I am generally a flow judge and can follow fast paced debate.

Framework should be established and followed throughout the round. Tell me why your framework is superior and back up your claim with evidence in contentions. If there is no framework debate, the round will rely on weighing evidence in contentions.

Contentions should be clearly stated with supporting evidence and analysis. Your evidence should be fully explained and analyzed as to its impact on the debate. I prefer evidence be referred to by subject/topic throughout the round rather than simply the author's name. Know your evidence well enough defend it in cross-examination.

Your case should be organized, focused and come to a reasonable conclusion that convinces me to vote in your favor. Failure to communicate the importance of evidence, weighing values and impacts, or extending key arguments may result in a loss.

Speech Events

You will see my paradigm on the RFD.

General Debate

You can time yourself, but I am the official timekeeper. If your alarm goes off on your opponent, I find that unethical. If you argue with me, you are begging for the loss.

Speed - I prefer a slower debate, I think it allows for a more involved, persuasive speech and debate. It is your burden to make sure that your speech is clear and understandable. If I miss an argument, then you didn't make it.

Off time roadmaps - Please make them on time roadmaps.  You speak, my timer starts.

Voters - If you don't provide them, I have to choose.  Don't roll the dice.

Evidence - You get two free card requests, for the rest must be on your prep time.

Cross - Is non binding. if you uncover something, bring it up in your next speech.

Lincoln-Douglas Paradigm

Kritiks and counter plans - Don’t - wrong event to run those.

Judging style - If there are any aspects of the debate I look to before all others, they would be the thesis and impact analysis. Not doing one or the other or both makes it much harder for me to vote for you, either because I don't know how to evaluate the impacts in the round or because I don't know how to compare them.

Ethics violations - Do not propose these lightly. If you assert an ethical violation, you have the burden of proof. If you don’t meet it, you lose the debate.

Public Forum

Frameworks - I default to an "on balance" metric for evaluating and comparing impacts. I will not consider unwarranted frameworks, especially if they are simply one or two lines asserting the framework without even attempting to justify it.

Theory - Yes, I understand theory. No, I don't want to hear theory in a PF round. No, I will not vote on a theory argument.

Plans/Counterplans - No. Neither the pro nor the con has fiat.

Kritiks - No. Kritiks only function under a truth-testing interpretation of the con burden, I only use comparative worlds in Public Forum.

Burden Interpretations - The pro and the con have an equal and opposite burden of proof, clash, and persuasion.

Rebuttals in Crossfire - Don’t. I reserve the right to stop a crossfire that ceases to be in a question-answer format or one that becomes abusive.

Congressional Debate

This is one of my favorite events. I want to see you address the chamber and persuade me (and them) with ethos, pathos, and logos. I am a sucker for mythos-driven analogies on the topic or why the other side falls. I give bonus points for good constructive speeches (authorship/sponsorship and 1st neg), especially if you address the chamber. I dislike it when arguments are rehashed/repeated and later speeches do not address the congressional record to date (or worse misrepresent it). In later speeches, I want to see crystallization, impact analysis, and weighing. I break ties in ranking on questions and procedural motions that benefit the flow of debate and the chamber.

Big Questions

Please be sure to address and answer the question.  The event is asking that you take a comprehensive and broad perspective to the question or the inverse of the question.

About me: I competed in Lincoln Douglas Debate for 3 years for Northwest Guilford High School. I’ve qualified to NCFL Grand Nationals and reached Semifinals at Durham Academy My senior year. Currently a senior at Duke University. My pronouns are he/him/his

Conflicts: Northwest Guilford High School

Speed: I can handle a pretty brisk conversational pace, but keep in mind that the pace you choose to speak at directly trades off with me (and your competitor’s) ability to truly understand and write down what you are saying. I have zero experience with fast, nat-circuity type debate, so spreading is probably not the move. Slowing down at tags/authors/any important point you want to emphasize will go a long way towards making you more understandable and persuasive, and your speaks will show. If you speak fast in front of an inexperienced debater, expect speaks to suffer. If you are competing in an activity that focuses on engaging with competing ideas, why would you want to shy away from clash? Hiding arguments is not fun and makes debate a waste of time.

Framework: Framework matters as much as you’d like it to. Being marginally ahead on the V/VC Debate only matters if you explain the implications of your framework, and why it should inform my ballot. Your impacts should relate back to your framework, if they don’t Then I’m gonna be confused. Franework debates were my favorite as a competitor, yet it feels like almost nobody cares about framework these days. With that thought in mind, A well though out, creative framework that effectively advances your position will go a long way towards earning my ballot. Stock philosophies are great and have a lot of educational value, but I’d challenge you to think of something original and put your own creative spin on these philosophical issues. Debate is an educational activity after all; show me that you’ve really contemplated the topic and not just read about how 400 year old Englishmen thought about the topic.

