Short Version

I have ten+ years of debate experience and will buy any argument, as long as it is well structured and fair. I am known to be a very progressive judge in Wisconsin, however on Nat circuit level it might be better to treat me as a Flay judge. I do love a good traditional debate, but do like progressive debate. Most importantly have fun in a round!

Long version

Event Preferences

PF: Tech>truth within reason.

speed>collapsing: Share a doc and go for everything, yes even if that means spreading. I generally HATE time suck contentions, like don't waste my time flowing something you know you are going to drop. Provide more education to the round by running quality arguments, or end your speech early.

full case>paraphrasing: In general the more you can take the good file sharing habits of LD and CX and use them, the quick and better the round will go.

LD: LARP (Policy-style arguments i.e. Plans, CPs, Disads, Topicality) > Trad/Phil (Standard LD case) > Ks/Performance > Theory > Tricks> Disclosure Theory

CX Neg: Disads>T>Specs>CP>K>Theory > Tricks> Disclosure Theory

CX Aff: traditional cases>aff Ks>Disclosure Theory

Thoughts on certain topics

Framework: Please tell me how the framework contextualizes your offense / defense in relation to the ballot and/or the round. I require framework to also contextualize how your opponents arguments are implicated by your Framework arguments.

Argument Resolution: I reward debaters who clearly articulate and provide reasons why their warrants, impacts, sources are stronger in this round – Impact calc and voters are great ways to do this. Debaters who provide well warranted arguments on the flow that are developed early and throughout the debate get both high speaks from me and my ballot.

Theory: I vote on well developed procedurals, I do not vote on blipped shells that blow up later in the debate so have voters and standards don’t just give me an interp and violation - this isn't to say don't run T in front of me but rather that you need to provide me a well developed justification for why to prefer your side. Focus on impacts through a education/fairness filter will be the easiest way to my ballot on this issue. I do hate it when teams use theory as a time suck.

K debate: I have read and actively coach a lot of critical debate but you should not however assume I know the literature base you will be pulling from, feel free to ask prior to the start of the round about my familiarity. The more specific your argument is to the round or issue at hand then the easier route you will have to my ballot. I usually am not a fan of Perm because it can make the debate muddy. I do love conditionality debate.

Tricks: If is one thing you should not run with me, it is tricks, I like a clean and fair Debate.

Disadvantages: Disads are my favorite off case argument. I evaluate Disads first on the risk of intrinsic link to the AFF before questions of uniqueness and the way this implicates the affirmative, this isn't to say questions of uniqueness don't implicate the link but questions of link comes first and then are determined to be strengthened / weakened by the uniqueness. - Work done on the impact level to have strong warrants as well as good weighing are an easy way to my ballot.

Counter Plan: My second favorite off case argument to see. Make sure they are mutually exclusive and AFF can’t perm. Also I hate Perm debate usually on CP because it is either an easy win or waste of my time. I think overall Cp play well with Disads and are a easy way for NEG to win my ballot.

Speed: I am perfectly fine with speed usually I will only yell clear once and it is because you are not speaking clearly.DO NOT SPREAD ANALYTICS WITHOUT A DOC.

Flashing: Add me to the email chain, my RFD will be better if you do.

justinflynn190@gmail.com

***JUMP TO THE MIDDLE IF YOU NEED MY PF/LD-SPECIFIC PARADIGMS IN A PINCH***

Short bio: former LDer for Brookfield East High School, 2012-16; after a 3 year hiatus, I was a pretty active judge from 2019-21, and now judge 1-2x per year; have about a year of coaching experience; also experienced with 4n6 and student congress; UW-Madison Class of 2019 (Poli Sci major); UMN Law School Class of 2024

Pronouns: he/him/his

OVERVIEW:

Debate was my favorite part of high school, and I believe the value provided by the activity is immense, both in the immediate and long term. Regardless of skill level or outcome, you should be proud that you have the courage to put yourself out there. I think debate rounds are at their best when they impart competitors with skills that can be used later in life, in a litany of different ways. In the long run, the glory that comes from winning will fade, and the sting that comes from losing will subside—but the valuable skills you develop will last a lifetime.

Of course, in the meantime, do what you must in order to win—not saying you shouldn't go for the gold. I'm just saying not to develop tunnel vision for racking up “points” in the game of debate to the detriment of all other considerations. Winning trophies/awards should not be the only purpose of this activity.

Ok, enough exposition—let’s talk about my actual paradigm…

NON-NEGOTIABLES:

--Bigotry of any kind will not be tolerated, be it racism, sexism, anti-LGBTQ+ views, etc. I shouldn’t have to explain why. Be a decent person.

--Be nice to each other. Debate is an adversarial setting and (basically) a zero-sum game. Getting a little fiery is a natural byproduct of this, but PLEASE keep it under control. This is an academic competition, not a tabloid talk show.

