I am a Senior at Harvard. My debate experience consists of World Schools and British/American Parliamentary; I am an international student and have no experience debating Public Forum. Please don’t speak at an unreasonable pace, and please do be civil. I like evidence and warrants to be used and extended in the final summary.

I do not like teams who run kays. I do not know what kays are. But I have been told I do not like them.

How I Judge

I am receptive to most kinds of arguments, but this post captures my judging philosophy well: http://trolleyproblem.blogspot.in/2012/11/what-does-good-judge-believe.html. tl;dr: I like hearing novel and interesting arguments, but I have "a defeasible presumption in favour of a moderate liberal position on most ethical issues... By "defeasible", I mean that the presumption could in principle be overcome by a persuasive argument, [and if so, I will listen to such] arguments with an open mind." I love weighing, and I don't think your argument being dropped (however coldly so) constitutes a winning weight.

My speaks reflect the quality of warranting and impacting-weighing. But, just saying "scope, clarity, and probability" isn't enough. Spend time on weighing and do interesting weighing on actor or scope or principle or whatever else. I don't care for rhetoric or style.

I also hold the belief that human extinction is unlikely.

Warranting vs Evidence

I always prefer better-explained mechanisms and logical warrants over evidence. I care about evidence only when a claim isn't intuitive to believe just based on warrants. Do use evidence to make counter-intuitive warrants/claims stronger but don't use it when it doesn't contribute to the believability or power of your logic.

Choose your evidence well: suss sources are just that—suss.

Engagement

Line-by-line is good but so is contention by contention; I'm quite friendly to broader responses as long as they're good responses. I don't mind if you're not too exact on the flow, will assemble clashes myself if I have to, and am happy to cross-apply warrants/weights.

Theory

I do not look favourably on most Ks. I will listen to theory but I'll only care if it was relevant to the round itself and the framing/conceptualization of it.

Speed

Don't spread but speed is alright.

+1 Speaks

If you pronounce my full name (Hemanth Bharatha Chakravarthy) right in the first try, I'll bump you up by 1 point. Alternatively, if you cite evidence about something that happened in the Tamil community in India, I'll give you +1.

Hello there! I’m Ishan. I am excited to hear what y’all have to say!! For what it’s worth, I haven’t been involved in a couple of years, so please explain jargon and debate a little slower than you would otherwise.

Email for LD: ishanbhatt42@gmail.com. Could you make the subject line something like: “ Tournament -- Year -- Aff vs Neg”?

Updated for Harvard 2024

Form Preferences:

1. Read what you want if it is well-warranted and well-explained. This is theoretically a content-neutral preference, but I may be worse for very short arguments with very extreme implications. The size of an argument’s implication and its length should be inversely correlated.

2. Please be sure that every word you say is understandable. I’ll say clear. If I do, please go back, and say your argument again. I don’t open speech docs until after the round, so I do want to hear all the words of the card.

3. If an argument is dropped, you get the warrant, not the tag. The implication of a dropped argument can still be contested.

4. I’m more persuaded by specific arguments. It’s hard to win no progress if you drop aff solvency, threat inflation if you concede the China war scenario, “fairness always first” without some debating about the internal link, etc.

5. Please be transparent about your argument. Don't be coy about the function or content of the argument, or else I may not understand it either! And please don’t refuse to answer questions at all.

6. The 1NC must fully develop the argument. My sense of the meta is only based on judging twice in the last two years, but I thought many off-case positions I saw weren’t complete arguments and the 1AR could’ve briefly dismissed them.

Content Preferences:

Plans/CPs/DAs:

• I really don’t need everything to lead to extinction.
• For most “cheating” counterplans, a clear theory of “what should be competitive” is most compelling.
• A perm needs explanation in the speech in which it is introduced.

Theory:

• Predictably defining the words in the topic matters the most for topicality. Once you’ve defined a word, proving a good vision for the topic regarding research, ground, limits, etc. is great.
• I basically won’t vote on bad theory arguments, especially really contrived interpretations (e.g., “may not do exactly what you did”). A solid “this is arbitrary + reasonability + don’t drop the debater” push should do the trick for me.
• Reasonability, to me, makes most sense as “voting on theory means we lose out on a substantive debate, therefore defense is sufficient.” I’m often confused by reasonability “bright line” arguments.
• Please don’t claim that a debate practice (like a new case or conditionality) makes debate “unsafe.” I feel like safety is meaningful thing and is probably outside the realm of technical debating.

Ks:

• You need to explain a structural claim, not just say the claim.
• I likely won’t vote on an argument about personal stuff.
• I really don’t understand most arguments over fiat. “Fiat” makes most sense to me as shorthand for the “is-ought” fallacy.
• I might be stricter than the median judge for neg DA links – if you “destroy the system of capitalism,” the neg is probably right about the link to the econ DA.

See also: Andrew Garber's paradigm.

My background is primarily in parliamentary debate.

I'm a senior at Harvard with experience in world schools and parli debate. I've never competed in PF.

