Hey there! I’ve done PF at Oak Ridge for three years, And qualified for TFA state and NCFL in the event.
I switched to congress near the end of my third year and qualified for UIL state twice and NSDA Nats in that event.

Debate aside- I’ve qualified for TFA state in Oratory twice, once for NCFL, and have qualified for TFA State in FX.

In PF:

I’ll vote based off of the most convincing framing that is provided in the round. If you want your framework to win, you need to be sure you're giving me a numerical measurement for how you best solve under that framework. (How do I judge the framework, kind of like a Value/Criterion, but in PF)

If there is none provided, I’ll vote based off of impact calculus or, worst case scenario, offense-defense weighing.
I’m a flow judge- but as long as you give me a roadmap and follow it, I’ll know how to follow your speech.

On speed- I dont like spreading, but reading at a quicker pace than usual is fine- ONLY for evidence. PLEASE slow down on tags and analytics! If I can’t understand you, I’ll probably just say clear. (I would usually just put my pen down but, Zoom university 2020).

As for speaks- speak nicely, take turns asking questions, don’t go beast mode, and you’ll basically be guaranteed good speaks.

As for questioning- if it wasn’t said in a speech, it never happened. While I do pay attention to questioning, I won’t flow anything unless you reiterate it in an actual speech. If you don’t, then I simply do not see it T-T. With that said, questioning is only binding if you actually bring it up in a speech, so be cautious!

If someone turns your argument, you do not get to drop that argument in hopes of dropping the turn, the turn was made, you have to account for that impact now.

Finally, make sure to frontline in second rebuttal, and new offense is not allowed in the second summary. In FF, PLEASE give me voters, and actually weigh.

In LD: I'm least proficient in LD, with that said, I like super traditional framework debate and REALLY dislike speed in LD. If you have to ask if you're speaking too quickly for me in LD, you probably are! I really like to digest moral issues, and love to see actual philosophical debate. If one person is progressive and the other is traditional, I will almost always vote for the traditional debater.

Since I'm not an expert in LD, as long as you're not a jerk, you get great speaks!

I really want to see y’all have fun, but most importantly I want the debate to be a civil, safe place to argue, so:

Bigotry of ANY kind is not tolerated in ANY capacity: it will result in a loss.

For email chains: danbagwell@gmail.com

I was a Policy debater at Samford / GTA at Wake Forest, now an assistant coach at Mountain Brook. I’ve increasingly moved into judging PF and LD, which I enjoy the most when they don’t imitate Policy.

I’m open to most arguments in each event - feel free to read your theory, critiques, counterplans, etc., as long as they’re clearly developed and impacted. Debate is up to the debaters; I'm not here to impose my preferences on the round.

All events

• Speed is fine as long as you’re clear. Pay attention to nonverbals; you’ll know if I can’t understand you.

• Bad arguments still need answers, but dropped args are not auto-winners – you still need to extend warrants and explain why they matter.

• If prep time isn’t running, all activity by all debaters should stop.

• Debate should be fun - be nice to each other. Don’t be rude or talk over your partner.

Public Forum

• I’m pretty strongly opposed to paraphrasing evidence - I’d prefer that debaters directly read their cards, which should be readily available for opponents to see. That said, I won’t just go rogue and vote on it - it’s still up to debaters to give convincing reasons why that’s either a voting issue or a reason to reject the paraphrased evidence. Like everything else, it’s up for debate.

• Please exchange your speech docs, either through an email chain or flash drive. Efficiency matters, and I’d rather not sit through endless prep timeouts for viewing cards.

• Extend warrants, not just taglines. It’s better to collapse down to 1-2 well-developed arguments than to breeze through 10 blippy ones.

• Anything in the Final Focus should be in the Summary – stay focused on your key args.

• Too few teams debate about evidence/qualifications – that’s a good way to boost speaks and set your sources apart.

Lincoln-Douglas

• I think LD is too often a rush to imitate Policy, which results in some messy debates. Don’t change your style because of my background – if you’re not comfortable (or well-practiced) spreading 5 off-case args, then that’s not advisable.

• If your value criterion takes 2+ minutes to read, please link the substance of your case back to it. This seems to be the most under-developed part of most LD rounds.

• Theory is fine when clearly explained and consistently extended, but I’m not a fan of debaters throwing out a ton of quick voters in search of a cheap shot. Things like RVIs are tough enough to win in the first place, so you should be prepared to commit sufficient time if you want theory to be an option.

Policy

[Quick note: I've been out of practice in judging Policy for a bit, so don't take for granted my knowledge of topic jargon or ability to catch every arg at top-speed - I've definitely become a curmudgeon about clarity.]

Counterplans/theory:

• I generally think limited condo (2 positions) is okay, but I've become a bit wary on multiple contradictory positions.

• Theory means reject the arg most of the time (besides condo).

• I often find “Perm- do the CP” persuasive against consult, process, or certainty-based CPs. I don’t love CPs that result in the entire aff, but I’ll vote on them if I have to.

• Neg- tell me how I should evaluate the CP and disad. Think judge kick is true? Say it. It’s probably much better for you if I’m not left to decide this on my own.

Kritiks:

• K affs that are at least somewhat linked to the resolutional controversy will fare the best in front of me. That doesn't mean that you always need a plan text, but it does mean that I most enjoy affirmatives that defend something in the direction of the topic.

• For Ks in general: the more specific, the better - nuanced link debates will go much farther than 100 different ways to say "state bad".

• Framework args on the aff are usually just reasons to let the aff weigh their impacts.

Topicality:

• Caselists, plz.

• No preference toward reasonability or competing interps - just go in depth instead of repeating phrases like "race to the bottom" and moving on.

Background: I debated PF at Auburn High School. I have a BS in Economics from Auburn University and am working on my MS in Economics at Portland State University. This is my fifth year judging. I'm a flow judge. I judge the round based almost purely off of what is left on the flow after final focus. This means that I value clear voters and good line by line very highly.

Crossfire: I do not flow crossfire. Any points made in crossfire must be brought up in a speech for me to weigh it in the round. If debaters are rude during crossfire it will be reflected in their speaker points.

Evidence: If debaters cannot produce evidence in less than a minute, I assume that they do not have the card. I will ask for cards after the round if I am not clear on the intentions of the author or believe that the card was miscut.

I am a lay judge and this is my first time judging.

I don't like war impacts.

Be respectful.

I am open to any argument, as long as it makes sense and is backed up with evidence. The tagline must be what the card actually says.

In rounds, my main pet peeve is unclear tag lines. Be sure that you clearly enunciate the tagline if you want me to take it into account.

For critiques and theoretical arguments, make sure you clearly explain both the argument and its implications.

I try to be open-minded and fair about any arguments presented.

Kiarra (Key-Era) Pronouns They/Them.

You can add me to the email chain {Kdbroadnax@gmail.com} To help me keep track of email chains. Put your team code and Round number in the subject section please and thank you.

Debated at Samford University (Policy) Currently a Coach with SpeakFirst (PF and LD)

Things to do. (Policy)

1. Signpost, do line-by-line, and use analytics.

2. Speed. Go as fast as you want. If you're unclear, I will look at you very confused because I will not know what to flow.

3. Kicking {Arguments, not other debaters} You should be kicking out of things. I will give .3 on speaks if it's creative. I LOVE a good mic drop moment.

Things to do. (PF)

1. Use analytics. they are super useful and make the debate more interesting

2. Speed. Go as fast as you want. I did do policy but If you're unclear, it will reflect in your speaker points.

3. Collapse down. You are not winning everything and we both know that.

Things to do. (LD)

1. Signpost, do line-by-line, and use analytics.

2. Speed is fine. Just be clear.

3. Put me on the email chain if you make one. If I call for cards at the end of the round and then have to wait for you to set up a chain I will doc speaker points. Please just set it up before the round starts.

4. The affirmative should defend the resolution. Yes, every time.

5. Make me think. Challenge the status quo. Run wacky K's. I won't always vote on it but I will enjoy it.

6. About number 5. If you are going to run a K or something similar. Please put a trigger warning if there is mention of sensitive topics and mention them before the round starts. It's uncommon in this climate but it would greatly be appreciated.

Please, do not do these (Policy):

1. Yelling, Being passionate about your case is super cool, but yelling at me will make me not want to vote for you.

2. Introducing Harmful Partnerships into the Debate space. I get that debate is a stress-inducing activity but your partner is there with you for a reason. You should use them. I am fine with partners interacting during a speech. Ex: Your partner handing you a card or their technology to use to read a card off of, or handing you their flow. But if your partner is spoon-feeding you, your speech.

3. Demanding a Judge Kick. Nope. No. No, thank you. if you want to kick out of something then do so.

Please, do not do these (PF):

1. Excessively call for cards. I get it. Sometimes you need to see cards but calling for 5 cards per speech is a bit much.

2. Being rude during CX. I get sassy sometimes but screaming, not letting debaters answer or name-calling is unnecessary.

3. If you send a link (only a link) when an opponent calls for evidence. I'll doc speaks. If you send ME a link. ill vote you down. There are rules to this activity. You need to have CUT cards.

Please, do not do this ( LD):

1. Don't be a jerk. Not every debater is going to get your K. Chill.

DO NOT at any point compare ANYTHING to slavery, the holocaust, genocide, rape, etc.

I will vote you down.

Yay debate!

A little about me:

I competed on the regional GA circuit and national circuit for 5 years in PF, and graduated in '19. I'm now a senior at Brown. This is my second year as the PF coach at Park City HS.

As a judge, I'm pretty chill:

- I'm fine with speed but, wouldmuch preferyou to not spread. If you do, you must email a speech doc.

- I don't flow cross- if something important happens, tell me in a speech or it will not be on my flow.

- Tech>truth. Obv exception is evidence ethics - if you claim that a source says something and it doesn't, I will not look kindly at that argument.

- I won't evaluate OFFENSE that is extended through ink from rebuttal to final focus- if you want me to vote for you on it, extend it through summary.

- Also- I expect the second rebuttal to respond to all of the offense in the round. Let me just add - given that y'all have four minutes, I also expect interaction with the defense read in the first rebuttal, but I'll be more lenient with accepting those responses in summary.

- On intervention - the only time I will intervene is if there is no comparative weighing, or quite honestly, weighing at all. I don't want to ever do this. So if you'd like to win or lose the debate based on the content of the round, weigh.

- additionally, meta-weighing. Especially if you and your opponents are going for different weighing mechanisms, please tell me why I should prefer your weighing mechanism !

- I understand the appeal of progressive debate, and won't automatically down-vote a team that runs it. However, I prefer judging rounds that don't involve frivolous theory. If there has been an egregious offense in the round and/or you feel very passionately about your theory shell, I will judge it. Otherwise, please don't run theory in front of me.

- Unfortunately, I am still not the best at evaluating K's and their place in PF. That's not to say you can't run a K in front of me, but I might not evaluate it in the way you'd like me to.

