I would like to be on the email chain, my email is fatoubbarrie1@gmail.com

Always impact calc

Policy

Do your best :)

High speaker points are awarded for exceptional creativity.

I am fine with spread as long as it is comprehensible.

LD/PF/Parli/etc.

Do your best :)

Though I've been a PF middle school coach for four years, I consider myself a novice/lay-type judge. I do flow so I appreciate clear signposts, warrants and unique and impactful evidence. I am very much interested to see speakers attempt or execute innovation in form and style using humor, pathos and engaging impacts. I believe speakers who believe what they're arguing. I frown upon speaker dispositions that are communicated in a seemingly unfriendly, impatient or unkind manner.

I currently debate for Hunter- this is my 4th year doing PF.

gaang0408@gmail.com - put me on the email chain

update for ld: you can read anything but im not familiar with most kritiks other than the most generic ones. please extend warrants not just tags and be clear

TLDR: I will vote off anything. Anything not on the flow is not on my ballot. Please warrant, extend, and weigh all of the argument(s) you go for.

I'm tech>truth and I don't intervene. No -ist/problematic arguments either.

I probably can't keep up with spreading unless you're really clear, so if you're going to go >250 wpm it's probably a good idea to send me a speech doc.

I like risky strategic decisions, smart analytics, and creative/principled arguments– do any of these and I will boost your speaks

I'm not that familiar with kritiks/high theory – If they are explained well enough for me though I have zero problems voting on them. I'd like to think I have some experience with theory but extensions have to be clear if I'm going to vote on it. I default to competing interps over reasonability. Please don't run progressive arguments against those who don't know how to respond to it.

I will not call for evidence unless it is the deciding factor in an argument that may win/lose the round– but if that is the case you're probably doing something wrong. PF evidence ethics are trash anyway so it doesn't really matter to me if one team doesn't have a qualification/quantification. Strong Warrants > Warrants with Evidence > Warrants > Evidence

Fully and clearly extend any arguments you are going for in every speech (with their warrants!!) or else I will not vote off said arguments. Don't extend through ink. I will always resolve clash and vote for an argument that is "muddled" over an unexplained, blippy argument that has been sneakily extended because it clearly didn't matter/wasn't clear enough for me/the other team to dedicate time towards.

Weigh DAs in rebuttal. 2nd rebuttal should frontline all arguments that the 2nd speaking team plans to go for.

New arguments are not allowed in either final focus, unless they are weighing. This includes frontlines.

All weighing is good. Please start weighing ASAP. However, just saying "We outweigh on scope, because we impact more people," is not weighing. You need to fully explain this and flesh it out. Bonus points if you can preempt their counter weighing and/or if you meta-weigh. However, if you read nonsensical weighing, like weighing on "strength of link" or "directionality of link," a) it's not going on the flow and b) you will lose speaker points. Those are not weighing, they probably just mean you have defense on the opponent's case and/or you should be doing well-warranted link weighing. New weighing is permitted in any speech (not delinks disguised as weighing), but I will only evaluate new weighing in 2nd FF if there isn't any so far on that argument.

Also, weighing on "lack of quantification" or "probability" is not real weighing. If you win the warrants and the reasoning behind an argument, you win 100% probability into that argument's impact. "Lack of quantification" is not a reason to prefer your impact, you have to explain why your impact has a higher scope/magnitude/whatever the heck you need a quantification for. In addition— the affirmative saying that the negative has lower probability because their impacts have yet to occur is NOT a weighing mechanism, it is a definitional consequence of debating as the negative because the only world in which the negative's impacts trigger is an affirmative world which hasn't happened yet.

If there is no weighing, I default to strength of link.

I presume neg unless convinced otherwise

Speaker points are not based on your presentation, they're based on what you add to my flow. If you are excessively rude, I will dock tho. I start speaks at a 27.5.

If both teams agree to skip cross and prep or do other random things instead, I'm ok with that.

not charitable to pre-fiat impacts. please mind speed. treat me as lay. have fun!

I have been involved in competative debate for 9 years. I am a "flow" judge, in that A) I can and will flow and B) will vote off the flow. I am comfortable with speed, but prefer clarity if there is a choice between the two. I want to see warranted arguments (I won't assume something is true if you can't explain WHY it is true, and will prefer warranted arguments over unwarranted arguments). I also want to see clear impacts and weighing -- just because an argument is true doesn't mean that it matters. I think good debaters recognize that they don't have to win EVERY argument to win a round, they just have to win the arguments that matter (and accordingly will tell me which arguments matter most and why). Cross-examination is not a time for reading evidence or monologuing. If a team calls for evidence, no one should be prepping while the card is found. I GREATLY dislike misusing/misrepresenting evidence and have no tolerance for questionable ethics in this activity -- this is first and foremost an educational experience, and as such I expect that if you're using evidence you are not misrepresenting the author's conclusions and you will be able to produce the evidence if requested. I think the best and most productive debates are the ones in which debaters are friendly and having fun. 

