Updated for ’24-’25. If there’s anything not covered in here (tried to be as extensive as possible), just ask, but if it’s something like “are you good with counterplans” I might be v sad.

For locals: not lay, to reduce your burden, unless you’re experienced w/ non-traditional args, you need only concern yourself with the “traditional” section, pls cut out argumentative dogmatism. Few notes: a) please learn to flow, asking what was/n’t read starts CX/prep, b) be responsive and clash w/ your opp (stop sending the 1NC before the 1AC has been read.), c) not big on disclosure theory at locals.* If you’re sending a doc, pls format it in a consistent, clean manner (like how they do it on the circuit).

About: 4 years of LD at a GA HS, currently a master’s student at UGA (’24, ’24), have judged on the circuit and locally since 2021. I coach LD—will be familiar with the rez.

- Pronouns: they/she.

- Yes, I want to be on the chain (chansey.agler@gmail.com), speechdrop and fileshare on tab are fine; I won’t look at google docs, PDFs are inadvisable

- Fine w flex prep

- Pls don’t try and shake my hand after the round thx in advance; ask me for permission before recording an RFD

Speaks:

- Speed is fine if you’re clear, but if it’s the first round of the tournament or the day, pls start at like 60-70% speed and work up from there

- I appreciate slowing down on advocacy texts, interp texts, criterion/standard texts…basically anything you want me to get as close to verbatim as possible

- Similarly, I often find that I need more signposting and slight time to switch between flows—audibly saying “onto the DA” and pausing for a second, etc. is extremely helpful in rebuttal speeches

- I base speaker points off efficiency, strategy, and clarity foremost—I don’t base these off arbitrary/ableist/historically sexist and racist metrics—will play behind the scenes to balance historic marginalization of women, gender minorities, POCs, and otherwise marginalized voices in speaks, will often lower speaks for split 2NRs

- I typically average ~28.5 relative to the pool, no I do not disclose speaks

Prefs Cheat Sheet:

Ks, Policy: 1

Traditional: 2

Philosophy*: 2

Theory: 4

Tricks: 4

TL;DR: collapse, weigh, common sense is important, read complete arguments, do more link work

Top-level/must knows:

1. I will vote on most arguments. I am probably better for policy and K arguments (method debates are fine). I’m experienced w/ philosophy but LD’s execution isn’t great. Theory or tricks-heavy strats need to be complete arguments, not ad homs, and have real warrants. Meaningful, resolvable, complete arguments are good. Hail marys are inadvisable regardless of stylistic decisions.

2. Explanation, weighing, clash, and judge instruction are crucial. Do more resolving interactions between things, not just telling me “x matters before y” if your opponent is telling me “y matters before x.” Yes tech > truth in that I resolve rounds based on judge instruction (aka the flow), am open to many args and lit bases, but truth matters in the sense that args start at zero and go up from there. Weighing relies on good args. If I didn’t understand it, I can’t vote on it.

3. A lot of judges give awful RFDs. I think there is an ongoing problem in debate of not paying attention to the round. I am trying my damndest not to be that, but there’s greater uncertainty in my decision when there’s more work I must do—explaining arguments, doing link weighing (not just impx), and carving a path to the ballot will influence my decision. Best RFDs come when the 2NR/2AR writes my ballot for me. Questions afterwards are fine, but aggression/postrounding = nonstarters.

4. Debate is obsessed with ‘tabula rasa’ nonsense, which has genuine consequences. Not a fan of frivolous arguments (in any style, from the resolved NIB to riders DAs), and the closer an arg is to morally abhorrent or contrary to debate’s intent (think “flat earth” or other nonsense), the likelier it is I won’t flow it.

5. Won’t vote on any -isms (extremely likely to give an L20). I will not flow args from known hate orgs (ex: the heritage foundation). Will, however, evaluate impact turns, and am willing to vote on things like spark, wipeout, and extinction good (read: as negative util/preserving future value) arguments. Won’t vote on ‘warming good.’ My threshold for responses is lower the worse/edging on morally abhorrent the argument is.

6. AI rule:don't.

7. More receptive to independent voters/voting issues over time for a few reasons: a) debaters are reading off docs blindly, not doing research, and thus more prone to saying something problematic, b) ideological gaps are widening and this has implications in speech acts, c) debaters in general should be held accountable for problematic speech.

8. For accessibility stuff: lmk any needed accommodations before the round—I will say that it is probably best to tell me directly bc a lot of debaters’ emails go to my spam, misgendering/being racist/other shenanigans in-round will lead to loss of speaks and/or the ballot even without an argument—my tolerance for homophobia, transphobia, etc. is increasingly low—it’s not that hard to adapt.

