- I have a traditional LD background, so I care about the framework debate and the contentional debate. In the end, I'll go off of voting issues i.e. the main clashes of the round

- I don't mind spreading, but please make sure I can understand you

- Please don't use K's, T-shells or anything uber progressive but I don't mind a card heavy round; I'll flow everything

I am a former competitor of Extemporaneous Speaking and have some background in Public Forum. Spread all you want, go nuts

I have about 4 years of (primarily PF) debating experience and a lot of informal judging (all events) experience. She/her.

Winning Rounds

Here's how to win my ballot:

1. Use a lot of evidence, and don't falsify cards. I will call for them if asked to, and it's something I'll drop you over. Evidence should have a logical warrant, but if your opponent doesn't question the logic I'll buy it anyway. Use NSDA rules when reading and cutting cards. Read trigger warnings if applicable.

2. Weigh extensively. This means you explicitly lay out for me why I should prefer your arguments over your opponent's. It's a long round and you probably aren't winning on every point, so don't tell me that you have turned every one of their arguments and have NOTHING to weigh against unless you're sure about it.

3. Engage fully with your opponent's arguments. Address the links, nuance, warrants, all aspects-- don't just read a generic block to the constructive and move on. Just hearing two arguments that are polar opposites doesn't help me decide-- why is your link // logic stronger?

4. Structure your speeches in a way I can follow. Please (PLEASE) signpost so I always know what you are referring to on the flow. The speeches should build logically off each other to create a detailed worldview/narrative that is consistent through your speeches.

Other Notes

1. I don't have a lot of experience with technical arguments (eg theory, Ks, etc), and don't typically like them. I think debate should be accessible regardless of whether a team has a coach and prefer arguments that are understandable to the general public, so avoid them if you can!

2. I do not tolerate discrimination or prejudice in any form. If you make a comment or argument that is ableist, homophobic, racist, sexist, transphobic, xenophobic I will tank your speaks and depending on the severity drop you. Be mindful of pronouns.

3. I don't flow cross, but it will matter for speaks if relevant. This means you should be assertive, but being rude, obnoxious, condescending, etc. will lead to low speaker points. Please be kind to each other, we're all here to learn and grow.

4. Ask me or email me if you have questions! My email is budaraju.janya@gmail.com :))

Scarsdale '21, MIT '25

FB: Curtis Chang

Email: caiti008@gmail.com

I'm Curtis (He/Him)

BE ON TIME OR I WILL DOCK SPEAKS

i prefer speech drop but am fine with email

i literally do not know what the topic is so don't assume i know anything. i have not judged debate in over a year so START SLOW, I AM NOT AFRAID TO YELL SLOW/CLEAR/LOUDER AS MANY TIMES AS NEEDED AND WILL DOCK YOUR SPEAKS IF YOU DO NOT DO SO; anything i don't flow is on you (although i haven't flowed in over a year either so i'm probably not great at that too)

not loving the increasing trend towards massive prepped out analytic dumps :/ if you're reading one i'd prefer you send it to help me follow along, but i'll reward debaters who clearly are extemping smart arguments instead of just reading out of files in rebuttals. i also REALLY hate args like "eval after X" and "no neg args" so i'll begrudgingly vote on it only if it's completely conceded (UPDATE: on second thought i hate these args too much and i will not vote on these. examples of things on this list: GSP, Zeno's Paradox, eval after 1nc, no neg args. things not on this list: presumption/permissibility triggers out of frameworks, i actually love this and went for them a lot. unclear about an argument? just message me)

probably sort of out of touch with debate now but i'll attach my caselist wikis from when i debated for 19-20 (aff, neg) and 20-21 (aff, neg) so let that influence how to pref me however you want. i'll do my best to be tab/evaluate the flow still, so read whatever you want; my ideological preferences are much less strong than they used to be, although i'll still be upset if you read a shitstorm of a prioris and really fucking terrible theory arguments

most importantly have fun! im only judging for fun so pls don't take me/the round too seriously

- I'm a student judge who has been competing in LD for 4 years now. I'd prefer to see a solid traditional, value-centered round with well developed, logical arguments.

- Speed is fine, just enunciate clearly.

- Clearly state voter issues in your final speech. Make it easy for me and tell me exactly why you've won.

- Have fun and be respectful!

"There's an old saying in Tennessee—I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee—that says, 'Fool me once, shame on... shame on you. Fool me—you can't get fooled again."

My Golden Rule: When you have the option to choose a more specific strategy vs a more generic strategy, always choose the more specific strategy. also, PLEASE GO SLOW! i am physically disabled and need time to flow. i am just as capable as any other judge cognitively. do not pref me if you are not willing to be flexible. i am familiar with cx and ld but not public forum at all. please no ld tricks - i will not have a clue what you are doing, i have a policy background :)

tl;dr: below

- dont be sexist, racist, transphobic, ableist, etc

- Please call me Cass..

- please go slow, i have a physical disability that impacts my hands

- If I yell clear three times during your speech, I will stop flowing your speech since I cannot understand what you're saying. That's on you.

- I prefer judging strategies that have specific links to the Aff.

- I am unable to evaluate any out of round links, as I cannot determine whether they are true or not.

