I am a parent judge with 5+ years of PF/LD/ Policy experience. Please consider me a Flay Judge.

• Speak as fast as you would like, but I will ask you to slow down if I cannot understand. No spreading please. I am fine with 15 seconds of grace time.
• Please be respectful of your opponents and give them a chance to speak. Do not keep interrupting or be rude or condescending. If not, I will drop your speaker points.
• Please do not read any form of progressive argumentation (theory, kritiks, etc.) as I cannot evaluate them and will not give you credit for them.
• Off-time roadmaps and sign-posting are encouraged. It helps me follow your debate better.
• My decision will be based on your contentions, evidence, rebuttals, impacts, summaries and weighing. I will evaluate all those on both sides to come to a decision.
• I like to see well-researched cases backed by strong and credible evidence. Please include me in the email chain to share cards as I like to review them as well.

Good luck and have fun!

Hi debaters!

Please speak clearly and if possible, not too fast. Also please explain your arguments in plain terms.

Good luck!

As an experienced judge I will flow all parts of the debate.

A few things I like to see in a debate:
-engaging cross-ex

-clash of arguments

-clear crystallization in summary and final-focus

Please speak clearly, not too fast, and be respectful of your opponents and me.

Hi! I debated PF for Henry M. Gunn High School for 3 years (Gunn BZ/BB). I am a junior at Northwestern University and I coach for Henry M. Gunn High School.

Generally:

- offense should be in summary and ff

- defense is not necessary in first summary

- you don't have to frontline in second rebuttal (but pls do it)

- you can go fast just don't spread

- if you are going to go fast and the other team wants a speech doc you have to send it before your speech otherwise slow down (if you send it after the other team has to use prep to basically flow ur speech that is not fair)

- i didn't debate theory or k's but if you explain it to me i will vote off of it (pls do not run progressive args on kids that don't know what that is)

- theory: my threshold to evaluate progressive args unless its directed at specific abuse that occurred in the round is really high (don't run it just for an easy win)

- pls weigh (as early as possible)

- if you want me to look at a card tell me to

- i will always presume neg unless you tell me otherwise

- if there's an email chain add me: revareva@gmail.com

-----

Important:

- if you say something problematic and continue to do so I will drop you and give you 25 speaks

- you can call a TKO in round and if it's correct I'll give you a win and 30s, if you're wrong tho you'll get a loss and 25s

-----

Trigger Warnings:

- if you are talking about sensitive issues plz read a trigger warning

- i don't think just reading a trigger warning and then starting to speak does anything to protect someone who may be impacted by what you are going to say

- in my opinion what you should do is say your trigger warning and then give everyone your phone number or do something to allow everyone to say yes or no

- this is the only way that people can protect themselves and also not have to publicly explain their emotions or why they are sensitive

- if they say no have another case or a contention you can swap in prepared

Feel free to message me if you have any questions about anything in my paradigm or after the round if you want me to further explain my decision or give advice! You can email me or hit me up on FB!

I have been judging LD debates for over four years, with occasional experience in Parli and PF formats. I prioritize clarity, substance, and respect in rounds. If any technical terms are used, please provide clear definitions. I value substantive contentions and points over intimidation or mockery. I flow during the round to track the arguments.

While I remain open-minded and impartial, I expect debaters to uphold the principles of sportsmanship and respect throughout the round. Mockery and intimidation have no place in constructive debate.

Impact calculus is highly appreciated as it helps in evaluating the significance of arguments.

Please include me (karthikakrishnna@gmail.com) in any email chains for reference. Best of luck to all debaters!"

If you need any further adjustments or clarifications, feel free to let me know!

DEBATE EVENTS

I am a LAY judge

Please explain your arguments at a conversational rate. If you talk too fast, then I won't be able to understand what you are saying. If I can understand your argument, then that will be favorable. Also, please sign post and tell me what points you are going for and why that's good. DO NOT BE TECHNICAL.

Don't be rude during Cross Examination- I will reduce speaker points and probably drop you. Give your opponents the ability to speak.

I am a third year parent judge. I judged LD in Year 1 and PF in Years 2 & 3. I have judged about 30 rounds in total and consider myself a Flay judge. I can follow a well-made argument. You don't have to make too much of an allowance for me, but know that if I can't track your argument / rebuttals / response to rebuttals, you can't really expect it to work for you. So do try to be as clear as you can. Draw your through lines clearly. Don't get super-technical and jargony if you would like me awake. Spreading will also lose me. There is a fine balance between coverage and ease of comprehension. Try to find it.

Be honest in presenting evidence. I might ask to see your cards if it piques my interest. You don't have to go out of your way to be nice to your opponents, but jerk and bully behavior WILL lose speaker points and may be enough to lose the round too.

Feel free to chat with me before or after (as long as I have finished scoring in Tabroom) but I will not discuss results or give you live feedback. I will give (hopefully) meaningful feedback in Tabroom.

Don't take everything, including yourself, too too seriously. Here, and in life! :)

I debated Public Forum for Los Altos for 4 years and Parli for one tournament.

For Septober 2020: I'm judging one round for this topic and know literally nothing about it, so please don't assume I have any background knowledge.

I'd say I'm a flow judge but I'm pretty bad at flowing so let's go with flay. I like to keep expectations low. Please don't spread my hearing sucks.

I really appreciate link debates and I won't vote off something unless I somewhat understand it. I always value solid warranting over card dumping.

I have a pretty high threshold for evaluating really squirrelly arguments/responses/turns and offensive second rebuttal overviews or other kinds of sus stuff.

I'm not super familiar with Theory/K's but if you explain it to me thoroughly I am willing to evaluate it. If you read it WITHOUT your opponent's consent/knowledge and are reading for an "easy win", you are making debate inaccessible and I will drop you.

*DO NOT straight up lie. I will tank your speaks and drop the argument. Please, PLEASE ask for evidence if you are suspicious of your opponent lying about evidence, and tell me to look at it.

I used to have a paradigm with a bunch of rules about extensions and frontlining but then I realized that they were just the rules of pf so I'm assuming you know those lmao.

If you have any specific questions, just ask! I don't appreciate salty post rounding but am happy to answer genuine questions. email me at ashley.lcai@gmail.com if you want more feedback!

GLHF everybody! :)

I'm a parent judge, my preferences are standard across the board.

Speak clearly and persuasively, NO spreading. You can speak fast or slow, but I prefer Quality over Quantity.

I'll weigh everything throughout the round. Public Forum should encourage well-rounded, persuasive debating.

I judge on your preparation, ideas, evidences, logics, impacts, arguments and summary. My final decision comes down to all of them on both sides.

Be respectful throughout the round. If not, I'll deduct your speaking point or even lose the round.

Have fun!

I am a parent judge whose son competes in Congressional debate. I have judged a few tournaments, specifically in congress.

Below are some things I want to see:

1. confidence and clarity when speaking

2. do not be rude to your fellow competitors

3. make your argument as clear and easy to understand as possible

update for toc: i haven't done much research on the topic, so please don't use assume I know anything.

harker 20 ->wellesley 24 and did pf in hs

set up an email chain before round and add me: amandakcheung@gmail.com

pronouns: she/her

Voting:

- everything extended in final focus must be in summary

- weigh impacts: i don't want to do the work for you cuz it probably won't work out in your favor

- tech > truth

- COLLAPSE!!! (if u don't collapse starting in second summary (though preferably you start first summary), i give you a max of 28 speaks)

- implicate turns

- if you read something progressive, tell me the role it should play in my ballot (if its like Theory or a K explain it really clearly and expect me to evaluate it as a parent judge would)

- if its like disclosure theory and your opponents seem confused/ don't know how to debate it, i think its extremely uneducational for the round and will not vote for it/ drop u

General Preferences:

- i will give u < 25 if you are condescending, rude, or making the round unsafe (misgendering anyone's pronouns, being sexist, homophobic, transphobic, racist etc)

- speak as fast as you want as long as you're clear (i will stop flowing if you are too unclear). if you think you might be too fast or unclear (zoom quality etc) send a speech doc before your speech or ill just go off of whatever i could understand which will probably hurt you

- second rebuttal should frontline defense from the argument(s) that you are collapsing on and all offense

- second flight should preflow before the round

- ill give u up to a minute to look for evidence (more flexible if there's a lot called) and after that, it comes out of ur prep. also please send CUT CARDS not paraphrases or links to articles

- if you read a TW, please provide an anonymous out (google form etc) for your opponents and anyone in the room. if you don't do this, i will say that i feel uncomfortable regardless of the argument and make you read something else.

most importantly, debate's a safe space; if there's anything i can do to make the round more accessible, pls lmk!!

feel free to pm me with any questions u have on fb or amandakcheung@gmail.com

Email: joshanne.chiang@gmail.com

Hi! I debated public forum for four years in high school. Please explain thoroughly, signpost, and don't go too fast. Please, please weigh. If I'm not judging PF, I'm probably not as familiar with your event, so I'm sorry. Basically, if you run progressive debate arguments, I most likely won't get what you're doing, or at least not be able to evaluate your arguments as well. Plans/counterplans in non-PF are fine though.

Please be courteous to your opponents. You are definitely allowed to be assertive, but show your opponents the same respect that you want from them. This includes refraining from being condescending and being equitable/inclusive with your argumentation.

I don't flow cross. Please time yourselves.

Feel free to ask me anything. Above all, have fun and good luck!

I am a judge reasonably experienced at judging tournaments. I have 2 kids and both are in debate and speech each.

Here are few insights on how I judge:

1. Speak at whatever pace you feel most comfortable. I can keep up with your pace.

2. I do take notes. Let me know where you are in your arguments. I appreciate the source citation. I like clear, clean lines of logical thinking.

3. Engage with the round, have refutations and ask questions

4. Be respectful to everyone and have fun

I am a lay judge, and this is my second year judging Public Forum. I prefer overall clarity and an integrated narrative over the number of card citations. That said, I do accept evidence by cards, as well as logic and analysis. With my technical background in engineering, I tend to give more weight on facts and logical conclusions from facts rather than opinions and emotional pleas. Don't speak too fast. If I can't follow you, you will not score too many points with me. During cross and grand cross, I value simple and direct answers, instead of evasive and complicated arguments. It is important to reiterate your arguments clearly in Summary and Final Focus. Tell me what's the most important issue in the round of debate and why I should vote for you in your Final Focus. Time yourselves, and try not to go over time.

I award speaker points based on how well I can understand you and your overall story. So please speak with clarity and deliver your speech at a pace that a lay judge can easily comprehend. Do not use too much debate jargon because you risk not being understood. Last but not least, don't be rude to your opponent, and have fun.

I'm a lay judge. I have kids who debates, so I've judged some local circuit tournaments, but that's it. Please do not speak too quickly. Please be clear and nice to your opponent.

Please don't use too much debate jargon.

Otherwise, have fun in the round, make me laugh, and let's debate!

4 Year PF debater for College Prep. Freshman at Emory University.

• I'm flow, I can take some speed but would prefer if you went at flay speed.
• Jargon is fine, especially when weighing.
• Please extend, terminalize, warrant, and weigh arguments. If you sign-post while doing so, even better.
• All evidence must be warranted, if it's not and the other team points that out, I won't consider it.
• You can frontline or not frontline in 2nd rebuttal, just extend defense the speech after its frontlined.
• Extending through ink is an easy way to have an argument dropped.
• If you want to run theory or a K you better have a good reason, outside of just winning the debate.
• I will call for evidence if you tell me to in a speech. If you misconstrued evidence, I won't consider it in the round. If you repeatedly lie about your evidence, I may drop you.
• In the end, I'm going to vote off of summary and final focus, rebuttal and constructive just exist to set up these speeches. If something is in your FF and you expect me to vote off it, it has to be in summary.

I am a parent judge. Do not speak too fast as I would like to take notes on both sides. Be respectful during cross and allow both sides to get questions in.

General: Graduated from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign in 2021 with a double-major in computer science and anthropology and now work as a product manager in the tech industry.

My email is amoghden@gmail.com - please add me to the email chain and/or reach out with any questions!

Debate Background: 4 years of circuit policy debate at Milpitas High School (2013-17). 3 years of NPDA Parliamentary and NFA-LD at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (2018-21).

During my time in college, I coached a handful of high school policy/LD teams and worked as a lab leader (leading labs focused on K arguments) at the University of Texas National Institute of Forensics. Since I graduated and started working, I have been completely removed from debate.

GENERAL VIEWS:

DISCLAIMER: This paradigm was originally written for policy debate but is pretty consistent with how I evaluate ANY style of debate. Let's be real, every debate event seems to slowly adopts new "progressive" norms that make it closer and closer to policy anyway.

Debate is a game. It is influenced by (and often a microcosm of) the social, political, cultural, and libidinal constitution of what we might call the "real world", but is ultimately an argumentative testing ground for ideas.

The only thing I know to be "true" as a judge is that I have been tasked to listen, evaluate, and arrive at a decision based on the presentation and clash of ideas. The scope / nature / telos of those ideas, how I interpret and evaluate argumentation, and what influences my decision-making is entirely up for contestation. I can be compelled to vote for anything regardless of its simplicity, complexity, or absurdity without any preconceived biases as long as it is not racist, sexist, homophobic, ableist, etc.

My personal debate career and involvement as a coach was primarily invested into kritikal styles of advocacy, but I do not have any fixed stylistic biases. I will not have a problem understanding and evaluating traditional arguments, but this is an area of research in debate that I did not have too much personal investment in. My policy debate background means I generally won't have a problem flowing speed.

I really do NOT care about trivial debate etiquette. Dress however you want. As long as you're not compromising the safety or access of people, say whatever you want, however you want. Call people out on their BS.

WHAT I LOOK FOR IN (GOOD) DEBATES:

- Tech > truth (but I will only evaluate arguments that I understand).

- Organization, specificity, evidence comparison and argument interaction are key to amazing debates.

- Write my ballot for me - judge instruction is the mark of a well executed rebuttal speech. Frame every part of the debate: tell me how I should be viewing and evaluating arguments and why. Leaving it up to me (or your opponents) to make assumptions or connect the dots to influence my decision may not bode well for you.

- The debate is NOT determined by evidence in a vacuum; it's up to YOU to explain (or spin) warrants, regardless of how amazing (or unfortunately terrible) your cards may be.

- Cross-x is an underutilized art. Destroy your opponents with precise and impactful questions. Be one step ahead. Be witty!

SPECIFIC ARGUMENTS:

TRADITIONAL/POLICY AFFS:

I may not be intimately familiar with topic-specific political processes or terminology, so be sure to explain things and be precise. I would much rather you read one or two well-developed and strategic contentions than several mediocre ones.

I believe that the art of nuanced technical debate is dying, but I'm hoping you prove me wrong. I've noticed a troubling trend of terrible evidence, mediocre internal link explanations, and extensions without substance in the traditional rounds I've had the opportunity to judge. Put in the effort to explain and contextually apply the arguments made in your evidence. Question the merits of bad evidence. Spend the time to frame and impact out your arguments in detail.

Well developed weighing mechanism / impact framing arguments will go a long way with me. I don't presume to know what is good and what is bad - it's up to you to tell me and justify why things are important and what my ballot ought to prioritize.

Because the traditional affirmatives I judge usually end up being versus the K, here's some specific thoughts on those debates:

- Defend your affirmative. Pivoting to spike out of offense is not as strategic as you think. Avoid resorting to vague permutations and/or shifty link defense.

- Utilize and apply your affirmative. Take the time to make specific link/impact turn arguments.

- Engage the criticism. Failing to answer the negative's theory of power is usually an instant recipe for a loss.

- I have a high standard for perm articulation from the affirmative, and link/alt explanation from the negative. Do NOT let lazy K teams get away with bad link analysis or incoherent explanations of their theory.

- Substantive 2AC framework arguments are more likely to influence my decision than whiny procedural stuff.

KRITIKAL AFFS:

I have debated against, affirmed, written, and judged a wide variety of K-Aff arguments and fully encourage you to experiment, push the boundaries of literature and debate as an activity, and ultimately use this space to advocate for things of interest or importance to you. If you're looking for an idea of literature bases with which I am most familiar, check the "Kritiks" section of my paradigm.

I will NOT uncritically vote for you because I like your choice or style of argumentation. Although kritikal affirmatives enable potentially valuable breaks in the traditional form/content of debate and the resolution, I believe that there is a level of investment with the literature and knowledge about debate as an activity necessary to successfully challenge the ideological protocols of the game itself and/or operationalize the game as a site of critical contestation.

Take the time to make smart and offensive application of your Aff's criticism, and explain the unique friction between your methodology and the Neg's argumentation. Supplement your blocks and cards with smart in-round analysis and contextual application of your theory. Going beyond the jargon and providing concrete examples in support of your theory of power and/or methodological strategy will typically go a long way.

