Hi,

My name is Milan Amritraj and I'm writing this paradigm specifically for the 2022 NPDL TOC.

By way of Parli experience, I was a 2 time California state semi-finalist while competing for Campbell Hall. To the extent that World Schools Debate is similar to parli, I was also a two year member of NSDA's Team USA and captained the team during my senior year of high school. For further general background, I competed in LD, Congress and a variety of extemporaneous speech events. I've also served as assistant coach of the Campbell Hall team since graduating high school in 2016.

My paradigm is not particularly complicated, and I really don't think it should be for Parli debate. This text is not exhaustive, so feel free to ask me any questions before the round starts if you'd like specific clarification. Below are the most important points.

I'm pretty open to any arguments, theory and K's included, so feel free to run whatever you'd like so long as its well articulated. That being said, I heavily value weighing and crystallization in the rebuttal speeches, so please do a good amount of work to help clarify how you think I should be weighing these different arguments. Otherwise you run the risk of me having to enter the debate to resolve any ambiguities.

Speed shouldn't be an issue. Clarity, however, might very well be. I'll call out clear if theres an issue, but please try to avoid making that happen.

Finally, please avoid any funny business with prep or evidence if those sorts of things come up in round. I have a zero tolerance policy for foul play.

Competed in Varsity PF in high school.

Tabula rasa style.

Decision based off of the flow, I am looking for clear, concise extensions that are warranted.

Do not extend through ink or try to extend dropped responses.

Make weighing on the voters clear for your own best interest.

As an experienced judge I will flow all parts of the debate.

A few things I like to see in a debate:
-engaging cross-ex

-clash of arguments

-clear crystallization in summary and final-focus

Please speak clearly, not too fast, and be respectful of your opponents and me.

I coach PF, but have personal competitive experience in Congress and Humorous Interpretation.

No spreading.

Tabula rasa.

When saying the name of a source and it's author, please slow down and speak clearly.

I may ask for cards.

Overall, I am looking for teams that are respectful and understand their arguments holistically.

Paradigm:

Background: I have experience in Parliamentary Debate and IPDA along with individual events such as Impromptu and extemporaneous. My political leaning I'd describe as left-moderate.

How I Vote:

My voting method is pretty standard. I do value clarity in your arguments. Spreading is acceptable just make sure to know if I can't understand you then I won't flow you. Clarity > Technical correctness since if 

As for POI's, I'm on the boat that it's nice to see them be answered during speech time, moving questions to flex is acceptable but answering them on the spot if preferred.

When it comes to political correctness I'm not a stickler. Try not to be offensive but as long as there is no perceived malice in what you're saying then I won't hold it against you. DO be polite to your opponent, snarkiness is fine and can be funny but it's a fine line between snark and just being rude.

BIGGEST THING: Clearly state your interpretation, definitions, criteria, etc. Those parts of the debate that can make or break it should be told me to clearly and repeated if it helps.

More importantly, have fun rounds, the main goal is to enjoy yourself.

Experience

Current Affiliation = Campbell Hall (Studio City, CA) & Notre Dame HS (Sherman Oaks, CA)

Prior Experience: Debated policy in HS at Notre Dame HS in Sherman Oaks, CA (1979-1983); Debated NDT in college at USC (1983-1987) competed in the NDT 1984,1985,1986,1987. Served as Director of Forensics at Notre Dame High School from 1991-1994; Served as the Director of Forensics at The University of Southern California Trojan Debate Squad from 1994-2007; Qualified teams to the NDT, CEDA National Championships; Teams participated in International Debates, and Individual Events. Qualified 27 teams to the National Debate Tournament with numerous "At Large" teams and top speakers.

General Note

I am an "old school" debate coach. Your arguments need to be at a reasonable speed with logic and evidence. I default to a policy-making paradigm if left to my own devices. I will follow whatever debaters paradigm they advocate so long as it has a logical connection to the topic in some way. I will follow my flow and your lead as best I can. I expect critical reasoning, real evidence and the goal of a debate is to find good clash and learn as much as possible. If you go to far I will not buy undreaonable positions. If you advocate that the world is "flat" I am out. My defaults go into effect when left to my own devices.