- I am not the best judge for complex debates like baudy, however, I do have extensive experience in antiblackness, natives, afropess, cap.

- I will vote on conditionality bad/perf con if it is extended and won in the 2ar

- I am a sucker for soft left impacts.

- i dont like piks if you dont run it well.

- I love a good case debate.

- If you're running 8 off and 4 of them are just 1 card DAs or CPs that have no solvency cards with just a CP text, I'm not a huge fan. I understand the strategic advantage this can give the Neg, but these debates just get boring and non-sensical. These debates just aren't fun to judge since the Aff answers these stupid one card DAs or CP w/o a solvency card with very few answers, then the block just blows it up. I think it skews the debate unfairly and heavily in favor of the Neg. In these debates, I will not hesitate to vote Aff on condo if it is well extended into the 2ar. Also, I will be very lenient on the 1ar reading new answers/cards in their speech.

- This is an educational activity and the judge is a norm setter. At the same time, debate is a competitive game. (edu is a terminal impact)

- Have fun and be respectful to your opponents. Racism, xenophobia, transphobia, queerphobia, and sexism WILL NOT be tolerated. If this happens in a round, I will stop it immediately, vote you down, and report you to Tabroom and your coach.

- Add me on the email chain and keep analytics in your doc since online debate is a bit more difficult to judge, especially because it cuts out a lot. cassidy.condray@gmail.com

- Bonus points if you have a card doc ready for me if/before I ask for it. I like to read cards b/c I consider myself a truth>tech judge.

In 2017,2018,2019, I competed in the Oklahoma 6A State Championship, placed 2nd, 3rd, and 4th all years.

Please add me on the email chain: cassidy.condray@gmail.com

Critiques: I like them. i did in high school on ks and k affs, won many rounds, etc, etc In the past, I have voted for various types of critiques. I think they should have an alternative or they are just non-unique impacts. I think there should be a discussion of how the alternative interacts with the Aff advantages and solvency. Impact framing is important in these debates. The links the Aff are very important---the more specific the better. Some K lit bases I'm decently familiar with: Capitalism, Security, Anti-blackness, Natives, Reps (various types), Fem IR, Anthro, Nietzsche, and Queer theory. Some K lit bases I don't know very much about: Baudrillard, Bataille, Deleuze.

Congrats! You have made it this far. Remember, DO NOT PREF ME IF YOU CANNOT ADAPT TO MY SPREADING PREF! Have a great day.

Head Coach @ Jordan HS

Wake Forest University – 2022

Jack C Hays High School – 2019

Add me to the email chain: jhsdebatedocs@gmail.com

General
I have been told that my paradigm is too short and non-specific. In lieu of adding a bunch of words that may or may not help you, here is a list of people that I regularly talk about debate with and/or tend to think about debate similarly: Patrick Fox (former debate partner), Holden Bukowsky (former teammate), Dylan Jones, Roberto Fernandez, Bryce Piotrowski, Eric Schwerdtfeger

speed is good, pls slow down a little on analytics

if harm has occurred in the round, i will generally let the debater that has been harmed decide whether they would like the debate to continue or not. in egregious instances, i reserve the right to end the debate with 0 speaks and contact tab. violence in the debate space is never ok and i will hold the line. if you have safety concerns about being around your opponent for any reason, please tell me via email or in round.

i am an educator first. that means that my first concern in every debate is that all students are able to access the space. doing things that make the round inaccessible like spreading when your opponent has asked you not to will result in low speaker points at a minimum. racism, transphobia, etc are obviously non-starters

you can use any pronouns for me

For online debate: you should always be recording locally in case of a tech issue

please do not send me a google doc - if your case is on google docs, download it as a PDF and send it as a PDF. Word docs > anything else

Specific arguments:

K/K affs: yes - you should err on the side of more alt/method explanation than less


Framework:

I view fw as a debate about models of debate - I agree a lot with Roberto Fernandez's paradigm on this

I tend to lean aff on fw debates for the sole reason that I think most neg framework debaters are terminally unable to get off of the doc and contextualize offense to the aff. If you can do that, I will be much more likely to vote neg. The issue that I find with k teams is that they rely too much on the top level arguments and neglect the line by line, so please be cognizant of both on the affirmative - and a smart negative team will exploit this. impact turns have their place but i am becoming increasingly less persuaded by them the more i judge. For the neg - the further from the resolution the aff is, the more persuaded i am by fw. your framework shell must interact with the aff in some meaningful way to be persuasive. the overarching theme here is interaction with the aff

To me, framework is a less persuasive option against k affs. Use your coaches, talk to your friends in the community, and learn how to engage in the specifics of k affs instead of only relying on framework to get the W.

DA/CP/Other policy arguments: I tend not to judge policy v policy debates but I like them. I was coached by traditional policy debaters, so I think things like delay counterplans are fun and am happy to vote on them. Please don't make me read evidence at the end of the round - you should be able to explain to me what your evidence says, what your opponents evidence says, and why yours is better.

Topicality/Theory:

I dont like friv theory (ex water bottle theory). absent a response, ill vote on it, but i have a very low threshold for answers.

I will vote on disclosure theory. disclosure is good.

