Last edited for ’23-24. This paradigm tries to be expansive as possible a) to avoid a slew of questions pre-round (it’ll happen anyway bc people have stopped reading these) and b) because most judges really aren’t transparent at all and I do have real preferences.

For Districts (GA): it's nat-quals, big stuff, do whatever you need to do to earn a win with high marks. Won't penalize certain strategies, will penalize execution of certain strategies (i.e., if you feel the need to read truth-testing, please see my thoughts on related strategies before I miss a NIB). I consider myself a reasonably good flow, but if it's not on my flow, it does not exist.

About: Did 4 years of LD at a high school you’ve never heard of, ended up learning circuit debate independently, currently a senior* at UGA (studying what is basically just K lit) and not doing college CX but still actively judging and coaching LD—this means I'm familiar with the rez.

- Pronouns: they/she (basically anything that isn’t masculine)

- I don’t shake hands, pls don’t try and shake my hand after the round (thanks for your understanding) - like pls don't

Speaks (Numbers n Stuff):

- Go as fast as you want, just be clear, and slow down on interp texts, advocacy texts, and standards plz

- I won’t listen to arguments asking for extra speaks, I also tend to not disclose speaks

- I want to be on the chain, no need to ask: chansey.agler@uga.edu

- I typically try to average ~28.5 relative to the pool, they’re always based off efficiency/strategy rather than the ableist method of evaluating “speaking ability” - though I tend to be on the higher side of speaks...

Prefs Cheat Sheet:

K, Policy: 1

Philosophy*: 2

Theory and Tricks: 4

Trad: Your call (I would place myself around a 2 for these kinds of rounds)

*I prefer genuine ACs/NCs to tricks—a “Korsgaard AC” is best read as Korsgaard and not 3 min of goobledygook

TL;DR: engage, clash, and read substantive arguments that are well-thought out and you should be fine

Here are the most common things people look for, people have stopped reading paradigms:

- Paradigms are largely unhelpful bc they're all iterations of "fine with anything" and "do what you do best" - point blank, I do best with Ks and policy, understand philosophy which means I have a higher threshold for it (debate is so far removed from real philosophical deliberation that it hurts sometimes), and do not prefer tricks/friv theory - in general, I'm fine for arguments that are pedagogically responsible (warranted and have real value), bad for arguments that are frivolous

- A lot of my RFDs involve in-round explanation of some degree (in both directions)—well-warranted and explained arguments tend to fare better than meaningless walls of buzzwords and claims, and since debate is a communicative activity, I need to be able to understand and articulate your arguments (would love it if my RFD echoes the 2NR/2AR)—this also means I now will factor CX into my decision-making if you completely fumble on key issues

- I won't flow arguments if I can tell that they're generated by ChatGPT - debate is about making arguments and thinking for yourself, not letting AI do work for you - very low threshold for theory against chatGPT arguments, btw

- Method and framing evidence has been atrocious as of late—it's underhighlighted and doesn't warrant what's in the tag—if I can't piece together what you're trying to say with the highlighted portion alone, I'm not going to fill in the rest for you—blitz through this at your own risk

- I disclose the decision + other stuff post-round but: I don't disclose speaks (goofy), it either takes me like two seconds or 45 min to figure out the round, I try my damndest to give the "right" decision (quality decisionmaking + feedback = really really important), but I am not receptive to aggressive postrounding…

- Misgendering, general misconduct (like being racist or sexist) is a reason for me to damage your speaks at best, if you continue to do it, try to impact turn it, and/or willfully ignore it, neither one of us will like the end result; I am probably more willing than other judges to consider independent voters (especially misgendering, racism, and other arguments that, intentional or not, result in exclusion in debate)

- Discourse violations are better read as kritiks than theory but I will vote on both (I tend to be slightly annoyed by the team/debater that used harmful discourse to begin with, so no need to worry about how you go about this)

- To add to the above: pls let me know if you have any accommodations that need to be met before the round (slower spreading than normal, preferred pronouns, etc.) to make the round as safe and inclusive as possible, debate is for everyone—I care a lot about student well-being and any accessibility concerns should be relayed in a manner you feel comfortable with (getting my attention or emailing me, whatever you need to do)

- Weighing is good. please do it. thx in advance <3

Lincoln Douglas

Kritiks

- Good K debates are the best types of rounds, but bad K debates are frustratingly difficult to resolve (i.e., pre-scripted 2NRs loaded with buzz terms that don’t frame anything for my ballot)—know your lit base (theory of power, topic links…the whole shebang), make it meaningful

- Fav lit bases are queer and feminist lit but if you don’t know these lit bases, they can also make me v sad

- I find material explanations of the alt and ToP more persuasive, but I understand abstract interpretations of power or identity to often be necessary, just explain it and we're good

- Do impact analysis/weighing bc these debates can otherwise become messy, also do lots of link and alt work and don’t just talk past the Aff—lack of engagement and poor alt work are two ways to a good old-fashioned L

- Non-T Affs are always great but be ready for generic responses (and just make sure the Aff does ‘something’…I don’t really care what that ‘something’ is though)

- T-FW should engage with the Aff and explain what it means to affirm (“must defend only a policy” is a terrible argument and does not explain what it means to affirm), DAs to models of debate are underrated—tailor it to the Aff (ngl, I don't really take a definitive stance on what T-FW should look like, just make it good), similarly, I think the Aff should at least define what debates should look like as a departure from the squo

- Aff FW v. K: a) just bc you win that you weigh case, doesn’t mean you’ll win the round, b) state engagement good needs to be contextualized to the specific criticism, otherwise you should just debate at the link level—also, most state engagement good cards are really underhighlighted/underwarranted c) extinction outweighs is often a link but I’ll go either way on this one, d) only makes sense in policy v. K rounds tbh

- K v. K – always welcome but can be very difficult to evaluate without effort on your behalf, K aff v. cap K is usually pretty easy to resolve imo but other debates (especially identity debates) need weighing, ToP analysis, and probably a lot of perm work

- I don't like the perm double bind - saying "either the alt is strong enough to..." is basically telling me to my face "I know perfectly well the Aff links but nonetheless I'll pretend it doesn't" - good framing wins debates, but bad framing hurts my heart

- I do think that debaters should be held accountable for their discourse in-round—I prefer only going for discourse links when the link is egregious (like calling an immigrant an 'illegal alien'), and also think that word PIKs can be policing (basically: tread carefully, do this when it's necessary)

- Performances: can really matter in terms of how the Aff frames its engagement w/ debate + the world, but if it’s a 5-10 second “land acknowledgment” that takes place in your constructive and never gets brought up again, then idrc—performances have as much meaning as you articulate them to have, and can be as simple as playing background music to as complex as layering personal anecdotes/poetry in the round—you do you, I’m here for it

Policy/Util

- Sure, did this for a while and it’s probably the most common type of round I judge, fine with however you carry out policy rounds though I much prefer topic-specific ptx positions and impact turns to generics like “x is the actor, extinction”

- Weighing = necessity (and beyond just “magnitude” if there are two competing extinction scenarios), I really like “even if”/relativistic claims to be made in these rounds (it’s never absolute…trust me) and doing evidence comparison/weighing is super helpful

- Case debate is great debate - contest the scenarios, solvency, and other details too beyond just impact D, especially on the JF24 topic I find that solvency is highly contestable and makes for very rewarding rounds

- I do not default to judge kick, 2NR needs to tell me to do it, low threshold for "it's a lose-lose for the Aff so don't do that"

- If you can read CP texts and plan texts at conversational speed, that’d be fantastic

- The 1AC probably needs to at least mention Util/SV (even if it’s just a one-liner), the 1NC should exploit Affs that don’t

- Extinction is overused in debate (won’t hack against it but like…do we need to be mentioning extinction on “standardized tests?”)

- I like tests of competition more than theory debates (plan v. CP perm debates are underrated), but if you go with theory, pls weigh against 1NC procedurals

- Less a fan of limits/fairness for the sake of limits—overlimiting is a thing, I prefer topic lit implications and warrants (and similarly this constrains semantics impacts), especially on the JF '24 topic, I think one-country plans make a lot of sense semantically, but random country ACs could be abusive - doing a lot of work on "there's enough lit about Israel to make it a debate but the US doesn't even have presence in Cyprus, how am I supposed to make args here" is a good strat

Phil/FW

- Losing influence in the meta, I did study philosophy for some of college and still actively keep up with philosophy,I prefer real-world style philosophical argumentation to shenanigans based on my experiences in actual philosophical inquiry

- I prefer sensical ACs/NCs to nonsense, not a fan of tricks disguised as philosophy, generally quick to understand what you're reading but many debaters do a very poor job of in-round explanation (just keep that in mind)

- FW justifications need real warrants - a lot of them like "performativity" are like really circular and never explain why the FW is actually true

- A lot of phil contentions don't actually align with their framing - Kantian philosophy, for example, would not conclude "taxation is impermissible under the criterion"

- Don’t quote things like source Kant (Korsgaard is cooler anyway)

- TJFs—mixed feelings, most of them aren’t fantastic arguments but I’m fine voting on them

- I heavily dislike AFC/ACC (debate is about clash lol), not fond of Truth Testing ROBs in place of FW debates

Traditional LD (Trad)

- I would consider myself a reasonably competent judge; I can evaluate whatever you’re doing just fine—traditional rounds are easier to evaluate if you weigh, give clash, and give voters at the end, but are more difficult to resolve in the absence of crystallization in latter speeches

- Trad v. circuit rounds are a dilemma because every judge has different feelings here, but I tend to err on the side of circuit debater should slow a bit (70-80% speed), read an educational position like 2-3 policy off or a good but common K (setcol, security, fem, etc.), and the trad debater should be willing to adapt to tough situations - if we're in a bubble or elim round, do whatever it takes to win

- Please don't read arguments like "we must follow what is in the constitution and only what is in the constitution" as "this is ethical" - consider that you're reading an argument weaponized against queer people in front of an openly queer judge

- Counterplans are a good thing for debate, but many counterplans read in lay debates do not make sense

- Please say the name of the card BEFORE you start reading off the actual card—this makes it so much easier for me to flow (i.e., “Jones 20: blah blah”)

- I’m not a parent judge who cares about “speaking well” or “the values debate” – you should debate impacts instead of framework if the two don’t clash with each other

- "spreading bad" is a bad arg if you have the doc and even worse if you use it to clap back after you misgendered your opponent (I cannot believe I had to put this in my paradigm)

- Words in the rez =/= abstract principles of good

- The Aff must provide solvency to some extent (implied solvency doesn’t exist)

- “Where’s the statistic for x” is only a legitimate argument when dealing with utilitarian impacts

- I view the rez as a fluid idea—I don’t hack against any given arguments (except obv problematic ones), which includes “circuit arguments” (also, as a heads up: if your opponent is reading a kritik, you should probably not call it “[a] theory” or say “they didn’t have a value/VC” – these two things will tank your speaks)

Theory

- Full disclosure here - my ability to eval these rounds is entirely dependent on execution - if you actually do weighing (between standards, paradigm issue warrants, etc.), we're fine, if the opponent concedes something, make that the center of attention, if these things don't happen, brace for impact (aka presumption)

- Overall: good for policy-type theory (condo, warranted spec theory like aspec, CP theory, etc.), bad for friv theory, won’t vote on out-of-round violations (beyond disclosure, which similarly needs a clear violation or I won’t vote on it) or theory where there is no in-round abuse

- Won’t evaluate arguments about your opponent’s appearance or other ad hom-type theory (please don’t), similarly have a very high threshold when theory is deployed to shut out hard convos, it’s bad for debate

- People need to SLOWWW DOWN when reading the interp text (conversational speed would be amazing)

- Reading more than 2 shells in-round (on either side) will usually lead me to question your strategic decisions

- I don’t apply defaults in theory rounds—read paradigm issues pls and thx

- Reasonability is always an option (please?) – similarly, I think it’s actually quite strategic to read reasonability as a paradigm issue for accessibility-type theory (must not misgender opponent, accessibility formatting, etc.)

- I've voted on RVIs in the past, just not my favorite thing to evaluate bc everyone and their dog has different conceptions of "when do you get one" and "how does an RVI interact with layers" and aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa just go back to substance and push presumption :)

- I have judged several debates in which there is a “misdisclosure” violation and it devolves to “they said-they said” – please: a) collapse to something else most of the time, b) explain at like 60-70% speed “I asked for x before the debate, they said they would provide it, and then y happened” – basically, make the violation super clear to me, and c) take screenshots that are definitive evidence - this isn't to say "never go for it," it's more so to say "go for it if you think an outsider (me) will get it"

Disclosure

- Disclosure has made debate better, but reading disclosure theory is an attempt to mandate equality when we should be focusing on issues of equity—I lowkey really dislike disclosure theory debates so would prefer to adjudicate this only if necessary

- You don’t have to disclose performances

- Stop chronically reading disclosure against Black debaters—I don’t get why that is y’all’s go-to strat of all things

- Learning about disclosure norms is a topic for out-of-round discussion but not one I ever feel comfortable adjudicating (i.e., rounds where disclosure theory is deployed when one team doesn’t know how to use the wiki)

Tricks

- Genuine philosophical paradoxes (like stuff out of Socratic dialogues), innovative arguments, and creativity are okay—anything else is probably a non-starter for me, especially if it’s an argument that can be dismantled via any coherent thought (the key distinction is how much explanation is put into the argument…much like other styles in debate)

- I've realized as of late that I find it very difficult to flow a slew of analytics made in short spans of time (which is part of why I prefer Ks and policy since cards in these debates are usually longer so I don't have to delineate as much), if you're gonna read a bunch of analytics, give me time to get em down

- I understand ethical paradoxes within the time constraints of a debate round much better than logical formulae/dense logic equations—blitzing through a paragraph of “if p then q” will leave my head spinning and a mess on my flow

- I seriously dislike the way Truth Testing gets deployed in debate, especially if you use it against Ks or K Affs (it’s violent) – I do think that identity tricks are a valid response to violent practices, although you can (and should?) also go for it as a link

Misc/Defaults for LD

- FW Defaults: Comparative Worlds, Epistemic Confidence, I have no defaults on theory (make args lol)

- Permissibility and presumption both negate at face value, unlikely to vote on permissibility affirming (given ‘ought’ in the rez), presumption flips Aff if the Neg reads an advocacy, but I seldom vote on either one

- Don’t care if you sit or stand, just make it so I can hear and understand you

- If I am on a panel with two lay/parent judges, the fog is upon us

CONFLICTS:

Sequoyah HS, Perry HS, Ivy Bridge Academy, Dean Rusk MS

Hey y'all

I'm a fourth-year debater from Vestavia Hills High School.

Case: Make sure your case has impacts. It is hard for me to vote on an argument that doesn't tell me how or which population is affected by their impacts. However, make sure you also have warrants. Even if your case has big numbers, I will not evaluate any of your impacts if you don't give me any explanations as to how you get there. Don't worry if your case does not get to 4 minutes; I still evaluate all arguments presented in that timeframe.

Speaking: Speak clearly. For me, you can go a little bit fast and I will still be able to understand your argument. However, I will indicate for you to slow down if you are going too fast. Most importantly, mumbling is gonna negatively affect your speaker points and make it a lot harder to understand. Send speech docs if you plan on spreading. Email is aaryaaluri143@gmail.com

Prog: By all means go ahead and do it. Just beware that my experience with progressive args is pretty limited to theory. I'll evaluate it to the best of my abilities.

Rebuttal: Prioritize offense over defense. In 1st rebuttal, do not go back onto your case unless it is an absolute necessity and you believe you have no other way to fill the 4 minutes. Weighing is not a necessity in 1st rebuttal but it would be good if you started weighing early in round. Weighing should be in 2nd rebuttal. No talking between teammates in rebuttal or any speech for that matter. 2nd rebuttal must respond to all offense that 1st rebuttal brings. 2nd rebuttal would be good to collapse but it is not required for me. Defense is not sticky.

Weighing: WEIGHING IS NECESSARY. I must know why your argument is more important than theirs to be able to vote for you. Additionally, weighing can't be one-sided. You must weigh COMPARING your impact to theirs as opposed to just restating their impact. It can start in rebuttal but IT MUST START IN SUMMARY.

Summary: 1st summary MUST COLLAPSE ON ONE ARGUMENT. Summary must also respond to all offense presented on ALL of their contentions. Summary must also have clean extensions of their case and turns in order for them to stay on my flow. 2nd summary is largely a reactive speech that must respond to the points brought up by 1st summary.

Final Focus: Largely resembles summary. NO NEW INFORMATION IN FINAL FOCUSES. Weighing, case extensions and turn extensions must be present.

Have fun with this activity. It gives back what you give it. You make connections the more you stay in the activity. I will do my best to ease your nerves and help y'all grow in this adventure.

YOU'RE GONNA KILL IT!!!!

Email Jororynyc@gmail.com

Perry Hs

ASU Finance

Assistant LD coach at Peninsula, 2023-Present

Cleared at the Toc.

Alot of the way I think comes from Amber Kelsie, Jared Burke, Tay Brough and Raunak Dua - LD thoughts from Elmer Yang and Gordon Krauss.

Condense the debate to as few arguments as possible and have good topical knowledge.

Mostly read K arguments - Some policy arguments on the neg. Some Affs had plans.
I am bad for Phil or Trix.
FW: Fairness is an impact,
I also have an increasingly higher threshold for K debate because most of it done in LD is bad.

I wont flow until 1NC case so I can read evidence. I also have no problem telling you I did not understand what you said if its not explicit by the last speech.

I debated CX for three years in high school and have become pretty familiar with policy debate. As for judging, I'm pretty tab. I'm not the biggest fan of Ks, but CPs and theory are okay. Speed is okay, but I need to be able to understand what you're saying. Make sure to have roadmaps and to signpost so I know what you're going to run. I want you to tell me what to vote on and tell me why you've won the arguments you presented.

Good luck and Gig 'Em!

Leonardo Banuelos

leobanuelos11@gmail.com

Hey! I’m Simon (I also go by Amber) - sblloe@utexas.edu

Add me on speech docs & email chains :/

---

A little about me:

I did Public Forum in High school from 2018-2022 for strake, qualifying to TOC, State, and Nationals three times each and clearing at all three sometime or another while winning a few national tournaments along the way.

Before we continue: I recommend you read through the bolded stuff or there is an immensely high likelihood that neither of us will enjoy the outcome of this round :/

---

General:

I’m very tech, but I’m also not afraid of debaters who are willing to experiment with the flow.

Go literally as fast as you want. I can only handle about 350 wpm without faltering or missing stuff tho without a speech doc (which you should send).

A few misc things that people always get confused about in front of me: Quality > Quantity (Don’t make me get out more than 5 sheets pls), I LOVE TURNS + I’ll boost your speaks if you go for them, Counterinterps > RVIs, I have a low bar for perm acceptance but a high bar in extending them, Sticky defense is fake, and DA dumping is lame + loses speaks.

I won’t do any work for you – and I refuse to intervene with a few exceptions listed below. This also means I will not change my standards for extensions and frontlines in the case that the round gets flooded by a 10 sheet dam break.

I’m very pessimistic about the way PF is going – which is straight into a dumpster fire for norms. Thus, those of you who read progressive arguments will have a speaks floor of 28.5 (unless its bigoted in nature). Keep in mind I give a 26-ish on average.

I will evaluate literally anything progressive that occurs in front of me.

I pref first unless told otherwise.

---

Prefs/Strikes Info: [Scaled 1-Best -> 5-Worst]

Ask questions if you need to, but for PF I’m confident I can eval just about anything.

Always send speech docs.

Non-T Ks : 1 – This is what I read in high-school. I’m pretty up to date abt most non-T lit and I’m good at evaluating it. Be clear and you’ll be fine. On a side note do not read an Identity K if you don’t identify with the group - If you do that I bump this down to a 4. For interesting Non-T Ks, i.e., not basic identity Lit, go for it I love these but send speech docs. Also, pls don’t invalidate people’s identities when responding to or reading these – I’ll obliterate your speaks and won't eval. When responding please also tailor your basic identity K responses to the K itself or my bar for responses can literally be "they read off backfiles - kick the responses bc they generalize and marginalize identity".

Reps Ks: 1 - If it’s warranted this may be above a one. Even if it’s like a reps K against debating economics I’m chilling with it though. Keep it simple and don’t try to overcomplicate it. Please make sure not just to win the rep itself but why reps are a voting issue.

Topical Ks: 2 - Most topical links are pretty boring to me but so long as you have a coherent alt and rotb you’ll be fine. If it’s a weird alt explain it and you’ll be okay - I feel like most topical Ks end up being really badly warranted – especially in terms of how the alt solves – so just make sure the alt is well warranted.

Theory: 2 - If its warranted you’re chilling and I’ll probably have a low bar for frontlines and extensions. If its friv this is more of a 3. (I consider anything related to dates or other stuff like that friv). I read both warranted and friv theory in high school and I def have biases towards or against certain kinds of theory. If something related to personal violence occurs – you do not have to read a shell and an IVI will be just fine (Trust me I won’t slight you for it being an IVI). BTW I DEFAULT K>Theory - so weigh in the opposite direction if you need to.

IVIs: 2 - If its warranted you’re chilling, and I’ll have a low bar for frontlines and extensions. If its friv this is more of a 4. If its abt personal violence, it’s above a 1. If someone reads an IVI pertaining to plagiarism or something of the sort, I’d really prefer it to be a shell and it gets bumped down to a 4.

