Policy: This is my favorite style of debate. Please don't disappoint. Spreading is ok. Please be organized, because I like to flow the round. I will side with the negative until the affirmative proves the solvency of their plan thoroughly, burden lies on the affirmative to change the status quo, if a CP is ran, then I will decide who can prove solvency, efficacy and impact of their plan best. Be respectful, but don't be afraid to get into the debate, I like that.

Congress: I will judge based on the quality of the research, organization, overall presence in the room, and thorough understanding of the content. I like to be entertained and engaged throughout the round, so do something cool and find a way to stand out. Don't be afraid to be passionate during the round. It is convincing and that is your job.

Lincoln Douglas: Don't run a K unless you really know how to do it properly. I am fine with progressive or traditional debates. Spreading is fine. Tell me a story with your evidence, don't just read. Believe in what you are saying. Be passionate. Remember delivery should still apply in debate events. Don't bore me. Engage me. Convince me.

I will ask for you to include me on the email chain.

tiara.bergquist@apavegas.org

Steve Clemmons

Debate Coach, Saratoga HS, proving that you can go home again.

Former Associate Director of Forensics University of Oregon, Santa Clara University, Debate Coach Saratoga High School

Years in the Activity: 20+ as a coach/director/competitor (Weber, LMU, Macalester, SCU and Oregon for college) (Skyline Oakland, Saratoga, Harker, Presentation, St. Vincent, New Trier, Hopkins, and my alma mater, JFK-Richmond R.I.P. for HS) (Weber State, San Francisco State as a competitor)

IN Public Forum, I PREFER THAT YOU ACTUALLY READ EVIDENCE THAN JUST PARAPHRASING. I guess what I am saying is that it is hard to trust your analysis of the evidence. The rounds have a flavor of Parliamentary Debate. Giving your opponent the entire article and expecting them to extract the author's intent is difficult. Having an actual card is key. If I call for a site, I do not want the article, I want the card. You should only show me the card, or the paragraph that makes your article.

This is not grounds for teams to think this means run PARAPHRASE Theory as a voter. The proliferation of procedural issues is not what this particular event is designed to do. You can go for it, but the probability of me voting for it is low.

How to WIN THE DAY (to borrow from the UO motto)

1. TALK ABOUT THE TOPIC. The current debate topic gives you a lot of ground to talk about the topic and that is the types of debates that I prefer to listen to. If you are a team or individual that feels as though the topic is not relevant, then DO NOT PREF ME, or USE A STRIKE.

2. If you are attempting to have a “project” based debate (and who really knows what it means to have a project in today's debate world) then I should clearly understand the link to the topic and the relevance of your “project” to me. It can't always be about you. I think that many of the structural changes you are attempting to make do not belong in the academic ivory tower of debate. They belong in the streets. The people you are talking about most likely have never seen or heard a debate round and the speed in which some of this comes out, they would never be able to understand. I should know why it is important to have these discussions in debate rounds and why my ballot makes a difference. (As an aside, no one really cares about how I vote, outside the people in the round. You are going to have to convince me otherwise. This is my default setting.)

3. Appeals to my background have no effect on my decision. (Especially since you probably do not know me and the things that have happened in my life.) This point is important to know, because many of your K authors, I have not read, and have no desire to. (And don't believe) My life is focused on what I call the real world, as in the one where my bills have to be paid, my kid educated and the people that I love having food, shelter, and clothing. So, your arguments about why debate is bad or evil, I am not feeling and may not flow. Debate is flawed, but it is usually because of the debaters. The activity feeds me and my family, so think about that before you speak ill about the activity, especially since you are actively choosing to be involved

SPEAKER POINTS

They are independent of win/loss, although there is some correlation there. I will judge people on the way that they treat their partner, opponents and judge. Don't think that because I have revealed the win, your frustration with my decision will allow you to talk slick to me. First, I have no problem giving you under ten-speaker points. Second, I will leave the room, leaving you talking to yourself and your partner. Third, your words will have repercussions, please believe.

FLASHING AND PREP TIME (ESPECIALLY FOR PUBLIC FORUM)

One of my basic rules for debate is that all time comes from somewhere. The time limits are already spelled out in the invite, so I will stick to that. Think of it as a form of a social contract.

With an understanding that time comes from somewhere, there is no invisible pool of prep time that we are to use for flashing evidence over to the other team. Things would be much simpler if you got the cards DURING CX/Crossfire. You should either have a viewing computer, have it printed out, or be willing to wait until the speech is over. and use the questioning time to get it.

Evidence that you read in PF, you should have pulled up before the round. It should not take minutes to find evidence. If you are asking for it, it is coming out of your prep time. If it is longer than 20 seconds to find the evidence, it is coming out of the offending teams time.

CX/Crossfire

This should be primarily between the person who just spoke and the person who is not preparing to speak. Everyone gets a turn to speak and ask/answer questions. You are highlighting a difference in ability when you attempt to answer the questions for your partner, and this will be reflected on your speaker points. Crossfire for PF should really be the one question, one answer format. If you ask a question, then you should fall back and answer one from your opponent, or at least ask if a follow up is acceptable. It is not my fault if your question is phrased poorly. Crossfire factors into my speaker points. So, if you are allowing them to railroad you, don't expect great points. If you are attempting to get a bunch of questions in without allowing the other side to ask, the same thing will be reflected in your points.

Evidence in PF

My background is in policy debate and LD as a competitor. (I did CEDA debate, LD and NDT in college and policy debate and LD in high school) I like evidence and the strategy behind finding it and deploying it in the round. I wish PF would read cards. But, paraphrasing is a thing. Your paraphrase should be textual, meaning that you should be able to point to a paragraph or two in the article that makes your point. Handing someone the article is not good enough. If you can't point to where in the article your argument is being made, then all the other team has to do is point this out, and I will ignore it. This was important enough that I say it twice in my paradigm.

This is far from complete, but feel free to ask me about any questions you might have before the round.

I did public forum for Dalton

Please let me know if I can do anything to make you feel more comfortable or safe in round. Feel free to email me at ilanadebateacct@gmail.com if you have things that you'd rather not say publicly. Please add me to the email chain here as well.

1. I am good with PF speed (<300 wpm), as long as your opponents are. Debate the way that makes you feel most confident in your analytical skills

2. I am open to voting off of any arguments as long as they are fully warranted, fully extended, and non-discriminatory

3. Please do actually comparative weighing

4. First summary doesn't need to extend defense unless it's frontlined in second rebuttal. My personal preference is that second speaking teams frontline offense at the very least, but you do you
5. If you extend an indict or think that they're misrepresenting evidence and you extend this through FF I'll call for it, but otherwise I will not intervene about evidence
6. I am open to evaluating Ks, and will do so to the best of my ability. I prefer that you use theory to check back for in round abuse, and am very fine with paragraph theory
7. I presume first speaking team unless given warranted reasons otherwise

Let me know if you have any questions

I am a parent judge and have not judged very many rounds. Please speak slowly and clearly if you want me to understand your arguments. I do not flow speeches or crossfires extensively but I will pay attention to everything that is said during the round.

Parli

- Don't generally like counterplans, unless there are serious advantages to them. Timeframe counterplans, for example, must be seriously warranted to overcome the diminishment of educational value.

- Do not run multiple advocacies - such as disadvantage to plan WITH a counterplan (unless the CP solves the disad, in which case it's an advantage to CP).

- In case you didn't gather, I am not a fan of policy-style debate conventions in the parliamentary format. I will always pref solid case args over theory or "game-y" debate strat.

- Debate the resolution, clash via argumentation and POIs. POIs very important so that clash points can be explored.

- If you abusively POO, I will down you on poor sportsmanship and diminishment of educational value.

- debate value, policy, and fact rounds appropriately. For example, don't try to argue a fact or value resolution based on net benefits, etc. etc. etc. Fact rounds are "preponderance of evidence" and value rounds must identify a paramount value. I will down you for diminishing educational value of parli by co-opting everything to policy format.