Condo is fine, the amount of conditional off case positions/planks is directly related to how persuaded I am by condo as a 2ar option. it will be very difficult to win condo vs 1 condo off, but it will be very easy to win condo vs 6 condo off.

all theory shells should have a clear in round abuse story


LD Specific:

Tricks:
no thanks

LD Framework/phil:
Explain - If you understand it well enough to explain it to me I will understand it well enough to evaluate it fairly.

Email: mccsong8@gmail.com Updated 3/9/24

About Me

I did LD and Extemp 2014-18, coached LD 18-22, judged occasionally since then.

3/9 edit: I haven’t judged in a while, so I’m not as quick with jargon and speed. I’ll attempt to update the rest but if I miss anything, please ask before round.

LD: I still think LD is supposed to be more philosophical/morals based, but I also enjoy policy, theory, and K debates. I don’t feel as though I judge performance rounds very well. I also expect good evidence, and will include the whole card and not just the highlighted parts as part of your evidence. I expect engagement on the actual merits of arguments. Debate is a game but at all ends of it are real people, so be kind.

Oh, also, if you say anything clearly racist/homophobic/sexist/etc., I will likely vote you down on the spot and give 0 speaks. That doesn't have any place in the educational space of speech and debate. Outside of being xenophobic, hateful, or spouting hate speech, say whatever you want, I guess.

If you have any further questions, feel free to reach me atmccsong8@gmail.com

MC

Hi Everyone,

I am a traditional judge. Please talk at a moderate pace- no spreading. I would appreciate if you can keep your own time for your speeches. I am not comfortable with progressive debating so please don't run it.

Thanks!

Hey everyone!

Email: edelves22@gmail.com

I have been debating for about six years now (7th - 12th Grade). I did PF for about a year, and now I do LD and love it! My paradigm is pretty simple, and I can't wait to judge your rounds!

1. I don't do progressive debate. Plans, Counter-plans, PIC's, spikes, tricks, kritiks, and spreading will all hurt you and lose the round. These can make for interesting debate at an advanced level, but I did not learn it this way. I judge what I understand, and I understand traditional debate.

2. My primary judging criteria is dropped arguments. If you respond to everything and manage your time well, you will do great!

3. Have good evidence, clear links to your arguments, and make sure to bring it all back to the framework in the end.

4. Persuasion and effective rhetoric is important to me for speaks. Disrespect will lose you speaks.

5. Use cross to your advantage. Ask questions that have a purpose behind them. I love segments from cross coming back later in the debate.

Good luck to everyone! I can't wait to see you in round.

I am a traditional judge who likes contentions and a strong framework. I do not like progressive debate or spreading. I am an attorney and a parent/judge. Looking forward to hearing your arguments.

Kale Fithian—Erie (PA) McDowell Policy Paradigm

Background: I competed in extemp in high school and speech/LD in college in the early to mid 1990s. I never competed in policy debate. I picked up judging after being trained about 20 years ago. I judge 10-15 rounds a year mostly at local tournaments in Western Pennsylvania/Eastern Ohio. I occasionally judge circuit debate and have judged several times at NCFL Grand Nationals.

I would best be described as an experienced traditional judge with some exposure to circuit policy debate. Speed is not something that I am philosophically opposed to but I can probably only handle about 65-70% of the fastest spreading. Clear tags and direction on the flow will help. I will say clear if needed.

I flow on legal pads and don’t access technology during the round. It has to be on my flow for me to vote on it and not just in an email chain.

I am reasonably well versed on current events but do not have any especially specific knowledge of this topic area.

Round Procedure: I will time just in case there is a dispute but otherwise you are welcome to time yourselves. I won’t count any technology time such as flashing information against prep but it is your responsibility to let me know that you have stopped prepping.

Open cross-ex is fine with me but I will not require any questions to be answered during anyone’s prep time.

I am not overly concerned with formality of procedure but I will penalize heavily for clear unsportsmanlike or inappropriate behavior. Treat the activity and your opponents with respect and this should not be an issue.

I will disclose and do a brief reason for decision but I write most of my comments on the physical or computer ballot.

General Philosophy: My goal at the beginning of any round is to be as non-interventionist and tab rasa as possible. It will be the debaters’ job to identify the key issues of the round, argue them and guide me by providing voting issues. If there is a true breakdown of the round or lack of clash I will default to policymaker with an impact calculus as my preferred method of round evaluation.

Specific Arguments:

T—I have a fairly high threshold for T. I will tend to default to a reasonableness argument unless the Neg clearly wins the line by line.

FW—I am always open to either side framing the debate and setting up the importance of the arguments (as noted above in my tab rasa philosophy). I will not vote specifically on FW but if you can show the specific reason your arguments win under a FW I agree with you will most likely win the round if your points truly match the FW. If you can show what specifically you are missing out on if I accept your opponent’s framework that would go a long way.

CP—I am open to CP’s by the neg. If your CP will lead to a better net benefit than the Aff plan then I am going to potentially vote for it as part of the impact calc in the round. Likewise if the Aff plan has better net benefits then the Neg then I would be inclined to vote Aff at least on the plan portion. I am however not opposed to the Aff running T, harms, DA, etc… against a CP.

