Hi I'm Ben

I participated in Public Forum Debate at Hackley for 4 years. I am now a junior at the University of Chicago. In general, I am a flow judge and you should treat me as one. If any of this is unclear or if you have any other questions, please ask me. I am happy to answer any specific questions about my preferences. Please read my paradigm so you can ask me specific questions though.

Above all, have fun. Debate is supposed to be fun. Make me enjoy watching the round. Make jokes. Put a smile on. I promise whether you do well or poorly you will still be happy if you genuinely enjoy debate, so enjoy debate.

For those of you who don't have much time or want a simple version of my paradigm the most important things know are:

-don't misrepresent evidence

-implicate your responses to your opponent's case

-defense is sticky (so you don't need to extend defense they don't respond to)

-Summary and Final Focus must be about the same content

-tell me where you want me to flow your responses (signpost)

-Weigh!!!! Weigh in comparison to your opponents weighing

-Collapse on one argument

Specific Preferences:

1. In second rebuttal, ideally all offense from the other side in the round should be covered. This means you should respond to their case, and any turns and disadvantages they put on your case in first rebuttal.

2. I like to hear weighing in rebuttal, it makes my life easier and the quality of debate higher.

3. I can handle speed, but a disclaimer: the faster you go, the higher the chance that I misunderstand what you are saying. Be reasonable with speed.

4. Please read the dates on any evidence you read.

5. If you misrepresent your evidence with paraphrasing intentionally, your speaks will suffer. Be warned.

6. I'll evaluate theory and k's but I won't like it. They don't really belong in Public Forum, but if you win them, I'll vote off of them.

7. Card dumping is great, but if you don't implicate your cards to their case I'm not going to evaluate them. This also means you have to warrant your cards.

8. Defense is sticky. If defense isn't responded to, you don't need to extend it.

9. Offense is not sticky. If you want me to evaluate offense, it must be in summary and final focus, and if you speak 2nd, in one of your first two speeches.

10. I will put my pen on the table during cross. If you think I am not paying attention during cross, it is because I am not paying attention. Cross is for the debaters to clarify stuff with each other, not to bring up new points or to grandstand for the judge.

11. That being said, don't be super rude or you will lose speaks. I am okay with wittiness/humor, I even appreciate it, but make sure you don't yell at your opponents or explicitly make fun of them, it is bad for the activity of debate and I will take away speaks.

12. Please signpost. If you don't tell me where on the flow you want me to write what you are saying, I will decide, and you might not like that. Even worse, if I can't figure out where to put it, I will just ignore it. You definitely won't like that.

13. Tech>Truth. I will evaluate the round entirely based on what's on my flow. I am not going to intervene. You tell me how to vote and why that means I vote for you, and I will evaluate the round.

14. Please weigh in summary and final focus. Not only that, comparatively weigh. This means you take your weighing and your opponents weighing and you explain why I should prefer your weighing in comparison with their weighing.

15. Collapse. If you go for your whole case, I am going to be really sad and the quality of the debate is just going to be worse. It also will make your weighing and extensions less clear.

16. Speaks: I think speaks are stupid and subjective and they don't promote the activity of debate, they promote the activity of public speaking. Thus, most of the way I am going to evaluate speaks is round strategy, vision, and cohesiveness in a team. Here is how that looks:

30- You collapsed on the right thing, and you weighed it with your opponent's case innovatively. All of the opponent's offense was responded to completely. You frontlined everything you went for. Final Focus built on, but was about the same content as summary. Both partners were on the same page the whole round.

29- You collapsed on the right thing, and you weighed it adequately with your opponent's case. You responded all of your opponent's offense, but you may have mishandled it somewhat. You frontlined everything you went for, but maybe it was a little rushed or done not well enough. Final Focus and Summary were about the same content. Both partners seemed pretty cohesive throughout the round.

28- You collapsed, but perhaps not on the right thing, and your weighing was not comparative. You may have dropped a turn, or a part of your opponent's case, but you at least weighed. You did not necessarily frontline all of your opponent's defense on what you went for, but the frontlining done was good. Final Focus felt a little bit disjointed from Summary, but they still were in the big picture covering the same thing. The partners seemed to be presenting slightly different worldviews at least, and may have interrupted each other in Grand Cross.

