I'm a parent judge and have judged LD debates.

If I understand your arguments, I will be able to judge more effectively so appreciate clarity.

Thank you for being a courteous participant.

San Diego State University Comm major

Current Trojan Debate Squad member (Policy Debate) 23/ '24

NDT / CEDA qual

Your work towards making your speeches clear for my flow will be reflected in my ballot.

Please include me in the email chain joaquinresell@gmail.com

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

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

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

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

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

I have been judging Speech and Debate for over 4 years, primarily in Lincoln-Douglas Debate. I have judged over 50 LD debates so far. I will not impose my personal values and beliefs, or knowledge about the debate topic on the debaters and listen to you with an open mind. I appreciate the hard work you have put into your case and will do my best to fairly judge which side has the stronger case and debating skills. I do expect that participants act courteously towards their opponents at all times during the debate round.

I take both quality of arguments and speaking clarity into high consideration. I prefer debaters who can directly address the topic with a convincing case supported by specific evidence; use appropriate body language, volume, speed and diction; and clearly articulate logically cohesive arguments.

I will not disclose who won or how everybody ranked, rather, I will provide constructive criticism on your ballot and after the round if asked.

● I am a volunteer judge for Wilcox HS and this is my first year of judging.

● Speak slowly and clearly. Spreading won't help anyone.

● Keep your own time.

● Off time road maps are preferred. Deliver organized speeches.

● Stay away from overly technical, high-leveled debate jargon. Keep it simple.

● I do take notes throughout the round so emphasize your important contentions/points.

● Clearly state voting issues in your final speech.

I follow the flay pattern. I like to focus on the flow of the argument and also place emphasis on the presentation of the content.

Ideally, each contention should be called out before you deep-dive into it so that I can correlate the substance/examples of your argument to your contention.

If the above is taken care of, I can easily make out what you are presenting, regardless of whether you speak fast or slow.

In CX, please be courteous to your opponent and allow them to finish responding to your question(s).

My paradigm is a bit long, so if you would like similar but shortened versions, please click on the following links to other judges' paradigms that follow the same standards as I do:

Jeffrey Tu

Rohan Suvarna

Judging Style

Truth > Tech. 2 years in LD. 4 years in PF. I will be flowing.

General Notes

1. Dropped Arguments

If your opponents drop an argument, point it out just for the dramatic effect and in case I was not flowing properly. Dropped arguments are automatically inferred as an agreement between both teams over an argument. "They did not respond" and "They dropped the argument" are two different phrases to me because of how many clowns use the former to brainlessly respond.

2. Theory Debate

Before you say anything about speaking first, don't worry, that is already taken into consideration for my voting.

3. Kritik Debate

No

4. Evidence Spamming:

Evidence is king, but clear warrants or logic is emperor. If all you can do is repeat statistics you don't understand, you will lose the debate. Make clear connections.

5. Speech timing:

I'm timing. I'll stop listening 12 seconds over.

PF SPECIFIC COMMENTS:

Constructive

No rebuttals, even if second. Constructive only.

Rebuttal

Frontline (attack + defend) if you are second-team speaking.

Summary

Last place to refute arguments and links. Arguably the most important speech of the debate. When you extend contentions, remember to extend their impacts as well.

FF

You should point at previous speeches on the flow. Tell me where to look to weigh impacts. Feel free to get creative with the presentation of the speech here :).

Cross Ex

I hate cross ex. Feel free to skip grand cross or ask each other fun questions. Like how was your day? What's your favorite color? Those questions are pretty much the same intellectual quality I see from most grand cross rounds in general.

Don't make it more painful for me than it already is. Don't waste my time. Don't waste theirs. Answer the questions. If you want to avoid a question, be clever or be straightforward. If you muddle cross ex, it's not a good look for you.

Speaker Points

I offer speaker points based on your style and execution for your presentation, not content. This means I may even offer more speaker points to the losing team if they delivered arguments in a more pleasing or convincing manner. You earn higher speaker points if:

• You know when to slow down, have variation in tone and volume, as well as make eye contact. Speaking clearly as well. If you are speaking to the point where you are slurring your words, you are speaking too fast.

• You signpost clearly, especially in refutations. If you jump from argument to argument without giving me the plan of your route, I may become lost and be unable to flow what you said in time.

• Aggression. Remember, everything in the round is to persuade me. Don't be aggressive to the extent of seeming terribly rude or I cannot understand what you are even saying. Don't spit at your screen.

Hello Debaters,

I have about a little more than a year’s experience judging LD debate. I’ve judged 4 tournaments in that time. Prior to that, I was a judge for Congressional debate.

Tips:

I will use the value/value judgement criterion you propose so you’ll want to make sure these are clear. “Morality” by itself doesn’t mean much until you clarify (with a value judgement) what this means. The less clear your value/value judgement is, the more you’re leaving it to me to make the call for myself.

Constructions: “My time starts now…” Don’t race! Don’t spread! Landing your points well is more important than cramming in a large number of points. Let it show through that you thoroughly understand the contentions you advocate (vs. reading off a sheet of paper where I wonder if you prepared the arguments yourself!). Please do not do “off-time” summaries-- shouldn’t your points be apparent during the debate itself?