DA—I will consider both the Aff and Neg running DAs against a plan or counterplan to be fair arguments relating to the effectiveness of those cases. If the DAs outweigh the net benefits of either that can be a key voter in the round.

K—I am fine with Ks being run but it is up to the debater running it to make sure they explain the potential impact/consequences/reasons for the K to be accepted and to show why the topic or case is truly related to the K.

On Case—I am favorable to the Neg being able to attack the Aff case. I am more likely to vote on some sort of harms but will vote stock issues if it is clearly won in argumentation.

Performance Aff/Aff K—I am not very familiar and hold a high threshold here. If this is done it will need to be clearly explained as to why this is clearly better than running a traditional case.

Fiat—I will grant Aff fiat and any non-attacked plan gets full benefits as if it happened (granted harms etc.. could still be argued).

Lincoln Douglas Addendum:

I have been judging Lincoln Douglas for about 20 years and judge about 20-25 rounds each season mostly at local tournaments in Western Pennsylvania and Eastern Ohio. I have very limited exposure to any sort of circuit Lincoln Douglas but since I judge policy somewhat regularly I am still passingly familiar with the style. However I do not feel spreading or excessive speed should be common in Lincoln Douglas. Fast conversational pace should be the highest pace needed.

For all of the round procedures see above from the policy paradigm. For Lincoln Douglas I still try to be as Tab Rasa as possible and have the students determine the key voting issues in the round. However both my philosophy and judging experience leans heavily towards the traditional LD style. So in a close round I will default to who won the value and potentially criterion clash more heavily than practical applications, policy implications, or solvency. I do flow the main arguments and rebuttals for the debate but I am fine with grouping or big picture arguments and cross-application. However it must be clearly explained why an argument successfully counters multiple opposing views or why a cross-application is valid. I value the argumentation aspect of debate in LD more as I consider it to be a truly separate event from policy.

Background: I am a parent judge and I am delighted to participate in the program.

Prefs:

Spreading - I'm not the biggest fan of spreading, you may go fast if you wish, but I will only flow what I hear, which might be pretty slow by most peoples' standards. If you can avoid spreading, then I'd prefer if you could avoid it.

Trad = Larp/Policy > everything else

I enjoy a good traditional debate, but I don't mind policy arguments either.

No K's and no theory if you can help it - I enjoy the clash more.

Truth > Tech - if you make an argument, even if your opponent concedes it, I will not vote for it.

Important: Try to avoid any Debate Jargon if you can help it.

Please be polite and enjoy the debate!!!

I look forward to your active participation and will support the best arguments presented.

WHile I am a policy coach, I have coached many LDers over the years and am traditional.

Parent Judge.

I am a parent judge who enjoys watching competitors demonstrating their talents in speech and debate. I am against racism and sexism. In debate please don't spread too fast, and don't be oppressive if you debate on theory.

This is only my second time judging debate, so please do NOT talk fast and take it slow. I will judge the round off of who convinces me the most and the quality of your argumentation.

I'm a senior in high school with 4 years of LD experience (both lay and basic circuit)

Speed: Moderate, but if you must go fast, be clear or else I will give you low speaker points

CPs, DAs, basic Ks and basic Theory ok

No tricks, performance affs and complex phil

Contact info: racheljiang310@gmail.com

Phone number: +1 (408)-591-1982

I am a lay judge and will not be judging based on formal debate theory. I come to judging from a background in computer programming and the leadership of software development teams. My background gives me a particular focus on the need for clearly expressed, solid, logic based arguments that rest on verifiable facts. I am unimpressed by passionate delivery or emotion based appeals and will look for patient, respectful delivery. Please speak slowly so I can fully appreciate what you are presenting.

Hi all! I graduated from Lexington High School in June 2021 and I am currently a sophomore at University of North Carolina at Charlotte. I have debated LD for 2 years and PF for 2 years, so I understand almost all the antics.

things that I look for in a debate:

- extending and explaining your framework(LD) + arguments across the flow

- good cross-x questions

-being respectful to your opponents

-giving voters and overview at the end of the round

and:

- do not spread while speaking (LD), can go a little fast but not too fast.

- bonus speaks for an entertaining round

If you have any questions, you may email me at this address mehr.k2k3@gmail.com --but please no scam emails .

Round wise

Please speak clearly and at a reasonable pace; if I can not understand it then I have not heard it.

If you spread your speaks will already drop. If you spread in Novice or in JV tournaments without prefacing it by saying that you will be doing such, your chances at winning have gone down significantly. If you want to spread and not be at a disadvantage, clear it with your opponent and with me beforehand.

Respect is very important, you should be cordial and respectful towards your opponent.

Don't fidget; hair should be out of your face and you should try not to move too much (hand motions are acceptable).

Look into the camera or at your opponent/myself.

Full facial profile on the camera please, it helps visually and makes it easier to understand if I need to lip read.

Although I am a parent judge, I have a lot of experience. I'm pretty good at flowing, but if your opponent doesn't extend something or brings up information in their last speech, please point it out. ALL NEW INFORMATION/ARGUMENTS IN THE LAST SPEECH WILL NOT BE FLOWED.

