flow judge

Email Chain

Kekeli6504@gmail.com

Quick notes (Credit to Chelsea Hodgeson for this)

I’m only going to flow what you read, not what is sent on the email chain. The purpose of this is to provide an avenue in the event of contested evidence.

I do not flow cross ex/crossfire, it must be in a speech if you want it voted on. I do believe cross is binding but the only way to execute this is to include it in a speech.

Background:

Hi, my name is Kekeli (She/Her) and I am currently studying Environmental Science and International Studies at Emory University. I've done policy debate for three years at Brooklyn Tech and I've judged Policy, PF, and Congressional rounds before. I've run antiblackness, cap k, policy args, and a decent amount of theory. I’m fine with spreading but it is to your benefit that you are clear and slow down on tags and analytical arguments.

If there are blatantly racist, ableist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic arguments or statements and the opposition points it out and tells me it's bad in any way and I agree you will lose (this is rather strict for example "black people are criminals" will have you voted down "stats show that black people in the US have higher arrest rates" will not, notice the difference even if I personally believe both are bad I will only vote down the former).

TLDR:

I will vote for most things. This includes T, DAs (with impacts but hopefully you know that), Kritiks, Counter Plans, and theory.

I generally believe that you should do what you do best, just make sure that you guide the judge through your strategy.

(However, for PF do not run disclosure that requires more than the constructives.)

Credits to William Cheung for the rest of the this

1) Have a claim, warrant, and impact to every argument. It isn’t an argument absent these three elements, and I will have trouble/not be able to/want to adjudicate what you’ve said.
2) Make sure, on that note to properly explain your positions, don’t make an assumption that I know your DA scenario (perhaps fill me in on the internal work), or K jargon. Maybe I haven't judged that many rounds on this topic and don't understand abbreviations right away - help me out.
3) Have comparative analysis of evidence, arguments, and performative styles as it compares to your own and how I ought to prioritize impacts as it relates to your framing of the round.
4) Be Persuasive, it will go a long way to making me sign my ballot your way if you can make the round enjoyable, touching, funny, etc – it will also help your speaks.
5) Write the ballot for me in your last speech , tell me how you win. Take risks, and don’t go for everything. Make me think, “woah, cool, gonna vote on that” “What they said in the last rebuttal was exactly how I prioritized stuff too, judging is soooo easy [it's often not :(]"

Also, some other things:

1) I will default to competing interpretations on T and extinction unless alternative mechanisms of evaluating the round or alternative impacts are introduced and analyzed.

2) I will default to rejecting the argument not the team unless you tell me otherwise (see above)
3) I will avoid looking at evidence, unless there is a dispute over evidence in a round or a debater spins it as part of being persuasive

4) Extend arguments if you want them to be voted on and no new args in the final speeches
5) I am an open minded judge, and respect all “realms” of debate, though my own experience was as a K debater (I do usually take FW and T on both sides), I will do my best to mitigate my biases.

A little bit about me:

I am an intermediate PF debater from Lakeland High School.

Preferences:

1. I will flow during round, and so whichever arguments/impacts are extended throughout the round will be voted on.

2. I can handle speed for the most part but be sure to annunciate

3. For me, winning more arguments doesn't necessarily mean winning a debate if the impacts are not as large. Also be sure to weigh these impacts and show me how one is more important than the other.

4. Argument link chains have to be explained clearly. If it is not I cannot weigh it in the ballot.

5. Remember to collapse on arguments during summary and final focus.

6. Be sure to use off time road maps and Signpost your arguments to make it easier for me to flow. The easier it is, the more I can flow and the easier it is for me to make a ballot.

7. Having good evidence is key to a good debate. I will call for evidence that I find questionable. This means taking cards out of context by cutting the word "not" out of a card. If this is done, then it will not be taken into consideration while I am making the ballot.

8. I like aggressive crossfires but just remember to be respectful to each other.

9. I shouldn't even have to mention this but like I said before be respectful to each other. I don't want to hear any cursing or comments against race, gender or anything of that sorts. Debate is meant to be a fun activity so just remember to have fun. Also if you are reading this, it shows that you are good debaters.

debated in policy in high school

email - safib2026@gmail.com

(I'm only paying attention to what you read this is simply for reference at the end of the round and to make sure emails are sent somewhat promptly)

I do flow cross ex/crossfire but it must be in a speech if you want it voted on. I do believe cross is binding.

Background: I've done policy debate @Brooklyn Tech and I've judged Policy and PF rounds before. I've run afropess, cap k, policy args, a decent amount of theory and have debated nearly every other mainstream arg (haven't hit death good, but I have read a bit). Having said that I'm fine with spreading just be clear, understand that virtual spreading is iffy if there's lag, and respectful of your opposition. I don't care about formal attire and don't take points for wearing sweats. I go by any/all pronouns. If there are blatantly racist, ableist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic arguments or statements you will lose. also don't try to tell me climate change is real

I'll vote for wtvr. That includes T, DAs (with impacts but hopefully you know that), Ks, Counter Plans, and theory.

Credits to William Cheung for the rest of the this

1) Have a claim, warrant, and impact to every argument. It isn’t an argument absent these three elements, and I will have trouble/not be able to/want to adjudicate what you’ve said.
2) Make sure, on that note to properly explain your positions, don’t make an assumption that I know your DA scenario (perhaps fill me in on the internal work), or K jargon. Maybe i haven't judged that many rounds this topic and don't understand abbreviations right away - help me out.
3) Have comparative analysis of evidence, arguments, and preformative styles as it compares to your own and how I ought to prioritize impacts as it relates to your framing of the round.
4) Be Persuasive, it will go a long way to making me to sign my ballot your way if you can make the round enjoyable, touching, funny, etc – it will also help your speaks.
5) Write the ballot for me in your last speech , tell me how you win. Take risks, and don’t go for everything.