Theory/T: I understand how theory/T works. That being said, I rarely ever engaged in this type of debate in high school. If you feel your competitor is being abusive, feel free to read it; I’ll do my best to evaluate it. However, keep in mind I’m definitely not the most experienced judge in these types of matters. If there’s clear abuse, I’m down to listen. Frivolous theory will just make everybody sad.

Plans/CPs: Unless your plan is whole-rez, you’re probably going to be fighting an uphill battle trying to convince me. CPs probably need to be VERY mutually exclusive, and it’s the Neg’s job to establish this from the 1NC. This is a very fundamental issue on a CP debate, so if you fail to explain how your CP is competitive and the Aff calls you out for it in the 1AR, I consider your extra spicy cards explaining how it’s conpetitive in the 2NR to be new. It’s not fair for the Aff’s first chance at responding to these issues to be the 2AR.

Kritiks: Not necessarily opposed per say, I just happen to have zero experience with this type of argumentation. Proceed at your own risk and be sure to be extremely detailed in your explanations because I probably haven’t read the literature

Tricks: No. just No

If you have any questions feel free to ask me before the round! I’m excited to hear what you have to say :)

Backgroud/"qualifications:"

I debated for 4 years for Charlotte Latin School. I did congress for 3 years and switched to PF my senior year. I qualified to TOC and NSDA Nationals in both events, finaled at Emory and Harvard in Congress, won Durham Academy in PF, and made semis at Bluekey in PF.

PF Paradigm:

I'm a flow judge and can handle reasonably fast PF teams, but if you want to spread, switch events.

A few important things for me:

Signposting: Please tell me where on the flow I should be putting responses. This does not mean an off time roadmap before rebuttal where you tell me "I'm going to start on my opponent's case and then go back to mine." Rather, just say, "as an overview" or "starting on my opponent's first contention" before you make your overview or first response. This will help me actually consider your responses at the end of the debate rather than spending half your rebuttal trying to figure out where to flow things.

Responses: Please make sure your responses actually engage with your opponent's arguments and aren't just the same three cards you read against every Aff case. I would much rather you analytically attack an argument which you are unprepared to answer than attempt to misapply evidence you've already cut.

On that note... Evidence: I have no problem with paraphrasing evidence as long as you stay true to the author's original intent. Conversely, just because you directly quote or line down a card does not mean you are fairly representing the author's point of view.

Evidence indites: If you indict a card, that's great, but explain why that indict matters. Ex. Don't just say "the thinktank our opponent cites is funded by big pharma" explain how that conflict of interest led to poor scholarship or data manipulation on the part of the author.

If you have any other questions about my preferences feel free to ask before the round.

Congress Paradigm:

Here's how my rankings usually turn out at the end of the round:

Last. The kid that actually says nothing

6. The kid that speaks, but says nothing of value

5. The kid that says nothing of value, but confidently

4. The kid that says something of marginal value to the round but poorly delivered

3. The kid that does the same in a more compelling manner

2. The kid that borderline spreads to cover the flow, but does so well

First. The kid that does the same as #2 but with better word economy

As you can see by these rankings, I value argumentation above delivery but consider delivery a tiebreak between equally skilled debaters. I think later round speeches should do more refutation/weighing, but if you have an actually unique constructive point late-round, I understand that you don't always get to speak as early as you might want. I also pay attention to when you start standing and I'll be impressed if you switch sides/rewrite your speech because you aren't called on early. On that note, please don't give the *insert number greater than one* aff/neg in a row. You'll always be better off switching sides and giving a slightly worse speech than speaking on the same side as everyone else in the round.

As far as writing bills is concerned, if you submit a bill I will take into account the quality of the debate and the saliency of the issue. Since congressional debate requires lots of people to speak, a bill with a very limited scope of argumentation is not a good bill. Since congressional debate is meant to model the US congress, it should be conceivable that what you submit could be brought before congress. And most importantly, since congressional debate is meant to be a debate, your bill should have arguments for and against it, not just enough ground to give an authorship speech and then shame everyone who goes neg because it's an impossible position to defend. I know that by the time you read this, it's too late to change what bill you have submitted, but these are the things you should consider before you ever begin writing legislation in the first place.

Lastly, if you use rhetoric that either A) I came up with, B) one of my teammates came up with, or C) I've heard used verbatim before, I won't be impressed and might count it against you. I'd much rather you give a brief intro based on some historical fact than steal catchy rhetoric (trust me, I've heard it all and you won't be able to reuse rhetoric without me noticing).

