Lay parent judge; please no spreading. Speak clearly and no aggression/ speaking over eachother.

I am a parent judge who has been judging since 2019. I have some experience judging both speech and LD fields.

Please do not spread, and please provide evidence and signposting during the round. Spreading is the quickest way for you to lose the round- if I can’t follow your arguments, I will likely pick your opponent. Speak clearly, and if running more complex arguments explain your links and impacts well. Use carded evidence.

Above all, please be nice to everyone in the round. Being rude or obnoxious will earn you very low speaks.

Enjoy the round!

Hey everyone! My paradigm is not that complex, but if you have any questions please ask before the round starts.

CCHS '20

NYU 24'

add me to the email chain: louisciano1@gmail.com

Simple Answer: I'm a flow judge who can understand circuit args if you over-explain them a tad more then you usually would.

Back round info:

I did LD for four years of high school mostly at the local level. I am from North Carolina so I am mainly used to traditional debate. I debated on the national circuit mostly for fun..

Speaks:

I'm generous. Don't be mean.

CX:

Clarification questions are ok, but not the purpose of Cross. I think cross can make or break a round because it shows who knows the material better. If someone is wasting your time, tell them to stop. If they don't I will notice.

Speed: ok with speed

prep-time:

Cards: Prep starts when they show you the card. You have to run the clock when you get the card.

Questions: It's ok to ask questions during prep, but do it more for clarification than anything, I'm not going to flow these, so don't be like "my opponent said this during prep". Also, make sure both of you are ok with it before the round starts.

Framework:

I default to util unless you tell me otherwise. I basically only ran util in high school, so if you have a really confusing framework you might want to warrant it a lot (sorry). That doesn't mean only run until. Please mix it up just make it good.

Arguments:

warrant your arguments. So many people just spit out a bunch of random evidence without a warrant. If you do this, I will give it little credibility and won't take it as super good evidence. If your opponent doesn't call it out, that still doesn't mean you win the ballot.

Theory:

I am not super familiar with theory, so it might be a little hard for me to evaluate it. That being said if there is clear abuse, run it, and warrant why. I will vote off of theory if I think you used it correctly. If you are going against a traditional kid don't run theory to just win the round. I will vote off of it, but I won't give you high speaks.

K Debate:

I never ran K's in high school, but I really like them. That being said, Please make sure the K is topical and not just some generic K. When I see that I see someone being lazy. Don't be lazy and write original arguments. Again, not super familiar with K's, but I will do my best to evaluate them.

Phil:

I'm pretty familiar with it, but if you say someones name don't expect me to have read all their books. Again just make it clear for me.

If you have any other questions, please ask.

About me: I debated at Ardrey Kell for 4 years for at the high school level (1 year of PF, 3 years of LD). I focused more on traditional LD due to the nature of the LD circuit in NC, but went a more progressive route my senior year when travel was more an option for our team. I'm currently a senior econ and public health double major at Chapel Hill going into consulting post-grad.

General: IM HELLA RUSTY but still believe in my capabilities to judge well. I very much think debate should be a space where everyone is free to express ideas in any manner they please, and am open to basically any type of advocacy. Case positions that are out of the norm on your particular circuit, deviant styles of argumentation, interpretive dance cases- you do it well and I'll judge it. I really admire people who debate the way they feel they can do the best despite backlash from their circuit/other debaters. That being said, being outwardly racist, sexist or homophobic does not constitute self expression and I have no tolerance for any sort of rudeness that I think would make someone uncomfortable within the debate space. You do you, but know the line.
*DISCLAIMER: Parts of my paradigm are shameless stolen from Joe Bruner, we agree on a lot of things*

Email for email chain: gd09cms@gmail.com

Specifics-

Gestures- So nobody freaks out, here's what these things usually mean.
Nodding vigorously- This usually means I'm a) following the argument well or b) Recognize/like the card or evidence you're using. It does not mean I think you're right or you're automatically about to win.
Smiling- I smile at almost everything, it's nothing special, I'm just a fairly happy person. Please keep making your argument.
Straight Face/Unreadable expression- I understand this point and speaking about it more is probably a waste of your time, please move along with your refutation/arguments. Only exception to this is probably during final speeches when you're reiterating args for crystallization.

Speed- Slow down for tags/author names. Please don't start off full speed, you can work your way up to whatever speed works for you. I am not averse to yelling clear if you are being unclear, but after 2/3 times I will probably stop flowing. If you are going fast, I expect you to case flash your opponent if they ask though the trend of emailing cases is pretty prevalent so I'd rather you do that for them if you're emailing it to me too.

V/VC- I hate the Value/Value Criterion so much. I have yet to meet a single individual on earth who weighs arguments under a single standard, and personally I feel like this adherence to a single standard takes away from the debate more often than not. If you take it out of your case and just weigh impacts or argue that you analytically prove the resolution true, you'll probably do better in front of me. If you want me to explain this more, ask me, but this is what it is. I'm going to explain it more here since I get asked so much: I do not think it is either philosophical or realistic to appeal to only one criterion to the exclusion of all others when making decisions, and I don't think most authors think so either. So I have a strong preference against hearing you claim stuff like "only explicit violations of categorical imperative matter" or "any miniscule risk of extinction causes you to vote aff if I solve at all.

