Hi, I’m Chansey. M.Ed. (UGA, ’24), did LD in HS (both locally and on the circuit). I’m currently involved primarily in HS LD (assistant coach) but will probably understand the style of argument you’re running (most familiar with policy-oriented arguments and kritiks). I care much more about HOW you argue than WHAT you argue.

Pronouns: they/she—don’t misgender people.

• If there’s an email chain, you should add me to it: chansey.agler@gmail.com. I am fine with speechdrop. Send verbatim/word docs. PDFs and google docs are highly inadvisable.
• I do have concerns about how most judging is carried out. I try to give you the best I can by paying attention to the round and not intervening based on what you’re arguing. However, my decision is more uncertain the more work I must do—more judge instruction, resolving interactions, and doing link weighing (especially internal link weighing) can avoid uncertainty. Please write my ballot for me.
• On average, I do tend to read evidence after the debate. I will also say that I tend to not spend as much time reading after the round when more evidence comparison/weighing and direct instruction are made in the debate.
• Can handle speed, but clarity is a concern. Delineate cards and sheets. Signpost more. Slow way down on plan, interp, ROB texts, or anything you want me to get closer to verbatim.
• I can be rather expressive in debates (not by choice). This can sometimes give you a window into how I feel about your arguments, e.g., can be visibly confused, could also be nodding positively.
• Content warnings are good. If you’re reading arguments surrounding SA or antiqueer violence, I would prefer a content warning.
• I am generally “tech > truth” and would recommend you debate how you like in front of me. However, I’m not generally a fan of frivolous arguments or strategies designed to avoid clash. Will not evaluate discriminatory arguments. Avoid entirely new 2NR/2AR arguments (2NR theory must demonstrate clear 1AR abuse). Arguments start at zero and go up from there. I rely on your ability to warrant arguments in writing my RFD.
• Stock issues matter in terms of establishing offense and defense; however, I do not find “not delineating inherency” to be a relevant theoretical concern. I usually understand how each argument functions (if you want to delineate “contention 1 is inherency, c2 solvency” or “advantage, plan, solvency,” go for it, but I am not amenable to theory that indicts NOT doing that).
• I am probably more familiar with NC3, LAWs, or critical arguments on this topic. This doesn’t affect whether I can understand your argument if you explain it; it does mean you may want to avoid lots of topic-specific jargon.
• Critical frameworks (like weigh reps before fiated consequences) should be 1NC arguments. Always happy to judge alternative conceptions beyond policymaking paradigms, but if it’s new in the 2NR, I am less enthused.
• I think different visions of affirmation and/or the topic are valid. You should justify in the 1AC why topicality is worth criticizing. The Negative should read Framework if they believe the Aff should affirm the topic. I’m more convinced by clash than just procedural fairness, but receptive to most well-developed framework arguments. Caselists can matter, but I can be convinced it’s not needed (for/against T-FW).
• Topicality is a germane criticism against plan Affs. I think caselists are very important here. I’ve always appreciated well-developed T debates, but a lot of the ones lately are very late-breaking. If evenly debated, ground > limits, semantics constrain pragmatic visions of debate.
• I have fallen out of familiarity with a decent swath of high theory lit. Explain your postmodernist authors more; I haven’t read things like Baudrillard in years, and I would not expect myself to have relative familiarity here.
• I think conditionality is good in reasonable capacity—have voted on condo bad before. Most theoretical arguments besides condo are poorly warranted beyond DTA + reasonability. Many CP texts are incoherent and the Aff should take up this fight more often. I love good perm/competition debates (not shotgunning 10 in the 1AR), frame competition early and often.
• Disclosure is a good thing and I do think that good disclosure practices are good for debate. However, I find many disclosure theory debates to either be repetitive or “they-said-they-said" (or focus on equality over equity, which is its own problem). For misdisclosure, screenshots are make or break.

That's the best I can promise.

Happy debating!

