Hey

Perry HS '19

Few things with paradigms I agree a lot with most policy people like Gordon Krauss and Elmer Yang

Add me to the email chain for all rounds davidanto2222@gmail.com

TLDR- Pref me if you read Pomo or policy args

Preface: tech>truth

1- Larp, Pomo heavy ks, (Im mostly familiar with Baudy, cap, Racial Cap, Black Marxism and Empire on K lit but other stuff is cool too just explain it well) favorite policy args involve ptx

2- theory

3/4-Other phil ie deleuze Ill listen to any arg but I really dont enjoy deep phil that no one can understand except you.

Strike Trix

A few situations I will have intervene Blatantly rude, racist, homophobic arguments, etc (Just dont)

Death good is cool with me

Defaults:

"truth testing (but the moment you read a larp aff it becomes comp world), epistemic confidence, neg presumption, no RVIs, CIs > reasonability, fairness > education. that being said, my threshold for how heavily ill stick to these is incredibly low; say otherwise, and I'll follow. I also love when you explicitly say whatever how I should weigh, etc. Even if I default to truth testing, tell me in your constructive why I should use truth testing. it makes for a much clearer round, and it's great." -Master oogway or someshit

Speed:

Speed is fine, go ahead. I don't necessarily flow off the doc or by ear, I sorta flip flop.

Policy:

Policy arguments should have warrants. I enjoy a good ev v ev debate. Spec links are very cool and that will make me v happy. Having a good ballot story and round vision is important to how I should evaluate.Who ever is winning the framing debate will most likely have control of the round. However I prefer a nice policy round with very little framing if its both util. Make sure to have a good impact calc so I know where to eval the round. Solvency is a v good thing to have in front of me. Im cool with spin but make sure theres at least a little bit if substance in the 2ar and 2nr.

"I default to strength of link

I like to think I'm Tab but there are some common arguments I default to:

1. The Aff should generally get to weigh the Case against the K

2. Competing Interps outweighs Reasonability

3. Magnitude o/w Probability o/w Timeframe

4. Less than 5 Condo I lean Neg" -Elmer

Some more specific LARP stuff:

Plan affs: . Hyperspec plans are cool imo so go ahead. I will not vote for Semantics FW. Good solvency is cool and uniq ptx/story advs are something ive enjoyed more and more but any adv with a soild i/l is cool.

Disads: Explain links, and impacts. Econ Disads and politics das are something I enjoy alot. Disads should have some good uq to them.

Counterplans: I enjoy process and consult espec against phil which is underrated imo but im not a big fan of process cps against k affs but its whatever, Pics and word Piks are fine. 50 plank cps? yeah im down for that, do I enjoy things like the fourth branch cp? yes.

Theory: Not the biggest fan but go ahead. I do like condo, I enjoy most other 1ar theory so ill have a p high standard for why I should reject 1ar theory like spec status. I lean aff on 2 shells and neg on more than 2. Also if your strat against k affs are to spam fuckshit shells then you can strike me.

Have a good abuse story, and warrant pls. No RVIS unless the shell is friv. cx checks are legit. Not a fan of friv at all. Like please just have the debate not an uplayer battle this is what policy tends to be a better event then ld lol

Phil:

I think Phil cases often don't have enough offense, or explanation why the offense actually flows to your side. Please have warrants on framing.

Ks: I dont have much to say about ks but good links are very cool.

k-affs: Cool with me do what u do. I will not vote on for frame work ( t-fwk) By FW I mean the "read a plan" FW. Don't tell me it's T, you know what it is. Other procedural arguments about debate are valid.

Ev

Please have dates on the card unless they dont have one ie I know the fili card doesnt have one so fili is fine, if you run 404 links and they can find it within a minute I will let the round play out

Clipping: Ending the debate if I catch it. If you have a recording, you can stake the round. Skipping at least 3-5 words multiple times probably constitutes clipping.

Ev Ethics: If I catch a violation, speaks will plummet and the card will be ignored (though I don't go out of my way to check). You can read any violation you want as theory (drop the arg or debater). The following are sufficient to constitute a miscut card such that you can stake the round/make a challenge:

---card starts/ends in the middle of a sentence or paragraph

---text has been added to or removed from the original text of the cited article

---card has been cut/highlighted/bracketed to make a claim that the article does not make (these should be clear if you're staking)

---cite needs either the correct article/book title or a correct URL (or some other way to find it, like a DOI)

If another part of the article contradicts the argument made in the card, I'd prefer to see a recutting of the article read as an argument.

Misc

Signposting is always good.

Shorter prep time is cool

Run whatever you want on novices or trad debaters.

UPDATED PARADIGM

My name is Aida Bathily

I debated for Success Academy LD/PF and currently debate for Wake Forest University.

love the kritk and LARP debate

I've judged over 100 debate rounds in the last 2 years at this point. I will flow the round. The biggest caveat is that you should not spread. It does not enhance argumentation and just makes the debate less engaging and less educational. I am putting this at the top of my paradigm. If you decide to spread, and as a result get dropped, that is your fault for not reading the paradigm, not a judge screw.

Pref Cheat Sheet

Traditional Debate/Lay- 1

Slow, Policy-Style debate- 4

Complex Phil- 4

Tricks- 4

Ks- Strike

Friv Theory- Strike

Spreading- Strike

I hate Ks, not because I don't understand them, but because I think they are bad for debate education. I have the same stance on spreading, I see no point in cramming as much content as possible into a debate if i can't understand you.  It is anti-educational.

I would like there to be an email chain, especially for virtual debates. add me to it- sonalbatra14@gmail.com If you do not make an email chain that indicates you did not read the paradigm and will result in dropped speaks :)

I like a good, reasonable argument

Not a huge fan of theory, don't run a super frivolous shell. If your opponent is running a frivolous shell make a good argument for reasonability & you should be fine. BUT, absolutely use theory to check REAL abuse.

Spreading- Don't like it. I'll say clear twice & then stop flowing & dock your speaks. It is better to err on the side of caution. If it is a big problem you will be dropped.

Kritiks- I don't like them. I would say don't run them.

Flowing- I flow the round, but if you speak too quickly, the quality of this will significantly deteriorate.

Speaks- Speaker points tend to be "low". Being nice = higher speaks, Being mean/rude = lower speaks. I judge speaker points mostly as if you were in a speech event. If you spread, you will have VERY LOW speaks (think 26). I do believe in low point wins if the tournament allows.

Pet Peeves-

- telling me you won the debate (that is my decision)

- "we should just try" (no, if your opponent is proving active harms, we should not just try.)

- being rude to your opponent

- forcing progressive debate on traditional opponents, if your opponent asks for traditional, please do a traditional round.

Overall, you should run what you are comfortable with. It is better to run a case you know & are comfortable with than a case you don't know just to appease a judge. Just make sure everything is well warranted & linked, & we should be good!

SDIVSL Quals: I am expecting this to be a traditional tournament! In traditional LD, I care a LOT about framework, definitions, and creating a respectful environment. If you refute nothing else, refute your opponent's framework and definitions. I cannot begin to explain how sad it will be if you make great points in your contentions or substance, but don't tell me why I should value those points. I care a lot about clash. In my favorite rounds, debaters cross-apply their cases to respond to their opponents' points. Debaters reveal contradictions in their opponents' thought processes, or turn their opponents points to their own favor. I really value creativity and logic over flowery words and speaking style (although I will reward both in terms of speaker points). As long as everyone is clearly working hard and playing hard, we'll all have a good time. Feel free to read the rest of my paradigm - it was written for Bronx, which is a progressive tournament back home in the East. It likely won't apply here, but the gist of it is the same: be creative and have fun.

General - I debated for 4 years on national and local circuits in LD with TJHSST. I graduated in 2019. During that time, my favorite arguments were Ks, especially kritikal affs, and my least favorite arguments were blippy one-sentence underview arguments that would be poorly extended and expanded on in the last speech. That being said, I will vote on whatever you run, and I will vote off the flow rather than based on my own preferences. My favorite debates feature an emphasis on creative interactions and cross-application. Please focus on framework! I love clash, I love substantive debate, and I love it when debaters are working their hardest to win.

Include me on the email chain: iyukta@gmail.com

JV - please just do your best and make your arguments in good faith. I give good speaks for creating a fun productive atmosphere and will deduct for being mean-spirited. If your speaking style is sassy, that's fine, but just read the room. On that note, I know there's a lot of focus on perceptual dominance in JV, but I don't buy that and it will have nothing to do with your speaker points or whether I buy your arguments. I care about efficient time use, smart arguments, and good faith debate. While it is good to be cool and collected, if I see you trying and working hard, that's what I care about.

VARSITY - If I do get some varsity rounds, please keep in mind that I am rusty! I will vote off of tagline extensions only if I have to, but a warranted or explained extension or impact will always do a good job of convincing me. Slow down on tags and authors. If your argument is particularly complicated, take a few seconds to give me a brief overview. Hopefully this will make it so that we have as productive rounds as possible.

This is overkill for this tournament but, in case it becomes relevant:

K/kritikal arguments: Yes please! I love Ks, particular kritikal plan affs. I think they capture the essence of LD: values debate applied to real injustices today. Be careful though - I've seen a lot of people contradict themselves in rebuttals and extensions, which is super annoying! I want you to know your subject so you don't make silly mistakes. I think these are some of the arguments with the most room for creativity and they are the most interesting debates to me. Please be very careful about extending the ROJ/ROTB as that's the only reason for me to vote! I am always open to cross-applications of K to theory/T and vice versa so please do that.