--NO SPREADING. I get speaking faster than a normal conversational pace, but spreading is a cheap tactic that turns debate into a joke. I get why people do it, but it is not a skill that will serve you well later in life. (I mean, just try it in a context outside of this relatively insular activity. No one will take you seriously). I’ll say “clear” if I need you to slow down—please don’t make me have to say it more than once or twice.

--Be comprehensible. If you gave the most brilliant speech in the world but no one could understand a word of it, did it even really happen?

GENERAL:

--Brevity is the soul of wit; quality > quantity

--Be organized—provide (off time) road maps, sign post, weigh, and give voters. (If you don’t do the latter two things, you're giving me a lot of discretion, and I may not utilize it to your liking)

--Show your work and leave nothing to chance. (Ex. your opponent drops one of your arguments...great! But that's not dispositive proof that you should win. Be specific with your extensions, remind me why I should care, and so forth.)

--Don't do underhanded things (ex. making new arguments in final speeches, deceptive card cutting, acting in bad faith, gish galloping, etc.)

--This isn’t forensics, so I care very little about aesthetic presentation–I probably won’t even be looking at you most of the time. Don’t worry about eye contact (judges that care about this probably aren't flowing!); sit or stand to your heart's content; wear whatever makes you comfy. (You get the idea). Don’t do/wear/say anything offensive, and you'll be fine.

LD:

I mainly ran traditional arguments as a debater, and prefer them as a judge. Run non-traditional arguments if you want, but be prepared to simplify them for me. (Ex. if they’re rife with jargon/wonky concepts, don’t assume I’ll be as familiar as you are.)

I also expect the resolution to be discussed. Even if just to say it doesn't matter, or is far less important than a more glaring issue, you should still acknowledge that it exists. I don't believe in disregarding the resolution entirely/reducing it to a placeholder. (Because why have it in the first place then?)

PF:

If you plan to run a non-traditional case in PF, remember that your opponents may not have experience debating those sorts of arguments, and PF is also supposed to be relatively accessible to a layperson. Keep it simpler than you would in LD or policy, and try to keep impacts as material and concrete as possible (as PF is also the medium most concerned with the real world).

Since I only ever competed in LD as a debater, off time road maps and good sign posting will make it much easier for me to follow your arguments. I also *LOVE* PF frameworks. They don't have to be overly complicated, but setting the terms of the debate early on will give you better command of the round. Also, be as clear and direct as possible with your weighing mechanism/telling me what should be of paramount importance. If you fail to do this, you're rolling the dice re: which arguments will be most salient in my mind. Similarly, give me very clear and explicit voters--many words will be exchanged, so if you don't tell me which ones to really hone in on, you're leaving too much to chance.

MISCELLANEOUS:

I’ll only intervene if your arguments are bigoted, untethered from reality, or backed up with exceptionally bad sources. (Pretty generous standard, so if I do intervene, it’s on you).

I generally despise slippery slope arguments that end in extinction/nuclear war, as most of them are incredibly stupid and nonsensical. Aiming for those impacts is fine if the link to get there actually makes sense--if it doesn't, I'll probably feel like you're trying to win the round with scary buzzwords rather than sound argumentation. I may not necessarily auto drop you, but I will not hesitate to show my displeasure.

Overall, though, I'm pretty laissez-faire. I'm open to almost any argument that's clear, logical, and well-supported.

I'll give you up to one extra speaker point if, somewhere in your speech, you roast Grandpa Joe from Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory (aka the worst fictional character ever). Mods—this is a reward for reading my paradigm carefully, not me trying to be a point fairy. Debaters—take advantage of this if you’d like, but don’t go overboard.

FINAL NOTES:

Please feel free to ask questions before the round--I'll do my best to answer and elucidate.

Speaker points are more of an art than a science, but I try to put some consistent logic into how I award them. If you'd like to better understand my system, you can read more here.

I usually give OC's and disclose, unless the tournament forbids it, we're pressed for time, or the round is too close to decide right away. Always feel free to ask, though--the worst I can say is no.

Good luck and have fun!

Affiliations: Madison West, Verona Area HS.

PF Paradigm:

12/3/2020 update: My bar for dropping a team for cheating is fairly low. If your opponents are misconstruing evidence and you want to stake the round on it, a useful phrase to know is: "I am making a formal evidence challenge under NSDA rule 7.3.C., for distortion of evidence. We are stopping the round and staking the round's outcome on the result of this formal evidence violation."

No off-time roadmaps. Period. Signpost instead. I will start the clock when you start roadmapping.

Online debate: Before the round starts, there should be a Google Doc (preferred instead of email) with all debaters and judges on it. You should be prepared to add any evidence you read to that Doc in a carded format -- I am receptive to drop-the-argument theory if evidence isn't accessible to your opponents in round.