General thoughts: I flow. I guess I'm tab in the way it's usually understood, but I think the way in which it's usually understand is wrong. This article was written for a different format but it's insightful and very close to how I think about debate.

Harvard Tournament 2023 (Public Forum):

1) I really like warrants. Evidence can make your argument stronger, but I weigh well-explained mechanisms very heavily. Don't claim that your argument is "just empirically true" because of cards, go beyond them and make your internal links as detailed as possible. Like Inko Bovenzi's paradigm says: "Strong Warrants > Warrants with Evidence > Warrants > Evidence"

2) Please weigh explicitly. Debaters tend to be smart and topics tend to be controversial. The logical conclusion is that both teams are usually saying something that makes sense. This is why it is crucial to weigh. If neither side weighs explicitly, you're relying on my intervention. This is unpredictable. I am moody. I'll give you a frustrating RFD.

3) I have a presumption against high-magnitude, low-probability impacts like nuclear war. I will listen to them and evaluate them, but generally believe that you're better off spending time on plausible and interesting arguments than showing how the resolution increases the risk of WW3 by one-millionth of a percent.

4) Please don't spread. Brisk conversational pace is ok but if you feel like you need to double breathe, you're going too fast.

5) I've never done a format with theory: I don't know anything about it and generally have a strong bias in favor of arguments about the topic. I will listen to theory if you read it, but make sure to over-explain every concept instead of relying on jargon--I won't know what an RVI is.

6) Be civil and respectful. I won't hesitate to drop you for being mean to your opponents.

7) I won't read a speech doc. I'll occassionally call for evidence, mostly when you tell me to, but use this very sparingly or I'll be angry at you. Remember point 1), I'm extremely unlikely to actually vote off evidence alone (unless you outright lie about it, then you'll lose!)

If both teams agree, i am willing to turn prep into 4 extra minutes of GCX.

Jay Garg has a really good paradigm (esp the part about Jackie's paradigm). Can we just pretend I copy and pasted it here? Jeremy Lee also has a good paradigm. If you are confused / unsure about how I evaluate anything or just want to shoot the breeze, please ask before the round to clarify.

TL;DR: speak at a fast conversational pace (or even just a conversational pace); read fewer, better-explained positions; I'll try not to intervene much. I'm bad at flowing.

Update (Harvard RR 2023): I haven't judged since last year. Please take the speed stuff seriously.

Background. I debated national circuit LD for Cambridge Rindge and Latin, qualifying to the TOC twice. I graduated high school in 2019 and have debated and judged little since then. My email is andrewg4000@gmail.com -- feel free to email me any time (even if you just have random questions about debate or want book recommendations or something).

Defaults. I aim to be as tab as possible as long as the round remains safe for the debaters. I'll try to assume whatever the debaters assume so that I minimize intervention. If both debaters assume fairness is a voter, then I'll assume that it's a voter, even if it's not explicitly justified. As a debater, I ran philosophical frameworks, theory, some policy positions, and the occasional K. Because of my experience as a debater, I will be more familiar with some positions than with others. That said, I will try my best to understand your arguments and evaluate them fairly.

Speed. Speak slowly. I do not flow off speech docs. I am terrible at flowing and listening, and always have been. I am likely much, much worse at flowing than I was as a debater, since I judge LD about once per year. You might think that while spreading you're clear, or slow, or understandable, but you're probably not. If you slow to a fast conversational pace, I will be grateful and reward you with higher speaks. Given all this, if you're going fast, don't get upset at me for missing some of your arguments.

Arguments I don't understand. I am not receptive to arguments I don't understand. (To clarify, I mean positions that were ill-explained. For example, I know something about Kantian moral philosophy, but explain it to me as though I don't.) Debaters often cut cards from dense or poorly written sources (e.g., Kant, Baudrillard... really most K and phil authors fall under here) and then specifically cut the cards so as to be as information dense as possible, making the arguments extremely hard to follow. I will probably from now on be more receptive to just not evaluating these arguments or at least having a low threshold for responses. Unfortunately, most debates I've judged have come down to trying to evaluate two positions I don't understand. My decisions in these cases are probably fairly random; you have been warned.

Respect. If you are debating against someone with clearly less knowledge about debate than you have (e.g., you're varsity debating a novice or a circuit debater debating a lay debater), please make the round as accessible to both debaters as possible. If you can only win with obscure positions and debate jargon, then debate has failed you; you're not good at debating, you're just good at playing inside baseball. (For the same reason, I like arguments that I can understand without being an expert in the relevant area of academia/public policy/whatever the current debate trend is. My role is not to be an educator, but nonetheless I want to judge engaging, educational rounds.)

On a related note, I dislike when debaters are mean to each other. I was vicious in this sense as a debater. For example, I sometimes cracked jokes at the other debater's expense when I had a decisive advantage. I regret doing so, and this sort of behavior usually makes me uncomfortable. I particularly dislike the personal call-outs in some debates. Although in very rare instances this behavior might be justified, I think that it is more often close to bullying or intimidation than a just accusation. You are in high school, and I'd like to see you be respectful and kind to each other.

