Rowland Hall-St Mark's '17

Georgetown University '21

Berkeley Law '26

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

Judging Habits of Mine:

--Treat me like a stock issues judge that can keep up with speed and is in the weeds on topic literature. Only caveat to stock issues is I’m fine with CPs, conditionality, and Ks. But that K has to address at least solvency and harms.

--Quality of arguments matters more than quantity of arguments. Debaters win in front of me when they slow down and thoroughly make strategic arguments with clear implications for my decision, rather than throwing out inconsequential arguments and hoping I will put the pieces together for them.

--I tend to follow the Dallas Perkins view of evidence: "If you can't find a single sentence from your author that states the thesis of your argument, you may have difficulty selling it to me." I am going to start more aggressively enforcing this premise. If I decide your card is gobbledygook from the highlighted words, I will not evaluate it. Similarly, you don't need to answer a card if you point out that the card says nothing as currently highlighted. That can have significant impacts for the round when unpacked, such as a 1NC failing to read a coherent link card to a DA.

--Relatedly, evidence quality is paramount. Please flag if your authors are writing in peer reviewed journals, if your opponent's authors have clear partisan affiliations that impact their scholarship, and the degree of specificity of your evidence.

--Intuitive and well reasoned analytics are frequently better uses of your time than reading a low quality card. I would prefer to reward debaters that demonstrate full understanding of their positions and think through the logical implications of arguments rather than rewarding the team that happens to have a card on some random issue. This is especially true when refuting contrived CPs and silly impact arguments.

--Debaters tend to rely on "extinction outweighs everything" far too much. I am not likely to vote for you simply because you are the only one to have a tenuous connection to an extinction level impact; I am likely to vote for you if you acknowledge relative degrees of risk and recognize that many impacts (e.g. poverty, disease, unemployment, regional conflicts with great power draw in, etc) are bad regardless of whether they will potentially lead to nuclear annihilation.

Operating Procedure:

--I flow on paper.

--I flow cross examination and will refer to that flow when making my decisions.

--I will not be following along closely enough with speech docs to enforce any sort of clipping violations by myself. Debaters should record debates and provide that recording when accusing the other side of an ethics challenge.

--Each debater must give 1 constructive and 1 rebuttal. If it is not your speech and you say something, it will not be on on my flow.

--Not interested in arguments about issues from out of round. Also not interested in hearing arguments about how former debaters are either good or evil people (may make an exception if you actually know the person and can speak to their character, but I'm not interested in hearing you insult someone you don't know).

Theory Issues

--Conditionality is good. I will still vote aff on conditionality bad if debated well.

--I am very open to voting neg on plan vagueness arguments.

--Limited intrinsicness can be very good.

CPs

--I'm increasingly in the camp that CPs need solvency advocates (albeit not hard and fast with that rule). CPs grounded in opponent's solvency advocates are frequently an ideal 2NR in front of me.

--I'm getting bored of the States CP, especially in the iteration of "all 50 states uniformly do the plan" and/or "all 50 states should uniformly force the federal government to do the plan." I am open to consider 50 state action (if debated decently), but I don't see why the affirmative shouldn't be able to make solvency deficits about non-uniform implementation.

--I judge legitimacy of CP's on a case by case basis. In the magical world of fiat, it feels tough to categorically exclude specific varieties of CP's.

--Literature determines predictability. If your "cheating" CP is clearly in the lit, I will be more likely to listen to it and allow it in the debate. That also necessitates the literature clearly distinguishing it from the plan.

--If no one says a word about it, I will judge kick for the neg.

Ks

--I heavily prioritize framework in these debates, especially when framed in terms of the "win condition" for both teams. Generally, I find that assumptions/justifications underlying the 1AC are fair game for both aff and neg offense; however, I still require clear framing devices for how to determine who wins the debate should those assumptions be the primary consideration.

--I am open to vote on an alternative that includes the plan or other arguments that may be considered theoretically illegitimate by many. Just be up front about it (preferably in the 1nc) so the aff can respond and so you can have a real debate.

T

--T debates are fun when they focus on evidence, rather than purely abstract discussions of limits or ground.

No Plan/K Affs

--I like it when the aff has a robust defense of what debate looks like in their model, particularly a clear role for the negative team.

Misc:

--Do NOT read evidence written by undergraduates. I will not evaluate it.

--Tweets from experts can be effectively used as evidence in front of me. Two illustrative examples:

1. In response to evidence that says the Russian invasion of Ukraine was precipitated by NATO expansion, a debater reads this thread from a University of Chicago International Relations Professor: https://x.com/ProfPaulPoast/status/1630305966674640896?s=20
2. A 1AR responding to a politics disadvantage reads a tweet from a Senior Congressional Correspondent to indicate the current state of negotiations on a bill and its prospects of passing.

Four years policy debate at GMU

Yes I want to be on the chain - Email: bbigbiggs1@gmail.com

General Notes

- PLEASE treat everyone in the room with respect, especially your opponents

- I flow straight down, it's in your best interest to keep it as organized as possible

- More familiar with policy args, but have and will vote for critical args

- Inserting re-highlighting is good if you are pointing out specific context that is left out and in small doses, not if you are essentially making a new card out of it

• These are my general thoughts but things can obviously change on a debate by debate basis depending on how the round goes

- This paradigm is geared towards policy debate since that is what I judge most frequently. If I am judging you in a different format; do no stress about the nuances here, I adopt to the norms of whatever format I am judging without bias to the best of my ability/knowledge

Notes for Online Debate:

- Please be conscientious of speed and clarity. I never will negatively impact your speaks because of mic issues but I can only vote on what I hear.

- If my camera is off assume I am not there.

Policy v Policy

- I will look through the evidence so a card doc would be useful; however, good evidence shouldn't be a substitute for poor explanation.

- Please make sure to extend full arguments. If you just say there is "no impact to US-China war" in the 1ar with no explanation for why, I will not vote for it in the 2ar even if dropped in the 2nr. That is just a phrase not an argument.

T:

- Limits/ground is the impact I find most persuasive. It will take more work to go for precision or other impacts but I can be swayed

- I tend to err on competing interpretation but actually can be persuaded by reasonability IF explained properly

Theory

Condo - tend to be neg leaning though more than three starts to push it. More open to condo args if the CP's are particularly abusive or if they've read multiple with no solvency advocates

PICs - I'm fine with PICs out of specific portions the aff defends. Not the judge for word PICs (unless they say something absolutely egregious in their plan text)

No solvency advocate CPs - I probably don't think this is a reason to reject the team, but I will likely be annoyed and lower speaks if you don't have one. Exceptions if you're against new affs or it is a very niche CP to answer a specific impact.

Other theory - 99 out of 100 times, if it's not condo, it's a reason to reject the arg. You need a clear reason why they skewed the round to get me to drop them even if it is dropped. Having said that, if you win that a CP is illegitimate you're probably in a good spot anyways.

Clash

Top Level: I've found myself judging more of these debates than I expected so I want to update this portion of my paradigm. I tend to have a higher threshold for 2ar re-articulation of arguments than most judges so I find myself voting neg more often in these debates than other rounds I judge.