I am a senior in college studying engineering. I debated PF on the regional and national circuits back in high school.

My process for voting is as follows:

1. What's the most important issue/value in the round
2. Who holds the strongest link into that

Feel free to ask any questions before the round begins.

I am a current Yale University student, and four year Public Forum debater on the national circuit at Carrollton High School. I have extensive experience both participating and judging in Public Forum, as well as other events. I will flow the round, so please sign post. This will greatly benefit me in my ability to follow your arguments, and ensure that I catch everything. If you are going to provide an observation or framework, do not simply tell me to weigh in that manner, explain why I should. Extensions through all speeches are a must if you are going to pick up my ballot. Do not turn a crossfire into a speech. I do not flow crossfire, but it is still a valuable time for the debater to find holes in their opponent's cases. Ensure that you are telling me why you are winning the round, simply reading a card does nothing for the judge, nor for the educational purposes of the round.

Speed becomes an issue when you are not clearly articulating your arguments. Clarity in round is key, and I would prefer to hear a single clear and well explained response over several poorly articulated ones. If I can't understand you, it will not go on the flow. When making my final decision, I take into account; first if an argument was extended throughout the round, then I examine the responses to each argument.

It is most important to consider that debate is intended to be an educational experience. With that being said, I will not tolerate any facetious or degrading remarks in round, as they are counter intuitive to the purpose of the event. As a result, such behavior will be reflected in the speaker points given.

I will expect you to ask questions prior to the round about anything that seems unclear in this paradigm.

I did debate in high school, but I have been out of it for a while now so please excuse me if I am not totally up to date on everything. I am open to pretty much any argument and speed as well (but I prefer a conversational speed in Public Forum). I also request that competitors time their own speeches and prep time, and I'm ok if you go a little over time to finish your sentence but anything more than 5 seconds and I stop flowing.

Can't stress this enough: IMPACT WEIGHING, IMPACT WEIGHING, and IMPACT WEIGHING. Start in the summary continue with it in the Final Focus. If you don't present me with impacts to vote on it's a tough path for you to win my ballot. Impact calc is a HUGE plus so please include it in your speeches, especially if you have time left on the clock.

While framework isn't something that is a must for PF, I do love to see it. Framework is something that can give you that little edge and come in clutch in the end, especially if you know how to use it. However, please don't spend a ton of time arguing about framework and then barely mention it at the end of the round.

Keep cross civil and treat your opponents with respect. Other than that try to speak as clearly as possible and please give an offtime road map before you begin speaking.

tl:dr: flay

-

pls email me cases with ur cards, this makes life easy for all of us: sylviaelizabethduarte@gmail.com. if you have any questions about my paradigm, message me on fb

i debated on the pf nat'l circuit in high school and am now a college sophomore.

quick bio:

i would say i'm tech>truth but that is a lie. i like args within the realm of topical possibility. not necessarily probability since most debate args do not work irl anyway lmao. more like, i give less credence to args like nuke war or existentialism and will be looking for any excuse of a response to turn it down (obvs this depends on the topic like yk what i mean). obvs if there is no ink on ur arg or your frontlines are fire and ur debating is of a high caliber, that is different. but idk if ur that guy + why risk it?

i give more credence to your args 1) the earlier they are introduced in round, 2) the more warranted they are, 3) the more likely/severe/quickly/generally more important your link chain or impacts are vs your opponents'.

-

best ways to win my ballot (in order of importance):

- effective, consistent, *extended*, good ol warranting. absent good weighing/impact calc, i will likely prefer one well-warranted arg over multiple unwarranted args (yes it will be strategic to collapse in front of me). **this will be to your benefit if you want to go progressive and run something funky like theory and can articulate amazing reasons why it's good to do so.**

- complete claim-warrant-impact (frontlined when necessary) extensions in the second half for args you want me to vote for. anything i vote off of in your final focus must be in the summary btw

- GOOD weighing. weighing is inherently comparative. ik you think your arg is important, but why is it more important than your opponents'? why does this mean you win the round?

