I did high school policy debate for three years debating as a performance and kritik debater. I have 4 years experience judging a range of debate styles and arguments. I prefer performance and kritik but i am open to judging anything.

I prefer you that you spend time on framing the arguments in the debate at the top of your speech. I'm not a line by line heavy judge and judge based on Big issues. First, I evaluate the framework for the debate to determine which impacts I should prioritize. Second, I evaluate Impacts and determine which are more important based on the Framework. Third, I evaluate the Status Quo, Plan, Counter-plan, Kritik Alternative, based on which best solves for in round impacts.

If you want my ballot, check all those boxes and I will most likely vote for you over your opponent if they are missing those parts.

Hello debaters,

I am currently a 2nd year Medical Student. I've been actively participating in Model UN, Public Forum, and Lincoln Douglas for 4 years; I'm currently coaching and judging Public Forum. Likewise, I like to think of debate as an empowering experience for both the debaters and the judges, so be respectful to the activity we all love.

I love clashes between arguments; boil down your arguments and tell me explicitly why you won the round and on which terms. Explain and analyze every piece of information even though I might already know what you're talking about. I deeply enjoy the use of fallacies while refuting evidence. I'm most likely to vote for you if your argument is wrapped around the extensive use of statistics and logic. Furthermore, I don't mind spreading, but I prefer if you could read at a leveled speed and tone; the debate is not about throwing arguments at my face, but about connecting them to the resolution at hand.

I understand the frustration of debaters when they encounter biased judges, this is why I completely place my beliefs aside; feel free to run any argument you like, at the end of the day the ballot doesn't depend on your beliefs, but on how you run your arguments and apply your knowledge into the round. I don't like Ks, I think they take away from the value of Public Forum, nevertheless, I will flow them (I just might not buy them). Likewise, I like to say I'm tech> truth, but if the tech is ridiculous, I'm not buying it.

Specifics on speeches:

1. I weigh the round on the established framework and how the speakers appeal to it.

2. All impacts should be warranted, linked, and with In-text citations to be valuable in my ballot.

3. All forms of refutation are good with me as long as they are sustained with factual evidence and quantification

4. Arguments dropped in the summary will not be taken into consideration in my ballot.

5. The Summary should be a weighing machine in the round, weighing done only in the final focus will not be considered in the round.

6. I am very flexible when it comes to final focus, so just tell me why you won, and you should be good to go.

General:

1. CXs can be as aggressive as you want but don't cross the line. Being disrespectful will have effects on your speaker points. (pls make it interesting for me)

2. Time yourself

3. If you are asked for evidence try to show it quickly. (I'll prefer if you say you can't find it, instead of spending 5 mins of the round looking for it)

4. Personal insults, projections against debaters, intentional misgendering, discrimination, or pettiness will be penalized by taking speaker points off (and you'll probably lose the round).

5. Be on time to the round.

6. I don't flow CXs, but I do take them into consideration for weighing my ballot.

7. Please don't add me to email chains or links. Just share the evidence in the round, and I'll be happy.

8. As I said, I've been debating for a long time, so don't try to create PF rules, I know them.

Have fun, debate is a wonderful experience!

(+1 speaker point if you make a Friends or TikTok reference)

About Me

I attended and debated for Rutgers University-Newark (c/o 2021). I’ve ran both policy and K affs.

Coach @ Ridge HS in Basking Ridge, NJ.

Influences In Debate

David Asafu – Adjaye (he actually got me interested in college policy, but don’t tell him this), and of course, the debate coaching staff @ RU-N: Willie Johnson, Carlos Astacio, Devane Murphy, Christopher Kozak and Elijah Smith.

The Basics

Yes, I wish to be on the email chain!

saied.beckford@rutgers.edu

COLLEGE POLICY: I skimmed through the topic paper and ADA/ Wake will be my first time judging this season. Do with this information what you wish.

GENERAL: If you are spreading and it’s not clear, I will yell clear. If I have to do that too many times in a round, it sucks to be you buddy because I will just stop flowing and evaluate the debate based on what I can remember. Zoom through your cards, but when doing analytics and line by line, take it back a bit. After all, I can only evaluate what I catch on my flow. UPDATE FOR ONLINE DEBATES: GO ABOUT 70% OF YOUR NORMAL SPEED. IF YOU ARE NOT CLEAR EVEN AT 70%, DON'T SPREAD.

In general, I like K’s (particularly those surrounding Afro-Pess and Queer Theory). However, I like to see them executed in at least a decent manner. Therefore, if you know these are not your forte, do not read them just because I am judging. One recent pet peeve of mine is people just asserting links without having them contextualized to the aff and well explained. Please don't be that person. You will see me looking at both you and my flow with a confused face trying to figure out what's happening. Additionally, do not tell me that perms cannot happen in a method v. method debate without a warrant.

I live for performance debates.

I like to be entertained, and I like to laugh. Hence, if you can do either, it will be reflected in your speaker points. However, if you can’t do this, fear not. You obviously will get the running average provided you do the work for the running average. While I am a flow centric judge, be it known that debate is just as much about delivery as it is about content.

The bare minimum for a link chain for a DA is insufficient 99% of the time for me. I need a story with a good scenario for how the link causes the impact. Describe to me how everything happens. Please extrapolate! Give your arguments depth! It would behoove you to employ some impact calculus and comparison here.

Save the friv theory, bring on those spicy framework and T debates. Please be well structured on the flow if you are going this route. Additionally, be warned, fairness is not a voter 98% of the times in my book. It is an internal link to something. Note however, though I am all for T and framework debates, I also like to see aff engagement. Obviously these are all on a case by case basis. T USFG is not spicy. I will vote on it, but it is not spicy.

For CPs, if they're abusive, they are. As long as they are competitive and have net benefits, we're good.

On theory, at a certain point in the debate, I get tired of hearing you read your coach's coach's block extensions. Could we please replace that with some impact weighing?

Do not assume I know anything when judging you. I am literally in the room to take notes and tell who I think is the winner based on who gives the better articulation as to why their option is better. Therefore, if you assume I know something, and I don’t … kinda sucks to be you buddy.

I’m all for new things! Debating is all about contesting competing ideas and strategies.

I feel as though it should be needless to say, but: do not run any bigoted arguments. However, I’m well aware that I can’t stop you. Just please be prepared to pick up a zero in your speaking points, and depending on how egregious your bigotry is, I just might drop you. Literally!

Another thing: please do not run anthropocentrism in front of me. It’s something I hated as a debater, and it is definitely something I hate as a judge. Should you choose to be risky, please be prepared for the consequences. (Update: voted on it once - purely a flow decision)

For My LD'ers

It is often times difficult to evaluate between esoteric philosophies. I often find that people don't do enough work to establish any metric of evaluation for these kinds of debates. Consequently, I am weary for pulling the trigger for one side as opposed to the other. If you think you can, then by all means, read it!

Yale Update: Tricks are for kids.You might be one, but I am not.

I'm gonna have to pass on the RVIs too. I've never seen a more annoying line of argumentation.

In general, give me judge instructions.

On average, tech > truth --- however, I throw this principle out when people start doing or saying bigoted things.

I am a flay judge and my daughter is a senior who debates on the local and national circuit. I have been an attorney for nearly 20 years, so I’ve been around the block.

Please be succinct and clear with your arguments and tell me what I should be voting on, especially in final focus.

Be courteous and respectful to each other during round.

I do flow, but don’t spread or run theory or I won’t be able to follow. Don’t just throw things at me and expect them to stick.

I am tech over truth. If you think your opponents’ evidence is flawed, call them out. Don’t expect me to call for evidence that was never contested in the round.

Most importantly, enjoy yourselves!

Tabroom

Instagram

YouTube

Experience: Roughly a decade of debating and coaching.

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

Truth or tech: Truth and Tech :)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Truth or tech: Truth and Tech :)

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

Background:

I am a parent judge who has been judging for around 3 years and consider myself a flay judge. I'm trained as a scientist so logical argument supported by evidence is what I am looking for. I usually read up about the topic beforehand, so I have some knowledge about it.

Preferences:

I am more tech over truth but the argument needs to be believable for an easier win (I am a little more tech than you might imagine)

Please collapse and weigh your arguments against your opponents' arguments (Quality > Quantity)

I flow but I won’t flow if you’re too fast or hard to understand

I vote of the flow but good speaking always helps

I will call for cards usually if they are important for your case in the round. I take evidence very seriously and will drop you if I find it misconstrued.

Theory: I know nothing about theory or how to evaluate it. If you run it there is a high probability that I won't evaluate it.

Don’t be rude or offensive and don’t interrupt during cross or you’ll get dropped

👋 My name is Sudhan Chitgopkar and I'm a judge for Ivy Bridge Academy, River Trail Middle School, and South Forsyth High School. I've also coached and led the South Forsyth High School Debate Team (2017-2019) as well as coached for Ivy Bridge Academy (2018-2019). I'm currently a student at the University of Georgia.

As a PF Debater for the last 6 years, here's my ideology for judging rounds as well as some general preferences:

[1] Stock/run-of-the-mill arguments are boring. While I won't penalize stock args, I prefer to see unique ones.

[2] Extend arguments you want me to vote on. If I vote on it, it has to be in final focus. If it's in final focus, it has to be in summary. I want to see extension of both defense and offense in the summary speech by both teams.

[3] Framework drives the debate. I like seeing framework debate and I use a well-extended framework as the most important thing to weigh the arguments in a given round. Failure to give me a framework means I revert back to Util CBA.

[4] Having cut cards ready is important to me. If I hear a piece of evidence that's either too good to be true or is heavily debated through the round I will call for it. If it can't be provided, the team that claimed to have the evidence will be docked significant speaker points and I will disregard all arguments that are dependent on the card. I also believe that card-organization speaks to team preparedness. Being able to present a called-for card quickly will increase your speaks. Taking too long will drop your speaks.

[5] Be independent/responsible through the debate. Keep your own speech and prep time, let me know when you start/stop prep, don't go over the time limit, etc.

[6] Be polite but passionate. Don't get into a shouting match with your opponents but show that you care about the debate and what you're arguing for. Without this, the debate gets very boring very quickly.

[7] Read my paradigm. Proactively reading paradigms is important and shows that you are responsible and care about the debate. If you let me know before the round that you read my paradigm I'll probably bump your speaker points a bit.

[8] I don't like seeing K's in PF Debate. I will vote on them if I have to, but I really don't want to.

[9] I never evaluate terminal defense when it comes from spreading on the neg during second constructive. I view this act as abusive and will drop your speaks accordingly.

[10] Edit starting Dec 2019: I am no longer keeping up with resolutions in the PF community and their corresponding arguments. Please do not assume that I will automatically know any abbreviations and technical, resolution-related terminology for any topics hereafter.

[11] Edit for Zoom rounds: Speech docs make my life significantly easier and will help you make sure all your most important cards are on the flow. Ask me about my contact details for this in round

Social

Follow me anywhere :)

[Instagram] not.sudhan

[LinkedIn] sudhan.chitgopkar

[Spotify] sudhan.chitgopkar

[Website] sudhanchitgopkar.com

I am a student at cornell and I did PF in high school, which means I will be flowing throughout the debate. Here are some things that I think are important:

- since I have debate experience I understand debate jargons, but I don't keep up with resolutions so be clear if you're gonna use acronyms/ resolution terms.

- make it easier for me to judge. weigh your arguments, have clear but concise signposting, extend points, which points to vote on, etc

- make sure your evidence is WARRANTED

- don't yell during cross please. it especially annoys me when debaters throw passive-aggressive/rude remarks.

- speak CLEARLY. I don't mind if you speak fast as long as it's clear and comprehensible.

- most importantly, be respectful and be honest. i usually don't like to keep time so be honest about your prep time

General Background:

I did S&D for four years in High School. I did PF, Congress, Extemp, Impromptu, and Duet. I competed on the national circuit in Congress my junior and senior years. I am the three-time Arizona Division II State Champion in PF 2016, 2017, 2018. I have coached PF, LD, Parli, and Congress. This paradigm goes in the order of PF, LD, Speaks, Congress. I went to Fordham University for my bachelor's in philosophy. I am now a 1L at the University of Nebraska College of Law.

This paradigm has been updated 11/20/20 to consolidate my preferences (so that LDers aren't looking at the PF section for some things -- they are consolidated to the general section) and present them more clearly. Speaks section added on 12/1/20. Change-log: 3/18/21 edited truth skep section for clarity and emphasis. 1/22/21 added minor tweaks to the LD and speaks section for emphasis and clarity, nothing fundamentally changed in evaluation. Updated 12/12/20 to reflect points I want to emphasize after Stanford. Updated 2/16/22, PF section for minor clarity in advance of Harvard. Update 2/19/22 PF section to emphasize points about impacts half-way through Harvard.

Updated 1/4/23 to reflect updated biographical data; new note on RFD/Ballot construction with arguments on presumption; clarification and organization in LD section.

Debate in general:

-I hesitate to say flat out "debate is a game" but I believe that at its core debate is an intellectual activity. Whether or not education is part of that is something to be established in round. Debate is like chess.

