Hi, I'm Evan, I go to University College London and I study Politics, Sociology, and East European Studies, I did debate for 3 and a half years in highschool qualed for TOC my senior year.

PF-

Boring technical stuff-

>include me in all evidence exchanges please:)

>Tabula rasa (everyone says this but built different I guess), I will never be the type of judge to rattle off a rebuttal during my decision, if it wasn't said in round, it won't affect my judgement, no matter my opinions on topic/argument/political stance

>Flow/flex judge, can handle some speed, that being said speaker points may lower if you're not clear.

>better/more clear arguments always better than speed though

>I much prefer one really well thought out, explained, and carded response to 10 blippy ones with no warranting, don't just flood the flow because you can

>Progressive debate is fine but don't be abusive, don't read theory unless theres actual abuse, will buy disclosure if done well and opponents are running a squirly case, will definitely buy paraphrase, will 100% buy any theory about things that ruin the space of debate for some(TW, excessive gendered language, etc.)

>that being said, progressive debate will make your job as a debater significantly harder, if you think you can win progressive arguments you might as well run normal ones if you just want to win the round

>Must extend through every speech, if not extended through summary will consider it dropped especially on impacts

>Please don't bring up an impact, statistic, or voter in final focus if it wasn't in summary

>Impact calculus is very important but 75% of the time won't be the reason I vote a team up, especially if its done without case extension/defense

>that being said if i'm evaluating 2 arguments extremely closely and one had impact calc and the other didn't I will always vote for the former

>Tech>Truth most of the time, don't run obviously wrong args tho

>Please run unique or interesting cases, stock with spikes or weird warrants are fire too

>aggressive during cross is fine, however don't be a jerk, don't speak over your opponent, don't be rude

>don't be sexist, homophobic, racist, transphobic, instant 0 speaks and most likely vote down, debate is supposed to be a safe space

>will call for evidence even if not brought up during round only if it seems extremely sus, if you want me to look at evidence I will post round, say it in speech and i'll evaluate it as need be, it's the debaters job to recognize sus evidence, not mine

>please both quantify impacts as well as actualize them, "GDP skyrockets" (tell me how much) "GDP rises by 200%" (better/fine, but what does this mean for people, or government, or one specific area) "GDP rises by 200% meaning every mom in America can by 2 more jugs of chocolate milk" (perfect)

-fun "quirky" stuff-

>I don't care what you do in round as long as it isn't blatantly disrespectful to your opponent, illegal, or something that could get me in trouble

>cursing is fine but no need to over do it

>TKO, if you think your opponent has literally no paths to the ballot you can call technical knockout, 30W if right, 25L if wrong

Congress:

>please don't be boring

>clash is an instant way to get my attention

>if you bring up the same points as everyone else don't expect to be well ranked

>if you use a prewritten speech late session that doesn't respond to anyone else don't expect to be well ranked

>if you read off of a laptop or ipad don't expect to be well ranked
>don't be obnoxious with parli pro

>funny intros are enjoyable

>speeches should be atleast 2:30

>use logic or evidence in your speech, make actual arguments please

If you have any questions email me:) i sound mean but i'm not, I just would rather express what I explicitly want in a round so there's no guesswork

evanbeck2021@gmail.com

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

Be nice to your fellow debaters.

Highlights

Email: eric.clarke2019@gmail.com + swwpolicy@gmail.com

The 1AC needs to be in my inbox at the start time.

Good for Ks and policy. I prefer policy, but I'm fine with whatever.

I don't love evaluating theory debates to resolve the round, but I will. More below.

Love framework v K AFFs+ T v policy AFFs. Love = like hearing them, not that I'll automatically vote for it. Most good K AFFs have offense to framework embedded in the 1AC, so chances are if you hide behind framework without engaging case you'll lose terribly.

Good with speed. If you're unclear and I don't catch something, it is what it is.

Don't steal prep. If a timer isn't running, you shouldn't be typing, writing, or going over speech docs. I'm not usually pressed about watching debaters, but some people are so egregious about stealing prep that I can't help but notice.

Please track your time.