Phil: 3 (Better be coherent and clear) - Please explain it correctly. PLEASE. Just bc you win the phil side doesn’t mean you win the application side. These debates get very muddled so explain your author right. Know that I’ve probably read at least some of their lit unless you’re reading someone obscure.

Soft-Left (Specialized Frameworks for Substance Debate [i.e. fem framing or neolib etc…]): 3 - These annoy me. Why not read a K? If you drop the framing then I default that the arg is strictly substantive. Also, most soft-left args get convoluted bc people can’t properly explain the warrants behind advocating for their framework – please explain it properly.

Counter-Plans/[Technically Plans]: 3 - Go for it. I love counter-plans but I’ve seen so many fail. Please debate these correctly and extend the whole structure & implicate how it interacts with the whole flow. This technically extends to plans too but be careful in how you break PF Plan rules bc I’m highly unlikely to vote on it unless you warrant it super well.

Perms: 3 - Please explain the perm vs. alt debate & please explain why I should eval the perm in the rotb. If you can’t or don’t, then don’t read the perm. I also have a super-high bar for extensions on Perms – i.e. don’t just read the tag. Generally, not an amazing idea - I’d much prefer a line-by-line or Counter rotb/K than your reading 3 or 4 perms and hoping the debate gets muddled.

RVIs: 3 - Please don’t just dump these. I’ll be annoyed but I’ll evaluate it. Also, my bar for responses is very very low and you have to weigh RVI > Shell.

Trix: 4 - Same as RVIs. Also, if they're funny and you go for them, I'll give you a 30. Multiple layers that are unrelated also make my head hurt so please don’t.

Word PICs: 4 - I feel like most word PICs are unwarranted and friv, which is why this is down here. For words that most definitely deserve to have the other team drop - this is a 1 – I’m not going to give any examples but yk which words. That being said please omit the word itself when you read the word PIC unless you are permitted to say it, If I have speech docs, I’ll know what you’re referring to.

New Forms of Debate: 4 - If it's good, I will give you 30s. If it’s bad, I’ll be confused. Explain it well, Explain the structure well, and gl.

Topicality: 4 - I really (REALLY) hate T, but you can read it. Just don't be forcing on debating substance itself and instead explain the implications of the shell for norms instead of being all gung-ho about defending "the public in PF".

Pure Substance: 5 (I mean its normal debate - not that fun but I can judge it just fine)

A specific note on Fem Ks - Don’t read Terf lit. I’ll give you bottom speaks and if your opponents point out how its Terf lit my ballot writes itself. If I catch you reading statistics that specify debaters who are only of "the female sex" I will straight up drop the whole K on a perf-con - Ik this is intervention I do not care:) I DARE YOU TO READ STATS THAT ASSIGN GENDERS BASED ON NAMES.

---

Here are the cases I’ll intervene in the round:

You must read content warnings – for my and your opponent’s sakes. [I won’t down you for not doing it (unless the ops. read a shell) but I promise that I won’t pay attention to the technicalities of the argument and I’ll drop your speaks]

You must use the pronouns your opponent’s specify.

You must use the name your opponent’s specify.

(If you don't know - just ask. I'm not going to care abt responses like "I didn't know" if they read an IVI or a shell)

Don’t be a bigot.

Don’t put someone else’s safety in jeopardy.

If any of these occur, I won’t hesitate to vote on them.

---

Post-round me if you want.

PLEASE READ A KRITIK OR A PERFORMANCE PLEASEEEEEE!

Prefs:

1. Performances/Ks and K affs

2. High theory

3. Phil

4. Theory/T

5. LARP/Policy/Util

6. Tricks

TLDR:

Tech>Truth

I will literally evaluate anything... I mean ANYTHING!

I like progressive rounds, please don't put me through a trad debate, PLEASE!

Layers of the Debate:

Remember that all of these can be changed by in round args and these are just my defaults.

1. Performance/Theory/T/Pre-Fiat

2. Kritik

3. Policy/Util/Post-Fiat

Overview:

I've heavily "immersed" myself in debate. I will consider any argument, for example, I will evaluate arguments like death good, and other things. For all I care you can go over the set speech times as you can argue for it.

Kritiks/High Theory

Okay, so the first time I heard a Kritik I fell in love with this style of debate. I'm up to date on all the lit! If you've been wanting to run an obscure k but haven't had the judge for it, I'm your judge. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE run some cool stuff. I'm good with any kritik, including memey ks too (so I'm good for time cube). It would be very awesome if you could run some new and innovative kritiks.

Performances:

I love performances, and will usually evaluate them as the highest layer in the debate unless you make in round args as to why I should prioritize something else. If you are going to run a performance please make it fun! Also if you use music that would make the performance even more awesome! Also also, you got to get radical, loud, firey, etc. when you do your performance.

Theory/T:

So I'm going to be honest, I don't really like theory or t, but I will evaluate it. As a K hack, I have always found Theory/T as a method used by policy debaters to exclude radical discourse/ideas and so I have always found it to make debate rounds less enjoyable. But of course, if you win theory/t that is still a big thing. Also, you don't have to be topical, I don't care.

Tricks/Spikes/Specs:

So, I like tricks... kinda. I definitely think tricks can make for a "fun" round, and I don't care how many spikes you have I will evaluate all of them, so yes you can do A-Z spec, and go 26 off.

Trad/LARP/Policy/Util:

PLEASE DON'T! Just spare me! Out of all things in debate that I dislike, the more traditional forms of debate are the highest on the list (besides Ayn Rand). Please just run a K or something. If you do run trad just know I WILL VOTE for you, and I'm just being hyperbolic.

Phil:

I like phil debate. Though it is not high on my prefs I like it. I find phil debate to be really interesting when you run some obscure philosophy so if you are going to run phil please run some obscure philosophy. P.S. Ayn Rand isn't a philosopher.

Speaks:

I will give what I think is fair. I'm not going to destroy your speaks if you mess up on a few words tho. IF YOU SAY CUZ I GOT A DRACO I WILL GIVE YOU 30 SPEAKS.

General Info: I am a student at Auburn University studying theatre management. I have competed in PF debate and Congress throughout my high school debate career. Trad>Prog. I flow; however, if you are a clear win on the flow and do not convince me during your speeches, I will not vote for you.

PF: My background is in PF. Novices, I have more grace with; however, please try to stay on the flow. Varsity, you know how Debate works. Space your time well and be persuasive. I will be sad if your cross is dull, but it does not affect if you win or not, aka I do not flow it (because we do not do that).

Speaks: Speed is fine if you are clear; however, if I make faces at you of confusion or your opponents feel like you are spreading, do not be rude. Slow down. Again, I have a background in theatre, so the flow of speech (vocal variety and enunciation) and persuasiveness are vital to me. Speaks will be ranked based on that.

Do not make any drastic comparisons to genocide, slavery, rape, etc., in your case or weighing. Automatic loss, I will stop flowing and will not vote for you. The same goes for homophobic, sexist, racist, etc., comments. I will not vote for you if I hear it, even if you out-debated. There is no room for bigotry in Debate.

Good Luck!

INCLUDE ME ON EMAIL CHAIN

abbybowling58@gmail.com

*if you have any questions about your debate/my decision, please feel free to email me!

debated for american heritage (c/o 2023), did mostly pf and a little ld

few must-know notes:

1. add me to the email chain (evan.burkeen@yale.edu).
2. don't miscut evidence.
3. warrants are super important, every argument must have them (and no, empirics without arguments are still not arguments).

few notes that aren't must-knows but helpful

1. I care slightly less about impact weighing than the average pf judge, weighing is just an issue of sequencing for me so you might want to spend more time winning the link in front of me. terminal defense >>> "outweigh on scope."
2. extensions on arguments should be thorough. im voting based on the backhalf, and I need a thorough extension to consider voting for your argument. keep it simple.
3. I don't read off docs if you're unclear, I just won't flow.
4. default to dtd, competing interps, rvis, no sticky defense, NO new responses past rebuttal (and no defense disguised as probability weighing), presume neg, and util. can be easily convinced to change any of these in-round. note on new responses: they must be flagged by the opposing team; I'll easily miss them if not.
5. uniqueness thumpers, impact defense, impact turns, and methodology explanations are heavily underused and I appreciate them a lot.
6. im fluent in progressive argumentation. update: these rounds usually don't have good engagement, and they're just read to escape clash. if you read progressive arguments, read them well, or don't read them at all.

things that get you really good speaks

1. analytical debating, I prefer and respect this a lot more than reading off a doc with copy/paste blocks (original analysis is a great skill!) engaging in line-by-line and clash rather than generic overview-esque responses will be rewarded. not exactly a fan of the "let me spread 10 unwarranted responses, hope they drop 1 and go for that" type of debating, although I'll still (reluctantly) evaluate it.
2. keeping the round fun and light-hearted, annoying debaters (one example is if you're wildly aggressive in crossfire) will get a lot lower speaks! sarcasm, wit, etc. are also funny, but don’t do too much.
3. judge instruction (one example: "judge, they have conceded terminal defense on their only piece of offense coming out of summary. if we have a risk of offense at all that's enough for you to vote affirmative").
4. keeping the round running on time.

if you have any questions before or after the round, please contact me at “Evan Burkeen” on facebook messenger. please let me know if there are any accommodations I can make to make the round enjoyable, accessible, and comfortable for everyone. if you are new to debate, and have no clue what im talking about in this paradigm, please don’t hesitate to reach out to me. the best way to improve is by asking questions. if you’re looking for no-cost camps, you can visit novadebate.org.

Den (She/They)

Email:
• For chain, please use crossxnight@gmail.com
• For personal inquiries, contact at dnisecarmna@gmail.com

Background:
• Community Coach @Kelly College Prep (Chicago, IL)
• 4 years of High School Policy Debate experience
• Judging Nat Circuit & UDL Tournaments since '19

Topic Comment(s)

Round Counter: 76

4/4 -- Let's have some fun. Except if you run the Death K. Then perish. Joking aside, run anything you deem fit. This is cities, you should never give your opponents mercy because best believe I never got any. ????

Overview:

I'm experienced with both lay/circuit styles of policy debate. Nevertheless, I default towards a tech over truth style of judging unless said otherwise in-round. In terms of judging preferences, I have none. As evidenced by my judging record, I'm primarily preffed by k-oriented teams. I have judged k v k rounds. I have judged k v fw rounds. k v heg good. Judging these rounds have led me to think of debate in a broader capacity. Despite set preferences, I'm capable of being in back of the room judging stock issues debate.

Overall, I'll do my best to judge rounds fairly. I wholeheartedly appreciate the opportunity to judge. It allows me to better educate myself and teach my students on topic trends and/or strategy innovation.

Chicago/UDL: To answer a common question I get... I judge a multitude number of debates (~40) a year. The debaters I've coached win top speakers & break at locals. My proudest achievement is one of my debaters winning the City Championships! Therefore, I'm confident I'm qualified to judge your round. If you ever have any questions about your rounds, please CC: your coach and reach me at dcarmona16@cps.edu since I'm a school district employee.

What I enjoy:

Disadvantages-- Specific links to affirmatives recommended but generics are fine as long as it's still applicable. In terms of the politics disadvantage, evidence recency takes priority. However, how politicians act > what politicians verbally express. Uniqueness overwhelms the Link is a strong argument.

Kritiks-- Always have specific links to the affirmative. Links predicated off the topic itself doesn't lead to any meaningful educational debate specific to the case being ran. However, that doesn't mean I won't vote for Links of omission if the opposing team fails to answer them. If your strategy entails going for the links as impact turns to the affirmative, tell me explicitly to judge kick the alternative. If the negative has to win that the plan is a bad idea, don't let the alternative weigh the kritik down.

Counterplans-- CP debate is pretty awesome. Multiplank Counterplans are good. Planks that are supported by 1AC authors are even better. I don't have a disdain towards process counterplans. If your counterplan is not carded/supported by evidence in the 1NC, those rounds shape to be an uphill battle for the negative.

Topicality-- For the negative to win Topicality, they must [1] provide a model that best adheres to the topic, [2] exclaim why the affirmative fails to meet that model, [3] flesh out why the negative's model of debate is preferable, [4] evaluating the flow through competing interpretations is best. For the affirmative to beat Topicality, they must [1] explain why they meet the negative's model and/or [2] provide a counter-model that's better for the topic, which leads to [3] more educational and fair debates moving forward. [4] Frame the debate through reasonability.

T-USFG-- Prefer the debate to be framed similar to topicality (better model of debate). However, teams going for the impact turn(s) are welcome to do so. Affirmative teams running an advocacy statement tend to go for "the negative's model of debate is inherently worse, therefore by default the judge should vote for the affirmative's model". Definitely, the best approach when 1ACs are built to counter FW by embedding claims on the game of debate and how to best approach the topic. However, I have seen my fair share of critical affirmative's that.. could be read on any other topic. Negative teams, emphasize switch side debate. Provide TVA(s) under your model of debate. Explain the affirmative's burden and the negative's role in this game. Convince me that the negative should be the one reading all these different theory of powers against teams defending a policy. If they break structural rules such as going over speech time, call it out. Procedural fairness leads to better education. Don't rely too heavily on portable skills, I typically buy claims that people rarely become policymakers after this activity.. I'm a graphic designer for reference.

***If your arguments are descriptive in its explicit/graphic content, please provide a trigger warning pre-round. Let's avoid going to tab at all costs and/or having a procedural ran on you. I will stop the round if the other team deems the environment as uncomfortable.

Hall of Famers---

Rats: Kelly Lin, Lisa Gao, Ramon Rodriguez

Learned From: Armando Camargo, Juan Chavez, Jocelyn Aguirre, Leobardo Ramos, Scott Dodsworth

1. Experience: I have done three years of PF and extemp. I can deal with most spreading in PF; I was a second speaker.

2. Framework: If you don't say anything else, I'll assume cost/benefit. I won't like anything abusive though.

3. Extensions: I'll weigh whatever is extended through to final focus. But don't just extend, tell me why your argument is more important.

4. Evidence: I prefer authors and dates. If the evidence is self explanatory, then that's fine; it can speak for itself. If it isn't clear, then you need to link it to the resolution. I'm fine with paraphrased evidence, as long as its not abusive/misleading, and its used to sum up some non-text evidence or long essay.

5. Cross: I don't flow this, but I pay attention to what is said. It's important for clarifying what is happening.

6. Defense: extend it in summary; however, in summary, narrow it down to a few responses, not a shotgun approach.

7. Theory: In PF, I don't think we should have theory unless an abuse happens. Public forum is about the arguments, not who can argue theory that doesn't apply to the resolution, but I'm not going to vote against you for reading theory.
I honestly don't care that much about disclosure. My circuit doesn't do it.

8. Analysis and evidence: I like analysis. Not all arguments need to be based on some prewritten evidence or block if you can explain it well. However, if your analysis and response is based on something that a debater wouldn't know, then you need a card, or explain it really well.

9. Sign posting and road maps: please sign post, I can deal without road maps, but if your speech is, or will be, all over the place, then please do an off time road map.

10. I've seen tricks on some other paradigms. I don't know what that is. Take that as you will.

11. Other stuff: I don't have cards or authors memorized. Tell me something beyond just the author's name in round if you're referring to a card. I don't like underdeveloped arguments, but I understand if you tried something and it fell through. Just don't put out something you know won't work for the sake of a shotgun approach to responding to arguments. You win based on persuasion, not on saying words really fast and hoping something sticks.

12. I swear this is the last thing: Debate is about communication, so do your best not to be really dry. I prefer some humor.

Affiliations: St. Mark's 2022 -> Northwestern 2026

Email Chain: mlcpolicydebate[at]gmail[dot]com and smdebatedocs[at]gmail[dot]com. Please include the tournament, round, and teams debating in the email's subject line.

I assess debates based on my deep admiration for the time, energy, and commitment that goes into preparing for debate tournaments. I will strictly rely on evidence and the arguments made during the round, refraining from adding my own opinions to my decision.

I am a policy debater and do not have the most experience judging PF or LD.

Hey y'all. I'm Danielle (she/her). I'm a first-year out who primarily competed/coached PF at a small public HS in NJ (Freehold Township), but I had a couple of WSD stints with my state's team from 2019-2022. 

TLDR: Run whatever you want, but I shouldn't have to do mental gymnastics to vote for you. Collapse in the later speeches, be organized, weigh, have a clear narrative, and don't be insufferable in the process. 

I'm willing to evaluate whatever you want me to, but I mostly have experience with trad debate.

Speed is fine as long as you slow down on the taglines and send a speech doc.

I don't tolerate toxic energy in the debate space. If you're being exclusionary or problematic, I'll drop you no matter what. 

More niche preferences: 

I'm not the biggest evidence ethics purist. I'm fine with paraphrasing as long as it doesn't completely deviate from the article's original intent. 

I don't care too much about extending card names as much as I care about you extending the analysis. I'd much rather see a detailed, implicated, analytical response than hear "Extend the Smith'17 card." 

If you're mavving, I'll give you 5 mins of prep.

Shadow Extensions aren't real

I don't care what happens in cross. If you want it to impact my ballot, extend it into a real speech. 

Best of luck! I know these tournaments can be super stressful, but please remember to drink water, eat, and have fun. :)

Barkley Forum Update (not debate related): I'm a student at Emory right now (chemistry and premed). If you have any questions about Emory in general I'd be happy to answer them for you! Feel free to ask me stuff before or after the round (but please not during lmao).

Other Barkley Forum Update (this one's actually debate related):I haven't judged an LD round in almost a year now (I judged some policy over the summer) and I don't coach anyone so it's been a minute. Please slow down a little bit to probably 80% of your max speed instead of full circuit spreading because I don't want to miss anything y'all are saying. Also I am not as well versed in a lot of the acronyms anymore in circuit debate (particularly tricks) so please take the time to say the full names of things. I will still be able to evaluate the rounds properly just as well as I have been but my vocabulary isn't the same anymore so please explain all the terms you need to (you know what they are).

Here's my full paradigm so plz read

My email is cyprian.dumas@gmail.com. If you ask me for my email I'm gonna assume you didn't read my paradigm.

I did national circuit LD in high school and I primarily ran policy stuff, theory, t, and tricks (I'm prob best for judging these arguments). You can prob put me as a 1 for these on your pref sheets.

I'm down with judging phil and k debate too but I'm not familiar with a lot of the lit (especially pomo k's) so if you're running that please overexplain. You can prob put me as a 2 or 3 for these based on how confusing your lit is but you should probably put me as a 5 if you're running exclusively pomo.

This should go without saying but don't be offensive. You should also try to avoid being a jerk in general because this is supposed to be an enjoyable activity.

Tricks debate is cool but there's some things I'll interfere on there. First, you don't get to change speech times and I evaluate all five speeches. Don't bring in stuff from outside of the round (except disclosure stuff I guess but I'll get to that more in a second). That'll be met with an L and minimum speaks. Everything in this paragraph is non-negotiable.

I'll vote on disclosure theory but I really don't like it at all especially if it's run against someone with substantially less resources than the person running it. Don't expect your speaks to look good if you go for disclosure theory against a stock position.

A claim, warrant, and impact for EVERY argument you want me to evaluate at the end of the round each have to be extended in EVERY speech as well.

Debate should be a safe space for everyone involved. If you're reading something that could be potentially triggering or sensitive for someone please ask everyone involved in the round if they are ok with the material being read.

I'm not a fan of really long paradigms (this one's already pushing it) so I'm not gonna write out every single nitpicky thing for all your RVI warrants and framework weighing and all that other stuff. So PLEASE ask me for specifics in round. I'm looking forward to judging your debate. Good luck and have fun!

Hi! I'm Tristan and I've competed in Lincoln Douglas and congress at MA for three years and will compete this 2021-22 year in both.

My email is lunaphin62@gmail.com

General Thoughts

I do not care what you run. I personally debated everything from k's to larp to theory so I have experience running and judging most everything.

However, please limit the high theory. I'll evaluate it regardless but trust me, that will not be enjoyable for me or your opponent.

Additionally, regardless of what you say during the round I will immediately drop you if you say something racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. As Spongebob once said, "don't be a jerk."

I'm tech over truth so idc about information outside the round, so if you don't say something in the round, it doesn't affect my decision.

Spreading is fine but please be clear, if I don't understand I'll say clear and if you don't become clear after three clears I'll stop flowing.

Always share cases, it makes sure the round doesn't turn into straw mans and helps every debater keep up regardless of skill.

If you're running something crazy then please let me know before the round and for the love of god tell your opponent. If they are not prepared for what you're running then I will not hesitate to drop you. No one should be excluded from the debate space.

Random Thoughts

Don't call me judge or sir, it's weird.

You don't have to read the resolution at the beginning of the round, I'll know the resolution and you can go straight into case.

Keep your own speech time please.

Please disclose prior to the round if you're running crazy stuff. If you're running trad stuff no need to disclose.

I try not to let my bias influence the round. I'm a high schooler and I pick the winner of the round. I have no position for you to appeal to so just debate the way you want.

Every framework is the same between vcs, robs, and rojs. Just because you use different names doesn't mean they're different layers, they're all ways in which I evaluate the round, always clash on framework no matter the name.

im not one of those people who gets triggered if ur chill in the round. ill give u higher speaks if ur funny

You better know your case. No matter how crappy you think your case is if I can tell it's one you wrote or put time into and your opponent didn't I'll feel no inclination not to vote down the person who stole cases or didn't put effort into their prep.