Also, some other things:

1) I will default to competing interpretations on T and extinction unless alternative mechanisms of evaluating the round or alternative impacts are introduced and analyzed.
2) I will avoid looking at evidence, unless there is a dispute over evidence in a round or a debater spins it as part of being persuasive

3) Extend arguments if you want them to be voted on and no new args in the final speeches
4) I am an open minded judge, and respect all “realms” of debate, though of course, I will always already have some bias (I fully admit I am a K debater, although I do usually take FW and T on both sides), I will do my best to mitigate it.

I have over 15 years of experience in the field of education. I taught elementary education for 6 years, have directed several educational programs and am currently an instructor at the University level. I have judged 2 HS tournaments and 4 MS tournaments.

"historically incompetent" - aaron tian

2024 Update

im super old at this point. i like fast substance rounds with smart collapse strategies and unique implications. i do not appreciate the current K debate meta (almost always cut poorly) and i am not very compelled by discourse links in lieu of a real alt/method. i am also staunchly anti arguments about debaters as individuals/out of round actions and WILL probably intervene on them on principle.

im super lazy, i will not intervene if i can help it. if it takes me >2min to vote im probably intervening.

every round is decided by determining what the highest layer of offense is -> who links into that best

i don't think PF debaters execute theory or K debate well, so i think i would prefer you talk about the topic but i'm fine with/can evaluate whatever

yes i want on the chain if it’s varsity at a TOC bid tournament, email dylan.beach01@gmail.com

full paradigm: i am the beach

What I vote on

I vote on impacts. As long as all your links make sense and are frontlined, if you weigh your impacts better than your opponents you will win.

Quick Takes

reasoning < evidence < impacts < theory

I don't vote on technicalities

speed is fine, time yourselves

call out the logical fallacies your opponent commits by their latin name for +0.5 speaks

off-time roadmaps must be in iambic pentameter or not at all

I competed in national circuit PF from 2011-2014 and college speech from 2014-2018; my pronouns are she/her.

I will flow the round, so well-organized speeches that tell me where on the flow you are responding/extending is very helpful.

What I'm looking for is compelling arguments backed by reputable evidence. When there is clear "clash" between two teams I like to hear why your evidence/argument is more reputable/likely/truthful.

If your arguments are clearly racist, sexist, anti-queer, ableist, xenophobic etc., I won't vote for them.

I do not flow CX-anything that comes up in cross-examination that you want considered in the round needs to be mentioned in your speeches.

I prefer debaters time themselves except prep time-if you ask for a running clock on prep I will keep track of how much is used over the course of the round.

I can handle a certain amount of speed and I'll speak up if you aren't clear enough. I don't have any particular preferences for how you speak-so long as we are following along and can understand what you're saying; do what makes you comfortable.

Hi! Starting with the basics of the round, I'm a flow judge, and I look mainly at weighing and framework. If you are not able to give me a solid reason to vote for you, I'll probably give it to the other team or judge based on cost-benefit analysis, and you probably won't like either outcome. On Framework, please carry it through the round FULLY or else I wont count it into my decision. Same goes with the rest of your case, no sticky defense.

If you say anything Islamophobic, racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. you will be dropped. This includes generalizations about the Middle East, any rebuttals that sound very ALMish etc. If you run this, you should strike me cause I will drop you with no hesitation, and I will give you the lowest possible speaks.

PLEASE DO NOT ADD BLIPPY ARGUMENTS ABOUT SOCIAL ISSUES. i love arguments that call out the injustices across the world, but don't bring it up just to get a cheap win in 2nd summary.

I do not care about anecdotes. Please bring facts to the round and cut cards.

Theory/K's: totally fine, make sure it works in the context of the round.

Speed: speed is good. Make sure you speak clearly.

Crossfire: Cross is an important time to poke holes in your opponents arguments, and if you want to bring up something that happened in cross in a later speech, i will flow it. However, I do not flow cross.

Rebuttals: Make sure your signposting and try to go down the flow, or else it will be harder for me to take what you're saying into consideration. Giving an off-time roadmap would be preferred, and generally please make your arguments more than "this is non-unique" or reading a card. Give me a reason to prefer your argument and drop theirs.

Please keep track of your own time, I won't be giving time stamps. If you call cards, I'll give you 3 minutes to find and send them and then I'm running prep. I refuse to flow through new arguments in summary or FF, so please do not bring them up. I will take off speaker points if you do.

Lastly, I'll add speaks if you make me laugh, mention a quote from the movie Zombieland, mention the title of a Greenday song, and read the paradigm:)

I attended the TOC in 3 of my years of HS policy debate. Now I'm a dad hoping my kids develop an interest in this wonderful activity that hones and sharpens the mind. I strive to be tabula rasa, but--

Overall:

Win the nitty gritty, but don't underestimate the power of good storytelling. Do good risk analysis. Cut through the noise and let me know what's important. It's your job to tell me what's important. <--2A and 2N take notice!

I generally will only read a card after a round if that card has been contested and it is important. I value the ability of a debater to articulate an idea using their own words.

I've been out of the activity for many years. I'm not ready for serious spreading. Sign post clearly.

Let’s mimic an in person round and keep cameras on.

If you have any real world issues affecting the round that require accommodation, like you need to keep your camera off, bad wifi, tech issues, etc message me immediately. I want the round to be an inclusive environment and don’t want the real world to impact the round.

K (applies only to certain divisions of policy debate):

I’ve only seen a handful of K rounds so far. K did not exist when I was a kid. (I literally learned about K on Youtube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-te7QyiPlE)

For me, K is a voting issue *IF* you’re explicitly giving me some framing in rebuttals on how it’s a voting issue and explain the framework. If there is no framing and framework in rebuttals, I have trouble treating K as a voting issue by default and would use a policy framework, treat it as a counterplan, and vote on the utilitarian net benefits of plan vs K alternative. It’s your burden to give me the K framework and frame it for me in rebuttals.

Speaker points:

- - Go point by point over the opposing team’s arguments and directly clash with them (as opposed to just reading a pre-prepared brief on a contention without even referencing what the opposing team has argued.) This applies to all rebuttals and to parts of 2AC and 2NC. Even 1NC has an opportunity to clash with the case contentions directly.