Experience:

Debated policy throughout high school and college (Georgetown). The strategy was usually policy, but I have some experience going for the K at both levels. I also have some experience judging PF and LD at the high school and middle school levels.

General:

If there are any unanswered questions, definitely feel free to ask me before the round starts, and I'm always happy to give follow-up comments after rounds if you shoot me an email.

Make sure acronyms are full written out somewhere in the card.

I'll usually be paying attention during cross to help wrap my head around arguments. Cross usually helps me contextualize the arguments being made (especially true for kritiks). Cross is binding. Cross is also where you can get a decent bump to speaks - go in with a strategy.

I won't read your evidence at the end of the round unless I'm instructed to. Debate is a communicative activity, therefore you need to be able to verbally convey the key warrants in a piece of evidence to me. If I have to read the evidence myself to find the warrants, you haven't done your job. I will also read evidence if there's an evidence indict. Please make evidence idnicts. A lot of people try to get away with reading terrible evidence, and you shouldn't allow it.

Kritiks:

I typically enjoy judging k debates. I can be on board with the concept and ideas of most kritiks, but you need to be able to explain it in a way where I understand all of the mechanisms and nuances tying it to the aff. At the end of the round, I want to be able to put the thesis of the kritik into my own words.

I'm not the biggest fan of kritiks that are gimmicky, BUT I will vote on it if you execute and do everything you need to on the flow. If you have to ask if your K is gimmicky, chances are it is.

Framework:

Absolutely love hearing framework speeches. Easily my favorite position in debate to talk about and listen to speeches on.

While I enjoy framework, know that neg teams won't have a leg up on the affirmative. They still need to debate it well. My personal feelings are irrelevant during the round. What ultimately matters is what both teams do on the flow.

Theory

I have miscellaneous thoughts about various issues. If a particular issue isn't listed, it's because I don't have strong feelings about it. None of these are set in stone (except condo). These are just starting points I have when thinking about these theory arguments, but I can always be convinced to change my mind. Just keep these predispositions in mind if you decide to go for the position.

a.) PICs bad - lean neg but can be convinced otherwise depending on the PIC.

b.) Process CPs bad - lean AFF but can be convinced otherwise.

c.) Condo - three conditional positions is where I become open to voting on condo.

d.) Perf con - neg gets multiple worlds + contradictory advocacies are fine as long as it's resolved by the block.

e.) Disclosure - I think it's silly unless the other team is genuinely being really shady with their disclosure practices.

Misc:

When thinking about your big-picture strategy in rounds, think about what would be the easiest thing for me to pull the trigger on. I love it when teams make my life easier by going for the most strategically sound combination of arguments at the end of the round.

Does fed follow-on mean states links to politics? Talk to me about it depending on the DA.

Tend to lean tech over truth

I prefer teams go for substance rather than spraying each flow with theory arguments and hoping one of them gets dropped.

Please be ready to put together and send a card doc that only includes the cards you think are relevant at the end of the round. I'll usually ask after the 2AR if I need one, but more often than not, I'm fine.

Speaker points:

Hopefully, nobody needs this reminder, but don't be rude. If you're blatantly disrespectful to the opponents and/or your partner, I will tank your speaks. I get that ethos is big for some teams, but that doesn't excuse being a terrible person.

Let your partner speak for themselves. Jumping in on occasion is understandable and expected. However, don't jump in to the point that you make me think your partner doesn't know what they're doing or talking about. More of a pet peeve than anything else.

he/him

siddhantdanave@gmail.com

Spread:

-You can go as fast as you can maintain clarity>speed so I can understand what you're saying. Going way too fast can make me lose some things you're saying and don't put it on my flow, so do that at your own risk.

Weighing:

-Don't just state your impact, constantly tell me why your impacts are better/have more weight on this round than the impacts of the opposite team. Without weighing, it's gonna be difficult for you to get my vote.

Signpost:

-Signposting is way too important for me to know where to locate your answers to the other team arguments. It makes it easier for you and makes it easier for me to flow.

Some extra stuff:

-State warrants as much as you state impacts.

-I like frameworks but please, if you're going to have one, don't drop it in the middle of the debate, constantly restate it.

-Have fun guys and any questions, don't hesitate to ask me before the round starts.