- For speaks - my range is normally between 27 - 29.7. I don't usually give perfect speaks, or below a 27. But if you are blatantly sexist, homophobic, or racist, that will change.

- On evidence : I'll be a part of email chains in rounds. Please share it with nylacrayton@gmail.com. I might not read every piece of evidence in full, but if you tell me to read something during, or after, the round I will.

- Speech times - I will continue to flow your speech up until ~10 seconds after your time is up. I will stop listening and stop flowing if you continue beyond that time.

• Prep - I keep track of prep in the round, and I am always a bit annoyed when you go over that time. If you prep for more than 30 seconds past your prep time, expect to lose speaks.

- Pre-flowing : please finish before the round starts.

Anyways... if you have any more questions, either ask me before the round or shoot an email to nylacrayton@gmail.com !

jedonowho@gmail.com

Extensions need to include warrants - simply saying extend Smith '20 isn't enough, you need to be warranting your arguments in every speech. This is the biggest and easiest thing you can do to win my ballot. Rounds constantly end with "extended" offense on both sides that are essentially absent any warrants in the back half and I end up having to decide who has the closest thing to a warrant which means I have to intervene. Please don't make me intervene - if you actually extend warrants for the offense that you're winning you probably will get my ballot.

Make my job as easy as possible by clearly articulating why you've won the round - write the ballot for me in summary and final focus. Even though I'm flowing and doing my best to pay attention, I'm not infallible and so if the summaries and final focus are just going over a bunch of arguments without clear contextualization of how they relate to the ballot, I'm going to struggle to decide the winner.

Don't do debater math.

You should give content warnings if you're reading any sensitive content in order to make the round as safe a place as possible for all participants.

Don't steal prep or do anything else that makes the round last longer than it needs to be (not pre-flowing beforehand, taking forever to pull up evidence).

Don't go too fast in front of me.

Technical things:

Defense isn't sticky anymore with the 3-minute summary

Second rebuttal needs to frontline.

If you want to concede defense to get out of a turn it needs to be done the speech after the turn is read.

No new weighing in 2nd FF, unless you're responding to weighing from 1st FF.

Quick TLDR - I vote off the flow to the best of my ability. I value quality of argumentation over quantity, please collapse, warrant, and make it OBVIOUS in Sum and FF who is winning (weighing, point out drops, concessions - this is gonna be one of the biggest things I look at). With all that said, come in with your amount of experience, and I will evaluate you fairly. Debate is a weird game, and not everyone has the same access to the tools "normalized." Don't worry, do your best, and know we are all here to learn.

Background: I am a recent graduate from Duchesne Academy, and I have been a second speaker in PF for three years. I debated on the local and national circuits and consider myself to evaluate rounds pretty technically. I also did speech on the local and national circuit, but you defs don't want me judging that.

Basic Judging Philosophy: I vote off of what is warranted, I prefer what is weighed. If you make a well-structured argument, then give me reasons to prefer your warranting over their warrants, and finally do weighing that COMPARES your impact to their impact, and tells me why yours is more important and WHY it's more important. Don't just say a buzzword like "scope" and move on.

Here are some more specific notes

- Jargon and Speed: Honestly, I can handle a fair amount of speed, just please don't spread. Also, its important to make sure you don't exclude your opponents from the round; spreading as a tactic to lose your opponents is really inconsiderate in my opinion. If everyone in the round is cool with jargon, I'm fine with it too.

- Evidence: Love it. Please note that I usually flow ideas, not card names, so feel free to extend your evidence but make sure you extend what the evidence says. Please make sure evidence is exchanged quickly- if it isn't, speaker points will be dropped. Citations are needed, and at a minimum must be an author and a date, but more information is always better. Feel free to go after poor-quality evidence in round, I love a good indict (always exciting).

- Topic Knowledge: (tailored for the Beyond Resolved Tournament) - I am going to be honest, I don't know much about this topic. I will do my best to inform myself on the basics before your round, but you really need to pretend I don't know anything. I can pick info up quick so explain it effectively and you'll be fine. :D

- Rebuttal: Pretty short here. I think 2nd rebuttal should defend case. Disads in first rebuttal are cool. Second rebuttal they are sketchy. Make sure you tell me where you are on the flow, and I reeeaaallly like numbering your responses to things, it makes flowing easier for everyone.

- Summary: This is a hard speech; I have no idea how my partner Danielle did this. I expect you to reiterate and defend your case with warrants AND extend responses on your opponent's case while still weighing. I don't care how you structure it so long as it is logical for me to follow. First summary I will be a little more lenient towards, but you still need the previously mentioned things at a minimum. YOU HAVE TO COLLAPSE IN SUMMARY. Make a few, strong arguments and win them, and you will win my ballot. Weighing should be in second summary.

- Final Focus: Mirror the summary speech, collapse and warrant your few arguments even harder. Don't make new arguments or new weighing metrics, please. Warrant and weigh what you have to work with and you'll be fine.

- Crossfires: I won't be flowing them, I might listen in, but if you get an important concession, mention it in a speech! Debaters are bound to what they say in crossfire, so don't lie. Remember to be kind; I take note of that intensely!

Theory/Kritiks: I am not very well versed in T/K; I wouldn't do it infront of me tbh. Sorryyyy!

Decorum: Please be nice; it shouldn't be hard. I'm not flowing cross, and I frankly don't value it that highly, so please don't turn it into a screaming match - instead, try to get valuable/strategic info out of it. If you are rude, racist, sexist, homophobic, or take another obviously unacceptable actions, I will 100% drop your speaks as low as I can and, depending on the infraction, it will affect my decision. So please, be kind. Debate is stressful, don't make it harder than it has to be.

Speaks: Honestly, the idea that public speaking skills should be valued excludes people from the debate space. I will give speaks solely off the quality of the argumentation you make in your speeches and your ability to signpost so it is easy for me to follow you on the flow. If you are one of those people who are "dominant in cross" and are rude to your opponents, I will drop your speaks (not joking). In short, the best debaters with the best structure will get good speaks, not the best speakers.

Hi I'm Gracie! (she/her)

Experience: 3 years of PF at Boca High and 3 years of experience in different debate events at Florida State (NPDA, BP, Civic/Social Justice, NFA LD literally once).

For Online Tournaments:

- Yes, add me to the email chain: gracea.findley@gmail.com

For PF:

TL;DR: Tech > Truth. Turns/DAs need to be responded to in second rebuttal. Final focus should mirror the summary. Default to cost/benefit analysis, but easily persuaded to filter the round through whatever framework you see fit. Speed is ok, but please don't spread. And please do not drop warrants (especially in the back half of the round!)

If anything is unclear in my paradigm, just ask me before the round!

Specific Thoughts on Debate

1) I default to tech > truth. Additionally, if you're winning a claim on the flow (technically), I'm more likely to evaluate it as true. But don't just assert things as random truths and expect me to vote on them. With this being said, I am a sucker for a good narrative. In the back-half of the round I love when teams re-explain their arguments, especially on the warrant level and use this as a basis to explain how they're winning. If you do this it helps make my decision much easier as I am not just voting on the flow but also on clear argumentation.

2) If you drop warrants, I drop you. Please don't make this mistake. I think warrants are the most important argument in the round, so I will evaluate this first. Lack of warrants assume I am all knowing and sometimes arguments that are clear to you are not clear to me, so ensuring I understand the premise of your argument extends from your ability to provide clear warrants. This means I expect analysis not only on the impact level but also on the link level. Assuming you are winning a warrant and going straight to impact weighing will make me unlikely to vote for you.

3) Second rebuttal is required to frontline all offensive arguments made against their case. This includes turns and DAs. It will make my flow a lot cleaner if you also begin to frontline defensive arguments in this speech, but it's not something that I require.

4) Anything you want me to vote off of NEEDS to be in the summary. Now that the summary is three minutes long, I expect first speaking teams to extend defense in summary. Please don't try to bring up things in final focus that were missing in summary.

5) Absent any framing in the round, I default to a cost/benefit analysis. In debates that don't touch heavily on framing, I tend to lean aff on risk of solvency. This also means I lean aff/non-squo went presented with "risk of offense" or "try-or-die" framing.

6) I don't have much experience competing in or evaluating theory rounds. I will try my best to evaluate it, but proceed with caution at your risk. For reference, here's what I think about some of the more popular theory arguments being read in PF.

a.) "Give us 30s" - Nope. Please, please, please don't read this in front of me. If you want a 30, follow my paradigm.

b.) Disclosure - Disclosure is good for debate, regardless of big or small school and especially for online tournaments.

7) I will not time you. Please keep track of your own time for both speeches and prep.

8) K's without policy alternatives are ok as the negative (b/c negative fiat isn't really a thing in PF), but I'm not a huge fan of non-topical affirmatives. My background is not in critical literature, so please make sure your arguments are very well explained in the back-half of the round.

9) If you are going to read an overview, there needs to be some sort of "turns case" explanation clearly flagged on the flow. I am not a fan of disads with new impacts out of the rebuttal.

10) I will call for evidence if I think it's misconstrued or if a team tells me to. I have no preference whether you give me a PDF/webpage or a cut card.

11) Don't spread, even if you offer to send a doc. I competed on the national circuit in PF though, so I can follow if you speak more quickly than conversational rate but please at least slow down for author names and dates.

For Speaker Points:

1) If author names are either dropped or not read, I will lower speaker points. Author names are the bare minimum - you should also be reading dates.

2) Weighing and really any sort of contextualization is the easiest way to boost your speaks. This is more than just claims like "we win on scope." As stated above, warrants are crucial to all argumentation; in addition to giving me a reason to prefer your analysis over anything your opponents bring up.

Hi! I'm Gabi, I've done policy debate at Wayzata for 4 years.

Please include me on the chain: gabifrants7@gmail.com

TOP LEVEL:
I'm fine with anything you run, I'm here to judge how you best debate. That being said, I debated mostly policy and basic Ks (think Agamben or abolition) during high school, so do with that what you will. I'm fine with theory, high theory Ks, planless affs, and just about anything else. I don't like time-wasters that you clearly aren't going to go for; don't run a one-card K or time cube in the 1nc, I will get annoyed.

notes for novice state:

i haven’t seen the novice packet. keep that in mind if there are any ev issues

Ks:
Lovely. I enjoy K debates more than policy, probably because they are more interesting. I love when people are passionate about Ks, it keeps me entertained. I do prefer Ks to have a good amount of cards. Also, specific links are good (and impact out your links). I will understand almost every K, as long as I get a base-level explanation of the thesis somewhere in your overview and if you can explain it in cx. Do not, for the love of god, run a K you know nothing about.

I will not judge-kick your alt for you, I default to weighing the aff unless I am proven otherwise.

K Affs/ FW:

Kaffs are good, please run one if that is your preferred argument, but they should somehow relate to the topic imo. I don't really like sneaky K cross-applications onto the FW flow, but I'll evaluate them (reluctant sigh).

