I did not do high school debate. I am a freshmen at Columbia University and I currently do Parliamentary debate.

I am not good with speed, so definitely go slower in your speeches so I don't miss anything.

~ Public Forum ~

I did PF all four years of my high school career, and now I'm a first-year at Columbia. I currently coach.

I am not a very picky judge. I'm game with theory. I'm equally game with ordinary, stocky arguments. Run whatever you feel most comfortable running, however you want to run it, and I'll be happy.

When it comes time to make a decision, I generally start by evaluating the framework debate. Then, I assess each team's arguments under what I perceive to be the winning framework. In my view, a winning argument must always have two things: defensible links and clear impacting. Provide both of these things, and provide them to a greater extent than your opponent, and I will pick you up. Narrative is also a plus.

A few other considerations:

- Offense should be extended through the Summary and Final Focus. If any part of your offense (either its constituent links or its impact) doesn't make into either of these speeches, I will not consider it in my decision. Turns count as offense.

- Defense can be brought through to Final Focus, unless it's front-lined.

- Cards matter, but don't over-rely on them. I value clear warranting over clear evidence. (That being said, please have evidence). I also don't call cards unless I am told to. I also don't really care whether or not you extend cards into your Final Focus unless they're paramount to your argument. In this case, actually tell me what your card says; don't just refer to it as "the *insert last name* analysis" or "the *insert university/think-tank* card."

- Don't make offensive arguments. You don't know what experiences I or your opponents have had, so assume a veil of ignorance and talk about sensitive topics as if someone who has personal connections to those topics is in the room with you. I also do not take kindly to sexism.

- Please weigh. If you don't weigh, I'll have to intervene and make my own illogical conclusions about whose argument is stronger. There is a 50% chance that you will not be happy with the resulting decision.

- If you make me laugh with a good joke, I will give you an additional half-speaker point. If you mention Rose McGowan or the Alamo, I will give you an additional half-speaker point. If you mention clowns in absolutely any context, I will give you an additional half-speaker point. If you do any combination of these things, I will not give you more than one half-speaker point. However, I will be thoroughly pleased.

- Pay attention to my body language. If I nod at you, I have gotten your point and you don't need to elaborate further.

That's it! Take a deep breath, and have fun. If you have any questions, feel free to find me before or after the round.

~ Parli ~

I have somewhat limited experience in this form of debate, so chances are I am about as good at it as you are. Keep that in mind as you enter the round – don't be intimidated, and if you ask for my advice, take my opinion with a grain of salt. Although I do decide whether you win or lose the round, so maybe not. It really is up to you.

With that said, some things to note about my paradigm:

- I will not vote on an argument without a warrant. I would rather vote on "soft characteristics" (your framing of the round, the consistency of your argumentation) than a warrantless argument. I am especially strict about this requirement in Parli, where you can't give me substantive evidence.

- Don't make offensive arguments. You don't know what experiences I or your opponents have had, so assume a veil of ignorance and talk about sensitive topics as if someone who has personal connections to those topics is in the room with you. I also do not take kindly to sexism.

- Please weigh. If you don't weigh, I'll have to intervene and make my own illogical conclusions about whose argument is stronger. There is a 50% chance that you will not be happy with the resulting decision.

- If you make me laugh with a good joke, I will give you an additional half-speaker point. If you mention Rose McGowan or the Alamo, I will give you an additional half-speaker point. If you mention clowns in absolutely any context, I will give you an additional half-speaker point. If you do any combination of these things, I will not give you more than one half-speaker point. However, I will be thoroughly pleased.

- Pay attention to my body language. If I nod at you, I have gotten your point and you don't need to elaborate further.

That's it! Take a deep breath, and have fun. If you have any questions, feel free to find me before or after the round.

Debated policy in high school and parli at Columbia University

judging for over 4 years

email: cyrusjks10@gmail.com

pronouns: he/him

2/17/24 EDIT:

Quick Prefs:

1) Ks/KAFFS/Performance

2) LARP

3) Phil

4) T/Theory

5) Tricks (unless tied to social advocacy)

IHSA 2022 Update:

Debate Philosophy: Generally, I default to voting for the team that has done the better debating, in terms of proving the merit of the arguments they make against some comparative (opponent's arguments, status quo, etc.). Offense is always appreciated, and I normally vote for the team that has the best warranted / impacted out offense.

UK Digital TOC Speech & Debate #2 Edit:

What debaters should do more of: give roadmaps, sign post, slow down on taglines, do impact calculus/weigh, do line-by-line analyses, compare evidence, collapse on key args in final rebuttal speeches, and say why you are winning/get the ballot (write my ballot for me)

What debaters should avoid doing: spreading through overviews and theory shells (if need to spread please send out a doc), saying they have proved something to be true, bringing up that something was dropped/conceded without explaining why it matters or is a critically important to evaluating/framing the round, jumping all over the flow (please sign post so I can accurately flow/ keep track of your arguments), and sending out speech docs that can't be downloaded or copied from. ALSO please no postrounding and no sending me emails before a round is scheduled to occur nor after a round has occurred, as judges are not allowed to have contact with debaters except during a round.