-Include content warnings where appropriate to make debate a safe and accessible space. Avoid sexism and other harms that have cropped up in the debate scene. I will vote off theory on this if its ran.

-I've previously had in this paradigm to try to say a full citation instead of the author's last name and year. This isn't necessary. What I want to stress is that I have a hard time writing down names quickly. The rate at which you say Kowalczyk should be slower than your normal rate (dare I say, 1/2 of your normal rate) so I can figure out how to bastardize the spelling when writing it on my flow. Some teams still are having a hard time doing this - If you need an example of what I expect let me know. I will handle any speed, spreading with a doc (add me to the chain: jcohen83@fordham.edu), I will give a verbal 'clear' if needed.

-I am not timing in the debate round. You cross-time. It is 100% up to the competitors for flex-prep and/or timed-evidence.

-I will give an oral RFD and disclose at the end of the round.

-OTRMs: If you are running something progressive that will require me to get another flow out, please let me know in a roadmap about the off. Otherwise, OTRMs waste time if its "going down one side then back to the other".

-I will not pay attention to crossfire/crossex. Anything that happens needs to be brought up in a speech.

-If you want me to read a piece of evidence, tell me to call for it in a speech. Anytime I ask for evidence I will want to see the cut card first, asking specifically for the full pdf if needed.

PF:

-Bringing LD into PF? Go for it; I like progressive argumentation. Just make sure it actually is justified/be prepared to argue the merits of the progressive debate should it come up.

-Don't extend through ink, and make extensions actually an extension. Extensions should have something new, or at least re-explain what was before. Don't give me "Extend the Worstall card" or "Extend the entirety of our C1" and leave it at that because that isn't extending. If your gonna do that the bare bones is to explain what the cards say. You should use the card names while extending because it helps me flow - but don't only leave it at the card name.

-If you are extending an argument in summary you need to include warrant, link, and impact level extensions where applicable. I can't buy the impact calc if the warrant & impacts aren't extended - even varsity teams have trouble with this.

-every argument has to pass a believability threshold. Even if it’s not refuted, if I am not convinced or I don’t ‘buy’ the argument, I don’t weigh it (See Truth>Tech). I get a lot of questions on this: Basically - you need a warrant. I'm a reactive/visible judge most of the time, you can use this to your advantage to see what arguments I'm nodding towards.

-Don't violate the nsda handbook.

-I most likely won't flow final focus. I never did as a competitor so I don't like to as a judge. I was a first speaker. What I am doing during FF is looking around my existing flow and circling/drawing lines/checking things off, etc. The reason for this is that nothing new should be in FF. Anything you are talking about in your final focus should already be extended through summary (this includes briefly mentioning the impacts while extending the case). Like if something is dropped by both teams I'm not just gonna pick it up in the FF. Most importantly with this, summary speakers needs to extend the defense. Defense is non-sticky.

-I prefer Voter Summaries over two world or line by line (with the rule change to 3 minute summaries this is less important but still helpful for my flow, just make sure to signpost well).

-I will truth>tech in PF, my truth is skep. I will not blindly flow anything you say. If you say the sky is green don't expect me to count it on my flow without any warranting. Similarly, if you don't tell me why an impact matters, i.e. terminalized, then I'm not going to be able to use it for the construction of my ballot. I start from a position where I don't know if war is good or bad and if you don't tell me and say "decrease risk of war" as an impact I'm not going to know how to construct a ballot around that. I'm not Tabula Rasa, I default to dropping every argument in the round. If you drop the warrant or don't terminalize, I drop the argument.

Want to be safe? Every impact chain causes death.

-If I end up dropping every argument in the round, my ballot and RFD will get flukey. Flukey as in I technically don't have any material anymore to construct a decision. This can go one of two ways and I've alternated between both of these approaches depending on how the round goes.

1) I relax a little bit on the flow and take non-terminalized arguments and "risk of advocacy" to make a ballot as in "this team was closer to making my ballot so they get the win"; or

2) Presumption, in which I generally will defer to SQUO unless told otherwise although this is not a guarantee or promise.

Therefore: teams, if you want me to do something specific within my ballot construction, argue for it. If you think (1) is better for you, then say I should do that and tell me why. If you think (2) is better, then give me a presumption argument telling me which way to presume.

LD:

If you're traditional, read the PF paradigm and:

If you are traditional please do not misrepresent philosophies. This is an area I am not tab. at all. If you say Kantian ethics justifies murder I will not weigh it. More progressive philosophies are less subject to this as I haven't studied critical theories as much as I have the basics of moral frameworks. I am very receptive to hearing post-structuralism and post-colonial arguments like if you want to run Baudrillard, CyberFem, Afropess, or something -- I will be more tech on those.

If you are progressive:

I am competent with progressive debate but you should keep in mind adaptation to a PF judge. I would rather have a progressive debate than a bad traditional one (read: please don't let the round have me concluding that PF is a more intellectual form of debate than LD).

I have no predisposition towards PICs. If you want me to drop because PICs are "abusive", you must argue that in round.

If you are running something super LD-y you should be watching my reactions to make sure I understand and explain more if needed, e.g. trix/tricks.

Some things, e.g. performance/performative args/Ks, you will need to clearly explain the path to my ballot and what the role of the ballot in relation to the advocacy is in the round. This includes a hesitancy to vote on theory - you will need to have it be explained as clearly as possible for me to vote on it - if it gets muddied where I don't understand why the theory is being ran I'm liable to not vote on it...

In general with Progressive LD is something where "I will get it and be able to follow along until I suddenly reach a point where I don't". In most rounds I've seen that go progressive I don't have any issues.

I wish I could give you like those rankings of what arguments I prefer like other LD judges, but in my experience, I don't really care as long as its argued well so that I can understand it.

Speaker Points:

I assign speaks in what I assume is a non-traditional (and harsh) way. I will not evaluate speaks based on your speaking ability or performance. Speaks for me are purely reflective of how I assess your technicality in debating relative to a varsity debater championing a tournament. Because of this, I will almost never assign a low point win; if you are technically better on the flow you most likely won the round (unless its a "good at everything but impact calc" vs "average enough to be able to win on strong calc" thing). I do not adjust speaks based on tier of debate I am judging. I do not refrain from giving lower speaks in fear of 4-2 screws. I view 30-25 as an A-F scale. I start from a position that 27 is an average debater who is making various errors in terms of addressing arguments and who is missing a lot of what I think could have been argued. Here is how I think the breakdown goes:

PF: 25-25.9 wow you really did some egregiously bad in the round or have missed so much of the fundamentals of debate that if I were teaching a class I would flunk you. 26-26.9 you missed a lot, you could have done something that was on the flow the opposite of what you should have done. You most likely are missing a lot of components of winning the ballot based on the flow. This is a 'D', my way of saying you aren't at the level of debate you are competing in. 27-27.9 is most likely the most common place for me to put speaks. You did things right enough to consider this an okay debate but I still desired a lot more to come out of it. 28-28.9 is the best I can give to a debater that neither stuns me nor shows something beyond normal technicality. In LD: I will almost never give above a 29/29.5 to someone who isn't running progressive arguments. In PF: above 29.5 means I think you are destined to reach far into elims and should be a contender to win the tournament. If your opponent is a 26.0 and you perform at a 28.5 because you couldn't express the technicality for a 29< due to a lack of substance to wrestle with that is a tough break (and perhaps the biggest flaw with my speaks standards -- but I would rather assign speaks this way [as that scenario is mitigated by power matching] to be as unbiased as possible -- away from any unconscious affects towards things you can't control regarding how you actually speak and sound to me).

Good way to get good speaks with me? Surprise me by doing something on the flow I wouldn't think of or don't see coming. Here is an example of something from a round that blew my socks off: A team got up for their rebuttal (2nd speaking) and read delinks/dewarrants to their own case, then full sent a bunch of turns on the opposing case. On the flow it made perfect sense and was a level of technicality I hadn't seen performed before. They even responded to theory challenging the abusiveness of the tactic. This was a team that was in deep eliminations at a national circuit tournament. It is the kind of of debate on the flow that affords above a 30.

Congress:

This is congressional debate, not mock congress or congressional speaking. Clash is the most important thing to this; without clash, congress isn't debate.

Know where you are in the round. On the topic of clash, nothing is more boring than a rehashed point on the 7th cycle of debate on a bill. Yes I get you want to speak but please follow the life-cycle of debate on a bill. If we're past the first two cycles, I want refutation, if we're getting late into the cycles I want to hear some crystallization.

By all means please caucus and plan motions together for efficiency, but don't exclude people from this activity because a select number of you have clout from the national circuit or camps.

Questions show if you are truly in tune with the debate or not. Asking questions isn't just more speaking time or to show your activity for the ballot. It's about leadership and continuing the clash. Questions are truly an extension of your speech and they will count toward your placement on the top 6 ranking.

For POs: Be quick and efficient. Your job is to get the most debate done in the fixed time we have. If you are fuddling around because you can't remember the process for an amendment that is a problem. Your charisma and leadership of the chamber are important to your efficiency. Don't expect a top 4 ranking just for POing. You earn that top 6 by virtue of how well you do as a PO.

I’ve competed in and judged debate for many years, and though I mainly have background in CX/Policy debate, I really enjoy judging PF debate. I am meticulous on the flow, and can keep up with speed, but appreciate sign posting (letting me know) when you switch arguments. I really like to hear strong link and impact arguments, regardless of the type of argument you choose to run. Weighing your arguments throughout the round is a must in my voting decision. Ask me any specific questions for clarification and have fun with it!

I’m a parent judge who has judged PF for four years. This paradigm was influenced by my son. I flow important points throughout the round.

Preferences:

1. Have both warrants and impacts backed up by evidence in your case. Carry them through the round if you want me to vote on them.

2. Do comparative weighing in summary AND final focus, this is important. Don’t use buzzwords.

3. If you want me to vote on an argument, it must be in summary AND final focus.

4. Don’t speak too quickly. If I can’t understand you, you  won’t win my ballot.

5. Be respectful, especially in crossfire, or  I will dock speaker points.

6. No new arguments in final focus, they will not be considered. Bring them up earlier in the round so your opponents can respond to them.

7. Have all evidence ready to show your opponents. Don’t take too long when evidence is asked for..

8. Signpost throughout your speeches. This also includes short offtime roadmaps. It makes it much easier to flow.

9. Clearly explain your arguments in each speech, do not just assume I have a prior understanding of every argument. I do some reading on the topic before the tournament, but I am by no means an expert.

10.  Don’t run progressive arguments (Ks, theory), I don’t know how to evaluate them.

Speaker Points (adjusted based on division):

<26: Very poor OR offensive, rude, tried to cheat, etc.

26-26.9: Below Average

27-27.9: Average

28-28.9: Above Average

29-29.5: Great

29.6-30: Amazing

Hi! I am a PF debater and a flow judge. Tech>Truth I have debated throughout my high school years, so speed is free with me. ENUNCIATE if you are using speed. I won't write down what I don't understand.

It is your job to weigh in speeches, and it is my job to judge you based off of that. If you give me no weighing, I can't really do the comparative analysis for you- the debate becomes bland and I give a decision that you might not be satisfied with.

Try to frontline in second rebuttal- respond to important turns at least. Moreover, since summary is now 3 minutes, you HAVE to extend rebuttals and frontline and WEIGH in summary. If it is dropped, then it is dropped. Do not try to extend or respond to something you dropped, especially in final focus. I am not going to count it, so it is a waste of time.

You can run theory and K's, but I have no soft spot for it. If it is complicated, explain it well or I am not buying.

Give off-time roadmaps or signpost, where ever and whenever you can. It is much easier for me to follow your speech. If your speech is all over the place, do not expect me to follow it.

I am super hands off when judging, so I won't call for a piece of evidence unless you compel me to call for it.

Please add me to your email chain, or evidence sharing doc using this email: yingying.fang.debate@gmail.com

Warrant your evidence! Don't just give me an empiric without any explanation! I value good analytics over cards, but cards obviously help a lot too.

I don't count prep for calling cards, but I do when reading them.

MAKE IT CLEAR WHEN YOU ARE USING PREP. Since everything is online, don't be sneaky! I can tell if something is off, and I will not be nice if I catch you in the act.

Collapse! Please narrow your speeches into the clashes and core arguments of the round. Drop unnecessary arguments and be strategic! If not, the debate can be become muddled and stronger arguments don't have the time to shine.

Time yourselves! I will give a 5-10 second leeway, but I will stop writing any new points after that period. To signal speeches past-time, you will be able to see my timer in the air, or a hand gesture pointing to my wrist.

I am more lenient towards new and younger debaters; don't worry too much about rules at this stage and just build basics! Always make sure to check feedback!

My facial expressions are very obvious, so if I look confused, then I probably am. Look to me in the round to see if I am following you.

I enjoy a bit of humor in speeches, especially puns, but don't be rude in or out of the round. I will deduct speaks for any derogatory language or discrimination of ANY kind; the world is already very melancholy, so be happy and kind debaters!