27-You probably went for everything, and your weighing was poor or nonexistent. Your defense was mishandled and you didn't respond to significant parts of your opponent's offense. There was nearly no frontlining even attempted, and the frontlining attempted was poor and didn't apply. Final Focus brought up new stuff and felt completely different than what was going on in Summary. The partners seemed very disjointed and probably interrupted each other in grand cross.

26 (This is nearly impossible to do)-You didn't even try to extend any offense and your speeches turned into just yelling nonsense at the wall. Defense? What's that? We don't need to talk about what our opponents said. Partners seemed to be close to a fistfight during prep time.

auto 26 (If you got a 26 this probably happened)- intentional misrepresentation of evidence or complete disrespect for the other team is a one way trip to a 26.

17. If you ask me to call for evidence, I will call for it after the round if my decision is contingent on it.

18. Extensions need to extend the warrant, link, and impact of an argument, and also frontline after you extend.

19. Oh yeah pls don't be racist, sexist, homophobic or any one of those kinda things i will give you lowest speaks possible!!! Don't be that guy or gal pls!

20. Trigger warnings and content warnings seem ideal when appropriate

Pronouns: She/Her

I debate high school parliamentary and policy on the East Coast, and little experience with World Schools. If you want to run theory go for it, but make sure to clearly explain it and make sure it's organized.

If you want you can have an offtime roadmap, but is it really going to help you?

Sign posting= ez dubs. Being a judge suck up=no dubs ---this is obviously a joke.

Talk at a reasonable pace, if you spread make sure not to just randomly say stuff to look cool, but actually be intentional with what you say...faster doesn't mean superior.

Also, if you don't want to debate make sure that doesn't show in your speech, your parents forced you to do a debate for a reason.

Have a chill round no need to make things stressful or confusing for your opponents.

If you are reading this during prep it probably won't help you win the round, but hey at least you weren't stalking me on insta.

General

I have been a parliamentary debater for four years, having competed at the national level multiple times.

Judging

Case

I place emphasis on specific impact scenarios, warrants and weighing arguments. Weighing is the most important and must be done to win the round. An experienced debater should present me with a weighing mechanism/crystallization I find convincing to vote on.

Counterplans

I love to hear them, and the more specific the better. However, those proposing a counterplan MUST make sure that the CP is mutually exclusive in its nature, or else the whole CP would not be effective.

Theory

Theory can be useful, but should never stand alone. When used well, theory must be accompanied by warrant and impact arguments.

Speaking Style

I find arguments to be the most persuasive when they are offered with a sense of objectivity, balance, and an appeal to everyday relatability. Overly technical language or simple compilation of data is not sufficient.

I do not have a preference for speaking speed, as I have no issue flowing to any speaking style. But clarity should always be your first and foremost concern.

Signposting is important, as I will judge the round in whatever is in my flow.

Hello, my name is John Falger.

I’m open to any style of speech/debate. Just remember to speak clearly and use arguments you understand.

If you can slide in a mention of quantum physics, I’ll be impressed. If you teach me something new and I like it, you will be rewarded.

Have fun but remember, you are here to win.

Hello!

My name is Krishma and I am current a freshman debater and I have experience judging parli (college and high school) and very little experience judging PF and LD. In my brief PF and LD judging experience, one thing I encountered a lot was spreading. PLEASE, I encourage you to not spread in rounds I am judging. I prefer quality>quantity (and I really cannot decipher words when debaters speak that fast).

Any unethical content (racism, homophobia, etc.) results in automatic loss and low speaks. It is important to be respectful in rounds and I will be upholding this strictly.

Also I am not familiar with tech words. So unless I can infer what you are talking ab in rounds, I would not waste time using very particular debate jargon.

For HST:

My high school background is primarily in world schools (Team USA) and parliamentary (east and west coast). I understand the basics of theory but not much else about progressive debate; I prefer well-explained, analytical argumentation and strategic (yet appropriately used) evidence.

email chain: ambikagrover@college.harvard.edu

Hi!

I am a judge. I flow and have significant experience debating.

My only asks: Don't spread, weigh, be good-natured, throw in a joke if you can, and talk about impacts. Also, abbreviations must be explained. I like POIs. Speaker points go up if you ask clever and effective POIs. Preferably don't run Kritiks (tbh the first time I heard this I thought it was in reference to the Bollywood Heartthrob Hrithik Roshan), T-Shells, or any other form of Theory. If you do, explain it so well a five-year-old could understand.