- - Notice how this PF debater cites her opponent’s arguments before giving her own numbered responses (starting at 30:29): https://youtu.be/MUnyLbeu7qU?t=1795 That is how you’re supposed to directly clash. A flow of the round would show clash like this (notice no dropped arguments): https://drive.google.com/file/d/1DyCoxFGGMV7lLdbNstjgOD-814sY_1dU/view?usp=sharing

- - Don’t drop important arguments made by the other team. Feel free to drop arguments strategically but only if it is intentional. A team that has mastered flowing will naturally be better at direct clash (and will win more often). I encourage you to submit your flow sheets of the round to me. I’ll give you constructive feedback.

- - Cards are great, but debates are won with arguments. Focus on coming up with arguments that directly clash and respond to what was said. I value analytical arguments made using your own words. Reading off of briefs should only be happening in the earlier speeches.

- - As the debate goes further into rebuttals, deepen your explanation of what should be a voting issue and why. <-esp 2N and 2A

- - As the rebate goes further into rebuttals, deepen your explanation of why you’re winning as a whole. Weave together all the issues in the entire round. <-esp 2N and 2A

Did debate for 4 years on both the national and MA circuit, it you have more specific questions ask me before the round. If you have any special accommodations, feel free to send me an email @achoudhury541@gmail.com

For Spring Break Special:

1. I have not judged in a while. I will most likely be able to keep up, but I may clear you.

2. I am apathetic what type of arguments you read, but I still deeply care about how you read the arguments you present. That means you can still read warming good, the Psychoanalysis K, three T shells etc, but you must explain and weigh those arguments.

bencortez92@gmail.com

Full judging record available here (Speaks + RFD)

Bio: Parli at UChicago. LD at Loyola '21. TOC (x2)

Top level: Tech > Truth. Strategic decision making > Pandering to me. Good tech will override any preference I have below. I'll only intervene if there are arguments of equal strength without weighing claims to resolve them. In these situations, I look to evidence first, then truth.

Misc: Sometimes emotive; always flowing (but not off the doc). Not a fan of one-line cheap shots. You have my consent to record, but ask others. I don't keep time. 100% fine with post-rounding (time permitting). Will only evaluate warrants highlighted.

Banned arguments: Death good, oppression good, and out of round things (besides disclosure)

Argument history: Affs defended a plan and mostly big impacts. Negs were almost strictly policy: sometimes 6+ off, sometimes 6 minutes of impact turns, but usually something in between. K when policy ground was scarce. Sometimes read wacky things like Trump good, consult UN, and riders.

DA: Terminal impact calc >> strength of link barring instruction. Topic disads are good. Politics and riders are fine, but I understand intrinsicness (Read This). Uniqueness puts the straight turn in a much better place. Zero risk on ridiculousness like 2014 midterms. I like it better when turns case is earlier. New 2AR and 2NR weighing always.

CP: Fine for anything with a net benefit. Competition and solvency are neg burdens. Lean neg on most theory. Lean aff on most competition (Read This). Judge kick requires instruction.

Case: Case debate, impact turns, presumption, analytics, and/or re-highlighting are appreciated. Read re-highlight for offense. Insert for defense. No preference between soft left and big stick.

T: Slightly lean against bare plural arguments for clash/predictability reasons. One aff a topic is a terrible model. Model/vision of the topic is more persuasive than "9 factorial affs" in a vacuum. A staunch believer that the neg needs definitions otherwise we get infinite T debates.

Theory: Save for literal double turns or technical drops from shells, not good for the condo 2AR. Easier to convince me the abuse is unreasonable rather than to use competing interpretations.

K: Better for teams that utilize K tricks than those that wax poetically about society. Read cap, security, complexity, abolition, and anti/post-humanism during my career. Roughly familiar with other meta lit and their answers. Imo neg needs either solves/turns case, framework, unsustainability/inevitability, or a robust external extinction impact to win. I'll probably vote aff on case o/w otherwise.

K affs: Skeptical about framework's ability to cause either genocide or grassroots movements. Affirmatives need a counter interpretation/model of debate. Negatives need to answer case. Affs gets perms.

LD specifics

Phil: Will evaluate fairly, but more experienced with the util side. Epistemic modesty makes sense.

Other Things: K Framework needs to be in the 1NC. Paragraph theory with education and fairness assumed is fine. Unqualified to judge (but will begrudgingly evaluate) tricks and frivolous theory.

Speaker points: Will not punish for humor, sarcasm, or minor cursing. Will disclose points if you ask. 28.8-7 breaking. Current [28.75] average.

I’m a parent judge who has judged PF for four years. This paradigm was influenced by my son. I flow important points throughout the round.

Preferences:

1. Have both warrants and impacts backed up by evidence in your case. Carry them through the round if you want me to vote on them.

2. Do comparative weighing in summary AND final focus, this is important. Don’t use buzzwords.

3. If you want me to vote on an argument, it must be in summary AND final focus.

4. Don’t speak too quickly. If I can’t understand you, you  won’t win my ballot.

5. Be respectful, especially in crossfire, or  I will dock speaker points.

6. No new arguments in final focus, they will not be considered. Bring them up earlier in the round so your opponents can respond to them.

7. Have all evidence ready to show your opponents. Don’t take too long when evidence is asked for..

8. Signpost throughout your speeches. This also includes short offtime roadmaps. It makes it much easier to flow.

9. Clearly explain your arguments in each speech, do not just assume I have a prior understanding of every argument. I do some reading on the topic before the tournament, but I am by no means an expert.

10.  Don’t run progressive arguments (Ks, theory), I don’t know how to evaluate them.

Speaker Points (adjusted based on division):

<26: Very poor OR offensive, rude, tried to cheat, etc.

26-26.9: Below Average

27-27.9: Average

28-28.9: Above Average

29-29.5: Great

29.6-30: Amazing

I am a novice judge. Please no spreading. I have been taught to flow, but am very lay. If you want me to consider it in the round, say it in final focus. Keep track of your own prep time. Be respectful.

prefer no long "off time" roadmaps

please stick to your time

looking for clear weighing of your impacts vs your opponents' impacts

avoid reading very long passages/quotes

Hey all! If you have me as a judge, chances are that I'm super excited to judge your round and meet you all if I haven't already :)

A couple things about me. I debated in PF for four years at Newton South High School. I understand how a flow works and should have no problem following along with speed (if I am having trouble, I'll let you know). Second speaking teams do not have to frontline in second rebuttal unless they want to, and first speaking teams can extend dropped defensive arguments from rebuttal to final focus.