LD - I don't currently coach LD, but did so in the traditional style some years back. Framework is important and the criterion needs to function as a criterion to the value. Like, a measurable, functioning criterion. - My heart sinks when competitors turn LD into a policy round and run net benefits or some other non-value; net benefits, for example, is just an ill-defined placeholder for any number of values within a pragmatic/consequentialist framework. - P.S. Morality is not a value. I see it run all the time to my consternation. Morality denotes no actual value... it rather describes a system of principles to describe right and wrong - it is up to you to actually define those principles. There are many types of morality as it is relative to cultural context: Christian morality, prison morality, etc. etc. etc.

- I don't know much about circuit LD but will always pref traditional debating styles (resolutional analysis, evidence, analysis, clash, weighing) over esoteric theory. I will vote on Ks and theory ONLY if it is in response to serious abuse. If you have any other questions feel free to ask me before the round.

Congress

Not much new here: I look for incisive, insightful analysis of relevant issues. Quality of research matters.

In general, less is more: I'd rather a competitor focus in a single issue and really zero in on the implications/weighing of that rather than superficial coverage of multiple issues.

Stand straight, polished appearance, good projection and vocal nuance. These things are still relevant in a rhetorically-driven debate style such as Congressional Debate.

PF

I'm a traditional-style judge that will vote on the flow (aka "flay judge") - flow leaning. Truth over tech (generally). When saying an author's name and year - slow down ever so slightly and separate it from the rest of the text. Years are important - be sure to include them as PF is intensely time sensitive. Don't spread - I won't flow it.

Speech Requirements:

- 2nd rebuttal does not need to frontline (although it is strategic)

- anything extended in FF also needs to be in summary (no "sticky")

- WEIGH and tell me the story of the round in Final Focus

Things that are important for me:

- Signposting

- Clarity

- evidence integrity - I will check cards if they seem suspect and will vote accordingly (even if other team doesn't call it out)

I do not want you to:

- Spread - I will not flow it nor will I read a document

- read barely-there links to nuke war/extinction

- be rude/condescending/curt in CX

I will vote on Ks and theory ONLY if it is in response to serious abuse. If you have any other questions feel free to ask me before the round.

cutespeech@gmail.com

Paradigm for beehive bonanza 2023

B.A. in Anthropology from University of Utah

M.M. In Music technology from Southern Utah

What I find debate is a very intellectual, knowledgeable sport. what I find unique about high school debate is that if I can understand what you’re saying then I’m more likely to vote for your team if I find something interesting or unique then I’m going to have to take more time to evaluate it; dress for success.

Anyone can debate and push an argument my dilemma is as a judge is considering where you stand as a professional. I think that having the desire to uphold professionalism is important and doing that with confidence to your practice is what orients you toward a passionate career.

I invite you to keep your dialogue relevant.

Ethos is expected

Logos governs

Pathos breaks a tie

Sign posts are appreciated, and so are off-time road maps.

Spreading is the antithesis of logos, so proceed at your own risk.

Teams are responsible for governing each others time, merely hold up your timer when time runs out, so it is obvious to me.

Calls for evidence will not use up prep time, unless it is excessive.

Progressive debating is not appreciated.

I am parent and an attorney.

-Debated 4 years LD, graduating in 2013; qualified to TOC twice and reached Quarterfinals my senior year.

-Have coached for 10 years; am currently the Head Debate Coach at Lynbrook High School.

There was a misunderstanding about my paradigm, so am rewriting to be especially explicit:

The one argument I won't ever vote for is disclosure theory. I don't think anyone has to say anything to their opponent before the competition begins -- the concept of having to tell your opponent what your strategy is in advance is prima facie absurd in my opinion. I recognize that disclosure is a norm now, but it wasn't when I competed, and I think it's a bad addition.

I am truly horrible at adjudicating policy style debate. You should really only pref me for Phil and sometimes for theory.

I am a former high school policy/LD debater. I also competed in many individual events. Now, I am a trial lawyer. I seek to reward the speaking that connects most directly with the professional and personal activities that high school debaters will be performing in just a few short years.

For policy debaters: Debate is a game. And, in my opinion, policy is a place where (almost) anything goes. You can spread, you can run K, you can read a poem. If you've signed up for policy, you know the world you have signed up for. But, note the following: If I can't understand you or write/type/think fast enough, I might miss your brilliant argument. The stranger or more counterintuitive your argument is, the more proof I will need for it. Style and persuasion still mean something to me in policy debate, so if you can spread while being persuasive (yelling is not persuasive), you will have an advantage. Those who abandon speed altogether AND who make a good argument for why they should win even if they can't cover everything -- those people might very well win. As I say, debate is a game.

Public forum: If (almost) anything goes in policy debate, then public forum is its more constrained, conversational, and accessible cousin. My understanding is that it was created as an alternative to what policy has become, and therefore I am less receptive to spreading and absurdist styles in PF. As a result, I will not necessarily vote on dropped arguments. Two minutes is simply not enough time to cover everything in a debate, so it is entirely possible to pick an argument to the exclusion of others and win -- just tell me if that is what you're doing, and tell me why that argument is the winner. Please consider whether your tone, your speed, and your use of jargon are at all applicable to: a class presentation, a conversation with a professor, an informal discussion with friends or colleagues, a courtroom, a pitch to a boss, etc. These are the places in which your debate skills will be applicable.

For all debaters: If you are rude in any way (prematurely cutting opponents off in crossfire, ad homs in speeches, gesturing from your chair while others speak), you will lose speaker points, and possibly the round. Aggressiveness is fine, but I can't abide jerks.

I like to see good presence and pace from in your speeches. I look for data used to support your case and also impact information to support your speech. Paint me a picture to help motivate to think. I enjoy a good opening but make it connect to your speech and look for a good summary.

I will be flowing but I am a LAY judge. Treat me as such. I will not vote for you if you do not win your arguments; I will not vote for you if you blatantly extend through ink.

Moderate speed is fine.

Don't be rude, sexist, racist, etc.

Keep the debate civil, and have fun. Debate should be an enjoyable and educational event.

Key Considerations:

• Substance and quality of argument outweighs style of argumentation.

• Provide a clear thesis for which you are contending and make sure that you accomplish it in such a rate of delivery that can be followed.

• Strong development of IMPACTS, appropriate evidence, proper linkage are all assets in round.

• Healthy clash is encouraged so that each posited argument clearly claims its unique ground. Vigorous clash is welcomed as long as it is with clear respect for one's opponents.

• In the end, give me a clear route to giving you a winning ballot.

Experience:

• This is ONLY MY SECOND YEAR Speech and Debate coach. I am still learning and adjusting. I have judged in Public Forum, Congress and Lincoln Douglas debates at district tournaments, state tournaments and national tournaments.

Don't speak too fast. I would like you to give me a reason to vote for you. Be very clear on why your evidences are better. You can focus on the key augments instead of repeating all again. I generally do not give too high of speaker points. Whoever has a good impact of convincing me will get higher points.

University of Nevada, Las Vegas.

Former Policy debater.

I prefer email over anything else. simonlamsal@gmail.com

I have been away from debating since I graduated but I feel confident judging

I did World Schools style debate and British Parliamentary in High School. Did IPDA for a year before finally starting policy debate as a sophomore in college.

For PF and LD debaters, if you have specific questions, just email me.

Please wait for verbal confirmation from me before starting your speech.

General:

Debate is a game.

I will be a blank slate in every round.

I will evaluate any argument that you can execute and explain well.

I am not familiar with a lot of critical arguments but I will try my best to understand them.

AFF:

PLEASE do not forget your case. Always make sure you make sufficient arguments in the 2AC that will help you in the 1AR. Make sure you do a great job on the 1AR to make the 2NR's life difficult. Always extend the warrants of your cards. Saying "Extend Johnson 16" is not enough. I am not fond of critical affs at all. Permutations should be made clear and explained how it functions.

NEG:

Make sure you are splitting the block well. I do not want to hear the same arguments made by the 2NC in the 1NR. I am open to critical teams if they are explained and have specific links to the aff. If you do not extend your alt, I am most likely not going to vote for the neg. I am not familiar with all critical arguments, but this should not discourage you as I feel any critical arguments that might not be clear can be cleared up by explaining the alt well.

Other notes.

Do not steal prep time.

Make sure you utilize cx well by asking relevant questions.

