I'm Andrew Chen and my son does LD debate. Although I don't require you to do these, it will make judging much easier and it will give you a bigger chance of winning. :-)

1. ABSOLUTELY NO SPREADING. If I cannot understand you, then I simply stop flowing and you'll probably lose.

2. Don't be too aggressive, or I'll have a bad impression of you.

3. Make sure to keep eye contact with me, especially during cross examination.

4. During cross examination, do not argue. If you want my ballot, you just need to prove your side is better than the other. There is no need to yell.

5. Make sure to cite your sources, or I'll think that you made them up.

6. I allow a 10-15 second grace period for the constructive and rebuttals. For cross examination, finish your question and I will allow the other person to answer that question.

7. At the end, you need to CLEARLY tell me why your side has won.

Make sure to shake hands with each other and me at the end of each debate.

IMPORTANT: DO NOT COME LATER THAN THE STARTING TIME UNLESS THERE IS A DELAY!!!

Having a well prepared case, being organized, and following these preferences will give you the biggest chance of winning!

I WILL NOT DISCLOSE!!!

GOOD LUCK! :)

I am a parent or lay judge, a low form of life just above single-cell.

In policy judging I pay attention to the stock issues.

I am interested in clashes and how they turn out, if the clash is substantive and is clearly connected to the resolution. I don't like judging rounds with no clashes where AFF and NEG talk past each other.

If you have a counterplan it must negate the resolution. If it is simply a better idea affirming the resolution, the round is simple for me - AFF wins because both sides are arguing AFF.

I favor claims with evidence. I prefer quantitative evidence to non-quantitative, and am open to hearing why your evidence is more on point than your opponent's.

I am open to kritik and theory but will reject most of it. I count frivolous and weak arguments (including kritik and theory that I think are very weak or far-fetched) as weighing in the opponent's favor, ie I don't simply discard them but view them as losses to that side.

An unanswered strong argument will influence me greatly. But, if you drop a very weak argument or element of an argument, particularly if your opponent made several arguments and you spent your time rebutting the more valid ones, I will mostly ignore the very weak argument and the fact that you dropped it.

I am open to some narrative but not to the exclusion of evidence etc.

I weigh ad hominem attacks including offensive diction as in the opponent's favor, or in extreme cases as deciding the round.

I am tolerant of going very slightly over time limits such as finishing a sentence but not more.

I flow; I am OK with moderate spreading but not 300wpm. I am also ok with persuasive speeds; in the case of persuasive debate I will weigh the argumentation, and will consider intonation, inflection, diction, clarity etc (along with artfulness of cross-ex) for speaker points but not for deciding the round.

I like signposting (remember I am just barely multi-cellular) and explicit linking. I will do my best to *not* fill in the blanks if there is a linkage you should have made, but didn't explicitly; I won't count it against you, but not for you either. When in doubt, draw the dotted line for me.

thanks for debating.

TLDR: You do you. I do what you tell me.

Disclaimer

I strive to judge like a "blank slate" while recognizing that I will never actually be one. Keep this in mind as you read the rest of this paradigm.

Email

carterhenman@gmail.com

If there is an email chain I will want to be on it. I would be glad to answer any questions you have.

Accommodations

Disclose as much or as little as you want to me or anyone else in the room. Either way, I am committed to making the debate rounds I judge safe and accessible.

Experience

I competed in LD in high school (2009-2013) in Wyoming and northern Colorado with some national circuit exposure.

I competed in policy at the University of Wyoming (2013-2018) and qualified to the NDT twice. I loved reading complicated courts affirmatives, bold impact turns, and Ks with specific and nuanced justifications for why they are competitive with the aff. I wish I had had the courage to go for theory in the 2AR more often. I studied (mostly analytic) philosophy and some critical disability theory to earn my bachelor's degree.

Style: agnostic.

All debate is performative. I can be persuaded that one performance is contingently more valuable (ethically, aesthetically, educationally, etc.) than another, but it would be arbitrary and unethical on my part to categorically exclude any particular style.