That being said, I tend to prefer arguments that I believe over speeches that are technically dazzling. I will be willing to vote off of theory, but I am also fairly skeptical regarding how important it is. If you have to use it, go for it; if you don't, probably better to not run theory. I love good warranting, and will not vote for a point if the warrant is not extended throughout the round. (Update: If I think an argument is stupid, I will also not vote for it. Convince me!) Going for fewer arguments with great explanation and weighing is probably the easiest way to win my ballot.

Oh also, putting this in here because it's a thing people are starting to do differently. I still default NEG, not first. If you want me to explain why, just ask.

Along those lines, the worst feeling in the entire world is when you lose a judge because they voted in a way that you didn't know they were going to vote. If there's anything I can answer for you before the round, please just ask.

Jacqueline Wei has a really good paradigm. Can we pretend that I just copy-and-pasted it here?

Background:

Any pronouns, ask for my email to put me on the chain. Former LD/PF/IPDA debater / speech competitor, and es/ms/hs/college coach.

General:

Tech versus Truth: I lean towards tech over truth, but I will intervene in cases where a debater and/or their advocacy is in some way harmful, violent or offensive (i.e. racism, transphobia, sexism, etc). I will always respect the wishes of the non-offending debater(s) in the round, but I also believe my role as an educator requires me to step in when no preference is indicated by competitors. All things equal, I will happily vote for an argument I don't believe if it won the round.

Speed: I find that online debate tends to exacerbate issues with speed (ex; lack of clarity, lagging, etc). Be mindful of this.

I'm stealing a quote from my good friendEva Lamberson's paradigm: "Rounds should be accessible to your opponent. This means that you should, of course, use inclusionary language, correct pronouns, content warnings if necessary, etc. but also means that you should not spread complex Ks or tricks or anything otherwise unnecessarily high level against novices, lay debaters, etc. If you do this I will be supremely annoyed and you will be very unhappy with your speaks. What is the point of winning a debate round if your opponent never has a chance to compete?" In general, I am very dissatisfied when debaters intentionally and unnecessarily make debate more exclusive and difficult to engage in.

Use of evidence: I believe debate is, at least partly, an educational activity, and evidence ethics are an academic issue. In the same way you might fail a paper or be academically punished for plagiarism, you will face consequences if you choose to misrepresent or manipulate evidence.

Public Forum

How I Decide Winners:

- The most important thing in picking me up as a judge is offering framing and comparative analysis. Specific judge instructions are key. Tell me what to vote off, why to vote off of it, and how it interacts with your opponent's offense. The more you tell me what to do, the less I have to think, and the more objective my ballot will be.

- My judging philosophy in PF tends to be what I describe as "the path of least resistance" or the "cleanest" way to vote. In other words, I'm more likely to vote for an argument that had very little interaction from your opponent versus trying to resolve a twenty argument long back and forth about who accesses nuke war. In other words, be strategic and don't just focus on the clash.

What I Like To See In PF:

- I am typically very persuaded by link clarity or strength of link arguments. I much prefer well developed link stories over well developed impact scenarios. Most PF debaters tend to lean towards the latter, but, as a judge, I will almost always vote for the argument with a smaller impact but far better explanation for how it is actually accessed. In other words: do more work on the link level.

- I really like impact scenarios that are specific to your link story. Often times, PF debaters will show X policy causes some arbitrary increase in X bad thing, and X bad thing can cause (insert maximum possible damage). But there isn't specificity on the policy/rez itself causing a certain portion or quantity of said impact.

- Extend last name + date on evidence AND actually extend the point of your evidence/arguments. Far too often, I see PF debaters extending "contention one" or "smith evidence" with no explanation of what it actually says/how it impacts the round, beyond the first speech it was introduced in. I have a low threshold for extensions, but I won't tolerate failing to even give me the tag of an argument or piece of evidence.

- Whatever is in final focus, should have been said in summary. I lean believing that defense is sticky, but can be persuaded.

- 2nd speaking team should frontline in rebuttal, always. At the very least, address offense/turns on case.

- Please, please sign post. The #1 problem I see with PF debaters: the lack of structure and organization in speeches. I will get lost, and your arguments poof into oblivion when that happens. The more you tell me what is happening and where on the flow I should be writing, the better my flow is!

What I Do Not Like To See In PF:

- Don't paraphrase. It undercuts debate, and often leads to really, really poor evidence norms. If you paraphrase, I expect you have fully cut cards available. If you are sending docs, you better include fully cut cards. To clarify: fully cut cards = actually highlighting/underlining of the evidence read, not just a blob of text from a source.

- Disrespectful comments, attitudes, or expressions. I see this most frequently in PF debate. Elitism will not win you rounds, at least with me.

- Perhaps one of the hottest takes I have is that I really prefer you don't use jargon much. I find PF debaters over-rely on jargon (half the time without even understanding what it really means). I much prefer you actually explain what you want me to do. This isn't to say I am anti-jargon, but rather, I think less is more.

- PF cases are increasingly more difficult to flow. With the popularity of paraphrasing and every single line being another argument or critical piece of information, it causes me to always feel "behind" in flowing. Pair that with fast speaking in the 1AC/1NC and you'll find a lot of gaps in my flow. If this applies to you: send a doc or speak slower if you don't want me missing your 6 word sentence that is an entire "card".

Progressive / Circuit in Public Forum Debate:

- Public Forum debate is still a relatively new event. It is "finding itself", so to speak. I am, generally, very willing to allow debaters to test those bounds. This means I am fairly okay with progressive concepts in PF, and am fairly competent at evaluating them. However: I do think debate should be accessible to your opponent (see more on that above). So, be mindful of whether the argument you're going to introduce into the round creates barriers for engagement.