9. weigh <3

Lincoln-Douglas

Kritiks

- These rounds can either be amazing or borderline terrible depending on your knowledge of the lit base and engagement with the opposition—don’t just talk past the Aff (or Neg if it’s a K Aff), actually engage with the lit, and know what you’re talking about—good K debate takes reading, determination, and dedication—you cannot sidestep all three of these, pull a K off the wiki, and expect good results

- I can’t always promise I know the intricate details of your specific lit, but I am familiar with a decent variety of lit (most familiar with queer theory and settler colonialism), and you should still explain arguments as if I don’t have base understanding—I’ve voted for arguments ranging from simple critiques of capitalism to psychoanalysis and back again, you do you if you explain it

- I will however admit that I need a lot more explanation in fields like cybernetics and dense criticisms of IR

- I have devoted a lot of focus to queer, trans, and feminist literature—some thoughts you should know: a) these lit bases are indebted to Blackness in terms of resistance strategies inside and outside of debate, b) pls don’t just go for this stuff bc I’m in the back, c) slightly higher threshold if “state bad” is the only link in the 1NC

- Use reasonable judgment for kritiks of discourse—much more than willing to buy links into things like “no, this is absolutely racist, reject it” (i.e., “illegal aliens” on the open borders topic…), but it can feel like policing (“queer” to “kweer” comes to mind), especially against K affs (this applies mostly to word PIKs)

- Non-T Affs are completely fine, just have a relevant ballot story and do ‘something’ (don’t care what that ‘something’ looks like though—very low threshold here)

- On a similar note, creative visions of affirmation are fantastic

- However, presumption is underutilized against K affs (more than just two short analytics)—I find a lot of teams fall short in explaining what the Aff does and especially its impacts—isolating what the Aff endorses, why the ballot is key, etc. are all important—explaining to me what these components are is also meaningful since I take a very “you do you” approach here—examples of what the Aff method looks like in motion can be very useful

- I’ve judged a few K v. K rounds, K aff v. cap K is usually pretty straightforward imo but otherwise, do more weighing and framing work than you otherwise think—“root cause” debates rarely do resolving work that I need, and the two Ks in play are rarely a criticism of the same thing—perms must demonstrate interactions between lit bases, but “no perms in a methods debate” isn’t intuitive until you explain why it’s true—K Affs are still Affs (clash on case pls)

- Not a fan of the “perm double bind”

- While all debates are performances in their own right, unique forms of engagement are highly enjoyable to witness—explain to me what the purpose is

Independent Voters

- I tend to view these as pressing concerns that must override substance, I think debaters are sometimes too quick to throw out "auto-drop" without explaining DTD, but I also think that problematic discourse is terrible; I'm very receptive to things like misgendering being independent voters, less so to things like "this is independent" if it's just a reps turn or something that should be resolved on substance; an example would be the 1NC reading Tuck and Yang, but fumbling hard in CX (I'd rather you make that a turn or use it as sufficient defense)

- Theory arguments (condo, CP legitimacy, etc.) are not independent voters

Framework (Policy v. K)

- Spending time on “this method is key on this issue” can matter, “just pls engage with the state and read a plan” is less persuasive—I think policy teams need to be willing to bite the bullet on “ToP doesn’t explain everything, prefer particularized methods to answer the complexity of the world” and K teams should be willing to contest case and/or plan focus

- Aff FW v. K: a) not a win condition independently, b) ‘extinction outweighs’ is an overused response, usually links into the K, and avoids clash, c) most ‘procedural fairness’ warrants do not make sense to me on their own—spending more time warranting and impacting the deficit to fairness is highly advisable

- T-FW—a) not great for this if the Aff is affirming through an alternate method to “a plan” (esp philosophy or grassroots), b) good for teams that demonstrate why state engagement is better in terms of movements and solving Aff impacts, or why the rez should be debated, d) fine with 1-off FW strategies that devote most of the 1NC time to answering case, theory of power, doing relevant impact turns, and pushing presumption (depth of clash is great)

Policy

- One of the easier styles for me to judge, fair game for most things from soft-left to agenda politics, will say I prefer topic DAs (esp w/ specific links to the plan) to generic ptx, not wild about tangential extinction impacts (do we really need to read ‘extinction’ on topics like “standardized tests?”)