That being said, I am not agnostic when it comes to form. An argument has a claim, a warrant, and an impact. I do not care how you give me those three things, but if you do not, then you have not made an argument and my RFD will probably reflect that. This cuts in many directions: I hate K overviews that make sweeping ontological claims and then describe implications for the case without explaining why the original claim might be true; I equally detest when anyone simply asserts that "uniqueness determines the direction of the link".

Organization matters. However, I do not think organization is synonymous with what a lot of people mean when they say "line by line". It means demonstrating a holistic awareness of the debate and effectively communicating how any given argument you are making interacts with your opponents'. Therefore, when adjudicating whether something is a "dropped argument" I will parse between (a) reasonably predictable and intelligibly executed cross-applications and (b) superficial line-by-line infractions. Giving conceptual labels to your arguments and using your opponents' language when addressing theirs can help you get on the right side of this distinction.

Evidence matters. A lot. Again, I do not mean what a lot of people mean when they talk about evidence in debate. It is about a lot more than cards. It is also about personal experience and preparation, historical consciousness, and even forcing your opponents to make a strategic concession (by the way, I flow cross-examination). I read cards only when I have to and tend to defer to what was said in the debate regarding how to interpret them and determine their quality. Thus, I will hold the 2NR/2AR to relatively high thresholds for explanation.

I flow on paper. This means I need pen time. It also magnifies the importance of organization since I cannot drag and drop cells on a spreadsheet. Because I flow the "internals" of evidence (cards or otherwise), you will benefit enormously from clarity if you are fast and will not necessarily be at a disadvantage against very fast teams if you are slow but efficient with your tag lines.

Substance: mostly agnostic.

Hate and disrespect are never conducive to education and growth. I presume that the need to disincentivize abusive speech and other behaviors overrides my desire to reward skill with a ballot, but it never hurts for debaters to remind me of why this is true if you are up to it. This includes card clipping and other ethics violations. In general, I will stop the round if I notice it on my own. Otherwise, you have two options: (1) stop the round, stake the debate on it (you may lose if you are wrong, but they will certainly lose and receive no speaker points if you are right), and let me be final arbiter or (2) keep the issue alive throughout the debate, but leave open the option to go for substance. I think this is the most fair way for me to address this as an educator, but please do not think option two gives you license to go for "a risk of an ethics violation" in the final rebuttals or to read a generic "clipping bad" shell in every one of your 1NC/2ACs. That's icky.

There is no right way to affirm the topic. There are wrong ways to affirm the topic. I can be sold on the notion that the aff did it the wrong way. I can also be convinced that the wrong way is better than the right way. It may yet be easiest to convince me that your counter-interpretation of the right way to affirm the topic is just as good as, or better than, theirs.

Theory is mis- and underutilized. You get to debate the very rules of your debate! Current conventions regarding negative fiat, for example, will inevitably make me smirk when you read "no neg fiat." Still, if you invest enough thought, before and during and after debates (not merely regurgitating somebody else's blocks at an unintelligible rate), into any theory argument I am going to be eager to vote on it.

I ultimately like to vote for the TEAM THAT "MAKES THE WORLD A BETTER PLACE" at the end of the debate.

I have judged LD and PF in the past 2 years and like both formats.

1. Talking fast is fine. I'm also good with spread if I have your speech doc.

2. I am okay with you running kritiks as long as you warrant, link, and impact it very well. I prefer you stick to case debate because I understand that better and think it's more educational, but if you're really passionate about your "alternative" argument then by all means run it. You'll just really need to explain to me what's going on or you'll lose me. Exception: I think some form of arguing for ending the world as a K is pretty OP. Interpret that as you will. No K AFFs, these are not topical.