At the same time, I'm not trying to be prejudiced against traditional LDers who are used to relying on this heavily, so if you DO decide to use it, please be extremely clear on what the link between the Value and Value Criterion is, and especially what the link between your contentions and your value criterion is. Even better would be if you actually supplied a good reason the truth of the resolution hinges on your value above all else. If this isn't clear and you're using a V/VC and spending tons of time talking about your framework, I'll have a really hard time voting for you, even if you appear to be winning.

Theory- I CAN understand theory arguments, I know the parts of a shell and have engaged in theory debate once/twice but since I debated in North Carolina I'm not a "theory hack". If your strat involves multiple shells for time suck OR for avoiding engaging with more foreign substance level args, you will not have a fun time in front of me. THAT BEING SAID- in cases of actual abuse I don't mind evaluating theory. ALSO NO THEORY THAT IS NOT IN A SHELL FORMAT (other than in case spikes)- I don't care to figure out where your magical blip theory argument applies towards your opponents case in a high power round.

Topicality- I don't have as much of an issue with this, and actually don't mind it as much as theory. But I also find it fairly tedious- run it if you need to.

Substance:Coming from NC, I really felt pigeonholed a lot of the times in terms of argumentation, purely because of the clash between what I wanted to run/ what worked in front of the judging pool. As a result of having to write more traditional cases, I ended up really enjoying philosophy that isn't just PoMo, so any case that utilizes philosophical elements well will do well in front of me. Util is cool, I have grown to become a larger fan of Kant, and any spins on traditional Deon are appreciated. I'm also a big fan on ancient greeks (Aristotle, Plato, etc).

~Moral Skep: No thank you~ *This is mostly because I got sick of hearing people butcher, misinterpret/shit on Nietzsche*

I don't like it when people say they don't have to prove solvency- If you don't understand what this means/think it's unfair PLEASE ask me to explain, this is something I feel fairly passionate about.

K's/CPs/Disads/Performance/K affs- I ADORE Kritiks and Kritik literature. I spent a good amount of time reading K lit my junior/senior year and really found myself expanding my horizons of thought. I think they help improve critical thinking, are valid forms of argumentation and I used them more my senior year as I traveled. I do expect the K to have all the parts of a K, but those parts do not have to be explicitly stated, I can follow the structure well. A strong yes to K affs as well- I've had some of my most enjoyable debates using K affs. If the K is something more obscure (Lacan, DnG, whatever), more explanation is good.

I would like debaters to better explain what the real-world impacts and solvency of voting for the K are. My ballot is probably not actually preventing extinction or ending neoliberalism. I would like debaters to better articulate what REALLY HAPPENS when I vote for either side in K rounds as opposed to reading "cap causes extinction" or "structural oppression first duty to oppose" cards. Neoliberalism and Capitalism are probably bad and Racism and Sexism certainly are, but I the trend of debaters not clearly articulating what the PRE-FIAT impact is on an argument that is supposedly PRE-FIAT is alive and well so please don't contribute to it.

CPs and Disads are great tools in the proverbial toolbox if they are relevant- except politics Disads. I have never seen a good politics disad, if you really think you can change my mind, I won't stop you from running it but no promises.

I have literally only ever debated against one performance/narrative debater, but if that's your style go for it, I think the perspectives that these types of advocacies bring are really nice and make for interesting debates.

Evidence: I am generally very trusting of the evidence that people bring into round, in the sense that I believe anyone who is serious about competing and not an utter douchebag would not falsify evidence. If you are accused of messing with evidence, reading a card the way a way it's not supposed to be read, etc. AND I call for the card and see your opponent is right about that accusation, expect that to be reflected in your speaker points. I will call for cards that are very important to your advocacy if they are heavily contested, otherwise I trust that your stats are true.

Voting Issues: These are critical in how I make a decision, and I prefer them to be a more or less line by line. Tell me what arguments you think you are winning/are extending, why they matter more than your opponent's and the impacts coming off of them.

Speaker points- Expect fairly high speaker points unless you're insufferable in round.
That being said, surefire ways to get 30's include
- Using Eastern philosophy in case (except Mozi, I hate Mozi- someone I had beef with on the circuit used to run him a lot)
- Using Nietzsche/ Paulo Freire in case
- Quoting Childish Gambino at any point during the round, including CX

I'm a huge YuGiOh buff- if you take out your opponents case in 5 points (can be turns, blocks, whatever) and then say 'I HAVE SUMMONED EXODIA THE FORIBIDDEN ONE" that's basically an automatic win with a 30 unless your 5 arguments are not good. Take the gamble if you're a real one.

Other judges seem to dock excessive points from aggressive women and minority debaters, so if you are a woman or a minority and debate especially aggressively, I will give you additional speaker points as long as you still remain polite and don't engage in personal attacks. I appreciate sass :)

Surefire ways to get me to hate you
- Look down on an opponent for the style of debate they do in round
- Completely destroy someone past the point that is necessary for victory simply for the LOLz

That's about it. I look forward to judging rounds, if you have any other q's feel free to ask me in round, happy debating!

I have judged LD for a year. I will look for good, strong arguments with good warrants and impacts. By speaking a little slower, clearly, and precisely, it will help with my decision.

Barkley Forum Update (not debate related): I'm a student at Emory right now (chemistry and premed). If you have any questions about Emory in general I'd be happy to answer them for you! Feel free to ask me stuff before or after the round (but please not during lmao).

