Tabroom.com

National Speech and Debate Season Opener

2020 — Lexington, KY/US

Public Forum Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Zahra Abadin Mira Loma High School 2 rounds None

Karen Abrams Woodrow Wilson High School 3 rounds

Saahit Adabala Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Sat January 25, 2020 at 6:12 AM CST

Broad Preferences

For the most part, I debated pretty tech throughout my high school career. I will be able to catch pretty much anything you throw at me. Debating tech does not mean card dumping. I prefer warranting behind claims and will always prove unwarranted analytics over unwarranted cards.

Overall, my judging style is tabula rasa. I will vote off of only what happens in the round.

Big picture weighing is very important

If you want me to evaluate anything at the end of the round it has to be extended through Summary and FF(except for first summmary defense which I mention later)

More Preferences

- no spreading

- I love weighing. Comparative weighing is the easiest way to my ballot. Do the work for me. Start weighing early.

- I also love collapsing. IMO, going die hard on 1 arg is a lot better than 5 blippy args. I just think its smarter debate.

- BE NICE. Should go without saying.(Here is a tutorial : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V7eXooGBC5U)

- Please have an author with all your cards. If needed, I will call for cards at the end of the round, but I don't want to. Just don't be sketchy, you should have nothing to hide.

- I like flushed out warrants and specific, clear impacts. If I had to choose between the two it would definitely be the warrants. You need to have really well-warranted arguments and your links have to be strong by the end of the round.

- You don't need defense in first summary, but if you think it is necessary to your narrative then please extend it to show me how important it is.

- It's not necessary, but I really really want to see frontlining in second rebuttal.

Even More Preferences

- Dont be afraid to be funny. I know how stressful and long debate tournaments are. We could all use a laugh here and there.

- I like bee arguments

Please ask questions before the round if you have any doubts. I wrote this paradigm while watching Netflix so I may have missed some things. Good luck to all the debaters.

Maneesh Aggarwal Lake Highland Preparatory School 6 rounds

Amaresh Agrahara Evergreen Valley 4 rounds

Lillian Albrecht Lakeville 6 rounds

Last changed on Mon July 8, 2024 at 9:17 AM CST

I debated in PF for 4 years (2016-2020) in MN, I'm now an assistant coach for Blake. Please put me on the email chain before round and send full speech docs + cut cards before case and rebuttal: lillianalbrecht20@gmail.com and blakedocs@googlegroups.com

Evidence ethics and exchanges in PF are terrible, please don’t make it worse. Start an email chain before rounds and make exchanges as fast as possible. Sending speech docs to everyone before you read case and rebuttal (including your evidence) makes exchanges faster and lets you check back for your opponent's evidence. I find myself evaluating evidence a lot more now, so please make sure you're reading cut cards.

I tend to vote on the path of least resistance, meaning I’ll vote for clean turns over messy case args. I'm kind of a lazy judge that way, but the less I have to think about where to vote the better. But if a turn/disad isn’t implicated or doesn’t have a link, I’m not gonna buy it. Most teams don't actually impact out or weigh their turns, so doing that is an easy way to win my ballot.

You need to frontline in second rebuttal. Turns/new offense is a must, but the more you cover the better.

Everything you want to go for has to be in summary and FF. This includes offense and defense--defense is not sticky for 1st summary. If you don't extend your links and impacts in summary/FF I can't vote for you.

I’m generally good with speed, but I value quality over quantity. I typically flow on paper and will not flow off the doc, so slowing down on tags + analytics is appreciated. I will clear you if I cannot understand you, typically for unclear speaking rather than the speed itself.

Please signpost, for both of our sakes. Clear signposting makes it easier to understand your arguments and easier to vote for you. Line by line is preferred, but whatever you do, just tell me where to write it down.

The more weighing you do the better. Weigh every piece of offense you want to win for best results.

The more you collapse in the second half of the round, the easier it is for me to vote for you.

Speaker points are kinda dumb, but I usually average 28. Good strat + jokes will boost your speaks, being offensive/rude + slow to find evidence will drop them.

I'm fine with theory if there's real abuse. I won't vote on frivolous theory and I'll be really annoyed judging a round on the hyper-specifics of a debate norm (ie, open-source v. full-text disclosure). Good is good enough. Generally, I think that paraphrasing is bad and disclosure is good, but I'll evaluate whatever args you read in front of me. That being said, I really do not want to judge theory debates, so please avoid running them.

I don't mind K debate theoretically, but I have a really high threshold for what K debate should be in PF. I have some experience running and judging Ks, but I'm not very familiar with the current lit + hyperspecific terminology. I'm also really opposed to the current trend of Ks in PF. If your alt doesn't actually do anything with my ballot you don't have any offense that I can vote for you on. If you want to read a K in front of me, you need to go at 75% of your max speed. Far too often teams read a bunch of blippy arguments and forget to actually warrant them. Going slower and walking me through the warranting will be the way to win my ballot--this includes responses to the K as well. However, similar to theory, I really do not want to judge a K round, so run at your own risk.

Feel free to email me with any questions you have about the round!

Abdullah Ali Palm Beach Independent 3 rounds

Mark Allseits Edina High School 5 rounds

Last changed on Sun November 15, 2020 at 6:40 PM EST

PF PARADIGM (Updated 11/15/2020)

Experience
I have competed and coached public forum debate for over a decade.

I have debate experience in PF, Parli, and NFA LD.

Pet Peeves

1. PRE-FLOW BEFORE THE ROUND

2. Do not laugh at your opponents. Disrespect is not tolerated at all.

3. Paraphrased blips with no warrants. 5 pieces of evidence back to back in a case within 30 seconds of reading drives me nuts. I much prefer you all reading cards which have warrants instead of your paraphrasing. To me, warrants are very important. I do not default oppose paraphrasing but I have voted multiple times on paraphrasing theory when the argument is won.

4. Debaters not collapsing.

Second Half of the Debate

DO NOT expect me to do work for you. I only evaluate offensive arguments found in both the summary and final focus. Defense is not necessary to be extended in these speeches, but can help build a narrative.

Me Calling for Evidence

The exception to me "doing work" is if the debaters don't do the work for me. I.e. - if both teams tell me the other teams evidence is bad and I should call it without explaining why the evidence is bad, I will call both cards and make the determination on my own. If a debate is not resolved by the debaters I will resolve the debate using the evidence if there is no other way to resolve the round.

Speaker Points

Speaker points are not largely determined by how pretty you sound. Rather, I use them as a reward for your talent as a critical thinker. Things I evaluated include but are not limited to - organization, pointing out logical inconstancies or double turns, articulating implications of impacts, etc.

Evidence Ethics
PLEASE READ FULL CARDS - if you do not, I will hold you to a very high level of scrutiny and will likely call for more of your cards and evaluate them myself. I have seen too many teams lose debate rounds because debaters have misrepresented evidence that was never called for.

Speed

In PF, I am cool with speed and will be able to flow you if you read full cards. I have experience in debate with speaking speeds up to 500 wpm. However, if you are reading paraphrased cases with 10 pieces of evidence paraphrased in 30 seconds, I may not catch author name and year and I will likely tank that teams speaks. So, slow down for author names and tags. If you aren't reading full cards (then read full cards), but if you really choose may not want to go as fast.

ALSO - YOU CANNOT USE SPEED AS A TOOL OF EXCLUSION. If both teams want to go fast, go for it- I will be more than capable of following. However, if your opponent is excluded from the round because of your speed, I will vote against you if you do not slow down. If you feel as if you are being excluded from the round please say "speed" audibly while your opponent is speaking. If your opponent has said speed 2-3 times and you haven't slowed down, I will be very persuaded to drop you for your abuse of speed.

"DA's" And "Overviews" in the Rebuttal

I really dislike what PFers are calling "DA's" or overviews which are functionally a new contention. These arguments, absent a link to your opponents case, will not be evaluated. If you are going to make this style of argument I would love to hear it if you have a clear link to an argument offered by your opponent in their prior speech. I don't want to hear a new contention in first and/or especially second rebuttal and then have you tell me your impact comes first on time frame or something shady like that.

Weighing

You must weigh to have a good chance of winning my ballot. That being said, if neither team weighs I will default to magnitude/big stick impacts. That being said, I can easily be persuaded otherwise. You just need to warrant why. Debaters always under-warrant the impact debate and take it for granted. For example, simply saying "my impact is more likely" is not enough of a warrant to persuade me. Carded weighing will likely give you the upper hand and probably a bump in speaks.

Weird Arguments

I am definitely ok listening to arguments that may not be intuitive (prolif good, warming good, etc.). However, I am not a fan of unreasonably stretching the scope of the resolution. For example, if the topic asks about increasing military spending, I don't think the Aff gets the right to pick one obscure program, such as nuclear submarines a professor in Europe thought about in the 90s if it hasn't been discussed as a legitimate policy suggestion. I am much more likely to vote on something ripped from the headlines. Thus, if the Aff reads evidence that says the military is short on funding but its main priority is increasing troop presence to fight ISIL, it is easy to make the logical assumption that if funding were increased that is what the government would do.

I think vague topics are bad in PF but we have our fair share of them. I don't think teams get to cherry pick facets of a topic and claim them as their "advocacy". For example, if the resolution is The USFG should prioritize welfare over transportation, I don't think the neg gets to say that we only defend revamping bike paths and bus routes and then ignore all other aspects of the topic. The Aff has every right to read an evidence based argument that increased spending would be used to improve airports which increases ozone deterioration even though you didn't talk about airport infrastructure in your con. In essence, in my eyes you don't get "advocacies". Rather, it is your job to be prepared to defend the whole of the resolution for whichever side you are on in PF.

Additional Questions

If there is anything you don't see on here, feel free to ask me before the round :)

HIGH SCHOOL LD PARADIGM

I will not vote on explicitly oppressive arguments. No exceptions.

I look for the easiest route to the ballot. Definitely not a big fan of intervention. Speaks are based on quality of argument and organization, not the way you sound. I hate unwarranted spikes or theory preempts sprinkled in between cards. If you are making a new argument get a new sheet.

I default to a logical decision-making paradigm. As a result I prefer topic-centered debate but I am totally opened to warranted reasons as to why that is a bad metric for debate.

I think the link (or violation or mutual exclusivity, same concept different name) is the most important part of every position and debaters who get good speaker points and win regularly in front of me have robust discussions on the link.

I place a high value on quality evidence and think preparation is the cornerstone of the educational aspects of this activity. I think that extensions of evidence should be more than just blippy tag extensions. If you aren’t extending warrants, I am not going to find them in the evidence for you after the round.

Speed: I think clear speed improves debate. I am cool with any clear speed that isn’t being used to intentionally exclude your opponent or other judges on a panel. I will say that it seems like a lot of HS LD students rely on the email chain for judges to get their warrants: this practice will likely result in diminished speaker points and possibly a poor decision on my part. It is probably a good idea to slow down a bit on tags and make it clear when a tag starts and a card ends. Flying through blippy theory shells at 400 wpm just seems like a bad idea if you want me to flow it all.

Specific Arguments

Topicality: I assume it’s a voter but the neg needs to explain why and I will listen to reasons why it shouldn’t be, extra and fx are up for debate, abuse is just a marginally more persuasive standard, standards are reason to prefer an interp, I don’t like to vote on RVIs unless they are well warranted and even then the aff sneezing on the flow might be enough for me to ignore it. I will probably ignore jargon that is unwarranted like just saying reasonability or competing interps without explanations.

DAs: I will vote on linear and unique Das. I don’t believe a negative needs one to win a round. I am usually very skeptical of politics but still vote offence/defense paradigm on it.

Theory: Most specs are just defense to solvency for me. I definitely get they are a valuable part of a strategy for time and fairness reasons but I find them generally unpersuasive. I will vote on them though if mishandled by the affirmative(or negative) . All that said if you have a really interesting super spec procedural I’ll listen to it with an open mind. 5 off all procedurals will tank your speaks.I generally think there are ways to resolve theoretical objections that don’t necessitate a ballot on theory.

Ks: As with every other position I want the link to be specific and prefer the literature to be in the context of our topic. I think the necessity of framework depends on the nature of the alternative and the presented 1AC. I generally view links as a DA to the perm. I think you need a stable alt text.

Counterplans: I don’t think conditionality is a problem but you can read whatever against the CP. I don’t think you have to establish ME in the NC but I think it ends up being more persuasive if the AR concedes it. I prefer if they have an advocate, but not a deal breaker. You should have a stable CP text. Open to perm theory, same concept as other theory shells though.

Defense: I’m predisposed to believe it’s not a voting issue but if someone concedes some fwk that says it is I guess I would vote for it. This applies to answering neg positions as well.

Performance: I am totally fine with it, but again I think it’s important to explain how it relates to an affirmation or negation of the resolution. That being said, I am completely open to arguments about why resolution centered debate is bad.

A2 K/Performance AC/NC: ENGAGE. Just framing your way out the debate is super boring to me. Cut cards answering their method. If they give you links, use them.

(Paradigm largely stolen from Spencer Orlowski) -> we view debate similarly. I will make a more specific paradigm soon.

NFA LD PARADIGM

To be honest, aside from evaluating practice debates, I have never formally judged an NFA LD round at a tournament since graduating. That being said, I will try and give you my best insight into how I tend to evaluate debates if you have me at NFA. Please feel free to ask me any questions my paradigm does not answer for you before the round begins.

Pet Peeves

Topicality without carded interp

Super short cards with no warrants

Super long tags on policy Affs

Tags that don't use the rhetoric of the card (powertags)

Lack of Sign-Posting

Speed

I am cool with it so long as your opponent is. If I am unable to follow you due to delivery rate I will say speed. If you are unclear I will say clear. There is a difference. I expect a debater to audibly say clear or speed. I am not ok with speed being a tool of exclusion and will be persuaded if I see a clear abuse of speed. I am also not ok with debaters calling speed as a competitive tool when they can truly keep up and are debating at speeds as fast as, if not faster than their opponent.

Speaker Points

Theory/Topicality

I probably will not be persuaded by theory positions that would be better articulated as solvency deficits to the Aff (i.e. - vagueness). That does not mean I will not vote on these positions, but it is an uphill battle to argue I should drop the debater when in reality it is just a solvency question. Other than that, I do believe that theory is meant to protect yourself and please use it as necessary. Obviously, proven abuse is preferable but if you persuade me that potential abuse should be a voter, then I will vote there. I am particularly persuaded on theory/T if you show me the abuse on clearly on each sheet. Please please please weigh the impacts of standards. Too often, theory/T debates do not resolve which standard is most important. Reminder - please card interps and number your violations clearly if there are multiple.

AC's

Don't really care about the structure of an Aff. If the Aff is not topical, it helps to provide justification in the 1AC as to why the Aff is not topical. This is not necessary, but I think it will make framework and T preempts much cleaner and easier for you.

DA's

Do your thing. I am persuaded by logical responses to DAs if they are true (i.e. Uniqueness overwhelms the link). If your link is not specific to the Aff, then please contextualize the Aff to your link after you read the link ev.

CP's

I have no on face rejection to any types of CPs or their respective status. That being said, I can definitely be persuaded why certain types of CPs should be excluded via a theory debate. I also don't think you need to solve every harm of the Aff.

K's

Do your thing. Aff specific links are preferred. If you are reading generic or topic links, then please contextualize them to the Aff in the NC. I am cool with kicking the alt and using the link and impact as a linear DA to the case but that does open you up to the theory debate which I am not afraid to vote on.

Evaluating Arguments

I default to a comparative advantages frame work. If there is a 1% chance the Aff can solve, and the neg has no substantial harm to weigh against the Aff, I won't vote on solvency as a stock issue. I am not persuaded by lazy try-or-die arguments, but when done properly this framing is persuasive. Weigh, weigh, weigh. If you aren't reading extinction level impacts, that's fine. But please provide some framework/weighing mechanism if you take this approach.

HIGH SCHOOL LD/POLICY PARADIGM

I don't judge these events as much but I have experience in both. Ask me particular questions before round but here is a quick list of things you may want to know.

- Aff doesn't have to be topical if there is a good justification

- That doesn't mean I won't vote on FW or Theory

- I will vote on T - not a hack but I don't throw it out the window like some judges

- Speed Friendly

- K friendly but you will need to explain the lit in your own words to contextualize high theory to the Aff

- I prefer specific vs general links on the K debate (extra-speaks will likely follow if you have case specific links to your K)

- Weigh weigh weigh

- Collapse

Prabhat Aluri Interlake Prep Independent 5 rounds

Last changed on Wed January 3, 2024 at 2:58 AM PST

UW'23

If I am your judge, please put me on your email chain: prabhat@interlakedebate.org

LD Paradigm

I prefer Aff to be topical. I prefer a traditional Value/Criterion debate. I like clear signposting, that opponents refer to when refuting each other. I also require evidence to uphold your warrants and link to your personal analysis. All affirmatives should have some kind of standard that they try to win, value/criterion. The negative is not necessarily tied to the same obligation. The affirmative generally has the obligation to state a case construction that generally affirms the truth of the resolution, and the negative can take whatever route they want to show how the affirmative is not doing that sufficiently.

When I see a traditional debate that clashes on fundamental issues involving framework, impacts, and what either side thinks, really matters in my weighing of the round, it makes deciding on who was the better debater during the round an easier process. I like debate that gets to the substantive heart of whatever the issue is. There are very few arguments I would actually consider a priori. My favorite debates are the kind where one side clearly wins standards, whichever one they decide to go for, and has a compelling round story. Voters are crucial in rebuttals, and a clear link story, with warrants and weighted impacts, are the best route for my ballot.

I will listen to a Kritik but you must link it to the debate in the room, related to the resolution in some way, for me to more likely to vote for it. I am biased toward topicality.

I hold theory to higher bar. I will most likely vote reasonability instead of competing interpretations. However, if I am given a clearly phrased justification for why I should accept a competing interpretation and it is insufficiently contested, there is a better chance that I will vote for a competing interpretation. You will need to emphasize this by slowing down, if you are spreading, slow down, speak a little louder, or tell me “this is paramount, flow this”.

Reasonability. I believe that theory is intervention and my threshold for voting on theory is high. I prefer engagement and clash with your opponent. If I feel like negative has spoken too quickly for an Affirmative to adequately respond during the round, or a Neg runs 2+ independent disadvantages that are likely impossible for a "think tank" to answer in a 4 minute 1AR, and the Affirmative runs abuse theory, and gives direct examples from Neg, I'll probably vote Affirmative. Common sense counts. You do not need a card to tell me that the Enola Gay was the plane that dropped the nuclear bomb on Hiroshima.

I default Affirmative framework for establishing ground, I default Kritiks if there are clear pre-fiat/post-fiat justifications for a K debate instead of on-case debate. I do not flow cross examination. If there are any concessions in CX, you need to point them out in your next speech, for me to weigh them.

Cross Examination

Sitting or standing, whatever you are comfortable with. I'm fine with flex prep. I think debaters should be respectful and polite. Cross examination concessions are binding, if your opponent calls them out in their next speech.

Speaker Points

If I do not understand what you are saying, don’t expect to receive anything higher than a 28. You will lose speaker points if your actions are disrespectful to either myself or to your opponent. I believe in decorum and will vote you down if you are rude or condescending toward your opponent. I do not flow “super spreading”. I need to understand what you are saying, so that I can flow it. I will say “slow” and “clear” once. If there is no discernable change, I will not bother to repeat myself. If you respond, slow down, then speed up again, I will say “slow” and/or “clear” again. For my ballot, clarity over quantity. Word economy over quantity. I reward debaters who try to focus on persuasive styles of speaking over debaters who speak at the same tone, pitch, cadence, the entire debate.

If something is factually untrue, and your opponent points it out, do not expect to win it as an argument.

Please give me articulate voters at the end of the NR and 2AR.

I disclose if it is the tournament norm.

If you are unclear about my paradigm, please ask before the round begins.

Public Forum Paradigm

RESPECT and DECORUM

1. Show respect to your opponent. No shouting down. Just a "thank you" to stop their answer. When finished with answer, ask your opponent "Do you have a question?" Please ask direct questions. Also, advocate for yourself, do not let your opponent "walk all over you in Crossfire".

2. Do not be sexist/racist/transphobic/homophobic/etc.... in round. Respect all humans.

I expect PF to be a contention level debate. There may be a weighing mechanism like "cost-benefit analysis" that will help show why your side has won the debate on magnitude. (Some call this a framework)

I really like signposting of all of your contentions. I really like short taglines for your contentions. If you have long contentions, I really like them broken down into segments, A, B, C, etc. I really appreciate you signposting your direct refutations of your opponents contentions.

I like direct clash.

All evidence used in your constructed cases should be readily available to your opponent, upon request. If you slow down the debate looking for evidence that is in your constructed case, that will weigh against you when I am deciding my ballot.

I do not give automatic losses for dropped contentions or not extending every argument. I let the debaters decide the important contentions by what they decide to debate.

In your summary speech, please let me know specifically why your opponents are loosing the debate.

In your final focus speech, please let me know specifically why you are winning the debate.

Charissa Ang Newton South High School 3 rounds

Alex Annenberg Stuyvesant High School 5 rounds

Last changed on Fri April 23, 2021 at 1:40 PM EST

sup

pretty standard east coast circuit judge (4 yrs pf for stuyvesant hs).

i'll vote off of any offense (no preference for case offense vs turns), please weigh.

to that effect, i'm tabula rasa. run nuke war, run dedev, run what you want and if you warrant it, frontline and weigh we're good.

i'd like you to rebuild/frontline in second rebuttal. if you don't, i'll be disappointed and perhaps deduct from your speaks but will reluctantly evaluate frontlines in second sum (if you do this, i'll let your opponents backline in ff). turns, however, need to be answered in the next speech.

all offensive arguments should be in summary and final focus. no new arguments in ff except in response to new arguments made in the previous speech. i'm ambivalent with respect to new weighing in first ff. i'd prefer it in first summary, but if there's a reasonable doubt as to what your opponents are going for or it's an extremely close round, i'll feel ok evaluating it.

collapse. quality over quantity. if you do this as a novice and make other smart strategic choices i will be proud of you and give good speaks.

speed is ok. if your opponents clear you i expect you to slow down.

noninterventionist with one caveat. no isms, pretty please, i'll probably deduct from speaks and drop in extreme cases. however: i may not pick up on certain things, so to be absolutely sure make it clear to me why, for example, content warnings were necessary before a specific speech and what the implications of that are, or why i should drop a certain argument or team.

theory that i drop unconditionally: paraphrasing, disclosure, speaks. other shells are meh, but know that i'll gut check them. fundamentally, pf is about substance debate and theory is only educationally useful in edge cases. allowing theory to enter the average round destroys format diversity.

in this vein, if you spread or run progressive argumentation to exclude the other team, i'll dock speaks and maybe drop you, depending on the extent of the exclusion.

glhf

Isaac Appel Strake Jesuit College Preparatory 3 rounds

Last changed on Tue July 2, 2024 at 1:12 PM EST

experience debating national circuit policy and public forum.

arguments are not arguments without warrants.

if all debaters in the round express a reasonable preference they would like me to adopt prior to judging the debate, let me know and I will adopt it; judge adaptation can go both ways.

treat this paradigm like a needlessly long and rambling theory shell, if you don't like a preference make reasons why I should adopt a different preference (I will still, however, have a higher threshold when it comes to these arguments).

speaker points are entirely subjective and arbitrary, and are likely mostly based on what side of the bed I woke up on (anybody who says otherwise is likely kidding themselves, or taking their jobs a little too seriously).

I am very expressive, it is really obvious when i'm vibing with an argument or when i'm frustrated with an argument. I think this is a positive in a judge, but apparently some find it frustrating, if you're sensitive about getting mild, general, mid-round feedback about your arguments in the form of facial expressions or nods, you should probably strike me.

I don't really understand why debaters demand analytics in the speech doc. The speech doc is for evidence, you are still supposed to flow your opponents speech. So if they ask for analytics you can just say no.

flowing:

Debate is a communicative activity and if you cannot adequately communicate to me why you win a round i'm not going to mine through the flow to justify voting for you. you have to win the round, not rely on me to win it for you in my RFD.

Take it down a couple notches speedwise, I've started to have difficulty keeping up in tech rounds. Remember to pause, differentiate pace between tags/card-text, and slow down on analytics.

In terms of rate of delivery (spreading), I will yell "clear" once if I do not understand you. If you do not become clear after that, I stop flowing your speech.

progressive argumentation:

the only rule that isn't up for debate is speech times, and that's just because I don't want to be here longer than I have to.

i'd characterize myself as a progressive judge. I was pretty deep into postmodern Ks when I debated and have grown to become highly appreciative of good theory debates. Doesn't matter how big your school is or how much resources your program has, you should be prepared to defend the rules if you want to enforce them in round. If you think a rule is good and is something we should stick to, you should be prepared to defend it. You should also be prepared to defend your representations and ideology that underlies your arguments.

literate enough about most K-literature to know when you are bastardizing your evidence, but non-interventionist enough to not care.

i find the insularity with regards to particular jargon in theory debates to be pretty exhausting, just because a team does not say the magic words "counter-interpretation" does not mean they do not have one. I judge the arguments by how they are argued, not how they are labeled.

evidence:

put simply: i don't care.

I judge based on what I hear. I am a strong believer that judges have no place in mining through speech docs and evidence to inform their decisions, and am aghast at the "flow the doc" trend. This means: I won't call for evidence, I don't care if your evidence is in "card" form, I don't want to be on the email chain, and generally care more about what your argument is than what your evidence says. Debate (especially PF) is about communication, and if your communicative strategy is dependent on me flowing your speech doc, strike me or adapt (or if all four debaters agree on and express a reasonable preference they would like me to adopt in contradiction to any of this paradigm).

The idea that debaters have some duty to faithfully articulate the workings of the world is not only an unmeetable burden, it's demonstrably bad for the education we get from this activity. Teams should have the burden of demonstrating via argument why evidence quality implicates the material aspects of the argument, not get rewarded based on subjective end-of-round judgement calls.

I don't care about evidence ethics, but am willing to begrudgingly vote on a well-explained argument as to why I should care.

Isaac Appelbaum Pennsbury High School 3 rounds

Last changed on Wed February 7, 2024 at 1:59 PM EST

My Email: isaacappelbaum404@gmail.com

Origin Story:

Hi! I'm Isaac. I am a junior at George Washington University in D.C. and competed in Congressional Debate and Extemp for four years at Pennsbury High School in Pennsylvania. I competed extensively on the national circuit, obtaining 11 bids to the TOC and I was lucky enough to place/final at tournaments like Harvard, Princeton, Sunvite, Blue Key, Barkley Forum (Emory), Durham, UPenn, and Villiger.

Now that I've given some of my background as a competitor I can discuss what that means in terms of what I like to see as a judge. In my opinion, this can best be summarized like this;

Congress:

stick to 2 points

don't speak too fast

try to get to 2:50-3 minutes

arguments flow in linear way and flow broad to narrow with a terminalized impact (human beings should be your impact)

use refutation after 1st cycle

I like well 2 well developed arguments over 3 poorly constructed ones

Stick to legislation what does the legislation do, not what it won't do if that makes sense

LD:

Don't spread

cite good sources stated clearly

present links clearly

be realistic

PF:

Don’t spread (speak so quickly I can’t understand you)

use good sources (try not to use news articles, stick to research) state them clearly

arguments flow in linear fashion (I should be able to see where you go from point A to point B to point C)

give me a human reason to vote for your side (this means establish the human impact why the issue directly impacts a human person)

no theory please (stick to arguing the facts, data, and information of the issues at hand in the motion)

Please sign post arguments (tell me that you are about to make a big point before you do)! I need this for flowing purposes

Speech:

Because I never did speech I only know what I know and that is that if you immerse me in the narrative thread of your speech, meaning you speak well and beautifully, and I truly can imagine you acting out all these parts (or in OO you are sincere with your performance) generally the person who achieves that will be ranked 1 on my ballot, or close to it as possible. Think of suspended belief.

Silvia Aydinyan Edina High School 5 rounds

Last changed on Fri August 5, 2022 at 6:54 AM CST

Junior econ + political science double major @ UChicago. Used to debate in HS/coached a successful team for 2 years but likely pretty detached from the topic/literature now, so just keep that in mind.

Email: saydinyan@uchicago.edu

---

Read content warnings for arguments that contain discussion of violence, whether it's gender-, race-, class-, or anything else-based. You should also send out an OPT-IN form before the round if you intend to read these arguments, and not read them if everyone does not consent to it.

---

TL;DR: I'm a normal tech judge. I like judging fast, techy rounds, but not when you sacrifice warranting and explanation for the sake of strategy. Please debate to your strengths and not my preferences. Winning on the flow is winning on the flow even if you do it differently than I'd prefer.

I am okay with most arguments except for ones that are offensive or exclusionary. Kind of a no-brainer.

I don't like intervention, and I think as a debater, it's in your best interest to close all doors to it. You should be resolving all clash that you want me to evaluate. This means you should be weighing and giving me specific reasons as to why I prefer your warranting/evidence/whatever over your opponents'. Obviously, if you make me intervene to resolve something I will try to be reasonable, but if you're leaving that door open, you also lose your right to complain about which direction the intervention goes.

Extend properly. I have pretty high standards for this, so to be clear, you should be extending the uniqueness, warrant, internal link, and impact on your offense, for theory you need to explicitly extend your interp, etc, etc.

I love hearing creative and/or smart strategies (baiting some type of response you can dump turns on, reading an impact turn on yourself to kick out of link turns or vice versa, smart overviews, etc.) Obviously not required but I'll have way more fun.

Progressive args: Just FYI I went to a small school and never ran/formally learned progressive arguments, but I've coached teams that read them and I'm fine with you reading them. In general, theory should be okay. IRL I think disclosure is good and paraphrasing is bad, but I'm not a hack for anything and you can convince me to vote either way on these. I definitely have some implicit bias towards theory when used to check abuse, and I do generally prefer good substance debates over theory debates. I'm not super familiar with K literature but have judged Ks before, and if you can explain it well and articulate how things function in the context of the round then you will not have an issue. However, as I said above, it's always in your best interest to close doors to intervention and tell me exactly how you want me to evaluate parts of your argument.

---

Remember that you're allowed to have fun and insert humor into the round. Please be nice to each other. It's a good real-world skill.

Finally, you can feel free to postround me. If a judge can't defend their decision it probably wasn't a good one. As long as you stay polite I'm happy to explain my thinking.

Travis Baird University HS 3 rounds

Smita Bajpai Ravenwood High School 6 rounds None

Jagdish Bakshi Acton-Boxborough Regional High School 6 rounds

Stefan Bauschard Lakeland

Arnav Bawa Hamilton High Independent 6 rounds

Last changed on Fri July 16, 2021 at 1:58 PM MST

Bio: Former PF debater (2014-2018). Been judging PF from 2018-present.

Logistics:

Timing: Time yourself/your opponents. If your opponents are going over time, just raise your phone up (be chill). However, if they go over time and you don't call them out, they get the benefit. Evidence reading off-time, but I reserve the right to say, "Hey, this is taking too long." If all the debaters in the round agree, we can skip grand cross (you can get an extra min of prep instead).

Speed/Speaking: If I'm looking up from my flow and not writing, it means that either a. I can't keep up with you or b. you aren't saying things that I can write on the flow. Either way, not good. If you are worried about the speed issue, give me a copy of your speech.

Etiquette: I'm not very uptight about these things. You can sit during speeches and cross. I don't care about language. I like jokes. To be clear, this just means I like when debaters act chill/normally/informally, I am not ok with insulting/disrespectful language. No need to shake hands.

Also, please get to the round on time, especially at nat-circuit tournaments. If you need a little bit of time to get your stuff together before the round, I will give it to you. Just try not to be late because then I have to tell tournament directors that you don't exist and that will make me and tournament directors sad.

Debate-y Stuff:

Signpost everything. Signpost everything. Signpost everything. Signpost everything. Signpost everything. Signpost...pretty please?

I'd rather not judge a K, you'd better be really good and your opponents really have to not do anything with your K to win with a K. Just don't do it pls. Stay on topic.

No specific advocacy of the Aff (akin to a Policy plan). No alt on the Neg. You can probably tell that I am asking you to not Policy in PF.

Partners can communicate with each other while one of them is giving a speech. Pass them writing on a paper or something if necessary.

Holistically, I am pretty tabula rasa, but if a team says something ridiculous like elephants are purple, if the other team says "no, elephants aren't purple, make them explain the warranting for that claim extensively", that will be good enough response for me.

The beginning (Constructive):

If your frameworks agree, please just stop mentioning it, I'll use it. "But bro, they didn't have a framework, so you HAVE to use ours" is not a good argument (unless your opponents didn't address it at all and it flows cleanly through).

Cross-Ex: I will not judge on what it said in cross-ex. If something important happens, please bring it back up in a speech so I can put it on the flow. Remember I don't care what you say, so don't just engage in cross just to grandstand! Cross-ex can be used to clarify and understand your opponents case so you can make better arguments. Focus on the warranting, cards are not the same things as warrants. Make the discussion meaningful. Seriously, if you don't have any meaningful questions, do not just say things to say things, I do not care at all, we can stop early.

The middle (Rebuttal/Summary):

I like off-time roadmaps before speeches (make it simple, "framework, their case, our case").

I will accept overviews, tell me where the overview goes on the flow (your case or their case).

If you're refuting an argument, tell me what specifically you are responding to. If you're frontlining a response to your case, tell me exactly which responses your frontline applies to. I like numbered responses.

The 2nd rebuttal must address the first one. The first summary should respond to the 2nd rebuttal (also the first speaking team's defense will stick if the second speaking team hasn't responded to it in rebuttal).

When extending cards, I benefit more from hearing you explain the warrant of the card because I really suck at remembering/writing down author names. Example: "Remember the second warrant from John Doe, explaining blah blah blah" <- see how there was an explanation and not just the author name?

Please extend arguments throughout all speeches in a non blippy way, I will straight up cross off stuff on my flow that is not clearly extended. Remember, the summaries contain all the content that you are allowed to discuss in final focus.

Please verbally label turns on the flow, so I can see the offense (just say the word "turn").

If you are gonna collapse on an argument, you can literally just tell me "hey, we are collapsing on contention X"

The end (Summary/FF):

I like carded weighing analysis, but definitely do analytical weighing and explore methodology of studies etc. I really prefer seeing debaters explain the intricacies of their arguments rather than maintain a narrative with what cards flowed through the round. I really hate key voters because they usually lead to bad weighing. Keep it on the flow, tell me why the arguments that are left actually allow you to win (essentially I prefer line-by-line). I strongly encourage collapsing, just make sure to tell me what's important. At the end of the round, I will vote off whoever has the most offense relative to the winning framework. Remember, do analysis using weighing mechanisms like probability/timeframe/magnitude/irreversibility, but then also do analysis on why I should prefer one mechanism over another (strength of link is important). If the last sentence didn't make sense to you, just ask me before the round. If you don't do these things, I will face palm at the end of the round and have no clue as to how I should evaluate offense.

I might ask for cards after the round if I feel like something is sketch or it has been made an issue in the round. However, I would really like for you to call for me to read cards if you feel its needed. I try to be non biased when it comes to my take on the legitimacy of evidence, so unless a team completely misrepresents a card, I can't call them out on their BS unless you tell me to.

Please feel free to ask me questions about my paradigm and the way I judge before the round. I will probably disclose, unless you don't want me to. I will provide a verbal RFD too. You can ask me questions after the round about anything. If you still have important questions but we are out of time because next round needs to start, email me.

Dylan Beach Valencia High School 6 rounds

Monica Bell Woodrow Wilson High School 6 rounds

Alessia Bianco Gulliver Prep 6 rounds

Matthew F Brandstetter Milton Academy 4 rounds

Last changed on Thu October 24, 2024 at 10:01 PM PST

CONGRESSIONAL DEBATE

As a Congressional debate judge, I am listening for fervor, passion, and rhetorical integrity. Students who begin or lapse into reading their speeches will not receive high marks from me - extemporaneous speaking is key here with ideas presented in flavorful tones without the monotone elements that derive from reading a series of sentences. The proficient asking and answering of questions will also resonate with me. I listen to your words and expect clear pronunciation, medium pace, and enlivened debate from you and your peers that includes refutation of previous arguments and crystallization of arguments rendered. Once the session has ended, please accept my 'virtual high five' as a response to your gestures of 'thank you for judging.'

DEBATE

I am primarily a tabula rasa judge, adjudicating arguments as presented in the round. Theoretical arguments are fine as long as they contain the necessary standards and voting issue components. I am not a huge fan of the kritik in PF and tend to reside in that camp that believes such discussions violate the legitimacy of tournament competitions; that being said, I will entertain the argument as well as theoretical counter arguments that speak to its legitimacy, but be forewarned that shifting the discussion to another topic and away from the tournament-listed resolution presents serious questions in my mind toward the respect owed to teams that have done the resolutional research deemed appropriate by the NSDA.

I am adept at flowing but cannot keep up with exceptionally fast-paced speaking and see this practice as minimizing the value of authentic communication. I will do my best but may not render everything on the flow to its fullest potential. Please remember that debate is both an exercise in argumentation as well as a communication enterprise. Recognizing the rationale behind the creation of public forum debate by the NSDA underscores this statement. As a result, I am an advocate for debate as an event that involves the cogent, persuasive communication of ideas. Debaters who can balance argumentation with persuasive appeal will earn high marks from me. Signposting, numbering of arguments, crystallization, and synthesis of important issues are critical practices toward winning my ballot, as are diction, clarity, and succinct argumentation. The rationale that supports an argument or a clear link chain will factor into my decision making paradigm.

RFD is usually based on a weighing calculus - I will look at a priori arguments first before considering other relevant voters in the round. On a side note: I am not fond of debaters engaging with me as I explain a decision; that being said, I am happy to entertain further discussion via email, should a situation warrant. Also, Standing for speeches is my preference.

Rebecca Bratter NSU University School 4 rounds

Kiarra Broadnax The Altamont School 3 rounds

Last changed on Sat April 10, 2021 at 8:23 AM CST

Kiarra (Key-Era) Pronouns They/Them.

You can add me to the email chain {Kdbroadnax@gmail.com} To help me keep track of email chains. Put your team code and Round number in the subject section please and thank you.

Debated at Samford University (Policy) Currently a Coach with SpeakFirst (PF and LD)

Things to do. (Policy)

1. Signpost, do line-by-line, and use analytics.

2. Speed. Go as fast as you want. If you're unclear, I will look at you very confused because I will not know what to flow.

3. Kicking {Arguments, not other debaters} You should be kicking out of things. I will give .3 on speaks if it's creative. I LOVE a good mic drop moment.

Things to do. (PF)

1. Use analytics. they are super useful and make the debate more interesting

2. Speed. Go as fast as you want. I did do policy but If you're unclear, it will reflect in your speaker points.

3. Collapse down. You are not winning everything and we both know that.

Things to do. (LD)

1. Signpost, do line-by-line, and use analytics.

2. Speed is fine. Just be clear.

3. Put me on the email chain if you make one. If I call for cards at the end of the round and then have to wait for you to set up a chain I will doc speaker points. Please just set it up before the round starts.

4. The affirmative should defend the resolution. Yes, every time.

5. Make me think. Challenge the status quo. Run wacky K's. I won't always vote on it but I will enjoy it.

6. About number 5. If you are going to run a K or something similar. Please put a trigger warning if there is mention of sensitive topics and mention them before the round starts. It's uncommon in this climate but it would greatly be appreciated.

Please, do not do these (Policy):

1. Yelling, Being passionate about your case is super cool, but yelling at me will make me not want to vote for you.

2. Introducing Harmful Partnerships into the Debate space. I get that debate is a stress-inducing activity but your partner is there with you for a reason. You should use them. I am fine with partners interacting during a speech. Ex: Your partner handing you a card or their technology to use to read a card off of, or handing you their flow. But if your partner is spoon-feeding you, your speech.

3. Demanding a Judge Kick. Nope. No. No, thank you. if you want to kick out of something then do so.

Please, do not do these (PF):

1. Excessively call for cards. I get it. Sometimes you need to see cards but calling for 5 cards per speech is a bit much.

2. Being rude during CX. I get sassy sometimes but screaming, not letting debaters answer or name-calling is unnecessary.

3. If you send a link (only a link) when an opponent calls for evidence. I'll doc speaks. If you send ME a link. ill vote you down. There are rules to this activity. You need to have CUT cards.

Please, do not do this ( LD):

1. Don't be a jerk. Not every debater is going to get your K. Chill.

DO NOT at any point compare ANYTHING to slavery, the holocaust, genocide, rape, etc.

I will vote you down.

Yay debate!

Carley Buongervino CR North High School 6 rounds None

Hillary Burchuk Bethesda Chevy Chase 3 rounds

Bilal Butt Charlotte Latin School 4 rounds

Last changed on Sun October 20, 2024 at 5:16 AM EST

I am the Director of Speech and Debate at Charlotte Latin School. I coach a full team and have coached all events.

Email Chain: bbutt0817@gmail.com - This is largely for evidence disputes, as I will most likely not flow off the doc.

Currently serve on the Public Forum Topic Wording Committee, and have been since 2018.

----Public Forum-----

- Flow judge, can follow the fastest PF debater, but don't use speed. It ruins any persuasive appeal, and the round boils down to strategic errors instead of any real substantive analysis. I will dock speaker points.

- 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.

- I have a high threshold for theory arguments to be valid in PF. Unless there is in round abuse, I probably won’t vote for a frivolous shell. So I would avoid reading most of the trendy theory arguments in PF.

----Lincoln Douglas----

1. Judge and Coach mostly Traditional styles.

2. Am ok with speed/spreading, but should only be used for depth of coverage really.

3. LARP/Trad/Topical Ks/T > Theory/Tricks/Non-topical Ks

4. The rest is largely similar to PF judging:

5 Things to Remember…

1. Sign Post/Road Maps (this does not include “I will be going over my opponent’s case and if time permits I will address our case”)

After constructive speeches, every speech should have organized narratives and each response should either be attacking entire contention level arguments or specific warrants/analysis. Please tell me where to place arguments, otherwise they get lost in limbo. If you tell me you are going to do something and then don’t in a speech, I do not like that.

2. Framework

I will evaluate arguments under frameworks that are consistently extended and should be established as early as possible. If there are two frameworks, please decide which I should prefer and why. If neither team provides any, I default evaluate all arguments under a cost/benefit analysis.

3. Extensions

Don’t just extend card authors and tag-lines of arguments, give me the how/why of your warrants and flesh out the importance of why your impacts matter. Summary extensions must be present for Final Focus extension evaluation. Defense extensions to Final Focus ok if you are first speaking team, but you should be discussing the most important issues in every speech, which may include early defense extensions.

4. Evidence

Paraphrasing is ok, but you leave your evidence interpretation up to me. Tell me what your evidence says, and then explain its role in the round. Make sure to extend evidence in late round speeches.

5. Narrative

Narrow the 2nd half of the round down to the key contention-level impact story or how your strategy presents cohesion and some key answers on your opponents’ contentions/case.

SPEAKER POINT BREAKDOWNS

29-30: Excellent job, you demonstrate stand-out organizational skills and speaking abilities. Ability to use creative analytical skills and humor to simplify and clarify the round.

29/below: Very strong ability. Good eloquence, analysis, and organization. A couple minor stumbles or drops.

28/below: Above average. Good speaking ability. May have made a larger drop or flaw in argumentation but speaking skills compensate. Or, very strong analysis but weaker speaking skills.

27/below: About average. Ability to function well in the round, however, analysis may be lacking. Some errors made.

26/below: Is struggling to function efficiently within the round. Either lacking speaking skills or analytical skills. May have made a more important error.

Below: Extreme difficulty functioning. Very large difficulty filling time or offensive or rude behavior.

***Speaker Points break down borrowed from Mollie Clark.***

Megan Butt Providence High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Sat January 27, 2024 at 8:32 AM EST

Email Chain: megan.butt@charlottelatin.org

Charlotte Latin School (2022-), formerly at Providence (2014-22).

Trad debate coach -- I flow, but people read that sometimes and think they don't need to read actual warrants? And can just stand up and scream jargon like "they concede our delink on the innovation turn so vote for us" instead of actually explaining how the arguments interact? I can't do all that work for you.

GENERAL:

COMPARATIVELY weigh ("prefer our interp/evidence because...") and IMPLICATE your arguments ("this is important because...") so that I don't have to intervene and do it for you. Clear round narrative is key!

If you present a framework/ROB, I'll look for you to warrant your arguments to it. Convince me that the arguments you're winning are most important, not just that you're winning the "most" arguments.

Please be clean: signpost, extend the warrant (not just the card).

I vote off the flow, so cross is binding, but needs clean extension in a speech.

I do see debate as a "game," but a game is only fun if we all understand and play by the same rules. We have to acknowledge that this has tangible impacts for those of us in the debate space -- especially when the game harms competitors with fewer resources. You can win my ballot just as easily without having to talk down to a debater with less experience, run six off-case arguments against a trad debater, or spread on a novice debater who clearly isn't able to spread. The best (and most educational) rounds are inclusive and respectful. Adapt.

Not a fan of tricks.

LD:

Run what you want and I'll be open to it. I tend to be more traditional, but can judge "prog lite" LD -- willing to entertain theory, non-topical K's, phil, LARP, etc. Explanation/narrative/context is still key, since these are not regularly run in my regional circuit and I am for sure not as well-read as you. Please make extra clear what the role of the ballot is, and give me clear judge instruction in the round (the trad rounds I judge have much fewer win conditions, so explain to me why your arguments should trigger my ballot. If I can't understand what exactly your advocacy is, I can't vote on it.)

PF:

Please collapse the round!

I will consider theory, but it's risky to make it your all-in strategy -- I have a really high threshold in PF, and because of the time skew, it's pretty easy to get me to vote for an RVI. It's annoying when poorly constructed shells get used as a "cheat code" to avoid actually debating substance.

CONGRESS:

Argument quality and evidence are more important to me than pure speaking skills & polish.

Show me that you're multifaceted -- quality over quantity. I'll always rank someone who can pull off an early speech and mid-cycle ref or late-cycle crystal over someone who gives three first negations in a row.

I reward flexibility/leadership in chamber: be willing to preside, switch sides on an uneven bill, etc.

WORLDS:

Generally looking for you to follow the norms of the event: prop sets the framework for the round (unless abusive), clear intros in every speech, take 1-2 points each, keep content and rhetoric balanced.

House prop should be attentive to motion types -- offer clear framing on value/fact motions, and a clear model on policy motions.

On argument strategy: I'm looking for the classic principled & practical layers of analysis. I place more value on global evidence & examples.

David Byerman Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Sun September 13, 2020 at 8:26 AM EST

I know a lot of judges pontificate for 1000+ words and detail every element of their judging philosophy. I'm not one of those judges. For one thing, I have a life. For another, my philosophy when it comes to judging is actually pretty simple.

Debate is a competition about COMMUNICATION. It's an argument about ideas. That means that the arguments you make matter and the way you make them matters just as much. I'm a flow judge and will penalize debaters who drop points altogether. Extending an argument by reference or even within the context of clash doesn't take much time. Even if it just seems like you ran out of time, who am I to know whether you actually just have no good evidence to refute your opponent? At the end of the day, if both contestants make good arguments but one has points that they extend that were never addressed, those contentions flow in their direction and may determine the ballot. It's only fair.

But the way you make the argument is often overlooked but SO important. This is particularly true in L/D, which after all is an event steeped in the history of the Lincoln/Douglas debates of the mid-19th century and Public Forum, which traces its roots to Ted Turner's frustration with the deterioration of debate as a contest of communication. Can you imagine Abraham Lincoln spreading? Me neither. I respect your ability to spread, but the cacophony of words issuing from your mouth isn't communication, it's a gimmick, substituting quantity over quality. I can't award you wins on arguments if my flow can't keep up with your rate of speech. And if two debaters clash and each make good points, and I can't quite decide who won the argument of ideas, I'll use speaking ability and persuasiveness to break ties and award victories. I also reserve the right to award higher speaker points to the losing debater. After all, sometimes the better speaker has worse arguments.

I'm not a fan of theory debates. Disclosure Theory, in particular, seems like a very lame way to frame a debate and go for a win. I came for a debate on the merits pro/con on a matter of public policy. That's what this whole exercise is about. I am very likely to judge the round based on who makes the best arguments on that front. I've never considered a theory argument an RFD. It's not to say that I never will... it's just to say that I never have previously.

Professionally, I served for nearly five years as Secretary of the Senate for the State of Nevada and for three years as Director of the Kentucky Legislature. I see facilitating speech and debate as fundamental to the health of our democracy, which let's face it could use more cogent well-reasoned well-informed debates.

I missed my high school graduation in order to go to NSDA Nationals in my senior year of high school, over 25 years ago. Speech and Debate runs in my blood. I love being a part of this and hope you find as much fulfillment out of it as I do. Good luck.

tl;dr Debate is a contest of communications. Speak well, make good arguments, earn my ballot!

Marina Campos Solon High School 6 rounds

Adam Carlisle Delbarton School 2 rounds

Elizabeth Caronna Newton South High School 3 rounds

Ben Carson Bergen County Debate Club 6 rounds

Last changed on Thu November 14, 2024 at 8:54 PM EST

Experience: Roughly a decade of debating and coaching.

I don't need an off-time road map beyond you telling me which side you're going to start on.

Truth or tech: Truth and Tech :)

Spreading is fine, and paraphrasing is fine, but paraspreading (please credit me when you use this fantastic neologism/portmanteau) is a bad decision.

Aff gets some reasonable amount of durable fiat, but they will need to justify any other fiat not explicitly made clear in the wording of the resolution.

The first round of card calling happens after 2nd constructive, not after the 1st constructive. Please feel free to tell the other team my paradigm says this.

I don't want to hear the vast majority of theory/progressive arguments in PF. I understand their value, and I read them in college. That said:

(a) there are already 2 other categories where you can easily make these arguments. There's zero good reason to bring it to the world of PF.

(b) at least 50% of the time I hear such arguments they are used as bludgeoning tools to beat an opponent who simply doesn't know much about this side of the debate world. As much as I enjoying "playing the game," I find this to be one of the more depressing aspects of the current state of our debate community.

(c) there are still ample ways to be progressive or read theory in a PF style. Example: Reading a blanket (topical) contention about US regime change as a way of critiquing whether or not we should withdraw our military presence in the middle east. Example: Reading an observation for why a certain interpretation of the resolution is the most fair in round, while appealing to the norms and standards of PF.

Kritiks are of course not ok, nor are new arguments in the Final Focus, etc.

I don't think that the 2nd speaking team has a requirement to frontline in the rebuttal, nor do I think every last drop of an argument has to be perfectly extended through every speech for it to be evaluated in the Final Focus. However, I think the 1st Final Focus is allowed to make responses to the 2nd summary, and they should have had extra time to weigh in the prior speeches anyway, meaning that their Final Focus is not particularly hurt. Further, if (and only if) no frontlining is done in the 2nd rebuttal, 1st speaking team's defense is sticky so long as it's extended in the 1st Final Focus following the 2nd summary's frontlines. All of this being said, I still advise the 2nd speaking team to pursue some frontlining earlier, as I will take into consideration the ability for a team to respond to an argument in time when weighing the link strength and probability of an argument.

I will vote down teams for egregious evidence violations. This is probably the most "hands-on" aspect of my judging paradigm; my standard is lower than the NSDA's rulebook. I don't need to think you're lying for me to consider it an evidence violation. Here's my test:

(a) Does your evidence clearly say something different from what you claimed?

(b) Is that difference significant, or minor? (Example of minor: You read a card that says Arms Races increase the chance of war three-fold, but the evidence [Rider '11 for anyone interested] is more specific to mature state rivalries that begin an arms race. Example of major: you claim the Rider '11 card says that giving aid to Ukraine increases the chance of nuclear escalation by 300%).

(c) Is it integral to my RFD on the flow? If no, I'll probably just chuck the argument. If yes to all of the above, there's a good chance I'll look for any way I possibly can to vote for your opponent. All of this said, I'm not going to go out of my way to find evidence violations. If I did that, I'd be awarding a lot of double losses :P

Please free to tell me to call for cards, including your own in the event of a dispute. I will read them.

Experience: Purdue University, 1 year of debating NFA-LD (essentially, progressive college one-person policy following nearly the same NSDA-LD format), 1 year of coaching NFA-LD, a few years of judging traditional LD and HS policy (some circuit, some trad).

Flowing everything includes flowing arguments about how one debater excluded the other. If there's a component of my judging that is not tabs, then it's definitely this. About 50% of the time I hear fringe K's or disclosure theory, it feels like they are used as bludgeoning tools to beat an opponent who simply doesn't know much about this side of the debate world or you found a cheap shot to take advantage of. As much as I enjoying "playing the game," I find this to be one of the more depressing aspects of the current state of our debate community. This doesn't mean I'm going to try to intervene, but...we all have biases. If you go for it, make sure you win it convincingly.

Similarly, I have recently become more "solidified", so to speak, in my opinions regarding the value of the style of intentionally technical, intentionally obtuse, and intentionally performative debate. To put that bluntly: I find most of the current K and games debate to be highly dubious in its educational value. AS a point of reference, if you watched the NDT 2023 Final Round, I found it to be a joke and an embarrassment to debate. I would be genuinely ashamed to show somebody not in debate that round. All of that said, and as hard as it may be to believe, don't construe this as me as a judge aiming to intervene or punish you for the choices you make in the debate. The only thing I dislike more than a totally gamified, pretend-philosophy 1NC is a judge who thinks their job is to be a debater. I will try very hard to avoid that. Put simply: I'll probably still vote for whatever the performative non-topical K is that you're winning, I'll just complain about it to myself later.

I have a BA in philosophy, so if you talk about a cool philosopher I'll be happy and can hopefully follow along pretty well.

Truth or tech: Truth and Tech :)

Spreading is fine, and paraphrasing is fine, but paraspreading (please credit me when you use this fantastic neologism/portmanteau) is a bad decision.

Kumar Challa Newton South High School 1 rounds

Nilesh Chander American Heritage Plantation HS 4 rounds

Last changed on Wed January 3, 2024 at 6:44 AM EST

Add me on the email chain: nilu6060@gmail.com. Please send constructives at a minimum

Short Version

American Heritage School ‘19

Georgia Tech ‘22

Any offense in final focus needs to be in summary. First summary only needs to extend defense on arguments that were frontlined in second rebuttal. Second rebuttal should answer all offense on the flow.

Tech > truth

Long Version

Presumption:

- If you want me to vote on presumption, please tell me, or else I'll probably try to find some very minimal offense on the flow that you may consider nonexistent.

- I will default neg on presumption, but you can make an argument suggesting otherwise.

Extensions:

- The warrant and impact of an offensive argument must be extended in summary and final focus in order for me to evaluate it.

- Your extensions can be very quick for parts of the debate that are clearly conceded.

Weighing:

- Good weighing will usually win you my ballot and give you a speaker point boost, but please avoid:

1. Weighing that is not comparative

2. Weighing instead of adequately answering the defense on your arguments

3. Strength of link weighing - this is just another word for probability and sometimes probability weighing is just defense that should've been read in rebuttal

4. New weighing in second final focus that isn't responding to new weighing analysis from the first ff.

Evidence:

- I will read any evidence that is contested or key to my decision at the end of the round.