K's/theory in PF often lack the level of structure and nuance you see in other events, which is fine! But it means that the way I evaluate these arguments it highly dependent on how they are introduced and debated.

Ultimately, you're the debater and I want you to have fun/enjoy debating. It's not my job to tell you what to do in a debate round, as long as it's moderately respectful. Read stock arguments or four blippy contentions or a k - I'll evaluate it all the same.

Lincoln Douglas

How I Decide Winners:

- The most important thing in picking me up as a judge is offering framing and comparative analysis. Specific judge instructions are key. Tell me what to vote off, why to vote off of it, and how it interacts with your opponent's offense. The more you tell me what to do, the less I have to think, and the more objective my ballot will be.

- My judging philosophy in LD is framework first. I determine who wins framing, to then evaluate which impacts matter or do not matter. Win framework, and win an argument under framework (or win an argument under your opponents) - and weigh. My ballot is that simple. If nobody "wins" framework, I will generally give priority to like-arguments (example: neither side wins framework, but both debaters discuss the economy).

What I Like To See In LD:

- Unique framework debates and well justified frameworks. like learning interesting theories, and hearing different perspectives of a topic. Challenge norms and think outside the box.

- Technical debates, i.e. in-depth flow debates, good weighing, strategize.

- Be entertaining. I judge a lot of rounds at a tournament, and the more interesting you are, the more likely you are to capture my attention. Online debate exacerbates attention-span issues.

- Give content warnings if appropriate.

- Unique arguments - reading stock DAs and generic framing is boring. Do something interesting.

What I Do Not Like To See In LD:

- Pointless values debates. They don't matter.

- If you do circuit with me as your judge, I am unlikely to vote off of tricks. I find them uneducational.

- "They don't achieve their FW" is not a response to framework, and leaves their framework 100% untouched and unrefuted.

- A source isn't sufficient to explain why something happens; articulate to me why they came to that decision/conclusion.

-------------------------------------

Generally, I just want to see engaging and respectful rounds. Otherwise, I am open to you doing whatever it is you want/like! This paradigm is meant to give context to how I think as a judge, but not to limit you. Have fun!

Middle School Paradigm:

• Choose a few arguments and make it very clear why they’re the most important

• Weigh your impacts!

• Explain everything (and remember to re-explain your argument from the resolution to the impact in Summary and FF)

• I like very organized speeches

• Summary and FF should be similar

• Be nice (especially in cross)

• Use they/them pronouns unless your opponents tell you otherwise

• If you are racist, LGBTQ+-phobic, ableist, rude, sexist, or are discriminatory in any other way, you will lose the round and may be reported

My longer paradigm - https://docs.google.com/document/d/17teFyL5H25AsRRIW5DLGVcL5NeqJjk4UPxy8e-RUKeE/edit?usp=sharing

I debated at Blue Valley North and at the University of Kentucky.

clucasdebate@gmail.com

For online debate, please turn your cameras on.

I would prefer if you went slightly slower than what you usually debate.

Topicality: I view topicality as a strategic argument on the same level as any other off-case position, I think it is incredibly valuable to debate. I don't think limits are the only impact but it is probably the best one. Instead of listing a lot of cases that exist under interpretations, I would prefer a smaller amount with a little explanation for each one. If reasonability is a big push, explain what you want me to understand when you say reasonability because I won't automatically understand how you are using it.

Disads: I will care a lot about smart turns case arguments especially ones that have cards. 

Counterplans: I won't judge kick unless you say something. This isn't a statement about how I believe conditionality interacts with judge kick or whatever, but more of if it's something you wanted me to do you should have the strategic thought to say it. I don't have any negative thoughts towards any types of counter-plans, but I would not say I am a strong judge for debates that would center around counterplan competition. 

FW: I think fairness is an impact. However, I think that the magnitude of that impact depends on your explanation of how you get there and what fairness itself means. I know that just describes doing impact calculus, but I always thought that doing impact calculus in framework debates was the most interesting kind of impact calculus because it has the most real-world implication. You are having a debate about debate so I think clearly framing impact calculus in a way that shows you have thought about how and why debate would get worse without just reading a super old script. For AFF teams, I haven't judged a lot of the debates to know my preferred aff strategy. I think it would be helpful to know I think debate is a game, I will only evaluate what's happening in the debate in front of me, and that being topical in some sense is important. I used to read a lot of racial capitalism books in high school.

Kritiks: I think that everyone gets their arguments in these debates. I do not enjoy it when people make framework arguments with no clear purpose and strategy and it is very easy to tell when you are just reading it just because you have a block. I like relevant historical examples and descriptions of impacts as supposed to generic descriptions. I research and read arguments about capitalism and biopolitics. I debated, judged, and coached about arguments centering around most other things.

Other general stuff:

I don't have a lot of particularly strong thoughts about debate so I will not automatically assume a lot of things that other judges might for you. That should hopefully give you a lot of creative autonomy in how you want to debate if you really guide me through how you want me to judge your arguments.

I think cross-ex is one of the most important parts of the debate and will pay attention to it and factor it into my points.

Evidence quality is really important and should be the main focus of final rebuttals and cross-ex. Even if people don't talk about evidence, I will read it and will inevitable have perceptions about them so reading good cards is important.

When reinserting ev if you just highlight the parts you want me to look at and paraphrase what you are trying to say that should be fine. You don't have to reread a tiny line to say what you already said.

Presumption/zero risk of something based on it literally making no sense or garbage evidence is something I will vote on.

I don't think conditionality is the only plausible to reason to reject the team.

If an argument is particularly stupid -- you should just ignore it.

Let me keep it short. I have never been a coach nor a debater. English is my second language.

I view a debater as a presenter to convince a graduate committee or a business team on why his/her thesis or project should be endorsed or prevailed.

No matter what topics are, I do not take any consideration of their Pro/Con or Aff/Neg. 