Email: hansend@fortschools.org

Notes about all format paradigms:This round is absolutely NOT all about you. Those judges are not doing you any favors because that is NOT how the world works. This activity is all about adapting to the judge. So read the below if you want to win. Also, I'll get right to it instead of any ego-driven list of where I debated or what I won or who coached me. That's either arrogant or lazy or an inside privileged allusion to some natcircut elitism. You'll have to read actual things.

PF Paradigm: I grew up debating and coaching policy. Now, I've been coaching and judging PF debate for many years now, so I'm not a policy judge out of water, so to speak. I just probably have policy tendencies in the back of my head and I think it's only fair to admit that. Regardless of whether the PF topic is a policy-like topic or one that is an "on balance" issue, I'm looking at teams to show "two worlds". What does the world of the pro look like vs the world of the con? That kind of comparison is very influential in my decisions.

BUT - I was always a dinosaur in the policy pool. So take almost nothing else from that. For example, my policy background also tends to make some PF debaters believe I love counterplans in PF. I have to say I struggle with them here. Showing me an example of what the world you're defending looks like is great. Adopting a limited plan that means you're not really defending the entire resolution? I have a hard time justifying that in this division of debate. Ethical/kritikal ground is fine and some resolutions lend themselves to it more than others; just keep in mind some K ground requires so much depth to win that you're going to be hard pressed for time in this format.

I'm 100% fine with frameworks. I don't want to see the debate get to a super-technical policy debate fight on this, but it's often a very influential part of the round.

I am aware that PF speed exists. It shouldn't. The core of PF was that it could be judged by the "average educated citizen" and I love that about this division. Policy speed killed policy debate in my area. I left the division for a reason.

Source indicts are valid; I'm not sure why judges dismiss them so quickly. Clearly they work best when opposed with a quality source of your own.

Truth > Tech because we already live in a society where truth means far too little. I'm not contributing to that.

RANTS:

I will time you. I seriously cannot comprehend judges that are too lazy or claim they just can't be bothered to do so. It's my job and I'm doing it. Feel free to time along, but mine are right.

Ethics? Important. Theory run to get a cheap win? Offensive. If you don't even know the difference between content and trigger warnings (and only know the sadly underinformed circuit norm)...don't. Happy to discuss this to educate those who are interested.

Don't lie. Claiming "they dropped X" when I have multiple responses on my sheet is at minimum a drop in speaker points. Likely you lose that argument entirely.

Did you read the part about speed earlier? Do so.

Finally, I like a good, competitive round, but debate should never be obnoxious or rude.

Policy Paradigm -I profess to have a n old-school PURE policy paradigm. What the heck does that mean? Look up the strict definition of policy paradigm from awhile back, and you will read that policy meant a judge sat in the back and voted for what he/she felt was the best policy for the United States. In other words, they used the voting lense of the president. EVERYTHING you do in my round should be argued under that approach; I am a president. Not specifically any president, just a hypothetical president. I am NOT asking you to perform and call me the president or anything like that. I'm just so old now that I have to define the paradigm of policymaking or people don't know what it means anymore. Enough of the overview; below is the line by line. (Oh, and failure to adapt is a huge reason teams lose. I mean what I say.)

Speed - Don't. Yes, because you have time constraints, you'll have to speak faster than you really would in front of the president. I'll bend that much. You still wouldn't argue auctioneer-style. Go with this guide - if you think you might be too fast, you are. Depth, not amount, is going to sway my decision. No amount of "but they didn't counter the six T-blips we fired off in the first two minutes of our 1NC" is going to help you...because I am not going to get them all down. You respect the office or you don't get an audience with the president. And this is a speaking competition; I won't read the speech doc and do your work for you.

Topicality - You might think this can't be argued, but it can. If, as president, I hired two teams of advisors to debate what I should do on a topic, and one of them did something besides what I hired them to argue, I'd fire them. In the case of the round, I drop them. It also means that if the other side isn't really non-topical, resist just showing off your silly squirrel definition. I am by far more of a "story T" judge than a "technical T" judge. Tell me the abuse story (in-round or potential) and explain a small number of good theory points. More is not better.

DAs and advantages - Clearly, the president has to be concerned about nuclear war. But to suggest to him that everything leads there? You'd be quickly dismissed and given an ambassadorship to someplace not so nice. This goes for both sides. Go there and all the other team has to do is spend 20 seconds showing how poor the logic is and your impact goes away. I like real impacts because I am trying to (fictitiously) decide real policy. On politics DAs, don't worry about am I this president or xo=bad or anything like that. I'm not delusional. I know I'm not the president, and I'm not trying to artificially limit your ground. Run the Trump good or Trump bad or whatever. The only thing I will not allow is a DA that destroys affirmative fiat. So, no “you spend capital to pass plan” DAs. However, “reaction” DAs, even those that involve political capital, are obviously very important.