Major Notes

Topic familiarity

I am very familiar with the topic public forum topic M4A. I coached and debated similar topics in years past. I am well read in the literature as I have a personal interest in the topic. As a lawyer I have dealt with legal issues around this topic and have a deep background in the economics of the topic area. It is a great topic especially during this worldwide pandemic.

Positions: (more for policy / LD Debates I imagine) I like a good topicality argument when it is thoughtful and well developed. Topicality is an a-priori issue and a voting issue if you tell me it should be. One line topicality argument rarely wins...unless completely dropped I guess. Disadvantages with good links and impacts that outweigh the case or cut against it are great. Counter plans are fine and a kritic linked somehow to the topic area are interesting and fine too. I love good and reasonable theory that enhances the educational value of debate too. I love a great strategy. Try and be strategic and lets save lives or avoid a nuclear holocaust or save the environment together!

Delivery, Persuasion & Organization

You should have a strong, persuasive delivery and advocate for your positions in the debate. There is reasonable speed and bad speed. Bad speed is where you drop your head and read as fast as you can. I am pretty easy to "read" as a judge. I just stop flowing when you are incoherent. Be clear. If you are not a clear advocate, you are not debating. Delivery rate should be governed by your clarity; WARRANTS in the evidence should be clear, not just the tagline.

Organization is a place were many debates are won and lost. If you are not clear and organized, I will be lost. I like clear simple road maps. Unorganized debates get messy and the messages which are important are lost. That is the debaters job to watch the judge, make sure your arguments clash and explain those fine line distinctions why your positions/evidence are better.

Cross Examination: Cross examination is a great part of the debate where you can do so much good. Unfortunately, many cross examination periods are poor when debaters are rude, lack logic and become a series of constant interruptions. Poor behavior will be illustrated in poor speaker points. Be thoughtful and aware of triggers and other issues which may cloud a debate for all the wrong reasons. Respect all debates, their coaches and their school. Do not make personal and irresponsible comments about your opponents or society. You will be judged by your choices and behavior. Try to be smart and thoughtful and all participants will enjoy the cross examination periods.

Evidence: Evidence should enhance your positions and reflect what you say it reflects. Stretches and false inferences lead to bad evidence references. Be Clear with your author and the evidence, and why it is important. Logic at times can trump evidence. Just because some author said something in an article does not mean that assertion will always be better than good logic. This is where persuasion in debate can go a long way.

Rebuttals: This is where debates are won or lost. Help me write the ballot the way you see the world. Tell my why I should vote for your positions. Tell me if morals are more important than "lives" and why. If you leave it up to me, you have not really been a fierce advocate for your position. Persuade me based upon the arguments in the debate and your critical thinking skills. Be logical and organized.act comparison.

FINAL THOUGHTS: Offense wins debates, defensive positions come in second place. I do not want to have to call for all the evidence and positions of a team in a debate. This is an activity of oral persuasion. I do not want to have to piece together a debate from my flow and all your evidence. You need to weave the debate and your positions together to help we write a decision which reflects the total sum of your advocacy. Teams that do this well usually win my ballot. They have great logic, great evidence and advocate well.

Favorite Debaters: (All much older than you!)

I have seen some of the finest debater for decades. Some of my favorites (for fun and yes many/all Trojans) are Kate Schuster, Paul Skiermont, Lenny Gale (amazing) Armond Revelins, George Kuros, Greg Bevan, Roger Stetson, Adam and Jordan Hurder (of GBN fame), Lindsey Harrison, Christina Tallungan (Phillips), Jeff Leon, Matt Whipple, Andy Silverman, Corey Turoff, Chris MacFarlane, Alex Iftimy, Michael Smith, Aron Berger, Michael Klinger, Dan Shalmon, OMG...I could go on for pages...so many greats!

Favorite Coaches: Ted Belch, Linda Oddo, Matt Whipple, Jason Peterson, Paul Derby, Anne Marie Todd, Tom Hollihan, Gordon Stables, Jon Sharp, John Day, OK ALL Trojan Debate Coaches, Dallas Perkins, Jeff Parcher, Sam Nelson, David Smith, Jack Roper, Bill Southworth, Jay Bussee, Matt Frasier, Richard Sodako, Matt Conrad, Susan Foley, Mike Beatz, way too many friends to mention here too...but a dear friend whom I really miss Charles "Chuck" Ballingal...rest in peace pal.