I time prep meticulously because prep theft is rampant in PF. If a card is requested, teams have 60 seconds to find the card and add it to the file sharing mechanism of the round -- anything beyond that comes out of the prep time of the team that can't find their own evidence. If evidence can't be found, there needs to be an argument made in a speech to drop it (eg. "Drop their argument because they could not share the supporting evidence: we were not given a fair chance to review and dispute its claims."). Discuss and review evidence during cross-x time whenever possible.

If both teams agree to it before the round, and the tournament doesn't explicitly disallow it, I am fine with waiving Grand Cross and granting both teams an additional minute of prep time.

Clash as soon as you are given the opportunity.

• Plans and fiat are educational.

• If it's not in the final focus, it's not going to win you the round.

• I appreciate effective crossfire, and will listen to it, however I don't flow it unless you explicitly tell me to write something down by looking at me and saying "write that down".

• I am inclined to reward good communication with speaker points and a mind more receptive to your arguments.

• Outside of the fact that the 2nd overall speech is expected to just read case (though I'm open to teams rejecting this norm), I expect coverage of both sides of the flow starting with the 2nd rebuttal (4th overall speech). The 1st rebuttal (3rd overall speech) doesn't need to extend case -- they just need to refute the opposing case.

• Exception to the above: Framework. If you're speaking second, don't wait until 15 minutes into the round to tell me your framework. You're obligated to make framework arguments in case.

• I am very likely not the judge you want if you're running a non-canonical PF strategy, like a "kritik".

• I don't give weight to any argument labeled as an "overview". Overviews are heuristic explanations to help me make sense of the round.

If you start your speech by saying "3-2-1", I will say "Blastoff"! "3-2-1" is not necessary!

POLICY (AND SOMETIMES PARLIAMENTARY) DEBATE PARADIGM

NSDA 2021: I have judged ZERO rounds on this topic. The last policy judging I did was at NCFL 2019. I will not know the jargon or meta of this topic.

Judging circuit policy debate is generally an unpleasant experience for me, mainly because of speed. However, lay-oriented CX debate is easily my favorite event.

General Overview:

• Default to Policymaker paradigm. The one major difference is that you should always assume that I am very dumb. Call it the 'stupid President' paradigm.
• You're welcome to run non-traditional positions (K's included) IF you keep them to a conversational pace (We're talking Public Forum slow here) and explain why it means I vote for you.
• I have a mock trial background and I LOVE clever cross-x. However, I do expect closed cross-x: one person per team speaking!
• I don't open speech docs except to review specific pieces of evidence that have been indicted.

Presentation Preferences:

• <230 wpm, non-negotiable. Slow down for taglines, plantexts, and important quotes from the evidence.
• I generally prefer debates I'd be able to show to a school administrator and have them be impressed by the activity rather than offended or scared.
• I am inclined to give bonus speaker points if I see an effort to "read me" as a judge, even if you read me wrong. Cite my paradigm if you need to. Learning to figure out your audience is a crucial life skill. On a related note: if you use the secret word 'whiplash' in your speech, I will give you and your partner 0.3 extra speaker points, since it means you read my philosophy thoroughly. This applies to LD and PF, too.

Argumentation Preferences:

• I like smart counterplans that discuss technical details.
• Theory/K's should be impacted more than just saying "voter for fairness and education".

LD DEBATE PARADIGM

General Overview:

Speed-reading (spreading) is embarrassing. I want to sell school administrators on this activity.

My default stance is to vote based on the "truth" of the resolution, but you can propose alternative frameworks.

I have no K background. For Ks/nontraditional arguments, go slowly and explain thoroughly. Explain either how the K proves/disproves the resolution, or offer a compelling alternative ROTB.

Disclosure theory is exclusionary/bad, but disclosed positions get more leeway on certain T standards.

Presentation Preferences:

• Number your refutations.
• Use cross-ex effectively -- the goal is to get concessions that can be used in speeches.
• Present charismatically, make me want to vote for you as a communicator (though I vote off the flow).

Argumentation Preferences:

• Give me voter issues -- the big ballot stories of the round. Go big picture and frame how I'm supposed to look at issues.
• Philosophical "evidence" means very little to me. A professor from Stanford making a specific analytical claim is functionally the same as you making that argument directly.
• I'm bad at flowing authors and try to get the concepts down in as much detail as possible instead. For philosophical arguments, I generally prefer clearly explained logic over hastily-read cards. However, evidence related to quantitative things should be cited because those studies are highly dependent on precision/accuracy and are backed up empirically.

She/her- you can call me Brittany

experienced in all speech events, congressional debate, PF, and, LD

PF- I'm retired PF coach and have been judging PF for years. I have also judged quite a bit of LD.