-

things i dislike but am forced to ignore because i don't want to intervene but also will still rly negatively bias my decision to vote for you because i am human:

- speaking at a million words per min. a wise man once said, "why waste time say lot word when few word do trick?" and you're on a computer and wifi can cut out and your super-speed-speaking legit won't matter.

- doing the above but thinking you're in the clear because you sent a speech doc with your tags afterwords. NO pls stop

- heavyyy paraphrasing of your ev. i don't expect you to read card-text in all of your speeches (though that would be nice in constructive... sigh). but like... rly not a fan of debaters taking a quote from their evidence and putting their "spin" on what it says/arguing in the "spirit of the ev"/doing the most with the ev because "it technicallyyy says that"/anything that bastardizes the integrity of your representation of evidence.

- do not take that to mean that i dislike analytics. on the contrary, i reward thoughtful, well-warranted analytics. but i punish analytics passed off as evidence.

- defending any potential social prejudice that comes up in your args, attitude, treatment of opponents, etc. i don't just dislike this, i will tank your speaks and speak to your coach if necessary.

-

i am familiar with theory. lmk if you're unsure if you should run something in front of me. i will not BS you, if i cannot evaluate an arg / don't think it's likely i'd vote for it, i will 100% lyk.

good rule of thumb is that you can run theory if you can effectively explain (i.e. warrant) your arg's necessity in the space, my role as a judge, your arg's role in education/accessibility/etc, and more. if your theory warranting is not up to par with substance warranting, you should probably stick to substance in front of me.

My background derives mostly from debating in policy for 4 years of high school. I am open to any field of argument (critique, topicality, theory, etc.), as long as it is done effectively. I evaluate debates based on an even combination of tech and truth, but if one team can provide better defense and description of their argument's impacts, almost any argument could win in front of me. Be sure to make comparison between your final advocacy and your opponents in order to persuade me to vote for you. Do not just restate your arguments with no clash with your opponents.

With regards to PF/LD debates - I have judged both divisions extensively. Similar to my policy opinions, I place a substantial importance on articulating the impacts to your argument. Beyond just "economic decline", what are the particular details of that scenario that should convince me to vote for you? Beyond just "fairness in debate", what are the particular repercussions of that lack of fairness in the activity?

Be sure to extend the warrants in your evidence, a simple tag line extension is hardly an argument.

Please send all speech docs to icwestdebate@googlegroups.com and sophiargustafson@gmail.com. Please label each email with the round number, the partnership code, and the side. Example: "R1 Duchesne BB AFF v. Iowa City West KE."

Resources

I have compiled some resources to get better at debate here!

TLDR

Always tell me "Prefer my evidence/argument because." Meaningful and intentional extensions of uniqueness + link + internal link + impact (don't forget warrants) in combination with weighing will win you the round. Also, every second it takes you to send emails gives me one less second to think critically about my decision. Please be speedy with the emails! NOTE: Spreading will not get you far in rounds with me.

Experience

I attended Theodore Roosevelt High School in Des Moines, Iowa and debated with Ellie Konfrst (Roosevelt GK). I was a two time state champion when competing. I broke at the TOC and placed ninth at NSDA nationals my senior year (2018). I have also coached at NDF the following years: 2018, 2019, 2020. I am currently an attorney in Iowa City practicing workers compensation, personal injury, and medical malpractice. I am the current varsity PF coach at Iowa City West.

I have coached five teams (Duchesne Academy of the Sacred Heart BB, Iowa City West KE, Iowa City West EA, Iowa City West ED, and Iowa City West GA) to qualifying to the gold TOC. Iowa City West KE semi'd the TOC in 2024. While coaching various teams, I have helped secure upwards of 30 bids total.