Just do your best! :))

julianvgagnon@gmail.com please add me to email chains

from planet debate-

this is difficult for me b/c i'm not sure i have A judging philosophy but I do have many different ideas about and for debate...some inconsistent. that being said i don't want what i think about debate to totally dictate what debaters decide to do in rounds.

topicality- generally don't like it. I find no abuse args to be really persuasive. Since I like critical arguments so much I think you can usually find ground in any debate. i don't like the competing interpretations framework very much. i find the "that limits out any aff" arg to be persuasive. but i will vote on that framework and topicality if left unchallenged. in a good topicality debate on competeing interp vs an ok no abuse arg i'll USUALLY vote aff.

cp- like em. with a critical nb even better. i think i'm a fair judge for these debates. aff theory args generally not persuasive unless unchallenged. very similar to topicality in this regards.

das- great. a lot of people are now struggling with the we control the uniqueness = a risk vs. we got d/risk of turn. i don't think the aff has to have offense to win a da but i do find in a lot of debates that with only defense it hurts the aff a bunch. especially when the neg has a cp. but i tend to weight the da first in terms of probability and then magnitude.

critical args- love em. these are the debates i find the most interesting. i'm willing to listen to virtually any way the neg wants to present them. method. alternative. text no text. don't care. case turn. obviously it's the neg's burden to provide some way to evaluate their "framework" but in terms of theory i think they are all pretty much legit. args are args and it's the other teams responsibility to answer them.

others- i like to see people be nice to each other in debate rounds. some people may say i intervene sometimes. it's true but let me provide context. if you go for you mis-spelled (jk) a word in your plan and you should lose and your winning the arg but the other team says this is stupid...we'll i'm persuaded. you just wasted a bunch of peoples time. another thing. DON'T RUN MALTHUS IN FRONT OF ME- DOESN'T MATTER IF IT RIGHTS OR NOT. i won't flow it. i think that while debate is a game we still have a responsibility to "speak truth to power". discourse is very important. definately co-constitutes with reality. this may be why i'm starting/have been hating the politics debate for the last year and a half. but hey, like i said before, i'm full of inconsistancies b/c sometimes you just don't have another arg in the box to go for. i'm sympathetic to this. especially in high school debate. i still research it for the hs topic and coach my kids to go for it.


from debateresults...

Debate is a game- i have a lot of ideas about how the game should be played but in the absence of teams making those arguments i won't default to them. i think debate should make the rules of the game and provide a framework for how i should evaulte the debate. i'm not a big fan of some arguments...like malthus in particular...but also theory arguments in general. these debates generally happen faster then my mind and pen can handle. ive judged a lot although i haven't much this year on the china topic. some people may think i have a bias towards critical arguments, and while this is true to some degree (i generally find them more intersting than other debates), it also means i have higher standards when it comes to these debates. yeah imagine that, me with high standards.

Backgrounds

I am a parent judge, self-trained. I teach business courses at a university, conduct social studies, and publish academic articles.

Mechanics:

Don't spread. Talk slowly and clearly.

Time yourselves.

Don't be offensive to your opponent.

Content:

Be careful with assumptions. I respect reasonable and logical usages of fact/evidence, and I do love structured content.

Sreenivas Gannavaram

School affiliation: Montgomery Blair High School

I have been judging PF debates for 3 years. I am a scientist by profession. I am comfortable with a moderate speed of delivery as long as it is clear and on point. Summary speeches should lay out the big picture and emphasize strong links and responses. I look for full and complete response to the relevant arguments that remain standing. Extend arguments and evidence you deem necessary to win the round. I do not evaluate any kind of progressive debate. I flow extensively throughout the round. For me. argument takes precedence over style. To win an argument in the round, debaters should extend their arguments clearly in summary and final focus. The side with clear weighing will win the round. I do not vote for arguments newly raised after second summary.

Mike Girouard

Years involved in debate: 20+ (policy 20+years, PF 7yrs, LD 7yrs)

Coached at Baylor, Kansas State, U of Rochester, The New School, Augustana College, The Asian Debate League and several High Schools - Debated at Univ of North Texas

I hate people who try to pigeon-hole judges into fitting a particular mold or label them as hacks that only vote for certain args or certain types of arguments. That being said I would say that I feel as though I can judge and evaluate any kind of debate that you want to have. I have some feeling about args and I will discuss those more in detail below, but it’s important to keep in mind that when you debate in front of me you should be comfortable in yourself and your arg and you should be fine. Have the debate that you want to have, because in the end that will make it more enjoyable and educational for everyone involved.

One last caveat, as this year has progressed and with the transition to paperless debate I find myself calling for less and less evidence after the round. I feel as though you should be doing the debating in the round. If it is a question of what the card says or doesn’t say I will probably call for the evidence, but don’t expect me to piece together your argument by reading all of your evidence after the round. I feel as though this does a disservice to a team that is at least attempting to do the argumentation on the line-by-line.

Prep Time – my default is that prep time should stop when the other team is flashing their evid. That being said if there is blatant disregard for this or abusing of this I will revert to prep-time not ending till after the speech has been flashed and given to the opponents. Before this does occur I will say something in the round.

CP’s – I love a good PIC. I think it should be the burden of the Aff to defend every aspect of the plan and should have some defense of including it in the plan. I really don’t like to vote on theory, but I will if that is what you want the debate to be about. As far as perms go, use them as you like. Just justify your theory and your fine. If you are going for a CP in front of me keep a few things in mind: it must have a net benefit and some sort of DA to the perm, it doesn’t necessarily have to solve for all of the Aff, but you need to have something to answer the portions that you don’t solve for, you can have a critical net benefit if you like, just explain how it functions in relationship to the Aff and the advocacy of the CP.

DA’s – Not really a whole lot to say here. I like U cards to have some sort of a warrant. Debate the warrants in the round and don’t make me have to evaluate 15+ U cards to help settle that debate. I would prefer fewer cards with more warrants to help settle this problem. Make sure you are giving me some sort of impact calc in the last few speeches and weighing all the potential outcomes of the impacts (i.e. – even, if statements). If the aff reads a K of your impacts you have to justify them or you will probably lose that argument. I prefer scenarios with fewer and more warranted internal links as to avoid the proliferation of outlandish impact scenarios. Make sure there is a solid link and you are weighing everything in the last few speeches and you should be fine.

The K – I am open to most K’s. I don’t believe that Realism/Framework is the end all answer to the K. Try engaging in the arguments that are being run and you have a better chance of picking up the ballot in front of me. Arguments that question your representations or epistemological starting point are best answered by providing an offensive justification for your reps or your starting point. Just make sure you are explaining how you want me to evaluate your K in relationship to the Aff. What are the impacts, what are the implications, do you have an alt, and what is the link. Make sure all of these things are in the debate and you will be fine. I do find that most people don’t answer one fundamental question in these types of rounds: What is the role of the critic? Just answer or at least recognize that these questions exist and you should be alright.

Topicality – My default is that this debate should be about competing interpretations. You should attempt to answer the question: which interpretation is better for both this debate round and the community as a whole. This being said, if you don’t want me to evaluate it based on competing interpretations just make the arg and justify it with warranted args and you should be fine. If you are going for T in front of me you probably need to spend a little bit of time on it in the 2NR. I’m not saying that you have to go for T and nothing else, but I think it’s an arg that requires a little bit of time for you to adequately go for it. Things I look for in a T debate: Clear distinction between interpretations, warranted reasons for why your interp is better as well as why the other interp is bad, and the impact these have on not only the round but the community at large.

Theory – Not a big theory hack, but will vote on it from time to time, especially in instances of clear articulated in round abuse. Just make sure you are giving warranted reasons why your theory is legit, the specific abuse that has occurred and the impact of them being allowed to do what they did. That being said, theory should be more than just a whine, engage their args and make sure that you are at least answering their args. If you expect for me to vote on theory you should devote some time to it in the last couple of speeches.

Performance – I’m fine with different styles of debate. There are instances where you can ask me to not flow or be so “flogo-centric” and assuming there is a warranted reason why this is legit I will be alright. A few things to keep in mind if you do chose to do this in front of me: why is your method better than what exists now? why should it be preferred and what are the larger implications on the debate community? Just make sure you are attempting to at least perceptually engage the other teams args and you will be fine.

TLDR: I did PF in high school, I still debate in college. I want you to give me warrants and weigh A LOT, and if you want to run progressive stuff explain it well. My pronouns are she/her/hers, and if you make debate an inaccessible or hostile space your speaks will likely reflect that.

**please include me in your email chain: robinlgloss@gmail.com**

The long version, with my paradigms in decreasing order of significance:

I graduated in 2018 and did PF and Extemp for all four years of high school. I also some Policy, LD, and Congress. I now go to George Washington University and have been doing APDA for three years.

1. Your competitors are human beings who deserve to be treated with respect. I understand that debate rounds can be intense, but do your absolute best to make your round a safe and accessible place.
2. Reading a card with limited analysis is likely not enough to get me to vote on that evidence. Explain to me why it matters in the context of the debate and I will be much more likely to consider it. This is even more true if you take the time to weigh arguments, especially in the last half of the round.
3. I’m willing to hear and vote on progressive/theory arguments, but you’ll have more success with “drop the argument/contention/card” arguments than “drop the debater” unless something is particularly egregious. If you’re running these arguments, explain them well and don’t assume that I’m familiar with the argument.
4. If you want me to consider an argument in my decision, bring it up in final focus and explain why I should be voting on it. If you’re extending an argument, don’t just say “extend X argument” - explain to me why I should care about it and what it means in the context of the round.
5. I can deal with speed and jargon, but use them with discretion. If you’re using unnecessary speed or jargon it makes it less likely I will understand the argument as thoroughly as you want me to. If I need to I will unmute myself and say clear (or do what your preference is for me to express that), but don’t make me do that.
6. The first time you mention a card, try to use more than just “Author Year” to reference it - “Author, Year, Source” is ideal. This adds credibility to your evidence and ensures that I have the card flowed correctly the first time.

Hello!

A little background about me... I was a Public Forum Debate Coach until recently, and was a PF debater myself.

On to preferences..

If you present an argument/statistic, make sure you have evidence to back it up. Any evidence that is asked I will also ask to see. If there is some information that seems wrong to me, or manipulated, I will ask for it and if it turns out to be foul play you will automatically lose the round. Make sure all evidence is warranted. I weigh numbers more than I do words. Also, I discourage link chains. (Having to prove 3+ links to get to your impact.)

Clear and fast-paced speeches are my preference. However do not spread, I will not flow.

During crossfires, I like civil interactions between teams. Though please keep it interesting. Be sassy and clever, but not abusive. Make me laugh and I'll give you 2 extra speaker points. Also in Grand-cross, both partners should speak. Everyone should be taking their own time and staying within the speaking times.

If an argument or impact is not mentioned in Summary I consider it dropped. Period. If it is mentioned in summary but not carried through to final focus, i also consider it dropped. No new arguments will be accepted after rebuttal.

Frameworks are a must. If you don't do Framework weighing/comparisons in rebuttal and/or summary adequately i will choose my own. Make sure your framework is clear to me. Impact calculus(i.e. probability, magnitude, scope, timeframe, impact short circuiting, reversibility, etc.) is ESSENTIAL in summary and final focus. Tell me what you win and why you win it, and why you win it better than the opposing team does.

USE TAGLINES, in every speech. No exception. Make sure your speeches are organized.

I love a good argument/impact turn, pointing out non-uniqueness, slick stuff like that.

Do NOT leave time in a speech. Do NOT go over your time. I will keep your time; however, please do so as well. If you keep talking past your time and do not stop when I ask you to, I will be decreasing your speaker points significantly.

That's about it, if you have any questions or concerns I'll be happy to briefly answer them before the round begins.

Most importantly, have fun!

Hello. I hope you are having a nice day.

I've debated PF for three years at Montgomery Blair High School! I am really not a fan of documents where everyone pastes their evidence in an unknown order - just include me in the email chain: iris.gupta02@gmail.com.

Note - I'll only intervene in situations where the safety of anyone in the round is compromised.

1. Speed - Imo there’s no need to speak quickly. And as Lara Ojha puts it, if you start spreading, I will fall asleep.

2. Weighing - I think weighing is more than comparing offense at the end of the debate. Tell me why to prefer your responses over their arguments, why your link is stronger, why your frontlines beat their responses early on. Basically, WEIGH EVERYTHING or I'll have to decide what's more important myself/consider it a wash. Note - clarity and probability are not real weighing imo

3. Progressive - I have VERY little experience with progressive stuff and am actually sympathetic to teams that argue debating the topic is more important. Idc if you disclose/paraphrase or not. Definitely don't read progressive stuff as a strategy to get ahead of opponents with limited experience.

4. Frontlining - I think second rebuttal needs to frontline all turns and any arguments y'all plan to go for otherwise it's considered conceded. Any argument that wasn't frontlined in second rebuttal simply does not have offense.

5. Extensions - Smh for blippy extensions. Make em nice. I will also just ignore things in FF that I didn't hear in summary.

