Forensics is a speaking competition in which the art of rhetoric is utilized - speaking effectively to persuade or influence [the judge].

I take Socrates's remarks in Plato's Apology as the basis of my judging: "...when I do not know, neither do I think I know...I am likely to be wiser than he to this small extent, that I do not think I know when I do not know" (Ap. 21d-e).

My paradigm of any round is derived from: CLARITY!!!

All things said in the round need to be clear! Whatever it is you want me to comprehend, vote on, and so forth, needs to be clearly articulated, while one is speaking. This stipulation should not be interpreted as: I am ignorant about debate - I am simply placing the burden on the debater to debate; it is his or her responsibility to explain all the arguments presented. Furthermore, any argument has the same criteria; therefore, clash, at the substantive level, is a must!

First and foremost, I follow each debate league's constitution, per the tournament.

Secondly, general information, for all debate forms, is as follows:

1) Speed: As long as I can understand you well enough to flow the round, since I vote per the flow!, then you can speak as slow or fast as you deem necessary. I do not yell clear, for we are not in practice round, and that's judge interference. Also, unless there is "clear abuse," I do not call for cards, for then I am debating. One does not have to spread - especially in PF.

2) Case: I am a tab judge; I will vote the way in which you explain to me to do so; thus I do not have a preference, or any predispositions, to the arguments you run. It should be noted that in a PF round, non-traditional/abstract arguments should be expressed in terms of why they are being used, and how it relates to the round.

Set a metric in the round, then tell me why you/y'all have won your metric, while your opponent(s) has lost their metric and/or you/y'all have absorbed their metric.

The job of any debater is to persuade the judge, by way of logical reasoning, to vote in his or her favor, while maintaining one's position, and discrediting his or her opponent's position. So long as the round is such, I say good luck to all!

Ask any other clarification questions before the round!

Updated 11/2/2021 for The Hebron Standard

Background

Hebron High School, 2016-2020. I did NCX for one year, debated in VPF for ~three years, and have done Congressional Debate once or twice as a filler. I've been judging for a year now.

Quick Notes

If you don't want to read the whole thing because it's five minutes before round, I'm tabula rasa, tech > truth. Give me reasons to believe your arguments and warrant clearly. I'll probably vote for whoever has the more robust and fleshed out arg at the end of the round.

I'll nod at you if I like the way you're taking the round, if I look really unamused with you, that's not a good thing. Humor, when appropriate, scores you big points with me.

Concessions can be as easy as, "we concede the delink, onto our next argument", don't waste time explaining an argument you're not going to focus on.

I don't believe in open cross, the first two crossfires should be one on one only. Mainly because I like to see what individual team members know, strong case and topic knowledge in crossfire is always fun to see. I also don't like flex prep, but if both teams agree to it before the round, it can happen.

Second speaking team has to respond to the first rebuttal (particularly turns) or the arguments are dropped.

If you want to run super technical theory args, I can follow them, but I am not receptive. This is Public Forum, your arguments should be accessible to a layman. Strike me if this is your plan. That being said, there is a place for theory. If there is legitimate in-round abuse with a non-frivolous harm, go for it.

If you read theory against novices I'm dropping you.

If you flip second and proceed to read a weird/substantially non-standard or non-topical framework, I will be very, very receptive to in-round abuse args your opponents make against you. If you want to do this, flip first, flip side or strike me.

I'll usually default util on framework unless I think another one is better for a specific topic. If you provide an alternative framework I'll probably go with it. If you want me to default to the listed framework don't bother reading framework. Default frameworks for specific topics are below.

Novcember Blockchain: Utilitarian

!!! - Virtual Accommodations and Regulations

I don't really know how tournaments are going to go given the prevailing circumstances in the world right now, but there's a few things that I'll probably do differently given the different format.

- You'll probably get high speaks, if whatever service we're using is having problems or if I can't understand what you're saying due to internet lag/poor mic quality I will request your speech doc so I can follow along.

- No need to dress up, really. You're probably at home, don't make yourself uncomfortable for my benefit.

- I can flip a coin on my end, one team can call it.

- Since I'm not available IRL for post-rounding I'll provide an email you can contact me at on the ballot if you have any further questions that come up after the round. Please be specific in your questions. I usually answer general "what could I have done better" things on the ballot.

- Unless tournament regulations specify another method to take, each team will get one 'tech resolution period' (i'm not creative with names) that they can use if someone gets disconnected or there are serious audio problems. Signal in the text chat, and I'll pause the round. You detail the problem to me and try to fix it, debate resumes from the start of the speech with time reset after the issue is fixed. If I find that teams are using this as a tactic to interrupt speeches, I will revoke it. If I find that you're cheating on prep by lying about tech problems, I'm going to be livid. These are already bad circumstances, please just try to be respectful and only ask for a pause during someone's speech if it is absolutely critical. This doesn't apply if I'm on a panel.