RVIs are cool.

I'm tech so I don't assume anything, you need proper warranting no matter how common sense of an argument you think it is.

Don't worry about gotcha questions in cx because one if you don't bring it up in a speech I won't evaluate it and two it makes you seem like a jerk if done in the wrong way.

CX is for questions, prep time is for prep, that's how debate is structured.

In any case, it's your round so you control where the debate goes, I'm just along for the ride. You do you, run whatever, and most of all have fun. Debate is most of all to have fun so that is the primary goal of the round. If you have any other questions please bring them up before the round and I'll be happy to clarify.

Trigger Warnings

If your opponent has trigger warnings on their profile and you ignore them I will drop you immediately and no further debate will be necessary.

If your trigger warnings are not posted on your profile or otherwise communicated to your opponent then you will not be given such leeway.

May the odds be ever in your favor.

Hi!

My paradigm is pretty standard to what I believe congressional debate should be so feel free to ask me any questions before a round.

Background

I competed in congressional debate for 3 years in the Carolina West district. I made it to quarters at Harvard, finals at Duke, fourth in my district in senate, and finals at the North Carolina state tournament. I also made it to triple octas at Nationals in World Schools debate in 2019 and double octas in 2020. I currently attend North Carolina State University (go pack!) and I'll be attending Duke Law in the Fall so if you can fit in any silly or snarky comments about UNC (where appropriate!!) it'll be appreciated.

Constructive Expectations

First and foremost, your job is to walk me through the piece of legislation. Assume I have no knowledge of the bill itself.

-First Aff: I expect that you give me an explanation of the problem and how advocating for this piece of legislation solves this issue. I don't expect (but I'm not opposed to) refutation from your speech.

-First Neg: I do expect refutation from you and every speaker to come after you. I will have the expectation that you will walk me through the problem with advocating for this bill and how not doing anything to solve the problem the affirmative introduces will be better.

Refutation

-Every speech after the 1st affirmative should have refutation. I don't care how you organize it into your speech as long as it is clear that you are interacting with what other speakers have said in round.

-I don't, however, consider just listing the last names of previous speakers refutation. If you are going to tell me that what Representative/Senator ____ said is wrong, I expect that you tell me why it is wrong.

-I prefer more refutation from later round speeches as this prevents you from giving rehash points. You have also heard more speeches before you so you should have more to refute.

Impacts

-Impacts are huge. You need to go beyond a cause and effect and explain to me why that effect is so critical whether it be bad or good.

Evidence

-I love a good piece of case destroying evidence as much as the next judge but I do expect you to go beyond just your evidence. I don't care if you spent all week hunting for as many pieces of evidence as you could find. I'd much rather you give me one or two and give me an in depth analysis of that evidence and follow it up with an impact.

Delivery/Rhetoric

-I will not fault you for stumbles in your speech. Fluency comes with practice but I do expect that you will be able to maintain your composure and continue speaking.

-I'm a fan of cheesy intros and jokes throughout your speech as long as it is appropriate with what your speech is about.

-I do not recommend spitting out rhetoric that everyone uses. If I hear you telling me that affirming this bill is like putting a bandaid over a bullet hole expect a heavy eye roll. I've heard it before and I'm sure I'll hear it again. This is not creative and, more often than not, feels more like filler words in between what you're really trying to say.

-Just because you are capable of shouting your entire speech does not mean you should. Your speech should have an ebb and flow of emphasizing what is important and backing off on what is not.

Questioning

-I expect to see interaction and involvement in the chamber but asking 10 shallow questions just to ask a question isn't worth it. I would rather you ask 4 or 5 difficult to answer questions. That being said if no one is asking questions and you stand to ask some I will appreciate it. This is a debate event. Not a speech event.

-While I do prefer you don't begin to scream or yell over the other speaker, if it is clear they are dodging your question or trying to give an extra speech feel free to cut them off. However, I should not feel like I'm watching a cage match.

-Avoid prefacing. The NSDA has not explicitly banned this but I personally believe that disadvantages the speaker and is simply a lazy way to ask questions.

Presiding

-I expect that you do keep a correct precedence and recency chart and may ask to check it if I feel like something is wrong. I will leave you alone otherwise.

-I will not drop you for the occasional slip up as long as you correct it. Honestly, if you don't majorly screw up, you'll get my top eight, maybe even six.

-I will be keeping my own time, as well as precedence and recency. If I notice an issue that is not called out I may not say anything but I will mark it on your ballot. Unless it is a repeated issue or I notice a pattern it probably won't affect your ranking too much.

Misc.

-Do not rehash.

-I won't drop you if I see you were trying to get called on but didn't. I will judge you on the speeches you give.

-While I understand there will not be an even split on every bill, after a while there are only so many speeches I want to hear on the same side. I'd much rather you give me a slightly less prepared aff rather than the 4th neg in a row.

-Above all, have fun with it. Some people may be able to debate in college but not all so enjoy the time you have. Don't take yourself too seriously and be open to the possibility of not everything going your way.

WSD Paradigm General

-In my experience, WSD is not meant to be very technical. It's not PF or Policy and I expect you treat it as such.

-Keep a world view when making arguments. Don't make your entire case about this US.

-Don't spread. If you start to spread I will put my pen down and just stare at you until you finish. WSD is meant to be more conversational.

-Try to avoid debate jargon? I may understand some of it but maybe not all of it so try to avoid using it.

-Careful with POIs. I've seen rounds where people will take either too many or none at all and it can absolutely break your case.

-Provide clear road maps before you begin your speeches please. It helps me to flow and keep track of the round.

Quickest way to be dropped

I have enjoyed my career in debate for the four years I was able to participate in it. However, I as well as many others, have had their fair share of rude remarks thrown my way. I have absolutely zero tolerance for this. Racism, homophobia, xenophobia, sexism, ableism, and transphobia have no place in Speech and Debate and any of this will put you on the very bottom of my rankings. I expect that everyone is treated with equal respect and dignity.

Dont use this paradigm. Use the other one pls under Tarun Eisen

Dont use this paradigm. Use the other one pls under Tarun Eisen

Email: aerinengelstad@gmail.com

Eagan '23, Emory '27

I coach with DebateDrills- the following URL has our roster, MJP conflict policy, code of conduct, relevant team policies, and harassment/bullying complaint form:https://www.debatedrills.com/club-team-policies/lincoln-douglas-team-policy

Prefs shortcut:

1. Policy v Policy
2. Policy v K
3. Phil (Kant, ect.)
4. K v K
5. Weird phil, weird k's, theory
6. (strike) Tricks

Tech over truth obviously

I have a high threshold for a warrant. If you do not meet that threshold then it is not a complete argument and I will not vote on it.

I agree a lot with Archan Sen, look at his paradigm for more in-depth takes.

I default condo and judge kick. I do not vote on presumption, I vote on a risk of offense because I do not believe that no risk exists (outside of dropped arguments).

I won't evaluate out of round arguments/adhoms.

Policy: I lean towards these arguments. I read a lot of process cp's and policy arguments in high school so it is what I'm most comfortable with. I love disads and cps. Inserting rehighlightings is good and should be done more -- it lowers the barrier to entry for ev comparison and deters bad evidence. I appreciate card docs that look nice and speeches that are organized and consistent with the doc. I'll reward it with high speaks.

T: Love these debates. Slow down on analytics/I need to be able to flow you. RVI's usually don't ever have a warrant, honestly wouldn't waste your breath on it. I tend to hate nebel T. I tend to think that plan text in a vaccum is true.

Impact turns: I love them. No personal qualms with spark or wipeout.

Theory: I'll evaluate it, but I hate frivolous theory and am very partial to vote against it. Default to competing interps.

K's + Kaffs: Didn't go for these as often in my career. High theory/pomo k's are not a winner in front of me because I don't know much about them and I am very persuaded by psychanalysis false for most identity-based critiques. Fairness is an impact and I think that it's a very good one, I tend to think that clash impacts in T-FWRK are less strategic.

Phil: I gave the Kant lecture at camp so I can judge and evaluate philosophical arguments. Dense phil and tricky phil are not a winner for me; see high threshold for an argument above, and I tend to get confused. Partial to util is truetil.

Tricks: see "threshold for a warrant" above.

email: faindebate@gmail.com

‘24 State Update:

Speed < Clarity - I’ve lost hearing in my left ear so make my life easier by sending clear speech docs for every speech (don’t just arbitrarily decide to not send A2 docs you’ve compiled mid round).

Read whatever you want. I prefer theory over most args. I am not as involved with debate as I used to be so changes in meta or wording are going to go over my head.

I prefer theory to most args andgood clash makes my life easier. I am a firm believer that it is the debater’s responsibility to be both clear from a speaking perspective but also clear in what their arguments mean. Done are the days where I do the work for you and sweat over if my scim reading important philosophical texts is enough to understand complex concepts. Any phil based argument should be explained so that someone new to debate understands what it means.

Specific questions about how I judge should be asked before the round.

My threshold for voting on hidden tricks is really high now. Almost to the point where you’d have to spend 50% > in a speech collapsing to it.

I don’t disclose. I’ll write individual feedback and my email is posted if you have questions.

bellaire '21 | ut '25

he/him

put me on the chain: wfan042211@gmail.com

general:

tech > truth

trad is good, theory is a coin flip unless violation is blatant

constructive:

send a doc if fast

rebuttal:

quality > quantity

no offensive overviews in second rebuttal

summary:

make it clear what ur going for

final focus:

be clear, should cover what summary covered

This also, I must admit, is not my real paradigm. Continue the wild goose chase: https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=403741

nothing racist/sexist/homophobic please, that will give you L25

speed is like a 6 or a 7, beyond that you risk me missing responses or warranting

trad is good, theory is iffy and anything beyond that is at your own risk

second rebuttal doesn't HAVE to respond to defense but it would be very strategic and smart

comparative weighing is the difference between me being interventionist and me not being interventionist

for the sake of me not making a bad decision, defense is NOT sticky so make sure it's brought up in every speech

cross doesn't matter unless it's brought up in a speech

Samford '25

Pronouns he/him

For Samford HS Tournament: I have 0 topic knowledge. Please overexplain rather than underexplain.

I am a current debater at Samford University where I have qualified twice to the NDT. I competed in debate for 4 years at Rockdale County High School where I won the NAUDL round robin. My entire career I have read almost exclusively policy arguments. For those who care I have been a 2A for 95% percent of my debate career.

Please do not send speech docs as a google doc or PDF (Unless format is important to your speech and changing the format will disrupt the message) if you do your speaks are capped at 28.3

Yes, add me to the email chain aarongilldebate@gmail.com

Tech > Truth and its not even close.

PF and LD debaters might find the first paragraph useful but there is a section for y'all at the bottom!

In deciding rounds often times I find myself to be one of the first judges in as I don't tend to read a lot of evidence. I find that some judges reconstruct the debate through the cards read instead of the actual debating and contextualization done in round and as a result teams win based on quality of evidence not on who actually did the best debating. For this reason, I don't like to read cards unless I find teams having two interpretations of the same idea or inserting a new highlighting of their opponents cards. If you think a piece of evidence should be integral to my decision and is the upmost important that I read it post-round flag in your speech "Aaron you should read this card!"

The Politics disad has to be my favorite debate to have and to judge although many find the link chain to be a little silly. However, this doesn't mean go crazy with a random agenda disad because I also do find myself assigning close to zero and even zero risk of a disad. Specific links to an aff are important but that doesn't mean your generic topic links don't matter either. For aff teams thumpers are the best way to beat generic topic links to disads especially if they post-date the negative's uniqueness evidence.

I lean heavily neg on CP theory and am almost in the realm of giving the negative infinite conditionality. I believe that is the burden of the neg to prove the aff is a bad idea or solves best and thus I think conditionality is the best method for the negative to be able to achieve this. This does not mean you can't go for condo bad in front of me but rather that it probably shouldn't be your A strat and that there should probably be specific in round abuse proven. The more condo the negative reads the more convincing condo bad becomes especially in a world where the negative is implemented 4+ conditional worlds. I feel for the aff for judge kick and having to defend two worlds but I think most times judge kick doesn't matter as the net benefit doesn't work absent a counterplan due to low risk and getting outweighed by the affirmative. There is definitely a debate to be had though on whether or not the neg gets judge kick. Generally I think process/states/agent CPs are all good doesn't mean the theory debate isn't there to be had higher threshold to reject the team versus reject the arg. I have yet to see another method of weighing CP and net benefit outside of sufficiency framing that makes any sense but if you have an alternative I'm happy to hear it and implement it if you win it.

I've began to enjoy kritikal debates more and more as I've become more entrenched in debate through my college career. That does not mean that I think I am a good judge for the K. My depth in kritik literature is quite shallow and it is to the negative's advantage to over-explain their kritik if I am in the back of your round because if I just don't understand what you are kritiking and how the alternative solves that it is unlikely I am to vote on your kritik. I think specific links to the aff are important and if you can point to specific affirmative evidence to prove you link that puts you in a good position for winning your link. In most cases I will weigh the affirmative in some method against the aff unless the negative is just outright winning that the kritik must be a prior-question to the aff. Going for kritiks without the alt I'm hesitant to vote on because without a method of solving how are the links not just FYIs? If you can answer that question feel free to go for the kritik without an alternative.

Topicality is underutilized against policy teams and I think negative teams get scared to go for 5 minutes of just aff is egregiously untopical. I think as a result of this some affs are objectively not resolutional and a few I can point to in recent history where the neg should 100% of the time go for topicality but didn't were Westminster's Treason aff and probably any courts affs on CJR. Standards are a must and I think fairness is an impact. What makes for a good interpretation is probably up for debate and should be well debated by both sides.

FW: Please read a plan. I will vote for a planless aff if well impacted out why it is important that your aff comes before fairness and why the resolution doesn't allow for the discussion that you aff asks for. I think switch side debate solves a lot of offense the K times try to win on T.

PF and LD Debaters

Don't worry about adapting to me I will adapt to you! Just do what you do best and I will follow what you are doing. For LD debaters who do high theory and philosophy you should read the section for Kritiks from my policy paradigm.

Oak Hall '24

(he/them)

add me to chain- aneeshgogineni0@gmail.com

I think that debate is an educational activity where students gain knowledge and skills which will be important for the rest of their lives. With that being said, just do what you do best or are most comfortable with. Please do not choose to read a different argument because of what my paradigm says. I don't care what you read as long as it does not condone violence against people which would include arguments like death good, racism good, etc.

MS TOC Update

If you use an email chain effectively for the entire debate and only use MS Word to send documents, your speaks start at 28.5 No Joke

Old paradigm

Truth=Tech- I'll vote off of the flow, but tech is determined by truth, not vice versa.

I'm fine with speed, but coherency is necessary. I hate listening to speeches that are unclear, and I probably won't flow if I can't understand you.

For prefs

I'm cool with every single argument as long as it is morally acceptable. Morally unacceptable would look like death good, racism good, etc.

Specific things-

CX wins debates - I do pay attention

K's -- Love the K. Personally, I like the K side of debate more. Cap K is my favorite and people must understand that in every K debate, the link debate is the most important aspect and the root cause debate doesn't really matter. Even in cap debates, the root cause debate is arbitrary if the link debate is not won. Contextual links are important. Do not read long 2nc blocks that aren't contextual to the aff. Regardless of whether I have or not, do not assume that I have read the literature and explain the K as if your theory of power is foreign to me.

IF you are reading some sort of critical literature, I would like to see an actual understanding of it (hopefully much better than mine if its some obscure theory).

K affs -- K affs are really cool especially because most of them are really well thought out and cut. I've read them and I encourage others to read them. With that being said, I will vote on T-framework, but I definitely buy the T side more than the framework side. In other words, I have a very higher threshold to vote for arguments that argue that K affs must be excluded from debate because I think that is untrue. However, T impacts like predictability are a lot more buyable and make more sense.

Cp's -- Good cp's are cool, but process cp's and PICS aren't as cool because they're probably intrinsically abusive. I'm cool with whatever cp you wanna read, but preferably don't read more than 2 or 3 in the 1nc and then end up going for a super abusive one that moots the aff.

Disads -- I like well-cut disad shells that have real internal link and links.

T -- Only read if the other team is actually not topical. Policy aff or K aff, move towards the T side and not the framework side because I buy impacts like predictability but I disagree that K affs should be excluded from debate.

Theory -- Probably won't vote on it unless it's condo. However, if the opposite team is truly abusive, then read theory and explain the abuse. If it's debated well, I will vote for it.

I typed this up really quick and this is all for online tournaments so if u have a question email me

I have based most of my ideas about debate off of that of Marna Weston, Kumail Zaidi, and Evan Cartagena, my coaches. If you want to check their paradigms, then you will have a better understanding of my ideas.

Any bigotry = hot L plus 0 speaks.

Higher Speaks --

don't read numerous blocks with absolutely no contextualization - contextual debates are amazing and will be rewarded with high speaks.

Please be super clear - only go fast if you are confident that I will be able to understand every single word that you are saying - if I cant understand a lot of the words you are saying, your speaks will be docked. Vice versa for amazing speakers

Hello! I’m a second-year out, debated in PF for Ransom Everglades for 3 years on the nat circuit. Now I coach and do parli in college. (If you're a senior and going to college in the Northeast ask me about APDA!)

if there is anything I can do to accommodate you before the round or you have any questions about anything after the round, reach out on Messenger (Cecilia Granda-Scott) or email me.

PLEASE PREFLOW BEFORE THE ROUND

TLDR:

tech judge, all standard rules apply. My email is cecidebate@gmail.com for the chain.

my face is very expressive – i do think that if i make a face you should consider that in how you move forward

Safety > everything else. Run trigger warnings with opt-outs for any argument that could possibly be triggering. I will not evaluate responses as to why trigger warnings are bad.

If you say “time will begin on my first word, time begins in 3-2-1, time will start now, first an off-time roadmap” I will internally cry. And then I will think about the fact that you didn’t read or listen to my paradigm, which will probably make me miss the first 7 seconds of your speech.

Card names aren’t warrants. If someone asks you a question in cross, saying “oh well our Smith card says this” is not an answer to WHY or HOW it happens. Similarly, please extend your argument, and don’t just “extend Jones”. I don’t flow card names, so I literally will not know what evidence you’re referring to.

If you are planning on reading/hitting a progressive argument, please go down to that specific section below.

Please don’t call for endless pieces of evidence, it’s annoying. Prep time is 3 minutes.

More specific things in round that will make me happy:

Past 230-ish words per minute I’ll need a speech doc. I hate reading docs and tbh would vastly prefer to have a non-doc round but I have come to understand that nobody listens when I say this so send me the doc I suppose. Also: I promise that my comprehension really is slower than people think it is so stay safe and send it

signpost signpost signpost

"The flow is a toolbox not a map" is the best piece of debate knowledge I ever learned and I think PF has largely lost backhalf strategy recently so if you do interesting smart things I will reward you

How I look at a round:

Whichever argument has been ruled the most important in the round, I go there first. If you won it, you win! If no one did, then I go to the next important argument, and so forth.

Please weigh :) I love weighing. I love smart weighing. I love comparative weighing. Pre-reqs and short circuits are awesome. Weighing makes me think you are smart and makes my job easier. You probably don’t want to let me unilaterally decide which argument is more important - because it might not be yours!

Speech Stuff:

Yes, you have to frontline any arguments you are going for. And turns. And weighing.

Collapsing is strategic. You should collapse. If you’re extending 3 arguments in final focus…why? Quality over quantity.

You need to extend your entire warrant, link, and impact for me to vote on an argument. This applies to turns too. If a turn does not have an impact, then it is not something I can vote on! (You don’t have to read an impact in rebuttal as long as you co-opt and extend your opponents’ impact in summary). Everything in final focus needs to be in summary. If you say something new in final focus, I will laugh at you for wasting time in your speech on something I will not evaluate. I especially hate this if you do it in 2nd final focus.

The best final focuses are the ones that slow down a bit and go bigger picture. After listening to it, I should be able to cast my ballot right there and repeat your final word for word as my RFD.

Progressive:

don't put your kids in varsity if they cannot handle varsity arguments. aka - i'm not going to evaluate "oh well i don't know how to respond to this". it's okay if you haven't learned prog and don't know how to respond, i don't need super formal responses, just try to make logical analysis; but i'm not going to punish the team who initiated a prog argument because of YOUR lack of knowledge (if you would like to learn about theory, you can ask me after the round I also went to a traditional school and had to teach myself)

I dislike reading friv prog on novices or to get out of debating SV. just be good at debate and beat your opponents lol

Disclosure/paraphrasing – I cut cards and disclosed. I don’t actually care super much about either of these norms (I actually won 3 disclosure rounds my senior year before we got lazy and didn’t want to have more theory rounds). So like, go have fun, but I am not a theory hack. I won’t vote for:

• first-3-last-3 disclosure because that is fake disclosure and stupid

• Round reports, I think this new norm is wild and silly

I learned the basics of Ks and hit a couple in my career, now have coached/judged several more, but not super well versed in literature (unless its fem). Just explain clearly, and know that if you're having a super complicated K round you are subjecting yourself to my potential inability to properly evaluate it. With that:

• Identity/performances/talking about the debate space/explaining why the topic is bad = that’s all good.