KRITIKS:

Successful kritik debating at a minimum requires intimate familiarity with the literature, and clarity and depth in explanation. The best kritik debates happen when you generate unique links to the affirmative and are able to build intricate link-stories by strategically referencing specific warrants, lines, or moments in your opponents performance, argumentation, and evidence and tying it back to your theory of power. Going beyond the jargon and providing concrete examples in support of your theory of power and/or methodological strategy will typically go a long way. I will reward you generously with speaks if you are well versed in your literature and are able to demonstrate your knowledge by making smart and strategic analytic claims and arguments in your speeches and cross-x.

I believe form precedes and determines content: I often begin my decision-making in kritik debates by asking what the telos (or perhaps a lack thereof) of this debate is, and what interpretational lens I ought to use to understand and assess what content means in relation to the presentation of the affirmative and alternative.

I have a general understanding of most criticisms read in debate, but my personal knowledge and interest lies in criticisms pertaining to identity politics and structural positionality. Most of the scholarship I've engaged with as a former debater and coach pertains to various branches of theory speaking to Anti-blackness, South Asian identity, Settler Colonialism, Feminism, Queer/Quare/Kuaerness, and Disability. Although I'm not AS well-read up on the edgy and often unintelligible works of old white dudes, I've judged or been personally involved in a fair share of those debates too and much of the scholarship I engaged with as a debater had its ideological roots in the works of Lacan, Heidegger, Marx, Deleuze, and Baudrillard among others. If YOU understand your criticism and YOU do the work to explain and contextualize your offense, you'll probably be fine.

DISADS/COUNTER-PLANS:

The more specific and less generic your strategy is, the happier I will be. I have no pre-defined standard for what makes a CP legitimate or abusive. Absent theory arguments, I will evaluate and happily vote on any DA and/or CP strategy without any predispositions.

I may not be intimately familiar with topic-specific political processes or terminology, so be sure to explain things and be precise.

TOPICALITY/THEORY:

The path to a ballot in these debates (on either side) is to do real comparative work on the level of interpretations and standards. Dive into the nitty-gritty analysis: what type of norms do we want to set in this activity/topic? Why? Why does it matter if the violation is true? What is the threshold to meet your interpretation?

Unlike many judges, I don't mind frivolous theory arguments. This is YOUR debate. If you want to make the debate about some trivial procedural question and you do it well, I'll happily vote on it. If you see strategic value in wasting your opponent's time with frivolous theory, more power to you. Likewise, if you make a well-developed argument that frivolous theory is bad, I'll happily vote on that too.

I think innovative or unconventional topicality and theory arguments (on either side) can make for very interesting discussions about the norms of the activity: arguments about identity, body politics, performativity, agency, boredom, death, simulation, educational models etc.

Impact analysis is CRITICAL to winning T/Theory debates:

Fairness is NOT an intrinsic good. What does fairness mean? Fairness for whom? Why is fairness something we ought to preserve in debate? What is fairness an internal link to?

Education is also NOT an intrinsic good. Why should the telos of debate be to produce education? Why does your model of debate have the ability to produce "good" kinds of education? Why are the specific skills we gain from your model good, and how do we operationalize them?

FRAMEWORK (VS. K-AFFS):

I spent my entire debate career arguing against Framework, but I think there's a lot of merit to these debates (on both sides).

What does your interpretation and model of debate look like in context of the affirmative's criticism? What types of norms and rules do we want to set for the activity? You probably have to win that the affirmative's theory about the way power operates (at least within the debate space) is bad AND/OR fundamentally not testable.

Impact analysis is CRITICAL to winning framework debates:

Fairness is NOT an intrinsic good. What does fairness mean? Fairness for whom? Why is fairness something we ought to preserve in debate? What is fairness an internal link to?

Education is also NOT an intrinsic good. Why should the telos of debate be to produce education? Why does your model of debate have the ability to produce "good" kinds of education? Why are the specific skills we gain from your model good, and how do we operationalize them?

Some background:.

I am the CTO of a mid sized FinTech company. I have been judging PF for the past 6 months.

I take a lot of notes during the debate and make my decision on the most convincing arguments.

Please provide an offline roadmap and also do clear signposting so I can take good notes.

Here's my background. I did three years of debate at Los Altos High School in Los Altos, CA. That consisted of lay LD, then circuit LD, and finally PF. When I debated my final year in public forum I was heavily influenced by my time in circuit LD. I hope that gives you a good initial idea of who I was as a debater- which is, of course, important for how you adapt to me as a judge.

General things:

You should be nuanced in your speeches, applying all of that wonderful critical thinking you've learnt/are learning. I would love to see some in-depth, insightful, and profound debates. This involves:

1. really interacting with the arguments your opponent puts forth. I don't enjoy two-ships-passing-in-the-night debates, where both sides just read their arguments and don't really do a lot of interaction- and the interaction they do do is weak and lacking in nuance. For those of you I judge for PF, call for evidence so that you can really interact with it. Evidentiary interaction is good!

2. not being blippy. If your point really is short enough that you can say it really quickly (this should be rare), then sure, you can touch on it just for a moment. But otherwise I don't want to hear super short extensions (or arguments in general) where you just state the claim/author and don't explain the argument behind it and why it matters (how it interacts with the opposition). Then the other team will have a really easy time refuting it, so you are worse off. Be thorough. I would rather have a few dense but crucial points than many half-baked claims floating around (collapse). Make sure to weigh too, of course.

4. Weigh (and meta-weigh if it's necessary).

PF:

Tech > truth (bigotry is an exception, as is possibly theory which I elaborate on below). If you go for a crazy argument, I will vote for it. But note that attempting such an argument (unique/creative doesn't necessarily equal crazy/weak, mind you. In fact, I would love to see some debates with really creative arguments) is risky. If it's genuinely sketchy, the opposing team should be able to shoot it down easily. To that end, if you go up against a crazy argument you should quickly but skillfully refute it. This logic applies to arguments like theory- say you go up against theory, and you've never been trained in answering it before. You don't need to use any buzzwords. Just respond like you would any other argument. Flow it and respond logically, I won't give your response any less credence because it's unlike "typical" theory responses.

I am completely open to having time looking at evidence being off of prep time. I think this practice helps ensure proper evidentiary standards and allows for a more thorough and nuanced debate- especially in PF.

I believe disclosure is good. So I will evaluate disclosure theory. That being said, things in PF are a little different. If you're up against some small team that doesn't even know what the wiki is or has never encountered theory before, my bar for their response will be low (or nonexistent. See the next sentence). If I think you're just using theory (any theory really, not just disclosure) as a tool to win because you know your opponents are out of the loop on the subject, I may not vote on it. It's noninclusive and rude. Please do not put me in this situation.

Don't spread your opponent out. You can speak quickly as long as your microphone/internet are up for that. If you straight up spread you should flash speech docs. I'm fine with either side saying "speed" or "clear" during the debate for accessibility reasons. I want debates to be accessible, so if you need your opponent to go slower in order for you to engage, please speak up. Don't abuse this, of course.

Final:

Please be inclusive and considerate of everyone involved.

***Please signpost well. It makes things so much easier for me to keep track of.***

I am a parent judge who is fairly new to PF Debate.

Please avoid speaking too fast so that I can follow you.

Please back up your claims and rebuttals with evidence from reputable sources. Claims without evidence tend to be ignored.

It is a good idea to develop your arguments with depths while rebutting opponent's arguments and counter-arguments with evidence.

Most of the times one well developed argument is much better than many arguments that are not well supported/developed or dropped during debate.

Please treat opponents with respect!

Have fun in debating!

current freshman at Carnegie Mellon University

did PF for 3 years, LD for 1 year

tech>> truth

extend your arguments (offense needs to be in summary for me to vote on it)

if you any questions- please ask me before round!

please be nice and respectful to everyone and have fun :)

I'm a novice parent judge, so please speak slower and don't overweight on debate jargon. Being a tech person, in argument I value precision and conciseness. Please be clear and nice to your opponent.

Have fun in the round and good luck!

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!

Archbishop Mitty 18

Brandeis 22

Did pf for 4 years and a little bit of circuit ld

2008 Beijing gold medalist in Public Forum

contact my manager at rghoshal@brandeis.edu for any business inquiries

Tournaments are stressful, if you need to take a quick break and look at pictures of cute animals or something I will not hold it against you if you come late to round by a few minutes.

if you hit me up for flows of teams I have judged I will give general taglines but probably no more unless its some sketch stuff.

Preferences:

1. You and your partner must be astrologically compatible. My aura will detect if this isn’t the case and I will drop you.

2. If you incorporate Minecraft or League of legends into your speech/background ill bump up your speaks by 1.

3. If someone uses a framework in their constructive and never brings it up again I will bring out a nerf gun and shoot my camera multiple times.

4. If you do not weigh, I will base the round off of whether or not your vibes are right.

Actual preferences:

1. Don't go fast unless both teams are fine with it (same for K’s/Theory, this is pf).

2. I lean towards wanting second rebuttal to cover your side of the flow, but at the end of the day I won’t drop your case for not doing it.

3. First summary doesn't need to extend defense that is not responded to unless its also offense (turns).

4. Try to pause for a quick second after saying a tagline, a lot of teams go straight from a tag to a card and I sometimes will miss card authors or other important info if u do that.

5. Earlier u collapse the better, preferably in summary.

6. I like good evidence ethics, if both teams are down I am fine with making it so when both teams are looking at evidence it doesn't count towards prep time. That being said if the tournament is running late try not to spend too much time looking at stuff.

7. P L E A S E use cx educationally, I will not be flowing so use it to actually learn about how your opponents case works rather than trying to poke holes in it for the sake of looking good and making cross really boring.

8. I don't care if you tactically drop stuff, if u literally delink your entire case but extend turns ill vote for u. In fact you should probably not be going for everything and should be dropping some stuff, but then again I come from a time of 2 minute summaries so idk how stuffs changed.

9. I may call for evidence after round if its important and has been contested, this is online so idk if there's an email chain throw me on it

10. If u do not weigh I will assume you are calling me fat and be sad

11. Reread number 10

ask any other questions you have. This includes in the middle of the round I would rather you ask late than just guess what my preferences are.

here's a dope card: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1tCRQEPeJfypLTmdu3o4YX7YqmXoHrznLgT9g96Jcxqw/edit#heading=h.5t60pvwizdrn

I am a lay (parent) judge who is new to debate.

Speaking:

Please speak slowly and clearly. If you would like to go fast, please do so at your own risk, as I may not get everything down. Personally, I would rather that debaters go slowly so that I can understand their arguments rather than spread and be incomprehensible. Also, try to refrain from using debate jargon. Finally, be polite and courteous in crossfires. Any rudeness, racism, etc. will result in a severe deduction to your speaks, and I will drop you.

Argumentation:

Please reexplain your arguments in every speech to create cohesiveness and consistency so that I can cleanly evaluate the round. Also, please weigh impacts comparatively. If you do not weigh, I will do it for you, and you may not like the result.

Updated for UC Berkeley 2024

email-awgray2002@gmail.com

POLICY-

Hi everyone :) A little about me! I debated 3 years policy and 1 year in public forum at CK McClatchy in Sacramento. It's been 4 years since I've debated, so I'm definitely pretty rusty.

Generally, since it's been a while, make sure you impact the debate out and explain the role of the ballot.

Please do send me the speech docs just so I can keep up. Spreading is ok but slow down a little when reading off script. If you'd like any accommodations made let me know through email or in round!

CP/DA- I really dislike it when teams read 10 off with 4 conditional CP's when they don't have clear net benefits and don't have separate solvency from the aff. I love disads but I'm not voting on one because it has 100% probability and if it has more recent evidence.

High theory, really nuanced impact turns- I will evaluate it, but explain it

K-affteams/ performative teams- be careful with your ROJ/ROB and impacts. You’re more likely to get a ballot from me if the k aff/ performance is topic centered/addresses the topic, the debate will be easier for you most likely but I’ll evaluate one that isn’t topical too.

Speaker points & other:I really don't like snarky comments and rudeness during speeches/ CX. I usually give high speaker points so just be respectful and chill. Also, 'm a firm believer in tech over truth. That doesn't mean that truth isn't important! Read whatever you want but remember that it’s your burden to have me understand everything. I'm not a lay judge but I really don't know much beyond the basics of the topic, so just make sure to explain well.

Adding in a section about tech- I'm super sympathetic toward tech issues that happen. We'll work out a solution!

Thanks for letting me judge your round and best of luck :)

***PUBLIC FORUM***

I debated for C.K. McClatchy for 4 years, 3 in policy and 1 in public forum. It's been 4 years since I've debated, with PF being the most recent.

I am a flow judge & please do send me the speech docs just so I can keep up/ I don't have to request cards. If you'd like any accommodations made let me know through email or in round! (email isawgray2002@gmail.com)

Adding in a section about tech- I'm super sympathetic toward tech issues that happen. We'll work out a solution :)

1. CX is binding and I will flow it. Please make sure you'reasking questions in CX and not using the time to just argue offense with no question attached. Speaks will be docked.

2. Speaker points: I really don't like snarky comments and rudeness during speeches/ CX. I'm a point fairy so just be respectful.

3. Debate: My policy background heavily influences my decision making whether I like it or not, so I'm comfortable with spreading, K's, theory, and critical affs. Given this is PF though I will mandate that if you’re doing so you must send a complete speech doc like policy. Your opponents also need to be ok with it.

Here's what I typically evaluate a round on:

Framework: Just don't say that cost benefit analysis is the default framework as your argument.I will dock speaker points for lack of creativity; you need to be able to explain why. It won't lose you the debate, but just explain it beyond that.

Impact Calc: Since it's been a while since I've debated, I think cleanly extended and elaborated impacts will play the largest part in my decision.

Links: I have been in so many rounds where stuff just doesn't link. Please isolate the link and don't drop it

Uniqueness: Make sure to mention how your argument is unique!

Thanks for letting me judge your round and best of luck :)

Hi, I'm Julie Guilfoy (she/her), I have been working with the Bishop O'Dowd debate team for the past 4 years as a coach and judge.

Give content warnings before the speeches start please. I'll disclose and do a verbal RFD and feedback if time and tournament rules permit. I welcome fast speaking and evaluate on what is on the flow and evaluate on the strongest case. I appreciate debaters that sign post their case well and go beyond citing warrants; that is, tying their claims and evidence to unified story. Pet peeve of mine is debaters that try to win on overzealous POO's. Be aggressive, not abusive. I welcome debaters running a critical theory based argument as long as they are explained well and don't exclude any debaters from the round. Make sure to engage in the standards, debates and talk about fairness and education.

Hi! I debated PF for ~4 years at Harker, and now I'm a student at Columbia University.

Pronouns: she/they

Email: ellenguo6@gmail.com

tldr: tech>truth but I never get enough sleep so treat me like a flay judge :))))

For online tournaments: please set up the email chain/Google Doc before the round starts, and share me on it too! My email is above.

Voting

- If it's not in both summary and final focus I won't be considering it at the end of the round.

- WEIGH. I'm lazy, so please do the weighing for me, and be strategic about it. Know when you are losing arguments and instead of just repeating the same non-responsive thing over and over again, tell me why their argument is insignificant (in the context of the round) even if they win it. If you don't weigh, I'll have to weigh for myself and it's probably not going to be in your favor (it also tends to be more truth>tech).

- COLLAPSE. If second summary (and any speeches afterward) are line-by-lines I will cry on the inside.

Technical Details

- Second rebuttal and first summary need to frontline all offense that you plan to collapse on and respond to any turns; frontlining in second summary is way too late. And by frontlining I mean that you actually need to interact with their rebuttals, not just repeat your case back at me.

- Defense is sticky through summary (if it isn't responded to), but if it's on a main voter please reiterate the defense in final focus.

- No offensive overviews in second rebuttal.

- If you're going to run a framework, make sure it actually gives you offense in the round (I don't care for net benefit or util frameworks, since that's basically the default in PF already). Also, responses to opponents' frameworks need to happen in rebuttal, or else I'm flowing them through and evaluating the round under them.

- I'm grudgingly open to theories and Ks, but I have very little experience with them so a) my threshold is rather high and b) you're going to have to explain them to me very well. As a side note, if your opponent is actually being abusive, you don't need theory to point that out.

- I don't flow or vote on anything that happens in cross, though I will listen. If you want it to be important in the debate, you need to bring it up again in a speech.

- Don't extend through ink; give me warrants not just author names.

Speaks

- Don't be rude. I am b e g g i n g you

- If you make racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, ableist, classist, xenophobic or generally bigoted/discriminatory/hateful statements, I'll drop your speaks to 25 and you'll most likely not win the round. Same goes for repeated misgendering absent apology (especially if it's pointed out).

Miscellaneous

- I will be disclosing and giving an RFD unless the tournament explicitly bans it.