See also Ishan Bhatt's, Pacy Yan's, and Jacob Nails's paradigms.

Appendix A. Important Articles.

I highly recommend "Plato Beyond the Platitudes" by Marshall Thompson. I also recommend "Politics and the English Language" by George Orwell.

Appendix B. Miscellaneous paradigmatic thoughts.

- I don't need voters on a theory shell to be extended unless contested.

- I don't understand most issues with fiat. See this excellent article. For example, if you defend the resolution and say that you "don't defend implementation," I am willing to dismiss this argument if the other debater says "they don't defend implementation -- hahahahahaha" and moves on, unless you give a compelling explanation for why not defending implementation is coherent.

- I default truth testing.

- I default epistemic/ethical confidence rather than epistemic/ethical modesty.

- On theory, I default drop the arg, reasonability (sufficient defense is enough to reject the shell), and no RVIs. The threshold for sufficient defense depends on the strength of the arguments for reasonability. For example, if you say that theory is almost always bad, substance is amazing, and only the most extreme circumstances make the round such that the judge can't vote for the better debater, then my threshold for sufficient defense will be low (i.e., my threshold for what counts as sufficient offense for voting on the shell will be high). If I have to default to reasonability or if there are not many arguments for reasonability, then I will assume a fairly high threshold for sufficient defense.

- I don't evaluate arguments that tell me to change speaks (e.g., "give me a 30").

- I think that debaters should justify something like drop the debater if they want to make an independent voter. I am unlikely to vote on independent voters unless such a warrant is present (see above: I default drop the arg). If it's the 2NR or 2AR and you're answering an independent voter without a drop the debater warrant, quickly pointing out that the voter lacks drop the debater and providing a quick reason to drop the argument instead of the debater should be more than enough.

- I am still a bit confused about how I should evaluate 2AR weighing. Right now, I tend to think that if 1ARs have impacts to weigh against NC impacts, then they should weigh in the 1AR rather than in the 2AR. I have so far erred neg on debates where the aff could have weighed in the 1AR but waited until the 2AR to do so. I think that the same should apply to NCs against impacts from the AC. But this is probably the least certain part of my paradigm.

- Here's another thing that annoys me: people who try to spread, but they're basically going at a fast conversational speed while changing their pitch of voice so that it sounds kind of like they're spreading. Spreading doesn't help you here.

Appendix C. Against Spreading

Spreading is bad:

1. It makes debate much less accessible;
2. It makes it easier for people to get away with nonsense (e.g., cards that make no sense, extremely blippy arguments) since judges can't tell what the debaters are saying;
3. Usually it encourages debaters to learn pretty useless skills (e.g., talking extremely fast) rather than some actually useful speaking skills (speaking with good emphasis, efficiency, eloquently).

Counterarguments:

1. Spreading teaches people how to process information quickly. Reply: I haven't seen much evidence for this claim, nor that it transfers beyond a narrow type of information (speeches/lectures delivered quickly orally). Anyway, this skill is very specialized and not that useful. It's good for listening to videos at faster speeds, but most of my non-debater friends can do this too.
2. Spreading allows people to introduce more evidence, make debates more interesting, go more deeply into cool literature. Reply: See point 2 above, which moots most of this argument.
3. If I don't spread but my opponent does, I'll lose! Reply: This is why I want to enforce both debaters not spreading. Anyway, I don't think the disadvantage is that great; efficiency and good strategy can make up most of the loss.

Didn't cover most of the things here, nor did I explain them well. Hope you get the gist though.

Hey all! If you have me as a judge, chances are that I'm super excited to judge your round and meet you all if I haven't already :)

A couple things about me. I debated in PF for four years at Newton South High School. I understand how a flow works and should have no problem following along with speed (if I am having trouble, I'll let you know). Second speaking teams do not have to frontline in second rebuttal unless they want to, and first speaking teams can extend dropped defensive arguments from rebuttal to final focus.

That being said, I tend to prefer arguments that I believe over speeches that are technically dazzling. I will be willing to vote off of theory, but I am also fairly skeptical regarding how important it is. If you have to use it, go for it; if you don't, probably better to not run theory. I love good warranting, and will not vote for a point if the warrant is not extended throughout the round. (Update: If I think an argument is stupid, I will also not vote for it. Convince me!) Going for fewer arguments with great explanation and weighing is probably the easiest way to win my ballot.

Oh also, putting this in here because it's a thing people are starting to do differently. I still default NEG, not first. If you want me to explain why, just ask.

Along those lines, the worst feeling in the entire world is when you lose a judge because they voted in a way that you didn't know they were going to vote. If there's anything I can answer for you before the round, please just ask.

Jacqueline Wei has a really good paradigm. Can we pretend that I just copy-and-pasted it here?

Go read Justin Qi's paradigm. I'll judge based on it.

I competed in Parli and Extemp for Davis Senior High School (graduated 2017) and currently do American Parli and British Parli at Harvard. I've debated at least once or twice in every major format, though I've historically leaned towards traditional limited-prep events. I deeply appreciate when debaters bring me snacks.