Cross-Examinations: The skill is in asking questions which clarify weaknesses in your opponents’ argument, or strengthen yours. Thoughtful questions substantive to the debate are important.

Rebuttals: I will be looking for how well you directly engage your opponent’s argument. Too many rebuttals simply focus on re-emphasizing one’s construction without taking into account the opposing side’s argument. The level of engagement is a prime way I distinguish how effective one’s rebuttal is.

Technicalities and Demeanor: Use of technicalities, e.g. pointing out your opponent did not address contentions you made, and so, you win on those points enhance debate but are not its substance. Particularly in novice LD debate, I favor you focusing on the key skills of construction/cross-X/rebuttal. Winning on the substance of your arguments is the prime judging point. Similarly, debaters confuse being aggressive and adversarial as qualities which convey confidence. While demeanor certainly contributes to effective communication, being aggressive without effectively using it to enhance the delivery of your message is merely just being aggressive.

I’ll be flowing your arguments in the judge’s notes so you’ll get to see where I followed you well, and where I didn’t.

Lastly, enjoy! I’m looking forward to hearing you speak!

As a judge, I seek out the weight of the claim, reasoning, and evidence as well as their relativity to the main topic. With regards to the framework of this debate (Lincoln-Douglas) I also will be paying close attention to the value and value criterion each participant presents and how they connect this with their contentions through their main points.

I am a parent judge for LD and PF.

I prefer clarity over speed. Instead of flying through sentences, you should focus on laying the ground for your arguments. Also, please be polite and professional.

Please put me on the chain - qtcc@bu.edu

Harker 20' | BU 24'

I did LD at Harker (Go Eagles!), went for a lot of policy arguments with a little bit of K stuff. Now I study computers and philosophy at Boston University.

Biggest thing: I very rarely evaluate theory. See more thoughts below.

Rules that are set in stone

- Arguments that are blatantly sexist, racist, homophobic, etc. and clearly made in bad faith means an instant loss, 0 speaks, and an uncomfortable conversation with your coach. If it's clear the debate is being made violent the debate ends. If you have a question about an argument, ask before the round.

- if you feel uncomfortable participating in the debate (your opp. triggered you, accidentally misgendered you, etc) feel free to discretely email or talk to me if you're uncomfortable making it an issue in the debate and we'll all work to make the debate a more productive space

- If your opponent is speaking too quickly or unclearly for you to flow, you have a right to call clear.

- I won't flow arguments made after the timer ends.

-I'll evaluate evidence ethics and other cheating challenges per tournament rules.

General

I don't think judging from a tabla rasa perspective is either possible nor desirable. The way I make determinations about what is true and false, in the real world and in debate, comes from a Bayesian perspective where I have shifting confidence in the truth of things given my knowledge and exposure to them. Generally, overcoming these priors requires presenting evidence to the contrary proportional to how far away from my current position, and my confidence in that position is. I find that this makes me a bit of an evidence hack in the sense that I frequently look at evidence presented even when not asked to to assess how strongly my priors should be shifted vis a vis a given argument.

Examples:

I have a high certainty that the Pyramids of Giza are in Egypt. To win that they are actually in China would require outrageously strong argumentation or evidence because it is a position very far outside my belief.

I have low confidence that act utilitarianism is true. To win that Kantian ethics or Hobbesian ethics are correct would only require a minimum viable argument to the contrary.

I have a moderate amount of confidence that there is alien life somewhere in the universe. Winning that they are in our galaxy/sort of nearby would require some evidence, but would not be challenging because it is close to my existing beliefs. Winning the government is concealing terrestrial-alien contact would require a great deal of very strong evidence. Winning there are Alien shape-shifters walking on Earth among us would be virtually impossible.

The rest of my paradigm is an attempt to outline the prior beliefs I have most relevant to debate and what I find compelling (and not) to overcoming them. Broadly, I find my beliefs are pretty aligned with common sense, but I intentionally shoot for epistemic humility (I have low confidence about things I am not an expert in) so it is very unlikely I will totally zap an argument you have evidence for because I vaguely thought it might be incorrect.

About argumentation/debate things: Arguments that are dropped are given a "full weight" of access to change my priors, but not all arguments pass the threshold needed to do that. Saying "The Pyramids of Giza are in Colombia because I think I read it in a book once" is an argument, but does not swing my prior much so if the other side drops it that does not automatically mean I think the Pyramids are in Colombia. My beliefs are changed more aggressively by a] arguments that are explained in-depth and b] by arguments that cite highly qualified authors working closely in the field in which you are arguing.

About the Kritik: I have a moderate amount of confidence that the world is too complex to be totally explained by one social or political philosophy. I have a small amount of confidence in the idea that debate should soley be about the desirability of the plan. I have high confidence that the plan and Aff should be counted at least somewhat in my determination of the resolutional question. I think psychoanalysis is pretty silly. I am highly confident that reading framework/topicality is not violent. Generally, I find it to be the onus of Affirmatives reading explicitly non-topical affirmatives to explain in great detail why I should vote Aff beyond the Aff just being true.