1/7/22 EDIT:

Quick Prefs:

1) LARP

2) Ks/KAFFS/Performance

3) Phil

4) T/Theory

5) Tricks

Miscellaneous

Kritiks I like to hear (in order): Afropess/antiblackness, afrofuturism, set col, cap,

I debated for 3 years in high school on the incredibly lay Colorado circuit, so as a judge I'm accustomed to value clash being held as the top priority in rounds and have less experience with kritiks and theory. That said, I encourage unique approaches to the resolution and am willing to vote on almost anything so long as you clearly warrant your argument in a way that can be explained as an rfd. I suggest that for any strategies you may employ that include theory debate or kritiks, you spend ample time on concise explanation.

I am a librarian and in my 7th year as a Public Forum and Parlimentary debate judge. I believe a well-presented argument relies on speaking clearly and thoughtfully, rather than rushing to present every piece of information. State your contentions clearly and use this to create a reliable, well-structured argument.

Yasemin Reis (she/her)

I’m a junior at Columbia and a member of the Columbia Parli Team. I can keep up with moderate speed with very clear signposting. I expect arguments and rebuttals to be substantially warranted.

I am a sophomore at Barnard and compete with the Columbia Parli Team. I competed in PF for four years at Sidwell Friends School. I'll flow and can handle moderate speed, but prefer for there to be clear signposting, especially in early speeches, in order to best understand your arguments. The best argumentation should include extensions of your arguments (with convincing responses to rebuttals from the opposing side) and thoughtful weighing.

Go slow. Be clear. Be nice.

If you would like more, I have written detailed paradigms for each style I judge:

PF paradigm

Parli paradigm

Middle school paradigm

I am a junior at Columbia majoring in history and public health, I've debated for 3 years now on the Columbia team doing a mix of Adapa/BP. I don't have any super specific debate preferences except I don't love theory. Please be respectful to your opponents in the round.

General Points:

1. No Spreading;

2. Signpost your arguments;

3. Sufficient warrant is needed;

4. Weighing your impacts against impacts from the other side; if you don't do it for me, I will have to make decision based on my own belief;

5. Creative and unique arguments are a plus; philosophical arguments are more than welcomed

Have fun:)

I'm a college student in NYC and have been debating for five years. In high school, I debated LD and Public Forum extensively both in the NY league and the NatCircuit. These days I do Parli.

You can do anything you want in round and I will consider it: use speed, theory, Ks, interpretive dance if you so choose. I've seen everything under the sun and I'm pretty much comfortable with whatever you want to try. As a caveat, if you are incomprehensible in your spreading I will slow you down and if your theory isn't well-developed I will not understand it. My priorities in round are substantial weighing and clash above all. I'm most interested in seeing rounds where both sides really dig into the central voters and give me a very clear ballot by the end. I also see debate as a learning experience and I want my ballot to help you improve and understand exactly why I decided the way I did.

Please let me know in round or after if anything that happens or that I do makes you uncomfortable, I'm always welcome to criticism.

LD Paradigm

Add me to the email chain - catherine_zhu@icloud.com

I’m not super familiar with the differences between LD and policy, so most of this paradigm is telling you things/preferences I had there and you can take that how you will. The TLDR is that I’m probably like 70% policy and 30% lay/parliamentary judge right now.

Don’t make offensive arguments (I will drop you immediately), be nice to your opponents. (This includes overcompensating when you’re hitting a lay kid or being passive aggressive in round. I will dock your speaks.)

If you use a lot of buzzwords, you’re leaving it up to me to interpret what they mean from a policy debater standpoint - since it’s been a while since i’ve debated, I might not have the most clear idea of what those words mean anyways. When in doubt, do a little explaining - I tended to make a lot of arguments when I debated without using the actual buzzwords so I can probably follow. I probably fall on truth over tech, but I’m not lay enough to ignore massive amounts of dropped arguments and such. I don’t weigh arguments based on their existence/quantity, but based on degree of explanation. It’s up to you to point out powertagged args, but I will give ev much less weight if you prove that it doesn’t say what the tag says it does.

General Thoughts

-The end of the debate should be framed in terms of impacts with comparison between the two sides

- CX can be important for persuasiveness of an arg, but please carry any arguments made over into speeches.

-I will not evaluate arguments just because they exist!! If you're like 'they dropped this' and repeat the tagline you leave it up to me what that evidence means.

-I'm straight up not the best evaluator of T debates and theory, and generally have a pretty high threshold. If its your winning strat, go for it. But in close and messy debates, it probably won't go the way you want it to. Update: I will not vote on theory unless there is abuse or you can prove there is significant potential for abuse. I treat theory and T as a-priori, top level issues that come before the substance of the round.

-If you don’t explain your performance, I will just evaluate it as a cool piece of art

-Messy debates are annoying. I’m much less inclined to untangle all the threads and probably going to take an easier way out presented by a debater.

-Framing is where I go to first. Make sure your frameworks/ROBs interact.

-unless you want your k to be evaluated as a DA and you tell me so, the alt needs to actually do something. reasonably high threshold for k's, esp on link work.

-No clue what tricks are. Yikes?

-In the event of graphic descriptions of traumatic/sensitive issues, please inform everyone in the round. If your opponent expresses discomfort before the round, you had best have another strategy. In the event a round becomes uncomfortable for a debater, the round will stop and we will decide what to do.

-I will usually read evidence when its contested. I think that if you read evidence, the burden is on you to know it and have it say what you want to say. I give a good amount of weight to evidence indicts because I think there's a lot of poor quality evidence that internally contradicts.