- I won't drop a team on miscut evidence unless theory is read. I will drop speaks and probably drop the argument unless there's a very good reason not to.

Speed:

- Go as fast as you want but I'd prefer it if you didn't spread.

- Don't sacrifice clarity for speed. If I can't understand it, it isn't on the flow.

Progressive Argumentation:

- I have a good understanding of theory and have voted on less conventional shells albeit my threshold for a response and your speaks could go down. Please read theory as soon as the violation occurs.

- I wouldn't trust myself to correctly evaluate a K. Most of the time I find myself thinking they don't really do anything. Read at your own risk and I will try my best to properly evaluate.

- If there are multiple layers of prog. (ie theory vs K vs random IVI) do some sort of weighing between them.

- I don't evaluate 30 speaks theory. I tend to believe disclosure is good, but won't intervene.

Other things:

- I think speaks are arbitrary, but humor helps, especially sarcasm.

- Paradigm issues not mentioned here are up for debate within the round

- Reading cards > paraphrasing, but paraphrasing is fine

- Postrounding is fine

- Preflow before the round start time

- I will not vote on explicitly oppressive arguments.

David Chang Livingston High School 3 rounds

Kayla Chang The Nueva School 3 rounds

Last changed on Sat April 17, 2021 at 4:26 AM PST

**tl;dr read the bold. I like starting on time/early if possible.

For background, I debated PF 4 years at Newton South and it's my 4th year coaching at Nueva. I feel like it's best if you probably treat me like a flay leaning tech judge? If you have issues with any parts of my paradigm I'm happy to discuss and/or potentially change some preferences for the round. The later in the day it gets, the more tired I get, so if I'm grumpy it's not you, it's me.

---Most normal tech things apply: here are more unique thoughts

Tech~Truth: I will buy anything that at least kinda makes sense as your arguments get more extreme/factually incorrect. I will need more work from you to win it and less work from opponents to lose it.

You need cards, but more importantly warrants; I will buy a strong analytic over a unwarranted card. Extend internal links (logical warranting) in addition to overall links/impacts otherwise I won't want to vote on it (99% of the time this is the reason I squirrel in out rounds). This isn’t Pokémon, I don’t want to hear why your card beats their card.

Please do not signpost by cards (ideally, number voters and use contention tags)

---Other stuff

- Speaking: Speed is fine short of spreading. Speaks are based on speaking and content, I will bump if you pull off a cool strategy in round well. Don't be a bully, don't let yourself be bullied. I might not be looking/flowing during cross but I'm listening, make jokes and stuff, have fun :)

- Theory/Progressive args: Run at your own risk, I'm not an expert but know the basics. I tend to think theory disadvantages new debaters so I'll probably only vote on it if: y'all all are down for it pre-round (and my level of judging lol) and/or there's actual discrimination happening and/or it's drop the arg not the debater

- Weighing: "Strength of link," "urgency," and "clarity of impact" mean nothing unless you warrant and implicate them. I think you should consider thinking of weighing less with buzzwords and more by literally thinking about why one is more important than explaining it (truth is convincing).

- Evidence: Don't lie. Even if it’s an accidental miscut, drop it. Find cards within a couple minutes or I'll ask you to drop them. I'll call cards if you tell me to, but won't do it on my own unless a card is both important and sketchy - if it is bad, I won't consider it regardless of whether your opponents called it or not.

- Be sensitive and respectful: Co-opting issues for a strat is not ok - care about the issue, have a productive debate. Consider if you need a content/trigger warning + spare contention. These issues are real and affect the people around you, possibly including me and those in your round and I will not hesitate to vote you down and drop speaks if something is up. That being said, let me determine that: please don't make "they don't care enough" args.

Last thoughts: I generally don’t presume and instead just lower my link/round standards til someone meets them. Let your parents watch your rounds! They've earned it. And remember to eat!

Email: kaylaxchang@berkeley.edu. Please feel free to reach out for any concern, round/not round related.

Mala Chapple The Dalton School 6 rounds

Beata Chen AandM Consolidated High School 6 rounds

Rachel Chen Mira Loma High School 4 rounds

Sam Chen Acton-Boxborough Regional High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Sat January 6, 2024 at 6:27 AM EST

I'm a senior at Brown studying economics who debated 4 years of Public Forum for Acton-Boxborough. I'll flow to the best of my ability, but I've definitely become more flay as time goes on. In particular, I believe that the debate round can serve as a space for meaningful discourse around important issues, and as a result, I'm not afraid to admit a preference for arguments based in truth as opposed to squirrelly ones meant to catch your opponents off-guard without any basis in the real world. That being said, I have no qualms voting against my own beliefs or for untrue arguments that are insufficiently rebutted. If teams make claims that directly contradict one another, I'm often compelled by evidence comparison that specifically explains why one argument should be preferred. However, please still extend the warranting underlying the research throughout the round.

2nd Rebuttal: Must frontline turns, everything else is optional.

1st Summary: Please extend defense! If it wasn't frontlined in 2nd rebuttal, you can be very quick about it—just be clear and concise.

Theory/Ks: I'll evaluate any argument you make in the round, but I'm not very receptive to these types of arguments and have never voted for a team that's read one. I don't believe theory/Ks belong in PF and strongly prefer a substance debate.

Trigger Warnings: Please provide them if you're going to discuss any sensitive topic. If you're unsure, read one.

Topic-Specific Jargon: Although I'll try to have some level of understanding of the topic, please define any topic-specific acronyms or jargon for me (or avoid using them completely).

I will always analyze the round to the best of my ability, so please don't post-round me—the burden is on you as the debater to win my ballot. Asking me questions is totally fine though, of course.

MOST IMPORTANTLY: Please be kind to your opponents. If I think you're disrespectful or making the round an unsafe space, I'll tank your speaks with no hesitation and potentially drop you. Good luck everyone!

Sri Chilukuri Interlake Prep Independent 4 rounds

Rama Chirra Centennial HS 6 rounds

Sudhan Chitgopkar Ivy Bridge Academy 3 rounds

Christopher Cho Stuyvesant High School 5 rounds

Last changed on Sat February 12, 2022 at 10:32 AM EST

Heyo I debated for Stuyvesant High School for a little bit, if you have any questions feel free to ask!

I haven't judged in over a year so I'll probably be evaluating each round like a parent. That being said, a lot of the stuff below still applies.

General Stuff:

- Second rebuttal should frontline responses from first rebuttal. I probably won't accept new frontlines in second summary.

- Defense should be in first summary as I think that 3 minutes is long enough to do so.

- While conceded turns are 100% true, they must be explained, implicated, and weighed properly. Failure to do so will probably mean that I won't evaluate them. With that being said, please limit the amount of disads you read, no matter how well they are implicated, I probably won't evaluate more than 3.

- I'm fine with teams reading defense to kick out of turns but it has to be done in the subsequent speech.

- I'm generally tech over truth. I think that PF has become much more focused on the validity of evidence, and while this is important, I will always default to warranted analytics over unwarranted evidence that has a carded statistic. While this may be true, keep in mind that I won't accept blippy or nonexistent warrants as it is far too easy for teams to get away with.

- Please collapse and extend case properly in summary and final focus. This means extending the uniqueness, link, and impact. I probably can't grant you any offense if you don't do this.

- In the rare event that I am forced to, I don't have a set rule as to who I default to (I'm kind of torn between defaulting neg or defaulting first speaking team), so I'll have to intervene somewhere on the flow. PLEASE convince me otherwise as I'd gladly appreciate it.

Things I Like:

-Weighing is super important for everyone and I'm no different. It helps me evaluate the round more easily and it prevents me from making a terrible decision which will probably make you unhappy. With that being said, you probably should meet these standards if you want me to buy your weighing.
A. It has to be comparative. Please don't reiterate the same impact ev over and over again.

B. Please metaweigh. This makes my job much easier, since I definitely don't want to have to intervene when it comes to things like urgency versus magnitude. You don't have to metaweigh if you're going for a prereq due to the fact that it is the highest form of weighing and I will always evaluate it first.

C. It should be started as early as rebuttal. I'll buy weighing in both summaries but its better if its set up earlier in round. I probably won't evaluate weighing in FF unless no other weighing is done throughout the rest of the round (This only applies to 1st FF, I won't evaluate any new analysis in 2nd FF).

- Consistency between summary and final focus (Ik this is kind of overused). A lot of teams like to use the extra minute of summary to do a lot of stuff but I'd prefer if summary collapses on the things that final focus would go for and spends most of the time on weighing instead of unnecessary frontlining or defense. (If you know what I mean)

Things I Don't Like:

- Speed: I've always been quite bad at flowing so the faster you go, the more likely you are to lose me. I'm not a huge fan of speech docs because it allows teams to fit extra content into a doc that they never probably go for in a "normal" round, but I will still evaluate them.
With that being said, I prefer the round to progress at a moderate or normal PF pace.

- Going new in the 2. Please don't do this, I'll ignore it and tank your speaks.

- When teams try to hide links and etc in case and blow it up in the later half of the round when it doesn't get responded to. At the end of the day, I will still vote for conceded offense but I'd prefer if teams don't do this because its not very fair.

- Progressive Argumentation (Theory, K's, etc): I'm extremely confused by all forms of progressive argumentation so I'm probably not the best person to read these arguments to. That being said, I am open to evaluating these kinds of arguments if they are explained very well. Although I'm open to these arguments, please don't read Theory on novices or those who are unfamiliar with it.

- This goes without saying but teams who are racist, sexist, homophobic, ableist, etc will receive the lowest possible speaks and the L. If possible I will also talk to tab, as such behavior should not be permitted at any tournament.

Sehan Choi The Dalton School 1 rounds

Last changed on Sat November 9, 2019 at 4:30 AM EST

Debated PF for four years for Dalton. A few things I would like to see in round:

1. Weigh. Almost every judge puts this on their paradigm for a reason. If you don't tell me how to evaluate the round I'll have to evaluate the round using my own mechanism and you may not like it. Also, if the other team also does weighing, don't just bring up your weighing - explain why I should prefer your weighing mechanism over theirs.

2. Signpost well. It'll make it easier for me to follow your arguments.

3. Create a narrative. Don't just give me 5 different cards and say that's why we win the round. Work the cards into a cohesive narrative or argument that will persuade me.

4. Logical responses. Not every response needs to be a card dump. Those who can give me well warranted responses with evidence to go along with it that make sense to me will fare well.

5. Be careful of running theories or k's on me. My understanding of them is limited.

6. I DO NOT believe tech > truth. What this means is don't run any arguments that you know make absolutely zero sense in reality in front of me, even if you have some obscure source claiming it so. I like creative link chains but there is a limit. ***TO CLARIFY*** I've seen some concern that by this I mean I want arguments to be 100% true - this is not the case at all. I just want don't want arguments to be 100% not true - I can accept arguments that I know won't happen but sound plausible or even sort of possible. Basically just be wary about running nuke war -> extinction in front of me.

Debate was by far my favorite activity in high school, and sometimes a bad or good judge could really define the round experience for me. If there's any questions you have or anything you would like me to know to help me be the best judge for you just let me know before the round. Please also be respectful to your opponents both in and out of round. Above all, have fun!!!! This is a high school activity; sometimes we forget that(I know I did).

Aditya Choudhari Hire 6 rounds

Taijah Clark The Altamont School 3 rounds

Kathleen Clarke-Anderson Ridgewood High School 6 rounds

Joshua Cohen Newton South High School 1 rounds

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 6:35 PM EST

EMAIL: jcohen1964@gmail.com

I judge Public Forum Debate 95% of the time. I occasionally judge LD and even more occasionally, Policy.

A few items to share with you:

(1) I can flow *somewhat* faster than conversational speed. As you speed up, my comprehension declines.

(2) I may not be familiar with the topic's arguments. Shorthand references could leave me in the dust. For example, "On the economy, I have three responses..." could confuse me. It's better to say, "Where my opponents argue that right to work kills incomes and sinks the economy, I have three responses...". I realize it's not as efficient, but it will help keep me on the same page you are on.

(3) I miss most evidence tags. So, "Pull through Smith in 17..." probably won't mean much to me. Reminding me of what the evidence demonstrated works better (e.g. "Pull through the Smith study showing that unions hurt productivity").

(4) In the interest of keeping the round moving along, please be selective about asking for your opponent's evidence. If you ask for lots of evidence and then I hear little about it in subsequent speeches, it's a not a great use of time. If you believe your opponent has misconstrued many pieces of evidence, focus on the evidence that is most crucial to their case (you win by undermining their overall position, not by showing they made lots of mistakes).

(5) I put a premium on credible links. Big impacts don't make up for links that are not credible.

(6) I am skeptical of "rules" you might impose on your opponent (in contrast to rules imposed by the tournament in writing) - e.g., paraphrasing is never allowed and is grounds for losing the round. On the other hand, it's fine and even desirable to point out that your opponent has not presented enough of a specific piece of evidence for its fair evaluation, and then to explain why that loss of credibility undermines your opponent's position. That sort of point may be particularly relevant if the evidence is technical in nature (e.g., your opponent paraphrases the findings of a statistical study and those findings may be more nuanced than their paraphrasing suggests).

(7) I am skeptical of arguments suggesting that debate is an invalid activity, or the like, and hence that one side or the other should automatically win. If you have an argument that links into your opponent's specific position, please articulate that point. I hope to hear about the resolution we have been invited to debate.

Maddie Cook Lakeville 3 rounds

Last changed on Fri November 8, 2024 at 4:16 AM CST

pronouns: she/her/hers

email: madelyncook23@gmail.com & lakevilledocs@googlegroups.com (please add both to the email chain) -- if both teams are there before I am, feel free to flip and start the email chain without me so we can get started when I get there

PLEASE title the email chain in a way that includes the round, flight (if applicable), both team codes, sides, and speaking order

Experience:

PF Coach for Lakeville North & Lakeville South in Minnesota, 2019-Present
Speech Coach for Lakeville South in Minnesota, 2022-Present
Instructor for Potomac Debate Academy, 2021-Present
University of Minnesota NPDA, 2019-2022
Lakeville South High School (PF with a bit of speech and Congress), 2015-2019

I will judge the debate you want to have. Go at whatever speed you prefer - I enjoy fast AND slow rounds as long as the warranting is good. A conceded blip barely means anything to me. I want to see a well executed collapse strategy with good cohesion between summary and final focus. Probably not the best judge for theory or kritiks, but I've listened to and enjoyed both when done well. If you plan to do either, please read the more detailed sections below. I'll give an RFD after the round.

General:

I am generally happy to judge the debate you want to have.
The only time you need a content warning is when the content in your case is objectively triggering and graphic. I think the way PF is moving toward requiring opt-out forms for things like “mentions of the war on drugs” or "feminism" is super unnecessary and trivializes the other issues that actually do require content warnings while silencing voices that are trying to discuss important issues.
I'll drop you with lowest speaks allowed by the tournament for racism, sexism, transphobia, etc.
I can probably keep up with whatever speed you plan to go. For online rounds, slow down more than you would in person. Please do not sacrifice clarity or warranting for speed. Sending a doc is not an excuse to go fast beyond comprehension - I do not look at speech docs until after the round and only do so if absolutely necessary to check evidence.
Silliness and cowardice are voting issues.

Evidence Issues:

Evidence ethics in PF are atrocious. Cut cards are the only way to present evidence.
Evidence exchanges take way too long. Send full speech docs in the email chain before the speech begins. I want everyone sending everything in this email chain so that everyone can check the quality of evidence, and so that you don’t waste time requesting individual cards.
Evidence should be sent in the form of a Word Doc/PDF/uneditable document with all the evidence you read in the debate.
The only evidence that counts in the round is evidence you cite in your speech using the author’s last name and date. You cannot read an analytic in a speech then provide evidence for it later.
Evidence comparison is super underutilized - I'd love to hear more of it.
My threshold for voting on arguments that rely on paraphrased/power-tagged evidence is very high. I will always prefer to vote for teams with well cut, quality evidence.
I don't know what this "sending rhetoric without the cards" nonsense is - the only reason you need to exchange evidence is to check the evidence. Your "rhetoric" should be exactly what's in the evidence anyway, but if it's not, I have no idea what the point is of sending the paraphrased "rhetoric" without the cards. Just send full docs with cut cards.
You have to take prep time to "compile the doc" lol you don't just get to take a bunch of extra prep time to put together the rebuttal doc you're going to send.

Specific Preferences:

I think this should go without saying in 2024, but frontline in second rebuttal. Dropped arguments in second rebuttal are conceded in the round. You should cover everything on the argument(s) you plan on going for, including defense.
Collapse in summary. It is not a strategy to go for tons of blippy arguments hoping something will stick just to blow up one or two of those things in final focus. The purpose of the summary is to pick out the most important issues, and you must collapse to do that well.
Weigh as soon as possible. Comparative weighing is essential for preventing judge intervention, and meta-weighing is cool too. I want to vote for teams that write my ballot for me in final focus, so try to do that the best you can.
Speech organization is key. I literally want you to say what argument I should vote on and why.
The way I give speaker points fluctuates depending on the division and the difficulty of the tournament, but I average about a 28 and rarely go below a 27 or above a 29. If you get a 30, it means you debated probably the best I saw that tournament if not for the past couple tournaments. I give speaker points based on strategic decisions rather than presentation.
I'm not going to vote on an argument that doesn't have an internal link just because the impact is scary - I'm very much not a fan of war scenarios read by teams that are unable to defend a specific scenario/actor/conflict spiral. I do really enjoy war scenarios that are intricate and specific, probably much better than a lot of other extinction scenarios.

Theory:

I’ve judged a lot of terrible theory debates, and I do not want to judge more theory debates, like even a little bit. I generally find theory debates very boring. But if you decide to ignore that and do it anyway, please at least read this:

Frivolous theory is bad.
I probably should tell you that I believe disclosure is good and paraphrasing is bad, but I will listen to answers to these shells and evaluate the round to the best of my ability. My threshold for paraphrasing good is VERY high.
Debates that seek to establish much narrower interpretations to frame your opponents out of the debate are not debates I would like to judge as they generally feel like a waste of time.
Even if you don’t know the "technical" way to answer theory, do your best to respond. I don't really care if you use theory jargon - just do your best.
I am not sympathetic to answers that amount to whining/complaining about having to participate in a theory debate. These are not arguments. If your coach requires you to do x norm (doesn't let you disclose, etc.), they should be preparing you to defend x norm in round.
not a fan of RVIs
or IVIs for that matter
I will say that despite all the above preferences/thoughts on theory, I really dislike when teams read theory as an easy path to ballot to basically "gotcha" teams that have probably never heard of disclosure or had a theory debate before. I honestly think it's the laziest strategy to use in those rounds, and your speaker points will reflect that. I have given and will continue to give low point wins for this if it is obvious to me that this is what you're trying to do.
But teams debating in the varsity division at big national circuit tournament who paraphrase and/or don't disclose should probably be prepared for theory debates.

Kritiks:

I have a high threshold for critical arguments in PF because I just don’t think the speech times are long enough for them to be good, but there are a few things that will make me feel better about voting on these arguments.

I will listen to anything, but I have a much better understanding and ability to evaluate a round that is topical. I have read a lot of cap and IR theory, and I think these debates are very fascinating. Critical arguments rooted in rejection of the aff or defending the resolution are debates I generally enjoy.
I often find myself feeling a little out of my depth in K rounds, partly because I am not super well versed on most K lit but also because many teams seem to assume judges understand a lot more about their argument than they actually do. The issue I run into with many of these debates is when debaters extend tags rather than warrants which leaves the round feeling messy and difficult to evaluate. If you want to read a kritik in front of me, go ahead, but I'd do it at your own risk. If you do, definitely err on the side of over-explaining your arguments. I like to fully understand what the world of the kritik looks like before I vote for it. If I can't articulate the kritik back to you in my rfd, it's not something I'm going to feel comfortable voting for.
Any argument is going to be more compelling if you write it yourself. Probably don't just take something from the policy wiki without recutting any of the evidence or actually taking the time to fully understand the arguments. K lit is very interesting, and getting a good understanding of it requires going beyond reading the bolded text of cards cut by someone else.
I think theory is the most boring way to answer a kritik. I'll always prefer for teams to engage with the kritik on some level. I have just as frequently voted for k turns + extended case offense outweighs as I have for the k itself. I'm still kind of figuring out how I feel about this with the more K rounds I judge, but I think this rule doesn't apply with non-topical Ks that do nothing with the topic. T is probably a pretty effective way to answer these arguments, although I do not want theory to come at the cost of reading solvency answers and such.

Pet Peeves:

Paraphrasing.
Long evidence exchanges - just send docs.
I don’t flow anything over time, and I’ll be annoyed and drop speaker points if your speeches go more than 5 or so seconds over.
Pre-flow before you get to the room. The round start time is the time the round starts – if you don’t have your pre-flow done by then, I do not care, and the debate will proceed without it.
The phrase "small schools" is maybe my least favorite phrase commonly used in debate. I have judged so many debates where teams get stuck arguing about whether they're a small school, and it never has a point. Literally any school can be a "small school" depending on what metric you use.
The sentence "we'll weigh if time allows" - no you won't. You will weigh if you save yourself time to do it, because if you don't, you will probably lose.
If you're going to ask clarification questions about the arguments made in speech, you need to either use cross or prep time for that.
Tricks are cheating and impossible to resolve fairly. I am not a fan of arguments with the sole purpose of trying to avoid clash in the debate. This is probably one of the most uneducational decisions you could make in the round.
I think "kicking the lay judge" on panels is unstrategic and unfun - volunteer parent judges are a necessary part of this activity in order for tournaments to run, and judge adaptation is an important skill learned in debate, plus I have very often watched the decision in the round come down to the lay judge because the two "techs" disagree.
In round issues of safety are things that should be resolved out of round via the tournament's tab staff and ideally equity committee. If someone feels genuinely unsafe, I do not think that should be something that is debated about.

Congress:

I competed in Congress a few times in high school, and I've judged/coached it a little since then. I dislike judging it because no one is really using it for its fullest potential, and almost every Congress round I've ever seen is just a bunch of constructive speeches in a row. But here are a few things that will make me happy in a Congress round:

I'll rank you higher if you add something to the debate. I love rebuttal speeches, crystallization speeches, etc. You will not rank well if you are the third/fourth/fifth etc. speaker on a bill and still reading new substantive arguments without contextualizing anything else that has already happened. It's obviously fine to read new evidence/data, but that should only happen if it's for the purpose of refuting something that's been said by another speaker or answering an attack the opposition made against your side.
I care much more about the content and strategy of your speeches than I do about your delivery.
If you don't have a way to advance the debate beyond a new constructive speech that doesn't synthesize anything, I'd rather just move on to a new bill. It is much less important to me that you speak on every bill than it is that when you do speak you alter the debate on that bill.

If you have additional questions, ask before or after the round or you can email me at madelyncook23@gmail.com.

Mal Copeland Lincoln 3 rounds

Last changed on Sat September 28, 2024 at 4:42 AM PST

I've coached for 10 years but this year my coaching has primarily focused on getting our speech team up and running. I have judged very few rounds on this topic as I typically am tabbing tournaments. That means I probably do not know the acronyms you are using and have a rudimentary understanding of IP rights because my coaching focus has been elsewhere.

Put me on the email chain mdcdebate@gmail.com

Speed: You should go 60%-70% of your top speed in front of me, and slow down on analytics. I'll clear you once and after that if I miss an arg then it doesn't exist to me.

*Everyone should be respectful. If y'all are rude/racist/homophobic/ableist/sexist etc. I consider that a reason to drastically reduce your speaker points. You can be nice and still win debates. If y'all aren't reading a content warning and describe trauma/violence/etc that need a content warning, I will seriously consider giving you an auto loss.

Overall: Tabula rasa, default policymaker. I prefer you go at a moderate speed and slow for tags. I'm probably not your ideal K or counterplan theory judge. I understand the basics of Ks and some of ideologies, but I tend to get lost without robust, slow explanations at every level of the flow. I flow CXes of K debates to help with my understanding of what is going on. On T- I default to competing interpretations. If you’re not rejecting the topic, you should be topical.

Framework vs non-traditional affs: If you think the aff should be topical, tell me why your model of debate is better than theirs. I prefer external impacts, but will still evaluate fairness as an impact if you go for it.

Specific Arguments

Aff: Need to have a method through which you solve your impacts, if you’re topical, that means you’re using the USfg and have a plan. If you’re reading a K, I want a clear articulation of how your advocacy is adopted/changes the debate space/matters in terms of impacts.

Case Debate: You don’t need carded evidence to point out solvency deficits of the aff. Analytics are generally smarter and more true than the arguments that take you 20 seconds to read the card.

Clarity>Speed: I’ll say clear once, but if you don't slow down you run the risk of me missing arguments that are key to you winning the debate. Please don’t assume you can go as fast as you want just because I’m on the email chain. SLOW on theory/T/analytics. Embedded clash in the overview is nice, but don’t put all your answers to the line by line there.

Cross-x: I flow cross-ex, and I think you should have a strategy for cross ex that helps you set up or further your arguments. If there is truly a part of the aff that is confusing, go ahead and ask for clarification, but your CX shouldn’t give the other team an opportunity to re-explain entire arguments.

Topicality: Describe to me what type of debate your interp justifies, and what type of debate theirs justifies. Whose interpretation of the resolution is better? Impact T out, for example limits in a vacuum don’t mean anything, I want you to explain how limits are key to your education and fairness. I could be persuaded to vote on reasonability, but for the most part think that competing interps is the best paradigm.

Disadvantages: Link controls the direction of the disad. Specificity over generics.

Counterplans: Presumption flips aff if the 2NR goes for the CP. I would judge kick the CP even if not explicitly told by the 2NR, unless the 2AR tells me a super cool reason why judge kick is bad that I haven't heard yet.

Kritiks: Run what you want, articulate what the alt is and how it solves for the impacts you’re claiming. Not enough teams explain HOW the alt works, which I think is devastating when compared to an aff’s clear mechanisms for solving their harms. A conceded root cause explanation or a PIK (“alt solves the aff”) would be a way to win my ballot if explained well. The floating PIK needs to be clearly made early on for me to evaluate it. I’m most familiar with fem, anthro, and neolib, but would listen to other K’s.

Theory: I rarely, if ever vote on theory. Mostly because most teams don’t spend more than 1 minute on it in the final speeches. If the aff thinks the neg reading 7 off was abusive, then the 2AR should be case + condo bad. Dedication to explaining and going for the argument validates it as a reason to consider it. If you spend 30 seconds on extending a dropped ASPEC argument, I’m definitely not voting on it.

+0.5 speaks if you tell me your zodiac sign

Kathleen Coyle CR North High School 3 rounds

Nyla Crayton Marist School 2 rounds

Last changed on Sat November 16, 2024 at 8:02 AM EST

A little about me:

I competed on the regional GA circuit and national circuit for 5 years in PF, and graduated in '19. I'm now a senior at Brown. This is my third year as the PF coach at Park City HS.

As a judge, I'm pretty chill:

- I'm fine with speed but, would much prefer you to not spread. If you do, you must email a speech doc.

- I don't flow cross- if something important happens, tell me in a speech or it will not be on my flow.

- Tech>truth. Obv exception is evidence ethics - if you claim that a source says something and it doesn't, I will not look kindly at that argument.

- I won't evaluate OFFENSE that is extended through ink from rebuttal to final focus- if you want me to vote for you on it, extend it through summary.

- Also- I expect the second rebuttal to respond to all of the offense in the round. Let me just add - given that y'all have four minutes, I also expect interaction with the defense read in the first rebuttal, but I'll be more lenient with accepting those responses in summary.

- On intervention - the only time I will intervene is if there is no comparative weighing, or quite honestly, weighing at all. I don't want to ever do this. So if you'd like to win or lose the debate based on the content of the round, weigh.

- additionally, meta-weighing. Especially if you and your opponents are going for different weighing mechanisms, please tell me why I should prefer your weighing mechanism!

- I understand the appeal of progressive debate, and won't automatically down-vote a team that runs it. However, I prefer judging rounds that don't involve frivolous theory. If there has been an egregious offense in the round and/or you feel very passionately about your theory shell, I will judge it. Otherwise, please don't run theory in front of me.

- Unfortunately, I am still not the best at evaluating K's and their place in PF. That's not to say you can't run a K in front of me, but I might not evaluate it in the way you'd like me to.

- For speaks - my range is normally between 27 - 29.7. I don't usually give perfect speaks, or below a 27. But if you are blatantly sexist, homophobic, or racist, that will change.

- Speech time: I will continue to flow your speech until ~10 seconds after time is up. I will stop listening/flowing past that point.

- Prep Time: I do keep track of prep in the round, and I will be a bit unhappy if you go over that time. If you end up using more than 30 seconds past your prep time, expect to lose speaks.

- Pre-flowing: please finish before the round starts.

If you have any questions or want any clarifications, you can shoot me an email or ask me before the start of round! Email is nylacrayton@gmail.com.

Neo Curry Strake Jesuit College Preparatory 6 rounds

Last changed on Fri July 26, 2024 at 4:03 AM CST

Strake Jesuit '19|University of Houston '23

Email Chain: nacurry23@gmail.com

Questions:nacurry23@gmail.com

Tech>Truth – I’ll vote on anything as long as it’s warranted. Read any arguments you want UNLESS IT IS EXCLUSIONARY IN ANY WAY. I feel like teams don't think I'm being genuine when I say this, but you can literally do whatever you want.

Arguments that I am comfortable with:

Theory, Plans, Counter Plans, Disads, some basic Kritiks (Cap, Militarism, and stuff of the sort), meta-weighing, most framework args that PFers can come up with.

Arguments that I am less familiar with:

High Theory/unnecessarily complicated philosophy, Non-T Affs.

Don't think this means you can't read these arguments in front of me. Just explain them well.

Speaking and Speaker Points

I give speaks based on strategy and I start at a 28.

Go as fast as you want unless you are gonna read paraphrased evidence. Send me a doc if you’re going to do that. Also, slow down on tags and author names.

I will dock your speaks if you take forever to pull up a piece of evidence. To avoid this, START AN EMAIL CHAIN.

You and your partner will get +.3 speaker points if you disclose your broken cases on the wiki before the round. If you don't know how to disclose, facebook message me before the round and I can help.

Summary

Extend your evidence by the author's last name. Some teams read the full author name and institution name but I only flow author last names so if you extend by anything else, I’ll be lost.

EVERY part of your argument should be extended (Uniqueness, Link, Internal Link, Impact, and warrant for each).

If going for link turns, extend the impact; if going for impact turns, extend the link.

Miscellaneous Stuff

open cross is fine

flex prep is fine

I require responses to theory/T in the next speech. ex: if theory is read in the AC i require responses in the NC or it's conceded

Defense that you want to concede should be conceded in the speech immediately following when it was read.

Because of the changes in speech times, defense should be in every speech.

In a util round, please don't treat poverty as a terminal impact. It's only a terminal impact if you are reading an oppression-based framework or something like that.

I don't really care where you speak from. I also don't care what you wear in the round. Do whatever makes you most comfortable.

Feel free to ask me questions about my decision.

do not read tricks or you will probably maybe potentially lose

Sandeep Datta Newton South High School 2 rounds

Damiyr Davis Riverdale Country School 5 rounds

Michelle Daye Desert Vista High School 3 rounds

Kiko Demetriou Clover Hill High School 6 rounds

Jeff Devereaux Albuquerque Academy 6 rounds

Last changed on Mon June 14, 2021 at 2:37 AM MST

Things I Am:

- I'm a judge, therefore, I exist and have supreme authority.

Things I Am Not:

- Your timekeeper.

General Preferences:

- Signpost, signpost, signpost! I'm not your guide, I'm the tourist. Take me on the journey that is your case and make sure I leave you an amazing Google review.

- A note on spreading. I've accepted that Public Forum has adopted this from LD and Policy, but I don't like it. And neither does Zoom (it gets hard to hear and leads to technical difficulties, not to mention a migraine) If you can serve me some champion level spreading, I'm here for it. If you say the same word fifteen times because you're going too fast, no speaker points for you, Gretchen. Therefore, spread at your own risk.

- Which brings me to another note: Public Forum is meant to be just that, an event that is accessible to the "public." I give much higher speaks to teams who not only provide solid evidence but are able to relate their case and evidence to real world events, political action, etc. related to the topic. Social media and democracy provide a HUGE opportunity to do this. So while I appreciate a tech argument, don't get so caught up in the technicalities that you forget to talk about the current reality of our political climate in an impactful way.

- Weigh. Don't throw around words like magnitude, etc. unless you are going to define them appropriately. Otherwise, I will think you are using big words to sound smart and don't actually know what you're talking about.

- "Your case is the story, and the round is your stage!" - A wizened debater quoting Shakespeare... But for real, tell the story that is your case and defend it. I don't care what strategy you're using, so don't ask, just go for it. If I think it's sloppy, that's where my ballot will come in.

- Don't bring up new evidence in Second Summary, Grand CX, or FF. That's just cruel.

On a more serious note, I will disclose and provide feedback after rounds. Please do not question my decision. If I say something wasn't clear or I was confused, that's not my problem as judge, that's yours as a debater and failing to make a clear argument. I will do my best to be constructive so that you can improve, therefore, please be respectful on your part and accept feedback from others (which is vital not just for debate, but for your personal success, period).

If you would like additional feedback after reading YOUR ballot, I can be reached by email at devereaux@aa.edu. Please include the tournament and your school code in the subject line so that I know which flow I should be referencing.

Thanks kids and let's have some fun debating!

Abhijit Dey Dougherty Valley High School 2 rounds

Bob Dolan Lake Mary Prep 6 rounds

Last changed on Sat April 15, 2023 at 8:26 AM EST

CONGRESS PARADIGM IS BELOW THIS PF Paradigm

PF:

ALMOST EVERY ROUND I HAVE JUDGED IN THE LAST 8 YEARS WOULD HAVE BENEFITTED FROM 50% FEWER ARGUMENTS, AND 100% MORE ANALYSIS OF THOSE 50% FEWER ARGUMENTS. A Narrative, a Story carries so much more persuasively through a round than the summary speaker saying "we are going for Contention 2".

I am NOT a fan of speed, nor speed/spread. Please don't make me think I'm in a Policy Round!

I don't need "Off-time roadmaps", I just want to know where you are starting.

Claim/warrant/evidence/impact is NOT a debate cliche; It is an Argumentative necessity! A label and a blip card is not a developed argument!

Unless NUCLEAR WINTER OR NUCLEAR EXTINCTION HAS ALREADY OCCURED, DON'T BOTHER TO IMPACT OUT TO IT.

SAVE K'S FOR POLICY ROUNDS; RUN THEORY AT YOUR OWN RISK- I start from ma place that it is fake and abusive in PF and you are just trying for a cheap win against an unprepared team. I come to judge debates about the topic of the moment.

YOU MIGHT be able to convince me of your sincerity if you can show me that you run it in every round and are President of the local "Advocacy for that Cause" Club.

Don't just tell me that you win an argument, show me WHY you win it and what significance that has in the round.

Please NARROW the debate and WEIGH arguments in Summary and Final Focus. If you want the argument in Final Focus, be sure it was in the summary.

There is a difference between "passionate advocacy" and anger. Audio tape some of your rounds and decide if you are doing one or the other when someone says you are "aggressive".

NSDA evidence rules require authors' last name and THE DATE (minimum) so you must AT LEAST do that if you want me to accept the evidence as "legally presented". If one team notes that the other has not supplied dates, it will then become an actual issue in the round. Speaker points are at stake.

In close rounds I want to be persuaded and I may just LISTEN to both Final Focus speeches, checking off things that are extended on my flow.

I am NOT impressed by smugness, smiling sympathetically at the "stupidity" of your opponent's argument, vigorous head shaking in support of your partner's argument or opposition to your opponents'. Speaker points are DEFINITELY in play here!

CONGRESSIONAL DEBATE:

1: The first thing I am looking for in every speech is ORGANIZATION AND CLARITY. 2. The second thing I am looking for is CLASH; references to other speakers & their arguments

3. The third thing I am looking for is ADVOCACY, supported by EVIDENCE

IMPORTANT NOTE: THIS IS A SPEAKING EVENT, NOT A READING EVENT! I WILL NOT GIVE EVEN A "BRILLIANT" SPEECH A "6" IF IT IS READ OFF A PREPARED SHEET/TUCKED INTO THE PAD OR WRITTEN ON THE PAD ITSELF; AND, FOR CERTAIN IF IT IS READ OFF OF A COMPUTER OR TABLET.

I value a good story and humor, but Clarity and Clash are most important.

Questioning and answering factors into overall placement in the Session.

Yes, I will evaluate and include the PO, but it is NOT an automatic advancement to the next level; that has gotten a bit silly.

Sylvia Duarte Delbarton School 5 rounds

Last changed on Sat February 19, 2022 at 5:55 AM CST

tl:dr: flay

pls email me cases with ur cards, this makes life easy for all of us: sylviaelizabethduarte@gmail.com. if you have any questions about my paradigm, message me on fb

i debated on the pf nat'l circuit in high school and am now a college sophomore.

quick bio:

i would say i'm tech>truth but that is a lie. i like args within the realm of topical possibility. not necessarily probability since most debate args do not work irl anyway lmao. more like, i give less credence to args like nuke war or existentialism and will be looking for any excuse of a response to turn it down (obvs this depends on the topic like yk what i mean). obvs if there is no ink on ur arg or your frontlines are fire and ur debating is of a high caliber, that is different. but idk if ur that guy + why risk it?

i give more credence to your args 1) the earlier they are introduced in round, 2) the more warranted they are, 3) the more likely/severe/quickly/generally more important your link chain or impacts are vs your opponents'.

best ways to win my ballot (in order of importance):

- effective, consistent, *extended*, good ol warranting. absent good weighing/impact calc, i will likely prefer one well-warranted arg over multiple unwarranted args (yes it will be strategic to collapse in front of me). **this will be to your benefit if you want to go progressive and run something funky like theory and can articulate amazing reasons why it's good to do so.**

- complete claim-warrant-impact (frontlined when necessary) extensions in the second half for args you want me to vote for. anything i vote off of in your final focus must be in the summary btw

- GOOD weighing. weighing is inherently comparative. ik you think your arg is important, but why is it more important than your opponents'? why does this mean you win the round?

things i dislike but am forced to ignore because i don't want to intervene but also will still rly negatively bias my decision to vote for you because i am human:

- speaking at a million words per min. a wise man once said, "why waste time say lot word when few word do trick?" and you're on a computer and wifi can cut out and your super-speed-speaking legit won't matter.

- doing the above but thinking you're in the clear because you sent a speech doc with your tags afterwords. NO pls stop

- heavyyy paraphrasing of your ev. i don't expect you to read card-text in all of your speeches (though that would be nice in constructive... sigh). but like... rly not a fan of debaters taking a quote from their evidence and putting their "spin" on what it says/arguing in the "spirit of the ev"/doing the most with the ev because "it technicallyyy says that"/anything that bastardizes the integrity of your representation of evidence.

- do not take that to mean that i dislike analytics. on the contrary, i reward thoughtful, well-warranted analytics. but i punish analytics passed off as evidence.

- defending any potential social prejudice that comes up in your args, attitude, treatment of opponents, etc. i don't just dislike this, i will tank your speaks and speak to your coach if necessary.

i am familiar with theory. lmk if you're unsure if you should run something in front of me. i will not BS you, if i cannot evaluate an arg / don't think it's likely i'd vote for it, i will 100% lyk.

good rule of thumb is that you can run theory if you can effectively explain (i.e. warrant) your arg's necessity in the space, my role as a judge, your arg's role in education/accessibility/etc, and more. if your theory warranting is not up to par with substance warranting, you should probably stick to substance in front of me.

Jacob Dugger Hire 6 rounds

Sebastian Dunbar Torrey Pines High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Fri January 19, 2024 at 4:07 AM PST

******EXTEND FULL ARGUMENTS******DO COMPARATIVE WEIGHING******HAVE FUN******

^the holy trinity

Hey! My name is Seb and I love debate.

My pf debate judging preferences

I flow, but above all else I want to be persuaded
I like when speeches are filled with jokes, analogies, and metaphors
I dislike roadmaps, you can just tell me where you are starting and signpost the rest
I like when rounds move quickly and debaters speak slowly
I think the simplest strategy is usually the best strategy
I dislike card dumping strategies, and more broadly prefer depth to breadth

My pf debate philosophies

I think that:

Paraphrasing is good
Disclosure is a bad norm
Theory should only be used when necessary
Non topical k’s are unfair
I should only flow what I hear

My pf debate advice

1. Collapse on your most important argument. If you are winning your entire case, you have no reason to go for all of your offense in Final Focus- extend the best offense you have, because it'll outweigh the rest of your case anyways. If you're getting up in FF and telling me that there are four voters in the round, you are doing it wrong.

2. Have a consistent narrative throughout the round. Everything that you go for in your Final Focus needs to have been in your Summary, and you cannot introduce new arguments after Rebuttal. I should be able to flow your arguments from Constructive all the way to FF.

3. Treat your opponents with respect. Debate has a tendency to get heated, which is perfectly fine. However, being in the zone is not an excuse to be rude in CX or any other part of the round. Please be courteous and chill when speaking to one another, even if it means that you wont have time to get to that one GaMe ChAnGiNg crossfire question you have.

4. Debate in the style that you are the most comfortable with. I am familiar with everything from very traditional to very technical pf. While my judging philosophy is on the technical side, every round can be won with smart debating, no matter what style that is. Don't feel the need to go fast or use more debate jargon just to win my ballot.

5. Signpost Signpost Signpost. I should be told exactly where the arguments you are making need to be flowed. If there was an argument that you thought won you the round but I don't have it on my flow, you probably didn't signpost it well and I had no idea where to put it. Bad signposting is the #1 cause of debate judge migraines.

6. Do comparative and meta-weighing. Claiming that you "win on magnitude because your impact is 3 million lives" or that you "win on probability because it's gonna happen" is bad weighing. Comparative weighing is making a weighing analysis directly between your impact and your opponents' impact. Meta weighing is comparing two different weighing mechanisms against each other (like saying why probability is more important than scope, etc.). Using these methods to weigh your impacts properly will go a long way.

7. Be Personable! At its core, debate is a game of persuasion. To me, the best debaters are always smiling, engaged, friendly, and working to simplify the round the best they can. Charisma and critical thinking are the most portable skills that you develop in this activity, and they are the fundamental to both your performance in round and interactions outside of debate.

Bob Duncan Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Sun June 16, 2024 at 4:56 PM EST

LD:

The 2019/2020 school year marked my 4th year as a Lincoln-Douglas Debate judge. My preferred rate of delivery is a moderate speed. No spreading. The rate of delivery does not weigh heavily in my decision. In making my decision, the value is very important. In making my decision, the criterion is very important. I appreciate KVI's in final rebuttals. Please use jargon ("extend", "cross-apply", "turn", etc.) sparingly in rebuttals. Evidence (analytical and empirical) is important. I decide the winner of the round based on their overall position. During the round, my note-taking is a rigorous flow.

I appreciate the role that philosophy, logic, and evidence each play in Lincoln-Douglas Debate. Lincoln Douglas debate is designed to center on a proposition of value. A proposition of value concerns itself with what ought to be instead of what it is. It is not the purpose of this type of debate to identify a solution or a plan to implement in order to fix the resolution. Instead, the purpose is to offer reasoning to support the principle that may be used to guide a decision. I also will not allow my personal biases to influence my vote.

PF:

Although I prefer a moderate speed, I can keep up if you are not spreading. Please Frontline. Framing: It needs to be topical and not abusive. Line by line: I don't prefer the norm of PF to just leave arguments behind. You can and should be consolidating throughout the round, but that means you pull everything together. I will weigh drops against you. If you would like to have your partner review evidence while you speak, the other team needs to agree. Otherwise, this needs to happen during prep. As long as you're respectful, I don't care how you debate.

Good Luck and Have Fun!!! Robert Duncan He/Him/His

BQD:

I am currently beginning my 5th year coaching High School Debate.

According to the NSDA Big Questions Debate is the intersection of Science, Philosophy, and Theology. I also enjoy how it tends to bring in Research-based Evidence, Logic, and Psychology. Because of this, I am open to a broad range of arguments. I will enter each round tabula rasa and not allow preconceived opinions or biases to enter my judgment. Please take into consideration my other judging preferences listed under LD and PF. Congratulations on being a National Qualifier!

Robert Duncan Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Sat November 9, 2024 at 4:51 AM EST

Basics: I competed in LD from 2016-2020 with experience locally and nationally. Now, I am the head coach of Dublin Jerome HS in Ohio where I coach all events. I have experience with all types of arguments and the remainder of this paradigm just goes over my preferences.

Conflicts: Louisville Sr. HS (OH), Dublin Jerome HS (OH), Alliance HS (OH).

LD:

Framework: You must run a V/VC. I use the framework to weigh the round but I do not vote on it alone. Do NOT make it a KVI because it carries no weight on its own.

Contention Level: I keep a rigorous flow. This means I will ask you to follow a line by line and will record all dropped arguments. This does not mean I will vote on who covers the most ground. You need to extend dropped arguments and weigh them against your opponents. If you kick a contention(s) that's fine, I don't care, just let me know in speech.

Evidence: You need to provide evidence in a timely fashion. I will use your prep time if you abuse this grace period. I will (likely) not review the evidence. It is not the judge's responsibility to do the evidence analysis. If there is a breach of rules then I will intervene. Otherwise, it is both debaters' duty to show why their analysis of the evidence is better.

PF:

*************Frontline. Frontline. Frontline.*****************

Framing: It needs to be topical and not abusive or I will drone you out.

Line by line: I don't buy the norm of PF to just leave arguments behind. You can and should be consolidating throughout the round, but that means you pull everything together. I will weigh drops against you.

Evidence: *SEE LD* If you would like to have your partner review evidence while you speak, the other team needs to agree. Otherwise, this needs to happen during prep.

Congress:

Top 5 Things I care about (generally in order)

Clash
Fluent Delivery
Unique Material/Args
Good "Congressional" Behavior (respectfulness/legislating/etc.)
Active Participation in Round

Please Please Please ask me questions if you have them. I take no offense at all if you question any one of these comments. As long as you're respectful, I don't care how you debate.

Good Luck and Have Fun!!!

Robert Duncan He/Him/His

Head Speech and Debate Coach, Dublin Jerome HS

Columbus District DEIB Chair

Tarun Eisen Belridge 3 rounds

Last changed on Mon May 16, 2022 at 5:17 AM CST

Howdy, y'all!

My name is Tarun. I did 3 years of Debate for Bentonville HS and currently compete in college. I specialized in BQ and PF and competed in LD, Congress, Policy, and have a base knowledge of Worlds. I also know a lot about speech, so that shouldn't be an issue.

General notes for all styles [PF, CX, LD, WS, BQ]

Add me to the email chain pls(taruneisen61@gmail.com)! I am tech > truth. I will buy any arguments, as long as they are extended, warranted, etc. Make sure to collapse on weak args and extend on the winning ones. I think that while FW is important, it isn't the main attraction. If you're running prog, make sure everyone is okay with it. Please don't run Trix and theory shells just to get that easy dub against a novice. I prefer debates on substance, but if it turns into a technicality debate, make sure it's good. If the round turns into a definition debate, I will give everyone 26's. Please bring up all-new cards before FF. I also will not evaluate new contentions beyond 1st AC/NC. Please signpost as well, and give a roadmap. This allows everyone to keep everything organized and allows a clear mind. All weighing and impacts should start in Rebuttal, but I will buy it in Summary if it's strong enough. Link chains should also be presented in Rebuttal and extended through FF. I am not a fan of judge intervention, so make sure the ballot is crystal clear. I will also keep time, so if you go over time, I will stop flowing. You can finish your sentence, but beyond that, I won't flow anything else. Also, speed is fine, but don't spread (unless policy). Again, don't run abusive args.

Evidence

I love evidence. If you are paraphrasing in your case, make sure you have the cut card, or at the very least, the URL for me to find it. Please warrant cards and show why they are both unique and impactful. I will call for any cards that I need, so please have them handy. I always had cut cards when I competed, so please have them. Make sure the cards actually say what you're telling. If you're going to present more cards in Rebuttal and Summary, warrant them and tell me why they outweigh the other side. Make sure those cards are also cut. If you just say the card (e.g., Jones 20) and give me info, but don't warrant it and show why it actually matters, I most likely won't buy it. If the source is biased or flawed, make it an issue. I won't buy new evidence past Summary, so any significant cards have them before that.

Cross X:

Please be respectful. I don't flow CX, but I will pay attention. If you're rude or a bully, I will down your speaker points. I am also chill with flex prep, but make sure your opponents are also okay with it. This time also shows how you flourish with direct questioning, so try your best.

Weighing/Voters:

Just because you say something's a voter does not automatically make it one. Make sure you tell me why this warranted voter is crucial. I will weigh probability, magnitude, timeframe (in that order of importance). Please do all weighing starting in Rebuttal, but I will accept it if you start in summary if it is crazy important. Any beyond that will not be bought. Be sure all voters are fleshed out, warranted, all that jazz. All voters should be in Summary. You can do voters in Rebuttal, but Summary is that last chance. Please show why you outweigh the opponents. It does me and you no good to show weighing A, B, C, but not why they matter more than opp. weighing D, E, F.

Last-minute thoughts:

-I will ave. speaker points at 28.5, but will go up and down accordingly.

-If you make a joke, I will up speaker points, but it has to be good or so bad it's amazing. Any bland jokes will lose speakers.

-Any Eisen cards will raise speaks by 0.5

-If you run Texas theory shell, I will give you L20. So just don't do it.

Otherwise, I am looking forward to seeing y'all debate!

Zayne El-Kaissi Hawken 6 rounds

Last changed on Sun February 25, 2024 at 3:51 PM CST

Fourth year out from Hawken and did pretty well at ToC my senior year (he/him). My email: zelkaissi@uchicago.edu

General:

I would strongly prefer if you don't read theory or kritiks (but I'll try my best to evaluate them)

Warrant everything!

I don't care too much about cards. Warrants are more important to me than whether or not its carded. The only time I care about cards is if there's disagreement on a descriptive claim about the world, or some expertise/authority on a topic is needed.

If there is a disagreement on a fact, I will be very happy if you cite academic papers and describe why their methodology is better than some evidence the other team is citing

I like it when teams think creatively instead of mindlessly reading cards (including during rebuttal!). So make sure to implicate the evidence you read well, and don't be afraid to give analytical responses

I like strong and consistent narratives in round

To win my ballot you'll have to drop some arguments and focus on warranting, weighing, and winning the important ones.

Case/Rebuttal:

Slower cases are good, especially if its a hard to follow argument. I do really like creative and off-meta arguments though!

Signposting rebuttal well is very impressive and appreciated, so I'll reflect that in your speaker points

Summary/FF:

I won't vote for your argument unless I understand it, so please be clear!

Be very specific about what link/impact you're going for and how the defense you extend is terminal/not mitigatory so its easy to flow and I don't make a mistake.

Please weigh link-ins vs the link they read from case when you read turns

For cross, just give concise, direct answers, and don't be afraid to concede things. I don't like lots of fluff or evasiveness, and I'll reflect that in your speaker points.

After round, if you think you won but I drop you, please advocate for yourself at the end of the round/post round. I won't change my decision, but l still want to give you as much useful feedback as possible so please let me know if you disagree with anything I say in my decision

Random details (ask before round if you have any specific questions):

Speed in general is fine so long as both teams can understand everything

2nd rebuttal should respond to all offense-things in 1st rebuttal (including weighing)

Defense is sticky from first rebuttal to first final

First final can make new weighing, but second final can respond if its new in first final

Second case never has to respond to first case

Sierra Erdman-Luntz The Blake School 6 rounds

Nathan Fallin Ridgewood High School 6 rounds

Jianguo Fan Montgomery Blair 5 rounds

Aly Fiebrantz NSU University School 1 rounds

Jim Fiechtl Ravenwood High School 6 rounds

Christopher Field Wayland High School 6 rounds

Grace Findley American Heritage Plantation HS 5 rounds

Last changed on Sat January 16, 2021 at 8:35 AM EST

Hi I'm Gracie! (she/her)

Experience: 3 years of PF at Boca High and 3 years of experience in different debate events at Florida State (NPDA, BP, Civic/Social Justice, NFA LD literally once).

For Online Tournaments:

- Yes, add me to the email chain: gracea.findley@gmail.com

For PF:

TL;DR: Tech > Truth. Turns/DAs need to be responded to in second rebuttal. Final focus should mirror the summary. Default to cost/benefit analysis, but easily persuaded to filter the round through whatever framework you see fit. Speed is ok, but please don't spread. And please do not drop warrants (especially in the back half of the round!)

If anything is unclear in my paradigm, just ask me before the round!

Specific Thoughts on Debate

1) I default to tech > truth. Additionally, if you're winning a claim on the flow (technically), I'm more likely to evaluate it as true. But don't just assert things as random truths and expect me to vote on them. With this being said, I am a sucker for a good narrative. In the back-half of the round I love when teams re-explain their arguments, especially on the warrant level and use this as a basis to explain how they're winning. If you do this it helps make my decision much easier as I am not just voting on the flow but also on clear argumentation.

2) If you drop warrants, I drop you. Please don't make this mistake. I think warrants are the most important argument in the round, so I will evaluate this first. Lack of warrants assume I am all knowing and sometimes arguments that are clear to you are not clear to me, so ensuring I understand the premise of your argument extends from your ability to provide clear warrants. This means I expect analysis not only on the impact level but also on the link level. Assuming you are winning a warrant and going straight to impact weighing will make me unlikely to vote for you.

3) Second rebuttal is required to frontline all offensive arguments made against their case. This includes turns and DAs. It will make my flow a lot cleaner if you also begin to frontline defensive arguments in this speech, but it's not something that I require.

4) Anything you want me to vote off of NEEDS to be in the summary. Now that the summary is three minutes long, I expect first speaking teams to extend defense in summary. Please don't try to bring up things in final focus that were missing in summary.

5) Absent any framing in the round, I default to a cost/benefit analysis. In debates that don't touch heavily on framing, I tend to lean aff on risk of solvency. This also means I lean aff/non-squo went presented with "risk of offense" or "try-or-die" framing.

6) I don't have much experience competing in or evaluating theory rounds. I will try my best to evaluate it, but proceed with caution at your risk. For reference, here's what I think about some of the more popular theory arguments being read in PF.

a.) "Give us 30s" - Nope. Please, please, please don't read this in front of me. If you want a 30, follow my paradigm.

b.) Disclosure - Disclosure is good for debate, regardless of big or small school and especially for online tournaments.

7) I will not time you. Please keep track of your own time for both speeches and prep.

8) K's without policy alternatives are ok as the negative (b/c negative fiat isn't really a thing in PF), but I'm not a huge fan of non-topical affirmatives. My background is not in critical literature, so please make sure your arguments are very well explained in the back-half of the round.

9) If you are going to read an overview, there needs to be some sort of "turns case" explanation clearly flagged on the flow. I am not a fan of disads with new impacts out of the rebuttal.

10) I will call for evidence if I think it's misconstrued or if a team tells me to. I have no preference whether you give me a PDF/webpage or a cut card.

11) Don't spread, even if you offer to send a doc. I competed on the national circuit in PF though, so I can follow if you speak more quickly than conversational rate but please at least slow down for author names and dates.