• If you run ‘dadaism’ or ‘linguistics’ I will be upset that you have made me listen to that for 45 minutes, and I’ll be extra receptive to reasons why progressive arguments are bad for the debate space; you will definitely not get fantastic speaks even if I begrudgingly vote for you because you won the round.

I hate reading Ks and just spreading your opponents out of the round. Please don’t make K rounds even harder to keep up with in terms of my ability to judge + I’m hesitant to believe you’re actually educating anyone if no one can understand you.

when RESPONDING to prog: i've found that evidence ethics are super bad here. It makes me annoyed when you miscontrue critical literature and read something that your authors would disagree with. Don't do it

Trix are for kids. If I hear the words “Roko’s Basilisk” I will literally stop the round and submit my ballot right there so I can walk away and think about the life choices that have led me here.

Frameworks:

• You need warrants as to why I should vote under the framework.

• I’m down with pre-fiat stuff (aka you just reading this argument is good) but you have to actually tell me why reading it is good and extend that as a reason to vote for you independent of the substance layer of the round

• Being forced to respond in second constructive is stupid. If your opponents say you do, just respond with “lol no I don’t” and you’re good.

• I WILL NOT VOTE FOR EXTINCTION FRAMING AS PREFIAT OFFENSE.

Crossfire:

Obviously, I’m not going to flow it. With that, I had lots of fun in crossfire as a debater. Be your snarkiest self and make me laugh! Some things:

• I know the difference between sarcasm and being mean. Be mean and your speaks will reflect that.

• My threshold for behavior in crossfire changes depending on both gender and age. For example: if you are a senior boy, and you’re cracking jokes against a sophomore girl, I probably won’t think you’re as funny as you think you are.

• If you bring up something in grand that was not in your summary, I will laugh at you for thinking that I will evaluate it in final focus. If your opponent does this and you call them out for it, I will think you’re cool.

Speaks:

Speaks are fake, you’ll all get good ones.

If you are racist/sexist/homophobic etc I WILL give you terrible speaks. Every judge says this but I don’t think it’s enforced enough. I will actually enforce this rule.

he / him

My email for the chain is hbharper8@gmail.com but also feel free to reach out with questions about your round / my RFD

tldr: I am okay with anything you run as long as you are respectful.

Fun Facts:

I did PF from 2015-19

I do not like to base my ballot only on disclosure theory or topicality, so you shouldn't make those your only voters.

I do not like when teams try changing the structure (speech times) of the round with theory.

I don't expect you to necessarily run a counter-interp against theory if you don't know how to do that. Just engage with the substance of their theory argument like any other argument.

I will probably tell your first speaker that they went for too much in summary.

I think in summary defense is sticky unless it was frontlined.

The second rebuttal should address the first rebuttal but I will accept responses in second sum as well - just no new turns.

No offensive off-case arguments in the second rebuttal.

Speaker points:

I appreciate funny taglines and puns when they are in good taste.

Yelling / being mean in cross will hurt your speaks.

email: harrisrach19@gmail.com

NCFL: I'd prefer if you kept your mask on but I recognize that not every judge will feel the same way

TL;DR for prefs: yes if you're trad, sure for lax and well explained prog, no for almost anything else. we will not vibe with anything else and I'd like to give you the opportunity to be judged by someone who has the capacity to give your arguments the credit they deserve.

TL;DR: I'm chill if you're chill. Respect your opponent. Generate clash. I make my decision however you tell me to.

**Control F if you're looking for anything specific. This is extensive and is mostly a combination of my friends' paradigms.

INTRO:

Hi, everyone, I'm Rachael! (pronouns: she/her):

• competed in LD & PF for North Allegheny (Wexford, PA)
• was pretty trad, made my appearance at a few nats (notables: PA States, NCFLs, & NSDA)
• coached @ Olentangy (OH)
• privately coached some successful students ('21 VA state champ in LD)
• instructed at camps (LD @ CDC & PF @ BRI); authored briefs for CDC (2021)
• Allegheny College (PA) alum; B.S. in computer science, double minors in political science & philosophy
• Carnegie Mellon University (PA) grad student; M.S. candidate for information security policy & management.

i'm still heavily involved in the debate community; i judge for Olentangy when i can, but Ohio uses speechwire, so it's not recorded below. when i'm not judging, i'm running tab.

email me w/ any questions about the round

GENERAL DEBATE COMMENTS & OVERVIEW:

• Please don't be rude or abusive. (If you do not treat your opponent with respect, I will not hesitate to give you the lowest speaks that tab will allow me to give)
• I believe in inclusivity in a debate. Proper pronouns, content warnings, etc. are all part of this as well. Use them. Be respectful.
• Signpost. Always.
• If you think you've gained any offense in CX, please mention it in your next speech. (I do not flow CX).
• If you're going to extend something across the flow, be sure to impact and weigh it. I will extend it, but I will not do the work for you.
• A PROGRESSIVE ROUND IS ONLY PERMISSIBLE IF BOTH TEAMS AGREE TO IT. (I would prefer to be a witness to this discussion so that I can ensure that this has been consented to by both parties). I will try to evaluate it as best as possible. Please do not expect me to be the 'prog' judge on the panel. I am, in every sense of the term, a traditional judge. (Note: I will be able to spot a lax version of a CP, DA, K, etc. Don't be that kid who runs progressive stuff at a traditional tournament, especially if your opponent has had little exposure to it or is relatively new -- "that's a war crime" - Dan Hepworth)
• I find this increasingly more important with the online format. Circuit debaters should make more of an effort to make rounds more accessible to trad debaters. I will not sympathize with your excuses for reading multiple offs against trad kids. You should have a trad case to read against especially novice trad kids. If you do not adapt appropriately, I will not hesitate to drop your speaks.
• I reserve the right to call for evidence. I will try to wait until the end of the round to do so, but if there is a lot of dispute over one specific card, I'll probably want to see it. (Please don't make me question your evidence, though).
• Please note that in most instances, I will only request evidence if there is a large controversy about it. Otherwise, I will only read or call for a card if you specifically tell me to (i.e., "Rachael, call for the card").
• (You should have evidence for a lot of the claims you make. Simply saying that it is a "logical" argument and that you don't "need" evidence to substantiate a claim will not only waste time, but it doesn't satisfy the normative obligations of a formal debate.)
• "Unwarranted arguments aren't good arguments" - Eva Lamberson.
• It is your obligation to not miscut or powertag evidence.

JUDGING:

I am a fly on the wall. Debate in the style that you want to. It is always good to be adaptable and able to fit the standards of your judge, but it is also good to have a style of debate that is unique to you.

HOW I DECIDE A WINNER (LD-SPECIFIC):

Note: I did trad. I coach trad. I write LD briefs for CDC so I've usually read a decent bit of topic lit.

• I try to be the best LD-Judge that I can. With that said, please try to keep up the normative obligations of an LD debate. Make sure that there is framework clash (please, please, please).

• Please, please, please give me a decent framework debate. This lays the groundwork for my decision.
• If you're linking in, follow through with that by showing how you better uphold the framework or better solve for the impacts of the round under the framework.
• Give me a better response than something that, at its root, is "their fw isn't good because it isn't my fw" or "my fw prereqs theirs" That does nothing to advance the fw debate.

• Don't spend too much time on the value debate. Morality and justice are pretty similar (note: not the same, but similar).
• "If what you really want is the util debate, then just run util. Traditional debaters do this thing where they're like 'my framework is rights' but it's clearly just util." - Eva
• Explicitly weigh under your framework
• At the end of the day, realize also that winning the framework does not win you the round and losing the framework does not cost you the round.
• For whichever framework that I buy (or still stands at the end of the debate), I will evaluate every argument within it. I will also take into account your voting issues so make sure to flesh them out and make them clear (please, please, please).

(Yes, you should have your own style of debate and not conform to every judge's arbitrary or subjective standards, but you should still uphold the obligations of an LD debate and I don't believe that I'm asking for too much of a deviance from that.)

**Do NOT read new arguments in the 2AR.

HOW I DECIDE A WINNER (PF-SPECIFIC):

Note: I will make this evident to both competitors before the start of the round.

• I will try to be the best PF-Judge that I can. With that said, please try to keep up the normative obligations of a PF debate. Make sure that you weigh your impacts.
• (PF defaults to util -- greatest happiness, greatest good for the greatest number).
• Scope, magnitude, and probability are just a few ways to weigh.
• (Be sure to meta-weigh if the weighing debate gets to that point.)
• I will evaluate which contentions still stand at the end of the debate and which impacts outweigh (but only through the mechanisms that you provide for me).

(Yes, you should have your own style of debate and not conform to every judge's arbitrary or subjective standards, but you should still uphold the obligations of a PF debate.)

**Do NOT read new arguments in the FF.

CIRCUIT:

Read whatever you want but I don’t judge or coach circuit enough to know the ins and outs of a lot of tech arguments. This means maybe you should give me slower overviews or not go for super complex tech stuff. Speed is generally ok but probably go like 75% speed max if you're spreading in front of me especially if it's something particularly complex because otherwise I will miss a lot and that's bad for everyone involved. At least slow way down on tags or if you're transitioning to a diff off or something thanks. I don't care much about adaptation argument wise but I’ll only be able to understand what you’re saying if it’s slow enough to flow

FAQ:

• Flex prep is fine.
• Don't call me "judge." Rachael is fine.
• If I'm nodding, it usually doesn't mean that I agree, but that I'm following your train of thought. I'm inclined to say that any other facial expressions usually mean what they suggest. I don't have a strong poker face so my suggestion is to adapt.
• I like when rounds are informal/funny/relaxed. I'll increase speaks if you make me laugh.
• I don't care if you stand, what you wear, if you swear, etc.
• I'll disclose if I can.

ONLINE ADJUSTMENTS:

• Please send speech docs even if you don't plan on spreading. Connectivity can be spotty and I think it is for the benefit of everyone in the round. Speechdrop.net, email, doc link are all fine. Don't send cards in the chat and don't spend over 2 minutes trying to figure out how to share docs.
• If you send something from your school email, it will most likely take longer to get to us since we're out of your domain.
• Time yourself and don't abuse your time. I will not flow, evaluate, or even consider off time arguments.
• Don't be stressed if I'm not looking at my screen. I usually flow on paper so I'm not really looking and I have a second monitor, which is usually where my ballot resides.
• I don't care about camera usage.
• Mute yourself when you're not speaking and/or taking prep.

RETURN TO IN PERSON TOURNAMENTS:

• I strongly prefer masking and distancing when possible
• pls do not attempt to shake my hand

yes, I am the girl who had the lil pump K read against her @ harvard 2018.

good luck! have fun! :)

For Stanford:

Everything in LD paradigm applies to PF. You can spread and I don’t care what you read. Send all speech docs beforre your speech with the cards your reading to my email below, if we have to do some weird calling card stuff I’m prolly gonna doc points bc it just takes way too long. Ideally you don’t paraphrase, won’t hack straight against if you do, but may lower speaks, so just read cut cards.

Email:sunayhegde2017@gmail.com

Hey, I'm sunay (he/him). I did LD at Montville Highschool for 4 years. Got a bid in LD my senior year and a few bid rounds.

It's been like 6 months since I have actively thought about debate. This means that you should probably go like 60-70% of your max speed in rebuttals (I have always been a bad at flowing either way) and always err on the side of over-explanation, especially for more dense debates. There are probably things I have forgot and need time to think about.

Shorter version:

Pref Sheet for all Events (1 is highest, 5 is lowest):

1 - Policy/theory

2 - K (security, cap, grove)

3 - tricks

4- phil

5 - pomo, performance

Defaults:

Theory - Dtd, C/I, no rvis

Presumption/Permissibility flows neg

yes 1ar theory

extinction ows

Will probably better fairly generous with speaks but generally my metric will be to start at a 29 and go up or down depending on strategy etc..

*As a general note, I don't care what you read and will vote on literally anything as long as its not racist, sexist, etc.., but things on the lower side of my pref list mean that I have less experience with them/will have a harder time evaluating more higher levels of those debates and will probably need you to go slower/over explain.

Long Version:

tech > truth

Policy- favorite style of debate and debated this the most. I really like smaller affs and specific case debate as opposed to generic impacts. Impact calc in the back half of the round is super important, 2nr/2ar needs the comparison otherwise my ballot becomes much harder to make. Also don't forget ev comparision since i'm unlikely to do the work there if you do not do it for me.

Theory - Dont care if its friv. Go a little slower through analytics and on the interp text/counterinterp text, esp if its analytic, since if u go full speed through like 3 shells good chance im gonna miss stuff. Disclosure good, but if you use it to abuse novices speaks will probably be lower. Good standard comparison and clear abuse stories make these rounds easier to judge.

Tricks - Will vote on anything as long as it has some type of warrant. Won't be too happy with ev after x speech args but like if its conceded and extended with a warrant I'll vote on it. Generally, if you want to read em - delineate them, err on the side of overexplaining the arguments (like don't be blippy) and be up front in CX. Also, reading them on a novice or trad debater will cap your speaks at 28. *Fair note here that just because I will vote for them does not mean I am gonna be the best at evaluating a Nailbomb AC or something of that sort.

Phil - Im not well read on a lot of type of phil. My knowledge on most lit bases is fairly rudimentary, which means for more niche arguments I'm unlikely to know it. I also was on the util side most of the time in these debates, meaning that however hard I try to be tab those biases will probably sway me in close debates. With all that being said, if u wanna read it go ahead, although im probably not the best to evaluate these debates. If you do go for it j make sure to explain it coherently and not just use a bunch of buzz words. This means that you probably shouldn't go max speed when explaining your syllogism and be blippy when extending random blips at the top of fw. I also really find permis/presumption debates to be pretty tedious, so if your nc/ac is just a bunch of permis/presumption triggers im probably also not the guy for you. This also means if skep is your strat im probably not the person to pref.

K - I've only really read cap and security as a debater so assume I don't know your lit and err on the side of overexplaining the theory of power in the 2NR. I really like well done K debates, so please don't forget the line-by-line for overarching overview answers and shallow explanations of the arguments that regurgitate buzzwords,. Including examples to explain the theory of power and/or alternative are also good. I also like specific links to the 1AC, generic links are fine but specificity will always better your chances of winning and/or getting good speaks. Make sure to have turn cases or alt solves stuff in there too. Also pomo makes me confused, so just be sure to explain it, im not gonna be able to vote off weird buzzwords i dont understand no matter how tab i try to be.

K affs/performance - I like K affs that have a clear advocacy that actually does something (non t/performance affs are fine but the threshold for either explanation of what the aff does/justifying the impact turn to T will be much higher). If you have some vague advocacy that is basically non T and super shifty, but act like its T in 1ac cx, I am going to be much more receptive to T args compared to if the aff was just non-T and went hard for the impact turn. This also means the overview to the 1ar should slow down and give a explanation of the affs theory of power, what the aff does, and why I should vote aff. If im left confused as to what the aff actually does by the end of the round, the presumption push the neg is going to make will be much more persuasive. Basically, make sure your ci is not super vague and ridiculously blippy, be ready for the impact turn debate, and give a clear explain as to what the aff does.

There is probably a bunch of stuff im missing just because i dont want this paradigm to be too long, so if you have a specific question just ask it before the round.

I'm a first year head coach at Skyline High School. I have three experience as an assistant coach. I've mostly worked with speech events, but also congress and Public Forum with limited experience in Policy and LD.

Policy:

Overall: I don't believe I'm experienced enough to understand theory or be able to strongly evaluate Kritiks.

Speed: I'm OK with speed as long as you email me your speeches (tfhenry@granitesd.org) , but please slow down for your taglines.

RFD: I typically base my decision on the the stock issues of the plan on the Affs ability to defend it and prove that it is better than the status quo. The NEG wins if they can prove the plan is worst then the status quo or the status quo is better than the plan.

Background:

2019, CX Debate State Runner-Up Conf. 2A

4-year CX Debater, Slocum High School

I was a Theory-debater in high school and am very well versed in the world of debate. I have debated at both the high school and college level. I have coached four CX teams and sent all four to State. I hated (and still do hate) Open-Evidence with a passion. I frequently ran kritiks and theory in high school so I will understand them fully if you decide to run either.

---

Gmail: kasendebate@gmail.com

Please include me on any and all email chains.

---

Overview:

• I am a Games Player.
• I view the debate as a game and I believe in the rules and points that come along with the game.
• I heavily value MPX Calc and rebuttal crystallizations.
• I don't listen to Performance Affs.
• I default new in the 2 unless the Neg provides theory on why it shouldn't be permitted.
• If you argue in CX, I will stop you. If it becomes excessive, I'll stop CX.

My background in debate is pretty intense and up-to-date. In my experience, there is nothing that you can argue that I haven't seen/heard/debated against/debated with. If you manage to confuse me, that's probably a sign that something's gone wrong.

For old-schoolers and debaters from State pre-Tabroom:

K: 5

T: 1

CP: 4

DA: 5

On-Case: 4

Conditional: 4

Quantity of Args: 5

New in 2: 4

Communication = Resolution

Quantity > Quality

Theory & Framework:

• I love Theory: most theory arguments go over well with me, so long as you know how to use them.
• Back-and-forth Framework bores me — I appreciate good framing but the framework debate itself is repetitive and tiresome.

Topicality:

• I am not a fan of Topicality. (T) arguments often are filler arguments and I would rather not listen to them.
• If you have strong (T)s that aren't fillers, then go for it.
• (T)s MUST include standards and voters, otherwise, I wash the (T) on my flow.
• I have never, and probably will never, vote on Funding/Agent/etc. You can still run it, but I doubt it'll be enough to win.
• I don't care for F-Spec in the slightest -- I will (basically) never vote on a funding argument.

Kritiks:

• I love K debates and interesting Kritikality.
• If you don't know how to run a K, then don't.
• I expect the Neg to understand their lit base and author.
• If the Aff doesn't know how to respond to a K, I either expect K Theory to follow or the Neg to explain the significance of the K and why it should remain on the flow. If neither happens, it gets washed.
• Props to the Aff if they can K the Neg...

CPs:

• CPs cannot, under any circumstance, be topical.
• PICs are fine with me as long as you know what you're doing.
• CPs should assume Aff solvency in its entirety and contain net-better MPXs in the Calc.
• CPs should be net-better.
• Mutual exclusivity is a novice argument. Mutually Inclusive CPs are legendary.

DAs:

• Must be warranted
• As for MPXs, ANYTHING >>>> Nuke War.
• I don't bother with Race War MPXs.

Evidence:

• I am not a Democrat nor am I a Republican -- I will not vote for you just because you read a card on racism or something.
• I consider debaters that play to a judge's political affiliation to be among the lowest of the low.

Speaks:

• I consider myself hard to impress but that's just me.
• I reserve my 30s for the best of the best; I average 27-28

Disclosure:

I will offer oral critiques to anyone who wishes. I will disclose my RFD so long as 1) the tournament permits, 2) there's time, and 3) all debaters consent to my immediate disclosure.

If any debaters object to the immediate disclosure, then I will accept that and not disclose. If any debaters have any questions, my email is free to those who wish.

Online Tournaments:

I expect all debaters to have your cameras on throughout the entire debate. This ensures clarity as well as fairness. Do NOT communicate with your partner during your speeches/CX.

——

If proper debate decorum is consistently violated, I'll stop speeches/CX/etc. Debaters, especially at district/state should be able to properly adhere to debate decorum.

---

I wish the best of luck to all teams present and expect great things from you all.

~ Kasen Hobson '23

Texas A&M University - Classics

---

In my judgment, the team that I award my ballot to is chosen based upon their skills and arguments presented in the round. I do not judge individuals based upon their race/ethnicity/sexuality/gender/political stance/etc. I believe in an open discussion in the debate space and place resolution and communication above all.

What you say matters more than who you are.

---

Hi!

I am a pretty chill and laid back judge. I myself do PF, so I know most of the ins and outs of how a round should go. Below are a couple of answers to common questions and some things you should know before beginning your round.

• I am 100% tech over truth. If you don’t give me anything technical to go off of, I will vote where I believe the arguments were the most convincing.
• If you or your partner concede something, it will automatically go to the other team. Spending time on it will not help, so I recommend spending time elsewhere on the flow. Try to win other points.
• I do not have any issues with speed. If you plan to speak at a speed that isn’t normal for Public Forum, please start an email chain with myself and the other competitors on it in order to ensure we all understand what is going on.
• In order to make sure that I understand all of the arguments in full, I may stop the round to ask a quick question or two. Make sure you have a good explanation because if I don't understand your argument, how am I supposed to vote for it?
• I don't vote on solvency just name dropped. You need to prove how YOU solve as well.
• I will not tolerate being rude or overly aggressive towards your opponent. I understand cutting someone off because they have been talking for too long, but being plain rude is unnecessary and will be reflected in your speaker points.
• Please DO NOT bring race into a debate in an inappropriate way. If you attempt to use my race as an advantage to win the round, you will lose and receive the lowest amount of speaker points the tournament will allow.
• I love jokes during the round because it makes it a lot easier for me to watch. With that being said, any offensive jokes made will cost you and your partner the round. If you have to question whether or not the joke was offensive, DO NOT MAKE IT.
• Make clean extensions of your link story if you want me to vote on a certain point in the debate. Just extending an uncontested impact or an uncontested response will not help. Tell me the story behind the point and if you can give me the card info as well so that i may draw the line on my flow.
• PLEASE COLLAPSE. I AM BEGGING YOU. Collapsing makes the round better for literally everyone involved. If you try to go for everything and miss one key extension it could cost you the round and no one wants that. Soooooo collapse.
• I welcome questions after the round to try to clarify why you won or lost the round, but please do not attempt to change my mind about the decision I have made. I attempt to make the best possible decision based on the flow and the content of the cases. Trying to change my mind will just aggravate me. It is what it is.

