Hi, I'm Bekah. I'm a first-year on the Columbia APDA team, and I did parli for four years at Choate. I don't flow cross-x. Please weigh, signpost, and don't spread. Extend defense in first summary if second rebuttal frontlines.

Hi there! I debated PF for Harker for 4 years and currently am a junior at Columbia.

1) I'd prefer if you speak slowly, but I'm ok with some speed if you enunciate well. That said, spreading in PF decreases the format's accessibility to lay judges and novice debaters in my opinion.

2) Please understand (or at least make me think you understand) your warrants. I will almost never call for evidence unless there's blatant abuse/misuse of it; it's your responsibility to effectively weigh your warrants.

3) I don't flow cross-x, but I'll listen to it (and hopefully be entertained).

4) Signpost! Tell me where you are going down the flow.

5) I have a very rudimentary understanding of theory, but if you run it you must be explicit in how I should evaluate it.

6) Weigh your arguments in summary/FF (heck, you can even start in rebuttal sometimes). Don't just repeat the warrants of offensive arguments; tell me why your arguments (or their warrants/link-chains) outweigh the opponents' on timeframe, probability, magnitude, etc. In final focus, extend necessary defense and give me your offensive voters/weigh them.

Have fun, and feel free to ask me any questions you have before/after round!

To begin with my background, I am a long time debate alumni, founder and president of my high school team as well as the last president of the CUNY Debate Society. I've been teaching debate for years. I've judged nearly everything under the sun in my near decade of experience, including PF, Parli (Parli in several forms), LD, Speech, Congress, Policy, and probably more. That being said, my "judging preferences" are rooted in my first and true love, parliamentary debate. For those of you who have done parliamentary, world's debate, and/or APDA/BP, you'll know parli debate emphasizes logical linkages far more than I'd argue it's more popular counterpart, PF, does. Accordingly, as do I. If you'd like that winning ballot from me, I cannot stress this enough: reason out your warrants and your impacts, and for the love of all that is good in this world, please please please weigh your arguments. This does NOT mean forego all else things, especially as they are emphasized in whichever format I am judging your round for (e.g. if this is a public forum round, of course you should use good, solid, well-cited evidence and it will dock you points if you don't have them). But the logic behind your arguments should also be sound and well developed (as in you should be able to explain them and how they clash with your opponents' arguments at length without citing more sources unnecessarily) and you are almost guaranteed to win your round if you are the only team weighing in the round. More likely that not, I will NOT drop your speaks for how you speak or your presentation (your content will always be 10000% more important to me than the presentation and I know a lot of us come from different backgrounds which means there is no "one-way" to be a good presenter. Make the effort though; I'll know if you're not making the effort). Also, on a lighter and semi-joking note, please don't spread unless it's ABSOLUTELY necessary. I can keep up, but I definitely will not want to.

E.j.chen256@gmail.com

Background:

My background is in public forum. I competed all throughout high school on the national circuit and local circuit in Georgia. Currently, I am the President of the New Haven Urban Debate League and coach parliamentary debate at Yale.

PF Paradigm:

WEIGHING IS THE MOST IMPORTANT THING YOU WILL EVER DO IN DEBATE! IT IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN KNOWING YOUR OWN NAME!! PLS WEIGH.

If you don’t weigh, I’ll have to resort to my own weighing mechanism, which may be different every round depending on my mood. You don’t want that, so pls for the love of god, make my life and yours easier by weighing. It’s the easiest way to my ballot.

Other stuff:

-I can handle 250 words/minute. Go over, well...your arguments might not make it on my flow.

-I don't expect the first speaking team to extend defense in summary. However, you need to respond to turns. Second speaking teams need to extend defense and respond to turns.

-Second speaking team should TRY to respond to turns in rebuttal.

-Voters in final focus should be mentioned in summary.

-If your links don’t logically make sense, I’m probably not going to buy it, so warrant everything.

-I don't weigh anything in cross in terms of the ballot, so bring it up in speeches if there's something important.

Parli Paradigm:

I'm familiar with East Coast parli. I don't do well with theory, so I might not understand it. You can try it, but you still must interact with your opponents' arguments. The way to my ballot is by weighing. You don't need to go for everything at the end of the debate, but you should still respond to opponents' arguments and not extend through ink! Break the last speech into voters and weigh!

Other points (very similar to my paradigm for PF, so take that for what you will):

-Because you're not using evidence, please maintain a 200 word/minute maximum.

-Rebuttals should not be in the final speech. I believe that your rebuttals, at the very minimum, should begin in the member speeches. This allows for final interactions in the final speech between the two sides, and this avoids the idea of "no new arguments in the last speech."

-No tag teaming.

-If your links don’t logically make sense, I’m probably not going to buy it, so warrant everything. If I don't buy it, I will most likely not vote for it...

-Do not extend through ink! Conceded arguments are arguments that were poorly responded to or not at all; to which, you can extend, but if your opponents provide multiple warrants/responses to the argument, you must also respond to the rebuttals.

If you have any questions, please ask in rounds or after by emailing me at mary.chen@yale.edu

Content and courtesy are the most important factors to me. I like to be presented with both the forest and the trees by the end of a debate. Focusing on details of your case, on individual points of clash and supporting your case is very important, as is not getting lost in the weeds and remembering by the end to tie everything up to a big picture view.

Please do argue forcefully and passionately - on both sides of the motion at hand. I find it very off-putting when teams try to win on the margins rather than engage with the substance of the motion/topic. So I really do not like overly narrow definitions and overly aggressive points of order where it's obvious you're just trying to throw the other team off and/or win on technicalities.

So with me you'll do well if you engage in detail and big picture with the actual substance of the motion and thoughtfully and respectfully clash with your opponents. This to me best shows engagement with and consideration to your opponents, me and the contest of debate in general.

I'm Adiba (she) and have been debating for a little over 7 years now in the World Schools and British Parliamentary and recently, at college, in the American Parliamentary debate formats.

These are logic-heavy formats, i.e. characterisation, warranting, impacting and weighing are prioritised over empirically-based arguments. Hence, I will look very thoroughly for detailed, well-analysed, and forensic argumentation. I do not care so much for the rhetoric you use, and do not carry any standards of 'articulateness', but good style in terms of organisation and conciseness is appreciated. The cherry on top, for me, is a strategic ordering / mutual independence of arguments.

I will not penalize you for talking fast unless it is done for the sake of talking fast (i.e. to befuddle everyone else) - if I can not flow your speech properly, I don't expect the opposition to be able to do so AND write down responses in time.

Please content warn potentially triggering material (if you're not sure whether or not it is triggering, just do it anyways).

Hi! I did LD for 4 years and graduated in 2017, going to TOC twice and clearing there as a senior. I coached Byram Hills for two years. I've also worked at camps every summer since graduating, as Co-Assistant Director of NSD Philly 2019 and as a lab leader at NSD Flagship 2017-2019, TDC 2018, and VBI LA I 2017.

Email: zoeewing99@gmail.com Please put me on email chains!

General

I have no preference as to what you do with your speech time as long as your arguments have warrants and some framing as to why they're relevant. Don't assume I’m familiar with any dense literature and clearly explain the ballot implications of every argument.

I will aim to be as non-interventionist as possible and will vote on almost* any argument as long as it a) is not abhorrent and b) contains a logical warrant. Examples of arguments I would not vote on include "racism/sexism/homophobia good" (because those are abhorrent) or "the sky is blue so affirm" (because that lacks a logical warrant).