I flow (except crossfires) but I'm not going to get down every source tag. If you feel a source is important or you want to argue your opponents source please make sure I know what the source said. Id prefer you to refer to what the evidence said than just card tags.

Speed-don't go too fast. It isn't so much an issue of me not being able to follow you, it's more the fact that this is a public speaking and communication competition and not a race. At no point in the real world will being the person who speaks the fastest get you anywhere. Since I am not going to judge the round based on simply a tally of who had the most arguments, it's not really worth your time squeezing in that extra contention/argument.

Please, please, please impact weigh for me. You don't want your judge to have to decide what's most important, tell them why your impacts are most important.

Roadmaps- don't do them. They are not useful in pf and rarely tell me anything. Just signpost in your speech. As long as you're organized, I should be able to follow you. If you're not organized, a roadmap wouldn't help me anyway.

Be nice to each other, don't constantly cut each other off in cx, you will see it effect your speaker points if you do.

Default framework is harms vs benefits for all PF. Just because you have a framework and your opponents don't doesn't mean you win automatically. If they fully respond to your framework or lay out their own, even in rebuttal, I'm fine with that.

Generally not interested in non-topical arguments.

Prep Time - Please use your prep time wisely. I will only give a little latitude with regards to untimed evidence sharing or organizing your flows, but please be quick about it.

Good luck!

LD- I am a previous PF person coach but have been judging LD on and off since 2007. A lot of my notes will be the same as above honestly cause they apply to both. But I will repeat them here and also add anything else.

I flow (except crossfires) but I'm not going to get down every source tag. If you feel a source is important or you want to argue your opponents source please make sure I know what the source said in case (or blocks). Id prefer you to refer to what the evidence said than just card tags.

Speed-don't go too fast. It isn't so much an issue of me not being able to follow you, it's more the fact that this is a public speaking and communication competition and not a race. At no point in the real world will being the person who speaks the fastest get you anywhere. Since I am not going to judge the round based on simply a tally of who had the most arguments, it's not really worth your time squeezing in that extra contention/argument.

Please, please, please impact weigh for me. You don't want your judge to have to decide what's most important, tell them why your impacts are most important.

Roadmaps- don't do them unless youre going in a weird order(and ideally dont go in a weird order, I prefer line by line down the flow). Just signpost in your speech. As long as you're organized, I should be able to follow you. If you're not organized, a roadmap wouldn't help me anyway.

Be nice to each other, don't constantly cut each other off in cx, you will see it effect your speaker points if you do.

Generally not interested in completely non-topical arguments. That doesnt mean I wont entertain them potentially in LD as I know theyre very popular. This also doesnt mean I wont entertain arguments like vote neg because this topic is inherently racist, that is still topical. IF you have a non-Kritik case tho, Id recommend you run that in front of me.

Framework is very important- make sure you address it at the beginning- if your frameworks are the same you can just quickly acknowledge that and move on- sometimes kids spend a long time talking about how both teams have a Value of morality and that isnt needed for me. I also dont need you to readdress the framework in later speeches if theyre the same but if theyre different make sure to address it.

Prep Time - Please use your prep time wisely. I will only give a little latitude with regards to untimed evidence sharing or organizing your flows, but please be quick about it.

Good luck!

Congress- On the debate side of the ballot: I highly value clash and new arguments. Rehashing old points is unlikely to get you a high score. The one exception is a really strong crystallization speech that does a good job of summing up what has happened in the debate so far (and these speeches are not easy to do well). On the speech side of the ballot: this is a speech heavy activity, more so than any other debate category. Make sure you follow all the rules of a good speech (vocal control and physical poise are polished, deliberate, crisp and confident. Few errors in pronunciation. Content is clearly presented and organized) I prefer extemporaneous style with only occasional note references for evidence specifics (ideally no notes needed, as in extemp). Make sure you cite your sources (and that your speech includes sources).

Updated 4/17 for the Tournament of Champions

Congrats on qualifying for the TOC! Being at this tournament is a substantial accomplishment on its own, and one that you should be extremely proud of.

Topic thoughts:

Both teams should spend more time explaining the mechanism by which they resolve their impacts. For instance - how does the UNSC prevent conflict? What would the UNSC do absent a veto to resolve x conflict? I think that the team that best explains those internal links has a better shot of winning in front of me. Using past examples of UN intervention (or lack thereof) seems to be important to explain warrants to me.

In short:

Put me on the email chain before I show up. Send speech docs (i.e., Word docs as attachments) before any speech in which you are going to read evidence. Read good evidence. Debate about what you want. I'd strongly prefer it have some relation to the topic. Speed is fine so long as you're clear, slow down/differentiate tags, and clearly signpost arguments. I will not read the document during your speech. Theory is silly and I'd rather vote on anything else. Critical arguments are fine, if grounded in topic lit and you can articulate what voting for you is/does. Debaters should read more lines from fewer pieces of evidence. If you have time, please read everything in my paradigm. It's not that long.