Policy aff v the K:

- I tend to err aff on the f/w portion of the debate. Weigh the aff vs the alt, key to fairness, etc. are all args I tend to find more persuasive. Impact framing is the portion of the debate you should focus on. Make sure you're answering all the nuances of the util v structural violence (or any other framing) debate

- Be careful with the link debate. Even if you win that your case outweighs the neg can still win a link turns case arg that can make it tough for you to get my ballot.

K's v Policy Affs:

- Impact framing will essential. You will have a hard time persuading me that I should just reject the aff for some reason, but can definitely persuade me that your impact outweighs/is more crucial to discuss in the debate space.

- Specificity of the link is going to be important. Generic state bad links aren't going to be as persuasive as links to the specific action of the plan.

- Simplify the debate. Don't spread yourself too thin, try and pick just one link for the 2NR (unless two are very poorly answered but I'd cap it there) and really impact it out.

- I find embedded turns case args on the link debate very persuasive if it is a specific link to the aff.

- Clarity on the alt will be important. This is an area of the debate that I feel like gets under-explained throughout the debate. I like some explanation of what your alt materially looks like and how it resolves the link.

F/W v K affs:

- Fairness can be an impact, but I generally find the way teams explain it is more of an internal link to education (a pretty good one at that).

- When the aff is reasonably in the direction of the topic - I tend to place a lot of weight on the TVA and need explanation of lost ground and why the ground you lost is good.

- When the aff is blatantly anti-topical or an aff that is meant to be a personal strategy, go for clash good. I don't believe you need a TVA in this instance (or should extend one) as long as you have a good reason why the discussions that happen under your model of debate are good.

K affs v F/W:

- The easiest way to get my ballot is if you win your impact and win the "limits/clash means they can't access the aff's benefits even if it is theoretically good" arg you are in a very good place so long as you don't royally mess up the TVA debate or SSD. Having said that: I am open to other strategies, do your thing, but just understand that I will need more explanation than your typical judge.

- We meet probably not ideal unless the neg messed up the interp.

- If you are an aff that is in the direction of the topic, counter-definitions should be your friend.

- If your aff is outside the scope of being able to do so, you need to impact turn their model of debate. I am not gonna be persuaded by a counter-interp that was clearly designed to include your aff. Obviously extend your interpretation, but don't use it to try and mitigate their offense.

- Things to avoid: I do not find blanket stating "k debate is predictable" persuasive. Give me a reason why your specific aff is predictable for the negative to debate if you want to go that route.

K v K

I will not be as knowledgeable in K literature as either team is going to be. The best thing you could do to get my ballot is to make the debate simple. I may not be familiar with a lot of your terminology - and I am not going to vote on something I do not understand - so you may benefit by clearly explaining certain terms or at least having evidence that is clearly highlighted to define abstract terms/concepts.

Impact framing/explanation is going to be key in these rounds.

Name: Sarah Blanton

Email: essie3blanton@gmail.com. If there is a chain, I would like to be on it.

School Affiliation: George Mason University

Number of Years Judging Public Forum: 2

Number of Years Competing in Public Forum: 1

Number of Years Judging Other Forensic Activities: 3

Number of Years Competing in Other Forensic Activities: 6

Coaching Experience: I’ve coached Lincoln Douglas at Grafton High School for two years, but while I was competing/also a high schooler. I was the head lab leader for novice LD at Mason's camp summer 2019.

Occupation: Global Affairs major and second-year policy debater at George Mason, graduating 2021.

IN ROUND PREFERENCES:

Speed of Delivery: Whatever speed you prefer.

Format of Summary Speeches: I prefer line by line and detailed clash.

Role of the Final Focus: final speeches should conclude with impact calculus and offensive reasons to vote their way.

Extension of Arguments into later speeches: Because of my policy background, I am somewhat biased towards the policy mindset. I weigh arguments that appear in the final speech(es) much more heavily, and consider a dropped argument to be reasonably true, I understand there is limitations on extending EVERY argument you need in the final speech, but you should try to extend most of the arguments you plan to win the debate on in your final speech.

Topicality: I don’t have much experience judging PF topicality debates, so I will not be familiar with PF-specific conventions. That said, I have been in and judged several topicality policy debates, and I have no problem voting for it or structural issues with the argument.

Plans: Go for it. I’ve never judged a PF team that reads a plan, so I am not especially for or against one.

Kritiks: This is probably the area I am personally most familiar with since I have spent most of my college career doing K debate. I have a broad knowledge of many Ks, and I really enjoy judging clash debates. However, I do understand reading Ks in a topic which changes monthly creates preparation difficulties for the aff. For this reason, I will weigh prep-oriented arguments with a particular weight. I will not be sympathetic to policy arguments which glamorize exclusionary models of debate instead of focusing on the real challenges of being prepared for unconventional arguments on a monthly basis. In other words, in clash debates I will be more convinced by more personal impacts about the difficulties of preparation as opposed to interpretations which exclude critical literature or identity debate in their entirety.

Flowing/note-taking: I will flow on my laptop

Argument or style? I consider style heavily over argument when awarding speaker points, but otherwise I will only rarely use style as a tiebreaker between equally matched teams. Generally, I have a strong preference for arguments.

If a team plans to win the debate on an argument, in your opinion does that argument have to be extended in the rebuttal or summary speeches? YES.

If a team is second speaking, do you require that the team cover the opponents’ case as well as answers to its opponents’ rebuttal in the rebuttal speech? Yes

Do you vote for arguments that are first raised in the grand crossfire or final focus? I will not vote for a new argument in the final speeches, and teams should also do their best to call out their opponents for making new arguments.

Important Final Note: I WILL drop speaks for excessive rudeness towards your partner or your opponents. I am especially conscious of sexism and other forms of discrimination in debate spaces based on personal experience and what I have observed about inclusivity in the debate community. I will not tolerate bigotry between debaters, and I really appreciate kindness and courtesy in round. Don't speak over others in cross-ex, avoid demeaning language, don't ever record without other's permission, and be respectful of your partner and the other team.

Good luck and have fun!

Issa Paradigm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3kz4AUHe1M

I'd never worship a god that didn't know how to dance

For the brave:

I am not the gambling type but I do love a good joke, and a good joke deserves a reward of .2 to a .5 speaker point boost to your total speaker points, but there are limits as to what I will dub as funny enough to avoid having to judge rounds of last comic standing. The jokes I will reward are as follows,

1. The "Lt. Louis Armstrong" voice - get it right and you get a .5 boost, get it wrong and you lose .1

2. Strong pun game - puns get a bad for a reason, they are often terrible. Although anyone who knows me well knows I love well timed, expertly executed puns. Here's your opportunity to prove your pun game is strong. .4 boost if you make a pun and I enjoy it, fail you lose .2

3. Use the phrase "Omae wa mou shinderiu" correctly in a debate you get a .3 boost. Get it wrong you lose .3

These are the jokes I will reward; may the odds forever be in your favor.

Things you need know:

Yes, I would like to be in the email chain, my email is ibrown.gmu1@gmail.com

No, I do not believe that novice should have to debate K affs until the tail end of the second semester, these debates are often anti-educational hurt novice development. Which is to say I believe you must first learn debate before you can debate about debate. This is not to say that I won't judge these debates fairly, but rather a warning that I am incredibly sympathetic to the otherside of the argument. Although once it is the 2nd half of the first second semester my sympathies die out.

I always flow on paper so give me pen time when you're blazing through your analytics

I will not vote on comparing arguments to sexual assault in anyway shape or form, I think those debates are violent, anti-educational and only risk net harm to everyone involved.