Clear and proper explanations are key to great speaker points

Please feel free to make analogies and jokes that are relevant to the round.

Be nice to your fellow debaters.

It is all about learning so if I do not vote for you, listen as to why.

Do not hesitate to ask questions to me after rounds.

Want good speaks? Keep me engaged!

TLDR; I debated parli in high school for 3 years and have been coaching PF, LD, and Parli for the last 9 years since then with state and national champions. I try do be as tabula rasa as possible. Refer to specifics below

Follow the NSDA debate rules for properly formatting your evidence for PF and LD.

If paraphrasing is used in a debate, the debater will be held to the same standard of citation and accuracy as if the entire text of the evidence were read for the purpose of distinguishing between which parts of each piece of evidence are and are not read in a particular round. In all debate events, The written text must be marked to clearly indicate the portions read or paraphrased in the debate. If a student paraphrases from a book, study, or any other source, the specific lines or section from which the paraphrase is taken must be highlighted or otherwise formatted for identification in the round

IMPORTANT REMINDER FOR PF: Burden of proof is on the side which proposes a change. I presume the side of the status quo. The minimum threshold needed for me to evaluate an argument is

1) A terminalized and quantifiable impact
2) A measurable or direct cause and effect from the internal link
3) A topical external link
4) Uniqueness

If you do not have all of these things, you have an incomplete and unproven argument. Voting on incomplete or unproven arguments demands judge intervention. If you don't know what these things mean ask.

Philosophy of Debate:

Debate is an activity to show off the intelligence, hard work, and creativity of students with the ultimate goal of promoting education, sportsmanship, and personal advocacy. Each side in the round must demonstrate why they are the better debater, and thus, why they should receive my vote. This entails all aspects of debate including speaking ability, case rhetoric, in-and-out-of round decorum, and most importantly the overall argumentation of each speaker. Also, remember to have fun too.

I am practically a Tabula Rasa judge. “Tab” judges claim to begin the debate with no assumptions on what is proper to vote on. "Tab" judges expect teams to show why arguments should be voted on, instead of assuming a certain paradigm. Although I will default all theory to upholding education unless otherwise told

Judge preferences: When reading a constructive case or rebutting on the flow, debaters should signpost every argument and every response. You should have voter issues in your last speech. Make my job as a judge easier by telling me verbatim, why I should vote for you.

Depending on the burdens implied within the resolution, I will default neg if I have nothing to vote on. (presumption)

Kritiks. I believe a “K” is an important tool that debater’s should have within their power to use when it is deemed necessary. That being said, I would strongly suggest that you not throw a “K” in a round simply because you think it’s the best way to win the round. It should be used with meaning and genuinity to fight actually oppressive, misogynistic, dehumanizing, and explicitly exploitative arguments made by your opponents. When reading a "K" it will be more beneficial for you to slow down and explain its content rather than read faster to get more lines off. It's pretty crucial that I actually understand what I'm voting on if It's something you're telling me "I'm morally obligated to do." I am open to hearing K's but it has been a year since I judged one so I would be a little rusty.

Most Ks I vote on do a really good job of explaining how their solvency actually changes things outside of the debate space. At the point where you can’t or don't explain how voting on the K makes a tangible difference in the world, there really isn't a difference between pre and post fiat impacts. I implore you to take note of this when running or defending against a K.

Theory is fine. It should have a proper shell and is read intelligibly. Even if no shell is present I may still vote on it.

Speed is generally fine. I am not great with spreading though. If your opponents say “slow down” you probably should. If I can’t understand you I will raise my hands and not attempt to flow.

I will only agree to 30 speaker point theory if it’s warranted with a reason for norms of abuse that is applicable to the debaters in the round. I will not extend it automatically to everyone just because you all agree to it.

Parli specifics:

I give almost no credence on whether or not your warrants or arguments are backed by “cited” evidence. Since this is parliamentary debate, I will most certainly will not be fact-checking in or after round. Do not argue that your opponents do not have evidence, or any argument in this nature because it would be impossible for them to prove anything in this debate.

Due to the nature of parli, to me the judge has an implicit role in the engagement of truth testing in the debate round. Because each side’s warrants are not backed by a hard cited piece of evidence, the realism or actual truth in those arguments must be not only weighed and investigated by the debaters but also the judge. The goal, however, is to reduce the amount of truth testing the judge must do on each side's arguments. The more terminalization, explanation, and warranting each side does, the less intervention the judge might need to do. For example if the negative says our argument is true because the moon is made of cheese and the affirmative says no it's made of space dust and it makes our argument right. I obviously will truth test this argument and not accept the warrant that the moon is made of cheese.

Tag teaming is ok but the person speaking must say the words themself if I am going to flow it. It also hurts speaker points.

Public Forum specifics:

I have no requirement for a 2-2 split. Take whatever rebuttal strategy you think will maximize your chance of winning. However note that offense generated from contentions in your case must be extended in second rebuttal or they are considered dropped. Same goes for first summary.

I will not accept any K in Public Forum. Theory may still be run. Critical impacts and meta weighing is fine. No pre-fiat impacts.

Your offense must be extended through each speech in the debate round for me to vote on it in your final focus. If you forget to extend offense in second rebuttal or in summary, then I will also not allow it in final focus. This means you must ALWAYS extend your own impact cards in second rebuttal and first summary if you want to go for them.

Having voter issues in final focus is one of the easiest ways you can win the round. Tell me verbatim why winning the arguments on the flow means you win the round. Relate it back to the standard.

Lincoln Douglass and Policy:

I am an experienced circuit parliamentary debate coach and am very tabula rasa so basically almost any argument you want to go for is fine. Please note the rest of my paradigm for specifics. If you are going to spread you must flash me everything going to be read.

Email is Markmabie20@gmail.com

Please ask specific questions should you have them. Prefer substantive debates. And, fully support teams who take the initiative to stop rounds when concerned re: evidence ethics (the instructions are fully detailed in the NSDA High School Event Manual, pp. 30-33). On Theory and other such arguments in Public Forum Debate:

https://www.vbriefly.com/2021/04/15/equity-in-public-forum-debate-a-critique-of-theory/

Debate doesn’t matter. Human rights atrocities happen no matter how I vote. We can only change what happens in a round, not in US foreign/domestic policy.

Coach for La Salle Pasadena. Coaching for 6 years @ local, circuit, TOC/NSDA Nats level.

Speed is fine (because debate doesn’t matter), but if it's not great, I'll let you know and say 'clear'. Don't spread--it's not a way to pick up my ballot (again, debate doesn’t matter). Threshold: 270 words, give or take.

New Summary/Prep rules: Spend 2 minutes on summary, then that third minute on weighing. Final focus--start with that weighing that your 1st speaker ended on, then do the extensions. Summary=collapse. Spend that newly acquired 3d minute of summary providing a comparative impact calc or link weighing or whatever, but explaining how you outweigh. Don't use summary as a 2nd/additional rebuttal, if you can help it. If you want me to consider your arguments in Final Focus, I need to have heard them extended through the Summary. Final focus should be mostly comparative weighing. I will vote for the team that recognizes their own arg in its relevance to their opponents'.

I have a soft spot for Kritiks (because debate is problematic), so you can try it out, but if your Kritik ends up doing more harm than good (taking advantage of a Kritik to pick up a ballot without truly interacting with the literature of the Kritik or understanding each party's participation in oppressive systems, etc. will annoy me), I'll not consider it and possibly intervene against you.

If I don't get something on the flow, it's because you didn't emphasize it enough. I'll weigh what's on my flow, and that's the best I can do.

Re: postrounding--I don't find it educational. In fact, as a woman in debate who has her decisions and presence questioned at nearly every intersection in this activity, I find that getting postrounded by debaters just makes the space hostile and exhausting. So if you find yourself disguising your anger at losing the round as "just asking questions about the flow/round to get better," or worse, trying to embarrass and discredit your judge or your opponents, I'll tank your speaks after the round is over. If you have questions (rather than a desire to regain some power that you lost in dropping the round), come see me outside the round and we can talk.

When in doubt, ask. Or strike me. Either works.

I competed in Public Forum in High School at Rowland Hall (UT), and did BP in College at Lewis & Clark. I currently coach for Catlin Gabel (OR).