Topicality

I have a moderate amount of confidence that evaluating the plan text in a vacuum is the best way to determine if the plan is topical, and arguments that attempt to argue a thing the plan's solvency claims they do is not in the resolution are better made as solvency arguments. I require a relatively high degree of certainty that the Negative is correct before I will vote on topicality. I usually need definitions that define the words in the resolution, and clearly and strongly exclude the Affirmative, to feel comfortable voting Neg on T. I have a moderate amount of confidence that predictability is more important than "pragmatic" concerns like limits, ground, etc.

Theory

- I have very strong opinions about theory that you cannot change my mind about (you can think of these as "unchangable priors") I have and will give decisions that where I throw out a theory argument most people are fine with. Generally, if you find yourself wanting to go for theory against a counterplan (process cps bad, delay cps bad, etc.) you are better off winning they do not compete somehow.

- T starts as drop the debater, but never an RVI, theory is always drop the argument, and never an RVI. Exception is disclosure theory, which is drop the debater.

- Arguments I will evaluate: non-resolutional actor fiat (like I-Fiat or States), disclosure unless there has clearly been no good faith attempt to get it. Unlikely I vote on stuff like "must have complete round reports" or whatever, but if their disclosure practices are truly terrible and you can explain why this is probably ok. Misdisclosure/intentional trickery in particular is easy to win if you can prove it. Topicality arguments that define words in the resolution, judge kick.

- Arguments I will never evaluate: Any non-resolutional theory argument not listed above. This includes: "object fiat", solvency advocates, PICS bad, conditionality, no neg fiat, new affs bad, any form of spec argument without a card supporting it. I literally do not flow these, and will say as such as part of my RFD. Do not bother making them.

Miscellaneous

- Regarding re-highlighting - to point out flaws in evidence inserting is fine, to make an offensive argument read it.

I debated L&D when I was in HS in the last millennium and now am enjoying judging. I am most comfortable with LD but enjoy public forum, policy and parli as well.

- I appreciate good speaking ability- the oral presentation should enhance the message, and not be just reading your speech.

- I prefer to see sound logic and critical analysis over a rush of minimal responses. If you can't respond reasonably to everything, prioritize and defend the top priorities that should decide the debate. I will decide the debate based on weighing, and that critical things are responded to, and in how the weighing ties into the value criterion. I'd prefer to see a win on good logic vs technicalities.

- LD: Whether you win or lose the value debate, I expect you to successfully defend how you meet the value criterion or debate goal in your weighing.

- Signpost and make sure you take the time to properly and clearly represent evidence - clearly tag it and make clear what is the quoted evidence versus your own argument.

- Finally, be kind, civil, and professional. Disagree with your opponent but refrain from disparaging.

Thank you for engaging in this important activity and I look forward to hearing your case!

My preferences as your judge are:

1. Speak at your normal pace, not too quickly

2. Enunciate clearly and define unfamiliar terms- I may not be familiar with the topic

3. Do a short wrap up of your main points at the end of each timed section.

I am a parent judge. I have judged PF earlier, started LD this year.

I expect debaters to be polite and respectful to everyone involved. Please speak clearly and with concise arguments. Raising your voice will not earn you more points, it is not needed to convey your thoughts.

I expect participants time themselves with honesty.

I will not announce the result of a round right away, instead I will analyze the arguments presented and will give my reasoning in the ballot.

I look for debaters who have all of the components necessary for an LD case. Focus on explaining your impacts and weighing your and your opponent's arguments. Do not engage in an evidence dump.

Also, please speak clearly and at a reasonable pace. Be respectful to your opponent; being rude or interrupting will play a role in my decision.

1. I can handle speed, I would discourage you from spreading if it sacrifices your clarity.

2. I will always weigh a thoughtful analytical response more heavily over a card dump.

3. Always be respectful of your opponent. Use your knowledge, intellect and reasoning skills. Not intimidation or mockery.

I am a lay parent judge.

Please speak slowly and enunciate your words.

I did LD for four years in high school, currently I'm a freshman in college.

Overall: I like line-by-line arguments, and I like it when debaters go deep into arguments to closely examine them. I like quality over quantity. I like it when debaters take time to unpack what their (and their opponent(s)) evidence is saying, rather than spamming cards. I like it when debaters pay attention to the details of what their opponents are saying.

If your evidence or logic says something different from your opponents', I would like to hear why one is better than the other.

Framework: If you say something is good or bad about a framework, say why that matters. For example, if you say that your opponent's framework can't be clearly measured while yours can, explain why a framework needs to be measurable.

Speed: Talk fast at your own risk. I'm generally not that good at understanding debaters who talk fast.

If you go overtime during your speech, I will not take off speaks or interrupt, but I won't flow arguments made after the timer goes off.

Random preferences: I am very unlikely to vote for theory or Ks or tricks or other circuit arguments, so if you want to run those, you should probably strike me.