For Speaker Points:

1) If author names are either dropped or not read, I will lower speaker points. Author names are the bare minimum - you should also be reading dates.

2) Weighing and really any sort of contextualization is the easiest way to boost your speaks. This is more than just claims like "we win on scope." As stated above, warrants are crucial to all argumentation; in addition to giving me a reason to prefer your analysis over anything your opponents bring up.

Eddie Fitzgerald Poly Prep Country Day School

Last changed on Wed November 20, 2024 at 12:05 PM EST

I require speech docs sent for all cards. Please include me on the email chain:
edfitzi04@gmail.com

I flow debater's speech performances and not docs, but may read evidence after speeches.

OVERVIEW:

I graduated from Liberty University in the spring of 2011 after debating for 5 years. Before that I debated 1 year of LD in high school. Since then I worked as a debate coach for Timothy Christian High School in New Jersey for 6 years, traveling nationally on both the high school and college circuit. Currently I am the Director of speech and debate at Poly Prep in Brooklyn.

I view debate as a forum to critically test and challenge approaches to change the world for the better. I prefer in depth debate with developed material that you look like you have a grasp of. I will always work hard to evaluate correctly and with little intervention, especially if you are putting in hard work debating.

Learning debate from within the Liberty tradition I began by running conventional policy arguments with a proclivity to go for whatever K was in the round. However, during my final 3 years my partner and I did not defend the resolution and our 1nc looked very similar to our 1ac. Personally, I’m a believer and coach for advocating liberatory and conscious debate practices. However, there will certainly be a gap at times between my personal preferences and practices and what I vote on. I’m not going to judge from a biased perspective against policy arguments, and although tabula rasa is impossible I will try to evaluate the arguments presented with limited interference.

Ultimately, do not let any of this sway you from debating how you prefer. Doing what you think you are the best educator on will probably be your greatest option. If any of this is unclear or you have questions that I have not address below please feel free to ask me before a round. Have fun, debate confidently, and be genuine.

Last updated 1/10/2020

PAPERLESS and prep time (LD and Policy specific):

Prep time ends approximately when the speech doc is saved and you remove the jump drive / hit send of the email. An overall goal (for both paperless and traditional teams) is to be prepared to begin your speech when you say end prep.

Speaking mostly to HIGH SCHOOL students:

Everyone involved in the round should be able to have access to any read piece of evidence once it has been presented. This means that if you are reading off of a computer you are responsible for providing your opponents with either a jump of what you are going to read or a physical copy before you start your speech. We shouldn’t be unreasonably fearful of people ‘stealing’ ‘our’ evidence, as source information should always be provided, and also because it’s certainly not really ‘ours’. You may, however, respectfully require your opponents to delete anything you provided them with during the round.

SPEAKING STYLES and speaker points:

I’m certainly open to (for lack of a better word) alternative and non-traditional approaches to your speech time. Passion, ethos, and emphasis are things that are usually underutilized by most speaking styles and debaters, and should be present in both constructives and rebuttals. After all, debate is at its core a communication activity. Cross-ex is a great time to exhibit this as well as advance your arguments. I may call clear once if it is an issue, however it is your responsibility to be an effective communicator during your speech. Being a jerk, unnecessarily rude, offensive, stealing prep, and not being helpful to the other team during cx or prep time are all things that will negatively effect your speaker points outside of the quality and delivery of your arguments.

HIGH SCHOOL LD SPECIFIC:

Yes, I am fine with speed, but that does not give you an excuse to be unclear. I may call clear once if it is an issue, however it is your responsibility to be an effective communicator during your speech.

I have experience to evaluate theory, but certainly prefer substantive theory (T, condo, NIBs, are all examples) as opposed to frivolous theory. You should probably slow down when reading your shells if you want me to be able to write down the nuances of your argument. Due to my background in college policy there may be a few preconceptions that I have that you should be aware of. Theory is not automatically an RVI, and I probably take a little more convincing on the flow than most judges in this area. You need to explain to me why a violation has resulted in abuse that warrants either voting down the other team or rejecting a specific argument. Simply claiming one to be true is not enough work here. When answering theory, showing how the abuse can be solved by rejecting a particular argument can make the violation go away.

Conceded and dropped arguments are considered true on my flow, unless they are morally repugnant or blatantly false. An example of the latter is even if your opponent drops a theory shell, if the team clearly does not link to the violation your accusation does not make that true. Conceded arguments must still be extended, warranted, and argued, but you should focus more on their implications.

Please read the paperless / prep time and the speaking style / speaker points sections of my philosophy located above.

PUBLIC FORUM SPECIFIC:

A quick overview statement: It seem that circuit PF is going through a growing period where it is solidifying some norms and practices. As a result of this, I will typically default to the understanding of the debaters in the round. I am also open to different interpretations as long as they are defended.

ARGUMENT SPECIFIC:

The rest of my philosophy is not specific towards ld or policy, high school or college, and it may do you benefit to read it as well, especially if some of your arguments tend to look like policy arguments.

FRAMEWORK (when run by the neg):

I think that negatives have the ability to and should engage with affirmatives that don’t defend a normative implementation of a plan. Even if the aff doesn’t defend the resolution there are still many substantive things that they will defend that provide ample ground. Although this ground might not be as predictable as your interpretation on FW calls for, it is still predictable enough to meet the threshold that you should be prepared for it.

Having said that, I think I’m one of those few sick individuals that will actually enjoy listening to framework debates as long as they are well developed on both sides. Granted, I will most likely be a harder sell than most, but I don’t think this should dissuade you from going for it if you think it is your best option. You will need to make inroads to the aff’s arguments by articulating ways traditional debate solves for their impacts. If you lose the impact turn to politics you will not win FW debates. You need to make arguments to the effect of traditional policy debate being key to a better form of politics and articulate net benefits to your interpretation from this. I think that the type of education we foster in debate far outweighs the preservation of the game in the strictest sense. That is to say that fairness claims alone are not the way to persuade me on FW. You should instead use claims of fairness to hedge against the impacts from the aff.

However, the main substance of FW debates (for both sides) should be about the competing benefits to the type of education and scholarship different traditions lead to.

For affirmatives concerning framework strategies, your greatest offense will be specific to your particular argument. I will be more easily persuaded if your aff is connected to the topic. I don’t appreciate aff’s that are written that hide their purpose or are exclusively constructed to impact turn FW. While I prefer some kind of relationship to the topic, I don’t think it is necessary. However, you do lose the ability to make an important strategic argument that other plan-less aff’s should employ, which is that your aff is important to topic education. More developed, this argument should be that your aff is necessary to topic education and that without it the debate ground that is left leads to bad forms of scholarship. That is to say that you aff is essentially topical. This argument is both inherently offensive and also provides the ability to make defensive claims against the neg’s offense.

KRITIKS:

This is the type of debate that I am most familiar with and have the largest literature base with (I was a philosophy major). However, messy and poor K debates are probably the worst. The key to winning this kind of debate is making the general link and alternative cards as specific as possible to the aff. I am not saying that the key is reading the most specific evidence (although this would be nice, however most of our authors here don’t write in the context of every affirmative), but that you need to find ways to apply the generic concepts to the specifics of the aff. Without this it is easier to be persuaded by the perm.

Teams are responsible for the discourse and performances in which then engage in given the context of the world we are situated in as well as the argument style the team engages in.

Aff’s have a wide range of arguments they can deploy, and are probably best sticking with the ones they are most comfortable with while doing a good job showing how they relate to the critique.

Concerning the perm, it is usually not enough work to simply show how the two different advocacies could work together. At this point it becomes easy to vote on the alternative as a purer form of advocacy without the risk of links. Aff’s should articulate net benefits to the perm to hedge against residual links and different DA’s to the perm itself. Case should be one of these net benefits, but aff’s need to watch out for indicts to foundational assumptions (concerning methodology, epistemology, ontology etc.) behind your impact claims.

Concerning framework: when was the last time a relatively moderate judge decided that the neg shouldn’t be able to run their K? The answer is probably a long time ago. The majority of these debates are compromised in the 1ar by allowing the K given that the aff gets to weigh their impacts after a lot of wasted time by both teams. I can hardly think of a situation where I would be persuaded to only evaluate the plan verses the status quo or a competitive policy option that excluded the alternative. However, I can envision certain ways that this debate goes down that convinces me to discount the impacts of the aff. In general, however, most of debate is illusory (somewhat unfortunately) and these framework questions are about what type of education is more important. If you chose to run framework with you aff you should keep these things in mind concerning your interpretation for debate.

PERFORMANCE or project verses a similar style:

These debates are some of the most important and essential ones for our community, particularly as more and more teams are participating in this form of advocacy. We need to debate and judge in light of this fact. These are also some of the most difficult debates to have. There are several reasons for this, one of the most poignant being the personal nature of these debates combined with the close relationships that most people amongst this insular community have with one another. We need to realize the value in these opportunities and the importance of preserving the pureness of our goals for the debate community. That might mean in some situations that conceding and having a conversation might be the best use of a particular debate space, and in others debating between different competing methodologies is a correct rout to go. In either case we need to realize and cherish common goals. In light of this it isn’t a bad thing to agree with large portions of your opponent’s speeches or even advocacy. Instead of reproducing the gaming paradigm of traditional debate, where competition is valued over advocacy and winning over ethics, we should instead choose to celebrate the areas of alignment we find. Conceding every round where this happens, however, is not a good idea either. This would send a message to the debate community that debate dies under this framework. That doesn’t mean there isn’t a possible time and place for it though.

When both teams largely agree on certain foundational framework questions efficacious debate can still happen. While making distinctions between advocacies and methodologies is essential for this kind of a debate, you should probably not manipulate and create links that are artificial. Distinctions that are made out of an in depth knowledge of the issues are far more beneficial and consistent. Traditional debate might look at these kinds of rounds as two ships passing in the night, but I think there can be a different metaphor – one where the teams are two ships starting at the recognition that the resolution and the debate community is flawed and that the round can be decided upon which team provides a better methodology and performance to get their ship further in the direction of what we should be as a community and culturally aware individuals.

I am undecided as to whether the aff should be allowed a perm and this should probably be debated out. However, I think that the aff should always have the ability to point out when a negative advocacy is the same as theirs.

THEORY / T:

Any bias I have towards theory will probably result in placing a burden on the team that reads the violation to prove that it should result in a voting issue. However, I don’t like shady stuff done only to be obnoxiously strategic. Don’t do it.

One thing that I definitely do not like is when teams read multiple conditional strategies that contradict each other. This will usually call into question the solvency of the critique if the aff takes advantage of this.

I don’t think that I have a bias concerning reasonability or competing interpretations, but I will probably default to competing interpretations until the aff is shown to be reasonable and from there it is up for debate.

COUNTERPLANS / DA’s:

I am probably liberal concerning counter plan theory, and aside from the question over conditionality most other theory arguments are probably reasons to reject the cp. Aside from traditional theory answers, showing why a certain CP is justified given the specific aff is a good response.

PICS that are specific to the aff are great, however word pics should probably just be articulated as links to the K.

Uniqueness controls the link only if a particular side definitively wins it.

I generally evaluate from an offense / defense standpoint, but it doesn’t mean anything if the CP links less than the plan does to a DA if the CP still meets the threshold for triggering the link. In that world there isn’t greater offense to the CP.

Cynthia Fontaine The Bromfield School 3 rounds

Sandy Foster The Harley School 3 rounds

Deborah Freitag The Dalton School 3 rounds

Alex Fritz Blacksburg 6 rounds

Cavin Gada Bergen County Debate Club 6 rounds

Chery Gada Bergen County Debate Club 6 rounds

Nilay Gandhi SpiderSmart Learning Center at Sugar Land 3 rounds

Last changed on Fri March 8, 2024 at 2:16 PM CST

Hi! I debated Public Forum for four years. I'm the average 'flow judge' and would also describe my (previous) debate style as an average 'flay' debater. For background, I qualified to TFA State thrice and TOC/NSDAs twice. In short, I would suggest you focus on persuasion and quality of arguments, rather than quantity and jargon. Do not put me on the email chain and please go at a very slow speed.

Read this above all: "I will not evaluate any Ks, theory (particularly disclosure theory), or other forms of technical argumentation from Policy/LD that are not common in PF. Not only am I uncomfortable with my ability to seriously evaluate these, I don't think they should exist in an event designed with as low of a barrier of entry as possible. If your opponent is racist, sexist, ableist, etc. I will intervene as necessary." -Jacqueline Wei

1. Exercise PF style judgment. Collapse, full frontline in second rebuttal, and extend defense in summary. DO tell me explicitly to call for evidence and signpost clearly. DON'T tag team speeches, flex prep, or spread. Speaker points are based on the above mentioned strategy but also decorum.

2. Present a cohesive narrative. Speeches throughout the round should mirror each other and have a strong central idea. As such, developed arguments and smart analytics always trump blips. I find myself not voting for arguments with little work done on them when they don't fit a story. By the end of the round, each argument should have extended evidence with a claim, warrant, and impact.

3. Weighing decides rounds. Weighing and meta-weighing should be done early and throughout the round, but with quality over quantity. This means implicating your weighing to engage with your opponent's arguments. I encourage you to create a lens to view the round by weighing turns, evidence, and case arguments in novel ways.

Ask any questions to me if necessary (feel free to contact me at nilaygandhi@utexas.edu) , and remember to enjoy each round!

Saikumar Gantla Carmel Valley Independent 3 rounds

Jay Garg Newton South High School 4 rounds

Pushkal Garg Newton South High School 3 rounds

Raja Ghosh West Windsor Plainsboro South 3 rounds

Johnathon Giesecke Belvidere North High School 1 rounds

Last changed on Sat February 3, 2024 at 9:11 AM CST

This is my first time judging this year; please be clear, sign-post, and make sure you explain to me why you win and your opponent should not in summary and final focus.

Email: jgiesecke10@gmail.com (put me on the email chain)

My fundamental principles:.

It’s not an argument without a warrant.
'Clarity of Impact' weighing isn't real.
‘Probability weighing also isn’t real
Calling for un-indicted cards is judge intervention.
Judge intervention is usually bad.

view of a PF round:

Front lining in the second rebuttal makes the round easier for everyone — including me.
Offense is conceded if it’s dropped in the proceeding speech — a blippy extension or the absence of weighing is a waste of the concession.
Overviews should engage/interact with the case it’s being applied to.
Warrant/evidence comparison is the crux of an effective rebuttal.
Offense must be in summary and Final Focus.
If they don’t frontline your defense, you can extend it from first rebuttal to first Final Focus.
You MUST answer turns in the second rebuttal or first summary.
Telling me you outweigh on scope isn’t really weighing, you need to tell my WHY you outweigh on scope or whatever.
Comparative weighing is the crux of a good summary and final focus and good comparative weighing is the easiest way win.

Judging style:

I don’t evaluate new weighing in second Final Focus.
weighing needs to be consistent in summary and final focus
It may look like I'm not paying attention to crossfire; it's because I'm not.
Turns that aren't extended in the first summary that ends up in the first final focus become defense
Miscellaneous Stuff

Flip the coin as soon as both teams are there
Have preflows ready
open cross is fine
Flex prep is fine
K’s fine but can only be read in the second case or first rebuttal.
I will NOT evaluate disclosure theory
I don't care where you speak from
I don't care what you wear

Jonah Goldman Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Wed April 14, 2021 at 10:19 AM EST

Email for chain/questions: jonahlg20@gmail.com - if we can skip GCX and start the round asap, +0.5 to everyone. I have almost never seen anything important happen in GCX, and it probably shouldnt exist

i am flow. I will vote on the flow. I did HS PF and now college parli. run w/e you want but just don't be a dick. I have some experience with theory/Ks, but prob not enough for you to feel comfortable running them in front of me unless they are pretty intuitive (disclo, CWs, etc).

ANALYTICS ARE GOOD, PLEASE DO THEM. I WILL VALUE A VERY SMART ANALYTIC/LOGICAL RESPONSE AS MUCH AS I VALUE SOMETHING THAT IS CARDED WHEN THE WARRANT OF THE CARD IS NOT DEEPLY EXPLAINED. While I am tech > truth, I still need to hear the warrant behind the cards, and am receptive to the opposing teams calling out logical gaps in link chains. If you are reading a prepout on someone but cannot explain why your responses are true, I have a high propensity to drop your response, even if it might be dropped.

(stolen meme)

At a minimum, frontline turns in 2nd rebuttal, and please collapse early for cleaner rounds.

If I need to presume for some reason because there is literally nothing for me to vote on, I will presume to the 1st speaking team, not neg. If the reason isn't obvious, feel free to ask me why.

Ask me before the round about any other prefs or about APDA debate in college after round. If u want more feedback you can FB message me or just ask me after round.

Speaks - 3 ways to get a 30 from me:

1. Read a purely analytics rebuttal through FF. If you don't use cards and win, you certainly deserve it. I strongly encourage you to try this with me if you are confident, since I have a stronger propensity to pick up analytics than most TOC judges

2. If you win so hard on the flow you don't even need to do any weighing bc you are winning everything. If you think this is the case then just mention this part of the paradigm in ur speech and if ur right ill give 30.

3. win the round while using 0 prep time as a team - literally be ready to speak right after the preceding person (obviously does not apply if you used 0 prep then lost lol)

I will give speaks based on who debated the best, not who spoke the best. Basically whoever gave the round-winning analysis should be #1 always even if the other team spoke pretty

Haritha Gopinathan Acton-Boxborough Regional High School 4 rounds

Aakanksh Goskonda Ardrey Kell High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Thu June 13, 2024 at 8:23 AM EST

Ardrey Kell '20 | UNC Chapel Hill '24

Email: goskonda24a@ad.unc.edu

Contact me if you have any questions with the email above

***Note for online rounds: Online debates are really weird and the possibility of someone's internet cutting out or their audio lagging is really high. In order to keep the round going smoothly, I strongly suggest that you send over speech docs for each speech and disclose your cases either on the wiki or putting it on the email chain. That way even if there is a technical issue during a speech we don't have to backtrack.

General

I was the captain of the Ardrey Kell High School Public Forum team. I competed in PF for 4 years and had some decent success on circuit.

Speed wasn't an issue as a debater but judging is a whole different story, so slow down just a little bit, especially if it's a new topic. I'm fine with spreading as long as you provide speech docs (otherwise I won't flow).

Provide warrants for everything you read. Explain why something happens, instead of just claiming that it happens.

Signpost signpost signpost!

Flow stuff

-Debate is a game. I am tech>truth and will flow any argument, as long as you articulate them well and your link chains actually make sense.

-I like framework debates, but in order to win off of framework you need to extend it in every speech of the round. If no framework is given, I default cost-benefit.

-No new offensive overviews in second rebuttal. Second Rebuttal should frontline turns (you can kick out of them strategically, but don't bs). Weighing in rebuttal is lit.

-If an argument is conceded, it becomes 100% true.

-Summary and final focus have to be consistent. You can re-explain the warrants/links already extended in summary, but there should be no new warrants/impacts that are key to the round in FF. 1st FF can do a little bit extra weighing and new backlines to responses made in 2nd summary given that the first speaking team has a disadvantage in the round but no new link extensions that weren't in summary.

-My favorite protein is weigh protein (if you don't understand you're either gonna lose the round or you spend time prepping for debate so much that you don't have time to go to the gym)

-If you don't extend a link in summary, it's game over for you. Link extensions should have uniqueness, link, internal link, and impact. Weighing should also be extended in every speech. You can't link in with weighing if you're not winning your link.

-Extending something doesn't mean saying "extend the Smith evidence that goes conceded". Extend what the evidence says as well as the warranting/implication

-Summary doesnt have to extend conceded defense unless it's turns or TD. Turns without warranting and implications aren't turns at all so I'm not gonna evaluate them if you don't flush them out.

-2nd FF can't have any new link ins or weighing. Extend it from summary

At the end of the day, I will vote off of the most important argument in the round. If it is well-articulated and weighed, chances are you probably won it.

Progressive Argumentation

I'm going to be honest here. I understand and support the fact that progressive argumentation is key for checking back abuse of norms and create inclusivity in the debate sphere. However, I ran substance for most of my career and I am not an expert at progressive argumentation. That being said, I will evaluate theory and some basic level Ks if they are really really well explained. My threshold for evaluating progressive args is high so the simpler your arguments are, the better. I'd still much rather judge a normal substance debate, but if there is a violation that you absolutely have the need to call out, then go for it. Don't run frivolous arguments.

-CIs>reasonability

-I slightly lean to no RVIs but I'm pretty taboo about it

-No K-affs, Plans/CPs, tricks, etc (I have no idea what these are)

Miscellaneous

-I'm not going to call for cards after round unless you make an effort to indict one and I am told to call for it.

-I will be flowing the entire round except for crossfire, so if something important in cross pops up, I'm not going to consider it unless it's mentioned in speech.

-If you are racist, xenophobic, sexist, classist, homophobic, ableist, or show any other kind of discrimination you will be dropped automatically with the lowest speaks possible.

-You can paraphrase your cards as long as the content is what it actually says. If you do get caught lying about your cards, you will get an L with really low speaks

-Any Weeknd or Drake reference = 30 speaks

At the end of the day, whether you're on the bid round or you're riding the bubble, make sure you have fun. I get bored very easily debating or judging so make the round entertaining and light hearted. If you're funny, I'll bump your speaks and will like you but don't force it or come off as rude.

If you have any questions that I may not have answered in this paradigm, you can contact me using the info I put at the top.

Good luck!

Sanjay Gospodinov Georgetown Preparatory School 3 rounds None

Camilla Green Stuyvesant High School 5 rounds

Andrew Griffin Hawken 6 rounds

Last changed on Wed February 9, 2022 at 7:51 PM EST

I did 4 years of congress and a little bit of extemp at Hawken and debated a lot nationally. I am a 2018 grad. I was pretty meh(made TOC and nats senior year and some out rounds at circuit tournaments). I'm a Senior econ major with math and public policy minors at Carleton College. I was very tech for a congress debater and I judge whatever debate event Hawken needs judges for so I got some experience in everything (Including Middle School Big Questions, it was epic) but policy.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE TOPIC IS BUT I PROBABLY KNOW SOMETHING ABOUT IT BECAUSE I CASUALLY READ NYT AND RANDOM ECON PAPERS.

Email: griffina2@carleton.edu

PF:

TLDR: I was not bad at national circuit debate. I'm a lay judge who tries to vote off the flow. PLEASE WEIGH AND SIGNPOST. Have fun. Risk-taking will be rewarded. Good nuanced argumentation. Got any questions please ask before the round starts

If you have had any Hawken judges before who are either coaches or ex-competitors I probably have a pretty similar paradigm and will vote similarly. Some of these I have taken straight from them.

1. I'm not that great at flowing. Sorry, I didn't do PF and I have slow handwriting. That being said I do flow to the best of my ability and I vote based on the flow I have created throughout the round. I am fine with speed but please NO SPREADING. I can understand and follow it but my slow handwriting might mean that it might not be super detailed on my flow. You can go just as fast as you want but just understand that when I look back at flows in the end I might miss some of the intricacies. So slower is probably better and I tend to believe that quality is better than quantity. .Because of this, I don't really flow card names (sorry I think your analysis is more important) so if I ask what a name is a reference too after a speech this me just trying to clarify and make sure the round stays fair. Calling the card by the stat/number/analysis is just a little easier for me to follow but not as efficient for yall.

2. In crossfire, if you say something that seems important or tell me that you will mention it in a later speech I will flow it. Otherwise, I will just sit and listen.

3. The best way to convince me to vote for you is by telling the most convincing arguments. I think the best tech arguments are the ones that are also true. I really enjoy unique and nuanced arguments and would encourage teams to run things that are not just stock. However, do not be ridiculous with what you run. It must be based in reality, this is not a policy where everything leads to nuke war. I would encourage arguments that bitcoin ruins the environment, we should fear the rocketship lobby because they will weaken regulation or other arguments that are kinda funky, out there, and super cool. Long link chains are fine but just keep it real.

4. Please Weigh. if you didn't you probably lost and I thought what the other team said was more important.

5. Theory and Ks are fine but I think disclosure theory is a bit silly so I probably won't vote for it. I did congress so beware that I have little experience with theory so explain it to me like you would a novice and tell me how to weigh it. Ultimately it is up to you to decide what arguments to run and not my job as a judge to decide if you can run it. That being said I don't have a lot of experience with progressive debate and I think we are here to debate the resolution, not the rules of debate, so I would prefer normal debate.

6. Humor, wit, puns, making me laugh, banter, and pop culture references are encouraged and will earn you extra speaks. Debate is for a bunch of nerds but let's not be super uptight and have a good time as you do it. Have some flair

7. Please Signpost because it really helps me flow. Tell me where on my flow the response should go like on the second warrant, or the link to the impact, or this piece of evidence, ETC. Also, number your responses or tell me how many you are going to make in a particular spot, I think it helps everyone keep track of where you are. In late speeches tell me where to vote, how to vote, and why to vote there and I will follow you. Makes my decision super easy. Literally say "you vote here on____ for ____ because" or " do not vote here on ___ for ___ because".

8. Logic > evidence. I am under the belief that you can find a card for almost anything so the important part is the warranting and analysis. Anyone can just read cards. The challenge of debate is building a narrative and effectively communicating why the matter and why I should believe them. Tell me why cards are true. If you just card dump I probably won't vote you up. I will call for cards if you tell me to or if I find them important to my decision(I really should not have to do this, if I do the round is probably a mess). Since I should be on the email chain, I will try to read anything that gets sent through there.

9. Y'all know the topic better than I do so it's up to you what your frontline second rebuttal is. You know what the best responses are so frontline those first. I think turns tend to be pretty powerful so just generally frontlining those is a good idea, but if they are then spend your time somewhere else.

10. Anything in the final should be summary and most stuff from summary should be in rebuttal. No new response in final focus, that's pretty squirrely, especially in the second final. Adding new stuff in summary is fine if you didn't get to it in rebuttal or are frontlining responses in the second rebuttal but for the most part, it should be clarifying the round and weighing.

Congress:

TLDR: I was not bad at national circuit debate. Have fun. Risk-taking will be rewarded. Good nuanced argumentation. Got any questions please ask before the round starts

I did 4 years of congress at Hawken and debate a lot nationally. I was pretty meh. I'm a sophomore econ major with math and public policy minors at Carleton College.

1. Have fun and be yourself. Enjoy yourself I feel like oftentimes people take this event too seriously and its 20 miserable people sitting in a room. We all know what's that like and none of us want that to happen. At the end of the day when I am doing ranks, the people that are the most memorable will probably be towards the top. The best way to do that is to have some witty banter and make me laugh.

2. Argumentation > presentation. I don't care if you give the most eloquent speech of all time, if you don't add anything new, say anything relevant, or you don't make sense, then I will be bored and cranky. No one wants that. explain everything thoroughly, weigh, refute, no glaring holes, and make sure as a judge I am not asking myself a ton of questions when you finish speaking.

3. PLEASE WEIGH EVEN IF ITS A FIRST AFF. As an aspiring economist, I have learned the job of research is just to spit out the numbers. it is your job to tell me why they matter and what they mean.

4. Be risky and not stock. I hate rehash tell me something I don't know, please. My favorite argument of all time is bitcoin killing the environment. Spicy stuff like that will make you memorable but don't overdo it. Policyesque arguments about everything creating nuke is ridiculous. Be bold but believable.

Abhi Gupta College Prep 3 rounds

Deepak Gupta Lynbrook HS 3 rounds

Neelam Gupta Carmel Valley Independent 6 rounds

Suryakanth Gurudu BASIS Scottsdale High School 2 rounds

Isaac Gutierrez Flintridge Preparatory 3 rounds

Last changed on Mon June 13, 2022 at 5:20 AM PST

(Last Updated 6/10/21)

General (read in addition to specific event):

I debated 4 years of policy in high school. After graduating I participated in 3.5 years of American Parliamentary debate with the University of Massachusetts Amherst. I am currently the Public Forum Coach at Westridge School and Flintridge Preparatory.

I try to evaluate all arguments fairly. I have no preference between kritical or traditional style arguments. My only reservations when it comes to non-traditional arguments are when they are poorly executed. If you are running a K your link and framework should be clearly outlined. The same goes for theory.

I think the best debate happens when both teams fully grasp each other's contentions. If your opponent can't understand your contention the judge probably can't either. So be clear and transparent.

I also don't do any work on the flow for you. If you want me to vote or extend something tell me to do so and why.

I understand that debate can be competitive and get heated from time to time. That is no reason to be rude to your opponents. Just be respectful and enjoy the debate.

Policy/LD:

I'm definitely a more old school policy debater. I spent my policy career running policy affs, T, politics, and responding to Ks with framework. That being said, please don't alter your strategy heavily because of that. I understand the debate space changes so if you're a K team I'll consider your args just as much as I would consider a standard disad/cp combo or traditional aff. I just might be a bit slower grasping the thesis of your arg so be as clear as you can be.

I am not the biggest fan of conditionality or similar args, but if you feel they are particularly applicable in a round feel free to run them.

I am fine with speed, but it takes me a second to adjust to any given speaker, especially with online and different mics. So start off your speech below your max speed then work up to it over the next few seconds so I can adapt.

You can add me on the email chain (email at the bottom), but I won't evaluate any of it throughout the round as I believe that invites too much opportunity for judge intervention. If a point in the debate really comes down to who's ev is better then I will evaluate it post round before submitting my ballot. Throughout the round give me the warrant for why to prefer your ev.

PF:

I really don't have much patience with evidence exchange. You should have all your evidence cut into cards and easily accessible to send. If it is a matter of slower internet or tech limitations, or your opponent requested a large amount of ev that is fine. However, "looking" for a piece of evidence to send shouldn't take longer than 10-20 sec.

I won't doc you for it, but I'm against paraphrasing in PF. If your ev is solid there shouldn't be much of a difference from using a card vs paraphrasing, so read the card.

I can keep up, but I hate speed in PF. If you really want to spread you should be in policy or LD. PF is supposed to be accessible to everyone, spreading is a barrier to that in PF. Although spreading through a bunch of arguments and then collapsing to whichever the other team misses is a viable strategy I don't think it is substantial or productive debate. I won't drop you because of this, but if your opponents clearly can't keep up or understand I might doc a few speaker points.

I don't want to be on email chains. I feel that invites too many opportunities for judge intervention throughout a debate. Additionally, I don't want debaters going through the round under the assumption that I am reading through all the ev that is exchanged. If there are contradicting pieces of evidence give me the warrant for why to prefer your ev. If a point in the debate REALLY comes down to who's ev is better, then I will ask for the relevant cards post round before making my decision.

I do appreciate collapsing when appropriate, and starting your weighing earlier rather than later in a round.

Feel free to ask me any questions about my paradigm or preferences.

Email: isaacjgutierrez97@gmail.com

Alex Halkias Hire 4 rounds

Last changed on Sat September 12, 2020 at 11:34 AM EST

E-Mail: alexander.halkias@gmail.com for e-mail chains. PLEASE ADD ME!

Policy

Experience: 4 years of high school policy debate, 10 years judging high school policy debate

I am open to most positions, but I usually default to in round argumentation, analysis and clash over other factors that might occur in a debate. I generally have few biases about how to debate a round.

Even more so than in policy rounds, in critical debates solid evidence analysis and application is very important for me. For critical affirmatives, framework and topicality answers are still going to be necessary unless you can convince me completely of a different paradigm to vote in. For kritiks against these types of affirmatives, I think it's important to contextualize the philosophies and arguments in each in relation to the other side. Maybe even more than in policy v critical debates clash here is very important.

On the policy side of things, I love to see a good case debate, and think that evidence analysis(of both your own and your opponent's evidence) is of the utmost importance in these debates. I love a good discussion and comparison of impacts.

I'm also open to any counterplans, but solvency is important in making it a truly good argument for me.

Cross-X's importance, I think, is usually undervalued by most, and an effective use of CX time is very important. However, I believe this time is for the teams more than for the judges, and while I will listen, I will not flow. Tag team cross-ex is completely acceptable.

Speed is fine, but know that you must still be intelligible. If I can't flow due to mumbling/no separation of words, your speed isn't helping you any more. Card TAGS should be read at a slower pace to ease in flowing, but card TEXT needs to still be comprehensible as well.

Public Forum

Much of the above applies, however I am less familiar with different argument types and speech construction in PF and therefore don't have as much to say about that. Feel free to talk with your partner during the round, speed is fine as long as I can understand you, and be sure at the end of the round that you tell me WHY your team should win, not just why the other team should lose.

Samuel Hall Livingston High School 6 rounds

Brent Halliburton Potomac Debate Academy 6 rounds

Last changed on Thu May 26, 2022 at 9:30 AM EST

I am a parent judge, my son is a junior in high school. He did not write my paradigm.

And awayyyyyy we go!

TLDR: Tech > Truth, Line-by-Line good, Signposting good, writing my ballot good, progressive good.

I have found the best thing to do from an evidence sharing perspective is to put a link to a google doc in the chat that we can all edit and view. Please do this.

I self-identify as a progressive tabula rasa flow judge.

Tech > Truth. Underdeveloped or ridiculous arguments are hard to vote on (low bar for !truth).

Speed: I will clear you if I feel the need. I like a speech doc as much as anybody, but I feel like it is intellectual laziness on my part or poor speechifying on your part if I rely on it. I should be able to understand and flow what you are saying, right? But I do like to spell an author's name correctly when flowing citations.

Theory and T are fine. I am a bit out of touch with reasonableness vs. competing interps debates. I am a bit out of touch with modern CP theory, so make sure you are clear on your advocacy. I am familiar-ish with K but not up to speed on my Heidegger or whatever. You will need to make sure your argument is extremely clear. Frivolous theory or tricks seem easy to vote against, but you are welcome to try your luck.

I sometimes judge Novice and JV rounds. If I had to identify the thing I have enjoyed the least in these rounds, it would be the technical lack of proficiency most commonly expressed through the cliche “two ships passing in the night”. Good flowing leads to good line-by-line. Good line-by-line leads to a good story. Write my ballot for me. If any of this is unclear, make sure you ask before the round. If this is a novice round or JV, if you show me a good flow after the round, I will bump your speaks.

A common pre-round question I am asked is how I feel about tag-team CX. If your partner is about to give away the farm, by all means jump in. If you have a question prior to your speech that you just really need to ask, jump in. Otherwise, why not just let the appropriate people interact in the usual way? Do you enjoy CX that much? Also, I'm probably not listening.

This is an educational activity and I don't like a hostile environment. Let's keep it fun.

Public Forum:

Everything above applies. If it is in Final Focus, it was in Summary, right? People ask me if defense is sticky and while these terms of art are somewhat confusing to me, my response is that if you want to do stuff in the Final Focus, it should be in Summary, but you can extend dropped arguments very, very quickly. I don't need you to do this (common in PF) line-by-line, card-by-card extension in Summary. You can tell the story in Final Focus.

I expect, starting in Rebuttals, people to answer arguments in prior speeches. I know this makes the 2nd Rebuttal hard, but I believe in you and can think of no reasonable alternative. Happy to discuss.

I see people saying they will bump speaks if you read cards instead of paraphrasing. I am on the train: If you show me before the round that you are reading carded constructives, I will bump your speaks. Paraphrasing may have started as an attempt to increase persuasion, but I feel like it devolves to blippy args. I am considering transitioning to "paraphrase = lower speaks".

I find that with the volume of paraphrasing, people can blur through tags and authors. Please be articulate on the tag and author so I know what you want me to flow. In policy, I feel like I have the time they spend reading the card to write down the tag and author and the tag/citation/card model makes it easy to differentiate between tags and cards. PF seems to be somewhat sub-optimized for flowing by blurring the tag and content via paraphrase. I assume you want me to flow a tag and author if you go to the trouble to say something, but I probably can't write as fast as you read.

After judging several rounds at a recent tournament where I had a problem, let me say this: If your 1st constructive is paraphrased and has more than 20 citations, you are probably over paraphrasing and/or going too fast. I write down your citations. I have seen multiple instances where cases or arguments are so heavily paraphrased that there are two or more citations in a single sentence. I will not be able to write down your argument if you are expecting me to write down two arguments and two citations in a single sentence. And it is probably abusive to the other team. This is a real opinion. If you think this is an unfair standard, I would love to discuss.

Progressive PF is fine.

And I just want to say, for whoever happens to be reading this: It's strange to me that a judge would say that they don't like theory or progressive arguments. I understand if you say you have a bias against tricks, but if people can't feel comfortable making an argument about abuse in round in front of you, that opens the door for off-topic advocacy. Why would we want that? Policy debaters didn't have theory day one, theory evolved to check abuse. I get that people may not have experience with theory, but close-mindedness and a pre-conceived idea of what is acceptable seems super meh and interventionist. Just putting it out there as a check against all the judges that try to actively discourage theory, which I dislike. Happy to advocate for theory before or after round if people want to shoot the breeze.

I have more opinions, just ask.

Harris Hameed Westborough High School 4 rounds

Jeff Hannan Evanston Twp High School 3 rounds

Last changed on Sat October 30, 2021 at 12:00 PM UTC

I am the current director of speech and debate at the Milwaukee School of Languages.

From 1997-2004, I competed in LD, Congress, Policy, and most speech events in high school and college. Since then, I have coached all events at one time or another.

I will not vote for debaters who physically threaten or verbally abuse their partners or opponents; if you offend your opponent in some way, an authentic apology and reckoning is generally your best option to continue the round.

I would like to be on the email chain (hannanja@milwaukee.k12.wi.us), but only for reference after the round; I will not read along as a substitute for clarity. I will say clear twice if I can't understand you because of enunciation, but then you're probably on your own. If you spread theory blocks/underviews, I can't understand you and I won't be able to flow it.

I will make decisions that are good if:

you explain things to me; you establish a clear standard, role of the ballot, value, or other mechanism and explain to me how I can use that to make my decision; you compare or weigh offense and explain how it is linked to a standard.

I will make decisions that are bad if:

you expect me to do work for you on the flow or among your arguments; you assume I know more than I do.

I will listen to and attempt to flow any speed, but I strongly believe that the faster you go, the less I or any judge will understand. I am reading every week to better understand all sorts of critical theory, but dense stuff delivered at speed is going to be tough for me; ditto for theory/underview/analytic blocks that are a series of two-sentence claims delivered in three second bursts.

I probably will not vote for theory without a clearly explained abuse/harm story and an indication of how the ballot will remedy or prevent that abuse/harm.

I don't think I have any other ideological preferences for argument types or structure; within the constraints listed above, do whatever you'd like and explain to me why it merits my ballot.

PF: if it's in the final focus, it needs to have been in the summary. A complete extension has a link and an impact, preferably with evidence for each. I prefer to make decisions based on clean flow-work; lacking a clean story on the flow, I will occasionally call for evidence to help resolve an issue; I often find myself assessing the 'risk of offense' at the end of rounds based on flow work, evidence quality, consistency of the story between summary and final focus, and the degree of opposition the argument received.

Congress: I care deeply about inclusion and equity, especially in moments where students can have direct influence on which voices are heard. Please work to include everyone in all aspects of procedure and debate.

Any other specifics, please ask.

Speaker Points: I find that a lot of paradigms have speaker point sections that sound like "30 - you're going to win the tournament", and I think that's not helpful (it doesn't really tell the student how to obtain better speaker points) and maybe also actively bad (if you can only get a 30 if the judge thinks you can win the tournament, it means debaters need rep to earn speaker points). So I will try to give you some specific criteria to keep in mind for speaker points in front of me; I'll also probably adjust these criteria and speaker point values over time, and for tournaments that have different speaker point norms.

A top-level speaker (29.5-30) will: demonstrate a strong commitment to explanation, argument comparison, and persuasion; enunciate clearly and consistently; treat their opponent with respect and empathy.

A second-tier speaker (29-29.5) will enunciate clearly and treat their opponent with respect; they will explain arguments well, but generally not do a superior job of comparing/weighing arguments or persuading me of their position's value or truth.

A third-tier speaker (28.5-29) will enunciate clearly and treat their opponent with respect; they will explain their arguments, but may not compare arguments or make an attempt to persuade me.

A fourth-tier speaker (28-28.5) will treat their opponent with respect but may have some clarity issues; they will explain their arguments but could do a better job with the explanation.

A fifth-tier speaker (27.5-28) will not treat their opponent with respect (they may be condescending, or mean, or dismissive, etc) and/or may have clarity issues; they typically do not explain their arguments.

Below a 27.5 would require a confluence of the issues described above.

Ben Hanson The Potomac School 6 rounds

Rachael Harris North Allegheny 6 rounds

Last changed on Sun January 21, 2024 at 5:36 PM EST

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! :)

Mac Hays Wayland High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Sun October 13, 2024 at 3:22 AM EST

Hi! I'm Mac Hays (he/him pronouns)! I did 4 years of PF at Durham Academy. I have spent 4 years coaching PF on the local and national circuit. I have just finished debating APDA at Brown. After graduating, I will be coaching PF and Policy debate in Taiwan on a Fulbright. I just started a YouTube channel with PF debate lectures (https://www.youtube.com/@machays) - check it out if you're curious to know how I think. Debate however is most fun for you without being exclusive.

Disclaimers:

* If you are at the Taiwan Debate Tournament and your first language is English, do NOT a) read arguments faster than conversational pace or b) speak in a way that ignores English grammar structure when you are debating against a team for whom English is a foreign language. I will tank your speaks and, if it's really excessive, will feel fine just dropping you. Additionally, please offer your opponents a speech doc in addition to the above and answer any clarification questions in good faith.

* TLDR tabula rasa, warrant, signpost, extend, weigh, ballot directive language makes me happy, metaweighing ok, framing ok (I default "pure" util otherwise), theory ok, speed ok (don't be excessive), K ok, no tricks, be nice and reasonable, have fun, ask me questions about how I judge before round if you want more clarity on any specifics. Ideally you shouldn't run theory unless you're certain your opponents can engage.

* Nats probably isn’t the place for theory/Ks unless the violation is egregious and your opponents can clearly engage. Don’t run whack stuff for a free win

* Every speech post constructive must answer all content in the speech before it. Implications: No new frontlines past 2nd rebuttal/1st summary (defense isn't sticky, but that doesn't mean that 1st summary must extend defense on contentions that 2nd rebuttal just didn't frontline), any new indicts must be read in the speech immediately after the evidence is introduced, etc. New responses to new implications = ok. New responses to old weighing = not ok.

* How I vote: I look for the strongest impact and then determine which team has the strongest link into it as a default. See my weighing section for more details. If you don't want me to do this, tell me why with warranting.

* Add me to the chain: colin_hays@alumni.brown.edu.

* The entirety of my paradigm can be considered "how I default in the absence of theoretical warrants" - that is, if you see debate differently than I do, then make arguments as to why that's how I should judge, and, if you win them, I'll go with it. (exceptions are -isms, safety violations, speech times and the like, reasonability specifics are in the doc below).

Have fun!

My paradigm got unreasonably long so I put it in a doc, read it if you want more clarity on specifics:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lFX0Wja9W_h1xC1YBrUl8XZZzRenxOGOx7LCKd9liRU/edit

Lee Hayslip Mountain Brook High School 5 rounds

Last changed on Sat September 18, 2021 at 4:35 AM CST

Experience:

Mountain Brook High School Debate (2003-2007)

Mountain Brook Lincoln/Douglass & Policy Debater (2003-2006)

Mountain Brook Public Forum Debater (2006-2007)

As a judge, I want to see debaters that:

Collapse: No one wants to evaluate 100 different arguments at the end of the round. In your closing, pick the arguments that carry the most weight and tell me why you won them.

Weigh Arguments: Tell me what arguments matter the most and why they do. Do this early, and do this often.

Speak Clearly: I don't have a hard limit on speed, but this isn't Policy. If I can't follow, I will say the word "clear" to help you get to where I can flow your round properly. I will not deduct points for calling out "clear," but if I can't follow your argument that can obviously have an impact on the ballot.

Signpost: Before time starts, give us an idea of where you'll be going during your argument. It doesn't have to be all-encompassing or set in stone, but a general idea is very helpful.

Show Respect: Be respectful, not only to me but to your opponent as well. This begins before the first argument goes out, we're here to develop and enjoy ourselves- don't ruin it by being hateful.

Miscellaneous:

Dates: Dates matter with evidence. The first time you use a piece of evidence, drop the date in there for everyone's benefit. If your opponent uses a piece of evidence and doesn't say the date, don't be afraid to ask for it.

Prepare: Be prepared and ready to go. Use the bathroom, preflow, and do whatever else you need to before I get there!

CX: I'm willing to go a little over time in order to allow for an answer. For example: If Aff asks Neg a question with 3 seconds left, I'll allow Neg to give an answer before we call it.

Kritik/Counterplan/Theory: Please do it well if you are going to run it. It is always uncomfortable when someone runs a shell argument that they don't really understand and then falls apart halfway through!

If you need me to clarify any of these paradigms and preferences, or you have a question that I have not addressed, please ask; I want you to know what to expect and feel comfortable going into the round!

Any Questions, feel free to email me- Hayslip@gmail.com

Parag Hegday Carmel Valley Independent 6 rounds

Holton Hennrich Park City 6 rounds

Julie Herman Los Altos High School 3 rounds

Last changed on Tue June 18, 2024 at 1:01 AM PST

Most important items if you have limited reading time:

PREF CHEAT SHEET (what I am a good judge for)--strategy-focused case debate, legitimated theory/topicality, resolutional/tightly linked Ks > project Ks > rhetoric-focused case debate > friv theory > other Ks not mentioned >>> the policy K shell you found on the wiki and didn't adapt to your event > phil > tricks

IN-PERSON POST-COVID: I live with people who are vulnerable to Covid-19. I do wish people would be respectful of that, but ya know. You do you.

ONLINE DEBATE: My internet quality has trouble with spreading, so if I'm adjudicating you at an online tournament and you plan to spread, please make sure we work out a signal so I can let you know if you're cutting out. NSDA Campus stability is usually slightly better than Zoom stability. You probably won't see me on Zoom because that consistently causes my audio to cut out.

Be good to each other (but you don't need to shake my hand or use speech time to thank me--I'm here because I want to be).

I will never, ever answer any variations on the question, "Do you have any preferences we should know about?" right before round, because I want the tournament to run on time, so be specific with what you want to know if something is missing here.

PREP THEFT: I hate it so much. If it takes you >30 sec to find a piece of evidence, I'm starting your prep timer. Share speech docs before the round. Reading someone's evidence AND any time you take to ask questions about it (not including time they use to answer) counts as prep. If you take more than your allotted prep time, I will decrease your speaks by one point for every 10 seconds until I get to the tournament points floor, after which you will get the L. No LD or PF round should take over 60 minutes.

***

Background

I'm currently DOF for the MVLA school district (2015-present) and Parli Director at Nueva (2023-present). My role at this point is predominantly administrative, and most of my direct coaching interactions are with novice, elementary, and middle school students, so it takes a few months for new metas and terminologies to get to me in non-parli events. PF/LD should assume I have limited contact with the topic even if it's late in the cycle. I have eight years of personal competition experience in CHSSA parliamentary debate and impromptu speaking in high school and NPDA in college, albeit for relatively casual/non-circuit teams. My own high school experience was at a small school, so I tend to be sympathetic to arguments about resource-based exclusion. A current student asked me if I was a progressive or traditional debater in high school, which wasn't vocab on my radar at that time (or, honestly, a split that really existed in HS parli in those years). I did definitively come up in the time when "This House would not go gently into that good night" was a totally normal, one-in-every-four-rounds kind of resolution. Do with that what you will.

Approach to judging

-The framework and how it is leveraged to include/exclude impacts is absolutely the most important part of the round.

-It's impossible to be a true "blank slate" judge. I will never add arguments to the flow for you or throw out arguments that I don’t like, but I do have a low tolerance for buying into blatant falsehoods, and I fully acknowledge that everyone has different, somewhat arbitrary thresholds for "buying" certain arguments. I tend to be skeptical of generic K solvency/insufficiently unique Ks.

-My personal experience with circuit LD, circuit policy, Congress, and interp speech events is minimal.

-I am emphatically NOT a games/tricks/whatever-we're-calling-it-these-days judge. Debate is an educational activity that takes place in a communal context, not a game that can be separated from sociocultural influences. Students who have public speaking abilities have unique responsibilities that constrain how they should and should not argue. I will not hesitate to penalize speaker points for rhetoric that reifies oppressive ideologies.

Speaker point ranges

Sorry, I am the exact opposite of a points fairy. I will do my best to follow point floors and ceilings issued by each tournament. 30s are reserved for a speech that is literally the best one I have seen to date. Anything above a 29 is extremely rare. I will strongly advocate to tab to allow me to go below the tournament point floor in cases of overt cruelty, physical aggression, or extremely disrespectful address toward anyone in the round.

Argument preferences

Evaluation order/methods: These are defaults. If I am presented with a different framework for assessment by either team, I will use that framework instead. In cases of a “tie” or total wash, I vote neg unless there is a textual neg advocacy flowed through, in which case I vote aff. I vote on prefiat before postfiat, with the order being K theory/framework questions, pre-fiat K implications, other theory (T, etc), post-fiat. I default to net benefits both prefiat and postfiat. I generally assume the judge is allowed to evaluate anything that happens in the round as part of the decision, which sometimes includes rhetorical artifacts about out-of-round behavior. Evaluation skews are probably a wash in a round where more than one is presented, and I assume I can evaluate the round better than a coinflip in the majority of cases.

Impacts: Have them. Terminalize them. Weigh them. I assume that death and dehumanization are the only truly terminal impacts unless you tell me otherwise. "Economy goes up" is meaningless to me without elaboration as to how it impacts actual people.

Counterplans: Pretty down for whatever here. If you want to have a solid plan/CP debate in LD or PF, far be it from me to stop you. Plan/CP debate is just a method of framing, and if we all agree to do it that way and understand the implications, it's fine.

Theory/Topicality: You need to format your theory shells in a manner that gives me a way to vote on them (ie, they possess some kind of pre- or post-fiat impact). I will listen to any kind of theory argument, but I genuinely don't enjoy theory as a strategic tool. I err neg on theory (or rather, I err toward voting to maintain my sense of "real-world" fairness/education). I will vote on RVIs in cases of genuine critical turns on theory where the PMR collapses to the turn or cases of clearly demonstrated time skew (not the possibility of skew).

Kritiks/"Progressive" Argumentation: I have a lot of feelings, so here's the rapid-fire/bullet-point version: I don't buy into the idea that Ks are inherently elitist, but I think they can be read/performed in elitist ways. I strongly believe in the K as a tool of resistance and much less so as a purely strategic choice when not tightly linked to the resolution or a specific in-round act by the opposing team. I am open to most Ks as long as they are clearly linked and/or disclosed within the first 2-3 minutes of prep. Affirmatives have a higher burden for linking to the resolution, or clearly disclosing if not. If you're not in policy, you probably shouldn't just be reading policy files. Write Ks that fit the norms of your event. If you want to read them in front of me, you shouldn’t just drop names of cards, as I am not conversant at a high level with most of the lit. Please don’t use your K to troll. Please do signpost your K. On framework, I err toward evaluating prefiat arguments first but am willing to weigh discursive implications of postfiat arguments against them. The framework debate is so underrated. If you are facing a K in front of me, you need to put in a good-faith effort to engage with it. Truly I will give you a ton of credit for a cautious and thorough line-by-line even if you don't know all that much about K structural elements. Ks that weaponize identities of students in the round and ask me to use the ballot to endorse some personal narrative or element of your identity, in my in-round and judging experience, have been 15% liberatory and 85% deeply upsetting for everyone in the round. Please don't feel compelled to out yourself to get my vote. Finally, I am pretty sure it's only possible for me to performatively embrace/reject something once, so if your alt is straight "vote to reject/embrace X," you're going to need some arguments about what repeatedly embracing/rejecting does for me. I have seen VERY few alts that don't boil down to "vote to reject/embrace X."

"New" Arguments: Anything that could count as a block/position/contention, in addition to evidence (examples, analytics, analogies, cites) not previously articulated will be considered "new" if they come out in the last speech for either side UNLESS they are made in response to a clear line of clash that has continued throughout the round (or, in parli, a new argument out of the block). I'll consider shadow extensions from the constructives that were not extended or contended in intervening speeches new as well. The only exception to this rule is for the 2N in LD, which I give substantial leeway to make points that would otherwise be considered "new." I will generally protect against new arguments to the best of my ability, but call the POI if the round is fast/complex. Voters, crystallization, impact calculus and framing are fine.

Presentation preferences

Formatting: I will follow any method of formatting as long as it is signposted, but I am most conversant with advantage/disadvantage uniqueness/link/impact format. Paragraph theory is both confusing to your opponent AND to me. Please include some kind of framing or weighing mechanism in the first speech and impact calculus, comparative weighing, or some kind of crystallization/voters in the final speeches, as that is the cleanest way for me to make a decision on the flow.

Extensions: I do like for you to strategically extend points you want to go for that the opponent has dropped. Especially in partner events, this is a good way to telegraph that you and your partner are strategically and narratively aligned. Restating your original point is not a response to a rebuttal and won't be treated as an answer unless you explain how the extension specifically interacts with the opponent's response. The point will be considered dropped if you don't engage with the substance of the counterargument.

Tag-teaming: It's fine but I won’t flow anything your partner says during your speech--you will need to fully repeat it. If it happens repeatedly, especially in a way that interrupts the flow of the speech, it may impact the speaker points of the current speaker.

Questions/Cross-ex: I will stop flowing, but CX is binding. I stop time for Points of Order (and NPDL - Points of Clarification) in parli, and you must take them unless tournament rules explicitly forbid them. Don't let them take more than 30 seconds total. I really don't enjoy when Parli debaters default to yelling "POI" without trying to get the speaker's attention in a less disruptive way first and will probably dock speaker points about it.

Speed: I tolerate spreading but don't love it. If your opponent has a high level of difficulty with your speed and makes the impacted argument that you are excluding them, I will be open to voting on that. If I cannot follow your speed, I will stop writing and put my pen down (or stop typing) and stare at you really awkwardly. I drop off precipitously in my flowing functionality above the 300 wpm zone (in person--online, you should go slower to account for internet cutouts).

Speech Docs/Card Calling: Conceptually they make me tired, but I generally want to be on chains because I think debaters sharing docs with each other increases the likelihood of them trying to leverage extremely specific case references. If you're in the type of round where evidence needs to be shared, I prefer you share all of it prior to the round beginning so we can waste as little time as possible between speeches. If I didn't hear something in the round/it confused me enough that I need to read the card, you probably didn't do a good enough job talking about it or selling it to me to deserve the win, but I'll call for cards if everyone collapses to main points that hinge on me reading them. If someone makes a claim of card misuse/misrepresentation, I'll ask for the card/speech doc as warranted by the situation and then escalate to the tournament officials if needed.

Miscellaneous: If your opponent asks for a written text of your plan/CP/K thesis/theory interp, you are expected to provide it as expeditiously as possible (e.g. in partner formats, your partner should write it down and pass it while you continue talking).

Alex Holguin North Broward Preparatory School 3 rounds

Last changed on Tue April 2, 2024 at 1:00 PM PST

It's been quite awhile since I judged debate consistently, and my beliefs on the pedagogical nature of the activity have shifted somewhat since working in two graduate programs for communication studies. As such, I'll speak a little to this shift, and end with a few thoughts on debate strategy.