3. I'm 100% tabula rasa. Act as if I'm a blank slate on the topic.

4. Tech > truth. I will accept anything you run without intervention. Two exceptions:

a. if your opponent rightfully calls out a bigoted argument (i.e., something racist, homophobic, sexist, transphobic, islamaphobic, anti semitic, etc), I will view it as such and may drop you depending on the severity and definitely tank your speaker points.

b. if there are conflicting pieces of evidence (LD or PF), and no one explains why their card should be preferred, I will call both and make my decision on which one to weigh more based on the merits of each (recency, methodology, scope, etc). Even if cards are weighed, I still might call both if I have doubts.

I appreciate well constructed arguments. I consider cross-X sessions also in my evaluation, so be clear when you answer and respectful when you question.

Please respond to all of your opponents arguments with proper justifications. Have proper evidences in support. Be truthful. If I find any indication of falsifying any evidence, that's a disqualification.

I am open to (and love) hearing GOOD COUNTER-PLANS, run'em if ya got'em.

I AM NOT TABULA RASA. Trust me, I don't want to be that judge that intervenes, but if you say something really untrue, like the sky is red, and I look outside and it is clearly blue, then I will catch it

I prefer quality of argumentation over quantity. GIVE ME GOOD VOTERS at the end of the debate. I WANT TO VOTE FOR THE BEST ARGUMENT not a bunch of minor points that didn't get discussed much.

Off-time roadmaps are OK. Please stay within the time limits for your speeches.

Be well behaved and respectful to your opponent(s) and enjoy the debate rounds, good luck!

Email: Surbhi.kochhar@gmail.com

I'd vote for students who are knowledgeable and have researched well and speak in relevance to the discussion, instead of simply reading out from a paper. Please try to ensure that I understand what you are saying.

Please speak at a moderate pace. Please say your speeches as though you are explaining something to me about a topic that I am not much aware of. Honestly, I have very little experience on the topic and I have not researched on the topic like a debater. So, please explain to me with evidence and name it clearly. If I cannot understand you then it will be difficult for me to vote you.

For speaker points, strong assertive voice, clarity of speech are important. All the best,

I'm open to hear all types of arguments and prefer to vote for teams that have the better analysis and impact calculus.  Don't assume me to be an expert on every peice of literature that exists.  You need to explain how your arguments function in the round.  I keep a decent flow, but dont sacrifice clarity for speed-it a surefire way to lose a round.  Trust me I have been there before, in my competitve days.  

Ultimately the round is yours, everything is debatable.  Have fun!

I have been judging LD and PF debates for about 6 years. I do flow cases so it will be great if you could provide me with an off-time roadmap and signpost your arguments. I judge based on tech>truth.

It is important to have a clear framework, so make sure that you state that this is contention 1, subpoint 1 etc. Please extend your arguments and make sure that you have cards for your evidence since I do read them. I like clash so you have to defend your contentions during cross examination.

Please be respectful to your opponent during cross examination. Do let your opponent finish their question or sentence. I will sign my ballot the second that I hear any discriminatory language.

Have fun, do your best and good luck!

General Guidelines: Speak clearly. Avoid spreading. I flow the arguments reasonably. Signposts are appreciated.

Don'ts:

Don't bring new arguments/refutations in your last speech unless it is to address the opponent's previous speech.

Don't overstate (e.g opponent don't have evidence or didn't address - if they actually have or did) - especially in final speech of the debate (when your opponent doesn't have chance to respond).

Winner: Main decision factor for me to decide on who wins is based upon which contentions are remaining (and their impact). If that does not decide a clear winner, how convincing the arguments were (including evidence), how well you understand the case (both sides - to defend yours and weaken opponents), debating skills (cross ex, rebuttal, summary) will play a role.

Speaker Points: I assign speaker points based according to tournament guidelines.

Feedback: I want to really help the contestants to do better in their remaining rounds and future debates. So I give feedback after the rounds orally (unless time pressed) and don't disclose results unless needed.

Parent judge, please don't speak too fast and ensure you articulate your points clearly. Thanks and have fun participants!

I am a lay judge. My scoring criteria are:

1) Arguments - how strong are arguments, how well they are developed and supported by evidence.

2) Delivery - how compelling, fluent and practiced it is vs. reading from a script.