I debated a total of 7 years

2 years in the Chicago UDL

5 years at George Mason 1-year policy 1 year flex 3 years critical. I went to the NDT twice and I broke into elims of CEDA twice. I debated off of my flow and I judge the same way. It really doesn't matter what your argument is, if you can communicate it to me and the other team cannot then simply put, you are ahead. It is your responsibility to get your arguments onto my piece of paper and I will do everything that is in my power to get the ballot to tab with your name as the victor but that's only if your opponent doesn't beat you to the ballot. All of this is to say, read what you want in front of me, the flow is the deciding factor.

What I want to hear:

This should never be the question you ask when you get me in the back of the round, I want to judge you at your best so read whatever it is that is your best. Be fast, be strategic, be smart and be effective. These are the traits that I look for in a good debater, which is to say I don't place a limit on the style of debate you do, if the argument you like going for involves telling me that Russia has got it out for the US and the only thing that can solve that is a single-payer health care system then DO THAT. Or if your best is telling me the world as I know it writ large is founded on a set of principles that require investigation and or just blanket rejection DO THAT. My job is not to actively seek confirmation bias by judging every Baudrillard/Afro-pess debate ever, I am here to take really fast notes and tell you what I think the best argument was at the end of the debate. So, do you in whatever form that may look.

The ways I evaluate debates:

1. As mentioned above I follow the flow to the T, but even this is debatable although even in debates that critique flowing in a normative fashion, I will continue to flow unless explicitly asked not to (this is for my benefit as I like to have a point of reference when deciding things.)

2. In particularly messy debates I will be annoyed and you will lose points if my flow becomes a random assortment of words. Line arguments up as best as you can, this is for my benefit as well as yours, debate is a communication activity and good line by line while hard to come by is extremely important when the debate comes down to a degree of nuance. You don't want me to have to do work for you by having to decipher the entire debate. You want to be clear, concise and ready to go. Line by line then while not necessary is preferred.

3. Tell me a story, but make sure this story has a claim warrant and impact. Reel me in with whatever necessary just make sure you have a complete argument.

Speaks:

Stolen from Patrick McCleary

“I give speaker points based on how effectively students articulate their arguments, regardless of the type of argument. Above a 29.5 deserves to contend for top speaker, 29-29.5 is a speaker award, 28.5-29 is good/should be clearing, 28.1-28.5 is on the cusp of clearing, 28 is average, 27.5 is below average, 27 needs work. Any lower and you are probably either in the wrong division or did something offensive. Given what I've seen from people who compile the data on this stuff, this seems to be somewhat close to the community norm.”

"Debaters who have used the opportunity afforded by annual resolutions to learn about the topic and are able to apply that knowledge in the round will be in position to receive higher points than debaters whose speeches are lacking in this category. Debaters whose speeches reflect little to no effort at having learned about this season's topic may win the debate, but will not receive good points.

This does not mean the AFF must read a plan text...nor that the NEG can only debate the case (rarely a wise strategy). It simply means I am listening for proof that debaters are taking advantage of the opportunity to learn about a different topic area each season."

Theory/T Debates:

Provide me an interpretation and defend it I’ll evaluate it.

Framework:

Outside of what I read as a debater this is probably the argument I know the most about on both the AFF and NEG side of things and while I would impact turn this whenever I heard it that does not mean I am AFF leaning on FW. Simply put I will vote on what’s on my flow regardless of how I feel about it despite that I feel it necessary to disclose several arguments that I find more persuasive on both sides of the debate.

NEG:

· Debate is a Game (This can be debated and if you win it on the flow I am amendable to change but it is my default setting)

· AFF’s should have to defend something (this does not mean they must have a plan)

· AFF’s should be testable (this doesn’t mean that a generic counterplan/DA is the best method to test the AFF)

AFF:

· If you can do it on the neg they should be prepared (In that scenario they get to weigh their aff, making this not an argument alone you have to impact this argument to make it more offensive)

· K-affs inevitable (Doesn’t make those affs predictable)

· Fairness is often times arbitrary (But winnable, I think the move to deliberation over procedural fairness is silly, just tell them to get out of your house)

TLDR:

I am tech over truth appeals to my emotions gets you speaker points not ballots. Simply put I will do no work for you and I will judge the flow and only the flow unless an argument is made telling me not to.

I am the parent of a debater. Although I make my living crafting persuasive arguments, I am a lay judge, with limited knowledge of the technical rules of debate. I will try and give you the best judging experience I can. You can help me, and yourself, by clearly and concisely stating your position, explaining why sources support your argument, and politely pointing out the flaws in your opponent's claims.

I prefer truth over tech. Evidence ethics are paramount. If the cards I see do not say what you say they do, I will drop the argument from the round— and depending how egregious the ethics violation, I may drop you. I do not want to see your cut card, I want to see the article or source, with the portion you used highlighted. I have no tolerance for sexism, racism, and rudeness. Be civil, be kind. And try not to talk too fast- I can't give you credit for an argument I cannot understand.

For me it all comes down to Final Focus. Please make sure you include everything you want me to consider in those 2 minutes. Your job is to persuade me, through your research and arguments, that your position is right and I should vote for you. I am not well-versed on tech and the specific rules for extending arguments, however I will not credit any argument not in final focus. Signposts and numbering of arguments will be very helpful to me.

Last season, I thought debaters Anoosh Kumar, Nathaniel Yoon, Kevin Zeng, Maggie Mills, Sasha Haines (last year's Nats winners) and the Abbasi twins were excellent debaters.

Congrats to all you debaters. Your ability to articulate complex arguments and make them clear and simple is amazing. I am in awe of your ability to research, think on your feet, respond to some off the wall claims that are thrown at you without warning, and speak clearly and calmly with a skill well beyond your years.

Truth over Tech - but you have to be prepared to debate. I have strong preferences against nonsense, but you must be skilled enough to meet a minimum threshold for responsiveness.

😤 WEIGH YOUR ARGUMENTS 😤

Hello! I'm a judge for Oakton High School. I'm a parent of a debater, and since I've traveled with him to many local and national tournaments, I have decent experience judging this event.

I like clear, well-explained arguments, backed up with valid and convincing evidence. Explain your arguments clearly, why I should vote on them, and why they're more important than your opponent's, and you'll be rewarded.

If your argument is remotely false I will drop you.

Yes: Weighing (not just impact comparison). Warranting. Comparing evidence and analysis. Implicating all arguments to the ballot (offensive and defensive). Arguments that make sense. Smart collapsing. Direction of link analysis. Signposting.

YES! Starting good weighing in rebuttal. Summary-final focus parallelism. Ballot-directive language. Productive use of crossfire. Creating a cohesive narrative in the round, supported by each argument you make in the round. Weighing your weighing.

No: Weak, blippy evidence. Cards without warrants. Independent offensive overviews in either rebuttal, especially 2nd. Rudeness. Ghost extensions. Not frontlining in 2nd rebuttal. Squirrely arguments that are unclear or confusing for the sole purpose of throwing your opponent off.

NO! Misconstrued cards. Extending through ink. New arguments in 2nd final focus. Saying something's dropped when it's not. Dropping weighing. Being unclear in speaking. Being actively mean, degrading, racist/sexist/homophobic.