- If your opponent calls for ev and you can't find it after ~2 minutes, I'm striking it.

- Speed is okay as long it's clear; if you're going to spread, email me the speech doc (ellenguo6@gmail.com). However, I've noticed that moving online has caused a vast majority of debaters to become less clear (re: audio quality, internet inconsistencies, etc.), so please err on the side of caution—go slower, or send a speech doc even if you aren't quite spreading; otherwise, I'll only flow what I hear, and it probably won't be in your favor :(

- If you're reading cases about sensitive topics, please do include a trigger warning and some forum through which someone could anonymously disclose that they don't want to engage in such a topic (Google Forms comes to mind). If you don't provide the latter, I will always ask that you read an alternative case.

- lol this is probably obsolete now because of online tournaments buT if you're flight 2 and both teams are waiting outside the room, please do the coin toss and tell me the results when you come in.

In general, if the round is fun, educational, and cooperative, that'll work out in everyone's favor :) If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask before the round!

4 year varsity debater from College Prep. Graduated in 2020.

I evaluate the flow first, tech over truth.

I can handle speed - would much rather prefer a slower, clear speech to a faster, garbled speech (esp with the online format)

Terminalize your impacts!

Weigh the debate for me so I don't have to and you don't get mad when I "do it wrong".

Everything that's in Final Focus should have been in summary (unless it's responding to something new from second summary (which also shouldn't happen)

You'll get good speaks from me unless you really mess up.

If you have any questions feel free to ask me before the round

I welcome any questions about my decision after the round.

email: gupta.abhimanyu@gmail.com

Paradigm for Speech Events:

I value the following aspects during judging:

- In terms of content of the speech, a clear line of sight from [ the central theme to supporting arguments to reasoning and evidence] would help me follow the speech.

- Creativity and uniqueness of arguments

- In terms of style : Reasonable pace with thoughtfully inserted pauses.

I do take notes, as detailed as possible.

Paradigm for Debate Events:

This will be my 4th year judging PF. Parent judge, so nothing crazy/too tech. I do take copious notes, and I'm probably tech>truth to some extent. Anything outright false/offensive will not be considered.

Procedural fairness is quite important to me, so don't steal prep, go over time, miscut evidence, or bring up new things in later speeches.

A few things:

- Please extend warrants in back half speeches (if your link chain is conceded and fully extended in the back half it's GGs)

- Don't be rude in CX, but don't be boring either (stay professional)

- Warrant your evidence, contextualize everything to your arg

- Don't run trivial args, run something that actually matters or just introduce your weighing early on (case/rebuttal)

As always, ask me any questions you have before round. (my kid wrote this so clarify if needed)

I've been working in the software industry for more than 20 years as a technical lead managing a handful of software developers. I consider myself a novice as a judge with high school debates - but debating with customers/colleagues under the professional setting and making decisions by (pretty much) judging is major part of what I do on a daily basis. Here's the list of all my preferences that I can think of (and some of them are from my experience under professional setting.) - Prefer convincing argument/logical reasoning over speed or style. - Speed is ok as long as it's clear. - Claiming that the other party doesn't have a proof/evidence when there is no specific need for such evidence doesn't mean much to me. - Creativity in your argument/contention is a plus. I have seen many debaters coming up the same arguments/contentions that can be easily found on google search or YouTube. I too study the debate topic before the debate and hence I know what's commonly out there. I appreciate any debater bringing a different or new perspective as long as it's convincing.

I am a former high school policy/LD debater. I also competed in many individual events. Now, I am a trial lawyer. I seek to reward the speaking that connects most directly with the professional and personal activities that high school debaters will be performing in just a few short years.

For policy debaters: Debate is a game. And, in my opinion, policy is a place where (almost) anything goes. You can spread, you can run K, you can read a poem. If you've signed up for policy, you know the world you have signed up for. But, note the following: If I can't understand you or write/type/think fast enough, I might miss your brilliant argument. The stranger or more counterintuitive your argument is, the more proof I will need for it. Style and persuasion still mean something to me in policy debate, so if you can spread while being persuasive (yelling is not persuasive), you will have an advantage. Those who abandon speed altogether AND who make a good argument for why they should win even if they can't cover everything -- those people might very well win. As I say, debate is a game.

Public forum: If (almost) anything goes in policy debate, then public forum is its more constrained, conversational, and accessible cousin. My understanding is that it was created as an alternative to what policy has become, and therefore I am less receptive to spreading and absurdist styles in PF. As a result, I will not necessarily vote on dropped arguments. Two minutes is simply not enough time to cover everything in a debate, so it is entirely possible to pick an argument to the exclusion of others and win -- just tell me if that is what you're doing, and tell me why that argument is the winner. Please consider whether your tone, your speed, and your use of jargon are at all applicable to: a class presentation, a conversation with a professor, an informal discussion with friends or colleagues, a courtroom, a pitch to a boss, etc. These are the places in which your debate skills will be applicable.

For all debaters: If you are rude in any way (prematurely cutting opponents off in crossfire, ad homs in speeches, gesturing from your chair while others speak), you will lose speaker points, and possibly the round. Aggressiveness is fine, but I can't abide jerks.

About Me: I am a new judge and new to debate in general. I may know little about the topics you are discussing so make sure to clearly state your arguments.

General Philosophy: Feel free to run any argument you want as long as you have evidence to support it. I will remain open-minded.

Rules: I am not very accustomed to the general rules of a debate round or the rules laid out by the tournament guidelines. If your opponent violates a rule, please bring it up respectfully and show the rule on the NSDA website.

Speaking: Please speak with a loud clear voice. If I can’t understand what you are saying, I won’t accept it as an argument. Signposting would be preferred. Please do not spread. Be polite to your opponents or you will lose speaker points.

I am a lay judge so please speak slowly and clearly.

4 years of PF, UVA '23

Winning my ballot starts with weighing, in fact, weighing is so important I'd prefer if you did it at the begiNning of every speech after first rebuttal. Be cOmparative, I need a reason why I should look to your arguments firsT. Please collapse, don't go for more than one case arg in the second half, its unnecessaRy. I'm a lazy judge the easIest plaCe to vote is where I'll sign my ballot. I'm not going to do more worK than I need to. I will not vote off of one sentence offense, everything needS to be explained clearly, warranted, and weighed for me to evaluate it(turns especially). I try not to presume but if I do, I will presume whoever lost the coin flip.

I will evaluate progressive arguments.

If you are going to give a content warning please do it correctly - this means anonymized content warnings with ample time to respond.

I'm very generous with speaks, speaking style doesn't affect how I evaluate the round and I don't think I'm in a place to objectively evaluate the way you speak. With that being said I will not tolerate rudeness or ANY bm in round. I can handle a decent amount of speed but do not let speed trade off with quality.

Online debate I will be muted the entire round just assume I'm ready before every speech and time yourselves and your own prep. I will disclose if the tournament allows.

Questions: chashuang1@gmail.com

I am a lay judge. Please speak at a normal pace.

Speak clearly, SLOWLY and to the point. Make sure to clearly explain your arguments and support them with credible evidence. In rebuttals, clearly reference the argument you are refuting, and be sure to give a quick overview, or off-time road map, before your speech for clarity.

Background

I run the quality department in a tech company in silicon valley. I judge for Dougherty Valley High School and have judged in the past at a few tournaments in Public Forum. I am knowledgeable on the topics for the tournament and take notes during the debate.

Speaker Points

a) Be polite and respectful to your opponents. I will not allow any behavior considered rude or unfair.

b) Speak clearly so that I can process your arguments.

c) Construct a good flow of your arguments (please do off-time road maps) and make sure that your arguments are consistent with your partner's.

Decisions

I will try to be as fair as possible and make my decision based on the above criterion. I care about which team is able to persuade me with their arguments. Be confident and make eye contact when you speak. If you read off from your script, then you will not get my vote.

Other

a) Clothing/Appearance: I don't care much as long as you do respect the tournament dress code.

b) Use of evidence: Very important. Make sure that your arguments have reliable evidence to back up your claims.

c) Real-world impacts: You need to convince me why I should care.

d) Cross-examination: Don't fail to show respect to your opponent and ask relevant questions.

e) Debate skill over truthful arguments: Truthful arguments are prioritized; however, they will be highly valued when combined with the skill.

My preferences are pretty standard. I like taking notes on the arguments, evidence, impacts etc while you are speaking. I don't like new ideas introduced later in the debate. Weigh as much as possible to differentiate your narrative from your opponents, starting from the summary.

I'll weigh everything at the end of all the rounds. Public forum should encourage well-rounded, persuasive debating. Be respectful during crossfire, no time wasting tactics. I judge on your preparation, ideas, evidences, rebuttal, arguments, and impacts. My final decision comes down to all of them on both sides.

I am a parent judge who is lay.

Please speak slowly and clearly; if I cannot understand you I cannot vote for your arguments.

I place importance on cross ex along with speeches, but I mainly vote off the second half of the round. Make sure your summaries and final focus write out my ballot for me-explain your arguments again and explain why you win. "Weigh" your arguments for me.

Don't use ANY debate lingo: explain what you mean to say before spouting words such as de-link and short-circuit. Don't run any progressive arguments with me either since there is no assurance that I shall understand them.

I do not have much topic knowledge, so make sure to explain the arguments in clear and simple ways so that I can understand them.

Please have evidence ready. I do not want to waste more than 5 minutes to gather evidence, and if you cannot find it in that time it will impair your chances of getting the win. There is no need to add me on email chains, but if a team is accused of misconstruing evidence, I will take a look at what the evidence says. However, I hope it never comes to that in a round because I trust and rely on you to do the evidence interpretation.

While I place importance on cards, please also explain the logic behind it. Just saying "CNN says this" does not make me understand why this is important. Try to quantify things to the best of your ability because it does make it easier to weigh; however, I do understand that some things cannot be quantified so explain why I should vote on that.

Try to give me a map of your speech before giving it; it helps me understand which case you are talking about. Also, please state what side you are on at the start and end of every speech. If possible, also try to have the sides in your name on the video call.

Lastly, please be respectful! I will immediately drop any team that does not respect their opponents or the debate space. Please don't yell or accuse your opponents of anything unless you reason to do so.

Feel free to reach out with any questions you have before your round starts! Good luck

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

I am a parent judge.

Please try to be as clear as possible and stay under 200 wpm.

Good Luck!

What I look for in a debate is clear speaking and good refutations to each others points. Also, I look at the magnitude of your impacts and see which one has a more positive effect. Lastly, the summary speech in the debate round is the most important so be sure to emphasize your main points within that speech. I look forward to judging your debate rounds.

Please speak slowly and clearly.

Please be respectful to your opponents.

Prefer Crossfire to be question and answer rather than arguing.

This is my first time judging, I judge for the Quarry Lane School. Please be respectful to your opponents during crossfire and please talk clearly and not too fast. I might take light notes but if anything is crucial please emphasize during speeches. Most importantly, have fun!

I am a lay judge with only around 10 debates under my belt.

I am looking for how clearly/logically you present your case with special emphasis on how well you can counter your opponent's points.

All the best.

I have been judging since 2018 in tournaments from the rookie to varsity levels. I have been a lawyer in the past and like to view both viewpoints with good supporting evidence. Support for your contentions have to hold solid ground.

I also love clarity over ambiguity. I do not prefer spreading/speaking fast.

Please try to state case clearly and persuasively. Speaking too fast to state too many may not help convince your case any better.

I prefer teams with good counter skills, sharp responses as well as solid arguments.

This is my fourth year judging both Parli and Public Forum. I am mainly a lay judge so I would prefer that debaters speak slowly and clearly convey their arguments. I prefer quality over quantity. I will pick a winner based on who best communicates the most logical arguments. Other than that, I have no preferences about cases or arguments.

I run a software consulting firm here in Bay area. I judge for Dougherty Valley, and have judged in the past 2 years at a few tournaments in Lincoln Douglas, Public Forum, Speech, and Congress as well.

Things I would be judging will be based on the following criteria

- Make an complete argument (claim, warrant, and impact).

- Topic grounded strategies/demonstration of research and topic knowledge are good for speaks.

- I am the numbers guy and like to hear solid numbers or quantitative data for your arguments.

- Quality always trumps quantity.

- Evidence matters, but your explanation matters more. Great cards that are explained terribly won't get maximal weight.

- Clarity over speed

- Get to the point: focus on the core issues of the debate

- I have researched the topic to some extent but do not understand very nuanced arguments.

- I like when two teams have clash on their cases, but don't be overly aggressive or rude when pointing it out.

- Insults, rudeness, and swearing are not good and will be looked down upon .

- Respect your competitors, partner and the time everyone in the room puts into this activity.

- I like to vote for the team that made the world a better place. That is my very Important criteria for judging of debate rounds

Finally make the debate fun. Being nice is good. Smile and have fun. Winning and losing is a part of life so have fun and enjoy and do your best.

I am a lay judge and have some basic knowledge of the structure of PF.

Please speak slowly and tag all your arguments properly so I know what point you are referring to.

I look for clear weighing and claims for why I should vote for your side.

Also, please be respectful to each other in the debate.

(he/him)

- For PF, you can use my partners paradigm: https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?search_first=saad&search_last=jamal

- Competed in PF for 4 years at Dougherty Valley

- I have minimal experience with any type of argument not traditionally run in PF (Ks, theory, etc.).

email: kiranshreyas29@berkeley.edu

Please speak clearly and do not go too fast. I am a parent judge, but I do understand content well as long as it is explained well in all of your speeches.

Please specify your contentions and impacts very clearly in your constructives and make sure to explain the entire argument that you are going for in summary/final focus.

Please do not go for all of your arguments in later speeches. Also, do not make claims without giving a reason as to why it may be true.

Do not make any responses to your opponents’ case if it is not explained properly.

Do not misconstrue your evidence or your speaker points will be deducted.

Have a good round!

Hi, I'm Vijay. Here are my preferences for the round:

- Clearly state your contentions

- Speak slowly

- No theory. I don't understand it.

Other than that, everything else is up to you. Have fun!

Background

I am a software engineer. I judge for Dougherty Valley, and have judged in the past at a few tournaments in Lincoln Douglas and Public Forum. I do take notes during debate so i can refer back to understand a debater's logic and the points he made.

Speaker Points

Following are my criteria for scoring speaker points:

a) Speak loudly and clearly instead of speaking too fast. 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) Good behavior and treating everyone around with respect.

c) It would be nice to explain it to me as if i am unfamiliar with the topic. I will not influence myself with what i already know about the topic.

Decisions

Based on the criteria mentioned above, I will make my best attempt to be fair. I base my decision on clarity and logic. Also, I pay attention to how well one performs in one's responses in the crossfire.

hello! i did pf and currently coach at dougherty valley high school. the tldr is that i'm a flow judge and i really prioritize rounds being educational, inclusive, and fun, but the specifics are below. if you have questions or need anything, let me know or reach out through facebook/email!

- first and foremost, be a nice person! racism, sexism, homophobia, ableism, elitism, and exclusion in general suck and i have zero tolerance for it. please also include content warnings for arguments when necessary

- the keys to my ballot are collapsing, proper extensions, and weighing/comparative analysis — i love love love when when weighing is prioritized and treated like any other argument that needs warranting and clash

- second rebuttal should at least respond to all offensive arguments from first rebuttal; first summary doesn't have to repeat defense that wasn’t previously frontlined

- i care a lot about properly representing evidence and will intervene here if necessary — i also like when people read cut cards instead of paraphrasing

- progressive arguments are fine/welcomed as long as you don’t debate them in an exclusionary way, but i have limited experience debating them so please explain things

- i start speaks at a baseline of 28.5 and predominantly base them on technical skill, but they will be higher if you don't paraphrase or if you make the round more interesting and fun!

- add me to the email chain: vivikuang8052@gmail.com

good luck and have fun!

I come from a background of Policy debate so I am open to most things. I care about evidence and responses to arguments. Ask me whatever other specific questions you have before the round.

I am a Parent Judge and been doing this since 2017, I mostly judge debates. I am convinced with the team/person who were able to convince me regarding the resolution. I would like the debater's not speak too fast, but clearly. I am of the opinion of being respectful of others opinion and wait for their turn to speak. I am mostly swayed who is able articulate with cool head. I am interested most of the topics and does some research.

she/her/hers

I debated PF for Los Altos for 4 years.

Ask if you have additional questions or you want my email to ask.

Stolen from Ashley Cai's <3 paradigm:

I really appreciate link debates and I won't vote off something unless I somewhat understand it. I always value solid warranting over card dumping.

I have a pretty high threshold for evaluating really squirrelly arguments/responses/turns and offensive second rebuttal overviews or other kinds of sus stuff.