I judge by the following:

- Clarity of your points to support your position is important. This incudes both information clarity and speak clearly.
- Whenever you state numbers and facts, I take particular attention to whether you have references. The party provides more precise and comprehensive references, I score the party higher on the specific point.
- I value your own thinking and work, such as your analysis of the information you collected and connecting the dots. I especially value if you can frame them in a way that I can follow and understand.
- I judge how you counter the other party’s points. Avoiding or missing the points is a deduction.

Please feel free to ask me questions anytime. 

Hey,

If you include "banana bread," the food, into one of your speeches somehow I will be happy (especially if you somehow relate it to banana bread at work).

Brief Overview:

I'm a former LD debater from Hamilton (AZ); I love progressive debate, but only if you actually know what you are saying and running. I am fine with speed, but you better clear; I will say clear, slow, and/or loud. I'm not afraid to not flow warrants because your spreading is bad, so keep that in mind. Humor in speech = 30 speaks (most likely... unless its not funny). Other than that, I will be decently courteous with speaks, but wont disclose speaks.

I will listen to any argument. Only fundamental rule to my paradigm: be nice. trust me, I used to think every round was super important, so I had to be as competitive as possible every round... but, once you're done with debate, you will realize you should have been a lot more laid back. Be laid back, dont get heated. I'm smart, I dont need your angry tone to realize your opponent is wrong.

Being laid back means... lets have a good time. Music during prep... allowed. Anything else that will make my one hour with you more entertaining... lets do it.

Speed:

Pet peeve = people who spread but don't distinguish between when they are in a card or when they are speaking themselves. Slow down on tags and authors no matter what, but especially if you are this person. Monotone spreading is fine, but probably wont get you great speaks--there is a way to make your spreading at least a little engaging.

Framework Debate:

I, at the beginning of debate, never understood FW debate. However, I have come around to it a lot. If you can engage in framework debate at an actually interesting, well thought out level, please do it. And, if you are answering framework, you should be able to attack it from multiple aspects and with normative foundation. Saying "Hobbes justifies authoritarianism" is not enough to win my ballot, unless its 1. impacted and/or 2. proves the actual justification wrong.

LARP:

For most of my debate career, I was a LARP debater, so I enjoy these debates. Especially debates that come down to advantage verse disadvantage. The best strat to win my ballot in LARP debate is to put defense and offense on the link chain and WEIGH impacts (that includes magnitude, probability, reversibility, strength of link, etc.). I listen to defense, because odds are the link chain is terribly exaggerated, so dont be afraid of going hard on it.

T is a strat, go for it if u please. RVIs on T will be harder to justify than RVIs on theory.

Theory:

Sure throw your frivolous theory shells my way. I might doc you on speaks, but will still pick you up on the shell if you win it. Justify impacts for me.

*** I do hold a higher threshold on any prefiat offense in a debate round; that doesnt mean you wont pick up my ballot, it means you should actually know what you are saying and justify it well. I just hate kids who run prefiat just because they think its strategic to win against the kid who never learned from a coach how to respond.

K's:

I started to engage in Ks toward the end of my career which means I will 100% listen to them, but it also means that I havent engaged in a wide variety of literature. Please just make it clear what the hell you're saying and dont throw big words at me because its strategic (i mean, sure use the big words because they need to be used, but explain what the words mean please... I dont want to get to an end of the round and decide whether I should vote for this K that is probably really good but I only slightly understand). In fact, it wouldnt hurt to put a short one to two sentence thesis at the top of the K to explain what you are about to throw at me and your opponent. Solvency better be articulated.

Ontology claims: justify them in the shell, and make it clear why ontology implies X impact. If answering, dont be afraid to respond to ontology claims, some people just don't engage on that level.

Performance: You better justify why your performance matters in this debate particularly.

*** I do hold a higher threshold on any prefiat offense in a debate round; that doesnt mean you wont pick up my ballot, it means you should actually know what you are saying and justify it well. I just hate kids who run prefiat just because they think its strategic to win against the kid who never learned from a coach how to respond.

Tricks:

I meme'd a lil in my days. Go for it. Be respectful.

Disclosure:

Please disclose. That being said, I went for disclosure theory as a debater, and I will vote for it as a judge. However, if it is clear your opponent just has no idea what you mean by disclosure or is just new to this varsity thing, I recommend being polite and do what I started doing after I got over my ignorance as a debater... just extend it quickly and say "highly err to me because they got my prep, i didn't get theirs" -- I prefer not to DTD.

Throw me onto your email chain or speechdrop. Questions? gmille22@nd.edu. Feel free to also hmu after round for more personalized feedback, Im always willing to help.

P.S. As neg, dont perm the aff.

I look for debaters that form clear and logical arguments. I value quality over quantity which means talking fast or asking 5 or more questions during a crossfire is less productive in my eyes than focusing the debate on a few key points. I think it's important to be assertive but being aggressive or trying to put words into your opponent's mouth is counterproductive.

Evidence is very important but throwing out a plethora of scattered and dense statistics is also not helpful. Use quantitative evidence where it adds value to your argument. Logic and reasoning are equally valid ways to provide evidence.

NFA LD

I never competed in NFA LD. I competed in national circuit public forum for four years in high school and on the WKU speech team in college. That being said, I've seen a fair number of high-level NFA LD debates at tournaments over the years and I'm pretty familiar with the structure, norms, and lingo of NFA LD. So I'm not a total newbie.

I studied philosophy in undergrad and international relations, with an emphasis on political theory, in grad school. So I'm comfortable with a lot of the arguments and literature often read in debates. My primary areas of research have been in queer theory, feminist theory, and postcolonial theory. So I am very, very, very open to any kind of arguments that are grounded in critical theory. Try to get it right, but theory is hard and contains multitudes of meaning. So I'm more likely to reward you for trying to use critical theory in a meaningful way than punish you if you get a part of it wrong.

Good evidence and research is really important to me. Having a piece of published information is not enough. It needs to be credible and I need you to tell me WHY I should listen to the evidence your reading. Comparing cards and why one card carries more weight than another is always something I think makes for a good debate. A good piece of evidence accompanied by strong analysis that is carried throughout the debate is the easiest way to earn my ballot. You can't just read a card and leave it there, you need to explain to me why I should listen to it and why what the card says makes sense. I want to see that you understand the evidence you're reading. Good analysis can't save a bad card though, but subpar analysis (as long as there is at least SOME analysis) can be saved by an excellent, well-researched piece of evidence.