If you plan to share docs, please make an email chain titled "Round [X] Aff-[Team A] Neg-[Team B]". My email is mulfordc@catlin.edu

my main, most important judging philosophy beliefs:

-weigh arguments in the round. Make your case the easiest path for the ballot.

-collapse collapse collapse. please. you only hurt yourself by trying to go for every word said in the round.

-just because you don’t have a carded response to something your opponent said does not mean you cannot have a decent analytical response.

-please, for the love of god, warrant your responses. Tell me WHY a study concludes something, don’t just give me their results. Good warrants go with good arguments.

how I determine speaker points:

-not abusing prep time and being ready to debate quickly before round will improve your points.

-doing weighing, collapsing and warranting effectively is the best and easiest way to get high speaks

Other

-theory (for me) in pf is fine. you should only be using this if your opponent does something egregiously unfair, and not to fill up time or show me that you did ld/policy. if you do read theory, you should only be going for that and it’s your burden to prove how your opponent framed you out of the debate.

-speed-if I can’t understand you, ill say clear.

-I often vote for teams with fewer, well reasoned and weighed arguments than ones which dump arguments on me. You also risk that I will miss arguments.

I am a lay judge. I will try my best to vote off of content based in the round. Presentation does still play a factor in my vote. Please have good warranting for your arguments in a way that makes sense to someone without research on the topic. There are a few things that I will immediately drop your team if you do.

-Being unnecessarily rude

-Speaking too fast under 250 wpm.

-Being abusive

-Fake evidence

Former college policy debater and speech competitor. Been coaching speech and debate for the last 12 years.

A fan of clean, structured, easy to follow debates. I'm big on pre-speech road maps and internal signposting. Staying on track and explaining to me where you're going indicates to me that you are in control of the round and your performance within it. Debates that get muddled aren't fun for anyone, so keep it clear where you are cross applying and clashing.

I won't time anything in round. Keep tabs on each other.

I do prefer you extend thru summary if you have time so I know what you're going for.

Definitions only help us stay on the same page so when they are helpful, they are appreciated. Totally down with an overview.

Also fine with jargon. Competed in policy so speed shouldn't be an issue. I prefer it to be a little slower as this is PF, but if I can't understand you it's almost certainly an issue with articulation, not speed.

Impact weighing should be a primary part of your final focus. If I don't know what you impact out to then what are we even doing here and why does it matter? I do my best to leave my biases at the door, but that also means I will not intervene for you. Don't sprinkle a trail of bread crumbs and lead me down a path without actually ending up somewhere. Don't imply impacts or warrants, state them directly. You shouldn't make me work to follow you, it should be easy.

Speaker points for me are a function of your ability to logically break down and explain your points in a clear and concise manner. In my opinion it's not about how pretty you speak, that's what IE's are for (a stumble here or there means nothing to me in debate). Be clear, articulate, logical, and explain where you are going and you'll get high speaks from me. Be warned though: in 12 years of judging debate I have given out less than 10 perfect 30's. To me, 30 means perfection, as in you could not have done anything better whatsoever.

Framework is cool with me. Makes it easier to weigh the round.

Truth over tech.

Any other questions feel free to ask me before the round starts.

Truth > tech.

I like stock cases argued and explained well. Cross ex totally matters, in fact I have voted on convincing, strategic CX performances in many a bid round. Summaries should weigh. Call it "old tymey" PF.

If you are constantly thinking throughout the round (not just blindly reading cards) I will probably vote for you. Strike me if you have a super long link chain, do not address the topic, or talk super fast. Humor is great.

I'm primarily a lay/local circuit judge. I value judge instruction and greatly appreciate judge adaptation.

To add me on email chain: jenpecasting@gmail.com

Minimize spreading.

No rude/offensive behavior, please.

I prefer quality argument(s) over quantity.

Please weigh.

I don't vote for arguments I don't understand. Slow down on theory and analytics. Feel free to over-explain.

School Affiliation: Torrey Pines High School

Experience: I am a parent judge and this is my first year judging PF

In Round

I try to have average speaks be around 27.5-28. I will drop you if you are rude, racist, sexist, etc.

Please speak clearly at a moderate speed, and please don’t use too much jargon. You can also look at my face to see if I am confused or lost so that you can slow down or explain a little more.

I won’t have as much knowledge about the topic like debaters will, so please explain everything well.

I will be take notes but I will be trying to listen more to the arguments to understand them better.

(Updated for 2022 Nats)

4 years competing in LD, 3 years coaching. Anthropology/Philosophy degrees from UNLV.

If you're in a rush read 'Overview' plus what's in bold. Largely applies to both LD, PF, and BQ. Specifics for each event are at the end

FOR BQ AT NATS: This topic asks whether religious belief and practice in general/inherently is beneficial for society in general. It is not asking whether any one specific religion is/has been beneficial/harmful to any one specific society. This is absolutely vital to understand for this topic. Hold each other to this standard but calling out arguments that only work when analyzing specific religions instead of what is true/inherent of all religious belief and practice.

Overview: I like to hear voters. You need to signpost and extend your arguments; if I don’t know where you are on the flow, it’s as if you aren’t making the argument.
I am not likely to pick you up if you don’t spend any time on impact analysis.
I would much prefer three solid cards with excellent analysis to thirty cards without any analysis. Give me probability, please. Crazy link chains to nuke war are USUALLY slippery slope fallacies as bad as, "If we allow gay marriage, next we'll be allowing turtle marriage." If I stop flowing and start staring at you it means either you made your point and you need to move on, or I have no clue what you're saying.

"Ok, sure" and "sure" are some of the most annoying phrases spoken during Cross-Ex. Please avoid them.

Your first line of attack in a rebuttal should be a logical one. Don't reach for the cards right away, you should be able to logically attack arguments card-less. (see 'Pro-tips' at the bottom).

Be a debater, not a competitive librarian. While arguments are 'claim, warrant, impact,' more importantly arguments are 'premises, conclusions'. You need to understand whether or not you (or your opponent) are making deductive or inductive arguments, what that means for the round, and whether or not they are succeeding at valid and sound (in the case of deductive), or strong (in the case of inductive) arguments. If you don't know what these terms mean, what have you been doing in debate for the past 3+ years? Please don't tell me you 'understand and can run Nietzsche' but don't know what formal logic is!

Speed: The extent to which you use speed should not interfere with your ability to communicate intelligibly. If you want me to put your arguments/cards on the flow, slow down. You’ll know you’re speaking too fast if I put my pen down. At the end of the day this is a communication activity, please treat it as such. Also understanding spreading over video chat is way too hard so lets refrain from having to deal with that.

Cross-ex: Questions/Etiquette: If your opponent is abusing your cross-ex by taking too long to answer a question, you may politely interrupt; I will not consider you rude for the interruption. However, not every question has a yes or no answer, and your opponent is perfectly within their rights to say they need to give an explanation. The person answering the questions may only respond with questions for clarification (“Are you asking about my 1st or 2nd contention?” for example) and may not respond with substantive questions. Cross-ex isn't flowed. If you want something to stick, bring it up in a speech. That being said, cross-ex can definitely help speaker points.

Speaker points: I pivot off of 28

I lean truth over tech because debate is educational and meant to train future leaders and policy-makers by honoring free speech, discourse, and logic as paragons of democracy. The real world is not a game and only sound, logical solutions have ever changed it for the better.

Pro-tips: At least one logical fallacy happens every round. Find it and point it out (appeal to authority is most common, see "Expert Opinion" below). If you know the Latin name, even better.

If you commit a formal fallacy (Denying the Antecedent or Affirming the Consequent) I will judge you harshly, but not as harshly as I would judge you if your opponent commits it and you fail to call them out. Again, be a debater, not a competitive librarian.

In case you need a refresher: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_fallacy

References to the show The West Wing will score you brownie points and respect. Also, talk to me about music sampling out of round.

As usual, if you're racist, sexist, abelist, or otherwise obscenely rude expect an auto-drop and low speaks.