*I've added a couple of exceptions, scroll down to the "other notes" section to see them.

Please slow down on interpretations, advocacy/framing mechanism texts, and author names. I don't check speech docs in round, so don't bank on me reading along with your speech. I only check speech docs if some detail is contested or if it's my fault that I miss something.

I also believe strongly in trigger warnings for graphic narratives or discussions of particularly sensitive issues. I am fine stopping rounds in instances where a debater is unable to debate due to triggering material--please let me know if this happens. I expect the debater who failed to give a trigger warning to concede the round in such instances.

Defaults
These should never be relevant because I will never use a default if an argument is made on either side of the issue—the defaults are only here for the (hopefully rare) case when no debater makes a single argument on some important framing issue.

• Truth testing over comparing worlds
• Competing interps over reasonability—I also have no idea how I’d evaluate a “gut check” reasonability brightline so please don’t ask me to gut check. It would probably not work out in your favor.
• Drop the arg on theory, drop the debater on topicality
• No RVIs (and if the RVI is won, I meets do not trigger RVIs)
• Metatheory before theory; T and theory on the same layer
• I don't have a default side for presumption. In the absence of any offense left in the round and no presumption arguments made, I would vote for the person who had better strategy/technical skill/argument quality (in other words, the person I would give higher speaks to).
• I don't think a default for whether Ks or theory should come first in the abstract is possible since they're both just pre-fiat arguments about what debate should look like. I'd default to whichever position indicts the other probably, but these positions frequently indict each other, so weighing really matters here. Just make those meta-level framing arguments and avoid chicken-and-egg debates.

Important note on defaults: If both debaters carry out the debate under some shared framing assumption that was not argued for, I will use that shared assumption as my default rather than these (i.e. if both debaters collapse to theory shells in their 2NR and 2AR but forget to read a voter, I would act as if a voter had been read rather than intervene, cross all theory off the flow, and vote for some random 1AR substance extension).

Other Notes

• Please be ready to debate when you walk into the room – this means pre-flowing during your opponent's prep if you need to and having the AC speech doc ready to send.
• I end up judging a lot of rounds that result in determining the validity of very short arguments made early in rounds that end up mattering much more later in the round (e.g. spikes). These often rely on making judgments on the weight of each argument on a somewhat arbitrary basis. I do everything I can to evaluate the round in a non-interventionist manner, but the burden is on debaters to prevent situations in which intervention could occur. If you plan to muddle rounds to sufficiently confuse your opponent to win, please ensure that you are not also confusing your judge to the point where I cannot easily trace your path to the ballot.
• To be more specific about the previous point, if a round has two contradictory spikes that indict each other and one debater wins one spike and the other debater wins the other, I will default to argument quality/strength of link weighing. There is no way to be absolutely objective about this, so please interact your arguments!
• NEW: I will not vote on "evaluate the theory debate after the [insert speech]" if the argument is made in the speech mentioned in the spike. For example, I won't vote on "evaluate the theory debate after the 2nr" if it's made in the 2nr. This is because any answer to the spike is technically a theory argument, making it unclear if even evaluating answers to the argument is legitimate. I will also not vote on this argument in any speech absent a clear articulation of what constitutes the theory debate and just generally have a low threshold for responses.
• I require theory violations to be verifiable. I’ve seen rounds where people lied about whether a position is broken or whether something was on the wiki. Just provide screenshots please! If someone makes an I meet to an unverifiable shell with no verification (i.e. a disclosure shell without screenshots or a coin flip shell that's just word of mouth), I default to the I meet being true (innocent until proven guilty).
• I won’t go to someone’s wiki to check a disclosure violation myself—that’d be like looking up a definition on T.
• Flash/email everything you read off your computer to your opponent and judges! People often exclude analytics when they flash stuff and those are sometimes hardest to flow.
• If I have met you at previous tournaments or camps, please don't make conversation with me that could make your opponent feel excluded. I promise that reminding me that I have judged you before or that you know students I coach will not have any bearing over whether I will vote for you--I would have marked you as a conflict if that were true, and it just leaves your opponent feeling rattled and unsure of whether I will be impartial. I have been on the opposite end of this enough times to know how much it sucks when it looks like your opponent and judge are friends.

Speaks

I will try to assign speaks based solely on strategic vision, argument quality, and in-round behavior. I will say clear/slow/loud as many times as needed. I do not disclose speaks during the RFD but will if you come to find me individually or email me after the round.

I dock speaks for:

• Being unnecessarily rude/patronizing/condescending (especially when you’re much better than your opponent)
• Lack of framing issues
• Being racist/sexist/homophobic/ableist/etc—this is a given
• Stealing prep time/not being ready/delaying the round in any way
• Having gendered language in your pre-written spikes/shells/etc
• Talking about what I did as a debater or making personal appeals to me, talking about my former teammates, the debaters I coach, or well-known people in the activity--this excludes people with less "rep" or fewer connections in debate and makes everyone uncomfortable

Have fun—this is your activity! Make it a good experience for everyone. I am happy to answer questions about my paradigm before the round or about my decision after the round.

I debated for 4 years in LD at Monte Vista High School. I competed as a traditional LD debater achieved a few octos/quarters finishes at CA state, and a top 14 finish at NSDA Nationals my senior year.

Stephen Fitzpatrick

Director of Debate, Hackley School

I am primarily a Parli debate coach - that said, over the years I have coached and judged virtually every debate format.

As a former trial attorney, I am looking for clear, persuasive, and intelligible speakers - speed-reading from your computer screen will not impress me. If I can't understand what you are saying, either because of the speed with which you are saying it or due to a lack of explanation, reliance on jargon, and no explicit connection to the resolution, it will be far less likely to impact the round. Beware of reading cases you either did not prepare or do not understand. In Public forum, that will be especially evident during cross-fire. I will flow, but only to the extent I can follow what you are saying. Same goes for any Points of Information or other forms of interrupted speech in other types of format. Be polite, be direct, and be persuasive.

As for evidence, spitting cards at me without tying them explicitly to your arguments and the overall resolution will also have a limited effect. I pay close attention to cross-fire - ask good questions, be generous, listen to your opponent's responses, and respond accordingly. I reward debaters who have a solid understanding of the factual underpinnings of the case as well as basic knowledge of current events, historical precedents, and specific details directly related to your arguments. If one of your contentions requires specialized scientific, legal, or economic principles, make sure you can explain them to clear up misunderstandings and clarify factual disputes.

In a Parli round based predominantly on argumentation rather than concrete factual evidence, make sure you explain your logical connections clearly. None prepped rounds does not mean NO evidence - good examples from history, general summaries of common knowledge, and comparisons ore references to basic factual information all have a place in debate. Tethering your arguments to some sense of how the world actually works is preferably to entirely theoretical arguments that have little grounding in reality.

I will be open to persuasive, integrated cases, and critical impacts. In Public Forum rounds, make sure to summarize the round during final focus. I am not an overly technical judge, so I will take every speech into consideration and even consider arguments in cross-fire to be part the round when making my decision. Speaker scores will range based on a variety of factors, but speaking style, demeanor, and argumentation will all factor in.