Other Barkley Forum Update (this one's actually debate related):I haven't judged an LD round in almost a year now (I judged some policy over the summer) and I don't coach anyone so it's been a minute. Please slow down a little bit to probably 80% of your max speed instead of full circuit spreading because I don't want to miss anything y'all are saying. Also I am not as well versed in a lot of the acronyms anymore in circuit debate (particularly tricks) so please take the time to say the full names of things. I will still be able to evaluate the rounds properly just as well as I have been but my vocabulary isn't the same anymore so please explain all the terms you need to (you know what they are).

Here's my full paradigm so plz read

My email is cyprian.dumas@gmail.com. If you ask me for my email I'm gonna assume you didn't read my paradigm.

I did national circuit LD in high school and I primarily ran policy stuff, theory, t, and tricks (I'm prob best for judging these arguments). You can prob put me as a 1 for these on your pref sheets.

I'm down with judging phil and k debate too but I'm not familiar with a lot of the lit (especially pomo k's) so if you're running that please overexplain. You can prob put me as a 2 or 3 for these based on how confusing your lit is but you should probably put me as a 5 if you're running exclusively pomo.

This should go without saying but don't be offensive. You should also try to avoid being a jerk in general because this is supposed to be an enjoyable activity.

Tricks debate is cool but there's some things I'll interfere on there. First, you don't get to change speech times and I evaluate all five speeches. Don't bring in stuff from outside of the round (except disclosure stuff I guess but I'll get to that more in a second). That'll be met with an L and minimum speaks. Everything in this paragraph is non-negotiable.

I'll vote on disclosure theory but I really don't like it at all especially if it's run against someone with substantially less resources than the person running it. Don't expect your speaks to look good if you go for disclosure theory against a stock position.

A claim, warrant, and impact for EVERY argument you want me to evaluate at the end of the round each have to be extended in EVERY speech as well.

Debate should be a safe space for everyone involved. If you're reading something that could be potentially triggering or sensitive for someone please ask everyone involved in the round if they are ok with the material being read.

I'm not a fan of really long paradigms (this one's already pushing it) so I'm not gonna write out every single nitpicky thing for all your RVI warrants and framework weighing and all that other stuff. So PLEASE ask me for specifics in round. I'm looking forward to judging your debate. Good luck and have fun!

Please feel free to ask me questions about my paradigm before the round starts. For email chains: anguse@live.unc.edu. I did LD for four years with North Meck HS and NCSSM. Currently double majoring in Philosophy and Math at UNC.

General

- Speed is fine up to the point where you have to resort to breathing techniques. This does not mean go the same speed you would and cause yourself to pass out.

- Especially in circuit debate – post rounding is a-ok by me. I know I don’t have as much experience with circuit LD, and so the more feedback I get and engagement on my judging, the better I think I am going to be in the future for it.

- I know this makes me sound super lay, but like, PLZ do not read me whatever boring stock util. case you have prepped for lay judges, I hear about enough of this on the local circuit – I want to see something exciting.

-Your job is to write my ballot for me.

Authors I am very comfortable with: DnG, Heidegger, Baudrillard, Foucault, Kant, Adorno.

Intervention

I take as minimal an approach to judge intervention as possible. However, there are certain standards for what I just will not accept:

-New in the 2; I won’t drop you but I don’t flow new arguments in the 2. Not flowing it means it didn’t happen.

-Blatantly false claims: racism good, climate change not real, etc.

Plans and CPs: I’m not the biggest fan of these sorts of debates but I’ll certainly put up with it. Just make sure you execute well.

Policy vs Policy: Compare evidence quality (authors, methodology, sample size, etc.). I could not possible care less about the number of cards you have compared to your opponent.

Topicality: CPs must be competitive. There are a few ways I have seen this violated:

- CP: do the AFF except some absurdly minimal aspect;

- CP not mutually exclusive with the AC

- Resolution doesn’t spec. an actor, but the CP only changes the actor. This is especially relevant to ACs which don’t provide a plan. This is just a more specific case of the first example and – I think – a more egregious violation.

Additionally, please give cards for T; I won’t drop you if you don’t, but your speaks will probably suffer. The more absurdly technical the T debate, the better. Conditional CPs are immensely cringe. I’m also fine with Nebel T, watching people cry about how they might not be able to read an absurdly specific plan is hilarious.

K Debate

I’m most comfortable with Cap Ks, but if you read me cards from Tankies, Maoists, or the like… RIP your speaks. An important note in K debate is please do not try to obfuscate your way to victory.

- Signpost and go line-by-line.

- The more explicit the link the better.

- What does the K do or accomplish concretely? (K-Affs especially)

- Unless it makes sense in lieu of your FW, I’ll prolyl dock your speaks for reading me HuffPo, etc.

- Give a framework for the K!

- If you struggle with providing examples when asked in CX, it probably tells me you have no idea what you’re talking about.

I’ll give you 30 speaks if you read some Neg-Dialectics K about how you should always negate because affirming always traps concepts in a fashion which runs opposite to the dialectical Idea of truth. It would be really funny and would make my day.

FW Debate

I’m probably most comfortable with this. I did a lot of Kant FWs in my time, so I’ll be very comfortable with those. Consequently, I am fine with the idea of not having impact calculus – but only in rounds where you have demonstrated that consequences need not be considered; the default in debate seems to be some sort of util.

I am not a fan of testing the plausibility of a theory based on how a majority of people feel about it (something about Ideology and so on and so forth *sniff*).