If you make any racist/homophobic/sexist etc comments you'll be dropped. Don't compare prison to slavery, I will never buy it and it makes you look pretty awful.

Case sharing is NOT REQUIRED. Don't let your opponent bully you into doing it if you don't want to. Clarify before round and before sending anything if you are case sharing.

Case wise

You need to explain your framework. I am familiar with util and sw, but things like Locke and Rawls I need to understand to vote on.

Don't advocate for marxism in front of me, it will probably not end well due to my implicit biases so it's better to avoid it.

I'm a traditional judge. Please do not read K's, Theory, Tricks, etc. I most likely won't vote on them.

Crystalize and weigh in the 2NR and the 2AR, tell me why you should win.

I don't mind being referred to as Judge.

Please remember to ask if your opponent and myself are ready before you start your speech/talking. Warnings should be given for any sensitive topic, and though I am not opposed to any arguments myself, still ask and ensure your opponent is okay. An example of a fragile topic is sexual harassment.

Crawford Leavoy, Director of Speech & Debate at Durham Academy - Durham, NC

Email Chain: cleavoy@me.com

BACKGROUND
I am a former LD debater from Vestavia Hills HS. I coached LD all through college and have been coaching since graduation. I have coached programs at New Orleans Jesuit (LA) and Christ Episcopal School (LA). I am currently teaching and coaching at Durham Academy in Durham, NC. I have been judging since I graduated high school (2003).

CLIFF NOTES

- Speed is relatively fine. I'll say clear, and look at you like I'm very lost. Send me a doc, and I'll feel better about all of this.

- Run whatever you want, but the burden is on you to explain how the argument works in the round. You still have to weigh and have a ballot story. Arguments for the sake of arguments without implications don't exist.

- Theory - proceed with caution; I have a high threshold, and gut-check a lot

- Spikes that try to become 2N or 2A extensions for triggering the ballot is a poor strategy in front of me

- I don't care where you sit, or if you sit or stand; I do care that you are respectful to me and your opponent.

- If you cannot explain it in a 45 minute round, how am I supposed to understand it enough to vote on it.

- My tolerance for just reading prep in a round that you didn't write, and you don't know how it works is really low. I get cranky easily and if it isn't shown with my ballot, it will be shown with my speaker points.

SOME THOUGHTS ON PF

- The world of warranting in PF is pretty horrific. You must read warrants. There should be tags. I should be able to flow them. They must be part of extensions. If there are no warrants, they aren't tagged or they aren't extended - then that isn't an argument anymore. It's a floating claim.

- You can paraphrase. You can read cards. If there is a concern about paraphrasing, then there is an entire evidence procedure that you can use to resolve it. But arguments that "paraphrasing is bad" seems a bit of a perf con when most of what you are reading in cut cards is...paraphrasing.

- Notes on disclosure: Sure. Disclosure can be good. It can also be bad. However, telling someone else that they should disclose means that your disclosure practices should bevery good. There is definitely a world where I am open to counter arguments about the cases you've deleted from the wiki, your terrible round reports, and your disclosure of first and last only.

- Everyone should be participating in round. Nothing makes me more concerned than the partner that just sits there and converts oxygen to carbon dioxide during prep and grand cross. You can avert that moment of mental crisis for me by being participatory.

- Tech or Truth? This is a false dichotomy. You can still be a technical debater, but lose because you are running arguments that are in no way true. You can still be reading true arguments that aren't executed well on the flow and still win. It's a question of implication and narrative. Is an argument not true? Tell me that. Want to overwhelm the flow? Signpost and actually do the work to link responses to arguments.

- Speaks? I'm a fundamental believer that this activity is about education, translatable skills, and public speaking. I'm fine with you doing what you do best and being you. However, I don't do well at tolerating attitude, disrespect, grandiosity, "swag," intimidation, general ridiculousness, games, etc. A thing I would tell my own debaters before walking into the room if I were judging them is: "Go. Do your job. Be nice about it. Win convincingly. " That's all you have to do.

OTHER THINGS

- I'll give comments after every round, and if the tournament allows it, I'll disclose the decision. I don't disclose points.

- My expectation is that you keep your items out prior to the critique, and you take notes. Debaters who pack up, and refuse to use critiques as a learning experience of something they can grow from risk their speaker points. I'm happy to change points after a round based on a students willingness to listen, or unwillingness to take constructive feedback.

- Sure. Let's post round. Couple of things to remember 1) the decision is made, and 2) it won't/can't/shan't change. This activity is dead the moment we allow the 3AR/3NR or the Final Final Focus to occur. Let's talk. Let's understand. Let's educate. But let's not try to have a throwdown after round where we think a result is going to change.

Parent judge. Please don't spread. A roadmap would be helpful. I prefer to judge a round on evidence based structured arguments and responses to your opponent’s contention. Clash is good.

I have been coaching and judging since 2013. I'm a flow judge, and I am fine with speed to a point. However, if you see me put down my pen, it means I've stopped flowing because you're speaking too quickly.