Hello Debaters,

I've been judging debate for last 3 years. I enjoy good factual debates, professional courtesies and sportsmanship. I love to see teams challenge each other on facts and evidences rather than just through sound. Tell me how and why should I vote a particular way.

Add me on the your Google Doc or Cards: cmu2010@gmail.com

For urgent issues, you can SMS me at +1 408 391 9027

I judge based on the arguments that are presented in the round throughout the speeches and how each argument is weighed by each team. I prefer that you speak clearly so I can understand.

I am a parent judge who has been involved in debate for almost two years now. I am a lay judge, but I do flow. I don’t mind speed, as long as you speak clearly. Try to avoid spreading if possible. Please be respectful to your opponents: I am much less likely to vote for you if you are rude during the round. Good luck!

Please speak slowly and clearly.

Please be respectful to your opponents.

Prefer Crossfire to be question and answer rather than arguing.

Hey! I'm your judge.

Debated for Plano West. I competed a good amount on the national circuit and did fairly well. Ended up qualifying to the TOC my senior year in PF. I also have a bit of LD experience. Currently a junior computer science major at Texas A&M University.

Key Points:

1] HERE IS HOW I EVALUATE EVERY SINGLE ROUND:

Which impact/layer is the most important in the round?

Who is winning offense under it?

If you are winning offense under the most important layer whether that is on ur case or not. You have just won the round.

2] I’m not a perfect judge but I like to think of myself as flow, tab, Tech > Truth.

3] Run anything you want (except death or oppression good, 30 speaker points theory, burden of rejoinder is bad, following speech times bad) as long as it has a claim, warrant, and impact. The more nuanced ur args are, the more warranting I'd like to hear.

4] pls weigh. I'm begging you.

5] If you extend something it must have a warrant.

6] Speed is fine but if you’re gonna go policy fast pls send a speech doc so I can get all ur args down. Err on the side of going as slow as you can while spreading AND ENUNCIATE bc there is a greater chance I will miss something the faster you talk. I'll yell "clear" 3x before I just stop flowing.

7] Judge grilling and post rounding for educational purposes are good. Just know that I will not change my ballot after the round is over and if your questions turn into hateful bashing towards me or your opponents, I will happily tank your speaks.

8] Every offensive argument should be underneath some sort of framing/weighing mechanism I can vote off of (this is primarily for LD). If you just read an apriori that says affirm means to agree and since you agree you win. That's not good enough but I will 110% vote on those arguments if they are supplemented by some sort of weighing or framing argument. To clarify: Why should definitional burdens be the top layer of the debate? If you can answer that question, run whatever you like. As long as you explicitly tell me why the apriori is actually an apriori and comes before everything else.

9] Have fun.

For PF: defense from first rebuttal is sticky unless it is responded to. But needs to extend turns. Second rebuttal should frontline.

For LD: Run whatever you want. However, if you run anything philosophically oriented, please warrant your arguments heavily. I should be able to tell the other team with confidence what I am voting for.

Defaults (you can change ANY of these): presumption and permissibility negate. No RVIs and eval with competing interps on Theory. The default framework is a cost-benefit analysis (For PF).

hi! I did PF in high school. Here's some things about my judging.

1. Do whatever you want. I suggest you frontline in second rebuttal, but I don't really care. Just don't be racist, sexist, or otherwise problematic.

2. I want to make the debate as accessible and fun as possible. If there's anything you want to try or that you've seen in other rounds or in other people's paradigms that seems fun, we can try it as long as your opponents are okay with it.

3. My knowledge of K lit is very limited. I'm down to judge a K round but act like I don't know anything.

4. Debate is meant to be a communication activity. While I will judge any style of debating, I will give speaker points based on your communication skills. I will only vote for an argument if it’s warrant is clearly extended. It’s your job to make sure I catch everything you want me to flow throughout the round.

5. If you think I made a bad decision or just have questions, please feel free to ask me after the round (just don't be too aggressive). I'd rather have a discussion than have you walking away feeling unsatisfied.

Also please weigh. Please. Feel free to ask me any other questions!

4 Years of Public Forum on the National Circuit.

I’m a freshman at UC Davis, studying econ.