- Fine w/ specific plans and PICs, just be willing to beat back theory/T, not fantastic for both extremes of the nebel T debate

- Ev quality matters—you don’t get credit for incoherent args (highlights must form complete thoughts/sentences), contest ev quality and do ev weighing

- Can insert re-highlighting if it’s from portions of evidence already read in the round—just be vocal about where you’re inserting

- Zero risk is a thing

- Good impact turns are great, stale impact turns are less so, don’t double-turn yourself, ev quality is crucial on impact turns, you should do work in CX to frame it as a viable strategy

- More internal link weighing pls, contesting probability is great, teams that don’t go for impact and internal link weighing almost always lose to those that do

- I need more competition established in the 1NC, I love good perm debates but 10 "perm do both" analytics with no warrant isn't it

- Not huge on judge kick, make your own 2NR choices pls

- Case debates are great debates, do more solvency/link turns and not just 1 min of impact D after spraying 6 off (2NRs on case are always welcome btw)

- In LD, you should still warrant util/SV in the 1AC—the 1NC should always go for an NC if this isn’t the case

- Idk if “you get ptx” or “we want ptx” makes an interp genuinely viable, other than that, better for T interps that make a clear model of debate and go for topic lit/lit controversy; 2AR must extend case if the 2NR only went for T, I probably do not want to hear “X school’s AC is the TVA”

- I probably do not want to judge plan flaw unless the Aff’s plan is written in a way that is meaningfully different from actual implementation

Philosophy

- I studied social and political philosophy for some of undergrad, but it’s been a minute since I’ve been in any kind of ethics class; I’m probably quick to understand analytical ethical philosophy, but haven’t touched continental philosophy in a while, and execution in LD is often dreadful—good philosophy debates are fine, bad ones hurt my head—weighing justifications or doing hijacks is probably more useful than preclusion claims with no warrant or “extinction always first”

- LDers tend to be ineffective in explaining their theory of ethical good, explain the application of Kantian ethics rather than just “that’s coercive so you can’t do it”—I’ll listen to things like “taxation always bad” if that’s the logical conclusion of your FW, but that rarely seems to be the case

- Won’t hack for epistemic/ethical modesty but I also won’t disregard high risk of extinction purely bc there’s clash at the framing level

- Not huge on phil ACs that also read a util advantage or phil ACs/NCs that get super tricky

- Unlikely to vote on FWs I can’t explain back to you or that are extremely circular to the point of uselessness—performativity and constitutivism warrants are big culprits here

- I do not want to hear source Kant. If other cards are outdated and constantly need bracketing for things like gendered language, perhaps you should revise the AC/NC

- TJFs: a) I understand the necessity for them in circuit contexts, though they usually don’t make sense unless util is in play, b) most TJFs are poorly warranted, explain why analytics or carded offense are good/bad, c) phil ed loss? maybe? idk that’s for you to decide

- Impact-justified frameworks are probably bad

- AFC/ACC = :(

Traditional LD

- I started trad, been in the loop here for a while, I only vote off the flow (not “who spoke better”)—if you only have lay experience, just be aware that I understand the topic, debate, and a variety of argument styles—this doesn’t mean I want to hear poorly conceived args or cheap shots. Unless definitions of words matter for the rez at hand (aka topicality), I would prefer that you just shelve that and debate substance.

- I probably do not want to hear cases that read like an essay

- Yes, I disclose. Will try to be as thorough as possible. If you have questions about my decision-making process, you should ask in-person if possible.

- Evidence comparison, weighing, and analysis are crucial—regardless of your experience, you need to tell me how to vote, what matters most—it’s not enough to say “x matters,” tell me why x matters more than y; don’t just restate things, explain why it’s true; grandstanding is unhelpful

- Not a fan of “value is morality, criterion is util, contention one” with zero explanation of either (threshold for response is zero), FWs that are just “upholding my side of the rez” are even worse

- On that same note, unless there is clash at the FW level (i.e., Kant v. Util), I don’t mind if FW is conceded—two people can agree on a metric for impacts but disagree on what action is more ethically justified under said metric—never be afraid to just move on if there’s no clash at the FW level (I guarantee I will probably be happier)

- Trad v. circuit: it’s a learning moment, I think circuit teams should be willing to explain whatever they’re reading (esp in CX—if you’re a jerk in CX and won’t explain your args, the odds are good that you will lose speaker points and possibly THE ROUND) and simplifying is good (1-off, case for Ks and 2-3 off w/ no procedurals for policy = good), won’t penalize trad debaters for not understanding circuit norms like disclosure, won’t penalize circuit debaters for playing the game (ex: if it’s late prelims/bubbles/elims and you need to go 5-off, I’m more sympathetic than in early prelims)

- Please say the name of the card before its content (i.e., “Jones 22: card content”), do not paraphrase evidence (that’s bad), made up evidence is an auto-L, brackets to inflate strength of warrant are almost definitely an auto-L

- Shenanigans like “they had no value/criterion” if they conceded FW or did something like reading a K will not make me happy (pls don’t mansplain LD to me…)

- Tell me how I should rectify abuse if you’re trying to call your opp out for being abusive—what is abusive? Do I drop the argument? Them? Why do I care that they were abusive?