If you have any questions/concerns/memes hit me up at benjaminhoffnerbrodsky@college.harvard.edu I'm also open to asking any paradigm-clarifying questions before round starts.

As an overview, I'm open to evaluating the debate you want to have and am open to voting on pretty much any type of argument. My speaks policy, however, does have some more complex preferences based on the type of debate I want to reward on the circuit -- all of that is explained below. My goal is to minimize judge intervention and bias as much as possible. That being said, I will intervene when necessary/I'm not told what to think/there is inadequate weighing. Similarly, because I'm a human/have done and watched PF I have some pretty well justified pre-conceived notions. With rare exceptions, I'm generally open to those being challenged but will default to them if unaddressed. An incomplete list of those prior assumptions is also below.

Speed: It is my preference that debaters not exceed a reasonable speed -- think 1.5x normal conversion speed -- though I will do my best to follow if debaters choose to exceed this. If you're talking so fast that I can't hear you I will say "clear" a maximum of two times as a request to slow down.

Theory: My background is in more traditional debate but I'm receptive to theory/K/performative arguments. That being said, I prefer debate that is topical and speaker points will reflect that difference unless I'm given persuasive reasons why theory is necessary in this case or it's really well executed.

Weighing: Please do it. More than you think you need to. If weighing goes uncontested I will use it even if it is unwarranted. If no weighing is given by either team I will use my intuition to somewhat arbitrarily decide what is most important. This is probably the easiest way to lose a round.

Final Focus: I take a strict view of the final focus: if the argument isn't in FF, I won't evaluate it.

Evidence: Evidence is pretty cool, you should use it. I have a strong preference for direct quotes over paraphrasing. I also take evidence misuse very seriously; if I find out that you have made up a card, added meaningful words/information to the card, "creatively" cut a card in a way that changes the meaning, or mis-cite a statistic, I will not hesitate to give a round loss and, for serious violations, report it to tab. 90% of the time the card you make up wasn't going to win you the round anyways, it's not worth it. I will call for cards at the end of the round if it is requested by a debater or if there is an obvious violation/the topic of evidence is disputed.

A few facts about the round that I take to be true unless told otherwise (but am open to contesting in some cases):

-Util is trutil

-Aff defends likely interpretation/implementation

-Neg defends squo

-Counter-advocacies aren't a real thing - you need to prove solvency/can't borrow aff fiat power

-Murder is bad/life is good

-Acquiring money is good

-Minimizing risk is good

-There is no God/Gods

-A good thing happening tomorrow is better than the same good thing happening a year from now (there is some discount factor/chance of death/randomness)

-A big good thing is better than a small good thing

-A small good thing is better than no good thing

-A good thing happening to n+1 people is better than a good thing happening to n people

-Solipsism is false

-The winner of a round is the team that best accesses the impacts that matter the most

-Fairness in debate is good

-Things that happen in the theoretical debate matter

-Education stemming from debate matters

Factors that impact speaker points but not necessarily the outcome of the round:

-Bringing me food

-Effective use of cross-fire

-Being excessively rude to your opponents

-Bold strategic decisions that payoff

-Sticking to topical arguments over theory

-Good word economy

-Creative turns and refutations

-Spicy but effective evidence indicts

-Clear and repeated weighing

Hey guys! Really excited to be judging you this round. I have a background in debating American/British Parliamentary and Extemp Policy, and I've coached World Schools and Public Forum extensively. A few brief things to know about my judging style:

1. I'm okay with people speaking moderately quickly, meaning 1.5-2x conversational speed. If you are spreading too quickly for me to flow, I will use the policy norm of saying "clear" and expect you to slow down after that.

2. Weigh. Impact. Otherwise, I will evaluate the importance of your arguments for you, and 50% of the time it won't be in the way you want me to.

3. Even if you're in a research-based format, give some logic to back up your evidence. You will not win based on a single, unsupported statistic or quote from some old guy.

4. All POIs/crossfire must be incorporated into later speeches in order for me to count it as substantive. Explain to me why the answer you got from your opponents matters in the context of the round.

5. I do not vote off of theory. The one exception to this is trigger warning theory. Include a content warning if you are going to discuss distressing topics (e.g. sexual violence).

Harvard 2022 Update: I used to tell debaters that I liked KitKats so they could gain my favor. Due to the inability to deliver snacks online, I'll mention instead that I'll like you infinitely more if you mention Bulgaria in your speech :)

Background:

Debated for four years in Public Forum at Munster High School in Indiana. I won Indiana States twice, made late elim rounds at NSDA multiple years, and competed at the TOC, so I have experience with technical and lay debate. I'm currently a sophomore at Harvard University, where I compete in parliamentary debate (mostly APDA).

I'm probably tech > truth, meaning I'm not going to vote on unwarranted and poorly contextualized arguments.