Overall, just be kind to your opponents and the judge. If you have any questions, please ask them before the round starts. It never hurts to ask. Happy debating.

I debated PF for Centerville High School in Ohio for four years and coached the middle school team for three years. I am a senior at Vanderbilt University coaching the University School of Nashville's debate team.

I competed at a few national circuit tournaments, but most of my debating was done on the local circuit. I have judged all debate formats but have not competed in all of them. Most of this paradigm relates to PF but in terms of Policy, I am open to hearing every argument and will evaluate based on the flow.

Add me to the email chain at sung.jun.jeon@vanderbilt.edu. If you spread, send a speech doc.

In terms of a PF round, here are a few things that I want to see:

1) You don't have to read direct quotes. I am fine with paraphrasing. However, if I find that you are misconstruing your evidence to make your claim, then I won't vote for that specific argument. Your speaks probably will go down as well if your opponents call you out for misconstruing evidence.

2) If you are speaking second, make sure to frontline any offense. I think it is strategic to frontline everything but at the minimum frontline turns.

3) I won't flow cross-fire, but if something major happens, make sure to address it in the next speech.

4) When extending cards and offense in the latter half of the round, make sure that you explain the warranting behind it.

5) If evidence is called, make sure to produce it in a timely manner. Also, I will call for evidence if you tell me to call for evidence.

6) Don't just dump responses. Explain what your evidence indicates and how this piece of evidence is significant in responding to your opponent's case.

7) I like to see you start weighing in rebuttal. I think it is strategic to set up the weighing earlier in the round and then carry that through summary and final focus.

How I vote:

If you want me to vote on a certain argument, it should be in both summary and final focus. Your argument should be explained in a clear manner and your impacts should be extended. Weighing your argument and impacts against your opponent's argument and impacts will make your path to the ballot easier. I will try not to intervene, but please weigh arguments comparatively to make my job easier as a judge. If not, I will have to decide which arguments are more important.

If there is no offense generated from each side (highly unlikely), then I will default to the first speaking team. If you say things that are sexist, racist, ableist, homophobic, transphobic, or are extremely rude in any way, I will drop you and give you low speaks. The debate should be civil and debaters should be respectful.

Please do not postround me. I do encourage you to ask questions about the round and why I voted the way I did. I am always looking for feedback to improve my judging.

If you have any additional questions, let me know.

TL;DR: I debated in high school. Any speed or style is fine by me, please don't change your argumentation to fit me! Semi-versed in everything typically run. Add me to the email chain by copying and pasting this:

hjordanpro@gmail.com

Feel free to email me if you want more clarity on an RFD, card, or feedback.

Note: Please, call me Hunter/He/Him! Don't call me 'judge" or "sir", it comes across awkwardly.

I have zero tolerance for racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, or bullying of any type

Background

Debated in CX for 3 years at Prosper HS in Texas mainly at local TFA tournaments. Broke at a few national tournaments, including NSDA, and won a third-place medal at UIL State. I don't have a set style, just thoughts on what I normally see run in a debate round. I did both policy & K debate.

Arguments I went for too much in my high school days: Capitalism, Bio/Necro ptx, Ptx DAs, and environmental impacts.

No one is truly tab, but I try my best to be open-minded and unbiased to any argument, and generally, I will default to tech > truth, barring a compelling reason. There are exceptions for this, but I hope you're not invoking them.

Ptx junkie, so I have a higher threshold on elections/senate/x bill DAs. I will burn terrible uniqueness cards into smithereens.

I can still do my pen flip from high school, but only with my eyes closed.

Don't be obnoxiously rude in any round with a clear skill gap between the teams, just debate normally and without condescending moments.

Toxicity is always bad. Respect the pronouns, experiences, or identities of the other debaters/judge(s)/crowd. Treat your partner nicely, and don't lash out if the round isn't going your way.

There's a line between arrogance and confidence, and you should try to stay on the confident side.

I was definitely an intense debater, but remember that it's just a debate round at the end of the day.

Do these things:

-Specific line-by-line analysis/organized speeches = cool

-ROB/Framing = cooler

-Warrants are the coolest.

Avoid these things:

-Blippy, blitz analytics

-Late-breaking shifts

-Generics

-Stealing prep, I'll probably notice you doing it.

*Merging docs together or whatever as your partner furiously types is still prep*

Speaks

I'm not a hard judge to impress, so if you want higher speaker points, debate however you normally would. Please don't try to 'adapt' to me, I won't hurt any debater's speaks for using whatever style they prefer.

On my speaker points scale, the points are typically 27.5 - 30. That's the range, but it's kinda hard to be at the lower end of the spectrum with me judging, I'm pretty forgiving. Still, I'll adjust it slightly to the tournament setting if I need to, yet a 30 is almost always a 30. Post-rounding is fine, but don't overdo it.

RFD's

- I'll always try to give an oral decision and RFD.

- Please feel free to ask questions and interrogate it, if it's a panel, maybe hold off until the other judges have spoken. Even though I'm fine with you grilling me about my ballot, recognize that it won't change either way.

- If we're in a rush or whatever, shoot me an email or find me later on at the tournament to clear anything up.

Policy Affs

-Don't assume I know the aff or topic literature, especially at the beginning of the year.

-Please don't ignore the mechanism of the aff post 1AC, sticking a line in the overview isn't enough either.

-Weaponize the aff, most of the time the neg team does minimal actual debating on the solvency or inner workings of a 1AC, and they shift the focus purely to internal links to the impact scenarios.

-I think aff teams that can extend and expand on the core thesis of the plan are a lot more likely to win a perm or beat a CP or Alt straight up.

-Solvency advocates are nice but you can win without one

Topicality

-Every aff challenges T in some way. I'll default to competing interpretations unless told otherwise persuasively. Reasonability is a contextual argument, it can definitely be won in front of me.

-The neg needs to win an impact here, and the more articulated this is, the more comfortable I am voting on T.

-I think FXT and Extra - T are severely underused arguments that can prove abuse.

-I like the Block/2NR to have a case list of hypothetical topical affs.

-If the aff is questionably topical, make sure you convince me that it is/isn't topical

K Affs

-These are super common, read them if you want, I've certainly read my fair share.

-Outline the methodology or the stance, don't be beyond shifty in CX on what the aff actually does.

-Please try to keep it in the direction of the topic.

-I'm well versed in most K lit, but don't assume I understand your unique spin on "insert author here".

-The same logic applies as above, most neg teams still fail to attack the actual mechanism of the aff, so utilize that.

-Performance affs are also awesome and totally have a place in the debate space, I've judged them

Framework

-The best FW args are the ones that actually recognize the point of a K aff.

-A TVA or SSD is much more persuasive than fairness by itself as a voting impact

-That being said, in round abuse exists, and FW can easily be won in front of me.

-Just tread carefully, and keep how you access the ballot as the focus (for both teams, if that wasn't clear.)

K's

-Win a strong link. Articulate an impact chain. Outline the method of the alternative for me.

-Don't assume I know the K lit. Avoid buzzwords and 4-minute overviews.

-Remember that ROB/ROJ args make it a much easier ballot for the K.

-I'll vote for any K argument that you can explain to me, but sometimes more is less with K debate on the links or MPX.

-If the K is your typical strategy, don't change it in front of me

DA

-The more specific they are, the better!

-Don't read outdated ptx scenarios or whatever if you can avoid it

-Internal link chains are nice when remembered.

-A 2NR can totally torpedo a solid policy aff with an equally solid DA, if this is your style, go for it.

-I enjoy a unique DA with a fun impact scenario!

CP

-Innovative CPs are much more likely to get my ballot, but I'll listen to whatever.

-Consult, delay and that whole crowd are probably abusive and a reason to reject the CP outright.

-A CP that goes for sufficiency framing is cool, but your CP out-solve (resolve?) the aff too.

-Solvency advocates crystallize a CP for me, but you don't necessarily need one

-Net benefits are under-explained or often chalked up to a DA, so focus a tad more on how you differentiate from the aff.

Theory

-I don't like intervening, so please don't make me vote on whether your 15-second blip in the 2AC/the block that became 5 minutes of the 2NR/2AR was worthy of voting down the other team, yet...

- Disclosure theory is :( and usually used by big schools to bully smaller institutions, but brand new K affs are probably bad.

-CP's theory is the most common stuff I come across, go for it. I'll def entertain condo theory if there are 3+ CPs or Ks or whatever. As noted above, abusive CPs like consult or delay are legit theoretical aff objections.

-Speed theory or something along those lines is solid if you can explain an accessibility concern, that's a true reason to vote down a team.

LD

-I have a decent enough background with LD. Do whatever you normally do, everything noted above and below applies with a few caveats.

-Theory hacking is annoying and quite boring. Time sucks are probably bad.

-LARP or progressive debate techniques are totally welcomed in front of me

-Some sort of framing is probably a good idea, but I'm not some value/criterion absolutist.

PF

-I will never approach a PF debate as a lay judge, sorry.

-Refer to the above

-Sticky defense is fine

-Send the speech docs, I like to read PF evidence since it's so blippy.

-Impact debate is really cool, but framing is even cooler.

-Feel free to run CX/LD style arguments

I have about 7 years of experience in speech/debate and my pronouns are she/her. Please don’t hesitate to ask more clarifying questions if you need to but here’s my paradigm:

DEBATE

ALL EVENTS: Yeah ok you can go fast, I really don’t mind but if you guys decide to run some wacky arguments really fast please tag and cite clearly so it actually goes on my flow instead of getting lost in the sauce.

Being catty is okay because I kinda like a little drama but if I feel like you’re being unnecessarily rude, that may have an effect on the ruling albeit I would only use it as a tiebreaker.

Framing is key. Always.

I will always listen AND flow your last speech of the round so please don’t give up or halfheartedly do it because you feel like you’ve already won/lost. I’ve seen and debated rounds where the last speech completely changed the outcome of the ballot so please, try.

POLICY: I did policy actively throughout high school and have also debated the current topic. I would say tab/games. I’m familiar with most common K literature (Antiblack, Security, Baudrillard, Cap, etc) and will listen to anything but blatantly racist, xenophobic, homophobic, or sexist arguments. All arguments must have warrants and theory has to be explained.

LD: I’ve competed in it before but I’m unfamiliar with this topic so please tell me what your abbreviations mean. My policy paradigm is pretty much the same for progressive LD as well and if it’s novice, then just do your best and I’ll follow.

PF: I’ll listen to anything. I’m unfamiliar with the topic but familiar with PF and so dw I got you. Weighing is good! Structured flows and rebuttals are even better! FF and Summary are not just mini rebuttals! Please wrap up and give me voters in the last speech!

EXTEMP: Definitely need to hear sources and citations and they MUST be relevant. If you quote extremely biased news sources at me, I will be a little sad. Humor is an EASY way to get 1 in my book, however, make sure we’re staying on topic.

Any other event: just ask! I’m usually not that nitpicky so I’ll view the round however you want me to.

I am a 'lay' parent judge. I have been judging Lincoln Douglas Debate for the past 4 years. I do flow, but it is up to you to express your thoughts and ideas clearly and to tell me why they matter.

I like competitors to speak at an understandable pace. I can't flow what I can't understand or hear.

Your logical arguments should be highlighted by your evidence. Freestanding evidence without a logical argument requires me to make the link and that is not what I consider to be my job.

At this point I believe you both should be able to manage your time. Be responsible and don't abuse the time you know you are entitled to.

What competitors look like, what their screen background is, how they are dressed, their gender etc is not factored into my decision. I do not give preference. I vote for the competitor who puts forth the best arguments with good evidence.

gordondkrauss@gmail.com

Head LD Coach at Peninsula High School.

debate.ianmackeypiccolo@gmail.com

2 yea rs of policy at Fox chapel. I was a 2N, did ins on aff, and went for only policy arguments. 3 bids to the TOC my senior year if that's important to you. 

Tech > truth shall be the whole of the law. No argument is presumptively too dumb or unfair to answer it. 

I like impact turns and debates about counterplan competition. 

no out-of-round stuff.

Misgendering is a sufficient reason to reject a team and stop the round if requested.

Fairness is not intrinsically good.

No mercy for dropping framework tricks, even really bad ones like truth testing. 

He/Him

email: prateek.motagi@stern.nyu.edu

lots of circuit experience (gtoc and more)

ask me anything before round!

tldr: run whatever, explain it, win!

disclosure is good (I mean for my decision, ofc)

• Tech>Truth. I'll vote off ANYTHING extended cleanly on the flow. I was forced by my partner to love impact turns (do what you will with that). More on progressive stuff below.

• Pleeeease read content warnings for potentially triggering args or u lose speaks (saves u from theory)

• for novices- a content warning is when you read a warning for potentially harmful stuff in speech. for example, if I'm running solving domestic violence in my case, which some people could be uncomfortable debating about since that's an issue personal to them, I would say 'content warning: domestic violence' before constructive to notify them :)

• Tell me if you're in the bubble and I'll give you 30s

• If there is a lay or a flay on the panel, kick me. I'm fine with a nice, chill debate, and you should adapt to the majority!

Speeches

• Paraphrasing is chill, just don't lie about evidence. HOWEVER, I’m open to cut-card theory–I won’t intervene with my personal ideologies.

• I'm fine with any speed, I don’t want to limit you as the judge. However, notify me before your speech so I know what to expect! I'll let you know if I need a doc or not.

• Enunciate even if you're spreading, don't try to slur words to get more stuff out pls.

Rebuttal

• You must frontline in 2nd rebuttal.

• Independent DAs in 2nd rebuttal are sus, but responsive/overviews are fine.

Summary/FF

• Must extend your link, impact, and clear warrant!!! (idc about author names I don't flow them)

Framework

• Framework's cool! Please warrant it. Too many times, teams will just read a blip at the top of case saying “The fw for this debate should be how x will help in the future”

• I GUESS I'll buy any framing. If it makes my head hurt then I will not vote off of it (this is maybe the most I’d intervene?)

Progressive

• ngl idk much about prog

• I was not a theory debater

judge simp bad!

Public Forum:

I'm a flow judge who has experience in HS debate in the National Circuit--so feel free to signpost using jargon or just refer to cards by name, or use an appropriate amount of speed. I really don't like to or want to intervene on the flow. Please extend your arguments, especially weighing and warranting, so I don't have to. You can send me a dm on discord - muchanem#1975 - if you have any questions.

Flowing/ Speed:

I have experience in HS PF debate. I will be flowing on Flexcel and can flow almost anything except for the very fastest of spreading, around 900 word cases is where I will need a speechdoc. That said, I do prefer that you not spread a lot - and if you will be spreading that you provide a speechdoc. I understand the need for efficiency during/after 2nd rebuttal in the round, so as long as you're clear with your words, I can follow what you're saying.

Extensions:

Please extend cards with their tags - it helps me flow. When you extend arguments, extend warrants and impacts as well or it might as well not be flowed - unless your argument uses your opponent's impact which does occasionally happen.

Responses:

Please contextualize your responses in rebuttal. A turn isn't a turn unless you contextualize it.

Tech vs Truth:

I weigh tech over truth. However, I will drop a super techy argument that is near impossible to buy in the real world with even just a blippy response. I.e. I do flow everything, but don't expect me to not consider warranting.

Speaker Points:

Here's the hierarchy:

1. How easy your speeches are to follow/rhetorical skill.

2. How good you are in cross (but I will not weigh a round off of cross)

3. Being generally polite (no need to be over the top, just no bad behavior in round please)

Evidence:

I won't call for evidence unless there is an active dispute about what a piece of evidence actually says. Instead, I want you to call for evidence (if you need to) and tell me why I should buy your evidence, and recency is not a reason without a warrant.

Weighing:

Please actually comparatively weigh. A lot of weighing in PF is just scope and magnitude hidden as something else, I need you to properly weigh. For instance, if you have a short term econ argument, and they have a long term lives argument I need you to tell me why your short term econ argument effectively makes it impossible to solve their argument, why the short term is more important (urgency), or some other unique mechanism. Or, why should consider the long-term mechanics because of their larger scope or more central threat.

Crossfire:

If something important happens in crossfire, put it in a speech or it won't be on my flow. I only use cross to help me as a judge better understand arguments, and occasionally help decide speaks.

Extemp:

I'm a debater who also did extemp - so I do have experience in judging and competing.

Here are the things I like to see in extemp (in order of importance):

1. Content - extemp, at least in my mind is an event all about content and explaining a complex issue, thus you must have solid content - this means you have to be able to really have an information packed speech.

2. Painting a narrative - extemp still has to be accessible, it's not a presentation of the latest world event, this means you must be able to explain complex issues while still creating a narrative (I especially like extended metaphors)

3. Speaking ability - the most important thing is your fluidity, you must be able to present yourself as a knowledgeable speaker.

4. An eye-catching AGD - your AGD doesn't have to be funny, it just has to pique my interest (though I do usually prefer funny AGDs)

Here are the things I don't care about as much (not in any particular order):

* The amount of evidence you have - as long as you're not using 2 pieces of evidence for your whole speech you'll be fine.

* Perfect walking

* Gestures (as long as they're not overused)

tldr: trad flow

dislike jargon

go slow

high threshold for what's considered warranting

warrants for offense and defense r necessary

cross is useless

prog is cool

I was an LD/Congress debater for three years (2016-2019) and mostly competed at local tournaments, but I have experience with bid/national circuit tournaments as well. I'm pretty much here because of a combination of nostalgia and an obligation to give back to an activity that gave me so much.

Some wisdom looking back:

Don't be afraid to take up space. What you have to say matters! That being said, you can be assertive without putting down your opponent.

Debate about what you care about! Do you care about women's issues? Climate change? Access to healthcare? Find a way to relate the topic to what you deeply care about. It will make research so much more interesting and will often result in unique arguments that can be strategically favorable.

Vestavia Hills '19

Berry College '22

she/her (they/them pronouns are ok)

Email: snelson001923@gmail.com Feel free to email me for whatever, my debate resources (though not many) are your resources. I'm always down to chat about science, medicine, and environmentalism :)

Online Tournaments: Speech docs are a must!! Even if you’re not spreading, I probably won’t be able to hear you as clearly as you'd like; I've heard plenty of rounds where someone was cutting out every few seconds.

I think defaulting to they/them pronouns for everyone in the round is a pretty good practice (but not a voting issue). If you prefer something else, let me know or put your pronouns in your tabroom profile.

Any argument that I deem racist, sexist, homophobic, classist, ableist etc. will result in an immediate drop. Debate and civil discourse often excludes the voices of disadvantaged groups, and arguments like these can further deter people of these groups from participating. I default to viewing the round as a microcosm of real public policy-making/discourse, so it should be a model of respect and tolerance despite the poor example set for us by current politicians.

Plagiarism or cutting cards in a way that changes their meaning (i.e. cutting out the word NOT from a sentence) will result in an automatic loss no matter what happened on the flow if I discover it. Less blatantly incorrect but still deceptive cutting will result in me not evaluating the card in the round and a possible reduction in speaker points. If you go for evidence ethics and lose it, I won't automatically vote you down, but I'll probably lower your speaks.

PF

I've only seriously debated PF at one (online) tournament, so take that as you will. I'm not 100% on the norms as far as what counts as a dropped arg (like how much you have to do on your own case in 2nd rebuttal), so I'll let the debaters set their own norms for these and tell me why making an argument at a certain point is abusive or not.

General Stuff:

Unless I'm told to do otherwise, I'll just evaluate under util. I'll have a high threshold to be persuaded to use another fw.

COLLAPSE AND WEIGH! I hate looking at a flow with 5 contentions where cards are pretty much at a deadlock and having to decide who won.

Evidence: Paraphrasing is ok as long as cards are available. If the entire round ends up being hinged on a card or two, then I might call for them before I write my ballot. If a team fails to present me or their opponents with a card within one minute of it being called for, I won't consider the evidence.

Long rant about progressive args:

It seems like PF is following the trend of other debate events in that is getting more and more tech. I've run Ks at an online PF tournament just for fun, but whether this kind of debate should become a norm in public forum is a difficult question to answer for me. For now, I'll set these standards:

Feel free bring up issues such as structural violence and even introduce framing that is not simply a "cost-benefit analysis", but I won't weigh it entirely before substance like "pre fiat impacts" usually are in tech rounds. If you don't read this and do run a K, I'll just weigh it like a contention and there will be a high threshold for me to weigh it first (it pretty much has to be completely conceded and extended cleanly). Also, I'll be more likely to evaluate Ks like set col, afro pessimism, fem, etc because I think that these are actually issues that policymakers should consider in real life. Ks like baudrillard or anprim won't get my vote in these rounds. I won't vote on tricks in actual PF rounds. I don't really see how tricks benefit policymaking skills, which is supposed to be the point of PF. For theory, I won't weigh theory that is frivolous or dumb (shoe theory, cough cough). If the violating school is not on the wiki, I will not evaluate disclosure interps. Running disclosure on teams that don't even know that the wiki exists is horrible for small schools. If there is clear abuse in the round (like running a plan or counterplan or some other arg that inherently limits your ability to respond, including Ks and tricks), I'll weigh theory against that pretty heavily because it's the only way to check back on that abuse.