Just lock in.

Currently a PF debater at Brooklyn Technical

The most important thing to be aware of in my round (and any round) is that you will immediately be dropped from the tournament if you say anything sexist, racist, homophobic, etc. Please be aware of the way you speak to your opponents. For whatever reason, sometimes debaters think being condescending is a good strategy. It’s not. Your speaks will be dropped if you are guilty of that.

Speed - I’m totally ok with speed as long as it is comprehensible. If you fear that it’s not, please send a speech doc. I also encourage sending a speech doc anyway because it makes sure that debaters with internet issues are not disadvantaged.

Evidence & Speeches - I only flow what you say in your speeches. I will watch the crossfires but I will not take notes of any kind. As for evidence brought up in the round, I prefer empirics and the least amount of paraphrasing as possible. If your opponents do not call out an issue with your evidence, I will flow it through onto your side. Please provide analysis & warranting with any cards you use. Pointing out faults in arguments is useless without some kind of logical analysis. Do not assume that I will use “common sense” to make decisions for you in the round. Everything you want and don’t want to be flown through needs to be explicitly stated.

Please make sure all of your arguments have links. I will flow arguments with messy linkage through, but it will be much easier for your opponent to convince me to drop them. Additionally, anything brought up in FF that was not extended in summary will be dropped.

Tech over truth.

Theories/K’s - I actually enjoy hearing these when its beneficial to the debate space, and not a ploy to win. Feel free to run it.

Weighing/Impacts - This is what I am going to make my decision off of. The team that does it better wins the ballot. If neither team weighs nor impacts efficiently, I'm forced to decide based off of who I think has the stronger arguments. I really don't want it to come down to that, because it requires judge intervention.

I am open to sending my flow/ further reasoning for decision if you request it.

Currently a PF debater at Brooklyn Technical High School (2018-2022).

TL;DR: Just debate good.

Strike me:

- If you are _____-phobic or _____-ist. This is an automatic drop for me. I don't care how much you are winning on the flow, making the debate space safer comes before substance.

- If you don't cut cards properly. If I want to evaluate a card, I don't want to cut it for you mid-round.

- If you steal cases or prep from other teams without asking.

Speaker Points:

- I'll generally inflate speaks if it's an important tournament because I don't want my biases or preferences to decide your seed.

- Speak clearly, although you can safely get away with spreading if you send a speech doc.

- It's impressive when you can outsmart your opponents rather than speak better than them. If you can do something big brain, speaks go up.

- I don't care what you do in cross. If you can make me laugh, speaks go up.

- If we ever go back in person, bringing me snacks is an automatic 30.

Extensions and Weighing:

I will automatically assume that any points you don't extend after second rebuttal are dropped and I expect that you collapse on at least one argument during your summary. If you expect me to vote on random points that you gave throughout the round or a rebuttal to your opponents' contention, that will not be convincing enough for me. I'd rather have a fully fleshed-out argument or fully fleshed-out turn to your opponents' argument to vote on rather than fragments of reasons why your side is better.

Make sure you weigh effectively and convincingly as early as possible! If you were losing the whole round but win on weighing at the very end, you have the round right there.

Evidence:

What ever happened to debaters talking about the credibility of sources? You don't necessarily have to mention it in round, but be wary of what sources you use and call out your opponents' sources if they're faulty. If I end up calling for the card at the end of the round because you didn't explain it enough, trust me, I do not care if your uncle wrote a shady article in the New York Post about extinction being imminent, I will vote it down.

I would prefer the least amount of paraphrasing as possible to avoid falsifying the sources you use. Imagine that the author of the source is listening to the round; they should generally agree with you, not shake their head in disappointment. Never assume that I will use logic or make decisions by myself, you must tell me everything that you want, and don’t want, me to flow through.

Speech Formatting:

I expect the second rebuttal to include frontlines to arguments brought up in the first rebuttal. I'm down for whatever strategic method you may have in terms of organization, but summary (especially second summary) is the most important speech in the round so make sure that it effectively explains the position you are in and why it is the best position to be in. As most judges say, your final focus should be my RFD, try to make me think as little as possible by the end of the round. Stay away from bringing up new evidence/arguments in both summary and FF as your opponents will call it out and I won't flow it through.

I am all good with theory debate and progressive rounds as long as you can make them work in the CONTEXT OF PF DEBATE.

sammrich@umich.edu

Hello!