Rebuttal:

I prefer to see frontlining (defending case) in the second rebuttal. I think it makes for better debate, and it's also strategic for you. However you want to do the split is up to you, but just know that I think the bare minimum for second rebuttal is addressing terminal defense and turns. Tread lightly when reading DAs/new offense in 2nd rebuttal — I'm not completely opposed, but it's easy to be abusive when doing so (I will vote on abusive second rebuttal theory - see below)

Summary and FF:

I should see your arguments properly extended in both of these speeches, that means both the warrant and the impact. Also, nothing you bring up in final is going to matter for my ballot if it wasn't also in summary (exception is that defense is sticky). I know some judges are ok with new weighing in final, but I'm personally not a fan of it.

PLEASE GIVE ME WEIGHING IN BOTH SPEECHES.

Weighing:

This is the easiest way to win the round. I should at least be seeing discussion on magnitude, scope, probability, but introducing things like strength of link, clarity of impact, etc, will usually earn you my ballot and good speaks. Start this as early in the round as possible (ideally rebuttal), and do it in every possible instance. This means that in addition to seeing you weigh arguments, I want to see you weigh and implicate things like turns.

Theory/Ks:

I've been reading a lot of K lit lately but proceed with caution and make sure to go slow with these arguments; I have seen from experience that PF typically does not permit enough time for these arguments.

For theory, I have experience with source, date, and abusive second rebuttal overviews theory shells. I have a low threshold for theory in PF, but I will vote on it if it's explained clearly and the abuse is legitimate.

Evidence Ethics:

I'm ok with paraphrasing, and in some cases think it's better than reading cards, but you better be able to provide that source quickly and if you tell me to read pages upon pages of a PDF I'm gonna be sad :(. As far as citations in case, I want to hear dates and author qualifications.

Evidence misrepresentation really grinds my gears. I know the difference between a power tag, or evidence getting overhyped as the round goes on, and a lie. If you ask me to call for a card I 100% will, and I don't think it's interventionist for me to ask for something your opponents didn't. If I think some shady stuff went down, I'll dock speaks at the very least. If it's particularly egregious, I'm comfortable voting off it.

Other Important Things:

Signpost: I want to know where you are on the flow, and I'd prefer if you number your responses. You do not want me to think you undercovered or even dropped something just because I didn't know where you were. Make sure we're on the same page and we'll be good.

Speed: I am cool with speed and am fairly confident I'll be able to flow you. However, it is in your best interest to slow down for tags and important responses/extensions. The reality is, the faster you speak, the less I get down. That being said, I do not want this to be something that excludes someone from the round. If you need your opponents to slow down, just say "clear." If you blatantly ignore the opposing team's request to slow down, I will significantly drop your speaks and most likely drop you :).

Aggression: Don't be a jerk so we can all have a good time.

Crossfire: I usually don't listen to crossfire that intently, so if there's an important concession, it has to be in a speech to go on the flow. Again, don't be a jerk.

Analytics: I like logical responses a lot. Good logic is going to beat bad evidence, and I will 100% evaluate something that makes sense even if it's not carded.

*Definitely feel free to ask me questions before the round.

I am an Australian judge (currently an active member of the Harvard College Debate Team) most familiar with the Australs/World Schools format and spent 8 years over the course of my adolescence debating in this format. I will pick you up if you are reasonable and warrant well, and will drop you if you run a case that is very inaccessible or technical.

Note here that I WILL intervene if I think that something has been said in the context of the debate that is so unreasonably far-fetched that it is clearly empirically incorrect, and drop it (regardless of whether or not this has been refuted --> applies mostly to formats lenient toward intervention such as World Schools and less to APDA unless that is your collapse).

I will always buy practical arguments over principle.

Do not assume that I am an expert on the topic you are discussing, and spell it all out for me, including specific weighing.

Finally, don't be rude. It's against the spirit of debate generally and doesn't do much in the way of creating an environment conducive to making everybody feel comfortable.

do good rank good

Hi! I did PF for 4 years in high school. I graduated from high school in 2017 and I do parli now at Harvard.

Notes

- I haven't prepped the topic. Please explain things

- I try to only vote off of offense that's in final focus and summary. This is to encourage you to collapse on arguments and weigh

- I don't care if you have a card for something if you can explain why it's logically true

- I love warrants. Please don't justify something by just saying its "empirically true"

- I'm rarely receptive to progressive arguments (Ks/theory) unless there's a real instance of abuse in the round

- I don't flow cross

Hello! I'm a sophomore in college and have been a part of the Harvard College Debating Union for 2 years. I did 4 years of PF in high school.

I will flow your rounds, but please do not spread or speak quickly to try and cram things into your speeches. Quality over quantity, my friends. If you speak at a pace where your opponents and I simply can't understand you, it's a bad time for everyone involved.

Just because an article was published more recently or in a "more reputable journal/source" than another does not necessarily mean that it is more true or should be weighed more in my decision. If you revert to this as your sole rebuttal to dismiss your opponents' evidence, it makes me think you don't understand the evidence you're using.

On that note, just saying something is "empirically true" is not a rebuttal. Please elaborate if you're going to say this or I will be very sad.

Arguments must be present in both summary and final focus for me to vote on them.