Policy/LARP: Please make sure to justify policymaking as an approach to debate as soon as possible. This is especially true if you're facing arguments like kritiks or theory. Don't forget your framework - if you write a well-justified plan but I'm given a ROJ that excludes it, I'd like you to have some answer to this so I can evaluate your work. My ideal Plan structure is: ROJ (policymaking), Value/VC, and then all your traditional parts of a plan. I am really encouraging you to do this because I think policy rounds are very engaging and I love well-justified plans and counterplans. If you're reading a bunch of CPs/DAs I will be slightly disappointed because I really like substantive debate but, oh well, I understand the strategy! If you are doing this, please please make smart, clear extensions.

Theory/T: I want you to give me a very clear abuse story, as specific to the round as possible. If your standards are vague or seem inapplicable to the round, the threshold for responses will of course be lower. You gotta tell me if fairness or education are voters, if you prefer competing interps or reasonability, if you want me to drop the debater or the argument and why. Also, please tie these arguments back directly into my role as a judge or the role of the ballot. One thing I will say, though, is that to me competing interps generally necessitates that I have to vote for whichever shell has more offense. Caveat: If you're running the original interp and don't specify, I will accept whatever your opponent says about it. If they tell me to accept terminal defense I will.

[EDIT 3/8/22] I will not vote off disclosure theory. I find forced disclosure to be a thinly veiled attempt to remove debaters without private coaches or large team support from the activity. Disclosure is a choice; if you choose to disclose, you must accept the consequences of your own actions rather than holding your opponent responsible. If someone runs disclosure theory against you with me as your judge, feel free to drop it completely. You don't have to say anything on it. My paradigm is public access for you and your opponent, so anyone who chooses to read me disclosure theory does so at their own risk. Lovers of disclosure theory, I will give you this: if you and your opponent are both present in the room before the round starts, you may ask me if I will vote off your interp - however, you must accept my answer. If your interp tells a clear and creative abuse story, I may allow it.

Phil: I have read so many circularly justified "high phil" cases. If you're reading phil, slow down. Also make sure all your extensions are well-explained. Sorry if this cramps your style, but I really want to understand your arguments and it's going to take effort from both of us. If you don't explain it well or your cards aren't cut well, it's going to make the threshold for response lower - I can't tell if something is a good or bad response to a poorly explained argument, so I'm going to go with the person who did a better job of at least attempting to explain. These arguments were never my favorite in high school, but I promise I will do my best and evaluate them fairly.

Tricks: I will be very annoyed if I have to vote off tricks. That doesn't mean I won't do it! It will just make me unhappy. However, everyone will have a much better time if you be creative, if you weave it into your substantive arguments, or if you have really new warrants. That being said, no matter how creative and brilliant you are, I will not evaluate tricks against arguments about oppression. I will also drop your speaks if the example is particularly disrespectful. If you wish, you can ask me before the round in the presence of your opponent about whether I will evaluate your tricks. I really don't want to punish anyone for trying something a different argument, so please take advantage of this offer. I cannot intervene once the round has begun.

I am a lay judge.

Stay on topic. Clash on key contentions. Weigh and impact your arguments.

I prefer traditional over progressive approaches to debate. Spreading is fine but not preferred.

I will score the round based on your flow, not your presentation style.

I am a third year parent judge. I have judged at a local and national level, mostly in Novice. I will flow and keep track of arguments and vote for the best arguments. I prefer a conversational speed and it is your responsibility to make sure that your speech is clear and understandable. If you are speaking too fast, I will ask you to slow down. I prefer quality over quantity.

I expect people to be respectful and I do not appreciate bully tactics during rounds. I consider constant interruptions to be rude. I love well-constructed arguments with well-supported evidence; I prefer to evaluate arguments based on the specific resolution and value/criterion.

I love judging. Have fun and be yourself!

Bennett Dombcik

Please add me to the email chain: benjaydom@gmail.com

My ballot will be determined by my flow. Technical concessions are taken as truth.

Some random things that may be helpful:

---you can insert re-highlightings, re-cuttings of things not present in the original card should be read.

---please locally record speeches/turn on your camera for online debates.

---line by line is helpful for the purposes of my flow but I will attempt to write down as much of your rant as possible.

---I am generally a fan of creative and interesting strategies.

---"I have a lower bar for a warrant than most. I am unlikely to reject an argument solely on the basis of ‘being a cheap shot’ or lacking ‘data.’ Unwarranted arguments are easily answered by new contextualization, cross applications, or equally unwarranted arguments. If your opponent’s argument is missing academic support or sufficient explanation, then you should say that. I’m strict about new arguments and will protect earlier speeches judiciously. However, you have to actually identify and flag a new argument. The only exception to this is the 2AR, since it is impossible for the neg to do so." - Rafael Pierry

I am a parent judge. I like to see clear logical reasoning, best supported by facts and stats. Also, no spreading please! Conciseness is more important than speed, so please do make your arguments clear. In addition, I would like to see the extensive use of weighing. Overall, please keep in mind that it can only be a debate if your opponent and your judges can understand you, and having fun should come first! Good luck!

Hello Everyone

My name is Kamesh Gottumukkala. I have been judging Speech and Debate events including several IE's, LD, Congress, PF, Varsity Policy for over 4 years.

I look for respect from the competitors for each other and to the judges. I am a parent and a lay judge. Lets make the competition interesting and don't lose your temper!

Quick update for 2025:I'm not judging/coaching quite as frequently, so please make sure to define topic-specific acronymns and the like, rather than assuming I already know them.

Yes, I want to be on the email chain: elizahaas7(at)gmail(dot)com

Pronouns: she/her/hers

TLDR I am absolutely willing to consider and vote on any clear and convincing argument that happens in the round, I want you to weigh impacts and layer the round for me explicitly, and I like it when you're funny and interesting and when you’re having fun and are interested in the debate. I want you to have the round that you want to have—I vote exclusively based on the flow. Weigh, weigh, weigh, based on what actually happened in that specific round.

If you care about bio: I’m a coach from Oregon (which has a very traditional circuit) but I also have a lot of experience judging and coaching progressive debate on the national circuit, so I can judge either type of round. I’ve qualified students in multiple events to TOC, NSDA Nats, NDCA, has many State Championship winners, and I’m the former President of the National Parliamentary Debate League. See below for the long version, and if you have specific questions that I don't already cover below, feel free to ask them before the round. I love debate, and I’m happy to get to judge your round!

General:

I vote on flow. I believe strongly that judges should be as non-interventionist as possible in their RFDs, so I will only flow arguments that you actually make in your debates; I won't intervene to draw connections or links for you or fill in an argument that I know from outside the round but that you don't cover or apply adequately. That’s for you to do as the debater--and on that note, if you want me to extend or turn something, tell me why I should, etc. This can be very brief, but it needs to be clear. I prefer depth over breadth. Super blippy arguments won't weigh heavily, as I want to see you develop, extend, and impact your arguments rather than just throw a bunch of crap at your opponent and hope something sticks. I love when you know your case and the topic lit well, since that often makes the difference. If you have the most amazing constructive in the world but then are unable to defend, explicate, and/or break it down well in CX and rebuttals, it will be pretty tough for you if your opponent capitalizes on your lack of knowledge/understanding even a little bit.

Arguments:

I’m pretty standard when it comes to types of argumentation. I've voted for just about every type of case; it's about what happens in round and I don’t think it’s my right as a judge to tell you how to debate. Any of the below defaults are easy to overcome if you run what you want to run, but run it well.

However, if you decide to let me default to my personal preferences, here they are. Feel free to ask me if there's something I don't cover or you're not sure how it would apply to a particular debate form, since they’re probably most targeted to circuit LD:

Have some balance between philosophy and policy (in LD) and between empirics and quality analytics (in every debate form). I like it when your arguments clash, not just your cards, so make sure to connect your cards to your theoretical arguments or the big picture in terms of the debate. I like to see debates about the actual topic (however you decide to interpret that topic in that round, and I do give a lot of leeway here) rather than generic theory debates that have only the most tenuous connections to the topic.

For theory or T debates, they should be clear, warranted, and hopefully interesting, otherwise I'm not a huge fan, although I get their strategic value. In my perfect world, theory debates would happen only when there is real abuse and/or when you can make interesting/unique theory arguments. Not at all a fan of bad, frivolous theory. No set position on RVIs; it depends on the round, but I do think they can be a good check on bad theory. All that being said, I have voted for theory... a lot, so don't be scared if it's your thing. It's just not usually my favorite thing.

Framework debates: I usually find framework debates really interesting (whether they’re couched as role of the ballot arguments, standards, V/C debates, burdens, etc.), especially if they’re called for in that specific round. Obviously, if you spend a lot of time in a round on framework, be sure to tie it back to FW when you impact out important points in rebuttals. I dislike long strings of shaky link chains that end up in nuclear war, especially if those are your only impacts. If the only impact to your argument is extinction with some super sketchy links/impact cards, I have a hard time buying that link chain over a well-articulated and nicely put together link chain that ends in a smaller, but more believable and realistically significant impact.

Parli (and PF) specific framework note: unless teams argue for a different weighing mechanism, I will default to net bens/CBA as the weighing mechanism in Parli and PF, since that’s usually how debaters are weighing the round. Tie your impacts back to your framework.