I compete in college debate, I primarily read policy arguments, but I'm familiar with Kritiks and high theory arguments. I'm willing to listen to any argument you have/want to read as long as it has a well explained link to the affirmative or the resolution. If the argument is more nuanced I suggest you spend more time on it as I will be hesitant to do the work for you at the end of the round. In order to win you should be able to give a clear picture of links to flushed out impacts. It's too often I see a team read a tagline like "poverty is the impact" then move on. Explain why it matters and how to weigh it against other impacts in the round and you stand a much higher chance of winning. As long as you can attach some reason to vote on it and give it actual impacts, you shouldn't have this problem.

Theory: I am willing to listen to it no matter how strange it is, it just has to have voters in the same way a disadvantage needs impacts. Don't blip out "this is bad for fairness and education" and then move on, spend time explaining how it impacts fairness and education in the round, then explain why fairness and education matter.

I will default to competing interpretations as a means of evaluating theory if there isn't another method given by either team.

Speed: I don't have issues with speed, but I ask you to respect others when they ask you to clear or slow.

Partner communication: I'm fine with it to any extent. I'll only flow what the speaker says. If it gets excessive I will punish you in the form of speaker points, especially if it is rude interjections, but it won't be a voting issue.

Non-Topical Affs: Not impossible win, but I expect some justification for not being topic. Just saying "We wanted to" is not enough.

I vote on actual arguments but I'll take the flow into account, as well as how you interact with your competitors before, after, and during the round.

Theory: I don't prefer theory arguments but I'll vote on them if they're valid and well executed. Don't run T just because you can, and keep kritiks clear and concise. Debating definitions are fine, but don't nitpick. I'll interpret that as you wasting time because your case is weak. Also, try and limit the canned cases.

Spreading: Eloquence over speed. Quality over quantity. If I can't understand you, I can't flow.

Organization: Please sign post! Clear framework is big for me. Remember, I take the flow into account. If I can't clearly flow your arguments, it makes my life (and yours) more difficult.

Communication: I will only flow what is being said by the person who is supposed to be speaking. No puppeteering, but notes, ect are fine.

Background: I have experience in parliamentary, IPDA, and other speaking events such as Impromptu and Extemporaneous.

How I vote:

I value clarity and logical arguments. Spreading is fine so long as it is clear and understandable. If I can’t understand you I will not flow you.

As for Point of orders I think they are very important for both teams, if one team is bringing up a new argument in the rebuttals and the other team doesn’t call the Point of order then I will flow the new argument. It is important to be paying attention at every point in the round.

The most important thing is to stay organized and speak clearly and ultimately I will vote on what I have on my flow so make sure you tell me exactly why your arguments won you the round and to impact out.

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.

Former high school debater, primarily competing in parli, impromptu, and extemp. Competed in top tier of California league and invitational parli, coached at SNFI, and judged at a variety of invitational and league tournaments, primarily in parli, but also in PF and IE's. Go whatever speed and make whatever arguments you want - I'll listen to most anything at any level of theory, but if you make an argument that seems especially weak, I'll be more likely to accept refutations to it with less effort. I'm expressive as a judge - use that. Just want to watch some good rounds, learn some new things, and hopefully laugh a bit.

I have several years of experience judging more traditional style of Lincoln-Douglas debate for Brentwood. I will flow and base my decision on the arguments. I tend to prefer using the value framework as the lens by which I make my decision. I am not as comfortable with very circuit-type arguments. I tend not to favor theory or kritical arguments. And I prefer more conversational delivery—speed could factor negatively.

My Background:

I debated PF for three years on local and national circuit.

I also did LD and Parli a couple times, am a novice in APDA, and can greatly appreciate big picture/philosophical arguments.