For LD:

This explains my views on LD more eloquently than I ever could, https://debate.uvm.edu/NFL/rostrumlib/LD%20Baldwin%20LD%201-03.pdf

That being said here are some specifics

While I accept and understand some levels of progressivism, I'm still a value/trad LD'er at heart. At least try to fake that you're understanding and thinking about the philosophical underpinnings that the resolution is aiming for, even if you couldn't care less and just want LD to be solo CX.

YOU CAN'T VALUE MORALITY. MORALITY IS JUST THE CONCEPT OF GOOD AND BAD, BUT DOESN'T SPECIFY WHAT IS GOOD AND WHAT IS BAD. Your value needs to be a moral in and of itself, not morality as a whole. Thus your Value can be Life, Justice, Fairness, Equality, Education, etc. depending on what your contentions uphold. Your value criterion MEASURES that value, explicitly or implicitly demonstrating a deontological or consequential ethical position. When I hear 'My value is morality,' I immediately assume you do not actually understand what morality, or a value, is.

Plans: I will accept a case which offers some kind of loose plan, so long as that plan clearly and fully relates to the resolution. I see LD as being very different from Policy—I am not a fan of very narrow and specific plans in LD. If you are using a plan to show that there is a smart way to do whatever your side is, great. If you are using a super narrow and specific plan to show that you could come up with some idea the other side never thought of, that’s not ok.

Kritiks: I need really clear impacts to vote on K's. Refer to this http://nsdupdate.com/2014/in-defense-of-topical-switch-side-debate/

Values/Criteria: I strongly prefer a framework that allows me to clearly pick one position over another. See my morality rant above ^^^

Expert Opinion: When it comes to morality opinions I don't think there is such a thing as an 'expert' opinion. There are informed opinions (meaning supported by strong logic), but I do not think anyone has an upper hand when it comes to stating moral principles. I think debaters should be able to articulate their own ethical viewpoints, but if they wish to use another source that is their option.

As an example: If debater A says "I think the death penalty is just" and debater B says "John Doe, a Doctor of Philosophy and Ethics at Yale, says the death penalty is unjust" I would have the debaters tied, as neither has given reason for why or why not it is just. I am going to judge the quality of your argument, not who is making it.

For PF, something I see too often; skewing of statistics. It usually happened like this: "X will cause a 400% increase in Y!!" when the card says an increase from 1% to 4%. Yes, that is technically a 400% increase, but that's super shady. I'm a bit of a statistics nerd so don't do this.

For BQ: This is big questions, addressing the big questions of science, philosophy, and religion. The neg needs to affirm the inverse of the resolution. As in, neg needs to prove that religion is NOT beneficial to society, not just negate what the aff says. 

TOC:

Evidence and Docs: There was a little confusion about evidence exchange and prep time this morning in the Judges Meeting. PF Tab clarified in an email that page 56/57 PF rules still stand and if Team A calls for Team B's evidence they can get free prep until Team B produces that evidence. When Team A gets that evidence in hand then prep time starts. Please let your judges know they got an email with the clarification. But please just send the evidence ASAP.

Let me stress again... I think it is an intervention to look at speech doc during a speech if you cannot understand the speaker. This incentivizes 2,000 word cases. I will not look at the speech doc until after the speech to read evidence only if it is relevant to a discussion in the round. If I clear you twice it probably means I am not going to be able to effectively flow what you want.

Emails: Please put gabriel.rusk@gmail.com on the email chain as well as fairmontprepdebateteam@gmail.com

Uniqueness: If you are running an argument that is based on some fairly recent dynamic or fluid geopolitical scenario you prob should have UQ updates from this week. Postdates aren't automatic evidence triumphs please still implicate why they matter.

Gabe Rusk

☮️

Background

Debate Experience: TOC Champion PF 2010, 4th at British Parli University National Championships 2014, Oxford Debate Union competitive debater 2015-2016 (won best floor speech), LGBTQIA+ Officer at the Oxford Debate Union.

Wanna come hang with me this summer? Sign up for the Summer Speech & Debate Think Tank at Stanford University.

NSDA PF Topic Committee Member: If you have any ideas, topic areas, or resolutions in mind for next season please send them to my email below.

Coaching Experience: Director of Debate at Fairmont Prep 2018-Current, Senior Instructor and PF Curriculum Director at the Institute for Speech and Debate, La Altamont Lane 2018 TOC, GW 2010-2015. British Parli coach and lecturer for universities including DU, Oxford, and others.

Education: Masters from Oxford University '16 - Dissertation on the history of the First Amendment. Religion and Philosophy BA at DU '14. Other research areas include Buddhism, comparative religion, conlaw, First Amendment law, free speech, freedom of expression, art law, media law, & legal history. AP Macroeconomics Teacher too so don't make econ args up.

2023 Winter Data Update: Importing my Tabroom data I've judged 651 rounds since 2014 with a 53% Pro and 47% Con vote balance. There may be a slight subconscious Aff bias it seems. My guess is that I may subconsciously give more weight to changing the status quo as that's the core motivator of debate but no statistically meaningful issues are present.

Email: gabriel.rusk@gmail.com

Website: I love reading non-fiction, especially features. Check out my free website Rusk Reads for good article recs.

PF Paradigm

Judge Philosophy

I consider myself tech>truth but constantly lament the poor state of evidence ethics, power tagging, clipping, and more. Further, I know stakes can be high in a bubble, bid, or important round but let's still come out of the debate feeling as if it was a positive experience. Life is too short for needless suffering. Please be kind, compassionate, and cordial.

Big Things

• What I want to see: I'm empathetic to major technical errors in my ballots. In a perfect world I vote for the team who does best on tech and secondarily on truth. I tend to resolve clash most easily when you give explicit reasons why either a) your evidence is comparatively better but also when you tell me why b) your warranting is comparatively better. Obviously doing both compounds your chances at winning my ballot. I have recently become more sensitive to poor extensions in the back half. Please have UQ where necessary, links, internal links, and impacts. Weighing introduced earlier the better. Weighing is your means to minimize intervention.

• Weighing Unlike Things: I need to know how to weigh two comparatively unlike things. If you are weighing some economic impact against a non-economic impact like democracy how do I defer to one over the other? Scope, magnitude, probability etc. I strongly prefer impact debates on the probability/reasonability of impacts over their magnitude and scope. Obviously try to frame impacts using all available tools. I am very amicable to non-trad framing of impacts but you need to extend the warrants and evidence.

• Weighing Like Things: Please have warrants and engage comparatively between yourself and your opponent. Obviously methodological and evidentiary comparison is nice too as I mentioned earlier. I love crossfires or speech time where we discuss the warrants behind our cards and why that's another reason to prefer your arg over your opponent.

• Don't be a DocBot: I love that you're prepared and have enumerated overviews, blocks, and frontlines. I love heavy evidence and dense debates with a lot of moving parts. But if it sounds like you're just reading a doc without specific or explicit implications to your opponent's contentions you are not contributing anything meaningful to the round. Tell me why your responses interact. If they are reading an arg about the environment and just read an A2 Environment Non-Unique without explaining why your evidence or warranting is better then this debate will suffer.

• I'm comfortable if you want to take the debate down kritical, theoretical, and/or pre-fiat based roads. I think framework debates be them pre or post fiat are awesome. Voted on many K's before too. Here be dragons. I will say though, over time I've become increasingly tired of opportunistic, poor quality, and unfleshed out theory in PF. But in the coup of the century, I have been converted to the position that disclosure theory and para theory is a viable path to the ballot if you win your interp. I do have questions I am ruminating on after the summer doxxing of judges and debaters whether certain interps of disc are viable and am interested to see how that can be explored in a theory round. I would highly discourage running trigger warning theory in front of me. See thoughts below on that. All variables being equal I would prefer post-fiat stock topic-specific rounds but in principle remain as tabula rasa as I can on disc and paraphrasing theory.

Little Things

• (New Note for 2024: Speech docs have never intended to serve as an alternative to flowing a speech. They are for exchanging evidence faster and to better scrutinize evidence. Otherwise, you could send a 3000 word case and the speech itself could be as unintelligible as you would like without a harm. As a result there is an infinite regress of words you could send. Thus I will not look at a speech doc during your speech to aid with flowing and will clear you if needed. I will look at docs only when there is evidence comparison, flags, indicts etc but prefer to have it on hand. My speed threshold is very high but please be a bit louder than usual the faster you go. I know there is a trade off with loudness and speed but what can we do).