- Follow norms on in-round safety—even traditional debaters should do things like respecting pronouns, this can and will cost ballots (debaters are starting to get overtly racist and antiqueer in rounds again, will penalize this even if your opponent doesn’t make an argument about it)

- No set perspective on the resolution (I don’t think the Aff has a burden to defend the topic as it is), so debaters’ dismissal of arguments isn’t a reason to reject it on my flow—if you think the Aff should debate the topic, for example, you must argue that they should debate the topic—read topicality and not an NC that doesn’t engage with a non-T aff

- Yes, I am fine with CPs, but most “counterplans” read in lay debate don’t make sense to me—pls endorse a singular, counter-course of action with actual evidence that explains why the CP solves the Aff (aka a solvency advocate), not an abstract counter-claim—I am unlikely to vote on CPs that I don’t understand

Theory

- Have judged a reasonable amount of these, I think these rounds are highly dependent on execution and need more weighing between standards, more framing, and more i/l weighing to fairness/education—the less resolvability work done by debaters, the more I probably look to substance and/or presumption; fairness might be an impact but deficits to fairness are rarely weighed (ex: how do I reconcile PICs stealing Aff offense AND the need for Neg flex)

- Most 1NCs/1ARs in policy rounds involve theory, fine here, make the abuse story and model of debate clearer earlier in the debate (how many condo good? why does dispo solve? what’s allowed?), if I can’t draw the line between speeches, unlikely to vote on it (this means a 10 second condo arg that gets made into a 3 min 2AR)

- Beating back paradigm issues can make theory easy to resolve; generally good for DTA + reasonability, can be persuaded fairness and education are not voters

- I am not the ideal judge for friv/abstract theory, clear and specific interps are always easier for me to resolve; will not eval stuff about your opponent's appearance or similar, use common sense here pls

- Combo shells could be arbitrary, could also be true if a certain combination of arguments uniquely skews strategizing, decide this for me

- I prefer that you do extend paradigm issues/voters on theory even if uncontested, but that you not be annoying abt it—treat it like a DA or something and this should hopefully make what I mean more obvious

- Not a fan of theory to shut out tough convos—this makes debate violent and reinforces systems of oppression

- I’m not a huge fan of “must include links to circuit debater on your wiki” or the like

- Reading more than 2 shells on either side will usually lead me to question your strategic decisions

- Won’t flow new 2AR theory arguments unless the 2NR was super abusive; similarly, paradigm issues, etc. need to be in the 1AR

- Not entirely against voting on RVIs, not great for throwing substance away and going for 6 min of the RVI when you could’ve won substance either

- Misdisclosure is really difficult for me to evaluate—I need: a) slow down. tell me exactly what was asked for and what was given—I will evaluate screenshots from both ends, b) standards that tie into this difference (e.g., prep skew), c) why it’s DTD (one analytic seems more like DTA, entirely different adv/plan is reasonably DTD)

Disclosure

- I do think that, on balance, disclosure has improved CX and LD, but reading disclosure theory seems like a mandate for equality when equity is the concern—as of late, I think that the reading of disclosure is often violent and am much more receptive to the idea that many groups have good reasons not to disclose—policy v. policy seems ripe for disclosure theory, but reading it against a K aff is not a good look

- Performances and similar materials do not need to be disclosed (you do you)

- Don't read disclosure at locals unless you're like both going hard circuit-style (even then, figure this stuff out yourselves pls)

- New Affs Bad: not my favorite argument, but I understand that it’s necessary as a procedural/possible 2NR out—go for better warrants over more, poorly explained standards, and skip “can’t engage with the Aff” if you put a lot of answers on case (relatively low threshold for identity-based responses here, just a heads up); the joke "I prepped for "it's new"" was maybe funny once in like 2019

Tricks

- Not the best judge for truth-testing as a ROB, okay-ish for things like ethical paradoxes and some epistemic paradoxes (one-card “skep Ks” are awful, gettier problems are kinda cool and not read enough), not big on strategies designed to avoid clash—I really dislike arguments that say “disregard the flow” that are tricky in nature

- Warrants are key, if I can't explain it back to you based on what was said in-round, it doesn't get the ballot

- Paradoxes can be cool but you have to devote more time to them if you want them to take out an entire framework