I like FW. Try to clash with the aff if you can, but I get it if you can't. The aff is probably just really prepared to debate fw, so clash would be more strategic. Oh, and fairness is both an ! and i/l to education.

Topicality:

Love it. Go for it. Here are my biases: competing interps > reasonability, give me all the TVAs and case lists, make your Ts contextual to the topic, i will NOT evaluate plan text in a vacuum unless it is completely dropped (i hate that arg).

Theory:
I probably will only vote on condo and if there's a clear violation. I tend lean condo good; 2-3 conditional advocacies are okay, 5 are not. I did like winning condo 2ars a lot so, if you feel you out-teched the neg, go for it.

I will not evaluate ASPEC or stupid time-waste theory unless it is completely dropped. Please at least try to read arguments that don't make want to quit debate and write a manifesto on the absurdity of it.

DAs/ CPs:

DAs: yeah. just have a good link chain. tech over truth and all that stuff. link>UQ.

Cps: also yeah. i'll judge kick (you're welcome). make sure ur cps have solvency advocates, and don't make them have a million random planks. also, i am biased against sufficiency framing but you do you.

Speaker Points:

I like to think I'm generous with speaker points. Your points will come from clarity, confidence, organization, and kindness. If you take a lot of time to start your speech after prep, I will dock your speaks. If you are rude in cross, I will dock your speaks (I have a personal vendetta against unnecessary pettiness in cross). Also, don't be offensive. Edit your cards and blocks for problematic language. I also like if you're passionate and/or funny. I'm a human, entertain me.

If you read this far, thanks. Here's a poem I wrote:

Roses are red

Violets are blue

If I can't decipher your spreading

I won't vote for you :)

I am an Americorps service member with less formal debate training.

My ballot is awarded to the team with the best speaking skills, articulation of their arguments throughout the whole round, proper refutation of all their opponent's points, usage of evidence, and comparative argumentation. I default to cost-benefit analysis unless told to do otherwise. I’m not a heavy flow or line-by-line judge.

Speed and jargon are a no. Please don't immediately presume I know the intricacies of deep research on the resolution. The point of public forum debate is that you should be able to break down the debate on the resolution for anyone, and convince them why your side is right. Humor goes a long way with me in terms of ethos and speaker points. Being mean or a bully does the opposite.

Be sure to time your own speeches and keep track of prep time. I'll also be keeping time, but there is a speaker point reduction for those who don't do it.

Hi! I debated PF for four years at Stow-Munroe Falls High School in Ohio.

My email is ghawk1@kent.edu. Just add me to the email chain before the round.

General things:

I'm pretty tolerant to firmness/aggressiveness in rounds, just don't be an a-hole.

Don't be discriminatory in any way or I will drop you.

I will try to keep time, but I make no promises. If you go over, I won't penalize you, but please try and finish your thought/sentence quickly.

Speaking things:

I'm fine with speed (just don't spread) but please remember that I will be flowing (most likely on paper).

Speaks are mostly dependent on clarity and the actual round itself (I'll get more into that later).

Debating things:

I don't really flow cross, I'll listen along, but unless you get the other team to concede, then I probably won't weigh it in the round.

If you're giving the second rebuttal, I'm expecting you to frontline your offense.

With that in mind, I don’t require the first speaking team to extend defense in the 1st summary speech. However, if said defense is frontlined in 2nd rebuttal, the 1st summary needs to interact with the frontlines.

Please collapse and weigh. If you don’t weigh, I may or may not weigh for you and thus the RFD may be skewed. Furthermore, explain to me why you outweigh, whether it be on scope or magnitude. The earlier you collapse and weigh, the higher your speaks!

Properly extend your warrants and impacts. All offense should be in summary and final. That means links and warrants should be in your summary and final, don’t just extend through ink (it also helps you with lay judges). I’m more likely to vote for a well-warranted argument with some clash over a small argument that doesn’t have a good warrant or large impact.

My RFD:

When casting my ballot I tend to take the path of least resistance for well-warranted, well-weighed arguments. If you easily explain and write out for me why I should vote for you, you are more likely to win.

Evidence:

If the other team is constantly saying the card is misconstrued, I’ll probably look at it if it’s super important. Please don’t miscut cards, there’s a high chance that if I suspect you’re miscutting/cherry-picking, I’ll ask to see the whole card.

If you have any questions please ask! Super excited to judge your debate!

I'm a tab judge and am completely open to judging based on how the debaters tell me to. I am open to all types and styles of arguments, from topicality to Kritiks. If debaters say nothing about the framework used in the round, I will default to a policy making framework, if you run something like a performance aff, etc., I expect you to flesh-out framework for me. At end of round I'm evaluating your offense/defense vs. your opponents. This is the easiest way for me to judge the round, with as little intervention as possible, I'm looking to hear generally how the aff is a net improvement over the status quo. From the negative I'm looking to hear how the aff is a net negative, or how it fails to affirm the resoultion.

General:

Did Policy and LD in high school. PF for some time as well. My preferences as far as CX and LD are pretty similar. Did policy and parli in college. Coached LD and Policy in the past. Arguments that I frequently had students run were obscure kritiks, hard-policy affs, impact turns. I have always been a huge believer in the linebyline.

As far as policy, I ran policy arguments more than kritikal arguments, but as I got later in my career developed more of a preference for the K. That said, I really love good policy debates.

On the K, I expect some time to be spent on framework if it's expected for me to evaluate it through something other than the traditional way. I've been judging a lot more kritikal rounds in LD and CX than I have in the past. Frequently I find that when i vote for kritik debaters it's because they do a better job on the k-proper/linebyline debate as well as framework. Especially so if they are making good link-level arguments(not generic), RTB args. and k turns case. Explain how you get "solvency" or offense off-of the Alt. Being nebulous about the alt is generally a bad thing and frequently issues arise in k debate if this is neg strategy. I welcome the 1-off k strat, or k-affs.

Used to go for T a lot. That said, I usually advise debaters to go for T if there's an abuse story. In general have a high threshold for voting on T. If neg, extend that t is a voter, and internal link it to fairness, education, etc.

I assume condo is cool. I assume PICs are cool. I even think multiple CPs are cool (you would have to win on the theory level if Aff contests multiple CPs). Perms I assume are ok.

I encourage you to read theory if you want. I enjoy meta-debates. I especially enjoy if you put a lot of your own work into it.

Disads, you win me over if you run specific links or run multiple disads with different terminal impacts. Aff gets points for putting offense onto disads or explaining how case outweighs, or how aff solves the disad.

Affs get wins from me when they kill it on the case debate. Affs get some lee-weigh in the tight rebuttals if they're efficient and avoid drops.

I like offense from both sides. Somewhat related: recently I've found myself voting on presumption if aff drops the ball. I guess this makes some statement about what aff is obligated to do, namely defend the resolution by proving it true via 1ac. If there's some late level question about the round I may be looking at the viability of presumption. If neg tells me to vote on it, I may if there is some doubt about what aff is doing, and whether they're hitting the threshold.

Stylistic/ other things:

I am very decent keeping up with high speed.I flow the analytics as best as I can. That said, if you rush through standards one after the other, I may miss something. Adjust your pace, sign post more, be extra clear here. Generally though, I can count on two or three fingers the number of times a debater has gone too fast on theory for me.

It is very helpful to tell me what is offense and defense, this just avoids the round getting too muddy and means I adjust your speaks upward for communicating better, and for better understanding how your arguments function.

In rebuttals I generally expect things to get more big picture, in the 1ar and 1nr with drops being pointed out. I expect some level of pre-empting your opponents arguments esp. if you are the 2nr. And then finally, I expect impact calc, weighing, and some sound defense strategy (impact mitigation, timeframe, risk, magnitude, etc).

Speaks

I sometimes give out 30's but generally best speakers at any given tournament get in range of 29.5-29.9. I try to keep in mind the level of competitiveness of the tournament when giving speaks, but also, try to give consistent speaks.

Things that impact me giving high speaks:

Lack of prep taken/ good use of prep time.

Good strategy.

Being fast and efficient. Avoiding rehashing stuff that you're obviously winning and instead explaining the weight of that argument and moving on. Knowing what your cards say without having to go look.

Flowing. If cross-x is asking what number 6 argument opposing team made in the speech, I'm assuming your not flowing.

Numbering arguments, clear sign-posting, overviews, underviews, impact calc, roadmaps, referring to cross-x.

Clarity and not just looking at computer the whole time. Being sufficiently loud.

Good use of cross-x, which is underrated. I'm not sure why people don't do this, but in cross-x you can read opponent's evidence, ask about warrants in the card (sometimes they're not there), and author quals.

Kicking arguments strategically or going for something unconventional.

Using logic, analyzing evidence (looking for warrants in the cards), or a good line-by-line. Also, if neg: covering the 1AC, as opposed to generic off-case heavy strats. On case argumentation seems to be a dying art, which is sad, but as the neg if you do a good job covering case in my book it goes a long way. Aff: being super organized, grouping arguments, etc, especially in rebuttals. Handling the 2ac well is also something that helps. If you're doing a 2ac without prep and the speech is super-methodical I'm going to notice.

Being polite to opponents. Being aggressive is ok, but use best judgement.

Having fun, making jokes or demonstrating your knowledge of the topic.

I like impact turn debates and conversely impact defense, these are a great way to deviate the round from typical tropes, and can be very engaging.

I will never give you an L if I didn't like your way of debating or what you said. But if you require me to somewhat intervene in the round because of a poor debate I will give low point wins. I've given low point wins before to teams that did the better job strategically but had issues articulating things. If you cross the line as far as politeness, again, I will give VERY low speaks. Generally though, that's only happened 4-5 times in 8 years of judging for me.

LD

LD has gotten more policy-oriented. I have no issue with this. I do see some strategic issues if a 1ar spends the majority of the speech reading cards. Conversely I see issues with a 1nc with too many cards and not enough of a linebyline.

I don't think I've ever evaluated/ decided a round off a framework flow unless it had something to do with a K/ K aff being ran. You can concede framework if you want I just need to how your offense gets some access to some framework. What I'm suggesting is not undercovering contention level arguments and the linebyline.

Something that really makes it easier for me to evaluate the round is organization: numbering arguments, roadmaps, signposting, overviews, underviews. Being very clear about where you are on the flow at any time.

There is a tendency for blippy arguments to be hidden in the framework, or as underviews. the only way I can vote on them is if they are extended and impacted out.

I'm really not sure what has happened on the cutting edge of LD since getting out of high school. I know that theory/ framework debates have gotten to be more commonplace, with the utility of some of this theory questionable at best. Since then I've judged a lot of theory heavy, k heavy and policy rounds; i would say I have not judged many of these "tricks" rounds. Arguments are arguments, and they all function the same way, generally, what I'm suggesting is avoid the buzzwords and tell me the function of the argument.