Remember to have fun! Bonus points if you can make me laugh during your round. :)

I did LD for 3 years at Cambridge Rindge and Latin (MA), graduating in 2016. I almost exclusively competed on the national circuit, and qualled to TOC senior year.

HARVARD 2021 UPDATE: I will not be judging probably any prelims, but I will be in the elim pool. I haven't judged on this topic, so please explain any topic-specific references. I also truly cannot flow anymore, so pref accordingly.

I used to have a fair number of preferences & thoughts about this activity, but I'm far enough out that most of those preferences have faded. I will listen to anything that is not horribly messed up and try to intervene as little as possible. Please be nice to each other!

Extraneous things that may/may not be relevant to you:

• My flowing ability has significantly regressed over time, which means I'm probably not the judge for a very fast tricks debate (though a slow one is fine). Similarly, you should significantly slow down for theory interps and other important analytics.
• I won’t call for cards unless 1) there’s a genuine dispute over what the card says or 2) I fell asleep/experienced a comparable loss of consciousness and missed it
• I read a fair number of Ks back in the day, but you should not take that to mean (a) I know what you're talking about or (b) you do not need to explain your arguments
• The fastest way to lose my ballot is to concede a bunch of preempts in favor of reading a few cards that "implicitly answer" those preempts. Please just make implicit comparisons explicit, so I don't have to drop you on a silly argument because you didn't pay lip service to it. This is particularly relevant to topicality debates.
• I was fairly flex as a debater, and appreciate well-designed neg strategies that capitalize on a variety of styles.
• If you say "game over" in your speech, it's "game over" for your speaks! :)

Have fun, be nice to each other, and feel free to ask me any extra questions before round.

tabs judge. be nice, please :).

give explicit voters and weighing. basically, summarize the key points and tell me why your team deserves to win the debate.

did LD for 2 years, PF for one. Currently debate for the Harvard College Debate Union

Go read Ye Joo Han's paradigm. I'll judge based on it.

Paraphrasing is ok

Harrison HS (2012-2016)

Harvard University (2016-present)

Updated for Harvard 2020.

Email: smryan100@gmail.com

Hi!

I debated LD for four years at Harrison High School, and now do APDA in college.
If you have any questions feel free to ask me before the round, message me on Facebook or email me (you're also welcome to contact me after a round if you have questions).

General Things:

* For Harvard 2020: I have not judged since this tournament last year (and have been away from the circuit for awhile) so please do not go top speed / be aware that I may not be super up to date with any new league norms!!!!! *
I will listen to any arguments you want to make provided that they are well warranted and clearly explained to me.
I won’t vote on things that I don’t understand so if you’re running something confusing please make sure you slow down and give me a clear explanation of your case.
Also I am much more likely to vote on one well explained, weighed and warranted argument than a few one-liners.

Flashing and compiling documents won’t count as prep time but please don’t be ridiculous and abuse this.

In round behavior:
I don’t care how fast or slow you talk or whether you sit or stand.
I’ll say clear if I can’t understand you but if I have to continuously say clear and nothing changes then I won’t be able to flow your arguments and can’t vote on things that I haven’t flowed.
Also please slow down on author names and for tags.

Please be respectful to each other. Debate should be a space where everyone is comfortable to engage and participate and if I feel that someone is acting exclusionary / overtly rude I will drop speaks or the debater depending on the severity of the behavior.

Arguments:

I don't really care what kinds of arguments (Ks, plans, theory, phil) you run. Just explain them to me and keep in mind that I don't judge very often so I'm not especially familiar with the kinds of things people have been running recently.

Feel free to ask me questions before / after the round.

I am a three diamond coach with nsda. Having taught communication courses for 26 years. I appreciate clash , refutation, an complete argument structure.. I am looking forward to truthful, quality debate.

You can either spread flow or spread happiness. I like only one of them.

**Updated October 2022**

Hi, I'm Ellie (she/her)! I have experience competing and judging in PF and WS. For four years I competed mostly in APDA for Yale. I coached for Blake after my high school graduation. I have judged many rounds over time, but not recently, so be aware of that. 

Feel free to message me for feedback (if I forget you can nudge me), if you have questions about APDA, for moral support, or anything else. I'm happy to help!

Please put debate.ellie@gmail.com and blakedocs@googlegroups.com on the email chain if you make one!

This paradigm is for PF, though some things apply across events (eg: the decorum section).

The Split

Everyone frontlines now. That's nice.

Speed

I can flow speed, but proceed at your own risk. You can "clear" your opponents but do this sparingly. I don't use speech docs to fill in things I could not catch/understand.

Types of arguments

You are the debater and I want you to enjoy debating things that interest you. There are few things I refuse to hear.

Progressive arguments are important. I'll do my best to evaluate them fairly. I am not super well versed in K lit so while I will try and understand whatever you read, there's a risk I just miss something.

I really don't like when teams run squirrelly arguments just to throw off their opponents. Your points may suffer even if I vote for you and my threshold for responses will be lower.

If you're on a topic where people tend to run "advocacies" please prove there's a probability of your advocacy occurring.