When it comes to argumentation, don't assume I am an expert on the topic at hand. I'm leaving all my prior knowledge and opinions about the resolution at the door, so you need to clearly explain your framework (if you have it) for the resolution, and your claims/warrants/impacts should be clear throughout your debate. Make sure to signpost your speeches so I know exactly where you are on the flow. In rebuttals, make sure to actually clash with your opponents' argument, and if you're cross-applying (which I love when it's done correctly), just mention the contention you're using to do so.

In cross X, make sure to give your opponent time to respond to your questions, and give your opponent the chance to ask questions. It will hurt your speaker points if you're rude or show a lack of respect towards your opponent during cross x.

As the debate winds down, make sure to crystalize the point you want me to vote on, and be sure to weigh those points with the points your opponent has.

Pretty much, I'll vote off the flow, so just be sure to make it as clear to me as possible the arguments you've won and why you've won them at the end of the round.

Please speak slowly and clearly.

Assume I know little about the topic at hand.

Signpost during your speakers, crystallize in your final speech.

Ashley (she/her)

nguyeng@umd.edu

Hello! I'm a PhD student in 20th Century US history. I used to do PF in high school. Feel free to email if you have questions about your round.

General:

I will always do my best to minimize intervention within the round — this is your time to be creative with your arguments and to have fun with developing your own style of debate.

I am generally open to any arguments, but especially love to see how far left you can go with each argument.

If you treat novices/obviously less-experienced debaters with anything but the same respect you'd want in a round, you will not pick up my ballot. Debate is an educational activity. I really value debaters who try their best to interpret the debate in the most humane and just way possible. I will not tolerate homophobic, sexist, racist, etc. arguments in debate.

LD:

Please refer to Charles Karcher's paradigm!

Speaking:

I don't encourage you to speak quickly if it's a virtual tournament - hardly anyone speaks clearly enough for it to translate well over a Zoom/Jitsi call. However, speaking quickly is different than spreading. If you spread (which if fine with me), send over the doc first or else I won't be able to flow.

Framework:

If you don't contextualize the argument, I will do it myself and you don't want that. also please engage with the framework debate as soon as it's brought up in round.

PF:

YOU CANNOT AND WILL NOT WIN EVERY ARGUMENT. Collapse, collapse, collapse.

The earlier you start weighing, the better the round will be for you. I won't weigh anything in FF if it's not in summary (please condense and weigh impacts in these two speeches rather than going line-by-line.)

Please answer defense.

If you bring theory/spreading into a PF round, I will automatically drop you and your speaks will be a 25.

Add me to the email chain: josephineobrien922@gmail.com

Note for Glenbrooks

Hi LDers! I will be judging you. That being said, I have only ever debated in PF and I am a PF judge. That means that I cannot judge advanced theory or spreading. If you don't read my paradigm and run a progressive argument and leave me sitting there attempting to flow and wondering what the heck is going on, that's on you! That being said, I've always loved LD and I'm excited to judge y'all. Most everything else in my paradigm still applies to you, so read through it.

Background:

Hi! I'm Josephine (she/her/hers). I debated for four years for Hunter and graduated in 2021 — I'm taking a gap year before I start college at Columbia University with a dual BA at Sciences Po. I was my team's captain as a senior and, although I took a step back from debating due to virtual tournaments/college apps, I'm familiar with current circuit norms and argumentation. You can treat me as a flow judge, but that doesn't mean that you should tell me to "just extend" an argument or spread.

tldr:

You can win my ballot with the two Ws: Warranting and Weighing. Be nice.

General Guidance:

• Please signpost and weigh. I'll evaluate weighing first, then who links into that weighing best. If you want my ballot, weigh. Make fewer arguments and weigh them more!

• I'm okay with moderate speed. If I can’t make out what you are saying I’ll say “clear” twice.

• I am tech over truth, but if you are racist/sexist/etc i will drop you with low speaks. That also means that you NEED to use content warnings if you're discussing a sensitive topic. And, this should go without saying, but respect pronouns.

• Speaks start at a 28 and go up/down from there.

• Please, please, please warrant — tell me WHY what you're saying is true, even if so-and-so from the Brooking Institute says it's true!

• Don't be mean in cross — that doesn't make it a fun round for anyone.

• PF: Write my ballot for me in the final focus! everything in FF should be in summary. All offense for me to vote needs to be in the second half of the round.

• You need to extend a clear link chain with warrants and impacts if you want me to vote on it. You would be surprised how many teams neglect to do this.

• If you want me to vote on a turn, it needs to be given the same care and attention as case offense. What that means: your links need to be extended, you need a clear and warranted impact, and you need to weigh that impact. I will not vote on a turn that is nebulous or not implicated. That being said, I have nothing against voting off a turn (I personally loved running turns) — just run it well.

• I will raise my hand once you're at time and stop flowing after a ~5 second buffer

• I love cool and innovative strategies — run them in front of me!

• I’m fine with theory if it checks back for actual abuse BUT I am not too familiar with progressive arguments (I personally never ran them). Therefore, if you’re trying something progressive, run it in paragraph form, don’t spread, and explain it clearly.

• LD: if neither side has offense at the end of the round i will presume neg, but please don't make me presume anything (please extend!). PF: I'll presume first-speaking team.

• Wear whatever makes you comfy.

• Try to make me laugh! I show all my emotions on my face so you will know if you say something funny.