I'm not super familiar with Theory/K's but if you explain it to me thoroughly I am willing to evaluate it. If you read it WITHOUT your opponent's consent/knowledge and are reading for an "easy win", you are making debate inaccessible and I will drop you.

*DO NOT straight up lie. I will tank your speaks and drop the argument. Please, PLEASE ask for evidence if you are suspicious of your opponent lying about evidence, and tell me to look at it.

Parent judge; my child is a Varsity Public Forum debater at Palo Alto High School. 
In order for me to better understand you can you please email me your cases before speaking. My email is deepalallas@gmail.com

A lay judge who's been judging for a few years now, I'm not a big fan of frameworks and I absolutely do not do Theory.

Dougherty Valley '19

The Ohio State University '23

Add me to the email Chain: lee.8871@osu.edu

he/they

If you are comfortable, please email me a speech doc before each speech. It makes judging so much easier especially on zoom :)

-----------------

FOR yale,

haven't judged in lowkey a minute, be kind. Haven't judged on the topic either so i'm not too familiar with the literature, cards, etc. If there is a problem, make it clear, if an argument doesn't make sense, tell me why.

------------------

I competed nationally in PF and Extemp in HS, did a bit of Congress and LD as well.

I am tabula Rasa, and I'll vote on anything.
I try really hard to be non-interventional, but with more and more debaters reading scripts instead of cards, etc. I've grown the habit of calling for cards to confirm statements made by debaters.

In general:

I like warranted arguments. In fact, I would buy a strong Warranted and logical argument over an argument backed my evidence any day. Although I'll vote on anything, this is just how I evaluate it. I really enjoy impact calculus and would like to see that starting to be set up in Summary and maybe even in rebuttal. Just be really clear and extend your links cleanly.

I believe that 2nd Rebuttal should frontline, at least that's what I always did. I think it is a better competitive choice for 2nd Speaking team. At least touch the major offensive points of the case.

I am open to any critical argument and theory; however, I HATE frivolous theory. While I Think debate is a game, I do believe that public forum was an event made to be accessible to all as LD and policy became more progressive. That being said, go for it but proceed at your own caution.

Go as fast as you want, I'll tell you if you're going too fast. but for zoom, go slower.

Speaks depends on my mood. I won't ever go lower than a 27 for national rounds unless you give me a reason to tho.

Wear what you want, I just care about what you say (although I will include feedback for future lay rounds)

MY PARADIGM is also very similar to Saad Jamals:)

https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=70840

Don't be afraid to ask Questions before the round because I know this Paradigm is short, but don't overcomplicate it!

I have been a debate judge since this year. I don't have any preferences on debate.

Hi all,

It is my 2nd time to the judge of this speech and debate program.

And it is my pleasure to be here.

Best Regards,

Jack Z. Lin

Evergreen , San Jose, CA

I am a parent lay judge. I prefer for deeper analysis into arguments, instead of repeating the same basic reasoning over and over throughout a round. I also don't carry any biases within the round over which arguments you run, but there's also a limit to how far you can push the logic of an argument. Going slow so I can follow is also extremely important in the round, and it's probably one of the main things I'm looking for. Comparison of arguments is good, and don't use any jargon, I'm not going to understand it. Crossfires are also something that I pay attention to, so make sure to respond to questions immediately, rather than sit there for a few seconds pondering the answer. Speaker points are also updated throughout the duration of the round, and continuing to speak well with good gestures and posture will also be important.

Little bit of background, I debated PF for 4 years with MVLA, but haven't competed since Sept 2019 or judged since Mar 2020, so don't expect me to be the most tech/flow judge out there. I haven't done any research on this topic beforehand.

If there are any accommodations that you may need during round, please let me or your opponents know so we can try to work something out. Debate should be educational, not a place for you to bully other students.

tl;dr

Please extend your links and impacts through summary and final focus. Anything that's crucial must be there if you want me to vote on it. Otherwise, speak clearly, signpost, and don't be rude.

Trigger Warnings:

- you NEED to read a trigger warning and provide time for response if you're addressing a sensitive topic. saying trigger warning and moving on isn't enough

Argumentation:

- prefer a strong analytical arg over a bunch of cards (of course please have cards to back up your arguments though). I won't vote off of something that I don't understand

- anything important must be in summary and FF if you want me to vote on it. make all necessary links for your impact clear to me!!!

- weigh, weigh, WEIGH!

- not familiar with theory, but if you explain it clearly enough, I'm willing to evaluate it

Cross:

- anything important that comes up during cross needs to be brought up in speech. I generally don't flow it or pay attention

Speaking:

- I can keep up with some speed, but you shouldn't need to in order to articulate your argument

- with that being said, wifi may be against you so I'd advise you don't speak too quickly or I can't guarantee I understood what you said

- I won't hesitate to tank your speaks if you're rude or disrespectful

- use jargon if you'd like, but that doesn't mean you don't need to explain your args

- signpost, number args, etc. to make it easier for me to refer to on my flow since I can't guarantee I've flowed every word out of your mouth

Evidence:

- DO NOT LIE. that's all.

- I'll call cards if you tell me to/if you're accused of misconstruing or miscutting a card

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!!

My occupation is from a school background where I work with FUSD. I will make my decision based on whoever can prove their impact. The side with strong evidence and arguments that make sense will get my vote. During round don't spread and be kind to everyone. I don't flow, but I will take notes during the round. Dress well, but most importantly speak clearly and make sure you have evidence to back up your points. Good Luck!

I debated Parli for four years at Leland High School. I qualified to States and TOC. I can handle any speed, and I prefer logical arguments, whatever style. I'll try to give 30's or close to across the board.

I am a parent judge and have been actively judging since 2019 in multiple national tournaments. I have completed the NSDA judge training and Cultural Competency course. As a global business professional, I travel extensively and am fairly familiar with most topics debated in NSDA PF.

Speak at a reasonable pace – clarity is your responsibility. If you make an argument, you should explain and weigh the argument. Warranting is important. Clearly signpost throughout the round. Extending an impact, without explaining its warrant won’t win you the impact. Paraphrasing is fine – but needs to be accurate. Explain clear voting issues in the final focus. I like to hear why you should win.

Cards: Exchange of cards is mandatory when requested. If you cannot produce a card in 2 minutes, I will ignore it.

Timing: Time yourself (rounds and prep)

Audience: This is public forum – public (especially parents) are welcome.

I am a parent judge so please speak slowly and articulate your arguments clearly.

I will try my best to keep track but use numbered responses and label your contentions.

List voter issues in summary and final focus for why I should vote for you.

Please be respectful and have fun!

Hello I am a new debate parent judge:

pls do not speak fast

I am not familiar with any progressive argumentation and will not vote off of it.

I am truth>tech

Very lay judge, speak slow and have fun.

I competed in Lincoln Douglas for 3 years and Public Forum for 4 years (I started debate in middle school).

I qualled to TOCs as a sophomore. RIP Harker Nichols Invitational <3

I'm currently a freshman at Georgetown University.

Speak as fast as you want. I will flow it.

I don't keep up with these topics but I will probably understand the general idea well enough so you don't need to water it down or anything.

No progressive arguments. I left Lincoln Douglas for a reason.

If you reference avatar the last airbender in your speech I will not boost your speaks, but I will think you're pretty cool :)

PF: Please be very organized in your speeches and signpost. It makes it easier to flow. Speak slowly and clearly for all your speeches and please provide an off time road-map. Please don't disrespect your opponents. Have fun!

I am a lay, parent judge.

Please talk clearly and slowly (no spreading). Please debate a PF round (no kritiks or theory or counter plan). Please be polite, especially in crossfire. I like signposting and please make each response clear.

Looking forward to the debate.

Hi,

I am not a lay judge, so I will be judging your points.

Decision making:

I may or may not flow, but please go in order. I will look for who has won arguments-wise, or I will go by who has better proved the standard (If there is one). I will particularly be looking at weighing impacts. Personally, I find weighing impact super important, so please do that. My expectation for each part of the debate has been posted below

First Speaker Speech

- Pretty Standard

- You have fifteen seconds to finish your speech after your time is up

All Crossfires

- Ask actually questions

- Don't just waste time asking stupid questions

- If your question is related to cards or sources, just check the card in Prep, don't ask them to read it out loud.

Summary

- 3 minutes long

- I will pay special attention to this speech; use it well!!!

- Weigh, Weigh, and Weigh! If your opponents don't weigh, and you do weigh, you will automatically be put up in my decision making for the round.

Final Focus

- 2 minutes long

- Anything you mention in this speech I will consider in my decision, so if you had something important, bring it up again here

- Like summary, Weigh!!!

Prep time

- 3 minutes

- You can ask for cards here

Sources

- If your opponents ask for a card, you have 1.5 minutes to bring it up, or it will be dropped

- If I find your sources fishy or suspicious, I will check them

- If I catch you with fake sources, you will lose the round

- Don't search anything up during the debate

- Don't make things up during the debate

Speaker Points / Cheating

- Being formal and good etiquette will win you some speaker points

- If you get heating up or start yelling you will lose speaker points

- There is a fine line between provoking and straight-up bullying

- If you cheat in any way, You will get a significant deduction in speaker points.

- I will not tolerate, sexual, racial, or offensive statements of any manner.

- Any offensive comments will not only cause you to lose the round, but I will also report you to the tournament officials or tabroom.

Good luck with it and have fun with the debate!

*Any other information I bring up at the start of the debate is included in my paradigm.

Be civil

Focus on good speaking and persuasion, no spreading

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Flow judge

PF: I don't flow cross. Make sure to weigh.

Parli: I prefer on-case debate, but feel free to go somewhat fast. Please refrain from running Kritiks, and only run Theory when absolutely necessary.

This is my 3rd year as a parent debate judge.

I appreciate careful and reasonably-paced speaking, good evidence and knowledge of your sources. Make eye contact with me and convince me with good evidence and a carefully made argument.

I reward speakers - w/ higher points - who make a presentation effort - (eye contact, slowing down on impact work, grouping & weighing in final speeches vs. a line by line) but will give high speaks to other kinds of debaters too.

Do not talk over your opponent. Follow up questions can be useful, but be courteous to your opponents' need to question you. Discourtesy will result in deducted speaker points.

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.)

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 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 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.

Hello All,

Background

I work in the Technology Sector in the Bay Area. I judge for Dougherty Valley, and though I am quite novice at judging, I have watched a lot of rounds and have a good understanding of the format and logistics.

As a heads-up, I plan to take notes during the debate, but it is better if you treat me as a "lay" judge.

I have a good amount of general knowledge on the topics provided for these events, but may not know the specifics of your topic.

Preferences

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 more clearly.

b) Be polite and fair to your opponent. If you are outright rude (ie. yelling, mocking, laughing, cutting opponents off) you will not get good speaks. Also, please note 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 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 not carry personal biases into the round.

I will vote for the team that explains their warrants and why their impacts matter to me.

If your arguments are too complicated to be understood by the average person, then I will probably be less likely to vote for you.

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

I expect teams to time their speeches themselves. But, if you want me to time, I can do that as well.

If you think that I should look at your/your opponent's evidence, please let me know.

Good luck!

I did 2 years of circuit debate pretty competitively.

I try to be flow, only two things kinda different about me:

1. Terminal defense exists to infinity. If you never frontline an argument your opponents defensive ink still exists on my flow. Them not extending responses is not an excuse. Extensions of terminal defense are never necessary, just appreciated. You will never win an argument if defense against it is dropped.

2. I care more about warrants than impacts. Weighing an impact is irrelevant at the point that you do not win the links into the impact. If there is clash at the warrant level make sure to weigh links and actually explain to me why your warrant should be preferred to that of your opponents.

I'll evaluate any claim backed up in evidence or logic, run crazy shit, it's fun

Elkins '20 | TAMU

Email: a9pratap@gmail.com

messenger is preferred

i did PF for 4 years throughout the texas circuit

General

- Debate is a game. I consider myself to be tech > truth. I'm going to vote for the team with the least mitigated link chain into the best weighed impact

- Speed: go as fast as you want but provide a speech doc and go slow on tags if you are faster than what is considered normal for the activity. I’ll yell clear once and allow anyone in the round to call it whenever. Just keep in mind the faster you go the more likely I am to miss something or lag behind so do it at your own risk.

- Signposting and weighing are essential

- I’m fine with flex prep and open cross

Progressive stuff

- I won’t say that I will not evaluate any any Ks, theory, or other forms of technical argumentation from Policy/LD that are not common in PF, but I am incredibly uncomfortable with my ability to seriously evaluate these. The only exception is offensive overviews or DA’s in second rebuttal, don’t

Rebuttal

- I won’t require you to frontline in second rebuttal, anything not responded to is conceded

- Any defense that you concede to should be conceded in the speech immediately after it was read

o A concession requires an implication of how the defense interacts with tour argument not just “we concede to the delinks”

- Turns conceded in second rebuttal or first summary have a 100% probability and can only be beaten back by outweighing them

Summary/Final

- Caveat on turns. I believe that if you extend a link turn on their case, you must also make the delineation of what the impact of that turn is otherwise I don't really know what the point of the turn is.

- Case offense/ turns need to be extended by author name or source otherwise I will not extend it for you

o do- “extend jones who writes that extensions like these are good because they are easier to follow”

o don't do “remember we tell you extensions like these are good”

- For an argument to be voteable I want uniqueness/ link/ impact to be extended

- New evidence is only fine for frontlining in first summary, defense must be extended since they 3 mins

- For FF, a good friend told me it should include everything you tell your friends/teammates after the round is over. Write my ballot for me.

- Weighing must be made before final focus, the only type of new weighing allowed is responding to it from second summary, second summary is last chance to weigh. Personally I think link weighing is more convincing than impact weighing.

- I do not think weighing is essential in winning my ballot but it definitely helps

- For FF extensions I don’t have a high threshold, all I need is your explanation of your link story and its impact.

Other

- Evidence, I will only call for it if someone in the round explicitly tells me to. I’ve always been a firm believer that a good analytic with a good warrant beats a great empiric with no warrant. Use that to your advantage. You’ll have a minute to pull the evidence your opponents called for before your speaks start getting docked (exception- the wifi is bad/something is paywalled and you have to go around it)

- Speaks, I will reward them based on strategy and decorum

- Cross, it is binding and I will pay attention any crucial point has to be brought up in a speech for me to evaluate it

Do not

- Spread on novices- I understand you want the dub but remember you were also there at one point and also what good is beating a novice team you could’ve beaten anyways by spreading (includes reading disclosure/progressive stuff on novices)

- Say something that’s blatantly racist/sexist/misogynistic/xenophobic and all those ists

- Read a K-style argument dealing with identity when you aren’t a member of that group.

o i.e- dont read a fem K if you’re a male male team and ESPECIALLY dont read it on females if you’re a male male team, that is just trivializing the argument

- having moving target warrants that change from speech to speech

other than that I agree with nilay raj and bryan with few stylistic differences

Background

I've done debate for five years, with just over four years of that in Public Forum. I've also had limited exposure to Policy debate. However, I may not have had time to research the resolution, so do not assume I have extensive knowledge on the topic.

Public Forum Paradigm

I am a firm believer in evidence ethics. I strongly dislike paraphrased evidence. It's very easy to misconstrue evidence in round, especially under standard time constraints. From past experience both as a debater and a judge, I've encountered numerous cases of paraphrased evidence being used as a cover for faulty logic or distorting the source material. The best way to present your evidence is reading the cut card verbatim.

If I ever suspect that evidence is being misconstrued, I will call for it after the round. Even if your opponent didn't call it out in round, I will drop any card that I believe clearly violates evidence ethics.

To maintain evidence ethics, I'm open to allowing card calling off-time, if both sides are fine with it.

Speak at a reasonable speed. Speaking fast is fine, as long as you are speaking clearly. I don't like full-on spreading in public forum, but I will flow your speech either way.

No theory, Ks, plans, or any of that - I will not flow them. Public Forum is designed to be accessible, and even as a flow judge familiar with these concepts, I will not tolerate them in PF. I would discourage framework debates as well; if you think that you can only win your case based off of some random weighing mechanism or definition that you cherry picked to fit your arguments, you should probably rethink your case. Focus on the arguments, not on technicalities.

Generally I will pay close attention to, but will not flow cross examinations. The only exception is that any concessions made in cross will be upheld for the rest of the round. Cross will mainly be used to show me which arguments to focus on, as well as speaks.

Summary speech should primarily be used for collapsing. Final focus should primarily be used for weighing. If you want access to an impact, extend it through summary, or I will assume that you kicked out of it.

Clash your arguments. Don't just explain to me why you're right, explain to me why your opponents are wrong and especially why your opponents' refutations are wrong. I want to hear real responses, not just canned arguments you had in your block file or extensions through ink.

Logical responses are fine, but carded responses are better. I have a short tolerance for logical leaps, so if you want to use logic use it wisely. Between a carded argument and a logical argument, I will almost always prefer the card unless there is an adequate enough explanation to convince me otherwise.