What you should expect of me

It is my obligation to be familiar with the topic. I am also a very emotive judge, if I look confused please break down your argument. It is my obligation to provide for you a clear reason why my ballot was cast and to ensure that you and your coach are able to understand my decision. However, it is not my job to weigh impacts against each other / evaluate competing frameworks. I am always open to discuss the round afterwards.

Flowing

I love off time road maps and they help me flow, please give them! What is on my flow at the end of the round will make my decision for me and I will do my best to make my reasoning clear either on my ballot or orally at the end of the round. If you are organized, clean, clear and extending good argumentation well, you will do well. One thing that I find particularly valuable is having a strong and clear advocacy and a narrative on the flow. This narrative will help you shape responses and create a comparative world that will let you break down and weigh the round in the Final Focus. I also appreciate language that directly relates to the flow (tell me where to put your overview, tell me what to circle, tell me what to cross out).

Extensions

It’s important to note that to get an argument through to the final focus the team must extend the uniqueness+links+impacts. If a single piece is missing, then it significantly weakens the point’s weight in the round. If an argument is dropped at any time, it will not be extended and you’d be better off spending your time elsewhere. Extensions are the backbones of debate, a high-level debater should be able to allocate time and extend their offense and defense effectively.

Framework / Overviews

Framework

If a framework is essential for you to win the round / to your case it should be in constructive. I want to see your intention and round visions early on, squirrel-y argumentation through frameworks muddles the whole round. Only drop the framework if everyone agrees on it. If there is no agreement by summary, win under both.

Overviews

There are two types of overviews in my mind.

1: An overall response to their case.

Good idea.

2: Weighing overviews.

GREAT IDEA

I prefer overviews to be in rebuttal.

The Rebuttal

Extend framework if you want me to use it in order to weigh in the summary and final focus. I also have a soft spot for weighing overviews and usually find them incredibly valuable if done and extended correctly.

If extended and weighed properly, turns are enough to win a round, but if you double turn yourself and muddle the debate you wasted critical time that could have been spent on mitigation/de-linking/non-uniques.

My preference is that the entire first rebuttal is spent on the opponent’s side of the flow. For both teams, I like to see layered responses and very clear road-mapping and sign-posting. The refutations should cover both the entire contention and also examine specific warrants and impacts. The second rebuttal should engage both the opponent’s case as well as the opponent’s responses. Ideally, the time split should be between 3:1 and 2:2.

Summary

I believe the job of the summary speaker (especially for first speaking teams) is the hardest in the round and can easily lose a debate. Extending framework/overviews (if applicable), front lining, and weighing are the three necessary components of any narrative in summary.

Structure:

1. Case extensions (uniqueness, link, internal link, impact)
2. Frontlining
3. Defense/Turn extensions
4. Weighing (this can be put anywhere among the other three above).

Frontlining =/= narrative extension.

Defense in the first summary. Make smart strategic decisions. If the defense is being blown up - or mentioned - in final focus it needs to be in summary.

Final Focus

This should be the exact same as your summary with more weighing and less frontlining. It is okay to extend less arguments if you make up for it with weighing.

Speed

Clarity is critical when speaking quickly. My wpm is about 200, going faster than this is risking an incomplete flow on my ballot. If I miss something because of speed, there was an error in judge adaptation.

Organization through all speeches is essential and especially paramount in summary. Make sure I know exactly where you are so that I can help you get as much ink on the flow as possible. Tell me where to flow overviews otherwise I'll just make a judgement call on where to put it on the flow.

Progressive Arguments

I'm cool with Theory / Ks / role of the ballot though you always should "dumb them down" to language used in PF and you must clearly articulate why there is value in rejecting a traditional approach to the topic. Theory / Ks / role of the ballot will also need to be slowed down in terms of speed. Also, you need to read theory right after the violation happens. If you read it as a spike to throw the other team off, I will not evaluate the argument.

I value teams taking daring strategic decisions (EX: drop case and go fully for turns EX2: non-uniquing / severing contentions to avoid opponents turns) and will reward you smart and effective risk-taking with speaker points. That being said, if you do it poorly I will still drop you.