Ks can be awesome or terrible depending on how they're run. I'm very open to critical affs and ks on neg, as a general rule, but there is a gulf between good and bad critical positions. I tend to absolutely love (love, love) ones that are well-explained and not super broad--if there isn't a clear link to the resolution and/or a specific position your opponent takes, I’ll have a harder time buying it. Run your Ks if you know them well and if they really apply to the round (interact with your opponent's case/the res), not just if you think they'll confuse your opponent or because your teammate gave you a k to read that you don’t really understand. Please don't run your uber-generic Cap Ks with crappy or generic links/cards just because you can't think of something else to run. That makes me sad because it's a wasted opportunity for an awesome critical discussion. Alts should be clear; they matter. Of course for me, alts can be theoretical/discourse-based rather than policy-based or whatnot; they just need to be clear and compelling. When Ks are good, they're probably my favorite type of argument; when their links and/or alts are sketchy or nonexistant, I don't love them. Same basic comments apply for critical affs.

For funkier performance Ks/affs, narratives and the like, go for them if that's what you want to run. Just make sure 1) to tell me how they should work and be weighed in the round and 2) that your opponent has some way(s) to access your ROB. Ideally the 2nd part should be clear in the constructive, but you at least need to make it clear when they CX you about it. If not, I think that's a pretty obvious opportunity for your opponent to run theory on you.

I'm also totally good with judging a traditional LD/Parli/Policy/PF round if that's what you're good at--I do a lot of that at my local tournaments. If so, I'll look at internal consistency of argumentation more than I would in a progressive debate (esp. on the Neg side).

Style/Speed:

I'm fine with speed; it's poor enunciation or very quiet spreading that is tough. I'll ask you to clear if I need to. If I say "clear," "loud," or “slow” more than twice, it won't affect my decision, but it will affect your speaks. Just be really, really clear; I've never actually had to say "slow," but "clear" and "loud" have reared their ugly heads more than once. If you’re going very quickly on something that’s easy for me to understand, just make sure you have strong articulation. If you can, slow down on tags, card tags, tricky philosophy, and important analytics--at the very least, hammer them hard with vocal emphasis. My perfect speed would probably be an 8 or 9 out of 10 if you’re very clear. That being said, it can only help you to slow down for something you really need me to understand--please slow or repeat plan/CP text, role of the ballot, theory interp, or anything else that is just crazy important to make sure I get your exact wording, especially if I don't have your case in front of me.

Don’t spread another debater out of the round. Please. If your opponent is new to the circuit, please try to make a round they can engage in.

I love humor, fire, and a pretty high level of sassiness in a debate, but don’t be mean or punch down..

I love CX (in LD and Policy)/CF (in PF) and good POIs (in Parli), so it bugs me when debaters use long-winded questions or answers as a tactic to waste time during CX or when they completely refuse to engage with questions or let their opponent answer any questions. On that note, I'm good with flex prep; keep CXing to your heart's desire--I'll start your prep time once the official CX period is over if you choose to keep it going. CX is binding, but you have to actually extend arguments or capitalize on errors/concessions from CX in later speeches for them to matter much.

If I'm judging you in Parli and you refuse to take any POIs, I'll probably suspect that it means you can't defend your case against questions. Everyone has "a lot to get through," so you should probably take some POIs.

Final Approach to RFD:

I try to judge the round as the debaters want me to judge it. In terms of layering, unless you tell me to layer the debate in another way, I'll go with standard defaults: theory and T come first (no set preference on which, so tell me how I should layer them), then Ks, then other offs, then case--but case does matter! Like anything else for me, layering defaults can be easily overcome if you argue for another order in-round. Weigh impacts and the round for me, ideally explicitly tied to the winning or agreed-upon framework--don't leave it up to me or your opponent to weigh it for you. I never, ever want to intervene, so make sure to weigh so that I don't have to. Give me some voters if you have time, but don’t give me twelve of them. See above for details or ask questions before the round if you have something specific that I haven't covered. Have fun and go hard!

Weigh impacts.

Weigh impacts.

Additional note if I'm judging you in PF or Parli:

- PF: Please don't spend half of crossfire asking "Do you have a card for x?" Uggh. This is a super bad trend/habit I've noticed. That question won't gain you any offense; try a more targeted form of questioning specific warrants. I vote on flow, so try to do the work to cover both sides of the flow in your speeches, even though the PF times make that rough.

- Parli: Whether it’s Oregon- or California-style, you still need warrants for your claims; they'll just look a little different and less card-centric than they would in a prepared debate form. I'm not 100% tabula rasa in the sense that I won't weigh obviously untrue claims/warrants that you've pulled out of your butts if the other team responds to them at all. I think most judges are like that and not truly tab, but I think it's worth saying anyways. I'll try to remember to knock for protected time where that’s the rule, but you're ultimately in charge of timing that if it's open level. Bonus points if you run a good K that's not a cap K.

Background: Auburn '24/Mechanical Engineering/President of AEPi Theta (term ends January '24)/President of Hillel (May '22-May '23)/NROTC (will be a Surface Warfare Nuclear Officer upon graduation/commissioning in May 2024). I debated at Isidore Newman School in policy debate and LD debate for four years. I never became what one would deem "competitive" at the activity until I made the switch to LD late junior year. During my senior year, I had success on both the local and national circuits (broke at a couple bid tournaments, a round robin, and NSDA Nationals). Interpret that as you wish. My paradigm will be overwhelmingly LD related, but most, if not all, of my paradigm can be applied to policy.

Email Chain: bengalfrog14 at gmail dot com

The Basics:

1. Progressive or Traditional? I’m good with either. Did well in both.

2. Truth testing or competing worlds? This is an interesting question. Personally, I feel as though national circuit LD largely consists "competing worlds" arguments. However, I feel as though truth testing arguments can still win many rounds on the national circuit. I ran both "truth testing" and "competing worlds" arguments during my time in LD, and am fine with judging both.

3. Tech or Truth? “TRUTH AND TECH MATTER EQUALLY. IMO judges who say TECH>TRUTH are dumb and failing their duties as educators. Arguments which are deliberately false, inconsistent with the literature, etc. will face a bias against them.” – Anthony Berryhill.

4. Speed? I don’t care. Go fast or go conversational. However, I fundamentally believe that debaters far too often go faster than they think they can go. Your speaker points will suffer if you do this throughout the round repetitively. I will only yell clear twice, after that I will not flow.

Specific Arguments (For the affirmative and negative):

1. Disadvantages: Love them. As I transitioned into LD from policy, I was already used to running disadvantages, even though at the time I still wasn’t particularly good at running them. The biggest thing about the DA is that they need to be a) well warranted, b) have strong links and c) have an impact that competes with the affirmative’s impacts. If you have all of these three things, guess what? You have a good disadvantage. If you lack one of these things, you’re walking the line. If you lack any more, you should probably kick the disadvantage. My personal pet peeve are links that go along the lines of “X might lead to this.” Your cards need to be “confident.” Also, have good sources. AND SHOW AUTHOR QUALS!! For the affirmative, respond to the individual warrants of the disadvantage. Disprove the validity of the link chain and/or impact and weigh against the impact, or impacts, of the disadvantage.

2. Counterplans: I also love them. Again, I was pretty used to the concept of the counterplan as I made my way into the world of LD. I also believe that counterplans are not used enough in traditional debate, which frustrates me. If run correctly i.e. not saying the actual phrase “counterplan” and adapting to the judge, a counterplan can be run in front of half of all traditional judges. But let’s go into specifics. The counterplan has to have some sort of net benefit in order to compete with the affirmative. This can take the form of a disadvantage, case turn, etc. But if such net benefit fails to be well warranted, have strong links, or a notable impact, the counterplan begins to fall apart, as it does nothing better than the affirmative. What should you take from this? Simple. If you are going to run a counterplan, have a GOOD NET BENEFIT. For the counterplan proper, there needs to be a plan text or some sort of advocacy I can vote off of. I’m fine with planks, but don’t make them excessive. And the counterplan follows the same three rules as disadvantages for me (with the net benefit’s impact serving as the “impact” for the CP). For the aff, I have one word. PERM. Ok, maybe that’s not all I have to say. But, perming was something I as a debater struggled with. I lost an out round just because I didn’t make a perm. Unfortunately, I see others make the same mistakes. Perming is essential. Since it’s usually run as a test of competition against the affirmative, my personal view of the perm is to disprove the net benefit from being legitimate. In other words, if the net benefit has no offense, then the permutation works as a test of competition. If you use the permutation as an actual advocacy, beware that you are beginning to sever out of the affirmative’s advocacy in the 1AC. I will not consider this in my voting UNLESS the negative calls the affirmative out on this.

3. The K: Oh boy. Generally speaking, I have never been a big fan of the K. Although many Ks address issues that occur in our society regardless of what resolution is presented, I find too often that the same Ks are used for YEARS without any updates to what is currently happening. Given this, you should contextualize whatever K you plan to run in front of me with the topic in addition to making sure the literature is still acceptable, both from an academic and social standpoint. Moving on, I never really ran Ks in my time as a debater. That was probably because I was so used to policy arguments as I morphed into LD, but for me, a good policy argument with turns, take-outs, and net benefits just seemed cooler than a K. In the end, run whatever K you think you can win off of. Just make sure the K has strong links and has a good alternative. I will not vote for Ks that have no alternative. For K affs, I will not vote for ANY unless they have some sort of advocacy, text, or simply a restatement of the resolution. Call me old school. I don’t care. For the affirmative, make permutations. Additionally, I big flaw I find with affirmative counter-arguments to Ks is that they attempt to disprove the actual arguments of the K. This can be troubling in front of a lot of Ks. A much better method generally speaking is to disprove the method of the K. Basically, don’t tell me racism, sexism, antisemitism, xenophobia, etc. don’t exist. Tell me why the K's approach to such issues is flawed.