I'm very open to unique arguments even if they're extreme, so long as you can back it with a solid link chain. Poorly devised unique arguments should be avoided for any judge. I don't necessarily weigh probability over magnitude, so you have some leeway for unique arguments.

First speakers, try to make yourself useful during grand cross! I've seen a lot of rounds where the first speaker just sits mute after summary and the second speaker has to take over instead of using the time to prep for final focus.

Keep composure during crossfire. Be polite and professional all around for a good round and good speaks.

If you want a circuit judge, you should probably strike me. I'm a very traditional LD judge.

Talking Speed:

- I do not like spreading; please keep speeches at a traditional pace.

- If you spread, I probably won't flow your arguments.

Arguments and Cards:

- I will call for evidence if I am asked to.

- All arguments should have a clear claim, warrant, and impact.

- All cards should be tagged.

Theory/T:

- I do not like theory debates.

- I will absolutely not vote on theory/T.

Plans:

- I generally do not like to weigh offense from plans, but I will if I have to...

- Try and keep the resolution as broad as possible.

Framework:

- I am not well-versed in philosophy so keep it simple for me.

- Tell me why you win framework, and how your arguments link into it.

- I try to be tabula rasa with framework, but I do generally vote util.

I am new to judging PF and LD. I will try to take notes of arguments but am not familiar with more complicated theory. Typically should be ok if explained well. Please do not spread as I will not follow your arguments. I sometimes have hard time following if you are going at 100mph. So I appreciate if you speak slowly.

You need the support your arguments through evidence but that evidence must also be explained and impacted for me to evaluate it. I do not prefer advanced framing or philosophical debates but would prefer an in depth discussion of the topic.

Civility is the key. Please do not be rude to your opponents or speak over them. Debate should be a civic forum and open to all. Please remain respectful at all times.

All the best !!

I am a lay judge, who has been judging in the New England area for the last three years. I have debated in my high school and college days some 25 years ago, and by no means was that structured the way debates run today. I have picked up some of the PF debating jargon, but am definitely not at expert level yet. So, please do not assume I'm familiar with debating jargon and don't assume that I'm familiar with arguments, just because they've been common on this year's topic.

I'm not logistically challenged, so please feel free to find a comfortable spot that works best for you and makes you feel confident. This is about you not me.

Public Forum (PF) is supposed to appeal to a lay audience. Be very clear with arguments and thorough with your rebuttals. All I require is that I can understand the argument. Clarity is more important than speed for me, so please DO NOT SPREAD. I value quality over quantity. It is extremely difficult to listen, digest and take notes, when the debater speaks too fast! I often say, if you can't reach me, you have already lost the round!

Provide and agree on definitions, so that everyone including your opponents and the judges are the same page. Provide citations and be sure to explain how the cited information supports or refutes a point. I'm not big on statistics for the sake of statistics. Please remember numbers and arguments can be twisted any which way to support or refute a hypothesis. So, analysis and interpretation needs to be logical, reasonable, and believable. Please don't resort to doomsday soothsaying. It doesn't grab my attention, unless you can prove your impacts with the right evidence and logic!

I place a premium on well-supported "real-world" links, but this doesn't mean you throw a bunch of stats/ or jargon at me, you'll definitely lose me. Instead warrant/ impact your arguments logically to their full conclusion, make sure there is ACTUAL CLASH and possible vote. It is best to show me that your evidence presents a coherent story with both warrants and resulting conclusions that support your argument. Consistency with historical precedence/ the world we live in is very important for me. I'm open to hypothetical/ theoretical/ creative argumentation, as long as you can support your argument with logical reasoning, specific evidence/ statistics and/or historical antecedents from around the global. Remember, history doesn't belong only to the United States. Research global historical events and use them to your advantage.

In conclusion, my ballot often depends more on link credibility than on impact magnitude. Outline the case, restate and/or carry your main points into the summaries and final focus. Do not introduce new arguments after the first summary and do not forget to extend your case. Crystallize your case for me. DO NOT make me do the analysis and conclusions for you! I may get it completely wrong and you may not like the result!

Please don't make morally reprehensible arguments. For more detailed feelings about specific arguments, feel free to ask me before the round. During crossX, please be inquisitive, investigative and probing, but not contentious or disrespectful. CAMARADERIE and HUMOR are always a PLUS! Most importantly, have fun debating and learn from each of these amazing experiences. Enjoy!

I was a policy debater and as a result I like evidence and logic. I want most of your arguments to use some sort of evidence but it’s okay if you don’t have any. I want to see the impact of your arguments and how they relate to the topic and what they would do in the real world. I will pretty much vote on anything you can prove has an impact that goes for aff and neg. I’m not too worried about all the technical aspects of debate but if you know them use them. Basically pretend that I’m a congressman and that you’re trying to convince me what law to pass or veto.

Please use this email for speech docs and whatever. vrivasumana@tgsastaff.com

OK here's the deal. I did policy debate for 4 years in high school and two semesters in college (once in 2007 and recently in 2016 in Policy Debate). I have coached Public Forum for the last 12 years at various schools and academies including but not limited to: James Logan High School 17-18, Mission San Jose 14-17, Saratoga High School 17-19, Milpitas High School 17-present, Joaquin Miller Middle School 15-present.

Judged Tournaments up until probably 2008 and have not been judging since 2019. I judge primarily public forum rounds but do feel comfortable judging policy debate as it was the event I did in high school (primarily a policy maker debater as opposed to K/Theory) I also judged Lincoln Douglas Debate a few times at some of the national tournaments throughout california but it was not a debate I did in high school. For me my philosophy is simple, just explain what you are talking about clearly. That means if you're going to spread, be clear. If you are going to spread in front of me right now, do not go too fast as I have not judged in awhile so I may have hard time catching certain ideas so please slow down on your tags and cites. Don't think speech docs will fix this issue either. Many of you are too reliant on these docs to compensate for your horrible clarity.

Public Forum: please make sure Summary and final focus are consistent in messaging and voters. dropped voters in summary that are extended in final focus will probably not be evaluated. I can understand a bit of speed since I did policy but given this is public forum, I would rather you not spread. talking a bit fast is fine but not full on spreading.

UPDATE as of 1/5/24: If you plan to run any theory/framework arguments in PF, please refer to my point below for policy when it comes to what I expect. Please for the sake of my sanity and everyone in the round, slow down when reading theory. There is no need to spread it if you feel you are winning the actual argument. Most of you in PF can't spread clearly and would be put to shame by the most unclearest LDer or CX debater.

Policy wise:
I am not fond of the K but I will vote for it if explained properly. If I feel it was not, do not expect me to vote for it I will default to a different voting paradigm, most likely policy maker.
-IF you expect me to vote on Theory or topicality please do a good job of explaining everything clearly and slowly. a lot of times theory and topicality debates get muddled and I just wont look at it in the end. EDIT as of 1/28: I am not too fond of Theory and Topicality debates as they happen now. Many of you go too fast and are unclear which means I don't get your analysis or blippy warrants under standards or voting issues. Please slow the eff down for theory and T if you want me to vote on it.

LD:
I will vote for whatever paradigm you tell me to vote for if you clearly explain the implications, your standards and framework.
-I know you guys spread now like Policy debaters but please slow down as I will have a hard time following everything since its been awhile.

I guess LD has become more like policy and the more like policy it sounds, the easier it is for me to follow. Except for the K and Theory, I am open for all other policy arguments. Theory and K debaters, look above ^^^^

UPDATE FOR LD at Golden Desert and Tournaments moving forward. I don't think many of you really want me as a judge for the current topic or any topic moving forward. My experience in LD as a coach is limited which means my topic knowledge is vague. That means if you are going to pref me as 1 or 2 or 3, I would recommend that you are able to break down your argumentation into the most basic vocabulary or understanding of the topic. If not, you will leave it up to me to interpret the information that you presented as I see fit (if you are warranting and contextualizing your points especially with Ks, we should be fine, if not, I won't call for the cards and I will go with what I understood). I try to go off of what you said and what is on your speech docs but ultimately if something is unclear, I will go with what makes the most sense to me. If you run policy arguments we should be fine (In the order of preference, policy making args including CPs, DAs, case turns and solvency take outs, Ks, Topicality/Theory <--these I don't like in LD or in Policy in general as explained above). Given this information please use this information to pref me. I would say DA/CP debaters should pref me 1 and 2. anyone else should pref me lower unless you have debated in front of me before and you feel I can handle your arguments. Again if its not CP/DA and case take outs you are preffing me higher at your own risk. Given many of you only have three more tournaments to get Bids (if that is your goal for GD, Stanford, Berkeley) then I would recommend you don't have me as your judge as I would not feel as qualified to judge LD as I would judging most policy rounds and Public forum rounds. Is this lame? kinda. But hey I am trying to be honest and not have someone hate me for a decision I made. if you have more questions before GD, please email me at vrivasumana@tgsastaff.com

For all debaters:
clarity: enunciate and make sure you are not going too fast I cannot understand
explain your evidence: I HATE pulling cards at the end of a round. If I have to, do not expect high speaker points. I will go off what was said in the debate so if you do not explain your evidence well, I will not consider it in the debate.

Something I have thought about since it seems that in Public Forum and even in other debates power tagging evidence has become an issue, I am inclined to give lower speaker points for someone who gives me evidence they claimed says one thing and it doesn't. If it is in out rounds, I may be inclined to vote against you as well. This is especially true in PF where the art of power tagging has taken on a life of its own and its pretty bad. I think something needs to get done about this and thus I want to make it very clear if you are in clear violation of this and you present me with evidence that does not say what it does, I am going to sit there and think hard about how I want to evaluate it. I may give you the win but on low points. Or I may drop you if it is in outrounds. I have thought long and hard about this and I am still unsure how I want to approach this but given how bad the situation is beginning to get with students just dumping cards and banking on people not asking questions, I think something needs to be done.

anything else feel free to ask me during the round. thanks.

I am an old policy debater from high school and college. A very successful one at that, although that was a long time ago (yes, I too went to TOC and yes, they had it back then). I do flow and will do my best to render my decision solely on the arguments presented in the round. I have no preconceived biases for or against any position on the topic. It should be your job as debaters to tell my why your evidence is superior or why your position outweighs at the end of the round. If you have a framework, you should use it in rebuttals and/or final focus to frame why it means you should win. If both teams offer frameworks, there should be some clash to explain why I should choose one framework over the other.

I have a strong opinion about evidence: I have been told that the minimum standard for citing evidence in rounds is author's last name and date; if you don't have that much, it isn't treated as evidence, it is just you speaking your mind. If you want something considered as evidence in a round, you have to *read it in the round.* You can't just say "we have a card which says..." and somehow assume that now counts as evidence.

A note on jargon: there are a few terms of art that I have heard a few times in Public Forum and they are not very clear. Frontlining, for example, is used by some people to basically mean what we used to call "preempts" meaning an argument made before the opponent in the expectation that the opponent will make that argument. Like "they will get up here and say sunlight is good but here are 3 reasons why that is wrong." Coaches have told me this is the correct usage. Other teams have used it synonymously with "response" as in "I am going to frontline their case then go to my case." That is apparently the incorrect usage, but if you are going to use the word, explain what you mean by it. Offense and defense are also super overused since your offense is their defense and vice versa so asserting that I "shouldn't give them any offense on this" ends up being confusing. Just tell me why they are losing an argument - if they have lost the argument it is irrelevant whether it is an offensive argument or a defensive argument and for which team; they have lost it. Unless you are punting (granting) something, in which case just tell me why that argument doesn't matter (e.g. outweighed, de-linked elsewhere, irrelevant according to the framework I should be using, etc.). Saying I shouldn't give them any "offense" on that argument is just extra words - you have already explained why it doesn't matter so I can figure out for myself that that means...well, it doesn't matter. Terminal defense - I have heard this a couple of times and nobody has/can explain what it is supposed to mean, including the head of the judges room at Stanford. If you say this, tell me what you think it means!

I am a lay judge. Speak slowly and clearly. Be respectful of your opponents.

I am looking for clear arguments backed by data. I pay close attention to cross-fires as they are a good place to show your understanding of the opponents point of view and your ability to counter them. Lastly i want my teams to be spirited yet respectful.

I've debated for 7 years and have judged on/off for 4 years.

I will be flowing.

Good luck !

I am a “flay judge” so I have knowledge of debate, mainly PF. As for speaking preference you can speak at your pace as long as you enunciate your syllables. Do not expect that I have topical knowledge or understand acronyms, explain them in speech or in your constructive. A couple of simple rules

a) No off-time roadmaps as these don't add value to the debate

b) Asking for everyone ready - not necessary as long as prep isn't running then everyone should be ready.

c) Do not exceed your speech by 15-30 seconds as I will deduct speaker points for that

In principle my preference is not to run theory but if you are going with it, please explain it in a logical manner and do not assume that I know a lot of the debate jargon. Explain it in your speech. Keep it short and do not just run theory to throw off the other team; it needs to be purposeful and rarely used, especially in a lay debate such as PF.

I ask that you use argumentation and back up your ideas with evidence. Logical analysis is okay if you use logic and not assumptions. Respond to your opponent's ideas.

WEIGH!! In your final focus, tell me why your arguments matter more.

Intro: My Name is Nirav Shah and I Will Be Your Judge Today. I Am a Traditional Flow Pf Judge With Extensive Experience. I Flow All Speeches With Great Detail. My Son is a Debater for Dougherty Valley (Ivan). I've Judged at Gtoc, Cal Rr, Stanford, Berk, Presentation, Asu, Cal States, and So Much More.

General Pf Preferences: I Try to Keep My Evaluation Exclusively to the Flow. In-round Weighing of Arguments Combined With the Strength of Link and Conceded Arguments. I Default to Arguments With Substantive Warranted Analysis. Please Collapse on the Most Important Voters in the Round. The Defense Should Be Extended in Both Summary Speeches if You Want to Go for It in the Final Focus. Be Respectful in Cross as I Pay Close Attention to It. Don't Speak Too Fast but if You Do Please Give Me the Speech Doc. Time Yourself and Make Your Opponents Accountable for Their Speech and Prep Timings. Weigh Your Impacts and Explain the Comparison. Provide an Off-time Roadmap in Every Back Half Speech Onwards From the Second Rebuttal. Time Yourself and Make Your Opponents Accountable for Their Speech and Prep Timings. Weigh Your Impacts and Explain the Comparison. Provide an Off-time Roadmap in Every Back Half Speech Onwards From the Second Rebuttal

Evidence: I Strongly Encourage Debaters to Cut Cards as Opposed to Hyperlinking a Google Doc. I Call for a Lot of Evidence After the Round Instead of Looking Through It During the Round. (Only Contested Pieces of Evidence)

Speaker Points (on Average 29.3): Used to Indicate How Good I Think Debaters Are in a Particular Round Along With Substance

Prog: I Have a High Bar for Abuse for Theory Argument but You Can Run Them as Long as It is a Genuine Violation. I Wouldn't Run Any Non-topical Ks on Me. Topical Ks Are Fine. I have extensive experience with Sec, Militarization, Orientalism, Cap, EcoAuthoritiasm (Ill buy More but It'll Be My First)

Other: I'll give an Oral RFD

Have Fun!

Feel Free to Email Me Any Questions or Concerns. (Also Add Me to the Ev Email Chain if You Are Making One). Email: Niravdhira@gmail.com

I employ a simple rubric when judging: (a) logical reasoning (b) strong evidence (c) effective rebuttal/refuting of opponent's claims (d) strong clash (e) clear articulation of argument and (e) respect. I'm a relatively inexperienced judge, so I'll ask debaters to inform me if I'm missing something regarding technicalities/protocol or could be doing something to enable a better debate.

UPDATED 6/1/2022 NSDA Nationals Congress Update

I have been competing and judging in speech and debate for the past 16 years now. I did Parli and Public Forum in High School, and Parli, LD and Speech in College. I have judged all forms of High School Debate. Feel free to ask me more in depth questions in round if you don't understand a part of my philosophy.

Congress

Given that my background is in debate I tend to bring my debate biases into Congress. While I understand that this event is a mix of argumentation and stylistic speaking I don't think pretty speeches are enough to get you a high rank in the round. Overall I tend to judge Congress rounds based off of argument construction, style of delivery, clash with opponents, quality of evidence, and overall participation in the round. I tend to prefer arguments backed by cited sources and that are well reasoned. I do not prefer arguments that are mainly based in emotional appeals, purely rhetoric speeches usually get ranked low and typically earn you a 9. Be mindful of the speech you are giving. I think that sponsorship speeches should help lay the foundation for the round, I should hear your speech and have a full grasp of the bill, what it does, why it's important, and how it will fix the problems that exist in the squo. For clash speeches they should actually clash, show me that you paid attention to the round, and have good responses to your opponents. Crystallizations should be well organized and should be where you draw my conclusions for the round, I shouldn't be left with any doubts or questions.