Overall, I would be considered a FLAY judge - I abhor the phrase "tech over truth" - debaters who like to earn wins on technical conventions not actually in the rules or use arcane jargon that no one outside the debate world understands will be disappointed with my rulings if their arguments aren't clear and easy to follow.

I am a junior at Columbia and debate with the CU parli team. I can keep up with moderate speeds but will appreciate very clear signposting. I look for warranting that goes beyond just evidence; explain to me why your argument works, don't just show me a piece of evidence. Finally, I really appreciate clear weighing and well-warranted rebuttals.

~ Public Forum ~

I did PF all four years of my high school career, and now I'm a first-year at Columbia. I currently coach.

I am not a very picky judge. I'm game with theory. I'm equally game with ordinary, stocky arguments. Run whatever you feel most comfortable running, however you want to run it, and I'll be happy.

When it comes time to make a decision, I generally start by evaluating the framework debate. Then, I assess each team's arguments under what I perceive to be the winning framework. In my view, a winning argument must always have two things: defensible links and clear impacting. Provide both of these things, and provide them to a greater extent than your opponent, and I will pick you up. Narrative is also a plus.

A few other considerations:

- Offense should be extended through the Summary and Final Focus. If any part of your offense (either its constituent links or its impact) doesn't make into either of these speeches, I will not consider it in my decision. Turns count as offense.

- Defense can be brought through to Final Focus, unless it's front-lined.

- Cards matter, but don't over-rely on them. I value clear warranting over clear evidence. (That being said, please have evidence). I also don't call cards unless I am told to. I also don't really care whether or not you extend cards into your Final Focus unless they're paramount to your argument. In this case, actually tell me what your card says; don't just refer to it as "the *insert last name* analysis" or "the *insert university/think-tank* card."

- Don't make offensive arguments. You don't know what experiences I or your opponents have had, so assume a veil of ignorance and talk about sensitive topics as if someone who has personal connections to those topics is in the room with you. I also do not take kindly to sexism.

- Please weigh. If you don't weigh, I'll have to intervene and make my own illogical conclusions about whose argument is stronger. There is a 50% chance that you will not be happy with the resulting decision.

- If you make me laugh with a good joke, I will give you an additional half-speaker point. If you mention Rose McGowan or the Alamo, I will give you an additional half-speaker point. If you mention clowns in absolutely any context, I will give you an additional half-speaker point. If you do any combination of these things, I will not give you more than one half-speaker point. However, I will be thoroughly pleased.

- Pay attention to my body language. If I nod at you, I have gotten your point and you don't need to elaborate further.

That's it! Take a deep breath, and have fun. If you have any questions, feel free to find me before or after the round.

~ Parli ~

I have somewhat limited experience in this form of debate, so chances are I am about as good at it as you are. Keep that in mind as you enter the round – don't be intimidated, and if you ask for my advice, take my opinion with a grain of salt. Although I do decide whether you win or lose the round, so maybe not. It really is up to you.

With that said, some things to note about my paradigm:

- I will not vote on an argument without a warrant. I would rather vote on "soft characteristics" (your framing of the round, the consistency of your argumentation) than a warrantless argument. I am especially strict about this requirement in Parli, where you can't give me substantive evidence.

- Don't make offensive arguments. You don't know what experiences I or your opponents have had, so assume a veil of ignorance and talk about sensitive topics as if someone who has personal connections to those topics is in the room with you. I also do not take kindly to sexism.

- Please weigh. If you don't weigh, I'll have to intervene and make my own illogical conclusions about whose argument is stronger. There is a 50% chance that you will not be happy with the resulting decision.

- If you make me laugh with a good joke, I will give you an additional half-speaker point. If you mention Rose McGowan or the Alamo, I will give you an additional half-speaker point. If you mention clowns in absolutely any context, I will give you an additional half-speaker point. If you do any combination of these things, I will not give you more than one half-speaker point. However, I will be thoroughly pleased.

- Pay attention to my body language. If I nod at you, I have gotten your point and you don't need to elaborate further.

That's it! Take a deep breath, and have fun. If you have any questions, feel free to find me before or after the round.

Sixth year parent judge for New Roads, which is my only debate experience. I am, however, familiar with argument as an attorney for more than 30 years with lots of trials, arbitrations, administrative hearings and oral arguments in appellate courts. You could say I argue for a living.

I am most familiar with Parli and LD. I’m old, with slow ears, so don’t spread. Speak clearly and enunciate. Theory, Kritik and other more technical forms of debate are fine, but only if you really explain your position. All too often the punch of these arguments is lost without a full, complete and thorough explanation truly supporting the point being made. Don’t rely on debate jargon or buzzwords. Likewise, explain why your proposed framework for how I should decide the round makes sense.

Over all I am looking for the most compelling argument. This can be several smaller points, or one or two very strong points. Most of all, always explain how your arguments relate to the topic in question.

My debate background is mostly college BP and APDA. I also debated under the Worlds Schools format in high school.

I appreciate it if you explain the structure of the speech from the beginning and then clearly signpost your arguments. I value honest and respectful engagement with the other team. Do not assume that I have specialized knowledge on the topic.

Please speak at a normal pace. I prefer substance over style but enjoy good rhetoric. No ks. Theory will not be appreciated as a tool to win - only use it to point out actual abuse. Warranting should be supported with evidence. Weighing is important. Signposting is greatly appreciated.

Jennifer Gremmel Hunt Paradigm

Background:

Coach, Academy at Little River (2010-present)

Coach, Immaculate High School (2013-present)

J.D., B.F.A. (double major: dance & politics)

I fell into coaching when a colleague decided that, given my legal background, I was well-equipped to teach debate. You & I know better. I learn from my students every day. I’ve judged the Yale Invitational (3) and Penn Liberty Bell Classic (1), in addition to many local extemporaneous policy hybrid tournaments.

Yes, of course, I flow. Speed (not spread) is ok so long as articulation is clear and arguments are organized and signposted/tagged. Don’t use speed as a crutch or to impress. Like most, I try to be tabula rasa: I leave personal biases at the door, and I don’t extend arguments for you. But watch out, I don’t vote exclusively on the flow. The entire argument is paramount for me. I don’t de facto award the win to quantity over quality, nor will I buy the utterly ridiculous

I come to see debate. To that end, I want to see clash. Topicality should (and must) be defended if there is an issue. Theory and Kritiks, meh. If you run something along those lines, be certain it is the best path and explain it, as you are implicitly convincing me to move away from the debate with you. 

Impacts: I do like to hear real, reasonable impacts. Weighing: Crystallize and convince me. Give me something to vote.

Zero tolerance for shouting and rudeness, though to quote another judge, “sarcasm warms the heart.” 

As an educator, I want to hear a debate about the resolution. I want to experience your critical thinking and reasoning skills through your outstanding oratory skills. I’m reasonably intelligent, but I’m not in your head. Educate me.

Debated policy in high school and parli at Columbia University

judging for over 4 years

email: cyrusjks10@gmail.com

pronouns: he/him

2/17/24 EDIT:

Quick Prefs:

1) Ks/KAFFS/Performance

2) LARP

3) Phil

4) T/Theory

5) Tricks (unless tied to social advocacy)

IHSA 2022 Update:

Debate Philosophy: Generally, I default to voting for the team that has done the better debating, in terms of proving the merit of the arguments they make against some comparative (opponent's arguments, status quo, etc.). Offense is always appreciated, and I normally vote for the team that has the best warranted / impacted out offense.