--

he/him

I've been involved in competitive speech and debate since 2014. I am the Director of Speech and Debate at Seven Lakes High School in Katy, Texas. I competed in PF and Congress in high school and NPDA-style parliamentary debate in college at Minnesota.

I am also a Co-Director of Public Forum Boot Camp (PFBC) in Minnesota. If you do high school PF and you want to talk to me about camp, let me know.

I am conflicted against Seven Lakes (TX), Lakeville North (MN), Lakeville South (MN), Blake (MN), and Vel Phillips Memorial (WI).

Put me on the email chain. Please flip and get fully set up before the round start time. My email is my first name [dot] my last name [at] gmail. Add sevenlakespf@googlegroups.com, sevenlakesld@googlegroups.com, or sevenlakescx@googlegroups.com depending on the event I am judging you in. The subject of the email chain should clearly state the tournament, round number and flight, and team codes/sides of each team. For example: "Gold TOC R1A - Seven Lakes CL 1A v Lakeville North LM 2N".

In general:

Debate is a competitive research activity. The team that can most effectively synthesize their research into a defense of their plan, method, or side of the resolution will win the debate. I would like you to be persuasive, entertaining, kind, and strategic. Feel free to ask clarifying questions before the debate.

How I decide rounds/preferences:

I can judge whatever. I will vote for whatever argument wins on the flow. I want to judge a small but deep debate about the topic.

I've judged or been a part of several thousand debates in various formats over the past decade. I have seen, gone for, and voted for lots of arguments. My preference is that you demonstrate mastery of the topic and a well-thought-out strategy during the round and that you're excited to do debate and engage with your opponents' research. The best rounds consist of rigorous examination and comparison of the most recent and academically legitimate topic literature. I would like to hear you compare many different warrants and examples, and to condense the round as early as possible. Ignoring this preference will likely result in lower speaker points.

I flow, intently and carefully. I will stop flowing when my timer goes off. I will not flow while reading a document, and will only use the email chain or speech doc to look at evidence when instructed to by the competitors or after the round if the interpretation of a piece of evidence is vital to my decision. There is no grace period of any length. I will not vote on an argument I did not flow.

There is not a dichotomy between "truth" and "tech". Obviously, the team that does the better debating will win, and that will be determined by arguments that I've flowed, but you will have a much more difficult time convincing me that objectively bad arguments are true than convincing me that good arguments are true. In other words, an argument's truth often dictates its implication for my ballot because it informs technical skill.

I will not vote for unwarranted arguments, arguments that I cannot explain in my RFD, or arguments I did not flow. I have now given several decisions that were basically: "I am aware this was on the doc. I did not flow it during your speech time." Most PF rounds I judge are decided by mere seconds of argumentation, and most PF teams should probably think harder about how to warrant their links and compare their terminal impacts than they do right now.

Zero risk exists. I probably won't vote on defense or presumption, but I am theoretically willing to.

An average speaker in front of me will get a 28.5.

Critical arguments:

I am a decent judge for critical strategies that are well thought out, related to the topic, and strategically executed. I am happy to vote to reject a team's rhetoric, to critically examine economic and political systems of power, etc. if you explain why those impacts matter. In a PF context, these arguments seem to struggle with not being fleshed out enough because of short speech times but I'm not ideologically opposed to them.

I am not a great judge for strategies that ignore the resolution. I will vote for arguments that reject the topic if there are warrants for why we ought to do that and you win those warrants. But, if evenly debated, relating your strategy to the topic is a good idea.

I am a terrible judge for strategies that rely on in-round "discourse" as offense. I generally do not think that these strategies have an impact or solve the harms with debate they identify. I've voted for these arguments several times, and I still find them unpersuasive - I just found the other team's defense of debate worse.

Theory:

Theory is generally boring and I rarely want to listen to it without it being placed in a specific context based on the current topic.

I am more than qualified to evaluate theory debates and used to go for theory in college quite a bit.

I would strongly prefer not to listen to debates about setting norms. Disclosure is generally good. Paraphrasing is generally bad.

Here is a list of arguments which will be very difficult to win in front of me: violations based on anything that occurred outside of the current debate, frivolous theory or other positions with no bearing on the question posed by the resolution, trigger warning theory, anything categorized as a trick or meant to evade clash, anything that is labeled as an IVI without a warranted implication for the ballot.

I recognize the strategic value of theory and that sometimes, you need to go for it to win a debate. If you decide to do that, you might get very low speaker points, depending on how asinine I think your position is. I will be persuaded by appeals to reasonability and that substantive debate matters more than your position.

