important -

i wrote this when i was mostly judging pf, but i'm open to any types of arguments in policy. i pretty much exclusively read Ks when i debated, but i've voted on t-fw, politics disads, and all kinds of other boring arguments in the past too. more policy stuff is at the bottom, but ask questions before the round starts if you have any.

email me docs: griffinamos2@gmail.com

i debated for 4 years at cosby high school from 2016-2020 and did policy, ld, and pf. i also did apda a bit at william & mary. i've judged everything from local pf to NFA LD nats.

let me know if you want to see my flow of your round after it's over - i'm uncomfortable sending flows to debaters that weren't in the round though because i think that unfairly helps debaters w more clout

feel free to postround me respectfully, i recognize that i'm capable of making wrong decisions or understanding arguments incorrectly - i'm here to learn too

don't misgender someone, your speaks will get tanked and you'll pretty much auto lose if they make an argument about it

**ESPECIALLY IMPORTANT FOR LOCALS - I'm only going to vote on the arguments in your last speech. Don't expect to win on a contention from your constructive if you just say "Oh and extend contention 1" - tell me the whole story and do comparative weighing.

how do i decide who i vote for?

first - i go through every piece of offense in each final focus and determine if every important piece of the argument is extended (all too many rounds i vote based off a team failing to extend a link, warrant, or impact)

next - i look at the defense on each of these - if no weighing is done, i default to whichever argument is the path of least resistance - if both teams have no offense left, i presume the first speaking team - this is also when i call any cards i'm told to or that i think are sus

then - assuming there is weighing, i vote based on whichever weighing mechanism is best justified - if none are justified, i default magnitude first, probability second, and timeframe third - i think lots of other mechanisms used in pf fall into one of these (for example, severity is a type of magnitude, strength of link is probability)

what types of arguments do i like?

i will vote on anything that isn't problematic and i don't hack for any particular type of argument - i'm comfortable evaluating theory, kritiks, or any type of progressive argument because that is what my background is in.

the substance based debates i find myself enjoying the most generally incorporate some form of structural violence framing, i won't hack for or against it, that's just what the most interesting rounds to me look like. i find myself enjoying rounds where teams collapse on turns in the latter half too, this seems to happen pretty rarely in pf

the kritikal arguments i'm most familiar with are queer-pess, baudrillard, psychoanalysis, and afro-pess but i think you should always explain every kritikal argument as if i'm a lay judge because i think kritiks in pf are too often run against teams that don't understand the arguments.

the theory arguments i find myself agreeing with the most are disclosure, any type of gendered language bad, paraphrasing bad, and trigger warning theory - again i won't hack for or against any of these, i'm just as willing to vote on disclosure bad as i am disclosure good - the exception for this is trigger warning theory, if you trigger someone and they make it clear they don't feel safe, i will drop you, end the round early, and give you the lowest speaks i can w/o having to justify it to tab.

i'll also begrudgingly vote on frivolous theory or trix if they're won - i'm super open to impact turns based on this type of argumentation though and feel like most of them tend to be true

technical stuff?

defense is sticky - i've been asked to include that turns are not defense

frontline in second rebuttal

don't read offensive overviews or disads in second rebuttal

i won't vote on a piece of offense unless it is in summary, and final focus - that includes the warranting for it, not just a blippy extension

theory?

read disclosure theory its just a true argument

i don't care if you read theory in shell format or more simply - all that's important is that all the crucial parts of the argument are there in some capacity - that means i want some interpretation on how you think debate should look, how the other team violates this, the reasons that debate should look this way, and why i should drop the other team for it

if you're going to read theory that is just like i should drop someone because they break x rule (maybe like "this tournament says u can't read counterplans so drop them for reading one"), you need to justify why the rule is good or following rules in general is good. just the fact that it is a rule is not persuasive to me, i don't care

defaults:

no rvis

competing interps

drop the arg

policy

mostly read Ks on aff and my 1ncs tended to be like a K, some dumb argument like the sorites paradox, some form of theory, and just dumping impact and link turns on case

open cross is chill, flex prep and using cross as prep are cool too

i hate the trend of just reading a string of cards on case in 1ncs. i love uncarded, but warranted arguments on case. solid warranting that comes from you is just as persuasive, if not more so, than warranting from some random card you stole from the wiki or camp files.

please stop going for every argument in your 2NR. respond to offense on arguments you're going to kick and then just give me a really persuasive story for why whatever you're collapsing on wins.