• What needs to be frontlined in second rebuttal? Turns. Not defense unless you have time. If you want offense in the final focus then extend it through the summary.

• Defense is not sticky between rebuttal and final focus. Aka if defense is not in summary you can't extend it in final focus. I've flipped on this recently. I've found the debate is hurt by the removal of the defense debate in summary and second final focus can extend whatever random defense it wants or whatever random frontlines to defense. This gives the second speaking teams a disproportionate advantage and makes the debate needlessly more messy.

• I will pull cards on two conditions. First, if it becomes a key card in the round and the other team questions the validity of the cut, paraphrasing, or explanation of the card in the round. Second, if the other team never discusses the merits of their opponents card the only time I will ever intervene and call for that evidence is if a reasonable person would know it's facially a lie.

• Calling for your opponent's cards. It should not take more than 1 minute to find case cards. Do preflows before the round. Smh y'all.

• If you spread that's fine. Just be prepared to adjust if I need to clear or provide speech docs to your opponents to allow for accessibility and accommodation.

• My favorite question in cx is: Why? For example, "No I get that's what your evidence says but why?"

• Germs are scary. I don't like to shake hands. It's not you! It's me! [Before covid times this was prophetic].

• I don't like to time because it slows my flow in fast rounds but please flag overtime responses in speechs and raise your phone. Don't interrupt or use loud timers.

Ramblings on Trigger Warning Theory

Let me explain why I am writing this. This isn't because I'm right and you're wrong. I'm not trying to convince you. Nor should you cite this formally in round to win said round. Rather, a lot of you care so much about debate and theory in particular gets pretty personal fairly quickly that I want to explain why my hesitancy isn't personal to you either. I am not opposing theory as someone who is opposed to change in Public Forum.

- First, I would highly discourage running trigger warning theory in front of me. My grad school research and longstanding work outside of debate has tracked how queer, civil rights advocates, religious minorities, and political dissidents have been extensively censored over time through structural means. The suppression and elimination of critical race theory and BLM from schools and universities is an extension of this. I have found it very difficult to be tabula rasa on this issue. TW/anonymous opt outs are welcome if you so wish to include them, that is your prerogative, but like I said the lack of one is not a debate I can be fair on. Let me be clear. I do not dismiss that "triggers" are real. I do not deny your lived experience on face nor claim all of you are, or even a a significant number of you, are acting in bad faith. This is always about balancing tests. My entire academic research for over 8 years was about how structural oppressors abuse these frameworks of "sin," "harm," "other," to squash dissidents, silence suffragettes, hose civil rights marchers, and imprison queer people because of the "present danger they presented in their conduct or speech." I also understand that some folks in the literature circles claim there is a double bind. You are opting out of trigger warning debates but you aren't letting me opt out of debates I don't want to have either. First, I will never not listen to or engage in this debate. My discouragement above is rooted in my deep fear that I will let you down because I can't be as fair as I would be on another issue. I tell students all the time tabula rasa is a myth. I still think that. It's a goal we strive for to minimize intervention because we will never eliminate it. Second, I welcome teams to still offer tw and will not penalize you for doing so. Third, discussions on SV, intersectionality, and civil rights are always about trade offs. Maybe times will change but historically more oppression, suppression, and suffering has come from the abuse of the your "speech does me harm" principle than it benefits good faith social justice champions who want to create a safe space and a better place. If you want to discuss this empirical question (because dang there are so many sources and this is an appeal to my authority) I would love to chat about it.

Next, let me explain some specific reasons why I am resistant to TW theory in debate using terms we use in the literature. There is a longstanding historical, philosophical, and queer/critical theory concern on gatekeeper shift. If we begin drawing more and more abstract lines in terms of what content causes enough or certain "harm" that power can and will be co-opted and abused by the equally more powerful. Imagine if you had control over what speech was permitted versus your polar opposite actor in values. Now imagine they, via structural means, could begin to control that power for themselves only. In the last 250 years of the US alone I can prove more instances than not where this gatekeeping power was abused by government and powerful actors alike. I am told since this has changed in the last twenty years with societal movements so should we. I don't think we have changed that significantly. Just this year MAUS, a comic about the Holocaust, was banned in a municipality in Jan 22. Toni Morrison was banned from more than a dozen school districts in 2021 alone. PEN, which is a free press and speech org, tracked more than 125 bills, policies, or resolutions alone this year that banned queer, black, feminist, material be them books, films, or even topics in classrooms, libraries, and universities. Even in some of the bills passed and proposed the language being used is under the guise of causing "discomfort." "Sexuality" and discussions of certain civil rights topics is stricken from lesson plans all together under these frameworks. These trends now and then are alarming.

I also understand this could be minimizing the trauma you relive when a specific topic or graphic description is read in round. I again do not deny your experience on face ever. I just cannot comfortably see that framework co-opted and abused to suppress the mechanisms or values of equality and equity. So are you, Gabe, saying because the other actors steal a tool and abuse that tool it shouldn't be used for our shared common goals? Yes, if the powerful abuse that tool and it does more harm to the arc of history as it bends towards justice than I am going to oppose it. This can be a Heckler's Veto, Assassin's Veto, Poisoning The Well, whatever you want to call it. Even in debate I have seen screenshots of actual men discussing how they would always pick the opt out because they don't want to "debate girls on women issues in front of a girl judge." This is of course likely an incredibly small group but I am tired of seeing queer, feminist, or critical race theory based arguments being punted because of common terms or non-graphic descriptions. Those debates can be so enriching to the community and their absence means we are structurally disadvantaged with real world consequences that I think outweigh the impacts usually levied against this arg. I will defend this line for the powerless and will do so until I die.

All of these above claims are neither syllogisms or encyclopedias of events. I am fallible and so are those arguments. Hence let us debate this but just know my thoughts.

Like in my disclaimer on the other theory shell none of these arguments are truisms just my inner and honest thoughts to help you make strategic decisions in the round.

Co-Director: Milpitas High Speech and Debate
PHYSICS TEACHER
History
Myers Park, Charlotte N.C.
(85-88) 3 years Policy, LD and Congress. Double Ruby (back when it was harder to get) and TOC competitor in LD.
2 Diamond Coach (pretentious, I know)

Email Chain so I know when to start prep: mrschletz@gmail.com

Summer 87: American U Institute. 2 weeks LD and congress under Dale Mccall and Harold Keller, and 2 more weeks in a mid level Policy lab.

St. Johns Xavierian, Shrewsbury, Mass
88~93 consultant, judge and chaperone

Summer 89 American U Coaches institute (Debate)

Milpitas High, Milpitas CA
09-present co-coach

Side note/pet peeve: It is pronounced NUUUUUU-CLEEEEEEE-ERRRRRRRRR (sorry this annoys the heck outta me, like nails on the blackboard)

ALL EVENTS EXCEPT PARLI NEED TO KNOW NSDA RULES OF EVIDENCE (or CHSSA RULES OF EVIDENCE) OR DO NOT EXPECT ME TO COUNT IT(NSDA MINIMUM IS "NAME" AND "DATE" ****READ IN ROUND****) Anything else is just rhetoric/logic and 99% of the time, rhetoric vs card mans card wins. ALSO: SENDING ME A SPEECH DOC does NOT equal "READ IN ROUND". If I yell clear, and you don't adapt, this is your fault.

If you put conditions on your opponent getting access to your evidence I will put conditions on counting it in my RFD. Evidence should be provided any time asked between speeches, or asked for during cx and provided between speeches. Failure to produce the card in context may result in having no access to that card on my flow/decision.

Part of what you should know about any of the events
Events Guide
https://www.nflonline.org/uploads/AboutNFL/Competition_Events_Guide.pdf
13-14 NSDA tournament Operations manual
http://www.speechanddebate.org/aspx/content.aspx?id=1206
http://www.speechanddebate.org/DownloadHandler.ashx?File=/userdocs/documents/PF_2014-15_Competition_Events_At_A_Glance.pdf

All events, It is a mark of the competitors skill to adapt to the judge, not demand that they should adapt to you. Do not get into a definitional fight without being armed with a definition..... TAG TEAM CX? *NOT A FAN* if you want to give me the impression your partner doesn't know what they are talking about, sure, go ahead, Diss your partner. Presentation skills: Stand in SPEECHES AND CX (where applicable) and in all events with only exception in PF grand.