I'm generally fine with plans and counterplans, but I don't really like extremely specific PICs. Anti-PIC theory is one of the only theory arguments I would vote for.

I don't know what T debates are. People have tried to explain disads to me, but so far I don't get what's different about them from the neg saying "contention 1"

I'm unlikely to vote for extinction link chains unless they are really compelling or the topic is about nuclear weapons.

If you do math in the round, I will give you very high speaks.

One final thing:

Debate should be chill and friendly, educational, and most importantly fun. I know there can be a lot of pressure; I certainly felt that pressure when I was debating in high school. I hope you can enjoy yourself and learn from the experience no matter whether you win or lose.

I have judged a couple of tournaments and have no debate experience myself. When judging, I look for powerful delivery, insightful analysis and ease of handling questions.

LD Paradigm

While I was a PF debater all throughout high school, I only have ~1 year of experience judging LD. I am familiar with common, traditional jargon used in debate, but am not familiar with the more in-depth strategies, which means that I will default to who has the best arguments/framework with robust impact analysis and effective counterarguments.

Speed

It is the debater's burden to make sure that speech is clear and understandable. While I will not knock spreading/speaking quickly immediately, the faster you speak, the more clearly you must speak and signpost. If I miss an argument, then you didn't make it into my flow. I vote off of my flow for all rounds -- whoever has the most consistent flow-through and coverage will likely have the advantage.

Speaker Points

The quality of arguments alone does not impact speaker points, but the better you explain your arguments, your speaks are likely to improve.

As stated earlier, I do not take points off for speed, but if you lack fluency or clarity, your points will be docked.

I am parent/lay judge. So, please do not rush through your speech. Spreading is NOT ok with me - I cannot offer my opinion if I do not understand you. I don't like when debaters are rude to one another and I will take speaker points off so please keep the round civil.

I also will pay special attention to cross ex as that provides a good insight into your knowledge and confidence regarding the topic. However, just remember to stay respectful during cross examination too.

Explain all abbreviations/jargon so that I know what you are talking about.

Voting issues: Not entirely necessary but its helpful.

I have four years of judging experience at local and online tournaments. I will consider the following extensively:

Significance of value & value criteria and how these goals were met with your framework and argumentation.

How well a debater can prove the validity or invalidity of the resolution.

Communicate with clarity. If I do not understand an argument, I cannot consider it in my decision. I am fine with fast conversational pacing, but spreading is not okay.

Novel arguments introduced in the rebuttal will be disregarded.

Evaluation is based on debaters arguments and NOT personal bias.

I am a parent judge. I do not understand most of the technical expectations for various speech and debate formats. What matters to me is that you make a convincing argument. Your arguments should be clearly articulated in a way that a lay person can understand. The arguments have to be rational and follow a logical sequence. I usually do not care too much about how many references you cited in your speech/debate, although I might note a complete lack of references as a red flag. Make eye contact, be confident and speak clearly.

This is Shailender Karmuchi working as the Principal Software Manager at Samsung. Though my background is the software I have been doing Judges for the Debate tournaments for the past three years as my daughter is very fascinated about the debate tournaments.

I am a parent judge who has been judging for half a dozen tournaments. The main event that I judge is LD. Please speak at a moderate pace. Please be respectful to each other. Any unacceptable behavior will result in low speaks. I usually focus on your impacts and voter issues. If you can tell me why your argument matter and what the outcome might possibly be if this doesn't happen...it will make it easier for me to vote for you. I don't disclose the results.

Good luck and have fun!

As a judge, I will look for the following in the debate

a) Don't spread too much. If you want to spread, please share the case with me in advance. I may hear your speech/argument, but if you do not give me enough time to process it, I may not vote on it.

b) Don't bring any evidence if the probability of the issue happening is very low.

c) Don't bring any new arguments/evidence in the final speech.

d) I prefer Quality over Quantity.

I will try to be as neutral as possible. Having said that It is your job to make sure I know your argument without having studied it myself.

PF: My paradigm for public forum is fairly simple. If you are using a framework make sure to weigh properly on it throughout the round. Weigh your arguments in the summary and final focus so I know who to vote for. Also be nice to each other please.

LD: Please do not spread in the round. I am a more traditional LD judge and was very traditional when I competed. If you run policy args you are going to have to do a very good job of convincing me because I will be coming in with a bias towards those types of arguments. Please use a value and value criterion and engage in the value debate.

This is my 3rd time experience as a Judge. So i still feel i am novice at Judging.

I prefer participant to articulate their content in a clear and in the right pace(neither fast nor Slow).

Personally i do not prefer very fast speaking speech as its difficult for me to comprehend the content.

For the most part, you'll be looking at this paradigm because I'll be your LD judge. Although I am relatively new and have only been judging for about a year, I would like to see you all put up a worthy fight and have fun while doing so. Don't try to win by pulling dirty tricks but be fair and smart and grab the opportunity when it presents itself.

Speed and Decorum:

Send me your case. My email is shailesh.mangal@gmail.com It will help keep me focused. Using the file share feature on online platforms is also OK. (Let me know that you've sent me your case.)