As far as theory, I have voted on all sorts of theory arguments, but they have to be impacted, and i have to know how they are voting issues. Can't ever remember voting on disclosure theory.

PF

Usually i vote for the team that communicates better, of course they should be making the better arguments, but communication and persuasion are so important. In rebuttals I need to know about drops and hear some sort of weighing. I'm not in the camp that wants a card for every argument, speech times are already so short in PF. Go as fast as you want but realize that going faster may just make the debate more messy.

If you want to know what you can do to have a better chance at winning: extend evidence, talk about warrants, compare your evidence to your opponents'.

Congress

As a debater I had a lot of success in congress. I view congress as being an adversarial, somewhat extemporaneous event where you make good arguments backed by evidence and logic. Knowledge of parliamentary procedure is a definite plus, and I am looking for engagement and responsiveness regardless of what speech it is in the cycle. In other words, clash matters highly in congress, especially because speeches can tend to get stale pretty quickly if there are not (new) original arguments being made.

Debate Ethics

I prefer to not be involved in email chains or document sharing but sometimes I slip up and look at the speech documents. Avoid clipping cards--this is a breach of debate ethics and could result in loss of the round if there is a repeated pattern of doing it. I prefer that debaters self-police any ethical issues, and direct my attention to the issue while the round is happening, then I'll try to resolve the issue.

dont be stupid

I am a lay judge and have been judging speech and debate for about 6 years. I believe that debate should include a clear presentation of your arguments and evidence. I also believe your speeches should be well organized. In the end, I will value argument over style, but the way you present your arguments is important to my understanding of those arguments. If you call for evidence, please have a legitimate reason for it. I don't like spending a lot of prep time on it. I expect you to time yourselves, but I will be timing too. I like clear, organized flows with clear voters at the end. I weigh heavily on impacts so compare your impacts and convince me that yours are stronger. Please be civil and respectful to your partner and competitors.

My background is in theatre and speech. I love judging speech events and will typically vote for the presenter who has the strongest emotional connection to their piece and the audience. There must be an effective balance of design, style, and presentation. The pieces that showcase who you are as a performer as well as communicating something new and fresh are welcome.

Add me to the email chain: jlofwall@gmail.com

Experience/About me: Henry Clay High School '20 (debated both PF and LD), Stanford '25 (BP- parliamentary debate)

PF/General: 

I am a fairly standard tech judge but I'll outline some specific preferences:

1. Strong warrants and logical analysis > blippy unwarranted evidence

2. 2nd rebuttal should frontline- especially turns and whatever argument you think you're going for.

3. Weighing is important - it's the first thing I look to when making a decision so start weighing from rebuttal to FF

4. Extensions are key - not many teams do it well but you need uniqueness, warrant, and impact to be an extension

5. Collapse, or choose 1 argument to really flesh out - more arguments isn't better and it makes the round messy

6. If you want something to be flowed in FF, say it in summary

7. Theory Debate- I am fine with evaluating theory arguments and have voted on them before, but I much prefer judging case debate. If it's clear you are running theory arguments against a team that doesn't understand them for the purposes of getting an easy win, I won't be happy and probably won't vote on it.

8. K's- I will try to evaluate them, but I will probably not do a great job and could make a decision you won't be happy with. But if you do decide to go for a K, make sure you overexplain and make it as clear as possible as I'm not well versed in much critical literature. Overall, I am not a reliable judge to run a K in front of but do as you please.

LD:

Pretty traditional- no competitive experience w circuit LD, but will do my best to follow whatever argument you want to make

I am a parent judge.

Also disregard the last update.

Present your case to me as if I am an average citizen attending a city council meeting.

I debated in Public Forum debate (2013-2017) at Western Highschool in Florida.

I have a Bachelor's degree in Political Science from the University of Florida and a Master's degree in Liberal Studies from Georgetown University. Attending Northeastern University Law School in the fall.

a couple of things:

-Y'all should be timing the debate. I am the judge, not a babysitter. I like when teams hold each other accountable.

- don't read a new contention in rebuttal. that's not going on my flow

- The first summary should extend defense if the second rebuttal frontlines the argument. I think it is strategic for the second rebuttal to respond to turns and overviews.

- My attention to crossfire will probably depend on the time of day and my current mood. Please use it strategically if not I'll probably switch to watching youtube videos. - do not just read evidence explain the evidence in your own words. Tell me why the evidence matters to me at the end of the day.

- the summary is cool and all but don't go for everything on the flow, condense the round and give me a narrative. Quality of voters> Quantity of voters.

- Weigh, weigh, weigh, weigh, weigh.

-any other questions ask me before the round

SPEAKER POINT BREAKDOWNS

"30: Excellent job, you demonstrate stand-out organizational skills and speaking abilities. Ability to use creative analytical skills and humor to simplify and clarify the round.

29: Very strong ability. Good eloquence, analysis, and organization. A couple minor stumbles or drops.

28: Above average. Good speaking ability. May have made a larger drop or flaw in argumentation but speaking skills compensate. Or, very strong analysis but weaker speaking skills.

27: About average. Ability to function well in the round, however analysis may be lacking. Some errors made.

26: Is struggling to function efficiently within the round. Either lacking speaking skills or analytical skills. May have made a more important error.

25: Having difficulties following the round. May have a hard time filling the time for speeches. Large error.

Below: Extreme difficulty functioning. Very large difficulty filling time or offensive or rude behavior."

***Speaker Points break down borrowed from Mollie Clark.***

if you want to learn more about debate and get better under my guidance.

Click on the link below and sign up now!!!!

https://vancouverdebate.ca/intrinsic-debate-institute-summer-camp-2022/

Welcome competitors!

LD: I am a previous coach and competitor of LD and PuFo. I am a traditional LD judge that loves V-VC debate and impact calculus. The slower you speak the more I get on my flow which means I can follow your link chains better. If you spread, you MUST slow down for tags, sources, and impacts. If you do not, I will not be able to flow your main points. File sharing is fine, but it is not my job to read your case if I can’t understand you (unless tech issues arise). Don’t be afraid to get down and dirty with evidence preference argumentation. I come from a PuFo background as well so it is a nice voter for me. I also like analysis on why your VC better suits the resolution/debate. I need preference to one side or I will have to judge it myself. I give traditional style hand signals and verbal signals when appropriate. Timing each other is preferred, but I will keep official time in case of disagreements. If you are a progressive debater, you need to let me know before round starts so I can flow correctly. Alts, K’s, CP’s, PIC’s etc welcome, but please don’t have a non interactive K on the aff. Theory can be a big voter for me, but requires a lot of time for you to explain why it should win a debate. I look heavy to On Case and off case dis-ads, and need to be convinced to look for theory debates. Be nice to each other. Spread knowledge and respect, not hate.

PuFo: Impact Calculus is a must. Tell me how to weigh everything so that I do not have to make the assumption myself, it usually ends with upset parties (me included). Make sure that you know your sources, dates, and methodologies because your evidence is not complete without them. Speed is not preferred for me in this format. Public Forum is about speaking to the public, and thus, should be clear, concise, and easy to follow. If you must speak fast, then slow down for tags, numbers, and impact statements.

Good luck and follow your heart.

I am the debate sponsor at JCIB in Birmingham, AL. I do not have personal experience as a debater and have learned what I know about debate from my students. My main request is that you do not speak at such a quick speed that it is impossible to understand what you are saying. If I can't understand you or follow your speeches, I can't vote on it! I will keep track of time on tabroom but I also encourage you to keep time yourself.

*This will likely be somewhat confusing, please make an attempt to read it and I am more than willing to clarify before the round, but will not repeat it verbatim*

Background: Competed in PF, CD, and IX for Wauseon (OH), also debated in college for Heidelberg University. In addition, I competed at the 2018 Intercollegiate Ethics Bowl National Championships. I coached at Wauseon (OH). I am a Ph.D. candidate in applied economics at Western Michigan University. I have judged more extensively than my Tabroom indicates, as I judge every weekend, Ohio just does not use Tabroom. Primarily judge/parli Congress as such you will find my Congress paradigm much longer. Served as the Parliamentarian for the final round of Congress at the 2020 and 2021 OSDA State Tournaments, as well as the semifinal of the 2021 NCFL tournament .

Conflicts: Wauseon (OH)

FAQs

1. What should I call you?

You can refer to me by name. I also use he/him pronouns. Preferably don’t call me “judge”, that’s a bit strange.

2. Are there arguments you won’t vote off of?

If something is clearly false or abusive, I probably won’t vote for it. If you’re being blatantly offensive, I might drop you.

meme cases, do NOT run a meme case.

3. Should I shake your hand?

Please do not do that.

4. Do you disclose?

I will follow the rules of the specific tournament in regards to disclosure and oral feedback. But generally, if the tournament allows I prefer to disclose.

5. In Congress (and other debates) should I wait for a sign of readiness from you?

No, you may assume that I am always ready

Anything else?

Be respectful of your opponent. Ask for their pronouns and use them correctly. Don’t do things that will clearly and unnecessarily make the round unfair to your opponent (ie., don’t spread or run tricks against a novice or something like that. You won't auto lose me but I will be annoyed!) Have fun with it, it is supposed to be fun.

Feel free to ask me questions about anything on here or anything not on here.

General Debate Info

Speed:

I find myself very comfortable with any level of speed presented by debaters. However, do not use speed to be abusive to your opponents.

Argument Styles:

Link your arguments to the resolution. Do not leave me wondering what your case has to do with the resolution, and why you’re reading it. If you are reading something off case make me at least acutely aware as to how it links to the resolution.

Tableau Rasa:

The short answer, yes. If you say something inaccurate I will note it on the ballot, but will not consider it in my decision unless your opponent mentions it. Refer also to FAQ 2.

Evidence:

Yes, you should cite evidence to support your claims. Claims supported by evidence, empirics, and philosophy, along with developed warrants, links, and impacts will go a long way to winning my ballot.

CX:

Run as inventive of a case as you can properly defend in the round, maintaining proper respect for the activity and your opponents.

Give an off-time road map and signpost clearly in all speeches.

LD:

You should have a balance of hard evidence and philosophy within your case.

I will listen to and tolerate most any argument you run in front of me.

A Value and Value criterion are integral.

If you are going to use an uncommon philosopher/ school of philosophy make sure you flesh out the details of it, and do not simply name drop a philosopher.

PF:

Err on the side of more traditional arguments, stick to the resolution. I prefer to not judge a round of Policy with the time constraints of PF.

I like Grand Cross, I know some do not, but I believe it serves a purpose.

I do not enjoy being an interventionist judge in PF or LD.

Congress:

Modeling proper decorum is incredibly important, respect your opponents and the event if you fail to maintain proper decorum during the round you will fail to be high on my ballot. Included in having proper decorum is an understanding of the rules outlined in Parliamentary Procedure.

I tend to rank presiding officers quite well, it can even serve as a tie-breaker between two competitors when I conduct my pref ranking of the chamber. If you preside over an effective chamber it will boost your rank, if not it will drop you pretty far, as an ineffective presiding officer can quickly derail a chamber.