My paradigm is fairly simple, tech over truth. I don’t want to intervene. I presume neg, but if you make a case for why I should presume differently in round I have no issue doing so.

Make sure to extend warrants throughout the round if you want me to care.

If you want a path to the ballot you should weigh your arguments well in the second half of the round (yes in summary too). Additionally, if you weigh I expect you to compare mechanisms. I won't know who to vote for if both teams are winning a mechanism, explain why I should evaluate magnitude over probability, or whatever.

Crossfire can either be really fun or a waste of everyone’s time. Try to make it fun! If a big concession is made in cross bring it up. If both teams want to, feel free to turn grand cross into 3 additional minutes of prep. Track time on your own.

Speed is fine just send me the doc please. If you can spread off the dome that's sick, but I might clear you just bc I don't want to do you the disservice of not getting everything you say.

Defense is sticky

Theory/K:

I’ve read theory in round before, but I’m a realist and know I wasn’t great at running it (I had a really good partner though so it was okay). Feel free to read theory in round, but bear in mind I’m not the best judge, but I’ll try my best just for you! Never read a K or had it read against me, that I can remember. Treat me like idk anything about Ks because I don’t know much.

Speaks:

I think speaks are arbitrary and don’t account for bias so everyone gets at least a 29, but still do the things I've listed to get a 30 to make me happy. I’ll buy a 30 speaks spike, so read it (lmk if you want me to send one to you). If you say anything racist, sexist, ableist, homophobic, etc… I will give you as low speaks as I possibly can and drop you. I will also note what got you the auto-drop in the rfd.

If you reference Derrick Rose in a positive manner in round I will give you a 30. This has to be a deep-cut though. It can’t be the first thing off wikipedia. I want you to prove you know what’s up.

If you quickly reference Pro-flat earther propaganda (in a joking manner) I will give you a 30. Anyone who does this sufficiently will be immortalized in my paradigm as a “Flat Earth All-Star.”

Message me on fb if you have questions.

I’ll disclose unless there isn’t enough time or if I am specifically told not to.

I’m a new and relatively inexperienced judge.

In online debates especially, it would be good if you could speak at a measured pace (~220 wpm) as it facilitates my understanding as well as note taking.

Always include me in the email chain'

Email: israel.debate.email@gmail.com

Affiliations: LAMDL - CSUN

Speaker Points:

I do not disclose speaker points. Overall your speaks will be determined on the quality of speech.

Spreading:

I am okay with spreading, clarity/speed.

Basics rundown for Policy

Every argument/off case will be flowed the same way. What I mean by that the way that you will win a flow is the consistency of your argument and the persuasion of your speech. I have no "bias" or preference of arguments or type of Affs. For the record CP's and Theory arguments are going to be evaluated the same way. I separated them for the sake of alphabetization.

Case: Traditional Affs; I am very familiar with many kinds of Affs (i.e. Hard right and soft left Affs.) You should know the content of your Aff. I have no preference on the type of Aff or content itself. If you persuade me enough to vote for you through out the round then the ballot will ultimately go to the Aff. I run "traditional affs" in LD and have been a USFG centered in high school - still need why youre net better.

CP- Remember that not all Cp's are plan-inclusive and to me at least all you have to prove is that your method solves better than the aff. Its more credible with Net-benefits and show me solvency deficit.

DA- Uniqueness... Link.... Internal Links.... Impacts. Best way and easier for me to flow as a judge. If you don't use the DA as a net-benefit for the CP then I will always think the sqou. is being advocated as well besides the CP.

Kritiks: In this flow I really need to see how your alt and how the Aff links. I'm fine with performance, narrative, etc. If the K is ultimately not ran properly as in the explanation of Links, Impacts, Alt, Alt solves, etc. I will not vote for the K.

Topicality For Traditional Affs: On this flow there should be the most clash on. I need to know why and how the aff is not topical and why it matters to me as a judge.