PFers- I don’t flow cross ex (so if it’s important mention it in your speech)

I look for a few things in a successful round:

1. Clear speaking: I believe one of the most important aspects to strong debating is developing oratorical skills. That being said, I want to see clear, concise argumentation. Additionally, although I flow all rounds, I am not a “tech judge”. I do not buy arguments said while spreading and I certainly will not extend things on the flow just because you say “extend this.”
2. Narrative building: By this I mean paralleling summary and final focus to enhance consistency and establish cohesive links around the issue you choose to crystallize. I need to know what the ramifications of what you are talking about mean in the big world AKA I want to see all your Impacts extended and clearly contextualized in the final speeches.
3. Weighing on impacts AND links: While weighing on impacts is the most intuitive portion, I really want to know why your link into the impact is more significant than your opponents link into theirs. Especially if you are impacting to the same thing, this is probably going to be the most crucial portion to my decision.

All of this said: I will not stand for sexist/racist/intolerant views in round. Please be respectful, be rational, be clear, be assertive, and enjoy yourself!

Paradigm for Speech Events:

I value the following aspects during judging:

- In terms of content of the speech, a clear line of sight from [ the central theme to supporting arguments to reasoning and evidence] would help me follow the speech.

- Creativity and uniqueness of arguments

- In terms of style : Reasonable pace with thoughtfully inserted pauses.

I do take notes, as detailed as possible.

Paradigm for Debate Events:

This will be my 4th year judging PF. Parent judge, so nothing crazy/too tech. I do take copious notes, and I'm probably tech>truth to some extent. Anything outright false/offensive will not be considered.

Procedural fairness is quite important to me, so don't steal prep, go over time, miscut evidence, or bring up new things in later speeches.

A few things:

- Please extend warrants in back half speeches (if your link chain is conceded and fully extended in the back half it's GGs)

- Don't be rude in CX, but don't be boring either (stay professional)

- Warrant your evidence, contextualize everything to your arg

- Don't run trivial args, run something that actually matters or just introduce your weighing early on (case/rebuttal)

As always, ask me any questions you have before round. (my kid wrote this so clarify if needed)

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.

"People have become educated, but have not yet become human.” - Abdul Sattar Edhi.

TLDR;

Do whatever you want, but do impact calculus.

A Little About Me:

I competed for Dougherty Valley High School between 2015 to 2019 in Public Forum and Extemp. It's been a number of years since I was involved in the debate space and I'm sure PF has changed since I left. I am generally okay with any type of argument, but I have limited experience with K's and Theory. You will benefit if you slow down while presenting these types of arguments.

Specific To Stanford 2024:

I am fine with spreading but I would highly prefer you email speech docs to your judge beforehand.

On The Juicy Stuff.

I am a Tabula Rasa (Clean Slate) judge so I will believe anything you tell me, but it needs to be warranted. I try to limit my judge intervention as much as I can, however, I won't be afraid to intervene is if there is no impact calculus in the round. Other than that, I'm fine with any type of argument you throw at me, and you can speak as fast as you want.

I will try to be a visible judge so if I start shaking my head maybe don't go for that argument, but if I am nodding that's probably a good sign. I use my computer to flow. I will yell clear if it is too fast, but my threshold is pretty good, but if you want to full-on spread please flash me the speech doc so I know whats going on.

Tech > Truth.

Time Yourselves.

I evaluate framework and overviews right on top. I love it when I know what impacts are going to be the most important, and which impacts I should prefer. This helps you organize and helps me understand what the narrative of your team is. I love, love, love overviews/underviews and think they make Public Forum Debate interesting.

Please sign post, especially in Summary and Final Focus.

Whatever is in Final Focus must be in Summary, however I am totally ok with you extending defense from rebuttal to final focus if you are the first speaking team. This is because I believe that Public Forum Debate is structurally disadvantaged for the first speaking team. That means first summary obviously needs to have all your offense. I will literally stop flowing if the argument in Final Focus is not in Summary.

I love it so much when teams collapse into two to three issues in Final Focus. I love it when teams blow up impacts in Summary and Final Focus and use the ends of their speeches to do Impact Calculus. This is really important, I NEED good impact calculus to evaluate who I vote for. I need to know why you win on things like Probability, Magnitude, or Time-Frame and I need to know why those are more important than what your opponents are going for. If you don't know what impact calc is do some reading:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_calculus

I award speaks based on how you speak, and how you conduct yourself in cross. If you are blatantly rude, offensive, racist, sexist, etc. I will not be afraid to vote you down and nuke your speaks.