PF PARADIGM

- Coin Flip: Do it outside, or in the round. I don't care which. Or, if you can agree on sides/positions, that works too. The faster you chose sides and we can get to what matters, the better.

- Disclosing: I will almost always disclose and give my RFD following the round unless the tournament has specifically prohibited me from doing so. When you leave the room you'll know who won, if I'm not allowed to disclose I'll write as much as I can on the ballot. Feel free to ask questions about my decision. I think it's important for teams to understand why I decided the round the way I did, and having people ask questions is a great way to ensure that I'm doing my job as an evaluator well. I'm also receptive to post rounding, as long as you're respectful about it.

- Crossfire: Being overly aggressive in cross will not affect me, but it will affect your speaker points. Try to be respectful. The first speaking team should always get the first question in all crossfires unless they concede it. Second speaking teams already have massive structural advantages in the round, and I don't think crossfire should be another.

- “Clear”: If your opponent is going too fast, I’m fine if you say clear to get them to slow down. Abusing this will lead to a sharp decline in your speaker points, and possibly a lost round. I will clear you when you're either going too fast, mumbling, or any other circumstance where I can't understand you. If you have a heavy accent/stutter don't worry, I will do my best to accommodate that, but I may require your speech doc to follow along.

How I Evaluate Rounds

- Extremely tech > truth. If you run something, and if your opponents don't challenge it, it flows through and I'll consider it when I vote. I prefer more unique arguments in general, but if your stock argument makes more sense than your opponent's arg that impacts out to nuke war (somehow), that should be really easy for you to dismantle.

- With tech > truth in mind, probability still matters. I'll value an outlandish argument with like zero probability if your opponents don't contest it, but if they can show how their impacts are more probable, they'll win that weighing issue. If you don't want me to weigh that way, give me a reason not to.

- Collapse on arguments! If you don't, it makes for a messy flow and muddles the weighing at the end. You should start collapsing as early as summary. I need a clear voting issue that has been weighed against your opponents' by the end of the round. Extending smaller stuff like turns in conjunction with your main arg is fine, but if you just put a bunch of impacts on my flow without any weighing, I have to do that myself. If my RFD is your Final Focus, and your Final Focus mirrors the summary, you've done your job perfectly.

- I'll call for cards following rounds if a dispute comes up over a particular piece of evidence during the debate, or if I believe one team is misrepresenting a piece of evidence. If I do find out that you've totally misrepresented/fabricated a piece of evidence, I'm giving you a loss, min speaks, talking to your coach, and the tournament organizer. Don't do it.

- In addition, if your opponents ask for a piece of evidence, you must present it in the form they ask for. If they ask for the full article/pdf and you only have access to the cut card form, I will drop that evidence based on their request.

- Underview > Overview for weighing, but you can structure your case however you like.

- I try to give speaker points based on team strategy, and my absolute minimum is a 27 unless you do something especially egregious. (dropping your case w/o any turns to go on, etc.) If your strategy makes sense you shouldn't need to worry about speaks, just debate.

- Extending arguments should be full. I’m way more likely to extend something on my flow that is clearly and well warranted and explained than a blippy “Extend Card Name, Year”. You literally don't have to extend the card author names or dates, extending the warranting and actual argument is way way more important to me.

CONGRESS PARADIGM

I'll judge your congress round like a debate round. Speeches should have clash and references to other speeches, and questions should serve to effectively poke holes, help out someone on the same side of the bill as you, or to set up an argument that you intend to make.

CX / LD PARADIGM

If you see me sitting in the back of your room in a CX or LD round, I kinda sorta know what I'm doing. A little. In all seriousness, I did CX for a year and am familiar with the argumentation involved and how to effectively evaluate a CX round. I do have problems understanding unclear spreading, but if you put me on the email chain / flash / share your docs with me or just make it so I can hear you and slow down on tags there shouldn't be a problem.

Congressional Debate

I care most about the round being educational and safe.

I will score speeches according to their responsiveness to the debate happening in the round. Introducing new arguments in the back half of the debate can be productive but only if it is contextualized within the debate that has come before it. Every speech after the sponsorship should be responsive.

When referring to previous speakers, please do so specifically and respectfully. Vaguely misrepresented claims aren't productive. Show me that you are flowing the round and understand what's happening in the debate.