UK Digital TOC Speech & Debate #2 Edit:

What debaters should do more of: give roadmaps, sign post, slow down on taglines, do impact calculus/weigh, do line-by-line analyses, compare evidence, collapse on key args in final rebuttal speeches, and say why you are winning/get the ballot (write my ballot for me)

What debaters should avoid doing: spreading through overviews and theory shells (if need to spread please send out a doc), saying they have proved something to be true, bringing up that something was dropped/conceded without explaining why it matters or is a critically important to evaluating/framing the round, jumping all over the flow (please sign post so I can accurately flow/ keep track of your arguments), and sending out speech docs that can't be downloaded or copied from. ALSO please no postrounding and no sending me emails before a round is scheduled to occur nor after a round has occurred, as judges are not allowed to have contact with debaters except during a round.

1/7/22 EDIT:

Quick Prefs:

1) LARP

2) Ks/KAFFS/Performance

3) Phil

4) T/Theory

5) Tricks

Miscellaneous

Kritiks I like to hear (in order): Afropess/antiblackness, afrofuturism, set col, cap,

"Assuming a pill exists that compels the user to tell the truth, THW destroy it." — Recent fun motion

UPDATE FOR COLUMBIA 2022 (VPF)

Read the following sections: Overview, General Paradigm, Miscellany and Weird Aside on Evidence -- all else is Parli specific.

Relevant information for PF: I have a strong distaste for theory but as per modern paradigmatic standards, I'm happy to evaluate it as warranted in the round. The bar to convince me to pick up or drop a team on a theory call is likely pretty high. I will tank you if the theory is strategic and not based on something reasonable.

Regarding evidence in PF. I actually debated PF some in High School, I'm not unfamiliar with evidence and carded debate. The maxim that evidence doesn't replace warranting is still true, though, and I will reward better warranted arguments over better carded arguments assuming the belivability of the claim is constant.

Ask me questions before the round if you have questions -- I'd love to get to know you as well -- debate is a game, but we are all members of the community of debate and I'd love to foster that as much as possible. Ask me questions about college debate if you're a senior (or not) -- I'll connect you with the debate team of your institution if you know where you're going etc. I love verbal RFDs so will probably give one. I don't understand PF speaker points so take those with a grain of salt.

I don't claim to be an expert in PF or anything close. I do understand argumentation, warranting, impacting, weighing, etc, and want to see all of that in a round at the highest quality possible.

Parliamentary Debate

If you read nothing else, read this: don't spread; don't tag team; keep stuff in your time; be wary of theory; impact; weigh; warrant.

Overview

I debated for four years as a student at Stuyvesant High School and currently debate APDA for Columbia University. I have experience teaching debate to middle school and high school students, I tab way too often, and have lead more judge orientations than I care remember. If you care, I'm the president of APDA, the oldest and best college debate league.

People tend to care a lot about these paradigms — I really don't — if you have specific questions, ask me before rounds, in GA, whatever. Please do ask if something is unclear!

I run whacky cases, I debate whacky cases, I choose whacky motions — I really don't mind a lot if it's done well and respectful and conducive to a good round of debate.

General Paradigm

So everyone likes to claim they're a tabula rasa judge. I think this is nonsensical. Obviously personal views will not influence the round, but as arguments leave the sphere of the normal and easily bought, the burden of warranting well increases.

It's reasonably straightforward for me to buy, for example, that individuals do things that make them happy, and since eating ice cream makes people happy, people eat ice cream; but is comparatively hard for me to buy that actually, instead of eating the ice cream in my refrigerator, I'm going to make a 2 day trek across tundra to obtain some of the same ice cream.

I don't mean to discourage complex, strange, or whacky argumentation; rather, I aim to encourage elegant, simple, but robust warranting.

Theory

Theory has its place (LD / Policy / new PF circuit / your dinner table maybe ?) — and it's almost never in a parliamentary debate round.

Please limit any kritiks, theory calls, whatever else theory masquerades as nowadays, to instances where the use therein is warranted. Unless something is tightly or abusively defined / modeled or one team is engaging in reprehensible behavior, there is no need for theory — debate the resolution. This is an instance where I am certainly not tabula rasa, I will almost always, except in these previous instances, assume that the theory is being used in an effort to actively exclude the other team simply because the assumption is that I, as a seasoned debater, can follow it (which I can). Except in the caveated cases, the burden is on the team using a kritik or some other theory to prove to me they are not doing this.

If you want to argue about mutual exclusivity of a counterplan, or whatever else you want to do, please be sure to not forget to warrant, and explain things in reasonable terms. Just as you're not going to go off using advanced economic terms in rounds, and instead going to explain how a bubble works (hopefully), don't just use a pick, actually explain and warrant it. And on that, a counterplan had better be mutually exclusive, or at least functionally so, given certain tradeoffs.

Expect lower speaker points and to lose in cases of over eagerly applied theory.

Miscellany

I don't want to warrant for you. Don't make me.

I don't want to impact for you. Don't make me.

I don't want to weigh for you. Don't make me.

I am not going to get into what makes a warrant 'good' or an impact effective or weighing necessary, please as your coach, varsity, mentor, or email me if none of the previous options are available to you (johnrod.john@gmail.com).

The final two speeches of a round (the rebuttal or crystallization speeches) are NOT to restate every point in the round, but instead are meant to synthesize, weigh, and flesh out impacts. Please do that. The most effective rebuttal speeches focus on two to three levels of conditional weighing. I won't vote on some random unimpacted and unweighed pull through.

Don't spread — think about a speed a non debater would be able to reasonably follow. This usually means something fast, but not double breathing. Side note: someone who enjoys spreading please explain to me how this doesn't destroy the educational value in learning how to be a rhetorical and persuasive speaker please!

Instead of focusing on a breadth of argumentation, please focus on a depth of argumentation that is complex, and includes a high level of weighing structures and effective warranting.

Tag teaming — never seen this in parli outside of the west coast. Don't do it, you'll have your own chance to speak.

POIs — take them, use them, respect them. Don't go back and forth — if I wanted crossfire I'd be at a PF tournament. Seriously. Also, these are supposed to be fun and humorous — if you don't believe me, watch the House of Commons — however, you are HS debaters and probably take everything way too seriously, therefore I'll settle for not rude.

Offtime Stuff — No. You don't have to tell me what you're going to do, just do it.

Weird Aside on Evidence

Please don't confuse providing evidence with providing warrants. Simply because you were able to effectively use Google and find someone who said something doesn't mean that it's a) true b) important c) relevant d) it will happen again e) isn't without opposing evidence. Please always default to explaining why something happened, not simply that it did, or that someone believes it will happen again.

I have never once picked a team up for the quality of a card, and no round should ever come down to a piece of evidence in any way, shape, or form.

One year of LD debating experience. Three years of New England Schools Association Parliamentary Debate experience.

I am currently a student at Columbia University in the City of New York.