POs will be ranked in the round based off of their efficiency in running and controlling the round. I expect to POs to be firm and well organized. Don't be afraid of cutting off speakers or being firm on time limits for questioning.

Public Forum

• I know how to flow and will flow.
  • This means I require a road map.
  • I need you to sign post and tell me which contention you are on. Use author/source names.
• I will vote on Ks. But this means that your K needs to have framework and an alt and solvency. If you run a K my threshold for voting on it is going to be high. I don't feel like there is enough time in PF to read a good K but I am more than willing to be open to it and be proven wrong. For anyone who hits a K in front of me 'Ks are cheating' is basically an auto loss in front of me.
• I will vote on theory. But this doesn't mean that I will vote for all theory. Theory in debate is supposed to move this activity forwards. Which means that theory about evidence will need to prove that there is actual abuse occurring in order for me to evaluate it. I think there should be theory in Public Forum because this event is still trying to figure itself out but I do not believe that all theory is good theory. And theory that is playing 'gotcha' is not good theory. Having good faith is arbitrary but I think that the arguments made in round will determine it. Feel free to ask questions.
• Be strategic and make good life choices.
• Impact calc is the best way to my ballot.
• I will vote on case turns.
• I will call for cards if it comes down to it.

Policy Debate

I tend to vote more for truth over tech. That being said, nothing makes me happier than being able to vote on T. I love hearing a good K. Spread fast if you want but at a certain point I will miss something if you are going top speed because I flow on paper, I do know how to flow I'm just not as fast as those on a laptop. Feel free to ask me any questions before round.


LD Debate

Fair warning it has been a few years since I have judged high level LD. Ask me questions if I'm judging you.

Framework
You do not win rounds if you win framework. You win that I judge the round via your framework. When it comes to framework I'm a bit odd and a bit old school. I function under the idea that Aff has the right to define the round. And if Neg wants to me to evaluate the round via their framework then they need to prove some sort of abuse.

Hi! I am a parent of a high school Policy Forum debater. Years ago (and I mean a long time ago) I was a policy debater and Extemp speaker in the Midwest I flow all the rounds

While I can handle some pace in speaking, I favor clearly articulated arguments supported by evidence and solid argumentation rather than spread. I appreciate a respectful approach to your opponent. During cross, please allow your opponent to finish answering your questions completely.

Look forward to seeing you speak.

My preference is that the speakers should have a moderate pace in their speeches so that the judge could fully understand them and specifically when they are speaking about their contentions.

Be polite and respectful through the debate.

I request that both the parties could time each other while speaking and warn/alert if they are exceeding the given time limit

I'm a parent judge. I am lay, very lay, very very lay!

I am a parent lay judge. I look for clarity of thought, concise and well-articulated presentation of ideas and your contention points rather than speeding through your material at breakneck speed. Of course I appreciate a civil and courteous behavior and respect for your opponents across the entire debate.

Also, be prepared to show your cards quickly rather than wasting time looking for them during the debate.

I am a parent judge, who has judged a few tournaments in the past. The most important thing to me is talking at a rate I can understand. That means no spreading. If you don't speak clearly then it will be harder for me to weigh you in the round. Make sure to enjoy the debate, but at the same time remember to remain polite and courteous.

speak clearly

Hi, my name is Lata Sircar.

- I am a parent judge, somewhat flow, and somewhat lay. Please present your case in a way that is easy enough to understand for a lay judge, but well enough written and supported for a flow judge. Jargon is ok, as long as the terms are not too obscure.

- I support evidence over logic. All arguments must be supported by facts and strong evidence. I give points for numbers and stats over everything else.

- Signposting is crucial. If I cannot understand what exactly you are refuting when you are refuting it, your argument will not go on my flow.

- Please extend and support your arguments throughout the round. All types of refutations are accepted, but I will give automatic points to anyone who can turn an argument and maintain that turn through the round.

- If it is shown that you have misrepresented or misconstrued evidence in any way, I will drop it from my flow.

- Do not run Theory or K. As previously mentioned, your cases should be easy enough to follow for a lay judge.

- At the end of the round, I will center my decision around summaries and my flow. Present everything you want to be judged on in your summary speech in a clear way.

I am a former high school debater- I did Policy debate for 4 years and I loved it. I have been judging at debate tournaments since 2012. I have judged Policy rounds, Public Forum, Lincoln-Douglas, Parli and Congress.

I flow my rounds, and therefore, I appreciate offtime roadmaps. I am comfortable with spreading. However, I do not like the trend where Public Forum and LD are morphing into Policy debate in terms of speed. That being said, if you wish to speak fast, it's up to you to be understandable and to speak clearly. If I didn't hear your argument, then I can't count it in my evaluation/RFD.

I look for good clash in a round, but this is not to be confused with overly aggressive behavior, as explained below. There is a difference between aggression and hostility. I hope debaters can tell the difference.

I come into every debate with an open mind, as if I know nothing about the topic and have not judged this topic before. However, I do know HOW to debate, so I am looking for the technical aspects of debate. This is to your advantage because if you can make an argument (however outlandish) and support it, and your opponents cannot refute it effectively, then you win that argument. I look for dropped arguments, but I also need the debaters to recognize when an argument has been dropped by the opposing team and to acknowledge it. For Varsity debaters, I expect that your arguments will consolidate down to whatever you think are your most important, win-able arguments.

I look at frameworks and impacts, so I include a comparison of the "affirmative world" vs the "negative world" in my consideration of how to vote. I also need you to weigh your impacts for me- tell me why your arguments are more important than the other team's.

I believe in the value and significance of debate, and therefore, I expect debaters to conduct themselves in a mature and respectful manner. Please be respectful of each other. If you ask a question, let your opponent answer- do not cut them off. No name-calling or shaming (yes, I have seen this in rounds, and it is very disappointing). Do not try to intimidate your opponent or the judge. This hostile behavior is very obvious and it will show up in your lackluster speaker points.

I understand that debaters may be nervous, and I am very sensitive to that. I don't generally dock speaker points for nervousness, but I will dock points for hostile behavior and attitude.

Hi! I’m an experienced lay parent judge. Please speak slowly and send speech docs.

I did pf and extemp for Dougherty Valley and was decent at it for 4 years. I did NPDA for like a couple months in college.

My golden rules:

1. Ask Rahi Kotadia.

2. Refer to rule number 2

3. Add me on the email chain rohit.srinivas2@gmail.com. (I don't read ev (that seems legit) unless someone explicitly tells me to and extends it into FF)

4. PLEASE PREFLOW BEFORE YOU REACH ROUND. I like to get started asap.

5. READING CARDS IS ON PREP TIME. IF YOU TAKE TOO LONG TO SEND EV I WILL START YOUR PREP TIME. I believe in evidence ethics and it is your responsibility to CUT cards and have them on hand for immediate access.

6. EVIDENCE ETHICS ARE KEY. IF I SUSPECT A CARD IS MISCONSTRUED/FALSE I WILL CALL FOR IT. If I do find it sus, I will tank speaks or maybe drop you. I have changed my stance on calling for cards in recent years because the quality of ethics has been declining severely. Now I do my best to maintain a fair field. I would prefer if everyone read cut cards, but I am not going to drop someone for paraphrasing unless someone reads paraphrasing theory.

7. I do disclose if you give me like 2-3 minutes to submit a decision. I will give oral RFD so stick around after the round. I will disclose speaks if you ask. I judge on how effective I believe you are at communicating. I default 28 if yall are kinda bad at conveying your args and go up to a 30 based on how well I thought you spoke. I can give feedback on speaking if asked.

PF:

Follow rules 1 and 2

Jokes aside I can handle anything pfers got. (I will tank speaks and reserve the right to drop you if you do something icky though. This is supposed to be a safe space)

I will only vote off args in ff, I will not evaluate args not extended in summary. ANY ARGUMENT THAT YOU WANT ME TO VOTE ON NEEDS TO BE EXTENDED PROPERLY. A PROPER EXTENSION MEANS RUNNING THROUGH THE WARRANTS AND LINKS AND THE IMPACTS AGAIN (explain the whole logic behind the argument every time not just a title or name of one). If you are not sure what this means ASK me before round.

Is a blip an argument? Absolutely not. If i say the sky is green with no warrant that is not an argument. I will not vote on turns that have no impact analysis done either. You cannot win without explaining how a turn interacts with their argument and how it gives you an impact.

IMPACT CALC IS KEY TO MY BALLOT. Tell me how to vote. Tell me which type of impacts come first. Tell me why your argument matters more than their argument. If you do not tell me what is more important I will be forced to make a decision on my own and I default to (probability*magnitude) and factor in time frame where shorter timeframe boost probability and longer timeframe harms probability.

Defense is sticky if the other team does not bring up the argument again. If they do, you need to extend defense as well.

IF YOU READ OFF CASE ARGS IN PF PLEASE READ THEM PROPERLY I DO NOT WANT TO EVALUATE SHELLS OR Ks WITHOUT FRAMING FOR EACH ARG. IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT WHAT THIS MEANS ASK BEFORE RD BEGINS. my threshold for tossing out theory spikes is low as long as it is not dropped.

Other args/events:

I did policy camp and picked up college Parli so I can evaluate theory args (Fw, T, random shells) and most common Ks (cap, set col, mil) . (if you do read a K please read it correctly). I do not have experience w stuff like Baudrillard and Nietzche. If you think your K is weird refer to rule number 2.

Tricks idk what to do with them, explain them to me like I am stupid and I might be able to understand. No guarantee I will vote on them the way you imagined.

CI>R unless told otherwise, condo good unless told otherwise (I do not have a threshold at which condo is bad because I believe the nature of reading so many args weakens each individual one), gimme a ROB.

No RVIs unless you have a good reason and win that.

Unlike Rahi I will not intervene and I vote purely off the flow.

Its been a year since I last did parli, so If you will be spreading I reserve the right to yell clear if you are unclear. If you are not a clear speaker above 250 wpm give me a speech doc. If you are clear I will need a speech doc around 275+.

Also please give me a proper off time road map/tell me what papers to put on top of each other.

Hello!

I am a parent judge. However, I do have extensive knowledge in the business world. I have also judged over 50 rounds of Public Forum debate. I also do flow the main points of the rounds.

Please add samuelsun99@gmail.com to the email chain. This should be started before the speeches. Please include at least the cases and call the email chain like "Stanford Round 1 - Team AB vs. Team BC."

Everything Else is Negotiable, but these aren't:

~No cheating: that means no card clipping, stealing prep, lying about your disclosure, etc.

~Debate is a safe space: I will not tolerate any blatantly offensive arguments. That means no racism, sexism, homophobia, etc.

If you are running an argument that is potentially a trigger warning, then you MUST ask the opponents if they are fine with it.

Violations of either are grounds for auto-loss and the lowest speaks I can possibly give you

General Preferences

~Please speak at a slower/normal pace. If I don't understand something, then I won't put it in my decision.

~Please don't read any weird arguments (Theory, K's, etc). It will be much less persuasive if you do so. Furthermore, if you run a non-generic case, then please explain it very well or I will have a hard time keeping track of it.

~Please send me your speech doc (cases) for the round. This will help me understand your case better and recall your key details.

~Please be civil in cross. I don't like aggressiveness. If the worst occurs, then I'll dock your speaks

~I view the round from your overall performance in the round. This includes being professional, taking a short time to pull up your evidence, have well-explained reasons and statistics, and consistently bringing up your points.

~I personally value the truth of an argument over an argument that will probably not occur.

~I will judge this round off a clean slate meaning I will try to not use individual bias to affect my decision.

~I also really like weighing so please do a lot of weighing to convince me more.

~I vote my decision mainly off of summary, final focus, and sometimes cross. If you can not respond to your own case in cross, I might count that in my decision if it is cleanly extended.

In all, be independent/responsible through the debate. I will be keeping time, but I also expect you to keep your own speech and prep time. Just let me know when you start/stop prep and don't go over the time limit, etc. I dislike it when debaters try to steal prep. I trust all of you debaters and good luck in your round!

Importance of Weighing

-Prob>Timeframe

- Timeframe>Pre-req

- Pre-req>mag

---

Specific to September topic.

I'm not very knowledgable about this specific topic.

Good Luck Debaters!

Email: as4374@georgetown.edu

PLEASE ADD ME TO ANY EMAIL CHAIN FOR EVIDENCE OR SPEECH DOCS

Phone (please only use if I don't show up for a round): 408-896-0105

**denotes a joke**

Hello! If you're reading this, I'm either judging your round, you want to strike me, you're looking for meme paradigms, or you're bored and have no life. Regardless, if you're participating in a tournament right now, please take two minutes to stop everything and relax however you find best. I recommend cute animals, Wikipedia Roulette, music, or anything else you do to relax. Tournaments are stressful and life is kind of whack right now so take a breather if you need to. IF YOU'RE IN MY ROUND, I will not start or count this against you if you're running late to do this.

About me:

I'm a 20 yo junior in college currently on leave (woo corona) from Georgetown University. If you have any questions about college apps, university life, or anything (things I know about: living in DC, education, traveling abroad, mental health/illness, identity, social justice broadly and a lot of different fields relating), feel free to email me. I'm majoring in psychology and Justice and Peace studies (it's the study of violence, completely not depressing at all :D).

IN TERMS OF DEBATE: I am not regularly exposed to debate rounds, I just judge on and off, but I am a flow judge. In high school, I did 2 years of public forum, about a year of LD, and a few months of parli. I was the best at and had the most success with parli, but I was very, very familiar with LD and PF, so if you want to go fast, go off. If you want to spread I will be fine with it IF YOU SEND ME A SPEECH DOC. ALSO MAKE SURE YOUR OPPONENTS ARE FINE WITH IT. My philosophy on PF is that it should be an accessible event and if you deny that from your opponents with speed, I WILL BE SAD :(.

Zodiac Placements:

cancer ⊙ scorpio ↑ pisces ☾

~If my aura doesn't match your I will yeet a purple flower picked during a waning moon through some spiritual water at my laptop to realign us~**

*DON'T MAKE ME GO 'FEH!'*

Preferences:

*KEEP IN MIND I have not been regularly exposed to debate for 2, almost 3 years.*

-BE POLITE, DON'T BE RACIST, DON'T BE ABLEIST, DON'T BE TRANSPHOBIC, DON'T BE HOMOPHOBIC, DON'T BE SEXIST, DON'T BE [fill in the blank]; basically, make the debate space accessible, inclusive, and DON'T BE A TERRIBLE PERSON

-If you make a mistake (think misgendering, pronouns, say something offensive ACCIDENTALLY) APOLOGIZE AND ADMIT YOUR MISTAKE. I PROBABLY WON'T COUNT IT AGAINST YOU IF YOU DO. This is general a good approach regardless the context.

-If there's anything I can do to make the round more accessible or comfortable for you, let me know.

-I will be flowing so please please please sign post it makes my life so much easier.

-I don't care about professional wear, I know rounds are virtual right now so if you want to wear like a hoodie and sweats and be comfortable go ahead because that is what I will be wearing.

-tech over truth, unless you're squirrely or the round becomes ridiculous to evaluate...

-If you want to spread, I will be fine with it as long as you share the speech doc with me and your opponents. Make sure you do it for a tactical advantage and not just because you can go fast haha spreading go brrrrr.

-The second rebuttal speaker does not need to frontline the constructive, respond to the first rebuttal (unless the first rebuttal frontlines and you need to address it to effectively attack), or lay down defense on case. HOWEVER I do prefer if you put some ink on whatever you're collapsing on or at least mention it. Also, this means if you're first summary, please don't go "hurr durr they didn't respond to our rebuttal."

-Please use cross effectively. It won't matter on the flow, I probably won't be paying attention to it, but it's LITERALLY MEANT TO HELP THE DEBATERS UNDERSTAND EACH OTHERS' CASES BETTER, which helps create effective discourse. If you spend cross going in circles or not doing anything productive, I will be sad.

-PLEASE COLLAPSE. I will be very upset if summaries try to extend everything (unless that's actually your strategy, sounds kinda terrible but if you can make it work, i guess) because my take on summaries is that you're supposed to tell me what is most important on your side that makes me vote for you. PLEASE ALSO START WEIGHING IN SUMMARY

-PLEASE WEIGH

-PLEASE WEIGH

-PLEASE WEIGH

-I may have just had a crisis trying to figure out how to spell "weigh" because that doesn't look like a word, if you want to give your speech in a different language because English is stupid, I'll understand.**

-OK BUT SERIOUSLY PLEASE WEIGH. Weighing is how you tell me who to vote for. It also makes the round considerably easier for me considering I haven't done debate recently enough or even on this topic to know what arguments lead to what impacts.