First and foremost, I am a Christian person: God is real, good, and cares about you deeply - as illustrated and continually affirmed through the personhood of Jesus Christ and the historical and mystical tradition of the holy ancient Orthodox Church. I attend, volunteer through, and worship at an Antiochian Eastern Orthodox Christian mission parish. Joy is not the same as happiness; quiet is not the same as silence; instruction/criticism is not the same as cynicism; Wisdom is not the same as knowledge. The existential dimension of approaching life recognizes that inter-subjective prescriptions of meaning are, ultimately, meaningless - but affirming creation in its relationship with/to God is the only true way of knowing love, beauty, value, purpose, ethics, truth, and meaning. How one communicates reveals an act of becoming: your words and actions form you as much as they attempt to inform others; they can make you more Christ-like, or they cannot. Meeting Wisdom, in all Her glory, is the only true value of debate. Don't debate about things that can't make you more wise, loving, or good.

I'm an indigneous/latino person (Incan) from Long Island that has spent over a decade trying to get back to serving my people. We've all lost people along the way. The colonizer's entire system of power in the West has such a vicegrip on the hearts and minds of the masses that if your soul is not anchored in the ancient ways of adhering to the Holy Spirit - it's easy to slip and lose it. This fantasy of a utilitarian individualism sears itself into the flesh of the West and can only end in destruction. As an indigenous Orthodox Christian, I am interested in the true liberation of all people as expressed through spiritual/material action from the chains that have been cast over our hands, minds, and spirit. Truly integrated approaches to trauma incorporate one's physical, mental/emotional, and spiritual condition - they can never be separated and always affect one another.

I study psychodynamic approaches to communication in Christianity. The psychoanalytic approach to language (along with its underlying, and fairly undeniable, religious current) reveals how and why we've formed attachments in relation to different points of trauma. Any liberatory approach can be trauma-informed or trauma-inducing, relative to their ability to truly love their neighbor as their self. Can there be such a thing as a self when the continual love and service of your neighbors (and hopefully, 'they you') has you constantly place the 'other' as a spiritual site of affirmation? The refusal to cease suffering is an important conclusion of both psychoanalytic and Christian existentialist logic - the ego is a site of comfortability, earthly pleasure, and nihilistic self-destruction. What do you do for your neighbor?

Lastly, a prayer:
"Oh, Lord Jesus Christ, may a blessing rain down over the people seeking truth, justice, and ways to love. May you keep them safe in travel, mind, and spirit. May they seek good things through their work. May they have clarity of the mind, joy within their bones, and feel safe within this space. May your everlasting love comfort us. May we all have courage to pursue what is right, even when it is not easy. May it all be to your glory. In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit; amen."

Strategy, in no particular order:

Everything you say in a speech must contain a claim/warrant/impact. If you are finishing a thought and can ask yourself “Why is this true,” and/or “Why is this important, given what everyone else is talking about in this round,” then you should keep talking. Stumbling across a complete line of thinking is better then racing through your many, incomplete, opinions.

There was once a debater that began what would become a >4minute final rebuttal on a Sunday morning with the line: "I'm going to end this early so that you can get to church on time!" The floor for that debater's speech was a 29, and they would later win the debate as well. I believe our Sunday morning's are better served worshipping in a Church setting, so anything done to shorten the debate time (even noting this as an argument) is immensely persuasive with an eternally more significant impact. Additionally, debaters willing to roll the dice on an argument that they believe wins them the debate (conceded double-turn; logical truism; moral obligation; etc.) and ending their speech early are also significantly improving their chances.

I will have nothing of the witchcraft that is the ritual encantation of tabula rasa that judges have engaged in in order to appear value-neutral. It is a lie - finding ways to establish relationships with people whom are simply and truly different from one another is a truer means of persuasion. Pretending like judges aren't people is not a good way of cultivating persuasion, education, or really good practice in general.

Debate is a rhetorical practice of character formation: we repeat and instill the virtues that we want to see in the world over and against other visions. I will vote for whomever makes me feel and/or presents a more logically coherent vision of the good life. Yes, you still need a link.

The exception: I will not tolerate trauma-inducing behavior, language, willfull ignorance, etc. I just don't have the energy in my old age to pretend to care like all actions and reactions are morally equivalent. Channel your rage into beating your opponents - considering the lengths that debaters will go to worship the idol of winning in this activity, they are more likely to suffer more greatly from an L.

Most outlandish claims get checked at some level, but spiritual matters are often presumed to be true by the louder voice in the room. I've heard some fairly wild accusations about ancient Christianity in general, and not tailored criticisms to specific Christian groups/people. It's irresponsible, and I have no problem ending a debate over it. Full criticisms on any topic are interesting and good; moralizing cliffnote half-researched soundbyte citations are not good.

This is not to say that you might, as some say, "know more than you know." I once heard a debater start an argument with "is there a reason that when you say 'x' it makes me feel 'y' or remember 'z'?" and then proceed to turn that feeling into a critical question of the presentation of the argument. What you say and how you say it are equally important.

If your neighbor or content require a warning based on the graphic nature of your speech, give it. Be willing to adjust or defend why you chose to speak a gratuitous thing into existence. Many things need to be discussed, but not everything needs to be discussed in a trauma-inducing way.

This is something that generally insecure individuals like to attempt a refutation at, but while we're here: "The standard for pizza is cooked in New York; everything else is a simulacrum."

If I can't understand you, then you didn't make an argument. I will not yell clear.

Regarding speaker points; I am impressionable. I have been known to give high speaker points, but I'm blissfully unaware of speaker point trends over the past 5 years and cannot (and likely will not) account for inflation. A perfectly average team is likely within the range of 28.5-28.6. If you are unenthusiastic, antagonistic, and lack in tonal variation, you may find your speaking points to be as undesirable as the speech's execution. I like speed, but you can be fast and have tonal variation: it's a public speaking event, after all.

Slow down on Plan Texts/Advocacies/CP Texts/Alternative Texts/Permutation Texts. If I can’t flow it, and the other team points it out, that’s on you.

The stock issues are a bit underrated. They are an opportunity to discuss what services/disservices debate. Inherency and Solvency (along with inherent and solvent versions of the AFF) are something with quite a bit of traction to it.

On topicality, proper: fairness is an internal link to people quitting, or, "the death of debate" - but a better and qualitatively similar internal link are ground claims. A persuasive argument I routinely heard was a short pairing of ground w/the TVA: basically that the AFF presented a K the NEG was going to use to test the resolution (defense), which lowers/eliminates their ability to practice advocating said critical rhetoric + hurts in-round education. Debating about debate is a unique K-AFF advantage (communal subject formation impact). Education is a terminal impact - death of debate is probably the other. Lastly, you need to impact why your education is good though: doesn't help much if you win teaching people is good if what you teach them is not good.

Captain America was right in Civil War.

I assume that people are engaging k-aff's more and more due to the fact that books, yano, exist - but if my belief in the literacy of this community over-stated, here's a simple problem for the appeal to abstract notions of ground loss vs. particular ones: the ceda finals round has (since the early 00's popularization of the K) historically featured a KvK debate with a signifcant quantity of NEG wins. PIK's of various metaphors due to their tropological connection to various other signifiers and impacts are creatively interesting to me. Black Framework debates have been interesting. There's a thin line between criticism and whining, and there's way too many intellectual traditions with relations to the topic to presume there's "no debate" to be had.

Everything you say, you defend, unless if you win a specific reason why you don't have to. Don't be afraid to defend good things.

Debaters would be magnifably more successful if they read communication theory as part of their solvency. Media Studies, Performance Studies, Rhetoric Studies, Affect Studies, etc. - it's all there and gives a reason why the ballot matters. A common explanation for why engaging in the plan's role-playing simulation is that repeated education helps us make similar decisions in the future, maybe - sounds like it, yano, non-uniques the advantages and/or a reason to vote.

Bad history makes history. If someone says something about something that's categorically false, and if you read a card in the other direction and then a card about how historical erasure/denial legitimizes all sorts of heinous atrocities - that's an easy DA flow that would either A) be a good debate, or B) be an easy debate.

I once found quite a bit of joy in being a part of a competitive dance crew. I bring this up because I want debaters that make the argument "debate bad" to know they have options. I have just never heard it communicated persuasively within the context of a competitive activity. Opacity for similar reasons. Also, with few exceptions, a critique of wanting the ballot is non-unique. Don't waste everyone's time.

Judges whom have influenced my thoughts on debate, at some point or another: Calum, Hagwood, Shree. Any non-contradictory aspects of their paradigms can be cross-applied here.

Impact Calculus is under-rated. Don't bring (more) links to an impact fight.

Strong Defense can win Debates.

Uniqueness wins most, if not all, debates.

I have been thinking about the Louisville Project of the mid-early 00's and their thoughts on debate (in general, clearly), and flowing (in particular). I'm undecided on this and have talked to different experts about it, but I am unconvinced that one has to flow the majority of the debate to both understand and properly give a good decision. Focus on what's important and extend your arguements properly and all shall be fine. If I do choose to flow, know that I flow straight down, always.

Creativity, comedy, and an intentional desire to engage form the best debates.

Prep ends when the email is sent/flash-drive leaves the computer/cards are otherwise compiled. I will enforce this: if you are using scholarly citations/cards then that evidence needs to be made available to your opponent before your speech begins. Preparing for your speech includes organizing the information you're about to read; if it's organized then it should be readily accessible for your opponents - traditionally by holding a stack of physical "evidence" as you give an order, but in a more contemporary context the virtual transmission of said evidence to the other team. If you've withheld evidence and the opposing team asks for it post-speech, your prep will begin and end when the e-mail is sent. You are not expected to send analytics/blocks - only cards/scholarly evidence. Team rules that you "can't share cases" are either not about evidence or are arbitrary in a world where you can share them minutes after reading but not during. Everyone be fair, share and, when in doubt, feel free to see "Shree Awsare" and/or his paradigm.

I'll ask if I want to be on the e-mail chain, but generally I do not.

Keep your own time.

Theory is a question of good/bad debate practices, is fine, and requires an interpretation, a violation or link, and an impact or reason to reject that practice.

Also, I've been teased about voting repetitively on either "the floating pik" or "the internal link turn." But I'm right: answer the argument or get in the robot, Shinji.

I am most interested in debates about/that involve Christianity, religion/spirituality, psychoanalysis, existential thoughts on language and/or reality, high theory, subject formation in the context of communication theory, and nuanced approaches to the topic.

I'll change my mind eventually, or the world will light on fire due to man's selfish desire to set everything good on fire. One of the two.

God bless~

Jesse Hu SpiderSmart Learning Center at Sugar Land 6 rounds

Joe Hu Richard Montgomery High School 3 rounds

Xin Hu SpiderSmart Learning Center at Sugar Land 6 rounds

Charles Huang Oakton Independent HS 6 rounds

Edison Huang Plano West Sr High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Sat October 24, 2020 at 4:15 PM EST

Updated for Septober 2020

small topic knowledge

I debated for Plano West HL. he/him

General:

If you're reading material that may upset people in the round, you should read a trigger or content warning (preferably this is done anonymously thru a Google form or smth). If you are sexist, racist, homophobic, ableist, transphobic, you will be dropped.

Tech > truth. If you are not paraphrasing and are reading cut cards in case, tell me, and I will bump your speaks by +0.2 This also applies if you've disclosed on NDCA or CircuitDebater. Good warranting, weighing, and extensions will make me want to vote for you. I care more about how you articulate your warrants than the specifics of your evidence. Exception is if you're misrepresenting. If you are conceding de-links or non-uniques to kick out of turns, they must be made in the speech after the original response was made. Please preflow before the round. Keep track of your own and each others' time, and please don't steal prep. ehuang02 [at] gmail.com for any other questions, or message me on Facebook. I'm sorry if I make a bad decision. I'll try not to. also available for coaching so hmu

Important stuff:

1. Any offense that you want me to evaluate needs to be in summary and final focus and extended properly. Make sure every part of the arg is extended. If you are missing links, warrants, or an impact, I will probably not vote on it. This goes for turns also. If you extend a turn without explicitly implicating what the impact is, I won't vote for it. You also ought to re-extend the link/impact that you are turning if your opponents aren't extending it also. Frontlines are not extensions.

2. With summary being 3 minutes, defense you're going for needs to be in every speech.

3. Second rebuttal must answer turns from first rebuttal. You might want to also frontline defense on an argument that you want to go for, but I won't require it. If you choose to read independent offense, my threshold for extensions on that argument will be higher.

4. The earlier you begin weighing, the more likely it is that I vote for you. Weighing must be comparative and warranted. Consistency in weighing mechanisms that your partner has already introduced is a good idea. I won't evaluate weighing in second FF unless it is the only weighing in the round. Meta weigh as necessary. If I am presented two competing weighing mechanisms without any meta weighing, I will probably intervene on the link level and vote for the team with better warranting.

5. Please don't spread. If you want to go a little fast, it's fine. If I'm unable to understand you, I'll probably set my pen down or clear you. If you are going to spread, please send a speech doc.

6. Organization in a speech is important. Please signpost. Slowing down on author names will also help me out.

7. If something important comes in crossfire, it has to be in a speech for me to evaluate it. Crossfire is binding.

8. Debate how you like, and I'll do my best to adapt to you. I personally prefer a line by line summary. If both teams agree and want me to judge a different way (e.g. a lay judge), I can go for it.

9. I'll try to intervene as little as possible. If defense is read against an argument, implicated, and conceded, I will flow it through even if it's not responsive. However, my threshold for frontlining unresponsive args will be low. If you tell me it isn't responsive, I won't evaluate it. I will intervene on unwarranted arguments. If an argument is introduced without a warrant, and the warrant isn't read until a later speech, I am fairly unlikely to evaluate it. If it's conceded, I'll try not to evaluate it unless it's the only offense in the round. I may also default if there is no clear offense. I will default team that lost the coin flip if you tell me to, but otherwise I'll default first speaking team.

10. If both teams are ok with it, I will disclose speaks/results at the end of the round. If you're in the bubble round (and you tell me), you'll get high speaks.

11. Make sure your evidence says what you say it does. If someone tells me to call for it, I will. If your evidence is misrepresented and significant in the round, I may drop you.

Progressive stuff:

1. I'm a bit comfortable with theory. You might want to ask me before the round if I'll be receptive to a certain shell. Extend all parts of the shell the same way you would extend a traditional arg.

2. Please don't run theory on novices.

3. I default no RVI/competing interps.

4. I'm not as comfortable with Ks, CPs or other progressive args. If you want to run these, you can, but you might need to work a little harder explaining it to me.

I enjoyed debating in high school. Try to have fun with it, and if there's anything I can do to help you enjoy it more, let me know. If there are still any questions, please ask me before the round begins. You can feel free to ask me about my decision.

Ash Hulewicz VDA - Vancouver Debate Academy 3 rounds

Last changed on Fri February 18, 2022 at 5:13 AM PST

-Paradigm for Ash-

updated February 18th, 2022

-Background-

As a competitive debater, judge and coach of 8 years, I have experience with:

British Parliamentary, Canadian Parliamentary, Australian Parliamentary, Public Forum, World Schools. I prioritize clear mechanization in case above all else. Explain your links/ mechs and give as much context as you can.

> Off Time Roadmaps are encouraged

> You do not need to make any kind of eye contact

> I may be asking for cards

> I do flow cross fire

>I prioritize substantive rebuttal over metadebate/ tech responses.

> I do not require friendly introductions

> Using your opponents name or speaker position is fine, avoid referring to your opponents in the third person (gendered pronouns are messy!). This includes me. You can refer to me as judge, chair, panel- but do not refer to me as Madame Speaker. I will not reduce any speaker points for this, I'm just not personally comfortable with this.

> I may give low point wins.

On Theory, I value theory to be limited to a K or a potential a priori lens, akin to a model or critique. Theory is a priori, but does not proceed the value of case. It merely is a lens for me to view and understand case, rebuttal, and the rest of the debate. Run theory alongside contentions with arguments.

On Prog, contentions should. a) identify structural inequality, b) explain how it manifests vis-a-vis the debated topic, and c) how policy change meaningfully deconstructs and combats structural inequality in this instance. To merely recognize it is not enough in providing solvency against pillars of institutuionalized violence. If conditions b and c are not met, I will not count this as a Prog case.

TLDR: I am not a tech judge. Spending the second half of a PF round using condensed referential metadebate on tech is a waste of time with me. Comparative analysis should use reference to substance and not floating PF norms as I do not adhere to or even agree to all of these 'norms'. Norms can be made up by students on the fly to their advantage on unsuspecting judges, or be norms in some schools and regions and not others. Debate is not fun when you want to make up rules on the fly in order to gatekeep wins/loses. Just convince me. That's what this sport is about- persuasion- not hidden rules. I don't adhere to any norm you could throw at me in speech. Most judges don't. Most judges in JV don't know what you are talking about. Debate is a worse sport for meta-debate/ tech prioritization.

Please avoid appealing to dogwhistling and overly euphemistic language that demonizes groups of people or other ideological camps.

I openly welcome argumenation or sourcing that may use Marxist critical theory, Libertarian, Socially Conservative, Neoliberal, logic and understandings. Please do not assume my politics or preferences simply based on my education, appearance, gender, or age and try to appeal to them. I find this practice uncomfortable.

GG!

I will deduct speaker points for:

> -.5 speak for: "Good morning/ Good afternoon/ Good evening" as an introduction.

Arul Iyyavoo Cambrian Academy 3 rounds

Chris Jayavendra Westborough High School 4 rounds

Sung Jun Jeon William Mason High School 3 rounds

Last changed on Sat October 19, 2024 at 5:01 AM EST

I debated PF for Centerville High School in Ohio for four years and coached the middle school team for three years. I recently graduated from Vanderbilt University where I also was the coach of the middle school debate program at the University School of Nashville.

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.jeon20@gmail.com. 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.

Judy Jiang VDA - Vancouver Debate Academy 4 rounds

Rohit Jivangikar Ivy Bridge Academy 6 rounds

Last changed on Wed March 9, 2022 at 12:28 PM EST

email chain: rohitjivangikar16@gmail.com

Experience:

Public Forum - Ivy Bridge Academy: 2016-2020

JV/Varsity PF Coach - Ivy Bridge Academy: 2020-2021

General Preferences:

1. Argumentation - While there are typically a few popular arguments for every topic, that doesn't influence my preference towards the arguments that you run. I'm open to any and every argument, as long as you have the evidence and warrants to debate it.

2. Warrants - As open as I am to arguments, you need to have some sort of logical flow to them, and warrants should be the easiest way to justify your arguments when needed. If your cards and links do not have any warrants, I will have a tough time buying it and factoring it into my decision.

3. Weighing - It's important that both sides explicitly tell me why their side wins the debate. I look for this specifically in the last 4 speeches, yet I do believe that some debaters overlook the link debate. I'd rather look for a realistic link to a realistic impact than a complex, unlikely link to an unrealistically severe impact. It all depends on how you choose to compare both sides, and the clearer the weighing, the easier it is for me to vote for you.

4. Frontlining - Although this is not necessarily a requirement in PF, I do highly encourage frontlining in 2nd rebuttal and will therefore reward teams that do it, effectively and efficiently, with speaker points. However, I do require that if you frontline, that you respond to all turns toward your case, or else I will consider them as conceded arguments.

5. Extending Arguments - A general norm that I followed when I debated that I will continue to look forward to is that any arguments that are brought up should have been extended in summary. This includes any turns, defense, contentions, weighing, and cards. As mentioned before, I'd prefer if you collapse the debate during summary rather than drop arguments in FF.

6. Summary - I view this as arguably the most important speech in the debate, and it's clear to see why. Arguments must be extended here. If you haven't mentioned weighing prior to this speech, it must start here. I will reward higher speaks for those who are able to strategically manage their time during this speech.

7. Paraphrasing - Although I am not in total support for this, I will not make it harder for you to win the debate if you paraphrase. That being said, you should be able to pull up a source when asked, and if any sources are misrepresented, then this will hurt your speaks, and will definitely influence my decision.

8. Crossfire - I don't flow crossfire but if you want me to consider anything that was said in crossfire, you'll have the mention it in the speech that directly follows.

9. Speaking - It's simple: debate, at its core, revolves around communication skills. Hence, I am fine with some speed, but I look down upon spreading in PF. I prefer clarity over speed in Summary and FF. Make sure you signpost during all speeches and off-time roadmaps are preferred but not needed.

10. Prep/Timing - I'll do my best to keep track of prep but make sure that you are keeping your own time throughout the round. If you go over time then it will affect your speaks.

11. Speech Docs - I highly prefer sharing/emailing any speech docs prior to the start of the round to my email above, as it will help me flow and understand your arguments and evidence. For teams that share docs to me, I'll add .5 speaker points for each debater. For elims, I require that all speech docs be sent.

Lastly, just enjoy the debate. Let me know if you have any other questions before the round.

Ben Jones Mira Loma High School 4 rounds

David Jones Newton South High School 2 rounds

Magdalena Teresa Juarez Hire 6 rounds

Sky Juinio The Nueva School 3 rounds

Last changed on Tue November 12, 2024 at 7:50 AM PST

hi! i'm sky.

please conflict me if i've coached you before. i've marked many of you as conflicts, but it is impossible to get all of you when you attend multiple schools, debate academies, etc. i'll always report conflicts to tabroom.

email. add spjuinio@gmail.com and nuevadocs@gmail.com to the chain.

please try to have pre-flows done before the round for the sake of time. i like starting early or on time.

tech over truth. i don't intervene, so everything you say is all i will evaluate. to win my ballot, you should explain and contextualize your arguments. try not to rely too much on jargon. only use jargon if you know how. extend evidence properly and ensure that your cards are all cut correctly (please refer to the NSDA evidence rules). otherwise, i strike the evidence from my flows. tell a thoughtful and thorough story that follows a logical order (i.e. how do you get from point A to point E? why should i care about anything you are telling me? i should have more answers than questions by the end of your speeches). pursue the points you are winning and explain why you have won the round. remind me how you access your impacts and do NOT forget to weigh. giving me the order in which i should prioritize the arguments read in round is helpful. generally, judge instructions will help you and me. sounding great will earn you high speaks, but my ballot will ultimately go to those who did the better debating.

read any argument you want, wear whatever you want, and be as assertive as you want. any speed is fine as long as you are clear. i will yell "clear!" if you are not. as nueva gc artfully articulated, "feel the rhythm, feel the ride, get ready, it's spreading time!" my job is to listen to you and assess your argumentation, not just your presentation. i'm more than happy to listen to anything you run, so do what you do best and own it!

i always try to time speeches. it is strongly encouraged that you also time yourselves and your opponents. speeches get a 15-second grace period, though you should try to finish punctually. i stop flowing after 15 seconds have passed.

teams who use hateful language automatically lose. i’ll end rounds early if given a compelling reason to (e.g. evidence violations).

want to sit, stand, or do a sick backflip while you speak? do whatever you're comfortable with (maybe skip the backflip).

don't be mean. don't lie. don't shake my hand.

rfds. i always try to give verbal rfds and feedback so you can improve in your next round/competition. write down or type suggestions that you find helpful (this might help you flow better). feel free to ask me any questions, but do not fight me on my decision. i also accept emails and other online messages. i miiiiight not disclose if you're part of the first flight and/or the next round is expedited.

now, specifics!

topicality. tell me which arguments should be debated and why your interpretation best facilitates that discussion. make sure your arguments are compatible with your interpretation. if you go for framework, give clear internal link explanations and consider having external impacts. explain why those impacts ought to be prioritized and win you the round.

theory. make it purposeful. tell me what competing interpretations and reasonability mean. i like nuanced analyses; provide real links, real interpretations, and real-world scenarios that bad norms generate. tell me to prioritize this over substance and explain why.

counter-plans. these can be fun. however, they should be legitimately competitive. give a clear plan text and take clever perms seriously. comparative solvency is also preferred. impact calculus is your friend.

disadvantages. crystallize! remember to weigh. your uniqueness and links also matter.

kritiques. i love these a lot. i enjoy the intellectual potential that kritiques offer. show me that you are genuine by committing to the literature you read and providing an anomalous approach against the aff. alternatives are important (though i have seen interesting alternatives to...alternatives. if you go down this route, you can try to convince me that your argument is functional without one. as with all arguments, explain your argument well, and i might vote for you). as aforementioned, tell me to prioritize your argument over substance and why.

cross. i listen, but i will not assess arguments made in crossfires unless you restate your points in a speech. try to use this time wisely.

evidence. again, please cut these correctly (linking the NSDA evidence rules in case). i'll read your evidence at the end of the round if you ask me to, if your evidence sounds too good to be true, or if your evidence is essential to my decision in some fashion. however, this is not an excuse for being lazy! extend evidence that you want me to evaluate, or it flows as analysis. make sure to identify card(s) correctly and elaborate on their significance. don't be afraid to compliment your card(s). consider using your evidence to enhance your narrative coherence.

public forum debaters should practice good partner coordination, especially during summary and final focus. consider taking prep before these speeches because what you read here can make or break your hard work. arguments and evidence mentioned in the final focus need to have been brought up in summary for me to evaluate it. i flow very well and will catch you if you read new arguments, new evidence, or shadow extensions. none of these arguments will be considered in my ballot, so please do not waste time on them. additionally, i don't like to (and tend not to) evaluate purely analytical arguments in the back half. you should read carded links and impacts minimum. focus on the arguments you are winning and please weigh, meta-weigh, and crystallize!

tl;dr. show me where and why i should vote. thanks :)

you are all smart. remember to relax and have fun!

Ally Jung BC Academy 6 rounds

Jenny Jung BC Academy 6 rounds

Jeffrey Kahn Strath Haven 5 rounds

Last changed on Tue March 19, 2024 at 9:01 AM EST

tl;dr - tech and speed good, but I'm not doing work for you. The resolution must be in the debate. Though I think like a debater, I do an "educator check" before I vote - if you advocate for something like death good, or read purely frivolous theory because you know your opponent cannot answer it and hope for an easy win, you are taking a hard L.

Email chain: havenforensics (at) gmail - but I'm not reading along. I tab more than I judge, but I'm involved in research. Last substance update: 9/18/22

Experience:

Head Coach of Strath Haven HS since 2012. We do all events.
Previously coach at Park View HS 2009-11, assistant coach at Pennsbury HS 2002-06 (and beyond)
Competitor at Pennsbury HS 1998-2002, primarily Policy

Public Forum

1st Rebuttal should be line-by-line on their case; 2nd Rebuttal should frontline at least major offense, but 2nd Summary is too late for dumps of new arguments.

With 3 minutes, the Summary is probably also line-by-line, but perhaps not on every issue. Summary needs to ditch some issues so you can add depth, not just tag lines. If it isn't in Summary, it probably isn't getting flowed in Final Focus, unless it is a direct response to a new argument in 2nd Summary.

Final Focus should continue to narrow down the debate to tell me a story about why you win. Refer to specific spots on the flow, though LBL isn't strictly necessary (you just don't have time). I'll weigh what you say makes you win vs what they say makes them win - good idea to play some defense, but see above about drops.

With a Policy background, I will listen to framework, theory, and T arguments - though I will frown at all of those because I really want a solid case debate. I also have no problem intervening and rejecting arguments that are designed to exclude your opponents from the debate. I do not believe counterplans or kritiks have a place in PF.

You win a lot of points with me calling out shady evidence, and conversely by using good evidence. You lose a lot of points by being unable to produce the evidence you read quickly. If I call for a card, I expect it to be cut.

I don't care which side you sit on or when you stand, and I find the post-round judge handshake to be silly and unnecessary.

tl;dr: Look at me if you are traditional or policy. Strike me if you don't talk about the topic or only read abstract French philosophers or rely on going for blippy trash arguments that mostly work due to being undercovered.

My LD experience is mostly local or regional, though I coach circuit debaters. Thus, I'm comfortable with traditional, value-centered LD and util/policy/solvency LD. If you are going traditional, value clash obviously determines the round, but don't assume I know more than a shallow bit of philosophy.

I probably prefer policy debates, but not if you are trying to fit an entire college policy round into LD times - there just isn't time to develop 4 off in your 7 minute constructive, and I have to give the aff some leeway in rebuttals since there is no constructive to answer neg advocacies.

All things considered, I would rather you defend the whole resolution (even if you want to specify a particular method) rather than a tiny piece of it, but that's what T debates are for I guess (I like T debates). If we're doing plans, then we're also doing CPs, and I'm familiar with all your theory arguments as long as I can flow them.

If somehow you are a deep phil debater and I end up as the judge, you probably did prefs wrong, but I'll do my best to understand - know that I hate it when debaters take a philosophers work and chop it up into tiny bits that somehow mean I have to vote aff. If you are a tricks debater, um, don't. Arguments have warrants and a genuine basis in the resolution or choices made by your opponent.

In case it isn't clear from all the rest of the paradigm, I'm a hack for framework if one debater decides not to engage the resolution.

Policy

Update for TOC '19: it has been awhile since I've judged truly competitive, circuit Policy. I have let my young alumni judge an event dominated by young alumni. I will still enjoy a quality policy round, but my knowledge of contemporary tech is lacking. Note that I'm not going to backflow from your speech doc, and I'm flowing on paper, so you probably don't want to go your top speed.

1. The role of the ballot must be stable and predictable and lead to research-based clash. The aff must endorse a topical action by the government. You cannot create a role of the ballot based on the thing you want to talk about if that thing is not part of the topic; you cannot create a role of the ballot where your opponent is forced to defend that racism is good or that racism does not exist; you cannot create a role of the ballot where the winner is determined by performance, not argumentation. And, to be fair to the aff, the neg cannot create a role of the ballot where aff loses because they talked about the topic and not about something else.

2. I am a policymaker at heart. I want to evaluate the cost/benefit of plan passage vs. status quo/CP/alt. Discourse certainly matters, but a) I'm biased on a framework question to using fiat or at least weighing the 1AC as an advocacy of a policy, and b) a discursive link had better be a real significant choice of the affirmative with real implications if that's all you are going for. "Using the word exploration is imperialist" isn't going to get very far with me. Links of omission are not links.

I understand how critical arguments work and enjoy them when grounded in the topic/aff, and when the alternative would do something. Just as the plan must defend a change in the status quo, so must the alt.

3. Fairness matters. I believe that the policymaking paradigm only makes sense in a world where each side has a fair chance at winning the debate, so I will happily look to procedural/T/theory arguments before resolving the substantive debate. I will not evaluate an RVI or that some moral/kritikal impact "outweighs" the T debate. I will listen to any other aff reason not to vote on T.

I like T and theory debates. The team that muddles those flows will incur my wrath in speaker points. Don't just read a block in response to a block, do some actual debating, OK? I definitely have a lower-than-average threshold to voting on a well-explained T argument since no one seems to like it anymore.

Notes for any event

1. Clash, then resolve it. The last rebuttals should provide all interpretation for me and write my ballot, with me left simply to choose which side is more persuasive or carries the key point. I want to make fair, predictable, and non-interventionist decisions, which requires you to do all my thinking for me. I don't want to read your evidence (unless you ask me to), I don't want to think about how to apply it, I don't want to interpret your warrants - I want you to do all of those things! The debate should be over when the debate ends.

2. Warrants are good. "I have a card" is not a persuasive argument; nor is a tag-line extension. The more warrants you provide, the fewer guesses I have to make, and the fewer arguments I have to connect for you, the more predictable my decision will be. I want to know what your evidence says and why it matters in the round. You do not get a risk of a link simply by saying it is a link. Defensive arguments are good, especially when connected to impact calculus.

3. Speed. Speed for argument depth is good, speed for speed's sake is bad. My threshold is that you should slow down on tags and theory so I can write it down, and so long as I can hear English words in the body of the card, you should be fine. I will yell if I can't understand you. If you don't get clearer, the arguments I can't hear will get less weight at the end of the round, if they make it on the flow at all. I'm not reading the speech doc, I'm just flowing on paper.

4. Finally, I think debate is supposed to be both fun and educational. I am an educator and a coach; I'm happy to be at the tournament. But I also value sleep and my family, so make sure what you do in round is worth all the time we are putting into being there. Imagine that I brought some new novice debaters and my superintendent to watch the round with me. If you are bashing debate or advocating for suicide or other things I wouldn't want 9th graders new to my program to hear, you aren't going to have a happy judge.

I am more than happy to elaborate on this paradigm or answer any questions in round.

Shyam Kamadolli Newton South High School 2 rounds

Vidya Katta Chelmsford High School 3 rounds

Tyler Katz The Quarry Lane School 6 rounds

Noah Kaye Poly Prep Country Day School 6 rounds

Patti Kelly CR North High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Mon September 12, 2022 at 10:49 AM EST

I’m a parent volunteer judge in my 6th year, and I'm so impressed by the time and effort students put into Speech and Debate. I feel fortunate to have the opportunity to see the competitors in action!

PFD:

As PFD is meant to be understood by a lay judge, please use clear delivery, everyday language, straightforward organization and credible evidence.

Please speak at an understandable pace. If you're speaking too quickly during an in-person round, I'll put down my pen as a sign that I can't understand what you're saying. In virtual competitions, I will place my hand near my ear to signal my inability to understand you at that pace. In both instances I will no longer be able to flow so those arguments will be dropped.

Don't overwhelm your case with numerous sources but rather select the best evidence to support your argument. Use reputable, unbiased sources and succinctly connect all evidence back to your contentions. If excessive time is spent trying to produce requested evidence, I will verbally warn you that I will soon begin to run prep time.

All jargon and acronyms should be clearly defined.

I expect you to be respectful and civil throughout the debate. Sarcasm and intolerance for your opponents will lose you speaker points.

Since I'll base my decision on the voters you provide in your Final Focus, it's your responsibility to convince me that you have won the round. Voters that do not accurately describe what occurred in the round will not be considered and speaker points will be lost.

CONGRESS:

Speak directly to the audience in a clear, loud voice and at a pace that allows your speech to be understood. Make frequent eye contact and only reference notes you have rather than reading your speech directly from paper.

Your speech should have distinct organization and be supported by credible evidence. Both the introduction and conclusion should clearly list your claims. Speeches with creative, memorable introductions that are then linked to your conclusions will earn more speaker points and improve your ranking.

After Authorship/Sponsorship, negative and affirmative speeches on legislation should present new perspectives or further refute opposing arguments rather than simply repeating previously stated points. Please do not merely read a speech that was entirely prepared beforehand.

When answering questions posed by other speakers, I'll be looking to see if you demonstrate a strong defense of your case as well as in-depth knowledge of the topic. Responses should be made with confidence and clarity.

While you won't be scored based on the questions you ask, your active involvement in the session will be noted by your participation in the question and answer periods.

SPEECH:

Speeches are ranked according to the following: (not in order of importance)

Originality of piece

Personal connection

Structure

Vocalization

Phrasing, pacing and fluidity

Speaker presence

Character development

Emotion

Transitions

Introduction/Conclusion

Looking forward to a wonderful competition!

Julia Kennedy Poly Prep Country Day School 6 rounds

Don Kim Poolesville High School 3 rounds None

Elizabeth Kim BASIS Scottsdale High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Tue September 7, 2021 at 8:34 PM EST

Howdy!!

*update for 2021 season~i'm on CST so i'll be 12-13 hours ahead of EST. take this into account if you wanna spread or do something weird idk*

I debated for Lake Highland Prep for 5 years, and was relatively active on the Public Forum circuit in my junior and senior year.

tldr; warrant, weigh, i don't shake hands, make me laugh, NO 3FF's, yes you can flip before i get there

~I evaluate arguments on the flow!

~I am a tabula rasa judge; which is fancy for I will vote on almost any argument that is topical, properly warranted, and impacted. buttt if an argument makes no sense to me, it's usually your fault and not mine. i do not like progressive debate, sorry not sorry, i won't evaluate theory/K's or whatever. if there is a serious abuse just say it in your speech for a couple of sentences,,,warrant it, explain the abuse, and i will evaluate. you don't need to make a whole shell about it or whatever theory is idk.

~Speed is fine but don't spread please!

~If there is no offense in the round, I presume ~first speaker~ by default, not neg. This is because I believe PF puts the first speaking team at a considerable structural disadvantage. If both teams have failed to generate offense by the end of the round, the onus should fall on the team going second for not capitalizing on their advantage. This is my attempt to equalize the disparity between the first and second speaking team.

~I go on twitter during cross lol but if it's that important say it in speech

~I will typically only vote on something if it is in both summary and final focus. If you read an impact card in your case and it is not in summary, I will not extend it for you, even if the other team does not address it. Of course, there are inevitably exceptions, e.g. defense in the first FF.

~No new evidence in second summary (it's fine in first summary). The only exception is if you need to respond to evidence introduced in the first summary. New analytical responses are fine!

~Defense doesn't have to be in first summary, but i encourage it if it's important. First summary must extend turns/any offense! (This obviously does not apply if your defense is frontlined in second rebuttal) Second summary and both final focuses need to extend defense!!

~I think calling for ev after round is pretty interventionist lol,,, but if you really reallyyyy need me to see it i guess i'll look at it

~keep your own prep

~I reserve the right to drop you for offensive/insensitive language. oh and being rude/sexist/racist/homophobic etc.

~If you plan to make arguments about sensitive issues such as suicide, PTSD, or sexual assault, read a trigger warning please!! debate should be a safe space, and while I don’t necessarily believe inclusivity should compromise discussion, the least we can all do is make sure everybody is prepared for the conversation.

~It's so boring and awk when card exchanges take a long time, they should take no longer than 2 minutes. If it takes too long I may dock your speaker points for being disorganized and wasting time.

~Please remember to check the pronouns provided by tab!! This is so everyone is comfortable in the round and to prevent misgendering. (mine are she/her/hers)

~Have a Big Time Rush! after all, debate should be fun! wear what you want, sit or stand, idrc! please lmk if there's anything i can do to make you more comfortable in round. Oh! and if you are funny + nice, I'll give you very generous speaks, unless you're a really bad speaker

if you have questions, message me on facebook & i'll probably respond in time!

Shoutout to Max Wu bc most of this is from his paradigm!!

Hyung Kim Kugnus ACTS 2 rounds

Jinsoo Kim Riverside HS 3 rounds

Last changed on Thu January 4, 2024 at 4:56 PM EST

I'm a debate coach at Riverside HS in SC. I believe debate is an educational activity where the skills you learn should help you for the rest of your life. Delivery is important. Respect for your opponent is a must.

Public Forum:

I don't think K's have a place in PF. This isn't policy. I also think theory has devolved from it's original purpose, and in most cases, has become a tool for teams to try to get a cheap win. If you think there was a serious evidence violation, do an official evidence challenge (check the NSDA rules if you don't know what this is) or call it out and tell me to read it if you're nervous about hinging an entire round on this one violation. If your opponent is being rude or malicious, I'll intervene.

While I flow everything and understand the lingo, treat me as a lay judge. Please do not spread. Please weigh.

Weighing is just a comparative analysis, so be sure to engage your opponents arguments when you weigh. If your weighing is all about your case, it tells me nothing about how it compares to your opponent's (so you didn't actually weigh anything). Also include why we should favor your weighing mechanism versus your opponent's if they differ.

I'm not a fan of extending anything through ink. If it's important enough for you to try to win off of it, you should be bringing it up well before FF.

Please sign post during your speeches.

When extending evidence, please also include the warranting behind the evidence. I’m human and don’t always catch everything about your evidence on my flow the first time around.

Please be quick about sharing evidence during rounds. It shouldn't take you more than a couple minutes to pull a card and send it (should be almost immediate if its from case).

Also I think crossfire is the most interesting part of most debate rounds. I'm definitely listening and may vote off of it if your weighing isn't comparative.

If you want clarification on anything on (or not on) my paradigm please don't be afraid to ask before the round.

Kyle Kishimoto Fairmont Prep 5 rounds

Last changed on Tue November 19, 2024 at 1:42 PM PST

James Logan '25 - I don't know anything about the topic. Set up the email chain before the round. Word docs strongly preferred to Google docs. Anyone not ready to start by the posted start time will lose speaker points. I will be flowing off my computer for the tournament, so I'd appreciate a short pause when switching between flows.

About Me

Kyle (he/they). I competed in national circuit PF for Fairmont (also did a bit of extemp and policy on the state level); I also coached PF, extemp, and oratory there. I studied math education and didn't debate in college. I now teach math and coach speech at Quarry Lane.

Email me at kkishimoto@quarrylane.org if you have any questions or to add me to email chains.

This is a circuit PF paradigm, paradigms for speech events are still a work in progress.

General

I've judged rather infrequently over the past three years - I still keep a very good flow by PF standards (can still get cites for every card), but keep in mind my rust and don't speak too quickly. I can deal with cards being spread IF you are slow on tags and cites AND your cards are long enough that you're not spreading 12 words and going back to slow. Also don't go too fast in the back half. I won't flow off a speech doc.

You can argue in round why I should change any the beliefs listed below unless you are advocating for exclusionary behavior or academic dishonesty.

The best way to win in front of me is to win one piece of offense, properly extend it in each speech, and convince me it's the most important thing through weighing. I strongly prefer you going very in depth on one argument than trying to win every argument and undercovering everything.

Every claim you make should be warranted, and the team who does better comparative warrant analysis will almost always win. Empirics/evidence without warrants mean almost nothing to me, and analytical responses carry far more weight in front of me than most.

Tech > truth but you'll find true arguments are very easy to warrant. Read above.

Rebuttal

Neither side can read new independent offense in rebuttal (theory arguments where the violation occurred in the previous speech is an exception). Weighing, framing, and turns are fine, but reading a new contention as an "overview" is not cool.

If you are the second speaking team, you need to frontline everything you intend on going for in the back half of the round. If you want to go for a contention in your case, you better cleanly frontline at least one link and impact.

Summary/Final Focus

Go for one thing and go for it hard. I love early collapse strategies (as early as the rebuttal speeches). Go for one of the six links into your case, go for a turn, concede defense against your own case to kick out of a turn, make smart decisions and be creative.

Three minute summaries are one minute too long. There's no excuse to not cleanly extend everything you want to go for. This means frontlining, and properly extending warrants and impacts.

Do meta weighing - why is your impact that wins on magnitude more important than your opponents' impact that wins on probability? And saying "we read link defense, therefore we outweigh because their impact is nonexistent" is NOT WEIGHING. Assume both arguments are true and show why yours is better.

If it's not in summary, it better not be in final focus. This applies to both offense and defense. I have no tolerance for debaters who disrespect their partners, and one of the most common ways it appears in-round is when a second speaker's final focus is nothing like their partner's summary. Your speaker points will suffer greatly if this happens.

"Progressive" Arguments

Theory should be used to set norms and check against abuse. I'm not the person to read frivolous theory in front of. Aside from disclosure, I will not vote on anything that didn't happen in the round.

Here are some of my general beliefs on theory arguments, but keep in mind that I can be (and have been) persuaded to vote against these beliefs. You should disclose. I don't care either way about paraphrasing. If you paraphrase you should still have all your cut cards in one document and send it on the email chain. Default to competing interps. I generally believe if you read theory you should collapse on it, and have voted for a "you should not go for both substance and theory" shell before.

(copied from Katheryne Dwyer's paradigm) RVIs DO NOT REFER TO ARGUMENTS WHICH GARNER OFFENSE. an RVI would be to win bc you won a terminal defensive argument on a theory shell and the argument that i should punish the team that introduced theory with an L if they lose it.i know there is disagreement on this, but to me this is what an RVI means, and under this definition i lean no RVIs/will default that way without warrants.I will still vote on a counter interp or a turn on theory EVEN IF NO RVIs IS WON.

I will vote for your K or soft-left type framing argument. If you're reading the former, keep in mind I'm not super familiar with the literature so warrant and explain well. K vs. FW debates are among my favorite to watch and evaluate. Both teams in a K round should warrant why I should prefer their model of debate. K's should either link to the topic or something your opponents said during the round - if your argument explicitly ignores the topic, I'm probably not your guy to read it in front of.

Respect your opponents and your partner. Have fun.

Chandra Kittusamy Foothill High School 4 rounds

Devesh Kodnani Taipei American School 1 rounds

Last changed on Thu May 9, 2024 at 12:32 PM PST

I debated for four years on the national circuit.

My paradigm breaks down quite simply:

1. Engage arguments constructively. Clash is so important but increasingly teams don't know what that means. When I'm given an argument and a response that just make the polar opposite claims, it becomes impossible to evaluate if both teams don't do extra analysis, so do the extra analysis. Warrants are infinitely more important than card-stacks – good logic beats bad evidence every time.

2. Weigh on the link and impact level. Don't just give me prewritten reasons your impact is large (i.e., "scope and severity"), but instead tell me why your link into the impact is explicitly stronger than any other links/turns your opponents go for, and why your impact is more significant than theirs. Direct comparison of impacts/links will take you far – one good, common sense weighing mechanism adapted to the content of the round is better than four weak pre-typed ones.

3. Be consistent. Not only between summary and final focus (first summary defense is optional but strongly encouraged if important), but also with a story throughout the round. If you read arguments that explicitly contradict each other for strategic value, I might not drop you, but you'll have a hard time establishing credibility (or high speaks). Instead, defend a cohesive worldview throughout the round – and pull that story through (extending both warrants and impacts at minimum).

The easiest way to win my ballot is to follow these three rules. Pick an issue and defend against responses constructively with more than just a re-assertion of your argument. Weigh the link against other links and the impact against other impacts. Use this issue to tell a clear story that leaves me confident when I vote.

With regards to pretty much everything else, I am non-interventionist. I won't tell you how fast to speak, or force you to answer turns in second rebuttal, or ban specific types of arguments, but exercise good judgement. If you do something that a majority of reasonable people would find unfair, abusive, rude, or prejudicial to members of any minority community, I will do something about it. Your speaks will certainly be impacted and the threshold at which I will cast a ballot for your opponent will fall. In elims, that threshold will fall faster because I can't tank your speaks. Don't risk it, and when in doubt, ask.

And on that note, ask me if you have any other questions.

Have fun, and best of luck!

ezra kohrman The Nueva School 3 rounds None

Lingmei Kong Millburn Middle School 3 rounds

Rodney Kornegay Mountain Brook High School 5 rounds

Nicole Kroepel Belvidere North High School 2 rounds

Last changed on Fri November 22, 2024 at 4:41 PM CST

For GBX '24: The tournament requires that we use the Tabroom doc share. DO NOT set up an email chain, follow tournament rules, please.

Also per the tournament invitation, "Each round’s decision time deadline is based on the Tabroom pairing start time. If the judge does not enter a decision in tabroom by the decision time, it is within the Tabroom’s power to flip a coin to determine the winner of that debate." DON'T BE LATE, the tournament does intend to enforce this.

About me:

I have been coaching and judging PF for eleven years. I judge on local circuit tournaments and have also judged many national circuit tournaments, including the TOC. I am familiar with the topic, but that does not mean that you should not explain your arguments. As a coach I am very aware of all the nuances of Public Forum debate.

Put me on the email chain: nkroepel@district100.com and belviderenorthpf@gmail.com

Round specifics:

Tech>truth (I always try to be tabula rasa and not interject my knowledge into your round). I will vote on just about anything besides abusive, offensive arguments. I will take arguments as true, unless otherwise argued by your opponent for the scope of the round.

I can flow speed, but I prefer not to. I do not want you to use it as a way to exclude your opponents. In the end, Debate is about intelligible conversation, if you are going too fast, and don't do it well, it can get in the way of clarity of expression, which upsets me.

I do not flow cross-fire, but I do pay attention to it. However, if you make an excellent point in cross-fire, you will have to bring that information up in a subsequent speech. Also, DO NOT be rude, I will reduce your speaker points for it. It is inappropriate for teams to make their opponent's feel inferior or humiliate them in the round.

If you are speaking second, please address your opponent's responses to your case, especially turns. It does not have to be an even split, but make sure it is something that you do. Defense is not sticky, you need to extend it.

I expect that summary and final focus are cohesive to each other. First summary needs extend defense. Second summary needs to address responses on your case, especially in areas you are going to collapse on, and it should also respond to turns. I do expect that you collapse and not go for everything on the flow in summary. I WILL NOT vote on an issue if it is not brought up in summary. Please weigh in your final two speeches and clash your arguments to those provided by your opponent.

As I expect the summary and final focus to be consistent, that also means that the story/narrative coming from your partnership also be consistent. I may not give you a loss because of it, but it is harder to establish ethos. Defend a consistent worldview using your warrants and impacts.

Make it easy for me to fill out my ballot. Tell me where I should be voting and why. Be sure to be clear and sign-post throughout.

Extensions need to be clean and not just done through ink. In order for you to cleanly extend, you need to respond to responses, and develop your warrant(s). You cannot win an impact without warranting. In rebuttal, please make sure you are explaining implications of responses, not just card dumping. Explain how those responses interact with your opponents' case and what their place in the round means. DO NOT just extend card names in subsequent speeches.

The flow rules in my round for the most part, unless the weighing is non-existent. I will not call for evidence unless it is a huge deal, because I view it as interventionist.

DO NOT make blippy arguments-warranting matters!

DO NOT make the round a card battle, PLEASE. Explain the cards, explain why they outweigh. A card battle with no explanation or weighing gets you nowhere except to show me why I shouldn't vote on it.

And finally progressive debate-I'd strongly prefer you do not read atopical arguments. I think most kritikal positions are exceptionally unpersuasive on a truth level, but this should not explicitly influence how I evaluate them, except to say that I'm probably more willing than most to evaluate intelligent analytical defense to Ks even if your opponents have "cards" to make their claims. I am still learning when it comes to judging/evaluating theory. I need a slower debate with clear warranting-neither K or T are a big part of my judging experience either. You CAN run it in front of me but combining it with speed makes me even more confused. I can't promise that I will always make the right decision.

Sophia Lam Poly Prep Country Day School 3 rounds

Adrian Lask VDA - Vancouver Debate Academy 2 rounds

Simon Lau Mission San Jose High School 3 rounds

Gael Le Guellec Potomac Debate Academy 6 rounds

Ashley Lee Independent Campbell Hall 4 rounds None

Jaejune Lee Kugnus ACTS 6 rounds

Jeremy Lee Hackley School 6 rounds

Last changed on Fri February 16, 2024 at 4:12 PM EST

I debated PF at Stuyvesant High School for 4 years.

Update for Harvard Tournament: i am old now. please do not speak fast because i truly will not be able to follow it. please disregard everything below. a slow, logical, and captivating speech delivery will surely convince me.

Speech-docs & questions about the decision should be emailed to: j eremylee@college.harvard.edu.

If you are going to read an argument about a sensitive topic, please include a content warning. Give a phone number for participants to anonymously report any concerns, and if there are any, you must have an alternative case ready to read.

TLDR: Treat me like a lay judge. I will evaluate rounds with a technical standard, but I dislike fast, blippy "tech" debate. As tech as I try to be, your persuasive ability will inevitably skew me one way or another, so please don't throw away presentational skills for the sake of spewing jargon. Every argument needs a clearly-explained warrant for me to consider it. I will vote for the team with the least mitigated link to the greatest impact.

Technicalities

- Cross will not impact my evaluation of the round. Use it for your own benefit to clarify arguments.

- First summary doesn't need defense.

- I care little about numbers and number comparisons in weighing. Most of the time, impact quantifications in PF are over exaggerated because impacts that happen on margins are extremely difficult if not impossible to quantify.

- Weigh turns & disads (If you don't, I won't know whether to evaluate your response or your opponents' case first. This means I can still vote for a team with a dropped turn on their flow.)

- Compare your weighing to your opponents. If this is not done, know that I weigh primarily on the link level because I think it is the key factor in determining the marginality of your impact (or if it happens at all). If you don’t want an unexpected decision, do the weighing yourself. Side-note: Link ins don’t count as weighing unless you show that your link is stronger than theirs.

- It is my belief that weighing fundamentally comes down to two things: how large your impact is and how probable your impact is. I take both things into account so if you weigh on probability and your opponent weighs on magnitude (and you both don't interact with each other's weighing), I will intervene to determine which argument is more important.

- I won't vote off of dropped defense if it is not extended

- Paragraph theory is good with me and is probably more accessible. However, this does not mean you do not read blippy theory for the sake of throwing your opponent off. Still give me a clear interpretation, violation, standard, and voter. [Note: I am not very familiar with progressive argumentation and would prefer it not to be run unless there is real abuse in the round. If you do choose to run it, I will evaluate it as logically as I can, but I cannot guarantee that I will evaluate it the same way your typical "tech" judge would.]

- No CPs or Ks.

- Weighing in first FF is okay, but it's better if done earlier (not in second FF though)

- No new arguments in FF. This applies to extensions. If there isn't a clean link and impact extension in summary, I won't evaluate it even if it is in FF.

- Second rebuttal must respond to turns (I count as dropped otherwise)

- No offensive OVs in second rebuttal. I just won't vote on it

- Tech>truth most times, but the crazier an argument gets, the lower my threshold for responses to that argument is.

- Extensions of offense need to be in summary and final focus. You need to always link the argument back to the resolution and draw it out to an impact. If this isn't done, you will 90% of the time lose the round because you have no offense. I have a relatively high threshold for what counts as a clear extension because it is essential for transparent collapsing.

- Please don't use the abusive strategy of kicking out of all of your opponent's responses to your case just to read a new link to your impact. If your opponents do this, call them out for it in speech.

- If no offense is left by the end of the round, I presume the team that lost the coin flip. If the round is side-locked, I presume the first speaking team because I believe it is at a structural disadvantage in the round.

Etiquette (how to get high speaks)

- Don't spread. I flow on my computer, so I can follow speed, but the faster you go, the more likely I am to miss something on the flow. Additionally, I find that 99% of the time, you do not need to go fast to cover the flow; you simply need to improve your word economy. Finally, I believe that spreading is bad for the activity. It excludes so many people from being able to comprehend and learn from the round, making the activity overall less accessible. If you can speak at a moderate speed while still covering the flow efficiently, you will be rewarded with high speaks.

- Signpost. If I am not writing on my flow, there is a good chance that I just don't know where you are on the flow.

- Do not be rude to your opponent. This includes making faces while your opponent is speaking, speaking over your opponent in cross, and making jokes at the expense of your opponents. Excessive rudeness that makes the activity inaccessible to marginalized groups will result in me dropping the debater. My threshold for this is not that high because I despise this behavior in an activity that is meant to be fun and educational for all participants.

- I will give you high speaks if you speak pretty and are smart on the flow.

- Do not read 30 speaks theory.

Evidence

- Please don't call for every piece of evidence your opponents read. I understand if you think the card is super important to win the round, but in 99% of rounds, I do not even consider evidence in my decision. I instead look at logic and argument quality, so call for evidence sparingly.

- I think evidence is overrated and warrants matter much more. This means you need to attach warrants to evidence and also should discourage the misconstruction of evidence. Your insane card won't win you the round. Read your evidence ethically and then explain its role in the round.

(Guide) Warranted analytics + evidence > warranted analytics > unwarranted evidence > assertions.

- At the minimum, last name and year

- I am fairly lenient with paraphrased cards because I understand that when all evidence is taken word for word from the source, word economy suffers and many debaters resort to speaking faster. However, this is on the condition that evidence is NOT misconstrued. If you are to paraphrase evidence, make sure to fully understand the source and maintain the source's intention; do NOT paraphrase evidence for the sake of getting it to say what you want it to say.