A list of prog I have voted for in the past: IVIs (author/rhetoric based), DTD (based on in-round analysis), afro-pessimism, black nihilism, disclosure theory, paraphrasing theory, etc.

Cross

I like to see strong engagement of the issues in CX and appreciate a deeper analysis than simple clarifying questions. Please be polite and civil and it is everyone’s responsibility to de-escalate the situation as much as possible when it grows too extreme (some jokes are always preferred). Issues in CX will not be weighed in the round unless brought up in a following speech. Making jokes in grand cross to liven up the debate is always good for your speaker points (but don't be that person who tries too hard please).

Speaking

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.

History: I did PF debate during highschool, debated in the GA circuit and went to many National Circuit tournaments. I have been judging PF for a while now. I have been off the circuit for a little while though, and may not be knowledgeable about recent developments within the last year in regards to PF.

How I evaluate the round: I expect you to extend your arguments throughout the whole round. This means offense from the rebuttal needs to be extended through the Summary and Final Focus for it to be weighed in the round. I also do not like it when teams bring up something from rebuttal in the final focus without extending it through summary (called extending through ink), doing this will likely result in the argument being dropped off my flow.

Argumentation: I expect all arguments to be properly warranted and impacted with supportive evidence to go with it. However, don't just speak off cards.

If you want the argument to be important, then make sure I know that it is important.

The execution of the argument is almost as important as the quality of the argument. A sound argument with good cards that is poorly explained and poorly extended does little to compel. I like well-developed arguments that I can understand. I prefer debates that are intelligent, articulate, and persuasive rather than a speed-talking jumble of statistical evidence.I have to be able to comprehend and flow the internal logic of your arguments. If you are clear, enunciate well, with good diction and voice inflection it helps me understand the key parts of what you are saying.

Evidence is extremely important, but debate is more than just tag and card. I expect debaters to spend time talking about the implications of evidence and making analytical comparisons between arguments. Description of arguments through analogy, examples, testimony, or hypothetical situations is a much more persuasive style of debate than just presenting a flurry of statistics.

Debaters who take the time to create good cross-examinations are appreciated. A goal of the cross-examination is to reveal the fallacies of your opponents' arguments and how their claims appear to run counter to probable impacts or how their silence or ambiguities are cause to vote against their conditional claims. A good cross-examination will go a significant way to winning a debate and scoring high points. Take time to consider what it is you are going to ask and how to develop your line of questioning.

I wish to hear clear and impactful speeches. You must spend time accentuating the evidence as you read it and after you read it. Contentions should be more than a number and a few words. You must articulate the warrant extended to the claims you are offering up for consideration.

Everyone in the debate should be courteous through-out the debate, and it is preferable that you keep your own accurate time. Winning arguments are good arguments, not necessarily plentiful ones.

Have fun and show how your arguments matter and why you should win!

This is also my paradigm for LD - Please NO SPREADING for LD.

Background: He/Him; 3L at NYU Law; previously assistant director/head debate coach at Delbarton (NJ) 2020-2024; current assistant PF coach at Durham Academy (NC) 2024 - Present.

*Tarheel States Notice*:You should consider striking me if you don't cut accurate cards or won't use an email chain. It won't be an auto-loss, but I will consider arguments by opponents if they call out the lack of formatted evidence. The rest of my paradigm will be the same "technical" paradigm.

Email Chains:Please addnmdebaterounds@gmail.com to the email chain with the following subject line: Tournament Name - Rd # - School Team Code (side/order) v. School Team Code (side/order). Teams should send case evidence (and rhetoric if you paraphrase) by the end of constructive – copy and paste all text and send it in the body of the email. The same applies to rebuttal evidence.

Evidence: Even if you paraphrase, I will only evaluate evidence in cut cards. These are properly cut cards. NSDA rules state it's definitive to highlight or mark for identification evidence read, and you need to highlight/mark for paraphrasing (p. 37-38)

Accommodations: Yes, just ask before round.