- I am not the right judge for crazy logic paradoxes, there just isn't enough time for me to flow these or understand an equation in the context of an LD round

- Slews of analytics are hard for me to flow, slow down if the 1AC/1NC is loaded

- I evaluate all speeches in a given round

Evidence Ethics (all events)

- I'll eval both theory and ev ethics challenges, the latter stops the round and winner gets a W, loser gets lowest speaks I can give

- If it's an ev ethics challenge, I'll allow both teams to make a written defense of their practice and we go from there

- For clipping: I tend to not flow off the doc—this means I need a recording and definitive proof (beyond just a line or so)

Misc Stuff

- Defaults: Comparative Worlds, Epistemic Confidence – I have no defaults on theory (make arguments)

- Permissibility and presumption both negate at face value, though presumption flips Aff if the Neg reads an advocacy – it is MUCH easier to convince me that presumption affirms than permissibility

- I don’t care if you sit or stand—just be clear

CONFLICTS:

All entries – Sequoyah HS (GA), Perry HS (AZ), Ivy Bridge Academy (GA), Dean Rusk MS (GA)

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 strongly believe in narrowing the debate in the summary speeches. I really want you to determine where you are winning the debate and explain that firmly to me. In short: I want you to go for something. I really like big impacts, but its's important to me that you flush out your impacts with strong internal links. Don't just tell me A leads to C without giving me the process of how you got there. Also don't assume i know every minute detail in your case. Explain and extend and make sure that you EMPHASIZE what you really want me to hear. Slow down and be clear. Give me voters (in summary and final focus). 

Speed is fine as long as you are clear. I work very hard to flow the debate in as much detail as possible. However, if I can't understand you I can't flow you. 

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 am comfortable with any style of debate. Since everything is virtual, my only request is to be clear when speaking so your opponent(s) and I can hear and understand you.

Lincoln Douglas:

I enjoy kritiks, but am comfortable with any traditional or non traditional types of cases.

I also like hearing counter plans, but these need to have a well-articulated net benefit with sufficient evidence.

I don't flow CX's, but I will take them into consideration for weighing my ballot and speaker points.

Please provide me with an off time roadmap before each speaking round.

Public Forum:

I flow logic, and please weigh your arguments. Weighing is the best way you can get me to vote for your team. I would also prefer you to collapse your arguments into one or two.

I have no tolerance for oppressive discourse.

I don't flow CX's, but I will take them into consideration for weighing my ballot and speaker points.

Please provide me with an off time roadmap before each speaking round.

History: Debated for 4 years on the national circuit and a little bit on the local circuit. Went to Semis at GFCA State 2018, Broke at NSDA Nationals 2018, and broke at NFL Nationals 2019, along with breaking at multiple national tournaments

UPDATE 11/13/20* It would be great if you can send me both of your cases before the round, it would be even better if you can also send me every card you use in the round, doing this makes my job easier and I will give you higher speaks.

Evaluation: I vote off of Final Focus, however anything not brought up in Summary should not be reintroduced in Final Focus (aka extending through ink) as I will not evaluate the argument, because you do not consider it important enough to be weighed in the second half of the round. I expect Road Maps before every speech besides the constructive, that way I know where you are going throughout the speech, and I can clearly recognize your route to my ballot. If you do not stick to your Road Map I will dock your speaks. Also, Sign Posting when giving your speeches will help me a lot, and I will probably be able to evaluate as much as possible as you will be giving me organized arguments. Make sure you extend your Framework throughout the round if you want me to evaluate it, also make sure to explain why your framework is more important than the opposition if there is a conflict in that area. If you don't provide a frame work I default to a Cost Benefit Analysis I would also love for you to explain the analysis and warrants behind the evidence that you bring up in the round, I do not really care what the author has to say directly, rather I care about how the card impacts the round. I am also a big fan of analysis from YOU as this event is focused around the education of argumentation. As for specific speeches I expect the 1st Rebuttal to have a great deal of offense as you should not have to play defense because the 2nd speaking team has not given their rebuttal yet. For the 2nd Rebuttal I expect it to have a good amount of Front lining as you should be responding to the 1st speaking teams rebuttal. I do not mind the 1st Summary having a little bit of defense as it is the only chance to respond to the 2nd rebuttal, but I do expect you to be winning your links and extending important offense throughout the majority of the speech. 2nd Summary should be solely focused on winning your links and extending offense, as well as explaining to me why you are winning the round. For Final Focus your job is to win the round by extending offense, and winning/weighing your impacts. Side Notes: I am not super familiar with theory, but I will try to evaluate it the best way I can. TECH OVER TRUTH