4. Theory and Topicality: I find that my stance on topicality and theory arguments tend to be quite similar. Although some enjoy these debates, I personally am not a big fan. I never really ran these arguments unless there was actual abuse (in which case I won those rounds), but I, for whatever reason, see too many debaters who run these arguments just to run the arguments. Don’t do that in front of me unless you want your speaker points to suffer and risk losing the round off a well warranted RVI from the other side. If there is actual abuse, whether it be in the form of no disclosure, a plan text that truly is not topical, or no plan text at all, I am more comfortable voting off these arguments. But be careful. I can usually tell when one’s faking with these arguments. In other words, don’t run four disadvantages and in your topicality shell then tell me that you are limited in your arguments. For the aff, calling out these fake arguments is key, in addition to running the typical standards arguments, counter-interpretations, etc. that you would usually find in these rounds.

5. Case Debate: One of the biggest problems that I see is that case debate is becoming non-existent. I see this in traditional debate and progressive debate. And when there is case debate, it’s usually just cross-applications of off-case positions. That is a poor strategy. If you want my ballot, you need to address most, if not all, of the warrants on the case and turn every one individually. Struggling to do that? Then run a disadvantage in the form of a turn on the case. You need to take out the case with multiple arguments that turn the affirmative’s warrants. Cross applications don’t do that. For affirmatives, don’t drop these case turns. If no turns are made on the case, call the negative out on it and use it to your advantage. Not making case turns is a drop in my book. And it’s almost a drop in my book with cross applications. Negatives, beware of this. Affirmatives, be attentive of this.

6. Tricks: I will either not flow, sleep, or walk out of the room if you run tricks. Don’t test me.

7. Framework: I like saving the best for last. Why is framework the best kind of argument in my opinion? Because it shapes the way one views the round. If you lose the framework debate and don’t do any weighing between values, value criterions, or whatever metric the round is being measured with, your chances of winning the round are slim. With that being said, the best framework debates are ones in which a) you explain why your framework (or more specifically value and value criterion) is better and why b) even if you lose the framework debate, you still win under your opponent’s framework i.e. weighing. This should be textbook debate, but I still see debaters who never weigh in the framework debate. It makes me very sad.

Conclusion: There’s a quote I’d like to share. Football coach Dutch Meyer once said, “Fight ‘em until hell freezes over. Then fight ‘em on the ice!”. If you debate with passion, energy, and the drive to win, I will reward that, whether it be in the form of speaker points, a win, or both. Debate is not just a game. It’s a competition. So compete.

UPDATE Harvard Policy (02/23):

Debated policy in high school a few years ago so it's been quite some time. Please explain your jargon and topic specific terms. Generally tech over truth. Run the arguments that you want to run, my judge pref shouldn't change that; HOWEVER, as long as your arguments aren't blatantly racist, homophobic, etc. Fine with speed, as long as both sides are cool with it. It's a learning experience so please be nice and try to have fun, I know it's stressful, I'm an easy-going judge so if any tech issue or anything else arises in the midst of the debate just let me know and we will sort it out.

please include me on the email chain: gkang2022@gmail.com

Read the rest of my paradigm if going for any critical args. tl;dr: I'm cool with Ks!

Policy paradigm

I debated in high school and am now attending university. I doubt much of that matters to you but please include me on the email chain: gkang2022@gmail.com

General

Feel free to debate with arguments that you feel are the best; however, it would be silly to assume this doesn't come with certain caveats. I have minimal experience judging on this new topic so I urge you to explain your jargon.

Tech over truth, but with limitations. Technical concessions matter a lot. However, your arguments have to be developed enough in earlier speeches that a reasonably smart opponent & judge can see it becoming a round-changer in a later speech.

Speed is fine, but I will say clear when it becomes incomprehensible. Debaters often tend to spew through their analytics within their rebuttal speeches but be cognizant of the fact that I will flow on paper so anything that doesn't make it on to my flow will not be considered within my RFD.

The quality of your evidence matters, but won’t win or lose you a round unless somebody in the round makes this happen. You certainly don’t need evidence to make every single argument. I want to be on the email chain so I can read evidence after the round if need-be

In the new world of debate, thorough impact analysis often gets left behind but is crucial to evaluating debates.

If you're going for the K, don't neglect talking about the case.

Yes, feel free to run critical affirmatives, as I did so my senior season. Regardless, I can be persuaded by good technical framework debating from the negative.

Organization and strategic argumentation are crucial to your speaker points

I'm lenient on paperless rules - as long as you don't take forever and I don't catch you stealing prep you'll be fine, if your computer crashes mid speech just let me know

Ethical Considerations

Any form of misrepresenting evidence is considered card clipping and will severely affect your speaker points and could cost you the round. Audibly marking the card is acceptable.

Don't be mean. Debate is a learning experience and a grind, so there's no place for rude behavior or ad hominem arguments

I debated LD for Lexington (MA) back in the late '90s/early '00s, and I’ve coached and judged off and on since. My paradigm as a judge is very much shaped by the style of northeast/circuit traditional LD debate, even when I’m judging PF (I’ve been a PF instructor at SNFI for a few years).

I'm looking for the same things when I'm judging LD and PF:

• a clear standard/weighing mechanism, and clear impacts back to that

• an explanation/interpretation of evidence

• clear line-by-line in early rebuttals

• world-building/crystallization in final speeches (summary speech in PF; final 2 minutes of the NR in LD)

I can handle speed, but I really don't like to see spreading in LD or PF. I prefer rounds where everyone is speaking clearly and actually sounds like they care about what they're arguing, and using inflection and other rhetorical speaking skills to reflect that. When in doubt, go slow.

I like interesting arguments, and I strongly prefer arguments that are more philosophy rooted. However, I strongly believe in using the wording of the resolution to determine aff/neg ground and issues of fairness. I have zero tolerance for cute definitions/frameworks that are designed to make upholding the other side extremely difficult/impossible. For me, debate is about skill and education; it's not a place where you try to trick your opponent into losing. Along those lines, I really, really want the round to be about the topic.

I'm a very expressive judge. Please look at me during your speeches/cx, and adjust depending on the signals I'm giving you. If I'm not flowing, or if I'm rolling my eyes or looking exasperated, figure out what you're doing wrong and fix it. I would much rather you stop in mid-sentence and move on then stick to something I'm making faces to you about. I'm expressive so I can help steer you away from doing things I don't want to see.

Please be polite and respectful in and outside of rounds. I don’t drop for rudeness, but I want to vote for nice people, and behavior factors into speaker points for me.

Relatedly, don't argue with me as I'm giving you feedback. Asking me specific questions is great, so long as you’re not trying to change my decision or argue with me about it. I give a lot of feedback because I want you to learn and do better the next time I see you.

Definitely ask if you have specific questions, or if you're not sure how to adapt to me. If you're able to watch any Harrison debaters (at tournaments or on youtube), that's the style and approach that's totally in line with what I want to see in rounds (their coach was my coach, and I coached them for a few years). Just trying to adapt to me goes a long way.

Hi everybody,

My name is Ajay Kristipati, a senior at the University of Washington. This is my first time judging, so please be patient as I am still learning how to navigate Tabroom and NSDA Campus. Being that this is one of my first times judging, and one of my first experiences with debate for that matter, please don't spread and try to debate traditionally. I'll do my best to judge fairly and accurately, and look forward to meeting you all in round :) .

*FOR BRONX JV 10/16-10/18*

It's been a while since I've debated, so go heavy on the definitions and clarifications. I'm okay with anything you're BOTH comfortable with--this is JV, so no spreading if you both don't agree to it, etc. I was a pretty hefty framework debater, so I'll appreciate those rounds. Tech over truth in general. You'll get dropped if you say anything racist, homophobic, sexist, ableist, etc. I try to give speaker points liberally, bonus points if you squeeze in a Star Wars meme or reference. If you have any questions about the round, or debate in general, feel free to email me at zjl8@pitt.edu. The most important thing is that you're having fun and learning, so try to relax and enjoy the experience!

TL;DR

Add me to the email chain: caroline.li.debate@gmail.com

I have no topic knowledge yet this year, I'm back in after having not judged for 3 years. Please help me out in the round!

Policy

I'm a recent college graduate, she/her. I did policy debate for 4 years at Lexington High School, was a 2N. I ran mostly policy arguments on the neg, but my partner ran K and policy affs.

Top 4 things you need to do to win in front of me:

1. Do impact calc.

2. Have numbered warrants.

3. Prioritize what you want me to vote on in your last speeches.

4. Be civil to your opponents!

K--------------------------------x--------------Policy

Advice

High level how I decide rounds. 1. I look for any major tech mistakes (dropping a perm, condo, flow, straight turn, etc) that mean I can auto vote for one side, no guilt necessary. If this happened in your round, stand up, make 2 arguments, and sit down. 2. I break the debate into blocks, (ie for a K, framework, link, alt, impact) and decide who won each block. 3. I decide what winning a block means for a team, and how the blocks implicate each other. If you made even if statements, bonus points in this step. If you did impact calc, bonus points in this step. 4. I return a decision.