LD

I started LD at my school really just so that I wouldn't have to debate with a partner, but I ultimately fell in love with all of the layers and intricacies of LD rounds. Stock rounds are fine; they're more accessible, after all. But really, I love the meta aspect of LD that allows us to take a step back and address the assumptions that shape the round and our world through kritiks or theory. Also, introducing layers just makes my job as a judge easier most of the time.

General (if you don't want to spend forever reading all of my ramblings, just read this section)

Quick Pref Guide:

LARP: 1

Theory (basic): 1

Ks (in the direction of the topic): 2

Trad: 2/3

Tricks: 3

Ks (identity, hostage taking, not intrinsic to the topic): 3/4

Phil: 4 (dumb it down for me)

High Theory: 5/strike

I'll weigh T>theory>K>case (this is pretty basic, there will be rare instances where this differs based on how bad the top layer was or if I'm persuaded that one layer has more out of round impacts).

Tech>Truth

Please give me an off-time roadmap and signpost! Taking a couple of extra seconds can be the difference between me voting on your argument and me not even being able to put it on the flow.

Speed: If you're spreading or basically spreading under the guise of "speaking fast", just be safe and make an email chain. That way, there's no question of whether I can clearly hear and evaluate your arguments. The last thing I want is to have to leave things off my flow because I couldn't understand what you were saying.

CX: BINDING!! But also, I think it’s kinda a weak arg if you use something vaguely implied in cross as a link.

On progressive args: Accessibility to debate is (believe it or not) pretty important. Lincoln Douglas in Alabama has been slowly dying (and limited to only a few schools), while other events (PF, Congress, IEs), have generally been doing pretty well. The reason for this is that LD is inherently less accessible; the layering permitted in LD rounds requires a lot of education and resources that many debaters do not have. LD is cool in that you get to run this obscure stuff, but the point of LD is to DEBATE, as it is called Lincoln Douglas DEBATE. If you're debating against someone who has less resources and had no means to learn how to respond to these args, running tricks or high theory is going to make for an extremely unproductive round. Being able to LARP debate is still a very important and foundational skill (even if it seems like it's not because it's usually the bottom layer). If you can't get a ballot in a LARP round in this context, then you probably didn't deserve it from me in the first place. If you make it so that the other side cannot engage, I'll dock your speaks (think like 26 max), and you can say goodbye to a speaker award or a good seed for break rounds.

LARP

I was a big LARPer in high school (really because I wasn't taught much outside of LARP debate and learned more about the other stuff as a judge). If you want to limit the chance of me screwing you over with my decision, a LARP round is probably the way to go.

In LD, framework is key. It tells me how to evaluate the round, so take time to explain why I should prefer your value/value criterion/ROTB and why your case fulfills it. I would prefer that your criterion has an author explaining why it achieves your value, but if it doesn't, I'll buy analytical arguments. I'll default to util until I'm given any other fw.

CPs: I loved running these and would pretty much have an obscure CP for every topic in high school. But, there is a difference between an obscure advocacy and an abusive one. I'm very likely to prefer theory if it's run well against a PIC or conditional CP.

Plans: If your plan does not maintain the original intent of the resolution or is extra-topical, I'll prefer good theory from the neg. Keep in mind that I'm relatively a stickler for topicality, but spec as long as it fulfills the res is fine.

Disads: Don't be sloppy with the links. Tell me why you o/w on magnitude/probability.

Kritiks

I think that Ks are a very important aspect of debate in that we get to dig deeper and question the underlying societal assumptions that inform public policy making and debate. I am more familiar some of the more common ones (capitalism, biopower, anthro, afro-pessimism, queer-pessimism, fem, security etc.) I'll also vote on hostage taking/satire if extended throughout as long as the other side doesn't point out a perf con (that's the biggest weakness I see in those rounds) or have a good turn etc. Don't assume that I'm familiar with some obscure K. If you want to run something that is not on this list, PLEASE ask me about it before round. This is basically me saying that it's your responsibility to make sure that I will be able to vote on what you read. Also, I'm probably not the best person to judge a K vs K round. Because I believe that it is the affirmative's duty to be topical, it'll be hard for you to make me evaluate some K affs, but if you've learned anything from reading this, I don't have a lot of black and white rules for how a debate should go. I'll ultimately weigh the round based on the rules that are established by the debaters, so see theory below.

Performance/identity Ks are cool, but again I'd prefer that you in some way link your advocacy to the topic if you're running these on the AFF, but I won't gut check non-intrinsic K affs. Don't just go up there and read a story or say "because I'm ___ vote for me" (it has happened). Explain how my vote actually indicates a paradigm shift. Reading these well is probably one of the best ways to get high speaks from me.

If you're going for the K, the method will be under harsh scrutiny. I'm super sympathetic to charity cannibalism args against id pol Ks, especially if you don't identify with the group that is the subject of the K. Shouldn't have to be said but just... don't exploit people's suffering for the ballot.

Theory

I'm a lot better versed in theory than I am in Ks. I like it a lot more than most debaters probably, but that doesn't mean that I love friv theory. See below:

Theory serves as a check on abuse in the round and is also important in terms of setting norms for debate as an activity. Theory is not something that should just be thrown at any argument for which you didn't prep or used as a weapon to waste your opponent's time by forcing them to respond to it in the next speech. If your opponent goes for the RVI in those cases, I'll probably give it to them. That being said, I don't know why so many judges hate RVIs, but I'm often willing to vote on them to deter frivolous theory. If your opponent calls for competing interps, you'd better have a counter-interp because lack of one can easily become a voting issue. I don't really prefer education or fairness, so feel free to run either. I'm more likely to buy "drop the argument", but if initiating theory required you to drop other substance in the round, feel free to run "drop the debater". Spikes are fine; I don't love them because they're kind of abusive, so any response to them at all by the other side will require you to spend some actual time explaining why the spike is good for debate in your next speech.

Things I want to see eventually if I'm going to evaluate theory as the top layer in the debate:

-An interp stating what debaters SHOULD do (not what they should not do)

-A clear violation linking specifically to what your opponent read

-A couple standards listing problems that the abuse causes/exacerbates in the round and how this practice prevents fairness and/or education

-Voters/paradigm issues: Tell me WHY promoting fairness or education is a prereq to the rest of the flow. Tell me whether I should drop the debater or the argument (drop the debater needs some kind of justification for why this abuse requires a deterrent that severe). I default to reasonability if nothing is specified but have a low threshold for evaluating competing interps.

Interps that I'll be especially sympathetic to:

-Any T framework

-Spec Good/Bad (nebel)

-PICs bad

-Condo bad

-no Alts bad

-severance perms bad

-NIBs bad

Tricks

If you're running tricks and say "what's an a priori", minus two speaks.

Tricks are pretty much dependent on truth testing framing (trying to make tricks a voting issue with comparative worlds framing is dumb, don't do it), so they're not as infallible as they may seem. I'll be receptive to tricks, but if you're debating against someone who knows what they're doing, you'll probably just end up kicking them and you will have really just wasted your own speech time. I'm not a big fan of NIBs, but I can't say that I'm not partially here to be entertained, so if you make the round entertaining with tricks or just anything unexpected, that'll be reflected in your speaker points. At the same time, if you're a big school debater running these against a small school debater or novice who doesn't even know what they are, your speaks will be docked a bit (see LD general).

Speaks

+0.3 for running something fem

-0.5 for disrespectful expressions while your opponent is speaking (I see this a lot between partners in PF)

+0.2 for a good pun (limited to only one addition of 0.2 points, please don't make me cringe)

+0.4 for some (ACCURATE) chemistry explanation. This would be cool, but you'd also probably waste some time doing this if you're going for the ballot. If you just want speaks, this is an easy bonus. I have had someone take advantage of this once, and it made my day.

-0.5 if it's pretty clear that you have no idea what your cards actually say

-1 if you're a big school debater and try to tell a small school debater what's good for them

*See LD General about progressive args and speaks

Points can be added subjectively for how entertained I was by your speeches.

If you have any questions about what to run, feel free to ask me before the round.

Don't call me Judge, please call me Kim. Lay but open to prog if you're willing to explain it to me. It'd be cool if you could slow down on analytics. Clear 3 times, then I'm nuking speaks.

Email me if you run into complications: 004nguyen.k@gmail.com

Shades Valley '20

SpeakFirst '20

University of Alabama debate '24

Email----fcoden02@gmail.com

I finaled a few locals and had even records at the majority of circuit tourneys

I will probably ask for a piece of paper.

I ran Afropess/Antiblackness the large majority of my senior year so you can be as trad or progressive as you want.

With that being said nonblack people shouldn't run afropess or antiblackness.

Please make the activity accessible, if you know your opponent isn't as progressive as you and I can tell, I'm docking you by at least one point.

no tricks

Feel free to ask any questions.

Hey Debaters! I'm Aly Pabani, a Junior at Lambert! I have a lot of PF experience and a little LD on the side :)

Alright, lets get started:

PREFERENCES

1) No Spreading. I prefer you let me hear everything properly. This benefits you and your opponent as well. You because I get all the arguments, and your opponent because they can actually hear you. If you have to spread then send the speech doc

2) Explain what you are trying to say. Don't just give me statistics and analytics. Tell me why it matters. GIVE ME IMPACTS! Don't just say that people die, tell me specifics. How many, timeframe, etc. With these things I weigh more effectively

3) People ask like all that "Sitting or Standing" stuff. I don't care at all. Whatever you decide on both have to follow

4) I am a lay judge. I want you to explain it to me. show me why your case matters. I can and sometimes will vote on the flow.

Cross-Ex:

1) Be Aggressive, but do not overdo it. Don't bully the opponent, but if they are avoiding the question, pressure.

2) Note, I do not flow Cross-Ex. I make notes, but I WILL NOT FLOW. BRING UP POINTS FROM THE CROSS-EX IF YOU WANT ME TO NOTE THEM

3) Be Creative! Don't do the "Do you believe...." questions. those are annoying. come up with some clever questions

Speeches:

- Do what you need to do. Don't waste to much time on arguments that the opponents drop. Tell me what it was, what card, and its Impact as concisely as possible

- I will not vote off of framework. This is mostly an LD thing, but I want to vote off impacts and evidence, not "Who solves util better" or something.

-Do comparison! Weighing is great, but if both teams "outweigh" for different reasons, what do I do? Framework and impact framing (some people call this "meta weighing") is your friend. If you have conflicting evidence or arguments, tell me why I prefer one side over another so it isn't two ships passing in the night.

- In Speeches, If you are going to spread, please say so, and send me the speech doc at ranger8825@gmail.com

Speaking:

- Be respectful. Avoid using filler words. Do not insult your opponents

" I will give 30 speaks to every debater I judge; speaks are extremely subjective, reinforce elitism in debate (there is a reason why there is almost no variation in speaker awards from tournament to tournament), and are objectively ableist. I want my decision to be determined only by what is said in the round, not how it is said. There are four things you can do to screw this up for yourself:

a) you say something problematic (e.g. racist, ableist, sexist) in round, in which case I'll give you the lowest possible speaker point value at the tournament,

b) you cheat in round (evidence misconstruction), in which case I won't evaluate the card and I'll deduct 1 point per offense,

c) you are rude in round, in which case I'll deduct 2 points per offense. Now, I know CX can get heated, and many debaters just have difficulty setting aside their privilege (I struggled with both of these things many rounds in my career), so if you catch yourself or apologize during the round, you'll mitigate the penalty. Or,

d) you make me intervene in the debate in order to adjudicate the round (e.g. I have to vote on an internal link or ghost extension), in which case I will cap you at a 27-29, depending on severity of offense (the losing team will be capped half a point below the winning team).

If the tournament doesn't allow ties for speaks, I will use the smallest point increment allowed to differentiate speakers.

I like sarcasm and humor, so keep doing that, but keep it tasteful. " (Literally all of it is from Abbott)

Prep:

-I don't mind flex prep. Make sure the opponents agree

Overall:

- Have fun! Please. Don't worry about losing.

-Loosen up! Make jokes, puns, whatever. Make me and the opponent enjoy the round.

VOTING

- I will usually disclose and give feedback, but if its really close, I might not. In any case, if you have questions or know why I voted the way I did/ Who did I vote for, come talk to me!

" I vote on complete arguments first. If neither side has a complete argument because something in final focus is not in summary, I will have to ghost extend through summary for both teams. If it's not in final focus, I won't vote on it. Try not to do this please

2) I then vote on the most important arguments (based on framing/weighing/comparison in the round).

3) I then vote on the best-accessed arguments (the team that best wins their links and impacts by, for example, front lining their arguments and extending defense on their opponent's case).

4) I then vote on the best uniqueness in the round for a risk of offense" (again, from abbott)

-Don't misconstrue evidences --> I will drop your evidence on that

- Make sure you bring up all of your arguments / frameworks --> I will drop them

Just by the way, in case you noticed, some of this stuff is from Allen Abbott's paradigm. I'm not lazy, I just agree and would rather not waste my time re writing.

JUST REMEMBER: HAVE FUN! MAKE FRIENDS! DEBATE ISN'T WIN/LOSS, ITS ALSO ABOUT THE FRIENDS YOU MAKE ALONG YOUR JOURNEY INTO THIS WORLD!!!!

Note: Any judge's paradigm is not the way they actually judge but the way they think they judge so take this paradigm for what it is.

I have debated various forms of parli for 6+ years. I come from Connecticut which is a pretty lay region in parli and that background frames how I judge. However, I think I do judge the flow fairly well.

I won't intervene in weighing unless neither team weighs.

If you give me a clear path to the ballot using your arguments and the other team doesn't I'll be more inclined to vote for you even if you individual arguments may not be as developed.

I want your rebuttals to TELL me why you win, you can be explicit about it.

I can understand theory arguments but don't run them frivolously. I may intervene and drop you.

Warrants + Stats > Warrants > Stats

If you exclude an opposing team with speed then I will drop you.

Lay judge proud father of 5 debaters and husband 3.

please use convincing words and use passion and emotions I like good debates. I will vote for winner based off good posture

Look to Sunay Hegde's paradigm, I agree with everything on his paradigm

Unfamiliar with competitive debate. Dislike Postmodern arguments. I am not a fan of progressive PF. PF was created for a specific purpose, and that purpose is not to run plans, K's, counterplans, and high theory. Additionally, I am not a flow judge. Please only use information already stated in final focus; I am looking for a summary of your final arguments, not brand new ones that your opponent is unable to answer.

CX Paradigm

About me - I currently debate for Garfield High School. I've done policy debate for 3 years went to camp once and have competed on the WA local circuit and national circuit. I've primarily been a 2n although have been a 2a. I went primarily for psychoanalysis the past 2 years and when i was a 2a went for a baudrillard aff if that gives you any insight to my argument preferences.

Unless given another framework for evaluating the round i will: flow the debate, decide key issues of the debate (preferably the 2nr and 2ar have already identified those issues), based off my flow i will decide who won those key issues. I default to tech over truth, terminal defense being a thing, and new 2nr/2ar arguments are bad.

Argument choices - there is not an argument i will not listen to. that being said reading blatantly racist/homophobic/sexist arguments will make me much more inclined to vote against you. Arguments like death good, extinction good, etc. are all fine - debate gives us a place to explore non traditional opinions (i.e. warming good, death good, etc.) and i think that can be valuable so don't let me get in the way of it. DA and CP debates are cool - if you have a super complex and interesting mechanism be sure to explain it and i'll be much more likely to vote for it. Case arguments are way underutilized in most debates - a successful block on case can be devastating for a 1ar

Clarity - as long as you are clear you can go as fast as you want; however, i have found from the few debates i have judged and watched sometimes (especially in the 2nr/2ar) it makes strategic sense to slow down and just very clearly win the argument you need to win to win the debate and not go as fast as you can to win in as many ways as possible.

I will disclose and i encourage questions both before and after the round - i feel anything else would be academic dishonesty on my part and i would not have fulfilled my role as an adjudicator of the debate.

LD Paradigm

I never debated in LD but have many friends in it and i think my knowledge in CX should translate to flow LD. Idk a ton about all the different trends in LD but I'll certainly listen to any of argument made.

I competed in LD in High School and Parliamentary in college.

I don't mind speed, but clarity becomes more and more important the faster you go. If I can't understand it, I can't flow it, and I can't vote on it.

Everything needs to come back to the value debate, so I'm happy to hear stats and facts, but it needs to make a cohesive picture with your value structure. I've done graduate work in philosophy, so it is fine if you are doing something wild there as long as you explain it clearly.

Impact your arguments and tell me why you won.

Wrong Account

Hello! My name is Nandini Reddy! I debated Novice LD for my sophomore and the beginning of my junior year. I am currently debating PF.

PF: Just don't run plans please! Make sure you weigh, especially during Summary and Final Focus.

LD: I really like traditional, but if you run other stuff, just explain it to me REALLY WELL.

General: Please stand and look at me during your speeches and cross; that'll help your speaker points. Make sure to keep your time for prep and speeches. Make sure to only finish the sentence when the timer goes off, not add any new arguments. Signposting and roadmaps are needed.

Flow/Speed: I'm usually fine with any speed but be sure to annunciate. I'll say "slow" if I really can't understand.

Evidence: If an opponent asks for a card, you get one minute to produce it. After one minute, I'll strike the card from my flow. I'll call for cards at the end of the round if I am unsure about the author's intentions or I have reason to believe it is mis-cut.

Crossfire: I won't flow new arguments from cross so be sure to bring up anything in your next speech if you want it on the flow. Please be mindful and polite or you might lose speaker points.

Framework: I will weigh the framework if you keep it up, but if it is not weighed in your final speech, it won't really be considered.

Offense: Weighing impacts is key for me. Make sure you give voters.

No matter what your record, keep your head up! Debate has taught me so much and is a learning experience. Be sure to come talk to me if you have any questions!

Good luck with the round and the rest of the tournament!!

tech>truth: debate is a game

the best way to my ballot is to weigh. weighing is inherently comparative, warrant your weighing and compare impacts/links to each other

run whatever you want; but the more progressive your debate becomes, the more you will have to explain it to me

any speed is good, just be clear

don't give me a soliloquy for your off-time roadmap

for the love of god, give me warrants

please signpost; if I look lost, I probably am

i don’t pay attention to cross; if something important happens, then bring it up in your following speech

do not extend the entire flow

frontline responses

defense is sticky

i vote neg on presumption

if you want it in the final focus, it needs to be in the summary

if we are on a virtual platform, please don’t spread. some speed is okay, but i really value clarity when online

add me to the email chain: crhoades2002@gmail.com

*This paradigm is tentative

Auburn High School 2020

I am an experienced 3-year PF Debater and have a working understanding of both traditional and progressive Lincoln Douglas debate, but there are more stipulations if I ever have to judge an LD Round.

Overall Notes:

Speaker Points:

30–29: You did an amazing job, know your debate jargon, know what you’re doing, and are probably going to break. If you get anything in this range, give yourself a pat on the back.

29-28: Pretty good speaking overall, likely to break, only missed a few things here and there or maybe said 1-2 questionable things throughout the entire round. Overall, good job.

28-27: We’re getting into the realm of the averages here. Generally good speaking, could use some more practice on a couple points and the frequency of questionable things is starting to get higher, or maybe you just don’t speak English well. Don’t be upset or angry if you fall into this range, you’re doing okay. You’ll probably do good against some better teams at a tournament.

27-26: Starting to get into the realms of abuse, raising of voices, attacking your opponent, etc. This stuff isn’t common, but it is present in your speech. You’re disrupting the sanctity of a debate round if it is any worse than 1 or 2 incidents. You will be warned after the round if it gets to the lower end of the 26 scale.

26-25: Being blatantly racist, sexist, encouraging violence against a certain group, etc. I will not tolerate any of this in a round, especially since I have a sister, a gay twin brother, and we are all biracial. You are starting to personally offend me, much less your opponents, if you start getting into this scale. If you want an example of what I mean, one of my team mates was in a round where there opponents said “Women should just stay in abusive relationships with their boyfriends. Fixing inflation will inevitably solve for the abuse anyways so it doesn’t matter if they stay in those relationships.” Let’s just say that after the round, your coach and the tournament staff will find out about you getting a 25 long before you do. Please keep the debate civil and professional. I don’t wanna have to go make a complaint because someone I judged was just being an unprofessional, horrible person in round.

Since I am primarily a PF person, I’ll do that paradigm first. LD Debaters can skip this.

PF Paradigm:

General notes:

* I adore a good clash between cases, so if a clash is natural emphasize it.

* I will time your speeches and your prep-time myself, but feel free to keep it yourself too.

* Let’s try to keep the debate fast and on schedule.

* No spreading please. This is supposed to be the common man’s Debate, not some up-tempo philosophical chest beating match like your average LD round.

For NC/AC: Trad PF is best PF. Please don’t try to turn PF into Policy-lite, because it isn’t. Also, if an alternative to the resolution is in your case, it is a counter-plan lite and I will not weigh it on the flow. Counter-plans don’t exist in PF, let’s try to keep it that way. Beyond that, if you are running Util/CBA please try and stay consistent with that framework when you weigh. I want actual issues to vote off, not vote based off of technicalities on the flow. 90% of PF Rounds go off of these two frameworks, so I expect experienced debaters to know how to do Util weighing. Any other framework, like Structural Violence, needs to be explained and stuck to for the whole round unless you want to default to your opponents framework or Util/CBA.