Meta-ethics are dope and cool.

I will not penalize you on neg. for just going insane on reading turns and conceding FW, unless you do something insanely stupid like concede a Kant FW and then read impact turns (which I have seen people do). Like???

LOCAL TOURNAMENTS: FOR THE LOVE OF GOD WARRANT YOUR FW IN A SUBSTANTIVE MANNER. If you don’t, do not expect to get above a 28.

Theory Debates

Go ahead, but I don’t have a lot of experience here so don’t be surprised if it goes bad for you (I mean it will still be my fault, but just know it’s likely to happen). If you do read theory: PLEASE stay away from jargon! I am putting in the work to better understand the evaluation of theory debates, but I’m not quite there.

Spikes: fine. A prirois: cringe. NIBs: cringe. Burdens: fine. Triggers: cringe. I’m not chill with RVIs just yet until I feel I have a better handle on them. Sorry .

.

I am a parent judge and this is my 3rd year judging PF and LD.

Most rounds that I have judged in the past are very close calls, never an easy / clear-cut decision. So, I take a lot of notes during the rounds, and take time reflecting on both sides before making a final decision. And so a not-too-crazy speed of delivery works best for me. If you go super-fast, you might lose me.

Also, a good set of definitions at the beginning of the debate has been helpful for me in following along on some of the not-too-familiar topics.

I am also not a big fan of teams who use sarcasm or overly aggressive speech to put down their opponents. I value a healthy and respectful debate. So the team who is able to defend their values while attacking their opponent’s case in an effective, yet respectful manner usually wins my vote!

Happy Debating!!

I am a parent judge who has been judging in the local circuit since 2019. I have completed NFHS Adjudicating Speech and Debate training. While I primarily judge LD, I have experience judging Speech and PF as well.

My professional background is in Environmental Health and Safety and I hold a Master’s Degree in Public Health from New York Medical College.

No spreading please as I want to be able to understand your argument. Please don’t use fast talking to load in too many arguments, I am looking for clear, well-articulated and concise arguments. I am also not a fan of Progressive Theory arguments as I believe they are not in the spirit of the history or traditional style of the Lincoln-Douglas debate.

I like strongly warranted arguments. I enjoy when you tell me what to vote for as I believe it helps in a debater’s argument development. For me a good debater will use clear logic, well-paced speaking, have a consistent and thoughtful case and be respectful and courteous to their opponent. I do not tolerate rudeness to others.

Good luck and have fun!

When judging any kind of debate, I prefer for competitors to remain on topic and avoid spreading. I consider it indicative of a lack of preparation when a competitor does not use the majority of their time. Although I prepare for each tournament by familiarizing myself with each topic, my decisions are based on which side is able to best convince me of their argument. I expect competitors opinions to be validated by sources and proof. While I love spirited debate, I expect competitors to maintain respectful demeanor and professionalism throughout the round. 

In speech and interpretation events, I not only consider what happens in each round, but also the standard of competition throughout the season.

Jeevan Machimada - Judging Paradigm for LD debate

I have been judging various forms of speech and debate for high school students for the past 3 years

In addition to the required traits of a judge – to be unbiased, fair, and not be influenced by my opinion on the subject being debated, I have the following judging philosophy and paradigms:

· I want the debater to be confident an articulate

· I value education, argumentation and persuasion

· Argument points must be relevant and not very repetitive

· I value supporting evidence

· I prefer polite communication, but would encourage a semi-aggressive rebuttal

Regards

Jeevan

My paradigm is pretty simple:

I don't really like spreading but if you want to I'll tolerate it but if I don't hear something, it wasn't said.

I prefer clear, concise arguments and cases. Getting overly convoluted could but won't necessarily hurt you. If I don't understand your argument, it's a bad argument.

I will not tolerate rudeness toward your opponent even if their argument is objectively the dumbest thing ever stated in history.

I judge first on the merit of one's arguments and second on speaking skill. That being said, speaking skill does make your argument sound like it has more merit.

Have a consistent value framework in LD.

I do my best to keep my own politics out of the debate, so you can get a little riskier with your evidence.

Analysis is very important but be prepared to have stats to back it.

I'm not very familiar with K's so run them at your own peril.

I look forward to judging your round,

Keith

Hello,

I am a volunteer judge for my son's school in speech and debate events. Like most mercenaries, I go when and where I am asked. I am a trial by fire judge for better or worse. I have little to no formal training in speech or debate. Send me a short PDF or video clip and voila, I'm the expert. Well maybe not the expert, but I judge objectively. Hopefully my comments and clear and helpful.

Speech Events: Novice Reading, Story Telling, Dramatic/Humorous/Duo Interpretation, Declamation, Extemporaneous/Informative/Impromptu Speaking

Compulsories - adhere to any event compulsories. Cite titles and authors of reference pieces. Read from script if required, even if you know it by heart. Follow, but don't be afraid to stretch (grace period), time limits.

Vocal - Speak in articulate ??? at a pace that is easy to follow. Vary pace in an appropriate manor, but do not loose control of enunciation.

Physical - Comfortably use as much of the room as possible if movement is allowed. Keep one foot planted if movement is restricted. Always use facial animations and craft grand gestures to emphasize important moments of your performance.