6. Evidence - You can paraphrase but your speaks will be highly rewarded for reading cut cards. Evidence ethics are generally atrocious so I'm really sympathetic to indicts/looking at cards you tell me to. Especially for the West Africa topic, the debate should be about things that actually happened in West Africa, not just about things that sound good. This being said, PLEASE no miscut evidence or I will be sooooo sad.

7. Crossfire - I may or may not listen. I won't vote off of cross but your speaks will depend on it to some extent. +0.5 speaker points if you can make me laugh. Keep speaking time about 50/50 per side because I won't be impressed by "dominating cross".

8. Quality/Quantity - I value quality over quantity. I REALLY DO NOT VIBE WITH dumping blippy turns and disads in rebuttal. The other team can literally just point out if the opponent has dumped offense without giving warrants, impacts, etc. and I'll probably side with them there.

9. Other stuff - A good warrant will always beat evidence because methodology is flawed all the time and who knows how good the statistic is. Consider "we have a warrant and they don't" valid weighing.

10. Post-rounding - Shore.

11. Timing - I will keep time and give a 10 second grace period. I am really not tryna listen to a 5 minute rebuttal.

12. Roadmap - Shore. +0.2 speaks if you actually follow it.

13. Signposting - PLS do this and my flow will look a lot more like yours.

14. FF - Tell me how to evaluate the round! If not, my default is looking at who wins the weighing and then looking for a risk of offense under that.

15. Collapsing - I think both teams should only go for one or MAYBE two pieces of offense in the back half. This saves time to do important things, like frontlining, weighing, etc.

16. Concessions - If something that's read isn't responded to in the next available speech, it's conceded.

17. Speaks - If you say "Eric Chen is the best debater in the world" in any speech, +0.4 speaks.

I prefer teams email me their speech document to amyhu881@gmail.com before the round starts. Please do so asap as it takes a while for the email to arrive and sometimes the first email fail to reach me. It is Ok that you don't send me your speech doc but it will help me to understand your round.

Please time yourself. I wont keep track of the crossfires. Tell me what is the priority to weight and why your impact is bigger.

Keeping your arguments simple and logical. I can easily get lost if you talk too fast or provide me tons of information.

Please be calm and polite. When you getting hostile to your opponent, I will think you lose control because you know you fail the round.

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

Hello friends,

I'm Hannah; I used to do PF for Interlake and am now a 26 at Dartmouth. Please set up an email chain for round documents, my email is hwhuang04@gmail.com.

LD

I have never ever competed in LD. I'll try my best to evaluate everything, but I also haven't debated in a while and am a normal college student at this point... I <3 topical arguments and will probably evaluate them in a way that everyone will be happier about

PF

I evaluate debates as tab as I can, but deep down I do like truthy arguments that make sense. If I dont understand something, I feel cosmically compelled to evaluate other things before it

I liked debating and I like watching people debate. Whether I like judging is another question contingent on some of the things below

Things I like:

• Decelerating rounds: faster case and rebuttal, slower summary and final focus (PLEASE COLLAPSE EFFICIENTLY)
• Clash: collapsing on a common issue on both sides makes the debate more interesting, easier to evaluate, and easier for me to make a decision that everyone is happy with (this can also be done thru comparative weighing)
• Frontlining in the next speech: this should be going on as soon as 2nd rebuttal
• Complete extensions: this goes for offense and defense - no sticky defense
• Warrants/analysis that go beyond "author said so"
• Implicated turns: please weigh turns that aren't direct link turns
• Content warnings with opt outs
• ROB analysis: I like progressive arguments which tell me WHY i should deviate from more traditional judging and what role the judge should take in the round
• Cool, intuitive arguments

Things i dislike:

• New in the 2: I WILL NOT evaluate anything not in summary
• New implicative weighing in ff: it's basically a new argument
• Frivolous theory, please don't waste my time
• Bad spreading
• Bad evidence
• Debaters that don't look at their timers
• Racists/sexists/etc

I'll disclose whenever I can. Feel free to ask questions about my decision if the tournament isn't running behind

I am a parent judge with several years of judging experiences.

Please focus on these areas if you want to win a round:

· State your framework clearly

· Substantiate your contention with impact

· A combination of logical reasoning with data/evidence

· During cross-fire and rebuttals, I want to hear the teams trying to challenge and effectively defend.

· Final Focus should be relevant to what happened during the debate

Short version:

- I vote off the flow

- Tech>truth

- Defense not frontlined in second rebuttal is sticky

- Warrant everything

- If there is no offense on either side of the flow and neither team makes a presumption argument, I'll flip a coin

- Don't be an *** and have fun!

Long version:

Preferences:

Speed - I'm bad at flowing. I can flow <215 WPM speeches pretty well but send a doc if you're planning to go over that.

Progressive Argumentation - Not too experienced with these arguments but I am comfortable voting on them. Please avoid jargon and explain these arguments in an accessible manner. If I think you're being exclusionary I'll tank your speaks. I'm mostly comfortable with theory, somewhat comfortable with K's, and not really comfortable with anything else. Ask me before the round to be sure. NO TRICKS. If you like tricks, you'll change your mind after watching this.

Tech/Truth - I can vote on any argument as long as it's explained well. I don't care how crazy it sounds.

Quantity/Quality - I always prefer quality. This means you should NOT read cases with more than four contentions and dump a ton of blippy responses in rebuttal. Every argument/response needs to be explained and warranted. Please weigh offensive responses when they are first introduced.

Front-lining in Second Rebuttal - Not mandatory but highly recommended.

Defense in First Summary - Defense is sticky. You only need to mention defense that was frontlined in second rebuttal.

Weighing - YES. PLEASE WEIGH unless you want me to intervene. Start as early as constructive if you want to. Make sure it's comparative or I'll ignore it.

Timing - Time yourselves and each other. DO NOT interrupt your opponents if they are going over time. I'll be mostly fine if you go <4 seconds over. At 5 seconds over, hold up your phone or something to let me know. I'll stop flowing.

Calling cards - Don't overdo it. If you want me to call a card after the round, tell me in a speech, but I probably won't call for it unless it affects my decision. It's up to you to explain your evidence well in round. If I call a card and see something good in it that was not mentioned in a speech, I'll ignore it.

Evidence Ethics - Don't misconstrue your cards but don't be super picky about your opponents' cards either. If you think a card is misconstrued, tell me to call for it. If it's a minor violation, I'll treat the response/argument related to the card as an analytic unless you convince me otherwise.

Content warnings - Please provide them if you're planning to read arguments about sensitive topics.

After the Round

Disclosing - I will if the tournament allows it

Questions - Ask me anything but don't be obnoxious. It's okay to ask me "how did you evaluate the _____ response in the round" but don't ask me "how did you evaluate the conceded terminal defense on the only piece of offense they went for." If you think I "judge screwed" you, grow up and get over it :) (or strike me).

Speaker points

I'll try to average 28.5. Great strategic decisions OR great speaking get you 29+. Great strategic decisions and great speaking will get you 29.5+. Rhyme your speeches to get a BIG boost (0.5-1 depending on the speech).

If I think that you were being exclusionary, rude, condescending, or offensive, I'll tank your speaks (or drop you depending on the violation). Please make the debate space safe for everyone.

I have been debating for about 5 years, including two years of coaching debate. I am a university student right now, so you know the deal with university judges: spend more effort on debate itself than style. (That also means I'm a flow judge.) I care a lot of your links and impacts in both your contentions and refutations. Framing (framework, stance, burden, etc) is also important to me. For style, as long as you maintain your etiquette and clarity, you are good to go.

email chain: rohitjivangikar16@gmail.com

Experience:

Public Forum - Ivy Bridge Academy: 2016-2020

JV/Varsity PF Coach - Ivy Bridge Academy: 2020-2021

General Preferences:

1. Argumentation - While there are typically a few popular arguments for every topic, that doesn't influence my preference towards the arguments that you run. I'm open to any and every argument, as long as you have the evidence and warrants to debate it.

2. Warrants - As open as I am to arguments, you need to have some sort of logical flow to them, and warrants should be the easiest way to justify your arguments when needed. If your cards and links do not have any warrants, I will have a tough time buying it and factoring it into my decision.

3. Weighing - It's important that both sides explicitly tell me why their side wins the debate. I look for this specifically in the last 4 speeches, yet I do believe that some debaters overlook the link debate. I'd rather look for a realistic link to a realistic impact than a complex, unlikely link to an unrealistically severe impact. It all depends on how you choose to compare both sides, and the clearer the weighing, the easier it is for me to vote for you.

4. Frontlining - Although this is not necessarily a requirement in PF, I do highly encourage frontlining in 2nd rebuttal and will therefore reward teams that do it, effectively and efficiently, with speaker points. However, I do require that if you frontline, that you respond to all turns toward your case, or else I will consider them as conceded arguments.

5. Extending Arguments - A general norm that I followed when I debated that I will continue to look forward to is that any arguments that are brought up should have been extended in summary. This includes any turns, defense, contentions, weighing, and cards. As mentioned before, I'd prefer if you collapse the debate during summary rather than drop arguments in FF.

6. Summary - I view this as arguably the most important speech in the debate, and it's clear to see why. Arguments must be extended here. If you haven't mentioned weighing prior to this speech, it must start here. I will reward higher speaks for those who are able to strategically manage their time during this speech.

7. Paraphrasing - Although I am not in total support for this, I will not make it harder for you to win the debate if you paraphrase. That being said, you should be able to pull up a source when asked, and if any sources are misrepresented, then this will hurt your speaks, and will definitely influence my decision.

8. Crossfire - I don't flow crossfire but if you want me to consider anything that was said in crossfire, you'll have the mention it in the speech that directly follows.

9. Speaking - It's simple: debate, at its core, revolves around communication skills. Hence, I am fine with some speed, but I look down upon spreading in PF. I prefer clarity over speed in Summary and FF. Make sure you signpost during all speeches and off-time roadmaps are preferred but not needed.

10. Prep/Timing - I'll do my best to keep track of prep but make sure that you are keeping your own time throughout the round. If you go over time then it will affect your speaks.

11. Speech Docs - I highly prefer sharing/emailing any speech docs prior to the start of the round to my email above, as it will help me flow and understand your arguments and evidence. For teams that share docs to me, I'll add .5 speaker points for each debater. For elims, I require that all speech docs be sent.

Lastly, just enjoy the debate. Let me know if you have any other questions before the round.

I like it when debaters provide logical reasons for why their assertions are true.

Do not just rely on cards please.

If you have a critical piece of information that you need me to hear, make sure to speak more slowly during that portion of your speech so that I actually pick it up.

I prefer argument that have concrete impacts and do not rely on speculations and hypotheticals.

Make sure to be comparative.

Middle School Paradigm:

• Choose a few arguments and make it very clear why they’re the most important

• Weigh your impacts!

• Explain everything (and remember to re-explain your argument from the resolution to the impact in Summary and FF)

• I like very organized speeches

• Summary and FF should be similar

• Be nice (especially in cross)

• Use they/them pronouns unless your opponents tell you otherwise

• If you are racist, LGBTQ+-phobic, ableist, rude, sexist, or are discriminatory in any other way, you will lose the round and may be reported

My longer paradigm - https://docs.google.com/document/d/17teFyL5H25AsRRIW5DLGVcL5NeqJjk4UPxy8e-RUKeE/edit?usp=sharing

Follow my twitch? https://twitch.tv/djdheedhee

Anything I think is out of the flow judge norm/important to read if you're skimming through will be asterisked (***blah blah blah).

Background. I'm a senior at Montgomery Blair HS, and it's my 5th year debating PF. If anything in this paradigm confuses you/there's something missing, shoot me an email (dheekeshav@gmail.com) or hmu on messenger.

Tech > Truth: This is what that means for you.

1. ***I am super committed to not intervening. I WILL NOT DO WORK. This isn't a "don't make me weigh for you" situation, it's a "if you don't explicitly weigh, I'll presume" sort of deal (I'll also presume if both sides win case and weighing and neither does metaweighing). The only exception is if you win defense/link turns on what they're extending, because then the weighing isn't really needed.

a) Presumption - in the context of rounds I judge - is when I can't find a path to the ballot without doing work for you, I vote along some predetermined metric. In this case, I presume whoever lost the coin flip.

2. David puts it best when he says "Run whatever argument you want...HOWEVER, I will intervene in instances where the safety of debaters in the room is compromised. That could be through making blatantly discriminatory arguments or not providing a content warning for a sensitive topic." Anything else is fine - just win your link chain.

Speed: I'm shit at flowing.

1. ***Ok, I'm not that bad, but I would say my inability to handle whatever VIP BL called "PF speed" is one of my biggest flaws as a debater. I can get arguments down, but if you want me to catch nuance or not miss one of your responses, don't push it.

2. If I get real lost, I'll clear you, but also, sometimes I'll just think I'm the shit at flowing when actually im catching like 2/3 of the responses sooo...