Zoë Kaufmann legit taught me everything I know about debate so if you want to learn more about my philosophy, you can check out her paradigm here. You can assume that anything in it also goes for me.

Have fun! And if you ever want to chat about debate or life, feel free to reach out via email, Facebook Messenger, or Instagram (@j0sephinefrancis). I know as well as anyone that debate can be stressful and scary but I am here for you and so proud of all of you! Instead of spending your last few minutes before your round stress-prepping, watch this!: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCwcJsBYL3o

I am a fair open-minded judge who is able to discern a good argument, and have on many occasions awarded the debate win to a contention I do not personally agree with. A debate should be decided on who was more convincing regardless of the judges personal views. It is important I can understand you so that I can effectively judge your argument against your opponent, so speed is not as important as being articulate.

I believe that an argument should be well thought out, well structured, and cogent. I do prefer a fairly bullet-proof framework on which to hang the contentions and I am open to theoretical foundations once that framework has been articulated and defined, but ultimately a contention supported by facts and figures is more convincing as it is more quantifiable and less subjective.

I like to see debaters who challenge their opponents on their points with a crafty and well-timed rebuttals, in other words, able to think on their feet. I listen, take copious notes, and when I give my decision, I clearly state why I picked one side over the other.

Hello, you may refer to me as Ms. Peng. I am a parent judge that is new to Public Forum, however I have judged for Lincoln Douglas in the past.

What I look for when I judge: clear, not rushed speech when you are presenting your argument, and when you look up while reading from your written declaration. I also like when questions in cross-ex are answered, instead of avoided as it demonstrates knowledge of your subject and the ability to think on your feet. Stating your contentions puts forward your thoughts in a logical, easy-to-follow way, and when you have citations backing up your case it bolsters your argument. It's always nice to see debaters acknowledging their opponent, greeting each other at the beginning of the match, being respectful to each other during, and ending it graciously.

You all put in a significant amount of time preparing your arguments and practicing cases, you are passionate and eloquent with your persuasive speeches, which is great to hear-but it's also great to see and hear you have fun with it. You've prepared extensively, be confident in your skills, relax and enjoy.

I am a parent judge, and this is my third year judging JV Lincoln Douglas and JV Public Forum. I did not debate in HS or College and have enjoyed judging as an adult. I'm a Licensed Customs Broker with a Masters in International Business. The past 20+ years of my career in International Logistics (Imports and Exports) and Global Trade Compliance.

My paradigm is simple, follow the rules of debate and present your argument based on the resolve. Articulate your argument clearly, if you are speaking at a fast pace and are not enunciating your words I may miss what you are trying to say while I flow. Do your best to provide a convincing argument that proves your philosophy is better than your opponent's.

Most importantly...breathe. You got this!

Please send your speech docs to kkufda2@optonline.net

I am a lay judge, don't read anything that can't be explained with ease.

I am not comfortable with anything too fast (i.e. don't spread, keep speeches conversational). Try to keep speeches to a point where I can take notes without feeling overwhelmed.

Please give clear voters!

Hi! I'm Iris, I've debated at Acton-Boxborough for 4 years.

Since I have debated for a while, I'm okay with any type of argument you want to run, as long as it's fair to your opponent—so please limit progressive arguments in the novice division! I will evaluate the debate off of whatever I flow, so please weigh and clash with your opponent. Please make it clear what your voters are, especially in the last speech.

Please be respectful to your opponent and speak at a reasonable pace. I am not accustomed to progressive style debate.

This paradigm was pretty sparse for a while, but I've decided these are pretty useful.

I debated in policy for four years in high-school. I debated at the University of Oklahoma for 4 years.

***** slow down in online debate.

*** LD Addendum's

I've been judging and coaching LD for about 4-5 years now at this point. I'm relatively cool with whatever you do. Tricks will probably be a harder sell with me, but I have and will vote on it if they're impacted out and made relevant. I probably have a higher inclination to lean towards rejecting the argument rather than the debater in most instances.

Pretty good for T on this topic.

** Most of this stuff is in relationship to policy debate.

Debate is up to the debaters. Do what you will with the debate, I will do my utmost best to evaluate the arguments in front of

I view debate largely as a set of questions I'm asked to resolve. Depending on how I answer those questions my ballot changes. I find debaters who effectively tell me which questions ought to come first, and how answering those questions informs the rest of the debate.

I'd like to think I don't have any wild idiosyncrasies as part of my judge habits, but here are some of my thoughts, they may or may not help you make a decision on where to pref me
Counter-plans

1. New Planks in the 2NC are probably bad.

2. I can be persuaded conditionally is bad if the negative gets a little too wild.

DA's][1. These are cool. Specific links are cool, but I understand the game. If you gotta run 10 generic links because the aff is small, then do what you gotta do.

K's

1. I'd like a little more explanation when you make an ontology claim. "Settler-colonialism is ontological," for example, is much more expansive than a 'politics doesn't succeed argument. Explain what you think settler-colonialism is and how it influences society, and then explain why that informs what forms of politics are successful or violent. This will make it much easier to evaluate your argument!

