Most of my experience is in Policy and LD, however, I do have experience in PF, parli, extemp debate, and World Schools.

General preferences:

I can handle speed, but if you're going to spread then I would like to see an email chain (mikeythird8@gmail.com).

I will keep time and encourage you to as well. This means in round you should sound off when you start your speech or prep time so I can make sure my time is accurate. I would prefer if you keep track of your own prep time, but I'll keep track of that as well. While I think it's important for you as a debater to keep time, judge time is the only true time.

A major pet peeve I have is when debaters simply repeat their arguments to defend them instead of actually refuting the response to their argument. Repetition is not refutation, nor will I count it as such.

Do not be rude, condescending, etc. Your speaks will not look good by the end of the round.

TL;DR - I will vote on any argument, I lean traditional (in policy I prefer stock issues), and try and have a good round and stay away from gish galloping and cheap args.

For PF:

I've never found preferences to be super useful in PF beyond what I have already gone over in general so this section is gonna be a bit sparse. The only thing that comes to mind is the importance of weighing. I'm not gonna weigh the round unless both teams fail to do so, otherwise I'm most likely going to default to which ever team does weigh. In terms of weighing, I will default to a util framework unless told otherwise. I'll vote on anything but I would keep it simple, it is only PF.

For LD:

The biggest thing I want to see in any LD round is a definitive framework debate. I don't want to chose a framework by the end of the round, I want one to be the clear winner. In terms of knowledge base, I'm not the most well educated in moral philosophy, but I do know a decent amount. Just make sure your framework is clearly explained and don't just rely on my ability to decipher your cards. Beyond that my only other comment for LD would be that I am personally a trad debater. Being as I have pretty extensive policy experience, I can handle prog LD, but I don't really like it and I'm going to be more open to trad arguments. In my opinion, LD does not have the time structure to support progressive arguments and I think that moral philosophy debate is good in itself. Extend any of my applicable preferences on policy to prog LD.

For CX:

This is where most paradigms get long, but I am going to try and keep it on the shorter side.

For some general notes, I am a flow judge, but I would still like to see well labeled speech docs. For neg that means actual titles for your off instead of just numbers and for aff that means clear indications of different sections (adv 1, adv 2, solvency, etc.). This isn't a voter by any means but it may help your speaks and at the very least it will make the round easier to follow.

Tech > Truth; Quality > Quantity

I will only vote on what is said in round, my opinions will not be inserted. However, I do not like the strategy of pitching 5 off and a 4 pages of case cards at a team and seeing what they drop. This kind of debate will not work well to convince me to vote for you, and at the very least your speaks will take a severe hit.

T/Theory

My opinions on theory are few, but my opinions on T are many. In terms of theory, I have rarely seen theory args I think are valid complaints, but I'll vote for anything. Although I personally dislike disclosure theory a lot, mainly because it is a cheap argument and often is just used for no valid reason, I will still vote on it if not contested because I have to, don't make me vote on disclosure theory. On T, I personally spend a lot of time debating T and It's probably one of my strongest arguments so I am kind of a stickler for it. I want well written interps with clear standards and voters. I want counter interps that make sense and standards for them that are clear. I will default to competing interp and drop the debater unless told otherwise. My biggest thing for both T and theory is that it is a major argument for the round and the amount of time you dedicate to it and where you put in the order do matter. Those factors help me, as the judge, determine if you're simply running another off or if it's an actual complaint on the other team and if it actually means something to you. One final note on either T or Theory is that it shouldn't look like it got cobbled together last second, even though it probably was. Take the time to edit it and make it coherent.

CPs

These are pretty run of the mill. There's not much to say beyond the fact that I would prefer if you write out the full plan text for Agent or Process CPs instead of just saying "do the plan" in parenthesis. Also make sure you actually write out a plan text for States CP, I found that sometimes people don't because it's so well known, but I would accept not having a plan text as a valid reason to drop the argument. States CP's are pretty standard, but the wording of the plantext, even for a States CP can be a vital factor in debates. There are a couple of different theory args that can be run on CPs, so see above for any details about those. When it comes to Perms, I have no real prefs.

DAs

Pretty basic stuff, UQ and Brink cards need to be recent, I won't throw out the DA on that if your opponent does not call it out, but It's a very valid argument in my mind. That being said, the aff should explain what has changed in the world to call a UQ or Brink card invalid, unless it is more than a year old. I could accept generic link cards if the aff does not give a valid reason why they should not apply or if the neg can comprehensively explain why they do apply.

Ks

I'm not much of a k debater, I'm open to anything but I'm not familiar with the topic lit or most k lit. I do not like K affs, but if they are clear enough and not contested well I would vote for them, just know I'd prolly be very open to anti- K aff arguments.