Debate

Lincoln Douglas

Public Forum

Past Experience: I debated in North Carolina from 2012-2016. I’m currently a PhD student in robotics and AI ethics at UT Austin and previously attended MIT, and did a concentration in Latin American politics and political philosophy. I was the district champion in the Tarheel East District and went to nationals my senior year, qualified for CFLs my junior and senior year, and placed 3rd at States my senior year. I made it to out rounds at Wake Forest. I've been judging/coaching off and on since 2016. I debated in both traditional and progressive styles, and have no implicit preference between the two. Both paradigms are below:

Traditional Paradigm: I’ll evaluate any argument you make in the context you make it. That being said, don’t take advantage of my paradigm to be abusive. If you use speed to overwhelm your opponent or employ other tricky or gimmicky strategies, I will probably be annoyed (as will your opponent) – I like to see actual clash of arguments, not a race to give the most arguments. The faster you talk, the higher burden you have to make thoughtful, powerful arguments, not just a multitude of weak ones. I can understand spread fine, but given the virtual format, spreading is probably a suboptimal strategy.

I give higher weight to framework consistency over contention level/statistical disputes – if you are clearly winning the framework debate, link your framework to the resolution, and can impact off it effectively, you’ll almost certainly get the win. I don’t expect either debater to be an expert on the literature, so focus more on winning the core of the value criterion debate than specific pieces of evidence. I won’t drop you for dropping a card if you use that time to extend meaningful impacts directly linked to the resolution. Tell me what I should care about and why.

For speaker points: everyone starts out with a 28 in my book. If you do good things (clear argument structure, signposting, well organized rebuttals [I LOVE when debaters number/label their arguments for me, it makes the flow much neater], etc.) I’ll reward you. If you do bad things (e.g. poor organization in your rebuttal) I’ll dock points. I’ll clearly explain my reasoning on the ballot and am happy to give additional feedback if requested. Given the virtual format, I’ll pay more attention to argument structure than how you actually sound and in general am lenient with speaker points.

Acknowledgement: Historically, women and minorities have been docked points in debate* for coming off "too aggressive," etc. I won't do that. Be as aggressive as you want.

* http://vbriefly.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Tartakovsky_Tabroom_Analysis.pdf

Quote Kanye, get a 30**. That's the rule.

**unless you're losing and the tournament doesn't allow low point wins. Regardless, I'll give you the max speaks I can.

Note: you can convincingly win cross-examination without being condescending. Make strong arguments and ask difficult questions/put your opponent on the spot, but there's a difference between aggression and condescension.

I’m excited to hear your cases, just be respectful to your opponent and let’s have some fun!

for file exchange/comments/questions/concerns/additional feedback: kyle.morgenstein@gmail.com

Progressive Stuff, if that's your thing:

TLDR: do whatever you want, but I'm a hard ass about links. Otherwise, you can probably convince me to vote on almost anything. Tech > truth, usually. Ask me to clarify if this matters to you.

In general: Reading a card is not a warrant. Reading a card AND PROVIDING ANALYSIS is a warrant. Explain to me the mechanism for how you justify your claims. Why should I prefer your study over theirs? Why should I prefer this analytic over emperics? I care more about your link tree than about whether or not you get to existential impacts.

Kritiks: I love 'em, K affs are fine, and I can generally follow the literature, just make sure you slow down for the links. I have a very high standard for links (in general, but especially with Ks) so make sure those are clear. Explicitly tell me what the roll of the ballot is. Why does voting for the K matter, and why is that more important than arguing the resolution at face value? My only pet peeve with K debaters is if your opponent clearly can't/doesn't understand the argument. If that happens just slow down a little, make it clear; you'll do better in front of me if your opponent understands why they're losing to the K than if you just spread DnG while your opponent fights back tears. Otherwise, I'll evaluate any argument you make in front of me if you can justify it/it isn't literally racist/sexist/etc.

Theory: Please don't make me evaluate theory that isn't in standard shell form. Give me the violation, link, impact, role of the ballot, etc., and I'm happy enough. I'm kind of bored of the same education and fairness arguments. If an actual violation happened and you're using theory defensively, fine, but if you're going for theory as a strategy at least make it interesting.

Topicality: yeah fine, do what you want.

LARP/Policy Stuff (Plans, CPs, Disads, Multiple Advocacies, etc.): Same as before, I'm happy to evaluate it, just make the links clear and if your opponent is struggling to keep up, slow down on the tags/flash case.

Tricks: I'd rather you didn't. But if you do, justify it. I'll let you run your spike if it's clear why you deserve it. I'm not going to give you the win because you fit in the 8 words it takes to say "aff gets RVIs cuz time skew is unfair" but debate is a game and I'll evaluate any strategy you want to try to use to win it.

Performance Stuff: Honestly I think these type of debates are super interesting and I'm happy to vote for it if your link is good (I'm a broken record about links, I know). If you have a trad opponent I expect you to take the time to explain it to them: if you're going to argue that debate space is best filled by this performance and lead to XYZ real world impacts, then making sure we're all along for the ride is key. This is maybe the only type of argument for which I expect you to persuade me is authentic.

Role of the Ballot: lol you tell me. To me it's just pressing a button but if it means something more significant than that, tell me about it.

I’m a parent who’s judged at local tournaments (in both speech and debate events) for the past four years.

First, please speak slowly and clearly- it’s a lot easier for me to judge if I can understand what you are saying.