Also, I'm mostly flowing by listening. Clarity~

Framework Debates

At the end of this debate, I will write down the impacts each side goes for, assign some probability of solvency depending on how well you're doing on the internal links for that impact, and then figure out if they implicate/outweigh one another. As such, feel free to expand the debate in the 2AC through the 1AR, but in the last speeches buckle down on 1-3 key pieces of offense, weigh it against your opponents' best offense, and then apply it to all the other arguments that show up on these massive T flows. Also, procedural fairness can be a terminal impact if you can convince me it is. Doing good case debate and then applying it offensively to the T flow is always an excellent idea.

Policy aff v Ks

On the aff, having specific, well-thought-out perms and explaining why they mitigate the risk of links is an excellent idea, as is using your impacts to outweigh. On the neg, winning strong impacts to each link helps a lot, as does pointing out specific parts of the aff speeches that link. These debates also tend to become massive, so collapsing in your last speeches and not getting caught up in the line by line will help.

DAs

I do think it's possible for there to be 0% risk of a DA. I find it more persuasive if you have like 5 reasons why one internal link of the DA won't happen than if you put one reason on five different internal links. Aff-specific DAs which are well-prepared will be entertaining, as will having specific links to the aff.

CPs

Don't like process CPs. Do like advantage CPs, or any CP that you made up on the fly but solves the entire aff. CPs are tests of how necessary the aff is to solve its impacts. On the aff, creative permutations are entertaining.

T

Make clear internal link and impact scenarios, do impact comparison, and internal link turns, and you'll be good to go. If they clarify how the aff works late in the debate, and it's egregiously untopical, I don't mind if you introduce a new T violation in the neg block.

Final thoughts

Make my job easy please!

Give me judging advice/Review my judging: https://forms.gle/FrmsLwNv95YQZpgF9

Loud prep is a pet peeve

I don't love it when other members of your team sit in on your prelim rounds sorry!

Speaks Scale

28.0 needs some improvement

28.5 good

29.0 impressive

kelvinmaiohmai@gmail.com

I will disclose my decision and give RFD. Will also disclose speaks on request. For every minute you post-round me, I take away one speaker point (asking for legitimate feedback is ok). Please be sure to read my paradigm in its entirety (yes it's long but too much information is always better than too little). I don't mind giving a summary before rounds, but if you neglect to read my paradigm and do something I don't like and then you lose because of it, that's on you. If you're looking for policy, you can skip to the bottom but reading through might help you. If you're looking for PF, skip to the bottom.

Cheating is an auto-drop. I don't care how hard you may be winning everything else, if you are caught cheating you will automatically be dropped.

Prefs:

1: Case, LARPing with an LD framework, philosophy

2: K

2.5 (don't dislike but don't actually like either): Theory (only if actually abusive), LARPing without an LD framework

3:

4 (strike me please): Friv theory, tricks, RVI, etc

Background:
Debated for 3 years in varsity LD at Northview High School from 2012-2015. Have been judging on and off for the past 6 years. Currently working as a quant risk analyst in the banking/financial services industry after finishing my masters in quant risk analysis.

Speed:
I'm ok with speed for the most part. Spreading is generally ok if you are clear, but if you aren't, I will clear you twice before I stop flowing. Don't sacrifice clarity for speed, you'll lose speaks. Make sure you look up once in a while to make sure I'm flowing and understanding your arguments (not an issue with email chains). Slow down a bit for taglines. Not an issue if you do email chains, but make sure you're letting me know which cards you're cutting. If you do email chains, don't forget your clarity still matters for speaks. For online tournaments, there might be difficulties and so I would prefer a generally slower pace in case issues arise.

Prep:
I'm ok with flex prep. Flashing doesn't count towards prep. Don't steal prep. I'm a really lenient and reasonable judge so I'll let you finish your sentence.

CX:

I don't flow cross, so if you want to make a point, make it in a speech.

Roadmap/signpost:

Please do this. It makes it easier to flow the debate and will make it easier for me to give an RFD.

Voters:
Please do this. I want you to write the ballot for me. Tell me EXACTLY why you win, and why I should uphold your framework over your opponent's. I shouldn't be doing the work for you.

ARGUMENTS:

"Tech over truth."

Tabula rasa

***I am a more traditional LD judge who accepts progressive arguments as long as they have a clear LD framework. I believe that the framework in LD is the fundamental difference between LD and policy, and so if you don't have this framework I will default to voting against you. If you only want to run policy framework, you might as well just switch to policy. I'm not asking for a super philosophical debate (although I do know a lot of philosophy and enjoy it), but I am asking for some sort of LD framework. Framework is like 70% of my RFD. Clash is good.

Adjust to your opponent. If you run something like K or theory against a novice, that won't reflect well in your speaks.

Theory and RVIs (3/7/2020 post-GA varsity state update):
I find theory and RVIs incredibly boring to judge, and I honestly don't even get what RVIs are since they weren't really a thing when I debated. Don't read theory shells if your opponent isn't actually being abusive, I'll probably vote you down. If both debaters choose to read theory/RVIs when neither are actually being abusive, I reserve the right to stop flowing and just flip a coin to decide winner. Both speakers will then receive a 27.5 in speaks. Friv theory is an autodrop. Don't waste my time or your opponent's time. Not a fan of tricks either. Don't waste my time with blippy one-liners. Reading the same theory/RVIs for every tournament is incredibly boring for me to listen to.

DAs:
Sure, make sure well-warranted and links to resolution.

K:
I love listening to k. That's not to say I'll always vote for them, but I will understand them and will vote on them if done correctly.

CPs:
Yes. I love CPs as well so I'm ok with them as long as they link and are unique. I will vote on a perm if your CP is non-unique. Kicking a permed CP is going to negatively impact you.

Impact calc:

Impact calc is good. I weigh impacts in the RFD if needed.

Dropped arguments:

Don't just say "extend _____ b/c opponent dropped it." Explain how the dropped argument impacts the debate itself

Above all else, have fun! I believe that if you don't enjoy what you're doing, it's not worth doing, so please have fun and relax. Good luck!

Other prefs based off judging rounds:

If you're going to read arguments on analytics/data science/economics/finance/financial theory/markets, please make sure you at least research the topic. I'm a quant in the banking industry and it can be frustrating to hear people butcher these things so hard. You don't need to have a PhD level of understanding, but please at least do some reading on it.

I've also taken some actuarial theory/insurance mathematics, so if you want to run super technical args about actuarially fair priced insurance/optimal insurance and stuff like that I'll understand.

Don't read identity k arguments while not being a member of that identity AND read a link that your opponent is speaking for others in their advocacy. It comes off as incredibly short-sighted, and if your opponent calls you out and says you link I'll vote you down.

Please no RVIs, this has been in my paradigm for a long time and I still have people try to read them in front of me. I've literally been in a situation of judging a break round where all 3 judges (myself included) did not understand what the heck was going on.

Please stop reading generic theory shells. What's the point of getting excited for new topics if your strat is to find one or two arguments and then stuff theory shells and spikes into your case? Where is the educational value in that (yes, generally I agree that fairness>education but that doesn't mean that education isn't important). If I can clearly tell that what you're reading is 80% the same as what you were reading last topic, you'll probably lose speaks. Only use theory shells if your opponent is actually being abusive.

For the random policy debates I judge here and there:

I'm pretty ok with spreading and args, so it should be fine. If I HAD to pick a paradigm, it would probably be something like case/impacts/DA/CP>K>Topicality>>>>>>>Theory/RVI. This is not set in stone however.

For the random PF debates I judge here and there:

PF is PF, and at its core it should be lay debate. When I judge PF, I will approach the round as if I were a lay judge. If you're going to LARP, you'll probably lose speaks and the debate as well. If you spread, you will lose speaks.

Rachel Mauchline

Durham Academy, Assistant Director of Speech and Debate

Previously the Director of Forensics and Debate for Cabot

she/her pronouns

TL;DR

Put me on the email chain @ rachelmauchline@gmail.com

speed is fine (but online lag is a thing)

tech over truth

World Schools

I truly love world school as an event. It is my favorite event to coach and I've been coaching worlds since 2018. I focus heavily on the event’s rubric to guide the ballot; however it ultimately is a debate event so remember to focus on the warranting and implication of your arguments. I do think there is a lot of room for stylistic flair that can add to a worlds round that can carry down the bench throughout the round. I see a lot of value in POIs for both sides - for the asking side to break up the flow of the debate and for the receiving side to clearly contextualize an answer that helps guide them to their next point of clash.

Policy

I typically get preferred for more policy-oriented debate. I gravitated to more plan focused affirmatives and t/cp/da debate. I would consider myself overall to be a more technically driven and line by line organized debater. My ideal round would be a policy affirmative with a plan text and three-seven off. Take that as you wish though.

Lincoln Douglas

I've judged a variety of traditional and progressive debates. I prefer more progressive debate. But you do you... I am happy to judge anything as long as you defend the position well. Refer to my specific preferences below about progressive arguments. In regards to traditional debates, it's important to clearly articulate framework.

Public Forum

weighing.... weighing.... weighing.

I like rebuttals to have clear line by line with numbered responses. 2nd rebuttal should frontline responses in rebuttal. Summary should extend terminal defense and offense OR really anything that you want in final focus. Final focus should have substantial weighing and a clear way for me to write my ballot. It's important to have legitimate evidence... don't completely skew the evidence.