Debates

Policy

Games player, mostly. If you run it, back it up and tell me why you win the round (and the other side loses).

Lincoln Douglas

Value/Criterion clash. V/C have to flow through the case for me to consider it. Again, tell me why the arguments you're making ensure you win the round (and the other side loses).

LD isn't a forum for Policy debaters looking for something fun to do. Run LD as it's meant to be run.

Public Forum

Make logical arguments and tell me why you win (and the other side loses). Also, please remember: PF isn't Policy Lite.

Congress

All of your speeches (both authorships and all responses) need to be fully supported with evidence. Analysis is great but evidence is better.

Make sure that you're truly cordial to the rest of the competitors in and out of the round.

Interps

Humor/Drama/Duo

Remember that you're interpreting your selection, not mimicking.

POI

POI is great because it not only allows for interpretation but allows the speaker to make a point about a topic that they believe is important. Use that flexibility to your advantage.

Poetry

Not all poetry rhymes and, more important, rhyming shouldn't be what moves your poem forward. Interpret what you've performing--make it matter to you.

Oratory

Persuasion is key: make me believe what you've written/what you're saying.

Informative

These are speeches designed to be info dumps that intrigue me; your visual aid shouldn't be the only part I'm interested in.

Extemp

Formatting is key: it gives you a good structure to work from and allows me to follow along easily.

I participated in Lincoln Douglas and Extemp in high school. I feel comfortable judging many different styles. Preferred clear sign-posting (not timed) and no spreading.

I love speech and debate! I was a competitor when I was in school. I will try to give you lots of feedback and be clear about why I make the decisions I do. I am primarily an interp judge, but I have some debate experience and I think a good debate can be just as fun as an interp/speech round. I look for good speaking skills, good use of time, polish (either for pops or contentions), and the energy that a competitor brings to a round.

If you are looking for debate specific paradigms, please ask at the start of the round.

Policy- I'm tab. I like people to go slower, I feel like as a community speaking quickly and reading more cards have come at the cost of analysis and comparison. To earn my ballot with ease do more of that comparison. I'm fine with Ks, CPs, theory and T. I even like T when done well. I did high school and college policy and look forward to judging the round! 

"Get off my lawn" old person gripes- 

-Don't prep when a timer isn't running. 

-Please don't ask if people read everything in a document, or asking if they could tell you what all they read. Unless circumstances show they've obscured what they did, you just look like you weren't listening or flowing. This makes CX like a episode recap when you've been binging a show. 

-Please don't just say "then the case flow." Still not helpful. Tell me which pages and in which order.

-Be kind. You can give hard hitting questions and answers while still being polite. 

-You may want to look at your judge during CX. It will give you an impression of what they think is a good or bad idea for a line of argumentation you may pursue. Remember- you're trying to convince the one with the ballot you're right, not your opponent. 

-Open CX- I'm totally fine with CX being open. If you are the main person in that CX from  your side, you should still be doing a majority of the questioning/answering and your partner should only chime in when needed. You need your time to shine too! I will lower speaker points for the partner that is more of a back pack. By which I mean just standing up there because it is their cross examination, but doesn't really speak or add to the CX. 

-Finally- be respectful of all of our time. Try to be quick to start prep, move to the next speech, flash/email with speed. If you mosey, you'll irk me. 

Note- I will say clear once and then just let you roll. I don't write down things I can't understand, but most speed is fine. I may also not be up on the topic lingo as I have judge 15 or less policy debates on this year's topic.

Quick Notes

My email is bradbry1@gmail.com. I am open to talking about results, feedback, questions, concerns etc.

I give out event specific paradigms before rounds.

