UPDATED January 2024:

I haven't been judging LD for a while; I've mostly been judging PF for the last 3 years. I've almost certainly left things out of this paradigm - if you have more specific questions that aren't covered here, email me at serena.e.fitzgerald@gmail.com.

Generally:

I competed primarily in LD in high school (graduated 2015) and NPDA in college (graduated 2018). I've been a (mostly) full-time debate coach since.

I base win/loss only on the content of the arguments; speaker points are based on a combination of rhetorical performance, strategic vision, and technical skill.

Speed is fine, but I'm somewhat rusty, so I might "slow" or "clear" you. I'll call for cards if there is a dispute over their content, but I won't rely on a speech doc to cover for mudmouth or sloppy spreading.

I don't vote off of "arguments" made in cross, only in timed speeches.

Weighing, framing, and evidence comparison are all incredibly helpful since it a) makes my job easier and b) allows you to control which arguments I evaluate first. Absent debaters' arguments, I generally default to evaluating procedurals first, kritiks second, and policy arguments last.

I'm fine with "sticky defense" but I generally won't evaluate anything unless extended in the last speech; and if it's extended through ink I won't evaluate it.

Specific arguments

LARP/policy/util debate - I'm an econ and political science major, so I'm a fan of really specific, nuanced arguments in those fields. I'm comfortable judging really obscure or squirrely contentions, since they liven up the tournament a bit.

I am willing to engage in a lot of warrant comparison if the debaters don't do it for me in order to weigh whether a DA/ADV is more probable, so having specific, solid warrants in your evidence (rather than broad claims) will likely help you.

Kritiks - I'm a big fan of good K debate, and creative, interesting philosophical arguments or frameworks will probably boost your speaks.

I have a relatively high threshold for frame-outs. I find myself more comfortable either voting on substantive solvency arguments based in the critical literature, or granting a weighing mechanism that substantively benefits your critique, than an outright "don't evaluate their case at all" framework. The other two options might be more strategic ways to cross-apply your framework cards in front of me.

In college and high school, I mostly read Ks focusing on Marxism, anti-colonial writers like Fanon and Friere, and poststructuralist authors like Foucault and Guattari. Puar, Mbembe, and Butler are some of the contemporary philosophers most influential over me. For other theories, you may want to read an overview if you are collapsing to it, to make sure I understand your thesis accurately. (It's probably helpful even if I have read that author before, since you might be emphasizing a different part of their work.)

Theory/ Procedurals - I default to competing interpretations. I'm pretty neutral about most theory debates and I'll vote for most interps (yes, including shoe theory) as long as you win on the flow.

I find that compared to other judges, I'm not as rigid about the phrasing of theory arguments. If someone substantively makes a "we meet" argument but doesn't formally flag it as such, I will still evaluate the content of the argument and apply it to the theory. However - this is imperfect, and I may not always know what you meant a particular argument to refer to, so it is still always best to flag your arguments and signpost clearly.

I don't have a very high opinion of IVI's as they are usually read; the existence of theory in debate does generally seem like the best way of deciding and enforcing the "rules" of debate. However, I find they're usually more persuasive when they incorporate more substantive arguments (especially if it dovetails with the thesis of the case or other arguments presented) - for example, many of the responses that critical affs develop to topicality are very interesting.

UPDATE: Been off the circuit for a year now, take my paradigm with a grain of salt and have fun!!!! <3

Third-year medical student at the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, studying medicine. Seasonally coaching for BC Academy in Canada. Debated PF since Gr. 9.

WHO AM I?

• I disclose and give oral feedback
• I appreciate trigger warnings
• I am a flow judge
• I will be your typical tabula rasa judge and will buy any argument that is clearly warranted with logical links, stats, and impacts. This is because I have no real knowledge regarding the crux of econ, poli, etc. This is only an exception for med-related topics (just keep it realistic for pharm-based topics)
• I do not like straight up card dumps that have little to no warrants
• Content > style

SPEAKER POINTS (skip unless you REALLY want a speaker award because this part isn't as important)

I will start at 27 and dock points off or add points on based on how you presented your speech based on the following factors:

1. STYLE: Because I have been off the circuit for a while, I cannot keep up with speed but will try my best if you have a long argument (clarity > speed)
2. CONTENT: Based on how well your analysis and warranting is, I will add on additional points. I won't dock on content because I think that forces me to evaluate whether a response was sufficient or not, which means I have to input my thoughts into the round and I don't want to intervene. I'll dock you if your constructive is a card dump though.
3. MANNERS: This has never been a problem for me but any sexism, racism, ableism, etc. will be serious
4. TIME: If you go really overtime (like one minute longer) then it would be a problem