I debated on the policy team for Brooklyn Tech for 4 years and now I'm a freshman at the University of Michigan (not on the debate team here though).

For policy: I read a solid mix of everything in high school so I am probably familiar with whatever type of argument you want to run, that being said I have only judged a few rounds on the water topic so make sure to explain whatever you're reading well, especially DA scenarios and things like that (obviously explaining your arguments applies to everything you read but it will be especially important in that context). All I ask is that you properly compare impacts/evidence and tell me how to weigh your arguments—when I go to write my ballot I want to already know how to prioritize different arguments and what I should be voting on.

For PF: Though my background is in policy, I've judged a fair amount of PF rounds and feel comfortable doing so. However, I may not be familiar with the intricacies of the topic so keep that in mind.

Feel free to ask me any questions via email or in-round about my own debate history, other specific preferences, etc. Good luck!

I currently attend Oklahoma State University and serve on the Student Government Senate. I did Speech and Debate all 4 years at Guymon High School.

I am a very, genuinely unbiased judge. I have/will vote for and against any different politics and beliefs.

I believe the sport of debate should be who has the better argument substantially, as well as who explains and presents it better.

While yes I have plenty of debate experience, its far better for you to do the explanation work for me to better your chances of success.

Any argument is a valid argument in my book (policy, critical, framework, etc.) its again your job to make the case to me.

I will also emphasize that you emphasize your claim before you either read evidence or give your analytics/explanation (i.e emphasize your tag with a short tag). I'm good with speed for cards, etc. (I can keep up with Eminem).

Don't be afraid to question the other side's evidence and warrants. I feel today people just give the other side the full merit of cards; challenge their validity!

Sportsmanship is something I highly value!

Good luck and may the odds be ever in your favor!!

Quick summary: I'm open to almost anything as long as you explain yourself well and engage the other team where you can.

I have not yet judged any rounds on this topic so please don't assume I know topic-specific acronyms, policies, theories, etc.! I probably don't.

About me:

I debated policy throughout high school (Blue Valley Southwest class of 2014) and part of college (Wake Forest class of 2018). I am currently a first year JD student at Harvard Law. I have not been active in the debate community since college, so this will be my first time judging in a few years. I have never judged on Zoom but I have been spending basically all of my time in Zoom classes so I'm comfortable with the platform.

In both college and high school, I competed primarily in the open/varsity division and am comfortable with the spreading, jargon, et cetera that comes with that. The only caveat is that I may be a bit rusty, but if I need you to speak more slowly or clearly I will let you know. On the flip side, I won't hold it against you if you don't spread or use excessive jargon - at the end of the day, I just care that you do a good job of explaining your arguments and why they matter.

I was most active in college debate during my first year or two before gradually tapering off my involvement. During this time I ran primarily traditional policy arguments (affs with a plan text, politics disads, I consider the cap k close enough to traditional at this point). I ventured into more critical argumentation/thought later, partly through absorbing ideas from my teammates, but mostly outside of the debate context. Thanks to this, I have a general understanding of various different arguments/theories, but would be lying if I claimed to be a well-versed expert in any. I am, however, very receptive to new arguments/approaches with which I might be unfamiliar.

Before college, I debated for 4 years in high school in Kansas at Blue Valley Southwest on both regional and national (TOC bid qualifying tournament) circuits. This involved debating in front of a lot of mixed-experience panels. I fully understand the necessity of adapting your presentation style to your panel, if there is one.

About arguments:

I tend to default to an offense/defense paradigm unless told otherwise, in which case I'll listen to the debate that plays out and vote based on whoever I think wins that.

I do care about framing questions and will use any raised and won as a starting point for my final analysis.

I do think theory is interesting but if you go for it in the rebuttals, please take the time to explain it (no "they dropped pre-written bullet point no.17 out of 20 so we win". this is not an argument and I will not treat it as such.)

tl;dr: I am open-minded and will listen to more or less anything as long as you explain it. Please engage the aff. If you are running a 1-off K, please have a link and explain it. If you are answering a K, please actually answer it.

Final notes:

Debate is confrontational by nature but please try to not be absolutely terrible to your opponents. There is more to life than winning this round!

I understand that this is a difficult time that might present unique challenges within debate rounds. If there are any special accommodations that I as a judge can make to make the round easier for you, please let me know in advance and I will do my best to do so.

If you have any questions, about debate or anything at all, please feel free to ask me before the round or to reach out to me at katherine.e.super@gmail.com. I will be more than happy to answer whenever I can!

Hi. I am a lay parent judge. Please speak clearly. I'm a fan of courtesy and clarity.

Best of luck at the tournament!