Extra-Credit: I love love love love love love love Charli XCX. If you can slip in a Charli XCX song reference, I will smile. It will not win you the round, but it will win you my heart.

Thanks!

Everett Rutan

Judging Paradigm

I’m primarily parli these days, but the principles would apply to any form of debate I might judge.

I suppose I check all the boxes: successful, national circuit high school debater (policy/cross-ex); debate coach for over 20 years; tab director for over 15 years; debate league director for over 10 years; teach at a respected parliamentary debate summer workshop for over 5 years. However, my career was in business, not education or the law, which does affect my point of view.

None of that is “actionable”, in that it is of no help to you if I’m sitting in the back of the room with my flow and stopwatch waiting for you to begin. The following may be more useful.

My role as a judge is to sort through the debate you and your opponent chose to have and produce a reasoned, persuasive decision. My “case” (RFD) should accurately reflect what was said and be acceptable to each of the debaters as a valid opinion on what occurred, even if they may take issue with that opinion.

This judge as debater approach has certain implications:

· My source material is the debate you choose to have. If you don’t agree on what it should be about, then my decision should be based first on your definitional arguments. If you do agree, then my decision should be based on the relative weight of arguments on the issue. If both teams agree—explicitly or tacitly—to have a particular debate, my opinion as to what the motion or debate should have been about is not relevant.

· The more work you do to lay out a path to a decision, the less work I have to do building it and the fewer decisions I have to make as the judge. That generally works in your favor.

· Your arguments should be based both on what you present and, perhaps even more so, on what your opponents present, with a fair comparison and weighing.

My business background has certain implications:

· Debate is intended to be educational. I have less sympathy for arguments that no one would make or consider in the real world. Theory arguments should be clearly explained and shown to have a serious impact on the matter at hand.

· Not all arguments are equal. Judging is not simply counting arguments won, lost or dropped, but comparing the persuasive weight of each side. I expect both sides will win some arguments and lose some arguments and drop some arguments; if you don’t weigh them, I will.

· Explanations count more than facts (at least explanations broadly consistent with the facts). For any arguable topic there will be examples that favor each side. The fact that some people survive horrendous accidents unscathed is not it itself an argument against safety equipment.

· I don’t have a problem making decisions, and I rarely agonize over them.

Finally, debate is about the spoken word. It is your job to persuade me and in your best interest that I clearly understand what you want to say. It is not my job to be persuaded, nor to intuit what you intended to say beyond a reasonable effort on my part to do so. This has the following implications:

· Speak as fast as you think appropriate. I flow well and can tolerate speed. But if I don’t hear it, don’t hear it as intended, or don’t get it on my flow, it won’t help you. It’s not my job to signal you if you are speaking too fast or drifting into unintelligibility.

· Why wouldn’t you present more arguments than your opponents can handle in the time allowed? Spread is a natural consequence of time-limited debate. But 13 weak reasons why an argument is true won’t help you even if your opponent drops 12 of them, but wins one of greater importance to the issue at hand. Quality spreads as surely as quantity, and has more impact.

· I understand some debaters provide outlines, cards, briefs, etc. I will listen carefully to what you say, but I will not read anything you give me.

I have published a great deal of material of varying quality on the Connecticut Debate Association website, http://ctdebate.org . If you are interested, you can find transcriptions of my flows, various RFDs, topic analysis and general debate commentary reflecting my opinions over the years.

FAQs

Definitions? Definitions are a legitimate area of argument: don’t ask me to rule mid-round. Gov has the right to a reasonable definition of terms. If Opp does not like them, Opp should challenge in a POC, POI or at the top of the LOC. Don’t wait to challenge definitions late in the round. Gov need not explicitly define terms or present a plan: clear usage in the PMC binds Gov and must be accepted or challenged by Opp. P.S. No one likes definition debates, so avoid them at almost all costs.

Points of Clarification? Like them. Think it’s a good tactic for Gov to stop and offer Opp a chance to clear up terms. Should occur at the top of the PMC immediately after presenting definitions/plan/framework, etc.

Pre-speech “outline”? A common local custom not to my taste. Speeches are timed for a reason, and I see this as an attempt to get a bit more speaking time. But, when in Rome… They should be brief and truly an outline, not substance.

New contentions in the Member Constructives? Perfectly legitimate, though it was considered old-fashioned even when I debated 50 years ago. It also presents certain tactical and strategic issues debaters should understand and have thought through.