3. Idk where my threshold for starting to drop stuff is but it's probably somewhere around 225 WPM.

4. Don't send a speech doc because you plan on breaking the sonic barrier. I'll allow it if it's because your mic is trash or you cut out a lot

Extensions

1. ***Generally, I don't care if you extend card names. In fact, I would much rather you just said "Extend the C1 about Iran, that it would expand and lead to nuke war" or something like that. As long as I get your links and your impact, I'm good. I don't see the point in making y'all repeat yourselves for 30 seconds in each speech in the back half. This means I fully expect this to be in your speech. I'm making this easy on y'all. If you miss your impact, that's not my fault.

2. When extending responses and turns, keep in mind that my flowing is shitty. I still don't think you need the card names, but it'd help me on the flow a lot if you just told me the number of the response and the gist of it.

3. ***If your opponents extend case/turns/defense through ink, just say its through ink. If I don't have that ink on my flow, that's a big yikes.

4. ***I just lifted a lot of the regulation PF burden off of the summary/FF's shoulders. If you somehow still go 300 WPM in your summary, expect me to be very unhappy. If you blip through the 1 sentence extension, I might not catch it and think you dropped case, so slow down when you extend. Or just be slow the whole time.

Speech Stuff: Responding

1. 2nd rebuttal only has to frontline turns. Conceded contentions/turns have 100% strength of link, which is NOT the same thing as 100% probability of impact.

2. 1st summary needs to backline any frontlines that the 2nd rebuttal put on their defense if they want that defense in final focus. Dropped defense only needs to be "extended" in 2nd summary.

3. ***Turns have to be in summary. If you extend a dropped turn and frame it as defense in 1st final focus, I'll allow it.

4. No new responses to case/turns in summary (1st summary can frontline turns). No new frontlines in FF.

5. Signpost. Ideally, list # of responses to each argument before going into it.

Speech Stuff: Weighing

1. *** Only do real weighing please. I'll still evaluate it, but I die a little bit inside everytime someone tells me their two reasons they outweigh are probability and clarity of impact.

2. ***The last speech for new weighing is summary (not counting meta-weighing).

a) 1st FF is allowed if nobody does it before, and 2nd FF is allowed if nobody does it before (including 1st FF).

3. *** If both sides win case and weigh and nobody interacts with the other weighing/does meta-weighing, I'll presume.

4. I'd prefer if you didn't weigh on the flow (don't weigh as you get to their C1), but rather if all the weighing was separate from the line-by-line in your speech.

Crossfire

1. I'll probably be listening. If you're funny or smart in cross, your speaks will go up, and if you're rude or dumb in cross, your speaks will go down. A few more things on that:

a) Any sort of question or comment in the crossfire that has to do with you seeing evidence after the crossfire will annoy the shit outta me. You could be fantastic in round, but if you keep doing that in cross, your speaks will not reflect your impeccable speeches.

b) Inserting speeches into cross makes me sad.

c) My favorite crossfires happen when teams have multiple quickfire lines of questioning, even if nobody concedes anything in the process. Understanding when you're circling or when you're not going to get a concession and moving on is a goddamn talent.

2. ***Nobody is obligated to talk during cross-x. If you and the other team want to prep for 3 minutes, I'll allow it. If either team wants to ask questions, though, the other team's gotta answer them.

2. ***If you wanna use flex prep to ask questions, go for it.

Progressive Argumentation: I didn't run a lot of progressive arguments as a debater, but I did help write a cap K last year, and my school has won several rounds on paraphrasing theory, so I'm exposed to the argumentation.

1. *** For ALL debaters considering running progressive args in my round: I think that progressive arguments do belong in PF, but NOT in the way that they do in CX/LD. They should a) be read at the pace of a normal case, and b) be well-tagged so that the case itself is understandable OR paraphrased. If you spread me a semiocap K straight out of the backfiles, and your speech doc is extremely confusing, then I'll still evaluate it AS BEST I CAN, but your speaks will TANK. Debate, progressive or not, should be accessible and comprehensible. I also prefer paragraph theory when judging, even though I think that the shell format is better-organized, because I think that shells are more exclusionary.

2. You should extend theory and K's more rigorously than case, because it may be harder for myself/other debaters to grasp initially, so repeating it and explaining it well is helpful.

3. ***I default no RVI's, CI > Reasonability, DtA > DtD, but this is only if neither side tells me what to do. If you don't know what this means, maybe don't run theory (or ask me before round, I don't know that much more than y'all but I'll do my best).

4. ***By default, I will evaluate Theory and Ks before case, but since both have a ROB, if neither side tells me whether I go to Theory first or K's first in a debate where they're at odds with each other, I'll just kick both and go to the case debate. PLEASE do this weighing.

5. ***I'll evaluate tricks but I don't particularly like them. I'd easily take a paragraph theory argument about why tricks are bad because they reduce clash or arguments about why the spirit of the resolution > text of the resolution. ALSO DON'T HIDE TRICKS. Put them in a contention (or 5), or in a subpoint (can be in an unrelated contention) or in an over/underview. If it's hidden in your debt contention link chain, I'm not evaluating it.

Evidence ethics.

1. I'm not calling cards if nobody tells me to/there are no evidence conflicts.

2. ***I think if your evidence doesn't have a warrant but you do, I have no problem with that warrant/evidence combo. If your evidence and you have different warrants, that might be a problem.

3. If someone miscuts evidence and it's called out, I won't evaluate the card. As David puts it, "If you expect me to drop a debater for miscut evidence, read theory."

Speaks.

1. I'll generally just gut-check how good you are. That includes how well you speak and how smart the things you say are. If you concede defense/a contention and then spin it to work for you, I'll be super duper impressed.

2. ***If you get really passionate and curse in a speech, I'll probably laugh and boost your speaks. If you curse at someone, I will probably frown and tank your speaks.

3. ***I like sass and humor. Don't be rude.

4. ***Me and my old partner used to turn our team name (Montgomery Blair JK) into a joke at the end of our cases. We'd say "Judge, we may be Montgomery Blair JK but we're not just kidding when we tell you that.." Anything less cringy than this is appreciated.

Other Important Things

1. Wear what you want. Be comfortable, whether that's dressed up or dressed down. Just make sure you wear something.

Fun Stuff.

1. Worldstar rules apply. See them here (bottom of the paradigm, speaker ceiling doesn't apply): https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=53657

2. At the request of both members of both teams (agree before the round), we can debate an entirely different topic (previous NSDA topic or otherwise, hell if y'all have prep for pancakes v. waffles, I'm down).

3. AJR Lyrics boost speaks, unless they're poorly inserted. If I don't catch em, oops.

That's it.

^This paradigm is heavily influenced by David Kinane, whom you can check out here: https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=40974.

I'm a 4 year PF debater from Sharon High School in Massachusetts with a moderate amount of experience on the national circuit.

tech>truth.

Don't do prog

General:

I time all speeches, and won’t flow anything off time. I won’t stop you, though, unless you are like 30 seconds over.

Time yourself and don’t make me stop you. I do not time prep, so time it yourself.

I won't intervene on evidence, unless you specifically ask me to look at a piece of evidence you believe your opponent is misconstruing.

Tell me when you start. I don’t want to be setting up my flow and all of a sudden you start talking before I can get my timer set.

Cases:

I don’t mind speed, but please make sure your opponent is okay with it, and if they ask you to slow down, then slow down.

HAVE A WARRANT. If you just give a me a card, I really don’t care. I shouldn’t vote for you because Johnson ’19 says something cool. You need to tell me why I should buy the argument, and the card should be backing up the argument.

Crossfire:

I do not flow crossfire. I use that time mostly to craft feedback and think about the round as it pertains to the flow. However, I will still pay attention to what is said. Make sure that if your opponents concede something in cross, you mention it in another speech.

Rebuttal:

I will always prefer strong logic over a mediocre card. If their card doesn’t make sense, tell me that and tell me why.

For second rebuttal, frontlining will make me very happy, but I do not require it.

Summary:

Give me an order for your speech. It can be as simple as “down their case, then our C2”.

Defense is not sticky, so if you have a good piece of defense, extend it.

Don't go for all of your arguments. Collapse on something.

PLEASE WEIGH. It will make the round so much easier for me to evaluate and most often, the team that weighs better wins. But don’t just say “we outweigh on probability”. Tell me why your argument is more likely to happen, etc.

FF:

This speech should mimic summary. Extend offense, interact with their defense and tell me why it doesn’t apply. Extend defense and tell me why it takes out their case. Then weigh. And make sure that you use the same weighing mechanisms as in summary.

Presumption:

I think PF has a lot of rly rude and aggressive debaters, and I decided I'm going to punish that by defaulting to the nicer team in the event of a tie, if nobody was rude; then I default to the team that lost the flip unless a presumption argument is made. If all you say is "default to us because I didn't get to have breakfast this morning" or "default to us because we are from a western time zone and had to get up earlier" and the opponents say nothing, I default to you. If both teams make a presumption argument, I will evaluate both.

Speaks:

I evaluate speaks on how prepared you seem. In crossfire, if your opponent presses hard on a certain argument and you demonstrate a high level of understanding of you own case and how it operates, I will give you higher speaks. If you are clear and confident in your rebuttal, displaying a high level of understanding of you’re responses and how their interact with the opponents case, I will give you higher speaks.

In terms of the actual numbers, they operate on a sliding scale based on how you performed in comparison to the other people in the round. I will rarely give lower than a 27.5 and will only give a 30 if you blow me out of the water.

Also if you are able to sneak in at least 2 lines from Kanye West’s first verse on Runaway, I will give u a 1 point boost at minimum. If it flows well, I will give you a 30.

Also if you appropriately use the Bruh #2 sound effect in round at the right time, I will boost your speaks.

I have 8 years experience with WSDC and BP, around 3 coaching and judging PF. I understand all the jargon, so don't hesitate using it.

For PF rounds:

Off-time roadmaps are cool. Honestly anything as long as your speech has some sort of structure.

Enunciate when presenting evidence. Numbers help quantify impacts insofar as the numbers are clear

Logic is the easiest way to win me over, as long as it's paired with evidence

I'd rather you don't spread because it's generally hard to flow that, but if you do, make sure to share your speech doc with me and your opponent. IMO, spreading should be used to fit more material but not to confuse your opponent.

I generally don't love theory arguments, but if you run them, make sure to link them clearly to the motion.

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.

4 years of pf @ oakton || karinliu2011@gmail.com for email chains

lmk if you have questions about my paradigm! ◡̈

general

- resolve clash/compare warrants (!!!!!), collapse, extend, & weigh

- alright with speed, send a doc if going fast (but i still might not catch everything)

- second reb should frontline, if not i'll be very hesitant to buy new frontlines in 2nd sum

presumption

- unless given warrants otherwise, i'll presume the team that lost flip

- if it's side locked i'll presume the squo

prog

- i understand theory a lot more than k's, no friv theory or tricks

^ i have v basic understanding of prog so i might vote wrong, make sure it is rly warranted

speaks

- L20 if you run problematic arguments or run prog/spread on newer debaters

^ aka don't ask anything starting w/ "but wait"

I did LD debate when I went to high school (2010-2014). I used to judge consistently but stopped in 2017. Since then, I've only judged once before this tournament.

I prefer the debaters speak slowly. I also prefer if they make arguments through creative thinking rather than just reading prewritten stuff. Weighing is also important because each side invariably wins some arguments, so I need to know which arguments are the most important.

That being said, you should debate however you prefer and I'll do my best to evaluate the round based solely on the arguments made in the round.

Although I have no debate experience myself, I will flow arguments through.

For speeches, please:

1. Speak clearly and at a moderate pace. If you start spreading there is a chance that I won't catch it or flow it.

2. Signpost clearly and I would prefer it if you started weighing earlier in second rebuttal or first summary.

3. Do off-time roadmaps, especially in the second half of the debate.

4. Before starting, please send case documents to me at wm10000@yahoo.com.

For crossfires, I will not be flowing but I will still be listening. Please:

1. Speak politely. Don't interrupt. I will be deducting speaker points for those who are rude in cross.

2. Time yourself, but I will also be timing in speeches and crossfires.

I look forward to listening to your arguments and cases!

Contact me at: wm10000@yahoo.com

Director of Policy Debate @ Stanford University; Director of Debate @ Edgemont Jr./Sr. High School

(High School Constraints - Edgemont)

(College Constraints - Kentucky)

Email Chain: brian.manuel@uky.edu

2020-2021 Update: Christmas Edition

Misunderstanding Tech over Truth: Those three words hurt my soul because they've become to only symbolize that a dropped argument is a true argument in most circles; however, it should symbolize that well-done technical debate overcomes the truthful nature of any argument. I want to see you technically execute an argument you've spent time learning and understanding and I'm willing to listen to any argument that shows me this was done. This is significantly different from "I will listen to anything."

Research->Knowledge->Execution: That's the order! I love when students do a lot of column A to make column C easy.

Clarity Trumps: Speed is irrelevant to me. I've been doing debate for a quarter-century and I've judged people at various speeds. The most important part of the debate is clearly communicating ideas to an audience. I speak very fast, so I realize it's inevitable; however, if you're not understood then nothing you do matters. Remember, what you think you said is not always what the other person hears you say.