I will always call for evidence if you tell me to call for it. I am bad at remembering tags, but I definitely call for cards.

PLEASE FOLLOW NSDA/CHSSA (Depending on the tourney) EVIDENCE RULES AND HAVE EVIDENCE ETHICS. I need to hear author last name and date in the speech, otherwise its just rhetoric.

On other arguments. I'm totally ok with things like K's, Theory, whatever else but do know that I personally have minimal experience with K's or theory shells so I will need these types of args to be well warranted and explained.

If you have ANY questions about my paradigm or my decisions please do not be afraid to ask.

If you are funny and not offensive, I'll probably up your speaks.

Good Luck!

Also I think the way that I view debate is very similar to Shreyas Kiran, so check out his paradigm if you are bored.

Email me at TheSaadJamal@gmail.com if you have any questions.

I am a student at UC Berkeley and have competed in Lincoln Douglas debate for four years and Public Forum for two; it is now my first year judging both of these categories.

Lincoln Douglas Philosophy:

I'm open to any questions before the round to elaborate on judging philosophy. I prefer that you do not spread debate, and I will judge by what I have on my flow sheet. Establishing a clear value and standard is important, and linking your arguments back to it is also critical. I enjoy clash between the AFF and NEG, and I will also jot down concessions and points made in cross examination. Signposting and clearly laying out your arguments are a positive and your final speeches should clarify your position and explain to me why you deserve the ballot. I would prefer not to vote on theory but will do if I have to

Public Forum Philosophy:

As above, I would prefer if you do not spread debate. The quality of arguments and evidence take precedence over the sheer quantity. Don't just read evidence cards but help explain to me why what you read is relevant in the debate. Do the same for your impacts, go step by step when weighing with your opponents' and communicating which one I should be voting for. I enjoy direct clash from both sides and will check evidence if called for after the round.

My pronouns: she/they

Be respectful!

IEs

Competed in limited prep, platform, and public forum for Fullerton Union High School. I've seen dozens of coaching sessions and performances of all events, especially the drama events. I competed in British Parlimentary debate and speech on the collegiate level.

DEBATE

General:

I'm mainly a speechie. Competed in limited prep and platform for Fullerton Union High School. Competed in public forum debate my senior year. Competed in British Parliamentary debate and speech for Cal Poly Humboldt. I'm midway between a lay and circuit judge. Okay with fast speaking but might miss a thing or two so take that however you like

List our your voters clearly. If you have extra time, repeat those voters please.

Start ASAP! Be aware of how you characterize the other team and sound during crossfires; be mindful and respectful, marginalization frequently happens

Be good people.

I like frameworks and impacts back to the framework.

I'm probably too tired to keep up with top speeds. Go for conversationally brisk.

I have not been in the circuit scene for years. I'm guessing it's gone through some changes.

Been judging speech and debate competitions for about 7 years. I'm a theatre teacher, so I tend to gravitate towards IEs. I'm pretty lay when it comes to debate. I've judged enough over the years so that I can follow along with fast speaking, but not with spreading. I really really love it when arguments are clear, contentions are loudly numbered, and definitions are offered to me if the topic has to do with international relations or foreign policies. Be nice to each other.

I'm a debater for El Camino in my first year. I have a fair amount of experience with everything except for kritiks. I judge off of what's on the flow, so if something is said during flex then I won't make my decision based on that. Also don't spread, because once again if I can't flow it then it, for the most part, it won't affect my decision. I'm a fan of theory, so long as it makes sense in the round. Lastly, make sure you signpost. If you have any other questions please don't hesitate to ask.

I do not tolerate rudeness. At all.

Tabula Rasa with the exception of easily verifiably false statements.

I believe that claims require evidence and that big claims require a higher standard of proof. Impacts like extinction for example are not compelling to me unless they are very well substantiated or weighed correctly. This means that I might not take extinction actually happening, but a debater whom weighs the massive cost of extinction and substantiates the cost even with an extremely low likelihood of occurrence may win the debate in my judgment. Impacts without weighing are not impacts. Tell me why/how much I should care.