Main PF Paradigm:

• Preflow before the round; speaks start at 28.

• Offense > Defense; clear and whole backhalf extensions matter.

• Slow down for tags when spreading. If I clear you, then you are no longer saying words -- slow down or annunciate.

• Second rebuttal / 1st summary should frontline all turns + their collapsed argument(s).

• New weighing in first final is okay, depending on if it’s responsive to 2nd summary. 2nd final can respond to 1st final weighing if it's new.

• Please do comparative weighing with timeframe, mag/scope, and probability. I rather not try to evaluate try or die.

• Tabula rasa to an extent – longer link chains will still be difficult to vote for and I will intervene on anything blatantly racist, sexist, homophobic, or fabricated (i.e., major evidence issues).

• Don’t crashout in cross. Put cross-analysis in ink with your speeches.

• Trigger warnings with opt-outs are only necessary with graphic depictions or identity-based Ks read. Otherwise, content warnings are generally good. Use your best judgment and follow tournament guidance.

"Progressive" PF: I'm open to the following arguments at any varsity / national circuit tournaments (please not in JV or Novice):

• Ks: Run at your own risk, but have judged IR, Cap, Securitization, and Killjoy arguments, but significantly less familiar with high theory lit (i.e., Baudrillard, Bataille, Nietzsche). These will require in-depth explanation throughout the round.

• Theory: Topicality, Disclosure, Paraphrasing, and Vague/Utopian Alts, as well as their derivatives/CIs, are fine to read in front of me. I default to competing interps and spirit over interp text. I generally think theory with legitimate violation stories is good, open-source (cut card + tag) disclosure is good, and paraphrasing is bad, but I won't intervene on the flow. However, if your disclosure is unintelligible because you pasted pages of article text, then I am more likely to believe you did not disclose in good faith (open to this as a debate response). Other interps are fine, but if it's frivolous theory (i.e., don't say good luck, shoe theory), I am more likely to intervene.

• Introducing excessive off positions in PF (e.g., 4-5) will decrease the chance of a comprehensible RFD.

LD

Cut card evidence ethics and email chain apply.

I've judged LD only a handful of times, but debate is debate. You probably shouldn't go full circuit style, but you certainly don't need to go full-on traditional mode either. However, in either debate style, I will still care about the line-by-line, so consistently respond to defense from prior speeches, crystalize offense, and consistently weigh your link or impact stories.

LARP/T/Theory>Trad > K/Nontopical Ks/Non-T AFFs > Phil/Tricks

More specifics if helpful:

Policy - Advs and DAs are great and what I most prefer. Any Plans/CPs should be specific with their solvency advocate. Very open to spec if any argument is too vague. I think the 2nr is more about crystalizing existing offense than dumping new evidence / impact scenarios, but new answers to 1ar defense make sense. Condo is fine but if it gets too silly then I'm open to hearing the shell.

T - Need to make sure there's good interp weighing/comparison here.

Theory - see PF section above. I am open to judging other interns, too, but the less serious the violation/more friv, the more likely I am to intervene.

Non-T/Planless AFFs - Again, open to judging it, have voted on it before in PF, but there's a risk of losing me, especially in K v K debates.

K - IR, Cap, Securitization, Afropess, Killjoy are fine, but any high theory lit will need significant explanation. Most important is contextualizing your offense while extending -- can't just ignore defense by extending through ink.

Tricks - Strike

Phil - Judged 3 phil rounds in PF, so overall not familiar with most lit; again run at your own risk or be ready to explain it well

Questions? Ask before the round.

1. Please don't speak very fast. Speaking fast is fine. Very fast will be difficult for me to follow.

2. Please don't take lot of time to share your evidences.

3. Please respect each other and have fun.

!!! IF THE SECOND-SPEAKING SIDE CALLS FOR EVIDENCE OR TAKES PREP TIME BEFORE BOTH CASES ARE READ, THEY WILL BE IMMEDIATELY DROPPED ON MY BALLOT. NO EXCEPTIONS.