-Extending warrants and link chains can go miles...

-Add me on any email chains for cards or speech docs.

-Any references to Minecraft, ATLA, TFT, LOR, Smash, Pokemon, Skyrim, Slime Rancher, Stardew Valley, Valorant, Community, LOK, The Simpsons, popular Vines (F) or Among Us will get your speaks bumped up.**

-I should be fine with any K's as long as you make clear what the link and the alt are. Those are the two most important parts for me to understand why you're running the K, I will normally understand the K itself alright.

-I am VERY BAD at phil, run at your own risk.

-Theory: not a big fan of theory in PF as something to derive offense from UNLESS THERE IS AN ACTUAL RULES VIOLATION. Even if there is legitimate abuse (think multiple actor fiat, plans, and the like) you can probably just spend a sentence or two explaining that they can't do that and I'll probably buy it. I'd rather the debate focus on legitimate discourse than hear theory jargon for a round.

-IF I EVER HEAR THE WORDS "DATE ACCESSED" OUT OF ANYONE'S MOUTH IT'S -20 SPEAKS INSTANTLY. I may have some unresolved issues with date accessed....**

That should be everything, if you have any questions feel free to ask, I promise I'm not scary.

About:

Claremont McKenna College '23 | Archbishop Mitty '19

Hi there! My name is Jon Joey (he/they) and I competed in Parliamentary, Public Forum, and Congressional Debate at the national circuit level for three years at Archbishop Mitty High School. After graduation from Mitty, I served there as an Alumni Coach for two years and personally coached the 2021 CHSSA Parliamentary Debate State Champions. I also briefly competed in National Parliamentary Debate Association tournaments in my undergraduate years and was heavily involved in the collegiate MUN circuit.

My current affiliation is with Crystal Springs Uplands School, where I am the Head Debate Coach for both the Middle and Upper Schools.

In the interest of inclusivity, if you have ANY questions about the terms or jargon that I use in this paradigm or other questions that are not answered here, feel free to shoot me an email at jtelebrico23@cmc.edu—and please Cc your coach or parents/guardians on any communication to me as a general practice!

CHSSA MS State Update for CX, LD, PF:

• Utilize full CX (and prep time, if necessary)
• Do evidence/warrant comparisons
• Weigh (Probability, Magnitude, Timeframe, Reversibility)
• DON'T gender your opponents if pronouns are not disclosed in the Tab blast, speaks will significantly lower—they is fine as a neutral pronoun
• I don't flow off speech docs and I only call for evidence if you tell me to call for it. Verifying evidence ethics is your responsibility as debaters, otherwise I defer to what's on my flow.
• Please don't mention program name during introductions—entries are coded for a reason! I likely have implicit thoughts about programs as a former competitor in CFL/Calif. Coast and I hope you'll help me check back against that

Parli Paradigm (last updated 11.09.23 for NPDI)

Important parts bolded and underlined for time constraints.

General

• TL; DR: Debate how you want and how you know. If you need to adapt for a panel, I will meet you where you are and evaluate fairly.

• STOP stealing time in parliamentary debate! Do not prep with your partner while waiting for texts to be passed. There is no grace period in parliamentary debate—I stop flowing when your time ends on my timer. In the event of a timing error on my end, please hold up your timer once your opponent goes overtime.

• The debate space is yours. I can flow whatever speed and am open to any interpretation of the round but would prefer traditional debate at State. Don't be mean and exclusionary. This means a low threshold for phil, tricks, etc. but I will exercise a minute amount of reasonability (speaks will tank, W/L unchanged) if you're being intentionally exclusionary towards younger/novice/inexperienced debaters (e.g. refusing to explain tricks or clarify jargon in POIs or technically framing out teams for a cheap ballot). No TKOs though, sorry.

• Please adapt to your panel! I will evaluate as I normally do, but please do not exclude judges who may not be able to handle technical aspects of the debate round.

• I keep a really tight flow and am tech over truth. Intervention is bad except with respect to morally reprehensible or blatantly problematic representations in the debate space—I reserve the right to exercise intervention in that case.

• I prefer things to be framed as Uniqueness, Link, Impact but it doesn't matter that much. Conceded yet unwarranted claims are not automatic offense for you.

• Doing impact weighing/comparative analysis between warrants is key to coming out ahead on arguments.

• Collapse the debate down to a few arguments/issues/layers. Extend some defense on the arguments you're not going for and then go all in on the arguments that you're winning.

• Rebuttals are also very important! The 1NR cannot be a repeat of the 2NC and the 1AR should be engaging with some of the new responses made in the block as well as extending the 2AC. Give overviews, do comparative world analysis, do strategic extensions.

• Please do not mention your program name if the tournament has intentionally chosen to withhold that information. I would also generally prefer debaters stick to "My partner and I" vs. saying something like "Mitty TK affirms."

• This paradigm is not a stylistic endorsement of one regional style of debate over another (e.g. East v. West, logical v. empirical, traditional v. progressive). Debaters should debate according to how they know how to debate—this means that I will still evaluate responses to theory even if not formatted in a shell or allow debaters to weigh their case against a K argument. There is always going to be a competitive upshot to engaging in comparison of arguments, so please do so instead of limiting your ability to debate due to stylistic frustrations and differences.

Framework

• In the absence of a weighing mechanism, I default to net benefits, defined therein as the most amount of good for the most amount of people. This means you can still make weighing claims even in the absence of a coherent framework debate. To clarify this, I won't weigh for you, you still have to tell me which impacts I ought to prioritize.

• Framework cannot be backfilled by second speakers. Omission of framework means you shift framework choice to your opponents.

• For CFL: Please respect trichotomy as these topics were written with a particular spirit and are meant to serve as preparation for CHSSA (should = policy, ought or comparison of two things = value, on balance/more good than harm/statement = fact)

• Any and all spec is fine.

• Read and pass texts to your opponents.

• Epistemic confidence > epistemic modesty. Win the framework.

Counterplans

• I tend to default that CPs are tests of competition and not advocacies. Whether running the CP or articulating a perm, please clarify the status of the CP.

• I think counterplans are super strategic and am receptive to hearing most unconventional CPs (PICs, conditional, advantage, actor, delay, etc.) so long as you're prepared to answer theory. These don't have to necessarily be answered with theory but affirmative teams can logically explain why a specific counterplan is unfair or abusive for me to discount it.

Theory

• I'm a lot more willing to evaluate theory, or arguments that set norms that we use in debate.

• I default to competing interps over reasonability, meaning that both teams should probably have an interp if you want to win theory. Feel free to change my mind on this and of course, still read warrants as to why I should prefer one over the other.

• I'm slowly beginning to care less if theory is "frivolous" as my judging career progresses but, by the same token, try not to choose to be exclusionary if you're aware of the technical ability of your opponents. Inclusivity and access are important in this activity.

Kritiks

• Kritiks are a form of criticism about the topic and/or plan that typically circumvents normative policymaking. These types of arguments usually reject the resolution due to the way that it links into topics such as ableism, capitalism, etc. Pretty receptive to these!

• I find KvK debates quite confusing and difficult to evaluate because debaters are often not operationalizing framework in strategic ways. Win the RotB debate, use sequencing and pre-req arguments, and contest the philosophical methods (ontology, epistemology, etc.) of each K. On the KvK debate, explain to me why relinks matters—I no longer find the manslaughter v. murder comparison as sufficiently explanatory in and of itself. I need debaters to implicate relinks to me in terms of one's own framework or solvency.

• Read good framework, don’t double turn yourself, have a solvent alternative.

• When answering the K, and especially if you weren’t expecting it, realize that there is still a lot of offense that can be leveraged in your favor. Never think that a K is an automatic ballot so do the pre- v. post fiat analysis for me, weigh the case against the K and tell me why policymaking is a good thing, and call out their shady alternative.

• I think that teams that want to run these types of arguments should exhibit a form of true understanding and scholarship in the form of accessible explanations if you want me to evaluate these arguments fairly but also I'm not necessarily the arbiter of that—it just reflects in how you debate.

Speaks

• Speaker points are awarded on strategy, warranting, and weighing. As a general rule: substance > style.

• The path to a 30 probably includes really clean extensions and explanations of warrants, collapsing, weighing.

• Any speed is fine but word economy is important—something I've been considering more lately.
• Not utilizing your full speech time likely caps you at a 28. Use the time that has been allotted to you!

• Despite this, I am pretty easily compelled by the litany of literature that indicate speaker points reify oppression and am pretty receptive to any theoretical argument about subverting such systems.

• I don't have solid data to back this up but I believe my threshold for high speaker points for second speakers is pretty high. See above about doing quality extension and weighing work.
• Sorta unserious but I wanna judge a nebel T debate in Parli really bad—30s if you can pull it off!

• My current speaks average aggregated across both Parli & PF is 28.7 [H/L = 30/27; n=234; last updated 09.24.23].

Points of Information/Order

• PLEASE take at least two POIs. I don't really care how many off case positions you're running or how much "you have to get through" but you can't put it off until the end of your speech, sit down, and then get mad at your opponents for misunderstanding your arguments if you never clarified what it was in the first place. On the flip side, I won't flow POIs, so it's up to you to use them strategically.

• Tag teaming is fine; what this looks like is up to you.

• Call the P.O.O.—I won't protect the flow.

Fun Parli Data Stuff, inspired by GR (last updated 02.15.23):

• Rounds Judged: n = 170
• Aff Prelim Ballots (Parli): 72 (42.35%)
• Neg Prelim Ballots (Parli): 98 (57.65%)
• Aff Elim Ballots (Parli): 26 (50.00%)*
• Neg Elim Ballots (Parli): 26 (50.00%)*

Feel free to use this to analyze general trends, inform elim flips, or for your "fairness uniqueness."

*this is pretty cool to me, i guess i'm not disposed to one side or another during elims ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

For anything not covered here, feel free to find me in Parli Prep and ask me before the round!

I am a parent judge . This is my fourth year judging PF debates.

Speak clearly and articulate your points well. Please don’t spread.

I pay attention to cross-X sessions and how your are countering the opponent’s cases/arguments with proper evidences.

Please be courteous and respectful to your opponents.

Good luck!

For PF: Speaks capped at 27.5 if you don't read cut cards (with tags) and send speech docs via email chain prior to your speech of cards to be read (in constructives, rebuttal, summary, or any speech where you have a new card to read). I'm done with paraphrasing and pf rounds taking almost as long as my policy rounds to complete. Speaks will start at 28.5 for teams that do read cut cards and do send speech docs via email chain prior to speech. In elims, since I can't give points, it will be a overall tiebreaker.

For Policy: Speaks capped at 28 if I don't understand each and every word you say while spreading (including cards read). I will not follow along on the speech doc, I will not read cards after the debate (unless contested or required to render a decision), and, thus, I will not reconstruct the debate for you but will just go off my flow. I can handle speed, but I need clarity not a speechdoc to understand warrants. Speaks will start at 28.5 for teams that are completely flowable. I'd say about 85% of debaters have been able to meet this paradigm.

I'd also mostly focus on the style section and bold parts of other sections.

---

2018 update: College policy debaters should look to who I judged at my last college judging spree (69th National Debate Tournament in Iowa) to get a feeling of who will and will not pref me. I also like Buntin's new judge philosophy (agree roughly 90%).

It's Fall 2015. I judge all types of debate, from policy-v-policy to non-policy-v-non-policy. I think what separates me as a judge is style, not substance.

I debated for Texas for 5 years (2003-2008), 4 years in Texas during high school (1999-2003). I was twice a top 20 speaker at the NDT. I've coached on and off for highschool and college teams during that time and since. I've ran or coached an extremely wide diversity of arguments. Some favorite memories include "china is evil and that outweighs the security k", to "human extinction is good", to "predictions must specify strong data", to "let's consult the chinese, china is awesome", to "housing discrimination based on race causes school segregation based on race", to "factory farms are biopolitical murder", to “free trade good performance”, to "let's reg. neg. the plan to make businesses confident", to “CO2 fertilization, SO2 Screw, or Ice Age DAs”, to "let the Makah whale", etc. Basically, I've been around.

After it was pointed out that I don't do a great job delineating debatable versus non-debatable preferences, I've decided to style-code bold all parts of my philosophy that are not up for debate. Everything else is merely a preference, and can be debated.

Style/Big Picture:

• I strongly prefer to let the debaters do the debating, and I'll reward depth (the "author+claim + warrant + data+impact" model) over breadth (the "author+claim + impact" model) any day.

• When evaluating probabilistic predictions, I start from the assumption everyone begins at 0%, and you persuade me to increase that number (w/ claims + warrants + data). Rarely do teams get me past 5%. A conceeded claim (or even claim + another claim disguised as the warrant) will not start at 100%, but remains at 0%.

• Combining those first two essential stylistic criteria means, in practice, many times I discount entirely even conceded, well impacted claims because the debaters failed to provide a warrant and/or data to support their claim. It's analogous to failing a basic "laugh" test. I may not be perfect at this rubric yet, but I still think it's better than the alternative (e.g. rebuttals filled with 20+ uses of the word “conceded” and a stack of 60 cards).

• I'll try to minimize the amount of evidence I read to only evidence that is either (A) up for dispute/interpretation between the teams or (B) required to render a decision (due to lack of clash amongst the debaters). In short: don't let the evidence do the debating for you.

• Humor is also well rewarded, and it is hard (but not impossible) to offend me.

• I'd also strongly prefer if teams would slow down 15-20% so that I can hear and understand every word you say (including cards read). While I won't explicitly punish you if you don't, it does go a mile to have me already understand the evidence while you're debating so I don't have to sort through it at the end (especially since I likely won't call for that card anyway).

• Defense can win a debate (there is such as thing as a 100% no link), but offense helps more times than not.

• I'm a big believer in open disclosure practices, and would vote on reasoned arguments about poor disclosure practices. In the perfect world, everything would be open-source (including highlighting and analytics, including 2NR/2AR blocks), and all teams would ultimately share one evidence set. You could cut new evidence, but once read, everyone would have it. We're nowhere near that world. Some performance teams think a few half-citations work when it makes up at best 45 seconds of a 9 minute speech. Some policy teams think offering cards without highlighting for only the first constructive works. I don't think either model works, and would be happy to vote to encourage more open disclosure practices. It's hard to be angry that the other side doesn't engage you when, pre-round, you didn't offer them anything to engage.

• You (or your partner) must physically mark cards if you do not finish them. Orally saying "mark here" (and expecting your opponents or the judge to do it for you) doesn't count. After your speech (and before cross-ex), you should resend a marked copy to the other team. If pointed out by the other team, failure to do means you must mark prior to cross-ex. I will count it as prep time times two to deter sloppy debate.

• By default, I will not “follow along” and read evidence during a debate. I find that it incentivizes unclear and shallow debates. However, I realize that some people are better visual than auditory learners and I would classify myself as strongly visual. If both teams would prefer and communicate to me that preference before the round, I will “follow along” and read evidence during the debate speeches, cross-exs, and maybe even prep.

Topicality:

• I like competing interpretations, the more evidence the better, and clearly delineated and impacted/weighed standards on topicality.

• Abuse makes it all the better, but is not required (doesn't unpredictability inherently abuse?).

• Treat it like a disad, and go from there. In my opinion, topicality is a dying art, so I'll be sure to reward debaters that show talent.

• For the aff – think offense/defense and weigh the standards you're winning against what you're losing rather than say "at least we're reasonable". You'll sound way better.

Framework:

• The exception to the above is the "framework debate". I find it to be an uphill battle for the neg in these debates (usually because that's the only thing the aff has blocked out for 5 minutes, and they debate it 3 out of 4 aff rounds).

• If you want to win framework in front of me, spent time delineating your interpretation of debate in a way that doesn't make it seem arbitrary. For example "they're not policy debate" begs the question what exactly policy debate is. I'm not Justice Steward, and this isn't pornography. I don't know when I've seen it. I'm old school in that I conceptualize framework along “predictability”; "topic education", “policymaking education”, and “aff education” (topical version, switch sides, etc) lines.

• “We're in the direction of the topic” or “we discuss the topic rather than a topical discussion” is a pretty laughable counter-interpretation.

• For the aff, "we agree with the neg's interp of framework but still get to weigh our case" borders on incomprehensible if the framework is the least bit not arbitrary.

Case Debate

• Depth in explanation over breadth in coverage. One well explained warrant will do more damage to the 1AR than 5 cards that say the same claim.

• Well-developed impact calculus must begin no later than the 1AR for the Aff and Negative Block for the Neg.

• I enjoy large indepth case debates. I was 2A who wrote my own community unique affs usually with only 1 advantage and no external add-ons. These type of debates, if properly researched and executed, can be quite fun for all parties.

Disads

• Intrinsic perms are silly. Normal means arguments are less so.