Policy Debate: What happened to strategies? The trend is to read 3-4 counterplans in the 1nc, rather than debating the case. Fewer off-case positions, with more time invested in debating the case, is usually a more successful strategy to create pressure on 2a's helping you win more ballots.

2020-2021 PF Update: December 21, 2020

I want to see the best version of you debating! As you can tell my opinions on PF have changed dramatically in the past six seasons; however, I still enjoy judging debates when you're trying your best!!

Theory: I'm totally uninterested in PF theory. It's underdeveloped, not well explained, and has no foundational basis in the activity.

Evidence: If the tournament doesn't adhere to a specific set of evidence rules, I will default to NSDA evidence rules. Paraphrasing is allowed unless otherwise prohibited, but must follow the rules.

I will no longer ask for cases or cards before the debate. I do expect that if a piece of evidence or a card doc is requested that it can be produced in a timely manner. To expedite this process, I will allow the other team to prep during the transfer time for a card doc to be sent to the other team unless it's specifically prohibited by the tournament.

Wiki: I don't look at it. My personal preference is that teams would disclose if the other team asks but I am not policing these conversations. I personally believe that understanding the arguments you are debating (if they've been read before) produces better debate; however, am uninterested in listening to a debate about disclosure being good or bad unless something unethical was done during the disclosure process.

2017-2018 PF TOC Update: April 23rd, 2018

As you can see I used to have a very strong leaning towards how evidence needs to be presented during a debate. I've backtracked pretty substantially on this point. Therefore, I won't ask for your case ahead of time. However, I do still prefer evidence that is directly quoted and cited according to the rules of the tournament we are at. I do not like paraphrasing and will only accept paraphrasing as a logical argument to be made in the round and will not credit you for reading a qualified author.

I know a lot about debate, arguments, and the topics you are debating. I have an extremely competitive set of students that are constantly talking about the topic, I tutor students around the world in PF, and I generally like to be educated on the things that students will debate in front of me.

Beyond what I've said above, I'll give you an additional piece of advice: If you would strike Stefan Bauschard or Amisha Mehta then you'd probably want to strike me. I tend to fall somewhere in between where they are at in their philosophies.

Last but not least, I don't intend to steal your cards...we have more than we can use...however if it means you'll throw me up on a Reddit post that can get over 100+ responses then maybe I'll have to start doing it!

**Disregard the section about asking me to conflict you if you feel uncomfortable debating in front of me since I've judged minimally and don't have any experience judging any of the teams in the field more than once therefore, it doesn't apply to you**

2016-2017 Season Update: September 11, 2016

HS Public Forum Update: This is my first year really becoming involved in Public Forum Debate. I have a lot of strong opinions as far as the activity goes. However, my strongest opinion centers on the way that evidence is used, miscited, paraphrased, and taken out of context during debates. Therefore, I will start by requiring that each student give me a copy of their Pro/Con case prior to their speech and also provide me a copy of all qualified sources they'll cite throughout the debate prior to their introduction. I will proactively fact-check all of your citations and quotations, as I feel it is needed. Furthermore, I'd strongly prefer that evidence be directly quoted from the original text or not presented at all. I feel that those are the only two presentable forms of argumentation in debate. I will not accept paraphrased evidence. If it is presented in a debate I will not give it any weight at all. Instead, I will always defer to the team who presented evidence directly quoted from the original citation. I also believe that a debater who references no evidence at all, but rather just makes up arguments based on the knowledge they've gained from reading, is more acceptable than paraphrasing.

Paraphrasing to me is a shortcut for those debaters who are too lazy to directly quote a piece of text because they feel it is either too long or too cumbersome to include in their case. To me, this is laziness and will not be rewarded.

Beyond that, the debate is open for the debaters to interpret. I'd like if debaters focused on internal links, weighing impacts, and instructing me on how to write my ballot during the summary and final focus. Too many debaters allow the judge to make up their mind and intervene with their own personal inclinations without giving them any guidance on how to evaluate competing issues. Work Hard and I'll reward you. Be Lazy and it won't work out for you.

NDT/CEDA Update: I'm getting older and I'm spending increasingly more hours on debate (directing, coaching, and tabulating at the HS and College level) than I used to. I really love the activity of debate, and the argumentative creativity being developed, but I'm slowly starting to grow hatred toward many of the attitudes people are adopting toward one another, which in turn results in me hating the activity a little more each day. I believe the foundational element of this activity is mutual respect amongst competitors and judges. Without this foundational element, the activity is doomed for the future.

As a result, I don't want to be a part of a debate unless the four debaters in the room really want me to be there and feel I will benefit them by judging their debate. I feel debate should be an inclusive environment and each student in the debate should feel comfortable debating in front of the judge assigned to them.

I also don’t want people to think this has to do with any single set of arguments being run. I really enjoy academic debates centered on discussions of the topic and/or resolution. However, I don’t prefer disregarding or disrespectful attitudes toward one another. This includes judges toward students, students toward judges, students toward observers, observers toward students, and most importantly students toward students.

As I grow older my tolerance for listening to disparaging, disregarding, and disrespectful comments from the participants has completely eroded. I'm not going to tolerate it anymore. I got way better things to do with my time than listen to someone talk down to me when I've not done the same to them. I treat everyone with respect and I demand the same in return. I think sometimes debaters, in the heat of competition, forget that even if a judge knows less about their lived/personal experience or hasn’t read as much of their literature as they have; the judges, for the most part, understand how argumentation operates and how debates are evaluated. Too many debaters want to rely on the pref sheet and use it to get judges who will automatically check-in, which is antithetical to debate education. Judges should and do vote for the "worse" or "less true" arguments in rounds when they were debated better. Debate is a performative/communicative activity. It's not about who wrote the best constructive only. It's about how teams clash throughout the debate.

Therefore, as a result, I will allow any person or team to ask me to conflict them if they feel uncomfortable debating in front of me or feel that the current system of judge placement requires them to prefer me since I'm a better fit than the other judge(s). I won't ask you any questions and won't even respond to the request beyond replying "request honored". Upon receiving the request I will go into my tabroom.com account and make sure I conflict you from future events. I feel this way you'll have a better chance at reducing the size of the judge pool and you'll get to remove a judge that you don't feel comfortable debating in front of which will narrow the number of judges available to you and might allow you to get more preferable judges. My email is brian.manuel@uky.edu. Please direct all conflict requests to this email.

2014-2015 Season Update: September 2, 2014 (The gift that keeps on giving!!)

The following are not for the faint of heart!

Some days you just can't get ready in the morning without being bothered. Then you just need to be cheered up and it fails or someone threatens to eat your phone.
However, when it's all said and done you can at least sleep having sweet dreams.

**On a more serious note. Dylan Quigley raised a point on the College Policy Debate Facebook group about what "competition" means when people are judging debates. Therefore, I'll go with this answer "Because this is an emerging debate with no clear consensus, I would encourage judges to let the debaters hash out a theory of competition instead of trying to create one for them. I think in an era where students are taking their power to mold the "world of debate" they debate in it is especially important for us judges to *listen* to their arguments and learn from their theories. No shade towards the original post, I just think it's worthwhile to emphasize the relationship between "new debate" (whatevs that is) and student's ability to create theories of debate on their own instead of choosing a theory that's imposed on them." However, in the absence of these debates happening in the round I will default to a traditional interpretation of "competition." This interpretation says the neg must prove their alternative method/advocacy is better than the affirmative method/advocacy or combination of the affirmatives method/advocacy and all or part of the negatives method/advocacy. Also in these situations, I'll default to a general theory of opportunity cost which includes the negative burden of proving the affirmative undesirable.

2013-2014 Season Update: December 25, 2013 (Yes, it's Christmas...so here are your presents!!)

If you love to debate as much as Sukhi loves these cups, please let it show!!

If you can mimic this stunt, you'll thoroughly impress me and be well rewarded: Sukhi Dance

And you thought you had a sick blog!!

Also, why cut cards when you can have sick Uke skills like these and these!!

To only be shown up by a 2-year-old killing it to Adele

Finally, we need to rock out of 2013 with the Stanford version of the Harlem Shake by Sukhi and KJaggz

2012-2013 Season Update: August 22, 2012

Instead of forcing you to read long diatribes (see below) about my feelings on arguments and debate practices. I will instead generate a list of things I believe about debate and their current practices. You can read this list and I believe you'll be able to adequately figure out where to place me on your preference sheet. If you'd like to read more about my feelings on debate, then continue below the fold! Have a great season.

1. TKO is still in play, and will always be that way!

2. You must win a link to a DA - if you don't talk about it I'm willing to assign it zero risk. Uniqueness doesn't mean there is a risk of a link.

2a. "Issue Specific Uniqueness" IS NOT a utopian answer to all affirmative arguments.

3. You must defend something on the aff - by doing so it also implies you should be able to defend your epistemological assumptions underlying that advocacy.

4. T is about reasonability, not competing interpretations. This doesn't mean every affirmative is reasonably topical.

5. Debate should be hard; it's what makes it fun and keeps us interested.

6. Research is good - it's rewarding, makes you smarter, and improves your arguments.

7. "Steal the entire affirmative" strategies are bad. However, affirmative teams are even worse at calling teams out on it. This means they are still very much in play. Therefore, affirmatives should learn how to defeat them, instead of just believing they'll somehow go away.

8. There are other parts to an argument other than the impact. You should try talking about them, I heard they're pretty cool.

9. Your affirmative should have advantages that are intrinsic to the mechanism you choose to defend with the aff. Refer to #6, it helps solve this dilemma.

10. Have fun and smile! The debaters, judges, and coaches in this activity are your lifelong friends and colleagues. We are all rooting you on to succeed. We all love the activity or we wouldn't be here. If you don't like something, don't hate the player, hate the game!

Clipping/Cross-reading/Mis-marking: I hear that this is coming back. To prosecute cheating, the accusing team needs hard evidence. A time trial is not hard evidence. A recording of the speech must be presented. I will stop the debate, listen to the recording, and compare it to the evidence read. If cheating occurred, the offending debater and their partner will receive zero speaker points and a loss. I'd also encourage them to quit. I consider this offense to be more serious than fabricating evidence. It is an honor system that strikes at the very core of what we do here.

An additional caveat that was discussed with me at a previous tournament - I believe that the status quo is always a logical option for the negative unless it is explicitly stated and agreed to in CX or it's won in a speech.

Newly Updated Philosophy - November 18, 2011

So after talking to Tim Aldrete at USC, he convinced me that I needed more carrots and fewer sticks in my philosophy. Therefore, I have a small carrot for those debaters who wish to invoke it. It's called a T.K.O (Technical Knockout). This basically means that at any point of the debate you believe you've solidly already won the debate, beyond a reasonable doubt, (dropped T argument, double turn, a strategic miscue that is irreparable by the other team) you can invoke a TKO and immediately end the debate. If a team chooses this path and succeeds, I will give them 30 speaker points each and an immediate win. If the team chooses to invoke this but it's unclear you've TKO'd the other team or in fact choose wrong, you obviously will lose and your points will be severely affected. Who dares to take the challenge?

Past Updated Philosophy - September 9, 2010

I am currently the Assistant Coach @ Lakeland/Panas High School, College Prep School, and Harvard Debate. I’m also involved with Research & Marketing for Planet Debate. This topic will be my 14th in competitive debate and 10th as a full-time coach. Debate is my full-time job and I love this activity pretty much more than anything I’ve ever done in my life. I enjoy the competition, the knowledge gained, and the people I’ve come to be friends with, and likewise I really enjoy people who have the same passion I have for this activity.

I last posted an update to my judge philosophy a number of years ago and think it is finally time I revisit it and make some changes.

First, I’ll be the first to admit that I probably haven’t been the best judge the last few years and I think a majority of that has come from pure exhaustion. I’ve been traveling upwards of 20+ weekends a year and am constantly working when I am home. I don’t get much time to re-charge my batteries before I’m off to another tournament. Then while at tournaments I’m usually putting in extremely late nights cutting cards and preparing my teams, which trades off with being adequately awake and tuned in. This year I’ve lessened my travel schedule and plan to be much better rested for debates than I was in previous years.

Second, since my earlier days of coaching/judging, my ideology about debate has changed somewhat. This new ideology will tend to complement hard-working teams and disadvantage lazy teams who try and get by with the same generics being run every debate. Don’t let this frighten you, but rather encourage you to become more involved in developing positions and arguments. When this happens I’m overly delighted and reward you with higher speaker points and more than likely a victory.

Public Forum

I have coached PF for about 8 years so I have a fair bit of knowledge about the style and most likely the topic that is being debated as well. This means that you should not worry too much about speed or giving arguments that are too complex. I'm a lay judge :)

My comments after the round will usually involve RFD and how to improve some arguments. The "improvements" part has no impact whatsoever on my decision in the round and is only meant as something to take into your next round. I do not complete arguments for teams or refute them based on my own knowledge. I will judge the round only based on what was said in the round.