Here are my specific preferences on specific arguments if you have more than 5 mins to read this paradigm...

Topicality

I enjoy a well-articulated t debate. In fact, a good t debate is my favorite type of debate to judge. Both sides need to have a clear interpretation. Make sure it’s clearly impacted out. Be clear to how you want me to evaluate and consider arguments like the tva, switch side debate, procedural fairness, limits, etc.

Disadvantages/Counterplans

This was my fav strat in high school. I’m a big fan of case-specific disadvantages but also absolutely love judging politics debates- be sure to have up to date uniqueness evidence in these debates though. It’s critical that the disad have some form of weighing by either the affirmative or negative in the context of the affirmative. Counterplans need to be functionally or textually competitive and also should have a net benefit. Slow down for CP texts and permutations- y’all be racing thru six technical perms in 10 seconds. Affirmative teams need to utilize the permutation more in order to test the competition of the counterplan. I don’t have any bias against any specific type of counterplans like consult or delay, but also I’m just waiting for that theory debate to happen.

Case

I believe that case debate is under-covered in many debates by both teams. I love watching a case debate with turns and defense instead of the aff being untouched for the entire debate until last ditch move by the 2AR. The affirmative needs to continue to weigh the aff against the negative strat. Don't assume the 1AC will be carried across for you throughout the round. You need to be doing that work on the o/v and the line by line. It confuses me when the negative strat is a CP and then there are no arguments on the case; that guarantees aff 100% chance of solvency which makes the negative take the path of most resistance to prove the CP solves best.

Kritiks

I’ll vote for the k. From my observations, I think teams end up just reading their prewritten blocks instead of directly engaging with the k specific to the affirmative. Be sure you understand what you are reading and not just read a backfile or an argument that you don’t understand. The negative needs to be sure to explain what the alt actually is and more importantly how the alt engages with the affirmative. I judge more K rounds than I expect to, but if you are reading a specific author that isn’t super well known in the community, but sure to do a little more work on the analysis

Theory

I’ll vote for whatever theory; I don’t usually intervene much in theory debates but I do think it’s important to flesh out clear impacts instead of reading short blips in order to get a ballot. Saying “pics bad” and then moving on without any articulation of in round/post fiat impacts isn’t going to give you much leverage on the impact level. You can c/a a lot of the analysis above on T to this section. It’s important that you have a clear interp/counter interp- that you meet- on a theory debate.

EMAIL: mcgin029@gmail.com

POLICY
Slow down; pause between flows; label everything clearly; be aware that I am less familiar with policy norms, so over-explain. Otherwise I try to be more-or-less tab.

LD

I am the head coach at Valley High School and have been coaching LD debate since 1996.

I coach students on both the local and national circuits.

I can flow speed reasonably well, particularly if you speak clearly. If I can't flow you I will say "clear" or "slow" a couple of times before I give up and begin playing Pac Man.

You can debate however you like in front of me, as well as you explain your arguments clearly and do a good job of extending and weighing impacts back to whatever decision mechanism(s) have been presented.

I prefer that you not swear in round.

New to LD so no spreading or tricks or circuit confusing cases. Explain any complex terms and give me clear reasons why to vote for you thanks!

email me your cases before you run them and confirm with me before you speak that I got them animalsarefunny88@gmail.com

Update December 2020: I am removing from a mild head injury, I would probably advise against spreading especially with the online format.

Update January 2021: 60-75% speed is OK.

I am a special education teacher and coach debate for New Trier Township High School (IL). I debated Lincoln Douglas and some PF at Valley High School 2008-2013.

Online Debate: Please start the email chain before the round starts. YES, I would like to be included. megan.nubel@gmail.com. PLEASE slow down. If tournaments have guidelines/protocols for what to do if someone drops off the call, I will follow those. If not, please:

-Record your speeches on your own end in case someone drops off the call. If you do NOT do this, I'm sorry but I have to consider that your problem. If you are unable to for some reason please let me know before the round. You may want to record the speeches individually because some platforms/iPhone have length limits for recordings. Audio recording only is fine.

-If YOU drop off the call in the middle of the speech: finish the speech via recording and then send immediately via the email chain. We will time-check to verify your speech was within the time limit, etc. Your opponent will be provided with the time necessary to flow the recording.

-If YOUR OPPONENT drops off the call in the middle of the speech: finish your speech (again, you should be recording) and then immediately send via the email chain. I will provide up to the length of the missed speech for your opponent to flow before they must take prep/begin their speech.

-If YOUR JUDGE (me) drops off the call, finish your speech and send the recording at the end. I may rejoin prior to the end of the speech, but still send the recording so I can fill in the gaps. I will attempt to do so during prep time but may need additional time.

Overall: Debate the way you know how in the best way you can. Clearly explain your arguments, impacts, and interactions in the round. Articulate what my reason for the decision should be. Here's how I evaluate the round once it ends: (1) Look at the 2ar, decide whether there's anything the aff can win on, (2) if yes, consider neg interaction with that/those argument(s) and consider comparable neg offense then decide what wins, (3) if no, look at the NR and decide if there's anything that the neg can win on, (4) if still no, ???

General/neither here nor there:

-Sit wherever makes sense. I don't care which side sits in which place in the room, and feel free to sit or stand at any point in the debate.

-Flash before your speech but you don't need to use prep time to do so. Please flash analytics.

-I think brackets are fine in evidence if they are used *properly.* Please line down cards honestly and include full citations.

-The value is not particularly important to me; the value-criterion is how I evaluate the framework if it’s relevant in the round.

-I judge on the national circuit a few times tournaments year, so please don't expect me to know the general happenings or stock arguments.

-I don't flow off of speech docs but I will look at cards after the round (sometimes prompted, sometimes unprompted)

-Please disclose. There are some exceptions to this that are more lenient (local debater and you're not sure what that means, wiki down, etc) but if your opponent asks what the aff is, don’t leave them on read. You probably don’t have to disclose >30 min before the round but I’m open to hearing otherwise.

Arguments:

-I don't default to anything on theory or T, I just sit there very confused when things aren't explicit and justified. If you justify the argument once and it's dropped, then it becomes my default.

-I'm familiar with most types of arguments (traditional, disads, advantages, plans, theory, topicality, critical, types of counter-plans, types of perms). I have heard of and judged most frameworks used in debate but I'm not deeply knowledgeable about any.

-Sometimes I’ll get questions like “are you ok with...” or “will you listen to...” and the answer is yes. There are no arguments I feel so strongly about that I’ll reject them outright. I don’t even really have arguments I prefer. It’s my job to judge the debate so I do. That being said, I will react negatively if your argument feels abhorrent.

-Complete extensions are a must. Claim, warrant, and impact. Please do your impact analysis for me and address all aspects of the debate in your crystallization. If I don't clearly understand your side and ballot story, you might not get my vote because of confusion or misinterpretation on my end. Pre-correct for my potential judging errors in your speeches.

Delivery:

-I have high-frequency hearing loss so my ears ring. If you anticipate your speech will include very loud noises or high-frequency pitches from music, etc, please let me know.

-I'm not going to flow what I don't hear or understand. Sometimes I say clear or slow or louder if necessary. I don't always look at my keyboard or computer when I'm typing, so if I'm looking at you it doesn't necessarily mean I'm not flowing. I can type very fast so sometimes I’ll just flow extensions verbatim to sort them out later.

-If I'm flowing on paper you probably need to go about 60% of your top speed. If I am flowing on a computer it’s all good, just work up to your top speed and slow down on tags, transitions between offs, etc. If I miss the author name I just write “CARD/“ on my flow.

Please feel free to ask me about anything not mentioned here that might be pertinent to your debate. I can't say I have many strong opinions in any direction way when it comes to debate styles, arguments, etc.

Hi,

I am a lay Parent Judge. I have judged couple of local and National LD tournaments. I prefer debaters not to spread. Please speak clear. I won't be able to judge or follow on any technical aspects like theory, kritiks, tricks, etc. Please use your lay cases.

Please be respectful.

thank you!

Veena Patil

I am a parent judge with moderate experience judging LD. Here are some guidelines for winning my ballot:

1. A moderately fast pace is fine but no spreading.

2. If you extend a contention, explain why it is important that your opponent dropped. Do not just say "I extend" and move on.

3. Rudeness to opponents will not be tolerated in any form and will result in deductions from your speaker points.

4. I appreciate signposting.

5. Running CP's and complex frameworks are fine, as long as explained.

6. Only non-frivolous theory if extreme abuse.

I prefer to have cases put in file share before round starts.

For March April- I love this topic. It reminds me of my favorite move (Companion starring Sophie Thatcher) Pls give a content warning if u read a case about like suicide and such, ty!

WBFL Squals- I flow diligently, but here I am a flay judge. Don't think of me as a circuit judge. I am more truth>tech here.

you don't have to disclose. engage in the case. read evidence about AGI not just AI. I do look at evidence- if you stake the round on one piece of evidence and it is about AI in general, I will not give it as much weight. I will call for cards.

Overall, the most important thing I want to see in the round is for you to write the ballot for me in your last speeches. Make me do the least amount of work on the decision. Clearly lay out the voters and tell the story of the debate. I will reward this with high speaker points.

--

cool with speech drop or add me to the email chain-katieraphaelson@gmail.com pls do not email me otherwise.