- I will only call for evidence if you tell me during a speech or if I find it relevant to my decision at the end of the round.

- To discourage cheating, if you blatantly misrepresent evidence, I will drop the entire arg/contention.

Misc.

- I expect all exchanges of evidence to take no longer than 2 minutes. If you delay the debate significantly while looking for a specific card, I may dock your speaker points for being disorganized and wasting time. If someone requests to see your evidence, you should hand it to them as soon as possible; don't say "I need my computer to prep."

- Please don't try to shake my hand after the round.

- Wear whatever you want, I don't really care.

- Feel free to ask questions about the decision after the round. I won't feel offended if you disagree with my decision, and I am happy to discuss it after the round.

If you have any other questions, ask before the round.

Lauryn Lee BC Academy 6 rounds

Russell Legate-Yang Strath Haven 4 rounds

Anna Lembke Hire

Last changed on Thu November 5, 2020 at 1:09 PM EST

I debated four years of public forum debate in high school for The Altamont School and now do APDA at Brown U.

I consider myself to be a really normal judge and don't have any really interesting demands, but here are some things that can help guide how you take on the round!

1) PRE-FLOW: please preflow before round! I will not let yall do it in the room if the round should have started already.

2) EXPLANATION: contextualize cards; explain why they are important and how they support your point/ interact with your opponents case. not doing this makes it really difficult as a judge to understand how you want the round to play out and usually leads to forced intervention

3) 2ND SPEAKING TEAM: you gotta cover turns in 2nd rebuttal. if you don't cover turns then it is offense for the first speaking team.

4) 1ST SPEAKING TEAM: you can extend defense from first rebuttal to final focus but pls try to have some in first summary. I expect at least some defense in 1st summary, especially since there are 3 minutes for the summary now.

5) WEIGHING: even if something is "clean-dropped" you still need to weigh it. I will have a hard time voting on any argument (no matter how cleanly extended) if I am not sure why it's important.

6) ARGUMENTS

A)if you are making an argument about harms to countries that are viewed as "developing" by a western hierarchical perspective, or discussing in your case or in weighing, please be respectful and don't make your own uncarded analysis about the struggles these countries have. I would also prefer not to hear weighing analyses about these countries that mention anything about "these countries have so little" etc.

B) if you are running an implementation/process of getting the bill to the public argument, do so at your own risk. I generally do not find these arguments persuasive or topical, and chances are that if your opponent says I should not evaluate those kind of arguments in a debate round I will drop it from my flow. An example of this is "the united states should not pass ____ because it would be torn up in the courts/loaded with riders."

C) if you are running an econ argument, please be sure to explain it really well in extensions in ff and summary. in my experience, econ rounds are the most difficult to judge because of clarity problems in link extensions and warranting, so make sure you spend time explaining it!

7) EXTENSIONS: don't extend through ink. interact with the argument you are responding to and dont just say "my opponents dropped ___" when they really did not. Frequent issues with extensions through ink lead to lower speaker points and a worse round :(

8) EVIDENCE: I will call for cards you tell me to call for if they are highly important to the debate round. I will also call for any card that seems too good to be true. Evidence ethics is very important and I will intervene if I catch faulty evidence

Ori Lev Bethesda Chevy Chase 3 rounds

Andrea Levasseur Chelmsford High School 3 rounds

Karchen Lhatoo University School 6 rounds

Max Li The Bronx High School Of Science 6 rounds

Last changed on Sat October 26, 2024 at 7:12 PM EST

Auto 30s if both teams agree to skip all crossfires and prep time. Auto 29s if both teams agree to skip all crossfires, or if you offer + the other team refuses. Otherwise I cap speaks at 28.5. If you want lots of time to write your speech, do policy.

I have a short attention span. Don't make the round unnecessarily long, or I will be in a bad mood.

---

I debated for hunter college hs ('20) in nyc and broke at toc. I coached bronx science ('20-'21) and do some apda at harvard ('24).

1. All 1st rebuttal to 1ff extensions are fine, including offense. I don't care if you frontline in 2nd rebuttal, or extend turns or defense in 1st summary. No new 2ff weighing. I presume 1st speaking team. I have a high bar for not presuming - if it takes longer than 120 seconds for me to decide the round, I will presume. This includes when both teams are winning offense but neither weighs, even if the weighing is obvious.

2. "If I have the choice between voting for an impact that’s weighed as the biggest in the round but is muddled versus a less important but clean impact, I will resolve the muddled impact every time."

Speed is fine, I will clear you if necessary, send me the doc if going 300+.

---

Theory: Paraphasing is good for debate. In general, I default reasonability. Running theory asks me to intervene, by not evaluating substance, because the in-round abuse supposedly outweighs. You have to make me actually believe that the abuse was significant and outweighs substance, or else I won't intervene. If in doubt, ask before the round.

All online tournaments: If you choose to read any cards, disclosure theory is a TKO. You must send all your case evidence in card form with reasonable context and proper cites to the email chain before you read case.

I care very little about what your evidence says, and I won't read ev unless you tell me to. In fact, I would love a round in which neither team reads any evidence. However, teams seem to be obsessive about evidence-calling, and in this online format, in-round evidence exchange results in a colossal waste of time. Just get it over with before the round. I don't particularly care if you post it on the wiki, and it's fine if you paraphrase your cards in the speech, but the other team needs to be able to read your evidence quickly and readily without wasting everyone else's time while stealing prep time and pretending the email hasn't arrived.

Shu Li Dougherty Valley High School 2 rounds

Last changed on Tue January 22, 2019 at 12:27 PM PST

Hello All,

Background

I am a software engineer at Ellie Mae. I judge for Dougherty Valley, this is my first year judging so Public Forum, as well as all other speech and debate events, are very new. As a heads-up, "flowing" is a foreign concept for me so if I do take notes throughout the debate it may not be in the format you are used to seeing.

Speaker Points

I will most likely give you 27-29 if you:

a) Speak loudly and clearly. Please no "spreading". I will not be able to understand what you are saying so speaking slower will allow me to process your arguments as you go.

b) Are polite and fair to your opponent. If you are outright rude/unfair (ie. yelling, mocking, laughing, cutting opponents off) you will not get good speaks.

c) Explain arguments thoroughly. Remember I have no background in debate nor in the topic so make sure that you put things in terms that I can understand. This means if you use debate terminology you will probably need to explain what it means for me to actually consider it.

Decisions

I will try to be as fair as possible and explain my decision in the best way I can. I will vote for the team that explains their warrants and why their impacts matter to me. Additionally, because I'm not familiar with the topic, presentation will probably also influence my decision. Be confident, if you make it seem like you are losing then I will think that.

Other

Clothing/Appearance; this will not influence my decision, however, please do respect the tournament dress code. Use of evidence; this will be weighted heavily in the debate, I want to know that your arguments have evidence to back up your claims. If you think that I should look at your/your opponent's evidence, please let me know. Real world impacts; this will also be weighted heavily. If your impacts do not show me why a normal person like me should care, then I will probably be less likely to vote on it. Cross-examination; this does not matter as much to me, although I will be listening. Debate skill over truthful arguments; I value both skill and arguments highly. I do believe that truthful arguments should be prioritized, however, if you lack the presentation skill or argumentation skills to sell your argument, then truthful arguments may not matter as much if your opponent is able to convince me better of their argument.

Remember to have fun, good luck!

Norris Lin Richard Montgomery High School 3 rounds

Prudhvidhar Lingala Chelmsford High School 3 rounds

Haoyang Liu Princeton 4 rounds

Tony Liu Peddie 3 rounds

Tyler Livingston University HS 1 rounds

Jian Lock Newton South High School 4 rounds

Jack Lofwall Henry Clay High School 6 rounds

Esme Longley Durham Academy 5 rounds

Last changed on Fri October 15, 2021 at 9:17 AM EST

Hello! I am Esme. I debated PF for Durham for 4 years and I’m attending McGill. I use she/her pronouns. really dislike blippy arguments, but I guess I'll evaluate them, I'll just give them a LOT less weight. no warrant = VERY LOW CHANCE OF ME VOTING OFF IT. like near 0.

Ask me questions before round, I don't mind (I know sometimes there's not enough time to read paradigms). Also, please let me know (send me an email/ tell me in round) how I can accommodate this round to make you the most comfortable!

Also please include both members of a partnership. Talking about "carries" and excluding someone who has taken their time to put work into and be somewhere sucks a lot and often hits people already left out of debate the hardest. In round and out, make sure you're acknowledging and supporting work put in from everyone and reaching out to everyone as well. <3

Also don't call speeches "bad" ex: "their summary was really bad" just point out the flaws in it. ex: "they don't extend a warrant/ they never weigh..." etcetcetc

Sexism/ racism/ homophobia/ harassment/ etc. isn't cool. I will drop you and you will get low speaks.

Specifically for the debate, though, here are my preferences:

1. WARRANT AND IMPLICATE ARGUMENTS - by this I mean go one step further to explain your arguments -- tell me why A leads to B and B leads to C and WHY IT MATTERS. IF AN ARG HAS NO WARRANT, I PROBABLY WILL NOT VOTE OFF IT Don't just say "Medicare for All equals less money for pharma companies", explain why (and why it matters) : warranting ex - "under Medicare for All, the government negotiates down the prices of drugs with pharma companies, cutting into their profits". Implication might be - "pharma has less cash for R&D". It doesn't even have to be wordy lol just tell me why your arg is happening and why it matters. I also love warranting for uniqueness in case (People seem to forget to do this often). Essentially, the more you can give me earlier in the round, the stronger your arg will be.

2. WEIGH YOUR ARGUMENTS - even if you're losing 2/3 of your arguments, if your 1/3 is more important than theirs', the round is not lost! Tell me why I ought to care about that 1/3 and why it's more important than anything else. I will evaluate what you tell me, so if you tell me poverty is more important than climate change and give me sound reasons why and it doesn't go touched/ responded to with warrants, then I will buy it no matter my personal beliefs. You don't want to take a chance and let me do the weighing for you. You have control over where I vote, you just have to do the work and tell me why. On the other side, even if you're winning your arguments, WEIGH! You can tell me that your argument is more probable or has more warranting or has a larger impact, etc. just do the work.

Also, don't just say "we outweigh on magnitude" go further -- explain how, and (preferably) tell me why it matters

Also metaweigh pleaseeeee (if they're talking about their argument being more probable and you're talking about yours being having a larger magnitude tell me why magnitude matters more than probability!!). I LOVE good metaweighing, it makes me so so happy. I also love pre-emptive metaweighing, so tbh as soon as you introduce weighing, ideally I'd love for it to be metaweighed. (i reward hella for it - check the speaks stuff at the end)

If you haven't ever heard about weighing, I will teach you before round, just ask me please. I'd much rather take 5-10 mins to explain it and have a good round than dive into a messy round with no weighing

3. SIGNPOST

i'm happy as long as you let me know when you're moving on to different parts of the arg. ex: "on their link" suffices for signposting.

4. CALLING FOR CARDS AND EVIDENCE ETHICS - Call for cards if something feels sketchy if u want, I don't care how many you call for, it's your prep time. If you find something, point it out in the next speech. I'll call for contested evidence later on if it's relevant, but feel free to remind me. If you don't call for something sketchy, then that's on you (oof), I'll have to consider it even if I don't want to. Sometimes I'll call for a card after the round just because I'm curious, but that shouldn't factor into my decision and usually I only call for ev that's disputed.

As for evidence ethics, I'm totally fine with paraphrasing, but if you powertag or misconstrue evidence, I'm going to be really upset and you will know in your speaks. As a debater, I took evi ethics really seriously. Ev exists for anything, you just have to find it. Also indicts don't mean game over, they're like any other arg, respond, weigh, etc.

5. COLLAPSE - This is SO underrated. You start with 2x 4 minute speeches of args on the topic, then get 4 more minutes. The round can't contain all these args in a 2 minute final focus. I don't want it to. I don't want it to in summary, and often even in second rebuttal! I want you to collapse! Pick strategic arguments and (frontline any offense on them first obviously/ weigh against) but drop the ones that aren't as strategic. Just do the weighing and don't forget/ abandon an arg you drop.

Ultimately, you get control over the ballot, I want to do the least amount of intervention possible as your judge so it is on you to make this a clean round!:)

6. EXTEND - uh this should maybe be obvious but here are my thoughts on this. Obv you can drop case, but if you do make sure you weigh against / frontline offense they put on it and have some sorta independent offense/ default neg/aff strat

IF YOU EXTEND YOU NEED THESE PARTS OF THE ARG FOR IT TO BE A FULL EXTENSION - UNIQUENESS/ LINK/ INTERNAL LINK(S)/ IMPACT (TERMINALISED) if parts of your arg are missing, I will be MUCH less likely to vote on it. If both teams don't have parts of their args, then,,, uh,,,, i'll be uncomfy and stress out about my decision lots and probably look for the path of least resistance. Please don't put me in that situation

You DON'T NEED TO EXTEND CARD NAMES, I'm fine with analysis as long as all the parts of the arg are there. Of course, you're welcome to extend cards, but I find it takes a lot longer and doesn't add much unless you're doing specific evidence weighing. Also, please weigh your extensions! Including turns, like why does your link overpower theirs?

ON PROGRESSIVE ARGS

I believe that prog args are a way to change the debate space and make it a better place for us. This means a) I'm really uncomfortable voting off "friv theory", especially run on opponents who don't know how to handle it, so if it feels like your theory is an EZ path to the ballot to trip up an opponent, I'll usually try not to evaluate it as much as other arguments. basically, the more friv the theory is, the more u need to make sure ur opponents are ok with it. i know that sounds super objective, i'm sorry, but rounds where high level varsity teams who have the privilege of going to camp and resources run theory on teams who don't have those resources are unfair and make me uncomfortable. BUT WITH THAT BEING SAID - b) if there's something that makes the space unsafe/ a violation of something u think is important and you explain that in your theory, progressive args are fine with me. I never ran Ks/ theory as a debater, but I get how they work and can evaluate them, just explain them well ofc. if you're unsure if the thing u wanna read theory on is friv or not, feel free to ask me, i really dont mind.

i dont like tricks much

I'll evaluate RVIs if you want to read them, but u have to warrant why im evaluating them ofc. I'll eval competing interps and responses to "must have competing interps". I'll eval paraphrase theory LMAO but I don't like it! I disagree!!! Paraphrasing good. Anyway.

Other notes

I think every debater should watch this video.

If you're reading an argument about a sensitive topic, please read a content warning. Personally, I'd prefer if these were done anonymously thru a google form or another anon method so you don't have to put the burden on your opponents to ~expose~ themselves if that makes sense.

Put me on the email chain please! You don't have to shake my hand. Please preflow before the round. You can flip without me. Pls give me an offtime roadmap if you can!! won't penalise u if u don't tho! Wear what ur comfortable in.

I presume neg, I guess, but if default neg is part of your strat, prolly include a line of warranting cuz i will be uncomfy otherwise

Analysis> ev if there's an unresolved clash.

Defense isn't sticky, but I give some leniency to first summary speakers, cuz obviously it's impossible to have perfect coverage otherwise.

Second rebuttal should frontline offense, and I'd PREFER it if it frontlined defense, but like,, it's up to u. The later things come, the less weight I give them.

I am tech > truth but obv no one is tabula rasa. I'll vote off what's on the flow like nuke war or LONG link chains if you win them. I wanna evaluate what you give me with as little intervention as possible, so I'll try and stay out of how I feel about it lol unless it's really problematic. idk what then.

I'm okkkkkkk with second rebuttal offensive overviews but i don't love them and if you wanna call it abusive, I'll evaluate that too. Although, ngl I'd like it if you actually respond to it as well. Grouping responses is excellent. I'll give you some leniency, sure cuz time skew.

I hateeee blippy and unwarranted responses. Like, yeah, I'll flow and eval them, but I will give them a LOT less weight. You can go fast I'm down and cool with that, that doesn't mean you get to leave out parts of an arg though:( that makes me v sad. Don't go fast without explaining/ implicating pls.

calling me "judge" is annoying

Please send me a speech doc @ esmeslongley@gmail.com if you want to spread. I can handle most pf-speed ok, but I might miss something. If I miss something, I'll probably just ask you to clarify when you're done speaking or ask for a doc, but that's not an invite for you to go really fast and hope that I'll do the clarifying.

I won't time you, but I'll stop flowing after a bit if your opponents hold up their timer and it's obvious you're over time. Don't abuse it.

Pls don't postround me, but please do ask me questions if you have any!!

Fun stuff

I will give extra speaks (+.2 each) if you

- call turns "no you"s (+.1 per signposted "no you")

- Make me laugh (especially with puns, especially spontaneous ones)

- Reference Beyond Resolved

- Auto 30 if you make a Minecraft arg. Like not an analogy, a full blown Minecraft-based argument.

- auto 29.7 if u metaweigh decently with warrants and i'll boost it if ur phenomenal

- +.4 If you tell me your Subway Surfer's high score and it's higher than mine

- Reference Nick Miller from New Girl/ any1 from BBC's Merlin/ kate bush (I LOVE HERRRR)

- If our star signs are compatible - just tell me urs before round and i'll KNOW.

- Auto 30 if you rhyme your entire case

- Auto-boost to a 29.5 + if you Rhyme 25 seconds or so of your speech?

Don't worry, though. I'm pretty easy on speaks and usually give around a 28+. I'm personally not the prettiest speaker, so I totally get it and that shouldn't be a point of stress. More importantly, people get marginalised by the speaks system in ableist/ xenophobic / etc. ways.

I will take off speaks (-.1) for

- Unnecessary obnoxiousness (basically, if you're very mean. Joking around is totally fine lol)

- If our star signs are incompatible

- If your Subway Surfers score is lower than mine, I'll take off .1 points and I will automatically lose all respect for you.

I love debate this makes me happy. Have fun. Ask me if you have questions before or after the round!!

Grace Luckett Walt Whitman 4 rounds

Kyle Luu Leland High School 6 rounds

Mark Mabie BASIS Independent Silicon Valley 6 rounds

Last changed on Sun October 13, 2024 at 3:56 AM PST

TLDR; I debated parli in high school for 3 years and have been coaching PF, LD, and Parli for the last 9 years since then with state and national champions. Refer to specifics below

New stuff: In all honesty, I do not like the state of PF debate in the last 2 years. Evidence ethics, spreading weak incomplete arguments, and people using K and theory wrong. It has driven me to become increasingly less willing to be Tabula Rasa. Education is the priority and in my experience the truer argument usually wins.

Follow the NSDA debate rules for properly formatting your evidence for PF and LD.

If paraphrasing is used in a debate, the debater will be held to the same standard of citation and accuracy as if the entire text of the evidence were read for the purpose of distinguishing between which parts of each piece of evidence are and are not read in a particular round. In all debate events, The written text must be marked to clearly indicate the portions read or paraphrased in the debate. If a student paraphrases from a book, study, or any other source, the specific lines or section from which the paraphrase is taken must be highlighted or otherwise formatted for identification in the round

IMPORTANT REMINDER FOR PF: Burden of proof is on the side which proposes a change. I presume the side of the status quo. The minimum threshold needed for me to evaluate an argument is

1) A terminalized and quantifiable impact
2) A measurable or direct cause and effect from the internal link
3) A topical external link
4) Uniqueness

If you do not have all of these things, you have an incomplete and unproven argument. Voting on incomplete or unproven arguments demands judge intervention. If you don't know what these things mean ask.

Philosophy of Debate:

Debate is an activity to show off the intelligence, hard work, and creativity of students with the ultimate goal of promoting education, sportsmanship, and personal advocacy. Each side in the round must demonstrate why they are the better debater, and thus, why they should receive my vote. This entails all aspects of debate including speaking ability, case rhetoric, in-and-out-of round decorum, and most importantly the overall argumentation of each speaker. Also, remember to have fun too.

I am practically a Tabula Rasa judge. “Tab” judges claim to begin the debate with no assumptions on what is proper to vote on. "Tab" judges expect teams to show why arguments should be voted on, instead of assuming a certain paradigm. Although I will default all theory to upholding education unless otherwise told

Judge preferences: When reading a constructive case or rebutting on the flow, debaters should signpost every argument and every response. You should have voter issues in your last speech. Make my job as a judge easier by telling me verbatim, why I should vote for you.

Depending on the burdens implied within the resolution, I will default neg if I have nothing to vote on. (presumption)

Kritiks. I believe a “K” is an important tool that debater’s should have within their power to use when it is deemed necessary. That being said, I would strongly suggest that you not throw a “K” in a round simply because you think it’s the best way to win the round. It should be used with meaning and genuinity to fight actually oppressive, misogynistic, dehumanizing, and explicitly exploitative arguments made by your opponents. When reading a "K" it will be more beneficial for you to slow down and explain its content rather than read faster to get more lines off. It's pretty crucial that I actually understand what I'm voting on if It's something you're telling me "I'm morally obligated to do." I am open to hearing K's but it has been a long time since I judged one so I would be too rusty.

Most Ks I vote on do a really good job of explaining how their solvency actually changes things outside of the debate space. At the point where you can’t or don't explain how voting on the K makes a tangible difference in the world, there really isn't a difference between pre and post fiat impacts. I implore you to take note of this when running or defending against a K.

Theory is fine. It should have a proper shell and is read intelligibly. Even if no shell is present I may still vote on it. Very rusty right now.

Speed Do not spread. Speed is generally fine. (PF less than 900 words for a 4 min speech) I am not great with spreading though. If your opponents say “slow down” you probably should. If I can’t understand you I will raise my hands and not attempt to flow.

I will only agree to 30 speaker point theory if it’s warranted with a reason for norms of abuse that is applicable to the debaters in the round. I will not extend it automatically to everyone just because you all agree to it.

Parli specifics:

I give almost no credence on whether or not your warrants or arguments are backed by “cited” evidence. Since this is parliamentary debate, I will most certainly will not be fact-checking in or after round. Do not argue that your opponents do not have evidence, or any argument in this nature because it would be impossible for them to prove anything in this debate.

Due to the nature of parli, to me the judge has an implicit role in the engagement of truth testing in the debate round. Because each side’s warrants are not backed by a hard cited piece of evidence, the realism or actual truth in those arguments must be not only weighed and investigated by the debaters but also the judge. The goal, however, is to reduce the amount of truth testing the judge must do on each side's arguments. The more terminalization, explanation, and warranting each side does, the less intervention the judge might need to do. For example if the negative says our argument is true because the moon is made of cheese and the affirmative says no it's made of space dust and it makes our argument right. I obviously will truth test this argument and not accept the warrant that the moon is made of cheese.

Tag teaming is ok but the person speaking must say the words themself if I am going to flow it. It also hurts speaker points.

Public Forum specifics:

I have no requirement for a 2-2 split. Take whatever rebuttal strategy you think will maximize your chance of winning. However note that offense generated from contentions in your case must be extended in second rebuttal or they are considered dropped. Same goes for first summary.

I will not accept any K in Public Forum. Theory may still be run. Critical impacts and meta weighing is fine. No pre-fiat impacts.

Your offense must be extended through each speech in the debate round for me to vote on it in your final focus. If you forget to extend offense in second rebuttal or in summary, then I will also not allow it in final focus. This means you must ALWAYS extend your own impact cards in second rebuttal and first summary if you want to go for them.

Having voter issues in final focus is one of the easiest ways you can win the round. Tell me verbatim why winning the arguments on the flow means you win the round. Relate it back to the standard.

Lincoln Douglass and Policy:

I am an experienced circuit parliamentary debate coach and am very tabula rasa so basically almost any argument you want to go for is fine. Please note the rest of my paradigm for specifics. If you are going to spread you must flash me everything going to be read.

Email is Markmabie20@gmail.com

Suresh Madivada Chelmsford High School 3 rounds None

Lydia Magalhaes Dowling Catholic High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Sat January 6, 2024 at 6:36 AM CST

Pronouns: She/her/hers

Pre-req: I will not vote on any case arguments making in-depth arguments pertaining to sexual violence, rape, or suicide/suicidal ideations that were not preceded by a pre-round trigger warning. If, upon hearing this trigger warning, the opponent requests the argument not be made and that request is denied, I'll be very receptive to theory arguments about why I ought to vote against you based on the introduction of that issue.

I believe that problematic arguments are problematic whether the opposing team points them out or not. I believe that this is not a space where any argument can be made. Problematic arguments at minimum impact the people in the round and can impact discourse outside of the round. I want the opposing team to point out problematic arguments and abuse. However, arguments that promote sexism, racism, or other forms of hate will not be persuasive for me and are likely to result in a down ballot.

Style: I am one of those judges who responds very negatively to rudeness, disrespect, and offensive language

Speed: I don't like speed. Learning how to talk fast has no post-debate benefit, so I do not support it as a strategy in an educational debate round. I can follow fast talking, but if you are spreading, then I will put down my pen and stop flowing. If I stop flowing, it probably means I am confused; either because you are going too fast, or I don't understand what you are saying.

Style: I need to have a weighing mechanism in PF debate. I need to know how to decide who won the round, otherwise I will get very frustrated. I do not want to decide using my own metrics, I want YOU to tell me how to judge the round. I will be using this weighing mechanism as I look at my flow to decide who won the round. I want this in LD as well. Link your arguments back to your value and criterion for me.

I tend to be a flow a judge. By that I mean that I flow and will be following the flow to see who has the strongest arguments at the end of the round.

Evidence This is also very important to me. By that I mean that I need evidence that is clearly cited and explained. Actually READ me your evidence, don't just give me your summary of the evidence. Analytical arguments are great, and I will vote there, but when disagreement is happening about what may or may not be true about the topic, I would like to hear evidence. This should also connect back to your weighing mechanism.

I also like to hear evidence in the rebuttal. If you are responding with an analytical argument to an argument that has evidence, I need you to do the work of explaining to me why your analytical argument is sufficient to off-set the argument with evidence. You can do this by telling me that sense the argument doesn't make sense/has a fallacy, then it doesn't stand even with evidence. Or you can make an analytical argument about the evidence itself. Otherwise, I am likely going to still prefer the argument with evidence.

Please call for evidence in a timely manner. Please use an email chain or the evidence sharing that Tabroom provides. I want to be included on the email chain.

If there is conflict about evidence, I need you to do the work of telling me why I prefer your evidence over your opponent's evidence. Just telling me, "It post dates," is not sufficient. What has changed since that date? Why is your source more reliable? Otherwise, I will just get frustrated.

If your opponent asks for evidence, per the NSDA rules, you need to provide them with the cut card and the full article in a way that allows everyone to see and read the evidence. I expect to be included in any email chain, so I can also see the card that was called for. I also expect this exchange of evidence to happen promptly (less than 30 seconds) when asked.

If there are questions about the validity of the evidence or the way evidence is being used, you are likely to lose my ballot.

On a related note, I do not believe that everything needs to be quantified. Just because numbers cannot or are not put to an impact, does not mean that it cannot be weighed. This is ESPECIALLY true when it comes to impacts to human beings. I do not find the argument, "we don't know how many people will be impacted," persuasive.

Nuclear Impacts: I think it is important that you know I have hard time believing that nuclear war is going to happen. If this is your terminal impact, you need to really set up the situation and chain of events for me to follow. Generally, there is an impact that happens before nuclear war or winter that is more likely, requires fewer links, and would be easier to convince me is true.

Prep Time: I expect competitors to keep track of their own time. I will also be keeping track of prep time. This will be official time used. If you use all of your prep time before the end of the round, I expect you to start speaking promptly. That means you should take no more than 10 seconds to begin your next speech.

Background: I am a math teacher, so if you are going to throw around math terms and mathematics, you need to be certain that you know what you are talking about and are correct. As an example, there is a difference between exponential, linear, and geometric growth, so make sure you say the right one.

I have debated PF 4 years in high school, 4 years of college PF, 4 years of NPDA/parli in college.

I am not a LD debater, so I have minimal understanding of the theory and technical arguments that exist within LD. You can absolutely still make those arguments, but you need to make sure that you are explaining those terms, otherwise I will be lost and frustrated.

I am happy to give you feedback after the round, if you find me. :)

Anju Mahesh Ivy Bridge Academy 6 rounds

Nicole Majercak Solon High School 4 rounds

Last changed on Fri March 19, 2021 at 9:01 PM EST

I am an experienced coach and judge in all events, debate and speech, on our local and state circuits as well as on the national circuit. I have traveled nationally and coached at summer camps in the past in both Congress and PF. I am a full flow judge in all debate events, and yes Congress is a debate event! I will judge based off the flow, but, imo, for PF/LD/CX, quantity is not king. The best debaters demonstrate strong analytical skills and know how to collapse, weigh, and justify effectively in favor of their side of the flow.

I'll deal with Congressional Debate first because it's a little shorter. I've extensively coached on local, state, and national levels and have had finalists and top 6 placers at all levels, including co-coaching a national champion. I tend to prefer circuit style Congressional Debate. I want to see good debate and will reward that much more heavily than any deductions for a few speaking blips. Good word choice and smooth speaking are important, just relatively slightly less important than really debating. If you have to choose a slight tradeoff between delivery and debating, my preference is to prioritize debate. I prefer a rapid delivery pace, but not definitely not policy speed. I do have a sense of humor and definitely enjoy tastefully humorous styles, as long as they maintain the decorum and respect of the chamber and subjects of the debate. I understand and appreciate various types of speeches within a round, including the fact that you may want to give an authorship/sponsorship for various reasons. However, my expectation is that if you hope for a higher rank from me you will demonstrate how well you are able to speak late in the round (i.e. refutations and crystallizations). I likely can't rank you if you give the first or second speech on every bill repeatedly, no matter how beautifully you may speak. I am a fan of POs. Many of my best Congressional debaters have been excellent POs. I say this with the understanding that anyone who runs to PO can preside very EFFECTIVELY and EFFICIENTLY. If you are presiding, dispense with anything that wastes speaking time and get right down to it, recognizing speakers and questioners as quickly as possible without mistakes or extra language. This may sound strange, but the less I hear or see you as PO, while the chamber is running quickly through speeches, the higher I will want to rank you. Finally, please don't rehash or waste the chamber's time with unnecessary parli games. If the debate is getting repetitive, please PQ the bill and move on, I will not think you're rude for calling the question, even if speakers are on the floor when the debate quality is poor.

OK - ON TO PF/LD - I am very flexible when it comes to rate of speaking. You can speak as fast as your mouth can move while maintaining solid enunciation and intelligible speech. I can follow and flow national circuit style policy when I am coaching and judging policy, but PF and LD are not policy. Also, imo, many debaters believe they can speak much faster than they actually can/should/need to. Think carefully about the tradeoff between saying more words and choosing persuasive and effective words when you are considering your rate choices in the round. Often, the strongest debaters/teams are able to edge off extreme speed because of their analytical skills.

I prefer to see debates where there is some kind of clear framework for decision making presented at some point (hopefully the beginning/early on), and where weighing on that framework occurs effectively WITH reasoning behind why the mechanism and the flow on your side is appropriate/superior.

In my mind, ultimately, the quality of evidence is more important than the quantity and logic is more important than raw facts/evidence. PLEASE, PLEASE, do not simply keep repeating "my __ card" or rely on "my card says so" in round. You MUST be able to explain the logic of your evidence and understand how your source has arrived at whatever conclusion you are presenting as your cut card. Without the logic, cards have pretty much zero value in round (unless your opponent has the same problem in their debating and then I guess I get to decide which cards I like better?). Also, while I value quality of evidence over sheer quantity, my expectation at circuit tournament debates is that every team who seeks to win rounds will also have a high quantity of evidence and demonstrate the logical basis and connection to that quantity of evidence.

Please make sure to present your version of how the debate is going by the end of the round. I do want to hear, iyo, what the key voters are, why they are the keys, and why you have presented superior arguments/evidence/analysis/etc. to advance your offensive attacks over theirs.

For crossfires, I really detest debaters/teams that (1) seek to speak every moment and try to prevent others from speaking (if you ask a question you MUST give them a chance to answer without cutting them off every two seconds) (2) provide the longest, most tangential, or most evasive answers possible to "kill time" (please get to the point) (3) can't stand up to reasonable questioning and crossfire strategies that seek to point out inconsistencies or lack of information. Please allow for time sharing within the crossfire period, maintain dignity, and, if you ask a question, you must let your opponent answer the question without immediately cutting them off (unless they're being obtuse or obstructive).

I absolutely detest debaters who do the thing where they shake or nod heads, or make gestures or movements or eye rolling, etc. while the opponent or partner is speaking to try to reinforce or negate what is being said at that moment. It's really distracting and annoying. You're not helping yourself by drawing attention to yourself in this negative way.

I am not opposed to answering any other questions prior to the round, as it is likely I've forgotten to address some issue you may have in mind.

Yes, I may call for your evidence at the end of a round if it is hotly contested, vital to the round, or suspect in some way.

Sandy Mancini The Dalton School 2 rounds

Rao Manekar Ivy Bridge Academy 6 rounds None

Gouri Mantri Hamilton High Independent 1 rounds

Sergio Martinez Oakwood School 2 rounds

Ashley Mason Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Sat September 12, 2020 at 11:58 AM EST

General Stuff -

She/Her

I competed on the national circuit for 4 years in the interpretation events. I am also familiar with the speech events, Public Forum, World Schools Debate, and Congress.

I competed for Trinity Preparatory School (Winter Park, FL) all 4 years of high school.

For debate events, I vote primarily off argumentation, not delivery.

I'm an International Studies and Political Science double major at the University of North Florida so I will most likely be familiar with whatever current events you may mention, so don't lie or I'll know lol.

Be respectful to your competitors. If you are disrespectful to any group or individual for their race, ethnicity, sexuality, gender identity, class, sex, nationality, ability, or religion you will automatically lose the round/be dropped. Just be nice and we will all have fun.

Email me if you have any questions - ashleynmason20@gmail.com

Public Forum -

I’ve competed in Public Forum a couple times and have watched quite a bit but I’m still definitely a lay judge.

Do’s:

- WEIGH. Otherwise I’ll do it for you, which you probs don’t want

- Extend whatever you say in crossfire. I don’t flow crossfire so if you want me to evaluate it, extend it.

- Collapsing - don’t be afraid to drop a point. Focus on the most important stuff. It’ll make all our lives easier.

- I'd prefer you to go line by line down your competitors case in rebuttal

- Feel free to frontline in second rebuttal

- If your competitors want to see a card, please pull it up fast. You should have it readily available. (This obvs excludes tech issues due to the current format of debating over Zoom).

Don’ts:

- Spread. Talking semi-fast is fine.

- Don’t bring up new stuff in final focus. I won’t consider it.

- Please don't refer to your cards only by name when extending. I will probs miss the name of your card so tell me what you are talking about please.

- I'm not going to say absolutely NO theory, but if you run theory, you better explain it really really well because I'm not well-versed on it at all.

How I evaluate the round:

- I’ll flow. Whoever wins the flow will win the round. So make sure to extend your points and respond to your competitors

- I won’t consider stuff said in cross fire unless it’s extended.

Other stuff:

- I probs won’t call for a card unless it seems sus.

- Please just be honest about how much prep time you’ve used because I can’t keep up with how much you’ve used.

World Schools Debate -

I competed in Worlds Schools one year at nationals so I have some experience and understanding.

Do's:

1. Talk about countries other than the US. This is WORLD Schools Debate.

2. Bring up a 3rd substantive argument in your 2nd speech. OPP, feel free to respond to the PROP's 3rd substantive argument in your 2nd speech.

3. WEIGH your arguments. Otherwise, I'll have to do that for you, which you might not like.

4. Collapsing. Don't be afraid to drop a point. It'll make all our lives easier. Quality over quantity.

Don'ts:

1. Don't spread (talking fast is fine)

2. Don't bring up new stuff in final reply. I won't consider it.

3. Don't only talk about the US. This is WORLD Schools.

4. Please don't refer to your cards only by name when extending. I will probs miss the name of your card so tell me what you are talking about please.

How I'll Vote:

I'm going to vote off who wins the flow. So extend your arguments and respond to your competitors.

If the opposing team presents a model/mechanism and you don't want it to be the framework for the round - counter the model/mechanism. Otherwise, I'm voting off it.

I'm not going to consider POIs in my decision unless they are extended.

I probably won't call for cards unless it seems sus.

Congress -

I've watched quite a bit of Congress and I competed once at a local. I have some experience judging Congress. Still, I'm definitely a lay judge.

Be professional, but don't be afraid to make a joke or two. I like dynamic speakers and speeches.

I like unique arguments. I don't want to keep hearing the same stuff over and over.

Abide by congressional debate rules and procedures.

I like clash but still be respectful.

I don't prioritize delivery, but I still want to see the proper formatting for a speech: roadmap, transitions, etc.

For a PO, I want to see someone who can keep a chamber under control, properly follow the speaking order, and appear unbiased and fair to all in the round. I don't understand judges who refuse to rank the PO. If you do your job well, I will rank you. :)

Speech and Interp -

I'm not going to write a paradigm for speech or interp. It's not like you can read it and change your speech before walking into the round. But, I'll try to make it very clear why I gave you the rank I did on your ballot. If you are confused or have any questions, feel free to reach out!

Rachel Mauchline Cabot High School 3 rounds

Last changed on Sat September 14, 2024 at 5:01 AM EST

Rachel Mauchline

Durham Academy, Assistant Director of Speech and Debate

Previously the Director of Forensics and Debate for Cabot

she/her pronouns

TL;DR

Put me on the email chain @ rachelmauchline@gmail.com

speed is fine (but online lag is a thing)

tech over truth

World Schools

I truly love world school as an event. It is my favorite event to coach and I've been coaching worlds since 2018. I focus heavily on the event’s rubric to guide the ballot; however it ultimately is a debate event so remember to focus on the warranting and implication of your arguments. I do think there is a lot of room for stylistic flair that can add to a worlds round that can carry down the bench throughout the round. I see a lot of value in POIs for both sides - for the asking side to break up the flow of the debate and for the receiving side to clearly contextualize an answer that helps guide them to their next point of clash.

Policy

I typically get preferred for more policy-oriented debate. I gravitated to more plan focused affirmatives and t/cp/da debate. I would consider myself overall to be a more technically driven and line by line organized debater. My ideal round would be a policy affirmative with a plan text and three-seven off. Take that as you wish though.

Lincoln Douglas

I've judged a variety of traditional and progressive debates. I prefer more progressive debate. But you do you... I am happy to judge anything as long as you defend the position well. Refer to my specific preferences below about progressive arguments. In regards to traditional debates, it's important to clearly articulate framework.

Public Forum

weighing.... weighing.... weighing.

I like rebuttals to have clear line by line with numbered responses. 2nd rebuttal should frontline responses in rebuttal. Summary should extend terminal defense and offense OR really anything that you want in final focus. Final focus should have substantial weighing and a clear way for me to write my ballot. It's important to have legitimate evidence... don't completely skew the evidence.

Here are my specific preferences on specific arguments if you have more than 5 mins to read this paradigm...

Topicality

I enjoy a well-articulated t debate. In fact, a good t debate is my favorite type of debate to judge. Both sides need to have a clear interpretation. Make sure it’s clearly impacted out. Be clear to how you want me to evaluate and consider arguments like the tva, switch side debate, procedural fairness, limits, etc.

Disadvantages/Counterplans

This was my fav strat in high school. I’m a big fan of case-specific disadvantages but also absolutely love judging politics debates- be sure to have up to date uniqueness evidence in these debates though. It’s critical that the disad have some form of weighing by either the affirmative or negative in the context of the affirmative. Counterplans need to be functionally or textually competitive and also should have a net benefit. Slow down for CP texts and permutations- y’all be racing thru six technical perms in 10 seconds. Affirmative teams need to utilize the permutation more in order to test the competition of the counterplan. I don’t have any bias against any specific type of counterplans like consult or delay, but also I’m just waiting for that theory debate to happen.

Case

I believe that case debate is under-covered in many debates by both teams. I love watching a case debate with turns and defense instead of the aff being untouched for the entire debate until last ditch move by the 2AR. The affirmative needs to continue to weigh the aff against the negative strat. Don't assume the 1AC will be carried across for you throughout the round. You need to be doing that work on the o/v and the line by line. It confuses me when the negative strat is a CP and then there are no arguments on the case; that guarantees aff 100% chance of solvency which makes the negative take the path of most resistance to prove the CP solves best.

Kritiks

I’ll vote for the k. From my observations, I think teams end up just reading their prewritten blocks instead of directly engaging with the k specific to the affirmative. Be sure you understand what you are reading and not just read a backfile or an argument that you don’t understand. The negative needs to be sure to explain what the alt actually is and more importantly how the alt engages with the affirmative. I judge more K rounds than I expect to, but if you are reading a specific author that isn’t super well known in the community, but sure to do a little more work on the analysis

Theory

I’ll vote for whatever theory; I don’t usually intervene much in theory debates but I do think it’s important to flesh out clear impacts instead of reading short blips in order to get a ballot. Saying “pics bad” and then moving on without any articulation of in round/post fiat impacts isn’t going to give you much leverage on the impact level. You can c/a a lot of the analysis above on T to this section. It’s important that you have a clear interp/counter interp- that you meet- on a theory debate.

Elisa McCartin Walt Whitman 6 rounds

Last changed on Sat September 18, 2021 at 1:50 PM EST

I debated for four years at Walt Whitman High School (MD), where I now serve as a PF coach. This is my fourth year judging/coaching PF. The best thing you can do for yourself to cleanly win my ballot is to weigh. At the end of the round, you will probably have some offense but so will your opponent. Tell me why your offense is more important and really explain it—otherwise I’ll have to intervene and use my own weighing, which you don’t want.

Other preferences:

- If second rebuttal frontlines their case, first summary must extend defense. However, if second rebuttal just responds to the opposing case, first summary is not required to extend defense. Regardless, first summary needs to extend turns if you want me to vote on them.

- Second summary needs defense and should start the weighing part of the debate (if it hasn't happened already).

-I will only accept new weighing in the second final focus if there has been literally no other weighing at any other part of the debate.

- I don't need second rebuttal to frontline case, but I do require that you frontline any turns. Leaving frontlining delinks for summary is fine with me.

-I highly suggest collapsing on 1-2 arguments; I definitely prefer quality of arguments over quantity.

- I love warrants/warrant comparisons. For any evidence you read you should explain why that conclusion was reached (ie explain the warrant behind it). Obviously in some instances you need cards for certain things, but in general I will buy logic if it is well explained over a card that is read but has absolutely no warrant that's been said. I also really hate when people just respond to something by saying "they don't have a card for this, therefore it's false" so don't do that.

- Speed is okay but spreading is not.

- Don’t just list weighing mechanisms, explain how your weighing functions in the round and be comparative. Simply saying "their argument is vague/we outweigh on strength of link/we have tangible evidence and they do not" is not weighing.

- Not big on Ks and theory is only fine if there is a real and obvious violation going on. Don’t just run theory to scare your opponent or make the round more confusing. With this in mind, please trigger warn your cases. Trigger warning theory is probably the only theory shell I will ever vote on, but I really really don't want to because I hate voting on theory. PLEASE TRIGGER WARN YOUR CASES AND/OR ASK YOUR OPPONENTS IF THEY READ SENSITIVE MATERIAL PRIOR TO THE ROUND BEGINNING TO AVOID TRIGGERING PEOPLE AND THEN RE-LITIGATING THE TRAUMA FOR THE ENTIRE DEBATE. If you care about protecting survivors, you will ask before the round if a case has sensitive material. Also, I hate disclosure theory. Just ask your opponent to share their case if it is a big deal to you.

- I highly encourage you not to run arguments in front of me about people on welfare having disincentives to work, or any other type of argument like that which shows a clear lack of understanding/empathy about poverty and the lived experiences of low-income people.

- I like off-time roadmaps, but BE BRIEF.

The only time I’ll intervene (besides if you don’t weigh and I have to choose what to weigh), is if you are being sexist, racist, homophobic, ableist, etc. or are blatantly misrepresenting evidence. I’ll drop you and tank your speaks.

Also, I know debate is often stressful so try to have fun! Let me know if you have any other questions before the round or if there is anything I can do to accommodate you.

Abby Lynn McCartney Kugnus ACTS 6 rounds

Don McFadden Hawken 3 rounds

Chad Meadows Marist School 2 rounds

Last changed on Tue September 3, 2024 at 2:52 PM CST

Chad Meadows (he/him)

chadwickmeadows@gmail.com

If you have interest in college debate, and would be interested in hearing about very expansive scholarship opportunities please contact me. Our program competes in two policy formats and travels to at least 4 tournaments a semester. Most of our nationally competitive students have close to zero cost of attendance because of debate specific financial support.

Debate Experience

College: I’ve been the head argument coach and/or Director of Debate for Western Kentucky University for a little over a decade. WKU competes in NFA-LD and CEDA/NDT

High School: I’ve been an Assistant Coach, and primarily judge, for the Marist School in Atlanta, Georgia for several years. In this capacity I’ve judged at high school tournaments in both Policy Debate and Public Forum.

High School Topic Exposure

I am not a primary argument coach or participant at Summer institute for high school policy debate, and do not have in-depth knowledge of IP topic trends.

Argument Experience/Preferences

I feel comfortable evaluating the range of debates in modern policy debate (no plan affirmatives, policy, and kritik) though I am the most confident in policy rounds. My research interests tend toward more political science/international affairs/economics, though I’ve become well read in some critical areas in tandem with my students’ interests (anti-blackness/afropessimism in particular) in addition I have some cursory knowledge of the standard kritik arguments in debate, but no one would mistake me for a philosophy enthusiast. On the Energy topic, almost all of my research has been on the policy side.

Though I don't feel particularly dogmatic about the plan/no plan debate, my preference is that the affirmative should advocate a topical plan and the debate should be about the desirability of that plan. I do not enjoy clash debates, and in those rounds HEAVILY appreciate some novelty/pen time/judge instruction PLEASE.

I have few policy preferences with regard to content, but view some argumentative trends with skepticism: Counterplans that result in the plan (consult and many process counterplans), Agent counterplans, voting negative any procedural concern that isn’t topicality, reject the team counterplan theory that isn’t conditionality, some versions of politics DAs that rely on defining the process of fiat, arguments that rely on voting against the representations of the affirmative without voting against the result of the plan.

I feel very uncomfortable evaluating events that have happened outside of the debate round

Decision Process

I tend to read more cards following the debate than most. That’s both because I’m curious, and I tend to find that debaters are informing their discussion given the evidence cited in the round, and I understand their arguments better having read the cards myself.

I give less credibility to arguments that appear unsupported by academic literature, even if the in round execution on those arguments is solid. I certainly support creativity and am open to a wide variety of arguments, but my natural disposition sides with excellent debate on arguments that are well represented in the topic literature.

To decide challenging debates I generally use two strategies: 1) write a decision for both sides and determine which reflects the in-round debating as opposed to my own intuition, and 2) list the relevant meta-issues in the round (realism vs liberal internationalism, debate is a game vs. debate should spill out, etc.) and list the supporting arguments each side highlighted for each argument and attempt to make sense of who debated the best on the issues that appear to matter most for resolving the decision.

I try to explain why I sided with the winner on each important issue, and go through each argument extended in the final rebuttal for the losing team and explain why I wasn’t persuaded by that argument.

Public Forum

Baseline expectations: introduce evidence using directly quoted sections of articles not paraphrasing, disclose arguments you plan to read in debates.

Argument preferences: no hard and fast rules, but I prefer debates that most closely resemble the academic and professional controversy posed by the topic. Debate about debate, while important in many contexts, is not the argument I'm most interested in adjudicating.

Style preferences: Argumentation not speaking style will make up the bulk of my decision making and feedback, my reflections on debate are informed by detailed note taking of the speeches, speeches should focus their time on clashing with their opponents' arguments.

Noah Mengisteab Delbarton School 2 rounds

Last changed on Fri November 22, 2024 at 6:07 AM EST

(Please, please, please, unless you are well prepared for a theory round, do yourself a favor and strike me if you don't cut accurate cards, don't send evidence in email chains, or don't disclose at circuit tournaments.)

Blake: Second flight teams please start the email chain while you're waiting in the hallway.

Background: He/Him/His; 3L at NYU Law; current assistant PF coach at Durham Academy (NC); previously assistant director/head debate coach at Delbarton (NJ) 2020-2024.

Email Chains: Please add nmdebaterounds@gmail.com to the email chain with the following subject line: Tournament Name - Rd # - School Team Code (side/order) v. School Team Code (side/order). Teams should send case evidence (and rhetoric if you paraphrase) by the end of constructive – copy and paste all text and send it in the body of the email. The same applies for rebuttal evidence.

Evidence: Even if you paraphrase, I will only evaluate evidence in cut cards. These are properly cut cards.

Accommodations: Yes, just ask before round.

Main PF Paradigm:

Preflow before the round; speaks start at 28.
Offense > Defense; clear and whole backhalf extensions matter.
Slow down for tags when spreading. If I clear you, then you are no longer saying words -- slow down or annunciate.
Second rebuttal / 1st summary should frontline all turns + their collapsed argument(s).
New weighing in first final is okay, depending on if it’s responsive to 2nd summary
Please do comparative weighing with timeframe, mag/scope, and probability. I rather not try to evaluate try or die.
Tabula rasa to an extent – longer link chains will still be difficult to vote for and I will intervene on anything blatantly racist, sexist, homophobic, or fabricated (i.e., major evidence issues).
Don’t crash out in cross. Put cross analysis in ink with your speeches.
Trigger warnings with opt-outs are only necessary with graphic depictions or identity-based Ks read. Otherwise, content warnings are generally good. Use your best judgment and follow tournament guidance.

"Progressive" PF: I prefer topical debates but am open to the following arguments at varsity/open national circuit tournaments:

Ks: Run at your own risk, but have judged IR, Cap, Securitization, and Killjoy arguments, but significantly less familiar with high theory lit (i.e., Baudrillard, Bataille, Nietzsche).
Theory: Topicality, Disclosure, Paraphrasing, and Vague/Utopian Alts, and their derivatives/CIs are fine to read in front of me. I default to competing interps and spirit over interp text. I generally think open-source (cut card + tag) disclosure is good and paraphrasing is bad, but won't intervene on the flow. If your disclosure is unintelligible because you pasted pages of article text, then I believe you did not disclose (open to this as a debate response).
Introducing excessive off positions in PF (e.g., 4) will decrease the chance of a comprehensible RFD.

Questions? Ask before the round.

Ravishankar Menon Lambert High School 3 rounds

Kella Merlain-Moffatt Oxbridge Academy of the Palm Beaches 6 rounds

Jesse Meyer Iowa City West 3 rounds

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 11:18 AM CST

Updated for Fall 2019.- Yes, include me on any email chain. jessemeyer@gmail.com

I am currently an assistant PF debate coach at Iowa City West HS. I am also under contract by the NSDA to produce topic analysis packets and advanced briefs for LD, PF, and Biq Questions. I am also an instructor with Global Academy Commons, an organization that has partnered with NSDA China to bring speech and debate education, public speaking, and topic prep to students in East Asia. In my free time, I play Magic: The Gathering and tab debate tournaments freelance. I am the recipient of the Donald Crabtree Service Award, 2 diamond coach (pending April 2020), and was the state of Iowa's Coach of the Year in 2015.

I say all of this not to impress people. I'm way too old to care about that. I say this to point out one thing: I've dedicated my life to speech and debate. Since I was 14, this activity was a place where I could go to find people that cared about the same things as me and who were like me. No matter how bad of a day I was having, I could go to practice and everything would be ok. This is what debate is to me, and this is what I have worked towards since I became a coach. So it upsets and angers me when I see people that try to win debate rounds by making the world a worst place for others. There is a difference between being competitive and being a jerk. I've had to sit with students who were in tears because they were mistreated because they were women, I've had people quit the team because they were harassed because of their religion, and I've had to ask competitors to not use racial slurs in round. And to be honest, I am tired of it. So if your All Star Tournament Champion strategy revolves around how unconformable you can make your opponent, strike me.

With that being stated, here is how I view arguments.

In LD, I prefer a value and criterion, even if you are going non traditional in your case structure. I don't care if you are traditional, progressive, critical, or performative. I've judges and coached all types and I've voted for all types too. What I care about more is the topic hook you use to get your arguments to the relationship of the topic. If I can't find a clear link, if one isn't established, or if you can't articulate one, I'm going to have a really hard time voting for you.

I weight impacts. This is a holdover from my old college policy days. Clearly extend impacts and weight them. I view the value and criterion as lens for which I prioritize types of impacts. Just winning a value isn't enough to wind the round if you don't have anything that impacts back to it.

If you run a CP, the aff should perm. Perms are tests of competition. Most will still link to the DA so the neg should make that arg. The more unique the CP, the better. CP's should solve at least some impacts of the aff.

If you run a K, throwing around buzz words like "discourse, praxis, holistic, traversing X, or anything specific to the K" without explaining what those mean in the round will lower your speaker points. To me, you are just reading what the cards you found in the policy backfile said. Also, finding unique links to more generic K's, like cap or biopower, will be beneficial in how I view the round. But also note that on some topics, the K you love just might not work. Don't try to force it. A good aff needs to perm. Perm's on K debates tend to solve their offense. I do not like links of omission.

Case debate- Love it.

Theory- Do not love it. When I was in my 20's, I didn't mind theory, but now, the thought of people speed reading or even normal reading theory shells at each other makes me fear for my 50 minutes in round. If theory is justified, I will vote on it but there is a big barrier to what I count as justified. I need to see clear in round abuse. In lue of that, the potential abuse story needs to be absolutely 100% on point. This means that a theory shell that is zipped through in 10 seconds will not be getting my vote. No questions asked. Do the work because I don't do the work for you. Oh, I will not vote on disclosure theory. Disclosing probably is good but I do not require it and unless the tournament does, I don't see a reason to punish the debaters for not doing this.

Reformative arguments- I coached kids on these arguments and I've voted for them too. The thing is that because I don't see them often I have the reputation of not liking them. This creates a negative feedback loop so I never see them and so on... I'll vote for them but you need to have a topic hook and some justification or solvency mech for your performance. I will also be 100% honest because I owe it to the debaters who do this style of debate and who have put in so much time to get it right, I'm probably a midrange judge on this. At large bid tournaments there are probably judges that are better versed in the lit base who can give you more beneficial pointers.

PF Debate

Unless told otherwise, I use the pilot rules as established by the NSDA.

I hold evidence to a high standard. I love paraphrasing but if called out, you better be able to justify what you said.

If I call for a card, don't hand me a pdf that is 40 pages long. I will not look for it. I want it found for me. If you expect me to find it, I will drop the card.

I am still getting on board with pf disclosure. I am not the biggest fan as of now. I can see the educational arguments for it but it also runs counter to the basis for the event. I do not require teams to share cases before round and arguments in round as to why not sharing put you at a disadvantage won't get you ground.

I appreciate unique frameworks.

This event is not policy. I don't drop teams for speed or reading card after card after card but I will dock speaker points.

I weight impacts. But with this stipulation; I am not a fan of extinction impacts in pf. I think it goes a bit too far to the policy side of things. Use your framework to tell me how to prioritize the impacts.

Treat others with respect. I will drop people for being intentionally horrible to your opponents in round. Remember, there is a way to be competitive without being a jerk.

Should also go without saying but be nice to your partner too. Treat them as an equal. They get the W the same as you.