WHAT THIS ROUND SHOULD LOOK LIKE

• Road map after second rebuttal
• Please do not read theory or kritiks; I have never learned them and won't make a good decision nor evaluate it properly. But if you have any cool theories send it to my email helenh2001@gmail.com so I can have a funny dinner table conversation with my SO.
• Tech > truth (Except in med/pharm topics; I accept any well warranted and linked argument)
• I pay attention to crossfire but any real concession should be mentioned in speech
• Second rebuttal should frontline offense; at minimum you should respond to turns
• Offence is conceded if dropped in proceeding speech
• If second rebuttal misses frontlining your defence, extend from first ref to first final
• Answer turns in second rebuttal or first summary. Otherwise, you're making it unfair for the opponents to engage in it.
• Focus on collapsing. 90% of the time, it won't be a clean win if the summary goes for every voter issue. Just point out that you've dropped because neither side can win on it.
• Summary and final focus should mirror each other; I will not buy a point that was brought up in final focus but not discussed in summary; I will not extend arguments for you, so tell me what to extend.
• Final focus is not for additional refutation; any new arguments read will be disregarded

HOW DO I VOTE?

• 90% of the time I will vote on pre-reqs, warranted weighing mech, offense, and impact calc. I find as a judge it makes it easier for me to evaluate.
• Directly compare your impacts and warrants with your opponents. Explain why your impact holds more significance and why your links are clearer and stronger than your opponent's. Warranted impacts > Evidential impacts.
• Weigh based off LINKS, TURNS, LOGIC, or ANALYSIS. Evidence is important, but THAT SHOULD NOT BE THE ONLY REASON WHY YOUR IMPACT HOLDS MORE SIGNIFICANCE. If you've extended your evidence to support your links and analysis, I will look extremely favourable on that.
• Extend key issues/warrants from summary for it to be in final focus! You should focus on painting a narrative, so don't put too much on your plate to flow across everything.

MISC.

• Since I'm a college student, feel free to ask me any questions related to medical school
• I'm always down for a good banter
• Connect with me to chat more about academic-related questions: https://www.linkedin.com/in/helen-huang-635321146/

Qualification: I have about 4 years of Public Forum debate and speech experience from my high school years and have judging experience.

Judge Paradigm:

1. I don't mind the general speed of the debaters but please be clear and coherent while speaking.

2. I would like to see an organized and smoothly flowed debate round.

3. Please support your arguments and refutations with thorough explanation and strong evidence.

4. Please make sure to tell me why you think you won the round by weighing out the arguments and refutations during your summary and final focus. Be sure to connect the dots of the round for me by telling me if any points are dropped or still standing.

5. Please do not be rude.

Qualification: I've competed in Speech and Debate for approximately six to seven years and have coaching and judging experience before and after my High School years. Most of my debating experience comes from Public Forum but I do have some involvement in World Style, CNDF, and British Parliamentary.

Judging Paradigm:

1. Speed is not a huge issue for me, but be considerate to everyone in the round so that contention taglines and pieces of evidence are clearly presented. (Be extra clear with presenting your contention taglines and refutation titles)

2. I will be flowing throughout the whole round, but refutations and reconstructions should be extended to the summary and final focus speeches. If contentions or refutations are dropped somewhere during the round, make sure to mention this in one of the speeches.

3. Summary and Final Focus speeches are the most important speeches in relation to making my decision at the end of the round. This also means that the team that can weigh-out arguments and present voter issues most effectively will most likely win the round.

4. Only have a framework if you are going to use it throughout the round.

5. Don't be rude.

tl;dr: I am a flay judge who votes on 1) weighing and 2) clean narrative and analysis.

--

Below is my detailed paradigm:

• I prefer clearly articulated arguments with logical links, warrants, and impacts.

• I will not have the same level of understanding of the topic as you do, so don't expect me to catch everything if you're rapid-fire-spitting content. I prefer you speak more conversationally and keep the event a "public" forum. The faster you speak, the more likely I am to miss content.

• Repetition is key to understanding. Make sure you're extending points you want me to vote on until the final focus.

• Weigh impacts and links through direct comparison. Tell me why your impacts are more significant and why your links are clearer and stronger than your opponent's. The clearer, the better and the more likely I am to vote for you.

• Please do not read theory, Kritik, or other progressive arguments. I have a shallow understanding and won't make a good decision should I evaluate them.

• Please read content warnings or have an opt-out form for sensitive topics and ask if the opposing team is okay with you reading the argument. You must have an alternate case if they aren't. I have the right to drop you if I think you're making the round an unsafe space.

I'm currently a university student studying computer science at the University of Toronto. In high school I debated for 4 years, in PF, CNDF, BP, and Worlds style, and I am currently a coach. I have been judging for almost 4 years now.

On evidence/logic: I will buy logic over evidence in certain cases, and I'm very sympathetic towards logical analysis due to my background in BP/Worlds. If a logical argument is more substantive and is able to explain why a piece of evidence is reasonably flawed/untrue, I will take the logical analysis. When challenged on statistics, teams should be able to defend their numbers by explaining exactly how those numbers were found or what study produced the numbers. For example, if an increase in the capital gains tax leads to a decrease in the size of an economy by 10%, then a team should know exactly how that 10% was measured, and under what conditions it was measured (if challenged).