Brentwood 19'

Smith 23'

The New School Graduate Program in International Affairs '26

Head Coach of Brentwood Debate

Hello! I'm Katie! I use they/them pronouns. I debated LD at Brentwood School from 2015-2019. I was a quarterfinalist at CHSSA state and 10th at NSDA nats my senior year. I focused mostly on circuit in high school and broke consistently my senior year. I mainly read performance non t affs and postmodernism Ks

I've been coaching and judging for about 6 years and have experience judging every event, but I do come from an LD background.

A consolidated list of things to keep in mind:

1) provide content warnings if you are going to talk about SA and violence against queer ppl. Please don't read cases that are primarily about SA/r*pe. thank u!

2) don't be racist, homophobic, transphobic, xenophopic, ableist, etc. Debaters are people. The people we talk about in debate are people. Every argument has real world implications. Be sensitive to that.

3) clarity>speed, tech>truth generally. I look through evidence. If you go all in on a piece of evidence, and it does not conclude what you say it does, that will factor into how much weight the arg has in my decision.

4) I am neurodivergent, and it can be hard for me to get everything down if debaters spread super fast and I can't really understand the words. I also have trouble hearing spreading these days, so when I'm sent a doc, I do tend to flow from it. If you start extemping args, it would help if you go a little slower at first so I know to look up.

It is mainly to benefit y'all- if you want to make sure I am getting everything, send your analytics.

5) I want to know what the world of the aff/alt looks like. Write my rfd in your speech.

6) don't argue with me about my decision. Asking questions about how you could improve? amazing! pointing to arguments you made as if I just didn't flow them to try and convince me I'm wrong? NOT cool!

6) time yourselves please! and keep track of your prep time. I am not keeping track.

7) Be nice to each other!!!!!!!

8) Debate the way you do best! Have fun!

prefs key

Soft left affs- 1

1off K - 1 (esp with specific links, less if relying on link of omission)

trad/newer to circuit- 1

theory/T- 2

larp-2

K affs- 2 (i have a high bar for these, be creative)

larp but like 8off DAs/CPs/theory- 3

Phil-3 (unless u explain it to me)

tricks-4

meme args- 5 (i have little patience)

I will be looking for an argument with articulate claims, evidence, and warrants.

Clarity of claims and dexterity of transitions is paramount. Well-structured arguments that include signposts are easier to follow and judge. In presenting evidence, debaters should have citations at the ready, which are essential to the integrity of a debate. Debaters should use persuasive techniques to systematically refute the opposition and support their own arguments.

I appreciate the difficulty of speaking slowly and clearly while confining your arguments to the designated speaking time. However, the ability to convey a clear argument, without excessive speed, demonstrates concise and precise logic. I include myself in the camp of traditional judges who prefer debaters to engage with the opposing team’s ideas without relying on a kritik or a theory argument.

I look forward to a fun and respectful debate!

ASK ME ABOUT THE TEXAS DEBATE COLLECTIVE AND/OR THE UNIVERSITY OF HOUSTON HONORS DEBATE WORKSHOP

EMAILS - yes, “at the google messaging service” means @gmail.com

All rounds - esdebate93 at the google messaging service

Policy - dulles.policy.db8 at the google messaging service

LD - dulles.ld.db8 at the google messaging service

TOC PF Update: Congratulations on qualifying. This is a huge accomplishment, of which you should be proud. Since my paradigm is mostly in the context of Policy and LD, I want to lay out some Topic/PF specific thoughts. First, sending evidence that will be read in a speech via email before the speech is best practice for high quality debates and avoids the awfulness of deadtime while you read over each other's shoulders. Second, this is a policy style topic, which has two major implications for how you should approach debating in front of me 1.) Neg gets presumption because the resolutional statement is a departure from the status quo, 2.) I will be much happier if you treat this like a traditional style policy debate over central topic controversies rather than running to the margins, as you and your opponents have not had a full year to think and prepare materials over all aspects of the topic like you would in policy debate. This is not a prohibition on content. Feel free to read your kritik, just know I am generally skeptical of their strategic viability in PF given the lack of time you have to develop, explain, and contextualize the argument. Finally, defense is not sticky. You must extend an argument in summary if you plan to extend it in final focus.

QUICK GUIDE- My preferences/self-assessment. You are free to decide that I am great/terrible for any given form of argument.

Policy - 1

Kritiks - 1

Topicality/Framework - 1

Philosophy - 2

Theory - 3

Tricks - Strike

ABOUT ME

I am currently the program director at Dulles High School, where I also teach AP Psychology and AP Research. I primarily judge Policy and LD. I've been in debate since 2007 and have judged at every level from TOC finals to the novice divisions at locals; you are not likely to surprise me. I have no significant preferences about the content of your arguments, except that they are not exclusionary in nature. I like research dense, content heavy strategies. As such, I am best for Policy v Policy, KvK, substantive phil debates, and Clash Debates. Quality of evidence is more important than the quantity of evidence for me. I believe that Aff teams, regardless of style choice, must identify a problem with the status quo (this can be the state of the world, the state of thought, the state of debate, or something else) and propose some method of solving that problem. I believe that Neg teams, regardless of style choice, must disagree with the viability, desirability, and/or topicality of that method. If you are a graduating senior and do not wish to sit through the RFD/comments after your last round, let me know.

DECISION MAKING

I am deciding between competing ballot stories in the 2NR and 2AR, evaluating their veracity and quality using my flow. Tech > Truth, but blatantly untrue things are harder to win. Spin control > me reading a card doc, but I will read evidence if the spin is roughly equal in quality. Judge instruction is the highest layer of the debate. Speaks start at 28.5 and move up or down from there. 30s should be rare, it is unlikely you earned it. Don't ask for one.

THINGS I CARE ABOUT

1. Respect for Others - Don't be a jerk. Use people’s preferred pronouns, provide accommodations when they are requested, be prompt and ready to go at start time, and be mindful of the power dynamics in the room. I will defer to how the aggrieved party wants to handle the situation should an issue arise. If I’m not picking up on something, let me know.

2. Investment - Apathy sucks. Caring about stuff is cool. Whether you’re more invested in saying stuff that matters or chasing competitive success, I just want to see that you care about some aspect of the thing you are giving up a significant amount of time to do. Take notes during feedback and ask questions.

3. Transparency - I believe that disclosure is generally good, as it enables people to read, think and prepare better (obvious exception for when it raises safety issues). Don't be a jerk about it with people who don't know better. Shiftiness and lying are bad. If you are reading arguments that implicate the desirability of transparency, that is perfectly fine. This is just a starting point.

4. Flowing - Do it. Preferably on paper. Definitely not in your opponent's speech document. If you answer a position that was in the doc but was not read, your speaks will be capped at 26.5. There is no flow clarification period. If you're asking questions, it's CX or prep time.

5. Clash - Compare warrants and weigh. Rehighlights are fine, but your speech should explain why it matters. I am not sympathetic to strategies that attempt to dodge clash, like tricks. Specific links, counterplans, topicality interps, etc. are way better than generics. K links should quote the aff.

6. Line by Line Organization - The negative team sets the order for arguments on the case page. The affirmative team sets the order on off case positions. Number or label your arguments as you go down the flow. Overviews are fine, but your whole speech should not be a blocked out overview with no attempt at line by line argument/evidence comparison. Jumping around between pages is extremely annoying and will impact speaker points.

7. Debating the Case - Both the affirmative and negative teams should center the case. If you’re aff, the case should go first. If you’re neg, don’t treat the case page like an afterthought, and certainly don’t focus solely on the impact level. Contest uniqueness, link, internal link, and solvency claims. Making the case page K 2.0 with nothing but cross-applications is both boring and unstrategic.

8. Judge Instruction - The top of the 2NR/2AR should be what you want my ballot to say. Tell me how I should be thinking about arguments and their interactions. Tell me what matters most. When Neg, anticipate 2AR arguments, prime me for skepticism, and tell me which lines to hold. When Aff, assume I'm voting Neg, figure out why I would vote Neg, and beat that ballot.

9. Complete Arguments - Arguments have a claim, warrant, and implication. I will evaluate arguments, not isolated claims. If you make a warranted claim without explaining the implication for the debate, you invite intervention.

10. Projection and Enunciation - I like fast debates, but if you are unclear I am not going to pretend like I understood you and flow it.

Other than these 10 things, don’t overadapt. Do your thing, do it well. Feel free to ask any questions you have before we start, and I'll do my best to answer.

.

I coached Public Forum starting from its beginning in 2002 until I retired from teaching in 2011. I have continued on as an active judge: judging at the local, state, and national levels. Nearly all of my judging in recent years has been Policy but with Lincoln Douglas and some Public Forum in the mix.

PF:

In the traditional spirit of Public Forum, the debate is best presented in a clear, understandable manner.

PF is a relatively short, quick-paced form of debate. Complexity is fine but be judicious. Stay focused and relatively succinct. Communicate well. I judge Policy, but spreading has no place in PF - at least for me. If I can’t follow what you are saying, well…

Base your contentions on reliable evidence. Draw conclusions using sound reasoning. Clash (of ideas) is great. Obnoxious, aggressive behavior, if it gets ugly, may cost a round.

Limited tag-teaming during crossfire is OK.

A strong final focus can often win a close round.

LD:

Questions worth considering are: What is good (or at least the greater good), and what form should it take in the real world? Philosophers have had a lot to say about this. But so does common sense. Consider me the man on the street who sometimes digs philosophers when they also have their feet on the ground. Using a good strategy can be a winner. Getting beyond philosophy and reason, within limits, emotional appeals can be persuasive.