Policy- Honestly, I kind of used the majority of what I wanted to say in the LD section since they are so similar nowadays.

T- Love it. Won most of my college neg rounds on it. Be very clear on the interp and standards. If you go for it, only go for it. Should be the only argument in the 2NR.

Jeffrey Miller Marist School 1 rounds

Last changed on Tue October 8, 2024 at 3:12 PM EST

Jeffrey Miller

Current Coach -- Marist School (2011-present)
Lab Leader -- Institute for Speech & Debate (2024-present), National Debate Forum (2015-2023), Emory University (2016), Dartmouth College (2014-2015), University of Georgia (2012-2015)
Former Coach -- Fayette County (2006-2011), Wheeler (2008-2009)
Former Debater -- Fayette County (2002-2006)

jmill126@gmail.com and maristpublicforum@gmail.com for email chains, please (no google doc sharing and no locked google docs)

Last Updated -- 10/8/2024 for 2024-2025 season

Overview

I am a high school teacher who believes in the power that speech and debate provides students. There is no another activity that provides the benefits that this activity does.

I wear a lot of hats as a debate coach - I am heavily involved in argument creation and strategy discussions with all levels of our public forum teams (middle school, novice and varsity). I work closely with our extemp students working on current events, cutting cards and listening to speeches. I work closely with our interp students on their pieces - from cutting them to blocking them. I work closely with platform students working with them to strategically think about integrating research into their messages.

I have been involved with the PF topic wording committee for the past eight years so any complaints (or compliments) about topics are probably somewhat in my area. I take my role on the committee seriously trying to let research guide topics and I have a lot of thoughts and opinions about how debates under topics should happen and while I try to not let those seep into the debates, there is a part of me that can't resist the truth of the topic lit.

As your judge, it is my job to give you the best experience possible in that round. I will work as hard in giving you that experience as I expect you are working to win the debate. I think online debate is amazing and would not be bothered if we never returned to in-person competitions again. For online debate to work, everyone should have their cameras on and be cordial with other understanding that there can be technical issues in a round.

What does a good debate look like?

In my opinion, a good debate features two well-researched teams who clash around a central thesis of the topic. Teams can demonstrate this through a variety of ways in a debate such as the use of evidence, smart questioning in cross examination and strategical thinking through the use of casing and rebuttals. In good debates, each speech answers the one that precedes it (with the second constructive being the exception in public forum). Good debates are fun for all those involved including the judge(s).

The best debates are typically smaller in nature as they can resolve key parts of the debate. The proliferation of large constructives have hindered many second halves as they decrease the amount of time students can interact with specific parts of arguments and even worse leaving judges to sort things out themselves and increasing intervention.

What role does theory play in good debates?

I've always said I prefer substance over theory. That being said, I do know theory has its place in debate rounds and I do have strong opinions on many violations. I will do my best to evaluate theory as pragmatically as possible by weighing the offense under each interpretation. For a crash course in my beliefs of theory - disclosure is good, open source is an unnecessary standard for high school public forum teams until a minimum standard of disclosure is established, paraphrasing is bad, round reports is frivolous, content warnings for graphic representations is required, content warnings over non-graphic representations is debatable and I probably err that they silence a majority of debaters.

All of this being said, I don't view myself as an autostrike for teams that don't disclose or paraphrase. However, I've judged enough this year to tell you if you are one of those teams and happen to debate someone with thoughts similar to mine, you should be prepared with answers and "our coach doesn't allow us" is not an answer.

I am not your judge if you want to read things like font theory or other frivilous items.

I am also not persauded by many IVI's. IVI's (like RVI's) are an example of bad early 2000's policy debate. Teams should just make arguments against things and not have to read an 'independent voting issue' in order for me to flag it to vote on the argument. Implicate your arguments and I will vote.

Do teams need to advocate the topic?

Like I said above, arguments work best when they are in the context of the critical thesis of the topic. Thus, if you are reading the same cards in your framing contention from the Septober topic that have zero connections to the current topic, I think you are starting a up-hill battle for yourselves.

Links of omission are not persuasive - teams need to identify real links for all of their positions.

In terms of the progressive debates I've watched, judged or talked about, it seems like there is a confusion about structural violence - and teams conflate any impact with marginalized group as a SV impact. This is disappointing to watch and if reading claims about SV - the constructive should also be explicit about what structures the aff/neg makes worse that implicate the violence.

Saying "structural violence comes first" doesn't automatically mean it does or that you win. These are debatable arguments, please debate them. I am also finding that sometimes the lack of clash isn't a problem of unprepared debaters, but rather there isn't enough time to resolve major issues in the literature. At a minimum, your evidence that is making progressive type claims in the debate should never be paraphrased and should be well warranted. I have found myself struggling to flow framing contentions that include four completely different arguments that should take 1.5 minutes to read that PF debaters are reading in 20-30 seconds (Read: your crisis politics cards should be more than one line).

How should evidence exchange work?

Evidence exchange in public forum is broken. At the beginning of COVID, I found myself thinking cases sent after the speech in order to protect flowing. However, my view on this has shifted. A lot of debates I found myself judging last season had evidence delays after case. At this point, constructives should be sent immediately prior to speeches. (If you paraphrase, you should send your narrative version with the cut cards in order).

Rebuttals should also probably be emailed in order to check evidence being read.

When you send evidence to the email chain, I prefer a cut card with a proper citation and highlighting to indicate what was read. Cards with no formatting or just links are as a good as analytics.

Evidence should be attached in a document, not in the text of an email. It is annoying to have to "view more" every single time. Just attach a document.

If you send me a locked/uneditable google doc, I will give you the lowest points available at the tournament.

What effects speaker points?

I am trying to increase my baseline for points as I've found I'm typically below average. Instead of starting at a 28, I will try to start at a 28.5 for debaters and move accordingly. Argument selection, strategy choices and smart crossfires are the best way to earn more points with me. You're probably not going to get a 30 but have a good debate with smart strategy choices, and you should get a 29+.

This only applies to tournaments that use a 0.1 metric -- tournaments that are using half points are bad.

Tim Missell Lambert High School 3 rounds

Byeongjun Moon BC Academy 3 rounds

Last changed on Sat April 3, 2021 at 1:15 AM PST

Hi there! This is my fourth year debating in Public Forum; I also have minor experiences with CNDF, BP, etc.

For email chains, please remember to include me at b.moon@columbia.edu!

Preferences:

Content comes before style for me; I want to see a solid debate with credible cards to back up your claim. With that being said, I would also like you to cut your cards at your pace, or else I'll be cutting them for you at my own discretion.

I hate debaters that spread, so please don't spread.

When you extend your argument, explain how you're extending your argument instead of saying "extend". I won't take it into my consideration if I encounter this during the round.

Weighing does not mean repeating your arguments, but please weigh your arguments so that things are easier for me.

Time yourself, especially during the crossfire. You may finish your question, but the opponent will not get a chance to answer. I won't be taking notes, so if you want me to put something into my flow, mention it in the next speech.

I am fine with speed but do not rush during the round. That's how I lost all my arguments from my own experience.

I prefer impacts over warrants.

Pet peeves

“Okay... time... starts... NOW”

“As an off-time roadmap I’m going to be extending the turn of their third contention, then going to our case and extending the CBO evidence off of our first contention and responding to the delink, and then outweighing on timeframe and magnitude.”

"Honorable judge", "They dropped the argument so that means they agree with it"

Nitty-gritty

Debate is all about having fun. Refute your opponents' arguments, but refrain from personal attacks. You'll experience magic in your speaker score if you don't.

My speaker score ranges from 25-29.5; a meme reference (not an attack though) or a physical 'turn' will get a 0.5 speaker boost :)

Be respectful to your opponents and your judge. As a debater myself, I don't want a rude opponent coming up with random numbers without any logic and evidence whatsoever.

I love giving feedback - feel free to email me after the round at b.moon@columbia.edu with your team name, and I'll be more than happy to provide you with feedback! Make sure to ask specific questions as well, or else I'm going to ignore your email.

Cheers!

Good luck winning your round, and have fun!

Chloe Moon BC Academy 6 rounds

Vijay Morampudi Evergreen Valley 4 rounds

Rajini Moudgalya University Independent 6 rounds

Peter Mu Montgomery Blair 5 rounds

Cas Mulford Park City 2 rounds

Bhuva Muthukumar PaloAltoIndependent 3 rounds

Basarajav Narayanappa Lambert High School 3 rounds

Ilan Nurko College Prep 3 rounds

Jakob Nusinov Myers Park Unaffiliated 6 rounds

Last changed on Sat October 8, 2022 at 4:42 AM EST

Hello,

I am from North Carolina and have competed on the Carolina West circuit for 3 years. Thus, I can flow almost anything that I can understand. I am fine with speed but if you are excessively fast than I will gesture to slow down (don't be startled, it typically means I actually am interested in what you are saying, I just am missing key points). Moreover, this means I can pick up on the jargon that you will use in round, but if I am really lost I will give you a very confused look. Below are things I want and don't want in a round.

UPDATE: I am a sophomore in college now, so I am just a bit rusty. Please note that I am not in my prime anymore :(

UPDATE 2: I honestly do not know anything... go easy

UPDATE 3 (Oct. 8 2022): IT HAS BEEN SO LONG PLEASE HELP.

Things that will get you speaks and wins:

1. Argumentation. I will vote on arguments NOT on presentation. Please, please, please extend your arguments properly, preferably with cards and impacts, it makes them easy to vote for.

2. Weighing/Framework. If you can tell me WHY I should vote for economic benefits over lives lost with a good reason, I am fine with signing the ballot that way. However, that doesn't mean you can just tell me in final that lives don't matter and expect an easy win because you lost the lives argument.

3. Signposting/Roadmaps. Please use these techniques in order to make it easier for me to flow your speeches and apply your arguments correctly. If I have to guess on where your turn belongs than I will probably get it wrong and you won't be happy.

4. Crossfire. This is not vital to the round and will not get you a win unless it is critical to the round. If you absolutely slay your opponent in cross, great! I love a bit of humor, banter, and even satire in cross. I think it makes the round more enjoyable, and therefore will give you a bump in speaks. If something really critical comes up in crossfire and you think that I should flow it, please address the idea in the following speech.

5. Evidence. This is obviously the most important part of Public Forum. A few key issues with evidence. One, please at least tell me the last name of the author and date of the card in case and in subsequent speeches. Also, if you are trying to indict a piece of evidence, expect me to call it if it is really important to the round or if that is your only response to their entire argument. Lastly, please give me the reasoning and warranting behind the card instead of just saying "we are right because Callan Hazeldine said so"

Things that will lose you the round and get bad speaks:

1. Being A Jerk. There is a fine line between standing your ground in cross and defending your time to speak and steamrolling your opponent. Just be careful (profanity, abusive, or harsh language). Also, any racist, xenophobic, sexist, or any discriminatory remarks will almost certainly lose you the round and possibly have consequences beyond that.

2. Summary/Final Discrepancy. If your summary goes for your C1 and the final goes for C2, I may throw a fit. I know that the summary is one of the most difficult speeches in the round, but it should match the weighing/impacts given in final. If these speeches don't give me basically the same narrative, or at least FF be a part of the summary narrative, I will have a hard time signing my ballot for you.

A couple more key pieces of information:

1. Please have your evidence. I understand that it can take a minute to try and find anything that they call for but if it lasts more than 3 minutes, I will begin to become skeptical. I probably will not interfere but I will definitely not enjoy my time being wasted.

2. Timing. I may time if the round really needs it but I much rather prefer that the opponents keep each other in check with time. For prep, please take care of that as I will be evaluating the flow during that time, not counting your seconds.

3. Have Fun! Remember, this event is supposed to be enjoyable for everyone (including you!). I would love to see your passion on the topic and I know how intense a debate round can get. However, please understand this community is a second family for some. While the topics and solutions we debate are super important and have real-life consequences, I do not think that rules out enjoying the round.

4. About the decision. I will try and give my RFD at the end of every round I judge because I prefer to have it still fresh in my mind while also giving you the opportunity to ask questions. So, if you feel like I missed something or want clarification, then please feel free to ask questions, bring up concerns, or anything you feel as if you want to talk to me about. Moreover, if you want more detailed feedback (specific speeches, case ideas, etc.) then go ahead and either meet with me later in the day or get my contact info. I love this event with all my heart and all I could ask for is to see some great debate. I want to help you all learn and get better so take advantage of that.

Santiago O'Neil Henry Clay High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Mon August 31, 2020 at 12:30 PM EST

Experience: I debated all four years in high school, mainly pf but have experience in ld as well.

General Judging Views:

Just debate. I'm a competent judge who just wants a clean round. I prefer lay argumentation because it's more familiar but do whatever you want well & clearly and it's all good.

With the clear exception of anything racist, sexist, xenophobic, or otherwise bigoted/discriminatory, I'll buy whatever you sell well. If your argumentation is poor, it may affect your speaker points, but other than that it's all on the flow; I try my best to be consciously non-interventionist, so if your opponent doesn't attack something, it doesn't matter if I think it's stupid, I'll grudgingly flow it through.

You have to do the weighing for me; if you haven't told me why you've won when compared to your opponent at the end of the round, you wasted your final speech. In close cases that heavily rely on weighing you may have thrown away a win.

I said I don't care how you debate but treat the final focus like a speech made predominantly for weighing rather than wasting it on some spread-thin summary. For LD, just know that however you weigh has to be talked about significantly in your last speech.

Speaking matters to me. It won't affect the outcome of the round unless I literally have nothing else to go off of (in which case the result is kinda self-inflicted) or i cannot vote for you based on not understanding you despite requests for clarity. I start at 27, and go up or down based on performance.

I'm not a crazy-fast writer. If you spread I won't count off, but you'll have to slow down for signposting and share speechdoc w me and ur opponent at least five minutes before the round begins.

Email chains are highly recommended for cases, cards that are called for, plus whatever you and ur opponent agree on. Email: santiagooneil.2002@gmail.com

For less extreme cases of sporadic rudeness, I'll just make a note on the ballot and maybe take off 1-2 speaks; probably not though. For consistent rudeness, but still not ridiculous, I might tank your speaks but still give my RFD based on the flow (ei. low-point win). For extreme rudeness bordering on harassment (rare but existent), don't be surprised if I drop you based on that. But the threshold for rudeness of that level is really high, don't care at all if you're aggressive as long as you're good.

Unless you are cursing at your opponent, I don't count accidental slips as rude, just unfortunate.

Specifically For PF:

I prefer front-lining in second rebuttal, but will accept it in summary if you forget. I'll be looking for coherency: if you're selling me squirrely, the everything better be clear at the end of the round.

Speak clearly, and slow down for final focus.

In summary, I expect clear extensions and drops. When extending cards, briefly restate the significance of the card, don't just spew out "They dropped this card so the contention/attack stands". Collapsing is preferable to muddling my flow by half-extending and half-dropping everything. But whatever you do, just take ownership of it.

Cross-fire is for you to clarify arguments for yourself and your opponents, so I don't weigh it as heavily. But if something significant is revealed, conceded, or elaborated on, I'll obviously take note

Ultimately, my preferences are what they are; they don't determine rounds. Whatever I like is because I think it leads to a higher quality round, so if you do things differently than outlined here, go for it and know that as long as you do it well, it can only help u.

Specifically For LD:

I was mainly a Public Forum debater, so evidence is important to me. I like value-based debate, but you've already written ur cases so do whatever the round needs. I need to see the contentions based in reality, not just solely abstract philosophical conceptualisation (unless framework you lay down tells me to think otherwise or you are just really good at it). I'll buy whatever you effectively put down, but just in terms of personal preference, evidence and clear value-based argumentation makes it easier to vote off something. Just be good at whatever you're doing. I honestly don't care all that much.

I ran pretty lay cases i took from teammates when i did ld. I'm a more limited judge in LD; it'll be harder for me to recognize strong technical/progressive argumentation than it will to recognize arguments with some lay appeal. I'll do my best, but if you come in running theory or push a kritic, just know you are going to have to explain it very clearly for me. I'm smart, i'll catch on quick if you spend a little time laying the groundwork.

BONUS: +2 speaker points if you fit in uzi references into your speech. fit them in, not jam them in awkwardly with no context. preferably love is rage 2 based references but anything goes.

Nate Odenkirk Oakwood School 5 rounds

Matthew Ong Fairmont Prep 4 rounds

Vladislav Onik Bergen County Debate Club 6 rounds

Peter Paik University School 6 rounds

Last changed on Sat March 2, 2024 at 3:54 AM EST

UPDATED slightly on 3/2/24:

PLEASE EMAIL ME CASES BEFORE THE ROUND SO IT IS EASIER FOR ME TO FOLLOW THEM: ppaikone@gmail.com. THANK YOU!

Personal Background:

Since 2023, I am the speech and debate coach of George School in Pennsylvania. From 2000-2023, I was a coach of the speech and debate team of University School in Ohio. I have coached and judged virtually all high school speech and debate events over the years, but I’ve devoted the most time and energy to Public Forum debate and Lincoln-Douglas debate. I have experience at all levels: national, state, and local. Probably my biggest claim to fame as a coach is that my PF team (DiMino and Rahmani) won the NSDA national championship in 2010. If any of the points below are unclear or if you want my view on something else, feel free to ask me questions before the round begins.

LD Judging Preferences:

1. VALUE AND VALUE CRITERION: I think that the value and the value criterion are essential components of Lincoln-Douglas debate. They are what most distinguish LD from policy and public forum. If your advocacy is NOT explicitly directed toward upholding/promoting/achieving a fundamental value and your opponent does present a value and a case that shows how affirming/negating will fulfill that value, your opponent will win the round – because in my view your opponent is properly playing the game of LD debate while you are not.

2. QUALITY OVER QUANTITY: I think that speed ruins the vast majority of debaters, both in terms of their ability to think at a high level and in terms of their effective public speaking, which are two things that are supposed to be developed by your participation in high school forensics and two things I very much hope to see in every debate round I judge.

Most debaters cannot think as fast as they can talk, so going fast in an attempt to win by a numerical advantage in arguments or by “spreading” and causing your opponent to miss something, usually just leads to (a) poor strategic choices of what to focus on, (b) lots of superficial, insignificant, and ultimately unpersuasive points, and (c) inefficiency as debaters who speak too fast often end up stumbling, being less clear, and having to repeat themselves.

I would encourage debaters to speak at a normal, conversational pace, which would force them to make strategic decisions about what’s really important in the round. I think it is better to present clearly a few, significant points than to race rapidly through many unsubstantial points. Try to win by the superior quality of your thinking, not by the greater quantity of your ideas.

While I will do my best to “flow” everything that each debater presents, if you go too fast and as a result I miss something that you say, I don’t apologize for that. It’s your job as a debater not just to say stuff, but to speak in the manner necessary for your judge to receive and thoughtfully consider what you are saying. If your judge doesn’t actually take in something that you say, you might as well not have said it to begin with.

Because I prioritize quality over quantity in evaluating the arguments that are presented, I am not overly concerned about “drops.” If a debater “drops” an argument, that doesn’t necessarily mean he/she loses. It depends on how significant the point is and on how well the opponent explains why the dropped point matters, i.e., how it reveals that his/her side is the superior one.

As a round progresses, I really hope to hear deeper and clearer thinking, not just restating of your contentions. If you have to sacrifice covering every point on the flow in order to take an important issue to a higher level and present a truly insightful point, then so be it. That’s a sacrifice well worth making. On the other hand, if you sacrifice insightful thinking in order to cover the flow, that’s not a wise decision in my view.

3. WARRANTS OVER EVIDENCE: If you read the above carefully, you probably realized that I usually give more weight to logical reasoning than to expert testimony or statistics. I’m more interested in seeing how well you think on your feet than seeing how good of a researcher you are. (I’ve been coaching long enough to know that people can find evidence to support virtually any position on any issue….)

If you present a ton of evidence for a contention, but you don’t explain in your own words why the contention is true and how it links back to your value, I am not likely to be persuaded by it. On the other hand, if you present some brilliant, original analysis in support of a contention, but don’t present any expert testimony or statistical evidence for it, I will probably still find your contention compelling.

4. KRITIKS: While I may appreciate their cleverness, I am very suspicious of kritik arguments. If there is something fundamentally flawed with the resolution such that it shouldn’t be debated at all, it seems to me that that criticism applies equally to both sides, the negative as well as the affirmative. So even if you convince me that the kritik is valid, you’re unlikely to convince me then that you should be given credit for winning the round.

If you really believe the kritik argument, isn’t it hypocritical or self-contradictory for you to participate in the debate round? It seems to me that you can’t consistently present both a kritik and arguments on the substantive issues raised by the resolution, including rebuttals to your opponent’s case. If you go all in on the kritik, I’m likely to view that as complete avoidance of the issues.

In short, running a kritik in front of me as your judge is a good way to forfeit the round to your opponent.

5. JARGON: Please try to avoid using debate jargon as much as possible.

6. PROFESSIONALISM: Please be polite and respectful as you debate your opponent. A moderate amount of passion and emphasis as you speak is good. However, a hostile, angry tone of voice is not good. Be confident and assertive, but not arrogant and aggressive. Your job is to attack your opponent’s ideas, not to attack your opponent on a personal level.

PF Judging Preferences:

I am among the most traditional, perhaps old-fashioned PF judges you are likely to encounter. I believe that PF should remain true to its original purpose which was to be a debate event that is accessible to everyone, including the ordinary person off the street. So I am opposed to everything that substantively or symbolically makes PF a more exclusive and inaccessible event.

Here are 3 specific preferences related to PF:

1. SPEED (i.e., SELECTIVITY): The slower, the better. What most debaters consider to be slow is still much too fast for the ordinary lay person. Also, speed is often a crutch for debaters. I much prefer to hear fewer, well-chosen arguments developed fully and presented persuasively than many superficial points. One insightful rebuttal is better than three or four mediocre ones. In short, be selective. Go for quality over quantity. Use a scalpel, not a machine gun.

2. CROSSFIRES: Ask questions and give answers. Don't make speeches. Try not to interrupt, talk over, and steam-roll your opponent. Let your opponent speak. But certainly, if they are trying to steam-roll you, you can politely interject and make crossfire more balanced. Crossfire should go back and forth fairly evenly and totally civilly. I want to see engagement and thoughtfulness. Avoid anger and aggressiveness.

3. THEME OVER TECHNIQUE: It is very important to me that a debater presents and supports a clear and powerful narrative about the topic. Don't lost sight of the bigger picture. Keep going back to it in every speech. Only deal with the essential facts that are critical to proving and selling your narrative. If you persuade me of your narrative and make your narrative more significant than your opponent's, you will win my ballot - regardless of how many minor points you drop. On the other hand, if you debate with perfect technique and don't drop anything, but you don't present and sell a clear narrative, it's highly unlikely that you will win my ballot.

For online debate:

(1) GO SLOWLY. I cannot emphasize this enough. Going more slowly will greatly improve the thoughtfulness of your arguments and the quality of your delivery, and doing so will make it much easier for me to comprehend and be persuaded by your arguments. No matter how many pieces of evidence or blocks or turns or rebuilds you present, if your opponent just clearly presents ONE intelligent point that strikes me as pertinent and insightful, I am likely to side with him/her at least on the particular issue, and perhaps vote for him/her altogether.

(1a) In terms of your case, to be as specific as possible, in the hopes that you will actually heed my words about speed, the ideal PF case should be no longer than 600 words total. If your case is much longer than that, and you go faster in order to squeeze it into 4 minutes, it's highly likely that I will simply not catch and process many of your words - so you may as well not have said them in the first place.

(1b) In terms of the later speeches in a round, be selective, be strategic, and sell me the goods. In rebuttals, give me your ONE best response to your opponent's argument - maybe two responses, at the very most three. In the second half of the round, collapse to your ONE best voting issue and give your ONE strongest reason why it is true and your ONE strongest reason why it should be considered significant. I'm not going to count all your points just because you said them - You just have to make ONE good point count. (But don't try to do that just be repeating it again and again. You have to explain why your opponent's attack on it should be considered insufficient.) And point out the ONE most critical flaw in your opponent's argument.

(2) More advice on presentation: because we are doing debate through Zoom, it is MORE important that you pay attention to your delivery, not less. It's much harder to hold people's attention when you are speaking to them online than when you speak to them in person. (I'm sure you know this to be true as a listener.) So if you just give up on presenting well, you're making the obstacle practically insurmountable. On the other hand, if you put some real effort into speaking as well as you can in this new online format, you'll likely stand out from many of your opponents and your points will likely be understood and appreciated more than theirs.

(2a) Be clear: Do everything you can to be as clear and easy to understand as possible, both in your writing and your speaking.

(2b) Vary your delivery: Indicate what are the most important points in your speeches by changing up your voice. You should emphasize what is really important by changing the pace, the pitch, the volume, and the tone and also by using pauses. Your speech should not be one, long unbroken stream of words that all sound the same.

(2c) Eye contact: I know it's very hard but try to look up at your camera as much as possible. At least try to show me your face as much as you can.

(3) I don't believe that theory or kritiks should be a part of Public Forum debate. If you run either, you will almost certainly lose my ballot. I don't have time now to give all the reasons why I'm opposed to these kinds of arguments in PF. But I want you to have fair warning of my view on this point. If your opponent has not read this paradigm (or is blatantly disregarding it) and runs a kritik or theory in a round and i am your judge, all you need to say for me to dismiss that argument is that PF debate is intended to be accessible to all people and should directly address the topic of the resolution, and then continue to debate the resolution.

Ulrich Palha Fort Lee High School 3 rounds

Conrad Palor Lakeland 4 rounds

Last changed on Mon June 17, 2024 at 7:13 AM MST

Background

Please add me to the email chain. My email isconradpalor@gmail.com. I flow debater's speech performances and not documents, but may read evidence after speeches.

For LD/CX

General

I try to be as tabula rasa as possible and encourage debaters to read the arguments they would like to run and I'm happy to adjudicate the debate as such. With that said, I recognize judge's often have preconceived conceptions of arguments, so I've summarized some thoughts below.

Speed- Pretty much fine with any level of speed. I'll yell clear if I can't understand.

DAs

fine with most DAs. If reading political DAs, I think link specificity to the affirmative is key as opposed to generic link evidence. I enjoy evidence comparison in debates on political DAs

K (Neg): I am a firm believer in topic-specific critical lit. The more specific your link cards, the better. If your only link is "you talk about the economy, therefore you're capitalist" or "you function through the state," don’t run it, or do some research and find some specific links. I expect K-Alts to have the following: 1. Clear alt text 2. Carded alt solvency evidence that explains what the alt does. 3. A clear explanation of what the post in the in the alt world looks like.

K (Aff): I’m fine with critical affirmatives; however, I am also happy to vote on framework. TVA’s are pretty important to me and should be an integral part of any negative strategy, and, conversely, I think the affirmative should have a clear explanation why there’s no possible topical version of their aff. I generally prefer arguments that are in the direction of the topic, but this will not impact my decision if clear framing arguments are presented otherwise.

CPs

I’m fine with most counterplans, although I am of the belief that the CP should have a solvency advocate

I default to the belief that counterplans should be both functionally and textually competitive with the AFF.

I default to perms are test of competition, not advocacy

T/Theory

I generally think affs should have to defend the topic and actually have some sort of plan text / identifiable statement of advocacy. I like to see T debates come down to specific abuse stories, how expanding or contracting limits functionally impacts competitive equity, and exactly what types of ground/args are lost/gained by competing interps.

I feel comfortable evaluating theory debates, defaulting to competing interpretations and drop the debater on theory. I generally want clear explanations of in-round abuse as opposed to potential abuse.

I generally don’t like frivolous theory, but I’m happy to vote on any argument that was not properly answered in the debate.

I generally think RVIs are bad in most debate forms, but I do acknowledge the unique time constraints of high school LD so I would vote off of this argument if well warranted.

I take aula rasa approach to judging. I try to keep my evaluation exclusively to the flow. I'll pick up the worse argument if it's won on the flow. I recognize that a certain degree of judge intervention is inevitable so here is generally how I prioritize arguments in order. In-round weighing of arguments combined with strength of link, conceded arguments, and absent explicit weighing, I default to arguments with substantive warranted analysis.

-I strongly encourage debaters to cut cards as opposed to hyperlinking a google doc. Cutting cards encourages good research skills and prevents egregious miscutting of evidence.

-Please extend author's last name and year in the back half of the letter. It makes it difficult to flow if you are not properly extending evidence. With that said, I strongly value evidence comparison

In-round framing and explanation of arguments are pretty important for me. While I will vote for blippier/less developed arguments if they’re won, I definitely have a higher threshold for winning arguments if I feel that they weren’t sufficiently understandable in first reading, and I'm open to newish responses in summary and final focus to these arguments if I deem they were unintelligible in their first reading

Please collapse

Defense should be extended in both summary speeches if you want to go for it in the final focus

Speak as fast as you want. I will yell clearly if I can't understand what you are saying

Speaker points are mine. I use them to indicate how good I think debaters are in a particular round

Theory and Procedures

I feel comfortable evaluating theory debates and am more than happy to vote on procedural or theory arguments in public forum.

I default to competing interpretations and drop the team on theory, but I'm open to arguments on both sides.

I think theory arguments are theoretically legitimate and should play a role in public forum debate. As such, I have a high threshold for voting on "theory bad for public forum debate" arguments.

-You are welcome to ask questions after the round, and I think it's a constructive part of debate. Please note that I will not tolerate disrespect and if you become hostile to the point where you're not seeking constructive feedback, I reserve the right to lower speaker points after the round

Hongguang Pan Potomac Debate Academy 6 rounds

John Pan Hawken 4 rounds

Last changed on Sat November 7, 2020 at 5:44 AM CST

TLDR: I'm a first year out who was a former LD/PF Debater. Treat me as a tech judge who doesn't like spreading, theory, bs, or nontopical arguments.

About Me:

Sophomore at Northwestern studying Econ, Business, and Art

Debated for Hawken School in Ohio (4 years LD, 1 year PF)

Top 4 in LD in Ohio, dabbled in nat circuit LD, prefers traditional style

Made it to bid round in VPF at Stanford and Yale with my LD co-captain Ally Sewell.

LD Judging Preferences:

Don't spread, fast conversational speed is fine

Don't run phil you don't understand or trivial/bs arguments that are barely topical

Don't shift your advocacy mid-round

CX is binding, I will listen to it

Do link all offense to your FW

Weigh enough so that I can make a decision. Just give me some common sense weighing.

You can be dominant in round, but don't be rude. I don't mind if you cut someone off once or twice, but doing it repeatedly to misconstrue your opponent's arguments is not okay. Debaters being rude/condescending/misogynistic/racist will result in lower speaks to say the least.

All evidence should be mentioned with either author name or publication name, in case or in rebuttal. I expected the evidence to be at least in card form, PDF of original source would be better.

No theory, no spikes in the AC, no T, no untopical Ks, just have a good substantive traditional round. You can run theory if you're opponent is abusive I suppose, but don't bank on it to win the round.

1AR is the hardest speech, so do that well, you'll get high speaks.

PF Judging Preferences:

Same as LD judging preferences whenever applicable. Additional Notes:

I don't like the whole "my partner will address it later" as a way to dodge questions

PF is PF, don't run anything other than a proper substantive case, I default to util framework but if u want to run something go for it, I think it's dumb to have any debate outside of a util framework for PF but whatever

If u run Ks, Ts, Theory, spread or anything that is not intended for a general public forum, I will drop your speaks to say the least.

Aadharsh Pannirselvam Lexington HS 5 rounds

Last changed on Tue December 14, 2021 at 7:59 AM EST

As of when I'm writing this, I am a first year out from Lexington, MA. My freshman year was policy, and my sophomore, junior, and senior years were in PF. Since I came from policy, I have a pretty lax view on PF and can probably handle speed (unless you truly suck at spreading or have a garbage mic). aadharsh2010@gmail.com (for email chains)

*Crypto Topic*: I know more than a decent bit about crypto. At the end of the day, I'm still tech, but my previous experience with crypto will affect my threshold for buying arguments and also means that if you don't weigh or engage with your opponent's argumentation, weird stuff might happen.

Evidence

I may call for evidence if it seems fishy or is debated on for a bunch of the round. Also if you call for evidence, I usually would like to see it too, be it via an email chain (aadharsh2010@gmail.com) or physically.

Round Stuff

I expect second rebuttal to have at least some frontlining in it, and it'd be best if anything that was round deciding be in both the summary and the final focus (If neither team extends properly, the decisions might actually be based on marginal amounts of offense which is never fun, because it gets very sketchy very quickly). Don't waste too much time on defense in first summary, please.

Comparative weighing is also hugely important for me, so the sooner you start it in round, the better. Signposting is always pretty nice, and your speaks will reflect this.

Techier Round Stuff

I'm okay with DA/theory/K stuff (will only vote if both teams seem to understand theory, running higher level arguments to block your opponent on their knowledge is super scummy and your speaks will definitely reflect that).

Speaks/Cross

I don't flow or weigh cross in my ballot decision, so it'd be pretty sweet if you could mention it in a speech when your opponent concedes something in cross. I also hold the belief that speaks are independent of wins, so if you have great speaks but lose, know that you have the speaking stuff down, but just have a less than amazing case or something along those lines. If we're at a super lay tournament, I'll be a speaks fairy unless you do some dumb crap in round, I'm probably going to start everybody on a 28 and go up and down in increments of .5 or .1 if the tournament lets me. It's also totally fine if you want to debate without your cameras on, this will not impact how I eval you (I'll defer to tournament rules if they contradict this)

In general, don't lose sight of the fact that debate is a game. I see judges talking about humor on their paradigms a bunch, but I've never had the guts to crack jokes in round. I like humor and stuff if it is vaguely tasteful, and your speaks may be bumped. I generally believe that I do a crap job of hiding the ways that I feel about an argument, so reading me is going to be to your advantage.

Feel free to ask questions or message me on Facebook. Also I will disclose for sure at tournaments that allow it! Also please read my comments, I really do try to make them super good instead of browsing reddit in round :P

Misc stuff (will disengage this at any competitor's request, no questions asked)

- References to the Robert Chen round will warrant a speaks boost.

- Funny contention names will grant a slight speaks boost

- Citing rap lyrics in round and being funny is the dopest thing you can do to make me like you.

Daniel Park Ivy Bridge Academy 6 rounds

Meagan Pe Hire 6 rounds

Drew Peterson North Broward Preparatory School 6 rounds

Marko Petrovic Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Mon July 10, 2023 at 6:56 AM EST

send link chains to markop@princeton.edu if you intend to spread

About me:

In high school, I did two years of LD, two years of PF, and a few tournaments in BQ and Congress. I now am a senior at Princeton University studying public policy and behavioral science.

PF:

Framework:

I am a firm believer that if no framework is given in PF, then I should weigh under a cost-benefit analysis. I personally do not believe that PF rounds should be done with anything other than CBA as the framework because we already have a style of framework debate; it's called LD. That being said, if a framework is given, please make sure you respond to it and do not let it just flow through the round; if their framework is actually useful and not abusive, I might weigh it in my decision.

Crossfire:

I love PF for the crossfire. Be respectful but do not let people push you around. I want to see which side has actual questions for their opponents and which side has actual debating skills. That being said, I do not flow crossfire and if you want any impacts to come out of the crossfire and make it on the flow, you must restate them in one of your following speeches.

Summary:

Make sure you mention everything you want to mention in your final focus in this speech. Don't just give me a second rebuttal; give me also a preliminary conclusion. Tell me what is happening in the round and explain why your side is winning.

Final Focus:

Include the information from the summary. No new evidence. Make sure your impacts and voters are clear and direct. The more back I have to search through the flow for your impacts, the less likely I am to find them and be able to weigh them on your side.

Evidence:

Everything should have a card to go with it; do not make arguments without a card to back you up. I buy logic when direct evidence is not available, but I will always weigh empirical and direct evidence over logical conclusions. A study demonstrating what is actually occurring in the world (be that study descriptive or a lab experiment) is always more accurate than what one simply thinks would happen with a certain policy or governmental action.

Voting:

I am a flow judge by heart. Use every speech to reiterate why you should win and make sure you explain to me what is happening to each argument. Is the argument you stated in the constructive flowing through? Is your opponent's claim still standing? And, most importantly, why are these stances true? Also, make sure to signpost well and tell me what you're attacking or referencing so I can flow your side better; a cleaner flow means an easier ballot.

LD:

Framework:

The framework should be the premise of the round; if you drop your framework, you're essentially dropping the round. Your framework is your ultimate purpose; if you drop your framework, you drop your entire argument.

As usual, logical conclusions are permissible but keep in mind, being asked for a card and not having one is not a strong stance.

LD Kritik:

If you run a K, be sure to extend impacts. Debate is set on the premise of impacts so make sure your alt stands clear and explain why you have won the round very clearly. AFF Ks generally do not run well with me but if you think it works well and has impacts then give it a shot- I’m down for trying anything.

LD CP:

I absolutely love a good counterplan. If you run one, make sure you prove uniqueness and respond to the inevitable perm.

I am ok with any kind of CP or PIC as long as you are unconditional. Being conditional makes no sense; are you advocating for that CP/PIC or is it that unstable we should not rely on it?

I also adore res plus cp, but make sure you explain how you're unique and why I should value your plan over the Aff's in terms of impacts.

LD DA:

If you run a DA, just like with a K, make sure you draw out your impacts and how your side provides any solvency. Just attacking your opponent doesn't just make you the automatic winner - give me a reason why voting for your side is better than your opponents.

LD AFF:

Be CREATIVE! You have to affirm the resolution, but you can still do a lot! Think creatively and make arguments that have an impact! If the flow is a wash on both sides, I will have to weigh impacts so make sure you make yours VERY clear!

Also - Affirmative = affirm the resolution.

also also- I have normally debated in mostly traditional LD circuits. I can flow theory but make sure you explain why that theory matters and why I should uphold it.

Les Phillips The Nueva School 2 rounds

Last changed on Sat September 7, 2024 at 2:24 AM PST

LES PHILLIPS NUEVA PF PARADIGM

I have judged all kinds of debate for decades, beginning with a long career as a circuit policy and LD coach. Speed is fine. I judge on the flow. Dropped arguments carry full weight. At various times I have voted (admittedly, in policy) for smoking tobacco good, Ayn Rand Is Our Savior, Scientology Good, dancing and drumming trumps topicality, and Reagan-leads-to-Communism-and-Communism-is-good. (I disliked all of these positions.)

I would like to be on the email chain [lphillips@nuevaschool.org] but I very seldom look at the doc during the round.

If you are not reading tags on your arguments, you are basically not communicating. If your opponent makes this an issue, I will be very sympathetic to their objections.

If an argument is in final focus, it should be in summary; if it's in summary, it should be in rebuttal,. I am very stingy regarding new responses in final focus. Saying something for the first time in grand cross does not legitimize its presence in final focus.

NSDA standards demand dates out loud on all evidence. That is a good standard; you must do that. I am giving up on getting people to indicate qualifications out loud, but I am very concerned about evidence standards in PF (improving, but still not good). I will bristle and register distress if I hear "according to Princeton" as a citation. Know who your authors are; know what their articles say; know their warrants.

Please please terminalize impacts. Do this especially when you are talking about a nebulosity called "The Economy." Economic growth is not intrinsically good; it depends on where the growth goes and who is helped. Sometimes economic growth is very bad. "Increases tensions" is not a terminal impact; what happens after the tensions increase? When I consider which makes the world a better place, I will be looking for prevention of unnecessary death and/or disease, who lifts people out of poverty, who lessens the risk of war, who prevents gross human rights violations. I'm also receptive to well-developed framework arguments that may direct me to some different decision calculus.

Teams don't get to decide that they want to skip grand cross (or any other part of the round).

I am happy to vote on well warranted theory arguments (or well warranted responses). Redundant, blippy theory goo is irritating. I have a fairly high threshold for deciding that an argument is abusive. I am receptive to Kritikal arguments in PF. I will work hard to understand continental philosophers, even if I am not too familiar with the literature. I really really want to know exactly what the role of the ballot is. I will default to NSDA rules re: no plans/counterplans, absent a very compelling reason why I should break those rules.

LES PHILLIPS NUEVA PARLI PARADIGM

I have judged all kinds of debate for decades, beginning with a long career as a circuit policy and LD coach. I have judged parli less than other formats, but my parli judging includes several NPDA tournaments, including two NPDA national tournaments, and most recent NPDI tournaments. Speed is fine, as are all sorts of theoretical, Kritikal, and playfully counterintuitive arguments. I judge on the flow. Dropped arguments carry full weight. I do not default to competing interpretations, though if you win that standard I will go there. Redundant, blippy theory goo is irritating. I have a fairly high threshold for deciding that an argument is abusive. Once upon a time people though I was a topicality hack, and I am still more willing to pull the trigger on that argument than on other theoretical considerations. The texts of advocacies are binding; slow down for these, as necessary.

I will obey tournament/league rules, where applicable. That said, I very much dislike rules that discourage or prohibit reference to evidence.

I was trained in formats where the judge can be counted on to ignore new arguments in late speeches, so I am sometimes annoyed by POOs, especially when they resemble psychological warfare.

Please please terminalize impacts. Do this especially when you are talking about The Economy. "Helps The Economy" is not an impact. Economic growth is not intrinsically good; it depends on where the growth goes and who is helped. Sometimes economic growth is very bad. "Increases tensions" is not a terminal impact; what happens after the tensions increase?

When I operate inside a world of fiat, I consider which team makes the world a better place. I will be looking for prevention of unnecessary death and/or disease, who lifts people out of poverty, who lessens the risk of war, who prevents gross human rights violations. "Fiat is an illusion" is not exactly breaking news; you definitely don't have to debate in that world. I'm receptive to "the role of the ballot is intellectual endorsement of xxx" and other pre/not-fiat world considerations.

LES PHILLIPS NUEVA LD PARADIGM

For years I coached and judged fast circuit LD, but I have not judged fast LD since 2013, and I have not coached on the current topic at all. Top speed, even if you're clear, may challenge me; lack of clarity will be very unfortunate. I try to be a blank slate (like all judges, I will fail to meet this goal entirely). I like the K, though I get frustrated when I don't know what the alternative is (REJECT is an OK alternative, if that's what you want to do). I have a very high bar for rejecting a debater rather than an argument, and I do not default to competing interpretations; I would like to hear a clear abuse story. I am generally permissive in re counterplan competitiveness and perm legitimacy. RVIs are OK if the abuse is clear, but if you would do just as well to simply tell me why the opponent's argument is garbage, that would be appreciated.

Yashwant Pirta Milpitas High School 1 rounds

Vishal Poddar Montgomery Blair 5 rounds

Andrew Polli CR North High School 4 rounds

Last changed on Sat November 2, 2019 at 3:18 AM EST

*** CX ***

I need to be able to understand you—don’t talk so fast that no one follows.

I value good delivery—good eye contact, clear speech, calm demeanor—in your speeches and that will go a long way to convince me your augments should be believed.

You should show clear organization of arguments and manage refutation well.

I value the demonstration of your skills in analysis of the debate as it is evolving.

I take the use of jargon to mean you don’t really want me to understand what you are explaining.

I need to see evidence, but use it to make an argument.

*** LD ***

I need to be able to understand you—don’t talk so fast that no one follows.

Speak clearly.

Be confident, but don’t be rude or interruptive. Don’t shout.

Citing evidence is nice (and necessary), but it’s your argument that will convince me; the fact is you can find a reference that says anything you want, so it’s more what you do with the evidence that counts. Also, make sure the source is well-qualified and be ready to defend his/her/its authority on the subject, if challenged.

Address each of your opponents arguments—no drops!

Show me that you took some advantage from your cross-examination.

Careful not to introduce new arguments in your rebuttals.

I need a framework, but you will probably get my vote from the quality and logic of your contention level arguments, assuming they do indeed support the framework.

*** PFD ***

I need to be able to understand you—don’t talk so fast that no one follows.

I value good delivery—good eye contact, clear speech, calm demeanor—in your speeches and that will go a long way to convince me your augments should be believed.

Be confident, but don’t be rude or interruptive. Don’t yell.

I take the use of jargon to mean you don’t really want me to understand what you are explaining.

Convince me through the clarity of your ideas, simple logic, and analysis.

I’m persuaded when you’re arguments are supported by credible evidence and impactful warrants.

Show me that you took some advantage from crossfire, but do it without having to dominate or being disrespectful.

Respect the intended purpose of the summary (support/attack existing arguments and summarize) and final focus (why you won) speeches.

Careful not introduce new information summary and final focus speeches.

No plans or kritiks—stick to practical solutions.

Nina Potischman Oakwood School 5 rounds

Last changed on Sun May 1, 2022 at 7:30 AM EST

I debated LD for Hunter College High School for four years and recently graduated from Pomona. I went to TOC a few times and reached finals my senior year. I graduated in 2017. My email is ninapotischman@gmail.com—put me on the email chain! If you have questions, feel free to email me or ask before round.

TLDR; please weigh (a lot), one good argument > four blippy arguments, be nice to your opponent!

*FOR PF*

Hi PF! I have coached LD in various places. I now coach PF for Oakwood. I will try to adapt to PF norms for judging, though my LD background will inform how I perceive rounds. I prefer to do as little work for debaters as possible. The best debaters will write my ballot for me.

TLDR; I have a high threshold for warrants and extensions. I'll vote on policy style extinction scenarios if done well, but they're often executed poorly—be sure you can tell a clear story with warrants in later speeches.

General:

Send speech docs before your speeches; if you paraphrase, include all the cards at the bottom of the doc.
The best final speeches have a clear narrative arc/story of your impact scenario with many kinds of weighing—i.e., don't just say that nuclear war is worse than poverty—you should also have a number of arguments comparing your/your opponent's internal links. Extend warrants into final focus.
People in PF have started to read LD/policy type arguments with long link chains. Often, these arguments don't have proper uniqueness/link/impact. If you can't tell a clear story establishing a brink for impacts that would require a brink, it will be hard to get me to vote on these arguments against something with a clearer narrative. I also tend to find these arguments unpersuasive since the strength of link to your terminal impact is always pretty low, and often some of the links are barely warranted. You can execute this well, but be cautious that the links are well-articulated.
I have a lot of trouble with signposting in PF. Be extra clear about where you are on the flow at all times. I tend to miss card names, so don't use those to signpost. If you're spreading, slow down more.
Be as explicit as possible with things like weighing.
I won't vote for arguments that I don't understand or arguments that are clearly unwarranted. I believe I have a somewhat high threshold for what counts as a warrant—one sentence cards usually aren't enough.
I'm relatively technical, but I am less inclined to vote for you're not persuasive
I do not understand how the economy works..... if you're using technical economic terms please explain what they mean! And be extra-extra explicit about how you reach your impacts. Examples help.

Evidence exchange takes much too long. If the round takes over an 1 hr 10 min due to evidence exchange, speaks are capped at a 27.5. If one team sends their evidence before every speech, this only applies to the other team. If one team seems to excessively ask for evidence, this rule will only affect the speaks of the other team.

Theory/ks:

I can flow spreading, but I'd rather not and I'll probably miss things—especially if you don't send speech docs/make 1-2 line arguments. Use spreading as an opportunity to make more in-depth arguments, rather than spewing blips
I will not intervene unless I believe you are engaging in a practice that excludes your opponent—for example, reading theory against novices/a team that clearly doesn't know what theory is, particularly if the arguments are frivolous. Use your judgment & debate with the best intentions.
I will vote on kritiks that are executed correctly, but please make an effort to ensure your opponent understands your positions and err towards over-explanation. Kritiks should be disclosed
If both teams seem to want to have a theory/k/etc. debate, then I will evaluate this argument as if it is an LD round. If you miss necessary argument components, that's on you—e.g., I won't pretend you read a theory voter if you did not
Good, true arguments > highly technical bad arguments
If you read disclosure theory and don't disclose your disclosure theory shell, you should lose, though your opponent must point this out.

Evidence ethics:

I have a low threshold for ev ethics violations. If you think your opponent did something bad, they probably did. Feel free to stop the round, or make a brief argument explaining the violation, and I'll vote on it if I think the violation is clear. You can read a full theory shell if you want to, but it's not necessary
Things that are bad: clipping, miscutting, misattributing evidence, broken links, changing the meaning of the cards with brackets, lying, not reading things that change the meaning of the evidence, etc.

*FOR LD*

General

I’ll vote on anything as long as it is warranted. Although I debated a certain way, I would much rather see you do what you do best than to try to adapt to what you think I want. I’ll try to evaluate the round in the way I think the debaters see it, so I’ll do my best to avoid defaulting either way on any particular issue. My biggest preference is just for intelligent well-thought out arguments, whether that's a kritik, a plan aff or a framework. That said, here are my preferences:

Please please please do not be late :(
Full disclosure: if you send me your Aff, I'm probably just gonna back flow it later and zone out during the AC . So if you're extemping things in the aff (idrk why people do this...if ur opponent will have a hard time flowing, I will too) give me a heads up
The biggest reason people lose in front of me is because they do not explicitly weigh. WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH, PLEASE, OR ELSE I WILL HAVE TO INTERVENE. And then we will all be sad. If you do not weigh in your speech, and then you lose, that is on you.
Prep time ends when your flash drive leaves your computer or when you email your opponent
I have a high threshold for extensions if your arguments are contested or if you're doing any interaction between the arguments you're extending and your opponents. It’s not enough to say “extend the aff” or “extend advantage one” — you need to articulate some warrant so I know what specifically you’re extending. If you don’t explicitly extend offense in the last speech, I won’t vote for you.
I reserve the right to not vote for arguments that I don’t understand/that are not warranted. Your opponent shouldn’t lose for dropping an incoherent sentence with no justification
I won’t vote for any responses to arguments that are new in later speeches, even if your opponent doesn’t point it out
I’ll vote you down if you say anything actively racist/sexist/homophobic etc.
I’ll time your speech — if you go over time (besides if you finish a sentence), I’ll discount your arguments even if your opponent doesn’t point it out
I think embedded clash is good — you can make arguments that say otherwise and I’ll evaluate them, but that’s my default
It's really hard to flow spreading on Zoom. I'll yell clear, but if I have to say it more than a couple of times I am missing arguments you've made and I won't fill in the blanks

Theory

If paradigm issues are conceded, you don’t have to extend them
I strongly dislike offensive spikes, but I’ll vote on them if there’s a warrant and the argument is conceded. Just know your speaks will suffer.
Slow down for interps/counterinterps
If someone reads theory in the 1a/1nc without an implication it’s enough to say “don’t vote on it — there’s no implication” and I won't — you can't then read voters in the next speech. However, if there's no voter and no one points that out and acts like theory is drop the debater, I'll vote on it

Framework

I prefer well justified syllogisms to super blippy fw preclusion arguments
Please weigh

I think people think I don't like Ks?? This is not true. Kritiks, run well, are one of my favorite kinds of arguments. I'm pretty familiar with most K lit, with the exception of POMO stuff, so please go slower if you’re reading something super dense. If I have no idea what you’re talking about, I won’t vote for you. Concrete examples are always good.
My defaults for kritiks are the same as other positions, which is: please weigh, and please be explicit with interactions. Don't expect me to know what arguments your position takes out without an explicit implication. (I.e. you have to say, this takes out theory, and why).

Speaks

Things that will get you high speaks

Innovative and interesting arguments that you’re clearly knowledgeable about
Good strategies
Using CX effectively
High argument quality
Good overviews/crystallization
Good case debate. Please don't drop the aff!!!!

Things that will get you low speaks:

not disclosing
tricks
being shifty
lots of spikes/blippy arguments
super generic dumps (especially on K v theory debates)
clearly not understanding your own positions
being mean to a novice/someone clearly worse than you. You don’t have to debate down, just don’t be rude and go slower so that the round is educational for everyone
academic dishonesty

Bennett Pozil Independent Campbell Hall 5 rounds None

Jason Qian Potomac Debate Academy 6 rounds

Seema Qureshi Plano West Sr High School 6 rounds

Rana Rahman Henry Clay High School 6 rounds

Dilip Rangan Lynbrook HS 3 rounds

Sreene Ranganathan Dougherty Valley High School 3 rounds

Ethan Reiter Livingston High School 6 rounds

John Reynolds Hutchison 3 rounds

Christian Rhoades Vestavia Hills High School 3 rounds

Chloe Ricks The Blake School 6 rounds

Last changed on Sat December 18, 2021 at 11:26 AM CST

BLAKE UPDATE: If you are reading this and in LD, full disclosure, it has been a minute since I have judged LD and I have yet to do so online! Just be mindful of speed so that you don't get cut off by the tech

if you're going to not read cards or you paraphrase , you should probably strike me. In addition, it shouldn't take you longer than 30 seconds to find evidence. After 30 seconds, I will begin your prep. If it takes you longer than a minute and 30 seconds, all you can bring up is a 30 page PDF, or you cannot produce the evidence at all, you will lose the round. Please send the email chain to both cricks01@hamline.edu and blakedocs@googlegroups.com

TL;DR- I was primarily an LD debater in high school, debating for Whitefish Bay HS in Wisconsin. I am now an assistant coach at The Blake School in Minnesota. I have different paradigms for different events, so read for the event that pertains to you and all should be fine!

LD

Speed: Typically, I can understand most speeds. However, i have let to judge online LD, so going a bit below your top speed may be beneficial to you. Slow down for tags, CP/Plan Texts, and if you’re reading unusual kritiks or frameworks. I want to make sure I spend more time conceptualizing what you’re talking about as opposed to figuring out what you just said. I will say “clear” or “slow” three times before beginning to dock speaks.

Plans and Counterplans: Follow your dreams. I find these debates to be very interesting and a great way for debaters to creatively attack the topic. Make sure to make your advocacy very clear though.

Kritiks: While I do love a good Kritik, make sure you’re running it well. Understand your kritik, don’t just pull one out of your backfiles and hope for the best. Again, make your advocacy clear. If you’re kritik is weird, please explain it well.

Theory: I will vote on theory, but I do have questions about frivolous theory. That said, use your best judgement within the context of the round.

Philosophy: Yes please! Explain it well and you should be golden!

PF
- I will pretty much listen to, flow, and vote off of anything. Have fun :)
- I do have a high threshold for extensions. Blippy extensions are not my favorite thing, so extend your warrants as well
- The inability to produce a piece of evidence that you have introduced into the round ends the round in an L-25 for your team
- theory is lovely. I genuinely believe disclosure is good and that paraphrasing is bad.
- Provide impact calc throughout the round
- I will not vote on arguments that are dropped in summary, even if you bring them up in final focus, be warned. I may consider them if the warranting is a little bit blippy in summary, and better explained in final focus, but it has to 1) have been in rebuttal as well and 2) basically the only clean place to vote
- CLASH IS KEY
- Please read cards. Paraphrasing is becoming a problem in debate and often leads to some kind of intellectual dishonesty. Let's just avoid that.
- Try to avoid Grand Cross becoming Grand Chaos in which there's just yelling. It isn't at all productive.
- 2nd rebuttal should rebuild!
- extending over ink makes me very sad :(
Miscellaneous:
- Do not be a terrible person. Don’t be sexist/homophobic/racist etc. If I see this, not only will I be sad, but so will your speaker points
- Please please please weigh your arguments.
- Also- please please please give voters!! If you don’t tell me what you think is important in round, I’ll have to decide for myself and you may not enjoy that.
- please please please time yourselves and your opponent. I do however have a 10 second grace period to finish arguments you are already in the process of making, but I won't evaluate entirely new args after the speech time
- Yes- I want to be on the email chain. My email is cricks01@hamline.edu

Hagan Rose Brentwood High School 6 rounds

Gabe Rusk Fairmont Prep 3 rounds

Last changed on Thu November 21, 2024 at 12:32 AM PST

Gabe Rusk ☮️&♡

Email: gabriel.rusk@gmail.com

Somaliland Topic ASU/Ivy RR/Emory

Secession not the HBO show Succession. SECEDE NOT SUCCEED GREG.