--

Hi, I'm Pratik. I'm a former PF debater from Canyon Crest, now studying at UC Berkeley. (class of '23)

--

TLDR: Read the bold (but you should read everything if you have time). Also, these announcements:

*2020-2021 SEASON: Most presentational stuff in my paradigm won't apply because of remote debates so ignore those. BUT, the remote nature means you will have to speak more clearly than in an in-person debate.

--

How I judge:

- I consider myself a really basic, no-frills debater and judge, which means I would prefer the typical definitions/framework/contentions debate. I won't understand any policy/LD mumbo jumbo, and will never accept copies of your case/speech doc/etc.

- 80% flow, 20% speaking/presentation. As a general rule, better debaters tend to be better speakers. I have a big soft spot for 'flay' teams and rounds so if going fast isn't your thing, don't sweat it! It'll also boost your speaks for prelims. In elims, I tend to be more flow- and argumentation-heavy.

- I don't flow crossfire, or factor it in my decision. Use crossfire to trap your opponents and expose gaps in their arguments. Elaborate on your team's crossfire discoveries in the following speech.

- I will disclose unless it is too close to call on the flow. I will also give a (mostly) oral RFD after round unless we are running late. If either case occurs, expect a lengthy written RFD. You are always free to talk to me or ask for my email after round.

Other rules:

- I prefer speaking speed to be <200 words/min but can probably handle up to 225. Above 225, I won't be able to flow effectively, and 300+ is considered spreading. If I can't flow something you said because you were too fast, and end up dropping it or voting against it, that's on you, not me.

- No calling for evidence/running prep until both cases are read. Also, please don't slow down the flow of the debate by calling for evidence all the dang time.

- No using prep time before cross.

- Don't abuse offtime roadmaps. Keep roadmaps to 5 seconds if you want to use them offtime. However, ONTIME road maps/signposting are greatly encouraged and highly recommended (see "How to win").

- 5% grace period on speeches to wrap things up. If your opponents are being abusive with time, let me know.

- After the round, I may ask for cards. Keep them ready!

--

How to win:

- The 4 Cs: Be clear, concise, convincing, and confident. That's it. Everything else I say here falls under one of those.

- SIGNPOST! Please make my flow organized. Use roadmaps before/at the start of your speech and number your topics. (Ex. "My opponent's first contention was ___. I have three responses. First...")

- CLEAR, RELEVANT VOTER ISSUES IN FINAL FOCUS. If the debate is super messy, then I may just only factor your Final Focus speeches in my decision.

- Have good posture and delivery. Don't hunch over your paper/laptop in your delivery; look at me as much as you can while giving your speech. Remember, your speaks DO matter to me more than the average circuit judge.

--

How to lose:

- I will instantly give your team a loss and tank your speaks if you are racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, or otherwise egregiously exclusionary.

- Be rude to me, your opponents, or anyone else participating in or managing the tournament.

- Slur/mumble/speak in a way that I cannot understand and flow what you're saying. Spreading (talking in excess of 300 words/min for me) will be an instant loss and 25 speaks.

- Bring up new evidence in Final Focus. Only concepts expressed in Summary Speech can be expressed in Final Focus. The only exception is if your opponents dropped rebuttal defense in their Summary Speech.

- Fidget/fumble on or off the podium.

- Break tournament rules.

--

If you think your opponents are breaking the rules:

- Stop the round IMMEDIATELY (not after the round ends) and notify me. I will take appropriate action. I would prefer to have both sides present during a conflict, but if it is something you NEED to speak to me in private about (without your opponents around), please request not to disclose after round.

- The longer you wait until after the round to notify me of any wrongdoing, the less I can do about it. I will NEVER accept claims of a violation without evidence unless I noticed it too.