Other

I kind of flow but not really, I take notes.

No defense in 1st summary unless if it's not frontlined in 2nd rebuttal (you should do this). All offense must be in every summary and final focus. I presume for the 1st speaking team.

If you say the words "do you have any preferences" without a specific question, I'll assume you didn't read this.

General:

I am a lay judge. I do follow the flow, but I don't judge exclusively on that;

You may sit or stand to present but both teams will do the same. If the room is cramped, it’s better you stay in your seat;

If you are going to speak quickly, your elocution needs to be good enough for me to understand you;

I do not run a clock on time, track your own time and keep your opponents honest about theirs;

If you are relying on an electronic device to make your speeches and it goes down, I will run your prep time until it is corrected. If you run out of time, I expect you to continue without it. If you can’t, I will consider that a forfeit;

I have a thorough knowledge of statistics so making arguments that go off the deep end (speculative) or citing sources with a statistically insignificant sample size, or "cherry-picked" data or conclusions will diminish the impact of your card.

Misrepresenting cards will cost you, whether done intentionally or not;

You may use an off-time road map to state the sequence of your argument but do not use it to make your case.

About me:

I have an engineering background and work in the heavy construction industry. I am swayed by facts, data, logic, and reason and do my best to avoid emotion in decisions at it mostly leads to failure or disaster in the realm of the physical sciences where I work.

My hobbies include history, particularly military history, automobiles, woodworking, outdoor sports, and evolutionary behavior/genetics.

Hi everyone!

I am a former PF Debater who graduated high school in 2018.

Some things I think you should know about me:

• While I did well on the National Circuit (won 5th and then 3rd at nationals, won Florida Bluekey in 2017, deep outbound runs at other tournaments, etc.) I haven't interacted with debate much since graduating. This means I'll be slower at flowing and more of a Flay judge than anything else.
• I'm probably not the guy to run some crazy theory with, but if that's your bread and butter or you're very confident in it, I'll give you a shot.
• I don't necessarily care about disclosure theory so run it at your own risk.
• At the end of the day I care about your warrants and I'd place myself in the dwindling truth > tech camp. The way I see it, what you're arguing needs to make sense and be self-consistent. With that said don't be afraid of a judge intervention situation unless what you're saying is egregiously wrong or misleading.
• Related to this first point (added this post-Glenbrooks because of an in round situation), I am very much annoyed at the tendency of PF moving towards people using blippy cards that don't say what they say it says. If you notice that a team is misconstruing their evidence or outright lying about what their cards says, call it out. I will read the evidence after the round and if the evidence was critical to their case, I will no longer weigh that argument. If the misconstruing is so aggregious that it completely altered the flow of the round, I will likely drop the offending party. Don't take this to mean you need to call for a million cards during the round and try to make the debate about the ethics of the evidence. I prefer rounds that are clean with clash and give the benefit of the doubt to debaters that their cards say what they say. However I am also aware that there are many situations where cards are construed in the wrong way and I believe that these situations are antithetical to the point of debate. So if you see this happening in your round, call it out and I'll read the card.

I am a parent "lay" judge. I debated in high school (Lincoln Douglas) and have done some PF judging in recent years, but am hardly an expert on the technical aspects of PF debate.

What I am looking for is clean, cogent arguments that are internally and externally consistent. Internally consistent meaning that they have an underlying logic that is well explained and does not conflict with other arguments your team makes. Externally consistent meaning that there is a tie to relevant supporting facts, and that the facts lined up to support your arguments are not in conflict with one another or with common sense.

On rebuttal, I'm looking for teams to attack the internal and external consistency of the other side's arguments. Again, I'm looking for logic and evidence in this attack.

The team that wins is the team that has the most convincing contentions that survive (withstand other team's attacks) to the end of the debate.

Pretty straightforward. Let me add a few things that I'm *not* looking for:

1. Too rapid speaking/high volume of arguments: Speaking quickly in order to get in the most words and make the most points is at best a tradeoff: you get more words, but your words become less effective if I can't understand them or can't fully grasp the point. On average, PF debaters I've judged speak too fast and the effectiveness of their arguments suffer as a result.

2. Overuse of debate lingo. Don't tell me you've won the debate because you turned their contention and negged their impact. Tell me in plain English why you've won. Or better yet, just tell me why your main arguments have survived intact through the debate and your opponents' arguments have not.

3. Rude/overly aggressive behavior: Yes, this is a competitive event and emotions can run high. But try to be respectful and polite towards your opponents at all times, and do not try to get "under their skin" with overly aggressive behavior.

4. Unrealistic impacts: Keep in mind that impacts have to do with probability as well as outcome. Impacting everything to utter calamity (nuclear war, societal breakdown) does not win if the probability of such an outcome is slight. It's really hard to judge the exact probability of extremely low probability events -- so try to keep it in the realm of reasonably probable.

Finally, let me say thank you for all of the work you all put in. I get the easy job, and I'm impressed by the level of effort and the quality of debate that I usually see.

Hi All!

I know you all have a lot of prepping to do. So, I'll keep my paradigm short (and I don't have much to say).

Things that are good:

I'm fine with CPs, Disads, T/SPECs, Framework, Ks, etc. I'm fine with performance.

***Note: I was not a performance debater. So, there are things you might want to explain more to me.

Things that are bad:

Language that is sexist, abelist, racist, classist, homophobic or otherwise uncool.

One last thing to note: I think what you say in round (even if it's not in a speech) is probably binding (i.e. the other team can hold you accountable for it and/or speaker points will reflect it).

If you have any questions about this or anything else, please let me know!

marie.eszenyi@gmail.com

(919) 323-1353

Updated for virtual debate in 2021-22.

Add me to the email chain: azgphoto@hotmail.com.

If providing / exchanging speech docs: Please email the text of your speech to me. I prefer this to a link to your doc in the cloud. If you also want to send a link, that is fine.

Time: Speeches and cross: Please state something like "my time starts now" or "time starts on my first word." Prep time: Say "starting prep now," "time starts when I get my partner's call," or hold your timer so that everyone can see it when you start prep. Also say "stopping prep, we used X" or "x remaining." This helps me and everyone in the round keep track.

Virtual evidence exchange: Teams must be able to pull up evidence and provide it promptly. Teams asking for evidence must keep both microphones on until the evidence is received in order to keep your prep time from starting. Any team asked for evidence that cannot provide it within 1 minute may lose prep time.

----

Experience: I am a former Bronx High School of Science policy debater where I debated all four years and competed regularly at national tournaments. This was a while back. Abraham Lincoln was the President. (Obviously joking.) This is my fifth year judging PF debate for what is now my son's former high school. See my judging record below.

Please read my full paradigm below.

Signposting. Please signpost all of your positions/arguments. This includes your warrants, impacts, links, as well as when you weigh the issues in each speech. Numbering with signposting is often helpful for me to make clear what you consider to be independent arguments. Without good signposting, I (like any judge) may miss part of an argument or not vote on what you believe is key to the round.

Speed is okay but you must be clear. I flow debates. If I can't understand you or feel like I am missing what you are saying, you will be able to tell by the look on my face in the round. Online debate adds another level of difficulty to this so if I can't understand enough of what you are saying, I will say "clear."

Warrant your arguments and weigh them (where it makes sense to do so). I do not want to do any analysis for you that you do not present in the round. Intelligent and thoughtful analysis can beat warrantless evidence.