Email-fredrickni97@gmail.com

Please don't refer to cards ONLY by author name because I don't note down author names for cards (e.g. "John 18 or Smith 20") I'm putting this at the top so y'all see it.

Content:

-No theory. I won't vote on it. See link for reasons

-Show me clear impacts and weigh them for me. This is super important in how I adjudicate rounds. Just proving a superior number of contention does not give you the round, proving why your contentions are more important wins you the round. Very rarely will there be a round where one side has no contentions standing at all, so I need some sort of metric to measure. This also means that I value a clear framework from both sides and potentially a debate about framework should that influence how I would adjudicate

-Crossfire is not super important to me unless either you go back to it in one of the speeches or something absolutely killer comes out of the exchange

Stylistic:

-Be courteous during cross-fire (ie. do not shout over each other) I will dock points if anyone is particularly rude

Misc:

-Have evidence ready; if the other team asks for it and you cannot give it to them in 1 min, it will be discounted from the round

-I will stop crossfire questions right at 3 minutes but I will allow for you to finish your sentence if the time is up during an answer

-I rarely write out RFD's on Tabroom ballots so my oral feedback after the round is where the majority of my RFD is explained

-I welcome questions or concerns about the round, and if you feel that I judged unfairly, please let me know after. While I cannot change the ballot, I will do my best to explain my RFD.

Parliamentary

I've done various parli-ish styles like BP and Worlds for about a decade now. I haven't judged much American Parli so there might be some rules I am not familiar with, but I'll catch on quickly.

I mostly judge based on content, with very little focus on style as long as I can understand you.

Please keep time for both yourself and your opponents. If you keep asking POIs during protected times I will deduct points. Obnoxious POOs will also lead me to dock you points.

I competed in PF and Congress (3 and 4 years respectively) at Durham Academy.

PF

TL; DR:I will be flowing the round, so feel free to refer to the flow on points you would like to reintroduce. Don’t spread, this is not LD. You can speak quickly, so long as you are delivering your points clearly. The main focus of my judging is who is winning the debate. You provide the set of criteria that defines what winning means. Respect each other. No off-time roadmaps.

Constructive: This speech is the foundation for the entire debate. As such, all of your main points should stem from this speech. At the beginning of the speech, I expect that you will introduce a weighing mechanism or lens through which the debate ought to be judged*. Your impacts should lead into this mechanism or lens. All claims made during the constructive need to have warrants and each warrant should have a reputable source. With that being said, the constructive speech is a great time to provide depth to arguments. I would prefer a more robust explanation of points in two contentions to a list of numbers in a case with 4 contentions. Additionally, this speech is the only one that should be fully prepared ahead of each round and should be spoken clearly, articulately, and should end on at the appropriate time.

Rebuttal: This speech should focus on explaining why your opponent’s points are either wrong or outweighed by your own. You can certainly use the time to extend your constructive, but you should ensure that you leave time to address your opponent’s points.

Summary: The summary serves as a funnel for the debate. It should narrow the scope to the points that you see as the most important. These do not need to be your own points, but they should be weighed to explain why you’re winning on those points.

Final Focus: The final speech in the debate should focus on voters and weighing. I strongly dislike reaching back for points that were not extended through summary. I appreciate when the weighing mechanism or lens for the debate are brought back in for the final focus, especially when your opponents have accepted that weighing mechanism or lens.

Crossfire: Please be respectful of each other. Each side should have the opportunity to ask questions. Keep the focus on the topic and avoid ad hominem remarks.

*This isn't required, but if you don't provide a framework then I will assume you're running util.

Miscellaneous:

· Use your prep time. There are no bonus points for leaving prep time on the board.

· Stay calm. It will help you maintain a reasonable speed and deliver points clearly.

· Avoid off-time roadmaps. Just signpost throughout your speech instead.

· Attire is not something I tend to worry about. I will not be counting it for or against you, but some judges might. I recommend professional attire.

Congress

Maintaining decorum during the round is important. Each competitor ought to be respectful of each other, regardless of what occurs during the round. I will be judging based on how each student operates as a legislator. Participating in cross-examination, presiding well, properly using points of order, and generally demonstrating a thorough understanding of the event will all be considered when I make my judgment. When giving a speech it is important that you support your points with evidence. Credible evidence should be clearly cited from a reputable source.

LD

First and foremost, respect each other. Link your arguments back to the standard. When attacking your opponent's argument, make sure you use the standard established in the round.

Evidence: If you cannot produce evidence quickly when it is called by your opponent, I'll simply disregard that piece of evidence.

Spreading: Feel free to do so, but I value the quality of your arguments far more than the quantity.

I debated PF for 6 years.

I judge off the flow.

I don't flow crossfire, but if something important comes up I will make notes.

Extend your responses and weigh in summary. If you don't extend in summary then I can't count it in final focus.

Answer turns and warrant arguments well.

Give me clear reason(s) why you win and outweigh the opponent.

Do off-time road maps unless your clearly stating where you are in the flow and make flowing easy for me because if I cant flow it then I'm not going to count it in the round.

Clearly explain the impacts of your contentions, and the internal links within them; the less work I have to do filling in the blanks for your case, the more likely you are to win. Use your summary and final focus to explain to me why your side is winning the debate, don't just use them as extra rebuttal speeches (if I have to go all the way back to both teams' constructives to decide who's winning because rebuttal, summary, and final focus didn't make it clear enough, there's a lot more room for me to think you out of a win). If you don't extend an argument through summary and bring it back up in final focus, I miiiiiight weigh it but even if I do I'm going to weigh it less heavily than if you extended it through summary and final focus. At least frontline responses to turns in second rebuttal. If you want something from crossfire on the flow, mention it in a speech. Speed is fine (make sure to really clearly enunciate names; I can generally figure out a somewhat unclear word, but if a name isn't clear it's a lot harder to figure out from context). Fine with K's. Tech over truth. Don't make your off-time roadmap much longer than "our case then their case" (i.e. "I'm going to weigh our first contention against their second and then..." is too long). Mostly did Congress and Parli in high school (with some LD, briefly), some British Parliamentary in university (don't ask), and I coached Public Forum for a few years. Academic background in Economics.

My name is Fariha, I’m a freshman in college and I debated at Brooklyn Tech. I did policy debate in HS but am very comfortable in LD. I read a K aff and Afropess and don't particularly enjoy Framework, but if y'all win on Framework I'll vote for it -they just aren't the most fun debates to watch. Love K debates, not the biggest fan of high theory but I'll vote on it.

I do not care what you read as long as it isn’t offensive but please don’t get caught up in jargon that I won’t understand as I don’t debate anymore.

In the end, just do what you’re good at because those are the debates that will be the best.

On spreading - spreading takes some getting use to and because I haven’t debated in a very long time, I’ve lost a little bit of my ear for spreading, but as long as you start off at a decent speed and build up we’ll be good - just PLEASE be clear

This is very brief but if there are any other questions you have please feel free to email me at frahman8965@bths.edu and yes please put me on the email chain.

Please be nice, don’t be overly snarky to your opponents and make jokes and engage with one another!

Background:

I have been judging debate tournaments for the past two to three years. I do this as my hobby and passion.

Things I like:

- Presentation skills

- Confidence in your speech and delivery

- Well constructed speech along with your introduction and brief about the speech

- Provide proper arguments and evidence/background of your speech

- Be creative with your arguments and speech

Things I don't like:

- I don't like when you speak too fast. You can speak fast but need to ensure that others can make sense of it.

- Can't show up with the evidence when asked for it

- Not able to answer clearly to the point on a question asked you

I am an inexperienced judge, so please expect results to take time.

As a former debate captain, I enjoy hearing well thought out arguments. I expect the debaters to run the debate through consensus. I will only participate if asked to rule on a question

Ultimately, the quality of your logic and evidence will win out over strictest pedantry. Please speak clearly and concisely. Speed is fine and you must time yourselves.

Coarse language and discussions of sensitive topics are acceptable if it is appropriate to the debate. Do not engage in personal attacks.

Discrimination and cruelty will automatically lose you the round. I do not tolerate it.

Last Updated: 2/27/24

TLDR: I know what debate is. I'm sorta removed from the activity now but I competed in policy debate in HS and in College at UNLV and have coached Policy for several years after that.

Please speak slower than your top speed so I can Adjust.

I would like to be on the email chain stinnett.jada@gmail.com

***I don't know why debaters have transitioned to using google drive. But since this is the only place I can complain... here I am...so I guess I will be very upset about cards sent in the body of an email instead of a document as well..I will also complain in my head about the usage of speech drop, But this is because debaters remove files after the debate is done and that is annoying***

***This Paradigm is written with with the idea that I will be judging policy debates, if this isn't a policy debate take what applies to you and ignore everything that doesn't***

*Overall Ideas that I have about debate*

I like all styles of debate.

I believe that debate is a fun game we play.

Why we play the game is different for everyone.

I believe that everyone should have fun playing it.

This is especially true for novice debate. I think sometimes we forget we all had a first day.

What this means is that I will make it a priority to keep the spaces I'm involved in safe.

I will acknowledge the material implications of some bodies in certain spaces, so I will not police the debate space or conform to respectability politics of ANY tournament.

I will try my best to make this space accessible for you. Let me know what I can do (this can include an email before the round).

Technical debate is good debate.

A true argument can beat a bunch of silly arguments.

An Argument is a claim with a warrant. I will only flow claims with warrants.

I will not listen to impact turns of oppression. I will stop the round and leave. Your speaker points will reflect this.

Don't use slurs outside of your social location. I will stop the round and leave. Your speaker points will reflect this.

I don't want to judge a debate based off of what happened outside of the round. It becomes really awkward for everyone. And I can't adequately attest these truth claims. Just don't do it. Please.

I flow on paper- due to technology sound transfer and audio processing I ask that you go slower than your fastest pace. 80% of your normal speed should be good. If I don't flow it, it doesn't count so don't try to argue with me on what you did/didn't say.

Spreading is a strategy used to create Layers to an argument in a small amount of time. If you are just fast without adding dimension to your argument then you are dong it wrong and should stop.

I am very expressive, you can tell if I like your argument or if you are winning an argument.

I understand adapting to judges, but from personal experience you can win in front of any critic doing what you do best.

I am open to adjusting my judging style/practice in nearly anyway that is asked of me.

I will not be offended if you ask me about my familiarity with topic specific acronyms/specific arguments. PLEASE DO SO. I want to know what you're talking about.

Other things:

AFF: You should be "topical", what that means is up for debate. Does that mean in the direction of the topic? Does that mean USFG action? IDK you tell me. But criticizing the "norms" of debate without relation to the topic is iffy for me and in my opinion a negative argument. If you have a justification for it go ahead because I will be evaluating the debate based off my flow anyway, but I am sympathetic to T/Framework Arguments. But don't be discouraged I have read/do read/coach teams to read "non-topical" affirmatives and understand the strategic choice behind doing so. That non-topical affirmative MUST do something (re: differ from the status quo).

Case Debate:

The status quo is always an option. Please don't forget the art of case debate. This goes beyond just impact defense. Don't be afraid for a good Impact Turn debate I'm all for a warming good, econ decline good, bio D loss good, ect debate.

T/Framework:

I wholeheartedly believe that you can say the state can do a particular policy action, and that single instance is good for x amount of people, without defending the other terrible things the state has done. Example, Welfare is probably a good thing. Yes there is problems with who gets it, but a world with out it is probably worse. I also believe that wiki disclosures is good defense against predictability claims. I also believe that some teams don't even make an attempt at engagement and some framework shells are written with the intent to never have k debates exist. That's probably a bad thing to defend. Don't let that be you. Nonetheless, T debates are dope. I default to competing interpretations unless told otherwise. It will never be a reverse voter. It will never be genocide. You have to have a TVA. Your standards need to be impacted out or else they are just internal links and idk what to do with that. I will not vote on potential abuse. I want to see the blood on the flow. Where did they make the game unfair for you. I think the more specific the evidence/examples the better.

DA:

Impact framing and comparisons are major key. I'm cool with Generics DA's as long as your links are baller, but the more unique the DA the better. I believe in a 1% risk of a link. I also believe in a 0% risk of an impact. Explanation is key here. Im more willing to vote on a good story with fewer cards than me drowning in cards and trying to put together a story myself. also please tag your card 7 words or more. "more ev" is not an argument and i will not evaluate it.

CP:

I'm all for a good counterplan. 2nc counterplans are cool. 2nc amendments are cool. For me to vote on a CP you need to be super good on the case debate and differentiating the perm. Be clear on the CP text so I can flow it and also establish competition and better evaluate the argument. The states counter plan is definitely a legitimate strategy and should be protected at all cost.