This is a debate event before anything. That means you should be adapting to the round as it goes. The sponsor and the first negative speaker should set up the round for strong debate. The sponsor should state the problem, how this bill fixes the problem, give one or two impacts from solving it, and if you're a superstar give me a framework. As the round moves on from these first two speeches, I should see an increasing amount of refutations and original views on the legislation. As we move into the last 1/3rd of the debate cycle there should be an increasing amount of extensions countering the other arguments of the other side of the debate while still maintaining an original point of view and analysis. When arguments for both sides are exhausted or when the debate becomes stale, I should see the crystallization of the debate, and speeches that refute the whole of the opposition not just individual speakers bringing the debate to an effective conclusion.

Effective cross-examination involves attacking your opponent’s arguments and exposing the flaws therein. Do not waste time by asking favorable questions of your opponent, use the time to ask them questions which clash and help to hash out the debate. Ask questions in a succinct manner, there is no reason your question should take half of the questioning block to ask. The same applies to long-winded answers, do not waste the questioning period. Defense in cross x is more straightforward because all I want to see is that you can defend your argument to the point where it is still standing strong after cross x. I prefer calmer cross x over yelling, remember that decorum is integral to successful Congressional debate.

I rank based on the totality of your participation in the chamber this includes decorum, questions, answers, speeches, and general participation(voting, making/seconding motions, etc.). Basically, participate and move the debate further and you will likely end up high on my pref ballot.

you tried

to call the

question

but you

said

"i motion"

not "i move"

-Rupi Kaur

I've debated in high school and know the workings of debate.

Cases-

I want cases with cohesive arguments that make it clear to me what your arguments , warranting, and impacts are. Framework is accepted as long as it is not abusive. Theory that is used appropriately will be accepted but if it is used as a means to be abusive or to guarantee an "easy" win, I will disregard your entire case. (If an opponent paraphrases but is able to provide evidence in a timely manner I will not even consider paraphrase theory in the round). I prefer quality over quantity so bombarding arguments will not work unless they are strong and clear.

Speeches-

I can handle speed as I have debated before but if you use speed as a way to confuse your opponents (speaking super fast/slurred) I will lower your speaker points. Sign-post makes my flowing easier and your speech clearer so I highly recommend it. Weighing is something I want to see in almost all speeches. Give me a reason to vote for you and why I should believe it.

Speaker Points-

I award high speaker points to anyone who gives a clear speech. If you are rude, uncivil, spreading to cause confusion, or promoting harmful behavior I will drop your points significantly.

Evidence Sharing-

I would prefer if an email chain was created before the beginning of round with my email (ashlynnarman.email@gmail.com) added on to it. If you take too long to find a card in order to create more prep time I will call you out on it. Do not waste my time or your opponent's.

With all that being said, make sure this a fun round for everyone in your room :)

Ashley (she/her)

nguyeng@umd.edu

Hello! I'm a PhD student in 20th Century US history. I used to do PF in high school. Feel free to email if you have questions about your round.

General:

I will always do my best to minimize intervention within the round — this is your time to be creative with your arguments and to have fun with developing your own style of debate.

I am generally open to any arguments, but especially love to see how far left you can go with each argument.

If you treat novices/obviously less-experienced debaters with anything but the same respect you'd want in a round, you will not pick up my ballot. Debate is an educational activity. I really value debaters who try their best to interpret the debate in the most humane and just way possible. I will not tolerate homophobic, sexist, racist, etc. arguments in debate.

LD:

Please refer to Charles Karcher's paradigm!

Speaking:

I don't encourage you to speak quickly if it's a virtual tournament - hardly anyone speaks clearly enough for it to translate well over a Zoom/Jitsi call. However, speaking quickly is different than spreading. If you spread (which if fine with me), send over the doc first or else I won't be able to flow.

Framework:

If you don't contextualize the argument, I will do it myself and you don't want that. also please engage with the framework debate as soon as it's brought up in round.

PF:

YOU CANNOT AND WILL NOT WIN EVERY ARGUMENT. Collapse, collapse, collapse.

The earlier you start weighing, the better the round will be for you. I won't weigh anything in FF if it's not in summary (please condense and weigh impacts in these two speeches rather than going line-by-line.)

Please answer defense.

If you bring theory/spreading into a PF round, I will automatically drop you and your speaks will be a 25.

I am an Americorps service member with less formal debate training.

My ballot is awarded to the team with the best speaking skills, articulation of their arguments throughout the whole round, proper refutation of all their opponent's points, usage of evidence, and comparative argumentation. I default to cost-benefit analysis unless told to do otherwise. I’m not a heavy flow or line-by-line judge.

Excessive speed will not help me follow your argument. Please don't immediately presume I know the intricacies of deep research on the resolution. The point of public forum debate is that you should be able to break down the debate on the resolution for anyone, and convince them why your side is right. Humor goes a long way with me in terms of ethos and speaker points. Being mean or a bully does the opposite.

Be sure to time your own speeches and keep track of prep time. I'll also be keeping time, but there is a speaker point reduction for those who don't do it.

Updated 4/11/24 for the Chance National Qualifier - GOOD LUCK TO ALL competitors

I admire and appreciate your skill, ability and preparation. As Adam Smith articulated in The Theory of Moral Sentiments, I work from the assumption that you are all praiseworthy. And, like Aristotle, I view our time together in this activity as a journey toward the good.*

Summary LD Expectations

1. Do not spread. Let me repeat do not spread. I know it's in your DNA but do not spread. I always vote for the debater who speaks slower. Always.
2. I am a traditional values judge as this is the foundation for this event. Therefore invest your time and energy on your value. Clarity and defining this value will go a long way to earning my ballot. Investing time in side by side comparison to your opponent's value with a clear and simple explanation for why I should prefer your value will go a long long way to earning my ballot.
3. This is not policy debate therefore there is no requirement for a plan or for implementation. Invest your limited time in value analysis, resolutional analysis and rebuttal, not on implementation.
4. Traditional debate therefore no progressive debate, critique, or counter plans.
5. I reject on their face all extinction impacts.
6. I value analysis and warranting over evidence. The best way to lose my ballot is to read a list of cards, indicate your opponent has no cards and unleash some debate math - ie "Judge my view of resolution will reduce recidivism by 150.3% resulting in a reduction of poverty world wide of 173,345,321 and leading to growth in Georgia of 13.49% which will increase the standard of living in Athens by 22.32% and reduce polarization by 74.55% which will ensure that representative democracy will . . . . blah, blah, blah. BTW, when I am exposed to debater math you should know what I hear is blah, blah, blah. So . . . invest your time in simple, clear (hopefully logical) warranting - no need for cards or debater math. You know, I know, your parents know that statistics/empirics prove nothing. PS, if Nobel winning social scientists have the humility to acknowledge that is is virtually impossible to determine causality, you should too, so avoid the correlation/causality offense or defense.
7. In your last 3 minutes of speaking you should collapse to your most important or valid argument, provide me with voters, and weigh the round
8. Quality over quantity, less is more, therefore those debaters who collapse to a single argument and weigh this argument earn my ballot. In fact, those rare (delightful) debaters who provide a logical narrative based upon a clear value and throughout the round, focus on a single, clear, simple argument make for a breath of fresh air, meaningful 45 minutes of debate and a lasting learning experience. These types of rounds are as rare as a lunar eclipse and I value and treasure these rounds and debater(s) - less than a dozen over my years of adjudication.
9. Simple is preferred to the complex. I am a lay judge and while I have over 20 years experience and have judged over 160 rounds of LD in both face-to-face and online environments I find that the simplest argument tends to earn my ballot over many arguments that are complex.
10. A negative debater who collapses to the Aff framework and definitions and then clearly explains a rationale for why negating the resolution achieves that value is from my point employing a very sound strategy when arguing before a community judge and overcomes the initial time disadvantage, The AFF debater who uses the 3rd AFF to only review the SINGLE most important argument, weigh clearly and simply and end with valid votes makes the most efficient and strategic use of speaking last.
11. Remember to clearly define all relevant terms in the resolution. The March/April 2025 topic has often hinged on definitions. Where there's a difference in approach on a term you'll need to clearly warrant for me why I should prefer your definition. PLEASE not cards or debater math.

Don't worry *(be happy) as I will cut and paste this paradigm into my ballot. But alas, that is after the fact. Oy.

I am appreciative and grateful to have this opportunity. IE and speech I do have comments for you after my "sharing" with debaters. Skip to the end.

You are the teacher, I am the student. As my teacher, you will want to know my learning style.

I am curious and interested in your voice and what you have to say. I am a life long learner and as a student I make every effort to thoughtfully consider your teaching. so . . .

1. I take notes (flow) in order to understand. So, a metric for debaters - think of me on the couch with one of your grandparents, Joe Biden and Morgan Freeman. We are all very interested in what you have to say and we are all taking notes. So, be certain your pace allows us to take notes (flow) with comprehension. If you are doubtful about the pace you are using, YOU ARE SPEAKING TOO FAST and should slow down. Thank you very much.
2. As your grandparents, Joe, Morgan and I sit on the couch we are striving to learn new material from you. You know far more than we do, you are very familiar with how to convey this information and we all think much slower than you so - KEEP IT SIMPLE. I would advise checking all debate jargon at the bus, before you enter the building.
3. Less is more. So, if you have 2 to 5 high level arguments and feel compelled to advance them, go for it. But as the round comes to an end, focus on ONE and make certain you explain it so that your grandparents, Joe, Morgan and I can understand. I was fortunate earlier this year at the 2024 ARIZONA STATE TOURNAMENT to judge an out round of LD on a panel with a young, policy TECH judge and another parent. In a 2-1 decision, I was soooooooooooooooo pleased that, in post round disclosure and RFD this young, policy TECH judge recommended that the two excellent debaters collapse to the ONE argument that they considered most important (ie the argument they were winning). I was overjoyed as I have always indicated one simply and well explained argument will always capture my ballot over the old laundry list. In other words DO NOT RUN THE FLOW in 3rd AFF speech merely explain the ONE argument and weigh the voters. One other outstanding piece of feedback from this young, policy, TECH judge was to look at the judges - he, like I, react to your argumentation - nodding and smiling when we understanding and are convinced and frowning or shaking no when we are not. I noticed he did this in the round and, for those of you who have argued before me before, you know that I light up when you have me and if become despondent when you don't. Useful in round feedback from the judge is GOOD. I know you all have strategy based upon some interpretation of game theory when arguing before a panel. Remember you will most likely have 1, 2 or even 3 parent, lay judges on the panel. WE DO NOT UNDERSTAND DEBATE THEORY, CANNOT PROCESS ARGUMENTS DELIVERED AT A RAPID PACE AND NEED SIMPLE, SIMPLE SLOWLY PRESENTED SIDE BY SIDE ANALYSIS.