Evidence. Know your sources and tell me precisely what your evidence says. The NSDA allows paraphrasing but I don't think it is worth the potential trouble that can result. Context is often very important. If a team is paraphrasing and the evidence is critical to the round, I encourage you to call for it and look for weaknesses in your opponents's characterizations. Also, consider the persuasiveness of the author. I won't necessarily know who the author of your evidence is. Consider telling me enough so that I can evaluate how persuasive the evidence is as well as explaining why your opponent's sources may be biased or untrustworthy. I may ask for evidence that becomes important in the round. All evidence must say what you claim that it does. If paraphrased text doesn’t say what you claim that it said, I will weigh that against you. I don't like to call for cards but if you think that someone's evidence doesn't say what is claimed in the round, ask me to call for it. (Don't tell me to call for evidence that is not at issue in the round and don't bother to ask me if I want to see evidence after the round. I will tell you if I want to see something.)

Cross: I may make notes during cross but if you want to make an argument or respond to one, it must be made during a speech in the round. You can refer back to an argument made in cross but make sure I understand how you are using it in the round.

Frameworks: If your opponent seeks to establish a voting framework for the entire round, address that framework directly. Tell me why I should reject it or why I should adopt an alternate framework. If you do not respond to your opponents framework directly, I will treat that as though you have accepted it.

By the end of your summary speeches, I should have a clear idea of exactly what you want me to vote on and why. (“We win the round on x is nowhere near as helpful as “We win the round on x because ...” Please address your opponents’ voting arguments head on.

Extend your key arguments into Final Focus. Extending an argument is not the same as repeating an argument. Know the difference. If you want me to vote on it, it must be there.

On a related note, don't drop your opponents’ voting arguments. If an argument is truly dropped and this is pointed out in the final focus, I will give the dropped argument to the team that made the argument. They may not win as a result but it could be easier to do so. DO NOT, however, claim that your opponents dropped one of your arguments when, in fact, they merely responded generally to it.

Timing. When time runs out, please stop speaking. If time runs and you are in mid sentence, you may complete the sentence but only if you can do so in no more than a few seconds. Arguments made or responses given after time is up are NOT "in the round."

I will disclose my decision after a round along with my RFD if the rules of a tournament allow me to do so.

Progressive arguments: I am not very familiar with progressive arguments / Ks, so run them at your own risk. That being said, I will evaluate any argument presented on the merits of the argument.

derby ‘18

mason ‘22

grahanoa@gmail.com

i read a k aff for the last 3 years, before that i read a plan in kansas. read what makes you comfortable at a pace you can maintain. feel free to ask me any questions before the round. 

Top Level - Only judge every once and a while now, debated for George Mason University.

I would like to be on the email chain - gerrit.hansen96 AT gmail.com

Go to the bottom for non-policy formats

What to read before the round, if you are interested.

This paradigm is too long - I like K debate, but also policy debate. I am not as experienced in the latter, and will likely over-compensate by reading cards if I get confused or lost. I will do my best to judge your debate fairly.

I am neither the best - nor the worst, hopefully - flow in the game. I have great auditory processing, handwriting not so much. I would encourage a lil pen time for important args.

If the other team brings up an accessibility issue about some portion of your speech, the impetus is on you to fix the problem. I am somewhat open to discussion of what is reasonable (or fair) but please don't make me punish you for being a jerk.

Exclusionary language - including misgendering anyone, racism, ableism, sexism, etc is a voting issue. Almost guaranteed your speaks suffer at least. I will usually leave it to the team that has been harmed to make an argument about it, because I don't want to decide for you when your debate should end.

Specific args

Topicality - I think this argument has many valuable uses in debate. Use it how you will. Evidence comparison and caselists are a MUST in these debates. Tell me what your vision of the topic looks like.

Reasonability, as a phrase, is not an argument. I'm open to any and all arguments about how T debates should be viewed, but the onus is on you to create a model for what judging debates in that way ought to look like. Default to competing interps.

Theory - Slow if you plan to go for it. High speed blocks are unpersuasive and are optically a cheap-shot. Potential abuse is probably not an impact I care about that much.

CP's - They can be cool, they can be contrived and silly. PIC's should be specific rather then general. Sympathetic with 2As on some counter-plan theory. Slow down on your CP text if you want me to catch its nuances. Word PIC's are usually silly.

DA - They're cool. The more creative the better. Politics is good. 1 good and well compared impact scenario is worth 3 with loose comparison or impact calculus.

K's - This is the style of debate I personally chose to do. I have a fairly extensive literature base, and am probably more then willing to listen to your stuff. If you argue your position well and prove that you have an understanding of your literature base I will probably want to vote for you. If you're good at what you do, do it.

Links are better when they are specific to the aff - I'm down for spin, but a generic state link or a security K with no impact defense is unlikely to make me want to vote for you

Line by line is important to me, and I have yet to hear a way to evaluate debates in a reasonably fair fashion except some version of the offense/defense paradigm. If you don't want me to flow or want to change the format of the debate, I support you in your efforts but I'm also probably not the judge for you

Debates about debate (The section is a bit of a tangent for K teams) - I grow increasingly tired of the "standard moves" in these debates. I feel many ballot commodification/currency arguments are very reductionist and very much resemble whiny debaters screaming about fiat being illusory. I will obviously vote on them, but I would say I have a higher threshold than most. I care a little bit less about what the ballot does for the aff/neg, and more about what strategies, tactics, methods, alternative world views etc my ballot ought to endorse.

K Aff's/Framework- This is a debate. Defending debate norms is cool, saying "Debate bad" is cool. Being creative on both sides is more likely to get me on your side.

Topical Versions of the Aff are a good way to mitigate offense against framework. Explain to me why it solves their impact turns, not why it is similar to the aff

The Affirmative is much more likely to win if they have a counter interpretation - I find it hard to evaluate defensive "rez already exploded" or "rez poorly written" arguments without one. Rez +1 is not an argument

Arguments about jurisdiction and authority are not good ones, so long as they are answered.

Fairness is an impact. I have the inclination that debates should be fair. That being said, I don't particularly care about procedural fairness in my heart of hearts, and it's rather easy to convince me that a host of things might outweigh the need for debates to be fair.

Speaker Points: I used to have a convoluted scale of sorts here. To be honest, as I judge more often, I usually give pretty high speaker points. I think I tend to presume the best of debaters, and I often find it hard to judge their relative qualities against other debaters I have seen in a bad light. That being said, I have found that I punish very vindictively if you use exclusionary language or are a jerk.

NON-POLICY FORMATS

I mainly participated in and judge policy. I will be upfront and say that while I am familiar with the rules and some of the norms of non-policy formats, but it is probably not as second nature to me as it is to you. I would not say that I judge more then 1 tournament in either LD or PF a year, and speech is even more uncommon. These are some helpful thoughts:

PLEASE CLASH. Compare impacts. Compare frameworks. Acknowledge that your opponent made arguments, and tell me why I should care about your arguments more.

"Progressive" debate styles are cool. Theory is way too common in LD, but I don't plan to be the activist judge that stops it.

There is not a single thing that will matter to me LESS then if you stand up whenl you speak, where you speak from, etc. Accommodate yourself in the room, and I will choose my place in relation to that. It is strange how common this question is in public forum.