I can handle a certain level of speed. I'd say I probably fall right in the middle of the spectrum. You can go fast, but probably not your fastest. I'll tell you CLEAR if I can't understand you and as long as you slow down when I or anyone else in the debate asks you to, I won't deduct speaker points for it. I really value depth over breadth in a debate, so please don't speed to try to fit in more underdeveloped arguments. Just because something's "on the flow" doesn't mean I'm buying it. I'm not going to do a straight up calculation of how many arguments are left per team at the end of the round. I am a flow judge for sure and will only intervene in my decision as a judge if there is clear rudeness or abuse in the round. That being said, a debater who has one amazing, convincing, well-researched argument standing at the end of the round is going to get my ballot over someone with a bunch of weak arguments that technically didn't get touched, but don't really say much. I try to be a blank slate and I try to vote on the flow, but its your job to tell me a convincing story. Also, if your arguments are clearly racist, sexist, anti-queer, ableist, xenophobic etc. I wont vote for them, even if your opponents don't call you out. So think about that when deciding what to run in front of me. Other than that, go crazy, I'll accept any kind of arguments.

Finally, as along as everyone in the room can understand the debate and follow what's going on, I don't really care about your communication style. Do whatever comes naturally to you and makes you comfortable. There are a million different communication styles in the world and none of them are better or worse than the other. Speaker points will be decided off of the organization of your speeches, how effectively/strategically you made your arguments, and your mastery of the topic and your research.

TL;DR: I didn't do LD, but I'm familiar with debate and generally speaking a smart person. So just do good, don't be an asshole, and we'll have a great time!

Currently a PF debater at Brooklyn Technical High School (2018-2022).

TL;DR: Just debate good.

Strike me:

- If you are _____-phobic or _____-ist. This is an automatic drop for me. I don't care how much you are winning on the flow, making the debate space safer comes before substance.

- If you don't cut cards properly. If I want to evaluate a card, I don't want to cut it for you mid-round.

- If you steal cases or prep from other teams without asking.

Speaker Points:

- I'll generally inflate speaks if it's an important tournament because I don't want my biases or preferences to decide your seed.

- Speak clearly, although you can safely get away with spreading if you send a speech doc.

- It's impressive when you can outsmart your opponents rather than speak better than them. If you can do something big brain, speaks go up.

- I don't care what you do in cross. If you can make me laugh, speaks go up.

- If we ever go back in person, bringing me snacks is an automatic 30.

Extensions and Weighing:

I will automatically assume that any points you don't extend after second rebuttal are dropped and I expect that you collapse on at least one argument during your summary. If you expect me to vote on random points that you gave throughout the round or a rebuttal to your opponents' contention, that will not be convincing enough for me. I'd rather have a fully fleshed-out argument or fully fleshed-out turn to your opponents' argument to vote on rather than fragments of reasons why your side is better.

Make sure you weigh effectively and convincingly as early as possible! If you were losing the whole round but win on weighing at the very end, you have the round right there.

Evidence:

What ever happened to debaters talking about the credibility of sources? You don't necessarily have to mention it in round, but be wary of what sources you use and call out your opponents' sources if they're faulty. If I end up calling for the card at the end of the round because you didn't explain it enough, trust me, I do not care if your uncle wrote a shady article in the New York Post about extinction being imminent, I will vote it down.

I would prefer the least amount of paraphrasing as possible to avoid falsifying the sources you use. Imagine that the author of the source is listening to the round; they should generally agree with you, not shake their head in disappointment. Never assume that I will use logic or make decisions by myself, you must tell me everything that you want, and don’t want, me to flow through.

Speech Formatting:

I expect the second rebuttal to include frontlines to arguments brought up in the first rebuttal. I'm down for whatever strategic method you may have in terms of organization, but summary (especially second summary) is the most important speech in the round so make sure that it effectively explains the position you are in and why it is the best position to be in. As most judges say, your final focus should be my RFD, try to make me think as little as possible by the end of the round. Stay away from bringing up new evidence/arguments in both summary and FF as your opponents will call it out and I won't flow it through.

I am all good with theory debate and progressive rounds as long as you can make them work in the CONTEXT OF PF DEBATE.

I'm a relative newcomer to the world of debate, so any arguments that are done at a speed that an average human would struggle to comprehend, I might also have trouble following. Arguments that clearly highlight the impact are particularly important. During crossfires, I really appreciate questions that allow your opponent to actually answer meaningfully, as opposed to critical statements with a question mark at the end (i.e. "You proved that your argument wasn't valid... don't you agree?"). I keep time and expect you to do the same.

I judge based on my ability to follow an argument, its logic, and the strength of evidence used to support it. I am generally skeptical of statistical evidence and often find it vulnerable to challenge. I will not flow crossfire but I will listen. Summary and final focus are the most important speeches; I depend on these summaries to clarify and refine arguments. I do keep my own time as a way of ensuring that each team uses time equitably. I will try to follow speedy arguments, but I am, myself, on the slower side.

Hi I'm Roberto,

PF Freshman sophomore year, Congress and world schools jr year

I prefer simple arguments. 1-3 contentions, well explained. Quality>Quantity.

Weighing

I want to see you comparing your arguments (impacts, links, etc...) to those of your opponents. Tell me why your points matter more.

For example, if team A says "According to Forbes Apples are healthier than Oranges", and team B says "According to NYT Oranges are healthier than apples". Try to explain why one study outdoes the other.

Talking Speed

I can handle fast speeds just don't go overkill

Evidence

I like warranting but evidence to accompany that warranting doesn't hurt either.

Fun fact:

Trigger Warnings/Discrimination

Try to include trigger warnings if you are talking about sensitive issues.

I will make sure to judge you purely on what you say and not on your race, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, etc... .

Have fun!

I did public forum debate in high school (3 years ago).

If you see me suddenly stop flowing, it's because you are speaking way too fast.