Anything else?

1. I see LD as an exploration of value, that is values debate, therefore I am most interested in learning your take on the value your have selected in evaluating the resolution. I am not interested implementation, rather the key is how the value you employ affirms or negates the resolution AND why that value is superior to the one selected by your opponent. It is ok, very ok, to concede value. It goes without saying, but I will anyway, that you should understand your value and provide a simple clear definition. Soooooooooo there is Justice, Social Justice, Restorative Justice, Distributive Justice, Procedural Justice, Retributive Justice, Environmental (???) Justice, Economic Justice, Global . . . . well you get the point. Which one are you arguing for? If you don't specify then your opponent may, to your disadvantage, If you opponent doesn't then . . . . well the nightmare of all LDers, your parent, lay judge (ME) will. I don't think you want that. But, for those who read this paradigm, you would not be surprised to find that I am deeply influenced by the value analysis of Aristotle and Adam Smith sooooooooo if you have not read Nicomachean Ethic and/or The Theory of Moral Sentiments you will want to clarify you value as these are the defaults I will use if you don't clearly, slowly and simply explicate yours.
2. I am skeptical of Rawls based upon my reading of A Theory of Justice. But, by sharing this prior with you I want you to know as a student I am very interested in learning. So, if based upon your reading of Rawls you provide a rationale for my acceptance, you have it. Of course, the prereq for success here might well be your actual reading of Rawls, although the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy makes a start on introducing this theory to the lay reader.
3. I am very skeptical of Utilitarianism and its various expressions, particularly the rote and familiar rationale that is read on the top of cases that use it. I am very easily persuaded to reject based upon the comparison of impact on the minority.
4. I reject all extinction impacts
5. I reject all progressive debate
6. I reject kritik
7. If you are compelled to provide a counter plan or alternative as NEG, you need to provide clarity as to the link to the resolution and to utilize analysis and material that the AFF would be expected to aware of. (I understand the grammar policy have now OKed ending a sentence with a preposition.
8. CX is important for the ethos of the debaters, clarification, and laying the ground for rebuttal.
9. In round tone - I appreciate all debaters, particularly those who are having fun, display good humor and take a collaborative rather than adversarial approach. I know you are all very serious about this activity (which I appreciate) and you need to be yourself. That said, when considering your approach, particularly in CX you might try a thought experiment or fantasy - you are arguing before the Supreme Court. What tone and approach would you take if you were trying to engage either Elena Kagan or Neil Gorsuch, remember of course that your grandparents, Joe, Morgan and I are also up there on the bench.

Congress

1. Congressional debater - elite debaters come prepared to argue both sides of all bills, never read a speech, anticipate rebuttal in CX, know the burdens in speaking first, mid and last in the course of legislative debate and accordingly speak at all three points in the Congressional session and are ready, willing and able to PO. I begin each session with the PO ranked first and the bar to surpass an elite PO is Jordanesque or Tarasui esque or Clark esque. So, PO, I praise those who PO and condemn elite debaters who don't.
2. I commend to you Aristotle - On Rhetoric - specifically his treatment of ethos"the way we become responsible citizens who can understand each other and share ideas is through rhetoric"
3. Excellent overview of Congress expectations.

4. PO resources - all potential PO candidates are encouraged to review:

   https://www.uiltexas.org/files/academics/Witt_An_Act_of_Congress_PO.pdf

   http://www.bobcatdebate.com/uploads/5/5/6/6/55667975/presiding_officer_guide.pdf

5. Members of our community who have taught me a great deal:

Yibo Chen

Frederick Changho (I take the approach Truth >Tech)

Zoe Soderquist

Christopher Klugman

Non debaters

IE - I tend to be much more impressed by the performance that reaches deep within to find some sort of reality or authenticity and I tend to be less impressed by the well developed techniques that excellent actors employ.

Extemp - I value analysis within the context of a cohesive narrative over quantity of evidence cited.

Orators - your call to action need be substantial, significant, clearly defined and either achievable, or contextualized in such a manner that the attempt has significant value.

And don't worry, my previous paradigm, saved for posterity due to the scope of Google - here

*Taking this approach, Aristotle proposes that the highest good for humans iseudaimonia, a Greek word often translated as "flourishing" or sometimes "happiness". Aristotle argues that eudaimoniais a way of taking action (energeia) that is appropriate to the human "soul" (psuchē) at its most "excellent" orvirtuous (aretē). Eudaimoniais the most "complete" aim that people can have, because they choose it for its own sake. An excellent human is one who is good at living life, who does so well and beautifully (kalos). Aristotle says such a person would also be a serious (spoudaios) human being. He also asserts that virtue for a human must involvereason in thought and speech (logos), as this is a task (ergon) of human living.

Updated for 2023-2024 Season

Please put me on the speech thread! Thank you.

Email: thelquinn@gmail.com

Titles: Director of Debate at Samford University (AL).

Meta-thoughts:

I’m not the smartest human. You’re maybe/likely smarter than me. Please do not assume I know anything you are talking about. And I would honestly love to learn some new things in a debate about arguments you researched.

Debaters are guilty until proven innocent of clipping cards. I follow along in speech docs. I believe it is judges job to police clipping and it is unfair to make debaters alone check it. I will likely say clear though, it's nothing personal.

I keep a running clock and "read along" with speech docs to prevent clipping. At the end of the round, I find myself most comfortable voting for a team that has the best synthesis between good ethos, good tech/execution, and good evidence. I will not vote on better evidence if the other team out debates you, but I assign a heavy emphasis on quality evidence when evaluating competing arguments, especially offensive positions.

Education/Debate Background:

Wake Forest University: 2011-2015. Top Speaker at ADA Nationals my Junior Year. 2x NDT First-Round Bid at Wake Forest. 2x NDT Octofinalist. 2x Kentucky Round Robin. Dartmouth Round Robin. Pittsburgh Round Robin.

Mountain Brook High School: 2007-2011. 3x TOC Qualifier. 2011 Winner of Emory's Barkley Forum in Policy Debate. Greenhill and Harvard Round Robin. Third Place at NSDA Nationals in 2011. Seventh Place NSDA Nationals 2010. Winner of Woodward JV Nationals.

Policy Thoughts:

Tl;dr: Offense/defense, the algorithm, cards are currency. UQ determines link unless otherwise said. Willing to pull the trigger on T/theory.

Flow: Most debaters should make analytics off their flows, especially in digital debate. Conversely, if you include analytics on your speech doc but I do not find you clear but I recognize where you are on your speech doc, I will not consider them arguments.

Condo: Im largely ok with conditionality. I think the best aff args against conditional are against contradictory conditional options. I do not really like the counter-interp of dispo. Im a much bigger fan of CI is non-contradictory conditional options.

• 3 or less non contradictory conditional options is ok to me
• 2 contra condo is fine
• 3 contradictory condo (including a K) and I am willing to vote on contra condo bad.
• For new affs, I think at most 5 contra condo is permissive. Anymore and I think you risk losing on theory.
• I think negs should take the 2 seconds it takes to have a CI that isn't "what we did." "What we did" is not really a good CI in debates.

CP Theory: If the 2AC straight turns your disad, no amount of theory will justify a 2NC CP out of/around the straight turned DA. 2NC CP's vs addons are different and chill/encouraged. Generic Process/ Conditions/ consult CPs cause me to lean aff on theory/perm, unless you have a good solvency advocate specific to their plan text which can prove its predictable and important for that area of debate. But I’m persuaded that a generic/predictable aff posted on the wiki can win a theory debate/perm do CP against a generic process/ conditions/ consult CPs. This is especially true with any Con Con CP. Con Con is the worst.

I hate judge kick. Do you want me to flow for you too? Maybe compose your speech doc while you're at it? I don't give the affirmative random permutations. Don't make me kick your trash counterplan for you.

T: My "favorite" standards are predictable limits (debatability) and real-world context (literature/education). I think a topicality interp that has both of those standards I will err on. Evidence that is both inclusive and exclusive is the gold standard. I tend to be more moderate with reasonability. I am not in the cult of limits. I err aff if I believe your interpretation is "reasonable" and that the negative did not prove you made debate impossible even if their interpretation is slightly better.

Kritikal Debate. I vote off the flow, which means my opinions on K debate are secondary to my voting. And I was 4-0 for Wake BD last year in some big debates against policy teams, so I'm going to vote for the team that I thought did the better debating (But are you Wake BD?). Im not really opposed to kritiks on the negative that are tied to the plan/resolution or kritikal affirmatives that defend a topical plan of action. I think where I draw the line is that I'm not a good judge for more performance based "affirmatives/negatives" that neither affirm nor negate the plan text/resolution. I lean very heavily neg on FW v non or anti-topical K affs. I think a good topical version of the affirmative is the best argument on FW. The role of the judge is to vote for the team who does the better debating. Debate is an educational game we play on the weekend with friends. I will not evaluate arguments that derive from actions/events out of the debate I am judging. Fairness is an impact and intrinsically good. I do not believe the ballot has material power to change the means of production/structures and thinking it does may even be problematic.

Please do not read global warming good. Global warming is real and will kill us all. And I am particularly persuaded by the argument that introducing these arguments in debate is unethical for spreading propaganda and should be deterred by rejecting the team. I'm way more persuaded by inevitability and alt cause args.

Email contact: jrr289@msstate.edu - please add me to any email chains being used in the round

Background: I competed in speech and debate for three years in high school. I primarily participated in public forum debate and international and domestic extemporaneous speaking, but I occasionally competed in LD, congress, and various other limited prep speech events. I attended the NSDA tournament twice in international extemporaneous speaking. I competed at the CFL National tournament three times: once in extemporaneous speaking, once in public forum, and once in congress. I have stayed active in speech and debate by judging a few tournaments a year and helping coach public forum debate teams on the high school level.

Speeches and case organization

I have a fundamental aversion to jargon and unexplained abbreviations or acronyms in debate. Explain and define everything.

The best constructive speeches contain at least some background information on the resolution. Many teams overlook this, perhaps due to time constraints, but this is a critical step. In other words, you need to answer this question up front: how have we arrived at the topic before us?

Organized speeches with clear signposting are an absolute must. Evidence is obviously important, but I will pay special attention to how it is woven throughout your speeches. Are you making it clear why this evidence is important? Why I should trust it? What is its impact? Do you have multiple levels of evidence to support every argument you plan on making?

Crossfire

I will pay attention to everything said during crossfire. While a debate may not be won solely by the crossfire performance, it can quickly be lost. A great debater is one who does not lose their persuasiveness even when they have to think fast on their feet. You should be able to defend all your arguments and evidence without hesitation during crossfire. What I believe to be an extremely effective communication strategy during crossfire that you may want to consider is not forgetting to make eye contact and speak to the judge. Do not limit your focus during crossfire to your opponent or your papers in front of you. Engaging me in crossfire and making me feel included will absolutely earn you some extra speaker points.