I'm pretty good at flowing, and the flow is how I will decide the debate. Logic over persuasion. Good policy over good personality. Tech over truth.

"Off-time" Roadmaps are helpful

Don't spread if you can't be clear. PLEASE.

2023-24 will constitute my 31st year judging intercollegiate debate.

General comments about my judging:

1) When forced to choose, evidence-based argumentation informed by an understanding of current events is preferred to eloquent prose devoid of substance.

2) Argumentation that directly engages opponents' positions, especially strategic choices that clearly acknowledge and account for the strengths of an opponents' claims while exploiting their weaknesses is considered the highest form of debate.

3) In terms of delivery style, confidence is not measured by volume, aptitude is not proven by aggressiveness, and eye contact is always appreciated.

4) Competitors who know how to employ "Even If" statements ("Even if my opponent is correct about ______, they still lose the debate because ________") are more successful than those who assume, and speak as if, they have won all the arguments.

5) I flow, or at least try to. I don't give up on that exercise because debaters share a speech document.

Specific thoughts about judging the 2023-24 CEDA-NDT resolution:

1. Debating nuclear weapons is a relative waste of our collective intellect, and an unfortunate reminder at the shallow and superficial manner by which our community chooses what topic we will spend an entire year researching, learning about, and engaging in a contestation of contrasting perspectives. US nuclear weapons policy is neither the most salient policy issue, nor even the most pressing foreign policy issue. Sadly, our community is too narrow-minded and scared to use our powers of debate to focus our energy on other areas of public policy that would be much better for college-aged scholars to delve into.
2. My thoughts expressed above do not mean I automatically support Affirmative teams who strategically choose to talk about some other topic, regardless of how passionately they feel about it. Debate is still debate, and if you can't explain how your decision to affirm something beyond the reasonably-expected "topical ground" is both educational AND fairly debatable, then in my opinion you're not any better than the folks who are stuck in the time loop of debating NFU.
3. Especially at the start of the year, don't assume we know the acronyms and specialized vocabulary you're using. My responsibility as a judge is to give the teams my full attention and effort as an adjudicator during the round - I am not required to show up to the debate already having expert-level familiarity with whatever literature base the debaters have been immersed for the last few months - whether that be nuclear weapons policy or any other body of literature.

Final Comment:

Over the last six years, I have become heavily involved in debate outside of the US, having taught both teachers and students, high school and university level, in Africa, east Asia, and the Caribbean. One consequence of my international experience is that a lot of the ontological claims debaters in the US make about the activity (e.g., "Debate is ______" or "Debate must ________" or "________ (people) can only debate like _________" ) ring very hollow to me and reflect a naive ethnocentrism about which too many folks in the US are oblivious.

nickkdebate@gmail.com

I've been out of debate for two years and as an old washed up debater my opinions are probably less firmly held than they once were. I was a varsity policy debater for George Mason University. I did K debate for the last two years, mostly in the realm of ‘high theory’ Baudrillard, and Deleuzian surveillance, disability, and some feminist themes.

Don't let that dissuade you from reading policy, I'll listen to and vote for most anything if you win the debate. My degree is in international relations, my thesis was on the relationship between corruption and the proliferation of WMDs. I also interned for in Congress. I understand IR theory, its fine if you want to defend a big stick heg debate or any other policy techniche.

One thing that's definitely changed since I debated - please no handshakes

Philosophy:

01. Just Do It™
Don't start with what I want to hear. Do you. If you win the argument, my opinion is irrelevant. I'd much rather hear a good debate about what you want to talk about than a thousand bad rereadings of the things that I enjoy. Just do it well. I once called thinking "wonder" and convinced more than a hundred judges that it was a unique and revolutionary alternative. Nothing is impossible if you have arguments to back it up. Just keep your head up, you'll be alright.

02. "Gory, gory, What a hell of a way to die!"
Clash: Not doing it is the fastest way to make these rounds ugly real quick. Don't shy away from clash, embrace it, and fill it with warrants. The very tired line about two ships passing in the night has some value - If you don't clash I have essentially carte blanche to make a decision. You may not like that decision. Easy solution: don't make me do that calculus. Close doors.

03. A true thing poorly expressed is a lie
It doesn't matter what your argument is, if you can communicate it to me and the other team cannot then you are ahead. I don't care how fast you spread, its strategic up until you cannot communicate intelligible words while spreading, at which point I can't flow and you'll probably lose as a result. Speed is good, but clarity first always.

04. “Ah, now we see the violence inherent in the system!”
There are rules. Speeches have fixed times. Holding up one round holds up the whole tournament, I'm not doing that. I will always flow, and it will be the sole determinant of the ballot. This is non-negotiable.

05. “Tools! We need tools! Mechanical and philosophical instruments!”
I largely debated "high theory" in my own career. In practice, I find that I vote for framework more often than critiques because K teams mess up the "policy tricks" as much as policy teams do the reverse. Framework teams – I'll vote for you, but not just because the other team took away your DA's. I want to hear why you think whatever is making debate less predictable, fair, etc.. is important so that there can be a debate about whether or not those benefits outweigh or are outweighed. I approach all arguments introduced with extreme skepticism and suspicion.

06. Smile, smile, smile x infinity..
If you're about to pref me to talk over your opponents with some real edgy Baudrillard blocks you found online: I think the value in 'high theory' authors and arguments is lost when people overdetermine the difficulty and complexity of the arguments themselves and dwell in the cult of personality. Good high theory debating is the process of making complex arguments accessible to people not invested in the literature, and applying it through examples that apply to the round. I'm not going to assume your arguments fit the ivory tower stereotypes. In exchange I ask that you don't live up to them.

07.
I don't automatically vote down teams making arguments termed by others 'stupid' or 'offensive'. Evil seduces when labeled taboo and off-limits. Moreover, I'm uncomfortable voting for someone who can't articulate why something offensive, dangerous, or stupid should not be affirmed. That doesn't mean speaks won't be affected.

08.
Speaker points are an entirely subjective and arbitrary assessment, and 'ranges' are not an exact science. Act as you choose, my points will reflect my feelings on said actions. I only give exceptionally low speaks if you do something ethically messed up. If your tournament uses NDT/CEDA 30 point maximums, then my speaks are probably a little above that average. I would say use good judgement generally applies, however there are a few things that some people think are acceptable with which I disagree and will punish speaks. The primary two- I will not evaluate arguments comparing someone's arguments to sexual assault. I think those debates are anti-educational, and only risk harm to everyone involved. I also will not evaluate genocide denial, for similar reasons. If you decide to read either, expect to find your speaker points capped at 10% of the tournament max.

If you find any of these stipulations objectionable, I respectfully request the quiet dignity of your strike to the alternative.

TOC Paradigm

Sean Keckley

Did policy at George Mason

Years judging PF: 2

Years competing in PF: 2

Speed opinions - I can keep up with your speed, but it's PF so no spreading. If you're going too fast your opponent can read over your shoulder as you speak.