Notes:

-Came from a small debating school in NJ—little experience with theory, but I shouldn't have trouble evaluating a round based off it if your warranting is clear

-I will dock speaks for making arguments that are insensitive/problematic in the context of cultural/gender/racial/ethnic identity—a good rule of thumb is to think about whether you are making a generalization, and what/who that generalization might disregard

-Sign-posting helps

my email for evidence and etc: esther.kardos@gmail.com

general rule of thumb.... i am now officially 4/5 years removed from pf debating and the format has changed a lot. i am super receptive to this change so if you're doing something especially out of the box it's totally fine with me, i just need a heads-up and you might have to do some extra legwork to teach an old pf-er new tricks.

spreading - yeah, probably. if you can't get through your speech without it, then i can follow until about 230 wpm. after that, maybe send over a copy of your speech to make sure i don't miss anything. i would encourage you to slow down toward the back end of your speeches, but up to you.

theory & beyond - i didn't have to deal with this a ton back when i did pf (pf used to be the "one format without theory" lmao not anymore!), but i've had enough exposure to T/K/plans/counters from judging that i can probably pick up what you're putting down. as a caution, i REALLY need to get persuaded by theory to vote on it, and if it's too complicated for me to understand i'll just default to your opponent.

flowing - make flowing easy for me! start each of your big points with something flashy like "my first contention is..." or "my second independent point is..." or even just "one... two... three...", and then clearly indicate to me the different branches of argumentation under that big point. you don't need to be as obvious as shouting "THIS IS MY WARRANT, THIS IS MY IMPACT", but be able to clearly explain why/how something is true and what's going to result from it, and especially why it matters more than whatever your opponent is saying. i listen to cross-ex but i don't flow it, so if you/your opponent say something important during cross, make sure you remind me during your next speech so it 100% makes it on the flow.

evidence/cards - evidence is only as good as the warranting, weighing, and impacting that goes behind it. i will never base my rfd on how well you were able to gather bits of evidence from the depths of debate's dark web, or if one really good point you were making had a link that couldn't load. instead, if the argument you're creating makes sense to me (with some informational evidence to back it up) because of the warranting, weighing, and impacting you put behind it, then i'll always be more willing to pick that up rather than just buy what the other team is saying because of some guardian article from 2004.

misc - i don't mind "offtime roadmaps" or whatever the kids are calling it these days, just let me know beforehand and plzzz keep them brief. if you're a novice (or even a varsity!!!) and you have questions during the round, please don't be afraid to ask me, i'll never look down on you for wanting to learn! i'm happy to give any timing cues, you just gotta let me know beforehand. be nice to each other, debate is temporary but building a habit of being a jerk follows you forever. and in case I haven't beaten this to death already, WARRANT AND IMPACT AND WEIGH.

if you have any more questions, let me know. i'm so excited to see what arguments you come up with!

Every argument is not worth one 'point'. Understand which arguments are most important and have the most weight, and help me as judge to see them. Convince me that your argument valuable, and choose high value examples and arguments such as those that advance humans towards a sane future or promote the highest values of justice, peace and opportunity. Defend the practicalities, but when the details are ambiguous, principles will lead me make a decision. That said, no hyperbole. Debate as though the stakes are high. But do not tell me the issue is a matter of life and death, unless you can convince me that it is.

The principles you are arguing from should presented with complete clarity by the first speaker, defended by the second, and made undeniable by the third. Refutation should be complete, but efficient. To me, good debaters refute the opposing team succinctly by seeing through to the underlying misconceptions. Demonstrate your ability to listen and respond not only to the individuals in the room, but to the wider audience who may be affected by the decision. Therefore, be passionate, insightful, and aware of the stakes.

I am an experienced parent judge. I'm also a practicing lawyer, so feel very much at home distinguishing good arguments from bad ones.

I value truth over tech. When it comes to contentions, I value quality over quantity - in other words I weigh arguments, and don't just count them. Make sure to warrant all of your arguments and explain impacts. Be persuasive. Add a little rhetorical flourish. Don't be boring.

Hello! My name is Anna and I am a freshman at Columbia College. Most of my debate experience has been in Parliamentary debate in high school, with some experience judging APDA in college tournaments. I have no congressional debate experience, but I look forward to hearing you all speak!

Dear Debaters,

Some things about me: I have been judging primarily East coast style parli for about two years. I appreciate well thought-out arguments and good rhetoric. I also value weighing, especially when used with impact calculus, as well as warranting (with clear logic, please!)

Some more specific suggestions for you as you debate:

1) Please speak at a reasonable pace, one in which listeners can process and appreciate your flow and argument.

2) Please take care in raising Points of Order--they shouldn't be made excessively or unnecessarily.

3) Please avoid using progressive arguments (Ks, theory, etc...)

4) Please note: Reason is more persuasive to me than competing interpretations.

No spreading, I won't flow it. I enjoy a good CX. I do not enjoy theory/K. Camera on preferable for online tournaments.

Debated in college parliamentary, working in tech now. Please be logical, rational arguments will always supersede arguments based on quantity or technicalities. Do not like spreading, jargon, and unfamiliar with kritik

I debated LD at Stuyvesant High School for four years and graduated in 2019.

Email: claireliu333@gmail.com

Pronouns: she/her

**Updated for Lex 2022**

I have minimal experience judging LD on Zoom so please be clearer & slower than usual.

General:

1. I'm willing to vote on any argument that I understand excluding offensive ones.

2. If it is clear that your opponent is debating at a significantly lower level than you are, you should be able to win in a way that allows them to still understand what's going on and engage with you.

3. Please don't make me judge a messy tricks debate. I don't like debates that are entirely predicated on your opponent missing an argument.

4. I will not vote on "evaluate the theory debate after the [insert speech] if the argument is made in the speech mentioned in the spike. For example, I won't vote on "evaluate the debate after the 1ac" if it's made in the 1ac. This is because any answer to the spike is technically a theory argument, making it unclear if even evaluating answers to the argument are legitimate. I will also not vote on this argument in any speech absent a clear articulation of what constitutes evaluating the debate solely after one speech and will have a low threshold for responses.

Speaks:

1. Generally, good arg gen, topic knowledge, smart CX, and efficiency are what I reward most. Please don't make your entire rebuttal speech prewritten.

2. I don't disclose speaks.

Hi, I am a parent judge, so please speak slowly and clearly! I have judged many pf rounds before, but I am still definitely not a flow judge. In round, make sure that you're using logic to explain your arguments thoroughly as well. If you see me writing, don't take it seriously, I am just taking notes. Don't be rude and have fun!

---

Hi this is his daughter that does PF and from what he's told me abt judging here are some tips if he's judging you:

-he doesnt flow everything u say :((( so make sure you're emphasizing the most important things he should be flowing

-he won't feel comfortable voting off your argument if he doesn't understand the logic (if he doesn't understand either side he randomly chooses lol so TALK SLOW and MAKE SENSE)

-he likes it when you have arguments that directly clash (pro and con both run the same arg i.e. innovation) but he also likes clean extensions of args that go conceded

-he adores clean signposting

-also he works in like biology/physics/medical related stuff and knows a lot abt pharma so be accurate lol or he'll know

Jesse Maltese (He Him)

Preferences/advice: Explain arguments completely; I am a math major and may not have extensive background knowledge. Bias towards intuitively correct arguments as opposed to overly technical arguments. Bias towards outcomes over deontological principles. However, I often give the win to debaters to break any of this advice. Debate well/do not overthink it.

Debate Experience: Four years of College British Parliamentary. First year champion at GW/ Finalist at Queens/ attended WUDC. I have minimal knowledge of other formats.