You decide your fate of the ballot. Tell me why I should vote your way and I feel that you did a good job on executing that then I'll sign the ballot to you.

pasdebate@gmail.com

Subject the email chain - Tournament Name Round # - Aff Team AFF vs Neg Team NEG

Debated at Maine East (2016-2020, TOC Circuit) and the University of Pittsburgh (2020-2023, NDT Qual)

I will boost speaker points if you follow @careerparth on tiktok, bring (vegetarian) food/snacks, and end the debate as fast as possible.

I took most of this paradigm from Reed Van Schenck:

Career wise, my arguments of preference were more critical (Afropessimism, Settler Colonialism, Capitalism, and the likes). I enjoy judging clash debates, policy vs critical. Traditional policy debaters should take note of my lack of experience in policy v policy debates and rank me very low on their judging preferences.

The one thing you should know if you want my ballot is this: If you say something, defend it. I mean this in the fullest sense: Do not disavow arguments that you or your partner make in binding speeches and cross-examination periods, but rather defend them passionately and holistically. If you endorse any strategy, you should not just acknowledge but maintain its implications in all relevant realms of the debate. The quickest way to lose in front of me is to be apprehensive about your own claims.

When in doubt, referring to the judging philosophies of the following folks will do you well: Micah Weese, Reed Van Schenck, Calum Matheson, Alex Holguin, & Alex Reznik

Everything below this line is a proclivity of mine that can be negotiated through debate:

I think that debate is a game with pedagogical and political implications. As such, I see my role as a judge as primarily to determine who won the debate but also to facilitate the debaters' learning. Everything can be an impact if you find a way to weigh it against other impacts, this includes procedural fairness. When my ballot is decided on the impact debate, I tend to vote for whoever better explains the material consequence of their impact. Use examples. Examples can help to elucidate (the lack of) solvency, establish link stories, make comparative arguments, and so many more useful things. They are also helpful for establishing your expertise on the topic. All thing said, at the end of the day, I will adapt to your argument style.

I dislike judges who exclude debaters because of what they decide to read in a debate round, I will NOT do that as long as you don't say anything racist, sexist, etc.

Speaker points are arbitrary. I tend to give higher speaker points to debaters who show a thorough understanding of the arguments they present. I am especially impressed by debaters who efficiently collapse in the final rebuttals. I will boost speaker points if rebuttals are given successfully with prep time remaining and/or off the flow!

Public Forum Debate

The faster you end the debate, the higher your speaks.

I am a flow-centric judge on the condition your arguments are backed with evidence and are logical. My background is in policy debate, but regardless of style, and especially important in PF, I think it's necessary to craft a broad story that connects what the issue is, what your solution is, and why you think you should win the debate.

I like evidence qualification comparisons and "if this, then that" statements when tied together with logical assumptions that can be made. Demonstrating ethos, confidence, and good command of your and your opponent's arguments is also very important in getting my ballot.

I will like listening to you more if you read smart, innovative arguments. Don't be rude, cocky, and/or overly aggressive especially if your debating and arguments can't back up that "talk." Not a good look.

Give an order before your speech

I debated policy through all four years of high school (one nats qual, regular circuit debate) so I'm most comfortable judging that debate format. I do have some experience in PF, but have never debated LD.

For CX:

Go as fast/slow as you want - all I ask is that you slow down a bit on tags/analytics

I'm a tab judge, so I'll listen to everything. However, here are some specifics:

K's - I understand them, but don't expect me to vote on high theory stuff unless it's explained well in-round. I haven't been in a ton of K debates, so this is one of my weaker areas.

Theory - See above, I will vote on it, but don't have much experience with it. You'll need to overcome a high threshold to get me to vote the other team down on theory.

T - Running T is good and Not a Time Suck. Not my favorite argument but an important one nonetheless.

CP's - Counterplns are good, but I'm open to AFF arguments that specific kinds are abusive. There needs to be a clear net benefit and it has to be competitive. Perms are convincing if there's no functional or textual competition or if there's no net benefit.

DA's - I'll vote on Disads all day. There should be clear impact work in the block or 2NR.

I will vote on any unconventional argument (Wipeout, SPARK, etc.) as long as it's debated well.

PF:

You can spread if you want. As I said earlier, I don't have a whole lot of experience with Public Forum, so I'll judge it based on the quality of argumentation.