Preferences: Cross Examination: Make sure to be productive in cross examination, you should be asking questions about areas you are confused about, you are not trying to gain a specific tactical advantage, that is why it is called a cross examination and not its own respective speech. I also do not flow cross examination so if you have something important to say you need to bring it up in your speech Speed: I can handle a good bit of speed, however make sure to emphasize the most important substance, that way I can make as few mistakes as possible. Attitude: I am not one to vote you down for being too aggressive, but just note that the majority of judges do not like when you act in a derogatory manner, and it is not that appealing. I understand you can get frustrated but just try to chill out. Speaks: I rarely give a 30, but if you get above a 28.5 it means that I view you as an above average debater so congrats.

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.

Some background:.

I am the CTO of a mid sized FinTech company. I have been judging PF for the past 6 months.

I take a lot of notes during the debate and make my decision on the most convincing arguments.

Please provide an offline roadmap and also do clear signposting so I can take good notes.

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.

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

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

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

Here are some more specific notes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

I flow rounds. Alerting me to clear contentions and off time road maps assists me in completing my flows. I am absolutely not capable of flowing if you SPREAD, in fact, if you choose to SPREAD, I will stop flowing and listen. I prefer to hear you present your arguments verses reading your prepared material. The documents will provide me the name of your source when I review before making a final decision. I favor up to date resources as changes happen daily, when presenting your argument I focus on the year of the evidence to include in my flow. Cross fires should be civil. I generally look to typical speech characteristics when determining speaker points, such as speaking with clarity and articulation. I also consider the general characteristics of giving a speech such as how you present yourself through your demeanor both individually and as a team, as well as with your opponents.

Please send all speech docs to icwestdebate@googlegroups.com. Please also send the speech doc to cooper.john@iowacityschools.org. 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. NOTE: I am a PF traditionalist. 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 a 3L law student at the University of Iowa. I am the current varsity PF coach at Iowa City West. I have coached two teams (Duchesne Academy of the Sacred Heart BB and Iowa City West KE) to qualifying to the gold TOC.

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 fine 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.

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.

he / him

My email for the chain is hbharper8@gmail.com

I am okay with anything you run as long as it is explained well. Tech > Truth. Please be respectful to your opponent.

Fun Facts:

I did PF from 2015-19.

I default to an offense / defense paradigm for evaluating rounds.

I do not like to base my ballot only on disclosure theory or topicality, so you shouldn't make those your only voters.

I don't expect you to run a counter-interp against theory. You can just treat it like a normal argument.

The second rebuttal should address the first rebuttal. Responses in first summary are fine too.

I appreciate funny taglines and puns when they are in good taste.

Y'all, don't be mean, it will only hurt your speaks.

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.

My preferences are pretty standard. I like taking notes on the arguments, evidence, impacts etc while you are speaking. I don't like new ideas introduced later in the debate. Weigh as much as possible to differentiate your narrative from your opponents, starting from the summary.

I'll weigh everything at the end of all the rounds. Public forum should encourage well-rounded, persuasive debating. Be respectful during crossfire, no time wasting tactics. I judge on your preparation, ideas, evidences, rebuttal, arguments, and impacts. My final decision comes down to all of them on both sides.

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.

I am a parent judge. I value truth over tech. Please go slow and be engaging. Never judged ld before.

Background: He/Him/His pronouns. I am a third-year law student at NYU and currently coach PF at Durham Academy (NC).

Email Chains: Teams should start an email chain immediately with the following email subject: Tournament Name - Rd # - School Team Code (side/order) v. School Team Code (side/order). Please add nmengisteab@gmail.com to the email chain.

Teams should send case evidence (and rhetoric if you paraphrase) by the end of constructive. I cannot accept locked Google Docs; please copy and paste all text into the email and send it in the email chain. It would be ideal to send all new evidence read in rebuttal, but it is up to the debaters.

Evidence: Reading Cut card > Paraphrasing. Even if you paraphrase, I require cut cards. These are properly cut cards. No cut cards means I won't evaluate your evidence in the round.