Era-tree-uh (Eritrea)

Moe-guh-DEE-shoe (Mogadishu)

DJuh-booty (Djibouti)

Gulf of Aye-den (Gulf of Aden)

Who-thee (Houthi)

Al Shuh-bob (Al-Shabaab)

Background

Debate Experience: TOC Champion PF 2010, 4th at British Parli University National Championships 2014, Oxford Debate Union competitive debater 2015-2016 (won best floor speech), LGBTQIA+ Officer at the Oxford Debate Union.

NSDA PF Topic Committee Member: If you have any ideas, topic areas, or resolutions in mind for next season please send them to my email below.

Coaching Experience: Director of Debate at Fairmont Prep 2018-Current, Senior Instructor and PF Curriculum Director at ISD, La Altamont Lane 2018 TOC, GW 2010-2015. British Parli coach and lecturer for universities including DU, Oxford, and others.

Education: Masters from Oxford University '16 - Dissertation on the history of the First Amendment. Religion and Philosophy BA at DU '14. Other research areas include Buddhism, comparative religion, conlaw, First Amendment law, free speech, freedom of expression, art law, media law, & legal history.

2023 Winter Data Update: Importing my Tabroom data I've judged 651 rounds since 2014 with a 53% Pro and 47% Con vote balance. There may be a slight subconscious Aff bias it seems. My guess is that I may subconsciously give more weight to changing the status quo as that's the core motivator of debate but no statistically meaningful issues are present.

PF Paradigm

Judge Philosophy

I consider myself tech>truth but constantly lament the poor state of evidence ethics, power tagging, clipping, and more. Further, I know stakes can be high in a bubble, bid, or important round but let's still come out of the debate feeling as if it was a positive experience. Life is too short for needless suffering. Please be kind, compassionate, and cordial.

1 (Thriving) - 5 (Vibes Are Dwindling) - 10 (Death of the Soul)

LARP -1

Topical Kritiks - 4

Theory - 5

Non-T Kritiks - 6

"Friv" Theory/Trix - 8

Big Things

What I want to see: I'm empathetic to major technical errors in my ballots. In a perfect world I vote for the team who does best on tech and secondarily on truth. I tend to resolve clash most easily when you give explicit reasons why either a) your evidence is comparatively better but also when you tell me why b) your warranting is comparatively better. Obviously doing both compounds your chances at winning my ballot. I have recently become more sensitive to poor extensions in the back half. Please have UQ where necessary, links, internal links, and impacts. Weighing introduced earlier the better. Weighing is your means to minimize intervention.
Weighing Unlike Things: I need to know how to weigh two comparatively unlike things. This is why metaweighing is so important. If you are weighing some economic impact against a non-economic impact like democracy how do I defer to one over the other? Scope, magnitude, probability etc is a means to differentiate but you need to give me warrants, evidence, reasons why prob > mag for example. I am very amicable to non-trad framing of impacts but you need to extend the warrants and evidence.
Weighing Like Things: Please have warrants and engage comparatively between yourself and your opponent. Obviously methodological and evidentiary comparison is nice too as I mentioned earlier. I love crossfires or speech time where we discuss the warrants behind our cards and why that's another reason to prefer your arg over your opponent.
Don't be a DocBot: I love that you're prepared and have enumerated overviews, blocks, and frontlines. I love heavy evidence and dense debates with a lot of moving parts. But if it sounds like you're just reading a doc without specific or explicit implications to your opponent's contentions you are not contributing anything meaningful to the round. Tell me why your responses interact. If they are reading an arg about the environment and just read an A2 Environment Non-Unique without explaining why your evidence or warranting is better then this debate will suffer.
I'm comfortable if you want to take the debate down kritical, theoretical, and/or pre-fiat based roads. I think framework debates be them pre or post fiat are awesome. Voted on many K's before too. Here be dragons. I will say though, over time I've become increasingly tired of opportunistic, poor quality, and unfleshed out theory in PF. But in the coup of the century, I have been converted to the position that disclosure theory and para theory is a viable path to the ballot if you win your interp. I do have questions I am ruminating on after the summer doxxing of judges and debaters whether certain interps of disc are viable and am interested to see how that can be explored in a theory round. I would highly discourage running trigger warning theory in front of me. See thoughts below on that. All variables being equal I would prefer post-fiat stock topic-specific rounds but in principle remain as tabula rasa as I can on disc and paraphrasing theory.

Little Things

I would prefer if case docs were sent prior to the constructives, please.
(New Note for 2024: Speech docs have never intended to serve as an alternative to flowing a speech. They are for exchanging evidence faster and to better scrutinize evidence.Otherwise, you could send a 3000 word case and the speech itself could be as unintelligible as you would like without a harm. As a result there is an infinite regress of words you could send. Thus I will not look at a speech doc during your speech to aid with flowing and will clear you if needed. I will look at docs only when there is evidence comparison, flags, indicts etc but prefer to have it on hand. My speed threshold is very high but please be a bit louder than usual the faster you go. I know there is a trade off with loudness and speed but what can we do.
Second rebuttal must at least respond to turns/terminal defense against their own case.
Defense is not sticky between rebuttal and final focus. Aka if defense is not in summary you can't extend it in final focus. I've flipped on this recently. I've found the debate is hurt by the removal of the defense debate in summary and second final focus can extend whatever random defense it wants or whatever random frontlines to defense. This gives the second speaking teams a disproportionate advantage and makes the debate needlessly more messy.
I will pull cards on two conditions. First, if it becomes a key card in the round and the other team questions the validity of the cut, paraphrasing, or explanation of the card in the round. Second, if the other team never discusses the merits of their opponents card the only time I will ever intervene and call for that evidence is if a reasonable person would know it's facially a lie.
Calling for your opponent's cards. It should not take more than 1 minute to find case cards. Do preflows before the round. Smh y'all.
If you spread that's fine. Just be prepared to adjust if I need to clear or provide speech docs to your opponents to allow for accessibility and accommodation.
My favorite question in cx is: Why? For example, "No I get that's what your evidence says but why?"
Germs are scary. I don't like to shake hands. It's not you! It's me! [Before covid times this was prophetic].
I don't like to time because it slows my flow in fast rounds but please flag overtime responses in speechs and raise your phone. Don't interrupt or use loud timers.

Ramblings on Trigger Warning Theory

Let me explain why I am writing this. This isn't because I'm right and you're wrong. I'm not trying to convince you. Nor should you cite this formally in round to win said round. Rather, a lot of you care so much about debate and theory in particular gets pretty personal fairly quickly that I want to explain why my hesitancy isn't personal to you either. I am not opposing theory as someone who is opposed to change in Public Forum.

- First, I would highly discourage running trigger warning theory in front of me. My grad school research and longstanding work outside of debate has tracked how queer, civil rights advocates, religious minorities, and political dissidents have been extensively censored over time through structural means. The suppression and elimination of critical race theory and BLM from schools and universities is an extension of this. I have found it very difficult to be tabula rasa on this issue. TW/anonymous opt outs are welcome if you so wish to include them, that is your prerogative, but like I said the lack of one is not a debate I can be fair on. Let me be clear. I do not dismiss that "triggers" are real. I do not deny your lived experience on face nor claim all of you are, or even a a significant number of you, are acting in bad faith. This is always about balancing tests. My entire academic research for over 8 years was about how structural oppressors abuse these frameworks of "sin," "harm," "other," to squash dissidents, silence suffragettes, hose civil rights marchers, and imprison queer people because of the "present danger they presented in their conduct or speech." I also understand that some folks in the literature circles claim there is a double bind. You are opting out of trigger warning debates but you aren't letting me opt out of debates I don't want to have either. First, I will never not listen to or engage in this debate. My discouragement above is rooted in my deep fear that I will let you down because I can't be as fair as I would be on another issue. I tell students all the time tabula rasa is a myth. I still think that. It's a goal we strive for to minimize intervention because we will never eliminate it. Second, I welcome teams to still offer tw and will not penalize you for doing so. Third, discussions on SV, intersectionality, and civil rights are always about trade offs. Maybe times will change but historically more oppression, suppression, and suffering has come from the abuse of the your "speech does me harm" principle than it benefits good faith social justice champions who want to create a safe space and a better place. If you want to discuss this empirical question (because dang there are so many sources and this is an appeal to my authority) I would love to chat about it.

Next, let me explain some specific reasons why I am resistant to TW theory in debate using terms we use in the literature. There is a longstanding historical, philosophical, and queer/critical theory concern on gatekeeper shift. If we begin drawing more and more abstract lines in terms of what content causes enough or certain "harm" that power can and will be co-opted and abused by the equally more powerful. Imagine if you had control over what speech was permitted versus your polar opposite actor in values. Now imagine they, via structural means, could begin to control that power for themselves only. In the last 250 years of the US alone I can prove more instances than not where this gatekeeping power was abused by government and powerful actors alike. I am told since this has changed in the last twenty years with societal movements so should we. I don't think we have changed that significantly. Just this year MAUS, a comic about the Holocaust, was banned in a municipality in Jan 22. Toni Morrison was banned from more than a dozen school districts in 2021 alone. PEN, which is a free press and speech org, tracked more than 125 bills, policies, or resolutions alone this year that banned queer, black, feminist, material be them books, films, or even topics in classrooms, libraries, and universities. Even in some of the bills passed and proposed the language being used is under the guise of causing "discomfort." "Sexuality" and discussions of certain civil rights topics is stricken from lesson plans all together under these frameworks. These trends now and then are alarming.

I also understand this could be minimizing the trauma you relive when a specific topic or graphic description is read in round. I again do not deny your experience on face ever. I just cannot comfortably see that framework co-opted and abused to suppress the mechanisms or values of equality and equity. So are you, Gabe, saying because the other actors steal a tool and abuse that tool it shouldn't be used for our shared common goals? Yes, if the powerful abuse that tool and it does more harm to the arc of history as it bends towards justice than I am going to oppose it. This can be a Heckler's Veto, Assassin's Veto, Poisoning The Well, whatever you want to call it. Even in debate I have seen screenshots of actual men discussing how they would always pick the opt out because they don't want to "debate girls on women issues in front of a girl judge." This is of course likely an incredibly small group but I am tired of seeing queer, feminist, or critical race theory based arguments being punted because of common terms or non-graphic descriptions. Those debates can be so enriching to the community and their absence means we are structurally disadvantaged with real world consequences that I think outweigh the impacts usually levied against this arg. I will defend this line for the powerless and will do so until I die.

All of these above claims are neither syllogisms or encyclopedias of events. I am fallible and so are those arguments. Hence let us debate this but just know my thoughts.

Like in my disclaimer on the other theory shell none of these arguments are truisms just my inner and honest thoughts to help you make strategic decisions in the round.

Website: I love reading non-fiction, especially features. Check out my free website Rusk Reads for good article recs.

Gopi Sadagopan Westborough High School 4 rounds

Bindu Sanku Brentwood High School 3 rounds

Vlad Savransky Bergen County Debate Club 6 rounds

Abby Schirmer Marist School 1 rounds

Last changed on Thu January 4, 2024 at 2:46 PM EST

Marist, Atlanta, GA (2015-2019, 2020-Present)
Pace Academy, Atlanta GA (2019-2020)
Stratford Academy, Macon GA (2008-2015)
Michigan State University (2004-2008)

Pronouns- She/Her

Please use email chains. Please add me- abby.schirmer@gmail.com.

Short version- You need to read and defend a plan in front of me. I value clarity (in both a strategic and vocal sense) and strategy. A good strategic aff or neg strat will always win out over something haphazardly put together. Impact your arguments, impact them against your opponents arguments (This is just as true with a critical strategy as it is with a DA, CP, Case Strategy). I like to read evidence during the debate. I usually make decisions pretty quickly. Typically I can see the nexus question of the debate clearly by the 2nr/2ar and when (if) its resolved, its resolved. Don't take it personally.

Long Version:
Case Debate- I like specific case debate. Shows you put in the hard work it takes to research and defeat the aff. I will reward hard work if there is solid Internal link debating. I think case specific disads are also pretty good if well thought out and executed. I like impact turn debates. Cleanly executed ones will usually result in a neg ballot -- messy debates, however, will not.

Disads- Defense and offense should be present, especially in a link turn/impact turn debate. You will only win an impact turn debate if you first have defense against their original disad impacts. I'm willing to vote on defense (at least assign a relatively low probability to a DA in the presence of compelling aff defense). Defense wins championships. Impact calc is important. I think this is a debate that should start early (2ac) and shouldn't end until the debate is over. I don't think the U necessarily controls the direction of the link, but can be persuaded it does if told and explained why that true.

K's- Im better for the K now than i have been in years past. That being said, Im better for security/international relations/neolib based ks than i am for race, gender, psycho, baudrillard etc . I tend to find specific Ks (ie specific to the aff's mechanism/advantages etc) the most appealing. If you're going for a K-- 1) please don't expect me to know weird or specific ultra critical jargon... b/c i probably wont. 2) Cheat- I vote on K tricks all the time (aff don't make me do this). 3) Make the link debate as specific as possible and pull examples straight from the aff's evidence and the debate in general 4) I totally geek out for well explained historical examples that prove your link/impact args. I think getting to weigh the aff is a god given right. Role of the ballot should be a question that gets debated out. What does the ballot mean with in your framework. These debates should NOT be happening in the 2NR/2AR-- they should start as early as possible. I think debates about competing methods are fine. I think floating pics are also fine (unless told otherwise). I think epistemology debates are interesting. K debates need some discussion of an impact-- i do not know what it means to say..."the ZERO POINT OF THE Holocaust." I think having an external impact is also good - turning the case alone, or making their impacts inevitable isn't enough. There also needs to be some articulation of what the alternative does... voting neg doesn't mean that your links go away. I will vote on the perm if its articulated well and if its a reason why plan plus alt would overcome any of the link questions. Link defense needs to accompany these debates.

K affs are fine- you have to have a plan. You should defend that plan. Affs who don't will prob lose to framework. A alot.... and with that we come to:

NonTraditional Teams-
If not defending a plan is your thing, I'm not your judge. I think topical plans are good. I think the aff needs to read a topical plan and defend the action of that topical plan. I don't think using the USFG is an endorsement of its racist, sexist, homophobic or ableist ways. I think affs who debate this way tend to leave zero ground for the negative to engage which defeats the entire point of the activity. I am persuaded by T/Framework in these scenarios. I also think if you've made the good faith effort to engage, then you should be rewarded. These arguments make a little more sense on the negative but I am not compelled by arguments that claim: "you didn't talk about it, so you should lose."

CPs- Defending the SQ is a bold strat. Multiple conditional (or dispo/uncondish) CPs are also fine. Condo is probably good, but i can be persuaded otherwise. Consult away- its arbitrary to hate them in light of the fact that everything else is fine. I lean neg on CP theory. Aff's make sure you perm the CP (and all its planks). Im willing to judge kick the CP for you. If i determine that the CP is not competitive, or that its a worse option - the CP will go away and you'll be left with whatever is left (NBs or Solvency turns etc). This is only true if the AFF says nothing to the contrary. (ie. The aff has to tell me NOT to kick the CP - and win that issue in the debate). I WILL NOT VOTE ON NO NEG FIAT. That argument makes me mad. Of course the neg gets fiat. Don't be absurd.

T- I default to offense/defense type framework, but can be persuaded otherwise. Impact your reasons why I should vote neg. You need to have unique offense on T. K's of T are stupid. I think the aff has to run a topical aff, and K-ing that logic is ridiculous. T isn't racist. RVIs are never ever compelling.... ever.

Theory- I tend to lean neg on theory. Condo- Good. More than two then the aff might have a case to make as to why its bad - i've voted aff on Condo, I've voted neg on condo. Its a debate to be had. Any other theory argument I think is categorically a reason to reject the argument and not the team. I can't figure out a reason why if the aff wins international fiat is bad that means the neg loses - i just think that means the CP goes away.

Remember!!! All of this is just a guide for how you chose your args in round. I will vote on most args if they are argued well and have some sort of an impact. Evidence comparison is also good in my book-- its not done enough and i think its one of the most valuable ways to create an ethos of control with in the debate. Perception is everything, especially if you control the spin of the debate. I will read evidence if i need to-- don't volunteer it and don't give me more than i ask for. I love fun debates, i like people who are nice, i like people who are funny... i will reward you with good points if you are both. Be nice to your partner and your opponents. No need to be a jerk for no reason

Charles Schletzbaum Milpitas High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Sun October 13, 2024 at 2:29 AM PST

Co-Director: Milpitas High Speech and Debate
PHYSICS TEACHER
History
Myers Park, Charlotte N.C.
(85-88) 3 years Policy, LD and Congress. Double Ruby (back when it was harder to get) and TOC competitor in LD.
2 Diamond Coach (pretentious, I know)

Email Chain so I know when to start prep: mrschletz@gmail.com

Summer 87: American U Institute. 2 weeks LD and congress under Dale Mccall and Harold Keller, and 2 more weeks in a mid level Policy lab.

St. Johns Xavierian, Shrewsbury, Mass
88~93 consultant, judge and chaperone

Summer 89 American U Coaches institute (Debate)

Milpitas High, Milpitas CA
09-present co-coach

ALL EVENTS EXCEPT PARLI NEED TO KNOW NSDA RULES OF EVIDENCE (or CHSSA RULES OF EVIDENCE) OR DO NOT EXPECT ME TO COUNT IT(NSDA MINIMUM IS "NAME" AND "DATE" ****READ IN ROUND****) Anything else is just rhetoric/logic and 99% of the time, rhetoric vs card mans card wins. ALSO: SENDING ME A SPEECH DOC does NOT equal "READ IN ROUND". If I yell clear, and you don't adapt, this is your fault.

If you put conditions on your opponent getting access to your evidence I will put conditions on counting it in my RFD. Evidence should be provided any time asked between speeches, or asked for during cx and provided between speeches. Failure to produce the card in context may result in having no access to that card on my flow/decision.

Part of what you should know about any of the events
Events Guide
https://www.nflonline.org/uploads/AboutNFL/Competition_Events_Guide.pdf
13-14 NSDA tournament Operations manual
http://www.speechanddebate.org/aspx/content.aspx?id=1206
http://www.speechanddebate.org/DownloadHandler.ashx?File=/userdocs/documents/PF_2014-15_Competition_Events_At_A_Glance.pdf

All events, It is a mark of the competitors skill to adapt to the judge, not demand that they should adapt to you. Do not get into a definitional fight without being armed with a definition..... TAG TEAM CX? *NOT A FAN* if you want to give me the impression your partner doesn't know what they are talking about, sure, go ahead, Diss your partner. Presentation skills: Stand in SPEECHES AND CX (where applicable) and in all events with only exception in PF grand.

If you attempt to exceed a speed that your enunciation can handle, I will yell "clear" at least once before I stop flowing and try to focus on what you are saying

PUBLIC FORUM:

P.S.: there is no official grace period in PF. If you start a card or an analytic before time, then finish it. No arguments STARTED after time will be on my flow.

While I was not able to compete in public forum (It did not exist yet), the squad I coach does primarily POFO. Its unlikely that any resolution will call for a real plan as POFO tends to be propositions of fact instead of value or policy.
I am UNLIKELY to vote for a K, and I don't even vote for K in policy. Moderate speed is fine, but to my knowledge, this format was meant to be more persuasive. USE EVIDENCE and make sure you have Tags and Cites. I want a neat flow (it will never happen, but I still want it)

I WANT FRAMEWORK or I will adjudicate the round, since you didn't (Framework NOT introduced in the 1st 4 speeches will NOT be entertained, as it is a new argument. I FLOW LIKE POLICY with respect to DROPPED ARGUMENTS (if a speech goes by I will likely consider the arg dropped... this means YES I believe the 4th speaker in the round SHOULD cover both flows..)

Also: If you are framing the round in the 4th speech, I am likely to give more leeway in the response to FW or new topical definitions in 1st Summ as long as they don't drop it.

Remember, Pofo was there to counteract speed in Circuit LD, and LD was created to counter speed in Policy, sofast can be ok, but tier 3 policy spread is probably not.

ALL EVENTS EXCEPT PARLI NEED TO KNOW NSDA RULES OF EVIDENCE (or CHSSA RULES OF EVIDENCE) OR DO NOT EXPECT ME TO COUNT IT(NSDA MINIMUM IS "NAME" AND "DATE" READ IN ROUND ) Anything else is just rhetoric/logic and 99% of the time, rhetoric vs card mans card wins.

PLANS IN PF
If you have one advocacy, and you claim solvency on one advocacy, and only if it is implemented, then yeah that is a plan. I will NOT weigh offense from the plan, this is a drop the argument issue for me. Keep the resolution as broad as possible. EXCEPTION, if the resolution is (rarely) EXPLICIT, or the definitions in the round imply the affirmative side is a course of action, then that is just the resolution. EXAMPLE
September 2012 - Resolved: Congress should renew the Federal Assault Weapons Ban
the aff is the resolution, not a plan and more latitude is obviously given.

If one describes several different ways for the resolution to be implemented, or to be countered, you are not committing to one advocacy, and are defending/attacking a broad swath of the resolution, and this I do NOT consider a plan.

ALL EVENTS EXCEPT PARLI NEED TO KNOW NSDA RULES OF EVIDENCE (or CHSSA RULES OF EVIDENCE) OR DO NOT EXPECT ME TO COUNT IT(NSDA MINIMUM IS "NAME" AND "DATE" ****READ IN ROUND****) Anything else is just rhetoric/logic and 99% of the time, rhetoric vs card mans card wins.

POLICY:

If your plan is super vague, you MIGHT not get to claim your advantages. Saying you "increase" by merely reading the text of the resolution is NOT A PLAN. Claiming what the plan says in cx is NOT reading a plan. Stop being sloppy.

I *TRY* to be Tabula Rasa (and fail a lot of the time especially on theory, Ks and RVI/fairness whines)
I trained when it was stock issues, mandatory funding plan spikes (My god, the amount of times I abused the grace commission in my funding plank), and who won the most nuclear wars in the round.

Presentation skills: Stand in SPEECHES AND CX (where applicable) and in all events with only exception in PF grand.

Please don't diss my event.
I ran
Glassification of toxic/nuclear wastes, and Chloramines on the H2O topic
Legalize pot on the Ag topic
CTBT on the Latin America topic.

In many years I have never voted neg on K (in CX), mainly because I have never seen an impact (even when it was run in POFO as an Aff).(Ironic given my LD background)

I will freely vote on Topicality if it is run properly (but not always XT), and have no problem buying jurisdiction......
I HAVE finally gotten to judge Hypo-testing round (it was fun and hilarious).
One of my students heard from a friend in Texas that they are now doing skits and non topical/personal experiece affs, feel free, BUT DON'T EXPECT ME TO VOTE FOR IT.

I will vote on good perms both ways (see what I said above about XT)

SPREAD: I was a tier B- speed person in the south. I can flow A level spread *IF* you enunciate. slow down momentarily on CITES and TAGS and blow through the card (BUT I WILL RE TAG YOUR SUBPOINTS if your card does not match the tag!!!!!!)

I do not ask for ev unless there is an evidentiary challenge, so if you claim the card said something and I tagged it differently because YOU slurred too much on the card or mis-tagged it, that's your fault, not mine.

LD

I WILL JUDGE NSDA RULES!!!! I am NOT tabula rasa on some theory, or on plans. Plans are against the rules of the event as I learned it and I tend to be an iconoclast on this point. LD was supposed to be a check on policy spread, and I backlash, if you have to gasp or your voice went up two octaves then see below... Topicality FX-T and XT are cool on both sides but most other theory boils down to WHAAAAAAHHHH I don't want to debate their AFF so I will try to bs some arguments.

-CIRCUIT LD REFER to policy prefs above in relation to non topical and performance affs, I will TRY to sometimes eval a plan, but I wish they would create a new event for circuit LD as it is rarely values debate.

- I LOVE PHILOSOPHY so if you want to confuse your opponent who doesn't know the difference between Kant, Maslow and Rawls, dazzle away :-).
Clear VP and VC (or if you call it framework fine, but it is stupid to tell someone with a framework they don't have a VC and vice versa, its all semantics) are important but MORE IMPORTANT is WHY IS YOURS BETTER *OR* WHY DO YOU MEET THEIRS TOO and better (Permute)

IF YOU TRY TO Tier A policy spread, or solo policy debate, you have probably already lost UNLESS your opponent is a novice. Not because I can't follow you, but because THIS EVENT IS NOT THE PLACE FOR IT!!! However there are several people who can talk CLEARLY and FAST that can easily dominate LD, If you cannot be CLEAR and FAST play it safe and be CLEAR and SLOW. Speaker points are awarded on speaking, not who wins the argument....

Sub-pointing is still a good idea, do not just do broad overviews. plans and counter-plans need not apply as LD is usually revolving around the word OUGHT!!!! Good luck claiming Implementation FIAT on a moral obligation. I might interrupt if you need to be louder, but its YOUR job to occasionally look at the judge to see signals to whether or not they are flowing, so I will be signalling that, by looking at you funny or closing my eyes, or in worst case leaning back in my chair and visibly ignoring you until you stop ignoring the judge and fix the problem. I will just be making up new tags for the cards I missed tags for by actually listening to the cards, and as the average debater mis-tags cards to say what they want them to, this is not advisable.

PLANS IN LD
PLANS
If you have one advocacy, and you claim solvency on one advocacy, and only if it is implemented, then yeah that is a plan. I will NOT weigh offense from the plan, this is a drop the argument issue for me. Keep the resolution as broad as possible.

EXCEPTION, if the resolution is (rarely) EXPLICIT, or the definitions in the round imply the affirmative side is a course of action, then that is just the resolution. EXAMPLE
September 2012 - Resolved: Congress should renew the Federal Assault Weapons Ban
the aff is the resolution, not a plan and more latitude is obviously given.

If one describes several different ways for the resolution to be implemented, or to be countered, you are not committing to one advocacy, and are defending/attacking a broad swath of the resolution, and this I do NOT consider a plan.

I repeat, Speed = Bad in LD, and I will not entertain a counter-plan in LD If you want to argue Counterplans and Plans, get a partner and go to a policy tournament.

DISCLOSURE: I regard disclosure as a tool for rich schools with multiple employees to prep out schools with less resources. This is not a theory arg I am synmpathetic to.

GOOD LUCK and dangit, MAKE *ME* HAVE FUN hahahahahah

https://victorybriefs.substack.com/p/201205comments-for-the-circuit-on-the-ncfl-and-nfl-nationals-by-brad-taylor

Harrison Schlossberg Poly Prep Country Day School 3 rounds

Josh Schulster Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Fri November 8, 2019 at 4:46 AM EST

*Last updated 11/7/19*

Background:

Schools Attended: Boca '16, FSU '20

Teams Coaching/Coached: Capitol, Boca

Competitive History: 4 years of PF in high school, 2 years of JV policy and 2 years of NPDA and Civic Debate in college

Public Forum Paradigm:

TL;DR: You do you.

General:

1) Tech > Truth. If you have strong warrants and links and can argue well, I'll vote off of anything. Dropped arguments are presumed true arguments. I'm open to anything as long as you do your job to construct the argument properly.

2) The first speaking team in the round needs to make sure that all offense that you want me to vote on must be in the summary and final focus. Defense in the rebuttal does not need to be extended, I will buy it as long as your opponents don't respond and it is extended in the final focus. The second speaking team needs to respond to turns in rebuttal and extend all offense and defense you want me to vote on in BOTH the summary and the final focus.

3) If you start weighing arguments in rebuttal or summary it will make your arguments a lot more convincing. Easiest way to my ballot is to warrant your weighing and tell me why your arguments are the most important and why they mean you win the round.

4) I don't vote on anything that wasn't brought up in final focus.

Framework:

Frameworks need clear warrants and reasons to prefer. Make sure to contextualize how the framework functions with the rest of the arguments in the round.

Theory:

I will listen to any theory arguments as long as a real abuse is present. Don't just use theory as a cheap way to win, give me strong warrants and label the shell clearly and it will be a voter if the violation is clear. Also, if you're going to ask me to reject the team you better give me a really good reason.

If you are running theory, such as disclosure theory, and you want it to be a voter, you need to bring it up for a fair amount of time.

Kritiks:

I was primarily a K debater when I competed in policy in college, so I am familiar with how they function in round. However, I don't know all the different K lit out there so make sure you can clearly explain and contextualize.

Offense v. Defense:

I find myself voting for a risk of offense more often than I vote on defense. If you have really strong terminal impact defense or link defense, I can still be persuaded to vote neg on presumption.

Weighing:

I hate being in a position where I have to do work to vote for a team. Tell me why your argument is better/more important than your opponents and why that means I should vote for you. Strength of link and/or impact calc is encouraged and appreciated.

Evidence Standard:

I will only call for cards if it is necessary for me to resolve a point of clash or when a team tells me to.

Speaks:

- If I find you offensive/rude I will drop your speaks relative to the severity of the offense.

- I take everything into consideration when giving speaks.

- The easier you make my decision, the more likely you are to get high speaks.

Misc:

- I'm fine with speed, but if you're going to spread send out speech docs.

- Keep your own time.

- I will disclose if the tournament allows me, and feel free to ask me any questions after my RFD.

- I only vote off of things brought up in speeches.

Bottom line: Debate is supposed to be fun! Run what you want just run it well.

If you have any questions email me at joshschulsterdebate@gmail.com or ask me before the round.

Naima Sekandari BASIS Peoria 5 rounds

Balaji Sekar Del Norte Independent 3 rounds

Wayne Selogy Oxbridge Academy of the Palm Beaches 3 rounds

Yukiho Semimoto Strake Jesuit College Preparatory 3 rounds

Fabiola Sepulveda NSU University School 4 rounds

Last changed on Tue January 10, 2023 at 6:28 PM EST

Background

I debated for four years (2016-2020) at Cypress Bay High School in South Florida. Third year at the University of Chicago now. Credits to all the former cypress debaters that let me steal their paradigms.

TL;DR

This ain't it: new cards in second summary, extending thru ink, misconstrued evidence, being rude and offensive.

This is it: comparative weighing, signposting, cool strats, email chains, split rebuttals, being lighthearted. Warrant your arguments well. If you read something, explain why it happens/its true. This applies to blocks in rebuttal as well as case arguments.

General

Weigh. Signpost. Time yourself. Narratives are cool.

I believe public forum should be accessible to everyone. That means if your behavior in round is excessively rude, belittling, or hateful, you will receive 20 speaks even if you won all the arguments in the round.

***Please have preflows ready before the round so we don't start later than we should.***

Evidence

Read dates. I won't drop you if you don't (I’ll lower speaks) but if you get called out for not reading dates you'll look bad, and I'll probably assume your opponents evidence is more recent.

Email chains are great.

Don't misconstrue evidence.

I will not call for a card unless I am explicitly told to or both teams read conflicting evidence and neither team weighs one over the other.

Case/Rebuttal

Warrants are mega important. If there's an x% increase in _____, tell me why.

Second rebuttal doesn't have to respond to defensive responses but it can be strategic.

Arguments that are not responded to are considered conceded. If the summary calls the argument conceded, and it is, then they will probably win the round unless you can outweigh the argument effectively.

If you're turning something label it as a turn, I'll probably figure it out on my own but it just visually makes it easier on my flow.

Summary/Final Focus

You don't need to extend defensive responses in first summary unless the other team responded to it in second rebuttal. I would prefer you do. You do need turns.

I will not evaluate arguments in the Final Focus that weren't in the summary.

Don't go for everything on the flow, condense the round and give me a narrative. Give me 1-2 voters in final focus.

Quality of voters> Quantity of voters.

weigh a lot

How I vote

I'll look at what offense was extended through summary and final focus then vote for the argument/narrative that was weighed best. If no one weighs then I'll do my own weighing and that means there's a good chance you will be upset with the outcome. If both teams weigh and it's still very close, I will take the path of least resistance i.e. the cleanest piece of offense in the round.

Speaker Points

I usually am nice about speaks. Do the stuff below to get closer to a 30.

Weigh and signpost well.

Keep the round lighthearted. I think debaters are way too angry now and some humor would be appreciated.

Don't steal prep.

Progressive Args

I will vote on K's if clearly warranted and made accessible to your opponents.

I will also vote on theory that is clearly explained, fleshed out, and well warranted. I believe that theory should only be used to check egregious instances of in-round abuse. So running it to waste time, get a cheap win, or exclude your opponents from the debate will result in low speaks and possibly a loss if you annoy me enough.

If you plan on reading arguments about sensitive topics, please provide a trigger/content warning before the round. Please work to maintain debate as a safe space and refrain from reading potentially triggering arguments if someone in the round asks you not to. If you have any questions as to what a content warning is, how to go about reading a content warning, or if you're unsure if you should read one- let me know before the round. I'm more than happy to help you!

If you have any other questions feel free to email me at sepul.fabiola@gmail.com or ask me before the round.

Gavin Serr Park City 2 rounds

Last changed on Fri November 22, 2024 at 3:09 PM MST

Bio:

I am an assistant PF coach at Nueva and Park City.

I am a former director of speech and debate at Park City.

I have been a PF lab leader at NDF, CNDI, and PFBC.

I mostly competed in PF in high school, but also dabbled in LD and speech.

I judge about 100 rounds per year. Most of these rounds are PF, though I sparingly -- and generally begrudgingly -- judge Policy, Parli, and LD.

I study economics at the University of Utah.

Broadly Applicable Tea:

-- While I've included some thoughts on different types of arguments below, my foremost preference is that you make your favorite argument in front of me.

-- I have not yet found The Truth in my life, so I will evaluate the round as it is debated.

-- Debate is a communicative activity. I will never flow off a speech doc.

-- I believe PF, LD, and Policy are all evidence-based formats, so quality evidence -- and quality spin on evidence -- is very impressive and persuasive. I flow author names and prefer that extensions include those.

-- Be silly and down to earth and not dominant or aggressive. A sense of humor is greatly appreciated.

-- I have no qualms with speed in any format, but if you speak at Mach-10, consider slowing down a little for my tired old ears. Clarity, explanation, organization, and the use of full sentences dramatically increase my speed threshold. I will 'clear' you twice before I stop flowing.

-- Impact comparison is very important to me. It is likely that both teams will prove some harm/benefit of the AFF. Whether that becomes a net harm/benefit of the AFF often hinges on weighing. Tell me why I should vote for you even if I buy your opponents' argument.

-- Tell me how to decide what's true and resolve competing claims. The team that makes the most warranted "prefer our evidence/empirics because" statements tends to win my ballot.

-- I do not time speeches or track prep. Please hold one another accountable so I don't have to. If I have begun doing so, you should all feel called out.

-- I'm a stickler about extensions. In my RFDs, I sometimes find myself saying things like: "the Neg wins that the Aff causes a recession, but I'm not sure why a recession is bad, so I ignore it." This also illustrates the importance of terminalizing impacts -- such statements are most likely when there was not an impact to begin with.

-- I don't think it is good to advocate for death or self harm, and I do not think that is a bias I will be persuaded to overcome.

-- I have never voted on presumption and I doubt you'll be the first to change that.

Evidence and Email Chains:

-- Anyone who does not meet NSDA evidence standards should politely strike me.

-- Please utilize an email chain to share speech docs. Title it something logical and addgavinslittledebatesidehustle@gmail.com. Please also add nuevadocs@gmail.com.

-- I tend not to open the email chain. If I'm instructed to read a specific card, I will.

-- You should not need a marked doc. An inability to flow is a skill issue that should not delay the round. Speaker points will be lower if you delay the round for marked docs.

-- I will only vote on arguments that are in both summary and final focus.

-- Defense is never sticky. If you give me a reason to disbelieve your opponents' claims, that same reason must be present in each subsequent speech for me to agree with it at the end of the debate.

-- I like to see weighing done as soon as possible. If weighing is introduced in the second summary, I'll be much more sympathetic to quick answers to it in the first final focus. No new weighing in final focus.

-- Warrants for your weighing will be most persuasive when predicated on claims from your evidence.

-- Crossfire and flex prep exist so that we do not need a 'flow clarification' timeout during the debate.

LD/Policy

-- I judge Policy/LD a few times most years.

-- (Almost certainly correctly) assume I know nothing about the topic.

-- Top speed may challenge me, but you do you. I'll 'clear' twice.

-- I'm willing to evaluate nearly any argument, but I will be most comfortable hearing the kinds you would expect in a Public Forum round.

Kritiks:

-- I have coached a couple K teams and tend to find critical arguments very interesting. That said, it has not been my focus as a debater or as a coach.

-- Assume I know nothing about your literature.

-- Please keep in mind that I am of incredibly average intelligence.

-- I will not vote on arguments premised on another debater's identity. An argument premised on your own identity is certainly permissible.

-- Aim to engage. I am most interested in criticisms that directly indict the Aff or otherwise have a link to the topic. I'm less interested in criticisms that rely on a ROTB or framework argument to exclude other offense in the round. Conversely, I am most impressed by Aff teams willing to contest the thesis of the critique.

-- Consider me a lay judge in this realm, but feel free to read one if you would find it strategic or fulfilling.

Theory:

-- I will vote on disclosure theory if a team does not disclose at all.I would otherwise strongly prefer not to judge a theory debate. I will evaluate the round as debated, but I will use speaker points punitively if you ignore this preference.

-- Unless I feel compelled to contact DCFS, I will be skeptical of accusations of "abuse."

IVIs:

-- I tend not to like these arguments.

Tricks:

-- This is where I will be most likely to intervene in my decision. I would rather watch paint dry.

Priti Shah Centennial HS 4 rounds

Kausar Shaikh Plano West Sr High School 6 rounds None

Krishna Shamanna Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Sat August 10, 2024 at 7:15 AM CST

Please stop speaking so fast. I max out at 220 wpm. Past that, I'll only catch bits and pieces of it all, and that is not a good position for any of us.
*if you have me in any other debate event than PF or LD: I'm so sorry. I'm not gonna lie to you: this won't go well, and I apologize in advance.
Yes, put me on the email chain. krishna.shamanna2401@gmail.com
*For LDers: they've been sticking me in ya'll's rounds all year despite my objections, so I've reluctantly become somewhat mildly knowledgeable about how the event works, and can safely say that I won't be the absolute worst judge in this event, and should generally be able to follow along most substance. That said, please treat me like a flay judge, and ease up on the speed and the jargon, because if ya'll start spreading or feel the need to try some new-fangled progressive argumentation, I promise you that I will have no idea what's going on and will either default to the team I can comprehend or literally just flip a coin if I don't know what's going on for either of ya'll.
No longer relevant because COVID, but leaving it here for posterity: Bring me food and I'll give you a 30 (just you, not your partner, unless he/she/they brings me food too-- no freebies).
Some stuff abt me: I debated in PF for two years for Westwood High School, one of them on the national circuit where I achieved mild success. Now I'm a second year out. Here's what you rly need to know:
TLDR: Warrant, weigh, and don't be abusive. Tech>Truth, but don't be offensive and/or dumb. Yes, I disclose, and no, you don't have to.

Long version:
1. Yes, I intervene. 2 scenarios where it will happen: Either you're being incredibly offensive (sexist/racist/homophobic, etc.) in the round, or you lie about evidence. To clarify the first: I haven't seen many egregious examples of this type of conduct, but suffice to say: when you cross a line, I will drop you. I don't care if you won the flow-- if you actively contribute to making the debate space more exclusionary, I refuse to reward you for that with a W. To clarify the latter: It's one thing to marginally overstate the extent to which a card supports your contention. It's another thing entirely to cherrypick the part of a card that supports your argument, while ignoring the entire list of answers to your argument made in the next paragraph. In the overwhelming majority of cases, I will simply drop a piece of evidence if I find it to be misconstrued. But if your entire link chain is based on one card, and that card is a straight-up lie (at least the way you read it), I will drop the entire argument from my flow and refuse to evaluate it. I won't necessarily drop you for it, if you have some other source of offense that wins you the round, but you will be at a disadvantage from that point forth, and your speaker points will be dismal. This has happened exactly once so far in my time judging-- please do not be the second, whoever is reading this.
2. I'm nice on speaker points now. Don't worry too much, just be respectful.
3. I heavily dislike presumption/default votes, and expect you to not put me in that position. If you're confused about what this means, let me elaborate: A very disturbing situation is one in which I have to view two or more paths to the ballot that are both equally strong. Don't misunderstand-- this most often means you're doing something wrong. For example, if I have two ways to evaluate the round and I can literally flip a coin to figure out who gets the W because you frontline and extend completely separate arguments while doing 0 comparative weighing, I will consider factors such as quality of extensions, which scenario is more of an offensive argument to vote off of, etc. to make my decision. To clarify, this DOES NOT mean I will intervene to give the W to the team I like more in the round. It just means that the team does the better debating in a bad round should win the debate, rather than me reducing the ballot to the outcome of the coin flip-- ergo, no "presuming" anything.
4. Speak fast if you want (mostly-- but if you're over 250 words per minute, we'll have trouble), as long as you’re clear, and your opponents don’t get spread out of the round (hint: if this is a potential issue, ask if they would like to establish a speed threshold). But if you wanna ignore this, just let me be clear about something: I. Am. An. Extremely. Lazy. Person. I try to intervene as little as possible in debate rounds, and that extends to your speaking. If I cannot understand you, I will not work to understand you-- I shouldn't be doing that anyways. It's your job as a debater to convince me of stuff, so do it right.
5. CPs/Ks/Theory and progressive whatnot--- Please, don't do it unless there's no other option. There are some situations where it's unavoidable: If your opponents paraphrase like 100000 cards and spread to place a boatload of responses, leaving you with not nearly enough time to make responses and call for evidence and whatnot, sure, run theory about spreading, paraphrasing, or whatever-- but it has to be egregious abuse. And even then, please dumb it down rather reading a shell. This event was designed to be a form of debate accessible to everyone, and I believe these types of arguments, while sometimes necessary, undermine that purpose. Not only do I doubt I can evaluate them correctly, but I'm frankly tired of seeing teams (you know who you are) from big schools with multiple coaches that are flown out every other weekend, go into round and spread theory shells against small-school teams (from predominantly local, lay circuits) about how small schools are supposedly harmed by non-disclosure or paraphrasing (this means I almost never evaluate disclosure theory).
6. Paraphrasing- I don't understand why people are so uptight about this in PF. Reading direct quotes doesn't mean you can't misrepresent what the evidence says, so the logic behind the "no paraphrasing" requirements that many judges/coaches set doesn't really make sense to me. Again, this event is designed to be accessible to everyone-- in some cases, that necessitates paraphrasing evidence in order to articulate your arguments in the clearest way possible. But independent of that, I think it's important to realize that with the time limits being what they are in this event, sometimes paraphrasing is the only way that you can have enough time to make an argument at a deeper level and really provide a complete narrative for the judge to evaluate. So please, paraphrase if you want, and don't read theory against it unless there's actually an egregious case of misrepresentation that changed the coarse of the whole round.
7. I shouldn’t have to say this but: Claims/Statistics need warrants before they can be evaluated as arguments, and this applies to all offense and defense in the round. If you extend an impact without extending the warrant (or vice-versa), I count it as dropped-- not weighable. Extending an argument, ESPECIALLY with the new extra minute of summary, should be done cleanly, with everything important mentioned in both summary and final focus. If neither team does this, I won't be happy.
8. First summary is no longer allowed to skip extending terminal defense. If you're gonna extend it in final focus, I want it in summary as well. This year, the NSDA has literally given you an entire extra minute of summary AND prep time. There is no excuse anymore.
9. If you want to concede defense to kick out of turns on your case, or read your own defense on your own case to kick those turns (sketch, but I'm cool with it), you need to do it immediately after the opposing speech which made those turns.
10. Second rebuttal MUST frontline turns, AT A MINIMUM. I think you should frontline defense as well, but I won't penalize you for not doing it. I like overviews, and don’t care if they’re in second rebuttal. Any overview read in first rebuttal MUST be answered in second rebuttal, otherwise it is conceded. You can allocate your time however you want-- I did 2-2 splits throughout my (very short) career, and it usually worked.
11. Terminal defense extensions are good. Turns are better. You can drop your case at any point in the round and still have a shot, assuming you did it right.
12. Anything in final focus must be in summary, except weighing (It doesn’t matter to me when you do it, as long as you do it because too many of you don't). Everyone needs to weigh. No one does. Please do. If not, you run the risk that the round becomes a messy stalemate (happens more often than you’d think), forcing me to intervene, and neither you nor I will appreciate the outcome of that.
13. Weighing is more than saying buzzwords like probability, scope, magnitude, etc. You actually need to explain it. In fact, if you just get to the point and avoid saying those buzzwords (as in just say "Our impacts are more important because 1) we save 150 million people, while they only save 5 thousand, 2) We give you global benefits while they're restricted to China, 3) The chance of accessing X benefit is X% more likely to happen that nuclear war, which is almost possible today because of mutual deterrence"-- ALL WITHOUT SAYING THE WORDS "WE OUTWEIGH ON MAGNITUDE, SCOPE, AND PROBABILITY, BC ___") , I can guarantee you'll have extra time to warrant and even add some more weighing mechanisms, and maybe even some meta-weighing-- and then you'll be EXTREMELY likely to get my ballot, along with a FAT 30 :)).
14. I strongly prefer that teams collapse in summary/final focus on key issues. You can go line by line in summary if you want, but by the time you get to final focus, I think you should be collapsing on 1-2 voting issues in the round, and CRYSTALLIZING.
15. Please have your evidence (preferably cut cards, but PDFs are ok if you paraphrase) available when your opponents call for it. As someone who debated with a very unreliable laptop and frequently used paywalled articles, I know sometime it takes some time to pull up evidence, so I'm slightly forgiving with this and will do my best to not be unfair. But try to not take it too far, because it's annoying, and if I'm on a panel, I can guarantee that I'll be one of the only ones who'll be nice about this.
16. Misconstrued cards will be dropped from the round. If I catch you straight up lying/falsifying, you’ll be able to tell; my face (particularly my eyebrows) is very expressive when I’m angry. Suffice to say: you’ll get an L25, and you’ll know you did, well before I announce it, post it on tabroom, and loudly scold you.
17. I don’t like jerks, but I love sass!. Please, by all means-- Be funny!!! (if you can haha) Tournaments are too depressing most of the time, for everyone, so ya'll might as well make this an entertaining experience for all of us.
18. If you are being overtly offensive (as in racist, xenophobic, sexist, etc.), you will get an L25, period.

Sanjeev Sharma Mission San Jose High School 3 rounds

Samah Sharmin Strath Haven 4 rounds

Archana Shekar Evergreen Valley 2 rounds

Chris Sheppard Hackley School 6 rounds

Daniel Shih BASIS Scottsdale High School 4 rounds

Danny Siegel Durham Academy 4 rounds

Last changed on Fri December 11, 2020 at 6:04 PM EST

Background

I competed in Public Forum on the national circuit from 2013-2017. This is my fourth year coaching for Durham Academy in Durham, North Carolina. I currently am a senior attending the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill majoring in Peace, War, and Defense with a concentration in international security and intelligence.

Please have pre-flows ready when you get in the round so we can start immediately.

I will disclose unless the tournament tells me otherwise.

General

I will buy any argument and vote off of it. This includes kritiks and theory... Just warrant such arguments well.

I don't care if you paraphrase. Just don't misconstrue what your evidence actually says.

Split rebuttals are impressive/strategic but they are not necessary. Just make sure your first speaker frontlines effectively in summary. However, feel free to make their job easier and frontline for them in rebuttal.

My threshold for warranting arguments is very very high. If you are winning an argument in case or in rebuttal, clearly articulate the link chain of the argument when you are extending it. This does not mean shout random card names at me. Just walk me through the logical link chain of what you are extending.

Speed/Signposting

I can flow at just about any speed

However.....

If you are going to speak quickly, PLEASE SIGNPOST. ie: "We are winning our 2nd response on their first contention, which is *insert well explained warrant* *insert well explained impact*." I also do not know all the names of authors in your case so tell me what authors say!! Do not just extend specific authors!!

I flow fairly quickly but if I do not know where you are you will likely see me scrambling to figure out what to do with my flow. You should pay attention if I do this because that means slow down or signpost better.

Also....

If you have an issue with your opponents evidence make it very clear to me in the round. You can do this in many ways. Examples include reading your opponents evidence out-loud during a speech, explaining how the evidence is misread, and/or telling me to call for the evidence post round.

I will not call for your evidence unless asked to call for something. In my opinion, calling for evidence without a reason is a form of judge intervention.

How to get 30 speaks:

Make the round entertaining/make me laugh.

I personally hate rounds that are way too serious and debaters are not questioning the analytical logic of each others arguments in an entertaining way. This does not mean turn the round into a joke but rather pretend like there is an audience on the zoom call/in the back of the room. This is generally a good strategy to seem perceptually dominate too.

Ravinder Singh Hamilton High Independent 6 rounds

Vinita Singh Lynbrook HS 3 rounds

Sonia Singhal Lynbrook HS 3 rounds

Will Sjostrom Marist School 3 rounds

Last changed on Thu June 20, 2024 at 5:13 AM EST

Please add williamhsjostrom@gmail.com to the email chain

Current Coach -- Marist School (2020-present)

Former PF Debater -- Marist School (2016-2020)

I just graduated undergrad and am in law school now

PF Paradigm:

To be honest, I do not have as strong views on what I want to see in round as I may have a few years ago. As long as you keep the round safe, fun, and educational I will enjoy judging. Argument wise I place a strong emphasis on education, I really dislike bad faith arguments that harm the beneficial nature of the activity (i.e. frivolous theory).

TL;DR: I am a tech judge and I will vote off my flow. Please do whatever you do best and enjoy the round.

General important stuff:

1) Extend every part of the argument... uniqueness, link, internal link, and impact. A claim without a warrant is not an argument. If you do not extend your argument then I can not vote on it. I really do listen and pay close attention to this so please do. I will vote with no shame against teams that probably would have won if they had just extended their argument fully.

2) I cannot stress enough that fewer well developed arguments will always be better than blips with no argument development or good warrants. I've noticed teams that collapse and more thoroughly explain their arguments tend to win my ballot more often than not against a team that goes for too much.

3) Please weigh your arguments. Explain why your argument is more important than the other teams.

4) My only real pet peeve is wasting time during or before a debate. Please be ready to start the debate on time and don't cause unnecessary delays during it. Preflowing should be done before the debate. When prep time ends you should be ready to start your speech right away. "Pulling up a doc" or something like that for 30 seconds is stealing prep and should be done before you end your prep time.

5) Second rebuttal must answer first rebuttal

Other specific stuff:

Argument types:

I don’t care what type of argument you read as long as it is well explained, has warrants, and is weighed (case, k’s, theory... whatever are all fine). You do what you're best at!

Speed:

You can go as fast or slow as you want. I will be good flowing any speed you decide to go.

Theory:

Any theory arguments need to be real violations that have real impacts. Frivolous theory is unpleasant to judge and will be almost impossible to win in front of me. I believe paraphrasing is bad and disclosure is good. At this point in the activity reading cuts cards and disclosing has become a norm that most teams adhere to which I think makes my threshold for responses to the shell even higher than it has been in the past. The farther you get away from disclosure or paraphrasing theory the more inclined I am to think it is frivolous.

I am a very good judge for you if you read cut cards and disclose your arguments on the wiki.

Any theory argument should be read in the speech directly after the violation. For example, disclosure theory should be read in constructive, but if a team reads cut cards in case and then paraphrases rebuttal then you read paraphrasing in rebuttal/summary whichever is next.

Speaks:

If you flow on paper and give second half speeches off of that flow a small boost in speaks. I give speaks primarily based on quality of the debating in round. Making good strategic decisions, collapsing, and weighing are all things that can help your speaks. Being nice and not wasting time also help. I do not really care how "good" you sound if you are not making good arguments at the same time. To put this into perspective, when I debated I always felt that winning rounds was more important than sounding good, but with winning generally comes better speaks.

Sara Solomon The Dalton School 1 rounds

Thomas Spargo Dougherty Valley High School 3 rounds

Last changed on Fri March 8, 2024 at 12:19 AM PST

Hello All,

Background

I am a business consultant. I judge for San Luis Obispo, and have judged in the past at a few tournaments in Lincoln Douglas and Public Forum. As a heads-up, I do take notes during debate, but not in the usual "flowing" format. I am mostly knowledgeable on the topics provided for these events.

Speaker Points

I will most likely give you 27-29 if you:

a) Speak loudly and clearly. Please no "spreading". I will not be able to understand what you are saying so speaking slower will allow me to process your arguments as you go.

b) Are polite and fair to your opponent. If you are outright rude/unfair (ie. yelling, mocking, laughing, cutting opponents off) you will not get good speaks. Please remember that team work is key and I find that the best debaters can work together efficiently.

c) Explain arguments thoroughly. Remember I do have some background in topics but not in debate so terms such as "uniqueness" should be more well elaborated upon. Another important aspect is organization so try to state clearly what you will be talking about. (ie. Next, lets talk about the first contention.)

Decisions

I will try to be as fair as possible and explain my decision in the best way I can using the above criterion as well as the debate itself. I will vote for the team that explains their warrants and why their impacts matter to me. I do not care as much about evidence but more about which team is able to persuade me more effectively. Additionally, presentation will probably also influence my decision. Be confident, if you make it seem like you are losing then I will think that.

Other

Clothing/Appearance; this will not influence my decision, however, please do respect the tournament dress code. Use of evidence; this will be weighted heavily in the debate, I want to know that your arguments have evidence to back up your claims. If you think that I should look at your/your opponent's evidence, please let me know. Real world impacts; this will also be weighted heavily. If your impacts do not show me why a normal person like me should care, then I will probably be less likely to vote on it. Cross-examination; this does not matter as much to me, although I will be listening.Try not to be disrespectful during this time and remember to look at me, your judge when answering or asking questions. Debate skill over truthful arguments; I value both skill and arguments highly. I do believe that truthful arguments should be prioritized, however, if you lack the presentation skill or argumentation skills to sell your argument, then truthful arguments may not matter as much if your opponent is able to convince me better of their argument.

Remember to have fun, good luck!

Eyal Stessel Newton South High School 4 rounds

George Stockburger CR North High School 6 rounds

Evan Streams The Dalton School 6 rounds

Mingwu Su Dougherty Valley High School 3 rounds

Rohit Sud BASIS Scottsdale High School 3 rounds

Kate Sundeen Academy at Palumbo 6 rounds

Last changed on Wed January 31, 2024 at 6:17 AM EST

If you're going to make an assertion, you better back it up with evidence and analysis.

If you have evidence, you better give me analysis to tie back to your point. Don't assume the evidence speaks for itself.

If you make a point you better give analysis to show it proves that supporting/negating is the way to go.