Evidence:

Evidence ethics arguments/IVIs/theory/etc. will not be treated as theory - I will ask the team who has introduced the argument about evidence ethics if I should stop the debate and evaluate the challenge to evidence to determine the winner/loser of the round. The same goes for clipping. This is obviously different than reasons to prefer a piece of evidence or other normal weighing claims. I reserve the right to vote against teams that I notice are fabricating evidence during the round even if the other team does not make it a voting issue.

You should read good evidence and disclose case positions after you debate.

I have lots of other thoughts on speech and debate that you can read here if you would like - it encompasses some past paradigms, etc.

Peter Rehani

UPDATED 11/15/19: Clarified evidence policy and paradigm comprehension reward.

UPDATED 5/25/19 for NCFL NATIONALS SPECIFICALLY: Regarding prep time, I will allow 10 seconds for teams to find cards under the requester’s prep time; after that, I will consider it an abuse of prep time and therefore it will not count.

PF TLDR: Heavily flow based judge. My biggest voters rely on extensions and clash in the round. Weigh and define the voters in the final focus. If you have a framework, I expect you to explain why you win under that framework (similarly, if your opponent's provide a framework, weigh under that too). Signpost. Signpost. Signpost.

Congress TLDR: I try to weigh speaking style equally for debate--for debate, I look for clash, extension, and clear reference back to previous speakers. Avoid rehash at all costs, else you will end up on the bottom of my ballot. Speak clearly and ensure that your speeches are clear and well structured.

I strongly encourage you to read this thoroughly. PLEASE ASK ME BEFORE THE ROUND IF SOMETHING IS UNCLEAR TO YOU. I will gladly answer any questions before the round (or after the round). I will try my absolute best to justify my decisions to you (debaters!) during PF disclosure, and if I'm not communicating in a way that you understand, it is YOUR responsibility speak up and let me know.

PF Paradigm:

• If the tournament doesn't explicitly disallow plans and both teams agree before the round to allow plans, feel free to run a plan-based debate if the topic calls for it. I find it more educational.
• In the case of an evidence question being called, I default to tournament rules; barring specific guidelines from the tournament (if tournaments require prep to be run), my policy is to begin prep as soon as the opposing team provides the exact location of the reference. All citations should include dates. Paraphrasing is a realistic way to get more evidence on the flow, but you shouldn't be using evidence as your argument -- they are there to supplement and support your arguments. Otherwise I default to not running prep for evidence exchange.
• If it's not in the final focus, it's not a voter.
• I appreciate effective crossfire, however I don't flow it unless you explicitly tell me to write something down, like a specific concession (hint: you should do this, explicitly say "write that down").
• I am inclined to reward good communication with speaker points and a mind more receptive to your arguments.
• Outside of the fact that the 2nd overall speech is allowed to just read case, I expect FULL case/off-case coverage in EVERY speech starting with the 2nd rebuttal (4th overall speech) -- i.e. extend everything that you want weighed. The 1st rebuttal (3rd overall speech) doesn't need to extend case -- they just need to refute the opposing case.
• Exception to the above: Framework. If you're speaking second, don't wait until 15 minutes into the round to tell me your framework. You're obligated to make those arguments in case. I vastly prefer to see framework at the top of all speeches, as it provides structure and a lens to understand your arguments--if you wait 1:30 into summary to discuss framework, it's likely that I'll lose it on the flow.
• For rebuttal, my general preference for the sake of sanity in organization is concise, top down, line by line responses. I feel that this is often the best way to ensure that you get through everything in the case. Rebuttal does not have to repeat everything, but should provide organized responses. Please signpost.
• I am very likely not the judge you want if you're running a non-canonical strategy, like a "kritik". I am an engineer and I have a fairly rigid policymaker paradigm.
• I don't flow anything called an "overview". Overviews are heuristic explanations to help me make sense of the round. Please don't expect to generate offense off of an overview.
• I'm fine if you'd like to time yourselves with an alarm; however, for the sake of common courtesy, please turn this off if you plan to time your opponents.
• I am inclined to give bonus speaker points if I see an effort to "read me" as a judge, even if you read me wrong. Cite my paradigm if you need to. Learning to figure out your audience is a crucial life skill. On a related note: if you use the secret word 'lobster' in your speech, I will give you and your partner a metaphorical 0.5 extra speaker points, since it means you read my philosophy thoroughly. This applies to LD too.
• I generally prefer debates I'd be able to show to a school administrator and have them be impressed by the activity rather than offended or scared.
• Please give me voter issues in the final focus. Weigh if at all possible. When I weigh for you, hell breaks loose. I cannot stress this enough.