Miscellaneous

I will flow each debate carefully, but I do not consider myself a technical judge. You are free to run whatever arguments or strategies you choose; if you can sell it well, I will probably buy it. At the end of the round, my decision is usually for the team who wows me the most. Sometimes that is the team who I think wins the most number of arguments. Sometimes that is the team who wins the strongest arguments. Sometimes it is the team that had the best delivery and persuasiveness.

Please feel free to contact me via email if you have any questions.

Hey! I’m Albert Sanchez. In HS I did PF for a couple tournaments, LD for 3 years, and Worlds for 1 year. I’m in college on the American Parli team, where I run some IR/HIR stuff.

In terms of cases, I ran a lot of lay and some LARP stuff in HS. If you’re not sure what to run in front of me, ask yourself if my 8th grade sister would be able to understand your argument the way you read it. This goes for content and speed. Please don’t spread. I’m not perfect at flowing so if you really want me to catch on to something in the line by line please emphasize it. Flowing on a computer makes it easier to get stuff down tho so that’s a plus.

FAQ:

Will vote on spreading is bad. If you spread spreading is bad, I don't know what to tell you.

Stance on Ks? As long as I can understand them from what you tell me in the constructive, go for it. If it requires me to go read over the cards 10 times to understand what you're saying, don't read it.

Stance on LARP? Cool with it.

Stance on T/Theory? If there's clear abuse in the round, sure.

Email chain? Always for it. I'll give you my email in round if you're going to start one.

Time yourselves!

Speaks are silly and arbitrary so I'll be as transparent as possible (DOES NOT APPLY TO WORLD SCHOOLS).

- You will start at a 28 pt minimum unless otherwise told by tab. You can only go up unless you are offensive in round, don't use up all your time (like you have 3 min left in the NC), or spread without clearing it with me and the opponent.

- I don't care about eye contact, posture, hand gestures, or stuttering

- Give me good signposts

- Roadmap before you start your rebuttals (AND FOLLOW THE ROADMAP YOU GIVE ME)

- In rebuttals, don't just read the name of the card. Summarize what it said.

- Write my ballot for me: In the last speech tell me what the round come downs to and why you win

- (If we're in person): If aff sits on my left and neg on my right without asking me, I will bump both your speaks. If only one does so, I'll only bump that person's speaks. If no one does so, you just start at the 28 pt minimum

Feel free to ask questions before or after the round. I’ll talk about the round (if I’m allowed to) but I’ll also answer questions about college debate and stuff in general.

I am the head debate coach at James Madison Memorial HS (2002 - present)
I am the head debate coach at Madison West HS (2014 - present)
I was formerly an assistant at Appleton East (1999-2002)
I competed for 3 years (2 in LD) at Appleton East (1993-1996)

I am a plaintiff's employment/civil rights lawyer in real life. I coach (or coached, depending on the year) every event in both debate and IE, with most of my recent focus on PF, Congress, and Extemp. Politically I'm pretty close to what you'd presume about someone from Madison, WI.

Congress at the bottom.

PF

(For online touraments) Send me case/speech docs at the start please (timscheff@aol.com) email or sharing a google doc is fine, I don't much care if I don't have access to it after the round if you delink me or if you ask me to delete it from my inbox. I have a little trouble picking up finer details in rounds where connections are fuzzy and would rather not have to ask mid round to finish my flow.
(WDCA if a team is uncomfortable sharing up front that's fine, but any called evidence should then be shared).

If your ev is misleading as cut/paraphrased or is cited contrary to the body of the evidence, I get unhappy. If I notice a problem independently there is a chance I will intervene and ignore the ev, even without an argument by your opponent. My first role has to be an educator maintaining academic honesty standards. You could still pick up if there is a path to a ballot elsewhere. If your opponents call it out and it's meaningful I will entertain voting for a theory type argument that justifies a ballot.

I prefer a team that continues to tell a consistent story/advocacy through the round. I do not believe a first speaking team's rebuttal needs to do more than refute the opposition's case and deal with framework issues. The second speaking team ideally should start to rebuild in the rebuttal; I don't hold it to be mandatory but I find it much harder to vote for a team that doesn't absent an incredible summary. What is near mandatory is that if you are going to go for it in the Final Focus, it should probably be extended in the Summary. I will give cross-x enough weight that if your opponents open the door to bringing the argument back in the grand cross, I'll still consider it.

Rate wise going quick is fine but there should be discernible variations in rate and/or tone to still emphasize the important things. If you plan on referring to arguments by author be very sure the citations are clear and articulated well enough for me to get it on my flow.

I'm a fairly staunch proponent of paraphrasing. It's an academically more realistic exercise. It also means you need to have put in the work to understand the source (hopefully) and have to be organized enough to pull it up on demand and show what you've analyzed (or else). A really good quotation used in full (or close to it) is still a great device to use. In my experience as a coach I've run into more evidence ethics, by far, with carded evidence, especially when teams only have a card, or they've done horrible Frankenstein chop-jobs on the evidence, forcing it into the quotation a team wants rather than what the author said. Carded evidence also seems to encourage increases in speed of delivery to get around the fact that an author with no page limit's argument is trying to be crammed into 4 min of speech time. Unless its an accommodation for a debater, if you need to share speech docs before a speech, something's probably gone a bit wrong with the world.
On this vein, I've developed a fairly keen annoyance with judges who outright say "no paraphrasing." It's simply not something any team can reasonably adapt to in the context of a tournament. I'm not sure how much the teams of the judges or coaches taking this position would be pleased with me saying I don't listen to cards or I won't listen to a card unless it's read 100% in full (If you line down anything, I call it invalid). It's the #1 thing where I'm getting tempted to pull the trigger on a reciprocity paradigm.

Exchange of evidence is not optional if it is asked for. I will follow the direction of a tournament on the exchange timing, however, absent knowledge of a specific rule, I will not run prep for either side when a reasonable number of sources are requested. Debaters can prep during this time as you should be able to produce sources in a reasonable amount of time and "not prepping" is a bit of a fiction and/or breaks up the flow of the round.

Citations should include a date when presented if that date will be important to the framing of the issue/solution, though it's not a bad practice to include them anyhow. More important, sources should be by author name if they are academic, or publication if journalistic (with the exception of columnists hired for their expertise). This means "Harvard says" is probably incorrect because it's doubtful the institution has an official position on the policy, similarly an academic journal/law review publishes the work of academics who own their advocacy, not the journal. I will usually ask for sources if during the course of the round the claims appear to be presented inconsistently to me or something doesn't sound right, regardless of a challenge, and if the evidence is not presented accurately, act on it.

Speaker points. Factors lending to increased points: Speaking with inflection to emphasize important things, clear organization, c-x used to create ground and/or focus the clash in the round, and telling a very clear story (or under/over view) that adapts to the actual arguments made. Factors leading to decreased points: unclear speaking, prep time theft (if you say end prep, that doesn't mean end prep and do another 10 seconds), making statements/answering answers in c-x, straw-man-ing opponents arguments, claiming opponent drops when answers were made, and, the fastest way for points to plummet, incivility during c-x. Because speaker points are meaningless in out rounds, the only way I can think of addressing incivility is to simply stop flowing the offending team(s) for the rest of the round.

Finally, I flow as completely as I can, generally in enough detail that I could debate with it. However, I'm continually temped to follow a "judge a team as they are judging yours" versus a "judge a team as you would want yours judged" rule. Particularly at high-stakes tournaments, including the TOC, I've had my teams judged by a judge who makes little or no effort to flow. I can't imagine any team at one of those tournaments happy with that type of experience yet those judges still represent them. I think lay-sourced judges and the adaptation required is a good skill and check on the event, but a minimum training and expectation of norms should be communicated to them with an attempt to comply with them. To a certain degree this problem creates a competitive inequity - other teams face the extreme randomness imposed by a judge who does not track arguments as they are made and answered - yet that judge's team avoids it. I've yet to hit the right confluence of events where I'd actually adopt "untrained lay" as a paradigm, but it may happen sometime. [UPDATE: I've gotten to do a few no-real-flow lay judging rounds this year thanks to the increase in lay judges at online tournaments]. Bottom line, if you are bringing judges that are lay, you should probably be debating as if they are your audience.

CONGRESS
The later in the cycle you speak, the more rebuttal your speech should include. Repeating the same points as a prior speaker is probably not your best use of time.

If you speak on a side, vote on that side if there wasn't an amendment. If you abstain, I should understand why you are abstaining (like a subsequent amendment contrary to your position).

I'm not opposed to hearing friendly questions in c-x as a way to advance your side's position if they are done smartly. If your compatriot handles it well, points to you both. If they fumble it, no harm to you and negative for them. C-x doesn't usually factor heavily into my rankings, often just being a tie breaker for people I see as roughly equal in their performance.

For the love of God, if it's not a scenario/morning hour/etc. where full participation on a single issue is expected, call to question already. With expanded questioning now standard, you don't need to speak on everything to stay on my mind. Late cycle speeches rarely offer something new and it's far more likely you will harm yourself with a late speech than help. If you are speaking on the same side in succession it's almost certain you will harm yourself, and opposing a motion to call to question to allow successive speeches on only one side will also reflect as a non-positive.

A good sponsorship speech, particularly one that clarifies vagueness and lays out solvency vs. vaguely talking about the general issue (because, yeah, we know climate change is bad, what about this bill helps fix it), is the easiest speech for me to score well. You have the power to frame the debate because you are establishing the legislative intent of the bill, sometimes in ways that actually move the debate away from people's initially prepped positions.

In a chamber where no one has wanted to sponsor or first negate a bill, especially given you all were able to set a docket, few things make me want to give a total round loss, than getting no speakers and someone moving for a prep-time recess. This happened in the TOC finals two years ago, on every bill. My top ranks went to the people who accepted the responsibility to the debate and their side to give those early speeches.

1. Please stop speaking so fast. I max out at 220 wpm. Past that, I'll only catch bits and pieces of it all, and that is not a good position for any of us.
2. *if you have me in any other debate event than PF or LD: I'm so sorry. I'm not gonna lie to you: this won't go well, and I apologize in advance.
3. Yes, put me on the email chain. krishna.shamanna2401@gmail.com
4. *For LDers: they've been sticking me in ya'll's rounds all year despite my objections, so I've reluctantly become somewhat mildly knowledgeable about how the event works, and can safely say that I won't be the absolute worst judge in this event, and should generally be able to follow along most substance. That said, please treat me like a flay judge, and ease up on the speed and the jargon, because if ya'll start spreading or feel the need to try some new-fangled progressive argumentation, I promise you that I will have no idea what's going on and will either default to the team I can comprehend or literally just flip a coin if I don't know what's going on for either of ya'll.
5. No longer relevant because COVID, but leaving it here for posterity: Bring me food and I'll give you a 30 (just you, not your partner, unless he/she/they brings me food too-- no freebies).