• From an offense/defense paradigm, conceded uniqueness can control the direction of the link. Conceded links can control the direction of uniqueness. The in round application of "why" is important.

• A story / spin is usually more important (and harder for the 1AR to deal with) than 5 cards that say the same thing.

Counterplan Competition:

• I generally prefer functionally competitive counterplans with solvency advocates delineating the counterplan versus the plan (or close) (as opposed to the counterplan versus the topic), but a good case for textual competition can be made with a language K netbenefit.

• Conditionality (1 CP, SQ, and 1 K) is a fact of life, and anything less is the negative feeling sorry for you (or themselves). However, I do not like 2NR conditionality (i.e., “judge kick”) ever. Make a decision.

• Perms and theory always remain a test of competition (and not a voter) until proven otherwise by the negative by argument (see above), a near impossible standard for arguments that don't interfere substantially with other parts of the debate (e.g. conditionality).

• Perm "do the aff" is not a perm. Debatable perms are "do both" and "do cp/alt"(and "do aff and part of the CP" for multi-plank CPs). Others are usually intrinsic.

Critiques:

• I think of the critique as a (usually linear) disad and the alt as a cp.

• Be sure to clearly impact your critique in the context of what it means/does to the aff case (does the alt solve it, does the critique turn it, make harms inevitable, does it disprove their solvency). Latch on to an external impact (be it "ethics", or biopower causes super-viruses), and weigh it against case.

• Use your alternative to either "fiat uniqueness" or create a rubric by which I don't evaluate uniqueness, and to solve case in other ways.

• I will say upfront the two types of critique routes I find least persuasive are simplistic versions of "economics", "science", and "militarism" bad (mostly because I have an econ degree and am part of an extensive military family). While good critiques exist out there of both, most of what debaters use are not that, so plan accordingly.

• For the aff, figure out how to solve your case absent fiat (education about aff good?), and weigh it against the alternative, which you should reduce to as close as the status quo as possible. Make uniqueness indicts to control the direction of link, and question the timeframe/inevitability/plausability of their impacts.

• Perms generally check clearly uncompetitive alternative jive, but don't work too well against "vote neg". A good link turn generally does way more than “perm solves the link”.

• Aff Framework doesn't ever make the critique disappear, it just changes how I evaluate/weigh the alternative.

• Role of the Ballot - I vote for the team that did the better debating. What is "better" is based on my stylistic criteria. End of story. Don't let "Role of the Ballot" be used as an excuse to avoid impact calculus.

Performance (the other critique):

• Empirically, I do judge these debate and end up about 50-50 on them. I neither bandwagon around nor discount the validity of arguments critical of the pedagogy of debate. I'll let you make the case or defense (preferably with data). The team that usually wins my ballot is the team that made an effort to intelligently clash with the other team (whether it's aff or neg) and meet my stylistic criteria. To me, it's just another form of debate.

• However, I do have some trouble in some of these debates in that I feel most of what is said is usually non-falsifiable, a little too personal for comfort, and devolves 2 out of 3 times into a chest-beating contest with competition limited to some archaic version of "plan-plan". I do recognize that this isn't always the case, but if you find yourselves banking on "the counterplan/critique doesn't solve" because "you did it first", or "it's not genuine", or "their skin is white"; you're already on the path to a loss.

• If you are debating performance teams, the two main takeaways are that you'll probably lose framework unless you win topical version, and I hate judging "X" identity outweighs "Y" identity debates. I suggest, empirically, a critique of their identity politics coupled with some specific case cards is more likely to get my ballot than a strategy based around "Framework" and the "Rev". Not saying it's the only way, just offering some empirical observations of how I vote.

Hello

I am a flay judge, meaning I look both at the arguments debated as well as the delivery and how you persuade me. You might want to go lay to be safe. Speed is not a problem as long as you talk loud and clearly but this does not mean you should talk extremely fast.

For me it’s extremely important starting summary and in later speeches to frontline, weigh, and have good offense. Very simply I pay close attention to how you refute your opponents arguments and emphasize your own. Although I do listen I will flow beginning speeches roughly but it boils down to the clash later on. You will win my vote if you can do all that while making it very clear, clean why I should vote for you. This means don’t jump back and forth between your case and opponents in summary. In final focus paint me a story on why you should win.

I do not flow cross but I do listen and think it’s important. I will mark you down if you are rude during cross so just be polite. I do not like it if you are looking around the room or playing with your hair instead of paying attention to the round but it doesn’t impact my decision. I am a truth over tech judge but if you can explain well, I can become tech over truth. I don't know anything on theory/K's/framework, so it is not be the best decision to run that in round.

I look forward to seeing you debate, and please be civil and have fun. I hope this helps, and if you have any questions don’t hesitate to ask!

Post-Emory thoughts:

Honestly, I think debate is in a relatively good space overall. It's usually this time of year that I find myself pessimistic on a few different tracks, but this year I'm incredibly optimistic. But still, a few thoughts as we're moving into championship season:

1. Concepts of fiat need a revisiting in PF. No one believes it to be real, and the call back for it to be illusory as an answer to offensive arguments is not adequate. The distinguishment between "pre" and "post" fiat is relatively unneeded and undeveloped, most of this is being mistaken for a debate about topicality really. In fact, the pre/post debate is rooted in a weird space that policy resolved or at least moved past in the 90s. If non topical offense is your game, why not explore some wikis of prominent college teams that are making these arguments?
2. I cannot stress this enough, the space of post modern argumentation is confusing for me. I can more easily dissect these arguments when constructives are longer than four minutes, but in PF I especially do not have the ability to ascertain as to what the specific advocacy is or why it's good in a competitive setting. I am an idiot and the most I can really talk about my college metaphysics course is a dumb rhyme about Spinoza and Descartes(literally if you are well read on your subject, this should be ample warning as to what I can work through). That being said, criticisms focused on structures of power or the state specifically I can understand and don't need hand holding. Just not anything to do with the French(French speakers like Fanon do not count).
3. Deep below any feelings I have about specific schools of thought or even behavior in round, I do know that debate as an activity is good. That does not mean I am full force just deciding ballots on ceding the political, but rather I need to hear why alternative methods to approaching the competitive event have distinct advantages. There is a huge gulf between somehow creating a more inclusive space and burning that same space to the ground that no team in PF has even begun to explain how to cross or even conceptually begun to explain why it can be overcome.
4. RVIs != offense on a theory shell. No RVIs being unanswered does not mean the opponent cannot go for turns or a comparative debate on the interp vs the counter interp
5. A competing interpretation does not conceptually create another shell.
6. Teams need to signpost better, I will not read from docs and I truly believe that the practice is making everyone worse at line-by-line debate.

For WKU -

The last policy rounds I was in was around 2015 for context. I do err neg on most theory positions though agent counterplans do phase me. Other than that, the big division when it comes to other arguments I don't really have much of a stance on.

Affs at the end of the day I do believe need to show some semblance of change/beneficial action

Debate is good as a whole

Individual actions I don't think I have jurisdiction to act as judge over.

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

This year marks my 14th in the activity, which is wild. I end up spending a lot of my time these days thinking not just about how arguments work, but also considering what I want the activity to look like. Personally, I believe that circuit Public Forum is in a transition period much the same that other events have experienced and the position that both judges and coaches play is more important than ever. That being said, I do think both groups need to remember that their years in high school are over now and that their role in the activity, both in and out of round, is as an educator first. If this is anyway controversial to you, I’d kindly ask you to re-examine why you are here.

Yes, this activity is a game, but your behavior and the way in which you participate in it have effects that will outlast your time in it. You should not only treat the people in this activity with the same levels of respect that you would want for yourself, but you should also consider the ways through which you’ve chosen in-round strategies, articulation of those strategies, and how the ways in which you conduct yourself out of round can be thought of as positive or negative. Just because something is easy and might result in competitive success does not make it right.

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)” 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:

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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.

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. 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.

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.

IVIs

These are hands down the worst thing that PF debate has come up with. If something in round arises to the issue of student safety, then I hope(and maybe this is misplaced) that a judge would intervene prior to a debater saying “do something.” If something is just a dumb argument, or a dumb way to have an argument be developed, then it’s either a theory issue or a competitor needs to get better at making an argument against it.

The idea that these one-off sentences somehow protect students or make the activity more aware of issues is insane. Most things I’ve heard called an IVI are misconstruing what a student has said, are a rules violation that need to be determined by tab, or are just an incomplete argument.

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 pomo tradition/understanding. 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 okay(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.

TL;DR: I think I'm slowly becoming a flay judge :(

Taken directly from @Gabe Rusk for Emory 2022 (there are only two modifications, listed at the very bottom):

Drug Debate

FYI Emory's rules on prep and evidence exchange: 4 minutes of prep (RR is still 3) and"When requested, teams have one minute to produce evidence. If requests for multiple pieces of evidence are made, the exchange should occur in a comparable time frame. At the end of the minute, if the team cannot produce the evidence, preparation time for that team will then be used to locate that evidence. The team may choose to have the evidence dropped from the round if they choose."

First, the detailed implementation of the resolution isn't obvious. Whilst we can't offer plans in PF we can speculate on what is the most likely form of implementation. Legalization can take many forms and can be based on existing proposals in congress, based on state models, or even models abroad. If your argument is contingent upon a facet of legalization that is not reasonably inherent to the process please provide evidence and warranting to why this would be a likely feature. I.E. lobbying watering down regulations, substance abuse programs being mandated as a portion of tax revenue, therapeutic legalization for certain drugs only. These are all features that require additional support in my opinion and are not inherent to a generic legalization process. Just provide the evidence or warranting to why they would be likely. Also on the reverse please don't quip that legalization wouldn't look like that. Why? You need competing evidence or warranting to why that feature wouldn't be included.

Second, for the classic debate about price, use, and abuse. Both sides are trying to access increasing or decreasing trends as a result of the resolution. Do not. I repeat do not just throw back and forth case studies of prices going up or down. Use going up or down. Abuse going up or down. Compare them! Is one case study better than another? Do you have a meta study? Do you have a study that is most recent or longitudinal? I am especially not sympathetic to the lazy argument that "your evidence is just from a state or country that decriminalized so it's irrelevant to this debate. Legalization and decriminalization is different." Of course it is but legalization is the erasure of all penalties including criminal and civil within the regulations the governments set up. Explain to me why the distinction matters in this evidence debate and do not just say they are different. What if the evidence debate is close? What warranting makes more sense? This also gets to net or gross weighing of impacts. Y'all.... it can be simultaneously true that abuse, use, and prices go up and down but at different times or have total net differences. Please be clear on when these trends happen, why that matters in the short and long term, and more importantly what the net effects are.

Third, uncarded or unwarranted claims. Due to the rhetoric around this topic in the real world I have found judging rounds to be plagued with more asserted claims than with other topics. You can't just say LSD is bad. You can't just say weed is good. Provide evidence and warranting for claims just like you would other topics. There are a bunch of built in biases we have on topics but I think you are assuming based on decades of bad media and policy exposure there are claims that need no support on this topic. Maybe but it's rare. "We turned their LSD good argument because it's bad!" Ok this debate can be fruitful. Compare the studies? Are there meaningful differences in who was studied? When? Is there decent evidence on both sides? Engage the warranting. For example, you could explain to me biochemically what is going on in a brain that does heroin and why that creates a neurological and biochemical dependency cycle etc. Give me something to compare.

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 more often when you tell me why b) your warranting is comparatively better. Obviously doing both compounds your chances at winning my ballot.
• Weighing Unlike Things: I need to know how to weigh two comparatively unlike things. 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. I strongly prefer impact debates on the probability/reasonability of impacts over their magnitude and scope. Obviously try to frame impacts using all available tools but it's less likely I will defer to nuclear war, try or die, etc on the risk of magnitude. Probability over magnitude debates unless I'm given well warranted, carded, and convincing framework analysis to prefer the latter.
• 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.

Little Things

• What needs to be frontlined in second rebuttal? Turns. Not defense unless you have time. If you want offense in the final focus then extend it through the summary.
• 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.
• DA's in general or second rebuttal? You mean the borderline new contentions you are trying to introduce in the round that are tentatively linked at BEST to the existing arguments in the round order to time skew/spread your opponents thin? Don't push it too much.
• 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.
• My favorite question in cx is: Why? For example, "No I get that's what your evidence says but why?"
• My favorite phrase in debate is: "Prefer our warrant or evidence because" or "comparing our warrants you prefer ours because..."

ONLY MODIFICATIONS

• I'm NOT familiar with kritical, theoretical, and/or pre-fiat based roads. Really wish I was though.
• I'd prefer if you don't spread, but if you do be prepared for the chance that I may not process all of it. Even with clearing or speech docs I'm not that fast anymore. And yes, speech docs will probably be necessary for accessibility and accommodation.

I have been associated with the speech & debate program since 2016. I have judged a few competitions - Congress and Public Forum. Here are my preferences:

1. I appreciate debaters maintaining the decorum, at all times

2. Make sure to follow the rules, at all times

3. Treat your opponent(s) with respect and dignity, just like how you would like to be treated

4. Understand and practice the difference b/w speaking affirmatively vs speaking loudly

5. To me, good content is one where there is strong evidence to support your arguments

6. I appreciate meaningful, relevant statistics/data points that support the evidence

7. I appreciate a good summary towards the end highlighting key impacts

8. Speak at an acceptable pace. Being clear and concise is important to me that speaking fast

Wish you best!

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

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

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

Speech

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

Kritik

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

Etiquette

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

Speed

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

Other

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

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

I am a parent judge with three years of judging experience.

Some preferences:

- Cases should be well structured; evidence and arguments should be laid out cohesively

- Students should be firm and polite without being rude

- Both sides should track their own time

- I will not evaluate new arguments made in final focus

- Cross should focus on the important arguments in the debate round

- I prefer reasoning backed by evidence over analysis without evidence

- Please don't speak too fast

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!

Second year lay judge.

1. Do not speak too fast. Be Clear.

2. Rather than just reading cards, make sure to clearly warrant everything you say in round.

3. Make sure your arguments are consistent throughout the round.

4. Any arguments made in final focus must have been mentioned in summary.

5. Be sure to weigh clearly. Interactive weighing is great.

6. Do not be rude to your opponents during the round.

Please speak slowly so I can clearly understand you. Please focus on / reemphasize your main points and rebut other side’s main arguments instead of flooding me with information about everything. Depth than breadth. Sometimes less is more :)

please start an email chain: syadavdebate@gmail.com

----------

I would call myself a fairly flow judge. "tech > truth" unless the evidence that is being read is very misrepresented.

Anything you want me to vote on must be extended in summary. There's no such this as sticky defense. Frontline in 2nd RB. Frontline, if applicable, and extend in summary.

You do not have to extend case in 1st RB.

I prefer the weighing done for me; as in a bunch of warrants, defense and turns will do nothing for me if they are not contextualized. I expect to hear why I should prefer your side with reference to warrants. I could maybe vote on something left off of FF, but I won't extend something from case/rebuttal to summary UNLESS it makes sense in the round (ie opponent brings it up again). Weighing should be comparative, doesn't help if both teams say they have a high probability without comparing to their opponent.

I do not flow cross-ex (but I do listen). if it's a new argument/warranting in CX, it should be in a speech. Be nice

As for mechanics, I am pretty flexible and should be comfortable with speed (unless it will be very fast/spreading) as long as you are clear. A speech doc will be well appreciated if you are speaking fast. I'm open to theory, as long as it is not frivolous (ex: no shoe theory). Ks and shells are both ok. I default to reasonability. Please note I am not an expert with theory, and again speech docs will help me understand more. (especially in online debate)

Have evidence ready, shouldn't take longer than 1-2 min to find it or send it out. Also, I will take it from your prep if you're prepping when your opponent is getting a card. I know online debate means I can't enforce this too well so honor system.

About paraphrasing: It takes away from the education of the debate, I do hate it, and while I won't drop you (on face) for it, I won't like you any better if you give me 40 one-lined "cards" in case or rebuttal. Plus it just takes away from the round when your opponent has to call for 10 cards because you read them too fast. (Anti) Paraphrasing theory will pretty easily win my ballot if done well.

..............................................................................................................................................

Overall, I try my best to make the right decision (but I'm nowhere near perfect). If you have ANY questions feel free to contact me (syadavno1@gmail.com) or ask me before/after the round. Thank you!

I am a flay judge. Please do not spread (although somewhat fast speaking is fine), and be courteous and polite during crossfire (ie do not attack your opponent, attack their case). Lastly, please make sure you weigh your points in comparison to your opponents at least in the final focus (but if you also weigh in summary, I would appreciate that)! I also like to hear some framework for what I should vote on.

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.

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

I am a parent judge. Please speak clearly and slowly.

I appreciate your being respectful and courteous to your opponents.

Good luck!