Summaries - Pair down to key points of offense and defense, impact calc, clear internal link explanation

Final focus - Should reflect the summary, but contextualized to opponents summaries and grand cross

Extending args - extending key args into the summary is necessary for it to make it in the final focus, otherwise it won't be weighed

T - be it, it's PF

Plans - no plans in PF, CPs are sketchy and I'm inclined to vote on args that say it harms debatability

Ks - willing to vote on them in PF, but you're gonna have to do a lot of work to justify it (which is hard given the structure of PF)

Flowing - i'll flow, so there's that

Arguments>Style

Offense doesn't have to be extended in the rebuttal but does have to be in the summary

Second speaking teams have the same burden as first speaking in rebuttals

I'll vote for args raised in cx if they make it into speeches

Normal Paradigm

Did PF in high school, do policy at George Mason now. My email is seankeckley@gmail.com, add me if there's an email chain. If you have any questions don't hesitate to email me.

Policy

- You do you. If it's argued well, I'm willing to vote on it. That being said, I'll list my thoughts on certain arguments below.

- Don't be a dick

- Slow down on tags

- Don't sacrifice clarity for speed. If I can't understand you it isn't on my flow and won't get voted on

- Tech over truth

- Claims with no warrants aren't arguments

- I don't take prep for emailing/flashing, but don't steal it

- Confidence is good

- Good analytics beat bad cards

Ks - I'm not familiar with most K philosophies. However, if you can explain what it is, how the aff links, and what the alt is I'm fine with it. Because I don't know your lit (especially for high theory teams), tone down the jargon and be clear.

Case/DAs - I like em. Can be convinced there's no risk. Have a clear story and do impact calc. A lot of these debates come down to DA outweighs case, so be sure to explain how. Politics DAs are a thing.

Theory - Impact it out. Tell me what the abuse was, why they should be voted down, and have a thorough explanation of how this debate was worse/less educational/unfair because of it.

CPs - Things get sketchy after 2 condo worlds. If that's what you're running, make sure you've got a good reason. Explain why they can't perm. Have a clear net benefit. I won't judge kick a CP. I judge PICs on an individual basis. State CPs are a thing.

T - Default to competing interps. Explain the world of the your interp vs the world of theirs, tell me why yours is good and theirs is bad. If your aff has little relevance to the topic, you better be ready to defend it. I don't know the current high school topic or what the consensus on reasonability is, so probably not the best judge for T.

K affs - I tend to think that affs should relate to the resolution, but I can be convinced otherwise. Tell me what you're doing and why it's better than talking about the topic, and I'm willing to vote on it.

PF

Be organized in your speeches and do line by line. Confidence is good. If you're funny I'll bump your speaks. I default to util, so unless you give me an alternative ROB then that's how I'm evaluating the round

Important speaker point information

Give me proof that you called Ben Biggs big daddy biggs in round and you will get a 30

Draw me a good picture of James Harden and you probably get a 30

Judging Philosophy

-The winner of the debate is normally the team with the best arguments, not necessarily the best speakers (speaker points).

-However, keep in mind that a poor presentation can detract from the way the judge (me) might perceive the strength of your arguments. Likewise, even a weak argument can seem better if presented in a convincing manner.

-Fast-Talking ("spreading") is OK, but you'd better ensure that I can understand what you're saying. Also, speaking quickly in order to get a high number of specious arguments out there is counterproductive. If you've got a lot of strong points, by all means speak quickly so I can hear them all. But if you've got an array of weaker and stronger arguments, I don't need to hear the weak ones. If in doubt, err on the side of speaking more slowly.

-Be sure to answer your opponents' weak arguments. I am not going to judge arguments based on my own experience and knowledge; I am relying on YOU to do the research, to bring strong and supported arguments to the debate, and to point out your opponent's weak arguments. Even if an argument seems outlandish on its face, you need to at least mention it on rebuttal (and hopefully cite a card of your own that contradicts it). Of course, no need to cite a card to contradict obviously lousy arguments (certain things are contrary to common sense, i.e. the sun won't rise tomorrow).

-CIVILITY over ALL. I feel very strongly that public discourse across a wide range of fora (in academia, in politics, and just communicating with others in general) has been overtaken by an "us against them," tribal mindset that encourages ad hominem attacks that substitute for rational argument. Meaningful debate cannot occur when such conditions exist, and we cannot allow such practices in our competitions. I expect strong and honest airing of the best arguments for and against the resolution. However, if I feel a team has violated the standards of respectful, civil discourse, they will lose, no matter how strong the arguments.

I am a parent judge with four years of experience in judging Public Forum. Never competed Public Forum or any other Forensic activities, but as a parent judge I always read some review articles about the topics, therefore I do have some background knowledge in things that you are talking about and enjoy watching the debate.

I prefer clear and not too fast speech, so I can catch up the words and meaning of your talk.

I use following criteria when I judge a round:

Were the arguments intelligent? Your response to the arguments

The discrediting to the opposition’s response

The debaters back up their assertions with logical thinking and evidence when needed

Fair in interpretation of the resolution and one another’s statements?

Who is advancing the most significant arguments in the round?

I don’t weight much on the speed of speech, believe less words with sound arguments are much better than too much words which have to be delivered with fast speech.

Don’t have preference on the format of Summary Speeches, and evaluate argument over style.

If a team plans to win the debate on an argument, their arguments have to be extended in the rebuttal or summary speeches. If a team is second speaking, I prefer that the team cover the opponents’ case as well as answers to its opponents’ rebuttal in the rebuttal speech.

Don’t vote for arguments that are first raised in the grand crossfire or final focus.

Debated LD - 1997 - 2001

Coached High School LD / Policy / PF / World Schools - 2001 - 2010, 2015 - present

Assistant Policy & British Parliamentary debate coach at the University of Miami - 2010 - 2017

I am open to all debating styles and could handle speed. I appreciate all the skills that go into being competitive in the debate space; updated research, comparative analysis in rebuttals, making strategic decisions with time allocation, and creativity in argumentation to name a few. Tailor-made Kritiks are probably my favorite type of argument, but conversely, generic link of omission K's are on the opposite side of my preference spectrum. Love the politics DA, make sure your cards are updated! Will vote on theory if we all wasted our time and education was lost in the round. If you're having a non-traditional debate, a discussion of the role of the ballot is important. Save your breath on RVI's and put your tricks away for me. Prefer Speechdrop over email chains.

Any specific questions, feel free to ask before the round.

I am a lawyer and Executive Director of the NYCUDL.

I have judged PF for the last 6+ years, over 100 rounds and run many judge trianings.

I will judge based on a combination of the flow, general logic and common sense.

Speed-don't do it. If I can't understand you, I can't give you credit for it.

If you want me to vote on an issue please include it in both summary and final focus.

Write my RFD for me in final focus.

Only call for evidence if there is a real need (context, integrity).

In general, be nice. I believe in debate access for all so I will cut your speaks if you create an environment where other people don't want to participate in the activity.

Good luck and have fun!

Hello, welcome to my paradigm! I debated for 6 years in highschool and college. I was also involved in a lot of speech events (e.g. extemp, impromptu , and oratory), which I understand is becoming something of a rarity in the current circuit : (

Things I appreciate:

A. Solid, current evidence coupled with logical analysis. I find it frustrating when debaters try to squeeze massive impacts out of lukewarm evidence. I wish debaters would go for higher probability, lower magnitude impacts. It’s okay if you claim global war as an impact, I am just inclined to find it a steep hill to conquer.

B. I really appreciate good manners in debate.

C. If this is an online tournament, please turn your camera on and try to look as presentable as possible. I think it devalues the experience if we can't see each other. I promise I'll also turn my camera on and shave my pandemic beard!!