Demonstrating knowledge of, and participation in, parliamentary procedure is a necessity to get on my ballot. Presiding officers will not receive a default rank if their leadership of the round is subpar but I will evaluate their contributions to the debate with equal weight to those who introduce keystone arguments or central rebuttals. I will assign a score per hour and consider accordingly.

In a presiding officer, I value proficiency and collegiality. Full disclosure, I have not judged an online congress tournament before and I'm not entirely certain of the best practices and standards with setting initial precedence. I will seek guidance on this.

Public Forum Debate

I care most about the round being educational and safe. Ultimately, I'm going to sign my ballot for the team with the least mitigated link chain into the best weighed impact.

I’m fairly tab, so feel free to read anything but be prepared to justify why you’re winning that argument and ultimately why that argument matters in the greater context of the round.

Defense sticks for the first speaking team until it's frontlined; it needs to be extended in FF, though. I don't care what 2nd rebuttal does, only that defense is extended the speech after it's frontlined.

Offense needs to appear in both the summary and the FF for me to evaluate it. Offense is more than just a card tag or author name - warranting is very important.

I don’t want to read evidence and more importantly you don’t want me to read evidence. My interpretation may not match yours and that preempts any muddiness in the round.

Please. Please don’t lie to me in your FF - “unresponded to” is almost never the case and is generally synonymous with “unextended.” Do the work. I won’t do it for you.

My high school debate experience is mostly UIL LD, UIL Policy, and NSDA (then NFL) PFD. Our team wasn't a powerhouse debate team by any means, but I feel we did as well as we did due to a focus on speaking style and presentation, clarity of a few select basic arguments key to each debate style, and the understanding that every round was an opportunity to learn and grow (no matter what the decision was). I competed in NPDA in college and have spent the last ten years as a bilingual elementary ELAR/social studies teacher.

Currently, I tend to be a more traditional, “old-school” judge in all areas of debate. I never grew up with all of the excessive jargon and terminology so I would really appreciate it if you focused more on the substance of each argument and the bigger picture rather than expect to win on overly complex technicalities or applications of debate theory.

POLICY: I am not the biggest fan of speed for the sake of being fast. If you absolutely must spread, I must be given perfectly clear and enunciated (normal rate) taglines if you want me to flow your arguments. I am more of a policymaker/stock issues judge. I will listen to topicality, disadvantages, and counterplans on negative. I am not really the biggest fan of kritiks, unless you are confident that you can thoroughly explain them to a lay person. If you have any specific questions let me know.

LD: I am not really “progressive” when it comes to LD (prefer to hear value, criteria, contentions debate). I have voted on policy arguments such as plans, disadvantages, and counterplans (both debaters have to be on the same page) in the past though. I am not a fan of overly critical and debate-theory arguments in LD. If you have any specific questions, let me know.

PFD: I still believe that PFD should be judged as a debate “of the people” and like to see rounds focused on simple arguments based on simple interpretation of the resolution. I don’t like any LD or policy elements in CX and prefer debate jargon not really make an appearance (as people from the general public wouldn’t know these terms). Speaking skills and presentation play a big role in PFD for me. Rebuttal speeches are absolutely key for me in PFD and I am a huge fan of BOLD second speakers who go for only one or two thoroughly articulated voters in the final focus.

All of this being said, I obviously encourage all debaters to do whatever feels most comfortable for them and what they have been taught. I just ask that you be aware of my preferences and take the time to craft rebuttals and voters that clearly articulate why you deserve the round and clarify a purpose of the strategy you have chosen to use throughout.

send link chains to markop@princeton.edu if you intend to spread

About me:

In high school, I did two years of LD, two years of PF, and a few tournaments in BQ and Congress. I now am a senior at Princeton University studying public policy and behavioral science.

PF:

Framework:

I am a firm believer that if no framework is given in PF, then I should weigh under a cost-benefit analysis. I personally do not believe that PF rounds should be done with anything other than CBA as the framework because we already have a style of framework debate; it's called LD. That being said, if a framework is given, please make sure you respond to it and do not let it just flow through the round; if their framework is actually useful and not abusive, I might weigh it in my decision.

Crossfire:

I love PF for the crossfire. Be respectful but do not let people push you around. I want to see which side has actual questions for their opponents and which side has actual debating skills. That being said, I do not flow crossfire and if you want any impacts to come out of the crossfire and make it on the flow, you must restate them in one of your following speeches.

Summary:

Make sure you mention everything you want to mention in your final focus in this speech. Don't just give me a second rebuttal; give me also a preliminary conclusion. Tell me what is happening in the round and explain why your side is winning.

Final Focus:

Include the information from the summary. No new evidence. Make sure your impacts and voters are clear and direct. The more back I have to search through the flow for your impacts, the less likely I am to find them and be able to weigh them on your side.