I do flow rounds. Please make sure you have clear evidence supporting your claims. It’s also important that you explain why your argument is stronger or more relevant (or why your opponent’s case isn’t accurate). Telling me something is true won’t make me believe it unless you have support.

Most importantly, please show me and your opponent the same kind of respect as you would an in-person tournament. That means no multi-tasking, side conversations, eating, etc. Mute your line when your opponent is speaking-that'll make things easier for all of us.

Thank you!

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 ex-traditional policy debate coach (Stock issues judge) who has been coaching LD since 1990. I usually administrate tournaments rather than judge except when I have been at Catholic Nat's and NSDA Nat's.

Speed: Adapt to the judge who prefers a few well-developed arguments to spreading. I will flow as fast as I can, but it is up to you to communicate to me the compelling/persuasive reasons why you should earn the ballot. Speak clearly and articulate your words and you'll do fine.

Flex Prep. No. Speak within the time constraints and use prep time to see Evidence.

Evidence Challenge: If you doubt the veracity of evidence, then challenge it at the next available opportunity. Remember evidence challenges are all or none. If the evidence has been proven to be altered or conjured, then your opponent loses. If the evidence is verifiable and has NOT been materially altered, then you lose for the specious challenge.

Arguments: A few well-reasoned claims, warrants, and impacts are very persuasive as opposed to a laundry list of underdeveloped assertions/arguments.

Theory Arguments: Not a big fan of sitting in judgment of the topic and/or its framers with critiques. But I do weigh the issue of topicality as germane if made during the constructives.

Philosophy: It's been labeled Value debate for a reason. I encourage the discussion of scholarly philosophies.

Framework: There is a Value that each side is pursuing as their goal. There is a value criterion that is used to measure the accrual of the VP. The last steps include why the Value is superior and why the VC is the best way to measure that value.

Decision-Rule. While repetition often aids learning, I prefer that you tell me what the established standard for judging the round has been and why your arguments have met/exceeded the threshold. Write the ballot for me.

PFD: I have coached and judged PFD since the event started.

I prefer a framework and a few well-developed arguments to the spread. Point keywords as you read your case. Be polite in C-X and ask closed-ended questions. Tell me why your arguments are better by weighing impacts.

Ryan Parimi - Lincoln-Douglas Paradigm

Email: ryan.parimi@gmail.com

About me:

• Recent college grad--majored in English with minors in German, Chinese, and Business. Went to a very conservative school. Taking a gap year before law school.
• College and high school debate coach/teacher (LD, PF, Parli)
• High school and middle school mock trial coach
• College moot court coach
• Founded my university's debate program
• Founded a speech and debate camp in Jakarta, Indonesia
• Summer debate instructor at Yale, Drew, and U. of Washington

General Debate Stuff:

• A coach once called me a debate "hipster"; though I enjoy a lot of the more "progressive" arguments, my philosophy of debate still centers on clear arguments and conversational, persuasive speech. After all, you’re trying to win me—not just win arguments in a vacuum. I want to be convinced. Talk to me, don't just talk at me.
• I like aspects of both traditional and circuit debate. I wish the traditional community wouldn't let its fear of everything turning into policy keep it from adopting some helpful circuit norms, and I wish the circuit community would stop trying to convince itself that a total departure from traditional debate turns the activity into anything but an esoteric game with no real-life application.
• Examples of cases that would be great for my taste: a Cap K that links reasonably to the resolution, argued in a more traditional style; a traditional case that demonstrates a deep understanding of the philosophy behind its framework; a tech case that restores my faith in humanity by making semi-reasonable arguments and doesn't force me to flow 10 subpoints of copy-paste garbage from the debate wiki.
• Tech over truth (within reason). You should probably run your tech case for me if you're torn between tech and lay.
• I ♥ when impacts, late-round weighing, and voters connect to your framing.
• LARP begins and ends with an L :)
• I actually know all of the NSDA's evidence rules.

Speed:

• Prioritize clarity over speed. Spreading is lame, but I can flow it and won't vote you down solely because you chose to spread. If you spread, please be good at it: your articulation better not go down the drain, you better stay organized, etc. Bad spreading will tank your speaker points. Email me your case or give me a printed copy before the round if you plan on spreading.

Framework:

• I’m fine with traditional and more modern frameworks. Just make whatever you’re using clear. Be aware that I have a very good understanding of the philosophy behind most frameworks...don't try to BS me on Kant or Rawls or something. I will know. That being said, I believe it's on the debaters to call each other out on stuff like that. I'm going to flow it unless it's crazy.

• Please don't throw the framework debate away. It's what makes LD special.

Kritiks and Theory:

• I haven't judged a ton of Ks because I come from a pretty traditional circuit, but a well-developed K could certainly convince me. Similar to the philosophy behind traditional frameworks, I'm familiar with the critical theories behind most Ks.

• Theory arguments are fine when there is actual abuse--just explain clearly. Don't throw in an RVI just because, save those for something truly egregious.
• I hate disclo and will not vote on it with one exception. Look: disclo sucks, and I'm not even sure why we still let people get away with trying to win on disclo in 2024. Part of debate is learning how to analyze and respond to arguments on the fly. Yes, it's hard. No, I'm not going to give you a win for whining about it being hard. Here's the one exception: if you didn't share your case and you're super spreading (like 400 wpm) to the point where flowing is literally impossible, I will give you the L if your opponent runs disclo.

Other random stuff:

• I like reading Alexander Pope, collecting shoes, listening to Chinese rap, and exploring Marxist criticism.