K:

I'm most familiar with argumentation in critical race theory, gender and sexuality args and identity/performance based arguments but this doesn't mean I won't listen to what you have to say if those things aren't your jazz. Reading is Fundamental. I read a lot so I will most likely know what you are talking about. I expect college debaters to also be well read. My patience increases with hs debaters learning about different arguments, none the less you should still be reading. I cannot stress this enough. Reading is imperative. My hs kids have taken a liking to old french dudes so I have tried by best as an educator to familiarize myself with that field of literature to be a better coach. I will give you that same respect as an adjudicator if I don't understand your criticism. I believe engagement and contextualizing your theory with your opponents arguments gets you a long way. Explain what the alt does. I think far too often this explanation is missing from the debate. I don't believe in just voting on links (I say this, but as I think about it you can go for links as disads to the case...idk convince me). You have to find a way to resolve those for me. Also "root cause" arguments are not links, they are just alt solvency evidence.

I don't believe in Fem IR criticisms, I don’t believe in satire performances, I’m not a fan of girl boss feminist narratives, language is important so I think there is a big difference between "set col is good" and "modernity is good" and I have a problem with “debate bad” arguments. masculinity is no inherently bad.

THEORY:

Don't read theory args as a time skew. The aff gets a perm unless you say why. Conditionality: The neg can do whatever they want as long as the positions don't contradict (nothing more than 5 off please), and they make a decision in the 2nr. I will not judge kick for you. You need to make a decision. Not here for cheap shots. I really don't want to have to judge a theory debate but I understand abuse and am willing to vote on it. If you plan on going for a theory argument, a substantial amount of time needs to be spent on it in the rebuttal. SPEC arguments are the worst thing to happen to debate and I will buy anything the 2a says if its remotely responsive. As said before, I don't like performative contradictions. This also just applies to the rounds that i'm in. I don't care that the person reading framework against you also reads a k aff. It's a game. they picked a strategy that's going to win them the game.

CX:

Is binding. Is a speech. I'll write notes during this time. Please Answer questions. Don't be sketchy, I'll know it. Don't be afraid to point out if your opponents are being sketchy.

cheating:

Do not Fabricate evidence. It's inexcusable. Do not clip cards. its inexcusable.

Challenges of card clipping will result in stopping the debate if material evidence is provided that proves beyond a reasonable doubt in my mind that card clipping has occurred. the offending team will receive a loss and the offending speaker will receive 0 speaker points. however if i conclude that the speaker is not guilty of clipping cards the challenging team will receive a loss and both challenging speakers will receive 0 speaker points.

***clipping cards is not a slurring of words or clack of clarity***

Evidence:

I'm from the school of thought that everybody in the round should have access to all evidence read in the debate. Denial to share citations or disclose is a b!+ch move. Prepared debate is good debate. Don't get this confused with breaking new, that's all fine.

Prep/Speaking Times:

I don't keep time. Im not a baby sitter. you should all move through speeches and prep in an efficent matter. if i do decided to track time because yall have prolonged this process my time will be the only clock that matters. I don't count flashing or emailing as prep. Flex prep is not a thing(you cannot use cross-x as prep or time to give another speech). Speak in your assigned time slots (interpret this vaguely. It just means 1 constructive and 1 rebuttal. idc the order) unless for some performative or ethical reason that you can't (For example, if both debaters speak during the 1AC cool. There was a reason for it. Probably performative. In the rebuttal to continue the performance? Cool. Have a debater take over the line by line? Not Cool. This is a clear shift in the competitive aspect and nature of the game. Unless for some reason a debater disappears/goes missing...why would this happen? idk, but unusual things happen all the time)

Clarification questions during prep is okay. But don't try to make "a point". If you happen to be a team on the receiving end of someone trying to tear down your argument during prep, please refuse to answer.

Speaks:

I'll hook everyone up with speaks #PointFairy. I never want to be the reason debaters don’t break so I might over compensate, but who cares y’all are doing all the rigorous work the least I can do is help in the speaker point end.

I understand the joy of speaker awards and I will do my best to help y'all out.

I evaluate speaks of by delivery>argument choice. the team with the better Argument choice will most likely win win the round.

You'll get a 30 if you are just baller, or make me laugh uncontrollably. (I enjoy witty jokes, and I'm a big sports fan if that helps you come up with material)

+1.0 if you know who the Las Vegas Aces are

(I haven't made up my mind if I will put a cap on jokes or not, so be a comedian at the risk of knowing you might not be rewarded for all the jokes)

I'll use this as a tool to teach young people how to advocate for themselves. after the round tell me what speaks you think you deserve(realistically) and I might agree with you.

when making analytical arguments I would advise going for the easiest pen to paper phrasing

if you send me your flow after the round I will up your speaks(HS ONLY)

How I make my Decisions:

I use the burden of rejoinder frame to structure how I evaluate debates.

I hold a strict line with new arguments in the rebuttals so a majority of my time will be lining up arguments.

In clash debates the easiest framing for me is what's most educational and best for the community.

I dislike students who try to post round. This has only happened to me twice. None the less I will not tolerate it. I am also willing to admit that I am wrong. But that will not change my decision. If the understanding that I get form your argument happens in a post round and not in a debate, I cannot reward you for communicating your point late in the game. This is a communication activity and if something didn't reach my flow like how you intended there isn't much I can do but listen and process to the best of my ability. If you think I made the wrong decision that's fine and you are completely entitled to feel that way. It does not change the fact that you loss.

Mics/Things you might wanna know about me:

I am Black and Queer.

pronouns: they/them

When I debated I was trained to "Defend the walls" later in my career I became a "k-debater"

You all can call me Jada you don't have to say judge

I was a 2n

#FREEPALESTINE

I have a real pet peeve with what is considered violence in debate

You can insert re highlighting- you don't have to reread the card

Quotes from People in The Community about me:

"Super smart and a great person all around" Allego Wang

"Incredibly intelligent + really good at explaining difficult concepts" Ali Saffieddine

"Their ability to compartmentalize argumentation and overall communication skills are ones I've always aspired to have and continue to grow from simple conversations I have with them. Jada's ability to empathize with students and find the grammar to communicate in ways to accommodate students needs and comprehension skills is one of the many talented characteristics they have. They will really be personal to you and your needs, with flares of individual organic wisdom they've learned over the years. They will not just lecture you. They will help you on your path to education/understanding difficult literature bases by shining light at your strengths and guiding you to find solutions to your weaknesses. Legit, Jada is one of the most influential person I've been blessed to come across" Yumasie Hellebuick

"You're the 50 cent of this community" -Chris Randall

"Jada is the love of my life" - Caitlin Walrath

"I told ppl to pref u just cuz you’re not afraid to stare a k team down and say “yea I voted on nuke war outweighs” with a smile ¯\_(ツ)_/¯" -Ari Davidson

"Jada makes the best memes" JV Soccer Captain and my Teammate Dan Bannister

Pronouns: they/them

I also alternate between she/her and he/him, but if you don't know me well enough to know how to use them I would recommend you stick to they/them.

Contact: micahsturgeon@icloud.com

I am a mainly a PF Debater but have some experience in CNDF.

General Things:

1. I am fine with speed but make sure it's articulate, although if you can express your thoughts going conversation speed, it could boost speaker points.

2. I flow and expect teams to extend tags, evidence and warrants. I won't flow dropped arguments in later speeches.

3. Although it is good to be critical and I believe good PF debate should be a relaxed exchange of ideas as opposed to suppressed (or not) rage.

4. Make sure you're asking questions during crossfire rather than give speeches. And I appreciate questions that are asked in a way that is super chill.

5. I appreciate theories. No one expects it and you win because of theory and sometimes you even win on theory.

6. I think Impact turns > Link turns (no risk of a link)

7. I typically vote on what happens in the debate, and not on what I know or think I know.

Online debate: Technical difficulties are bound to happen and all i ask is that you are patient as we work them out! If you're a very fast speaker, i ask that you slow down a bit because computer audio can be bad, and I don't want you to lose because I couldn't hear what you said.

Please add me to the email chain at hotdragontea@gmail.com

Experience: CX for 5 years (Grade 6-10), PF for 2 years (Grade 10-11), World Schools (Grade 12)

Furthest I’ve Gone in Tournaments: Taiwan Nationals Winner/Top Speaker 2015 in CX and Quarterfinals in TOC PF Silver in 2016

Judging Style: I am a flow heavy judge. However, I will only write down what you say and will make judgments based on your arguments only. For example, if your opponent double-turns themself but you don't address it, I will not count it against your opponent. I will only use my own judgment and experience if both sides have equal arguments.

Frameworks: If you have a framework, I will judge based on it. If you have a framework and your opponent doesn't bring up a counter-framework, the debate will be judged based on your framework.

Theory/Kritiks: I am okay with theory but will need you to explain it carefully. Do not play the theory game if you are unable to explain all your links. It is NOT my burden to understand all the possible Kritiks out there. IF I DON'T UNDERSTAND IT I WON'T VOTE FOR IT. It is your responsibility as the debater to explain the K if you run it. I do prefer DAs/CPs to Ks. I’m generally good with Marxism Ks, Feminism Ks, Ableism Ks, and Race Ks (I ran Afro-Pessimism and Afro-Nihilism in the past) but anything beyond these I’m going to need clear explanations about the theory. I also need you to have an impact on your K or else I don’t see a point in it.

LD debaters: Please do not expect me to understand every single theory thing that pops up. I'm comfortable with the basic ones used in CX, but please play safe and pretend I don't know much.

Impacts: It is extremely important to me that your case and arguments have a tangible impact. If the argument is part of a link game, that's fine but the link game must end in an impact. Do not leave me thinking so what? If that happens and the opponent makes a decent counterargument, I'll give it to them.

Speed is fine but please be clear.

• It my first time to be a parent judge, and English is not my native language. Please speak clearly and slowly.

I debated PF in high school and graduated in 2020. Contact through a.y.taylor@wustl.edu or facebook messenger.

Feel free to ask questions before or after round :D

~ Important notes ~

· I have extremely minimal experience with progressive arguments and would VERY STRONGLY prefer you do not read them. If you do, consider me a lay judge on those arguments and there's no guarantee that I will buy/be willing to vote on them. I also strongly recommend you speak slowly and explain everything very clearly. I don't like paraphrase theory, just tell me to prefer your evidence.

· It’s probably safest to assume I don’t have any prior topic knowledge

~ Essentials ~

· Stay in speech times, won’t flow anything overtime

· Don't steal prep, speaks drop fast. Same applies to roadmaps, say where you're starting and signpost

· Anything I vote on needs explicit extensions and warrants in summary and final focus (I need a clear narrative throughout the round)

·Be comparative – show me you understand and consider their points, why yours are stronger, why they can be right but you still win. Don’t just tell me how you outweigh on scope, magnitude, etc.

· Turns need the full argument extended if your opponent goes for another

· Content warnings AND anonymous opt outs are important for inclusivity, please use them when necessary and execute them properly

~ Preferences ~

· Collapse! I prefer you only go for one argument (quality >> quantity)

· Address your opponent’s framework in your next speech

· Any offense read after constructive must be implicated by either 2nd rebuttal or 1st summary at the very latest if you want me to treat it as offense

· Appreciate slower speaking (not required), erring on more explanation. If something doesn't end up/isn't clear on my flow, I won't evaluate it. I won't clear you unless you ask me to before the round starts. I WILL NOT flow off your speech doc for speed.

· Flip a coin to presume (please no)

· Time yourselves and hold your opponents accountable. If that’s not possible, just let me know BEFORE round and I’ll time for you

· Nothing in cross will be evaluated unless you explicitly bring it up in a subsequent speech.

· I won't look at any evidence unless you ask me to, but include me in the email chain for formalities

~ Speaks ~

· Average 28 (within division). Lose speaks by going significantly overtime (more than finishing your last sentence), being rude/offensive, saying you don't have any questions in cross, or poor judge adaptation

she/xe pronouns ask if you don't understand that

i’m a senior in pf

i vote more tech>truth than truth>tech

pls extend ur warrants

i require content warnings if you plan on reading sensitive arguments. better to assume it is sensitive than not. if you want my full opinion/a cw theory shell check my wiki

email me if you hv questions novelisticme@gmail.com

PF PARADIGM:

2nd rebuttal should frontline. i'm not very comfortable voting off new frontlines in 2nd summary

analytics can equate to evidence if they are well warranted (half of pf is just reading basically blog posts as warrants, an analytic is not akin to a study but it definitely can match chen 18.) that said evidence without warrants is pretty useless in context to debate rounds.

if a piece of evidence is contested throughout the round i'll call for it myself. i will drop speaker points as well as arguments when teams knowingly use misconstrued cards to further their game. if your opponent reads theory about evidence ethics or suggests i drop you over ethics i'll probably go for it (if i can verify the violation they present me in your evidence).

i will understand vernacular/jargon. i'm fine with speed under 450 if the round is between noon and four pm, otherwise pls stay under 350. send speech docs if you plan on spreading and want me to be guaranteed to follow

i might listen to 1st and 2nd cross, probably not grand tho. i approve of using grand cross for non-strategic purposes such as discussing educational topics or if we live in a simulation

you can use a framework if you want to. i'm receptive to framing arguments like structural violence. pls cut topic specific evidence!!

theory arguments are chill with me, just know what you're doing when you read them. i don't have a lot of experience with kritical debate, i'm receptive to it but i may not understand it well enough to make a super satisfying decision. i wish pf had plans/cps tbh