Here's my email for any other questions (please add me to the email chain): shashwat@usc.edu

I am a parent judge that has one year of experience. I prefer competitors speaking at medium pace. I prefer people having arguments supported by both evidence and logic. I don't give verbal feedback nor disclose. I will also dock speaker points if you are rude.

please include on email chain srthomas@alumni.berklee.edu

I did not competitively debate during my scholastic career, but have participated in moot courts and have been part of deliberative bodies.

I have strong background in history and Political science as well as many of the modern political theories and philosophies.

That said I put value on logical reasoning and command of your argument above all else. Quality if your argument over quantity of arguments or points made. Speak clearly and try to keep jargon to a minimum.

I value those whose arguments are well composed and logically structured and can control clash.

Caution on K, it has a place but not in some events. I look quite dimly at Ks in LD that fail to link to the resolution.

Also be nice, if you try to intimidate or otherwise game opponents I will take a dim view on it . Be courteous, and don't try to steal prep, I will not look favorably on that. Be ready to act or announce prep as soon previous speaker ends or cross is complete.

I am a flay judge in that I have lots of experience judging, but I'm not an actual flow judge. I know how the debate process works, and I've judged in over 15 tournaments.

Good rhetoric and lay appeal and I will most likely vote for you. If you don't know something or are otherwise unsure/unready for something just fake it until you make it; I like seeing confidence.

I will not flow cross-ex but I will be paying attention. If you bring something up in cross-ex and want me to flow it, remember to say it in speech as well. Emphasize important points with speech inflections, as well as bring up things you want me to remember/write down several times. Don't put down your opponent (like in LD) and don't bully during cross-ex, although remember to be assertive and stand up for your partner (during grand) if you have to.

Speech

It doesn't matter to me what you do while you speak, as long as you make eye contact regularly. Sit, stand, meditate, doesn't matter to me. Please try to signpost as much as possible, it really helps, and it makes it a lot easier to follow what you're saying. It also helps your speaks (now you're listening, huh?). Gesticulate, use ethos, pathos, logos, talk loud, whatever you have to do to get my attention and my vote (and high speaks).

Kritik

Since I'm not a professionally trained judge, I don't have any specific policy against K's, but don't expect me to go with your point of view without strong rhetoric. I must need to know exactly WHY their view on a policy is wrong, and WHY your take matters more. If I were you, I would not run a kritik.

Etiquette

Insulting your opponent is DIFFERENT FROM arguing with them. You can say the same thing by yelling as you can by assertively speaking to your opponent. Please do not argue/yell/bully your opponent. That is a sure way to lose speaks and maybe the entire round.

Speed

I, like the vast majority of other judges, will have an easier time listening and understanding to you if you speak slower. Note: I prefer slower speaking, but I can handle faster speed to some degree. I may look confused/stop writing/not take note of important parts if you are going to slow; that means I do not understand you, and you may need to slow down.

Other

I can promise you that I will understand these issues more than most judges. Please make sure to time yourselves, if there is a discrepancy between the prep time, speech time, etc., try to work it out yourselves, although I will interfere if too much time is taken.

Thanks for reading this information, although I know it's long and boring. Good luck!

I am a PF debater at Lakeland high school

put me on the email chain webbl2016@gmail.com

I am a flow judge, if it's not in my flow I won't weigh it

plz tell me what to weigh because you don't want me to be the one to choose what to weigh

with all arguments I want evidence to back it up, you should be able to produce that evidence because I card call.

I do not flow on crossfires

In terms of speaker points if I can understand you, and you're not being a jerk to me and your opponents, I won't redact many speaker points.

Talk at whatever speed you're comfortable with, as long as I can flow it

any kind of hate speech which includes homophobia, transphobia, xenophobia, racism, sexism, etc. will immediately result in a loss 25 speaks

I am a lay judge, being a public forum judge for about 1.5 years. So please speak slowly and clearly (<200 wpm). If I can't understand you, I can't vote for you. I will look for a clear explanation of the arguments. If you signpost clearly during your speech, that will be great. Please run less run any progressive arguments but try to focus on debating the topic. Please use little debate jargon (such as de-link and terminal defense, etc.) but use simple terms. And most of all have fun!