I am not amenable to speaks theory.

The only other args I refuse to listen to are linguistic and moral skep – I have yet to hear them in PF, but don't even try lol

Dates

read them lol

Evidence

I very strongly prefer cards > paraphrasing, but it isn't a hard rule. I will punish you for misrepresenting evidence or knowingly reading authors that are fraudulent or very clearly unreliable.

Know where your evidence is. If you can't find it, it's getting kicked. Do not cut cards in round.

Bracketing is bad. No debater math pls.

Summary and Final Focus

Extend defense. Don't go for everything. Args needs to be in summary to be counted in FF. Also, weigh.

~~Decorum~~

Being funny or witty is fine as long as it isn't mean. I am not afraid to tank your speaks if you are rude.

Prep

keep track of it i won't

Misc

sIgNpOsT!!!!!!!!

don't delink your own case to escape turns just frontline them

You can enter the room and flip before I get there (when we're back in person that is).

If you want to take off your jacket/change your shoes/wear pajamas, go ahead!

If you're trying to get perfect speaks, strike me. A lot of my speaks end up in the 27.5-29 range.

In high school I primarily competed in the World Schools and British Parliamentary formats, though I spent a bit of time with Public Forum as well. I currently compete in the British Parliamentary and American Parliamentary formats, and I coach for the Urban Debate League.

I assess analysis or logical reasoning more heavily than pure use of evidence, unless the evidence presented is common knowledge (e.g. something a casual follower of international news publications would think to be intuitively true). This means, for instance, that giving an example relating to Donald Trump's border wall proposal or South Africa's history of Apartheid would generally be acceptable, but citing the example of a specific local policy in Des Moines would be less persuasive on face. One drawback of relying too heavily on examples is that such evidence can be circumstantial and fail to apply to many other cases.

Some other quick notes about what I consider good debating practice:
1. Be confident in yourself. In many many cases, debaters doubt themselves or their speeches and decide to stop and panic. Don't! Breathe, take a moment if you need to, and remember that no one is here to judge you. In every single case I've seen, debaters who get the jitters are actually doing quite well—they're just psyching themselves out. So don't!

2. Be sure to tie each argument (or contention) back to the motion/topic specifically. If the motion is "This House Supports racial Affirmative Action in higher education," you should not be arguing "racism is bad" (hopefully, this is assumed). Instead, you should explain why Affirmative Action policies in university are a justified and effective way of lessening racism.

3. Tell me what the most important one (or maybe two) issues in the debate are. Very few teams are able to win every single clash in a debate, so the best way to assure your victory (read as: make it easy for me to vote for you) is to explain why your strongest arguments are also the most consequential arguments. if your team convinces me that this policy improves the economy and the other team convinces me that the policy is harmful to the environment, you should try to convince me that your economic benefits are more important than their environmental harms.

4. BE KIND TO YOUR TEAMMATES AND YOUR OPPONENTS, AND ENJOY YOURSELF! Debate is a highly stressful activity that is in some sense inherently competitive, but it's more productive to think of it as a process of learning through discussion. We learn more and have a better experience with debate when we are able to hear from and think about perspectives that we do not initially possess. So for your sake and for others' sake, remember that we're here to grow together!

As a judge, I will adapt to you too. Do what you do best!

That said, I am a pretty standard PF tech judge, with a couple of specific preferences, outlined below:

(1) I only vote off offense that is in both summary and final focus – if it’s in one but not the other, I probably won’t consider it in my decision. If you’re the first speaking team, defensive responses to your opponent’s case do not need to be in summary – I’ll still evaluate them if they’re in final focus. Turns that you want to win off of must be in 1st summary. If you’re the second speaking team, defensive responses need to be in both summary/final focus for me to evaluate them. If you have questions on this, please ask!

(2) If I have the choice between voting for an impact that’s weighed as the biggest in the round but is muddled versus a less important but clean impact, I will resolve the muddled impact every time. I hope this encourages y’all to collapse, develop, and weigh arguments instead of going for like 4 different voters (unless you weigh all four of them :) ).

(3) I care very little about what your cards say. I care a lot more about the warranting behind them. I will never vote on the idea that something is just "empirically true," although empirics do help when you're doing warrant comparisons/maybe a probability weighing analysis.

(4) I rarely receptive to progressive arguments (Ks/theory) unless there's a real instance of abuse in the round. I strongly dislike disclosure theory. If you don't know what that means, don't worry about it.

(5) In case it's helpful, I did nat circuit PF 2013-2017.

- and don't forget to have fun!

I love debate! I have a background in traditional LD and currently participate in American Parliamentary.

I'm mostly tab besides a few preferences

For LD:

- I love value criterion debate, but don't think it's necessary for a round

- If you run anything non topical please explain why it matters in the round. I.e. don't just read a k and move on, read a k and then immediately tell me how it functions in the round.

- flex prep is fine if both debaters agree

For WSD

- please be clear with your warranting

- Tell me why your impacts matter more than your opponents'

- Make sure you properly engage with clash. don't just summarize what you disagree on, analyze the purpose it plays in the round, like whether or not this links into any viable offense, for example.