On argumentation/structure: I'm very standard on structure. Do all the general things: extend arguments and refutations in summary, and weigh in final focus. I strongly value engagement with arguments: directly respond to arguments and responses, and shift the debate to a scope that better reflects the clashes in the debate. Note that I have zero tolerance for bringing up new material in final focus and I will immediately drop teams that do this. I give lots of credit to teams that can weigh effectively, and paint me a clear picture of exactly what their world would look like vs the world of the other team, and characterize the harms on either side. I strongly believe that a team doesn't have to win every single argument in the debate in order to win the round.

Crossfire: I don't flow crossfire, but I will try to remember what was said. If you want me to flow something that transpired in crossfire please mention it during the speech. Example: "during crossfire, our opponent conceded that... "

In general: Treat me as a standard flow judge, but one that accepts logical argumentation and considers it strongly. I am generally non-interventionist in rounds, so I don't have exact speed preferences as I believe that there are times for both fast speaking and slow speaking. Please adjust to your discretion and what you deem to be most effective.

Personal Background

I have debated at both the high school and university level for the past 8 years. In high school, I was a finalist at tournaments such as Heart of Europe, Canadian Junior Nationals, and the University of British Columbia. I was also a top 10 speaker at provincials (the equivalent of state) multiple times. I have been coaching students for the last 4 years in Public Forum, World Schools, British Parliamentary, Cross-Examination, and the Canadian National Debate Format.

Scoring Range

I will use the full scoring range allowed by the tournament - expect a score anywhere within the 20 to 30 point range.

What I look for as a Judge

My overarching principle to evaluating rounds is that I can only judge what has been presented in front of me. Therefore, it is completely up to you to explain to me all of the important issues in the round and how your case works to address and resolve those problems. I never bring in my own knowledge or ideas when evaluating the round; however, I am always happy to provide candid feedback after the round as to what I personally did or did not like.

1. I want to make sure that you have very strong logical links between your claims. Assertions are not accepted at face value. If your argument leaves me with a lot of outstanding questions at the end of the round, you have not explained it well enough. It's not my job as a judge to make assumptions and editorialize based on where I think you are going, it is your job to explain each argument and piece of rebuttal to me as if I have the knowledge of an average person.

2. Evidence does not make an argument. Evidence for the sake of evidence is not useful and does not help your argument. I want to see that you use the evidence as an extension of your logic and analysis in order to ground the argument. If the logic behind your evidence isn't explained I won't provide it with much weight.

3. I LOVE principled arguments and do not think they are used nearly enough in Public Forum! Blame this on my CNDF and BP background, but principles help balance out your case and explain why your side of the debate is best on both a moral/ethical level and on a practical level. An extremely well-developed principle argument will beat a good practical argument every time in my book. That being said, don't forget that principled arguments also need impacts - you can't just say "that's bad and therefore we shouldn't do it" and proceed to sit down.

4. Provide context and characterization for the main actors in the debate. It's not enough to simply tell me that an actor will do something, you need to explain what motivates them to act and what forces may influence the choices that they make. Actors are not static and are multidimensional - I expect you to portray them that way.

5. Do not forget that countries outside of the United States do exist and can be important in the debate. Although this may seem obvious, I often see teams that become so focused on the United States that they either leave out other major actors or miss the major impacts of the debate. It is important that you consider and evaluate all perspectives in the debate and present a global context when the debate warrants it.

6. Word economy is very important. If you are talking fast because you have a lot to say and it is all extremely valuable content, that is excellent. If you are talking fast for the sake of talking fast while being extremely repetitive and/or providing irrelevant content, it will not be rewarded. I would rather have a debater speak very slowly and have every line of analysis mean something rather than someone who speaks at 180 words per minute and does not add much value to the round; however, I frequently see the latter rather than the former.

I've done Public Forum all throughout my high school years and coached for two more. Be aware, however - I'm no longer in the debating scene, so if I'm judging I'll probably be heading into each round with little topic background.

Just a couple things:

1. If you're going to use a framework, and expect me to judge under your framework, please tell me why your framework is valid. If I'm not convinced that your limitation of the debate is fair or reasonable, then I won't use it. (For the most part, however, I really do not like voting on a framework)

2. I will flow your crossfires, but I won't consider them in my decision unless you reference something mentioned during the crossfires directly in your speeches.

3. Please make sure you weigh - I don't like it when I have to do that on my own.

4. If you're going to reference a card, please read that card out (or summarize it somewhat), instead of just referring to it by the citation. I won't be able to remember or flow down every evidence card that you bring up otherwise.

5. Anything brought up in the Final Focus must have also been brought up in the Summary, with the exception of the first summary speaker who does not have to extend rebuttals if they haven't been responded to yet.

6. I'm fine with speed for the most part as long as it does not compromise enunciation and articulation.

Other than that, if you have any questions, feel free to ask!