CPs - Absolutely, within the framework. Tell me we should let China do it; we should consult the EU first, etc. You must keep the CP non-topical and competitive however. I hired two teams of COMPETING advisors, not lobbyists who will each sell me their own aff plan.

K - Be selective. Kritiks that function in the real world with policy alternatives are great. The president absolutely should care about the moral underpinnings of the Aff case or neg counterplan. They don't always, but I will. On the other hand, if the American people will laugh me out of office for rejecting a good idea because of some bizarre solipsistic construction a strung-out philosopher dreamed up, I'm not voting on it.

"Performance" I'm trying to do what's best for our country ON THE RESOLUTION. If your performance makes the resolution tangential, it isn't going to get my ballot. If you're creative, you can show how the president could be helpful in nearly any kritikal affirmative, even one about the debate round itself. You just need to tie it to the paradigm. Also see the comments on non-realistic K above.

Things I'm frustrated about currently: 1.Teams that just say "On the X Flow" and then read a card. I have seven cards on that flow. Where do you want me to put it? I'm not going to do your work for you. 2. Perms. You don't just get to throw out one-sentence perms, do nothing else, then make them a 5 minute rebuttal. If I don't understand how the perm functions after the 2AC, I'm not voting on it. It's the same with a K alt - fair ground, folks.

Finally, the president is a busy man. You do your arguing and don't expect me to do it for you by calling for all your cards at the end of the round. If you didn't make it clear enough, I guess you didn't consider it a very important point for me to consider. I'll only call for cards that are disputed in the round if I need to see them to make a decision.

I have been a parent volunteer for four years. I have never competed in Speech and Debate myself. Please keep your delivery clear.

I don't like spreading. I prefer to hear well formed arguments. Speaking as fast as possible is not a substitute for having good arguments.

Please stick to the topic.

Please treat everyone with respect.

I am the typical "lay judge". However, I can evaluate strength of argumentation and command of evidence in deciding a round.

Spreading: Don't do it. Please be understandable.

Roadmaps: Extremely helpful for me in understanding how your speech will go. Just a simple explanation of the order will suffice.

The Round: I will always evaluate substantive argumentation first. However, there is only so much of debate I can understand, so if I truly am stuck on which side won based on arguments, I will vote on speaking style.

Speaker Points:

Speaker Points will be awarded based on how well your arguments are presented and argued against, as well as your speaking rhetoric. Giving a roadmap will probably reflect handsomely upon your speaker points. Toxic behavior is very bad.

Ryan Parimi - Lincoln-Douglas Paradigm

Email: ryan.parimi@gmail.com

About me:

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

General Debate Stuff:

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

Speed:

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

Framework:

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

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

Kritiks and Theory:

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

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

Other random stuff:

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

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

I am a lay judge. I've completed online training and watched several demo videos.

Speed: I'm okay with speed, but I really like an articulate, eloquent speaker. Prioritize clarity, be sure to signpost, don't spread, and you'll be fine.

Framework: Please make your Value and Value Criterion clear at the beginning, weave them into your case, and tell me explicitly why your input is better than your opponent's.

I prefer some scholarly philosophies in there with supportive arguments.

Finish strong and on time. Be specific.

The best time to invest in a good internet connection was 20 years ago. The second best time is now.

I'm a truth over tech parent judge with about 3 years experience, and fairly active in the season. I'm a lay judge that flows, but not to any internationally recognized standard, and definitely not in more than one color. My writing is scruffy, sometimes I can't read my own notes. If you see me drawing big circles or boxes, it's because someone just made some ridiculous claim, and it's rude to laugh - so I scribble a shape instead.

Triangle - only a Muppet would say that.

Rectangle - only a Muppet would believe that.

Oval - only a Muppet would have found this in the deepest parts of the internet and think it was worth repeating with a straight face.

I'm a scientist, a software engineer, and yes, that thing behind me is a tower made from IKEA lack tables holding two 3D printers.

Parent judge who prefers slower speaking.

Truth heavy judge, do not run frivolous or clearly wrong/confusing arguments. (Please avoid running progressive arguments)

Be clear in your later speeches why you are the team that won with a wholistic summary of the round.

Be respectful and time yourself accurately.

Overall, have fun!

I am a parent judge who has been judging for two years. I would not consider myself an expert, but you can see I've judged several rounds over the past two years.

I like when you speak slowly and minimize jargon. What persuades me the most are irrefutable facts.

I would advise to competitors to define their cases clearly and present their contentions and rebuttals at a pace that is easy to keep up with. If you want to make a very important point, the slower you speak the better. Most of us can think much faster then we can flow. I’m sure over the years I’ve missed points that students would have wanted me to consider. I also value professionalism and courtesy.