I flow, am able to flow spreading, and will likely allow it especially if the tournament has a TOC bid on the line. I will also take Ks but as the logic of a K is that a real world impact outweighs in round impacts, to win the K I personally, as opposed to the tabula rasa mindset I use for in round impacts, have to be convinced by the K.

Ask me any judging questions before the debating starts as I won't answer once it does.

Yes I want to be on the email chain: send to shayansaadat0@gmail.com

I'm a pretty straightforward, laid-back judge. I vote based on who I think made the best arguments and responded to their opponents' arguments best. That being said, here's a few things to know when it comes to the debates themselves:

Theory: I am receptive to and love good theory positions. I believe that most resolutions have an implicit bias that leans toward one side more than the other, and that a team can easily abuse resolutional wording to skew other teams out of the round––both aff and neg. Explain your theory position and why it matters to the debate as a whole. That being said, I strongly dislike bad theory. Don't run bad T-shells or Kritiks if they aren't relevant to the round. Debate the resolution, not the definition of a single word in the definition of the definition that the PM used. It's irrelevant, doesn't get you any ground, and takes away from the debate as a whole.

Spreading: Spreading is totally okay with me. However, I am more than open to arguments against speed. If you are too fast for me I will say, "Slow" or "Clear," and I encourage other debaters to do the same.

Organization: Please, please, PLEASE signpost. It's the best way that I, and others in round, can follow your arguments. Good organization makes good debate. Tell me where you're going in your arguments so I know where to flow. If I don't know where/how to flow what you're saying it will hurt your chances of winning.

Communication: Partner to partner communication is fine. Puppeteering is fine. In any case I only flow what the person supposed to be talking is saying. I also only flow what is said during round, not in between speakers, or at any other time.

Impact Calc/Round Vision: Concisely impact out your own arguments. Do the work for me. Tell me why your arguments matter. Explain to me why your arguments are right and your opponents are wrong so that when it comes to voting I don't need to make any reaches.

I also won't disclose speaks.

TL:DR if you debate well, you'll do well.

I am a Public Forum coach. I like to see teams who are polite and respectful to their opponents, especially during crossfires. Definitely include weighing and impact calculus in your final focus, don’t leave it up to me.

zsandoval@loyolahs.edu

Lay judge. 4th year of judging. I have judged many, many tournaments. I keep myself informed on current events/news including complex issues. Please be very organized in your speeches and be polite during questioning. Time yourselves please. DO NOT SPREAD.

Yuhadhi

I debated for for El Camino College for two years. I mostly compete in parliamentary debate, as well as some speech events (informative, impromptu, extemporaneous).

I am fine spreading as long as it doesn't effect your ability to communicate your arguments effectively. Also don't spread and sit down with time left. I enjoy good theory arguments. I like voters and impact calculus in the rebuttals. Tell me why you are winning and where to make it easy for me to vote for you.

I have very few preferences other than the following:

- Accept POI's where possible.

-Signpost and to be as organized as possible; even if it takes away from rhetorical flourish, be organized.

- I like warrant comparison and impact calculus. please don’t just repeat your constructive speech in the rebuttals. Give me something new. I prefer impacts weighed through timeframe, magnitude, and probability (not in that order), but if you think structural impacts are more important I'll go with that too, just tell me otherwise I'll default to what I prefer.

- Above all have fun with it and enjoy yourselves!

I am currently in my first year debating for El Camino College in NPDA, IPDA, and Limited Prep Speeches. I am pretty straight forward when it comes to judging and if you have specific questions just ask. I will make my decision based on what I have on my flow so speak clearly. Spreading is ok but make sure it is clear enough for me to understand it. Signpost and be as organized as possible. Time yourselves and your opponents if you want to. If they are being abusive due to time call them out. I love theory/topicality as long as it is properly structured. I will not impact anything out for you. It is your job to tell me why I should vote for you. Partner to Partner communication is totally fine but I will only flow what the person who is giving the speech is saying. And finally, just have fun with it and you will do well :)