Main PF Paradigm:

• Offense > Defense. Offense requires proper extensions, frontlining, and weighing. It will be difficult to win with just terminal defense.
• Speed. I will try my best to handle your pace, but please be clear; if you aren't, it will be harder for me to flow.
• Speech specifics: The second rebuttal must frontline the first rebuttal responses. Generally, anything in Final Focus should be in Summary—extensions and frontlining matter. New weighing in final focus is flexible depending on the position and/or whether it's responsive (this doesn't give license to dump all new weighing in the last speech).
• Please weigh: Use comparative weighing for your links and impacts with either timeframe, magnitude, or probability. Strength of link, clarity of impact, cyclicality, and solvency are not weighing mechanisms. Please note that winning your arg's link first is more important than only focusing on weighing.
• I'll evaluate (almost) anything. You can expect I'll have already researched a topic, but I'll evaluate anything on my flow (tech over truth). I will intervene and vote you down) if you argue anything blatantly racist, sexist, homophobic, or fabricated (i.e., major evidence issues).
• I will always allow accommodations for debaters. Just ask before the round.

"Progressive" PF:

• Ks - I'm okay with the most common K's PFers try to run (i.e., Fem/Fem IR, Capitalism, Securitization, Killjoy, etc.), but I am not familiar with high theory lit (i.e., Baudrillard, Bataille, Nietzsche). Run at your own risk.
• *Theory - Debate is a game, so do what you must do. If you're in the varsity/open division, please don't complain that you can't handle varsity-level arguments. Evidence of abuse is needed for theory, especially disclosure-related shells. I will (usually) default competing interps. I generally think disclosure is good, preferably cut-card open source, and paraphrasing is bad, but I won't intervene if you win the flow. If your disclosure is unintelligible b/c you pasted pages of article text, then I don't think you really disclosed (open to this as a response as applicable).
• Trigger warnings with opt-outs are only necessary when there are graphic depictions in the arg, but not when there are non-graphic depictions about oppression. Use your best judgment here.
• *Note - if you read excessive off positions in a PF round (ex: 4), I will try my best to evaluate the round, but run at your own risk.

Misc: Please preflow before the round; I don't think crossfire clarifications are necessary to my ballot, so if something significant happens, you should make it in ink and bring it up in the next speech; Speaker points usually range from 28 to 30.

Questions? Ask before the round.

Very lay judge, speak slow and have fun.

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.

I am a parent judge - 2020-2021 was my twins' final year as high school debaters, and I usually judged at almost every tournament, so I have been lucky enough to see a bunch of really great rounds. I typically judged PF, but have also judged a fair amount of LD.

I am looking for a DEBATE - not just the best speeches. I will give the win to the team that makes the most compelling case as to why their side is right and/or the opponent is wrong. I tend not to flow every specific point, but rely more on which team's overall argument is stronger. I probably put more weight on cross-ex and final summary arguments than most judges.

I usually am more convinced by a smaller number of really great points that are well defended than a whole bunch of pretty good points (quality of argument versus quantity). I am also looking for the debaters to pay attention to what their opponent says and specifically give a good counter argument to those points.

!!! 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 am a parent judge. Speak slowly and be concise.

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 will judge based on argumentation, use of evidence, and logic. I am not a big fan of spreading either, so please talk clearly.

Also, it would be great if you could send a speech document after the constructive speech as my Wifi is not very good and I would not want you to lose because of that.

- 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

Hello Debaters! I have experience in the debate community judging since 2016! I debated PF at Grovetown High School from 2014-2016, and now teach English at Riverwood High School!

I mostly judge PF:

1. Please speak at a pace where I and the opposing team can understand you.
2. Do not assume that I know all the lingo of the resolved. (ex: random treaties, random signed government documents) Please explain when something has been abbreviated.
3. I do not need an off-time road map. If you need to jot one down on your paper for your organizational purposes, cool, but it has no use to me as I am writing down literally everything you are saying, and do not need the order your speech goes in, unless you are just telling me that you are just explaining that the speech has one purpose (ex Impacts).
4. Please. Look. At. Each. Other. During. Cross. Not. Me. It’s. Weird. You’re arguing and questioning each other. It’s not a speech, It's a time to question each other!!
5. Please take prep time when reading another opponent's evidence.
6. Please do not give me the impact of POVERTY. Debaters usually try to link some huge world problem in the resolve with the impact that poverty is the end all-be-all, and is the worst thing ever. Global poverty is a systemic issue that people cannot help as it is an effect of systemic racism, capitalism, etc. Poverty is the reality of many inside and outside of the debate community, and you never know what someone is carrying into a round with on their back. I have seen this impact so over used and incorrectly used in the past years it has been harmful to me as a judge. This is a complex issue that 14-18 year olds cannot solve, and is usually only given harmful, exacerbated solutions to, therefore I no longer want to hear about it.
7. I will generally base speaker points on rhetorical skill rather than argumentative technicals.
8. Constantly tell me why I should vote for you. In other words, weigh impacts and extend your arguments. Please don't just repeat your contentions for every segment.
9. Debate should be a fun, enjoyable and equitable experience for all parties involved. If I hear students making discriminatory comments towards other teams or arguments discriminating others I will report you to the tournament leader and your coach, and have you pulled from the tournament. You are representing your school, your community, and your family when you are at these events. This is bigger than you.
10. If I close my eyes or look to the side while you are speaking during your speech, I am trying to focus and listen. I have combined type-ADHD, and I am just trying to SUPER FOCUS on the WORDS YOU ARE SAYING!! PF has so much info, I don't wanna miss a second!! Please do not take offense!