Evidence:

Everything should have a card to go with it; do not make arguments without a card to back you up. I buy logic when direct evidence is not available, but I will always weigh empirical and direct evidence over logical conclusions. A study demonstrating what is actually occurring in the world (be that study descriptive or a lab experiment) is always more accurate than what one simply thinks would happen with a certain policy or governmental action.

Voting:

I am a flow judge by heart. Use every speech to reiterate why you should win and make sure you explain to me what is happening to each argument. Is the argument you stated in the constructive flowing through? Is your opponent's claim still standing? And, most importantly, why are these stances true? Also, make sure to signpost well and tell me what you're attacking or referencing so I can flow your side better; a cleaner flow means an easier ballot.

LD:

Framework:

The framework should be the premise of the round; if you drop your framework, you're essentially dropping the round. Your framework is your ultimate purpose; if you drop your framework, you drop your entire argument.

As usual, logical conclusions are permissible but keep in mind, being asked for a card and not having one is not a strong stance.

LD Kritik:

If you run a K, be sure to extend impacts. Debate is set on the premise of impacts so make sure your alt stands clear and explain why you have won the round very clearly. AFF Ks generally do not run well with me but if you think it works well and has impacts then give it a shot- I’m down for trying anything.

LD CP:

I absolutely love a good counterplan. If you run one, make sure you prove uniqueness and respond to the inevitable perm.

I am ok with any kind of CP or PIC as long as you are unconditional. Being conditional makes no sense; are you advocating for that CP/PIC or is it that unstable we should not rely on it?

I also adore res plus cp, but make sure you explain how you're unique and why I should value your plan over the Aff's in terms of impacts.

LD DA:

If you run a DA, just like with a K, make sure you draw out your impacts and how your side provides any solvency. Just attacking your opponent doesn't just make you the automatic winner - give me a reason why voting for your side is better than your opponents.

LD AFF:

Be CREATIVE! You have to affirm the resolution, but you can still do a lot! Think creatively and make arguments that have an impact! If the flow is a wash on both sides, I will have to weigh impacts so make sure you make yours VERY clear!

Also - Affirmative = affirm the resolution.

also also- I have normally debated in mostly traditional LD circuits. I can flow theory but make sure you explain why that theory matters and why I should uphold it.

I debated for four years in Texas in PF and briefly in LD. I have a solid knowledge of critical arguments and theory. I currently compete for the Texas Speech Team in Extemp and all the Public Address Events.

My judging philosophy is pretty straightforward.

- Impact calculus is important to me, I want to see a clear weighing of both worlds, especially in the summary. With impacts, I prefer you give me clear material impacts on people, rather than just saying things like nuke war. Contextualize your impacts!

- I like clean, straight down the flow debate with a lot of clash. Sign-post during speeches.

- Not the biggest fan of card-debate. Use that time to make arguments rather than harp over minor things in cards!

- Make extensions that clearly tell me what exactly I'm supposed to extend, not just dropping a card name.

- If you introduce a new argument in the Summary, I won't evaluate it. Stick to extending already established offense/defense.

- I'm good with speed (just enunciate as much as you can) and pretty much all types of critical arguments.

- Be conscious of your positionality and how you treat others in round. Rounds can get intense but at the end of the day, debate should be a space that is safe and empowering for everyone involved.

In extemp, I value unified analysis, a solid demonstration of background/historical knowledge on the question, and confidence in delivery. Using substantial and diverse sourcing (so like in international speeches, don't only cite Western outlets) in each point while weaving in the analysis is a marker of a good speech for me.

For Duet, I don't want to see any unnecessary PDA.

Selam, I'm Nahom

** i will auto down any black trauma centered cases (if ur not black) reading stru viol arguments is fine and implicating racism as an impact is great but dont spell out trauma for shock value**

I debated at Hendrickson for my last 2 yrs of highschool

tech>truth (but pls dont abuse this)

Frontline offense in 2nd rebuttal if u wanna go for it (U DONT NEEDA EXTEND IN REBUTTAL)

Defense is sticky

2nd summary frontlining threshold is high, if ur partner doesn't frontline defense in rebuttal that's fine, but that means ur frontlining must be INSANE, 99% of the time I wont accept it.

Preferences: pls dont read trix imma be so lost, theory is fine if theirs a real abuse, disclosure hurts small schools, paraphrase at ur own discretion, but if its abusive then im down to vote of the T

not super familiar with K's but if it makes sense ill be down to vote off it

speeds fine for me, dont ignore judges paradigms that say not too fast. If your opponents ask for a speech doc, give it to them idc how fast ur going, they may need it for personal reasons.