For Rebuttals: I used to be a second speaker, so I know what they need to do and how to do that well. Firstly, please give an off-time roadmap for your opponents and me. After that, please signpost within your speech. Lastly and perhaps the most important thing for me is doing good line-by-line and sign-posing on your opponents case.

Firstly, I am absolutely fine with cross-application of your case but there are some stipulations.

-1. You can only use arguments that have not been responded to in your case. If you cross-apply cards that have blocks on them, I expect those blocks to be answered by you or the first speaker otherwise the cross-applications are invalid.

-2. I expect the cross-applications to not be the only evidence used in a refutation. Bringing up logical examples and proper blocks is expected.

-3. The cross-application has to be logical and well explained.

Next, I am completely fine with logical arguments but they don’t hold nearly as much weight as actual blocks in my book. Also, everything you do in rebuttal needs to have some kind of warrant behind it to be held high by me in round.

Dependent on topic, you may also want to start weighing as early as the rebuttal. I expect the debaters to know if they should be doing this.

For Summary:

Firstly, no new arguments from here on out. New cards are okay if you’re front-lining but new arguments won’t even get put on the flow.

If you speak first, answer the rebuttals on your case and don’t go straight to weighing. If you go straight to weighing with refutations still on your entire case, you have no offense and won’t be winning this round.

By this point in the round, I expect you to start collapsing the debate down into key issues. Far to often, PF Debaters want to hold on to everything they can. They try and drag everything back to keep as much offense as possible, which seems good on paper but as a judge, this makes the round far to broad in my opinion. It is absolutely fine to let somethings drop off into the aether of the round and only drag across the things you know you can win on. Don’t fall into the trap of hoarding all the offense you can, because even with experienced judges that can end poorly as the round gets muddled and murky.

Please for the love of Uncle Sam, try to do impact calculus. This makes my life so much easier when i know what your team is winning on and why. Summary is the hardest speech of the round, but we’re well past the dark days of the 2 minute summary so I expect everything to be of a higher level now. Make your second speakers job easy in the Final Focus... speaking of

For Final Focus:

Again, no new arguments. Also, no new cards. I am not a lay judge, so don’t try and pull one on me because it won’t be happening.

By this point, the round should be so condensed you’re only doing three things: Answering summaries and final focuses, extending what you have left, voters and weighing. This is a very cut and dry speech. Beyond adhering to general PF rules, I don’t have anything specific to say here beyond make it good because this is psychologically an important speech in the round.

Update for Online Tournaments: I do not evaluate tricks or truth testing in PF, they take away my will to live

PF Paradigm: Debate is a game blah blah blah, do what you want excluding what i've said above

Obligatory don't be exclusionary because that is bad and I will not vote for you

Run a counterplan or friv theory if you want, if it is funny enough i'll vote for it

Sticky defense is not a thing with 3 minute summaries

Prefs

1 - LARP/Policy

1 - Theory / T

2 - Light phil

2/3 - Friv Theory

3 - Heavy phil

1/4 - Trix, depending on how well explained they are and if you're going against a lay/trad debater or not.

4 (strike) - Ks

4 (strike) - Spinoza

Hehe tech>truth go brrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr but don't lie it makes me sad

Speak as fast as you want if you send a doc. I will never vote you down just for spreading unless it's incomprehensible but speaks will suffer if we're in the oregon circuit or against a lay/trad debater.

Don't run net benefits or cost benefit analysis, I will cry

Debate is a game, only rules are I have to chose a winner and speech times.

I give speaks based on how likely you are to win and how sad I am, default to 28.5.

“If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough.” - Albert Einstein

Hey there! I’ve debated Public Forum for two years at Eagan High School, so I have a couple preferences when it comes to what goes on in round. I believe that at its core, Public Forum is a game of not who can make the best technical arguments, but a game of who best convinces the judge. If no side convinces me, I will vote neg on presumption that the Squo is the best possible world. Aff, feel free to change my mind on that.

Add me to the email chain: roboninja024@gmail.com. If you’re spreading, I expect that you send out speech docs.

1. Above everything else, I want there to be clear links, clear impacts, and clear weighing. That’s the cleanest and easiest way for you to get something for me to flow through. Multiple sketchy links, or a huge impact that isn’t thoroughly explained, may still have some weight in my decision, but it will be much harder to convince me with that.

2. Tech > Truth but don’t go overboard with it. If you’re making a million small arguments in hopes that your opponents drop one, I simply won’t evaluate it. Give me a clear reason as to why your technical argument works out, and even if it doesn’t sound true, I’ll evaluate it if you can convince me. Nuke war impacts are good!

3. Speaks start out at 27, and only go up unless you do something really offensive. On that note, please be kind to each other in cross-x. It doesn’t look good for you to be hyper-aggressive in cross. I don’t flow it but I listen, so extend any arguments you make in cross.

4. Second rebuttal should spend at least a minute, preferably two, responding to all or most of first rebuttal. This encourages clash, and allows aff to make an argument against it in summary. Otherwise, the advantage in unfairly skewed to the neg. I won’t consider a response dropped if neg doesn’t respond in second rebuttal, but you’re going to really have to convince me when you finally respond. No new arguments after first summary, and everything in summary has to be extended into final focus for me to weigh it.

5. I’m alright with a little bit of speed, but please signpost and tell me where you are on the flow. Giving an off time roadmap in PF is completely unnecessary, and I will doc 0.5 speaks each time you do it. The only exception is if you’re going in a really weird order, and I would still like that you signpost. Tell me which card you’re specifically responding to, or which argument you’re targeting. This makes it so that I don’t have to guess on where to flow something, and ultimately helps you.

6. I have no experience whatsoever with Ks, so really explain it to me if you want me to vote off of it. Theory is a little more familiar to me, but if you’re spreading shells then it’ll be obvious that it’s only friv theory. I believe that theory is good for the pf space to check abuses, but explain why it’s important to me, and why I need to be voting off of it. If you don’t even understand theory, don’t run it. That’ll look bad on your part. CI > Reasonability. Theory can be an RVI, but convince me. DTA is easier to win on than DTD, but I’ll do my best to evaluate either alternative properly.

6.a Shells I like: Paraphrasing, offensive language, and Non-action Ks.

6.b Shell I don’t like: Speed, Disclosure (automatically an RVI if it’s brought up)

7. Don’t run morally sketchy things like “death good”, “education bad”, or “fairness bad”.

Did Policy and PF for 4 years. Comfortable with any argument, be innovative!

If you can ever "that's what she said" me, you get 30 speaks, if you do that to your opponents more than 3 times, 30 speaks and I presume for you. That would be based.

I want all speech docs where evidence is read to be on the chain. (all constructive speeches 1AC/1NC 2AC/2NC. That's rebuttal for you kids). If you don't have ev for the 2AC/2NC well ummmmm ya. I won't look at it but it is for evidence exchange purposes. srikartirumala@gmail.com.Add both to the chain!

Don't ask me to verify I'm there before every speech. I want to flow, not keep unmuting. Just assume I'm always ready.

Philosophy:

I am a fairly tab judge who operates solely on an offense/defense paradigm. Tech>truth to the fullest. I will do no work for you as that's your job (so I won't even implicate defense for you as terminal). You do you -- don't change how you debate for me. I will adapt to your style (unless your style does not hit the basics like extensions, comparative weighing etc.)

Do not

1. Any -isms. Just be a good person it's not hard. For the people who read "racism is a democratic value kick people off social media" this is you!

2. Bad ev. You will not win a round trying to fake ev in front of me if it is called out. For me faking or misrepresenting ev is as good as cheating and all your opponents need to say is "it's a voter for education/fairness/legit anything". And I'll hack. But you need the prove the evidence is actually bad IN ROUND. Ie - it's not enough to say "It's faked" U must say "It is faked because of X reason -- that's cheating and it's a voter for fairness/education".

I do not like

1. Paraphrasing

2. "Discourse" as solvency. I'm sick of it and probably will insta delete your "K" from the flow. Have a real alt / well thought out method.

3. No speech Docs.

4. "Probability weighing". This is just reading empirics, anything else is just a link mitigation or a no link argument and ways smooth brained teams with bad rebuttals can sneak new defense into summary @Sarvesh babu looking at you.

5. Claiming any progressive stuff isn't "public in public forum" I will laugh at you during RFD whilst playing Laughing to the bank. If you're in varsity, you should be prepared to deal with all the arguments no matter what.

This part is stolen from THE beach

***If you are in varsity at a TOC bid tournament, I will by NO MEANS evaluate a "we do not understand theory or K/theory or K excludes me because I don't know how to debate it" response. In fact, I will give you the lowest speaker points the tournament reasonably permits-- you're perpetuating horrible norms in this activity. Do not enter the varsity division of tournaments if you are unwilling to handle varsity level argumentation. ***

As an aside to this ^, if you a reason why theory/ K is bad, I won't automatically intervene but your speaks are GONE and I will legit buy "bruh what the heck is this it allows for bad norms" and then strike it off my flow. This is one of the worst takes I've ever heard, and I'm really sick of people perpetuating the narrative that "public forum should be for the public" or whatever dumb thing boomers in this activity who are afraid of anyone that isn't a cishet white male doing well in the activity propagate. I also will not buy any "people don't know how to disclose or access wikis" it's just blatantly untrue and disrespectful to small school debaters. It's not a response -- it's just you not knowing how to interact. this is the one spot I feel 0 shame in intervening, I will laugh at you while I do it and play Laughing To The Bank by Chief Keef while I read the decision.

I like these

1. Theory (but not stupid and friv)
2. Kritical args (But actually with solvency not DiScOuRsE)
3. Framing / Meta Weighing
4. I errheavily towardsparaphrasing being bad, speech docs being good, and disclosure being good, and will evaluate procedurals based on that.
5. Lots of explanation on what's happening in the flow (I won't do any work, if you don't tell me why it's important or what to do with it it's nothing)

Why do I care so much about good ev?

I've had teams straight fake ev against me and it hurts. As a researcher the skills you get from research in debate is unparalleled to other activities. Faking evidence is akin to cheating, and this is a competitive activity. There's y'alls little procedural.

Strike me if you

1. Fake evidence / do not cut your cards (you know who you are)

2. Think I'm going to buy your "persuasive appeal" BS, speaks are a construct and don't matter in a W/L

3. You are going to run problematic arguments, I won't deal with them. I don't like to intervene on the flow, but I will in these cases. I might even physically stop the round depending on how bad it is.

Arguments:

1-5. 5 means I love

LARP: 5

Go crazy, idc. I mostly LARPed in HS

Framework: 4.5

- not much to say, I read fw in HS a lot. I never really did LD, so if I'm in judging it, please explain phil? I'm actually really confused and bad at phil debate. Tbh, if i'm judging you and you are going to read phil, please just treat me as a lay judge (just on the fw, u can spread or do w/e later).

T/Theory: 5

- If I believe theory is frivolous, I might not give you good speaks. Make sure it's accessible. I used to read theory like crazy in HS. I am 100% fine if you read it in shell or paragraph form, that's your choice.

- I completely tab on most theory args unless it's p obvious it's friv against K or against a novice. I'mma hold you to a high burden when it comes to extensions in these cases. I tend to err towards paraphrase bad and disclosure good but I will not hack at all. I've read both paragraph theory and shell in HS so I'm ok with w/e u are. If you are in Policy./LD where there are a billion different AFFs, I think disclosure is definitely a good norm. If you are in Policy/LD I expect better. if you paraphrase in any event ur speaks are gone.

Dude, Condo is Dispo don't try and cap otherwise.

K : 4

- I started reading more Kritical arguments my senior year, this being said, any argument can be explained properly. I tend to err towards K over T, but I'll be tab. High theory is fine dumb it down. If I'm confused over the K, it means ur OV or your extension wasn't good enough or explained well, and I'll probably vote on something cleaner.

- Note, I rarely read K in policy, I was more of a LARPER, but I will probably understand most of what you are saying if you bother to try to explain it to me. This means get rid of a lotta the K-specific jargon "e.g. state of exception". I'll understand some of the stuff i'm familiar with but still be careful. In policy / LD though you need to really explain the K. I’m going to be lost if ur just spreading cards. The 1NR/2NC needs to have REALLY good OV extension that REALLY explains your theory.

- I am fairly familiar with most K lit. I read Set Col, Sec, Orientalism, Imperialism, Neolib, Biopolitics/Biopower, but I'll buy k about anything just PLEASE don't just spread ur usually jargony OV. Very familiar with most IR terms / list

This is my hot take, I don't like identity AFFs that much in PF. Trust me, I am VERY VERY HAPPY to vote them up, and often do, just know I don't really like how it's being done in PF where I can't tell WHAT SOLVENCY IS! If you do it right I'll enjoy it.

Plans/CP : 5

- IN ANY EVENT These are perfectly ok in my mind, I will buy a good plan bad theory tho. All u have to prove is that the plan potentially could be viable, some sort of implementation or actor and I think the theory doesn't apply. I am fine if u just tell me a counter plan to the AFF/Neg, and defend that it's good. Rules are meant to be broken if they are bad so a response to a CP can't be "NsDa RuLeS sAy No CP" give me a reason why I should uphold that norm.

• I prolly think process CPs are another method of doing the plan.
• I think infinite condo on CPs are bad

DA: 5

- All good,weigh them!

Trix: 3

If you want me to vote neg on presumption/AFF risk of solvency/1st speaking team -- warrant out why, don't just yell this. Aka IL how how the trick applies to your presumption, lot of people, miss this. Don't j be like "EMPIRICUS 2 BC *Breath* fehhfuiewhfewhfewfhewewh. Ok next trick"

I think especially in PF this is a bad strat but in LD / Policy I guess I get it a bit more.

I started keeping tally of how many times I voted for Trix: IIIIIIII

Speed: 4

- PF spread fine, I am cool with full policy spread, just make tags distinct from cards ("AND", Slow down). If you aren't sure how distinct your tags are from cards, just speech doc. Also make sure the opponent can understand, or speaks might be hurt. I will call clear twice, then I will give up. People ask what I can flow, I can probably flow up to 300 wpm without a speech doc with card names.

- I will probably not need to use your doc, make your tags really clear, and if ur not clear when spreading I will clear you. if I clear your thrice, your are capped at a 27.

Performance/Non T AFFs : 4

You need to make the ROTB very clear and win it. also PLEASE READ A LINK! Why is the ballot needed? What is my role as the judge? Also like how does ur case link into the ROTB? Make it very clear. Honestly I tend to err K > T so this might be a good strat, but make sure you are ready to win the AFF. Also please tell me why your method is uniquely key.

• If you are hitting a non T aff it isn't enough to tell me the rules are something I must maintain, I say screw the rules unless u tell me why the rules are good.
• Tbh if there isn't a CLEAR method / solvency you're capped at a 26

Presumption:

- Absent presumption warrants given in speech, I default to whoever lost the coinflip.

TKOS: 2

- saves us all time. Typical rules apply, if there's a path to the ballot, you L20, if none, W30. I won't stop round ever -- but if you're right I'll be like ok and stop flowing. Don't really like tho there's always a chance u drop the ball but if u call one go for it. DO NOT LIKE THESE but I'll consider the following

1. A procedural on no speech docs is a TKO vs a team that does not disclose or a team that spreads random paraphrased stuff -- if it's dropped

2. Bad evidence is a TKO -- treat this similar to an NSDA challenge if the ev is crap call it out I won't like it

3. No cut cards is a TKO if it's conceded.

4. Problematic language is a TKO. This includes repeated misgendering or anything of that form. I don't understand why some judges DON'T make this a TKO?

5. Any IVI on a team that says "prefiat offense is bad" is basically a TKO, I won't stop round but lol I'm not going to flow responses to it.

6. Bad haircuts is a TKO. I don't wanna look at your receding hairline. My kids know what I'm talking about. (obviously a joke)

1. Framework: Cost/benefit unless otherwise determined.

2. Extensions: Links and impacts NEED to be in summary to be evaluated in final focus. Please don't just extend through ink--make an attempt to tell me why your arguments are comparatively more important than whatever they're saying.

3. Evidence: If you're bad at paraphrasing and do it anyway, that's a reasonable voter. See section on theory. Tell me what your evidence says and then explain its role in the round. I also prefer authors AND dates. I will not call for evidence unless suggested to in round.

4. Cross: If it's not in a speech it's not on my flow. HOWEVER: I want to pay attention to cross. Give me something to pay attention to. Just because I'm not flowing cross doesn't make it irrelevant--it's up to you to do something with the time.

5. Defense must be extended in summary, and I prefer if you narrow down the 2nd half of the round and give comparative analysis on 1 0r 2 responses instead of just going for everything and hoping something sticks

6. Theory: If an abuse happens, theory shells are an effective check. I think my role as an educator is to listen to the arguments as presented and make an evaluation based on what is argued.

Disclosure is good for debate. I think paraphrasing is good for public forum, but my opinion doesn't determine how I evaluate the paraphrasing shell. This is just to suggest that no one should feel intimidated by a paraphrasing shell in a round I am judging--make substantive responses in the line-by-line and it's ultimately just another argument I evaluate tabula rasa.

7. Critical positions: I'll evaluate Ks, but if you are speaking for someone else I need a good reason not to cap your speaks at 28.5.

8. Tech >< Truth: Make the arguments you want to make. If they aren't supported with SOME evidence my threshold for evaluating answers to them is, however, low.

9. Sign Post/Road Maps: Please.

10. If you want to read tricks I won't stop you, but you should know I'm not familiar with tricks so everything must be explained well or I wont know how to evaluate it, and your speaks start at a 27 if you read tricks.

**Do NOT give me blippy/underdeveloped extensions/arguments. I don’t know authors of evidence so go beyond that when talking about your evidence/arguments in round. I am not a calculator. Your win is still determined by your ability to persuade me on the importance of the arguments you are winning not just the sheer number of arguments you are winning. This is a communication event so do that with some humor and panache.**

My email is mscottdebate@gmail.com

Hi, I’m Will Soper. He/him/his. Wsoper03@gmail.com.

I did NDT/CEDA debate for four years at the University of Kansas. I'm currently coaching for Blue Valley North. I worked with a lab at Michigan for a little while this summer and judged a lot of practice debates.

Last Chance PF Update: I have competed in and judged primarily policy debate my entire career. I judge a handful of PF rounds each year but they are typically local Kansas rounds. I am not familiar with any national circuit PF norms or customs. That said, I promise you will have my undivided attention while your debate is happening. Here are some tips for debating in front of me:

Read evidence. In general, I am more persuaded by arguments which are backed up by qualified sources. If possible, I'd prefer you send me evidence you read or reference in an email chain, speechdrop, or NSDA doc share. If you read evidence, you need to make it available to your opponents.

Answer things your opponents say. Effective teams won't just restate their side of the resolution, but compare their arguments to their opponents and say why they won.

Everything below is policy specific, don't worry too much about it if you are a career PFer.

Grumpy stuff. Do not ask for a marked document. If the number of cards marked in a speech is excessive, I will ask for a marked document. Asking what cards were read is either CX time or prep time. Prompting needs to stop. Past the first time, I will not flow the things your partner prompts you to say. Send the email before you stop prep.

I dislike bad arguments. I think most debaters understand what these are: hidden aspec in the 1NC, reading paradoxes as solvency arguments, counterplans which assassinate anyone, etc. If your ideal negative strategy involves more nonsense than specific discussions of the affirmative, we probably don't think about debate the same way.

Presumption/Vagueness. I am willing to (and have) voted negative on vagueness and that the affirmative has not met its stock issues burdens. Similarly, if the negative is reading a CP with an internal net benefit and doesn't have evidence demonstrating that the inclusion of the plan prevents the net benefit, I am willing to vote on "perm do both" even if the aff doesn't have a deficit to the CP. I am willing to dismiss advantage CP planks which are overly vague or not describing a policy.

Evidence matters a lot. Debaters should strive to connect the claims and warrants they make to pieces of qualified evidence. If one team is reading qualified evidence on an issue and the other team is not, I'll almost certainly conclude the team reading evidence is correct. I care about author qualifications/funding/bias more than most judges and I'm willing to disregard evidence if a team raises valid criticisms of it.

Kritiks. The links are the most important part of the kritik. If I have a hard time explaining back exactly what bad thing the 1AC did or assumed, I will have a hard time voting for you. Here are some things to increase your win percentage in front of me if you're extending a kritik. 1. Make link arguments that are specific to the affirmative. If debaters spent even 5 minutes before the debate reading through the 1AC, identifying themes or premises that are kritik-able, and made those into link arguments, their win percentage in front of me would skyrocket. 2. Rehighlight aff evidence to make these arguments. 3. Tell me how your link arguments disprove the case or make affirmative advantages irrelevant. I cannot remember the last time an "ontology" argument was relevant to my decision.

Planless affs. I basically always vote for the team that slows down and starts comparing their impact to the other team's first. The more a team reads blocks into their computer, the less likely I am to vote for them. I am a poor judge for fairness/clash/debate bad.

Topicality against plans. I am more willing than other judges to take a "you know it when you see it" approach to topicality. Overly limiting interpretations that most affs at the tournament would violate are not very persuasive to me. For example, I have voted that adopting medicare for all is not Social Security. I have not, however, heard a compelling reason aff's can't deficit spend. I'm not immovable on either issue, but your debating should be as aff-specific as possible.