11. I prefer not to be included on email chains. If I need to see a piece of evidence that is called into question, I will look at it for myself.

12. Please, use your manners and let each team finish speaking during the crossfire. Let each other finish the question and talking. It's rude to treat your opposing team like that. Use your southern manners Y'all.
13. Give me a second while I am entering a round for the first time to set up everything. I be carrying junk around in my bag.
14. Please extend arguments and impacts in your summary and Final Focus, I understand it can be tempting to summerize your contentions. The other team and I listened to the whole hour plus of debate too, tell me how your contentions still stand and WHY! Give me impacts of those contentions. WHY THEY MATTER!!

15. I disclose after every round because I hate typing. :)

If you have any questions, feel free to email me at storyariel@gmail.com

See you out there! Happy Debating!

"Tout ce qui se conçoit bien s'énonce clairement, et les mots pour le dire arrivent aisément." ~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. There are plenty of examples of overemphasis in the world; be different. You should aim to stun your opponent & judge with an argument (or speech) that is worded with precision, starting from a solid framework, methodically laid out with a logical progression, and reinforced throughout with sound and airtight research / data 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. Again, there are plenty of examples of rudeness in the world; be different. And please, keep your own time.

Ph.D., Emory. I've judged on the regional and national circuit, mainly LD and PF, although I've also judged speech a bit and quite enjoyed it. ;)

Email: lupadhyay@chapin.edu

Educational Background:

Georgia State University (2004-2007) - English Major in Literary Studies; Speech Minor

Augusta University (2010-2011) - Masters in Arts in Teaching

Georgia State University (2015-2016) - Postbaccalaureate work in Philosophy

Revelant Career Experience:

English Teacher/Debate Coach (2011-2015) Grovetown High School

LD Debate Coach (2015-2018) Marist School

English Teacher/Debate Coach (2018-2022) Northview High School

English Teacher/Debate Coach (2022-present) Lassiter High School

Public Forum

Argue well. Don’t be rude. I’ll flow your debate, so make the arguments you need to make.

Policy

I haven't judged a lot of policy debates. I'm more comfortable with a little slower speed since I don't hear a lot of debates on the topic. I'm ok with most any time of argumentation, but I'm less likely to vote on theory arguments than K or Case arguments. Add me to your email chains.

Lincoln Douglas

I appreciate well warranted and strong arguments. Keep those fallacies out of my rounds.

If the negative fails to give me a warranted reason to weigh her value/value criterion above the one offered by the affirmative in the first negative speech, I will adopt the affirmative's FW. Likewise, if the negative offers a warranted reason that goes unaddressed in the AR1, I will adopt the negative FW.

I appreciate when debaters provide voters during the final speeches.

Debaters would probably describe me as leaning "traditional", but I am working to be more comfortable with progressive arguments. However, I'll vote, and have voted, on many types of arguments (Plans, Counterplans, Ks, Aff Ks, and theory if there is legitimate abuse). However, the more progressive the argument and the further away from the topic, the more in depth and slower your explanation needs to be. Don't make any assumptions about what I'm supposed to know.

Debates that don't do any weighing are hard to judge. Be clear about what you think should be on my ballot if you're winning the round.

Speed

If you feel it absolutely necessary to spread, I will do my best to keep up with the caveat that you are responsible for what I miss. I appreciate folks that value delivery. Take that as you will. If you're going to go fast, you can email me your case.

Disclosure

I try to disclose and answer questions if at all possible.

Cross Examination/Crossfire

I'm not a fan of "gotcha" debate. The goal in crossfire shouldn't get your opponent to agree to some tricky idea and then make that the reason that you are winning debates. Crossfire isn't binding. Debaters have the right to clean-up a misstatement made in crossfire/cross ex in their speeches.

Virtual Debate

The expectation is that your cameras remain on for the entirety of the time you are speaking in the debate round. My camera will be on as well. Please add me to the chain.

Axioms

“That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.” — Christopher Hitchens

”There are three ways to ultimate success: The first way is to be kind. The second way is to be kind. The third way to be kind.” — Mr. Rogers

Contact: jonwaters7@gmail.com