• I will follow the NSDA rules for LD whenever questions come up that the rules address. I follow tradition/best practices for anything else. If you have questions about specific preferences, just ask before the round.

I have been judging and coaching primarily LD, PF, and Policy debate for the past 28 years.

My preference is a moderate style of debate. Although, I can, and will keep up at any speed. I flow while judging and therefore appreciate the use by competitors of signposting.

Clearly state your Value Premise and Value Criterion. Let me know how they are related. And, be sure that your observations/contentions relate to your VP and your VC.

Be aware that definitions are important. An opponent may win a round by emphasis on the definitions of one or two key words in the resolution.

I am currently the debate coach at Middle College High School at Durham Technical Community College, a position that I have held since 2005. I started my debate coaching in 1997 at Hillside High School in Durham, NC. And, I was the first paid faculty debate coach at East Chapel Hill High School in the year 2000 under the leadership of principal Dave Thaden.

Education:

UNC-W (MALS) Master of Arts in Liberal Studies.

UNC-CH (NC Teach Graduate Program) Major, Education.

UNC-CH (BA) Subject Major, American History.

International Baccalaureate Certificate in North and South American History -

Nashville, TN

Victoria, Canada

Certified in Personal Financial Literacy from www.wise-ny.org/

My last paradigm was way overdue for a rehaul. Here are some things:

1. I'm an Emory student majoring in philosophy and biology. I love transhumanism.

2. I hate theory and will almost never vote on it unless it is actual abuse. I have seen rounds where someone runs theory because the aff didn't say resolved, but when asked in cross fire clarified. Don't run theory in front of my unless necessary.

3. Have a value structure.

4. On balance, I prefer traditional debate + speed. However, I understand for the most part this isn't always the case.

5. Impact yourself.

6. If I say clear more than once, I will probably dock speaker points. Also, if something isn't on my flow, I won't vote for it even if you said it.

7. Don't argue with me about my decision. Ask questions, clarifications, but know that my decision is final and can't be changed.

Finally, I understand this isn't really a paradigm, moreso a preference list. Ask me questions if you can intuit the answer from this. :)

Gabriel, He/Him/His, sandovg65@gmail.com

UPDATE ASU CONGRESS 2024: I've debated congress before but this is only my second time judging it. I'm a debate judge so focusing on the cohesiveness of your arg is my priority but speaking also matters (can't get a 5 or 6 on arg alone). Happy to answer questions pre-round.

Intro

I debated Policy for 4 years at both the state and national level, and have experience judging all three debate events. I was an assistant Public Forum coach for a year and have also helped coach Policy students. I'm fine with spreading as long as you slow down for your analytics-- if it's unintelligible, I won't flow it. Just make it really clear when you're transitioning from one idea to another.

I don't trust tabroom completely anymore, so if you have any issues seeing ballots/ anything else with my profile, just email me, I will have the rfd's all saved in a word doc.

Because this is a concern I've heard expressed from some debaters I know-- if I'm not looking at you, it's a good sign, because it means I'm flowing. If I am looking at you, I'm trying to figure out what on Earth you are saying, so I can try to flow it.

Please put me on the email chain.

FOR LD/POLICY (pfers scroll to the bottom):

On Policy and "traditional" args

Theory/ Topicality: I'm cool with this stuff if and only if it is run when necessary. Be careful with theory as it isn't always your friend-- sometimes it is just a time waster. For example, I don't like it when teams run disclosure just cause they're used to it/good at it. Run it if the aff is tricky and them not disclosing actually hurts how you are able to debate-- you need to prove that it is your education at stake if you want to run disclosure in front of me. Truth over tech for sure when it comes to theory.

Topicality I have more patience for (I'm more willing to vote on it for tech-based reasons) but also you need to prove to me why it's bad for debate if the aff is untopical. I'm not going to vote on theory or t just because the aff drops one of your million analytics--but I will vote on them if I feel like you've proven to me the world of debate will be better adhering to your norms. I actually really like topicality when it's run properly I just think that often times it's run as a time suck which makes me sad.

Other Policy args: Framework is good. Disads are good. CP's are good (but I am sure to be considerate of the aff and the potential harm that ridiculous CP's bring, especially if aff makes args for itself). "Traditional" style LD debates are good. Policy style debates are good.

Everything is pretty much good with me if it doesn't undermine the well-being of your fellow debaters or marginalized groups in some way. I also value education in the debate space VERY highly-- don't stifle it.

Tricks-- If you have to rely on tricks to win a debate round, you should probably strike me.

On K Debates

I'm cool with K debates and think that if done right they are some of the most educational debates. I do have one rule, however. Either a K aff should be semi-related to the resolution or the aff debater needs to devote a couple seconds to telling me why the K takes preference to the resolution. I feel like most debaters do this, so it's not normally an issue, but if you don't I think then it's fair game for the neg to fight for resolutional debate. Basically, I go into the round prepared to vote based off the resolution, but I will do differently if it is successfully argued otherwise.

I've both debated K's and debated against K's before, BUT if you read anything too critical, consider summarizing it briefly for me in lay terms-- if I don't know what it is, it'll help me out, and if I do, then it'll boost your speaks because it shows me you can adapt to lay debate with critical arguments. Putting it into a "real-world" perspective will highlight to me why this argument matters.