I prefer medium pace of speech, if you absolutely have to rush fast because thats the pace you have practiced your content with, I can follow.

Make sure your entire face is visible in the camera while you are speaking and you make an eye contact.

Please time your speeches and prep time. I may not keep accurate time of this since my attention is to the content of your speeches. Flex prep is fine if all debaters in the round agree.

Some debaters have asked me for "time signals" (like in extemp?) - this will result in my not taking notes. If you want this, be aware that I won't be taking notes and you'll risk me forgetting the content of your speeches.

Debate:

Arguments that are obviously racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, Islamophobic, anti-Semitic, etc. are not OK. (Read: you will lose if you run them.)

I do not prefer theory. I find it unnecessarily complicated and usually designed to make debate inaccessible (especially to those who are likely already crowded out of this forum in some other way). Please don't run it unless there you see literally NO OTHER WAY to respond to your opponent's arguments. Even then, I may not evaluate it the way you want or expect.

You have an absolute obligation to articulate your arguments. Even if I’m familiar with the literature or whatever that you might be referencing I *try* to avoid filling in any gaps.

Signposting = GOOD! Flipping back and forth from AFF flow to NEG flow then back to AFF Flow to NEG Flow....BAD.... VERY, VERY, VERY BAD!

Tricks = no. Thanks.

Above all, strive to make sense. I do not prefer any “style” of debate or any particular kind of argument over another. Similarly, there isn’t much that is “off limits” (other than that which is listed above…pay attention to that). Regardless of what you run, if your case relies on me to connect the dots for you or if it is a literal mess of crappily cut and equally crappily organized evidence sans warrants, you probably be sad at the end of the round. In the end, I want to see your own conviction of the arguments and witty counter arguments.

FOR TOC 2023

First of all, congrats on making the TOC and best of luck; it's an accomplishment to be here so try your best and have fun! I've been out of debate for a year, but have been nearly fully removed from the community so I'm not very updated with the new meta, strategies, etc. With that being said, that doesn't change my judging philosophy. I'm still down to listen to anything and will vote on it if won. I've bolded the important sections of my paradigms for prefs, but if you still need a pref sheet, here's something you can use:

1 - Case, T, Theory, Ks, K Affs

2/3 - Tricks, Phil, Lay Debate

tl;dr

read whatever you want, be respectful to your opponents, and collapse in the back half/rebuttal speeches

i prefer technical debate

Longer Version

evhs '22

I was primarily coached by Luke DiMartino and Trevor Greenan. My paradigm is extremely similar to theirs, so if you feel that any part of this paradigm is unsatisfactory in terms of giving you the information you want, refer to theirs

Tech > truth, for adjudicating debate rounds. In parli, I will not fact check anything; I expect that you have integrity and will not lie about sources. If I wind up judging any carded debate event, I will most likely read some evidence, but the decision I make will be mostly based off of what you say in the rebuttals, your extension and spin of the ev, and overall just technical debating. I will not hesitate to intervene if you are being disrespectful to your opponents; racism, bigotry, misogyny, homophobia, misgendering, or anything violent won't be tolerated. I don't mind if you postround with me, just please make sure you're respectful.

I don't have any argumentative preferences. I'm comfortable with evaluating standard advantage vs da/cp debates, theory debates, k's and k affs. I am not super comfortable with tricks, phil positions that are popular in LD, and super dense process CPs. My go to arguments by the end of my debate career were a buddhism k aff, spec shells, the cap k, a baudrillard k, t-fw against k affs, topicality, and ofc advantages and da/cp strats. I have more familiarity with these types of args but hold no biases. Anything goes in front of me, as long as you win it on the flow

Keep the flow clean. Number your arguments. Signpost. I usually flow the 1NR (in parli) on a separate sheet, so tell me if you would like me not to. Give me clear roadmaps and tell me the sheets you are going on in order. I flow virtually now, so telling me where overviews are would also be appreciated so I can add cells. I should be okay with speed, but I've been out of flowing for a while so opt for 90% of your top. I will not give out double wins. You should time yourself. I will protect the flow as much as I can, but call the point of order if you really want to be sure. Please take at least one POI in your speech; it is deeply saddening that parli still doesn't have flex time at every tournament.

I'll decide the winner of the round by comparing the win conditions each team presents me with in the rebuttal speeches. Comparatively weighing all of the arguments you make is super important to me. Whether the debate comes to down to china war vs warming, or the perm on the cap k, comparatively explaining why your argument is stronger than your opponents will win in front of me. My goal in the round is to minimize my intervention. I will zero out my personal opinions and try and use only my understanding of arguments to try and come up with the decision. Regardless of all that, judge instruction and weighing are your best friends.

For case arguments, I care about uniqueness more than the average judge, and think that smart analytical defensive arguments can be fairly powerful. On the flip side, I don't find myself believing in zero risk. I default to utilitarianism but am open to other frameworks as long as you are specific as to how I can weigh impacts at the end of the round. The more abstract you are, the more explanation I'm going to need. Standard arguments like politics, bizcon, etc. are all fine, but a really good topic DA in parli will definitely make me happy.

