my second year judging. Though I have dabbled in speech/debate (Congress) in high school, I have had limited exposure when it comes to judging.

I appreciate clarity and logical flow. Signposts and crystallizing aren't absolute musts, but they are absolutely appreciated!

Though I will base my decision primarily on the strength of your argument, I strongly prefer if you don't spread. (I'd rather not do mental gymnastics just to keep up with the literal pace of your speaking!) There is a very high chance I am new to the topic you are debating, so please keep that in mind! I should be able to follow/understand your argument.

And please have fun and be respectful!

I am a Debate coach at Loyola High School. I primarily coach LD debate.

I see debate as a game of strategy. The debaters are responsible to define the rules of the game during the debate.

This means that debaters can run any argument (i.e. frameworks, theory, kritiks, disadvantages). I will assess how well the debaters frame the arguments, weigh the impacts, and compare the worlds of the Aff and Neg.

However, I am not a blank slate judge. I do come into the round with the assumption of weighing the offense and defense and determining which world had the more comparatively better way of looking at the round.

As for Speakers' points, I assess those issues based upon:

1. How well the speakers spoke to the room including vocal intonation, eye contact, posture.

2. I also look for the creativity of the argument and strategy.

High Speaker Points will be awarded to students who excel in both of these areas.

Debaters are always welcome to ask me more questions about my paradigm before a round begins. The purpose of debate is educational as well as competition. So, debaters should feel comfortable to interact with me before and after the round about how to do well in the round and after.