Overall I think K debates are great and are always better if they're a K you run passionately than if they're the old Cap K you pulled from a camp file 2 years ago and shoved a link card on.

On Voters/ how you should debate

I love both traditional debates and non-traditional-- but I need you to include voters in your rebuttals that tell me why I should consider voting for you. These voters should be for strats that you have carried throughout the round and fleshed out well-- it's okay to condense down to a couple key arguments if you know they can win you the round. What's not okay is just dropping your opponent's arguments without either making it clear to me why they don't matter in the context of the round or neglecting to tell me why the issues you have selected are the critical talking points of the round and deserve all of my attention. There are usually so many arguments in the round, and having each team tell me what they value as the most important argument and why said argument is a voter makes it much easier for me to give a ballot (this means you should condense, even if you are aff, don't try to go for everything, it never ends well). Without voters, you risk me voting on whatever issues I think are most important, and who knows if that will benefit you or not.

Again, tell me exactly WHAT you did that I should focus most on and WHY it is worthy of a ballot. I can look through my flows and evaluate the technical aspect of the debate myself-- what I can not do myself is determine which arguments are most important without bias. Please don't make me even come close to having to rely on my personal opinions to decide a round.

Overall, debate is a game, somebody will win, and somebody will lose. I love seeing different strategies and approaches to it-- that's what makes debate fun. That being said, no game should ever come at the expense of hurting somebody personally, so if there are abusive attacks and/or harmful arguments at the expense of a marginalized group/ a debater, I will take it very seriously both in the administration of the space and with my ballot.

Always feel free to ask me questions before round.

Speaks Chart (for tournaments with decimal speaks):

30: I feel lucky to have judged you because you are just that good.

29.7-29.9: Your performance "wowed" me, good on the flow, good at speaking, and with exciting argumentation.

29.3-29.6: Great debaters.

28.5-29.2: Good debaters and good at speaking.

28-28.4: Good debaters with room for improvement on speaking.

27.5-27.9: You made a couple of errors, but nothing that significantly frustrated me.

27-27.4: You made several errors, but I can see a semblance of strategy.

26.5-26.9: You made several technical errors that have me questioning if you really ever had a path to the ballot.

26 or lower: You said something really offensive/made the debate space actively bad.

FOR PF:

1) Weighing is really important!!!! Teams NEED to tell me how to vote-- I go in to the round open to voting for just about anything (no racist, homophobic, etc. arguments). Telling me how to vote and providing me with evidence/args to back up your claim that you have the best voters is key to my ballot. Especially in debates with lots of args all across the board-- I need voters so that I can see what you think is most important about the round. Teams weighing helps make my ballot so much easier.

2) Refute your opponent's arguments in addition to extending your own, but also don't try to go for everything in your final focus. CONDENSE! PLEASE!

3) As a former policy debater, I'm decent with speed, but be careful transitioning too fast between contentions/ analytics. Those fast transitions are what can make PF hard to flow. Basically just slow down to sign post so I put things on my flow properly. Maybe one day PF will pick up flashing and I can delete this.

4) Have arguments that are backed up by both evidence and analytics. I'm not going to vote solely on unwarranted claims, but I'm also not going to vote for you because you threw a bunch of authors at me and just said "figure it out." Evidence debates are only good if your opponent's evidence is unethical/incorrect, and rarely are good when your evidence is just "better."

5) I'm not the biggest fan of sticky defense or not frontlining defense in second rebuttal, but I understand that PF speeches are short and you're in a time crunch, so I won't hold these things against you. All offense must be frontlined in second rebuttal, however. No new arguments in second final focus, ever!

I'm not a fan of PF cross x and there is a pretty big chance I won't evaluate it unless things that are said come up again in later speeches. I will listen to it, but probably won't put anything down on my flow based solely off of what I hear in cross. Teams being nice, clear, and not turning cross X into a garbled mess often times get rewarded with high speaks from me in this event.

If you have more questions you can ask me before the round. I implement the same speaks chart as listed in the LD/Policy section (if there are decimal speaks).

(this paradigm was written with the assistance of my son)

Hi! I am a parent judge who has been judging here and there for the last 1 year. I am a typical lay judge and thus, adjust your arguments and style as such.

Speed: Don't spread, don't talk fast. I know all you "flow" kids are groaning rn, but chill out fam.

Rhetoric: Rhetoric matters to some extent, but as long as you can get the arguments across to me, from your brain to my flow, you're fine.

Extending: Any arguments you want me to vote on must have cleanly been extended throughout the entire round. Don't tell me to vote off of any args that you didn't make/extend previously.

If both debaters are equal in my "lay" eyes, I will probably vote off of speaking style and persuasiveness.

I am a parent judge volunteer and this is my first time judging LD. I prefer that you don't talk too fast or spread - I need to be able to understand what you're saying in order to judge its merits.

I will take notes and try to judge on the flow. For PF, please clearly articulate your contentions, back them up with warrants and support with strong evidence. I don't fully flow Crossfire or Cross-Ex, so anything important that you want noted, please extend in your next speech, and make it clear why it's important to your case or detracts from your opponent's. Please don’t run progressive debate unless something extreme has happened in the round, I will not know how to evaluate it.

By your final focus or last speech, you should have made a convincing case why your impacts or value out-weigh your opponent's. And in keeping with the rules of debate, do not bring up any new arguments in the second half of a round, or they will be disregarded. Good luck and have fun!”