Clash is cool but I have a soft place in my heart for unique args (not squirrely, theirs a difference) also pls weigh like crazy, and implicate everything

Summary is the most important speech in the round, FF is just for show, unless yall messed up in this round, I shud have my decision by summary, provided both sides weigh/frame the round, otherwise one of yall will think im judge screwing

sum other tips

1. be nice in rounds, rip em a new one all u want, but make sure they're giving u the same energy or u just look dum, I like a nice aggressive crossfire, but walk the line between destroying someone's args and destroying their sense of self carefully, bc (from experience) its a dangerous tightrope that you may not want to walk

2. EXTEND WARRANTS, frontlines are not extensions

3. Weighing/Framing OV in rebuttals r super strategic. weigh bc it'll make me happy, and tbh even if ur barely accessing an arg, if u win weighing that says its the most important, U WIN... for the most part (be careful bc this is diff from other PF debaters that prefer cleaner extensions over weighing strats and link ins)

4. Concede the small things to win the narrative, stats don't matter if ur narrative is bomb, evidence debates are boring, which means if u make it an ev debate I will make the standard for good ev rlly rlly high, and if neither of you have offense speaks will tank and I will default to whatever team i want to

4. Pls be funny, humor is ur greatest tool, joking around in cross and making ur opponents look dum is v enjoyable esp when ur opponents r being rlly aggressive.

5. Any isms (sexism, racism, homophobia, etc) = u lose + i tank ur speaks + i tattle to ur coach

6. Don't be buttholes with theory, ill know if ur just tryna win a round rather then effectively create change, and ill hate u for it. Also dont be hypocritical with theory, idc what ur shell says if u didnt disclose at every round ever on the wiki u better not read disclosure later that year (*cough cough* reading disclosure at the TOC for the first time ever), no shot im buying it.

7. Do NOT, and I'll repeat this to make sure this is super clear, DO NOT read structural violence-based arguments without a clear, nuanced and thoughtful understanding of the oppression that exists. I will never accept a poor understanding of sensitive issues or shallow thinking when it comes to this, logic-based warranting is key; for your own sake do not assume my political views/skin color will make me any more attracted to these types of arguments, in fact, I would very much rather prefer you have no understanding of the issues and not read this argument than have a shallow understanding and read these types of arguments. If I sense BS you better believe I will call you out on it.

8. Take risks, ill reward it (collapsing on a turn)

9. Have fuuunsies, debate is a game, winning and losing r aspects of the game, dont take it to seriously, just enjoy urself in the moment and be respectful of one another

if u wanna talk/postround/add me to the chain my email is: tulu.nahom@gmail.com

hey everyone! I'm Sanjitha Yedavalli and I did speech & debate (PF and extemp) all 4 years of high school. I had a decently successful career qualifying to nats and the TOC. That being said, I do flow. Here's a couple of specific things.

1. 2nd rebuttal has to frontline

2. PLEASE signpost.

3. Collapse during summaries to make the round cleaner for me. I don't want to hear some really badly extended arguments all the way in final focus.

4. I won't vote off of an argument if the link/warranting isn't cleanly extended through final focus.

5. I try to flow all the card names but I usually just end up flowing the argument only. That being said, don't extend by saying "extend the Smith card", you will need to repeat the actual argument.

6. I'm fine with speed. if you think it's going to be rlly fast, just send me your speech doc before just so we avoid any issues

Speaker points: I generally give pretty high speaks in the 28-30 range. The only reasons I would go any lower is if you are being rude, racist, sexist, homophobic, ableist, or any other offensive ism. Also, I will dock speaks if you aggressively post round.

Theory: I will probably never vote off of it because I do not understand it well enough.

Kritiks: I'm not accustomed to the lit. If you read a K, make sure you slow down and simplify it so that I understand it. Clearly explain why this matters and why I should be voting off of it. Also highly unlikely that I will vote off of it.

Structural Violence Frameworks/Args: Don't read structural violence arguments without a clear understanding of the oppression that exists. I do not accept a poor understanding of sensitive issues or shallow thinking when it comes to this. Warranting is key. Do not assume my political views because of my looks. Don't use the oppression of others as a tactic to win a debate round. I will call you out if I sense any bs.

I appreciate humor. Use it to your advantage.

Please make crossfire bearable. I don't want to be falling asleep so use humor or be aggressive (but not too aggressive to the point where you're just being a dick)

If you have any specific questions, feel free to ask me before the round begins.

If for some reason you need to contact me or want to ask me any additional questions after round, feel free to email me at sanjitha.y@gmail.com