I debated PF in High School, coached in College and now work and run tournaments for the NYCUDL. I judge on the flow most heavily on the last four speeches. Please weigh and give analysis beyond dropping weighing mechanism terms. The more effective your analysis and explanation of the round the more likely I will vote for you. I won't drop your arguments if you don't bring them up in every speech, but I will weigh and value them less because that indicates to me that it is not an essential argument to your case. Be kind to your opponents I will dock your speaks for being rude to anyone in the round.

Max F. Neuman (he or they pronouns). If both teams want to use an email chain, please add maxfneuman [at] gmail.com

Competitive and Coaching Experience:

4 years of PF, almost entirely on the New York City Urban Debate League, at Bard High School Early College Manhattan.

1 year of APDA at CUNY, 3 years at Columbia.

Former PF coach at High School for Dual Language and Asian Studies, Midwood High School, and Bard High School Early College Manhattan. Current APDA coach at Temple.

Listened to that NPR podcast about college policy and thought it was cool.

Paradigm:

When I'm judging a round, I really want to avoid intervening ie; involving my own thoughts or doing your work in achieving the ballot. It leads to unpredictable decisions that are unfair to everybody. To prevent judge intervention, speak high, and win, here are a few tips:

• Enjoy yourself! Debate should be fun.

• Be inclusive! Respect your competitors. If speaking about an event or group, especially one that you are not part of, only make arguments you would make if the room were full of members of that group.

• If you need to make a potentially triggering argument, please give a content warning.

• I will not deviate from tab policy, speech times, or the speaker scale. Everything else is up for debate.

Everything below this point is stuff I am flexible on, but will default to absent other argumentation.

• I am a lazy judge. I do not want to intervene or do the work to prove why arguments are true or why they matter. Please be explicit about what the voting issues should be.

• Before anyone says a word, I assume that my job as the judge is to determine if the resolution is a true or false statement, and I assume that neg has won on presumption. As soon as a debater says anything, these starting positions go out the window and the role/destination of the ballot is up for debate.

• I've been consistently involved in debate since 2013, but you definitely know the current topic and the format's evolving norms better than I do. Author names don't mean much to me, so explain what cards say. If you want to make an abuse or theory call, or even do something non-traditional like a K, I'm amenable to it if it's adequately warranted and weighed in a way that's accessible to a broad audience that isn't steeped in debate pedagogy. If something is warranted well and not responded to at all, I'll consider it true, no matter how outlandish.

• Weigh and condense. Going for the whole flow at any point after second crossfire reduces the round to a whirlwind of blips, often with very little analysis about what should sway the ballot. Impact calculus is hard to master, but entirely worth it.

• I don't care about or even know how to consciously evaluate presentation things like what you wear, the sound of your voice, rhetoric, whether you sit or stand, or that sort of thing.

• Speed is fine when coupled with clarity. If you're especially fast (like 300 words per minute or more), start slow so I can get up to speed. If I can't flow you at all, I'll say "clear" up to three times

• Explaining how something works or happens is so much better than citing a source or quantifying a conclusion. Maybe it's because I've seen so many bad debaters win rounds on evidence challenges or because I'm a parliamentary debater, but I value explanation on par with evidence.

• If some offense is in first constructive or rebuttal and then never gets brought up during the round, I'm fine with a final focus/PMR/LOR/2AR/2NR weighing it to win, although the weighing needs to be stronger than "they dropped it so it's true." I will pick up a team that says "they dropped it so it's true, and we weigh it so it matters" if the weighing actually happens.

• You don't have to extend all defense in a summary/rebuttal if you've already touched an argument; you do have to respond if the other side is going for it and engaging with your refutation. If something was in the round before, regardless of whether it was in summary or second constructive, it can be in final focus and on the ballot if you mention it explicitly. I will enforce the prohibition on totally new argumentation (in all cases except the first-speaking team answering totally new content in the second team's summary) in final focus.

• I probably won't flow crossfire because I don't think I can do so with nearly as much accuracy as the speeches. If something important happened in crossfire, mention it in a speech to be sure it's in the round.

• I am begrudgingly okay with calling cards. It would be better if everyone could avoid this by not lying about evidence (your own or your opponents'). If there has been a question of validity or a direct and unresolved clash of cards during the round, I'll probably want to see the original source after the round. If you have a citation and a card, it's okay with me if you have to pull an original source off the internet when asked. Any other internet use is super duper prohibited. If the entire round comes down to a fact claim that nobody can resolve like "Russia has 15 nuclear submarines" when the brightline for impact access is 15, I'm amenable to arguments that I should google the number, and I'll default to just resolving the next most important issue in the round if it's deadlocked around an unresolvable fact claim.

If you want my flow, it's all yours! Send me an email at maxfneuman [at] gmail.com to ask for the flow or if you have any questions, preferably on the same weekend as your round in front of me. I'll probably delete flows/forget details about rounds after that. Please add me to the email chain at the same email address.

He/Him

oliverhniu@gmail.com

Update for Ridge 2022:

I competed in Public Forum for four years at Millard North HS, graduated in 2019, and coached at NDF/VBI/on the circuit pre-Covid. I’m basically retired now and Ridge will be my first time judging in about two years. Therefore, assume I have very limited topic knowledge and am unfamiliar with any recent norms.

Here's a few preferences:

If you want the easy path to my ballot; weigh, implicate your defense/turns, tell me why you should win.

Smart analytics > bad evidence or paraphrased blips.

Debate is a game, as such I will normally be a tech>truth judge except in circumstances where I deem an argument to be offensive/inappropriate for the debate space.

Rebuttal:
I prefer a line by line. Second rebuttal should respond to turns/disads.

Extensions:

I won't do ghost extensions for you even if the argument is conceded, extend your arguments.

Arguments that I am comfortable with:

Theory, T, Plans, Counter Plans, Ks. I will caution that these arguments were not super common when I competed so please be thorough in your explanations and make your path to the ballot clear. If I don't understand your argument well, I will default against it.

Evidence Challenges:

Unless the tournament says otherwise, in the event of a dispute about evidence, I will pause the round and ask the accusing team if they wish to stake the round on their claim. I will then determine if there was a violation of evidence ethics and vote accordingly.

This will be Prashni's son writing the paradigm for her.

To convince my mom you need to do a couple key things:

Speak slowly and clearly

Avoid meta debates/technical debates. No Theory!!!!

If getting into a definitional quarrel keep it clean/base it in logic

Avoid Jargon

Furthermore, arguments are made more convincing for my mom through using examples.

Good luck!

Background: I debated traditional PF/LD in Ohio, graduated high school in 2017, and did a little bit of college parli.

I decide who wins the round based on who is winning the key arguments (I like clear, quantifiable impacts). I prefer evidence over logic, in the case where only one is provided - but ideally this is not the case. I am fairly open to out-of-the-box arguments or claims, but if you are doing something weird and your opponent clearly has no idea what is going on, do not be rude or condescending (this will result in me lowering speaks). I keep detailed notes, am fine with a quick conversational pace (not spreading). I don't care about style at all as long as I can tell what words you are saying. Feel free to ask before the round if you have any specific questions!

I am a librarian and in my 7th year as a Public Forum and Parlimentary debate judge. I believe a well-presented argument relies on speaking clearly and thoughtfully, rather than rushing to present every piece of information. State your contentions clearly and use this to create a reliable, well-structured argument.

I am an experienced college parliamentary debater (APDA and BP) — additionally, I competed on the Asians and Worlds debate circuit extensively in High School. I used to debate APDA for Columbia, and now I debate for UPenn.