ALL EVENTS EXCEPT PARLI NEED TO KNOW NSDA RULES OF EVIDENCE (or CHSSA RULES OF EVIDENCE) OR DO NOT EXPECT ME TO COUNT IT(NSDA MINIMUM IS "NAME" AND "DATE"****READ IN ROUND****) Anything else is just rhetoric/logic and 99% of the time, rhetoric vs card means card wins.

PUBLIC FORUM:

P.S.: there is no official grace period in PF. If you start a card or an analytic before time, then finish it. No arguments STARTED after time will be on my flow.

While I was not able to compete in public forum (It did not exist yet), the squad I coach does primarily POFO. Its unlikely that any resolution will call for a real plan as POFO tends to be propositions of fact instead of value or policy.
I am UNLIKELY to vote for a K, and I don't even vote for K in policy. Moderate speed is fine, but to my knowledge, this format was meant to be more persuasive. USE EVIDENCE and make sure you have Tags and Cites. I want a neat flow (it will never happen, but I still want it)

I WANT FRAMEWORK or I will adjudicate the round, since you didn't (Framework NOT introduced in the 1st 4 speeches will NOT be entertained, as it is a new argument. I FLOW LIKE POLICY with respect to DROPPED ARGUMENTS (if a speech goes by I will likely consider the arg dropped... this means YES I believe the 4th speaker in the round SHOULD cover both flows..)

Also: If you are framing the round in the 4th speech, I am likely to give more leeway in the response to FW or new topical definitions in 1st Summ as long as they don't drop it.

Remember, Pofo was there to counteract speed in Circuit LD, and LD was created to counter speed, so fast is ok, but tier 3 policy spread is probably not.

ALL EVENTS EXCEPT PARLI NEED TO KNOW NSDA RULES OF EVIDENCE (or CHSSA RULES OF EVIDENCE) OR DO NOT EXPECT ME TO COUNT IT(NSDA MINIMUM IS "NAME" AND "DATE" READ IN ROUND ) Anything else is just rhetoric/logic and 99% of the time, rhetoric vs card mans card wins.

PLANS IN PF
If you have one advocacy, and you claim solvency on one advocacy, and only if it is implemented, then yeah that is a plan. I will NOT weigh offense from the plan, this is a drop the argument issue for me. Keep the resolution as broad as possible. EXCEPTION, if the resolution is (rarely) EXPLICIT, or the definitions in the round imply the affirmative side is a course of action, then that is just the resolution. EXAMPLE
September 2012 - Resolved: Congress should renew the Federal Assault Weapons Ban
the aff is the resolution, not a plan and more latitude is obviously given.

If one describes several different ways for the resolution to be implemented, or to be countered, you are not committing to one advocacy, and are defending/attacking a broad swath of the resolution, and this I do NOT consider a plan.

ALL EVENTS EXCEPT PARLI NEED TO KNOW NSDA RULES OF EVIDENCE (or CHSSA RULES OF EVIDENCE) OR DO NOT EXPECT ME TO COUNT IT(NSDA MINIMUM IS "NAME" AND "DATE" ****READ IN ROUND****) Anything else is just rhetoric/logic and 99% of the time, rhetoric vs card mans card wins.

POLICY:

If your plan is super vague, you MIGHT not get to claim your advantages. Saying you "increase" by merely reading the text of the resolution is NOT A PLAN. Claiming what the plan says in cx is NOT reading a plan. Stop being sloppy.

I *TRY* to be Tabula Rasa (and fail a lot of the time especially on theory, Ks and RVI/fairness whines)
I trained when it was stock issues, mandatory funding plan spikes (My god, the amount of times I abused the grace commission in my funding plank), and who won the most nuclear wars in the round.

Presentation skills: Stand in SPEECHES AND CX (where applicable) and in all events with only exception in PF grand.

Please don't diss my event.
I ran
Glassification of toxic/nuclear wastes, and Chloramines on the H2O topic
Legalize pot on the Ag topic
CTBT on the Latin America topic.

In many years I have never voted neg on K (in CX), mainly because I have never seen an impact (even when it was run in POFO as an Aff).(Ironic given my LD background)

I will freely vote on Topicality if it is run properly (but not always XT), and have no problem buying jurisdiction......
I HAVE finally gotten to judge Hypo-testing round (it was fun and hilarious).
One of my students heard from a friend in Texas that they are now doing skits and non topical/personal experiece affs, feel free, BUT DON'T EXPECT ME TO VOTE FOR IT.

I will vote on good perms both ways (see what I said above about XT)

SPREAD: I was a tier B- speed person in the south. I can flow A level spread *IF* you enunciate. slow down momentarily on CITES and TAGS and blow through the card (BUT I WILL RE TAG YOUR SUBPOINTS if your card does not match the tag!!!!!!)
If you have any slurred speech, have a high pitched voice, a deep southern or NY/Jersey drawl, or just are incapable of enunciating, and still insist on going too fast for your voice, I will quit flowing and make stuff up based on what I think I hear.

I do not ask for ev unless there is an evidentiary challenge, so if you claim the card said something and I tagged it differently because YOU slurred too much on the card or mis-tagged it, that's your fault, not mine.

LD

I WILL JUDGE NSDA RULES!!!! I am NOT tabula rasa on some theory, or on plans. Plans are against the rules of the event as I learned it and I tend to be an iconoclast on this point. LD was supposed to be a check on policy spread, and I backlash, if you have to gasp or your voice went up two octaves then see below... Topicality FX-T and XT are cool on both sides but most other theory boils down to WHAAAAAAHHHH I don't want to debate their AFF so I will try to bs some arguments.

-CIRCUIT LD REFER to policy prefs above in relation to non topical and performance affs, I will TRY to sometimes eval a plan, but I wish they would create a new event for circuit LD as it is rarely values debate.

- I LOVE PHILOSOPHY so if you want to confuse your opponent who doesn't know the difference between Kant, Maslow and Rawls, dazzle away :-).
Clear VP and VC (or if you call it framework fine, but it is stupid to tell someone with a framework they don't have a VC and vice versa, its all semantics) are important but MORE IMPORTANT is WHY IS YOURS BETTER *OR* WHY DO YOU MEET THEIRS TOO and better (Permute)

IF YOU TRY TO Tier A policy spread, or solo policy debate, you have probably already lost UNLESS your opponent is a novice. Not because I can't follow you, but because THIS EVENT IS NOT THE PLACE FOR IT!!! However there are several people who can talk CLEARLY and FAST that can easily dominate LD, If you cannot be CLEAR and FAST play it safe and be CLEAR and SLOW. Speaker points are awarded on speaking, not who wins the argument....

Sub-pointing is still a good idea, do not just do broad overviews. plans and counter-plans need not apply as LD is usually revolving around the word OUGHT!!!! Good luck claiming Implementation FIAT on a moral obligation. I might interrupt if you need to be louder, but its YOUR job to occasionally look at the judge to see signals to whether or not they are flowing, so I will be signalling that, by looking at you funny or closing my eyes, or in worst case leaning back in my chair and visibly ignoring you until you stop ignoring the judge and fix the problem. I will just be making up new tags for the cards I missed tags for by actually listening to the cards, and as the average debater mis-tags cards to say what they want them to, this is not advisable.

PLANS IN LD
PLANS
If you have one advocacy, and you claim solvency on one advocacy, and only if it is implemented, then yeah that is a plan. I will NOT weigh offense from the plan, this is a drop the argument issue for me. Keep the resolution as broad as possible.

EXCEPTION, if the resolution is (rarely) EXPLICIT, or the definitions in the round imply the affirmative side is a course of action, then that is just the resolution. EXAMPLE
September 2012 - Resolved: Congress should renew the Federal Assault Weapons Ban
the aff is the resolution, not a plan and more latitude is obviously given.