Congress Paradigm:

• I try to judge congressional debate through as balanced a lens as possible--this means I tend to value speaking quality equally to the quality of your debate abilities.
• Typically, the biggest reason that I knock speakers down comes from non-original arguments/causing rehash in the debate. I feel that this decreases the quality of the debate and fundamentally mitigates the educational benefits of congressional debate.
• Regarding roleplay of a true Congress, I think it adds a bit of humor to the debate and leads to more engaged speakers.
• On the note of questioning, I prefer when students keep questions as concise as possible to avoid burying the speaker in a mountain of jargon.
• Clash and extension (similar to my PF paradigm) are my biggest factors on the debate side--please please please introduce clash and cite the speaker that you are extending or clashing. It helps to follow the flow of the argument as you speak, and it demonstrates you're actually paying attention.
• The later you speak in cycle, the more clash I expect to see and I judge on that metric. Similarly, I strongly dislike having 2 speeches on the same side, as it often leads to rehash. If you are speaking for the second time on the same bill, I look more closely for unique arguments and extended clash, and tend to judge these speeches slightly more harshly.
• Extension of questioning time often leads to less speeches getting in, and ultimately means that less people get a chance to speak. For this reason, I'm typically opposed to having students extend their questioning periods.
• For later cycle, I don't mind crystallization speeches but I do expect to see weighing and clear reference back to previous speakers.
• As stated above, your evidence is not your argument--It serves to support your argument.
• Speaking: gestures and clear movements add to structure and to the quality of your speech. Gesturing for the sake of gesturing, and non directed movements do not. I tend to prefer when speakers keep it simple with the style instead of over-complicating everything.
• For authorships, sponsorships, and first negs, I tend to look at fluency breaks and time more critically, as these are speeches that should be well rehearsed ahead of time.
• I view a logical argument that flows well to be on par with literal evidence from a perspective of supporting your arguments. This means that 1-you shouldn't be afraid to use logic in your speeches and 2-evidence debates will not hold up for me.

I'm trained in Policy, but primarily judge LD and PF (along with Forensics and Student Congress). As such, my background is more overtly political, but I tend towards things more philosophical or abstract.

I will do impact calculus (and by all means, try to convince me of what should be weighed and how), but have some respect for what you're arguing: if you're arguing about a precise number of human lives extinguished, it's time for a break from this activity.

A lot of my philosophy of judging is about having as fair a debate as possible when a debate cannot be fair. As such, a good number of kritiks are not very compelling unless they are very well-linked to your opponent's arguments. The Resolution exists to help narrow debate to guide students to research in a certain direction, so many kritiks rely simply on catching your opponent unawares, and I fail to see the educational value in this. If you're running it in a round I'm judging, it's a total Hail Mary (which is not to say that I would never vote on a kritik - I'd be over the moon to see a linked performative kritik! Convince me!)

Counterplans in LD: You don't present a plan (that comes from Policy, where they draft a plan), so you can't have a counterplan. If you're "running a counterplan" in LD, you're making a contention.
Speed: No, thank you. First of all, if you spread, I might not get everything on my flow - and if it's not on my flow, I'm not going to judge it. Second of all, you should be able to prioritize your arguments to fit within speech times. Having said that, if you speak at a faster clip, and especially if you enunciate, you're good. Oh, and third, spreading will tank your speaker points.

I've been studying intersectionality of oppression and do my best to be mindful of identity issues in debate. If you have a concerns about external factors affecting judging, I'm open to hearing what you have to say, minding the fact that the average tournament doesn't have a lot of time to spare. Also, in a broader sense, suffering is optional: I've had students have breakdowns in my round, and... these things happen, unfortunately. But this is not a reflection of your abilities as a debater or speaker. Will sometimes a round be lost? Sure - this is not the end of the world. I'm here to give you feedback on how well you are at making arguments, and while I can be ornery about specifics, I'm honestly cheering on everyone to bring their best. It's more fun for everyone and it's what makes you a better debater. I have drawn frowny faces on my flow on dropped arguments.

I'm fortunate to have only had to say this rarely, but if I tell you, "you need to speak to your coach," it's not as ominous as it seems. Basically, if I want you to speak to your coach about your ballot, it means that there's something fundamental about debate that you're misunderstanding based on what I observed, and the ballot will be very clear about what that is so that you can get some targeted coaching as soon as possible in order to help improve your performance.

Give me a good debate. Try your best.

Experience: 4 years (2015-2019) competing in LD + Congress at Wisconsin locals, NSDA/NCFL's, and on the national circuit. This is my second year judging LD.

Conflicts: Brookfield East

larp > trad/phil > Ks > theory > tricks

-I'm basically the same age as you, so definitely just call me Arjun (pronounced AR-juhn, if you need some help here you go). I use he/him pronouns.

-Read whatever you'd like! As long as doing so doesn't create an unsafe debate space for your opponent, make the arguments that you enjoy most. I'm most familiar with phil/larp/trad literature, but definitely don't let that stop you from running k args if that's what you're passionate about. I'll vote on tricks if substantiated, but definitely will not extend the unwarranted 3 second apriori at the end of your constructive.