Moral, ethical and philosophical considerations should be a foundation for your case.

Policy:

I characterize myself as a "Policy Maker Judge." I can handle a modest amount of spreading but don't overdo it. It's more effective to rely on the quality of arguments and evidence than on quantity. Substance counts and so does style. Limited tag-teaming is OK. It is a real art to be confrontational while also being genuinely respectful of your opponent.

While Kritiks are a worthy part of Policy debate, I have never found them to be a decisive, or sometimes even a relevant, factor in my decisions. For some judges they are significant so when there is a panel, feel free to use them. Just be sure to present a strong arguments that support or negate the Affirmative case.

Learn from your experience.

Do what you do best.

Enjoy the competition!

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

Enjoy your debate!

Hi, I'm Aly this is my first year of judging. I competed at Perry HS and I'm now a student at the UA.

She/Her

perrytabroomaly@gmail.com

PF:

please please please do the hard stuff for me by giving me a framework and key voters to weigh off of. I'm a "lazy judge" and if you fill out my ballot for me by showing me why your arguments are stronger than your opponents, you'll get my ballot and you'll get high speaks.

tag your cards CLEARLY, especially if you're a fast talker; if i don't hear it, it won't make my flow. if it doesn't make my flow, it won't get weighed. If I call your card at the end of the round it's probably bc I don't remember hearing it when you first introduced it and I'm trying to find it on my flow.

I love me a good sign-post! tell the room (briefly) what you'll be talking about before your rebuttal, summary, final focus. makes everyone's lives a lot easier.

Do the impact calc for me. In an ideal round, you're telling me what to think and why I need to be thinking that way.

LD: though i have watched many an LD round in my time, my experience with this event is much more limited and relies heavily on the information I have learned thru my former teammates ,so if you're a high key prog debater, strike me now lol

I am OK with speed (INCLUDE ME IN THE EMAIL CHAIN) as long as you separate args with an "AND" or something.. If it gets to the point where I just cannot make out words from what you're saying, I'll clear you. I'm prob comfortable with 70% of your top speed.

I prefer traditional value debate THE MOST, this is what you should run on me. I am really not familiar with much else. So unless you feel comfortable with explaining your arguments to a lay judge, run your lay cases.

To win my ballot,

I need a strong framework, and I need clear implications of how your arguments link to the framework.

For framework debate, I pref frameworks that promote less harmful overall

I don't weigh arguments made in the rebuttals (except the 1NC) or afterwards.

General:

I tend to be tech over truth and I don't flow through ink.

No, I do not care if you're dressed up or if you "sit or stand for x".

I don't flow cross. I'm easily distracted, so if you want me to flow it, please bring it up in a later speech.

I do expect you to time yourself and your opponents during cross and prep.

Be respectful of yourselves, me, and especially your opponents! Everyone is here to learn, first and foremost. That cannot happen if the round is not a safe space. If I see or hear abusive behavior of any kind, I will drop you and report you to tab.

side note: if there is anything i can do to make the round space more welcoming or comfortable for you, please let me know either by email, in person, whatever works!

This is going to sound cliché, but above all have fun and walk out of the round a better competitor than when you entered it :)

ps: Please add Cute puppy or Penguin pictures at the top of the doc and I will be very happy :D

EDIT: Added WS stuff for NSDA at the bottom.

Hey, everyone! I'm Aleks (he/him).

For email chain if needed or if you want to ask questions after the round I'd be happy to answer (not aggressively post-rounding): triv@live.unc.edu

I did three years of Public Forum (with small soirees into the worlds of Congress and World Schools) at Ardrey Kell High School in Charlotte, NC. I've competed locally and nationally, qualifying to NSDA Nats, CFLs, and TOCs, so I can follow and appreciate various styles of debate. However, I'm extremely rusty and haven't judged since watching scrimmages my senior year, so bear with me. I'll consider myself a "flow"/tech>truth judge, but I'm not perfect and shouldn't have to do work for you. I'm not going to lie, at this point, I will be much more likely to make what you think is the "correct" decision if it's a lay round, but I have experience with Theory, Ks, etc... however, those rounds tend to get messy more often in my experience. Take with that what you will. Additionally, I much prefer topical Ks (esp Cap Ks, which are good for discourse if applicable to the topic) to non-topical Ks or theory.

I am currently a rising senior Political Science/European Studies Major @ UNC-Chapel Hill.

My judging style is pretty simple: just make my job to fill out the ballot in your favor as easy as possible. This means signpost, weigh, give warrants, weigh again, and provide voters. Also, please collapse! I don't want to hear a 400 WPM 2AR or Final Focus going over every single thing that happened in the debate. I know what happened in the debate already because I saw it and I flowed it. Part of being a good debater is being able to identify which 1 or 2 arguments you're clearly winning, which 1 or 2 pieces terminal defense to extend, and persuasion. There's a reason why the final speech is always the shortest.

I'm going to try my best not to intervene or do any work for a team on the flow. The odds of me doing so will be a lot less if you warrant your arguments/weigh well.

Also, I'll trust you to time yourselves.

Yes, I'm fine with spreading as long as I have your speech doc. If it's too fast, I'll say "clear" until it gets clearer. I prefer you didn't spread in later speeches, though. Constructive/case is 100% fine though.

If you're racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, misgender someone, ...etc you're going to get dropped instantly with low low speaks. Please also issue content warnings at the beginning of your speech if you are going to discuss something that could be triggering.

For PF: Everything in final focus needs to have been in summary. Please extend or it's not going on my flow.

World Schools: I did World Schools at NSDA Nationals and broke 2x while in high school, so I'm familiar with the event and love it. It doesn't bring me the immense anger that other forms of debate often do. To sum up my preferences...

1. World Schools is all about logical argumentation x performance. You don't need to "cite cards"; just make sure you're telling the truth. I will google to fact-check if something sounds fishy, especially in an impromptu round. Don't speak fast or spread like you might be tempted to do based on other events you may have done. This is a very "dinner table debate to convince your boomer grandparents" event.

2. No new evidence after the second speech for opp/only new info after 2nd speeches is if the prop has to respond to the Opp 2 MAYBE

3. Offer multiple POIs pls (and take like 2-3 if possible)

4. Just be logical and warrant pls. Also, I typically gave the reply nearly every round I competed in, so I'm going to inherently value a really strong reply speech lol

5. I'll start with everybody getting like 70 speaks (35 for the reply) and then go up or down based on how well you did in round. I can't foresee myself giving like 77-80 to anyone unless you like clearly should win WSDC (or below a 64 unless you really do something egregious), but I'm not going to be a stickler with the points otherwise.

6. DO NOT give off time roadmaps in world schools. Weave signposting into your speech.

Let me know if you have questions before the round.

Lastly, please have fun!

Blake 2020: I've judged consistently this year, so I am adapted to spreading somewhat. With that being said, please keep in mind that this is an online tournament so if you spread too quickly you may get cut off. l'll say slow or clear 5 times and then start deducting speaks.

I did debate in high school, so I'm familiar with mostly everything. If you have specific questions you can ask me before the round starts. But generally, I listen to everything except frivolous theory. I enjoy evaluating Critical arguments (performances are okay with me). The arguments I'm most familiar with are policy (Plans, DA's, CP's, etc.).

In high school I was a policy and public forum debater at Olathe Northwest in Kansas. After high school, I competed in college level Lincoln Douglas, IPDA, and public forum debate. My partner and I went on to win a PKD national championship in IPDA. Due to my experience in debate I would describe myself mostly as a gamesplayer. This means I will believe what you say until your opponent refutes it and vice versa. I place structure and tech almost above all in the debate. Check your framework and your impacts!

Besides the obvious hateful speech and arguments, mostly any arg, being a K or a performative speech, is okay with me.

If you are speeding and your opponents ask you to stop, I will also ask you to stop. Please do not use speed as a weapon.

Err on extending the cards and contentions that your opponents have dropped. I am a little old-school when it comes to this extension theory but its the way I was taught and I believe it is good practice.

I hate judicial activism. Please use your framework and explain why you win. I will not do the arguing for you, if you havent said it, it doesnt go on the flow. I will not flow arguments you do not make no matter how much I want to make them for you or no matter how much you claim you made them in your constructives.

If you have anything more specific please do not be afraid to ask before round.

Hey everyone! I'm Jessica, and I did four years of LD in North Carolina.

Full disclosure, I'm not a huge fan of progressive debate, so do avoid it if you can – that being said, I'll listen to anything you have to say as long as you present it clearly and explain it well. Please don't spread. I can handle a decently fast conversational speed, but the strength of your arguments will suffer if I can't understand you. Also, it's just not a good idea to try to cram too many arguments/evidence into the limited time you have; I'll always pick quality over quantity.

I really value debate as an educational activity and believe that a good debater should be able to get their point across without being sneaky or excluding their opponent (e.g., through overly complex arguments or jargon). Break things down, y'all. I will be flowing, but it's up to you to explain and emphasize your important points and make sure I get them. Warrant and impact your arguments, tell me how to weigh the round, signpost, give voters, all that good stuff. Try to find the clash rather than just restating your own case.

Other than that, please just be nice. Respect your opponent, don't be condescending, and don't be rude :) We're here for a good time! Feel free to ask me any questions before the round.