Don't be mean/rude/disrespectful or use any hurtful/discriminatory language!

I'm a PF coach and big advocate of empowering student voice. The fact that you’re here and well prepared is already impressive. It does not matter to me whether you speak quickly or slowly. That's a matter of your own comfort. Be respectful of all in the room. Theory is not my favorite. If it's used in the spirit of undermining your opponents rather than encouraging debate, it won't go over well with me.

Focus on the resolution and your position. Challenges against well intentioned preparation are off-putting and focussing on details outside the round often don’t work for me. If you have triggers to sensitive material, let your opponents know in advance..

I will be impressed by sound research, critical thinking and persuasive argumentation. Outline your intentions and accomplishments clearly. More important than anything is respect for your opponents' and the experience of debating. They will present valid arguments too, so don't tell me everything they said was wrong. Be judicious yourself as a debater and consider arguments that are more convincing in terms of impact. Consider your flow. Concede to their strengths, but convince me that yours have a greater impact. Please weigh your impact in final focus and don’t bring up anything new there. Quantifying an impact is helpful, but only if it comes from a credible source. Please don’t make up numbers.

Use crossfire to clarify any misconceptions. It's not a place to bring up new information.

Call cards only when seeing them will bring true value. Sometimes this is done to stall for time and often that exposes less than stellar evidence. Be careful not to set this trap for yourself.

Ks can work for me when well linked. I need you to spell out the probability of extreme impacts and what chain of events could set them off in an aff/neg world. Be careful with theory. It’s risky and I won’t vote for it unless you prove the purpose makes for a better debate.

Most of all, enjoy, reflect and grow from every debating experience. I will try to give you the best feedback I can to help you learn and grow.

Please add me to email chains of evidence exchange: dsorobey@ssis.edu.vn

you didn't weigh

so

you

lost

i'm sorry

please weigh

-rupi kaur

+ based off some random person's paradigm i forgot who :(

I am a public forum debater at Brooklyn Tech with a parli background. I pay attention to how well you weigh impacts, how well you refuted the other side (no dropped arguments) and obviously who was most convincing in content. Please be respectful.

Background: I debated Parli in High School and College. I am currently a coach for PF, have been judging PF ever since

-I don't mind speed, just speak clearly

-Time yourself, I will also keep time and will stop flowing when you run out of time

-I do prefer when you stand when giving speeches

-I vote on impacts. Provide warrants and evidence for your claims. Extend these through final focus.

-Please cut your cards in advance - if you can't find your card quickly, I will assume it does not exist and strike it from my flow

-I expect you to frontline, and please weigh in final focus

-I will not flow crossfire, if it is important bring it back in your speeches.

-Please signpost, makes flow easy

Please send all evidence and speeches to mgt2130@columbia.edu

freshman @ the University of Michigan studying math of finance on a premed track currently competing policy/pf for umich debate

6 yrs in debate, 3 on vpf natl circuit competing for Brooklyn Technical HS (if you know what this is and you say bronx sucks I add speaks)

add me to the email chain (danvi@umich.edu)

General:

i hear an argument, i write it down on my flow.

don't spread

speaks start at 28 and if you say something offensive it goes down but if you impress me it goes up

low point wins may happen in round

i don't flow cross but if you flow it then i flow it

don't run k's, theory, or shells bc ill have a hard time following but if they are run i'll still vote tech > truth

1/2 ac:

do not run theory! I said it before and I'll say it again PF is PF and as a policy debater who did PF people do not want to debate policy in PF. I'll flow but beware I'll look upon it negatively.

rest is self explanatory I said it above

general cx:

make me laugh because that's what makes debate fun but do not be rude

cx is a time to argue, so do it. bonus speaks if you (respectfully) call out and say "judge...this is wrong" obviously within reason

do NOT use cx as a continuation of your speeches and if you drop a new contention I drop your speaks

rebuttal:

cleanly flow because it makes everyone's life easier, don't go all over the place because then my flow is all over the place and it's harder for you to win the round

if you're 2nd rebuttal frontline first and don't go line by line - try to save the best for last

summary:

COLLAPSE

it's OKAY to concede an argument. we can't win everything all the time so emphasize which points you HAVE won to make the debate easier for me to judge.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: the cleaner the flow the easier it is for you to win

do not repeat your speech in summary, and make sure to weigh

ff:

just regurgitate the biggest points + weigh; you have two minutes, so make the most of it

good luck and have fun! if you say Ohio State sucks and Go Blue you get 28.2+ speaks guaranteed(unless of course you break one of the rules above)

april 2024 npdl:

hi! my name is melanie (she/her), and i'm a former high school PF debater, and i currently compete in APDA for nyu.

i think the tldr is basically make it as clear as possible for me in how i'm supposed to evaluate the round—i'm a very large fan of off time roadmaps and signposting, please weigh your arguments, have the arguments you want to vote on in rebuttals, etc. i don't really like or have a ton of experience debating or judging theory, kritiks, etc. and i can't promise that i will understand how to properly judge it; if you do run it, may it not be frivolous, and may the mechanics be explicitly explained.

i can flow like 260wpm and up but i would prefer not to. creative arguments are fun; silly arguments are fun. i try to be tabula rasa and am willing to buy an untrue argument if it is uncontested.

I am a Varsity high school debater for Brooklyn Technical High School.

I value clash of evidence on cards over speech sills; however, do not overspeed in constructive.

I appreciate a well-cadenced and smooth constructive by both Speaker 1s. Speaker points will be awarded off of valid remarks that leave the opponents stumbled.

You may keep your own time, but my time is empirical.

I will not extend or flow anything in the case unless explicitly mentioned in the round. For any dropped arguments, please notify me to mark it down and explain its importance. I do buy into the argument where they dropped their cards that is why we would win off of our flows. I look well for a complete and whole "weigh" off of summary and final focus speeches rather than some technicality win.

Speak Scale:

24- You need to re-think what you did in this round

25- Please work on your case immediately

26- You are starting your debate career. The upward climb from here

27- Work on your speaking skills

28- Good round, average speaking

29- You can speak very well and will go top 10.

30- You are winning this tournament