Counterplans? If you know what you are doing and it’s appropriate to the motion and the Gov case, a counterplan can be extremely effective. Most debaters don’t know what they are doing or use it when there are less risky or more effective options available.

Written material? I’m aware in some leagues debaters give judges a written outline of their case, or pass notes to the speaker. I accept all local customs and will not interfere or hold these against you. However, debate is by spoken word, and I will not read anything you give me.

New arguments in rebuttal (Point of Order)? You should call them if you see them. But if you see them every five words it begins to look like an attempt to disrupt the rebuttal speaker. Landing one good PO puts me on watch for the rest of the speech; multiple “maybes” will likely annoy me.

Evidence? Even in researched debate like policy, facts are cherry picked; even in the real world one rarely has all the facts; explanations generally outweigh simple facts. Information cited should be generally known or well-explained; “what’s your source” is rarely a useful question. I am not required to accept something I know is untrue. If you tell me something I don’t know or am not sure of, I will look it up after the round. That’s how I learn.

Theory? (See “business background” comments above.) These are arguments like any other. They must be clearly explained and their impact on the round demonstrated. They are not magic words that simply need to be said to have an effect. Like all arguments, best present them as if your audience has never heard them before.

Weird stuff? Everyone in my family has an engineering degree. We’re used to intelligent arguments among competent adults. We know we aren’t as clever as we think we are, and you probably aren’t either. The further you drift from a straightforward interpretation of the motion, the greater your burden to justify yourself.

Rules of debate? There are none, or very few. If your opponent does something you think is out of bounds, explain the impact in a speech. Don’t ask me for a ruling mid-round.

ejr, feb 2020, rev apr 2021

About Me:

Pronouns: he/him/his

Experience: 3 years of HS debate, intermittent judging for 2.5 years

I'm mostly familiar with east coast parliamentary and extemporaneous policy debate (CT Debate Association). I have also debated at a few west coast parli tournaments.

General Stuff:

I flow debates, but that doesn't mean that a dropped argument will instantly win/lose a team the round. Like with any other argument, you still need to show me why a dropped argument matters and to what extent it matters.

Just stating statistics doesn't mean anything. You need to show why they actually support your case. (Generally speaking, stats & logic > logic only >>> stats only)

Weighing is important. I'll only weigh arguments myself if neither team does any weighing for me (which should not happen).

Humor is appreciated

Be respectful (Don't discriminate based on race/gender/sexuality; don't personally attack your opponents (physically or verbally))

I try my best to be a tabula rasa judge and not let personal biases affect my decisions.

POOs - If the tournament allows for POOs, I won't drop new arguments in rebuttals unless they're POO'd. If the tournament doesn't allow POOs, I will drop new arguments in rebuttals and you shouldn't need to POO (although I generally won't penalize you if you POO at such a tournament).

Technical Debate Stuff:

I have debated in a total of about 20 rounds at West Coast tournaments, but I did not encounter theory or K's in any of those rounds, so I'm very unfamiliar with them actually being used in rounds. That being said, I have an idea of how they work (although I don't know all the terminology), so you are welcome to run theory or K's, but I would advise only doing so if you think it's necessary and if you can clearly explain everything. If you're running theory/K's just to exclude another team, I will drop you.

If you're competing at an East Coast tournament, read the tournament guidelines. If the tournament doesn't allow theory/K's, I will immediately drop you if you run them in the round.

Don't spread. I can handle a decent amount of speed, but not to the point where you have to alter your breathing patterns.

Credits

Some stuff here was taken from or inspired by other Amity/BOW debaters' paradigms

East coaster. I have experience debating parli/extemp policy.

I flow debates, but I'm not a strict flow judge— dropped arguments only matter if you tell me why it matters and to what extent. Weighing is important, so don't assume that I will weigh for you.

If you are west coast/tech debater, I don’t understand kritiks or theory too well, so only use them against clear abuse & when necessary & explain them (ie, I will vote on anti-spread theory). Truth > tech, and I don't accept PICs. I can understand if you speak fast, but don't spread.

Explanations and analysis matter more than just saying statistics/examples/facts

Be respectful. racism/sexism/homophobia/discriminatory comments are bad. don't personally attack your opponents physically or verbally, but feel free to attack their arguments with metaphorical machetes.

Wendy Zhang, pronouns: she/her