-Assuming clarity, I'm comfortable flowing up to around this speed. Any more than that and I'm probably missing some important stuff. I'll yell clear/slow if need be.

-That being said, please use your best judgement to adjust to the conditions of the round; don't read your most complicated 5 offs at 400 wpm against a novice at their first tournament. I won't drop you for not doing so, but my frustration will be reflected in your speaker points.

-WEIGH EARLY WEIGH OFTEN

-I have a relatively high threshold for extensions; I need to hear a clearly articulated warrant before it goes on my flow. "Extend contention 1" isn't enough.

-Please don't go over time! Don't wait till after your timer goes off to give voters.

-I average around a 28 for speaks. The more good things you do the higher above that you'll go: collapsing in the 2NR/2AR, doing literally anything with framework, giving clear win conditions, getting big concessions in cx etc.

-Please please please use good evidence!!!! It feels like with every passing year our standards drop and cards get sketchier. I'll be very happy if you have full citations on all pieces of evidence and will give you a somewhat arbitrary nonzero bump in speaks.

Hit me up with questions via email: arjunshreekumar@gmail.com, text: 262-347-5599, messenger, ig, snap, whatever floats your boat.

Looking forward to meeting y'all in round :)

Email for fileshare:

umstotd@elmbrookschools.org

Don't postround me. I judge on what I heard in the round and nothing you say after the round will change my ballot. If you do choose to postround me I will walk out of the room and give you the lowest speaks possible for the tournament. You may email me with questions after the round provided your adult coach is CCed on the email.

POLICY
Three years policy debate experience, head coach at Brookfield Central High School.

I'm a tabula rasa judge, but if you don't tell me what to vote on, I'll fall back to which is the better policy based on impact calculus. Do the impact calculus for me, unless you want me to do it myself.

I'm not a fan of Topicality. I'll hear it, and I'll flow it, but you must convince me that it's a voter and your definition can't be absolutely ridiculous.

I love Counterplans, as I was a CP-heavy debater myself. Kritiks are fine, but give me a clear alternative and make sure that you explain your K well.

You can speed, but not through tags or analytic arguments. I need to be able to flow. I'll tell you if you're speaking too quickly for me.

Use roadmaps and signposting. It makes it easier for me to flow, and better for you if I can understand the debate.

Clash is by and large one of the most important things in a debate for me. You'll keep my attention and get much higher speaker points.

I like real-world impacts. You might have a hard time convincing me of global extinction. Be smart when it comes to impacts and make sure they realistically link.

Open C-X is fine, but don't go overboard. Keep in mind that it's your partner's C-X, and if you use all of it, I will dock you speaker points.

New in the 2 - I'm okay with this I suppose...but with this in mind, the Affirmative is definitely free to run theory on this if the 2N is just trying to spread the Aff out of the round by saving their entire offense for the 2NC.

LINCOLN-DOUGLAS
First and foremost, I evaluate the framework. However, even if you lose the framework, that doesn't mean you've lost the round. Prove your case can fit under your opponent's framework. If I can still evaluate your case under your opponent's framework, I can still buy your case. As far as the contention debate goes, I don't necessarily buy that you have to win every contention to win the contention debate. You don't have to take out all of your opponent's contentions, either. Focus on impacts. Focus on weighing your case against your opponent's case, and how each contention provides the best example of the value. The team who provides the most evidence that shows affirming/negating will benefit society (through either value) more will win the debate.

I welcome CPs, Ks, and ROTBs, as long as you are running them because YOU understand them, not because you think your opponent WON'T. The point of debate is education, and running a tricky K in a convoluted way to confuse your opponent won't win you a ballot in front of me. Be clear and contribute to the education of debate. I prefer that you don't spread too much in LD. Although I do judge policy as well, and can flow most speed, it's not my preference.
I'll disclose but I'm not going to give you excessive oral critiques. That's what my ballot is for.

I will take down flows but please consider a more “lay” approach to argumentation (I will not be impressed by jargon, figures, or theory if it is not well explained).

Speed is fine, but I feel like you are spreading just to gain an advantage by cramming in more arguments (as opposed to more thorough and concise responses) I will probably stop listening.

If there is a dispute over evidence, I will call for the card in context myself. If I find you are intentionally misusing or misrepresenting evidence to support a claim within a contention, I will drop the entire contention and probably spend an annoying amount of time lecturing you about ethics and evidence after the round.

I prefer arguments made in Final Focus to have been made in summary but if there is genuinely compelling reason to bring in new evidence I *will* consider it.

Be nice. have fun. Don’t take yourself too seriously.

Feel free to ask me any additional questions before round starts.