Counterplan debates are good. I will default to all advocacies being conditional and will judge kick your CP if told to in the 2AC (or 1AR if I wind up judging policy or ld). Fine with pics, adv cps, agent cp's. Not up to literature on process cp's so if you do go for them err on the side of overexplanation. Sad as it is to admit this, I am probably a better judge for theory than for a perm debate, but if the perm debate is properly explained and not super dense I will be happy to adjudicate it. Perms are tests of competition, not advocacies, and it will be really really hard to persuade me otherwise. Please send specific texts that are binding.

I frequently read theory and topicality and did a lot of nonsense with it, so I'm good with judging theory debates. I will most likely intervene on theory read in the 1AR for parli. Default to competing interps. I thought I figured out what reasonability was once and then forgot, so if you want to go for it please provide a brightline because I would prefer to not arbitrarily decide theory debates. Repeat interps, explicitly extend your voters, and please please please collapse. I enjoy good topicality debates as well; just make sure you have specific interps. Tricks like jurisdiction triggering presumption are fun, but don't lack on the substance of your standards and the true debatability of your interp. Once again, comparative weighing is super important. Weigh 1NC vs 2AC theory, weigh fairness vs education, weigh standards against each other. You are, theoretically, cultivating a "better" model of debate with your nonsense spec shell, so please weigh it against the counterinterp and tell me why your standards are better than theirs. My thoughts on theory are very similar to Trevors, so please refer to their paradigm for more specific explanation. Last thing here, is that I don't need in interp for things like "pics bad"; cp theory, floating piks bad, and all those arguments alike do not need interps for me to understand them, but if you are pressed for an interp then you should be able to provide one. Presumption is fire; please go for it (not even just in theory debates, all debates at this point)

I enjoyed kritiks more towards the end of my career, and find that good K debates are super fun. I think I have a passable understanding of most literature bases, but please err on the side of explaining your thesis and/or theory of power as much as possible. I care about framework more than the average judge; this is mainly cause I care about debatability a lot paradigmatically. However, I think strong framework arguments aid the negative more as I would feel completely fine voting on frameouts of the aff. I don't need a rotb, but if you do, just know that the rotb is nothing more than an interp and it will not mean anything to me if your framework arguments don't justify it. Specific links are good; alts doing and solving something is also really good. I think a compelling alternative should be able to resolve it's links. Aff teams should pick specific strategies. I am not fond of watching teams go for both hard right and soft left strategies against the K. Think about what your aff is saying, and then pick between link turn/perm or impact turn. Or invent a new strategy to beat the K, just make sure it lines up with what your 1AC is saying. I am not fond of K's bad theory, but if won i will vote on it.

K Affs are something I got into in the latter half of my debate career, and I really enjoyed them. For neg teams in this debate, don't go on autopilot. It's really easy to read the same fairness overview, and I would know cause I did this myself. Engage with the line by line because more often than not the aff probably has some compelling arguments. For aff teams, framework here, again, really matters. This is because I genuinely think you can win that your framework is an a priori in front of me. Regardless, smart counter interps are good, but so are impact turns. Just pick a strategy and align yourself with it. Back to the neg, I think it is very important to leverage your standards as turns to aff offense. Deeply questioning the sustainability of debate, as an activity, that isn't centered around competition or stasis will help you win my ballot. Additionally, creativity in arguments would be appreciated here. Fairness first gets boring after a while, and I say this as someone who went for fairness in nearly every framework round.

K v K debates: not much to say here. Compare frameworks and err on the side of over explaining. Judge instruction in these debates is even more important than in others. The aff probably gets a perm, but if you really dont want them to have one, make a theory argument.

Any questions, email me at mani.ayan2004@gmail.com. If you read through all of this, thank you. The debate space is yours and you should read whatever you would like. Have fun!

Hi! I'm Alex Martin, a former La Reina High School LD debater based in Denver, CO. I'm currently in my junior year of University.

I competed for 5 years and attended local and national tournaments. I also did some college debate in my freshman year of college.

I'm experienced in flowing both slow and fast rounds. Progressive debate is okay as long as both competitors are comfortable with fast speeches and are willing to share cases.

I prefer evidence/case sharing to occur in the NSDA campus file share but email is okay too as long as you ask. My email is Alex.Martin@du.edu

Please be respectful. Bigoted behavior will not be tolerated. I'm pretty fair with speaker points as long as you put in your best effort.

Feel free to ask about more specifics during the round.

Tournaments: I usually reserve my weekends for debate related gigs/activities. If you are looking for hires, definitely consider me.

I am a parent judge who has judged LD primarily for the past 2 years. I struggle with extreme circuit style speakers, so kindly slow down a little bit for me if you are a circuit style debater.

Please do not speak too fast, otherwise I will not be able to understand you. Also, please define the technical words that you are using in your case. If I don't understand the words I will not be able to understand your claim.

Do your best!!!

Hello, I'm quite new to judging, so I'm not going to go into the minor details of the round. I'm just going to look at how well you have researched, how you respond to your opponent's contentions and how you fare during cross-ex.