2. Be clear about what your FW argument is. 9/10 times its helpful to be clear.

3. Reference the aff. if I could imagine the 2nc being read against another aff with no changes, then your speaks will reflect that.

4. Permutation is probably not a negative argument.

Critical Affirmative's

1. Clear counter-interpretation/Counter-model tends to be a much better way to achieve my ballot than straight impact turns. Explain to me what clash happens in your model of the debate, and why that solves the neg's internal link. However, if the strategy is impact turns then make sure to spend time doing impact calculus.

2. I'm not really concerned with whether or not the performance of the 1ac solved the bad parts of the world. I view K-Aff's much like Policy affs. I.E. Explain how your model of politics would be good if exported.

3. I really do appreciate when teams apply their arguments in interesting and thoughtful ways. Regardless of you making a "new" argument, if you add your own bit of character to the argument I will appreciate the effort.

FW

1. I'm not as bad for FW as my debate choices would indicate. The way to get my ballot in the vein of Michigan GW, lots of clash and debate focused I/L's. Explain why the C/I collapses into an ever expansive interpretation., and why the affirmative can't square the circle of competion.

2. I am a bad judge for FW teams who are dismissive and don't respond to the affirmative. I think negative teams sometimes miss some basic responses to the affirmative in the pursuit of using academic language. Sometimes aff's just assume illogical things that you can point out, even if it seems simple! Don't ever think an argument is too simple or someone's argument sounds too smart to make a basic response!

3. I'm not a good judge for "Truth-testing means no aff"

Frivolous Theory

1. Not my cup of tea, but I'll vote on it. It will be reflected in your speaks tho.

Hello everyone! My name is Peter Vouthas, I was an LD debater from 2016-2020 at Chaminade in NY, and now I'm studying Business and Political Economy at NYU. I went to out rounds at NSDAs three times, placed 9th in XDB, and went to CFLs once. I was a traditional debater and prefer traditional rounds. That being said, I did break at multiple circuit tournaments, so I know how most circuit stuff works. If you are running any circuit arguments, just be sure to explain them well and go slower than normal.

Pref Guide:

Traditional/Lay: 1

Policy: 1-2

K: 3

Phil: 4

T/Theory: 5

Performance/Tricks: Strike me

Add me to the email chain: peter.vouthas@stern.nyu.edu

Summary:

1. Please don't go full spread. I was mostly a lay debater. Faster than conversational is fine, but if I don't hear or understand an argument I won't vote off it.

2. Speaks are strategy and style. To get full speaks you have to speak clearly, use inflection, breathe normally, and sound interesting.

3. Don't read disclosure theory or performance. I'll give you a loss 27. I have a low threshold for responses to tricks and friv theory and don't really like those either.

4. Please stay topical.

5. Tech>truth.

Traditional/Lay/Policy: These are the arguments that I most frequently ran in high school. I think these rounds are the most fun and educational rounds in debate. I like full res, plans, CPs, PICs, DAs, etc., and lots of clash. Make sure to weigh and give me clear voters.

K: I understand how these work. If they are anything denser than like a simple cap k or fem k, make sure you're explaining what's going on well.

Phil: You should assume that I have basically no knowledge on any philosophy. I have surface level understanding of a lot of stuff, I've taken philosophy classes in college, but if it's anything more complex than Locke/Rawls, make sure you explain it well.

Theory/T: Kinda hard for me to judge because I lack experience with these arguments. Don't run them unless there is actual abuse.

Performance/Tricks: I really don't like these. Please don't read them.

Joke Cases: If your opponent agrees, feel free to run one. I'll probably bump your speaks

Voting History Spreadsheet: This spreadsheet shows my side bias and average speaks (local tournaments drag down my average, so circuit speaks are typically higher at around 28.5).

If you have any questions about my paradigm, your round, or your rfd feel free to email me!

Hi everyone! I'm Shejuti (she/her), a second-year at Case Western. I have debated four years of traditional LD.

I think progressive arguments are really cool, but unfortunately, I definitely don't understand them as well as you'd like me to. So I wouldn't recommend running them with me as your judge unless you're willing to risk the significant possibility that I vote against you even though you should have won by progressive standards. If only one of you runs progressive arguments and the other is clearly a novice/lay debater, I'll try to follow but I'll probably end up voting for the side who doesn't because I'll understand their arguments better.

Aside from that, I flow arguments well (any speed below spreading is fine) and tech>truth (generally). I enjoy a good framework debate, but if frameworks are the exact same please don't try to debate them, for ex. "I justify my fw better than my opponent justifies the same exact fw". Make sure you argue framework outside the scope of the resolution and weigh your impacts. I'm pretty lenient with speaks (unless you say something offensive).

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE WEIGH; so many rounds I've judged were ultimately decided because the losing side didn't weigh and the winner weighed their arguments best. Just because you win an argument does NOT mean it holds any weight in the round unless you, you know, actually weigh it.

Those are the only specifics I felt were worth mentioning; feel free to ask me any questions about additional preferences before the round (email: wahed.shejuti@gmail.com). Good luck everyone; I hope you have an entertaining/engaging/intellectual debate!

be nice to your opponent, don't run racist, homophobic, etc args. weighing is good, and i really like clear voters at the end. also, please signpost your args.