- please keep your reply speeches organized so I'm also on board with the biggest issues in the round :)

For APDA

- team w/ most meme page rep picks up

- of the winning team the most frequent participant in doomthreads gets highest speaks

Hello there, and thank you for taking the time to read through my paradigm!

A bit about my background: In high school I was a regular competitor in policy debate, though there were times where I found the opportunity to branch out into public forum and congress. For speech, I was most competitive in humorous and duo interpretations, and I also enjoyed retold story. After high school, I debated for The College of Idaho and Rocky Mountain College in parliamentary debate, though after my sophomore year I found passions in art and student government that took me away from debate.

I began teaching middle school science in 2014, which is also when I began assistant coaching high school speech and debate. My main coaching proficiencies lie in policy and interp events, though years of coaching, judging, and competition have shown me the breadth of events currently offered in high school competition. I coached the Idaho Mountain River District WSD team twice, and I now teach high school ceramics and biology. I have to say that my preference towards WSD has certainly shaped my outlook for other speech and debate events.

I'm often looking for some stylistic twist that any debater might use to distinguish themselves from others in the round, including their teammates. Humor is awesome, and I appreciate debaters who can tactfully introduce a heavy or solemn point without appearing preachy or disingenuous. Please avoid trigger language, such as rape, holocaust, and genocide, unless it is rather explicitly stated in motion.

I am looking for structure across the board. Case should centralize around a core theme or idea. Definitions, models, and other foundational components need to be articulated or accepted/refuted very explicitly. Substantive arguments should be easily recognizable and include adequate historic or present-day examples. Empiricism is preferred to rationalism. Anecdotal evidence is welcome to a degree. I give quite a bit of credibility to high schoolers as a teacher, coach, and former competitor, though most kids have a lack of experience while still believing they know a lot about most things. I would suggest sticking to your strengths and competencies rather than pretending to know what you do not. In the words of Socrates, "All I know is that I know nothing."

At the end of the debate, my decision comes down to which side impressed me the most in providing relevant and structured arguments, refuting opposing arguments, and showing a degree of positive authenticity. I am a really good cheerleader, but please do your best to avoid reasons for me to think negatively of you at the end of the debate. Tone, non-verbals, and word choice can be great blessings, though these may also be a debater's greatest detriment. Congeniality will win you the debate. Aggression will cost you...

I'm really excited to be a part of your debate experience! I wish you the best of luck and look forward to meeting you.

I'm currently a senior at Harvard debating with a decent amount of APDA and British Parliamentary experience. I did not do PF in high school – keep that in mind when you use technical jargon / speak faster.

Judging Philosophy: I flow. I'm tab, but I think that no judge is truly tabula rasa. Though not written for American HS formats, this article is very insightful and very close to how I think about judging.

I — and most judges, I hope — have an innate disposition towards liberal principles (not like Democratic, but like free speech, democracy, equal rights, alleviate unnecessary suffering, etc). This doesn't mean that I will always vote this way, but the more extreme your position is from this starting point, the harder it is (and the more work you must do) to convince me.

Some of my other thoughts are listed below:

TLDR, in image form:

TLDR, in written form: PF is an event designed for the public — please don't make me think too hard. Focus on weighing and warranting. Frontline in 2R. Don't be a dick. Debate, don't argue.

Paradigm:

1) Warrants: I like warrants. I weigh well-explained mechs much more heavily than evidence. Cards capture a specific instance of a phenomenon — tell me why that phenomenon has happened beyond pure luck. I don't find card disputes very persuasive; instead, debate on the warrant level. Make your internal links as detailed as possible.

2) Weighing: I like weighing.Do it more. I will always pick up a weighed argument over an unweighed argument, even if its warranting is not fully fleshed out. If neither side weighs, I will evaluate the arguments based on my own intuitions. My intuitions are bad. Don't let my intuition cost you the round. Barring any other explicit weighing, I evaluate strength of warrant as implicit probabilistic weighing.

3) Evidence: I don't really care about evidence. I will probably never call for a card unless I think someone has dramatically lied / misquoted / badly paraphrased it. See point 1. Add me to the chain if you must: azwang@college.harvard.edu.

4) Impacts: I have a significant presumption against high-magnitude, low-probability impacts (extinction, nuclear war, etc). I will listen to them, but I generally believe that you are better off spending time on plausible and interesting arguments.

5) Speed: Don't spread. If you're double breathing, I'm not fully flowing.

6) Theory: I don't know how to evaluate theory. I'm willing to evaluate it, but your burden of explanation is much higher in order to combat my strong bias of arguments about the topic. Err on the side of over-over-over-explanation.

7) General Vibes: Don't be a dick. Don't be any of the -ists. I will probably drop you if you affect anyone's ability to participate in this educational activity.

Thanks for reading this far. Here's a haiku to remember my paradigm:

mechs mechs mechs mechs mechs

weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh

weigh your arguments.

World Schools + British Parliamentary background