Please don't speak fast, so no spreading. If I don't understand what you're saying then I won't be able to judge you appropriately.

Good luck, and have fun!

I am a parent judge with >7 years of judging experience in LD, PF, Parli and Policy debates as well as individual events. As a typical lay judge, my primary emphasis lies in evaluating the logical coherence of arguments, which should be well-supported by solid evidence. I flow and prefer clear speaking with no spreading. Additionally, I believe in the significance of maintaining respect towards opponents throughout the round.

I have judged 5 tournaments and have no debate experience myself. When judging, I look for powerful delivery, insightful analysis and ease of handling questions.

1. Do not speed, or I won't keep up. Do not sacrifice your clarity, otherwise I will miss the main point of argument.
2. Always be respectful to your opponent.
3. Keep a clear and consistent narrative throughout the entire round.

I'm a parent judge. I've been judging various tournaments, specifically debates, for many years. I prefer slow, clear, and structured arguments.

Former policy debater, familiar with Policy & LD. Minimal experience with PF. For rounds I judge, you should be aware that:

1) I'm openminded when it comes to considering just about any argument-- but you'll need to convince me.

2) I'm more interested in hearing you explain the logic underlying an argument than hearing you read cards at me repeatedly

3) If you have evidence that you want me to give significant weight to, tell me why-- "Smith in '98" doesn't cover it

4) I respect debate and ask everyone that I judge to respect their opponent, maintain decorum, etc.

https://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Steele%2C%20Nick Affiliations: Harvard Westlake, Dennis Tang (West Linn HS)

Hey all - I haven't judged in a while so please try to signpost, be clear, and maybe don't go your absolute fastest. Thanks! Here's my old paradigm:

Hi - My name is Nick Steele and I debated varsity LD for 4 years at Harvard Westlake. I'll try to keep this brief - my judging preferences are pretty open:
I'll evaluate the round based off of the line by line. I'll try to be impartial - For example I will vote on ideal theory/Kant vs. a race AFF if good comparison and weighing are done. I will vote on politics vs. a structural violence AFF, and I will vote on K impact turns to theory, and vice versa
That being said, I tend to lean more towards policy/k style arguments than theory and phil
Policy args: most of what I read in highschool, I'm comfortable evaluating them
Ks: I read a lot of these too, I'm familiar with all the common ones but if you're reading dense pomo or something less common please have clear overviews and tags
Non T AFFs, performance, narratives, etc: all fine and I read them, they're still debate arguments so I hold them to the same standards. Hopefully they're related to the topic. Making the reason to vote AFF clear is key
T framework: it's fine and necessary sometimes , the T version of the AFF debate is usually important so be clear there
Theory: Good strategic theory or theory to check actual abuse is good, I will vote on frivolous theory but I don't think it's very strategic and that will be reflected in speaks
I'll try to be neutral but I lean AFF on 2 or more condo, NEG on agent cp's, AFF on specific plans good, NEG on reasonable PICs but AFF on super small or random PICs. Default competing interps and drop the debater
Phil: I'm familiar with and read at some point all of the common LD frameworks. I'm most familiar with consequentialism and deontology, but feel comfortable evaluating most framework debates. Same thing applies with dense fw as dense Ks
Tricks/a prioris/ skep etc: will vote on them, don't like them. I think common sense responses answer a lot of these positions well
Speaks: will be given based off of efficiency, giving good overviews, collapsing effectively, reading quality substantive arguments, and effectively using ethos if it suits the round.
30 - one of the best speeches I've seen all year
29.5 - you should get to late out rounds
28.9 - you should probably clear
28.5 - average
Flashing: Make an email chain. If you're using a computer you should have a flash drive as back up. I won't take prep. Be fast please
I won't vote on things like racism or rape good, etc. If you personally insult someone in the room or deliberately make someone uncomfortable you'll get a 0.
Do what style you're best at and have fun! I'm excited to see different individual arguments styles and people debate best when they're confident in what they're reading.

I am a parent judge who has not judged LD at all.

Please do not talk fast or spread, and please do not use philosophy, tricks, or any references to things like non unique (explain if you do use it).

I'm a first year judge and English is not my first language. Talking too fast will likely make it harder for me to comprehend the speech.

I'm a software engineer in a cybersecurity company now. In my prior career, I'm also a PhD in Economics and an enterprise sales executive in commercial / industrial real estate market.

I debated Lincoln Douglas for 6+ years on the lay and circuit level and continue to participate in speech and debate events at UC Berkeley. I have experience judging a wide variety of formats. To win my ballot, spend a continuous amount of time explaining why you win and weighing impacts & evidence. I really like clear voters at the end of the debate to truly explain why I should vote your way.

Speak slowly and clearly.

Keep your own time.

Deliver organized speeches.

Stay away from overly technical, high-leveled debate jargon.

Clearly state voting issues in your final speech.

I appreciate clear, effective, and compelling arguments and prefer slower speaking. Maintain composure and self-control. Good manners are important and well-explained evidence & arguments are crucial.