--

Speaking/presentation scale (updated 11/17/20):

NOTE: This score has NOTHING to do with the quality of your arguments.

25 or less: Rule violation, discrimination, spreading, etc.

26: Rudeness, I didn't understand anything you were saying, frequent pauses, monotony, distracting fidgeting, etc.

27: No droppable offenses, but below average.

28: Average.

29: You're VERY good, and only had a few errors that only minorly impacted your delivery.

30: Basically impossible to achieve from me.

--

Thanks for reading this really long paradigm! Let me know if you have any questions before the round starts.

--

PSA: Spreading, common in circuit LD and policy, is contrary to the purpose of debate because debate's main objective should be to stimulate discourse in forums all over the US and abroad. Spreading hinders any further discourse by strategically and unfairly stuffing arguments and winning off technicalities, making it inaccessible to a larger audience and lowering any chances of real discourse happening.

I graduated from Columbus High School and did 3 years of LD debate.

Speaks: I speak somewhat fast in debate, so I can handle speed when flowing but do not spread. If you decide/must speak fast or spread, create a speech doc and add me to the email chain @ hsigili01@gmail.com

If you are making an important point, you need to slow down to make sure I catch everything I need to.

Argumentation:

1. I am more of a traditional debater. However, I am open to progressive styles of LD, but honestly I don't like/know Theory, K, etc. I am more comfortable with CPs and DAs though. So, keep in mind that I am not too familiar with it so if you're gonna do it, do it well.

2. I vote off the flow. You need to be responding to every argument that's brought up in the round, including their responses to your arguments. Please sign post because it makes my life so much easier. That being said, I don't really flow card names (i.e. Doe 19) so if you're gonna address or extend it in a later speech, use the tagline otherwise I don't know what to do on my flow.

3. The framework debate is the most important thing at the end of the round. If the framework debate is lost or no one wins, then I look towards the contention level.

4. If anything important happens in cross x, make sure you bring it up in speech because I do not flow in cross.

5. Voters in your last speech are very helpful for me to make my decision.

PF Debate:

1. I have not debated PF but I have judged plenty of rounds and am very familiar with this style. However, I won't be open to Theory, Ks, etc. So if you must, explain it as if you were talking to someone much younger. As mentioned above, I vote off the flow, so extend any arguments made.

2. If you do present a framework and the other team doesn't, I will weigh all arguments in regards to that framework so keep that in mind.

3. Everything else is the same as above.

Otherwise, if you have any other questions, please feel free to ask or email me at hsigili01@gmail.com !! :)

- I consider myself a tabula rasa judge

- I will not flow or weigh anything in cross; if you extract a concession or something important, please bring it up in a speech

- Speed is fine but please speak loud and clear; slow down/emphasize for card author/year and important statistics/facts

- I'm fine with complex arguments, theory, etc.

- You can email me at gabe.smith@vikings.berry.edu

"Tout ce qui se conçoit bien s'énonce clairement, et les mots pour le dire arrivent aisément." /"That which is well conceived is clearly stated, and the words to express it come together easily." ~Boileau

I vote on the clarity of the arguments and on the clarity of their articulation, so it is wise to avoid spreading.

I am looking for proof of your argument - make sure you cite cards throughout, and be clear about what point you are drawing from the evidence you're quoting.

Language matters! Don't assume that speaking faster / louder = making a stronger point. If the words you're using are not clear, or if your syntax / grammar is obscuring what you're trying to say, then it doesn't really matter how loudly you shout it or how fast you say it. Your argument (or speech) should be worded with precision, starting from a solid framework, methodically laid out with a logical progression, and reinforced throughout with sound, authoritative research / data from respectable sources that you have thoroughly cited.

Finally, but perhaps most importantly, be respectful of your opponent(s). You can and will lose your argument if you resort to incivility. And please keep your own time.

Ph.D., Emory. I've judged on the regional and national circuits, mainly LD and PF.

Email: lupadhyay@chapin.edu