Ask any questions you have about my paradigm or preferences before the round starts.

As personal context, I'm a college student in Philadelphia. In high school, I was involved in forensics for three years, the first of which I spent in PF and the latter two of which I committed to trad LD. I have a good understanding of framework and contention level argumentation, and I do flow rounds. I consider myself tabula rasa and my voting is framed by the framework you give me. I accept any arguments, so long as they are neither offensive nor discriminatory. I'm fine with speed but keep it comprehensible.

Keep the round civil and limit the snarky comments.

elliehan1004@gmail.com

I'm Riley (she/her)

I'm currently a freshman at American University, majoring in international studies. In high school I did 4 years of congress, 2 years of extemp, and 1 year of (traditional) LD.

Disclaimer: Don't worry if I'm looking down a lot. I promise I'm listening!! I just flow on paper.

tldr: signpost, don't be rude, and go 75% speed if we are online. Send speeches if you plan to spread. Otherwise, go crazy. I'll consider anything (excluding tricks) as long as it's a quality argument and you weigh it.

If you're reading this and I'm your congress judge, kudos to you! Congress is at the bottom.

General:

I don't go for tricks. I don't really understand them, and every explanation I've gotten from my circuit friends makes me dislike them more.

I'm okay with spreading, just make sure to send your speech.

Anything bigoted (racist, sexist, homophobic, etc) will end in a loss and a report to tab. Anything rude will lose you some speaks. Anything rude directed towards novices or new debaters will lose you a lot of speaks.

I flow.

LD:

I did traditional LD for one year, mostly locally, so I'm not super familiar with progressive/circuit stuff. The closest I got was the occasional t-shell. That being said, Ks, CPs, theory, etc. all have a clear structure. I should be able to follow if you execute it well.

My biggest pet peeves are new args in the 2AR, and not weighing in the 2AR. I do not consider new arguments in Please, please, please weigh.

Policy:

I've never competed in policy- I've only judged it. Good arguments are good arguments, though, and good structure is good structure. As long as you have that, I'll be able to follow.

Congress:

As a former congressional debater, I think congress paradigms should be the norm. There's so much variance in judge preferences and stylistic preferences that goes unaccounted for otherwise. Authorships should be an introduction to the issue with background. There shouldn't be any pure constructive speeches late- or even mid-round. There should be refutation anywhere you can fit it, and you should be crystalizing if your part of the last few aff/neg cycles.

Style is nice, but not without substance. Your 1 minute introduction is not worth sacrificing a point. At the end of the day, it's congressional debate. Please debate.

Your priority should be to give a speech, no matter how bad you think it will be. A mediocre speech on every bill will get you better ranks than one good speech on one bill.

A note to potential POs- I have POed. I know the rules, and I won't tank your rank for it.

I look for fluency and structure in arguments and speaking. I do enjoy some solid jokes from time to time. And don't forget to live a little. Please also enjoy the competition!

LD: No spread is preferable, I am not Ben Shapiro and neither are you, you can slow down your speaking speed, just a bit. If I cannot understand you, I cannot judge you appropriately.

I am a parent judge. I have been judging public forum, Lincoln Douglas, and Speech for last 3 years. I work as a senior engineer in a defense industry.

1) I don't prefer spreading, because if I can't understand and follow you what you are saying, I can't judge you well based upon the content of your debate.

2) Be concise and clear, and present your contentions and arguments well.

3) Be respectful and civil to opponents.

4) For online tournaments, I would like to have all the contestants with their camera on during the debate round even when they are not speaking. Keep yourself muted if you are not speaking.

For each round, I do my absolute best to be fair and unbiased. Framework is important, and Impacts are slightly more. Logic also matters. At the end of the round, If you prove to me why your opponent is wrong and you are right, it will weigh in the most on decisions.

But most importantly, have fun, be respectful.

Can flow if spreading. Enjoys impact weighing. Keep things organized. Don't be afraid to crack a joke and have some fun.

Debated 4 years in high school, graduated 2016. Experience at several NCFL national tournaments. Been consistently judging every year since graduating, including national tournaments.

Experience in CX, LD, PFD, Parli, some speech events

Flow judge, love to see clash, framework debate, and legitimate voters in final speeches. Debaters should do warrant analysis and weighing.

I see speech and debate as a scholarship event. I will take evidence quality into account. Research papers are more credible than politicians or news sources that are notoriously biased.

Will listen to any argument. Competitors must validly prove abuse if present. Don't wait until the 2AR to make a spreading unfair argument. If you think you’re winning on T, feel free to go for T

Extensions should be carried through the round. Extensions do not mean new carded evidence.

Email: czurmuhl@gmail.com

Feel free to email me about questions regarding the RFD or for general advice