Please warrant and weigh well. Unexplained cards and evidence are not warrants. Examples and anecdotes are not independent warrants. Please weigh, don't make me do it for you.

If there is no weighing in the round, I will default to the most reasonable analysis possible (this will probably be some form of util depending on argumentation). Expect me not to believe dropped arguments if they aren't warranted well.

I will approach any theory with the following mentality: you are engaging in theory in order to gain an unfair advantage in the round; if you wish to use theory, please convince me otherwise. This is a high bar. Theory does not have a place in parli.

For more details, read the paradigm for my usual debate partner and teammate, Rodda John, which I entirely agree with and embody.

Never judged PF, but have done a lot of Parli.

I can flow pretty fast, but will say clear if necessary.

I'm not going to flow Cross--make sure that you repeat anything important in your speeches.

Theory/inventive argumentation are perfectly fine, but you need to weigh everything.

Be kind and civil to each other.

Yasemin Reis (she/her)

I’m a junior at Columbia and a member of the Columbia Parli Team. I can keep up with moderate speed with very clear signposting. I expect arguments and rebuttals to be substantially warranted.

I am a sophomore at Barnard and compete with the Columbia Parli Team. I competed in PF for four years at Sidwell Friends School. I'll flow and can handle moderate speed, but prefer for there to be clear signposting, especially in early speeches, in order to best understand your arguments. The best argumentation should include extensions of your arguments (with convincing responses to rebuttals from the opposing side) and thoughtful weighing.

I have been judging Connecticut Parliamentary Debate Varsity and Novice tournaments for two years.

I love debate and view it is as an opportunity to convince me and the participants of your point of view on the topic using knowledge, language and persuasion.

I think debate fosters a broader understanding of the issues that we face and a deeper understanding of the current events that affect our daily lives.

I think it is important to listen and incorporate what the other team is saying / not saying in their argument as part of your rebuttal and Cross-Ex. It is also important to ensure you understand the facts of the topic and not make things up as you never know what I or any other judge knows on a particular topic.

I think it is important to NOT interrupt your opponent after you ask a question and give them a reasonable amount of time to answer the question.

I track the flow of the debate and the main contentions on a sheet of paper and I look for teams to reinforce their key points and refute their opponents with the time they are allotted.

Everett Rutan

Judging Paradigm

I’m primarily parli these days, but the principles would apply to any form of debate I might judge.

I check all the boxes: successful, national circuit high school debater (policy/cross-ex); debate coach for over 25 years; tab director for over 20 years; debate league director for over 15 years; taught at a respected parliamentary debate summer workshop for 10 years. However, my career was in business, not education or the law, which does affect my point of view.

None of that is “actionable”, in that it is of no help to you if I’m sitting in the back of the room with my flow and stopwatch waiting for you to begin. The following may be more useful.

My role as a judge is to sort through the debate you and your opponent choose to have and produce a reasoned, persuasive decision. My “case” (RFD) should accurately reflect what was said and be acceptable to each of the debaters as a valid opinion on what occurred, even if they may take issue with that opinion.

This judge-as-debater approach has certain implications:

· My source material is the debate you choose to have. If you don’t agree on what it should be about, then my decision should be based first on your definitional arguments. If you do agree, then my decision should be based on the relative weight of arguments on the issue. If both teams agree—explicitly or tacitly—to have a particular debate, my opinion as to what the motion or debate should have been about is not relevant.

· The more work you do to lay out a path to a decision, the less work I have to do building my own, and the fewer decisions I have to make as the judge. That generally works in your favor.

· Your arguments should be based both on what you present and, perhaps even more so, on what your opponents present, with a fair comparison and weighing.

My business background has certain implications:

· Debate is intended to be educational. I have less sympathy for arguments that no one would make or consider in the real world. Theory arguments should be clearly explained and shown to have a serious impact on the matter at hand. The more distantly related an argument is to a plain reading of the motion, the greater the need to justify that argument.

· Not all arguments are equal. Judging is not simply counting arguments won, lost, or dropped, but comparing the persuasive weight of each side. I expect both sides will win some arguments and lose some arguments and drop some arguments. If you don’t weigh them, I will.

· Explanations count more than facts (at least explanations broadly consistent with the facts). For any arguable topic there will be examples that favor each side. The fact that some people survive horrendous accidents unscathed is not in itself an argument against safety equipment; that many will refuse to use safety equipment that is inconvenient or uncomfortable is, at least against that particular type.

· I don’t have a problem making decisions. I rarely take long or agonize over them. However, I will do my best to provide a detailed written RFD, time permitting.

Finally, debate is about the spoken word. It is your job to persuade me and in your best interest that I clearly understand what you want to say. It is not my job to be persuaded, nor to intuit what you intended to say beyond a reasonable effort on my part to do so. This has the following implications:

· Speak as fast as you think appropriate. I flow well and can tolerate speed. But if I don’t hear it, don’t hear it as intended, or don’t get it on my flow, it won’t help you. It’s not my job to signal you if you are speaking too fast or drifting off into unintelligibility.

· Why wouldn’t you present more arguments than your opponents can handle in the time allowed? Spread is a natural consequence of time limits on speeches. But 13 weak reasons why an argument is true won’t help you even if your opponent drops 12 of them, but wins the one most important to the issue. And debaters with more than one level of subpoints almost always get lost in their own outline. Quality spreads as surely as quantity and has more impact.

· I understand some debaters provide outlines, cards, briefs, etc. I will listen carefully to what you say, but I will not read anything you give me.

I have published a great deal of material of varying quality on the Connecticut Debate Association website, http://ctdebate.org . You will find transcriptions of my flows, various RFDs, topic analysis and general debate commentary reflecting my opinions over the years.

FAQs

Definitions? Definitions are a legitimate area of argument, but don’t ask me to rule on them mid-round. Gov has the right to a reasonable definition of terms. If Opp does not like them, Opp should challenge in a POC, POI or at the top of the LOC. Don’t wait to challenge definitions late in the round. Gov need not explicitly define terms or present a plan: clear usage in the PMC binds Gov and must be accepted or challenged by Opp. In other words, if it is obvious what Gov is talking about, don't try to re-define the terms out from under them. P.S. No one likes definition debates, so avoid them unless Gov is clearly being abusive.

Points of Clarification? Like them. Think it’s a good tactic for Gov to stop and offer Opp a chance to clear up terms. Should occur at the top of the PMC immediately after presenting definitions/plan/framework, etc.

Pre-speech outline or road map? A common local custom not to my taste. Speeches are timed for a reason, and I see this as an attempt to get a bit more speaking time. But, when in Rome… They should be brief and truly an outline, not substance. I will listen politely but I won't flow them.

New contentions in the Member constructives? Perfectly legitimate, though it was considered old-fashioned even when I debated 50 years ago. It also presents certain tactical and strategic issues debaters should understand and have thought through.

Counterplans? If you know what you are doing and it’s appropriate to the motion and the Gov case, a counterplan can be extremely effective. Most debaters don’t know what they are doing, or use them when there are less risky or more effective options available. Many counterplans are more effective as arguments why the status quo solves or as disadvantages.

Written material? I’m aware in some leagues debaters give judges a written outline of their case, or pass notes to the speaker. I accept all local customs and will not interfere or hold these against you. However, debate is by spoken word, and I will not read anything you give me.