3) Engagement - how engaged is a debater in taking and giving POIs, attacking weak points of opposition and defending own arguments.

I am a lay judge. - Judged only a few tournament

please dont spread I like to follow the flow

Keep your own timer

hi all, i'm sim (she/her). currently a second year NPDA and NFA-LD competitor, i also competed in high school (mostly for Congress) at the TOC level. a little bit about my judging preferences:

parli-

1) i evaluate the flow. you can read almost any argument you want and i will do my best to ignore my biases and treat debate like the game it is.

a. at the top, this should go without saying, but don't be rude, don't be a bigot or a bully. i hate judge intervention, but you doing any of the above is grounds for intervention.

b. for speaks, i think i'm a pretty fair judge. i evaluate not based on your articulation necessarily, but on the weight of your arguments and strats. if you want better speaks, feel free to drop a giulia tofana reference somewhere lmaoo.

c. please clash. implied clash is not good enough. i won't connect the dots for you.

d. collapse. debate is like a bell curve. it should be at its most wide right in the middle, but narrow it down at the end. tell me exactly what to vote on and why.

e. impact calculus. don't forget your impacts and weighing. i don't care about your argument if it has no impacts.

e. signpost! signpost, signpost, signpost.

f. i protect against new arguments in the last two speeches, but make sure to call them out anyways.

2) speed: i can hang with most speed, so go as fast as you want. i just ask that you slow down for interps/plan texts/rob's and/or provide them to me written out. don't sacrifice clarity in favor of speed. if i can't understand you because there is no clarity and you're going 1000wpm, it might not get on the flow. in that case, tough. also, please don't try to spread out obviously inexperienced debaters. you shouldn't have to resort to speed to outdebate a novice. be inclusive!

3) theory: i'd like to think i'm pretty comfortable with most topicality and framework arguments. i'm down to vote on condo bad args, down for MG theory, don't love RVIs, default to competing interps over reasonability like 99% of the time, will totally vote on potential abuse. frivolous theory is so fun to watch so feel free to run it -- but know that you probably have to collapse to it 100% to win my vote there.

a. ivi's: unless its an ivi about an equity issue, you have to do a lot of work to convince me to vote here. this means reading an ivi as a proper shell, not as a last ditch one-line effort when you're losing on theory.

4) kritiks: i'll listen to whatever you want to read, but please explain the lit to me like i'm a five year old. i understand some authors (marx, kant, fanon, tuck and yang), but for most of them i'm probably lost. i'm not much of a k debater myself, but i'll do my best to evaluate.

--

LD
pls share the speechdrop. for the love of debate, don't forget to flash ALL the positions you're reading and don't drop the wrong doc. i am not familiar with the topics or what people are reading rn, so telling me your aff is the most common aff on the circuit in response to t won't really be helpful.

other than that, i generally evaluate ld in a fairly similar style to parli.

1. I am not comfortable with spreading. Speaking fast is alright as long as clarity isn't sacrificed.

2. I expect respect between competitors. I also expect competitors to not involve any personal dealings during the debate.

3. When debating, please assume I don't know anything about the subject. So, a clear and focused presentation will always get my attention.

LD: If you are a typical circuit debater, do us both a favor and strike me. If, however, you run cogent, warranted, impacted, and meaningful arguments that you understand, I'm your judge. I can flow/understand relatively fast debate, so that's not an issue as long as your diction is clear. Theory arguments should be a rare exception in rounds and only if one side does something so egregious (like having a standard that the other side has no way of accessing) that the debate can't logically proceed in a fair manner. I will not vote on offensive theory and if your opponent runs an education voter against you if you do, I'll vote for your opponent. I'm not a solely "traditional" judge in the sense that I'm fine with Ks and alternative debating, and I believe that the value/criterion structure muddles more rounds than it clears up but I'm OK with it and most of the rounds I judge have V/Cs in them.