If one describes several different ways for the resolution to be implemented, or to be countered, you are not committing to one advocacy, and are defending/attacking a broad swath of the resolution, and this I do NOT consider a plan.

I repeat, Speed = Bad in LD, and I will not entertain a counter-plan in LD If you want to argue Counterplans and Plans, get a partner and go to a policy tournament.

GOOD LUCK and dangit, MAKE *ME* HAVE FUN hahahahahah

http://www.vbriefly.com/2012/05/23/201205comments-for-the-circuit-on-the-ncfl-and-nfl-nationals-by-brad-taylor/

Please just have a nice little case debate :(

Signpost or it didn't happen;

Arguments have to be in summary and final focus;

Consider slowing down a little for my tired old ears;

Err silly and down to earth over perceptually dominant;

Weighing is very important and shouldbe evidence-based;

It's okay to answer a theory shell then go for substance. Encouraged, even;

And meet NSDA rules for evidence or strike me. You have to have a cut card at a minimum.

Put me on the email chain and title it something logical: gavinslittledebatesidehustle@gmail.com.

I never did Debate in high school, but this will be my 7th year of judging public forum. I have judged at Nationals and some national circuit tournaments. However, I still like to be treated like a lay judge, even when I take a lot of notes. That means clearly signposting all arguments that you want to be considered and concisely weighing them during summary and final focus. If I don't understand the argument or how a response is actually responsive, I can't consider it. Additionally, I don't like arguments that are clearly absurd. That seems vague, but if your evidence says what you say it says then your argument should make logical sense to me. I will consider them if no adequate response is made, but my bar for level of response is lower for those types of arguments. Finally, I'm not very familiar with any theory or rule violation type arguments, so keep that in mind. I am open to them, but you will need to explain them extremely well.

If you have any other questions, feel free to ask before the round.

I am a former two-on-two high school policy debater (in Michigan), turned college National Forensics Association - Lincoln Douglas (NFA-LD) debater [one-on-one policy debate], who also regularly participated in the National Parliamentary Debate Association (NPDA) two-on-two topic announce / limited-preparation format of debate.

My preference is to vote on offensive issues articulated in the round over defensive or critical issues that are only implicated or initially articulated. If your strategy requires willing the round by defensive or critical arguments - you'd be well advised to develop these early in the round and regularly overview/underview their case/policy implication [or pre fiat implications in the case of the Kritique].

Otherwise, my entire paradigm will predicate on avoiding judge intervention (where/when made possible by a good debate) and to vote for the articulation of issues that most effectively impact the debate.

Don't hesitate to ask questions before the start of the round.

i did PF in high school (2014-18) and coached for ~2 years after.

i have not thought about debate in the past 4 years, i don't have topic knowledge, and am not comfy with technical/theory-ish things in PF. please treat me like a flay judge! i like seeing lots of impact calc, meta/weighing throughout the round along w/ a clean narrative — doing all of these well will mean i give u high speaks (29+). i will lower speaker points for teams that are mean :(

you can wear whatever is comfortable for you in rounds. i don't believe in having to wear a suit for tournaments.

more importantly, i hope you are having a good day :)

sanjim@berkeley.edu

- I did PF in high school and now coach

- Run any arguments you want

- Not down for spreading or speaking fast

- Be clear with your arguments and tell me where to vote

1. Background: I am a parent judge with about one year of judging experience, only at local tournaments. Please treat me like a lay judge, and attempt to convince me as such.

2. Speed: I can only handle up to moderate speed; if you start speaking too fast, mumbling, or spreading, I will raise my hand and stop writing. Continuing to do so after I have indicated an issue in your speaking style means that I won’t be able to follow your arguments.

3. Clarity: Please signpost and directly reference which points you are extending or refuting in order to keep the round clear and organized. This makes my job easier and prevents arguments from getting muddled or lost.

4. Argumentation:

1. For the most part, I will evaluate all arguments in the debate round in isolation from my personal beliefs. However, make sure all of your arguments are logically sound. Ridiculous responses are sufficient to ridiculous arguments.

2. Please weigh. I understand that both teams will have something going for them by the end of the round. Give me reasons why I should prefer your side over the opponents, especially when the impacts are drastically different (ex: Environmental harm vs. Economic growth) and do direct comparison; Otherwise, I’ll decide which one I think is more important and chances are you won’t like my decision

3. No new arguments in final focus, they will not be evaluated.

5. Evidence:

1. Please use prep time when looking at evidence. You don’t need to use prep while searching for evidence, but you must use it while reading the opponent’s evidence.

2. I will only call for evidence at the end of the round if either team tells me to throughout the course of the round.

6. Misc:

1. Be respectful; nothing irritates me more than a rude or condescending tone when speaking

2. Any sexist, homophobic, or racist remarks will get you automatically dropped and 20 speaker points

3. Have fun!

I currently serve as the head coach for Park City High School.

In-round Preferences:

• Weigh.
• Collapse.
• Weigh.
• Please signpost — it makes it much easier to flow
• I appreciate critical arguments, but keep them accessible to people who aren’t terribly familiar with K debate or literature
• Weigh.
• Please be consistent with your warranting.
• Offense must be in summary and final focus.
• Weigh
• Because I coach, I am very familiar with the resolution you are debating.
• Do not say racist, homophobic, xenophobic or sexist things. Pay attention to the language you use, and know that I will, too.
• A sense of humor is always appreciated. Have fun. Don't take yourselves too seriously. Please do not be condescending to your opponent during cross.
• Weigh.
• I am an experienced coach and judge. I know the rules. Win the round fairly (because your arguments/analytics are better). It's that simple.

• I have been involved in debate with Park City High School since 2017. I respect and admire students who are committed to learning about and engaging in academic conversations. Thank you for being a part of debate.

Make this your best round possible. I look forward to judging, and hope you share the same enthusiasm for competing.

Finally, should I judge something other than PF: In terms of theory, I don't like it. If you insist upon running it, I will listen/judge begrudgingly and choose truth over tech. I hate frivolous or abusive theory - only run it if it's a true violation.

My email (for questions): awilliams@pcschools.us

I was a British Parliamentary debater for three years in college. In that format, the judge is expected to be an average voter and no spreading occurs. I am currently a graduate student at UNLV studying Communication. I would prefer debaters focus more on persuasion than the number of arguments in their speech. I appreciate signposting and organization in speeches. I appreciate critical arguments and speakers being collegiate to each other.

In-round Preferences:

• Weigh.
• Though I flow, I cannot keep up with spreading. Please keep it to a traditional speed in PF.
• Weigh.
• Please signpost — it makes it much easier to flow
• I appreciate critical arguments, but keep them accessible to people who aren’t terribly familiar with K debate or literature
• Weigh.
• Please be consistent with your warranting.
• Offense must be in summary and final focus.
• Weigh
• Do not say racist, homophobic, xenophobic or sexist things. Pay attention to the language you use, and know that I will, too.

Miscellaneous:

• I don't like crossfire. I won’t flow, and you shouldn’t go over time.
• Do not steal prep time.
• Persuade me that you deserve the ballot.
• Weigh.

SPEAKS: High speaker points are earned and not given.

Make it the best debate possible. I look forward to judging, and hope you share the same enthusiasm for competing.

add me to the email chain/doc share alexzavaladebate@gmail.com

Not a fan of tricks/friv theory but will vote on it only if opponent responds poorly enough

Pretty OK with theory/tshells but they tend to dominate rounds when brought up

K Aff’s force you to do so much work for me the understand. I just wouldn’t

K’s are interesting and can make compelling round winning arguments but again my threshold for understanding it completely are low

Prefer impact heavy/analysis focused rounds

Clash is great

Topical affs >>>>> questionably topical affs

Likelihood of your DA probably matters more than how much it turns case

Being respectful to your opponents gets you far

Slow down for most important voters

COLLAPSE IN THE DEBATE please

Parent Judge/New Assistant Coach

- Please no spreading/keep it conversational.

- Please not use debate jargon, real world terminology.

- Please make the debate as understandable and as easy to follow as possible

- I have background knowledge in this area, but if it is not said during the round, I will not vote on it.

- Make all of your analysis explicit, I will not connect the dots for you.

Thank you!