NOTE: I get REALLY cranky if I suspect debaters are manipulating (or outright faking) evidence. I also get really cranky if debaters try to claim the other side did something they did not do, or did not do something they did do. It's shady debate. Don't do it.

If you're a PF debater, don't waste your time with off-time roadmaps, because there are only two things you should ever be doing--hitting their case, and defending yours (this includes teams running a non-traditional case. Even if you're running a k, you should still be hitting their case, and defending yours). Even when you are weighing, it is just hitting their case, and defending yours. If you are organized in presenting your points it will be clear what you are doing. I'm ok with paraphrasing, but if the other team asks to see the original text and you can't produce it, I'm ignoring your evidence. I'm also ok with non-traditional approaches, but you better make it CLEAR CLEAR CLEAR that it's necessary, because I will always pref good debate over acrobatics.

If you're an LD debater, you better be giving analysis that shows your points are proving that you have achieved your value criterion. Articulate the connections, don't assume they speak for themselves. As far as non-traditional cases, I won't automatically vote against, but you better sell me on the necessity of going there, and that it's enriching the debate, and not hobbling it. (Particular note: I really hate pure theory cases, but won't automatically vote against. That being said, let me reiterate-- You better prove that what you have to say is improving the quality of the debate, and that your theory is a better/more important debate than the debate over the resolution. Which means you will have to still talk about the resolution, and why your debate is more important. If you're just doing it for the sake of being fancy, it's a no-go for me.)

I don't ever judge CX, so if you're reading my paradigm as a CX debater-- why?

No one should ever tell me when or how to time. You can self-time, but I am the final arbiter of time.

If you are excessively rude, aggressive, shouty, or derisive you will see it in your speaks. If you are racist/sexist/homophobic, or any other type of bigoted I will vote against you every single time. This includes denying a person's lived experience.

If you post-round me, I will shut you down-- you might as well put me down on your permanent strike list (this does not include students who ask me questions for the purposes of improving their debate in the future. I am always happy to answer those questions.)

Shreyas Swaminathan Foothill High School 3 rounds

Katherine Sylvester Walt Whitman 6 rounds

Last changed on Sun October 20, 2024 at 7:44 PM EST

My 2 most important preferences:

1. Please, please slow down. I suggest 1 to 1.5x conversational speed; I think ideal case length is 680-700 words. If you could imagine someone asking for a speech doc, SLOW down! Implications for you:

-- If your speed means I miss something important, it’s like it never existed. I’m not gonna be like, “Hmm, maybe I heard something kinda like that” when you extend it. It’s goodbye

-- If your opponent cannot understand and asks you to slow down (do this by loudly saying “clear”), you must do so. Within reason; I will intervene in obvious cases of abuse

-- This preference is also reflected in speaks. Selective vision >>> brute force coverage. Extreme speed = low speaks

2. I place a strong emphasis on warranting. Implications:

-- If you and your opponent disagree on something, I prioritize your comparisons in this order: 1. Warrant comparison 2. Warranted evidence comparison 3. Evidence comparison that is just: “dates”

-- If an arg is not warranted and your opponent mentions this, I won’t let you bring in new warranting. Don’t go for something that wasn’t warranted in case and expect me to vote off it. Only exception is commonly intuitive statements

Notes on the flow

--Theory/K's/progressive args: I consider them a barrier to entry in PF and probably won't vote on them. 99% odds I won’t buy theory about dates, speaks, disclosure, paraphrasing, etc. If you do it in combination with extreme speed, consider it an auto-drop. If it's something you're genuinely concerned about, you impact it convincingly, and you make it accessible, you can give it a try. I seriously and strongly recommend against it, but you can

--I’m not super picky about extensions (e.g. if you extend a paraphrased version of your impact in summary and one specific impact card in FF, that’s fine). But ofc any argument in FF should be in summary

--1st FF can extend defense from rebuttal if it isn’t frontlined in 2nd rebuttal. But I’d still recommend extending a couple of your favorite responses in summary

--2nd rebuttal doesn’t need to frontline their voters, though it must frontline major turns/ offensive overviews

--2nd rebuttal shouldn’t go overboard with disads; > 1 minute on them is too much. If a ton of your speech is disads and it feels abusive I may drop you. Even if I don’t, the speaks will suffer and I’ll allow blippier responses in 1st summary

--if there’s no offense in the round that I can see, I default first speaking team. (I realize this is unusual, I personally think it's fairer)

Please be kind to each other. If you have any questions don't hesitate to ask me at beginning of round. Good luck!

Sarah Sze The Dalton School 1 rounds

Ninad Tambe Hamilton High Independent 5 rounds

Serkan Tan Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Fri September 6, 2024 at 3:14 AM PST

TLDR on my paradigm:

I debated my junior and senior year of high school in the West LA/OCSL circuits and graduated in '20; qualified to nats and STOC my senior year & have been involved for ~6 years as of time of writing. I am now pursuing a bachelors in Politics & Public Affairs & coaching the debate team @ Denison U.

email: tan_s1@denison.edu

Important Things for the skimmers:

-I am about 75% tech 25% truth.

-Spread and I will drop you.

-I default to Cost-Benefit Analysis w/ a value of human life if no other framework is read and first speaking if there is no offense on the flow.

-I require weighing and extensions if you want to win the debate. Both defense and offense are not sticky (more on this below). I should hear extensions from the 1SS onward.

-I flow on paper, so keep it somewhat slow.

It has been quiteeeee a while since I've last judged, so please be gentle with my feeble mind.

If you are running theory or Ks, both sides must OK it for me to evaluate the arg. I never debated and have hardly judged pre-fiat so don't expect me to be anywhere close to my post-fiat judging abilities.

I have voted aff 69 times and neg 87 times (give or take), meaning an almost 56% neg bias. Yikes. I would guess the bias is from defaulting neg; I have since shifted to voting for first speaking in the interest of fairness.

Parli:

Debated parli mainly my junior year of high school and quite a bit in college, I am versed in the event.

POIs need to be short. I will not flow them. Bring it up in a speech if it's important.

I'll tell you if I accept your Point of Order.

I am versed in topicality shells. I am receptive to prefiat args in this event, but you'll still need to slow them down and dumb them down a bit.

I prefer that Ks link in to the res, but non res Ks are fine, I'm just more receptive to res level.

I know that quantified impacts are hard to come by in parli. If you don’t have a quantifiable impact, I expect some sort of framing that replaces terminalization. If you don’t have terminalization or a framing level thing going for your impact, I find it difficult to vote for it.

LD:

I tend to evaluate the round on framing and VC above all else. Treat me like a flay judge (quick reminder that I have the least amount of experience judging this event). Pre-fiat args are ok (and encouraged), but no guarantee I can evaluate them well.

PF:

What I like to see in round:

Extensions: My threshold for extensions is fairly low. I expect you to extend every link in the arg you're going for; they can be paraphrased. I expect your impact scenario to be extended.

Signposting: I hate guessing where I should be flowing. Be explicit where you are going on the flow both before your speech and during it. If you think you're being obvious, be a little more obvious. Seriously, this is one of my biggest problems in-round. Signpost.

Two worlds analysis: I like to see this both on the weighing, warrant, and evidentiary level. Why should I prefer your weighing over your opponent's? Compare them. Why should I prefer your warrant over your opponent's? Compare them. Why should I prefer your evidence over your opponent's? Compare them.

Weighing: Weighing is a must if you want to win the round. If you don't weigh and your opponent does, they win. Irrespective of the quality and integrity of your link chain and impact, I will always vote for the side with the winning weighing. If you both weigh, you'll also need to metaweigh to get my ballot.

Evidence analysis: I like it when you call for evidence. Evidence standards in pf suck and have been getting worse. You're likely to find some great responses if you call out crappy evidence. It also makes me happy to hear people call out a crappy card.

What I don't like to see in round:

Sloppy crossfires: Crossfire can be a great way to clear up confusion and communicate critiques of the other side. They can also be horrible screaming fits where nothing gets done and you both end up angry. Make sure you are having constructive conversation or I will drop speaks.

Disorganization: If your speech is not organized and super jumpy, regardless of signposting, I will likely get lost. Please have a strategy when you deliver.

Ad hominem: If you're racist/rude/homophobic you get L20'd & tournament management will be notified.

My quirks:

Defense is not sticky: Lack of defensive extensions, even if dropped, makes for a messy backend debate. You will win the defense if it is dropped, no need to spend too much time on it.

Post-rounding: I encourage post-rounding in order to better myself as a judge. Judges whom dropped me and said, "everyone did great!" made me extremely angry when I debated. If I missed something, bring it up. However, it will not change my ballot. If I missed it, I missed it.

The "truth" part of my paradigm: If the round gets really messy or your evidence sounds far too absurd then I will intervene. It pains me to say this, but the standard for evidence is already rock bottom and I am trying to make a minuscule difference. If you don't have messy rounds and read good evidence then this shouldn't worry you.

Remember that I am a human and debate is a game. I will sometimes make mistakes, please do not hate me for it.

Crystal Tang Mission San Jose High School 4 rounds

Patrick Tapia Cabrillo Middle School Independent 3 rounds

Last changed on Fri August 30, 2024 at 2:51 AM PST

Debate experience:

I debated policy in high school and another 4 years as a policy debater for USC (NDT). Was away from debate for about 15 years, but the over last 5 years, I've been frequently judging PF and LD rounds (with several TOC-bid tournaments the last couple of years for LD). Haven't judged too many CX rounds recently, but am comfortable with both trad and kritik argumentation. I'm a bit of a dinosaur in this activity, and I do prioritize evaluating the quality of your evidence over just relying on blippy arguments from your doc, and I usually rely on evidence quality as a crucial tie breaker if you don't provide good judge instruction that aligns with my logical thought processes.

Feel free to add me to the email chain for evidence: ptapia217@gmail.com

Preferences (LD):

Policy / LARP: 1

K Args: 2

Phil: 3

Tricks: strike

More details:

Policy / LARP:

I am most familiar with these positions. Run what you want on Aff and Neg.

Kritiks:

I am reasonably familiar with most generics (setcol, cap, afropess) and a few postmodernist positions, but it might be safe to assume that I may not be as familiar with the literature base as you might be.

K Affs:

I have tended to vote close to 50/50 for and against K affs, so I tend to be fairly open-minded about these positions, but I am more persuaded when you can articulate a clear and compelling reason as to why you need my ballot. However, I also enjoy a good framework debate that's clearly contextualized for the aff (and the round) rather than something mechanically just read from premade blocks.

Phil / Tricks:

I am less familiar with phil arguments other than more mainstream positions like Kant. I shouldn't be your preference for these rounds. Save tricks for Halloween.

Speaker Points:

I tend to be reasonably generous and won't give anything below a 28.5 in a bid tournament. If I think you're strong enough to break, I won't give you less than a 29.5. I won't disclose speaker points, however.

Sumukh Tendulkar Newton South High School 2 rounds

Brianna Terrell Walt Whitman 4 rounds

Last changed on Wed October 27, 2021 at 3:50 PM EST

I debated for four years in the midwest competing in LD, Congress, and National Extemp. I then competed in two years of East Coast college debate in British Parliamentary and Policy (but not much Policy). All that background to say, my view of what debate should be is sculpted from a very traditional, accessible circuit, although I am able to understand spreading and non-traditional arguments.

Debate (of any kind)

The centerpiece of all debate is clash. Don't let the debate become two ships passing in the night. Throughout all of your speeches, but especially voting issues, make it very clear what the clash is and why you're winning the clash.

I don't care about evidence that much. Unless the use of a piece of evidence is contested (i.e. a debater is accused of completely misusing the evidence or being abusive), I don't care too much about reading it. I think it is your job as the debater to explain the piece of evidence and why it matters. I don't want to have to read your card to fully understand the debate - you should be making that clear for me. If you're going to extend a card, tell me why. I also will not kick an argument solely for lack of evidence if the debater has provided a well-linked logical argument (this is especially true in LD).

I can understand spreading but I don't prefer it because I believe it makes debate inaccessible to a larger audience. When I debated I tended to be a fast talker, but never speaking so fast I resorted to the wheezing/gasping for breath we've come to know in policy debate that has infiltrated other events as well (again, especially LD).

I will flow the entire round but I don't decide solely by going down the flow and seeing who won more arguments. Different arguments have different weight. That being said, weigh the arguments on the flow for me - don't make me do that work for you.

In line with my traditional background, I do not allow flex prep. CX is for CX.

Also, do not yell at your opponents. I will lower your speaks if you are condescending, rude, or mean to your opponents. Racist, homophobic, misogynistic, etc. language will absolutely not be tolerated and an egregious offense will cost you the round.

I do give out low-point wins.

I'm a traditional LDer. I love well-developed frameworks and the value clash. I will use the value clash as the lens for evaluating the impacts of all of the contentions, as the value clash is supposed to set the "goal" for the round. I like to see the value clash addressed in all speeches, especially voters.

That being said, I think there should be a good balance between framework arguments and contention-level arguments. I will entertain and have seen good cases where the framework takes 5 minutes of the Constructive, but in general I prefer a balance of contentions and framework with diverse and unique points made in each one.

LD is not policy and I think that using policy-style arguments and strategies in LD detracts from the original intentions and accessibility of LD debate. If you are going to use policy arguments, please include why you think your argumentation style is accessible and reasonable within the scope of LD debate. I will not vote someone down just for running policy style arguments, but it will be an uphill battle to win my vote, especially if your opponent provides sufficient rebuttal to you and has a solid resolution-based case. I prefer when the debate focuses on the resolution that has been given.

As far as debates go, I have the least amount of experience in PF. I've judged some rounds in my day so I can follow the debate and flow the whole thing, but without the LD-style framework to evaluate the round, I really rely on each team to do the impact weighing for final round calculus.

Congress

Most Congress debates that I watch significantly lack clash. I am always on the lookout for clash; engage with other speakers in the room (not just by dropping their names, but actually responding to their arguments!). Big fan of extraneous and integrated rebuttal mixed in with constructive arguments. Not a big fan of 4th-Affirmative speakers and later simply repeating constructive arguments from earlier in the round as if there hasn't already been three rounds of debate on the topic. Later-round speakers must add something new: new analysis, new evidence (and explain why this evidence is more compelling), weighing, crystallization, etc. The more debate skills you use (except for spreading, topicality, kritiks, etc.), the better. I'm indifferent to cheeky introductions.

As with the other events, be kind to other speakers and have fun. There's a difference between having assertive questions and being aggressive/not letting others speak. Stay on the right side of that line!

Hugh Thompson Hawken 6 rounds

Last changed on Mon February 12, 2024 at 5:30 AM EST

I coached Public Forum starting from its beginning in 2002 until I retired from teaching in 2011. I have continued on as an active judge: judging at the local, state, and national levels. Nearly all of my judging in recent years has been Policy but with Lincoln Douglas and some Public Forum in the mix.

PF:

In the traditional spirit of Public Forum, the debate is best presented in a clear, understandable manner.

PF is a relatively short, quick-paced form of debate. Complexity is fine but be judicious. Stay focused and relatively succinct. Communicate well. I judge Policy, but spreading has no place in PF - at least for me. If I can’t follow what you are saying, well…

Base your contentions on reliable evidence. Draw conclusions using sound reasoning. Clash (of ideas) is great. Obnoxious, aggressive behavior, if it gets ugly, may cost a round.

Limited tag-teaming during crossfire is OK.

A strong final focus can often win a close round.

LD:

Questions worth considering are: What is good (or at least the greater good), and what form should it take in the real world? Philosophers have had a lot to say about this. But so does common sense. Consider me the man on the street who sometimes digs philosophers when they also have their feet on the ground. Using a good strategy can be a winner. Getting beyond philosophy and reason, within limits, emotional appeals can be persuasive.

Moral, ethical and philosophical considerations should be a foundation for your case.

Policy:

I characterize myself as a "Policy Maker Judge." I can handle a modest amount of spreading but don't overdo it. It's more effective to rely on the quality of arguments and evidence than on quantity. Substance counts and so does style. Limited tag-teaming is OK. It is a real art to be confrontational while also being genuinely respectful of your opponent.

While Kritiks are a worthy part of Policy debate, I have never found them to be a decisive, or sometimes even a relevant, factor in my decisions. For some judges they are significant so when there is a panel, feel free to use them. Just be sure to present a strong arguments that support or negate the Affirmative case.

Learn from your experience.

Do what you do best.

Enjoy the competition!

Andrew Thong Cosby High School 3 rounds

Last changed on Wed November 6, 2024 at 4:31 PM EST

hi! i debated pf in hs. toc '19!

former co-director for nova debate camp, former coach for ardrey kell VM and oakton ML. add me to the email chain: iamandrewthong@gmail.com

tl;dr, i'm a typical flow judge. i'm tab and tech>truth, debate however you want (as long as it does not harm others). for more specific stuff, read below

most important thing:

so many of my RFDs have started with "i default on the weighing". weighing is NOT a conditional you should do if you just so happen to have enough time in summary - i will often default to teams if they're the only ones who have made weighing. strength of link weighing counts only when links are 100% conceded, clarity of impact doesn't.

other less important stuff:

speed is ok. i think it's fun. i actually like blippy disads (as long as they have warrants). but don't do it in such a way that it makes the debate inaccessible - drop a doc if your opponents ask or if someone says "clear".

whenever you extend something, you have to extend the warrant above all else.

defense is not sticky, but my threshold for completely new frontlines in second summary is super high. turns must be frontlined in second rebuttal.

new implications off of previous responses are okay (in fact, i think they're strategic), but they must be made in summary (unless responding to something new in final). you still need to have concise warranting for the new implication, just as you would for any other response.

i don't flow cross - if they make a concession, point it out in the next speech.

weighing is important, but comparative and meta weighing are even more important. you can win 100% of your link uncontested but i'd still drop you if you never weigh at all and the opps have like 1% of their link with pre-req weighing into your case. don't just say stuff like "we outweigh because our impact card has x and theirs has y and x>y", but go the next step and directly compare why your magnitude is more important than their timeframe, why your prereq comes before their prereq, etc. if there is no weighing done, i will intervene.

i encourage post-round questions, i'm actually happy to spend like however long you want me to just answering questions regarding my decision. just don't be rude about it.

progressive arguments:

i will evaluate progressive arguments (Ks, theory, etc).

no friv theory, no tricks

i default to reasonability, RVIs, and DtD *if not told otherwise* - before you start e-mailing me death threats, this is just so teams can't read random new shells in summary unless they're going to spend the time reading warrants for CI and no RVIs - i prefer theory debates to start in constructive/rebuttal, and i'll be sympathetic to teams that have to make new responses to a completely new shell in summary or final focus

i'm less versed on Ks than i am theory. i can probably follow you on the stock Ks (cap, sec, etc), but if you're going to run high level Ks (performance, afropess, etc), i'll still evaluate them, but i advise you run them with caution, since i might not be able to get everything down 100%. it's probably best to make these types of Ks accessible to both me and your opponents (you should honestly just explain everything like i'm a lay judge, and try to stay away from more abstract phil stuff like epistemology/ontology/etc).

if you have any more questions, feel free to ask or e-mail me before the round!

Katie Tolle Mountain Brook High School 5 rounds

Last changed on Sun June 13, 2021 at 5:17 PM CST

Experience

Mountain Brook High School Speech and Debate Coach (2018 - Present)

Wheaton North High School Speech (2003-2007)

Wheaton North Public Forum Debater (2006)

As a judge, I want to see debaters that are:

Focused and Organized: The more thoughtful you are about how you present your contentions initially, the easier it for me to judge and for your opponents to interact with your case. Evidence should be succinct and questions during cross should be thoughtful and targeted. A PF round goes incredibly quickly, and it's important that you use each second to your advantage. In particular I appreciate when debaters weigh and discuss impact throughout the round. By the end I want to be sold on why your contentions are stronger and your impacts are more significant. Remember that as I judge I may not have seen all of the evidence that you have, and in Public Forum it is your job to talk to me as if I know nothing about the topic, even if I do.

Prepared: Nothing hurts the quality of a debate more than debaters who do not fully understand the resolution or their opponents’ claims. Good clash can only be built through understanding all facets of the resolution and the evidence available. That being said, citing a piece of evidence is never a substitution for a strong warrant. If you cannot explain your evidence and connect it logically to your argument, then I am less likely to consider it when judging. I do not like calling for evidence. It usually means that you have stopped debating the topic and started debating cards that I have not read.

Professional: Professionalism will not lose you a round with me, but it will absolutely impact the speaker points I award. Being confident and convincing me that you have won your debate is expected. Being rude, disrespectful, or condescending to the judge, your opponents, or your partner is never acceptable. Debate is an enormous undertaking, and every person’s time and commitment should be respected. It is also incredibly difficult to know what your opponents are saying if you do not give them their time to talk, or when you are overly focused on your own case.

Nicole Tommarazzo Kugnus ACTS 2 rounds

Last changed on Fri February 23, 2024 at 12:30 PM EST

Prounouns: she/her

Triggers: n/a

Email: nmtommarazzo@gmail.com

Paradigm:

I'm a "Flay" judge, but I've been judging since 2014, and I've judged at major tournaments like Harvard, Georgetown, and UK. Don't spread - I flow the entire round (including crossfires) and I want to be able to not only understand your arguments, but note when you are or are not addressing your opponents' arguments. I prefer clear logic, solid evidence, and confident rhetoric.

FOR LD: Arguments are arguments, no matter what form the argument takes (theories, other k's, LARP, traditional, etc). Argumentsmust be justified, and you must persuade me of its importance (aka, the impact, be it to the topic, to the round, to debaters, etc.).DO NOT SPREAD.More-so than in numbers-based debates, losing the thread of a philosophical or idealogical argument will hurt you.

FOR PF: I don't believe that the entirety of a debate is evidence versus evidence, so frameworks, weighing, and actually speaking persuasively are a major plus. While I fully understand debate jargon, don't rely on it as you would with more technical judges. Make me care more about your world than your opponents'.

I prefer PF rounds are NOT theory or K arguments. However, I will always judge based on how you handle your case, and how your opponent handles it.

If the tournament allows spectators, those spectators should not be leaving and coming back repeatedly during the round. It's incredibly distracting for me and may hinder competitors as well.

FOR DIGITAL TOURNAMENTS: Please speak slowly enough that the internet connection can keep up with you. Even with a solid connection, going too quickly results in a blur of noise that makes it difficult to listen for judges and opponents alike.

Additionally: During a digital tournament, please speak up if you cannot hear your opponent. Don't wait until the end of their speech to note that, for you, they were cutting out. It is better to handle the issue with tech time and have the speech given normally than having an off-time recap.

Keith Tran Lincoln Independent 3 rounds

Alyssa Turk Oxbridge Academy of the Palm Beaches 6 rounds

Hema Vadlamudi Potomac Debate Academy 6 rounds

Vishal Vardhineedi Hire 5 rounds

Roshni Varma Fairmont Prep 3 rounds

Christian Vasquez The Blake School 3 rounds

Last changed on Tue October 29, 2024 at 7:09 PM CST

Who am I?

Assistant Director of Debate, The Blake School MN - 2014 to present

Co-Director, Public Forum Boot Camp(Check our website here) MN - 2021 to present

Assistant Debate Coach, Blaine High School - 2013 to 2014

During the season, I am typically involved in topic work for my team and read quite a bit. However, I’m finding that students will frequently make up acronyms now that might not exist in the original literature. If it’s something you made to try to cut down on time, chances are I will still need to be told what it stands for anyway.

My preferred debates are ones in which both teams have come prepared to engage each other with some reasonable expectation as to what the other team is going to read. Debaters should have to defend both their scholarship and practices in round. If you've chosen to not disclose, are unable to explain why the aff doesn't link to the K, or explain to me why you should be rewarded for being otherwise unprepared, you're fully welcome to try to explain why you should not lose in a varsity level competition. However, strategies that are purposefully meant to run to the margins and seek incredibly small pieces of offense in order to eke out a win due to the reliance on shoddy scholarship, conspiracy-peddlers, or outright fabrication will be met with intervention. If your argument will fall apart the moment I spend maybe thirty seconds to confirm something for my RFD, you should strike me.

This activity only exists so long as we implement practices that allow it to. All of our time in debate is limited(though some rounds can feel like an endless purgatory or the tenth layer of hell) but the implications of how rounds are conducted and behavior that is put forth as an example will echo far into the future. You should want to win because you put in more effort and worked harder. If you don’t want to put real effort and clash with arguments in a round, why are you spending so much time in these crusty high schools eating district cafeteria food when you could be doing literally anything else?

Prior to the round

Please add my personal email christian.vasquez212@gmail.com and blakedocs@googlegroups.com to the chain. The second one is for organizational purposes and allows me to be able to conduct redos with students and talk about rounds after they happen.

The start time listed on ballots/schedules is when a round should begin, not that everyone should arrive there. I will do my best to arrive prior to that, and I assume competitors will too. Even if I am not there for it, you should feel free to complete the flip and send out an email chain.

The first speaking team should initiate the chain, with the subject line reading some version of “Tournament Name, Round Number - 1st Speaking Team(Aff or Neg) vs 2nd Speaking Team(Aff or neg)” Sending google docs that are unable to be downloaded/will have access rescinded immediately after the round is unacceptable and shows that you’re relying more on smoke and mirrors than proper debate. No one is going to care that you’re reading the same China DA or “structural violence framing” that everyone in the tournament has been reading since camp.

I do not care what you wear(as long as it’s appropriate for school) or if you stand or sit. I have zero qualms about music being played, poetry being read, or non-typical arguments being made.

Non-negotiables

I will be personally timing rounds since plenty of varsity level debaters no longer know how clocks work. There is no grace period, there are no concluding thoughts. When the timer goes off, your speech or question/answer is over. Beyond that, there are a few things I will no longer budge on:

You must read from cut cards the first time evidence is introduced into a round. The experiment with paraphrasing in a debate event was an interesting one, but the activity has shown itself to be unable to self-police what is and what is not academically dishonest representations of evidence. Comparisons to the work researchers and professors do in their professional life I think is laughable. Some of the shoddy evidence work I’ve seen be passed off in this activity would have you fired in those contexts, whereas here it will probably get you in late elimination rounds.
The inability to produce a piece of evidence when asked for it will end the round immediately. Taking more than thirty seconds to produce the evidence is unacceptable as that shows me you didn’t read from it to begin with.
Arguments that are racist, sexist, transphobic, etc. will end the round immediately in an L and as few speaker points as Tab allows me to give out.
Questions about what was and wasn’t read in round that are not claims of clipping are signs of a skill issue and won’t hold up rounds. If you want to ask questions outside of cross, run your own prep. A team saying “cut card here” or whatever to mark the docs they’ve sent you is your sign to do so. If you feel personally slighted by the idea that you should flow better and waste less time in the round, please reconsider your approach to preparing for competitions that require you to do so.
Defense is not “sticky.” If you want something to count in the round, it needs to be included in your team’s prior speech. The idea that a first speaking team can go “Ah, hah! You forgot about our trap card” in the final focus after not extending it in summary is ridiculous and makes a joke out of the event.
I will not read off of docs during the round. I will clear you twice if I am not able to comprehend you. Opponents don’t get to clear each other. Otherwise why would I not just say clear into oblivion during your speech time?
Theory is not a weapon or a trick. Hyper-specific interpretations meant to box the opponent out of a small difference as to how they’ve conducted a practice are not something I’m willing to entertain. Objections based on argument construction/sequencing are fine though.

Negotiables

These are not set in stone, and have changed over time. Running contrary to me on these positions isn’t a big issue and I can be persuaded in the context of the round.

Tech vs truth

To me, the activity has weirdly defined what “technical” debate is in a way that I believe undermines the value of the activity. Arguments being true if dropped is only as valid as the original construction of the argument. Am I opposed to big stick impacts? Absolutely not, I think they’re worth engaging in and worth making policy decisions around. I personally enjoy heg, terror, and other extinction level scenarios. But, for example, if you cannot answer questions regarding what is the motivation for conflict, who would originally engage in the escalation ladder, or how the decision to launch a nuclear weapon is conducted, your argument was not valid to begin with. Asking me to close my eyes and just check the box after essentially saying “yadda yadda, nuclear winter” is as ridiculous as doing the opposite after hearing “MAD checks” with no explanation.

Teams I think are being rewarded far too often for reading too many contentions in the constructive that are missing internal links. I am more than just sympathetic to the idea that calling this out amounts to terminal defense at this point. If they haven’t formed a coherent argument to begin with, teams shouldn’t be able to masquerade like they have one.

There isn’t a magical number of contentions that is either good or bad to determine whether this is an issue or not. The benefit of being a faster team is the ability to actually get more full arguments out in the round, but that isn’t an advantage if you’re essentially reading two sentences of a card and calling it good.

I am not a fan of extinction/death good debates. I do not think teams are thoroughly working through the implications as to what conclusions come from starting down that path and what supremacist notions are lying underneath. If a villain from a B movie made in the 80s meant to function as COINTELPRO propaganda would make your same argument, I don’t really want to hear it. Eco-fascism is still fascism, ableist ideas of what it means to have a meaningful life are still ableist, and white supremacists are still going to decide in what order/what people are going to the gallows first.

Theory

In PF debate only, I default to a position of reasonability. I think the theory debates in this activity, as they’ve been happening, are terribly uninteresting and are mostly binary choices.

Is disclosure good? Yes

Is paraphrasing bad? Yes

Distinctions beyond these I don’t think are particularly valuable. Going for cheapshots on specifics I think is an okay starting position for me to say this is a waste of time and not worth voting for. That being said, I feel like a lot of teams do mis-disclose in PF by just throwing up huge unedited blocks of texts in their open source section. Proper disclosure includes the tags that are in case and at least the first and last three words of a card that you’ve read. To say you open source disclose requires highlighting of the words you have actually read in round.

That being said, answers that amount to whining aren’t great. Teams that have PF theory read against them frequently respond in ways that mostly sound like they’re confused/aghast that someone would question their integrity as debaters and at the end of the day that’s not an argument. Teams should do more to articulate what specific calls to do x y or z actually do for the activity, rather than worrying about what they’re feeling. If your coach requires you to do policy “x” then they should give you reasons to defend policy “x.” If you’re consistently losing to arguments about what norms in the activity should look like, that’s a talk you should have with your coach/program advisor about accepting them or creating better answers.

Kritiks

Overall, I’m sympathetic to these arguments made in any event, but I think that the PF version of them so far has left me underwhelmed. I am much better for things like cap, security, fem IR, afro-pess and the like than I am for anything coming from a white pomo tradition/understanding(French high theory). Survival strategies focused on identity issues that require voting one way or the other depending on a student’s identification/orientation I think are bad for debate as a competitive activity.

Kritiks should require some sort of link to either the resolution(since PF doesn’t have plans really), or something the aff has done argumentatively or with their rhetoric. The nonexistence of a link means a team has decided to rant for their speech time, and not included a reason why I should care.

Rejection alternatives are fine(Zizek and others were common when I was in debate for context) but teams reliant on “discourse” and other vague notions should probably strike me. If I do not know what voting for a team does, I am uncomfortable to do so and will actively seek out ways to avoid it.

Manahil Vellani Mission San Jose High School 3 rounds

Diggory Waddle VDA - Vancouver Debate Academy 6 rounds

Gigi Wade Byram Hills High School 3 rounds

Adhar Walia Mission San Jose High School 3 rounds

Last changed on Sat January 20, 2024 at 12:33 AM PST

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

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

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

Speech

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

Kritik

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

Etiquette

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

Speed

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

Other

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

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

Toby Walker Newton South High School 2 rounds

Lining Wan Mission San Jose High School 4 rounds

Annie Wang BASIS Scottsdale High School 3 rounds

Raghav Warrier BASIS Peoria 4 rounds

Last changed on Sat January 6, 2024 at 8:44 AM MST

TLDR: Tech > Truth; pretty standard flow judge; follow the line-by-line; there's no need to go super saiyan speed; strong warranting + weighing wins my ballot; skip to the bottom to find some fun speaks boosters (please use these and entertain me. . . please)

Bio: Competed in PF for all four years mostly on the local circuit but also a bit on the national circuit (unfortunate small school tingz :/) at Paradise Valley in Phoenix, AZ; senior at ASU studying Math, CS, and Econ.

Argumentation:

- All substance arguments fly as long as they are well warranted

- Warranted cards >>> Warranted analytics >>> bEcAuSe tHe evIdEnCe sAys sO

- Do not trust me to properly evaluate progressive arguments, I'll probably make a decision that you don't like; if you want to read disclosure theory, then you should probably rethink that strategy

- Weak warranting on an argument means weak responses are sufficient

Structure:

- Arguments that you want evaluated should be extended with a warrant and an impact in summary and final focus

- Second rebuttal and first summary must frontline, otherwise it's conceded

- First summary should extend turns and key defense

- Do not extend through ink, I will drop the argument if you do

- Road maps, signposting, and numbering responses are fantastic, do it

- Collapse and avoid messy rounds; if you want to kick out of something, explain what defense you are conceding and why it kicks out of the turn

- DAs / Overviews are cool, but don't just read a new contention disguised as one

Weighing:

- Just do it. Please. Otherwise I'll decide what's more important and you probably won't like what I pick

- Real comparative analysis, not just "wE oUtwEigH beCauSe 900 mIllIon LiVes iS mOrE tHaN $500 miLliOn"

- Carded weighing overviews/framing should come in rebuttal; other traditional mechanisms can come up through summary

Speaks:

- Speaker points are dumb so I will try to be generous (no free 30s though)

Speed:

- Slow rounds > fast rounds; I can handle some speed but the faster you go, the more I might miss

- Slow down on argument tags; I don't flow author names

- If you plan on spreading...don't

Evidence:

- Read the author, date, and source, it's not that hard

- I'll call for evidence only if either team tells me to

Misc:

- Don’t be a dick; absolutely zero tolerance for sexist, racist, homophobic, etc. behavior - that's a real quick way for me to drop you immediately and tank your speaks

- I like a relaxed, informal, and chill vibe in rounds. Good jokes are great. You can swear, I don’t care.

- Wear whatever the hell you want. Be comfortable!

- Creative references to sports (basketball, football, soccer, tennis, cricket, F1, etc.), chess, or Kendrick Lamar will get you a boost in speaks

- Have fun!

Anish Warty Hire 6 rounds

Bryan Weber VDA - Vancouver Debate Academy 5 rounds

Devon Weis Poly Prep Country Day School 3 rounds

Last changed on Tue March 7, 2023 at 12:52 PM EST

I've been debating and coaching teams across the country for a while. Currently coaching Dreyfoos AL (Palm Beach Independent) and Poly Prep.

MAIN STUFF

I will make whichever decision requires the least amount of intervention. I don't like to do work for debaters but in 90% of rounds you leave me no other choice.

Here's how I make decisions

1) Weighing/Framework (Prereqs, then link-ins/short-circuits, then impact comparison i.e. magnitude etc.)

2) Cleanly extended argument across both speeches (summ+FF) that links to FW

3) No unanswered terminal defense extended in other team's second half speeches

I have a very high threshold for extensions, saying the phrase "extend our 1st contention/our impacts" will get you lower speaks and a scowl. You need to re-explain your argument from uniqueness to fiat to impact in order to properly "extend" something in my eyes. I need warrants. This also goes for turns too, don't extend turns without an impact.

Presumption flows neg. If you want me to default to the first speaking team you'll need to make an argument. In that case though you should probably just try to win some offense.

SPEAKING PREFS

I like analytical arguments, not everything needs to be carded to be of value in a round. (Warrants )

Signpost pls. Roadmaps are a waste of time 98% of the time, I only need to know where you're starting.

I love me some good framework. Highly organized speeches are the key to high speaks in front of me. Voter summaries are fresh.

I love T and creative topicality interps. Messing around with definitions and grammar is one of my favorite things to do as a coach.

Try to get on the same page as your opponents as often as possible, agreements make my decision easier and make me respect you more as a debater (earning you higher speaks). Strategic concessions make me happy. The single best way to get good speaks in front of me is to implicate your opponent's rebuttal response(s) or crossfire answers against them in a speech.

Frontlining in second rebuttal is smart but not required. It’s probably a good idea if they read turns.

Reading tons of different weighing mechanisms is a waste of time because 10 seconds of meta-weighing or a link-in OHKOs. When teams fail to meta-weigh or interact arguments I have to intervene, and that makes me sad.

Don’t extend every single thing you read in case.

PROCEDURAL LOGISTICS

My email is devon@victorybriefs.com

I'm not gonna call for cards unless they're contested in the round and I believe that they're necessary for my RFD. I think that everyone else that does this is best case an interventionist judge, and worst case a blatant prep thief.

Skipping grand is cringe. Stop trying to act like you're above the time structure.

Don't say "x was over time, can we strike it?" right after your opponent's speech. I'll only evaluate/disregard ink if you say it was over time during your own speech time. Super annoying to have a mini argument about speech time in between speeches. Track each other’s prep.

Don't say TKO in front of me, no round is ever unwinnable.

PROG STUFF

Theory's fine, usually frivolous in PF. Love RVIs Genuinely believe disclosure is bad for the event and paraphrasing is good, but I certainly won't intervene against any shell you're winning.

I will vote for kritikal args :-)

Just because you're saying the words structural violence in case doesn't mean you're reading a K

Shoutouts to my boo thang, Shamshad Ali #thepartnership

Kaitlyn White Hire 6 rounds

Anna Williams Park City 4 rounds

Chase Williams Taipei American School 6 rounds

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 4:14 PM EST

Background

Director of Speech & Debate at Taipei American School in Taipei, Taiwan. Founder and Director of the Institute for Speech and Debate (ISD). Formerly worked/coached at Hawken School, Charlotte Latin School, Delbarton School, The Harker School, Lake Highland Prep, Desert Vista High School, and a few others.

Updated for Online Debate

I coach in Taipei, Taiwan. Online tournaments are most often on US timezones - but we are still competing/judging. That means that when I'm judging you, it is the middle of the night here. I am doing the best I can to adjust my sleep schedule (and that of my students) - but I'm likely still going to be tired. Clarity is going to be vital. Complicated link stories, etc. are likely a quick way to lose my ballot. Be clear. Tell a compelling story. Don't overcomplicate the debate. That's the best way to win my ballot at 3am - and always really. But especially at 3am.

williamsc@tas.tw is the best email for the evidence email chain.

Paradigm

You can ask me specific questions if you have them...but my paradigm is pretty simple - answer these three questions in the round - and answer them better than your opponent, and you're going to win my ballot:

1. Where am I voting?

2. How can I vote for you there?

3. Why am I voting there and not somewhere else?

I'm not going to do work for you. Don't try to go for everything. Make sure you weigh. Both sides are going to be winning some sort of argument - you're going to need to tell me why what you're winning is more important and enough to win my ballot.

If you are racist, homophobic, nativist, sexist, transphobic, or pretty much any version of "ist" in the round - I will drop you. There's no place for any of that in debate. Debate should be as safe of a space as possible. Competition inherently prevents debate from being a 100% safe space, but if you intentionally make debate unsafe for others, I will drop you. Period.

One suggestion I have for folks is to embrace the use of y'all. All too often, words like "guys" are used to refer to large groups of people that are quite diverse. Pay attention to pronouns (and enter yours on Tabroom!), and be mindful of the language you use, even in casual references.

I am very very very very unlikely to vote for theory. I don't think PF is the best place for it and unfortunately, I don't think it has been used in the best ways in PF so far. Also, I am skeptical of critical arguments. If they link to the resolution, fantastic - but I don't think pre-fiat is something that belongs in PF. If you plan on running arguments like that, it might be worth asking me more about my preferences first - or striking me.

Chinnel Williams Riverdale Country School 4 rounds

Michelle Williams Solon High School 2 rounds

rachael winfree Princeton 5 rounds

Last changed on Fri February 18, 2022 at 1:54 PM EST

Background:

I am a professor in the department of Ecology, Evolution, and Natural Resources at Rutgers University. I have a BA in political science from Dartmouth College and Ph.D in Ecology & Evolutionary Biology from Princeton University.

Judging Experience:

This is my third year as a parent debate judge in PF. Thus I have a reasonable amount of experience in PF including judging TOC. Nonetheless I am definitely a lay judge, not a tech judge; see further notes below. If I am judging you in an event other than PF, please be aware that I am unfamiliar with the type of speech / debate you are doing. I will do my best to evaluate the round according to the instructions judges are given for your type of event, but I will likely be evaluating at a naive level, e.g., are you articulate and clear? I will almost certainly miss the finer points of a non-PF event.

Preferences:

As a scientist in an environmental field, I interact frequently with policy professionals and the media. This experience has taught me the importance of focusing on the most likely and important impacts of a decision (as opposed to getting lost in arcane, less likely impacts), of contextualizing the arguments being made (i.e., providing justification for why certain issues are important or not important to the issue at hand), and presenting evidence that is unbiased and evidence-based (as opposed to failing to critically assess ones sources, or exaggerating the evidence and/or the likely impacts). My debate judging follows these preferences.

Please do not spread. If you speak too fast for me to follow your argument then I cannot give you credit for it. Also, be aware that I am not a tech judge, and may miss the more technical aspects of the round, such as offense and defense for example. What I will notice and reward is appropriate and unbiased use of evidence, contextualization, logical reasoning, and higher-order thinking.

Maureen Winick American Heritage Plantation HS 6 rounds

Tricia Wolff Chantilly 3 rounds

Tom Woodhead Saint Francis High School 3 rounds

Last changed on Tue January 9, 2024 at 1:09 AM PST

Very experienced judge and coach for Saint Francis high school. I will consider pretty much any arguments that are not blatantly sexist, racist or crudely discriminatory (blatant is the key word here, much of this stuff is debatable and I will try not to punish you for my general feelings about your arguments).

It is important to me that debaters be respectful and polite to each other, this puts the spotlight on the arguments themselves and I am not a fan of extra drama.

I try hard to be fair and the following things help me do that:

- I rarely call cards. I like to focus the debate on the analysis given by the debaters (of course I will usually give more weight to analysis that is taken from qualified sources). I do not like to decide debates on random parts of a card that neither debater really focused on. I will call cards if I forget what they said, if there is a conflict about what they say and I can not remember, or if I am personally interested in the card.

- I try to judge on the flow in the sense that I evaluate the debate on the arguments presented, explained and extended into the rebuttals. I will occasionally do the work to weigh impacts or decide framing if the debaters are not doing that for me.

- I will not yell "clear", so mumble and slur at your own risk (I don't yell clear because I don't want a team to find that sweet spot where I can understand them but their opponents can not). I will also not evaluate arguments that I can not hear. I do not read speech documents during the debate rounds, sometimes I will look at them after the round (see calling cards stuff above).

Argument preferences:

I am cool with critiques on the aff and neg.

I am cool with framework (I like the debaters to work this out and I am pretty neutral on this question).

I like clarity (both in speech and arguments). I am not impressed by things that are "too complex" for me to understand but I will do my best to try to make sense of it. I am confident enough to not pretend I know your position and I will not fill in the blanks for you.

I am cool with policy arguments.

I have a wide breadth of knowledge but little depth on certain positions, don't assume I know your literature.

Speaks:

I give high speaks for clarity, efficiency, a pace that I can flow, respectfulness and occasionally speaking style.

I feel like the speaker point range I give is pretty close to average (I am not a reliable source of high speaks for everyone, but I will reward excellent debate with high speaks).

Contact info

mail all speech documents to: headofthewood@gmail.com

anything else (if you want me to read the e-mail or respond): thomaswoodhead@sfhs.com

Hew Woodward Lake Highland Preparatory School 6 rounds

Frank Wu Leland High School 6 rounds

Michael Wu Mountain View High School 6 rounds

Conway Xu Lexington HS 5 rounds

Last changed on Thu September 10, 2020 at 5:57 PM EST

Updates for Kentucky:

I have never used this online system so forgive me if I don't know what's going on with the technology.

If there's something wrong in terms of technology I'll be very lenient so don't worry about that.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

If I'm judging you in LD, sorry in advance, I'm a PFer. With that being said, I just want to be entertained, so if you have the most fun running K's, theory, or tricks do so, I'll vote off anything if it's explained properly. If you take "I'll vote off anything" as me being clueless, you're probably right. Otherwise, I have nothing else to say to you but to have a good and clean debate.

Now into PF land (I'm a first-year out, 1 year of policy and 3 of PF in high school):

The crux of what I said above still holds true; I want to have fun and I want you to have fun too.

Some overarching things

- Please time everything yourself, I'll try to time everything, but sometimes I forget to press the button and am pretty lackadaisical on that front as a whole

- Don't speak to your partner during their speech or crossfire. They already have so much going on, another voice is just distracting and tends to produce worse results. Even if they're forgetting something important, I think it's better to let your partner be self-sufficient so they can learn for later debates.

- While eye contact is nice, don't bore holes into my skull. I'm probably too busy flowing or writing comments to notice anyways

Onto more speech by speech things

CASE:

- Clear link stories and quantified impacts make me a happy camper.

- I enjoy unique arguments, but I know that it's harder writing up really obscure cases, so don't worry about running stock arguments.

- Speak clearly. I can handle any speed below legitimate spreading so don't worry too much about that. If I can't understand you, I'll audibly say something once. If you don't heed that, then it's on you.

Rebuttal:

-SIGNPOST! I can generally figure out where you are when you speak, but I don't want to have to do that work.

- As much as I find card dumping hilarious, I don't think it's particularly effective so please don't just string off a hundred cards in a row.

- I like there to be some weighing in Rebuttal, even if it is just 15 seconds at the end of the speech.

- Rebuttal is for Rebutting. If you are just reiterating your case for no purpose other than reiterating your case, kudos to you for using your time, but it's really not necessary. This is not to say don't defend your case in the second rebuttal, but if you're not actually engaging in with the arguments your opponents have put down I don't know what you're doing.

Summary:

- Some people like to treat this as a second rebuttal, but it really should be boiling down the round to a few key issues.

- EXTEND YOUR OFFENSE! I don't know how you plan to win a round without offense, but if it's not mentioned in summary, I'm not letting it through to Final Focus.

- Don't give me a one-off sentence with just a claim. Try to do some explanation behind the argument.

- WEIGH! Just do it.

Final Focus:

- OFFENSE! Tell me why you are winning the round. Make it easy for me to write the RFD in your favor.

- WEIGH!

Some other things:

(Copied from Aadharsh Pannirselvam)

In general, don't lose sight of the fact that debate is a game, and that novice year(s) are supposed to be about learning first, fun second, and W's third.

(Now my own words)

I love humor. Debate is stuffy enough as it is, making me laugh will reflect well on your speaker points. I love meme cases, but if you want to run one, make sure your opponents are on board, debate is still supposed to be an educational activity and I don't want to see one team being deprived of that educational experience.

I'm known to inflate speaker points. If you got below a 28.5 then something really didn't go well.

If you want to run policy-esque K's or other unorthodox arguments, then I'm probably your best judge to do that on. However, if you are running theory or a K, then again, I would want you to at least warn your opponents as to what you are planning to do. I will legitimately vote off of anything, but that being said, you need to clearly explain things no matter what argument you try to extend.

Tech>Truth>Tech>Truth>Tech>Truth>Tech>Truth>Tech>Truth>Tech>Truth>Tech>Truth>Tech>Truth

^Make of this what you will

Bonus speaks for accurate and sensical application of chi-squared analysis.

If both teams want me to simulate a non-flow judge for whatever reason I can do that.

I plead the fifth

conwayxu93@gmail.com

Stanley Yang Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Tue November 24, 2020 at 10:03 AM EST

Email chain: syangedgemont@gmail.com

Debated PF at Edgemont HS in NY for 4 years, currently a first year out.

Basics:

As long as you are willing to risk me missing a response/argument, go at any speed you’d like as long as you are clear, but don’t spread. Tech > truth. If an argument is dropped, the link is true for the purposes of the round. Walk me throughout the entire link story to win the argument. COLLAPSE and WEIGH. I may actively call for evidence at the end of the round to discourage any misconstruing of evidence. If it's not in the final focus, it won't be in my ballot either. I look for the easiest path - the cleanest link with the most important impact. The cleaner the link, the more of the impact/weighing that I grant you. This means that winning the link debate should be your highest priority with me (ofc don't forget to do comparative weighing if both sides end up with offense).

Specifics:

- I’ll say "clear" if you are going too quickly/I can’t understand you. If you can't understand your opponents, you should also shout "clear." I will expect both teams to accommodate the speed/comfort level of both me and the other team.

- I've never had any experience with theory or Ks. Don’t run any progressive arguments in front of me.

- Tech over truth. If you have good warrants and good evidence, I'll buy just about anything. It is YOUR responsibility to call the other team out on BS arguments. That being said, the crazier the argument, the more my threshold for responses will decrease. Debate is educational, and I should be hearing arguments that are primarily realistic. I try to be as noninterventionist as possible - even if someone is reading an abusive argument you have to call them out on it.

- Signposting is important to help me keep my place on the flow. I like numbered responses.

- Extensions: I don't evaluate things that aren’t extended in both summary and FF. People are super lazy with their internal warrant extensions. Every single link in the argument must be extended. If both teams don't have a completely extended argument after FF - I will default which argument has a more "complete story"

- Terminal defense is sticky if not frontlined in summary for both sides. Turns that aren't extended in summary but in FF act as terminal defense

- 2nd rebuttal needs to be at the very least a 1-3 split. There needs to be time spent frontlining. 2nd speaking advantage is so large that I prefer a 2-2 split. Turns must be responded to in 2nd rebuttal or they’ll be conceded.

- If something is conceded or you want to bring up an important point from cross, blow it up in a speech.

- if both teams want to skip grand cross that's good with me

- wear whatever you want to online rounds

Evidence:

- I HATE misconstrued evidence. I will tank your speaks if you read intentionally misconstrued evidence (e.g. One team I judged literally added in a word to change the meaning of the evidence). This may also result in an entire argument being dropped – meaning it could cost you the round.

- While I am noninterventionist in big picture argumentation, I may call for multiple pieces of evidence. This is to encourage educational debate that is built on actual research and discourage mishandling of what qualified authors say. This is not to say that evidence is more important than warrants, but evidence is used to magnify the claims you make and make the argument much more convincing. Misconstruing evidence attempts to circumvent actual argumentation. No, this doesn't mean throw cards at me in rebuttal - I still value responses that are logical.

- Warranted evidence > warrants > unwarranted evidence > assertions

- I’ll boost your speaks by 0.5 points if you read non-paraphrased cases. Just show me beforehand.

- I call for evidence in a couple scenarios:

o Someone tells me to read it during a speech

o There is substantial time spent in the round over what it says

o Something sounds super fishy

o The way you portray the evidence seems to shift as the round progresses

- You have one minute to pull up evidence your opponent calls for

Lastly, remember to have fun and don't stress! I'm a chill judge, and you'll be fine if you screw up a little bit. Let me know if you have questions after round and you can shoot me an email at syangedgemont@gmail.com or message me on FB.

Tina Yong VDA - Vancouver Debate Academy 4 rounds None

Marc Yoon BC Academy 3 rounds

Nathaniel Yoon Sidwell Independent 8 rounds

Peter Yu The Dalton School 4 rounds

David Zell Charlotte Latin School 2 rounds

Last changed on Sat March 6, 2021 at 2:31 AM CST

I'm an assistant PF coach at Charlotte Latin and a graduate student at the University of Alabama. My email is dmzell@crimson.ua.edu

Strake RR Paradigm

1. Anything on the ballot must be in final focus, and anything besides weighing in final focus must be in summary.

2. Please weigh. Tell me why your argument justifies a vote for you even if your opponent’s arguments are true.

3. I'm generally sympathetic to the first speaking team. Defense is not necessary in first summary, and new evidence should not be in the second. While you don't have to frontline everything, the second rebuttal needs to answer all offense.

4. If you are going to concede your opponent’s argument, it must be in the speech immediately after it was made.

5. Please be respectful. Avoid overly-aggressive crossfires and rudeness.

6. Evidence ethics matter a great deal to me. I don't care if it’s called for or contested, I will not vote on a miscut card. Lying about evidence is too easy and too common in this activity, and I have decided that intervening is worth it to stop cheating. If a card sounds sketchy to me, I will call for it, and if the card is severely miscut, drop the team. Please know that I understand evidence mixups can happen, as well as the "power tagging effect", where a card gets a bit exaggerated as the round progresses. There's a difference between that and fabricating, clipping, or grossly misrepresenting your evidence. The former might cause me to lower speaks, but the latter will be an L 20.

In General

I am a fan of speed and tech debate, but I'm out of practice--particularly with flowing. Just keep in mind that the faster you go the more likely it is I miss something. If you want to spread, try to reduce the risk of this by slowing down for key parts of arguments/cards and signposting well.

I will listen to pretty much any argument, but I may not know what to do with it. If you're going to make progressive arguments, make sure you're clear on how you want it evaluated and why.

Tech > Truth in the sense that dropped argument are true ones

Truth > Tech in the sense that I'm more than happy to listen to uncarded analysis if it's good.

If neither team has offense at the end of the round, I'll presume for the first speaking team, not neg. The structure of PF makes such an outcome much easier for the second speaking team to avoid.

Eli Zerof The Bronx High School Of Science 6 rounds

Hongzheng Zhang Dougherty Valley High School 2 rounds

Lynnea Zhang Strath Haven 2 rounds

Last changed on Sun February 4, 2024 at 3:39 AM EST

Emory '23 | Strath Haven '19 | 2A/1N

tech > truth

debated two years in college/qualled to TOC in policy my senior year/know nothing about the water topic

please put me on the email chain: lynnea(dot)zhang@gmail(dot)com

Top Level

i go by the flow which presupposes any ideological preferences i have; if you win the flow, i will vote for you.

if i look grouchy, you're doing something wrong.

do ev comparison.

Counterplans

i will be very very sad if i have to flow your 24 point at: perm do the counterplan block

won't judge kick unless i am told to

Kritiks

if you're running one, your burden is still to disprove the aff. please debate the case. i am probably not familiar with your theory, but have few ideological preferences when it comes to what your scholarship is as long as it is well explained.

i really really do not care that fiat isn't real, i'm going to weigh the aff

K Affs

do your thing. i really enjoy well-developed case debate, k aff or otherwise. the best k affs capably explain their method to resolve a problem. impact turns vs k affs are great.

K Affs vs T

i think debate is a game and the only impact that my ballot can really resolve is procedural fairness. however, if you can prove why that that's a bad or violent model, you've leveled the playing field.

counter define words in the resolution.

procedural fairness >>> truth-testing/refinement > topic education > deliberation > any other impact

Theory

condo is probably pretty good and the only violation i'd be willing to vote on

i have a high threshold for voting issues here. my team routinely ran very abusive counterplans, so there's no alarm that really goes off in my head

Topicality

i like t debates. please explain the violation clearly and compare counter-interps.

untopical affs should go for reasonability and literature checks limits/potential abuse. i find the arg that ground shapes limits on certain resolutions very persuasive in determining an impact to something like ground loss or limits explosion.

i don't think there is much delineation between my philosophy for LD and Policy. i will give more weight to theory because i recognize that it is apart of LD norms, except for rvis. rvis are silly.

Xubo Zhang Mission San Jose High School 4 rounds

Yong Zong Foothill High School 2 rounds

Login to Tabroom

National Speech and Debate Season Opener

2020 — Lexington, KY/US

Public Forum Paradigm List

Judges