Congress: I was a legislative staffer in the US House of Representatives and believe that Congressional Debate should be a good training ground for future public servants. Thus, I take the event seriously and consider it more of a debate than a speech event. I flow and I look for clash, and both analytical and empirical warrants. It's about quality of presentation over quantity for me, so don't feel obligated to get in the maximum number of speeches unless they're good. Decorum, integrity, and leadership are important to your gaining high ranking on my ballot.

Hello, I'm a parent judge and I've judged a tournaments over the past 2 years. Please don't speak at a fast pace, a medium pace would be good. Please provide clarity in your arguments and articulate your value clearly, for me to be able to follow along. I'm judging on speed or number of arguments, rather how strong and compelling are your arguments.

I have been judging for over three years and have judged, in addition to preliminary rounds, many ellimination rounds at Berkley, SCU and Stanford etc . I prefer clear and steady tone, distinct articulation of contention(s) and related sub-points.

EXPERIENCE

- Judged for PF one year and ongoing LD judge for 4 years

- Yes, I flow and yes, I'm okay with speed but not so much spreading

PERFORMANCE

- Signpost for rebuttals otherwise I won't track it on my flow

- Substantiate your claims with logic and reasoning, not just throw a card at me with no explanation or analysis

- Do not spread or attempt to talk really fast if you cannot because I will flow what I hear, not what I think I hear

- Have clear links to impact and uniqueness is good

NOTES

- All feedback will go into the RFD not given after round unless elims

- Don't be rude or condescending to your opponents

2024- 2/4/2024

I'm not just any judge; I'm a ”cool” judge with a journey dating back to 2000. So, when you step into this arena, know that you're dealing with someone who's witnessed the ebb and flow of the debate currents over the last 2 decades. I am old.

General:
Yes you can go fast if you want to, just be clear, and loud enough for me to hear. I will be flowing along and won’t look at doc’s or cards unless warranted by y’all. I will do my best to time with you.

World Crafting:

Your task is to construct a compelling narrative, competing worlds, both sides have a world to offer, you sell it.

Argument Framing:

Frame your arguments as pillars that support the world you've built. Your job is to make me see the strategic significance of your narrative. Don't just present; show me why your world outweighs the others.

The K:

I have a soft spot, but only if done well. Critical acumen is your secret weapon. Integrate it seamlessly into your world, making it a key component of your narrative. I also am not a fan of non black POC running afropress, or similar k's, so please don’t. Other than that, no issues with K’s.

Theory:

Preemptive theory is unnecessary imo unless the topic warrants it, but most debates do not need a theory most of the time, but it is your round, so do you.

Tech vs. Truth:

Truth sometimes trumps tech, and in other rounds, tech might take the lead. But what matters most is how well your crafted world stands.

Rudeness is a No-Go:

Discourteous vibes won't elevate your speaks. For real

Impact Calculus and Critical Thinking:

Impact calculus is the key to your world's strategic significance. Dive into critical thinking, showing why your crafted universe is not just valid but important.

Authentic Knowledge Over Blocks:

Don't just parrot blocks; show genuine understanding. Bring knowledge to the forefront, not just rehearsed lines.

Voting Issues:

Present me with clean voting issues – make it glaringly apparent why your world is the one I should endorse. THERE IS NO 3NR. So please make it definitive in the last rebuttal

TL;DR

Be clear

Weigh

Impact calculus

liberal.cynic.yo@gmail.com

>If you want to add me to the chain or send hate mail.<

2023
i will flow to the best of my ability i have the carpal tunnel but can still keep up
spreading is only chill if you are clear
I don't need to be on the email chain but here it is if you feel like adding me anyway
liberal.cynic.yo@gmail.com
I am indifferent to the kind of argument you are choosing to use, i care if you understand it

ask questions

My paradigm was lost to the void, who knows what it said...

for long beach 2018
i'll make this, and fix it later

1. yes, i flow

2. yes, speed is fine

3. flashing isn't prep (unless it takes wayy to long )

4. i look at the round as competing narratives, i do not care what you run as long as you know what it is you are running

5. ask questions