6. Some stuff abt me: I debated in PF for two years for Westwood High School, one of them on the national circuit where I achieved mild success. Now I'm a second year out. Here's what you rly need to know:

7. TLDR: Warrant, weigh, and don't be abusive. Tech>Truth, but don't be offensive and/or dumb. Yes, I disclose, and no, you don't have to.

   Long version:

   1. Yes, I intervene. 2 scenarios where it will happen: Either you're being incredibly offensive (sexist/racist/homophobic, etc.) in the round, or you lie about evidence. To clarify the first: I haven't seen many egregious examples of this type of conduct, but suffice to say: when you cross a line, I will drop you. I don't care if you won the flow-- if you actively contribute to making the debate space more exclusionary, I refuse to reward you for that with a W. To clarify the latter: It's one thing to marginally overstate the extent to which a card supports your contention. It's another thing entirely to cherrypick the part of a card that supports your argument, while ignoring the entire list of answers to your argument made in the next paragraph. In the overwhelming majority of cases, I will simply drop a piece of evidence if I find it to be misconstrued. But if your entire link chain is based on one card, and that card is a straight-up lie (at least the way you read it), I will drop the entire argument from my flow and refuse to evaluate it. I won't necessarily drop you for it, if you have some other source of offense that wins you the round, but you will be at a disadvantage from that point forth, and your speaker points will be dismal. This has happened exactly once so far in my time judging-- please do not be the second, whoever is reading this.
   2. I'm nice on speaker points now. Don't worry too much, just be respectful.

   3. I heavily dislike presumption/default votes, and expect you to not put me in that position. If you're confused about what this means, let me elaborate: A very disturbing situation is one in which I have to view two or more paths to the ballot that are both equally strong. Don't misunderstand-- this most often means you're doing something wrong. For example, if I have two ways to evaluate the round and I can literally flip a coin to figure out who gets the W because you frontline and extend completely separate arguments while doing 0 comparative weighing, I will consider factors such as quality of extensions, which scenario is more of an offensive argument to vote off of, etc. to make my decision. To clarify, this DOES NOT mean I will intervene to give the W to the team I like more in the round. It just means that the team does the better debating in a bad round should win the debate, rather than me reducing the ballot to the outcome of the coin flip-- ergo, no "presuming" anything.

   4. Speak fast if you want (mostly-- but if you're over 250 words per minute, we'll have trouble), as long as you’re clear, and your opponents don’t get spread out of the round (hint: if this is a potential issue, ask if they would like to establish a speed threshold). But if you wanna ignore this, just let me be clear about something: I. Am. An. Extremely. Lazy. Person. I try to intervene as little as possible in debate rounds, and that extends to your speaking. If I cannot understand you, I will not work to understand you-- I shouldn't be doing that anyways. It's your job as a debater to convince me of stuff, so do it right.

   5. CPs/Ks/Theory and progressive whatnot--- Please, don't do it unless there's no other option. There are some situations where it's unavoidable: If your opponents paraphrase like 100000 cards and spread to place a boatload of responses, leaving you with not nearly enough time to make responses and call for evidence and whatnot, sure, run theory about spreading, paraphrasing, or whatever-- but it has to be egregious abuse. And even then, please dumb it down rather reading a shell. This event was designed to be a form of debate accessible to everyone, and I believe these types of arguments, while sometimes necessary, undermine that purpose. Not only do I doubt I can evaluate them correctly, but I'm frankly tired of seeing teams (you know who you are) from big schools with multiple coaches that are flown out every other weekend, go into round and spread theory shells against small-school teams (from predominantly local, lay circuits) about how small schools are supposedly harmed by non-disclosure or paraphrasing (this means I almost never evaluate disclosure theory).

   6. Paraphrasing- I don't understand why people are so uptight about this in PF. Reading direct quotes doesn't mean you can't misrepresent what the evidence says, so the logic behind the "no paraphrasing" requirements that many judges/coaches set doesn't really make sense to me. Again, this event is designed to be accessible to everyone-- in some cases, that necessitates paraphrasing evidence in order to articulate your arguments in the clearest way possible. But independent of that, I think it's important to realize that with the time limits being what they are in this event, sometimes paraphrasing is the only way that you can have enough time to make an argument at a deeper level and really provide a complete narrative for the judge to evaluate. So please, paraphrase if you want, and don't read theory against it unless there's actually an egregious case of misrepresentation that changed the coarse of the whole round.

   7. I shouldn’t have to say this but: Claims/Statistics need warrants before they can be evaluated as arguments, and this applies to all offense and defense in the round. If you extend an impact without extending the warrant (or vice-versa), I count it as dropped-- not weighable. Extending an argument, ESPECIALLY with the new extra minute of summary, should be done cleanly, with everything important mentioned in both summary and final focus. If neither team does this, I won't be happy.

   8. First summary is no longer allowed to skip extending terminal defense. If you're gonna extend it in final focus, I want it in summary as well. This year, the NSDA has literally given you an entire extra minute of summary AND prep time. There is no excuse anymore.

   9. If you want to concede defense to kick out of turns on your case, or read your own defense on your own case to kick those turns (sketch, but I'm cool with it), you need to do it immediately after the opposing speech which made those turns.

   10. Second rebuttal MUST frontline turns, AT A MINIMUM. I think you should frontline defense as well, but I won't penalize you for not doing it. I like overviews, and don’t care if they’re in second rebuttal. Any overview read in first rebuttal MUST be answered in second rebuttal, otherwise it is conceded. You can allocate your time however you want-- I did 2-2 splits throughout my (very short) career, and it usually worked.

   11. Terminal defense extensions are good. Turns are better. You can drop your case at any point in the round and still have a shot, assuming you did it right.

   12. Anything in final focus must be in summary, except weighing (It doesn’t matter to me when you do it, as long as you do it because too many of you don't). Everyone needs to weigh. No one does. Please do. If not, you run the risk that the round becomes a messy stalemate (happens more often than you’d think), forcing me to intervene, and neither you nor I will appreciate the outcome of that.

   13. Weighing is more than saying buzzwords like probability, scope, magnitude, etc. You actually need to explain it. In fact, if you just get to the point and avoid saying those buzzwords (as in just say "Our impacts are more important because 1) we save 150 million people, while they only save 5 thousand, 2) We give you global benefits while they're restricted to China, 3) The chance of accessing X benefit is X% more likely to happen that nuclear war, which is almost possible today because of mutual deterrence"-- ALL WITHOUT SAYING THE WORDS "WE OUTWEIGH ON MAGNITUDE, SCOPE, AND PROBABILITY, BC ___") , I can guarantee you'll have extra time to warrant and even add some more weighing mechanisms, and maybe even some meta-weighing-- and then you'll be EXTREMELY likely to get my ballot, along with a FAT 30 :)).
   1. I realize that a lot of people won't be comfortable with this because it goes against everything ya'll were taught in debate camp and school and whatnot--- so I won't penalize you for it, meaning you COULD get a W30 without doing any of this-- it's just infinitely more likely that you'll fall back on buzzwords as a crutch and do 0 weighing, so be careful.

   14. I strongly prefer that teams collapse in summary/final focus on key issues. You can go line by line in summary if you want, but by the time you get to final focus, I think you should be collapsing on 1-2 voting issues in the round, and CRYSTALLIZING.

   15. Please have your evidence (preferably cut cards, but PDFs are ok if you paraphrase) available when your opponents call for it. As someone who debated with a very unreliable laptop and frequently used paywalled articles, I know sometime it takes some time to pull up evidence, so I'm slightly forgiving with this and will do my best to not be unfair. But try to not take it too far, because it's annoying, and if I'm on a panel, I can guarantee that I'll be one of the only ones who'll be nice about this.

   16. Misconstrued cards will be dropped from the round. If I catch you straight up lying/falsifying, you’ll be able to tell; my face (particularly my eyebrows) is very expressive when I’m angry. Suffice to say: you’ll get an L25, and you’ll know you did, well before I announce it, post it on tabroom, and loudly scold you.

   17. I don’t like jerks, but I love sass!. Please, by all means-- Be funny!!! (if you can haha) Tournaments are too depressing most of the time, for everyone, so ya'll might as well make this an entertaining experience for all of us.

   18. If you are being overtly offensive (as in racist, xenophobic, sexist, etc.), you will get an L25, period.

An argument can be unpersuasive even if not addressed by your opponents.

I value quality of arguments over quantity.

Your speech should be a leisurely stroll, not a furious sprint.

Evidence is nothing without logic.

If you're discussing evidence in the final focus, you're not finally focusing.

Don't worry about calling for cards---I won't.

I find debate jargon tedious.

Civility in discourse is a crucial life skill.

***

Judging experience: 14 years

Debating experience: 9 years

Events, in descending order of experience: PF, WUDC, World Schools, Moot Court, NPDA, CUSID, APDA, Policy, LD, Extemp, Congress

Debate Events

I'm a student at UC Berkeley, class of '24 and an experienced debater in high school. I'm fairly open-minded, so I'll only be going over some broad expectations.

Please perform in front of me as you would in front of a lay judge. As a result, your oration should be clear (spreading is discouraged), your arguments should be easy to follow, and there should be lots of signposting. I am very particular about the soundness of your logic and also the concision of your communication; as such, be careful as to avoid weak reasoning since it will stick out to a sore thumb to me.

General comments:

Please extend your arguments. Sticky defense does not exist.

I have a fairly high bar for speaks. I prefer meaningful pauses over meaningless word vomit.

If you effectively warrant an argument and weigh it, it will help you the most out of everything.

Behavior:

Be civil. Aggressive tactics are fine (in moderation) but blatant disrespect - and anything in bad faith - won't be tolerated. This includes discrimination and round abuse.

I was a former competitor in Original Oratory, Congress, Commentary, and Impromptu. I have also made it to the State Tournament for Impromptu advancing to the quarterfinals round. Also, I was the previous president of the Speech and Debate team at Deer Lakes High School. I have judged for numerous years in the Pittsburgh District and other online tournaments after high school. In 2019-2020, I was the coach for the Deer Lakes High School Speech and Debate team.

Judging Experience

I am very familiar with all of the types of speech events. For debate events, I have judged as a parliamentarian in Congress as well as judged numerous rounds of Public Form debate and Lincoln Douglas. My main area of interest in judging is primarily speech events.

I am a parent judge, but this is my eighth tournament judging for PF, so treat me as such.

Truth > tech; if an argument makes no sense and doesn’t have a clear warrant, I will avoid voting on it.

I can handle some speed, but avoid going over 200wpm at max, and go slower if you want to make sure I understand what you are saying.

Don’t fabricate or exaggerate your evidence, because my common sense will tell me that something is wrong and I won’t want to vote on that argument.

I don’t really listen to cross, so if something happens please tell me so in a speech, or else I won’t be able to vote off of it.

Time your own speeches and prep time, and add me to the email chain.

Don’t be rude, especially in cross. Don’t talk over each other or yell.

Have fun and enjoy!