New arguments in rebuttal (Point of Order)? You should call them if you see them. But if you see them every five words it begins to look like an attempt to disrupt the rebuttal speaker. Landing one good PO puts me on watch for the rest of the speech; multiple “maybes” will likely annoy me.

Evidence? Even in heavily researched debate like policy, facts are cherry picked. Even in the real world one rarely has all the facts. Explanations generally outweigh simple facts (though explanations that contradict the facts aren't really explanations). Information cited should be generally known or well-explained; “what’s your source” is rarely a useful question or counter-argument. I am not required to accept something I know to be untrue. If you tell me something I don’t know or am not sure of, I will give it some weight in my decision, and I will look it up after the round. That’s how I learn.

Theory? (See “business background” comments above, and "Definitions".) These are arguments like any other. They must be clearly explained and their impact on the round demonstrated. They are not magic words that simply need to be said to have an effect. Like all arguments, best present them as if your audience has never heard them before.

Weird stuff? Everyone in my family has an engineering degree. We’re used to intelligent arguments among competent adults. We know we aren’t as clever as we think we are, and you probably aren’t either. The further you drift from a straightforward interpretation of the motion, the greater your burden to explain and to justify your arguments.

Rules of debate? There are none, or very few. If your opponent does something you think is out of bounds, raise a POI if you can and explain the impact on the arguments or on the debate in your next speech. Most "rules" debaters cite are more like "guidelines". If you understand the reason for the guideline, you can generally turn a weak "that's against the rules" into a much stronger "here is why this is harmful to their case."

ejr, rev July 2023

Amanda E. Sawyers

Director of Debate, Mock Trial & Leadership

Various Schools

I am a debate coach with a background in Leadership, Politics, and International Relations. I look for succinct, organized, persuasive speakers with a cohesive case that understand the underlying theme of their case and understand what must be stressed to their target audience. I expect speakers to stress the impact of their case on a micro and macro level. I expect speakers to have anticipated and prepared for the challenges that will be posited by the opposition. I expect speakers to understand the key points that must be stressed in their case. If a speaker reads from a sheet and it is clear that they are unfamiliar with the prepared case, they will not be as persuasive as a speaker that clearly understands the message they wish me to take from the round. I look for students that have prepared to challenge the opposition and do so in a precise, assertive (not aggressive) manner. If you present a plan or counterplan, I expect it to be transparent, solvent, and sustainable. I look for logical refutations delivered at strategic moments throughout the debate. Credit will be given to students that make use of stylistic devices. Lastly, I expect civility and etiquette throughout the entire round. Debate is not a screaming match; it is an opportunity to analyze two sides of an issue and attempt to persuade eloquently. I am honored to adjudicate and look forward to seeing what you bring to the podium.

I did PF for two years at Boston Latin School, and competed extensively in British Parliamentary debate, with some experience in American Parliamentary, at Sciences Po Paris and Columbia University.

I will flow on paper; speed is fine if not excessive. Please treat opposing arguments with charity and respect, and avoid offensive content.

I am most likely to vote for you if you extend arguments through the round and weigh their impacts comparatively with your opponent's.

Hi everyone! My name is Matthew and I’m a sophomore in Columbia College majoring in economics-mathematics. My debate experience primarily consists of undergraduate parliamentary debate, but I did a brief stint at the VBI debate camp and competed off and on in lay debate. Some general rules:

• High school debate has a lot of bells and whistles but I value core debate skills: round vision, weighing, warranting, logic, etc. If you’re going to run a super dense case, be prepared to actually engage with the warranting / arguments.
• I don’t read evidence in round because I’ll probably lose track of the round if I try. That being said, make your taglines and author names clear, and make your rebuttals clear as well. Don’t assume I have read your evidence when you make arguments.
• I have some familiarity with nat-circuit cases, like Ks and theory, but only so much, so if you run those make sure you clearly warrant and weigh points.
• The fastest speaking speed I can parse through is 2X speed on the Economist’s online magazine, so try not to go faster than that. I’ll still flow but you take substantial risk that I miss points.
• I’m partial to some cases more than others aka ECON. If you mention credit derivatives I will be very happy. I also really value creative cases, because that makes the round more fun and engaging.

Debate is meant to be a fun activity so don’t let competition get in the way of that! That being said, some find it more accessible than others, so always be respectful and trigger warn cases.

Go slow. Be clear. Be nice.

If you would like more, I have written detailed paradigms for each style I judge:

PF paradigm

Parli paradigm

Middle school paradigm

Hi, I debated for Syosset High School in Lincoln-Douglas for 4 years and graduated in 2019.

Note: It's been a while since I've debated/heard a round (~ 2 years). What this means is that while I'll try to be as technical and proficient as possible in my judging, I may not be up to date with the way arguments are run and I'll need a while to get used to your speed if you're fast. Please be clear!

General:

- Speed is fine - please ease into it and be CLEAR!!!!

- I’ll vote for any argument I understand that has a warrant that coherently justifies the claim/impact. Again, it's been a while since I've had these debates, but in high school, I was most comfortable with value criterion/framework, theory/T, and LARP debates, so I'd be better at evaluating these arguments (I was less comfortable with K and high theory debates). You can run anything you'd like (as long as it's explained clearly!!!), but just keep this in mind for your prefs.

Speaker Points: I’ll try to average a 28.5 and vary them based on strategy, efficiency, and argument quality. I won't change them based on what debate style you prefer. I’ll say clear/slow/loud as many times as necessary. Don’t be mean or rude, e.g. don’t spread or read tricks/theory/Ks against novices.

Have fun! Debate is a great activity, and it’s better when everyone is relaxed and has a good time. Feel free to ask me questions before the round if I’m missing anything here.

Conflicts: Hunter,Lynbrook, Scarsdale, Princeton DS,Byram Hills LG

Email: vjv2108@columbia.edu

I debated for 4 years in LD at Lynbrook High School in California and graduated in 2017. I qualified to the TOC twice and broke my senior year. The majority of my debates during high school revolved around theory util and kritiks but that doesn’t mean I won’t be effective at evaluating other types of debates, I’ll just have less background knowledge and experience resolving them so you’ll have to do more explanation. Please weigh and impact arguments that'll make the round so much easier for me to make a decision. I don’t know what type of judge I am but I am open to voting on p much any argument as long as it has a warrant that I can articulate in the rfd and explain the function of the argument in the round. This mean go for all your nontopical k affs, frivoulous theory and tricks but you still have to win them like any other argument. I default drop the debater, competing interps and no rvi but that's only if no other argument is made on either side. I still am figuring out speaker points but I tend reward people for being entertaining and creative with their strategies as well as for good execution and clarity of strategic vision in the round. Most importantly just have fun. I enjoyed debate a lot when I did it and hopefully you do too :)

I am a junior at Columbia majoring in history and public health, I've debated for 3 years now on the Columbia team doing a mix of Adapa/BP. I don't have any super specific debate preferences except I don't love theory. Please be respectful to your opponents in the round.

General Points:

1. No Spreading;

2. Signpost your arguments;

3. Sufficient warrant is needed;

4. Weighing your impacts against impacts from the other side; if you don't do it for me, I will have to make decision based on my own belief;

5. Creative and unique arguments are a plus; philosophical arguments are more than welcomed

Have fun:)

Please don't make me think I'm in a policy round.