Things which will make your speaker points higher: exceptional clarity, numbering your arguments, good cross-x moments which make it into a speech, specific and well-researched strategies, developing and improving arguments over the course of a season, slowing down and making a connection with me to emphasize an important argument, not being a jerk to a team with much less skill/experience than you. I decide speaker points.

You're welcome to post-round or email me if you have questions or concerns about my decision.

Call me "jsp" or "Josh"

joshuasp.debate@gmail.com - yes put me on the chain, i want an email chain set up before each rounds start time

Recent Coaching/Debating Affiliations: Ivy Bridge Academy, Georgia State University, Thomas Kelly College Prep

Bottom line: I am a 3rd year out debater doing policy, I did 4 years of LD in high school and I have been coaching PF at Ivy Bridge Academy. I can follow technical debating and jargon from across those 3 events so just you do you - I have coached/debated/judged/voted on tricks, theory, kritiks, plan, phil, trad and lay (insert whatever non-descriptive 1 word shorthand you like). Whatever you are doing will likely not be new to me in all honesty. Some people call me a tabula rasa judge even though I think the phrase tabula rasa is a conservative debate dogwhistle (I spend a lot of my time thinking about why we do what we do in debate, I think this makes me decent at judging method debates).

---

Quick Prefs:

1 - K, Plans, Case Debate, Lay, T/T-FW

2 - DA's/CP's, Theory, Narratives

3 - Phil

4 - Tricks

Strike - Out of round violations, frivolous arguments

---

Translation for PF Debaters: this means I am a "tech judge". Speed is fine and prog is cool. Just don't be a jerk, be a sensible person.

---

I have given myself 5 things to say about how I evaluate debates, no more, no less:

1. I need pen time, i flow on paper and by ear

2. I will not vote for arguments that had no warrant/signaling. Such as ur fiat K's that ngl was not even in the block

3. It must have been in your final speech for me to vote for you on it (including extending case vs T)

4. I evaluate impact level first usually unless told otherwise (whether its education or nuke war, etc)

5. My ballot will likely be determined off who i have to do the least work for, i do not usually vote on presumption

---

Evidence shenanigans:

this is the only stuff that will change how I vote directly, everything else is flexible.

Put me on the email chain, i do like to read evidence because no one compares the evidence themselves. I prefer ev to be send before speeches and in cut cards. Your speaks are capped below 29.5 if there is no doc and below 28 if when you send evidence there is not evidence in cut card format. Paraphrasing is fine if you have cut cards to go along with it AND you send them out BEFORE. I make exceptions to this if you are part of a small program which has no way knowing how to cut cards and this is in novice.

If you send your case as a google doc, copying perms needs to be on. This is because I need to create a stable copy of your evidence, anything that you can edit without sending a new doc risks being problematic (ie changing highlighting mid round or adding ev and claiming to have read it). Strike me if how I deal with ev ethics is a problem.

---

How I vote

I will only vote on what was in the final speech and what is implicated to be in the final speech as the reason to vote for you. That is the only hard line I draw. (this includes you must extend case against a 2nr on T). Every form of debate is full of brain rot and I genuinely care about voting for people who are capable of thinking of why they do the norms they partake, not only does it make you a better debater but also a better person. Idc what it is or how it got there, just get to the finish line. Any arg is a voting issue if made to be that way. I only vote on complete arguments. Stock args are very strategic in front of me because I am not better for random arguments but for good arguments you can defend well. The frontlines and weighing wins you the round, not the constructive.

---

Speaker Points

Be clear, pen time gets speaker points.

Strategic collapses that make my life easier are appreciated

Clear signalling/signposting helps

+.2 speaker points for gender minorities

TLDR

Hi y'all, I'm Taisei (he/him pronouns). I did policy for five years and LD for one year.

Former West High Debater, L&C 2025

Please put me on the email chain, or feel free to email me if you have questions - lc21-0970@lclark.edu

Do what ever you do best - just know I'm not familiar with a lot of K literature (I feel best prepared to judge Cap, Security, Abolition, Orientalism, and Ks like that). So, if you want to read a different K (looking at you pomo Ks), make sure you explain your arguments well.

Golden Rule - Don't be a dick. If you're racist, sexist, homophobic, etc, I'll nuke your speaks.

Tech >Truth

I'm fine with spreading, just be sure to be clear. If you're not, I'll say "clear". If you keep speaking in a way I can't understand after having been warned, I'll stop flowing. Also, slow down for blocks and taglines. If you don't, I may miss something important.

If no impact framing mechanism is provided, I default to consequentialism.

For Middle Schoolers and Novices

If you read my online paradigm and mention it when I'm judging you, I'll boost your speaks. I think that online paradigms are very useful because it's a space for judges to explain their philosophies in-depth, and I'd like to encourage debaters get into the habit of checking paradigms.

I'll listen to and vote for any kind of argument. Just make sure to explain it and do impact calculus. If you need to choose between making a bunch of shallow arguments or one really well fleshed out argument, make the fleshed out argument. If you read an argument that isn't a part of the assigned evidence packet, I'm very likely to vote against you because the packet exists so that both teams are guaranteed to be prepared to debate. If you read beyond the packet, you're ruining the learning experience for your opponents.

This is just a pet peeve, but there are a few phrases that younger debaters use that are unnecessary and drive me crazy. Instead of saying "Now time for an off-time roadmap," you can just say "the order will be..." and then give the order. That's much more succinct and it makes you sound more like a person instead of someone who's just repeating what a coach told you to say.

For Policy

Most of my debate career has been in policy, and for most of that time I was a 2N that read mainly policy arguments. For my senior year, I was a 2A that read policy affs. If you're reading a policy aff, make sure you have a good solvency mechanism that is unique to your aff. If it can really solved by adv CPs really easily, that's not a good sign. I like DAs and CPs and that's mainly what I went for as a 2N.

So while I'm definitely the most comfortable judging policy arguments, I can judge Ks as well. Just make sure you flesh it out well, as you would for any other argument and don't keep reusing the same key words and phrases as if they replace a warranted argument. Especially if you're reading a Pomo K (I will be honest, while I will vote for it, I'm not personally fond of Pomo so you gotta explain it really well)! Links of omission aren't links.

I'm fine with either team reading theory, but if you go for it make sure you explain it out completely. If you read a T violation and don't have an impact, I don't see a reason to vote for it even if you win your standards.

Don't go for everything in the 2AR/2NR. There should only be a few arguments so you don't spread yourself too thin. If you go for theory, it should be 5 minutes of theory.

For LD

Most of what I said about policy will also apply for LD. I read mostly policy arguments (policy affs, CPs, DAs), but I have also read Ks and theory in LD. I'm okay voting for any of those, just be sure to flesh out your arguments and don't just keep repeating the same phrases without any analysis.

I default to 1AR theory is okay, no RVIs, and theory means drop the team/debater. If you want me to think otherwise, explain why these shouldn't be the standards.

I have no problem with debaters reading new ev in the 1AR or 2NR, as long as it's to support an argument that was previously read (you don't get a new DA in the 2NR).

I don't like T Nebel. If you're really convincing I'll still vote for it, but do be warned, I don't like it.

I don't think you need a value and criterion, and if none is provided I will default to consequentialism unless told otherwise. I've done both progressive and traditional LD, so feel free to do either with me. That being said - if you're doing progressive LD and your opponent is used to doing traditional, I'd encourage you to make the round as accessible to them as possible. I don't think you need to then pick up a value and criterion, but try to be nice (i.e. don't spread super fast, don't barrage the aff with 7 off in the 1NR, etc). Debate should be a place for learning as well as competing

Hello, my name is Emma Tillis!!

Background: I am currently a 3rd year Varsity PF debater at Auburn High School.

Flow/Speed: I can handle speed but make sure you enunciate and are clear, especially in the first speech and when you are weighing for me. I will not weigh arguments that are not properly clear and stated throughout the entire round. I tend to look more towards summary and final focus when weighing the round, so make sure both speeches are generally similar. Also, make sure you sign post and give an off time road map.

Time: You should keep your own time but I will also keep the time. Try not to steal any prep time and not go over your time in your speeches. I will let you finish your sentence but that's all.

Crossfire: Make sure you are polite and respectful in crossfire. I will take speaker points from those who seem to be disrespectful to their opponents or to me as a judge. Also, make sure to look at me during crossfire and be considerate of actually asking questions instead of giving a full speech. I do not flow cross so make sure any new arguments are brought up in the next speech. Also, please stand when you speak and make eye contact with me when you are either trying to emphasis a main point or at any available time, this helps me as a judge to know that you understand and believe what you are saying and to make points valid in general.

Framework: I am a heavy framework judge so make sure you prove that your side outweighs on framework. This should be done by overall impacts in case and voters within final focus. Make sure that framework is clearly stated and weighed in each speech.

Impacts: Impacts are also key within a debate round. They should be brought up and weighed for me in every speech. If they are dropped then make sure to clearly state it in your summary and final focus for me to weigh it. Draw impacts back to framework and tell me how you win under the set framework. This is the easiest and clearest way for me to vote.

Extra Notes: Overall be respectful to both your opponents and I. Feel free to talk to me after the round if you need help with any unclear arguments or have any questions in general. I will disclose if I feel like there is a clear winner, if not I will still give critics to help with your future rounds.

If you have any questions or need any help, my email is emmatillis413@gmail.com

put me on the chain: ellietrandebate@gmail.com

top level:

i have not touched policy for about 2 years due to college. i have not judged a round on this topic, nor do i know anything about it. explain everything thoroughly, especially if there are any complicated/nuanced args

i flow on paper so please give me time to write things down

2A my whole career, ran policy and k affs. my partner and i read da/cp as much as we would run the kritik. i firmly believe tech > truth. i vote for teams that have clear judge instruction, can efficiently frame the debate, and explain argument interaction in a way that adds up to the ballot. good debates prove that a change to the status quo is good or bad. i don't tolerate any argument that is racist, sexist, transphobic, etc.

no, you may not use cross as prep time

kritikal affs:

if you're aff: let me know what your aff does. because some counterinterps don't place too much emphasis on limits for the topic, i think that affs should be impact turning all the negative's reasons as to why debate is fine in it's current state or why their model of debate is good. please interact with the negative's standards, it's going to be hard for me to evaluate a debate when i'm just looking at blocks that have no relationship to each other

if you're neg: case debate is pretty important. presumption is also convincing against a lot of k affs. i'll evaluate framework as to whether or not the affirmative should defend a hypothetical implementation of a plan through the USfg. i'm a little more lenient towards affs that are close to the topic, but definitely willing to vote on why that's bad.

topicality:

good topicality debates should be specific and include impact calc. these debates are great if the negative is doing things like naming case lists or telling me what successful teams are reading. negative teams should be answering the affirmative's standards and how they interact with the negative's if it's a viable 2NR choice. i'll default through competing interpretations.

kritiks:

most familiar with militiarism, cap, fem, and orientalism. if you’re going to read high theory/pomo stuff in front of me, explain it well without any sophisticated jargon. framework is probably one of the most important things in these debates because it determines how i evaluate links/impacts (i.e if no links are to the actual plan text and impacts arent caused by the plan, the aff winning the framework part of the debate means the k is moot). specific links to the aff > totalizing, broad claims about whatever it is you’re critiquing.

disadvantages:

good disad debate has great link analysis and impact calc/explanation. i don’t tend to buy da’s that are just “plan causes econ to crash which causes extinction”. politics is only a thing if you actually do internal link work, most likely not probable but i’ll still vote on it. turns case analysis can also be crucial for the ballot.

counterplans:

negative teams should be good and prepared at any theory/competition debates about their counterplans. tell me what the counterplan does and slow down on the text. i don’t default to judge kick. affirmative teams should explain what the perm does.

theory:

condo good. international/fifty state fiat bad. 2nc cp’s bad. slow down on theory. i am much more likely to vote on theory if it is contextualized to the round and legitimate abuse happened. if this is the case, please impact theory out. a significant portion of your 2nr/2ar must be about theory if you’re going for it. when random theory blocks are being read against each other, it’s harder for me to vote on it. theory is the only place where i might diverge from tech > truth if something ruined your ability to debate.

fun ways to boost speaks:

a val/overwatch/league reference

i like little catchphrases like, "i hope you're hungry because they just set up a concession stand" -- even though they're cheesy, they make me smile

sarcasm (without being rude/mean)

Currently coach of Minnetonka High School

Hey Y'all I love weighing and extentions and plzzzzzzzzzzz signpost for me.

Ive done circuit for 1 year for LD. Done 2 years of LD, 2 years in other formats, and also 1 year in Congress

LD - Make sure to sign post when speaking. Use weighing mechanics to weigh impacts. Clearly explain framework and why your fw matters. If you don't signpost while doing your rebuttal I will drop it.

• Idk lately why a lot of debaters don't link their case back to their fw.
• Also weighing too duh????
• Signpost plz so I don't get confused lol
• Tech>Truth

If I yell out clear 3 times I will stop flowing

Circuit LD - Plans, Disads, CP, K and Theory only. I will not vote on tricks arguments.

Plans,Disads,CP>Theory>K>Other things

I will vote you down for any Tricks

Congress - Speeches must be clear and concise. The only way you will get a good placement if you actually have clash.

*Little rant: I don't know why nobody in congress have clash. This is a real debate hence you would need some clash. Don't just go up and say your side without talking about the other sides points.

How I vote on congress. Argumentation/Content>Speech points/Quality>Quality of Questions> Following Procedures

Email chain send to trinh120@umn.edu

I am a college student at Auburn University that has previously debated Public forum in high school. I only have a few preferences, nothing too major but I would greatly appreciate it if you followed it in round.

1) speed is good but spreading is a no go, if I can't understand what you're saying because you're going too fast then I won't flow it [ sorry :( ]

2) please be respectful to your opponents during the round (especially during crossfire I know it can be hard sometimes :/ but still..) failure to be respectful will result in very low speaks

3) I would prefer if each case had a framework (i do enjoy a good framework debate/ voter)

4) please present voters whether it be in summary or final focus (it doesn't matter to me when you do it just that you present voters :))

5) I prefer clear and concise cards, dates, contentions, and impacts (i tend to vote on framework and magnitude in each round)

I will disclose if both teams want me to. I will provide critiques if needed. I WILL ALSO ASK FOR CARDS IF SOMETHING SEEMS SKETCH. I WILL CALL YOU OUT AND I WILL WANT TO SEE PROOF...so be prepared :)

2nd year out, current debater at the University of Michigan. I am a flow judge, have debated 4 years of public forum on the national circuit in HS.

Go fast as you want but speaking fast to cram in as many words as you can doesn't guarantee a good case or speech - the 8 cards can be taken out by a single solid delink by your opponent if you don't structure your arguments well.

EV: If there is a hotly debated piece or conflicting pieces of evidence in the round, I will call for them, but also make sure to point out why I should favor your evidence. If I can't differentiate which is better, or you don't tell me why your's is better, then I'll decide the argument is a wash and move on.

Theory: By PF standards, I have a comprehensive understanding of theory. However, my threshold for responses to theory is extremely low when it comes to interacting with the "rules" of theory (having a counter-intercept, etc).

Finally, in a round with no offense for either side (extremely rare), the burden of evidence falls on the Aff, as a large majority of NSDA topics are set up that way. Absolutely no Aff offense (again extremely rare) is a presumption vote for the neg.

Speech docs -> higher speaks

pf rounds ck-debate-students-23-24@googlegroups.com AND formula1nr@gmail.com

policy rounds formula1nr@gmail.com

he/him

I debated in Houston Tx. in high school and college. I was a policy debater. I have coached and taught debate for 30 years now; Policy, Public Forum, and Lincoln Douglas. I have coached and taught at Langham Creek HS in Houston, Tx., Hanover HS and Dartmouth College in Hanover, NH., Wayland HS in Grand Rapids, MI. and now finally at Auburn HS, in Auburn Alabama.

Emory 2020:

I haven’t judged many circuit level rounds this year, I coach one circuit debater and don’t get to see many high level plan debates. This means that in your first speech you should start slow for the first 5 seconds and speed up as you wish from there

Pref chain:

- Plan debate, policy, LARP: 1

- Traditional debate: 1

- Theory: 3

- K debate: 4

- Tricks: 5

- Performance: 5

I am a very flow judge!!! Tech should be true, otherwise you’re lying… So Truth > Tech.

I cannot stress this enough!!! NO TRICKS, NO SPIKES, NO FRIV THEORY!!! IT IS BAD DEBATE AND ITS GOING TO MAKE ME VERY UNHAPPY!!!

Add me to the email chain: donna.yeager@gmail.com

IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS THEN ASK!!! If you aren’t sure you can run something or have a question about my paradigm defaults then asking is the best way to be safe.

I am ok with good spreading, I flow from your speech and will refer to the doc if I missed something or am confused, but clear taglines and authors are important.

I default to the following:

- Neg wins on presumption unless otherwise argued

- Consequentialism for impact calc

Give an off-time road map!!! Every new off case argument will be flowed on a separate sheet of paper!!!

Things I liked in a round:

- Well-developed plans

- Fully linked out DA’s

- Good CP’s

- Proper decorum

- Good FW debate (Rawls, Kant, Hobbes, Locke)

Things I don’t like:

- Performative debate

- High theory K’s

- Spikes, Tricks

- Disclosure theory

- Friv theory

- Bad T/theory shells

- Incoherent spreading

- Speaking for others

- Ptx DA’s

- After round disrespect

- PICs

Disclosure:

I don’t disclose for double-flighted rounds, not that hard of a rule, if there is extra time, I might be able to give an RFD. I don’t disclose speaks.

Speaks:

30: I expect you to win the tournament or be in finals (rarely given)

29.5: Finals or high break rounds, I enjoyed this debate and learned something

29: Good debate, should break, close round with one of the above ^

28.5: Good job, room to improve, well executed arg on my do not like list.

28: You weren’t as clear as you could’ve been, the weighing wasn’t the best

27.5: Same as 28 but worse

27: Worse than 27.5 😊

26.5: You made some serious errors, ran something I don’t like or was hard to judge, you spoke awful

26: Worse than 26.5

25.5-25: You shouldn’t go above 3-3, you made a critical mistake and deserve to lose, you were racist, sexist, transphobic, homophobic, or ableist

My Public Forum judging philosophy will be the same as my asst. coach, Mr. Will Haynes. So thank you Will!

Flow/Speed: I am a typical flow judge. In rebuttals and summaries, please make it clear what argument you're responding to. All turns must be addressed in the following speech, so if you are the second speaker, and your opponent makes a case turn in their rebuttal, you must address this in your rebuttal or else it is dropped. Frontlining can be done in either the rebuttal or summary. I can flow 8/10 on speed. Do not spread. The summary and final focus must be consistent.

Evidence: If an opponent asks for a card, you get one minute to produce it. After one minute, I strike the card from my flow. I will call for cards at the end of the round if I am unclear on the intentions of the author or I have reason to believe it is mis-cut. I will not call for evidence due to washes or lack of weighing.

Crossfire: I do not flow new arguments in crossfire, nor does it have any effect in how I judge the round unless someone is rude, in which case I will deduct speaker points.

Framework: I default to utilitarianism unless another empirically justified framework is offered at the top of the constructive. I enjoy a good framework debate, so do not hesitate to propose a deontological value.

Offense: Under util, I only weigh quantifiable and empirically justified impacts as offense. If you do not quantify, there is no objective way for me to compare impacts at the end of the debate.

Fiat: If the resolution is framed in terms of a moral obligation (should, ought ect.), then I judge the debate based off the costs/benefits of the resolution actually taking effect. Therefore, I do not evaluate feasibility claims that have to do with the inabilities of laws or policies to pass through congress or any other governmental actor unless I am provided with compelling analytical justifications for doing so.

Theory: I believe theory is the best way to correct abuse in a debate round. It is much easier for me to flow theory if it is run in the standard format (A: Interpretation, B: Violation, C:Standards, D:Voters), but I am fine with paragraph theory as long as it is clear and well justified.

Kritiks: I very rarely vote for them, so just keep that in mind before you take that risk.

Speaker Point Scale: These are the criteria I use for determining speaker points. Everyone starts out with a 26. Do these things well to get up to 30.

Come to the round prepared and on time.

Remain calm during crossfire and speeches. Aggression and agitation are not compelling.

Give speeches with a minimal number of "ums" and "likes"

Have a clear organizational structure for your speeches. Signpost and don't jump all over the place on the flow.

Weigh arguments in your rebuttals, summaries, and final focuses. Don't just read a block.

East coaster. I have experience debating parli/extemp policy.

I flow debates, but I'm not a strict flow judge— dropped arguments only matter if you tell me why it matters and to what extent. Weighing is important, so don't assume that I will weigh for you.

If you are west coast/tech debater, I don’t understand kritiks or theory too well, so only use them against clear abuse & when necessary & explain them (ie, I will vote on anti-spread theory). Truth > tech, and I don't accept PICs. I can understand if you speak fast, but don't spread.

Explanations and analysis matter more than just saying statistics/examples/facts

Be respectful. racism/sexism/homophobia/discriminatory comments are bad. don't personally attack your opponents physically or verbally, but feel free to attack their arguments with metaphorical machetes.

Wendy Zhang, pronouns: she/her