Things I don't appreciate

A. Protracted arguments about a studies' methodology or an author's credibility. If there is a critical issue with a key piece of evidence, please just make the issue clear in a speech or CF. I’ll be sure to call the evidence and do my best to read it thoroughly.

B. RE: Progressive Arguments:

- CPs: I am not open to counter plans at all. I don't think the time constraints of PF make them a viable option.

- Theory/topicality: I am open to evaluating very short, efficient shells if their intent is to get me to preclude an argument or framework. I very rarely consider any violation or theoretical implication to be a voting issue.

- Kritiks: Of all of the progressive type arguments, I find myself most willing to listen to a very thoughtful kritik. My only request is that if you choose to run a K, plan on being able to fill ample time talking about the K and don't kick it in rebuttal. If you send a K, collapse on the K.

C. Rudeness/shadiness: Please be professional and courteous to one another. Please promptly provide evidence to your opponents if requested and do not attempt to verbally contextualize evidence as you are handing it over.

To tell you the truth, I'm not sure that reading a paradigm ever gave me tactical insight as a debater, but I hope you find this useful. I love debate and I love that you are invested enough in the proactively to read paradigms. Good luck!

[Enter judge paradigm here]

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

Background:

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

Things I like:

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

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

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

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

-Jokes, just don't force them.

Things I don't like:

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

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

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

-Preflowing after the coin toss.

tl;dr I've been coaching since 2011 and can handle any way you want to speak and debate. I encourage and support creativity as long as you follow the rules of the tournament, your league or the NSDA.

*************************************

Please hit the “Do Not Disturb” option on your phones and other devices during the round so that your speeches are not disturbed by alarms for calls from your family and Slack notifications from your coach. I wear headphones and your timer going off sounds really loud.

Please "pre-flow" your cases before the round start time. Tournaments want us to start on time.

I don't disclose after rounds unless the tournament requires it. I weigh everything up to the last word of the last speech. So that means I can't start deciding until the end of the debate round, which means I need time to think and write after the round is done so I can turn the ballot in on time.

I don't like when multiple debate teams from a school use the same constructive. Write your own speeches please.

Ask me if I'm ready before you start speaking. I don't want to miss anything you say because I'm still writing notes. Actually ask me - please don't robotically ask "Judge ready? Opponent ready?" then start speaking before receiving an answer.

If the tournament or your league has a rule that judges may only consider arguments spoken about in the last speeches, then I will respect and follow that. If there is no rule saying that, then I will consider ALL arguments given at any point in the round. If you made a great point 20 minutes before the end of the round, then I'm still going to remember it even if you didn't repeat it 5 minutes before the end of the round. Techniques your coaches teach you (like to extend your arguments into the the last speeches) are not rules, they're just best practices.

Congress

I give high points/ranks to competitors who speak well and argue well. If your speech is as good as those in extemp, I will rank you highly. At a certain point in the year, everyone doing Congress is at about the same level for their argumentation skills because everyone is using the same formula for each speech. Therefore, having high-level presentation skills is what separates the top 6 from the bottom 6 for me.

I am biased against speeches that, after the first few, don't rebut or support previous arguments. As a Congress coach, I've seen the student thought process: "Goshdangit I spent all that time before the tournament writing this sponsorship speech and I'm gonna goshdarn give it." Well...ignoring the other speakers and giving a speech that just repeats the arguments of previous speakers does NOT help you get higher scores from me.

Policy

Policy is rare in the 2 states where I've judged, so I haven’t judged it much. The more of your speeches I understand, the more likely you are to win. I don’t read cases or evidence that you share - I judge based only on what you say so that there is no confusion about what was said vs what was written. I don’t mind spreading as long as you’re understandable, but I’m not a perfect flow-er so I’m going to miss some things and will depend on you to tell me what you think is important after the first constructives. I judge based on who was more persuasive as opposed to who covered more points - this usually means if you have some squirrelly argument I will ignore it and go with the arguments that makes more real-world sense. Speaking of squirrelly arguments - I am so sorry but "everything leads to nuclear war" is hack. We were saying the same thing in the 80’s and it feels played out. If it makes sense that something might lead to nuclear war, like militarization of the Arctic, then I’ll accept it. But when you try to say something like more laptop manufacturing in Malaysia or the military playing Fall Guys on Twitch will lead to nuclear war, you’re going to have to work REALLY HARD to get me to give that any credence. I do not turn my brain off during rounds - there's no such thing as tabula rasa.

Lincoln-Douglas

My LD preferences are pretty much the same as Policy above. There’s not a lot of progressive in my area, so I don’t know all the jargon. I don’t care if you do progressive or traditional, as long as I understand what you’re talking about. The more of your speeches I understand, the more likely you are to win.

Public Forum

The more of your speeches I understand, the more likely you are to win.

SPEECH/IE PREFERENCES

No forensbots. If you are giving us a speech that you've polished so much that it shines, make sure your eyes aren't dead. If this is literally the 50th round you've performed this piece, practice it with a friend and tell her to tell you truthfully if you look like a soulless automaton.

My entire life is spent watching young people speak. I notice everything: swaying back and forth; shifting foot to foot; grabbing the bottom of your blazer; pacing too much; purposeless, repetitive gestures. I was once in a national circuit final round in which I ranked a speaker 7 because she kept smacking her lips every other sentence. The other 2 judges didn't notice and each ranked her first. There is nothing wrong with any individual movement or tic, but if you repeat that movement too often, I will see it and tell you. Watch videos of yourself to notice and reduce your own unnoticed habits.

Please don't make fake changes of position. The purpose of changing positions is so that different parts of the audience can see you better. In front of a camera, this means you have ZERO need to change position. Stay centered in the frame just like a news reporter. Please don't do the golden triangle in front of a camera - people whose job is in front of a camera in real life don't do this. In-person in a normal classroom at a tournament, change position based on the people in the room. Don't go over there and talk to a fake audience if no one is actually sitting over there. Adjust your position changes to the actual people in the room you're in. Changing positions during your speech's transitions is WHEN you do it, NOT WHY.

Events I have judged but not enough to have preferences for:

BQ, Extemp Debate, original spoken word, duo improv, radio speaking, broadcast announcing, pro/con challenge, and world schools.

Events I haven’t judged:

Parliamentary, Mock Trial

My experience

High school coach and classroom Public Speaking teacher from 2011-2018, then 2021 to present. Have coached/taught: PF, LD, Congress, and all Speech events. Have coached students to TOC, NCFL and NSDA in PF, OO and POI. Have coached students to state championships for PF, LD, Congress, OO, POI, Extemp and Humorous.

Teacher since 2003.

Teaching private public speaking lessons to adults since 2019.

I judged at nearly a hundred online tournaments during the first 2 years of the pandemic. Online platforms I've judged on so far: Zoom, NSDA Campus, Accelevents, Classrooms.cloud, HopIn and Yaatly.

I've completed the NSDA/NFHS online judge training including the cultural competency section.

I know how to be a Parliamentarian for Student Congress.

I know how to be an Extemp proctor.

In high school I did policy and prose/poetry.

I speak Spanish and Portuguese.

My pronouns are he/him/his.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Updated for TOC 2018

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

Georgetown University '21

West Ranch High School '17

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

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

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

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

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

General:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LD specific:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Extra notes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Have fun