If you like, you can email me your case. Please do not spread - if I cannot follow your arguments, I cannot give you points for it. I enjoy the debates and look forward to them with an unbiased mind.

I am a Varsity Policy Debater for Southwestern College. I am currently a Psychology Major going to SDSU (No I don't compete for them, I like policy more than Parley :/ )

However, please do not change your style of debate to make it more policy debate friendly, DO YOUR THING! I will do my best to keep up!

So, with that said, I can flow pretty well. You are more than welcome to run any single argument you would like in whatever performative method you find best! Trust that I will be able to keep up and give good feedback!

I have judged for many high school tournaments. I have judged speech, impromptu, parley, policy, LD, PF, and Congress.

Below I am going to give my opinion on several argument types, however, while I may like some argument types more than others, I will always remain unbiased during rounds. So as much as I love K debate, you can still lose to framework or T.

T- I find T debates FASCINATING. They reveal the nuances behind the debate give debaters a chance to really show their intellectual capacity in being able to debate abstract concepts and articulate them in their own manner. I do however find T to be a little lazy. especially when against a K aff, because they are more often than not untopical, but a good T debate on a policy aff is always exciting to see, a good impact calculus on fairness can definitely win my ballot. Also,TVA's are one of my favorite arguments (I never run it, I just find them hilarious), so if you can manage to win why being topical is good, what it prevents, and how a TVA solves any of the 1AC's impacts + does not link to T impacts, you get my ballot.

DA- No strong opinions on DA's. I run them very often because turning a DA into a K creates a debate around the alt and whether or not it solves the impact and sidesteps the discussion of the link and the impact, which is pretty boring. Nonetheless, love a good DA with strong links and clear and succinct impact calculus.

CP- I LOVE a good counter-plan debate, its essentially an affirmative vs affirmative debate, except the neg team has more offense on the aff team, but suffers a lack of case solvency and defense. It showcases whether the affirmative can articulate its solvency whilst also creating offense on the spot in the debate, whilst also highlighting the negs ability to not only make good presump arguments, but also the 3rd option for me to prefer which, albeit, makes my job harder is much more enjoyable to watch.

Framework- My feelings to framework are similar to T, I find FW debates against K affs lazy, but sometimes I understand that is what some debaters are comfortable with and genuinely believe and are passionate about. I don't auto-vote framework and do not auto-vote on K's, I won't fill in any blanks for you on framework arguments so make sure you are CLEAR and ARTICULATE about what your interpretation of debate should be, why I should prefer it, why it's best for debate, what the other team did to violate it, and (in my opinion, the most important aspect of FW argument.) WHY I SHOULD CARE. Give me a clear argument as to why I as a judge matter, what my ballot signifies, and what happens if I don't vote for you. Framework is a particularly difficult argument to run, it takes a very skilled and well-rounded debater, but if you fit the above criteria then I will more than likely vote for you.

K- My absolute favorite argument style in the te. K's are incredibly informative about the way society functions in one-dimensional ways and how the assumptions we make about everyday activities should constantly be under strict scrutiny. K's are incredibly difficult (especially for a high schooler), they require a vast knowledge of the literature, well-articulated link arguments, clear impacts, and an alternative that is viable, solves, and does not link to aff offense. I love running K's and going against K's but that does not mean I will give you any leeway. I don't auto-vote K's much like I do not auto-vote FW or T.

Policy Affs- Not much to say here, good policy debaters have won NDT. Trust your case, extend it, show me why I should vote for you, and make sure to answer line by line so that nothing is conceded that may implicate the aff plan.

K affs- I run a K Affirmative as a policy debater, so I already know you are more than capable of answering T and FW, however,you can still lose to them so make sure you answer every aspect of the argument not just why their interpretation is bad. K affs are always very engaging (and if performative, all the more enjoyable to watch and learn). Trust your case, explain to me how you solve itnd why my ballot is important, especially when having FW, T, CP's, and TVA's thrown at you. You need to tell me why my ballot means something and how that translates to your harms being solved and why it's important that we debate about this. Bonus points: K affs are difficult to run at this level, but if you manage to describe to me why your K aff is important, why you as debaters performing the k aff is important, and why the debate that you are having right now with my ballot pushes us int he right direction, you will more than likely get my ballot.

Voter Issue arguments- If a particularly egregious event happens in the debate round, I typically give 90% leeway to the team that suffered the action, so it does not take much, but you still need to explain to me how it was bad for debate and why my vote is going to stop it (saying "the negative team misgendered me and this is bad for debate because _____ and your vote prevents this because _____" will work fine.)

Speaker points are given based on performance whilst giving speeches and during Cross-Examination. Nothing you say before or after rounds will affect your score. Charisma, effort, and conviction are preferred over bravado or aggression.

LASTLY: Do your thang. Be yourself. Do you boo boo. I will be able to keep the flow as organized as I can, signposts and roadmaps are always helpful. Trust yourself as a debater, you are here because of the work you have done, and win or lose your performance and courage in debating is more than enough. GO YOU!

I am a non-Native English speaker and a first-time judge.