I am fine with the use of technology in debate rounds. However, I will stop you and check if I feel you are using any tech in an inappropriate way (i.e. Looking up info in the middle of a round)

Speak clearly and fluently for the sake of myself and your peers

I can understand spreading or other forms of complex and speedy speech, but I won’t give you points based off that. If you know how and can speak clearly while doing so, feel free

I will not do the work for you in any round. Especially in important debate rounds. I won’t draw connections, fill in blanks, or preform any action that is not directly pointed out by you as the speaker. (i.e. Cross-applying arguments, linking impacts or points, etc.)

TRUTH OVER TECH!!!

Speech and Debate is meant to be an inclusive environment. I will not tolerate aggression of any form in my rounds. I will DQ anyone should they attempt to preform any action (verbal or physical) that attacks another. Just be kind, respectful, and courteous

Paradigms

-Speech Events

You will be judged and scored based off…

The content of your speech (The points, connections, examples, etc.)

The way you preform your speech (The physical actions, verbal speaking, etc.)

How well you address your topic

I do not judge based off…

My personal interest of the topic

Props. However, in the case of Informative, I will give points for a creative use of boards to emphasize speech

-Interp Events

You will be judged and scored based off…

The way you preform your acts (Verbal speaking, physical actions, etc.)

You will not be judged based off…

Which pieces you choose

-Debate Events

You will be judged and scored based off…

The content of your speech (The points, connections, examples, etc.)

Your arguments

Your examples (including citations)

The linkwork you do (I will not do any linkwork)

Your Impacts and Warranting (This is included in weighing)

How you preform in the debate and follow debate format (Clash, formatting, etc.)

Speaker points

Way Below Average – You’ve preformed aggressive actions against others

Below Average – You performed poorly or in a manner that negatively impacted your room or event

Average – You performed okay and upheld the standard in your room or event

Above Average - You performed well or in a manner that positively impacted your room or event

Way Above Average – You performed incredibly and had mad major positive impacts to your room or event

Did nat circuit pf for 4 years, also did circuit LD for a little.

For LD: Mostly debated theory, never interacted much with phil/K lit, but I'm willing to vote on it, just need it explained a little more.

For Pf: answer offense in 2nd rebuttal, defense is sticky, down to vote for theory in pf, please weigh

I am a parent judge. Please do not spread or use debate terms unless you plan on taking the time to explain those debate terms. I used to do policy debate in high school, do with that information as you please.

Please do not resort to personal attacks; attack the arguments, not each other. Demeaning/degrading behavior or comments will be reflected in the speaker points awarded.

I value evidence ethics. Please include me on your evidence threads: sharonkcho@yahoo.com

pronouns: she/her
hello! thank you for taking the time to read my paradigm (I hope you weren’t expecting too much).

I competed in Oregon Speech & Debate for all four years of high school (mainly in impromptu, prose, DI, some public forum, and a dabble of parli and Lincoln Douglas). This means that while I understand the fundamentals of debate (excluding policy and congressional), I’ll probably have a hard time keeping up if you use speed and/or jargon excessively. Please keep that in mind if I am in your round! Thanks.

Some miscellaneous notes:

- I appreciate sign-posting and roadmaps (very much so)
- I don’t flow cross-ex.

Judge Lorain Clawson
She/Her or They/Them
Freshman at Davidson College

Hello, good people!

A few things to know about me

1.) I debated all four years of high school! I mostly competed in Policy Debate (my main category all four years), but I also dabbled in Congressional Debate and Public Forum Debate. I am best versed in Policy and like to keep my realm there.

2.) I also was a speech kid for three years in high school! I often double entered at tournaments and enjoy some good POI.

3.) I struggle with speed-- in any form of debate. I can handle it, but I willrequire you to send me your files via an email chain this way. If not, I will only flow what I hear. If you don't have clear tag lines... Then please work on making them!

Things I won't tolerate
This is the most important section of my paradigm, so please read it!

1.) I will not tolerate racially motivated statements at any time. If you read evidence that is racially motivated, I expect you to preface these matters before round or to choose a different piece of evidence. This also means I will not tolerate calling a team racist for reading off evidence when the team rejects the narrative personally. Any behavior of such will be reported to tabroom. Please do not define participants via their arguments and please be respectful.

2.) I will not tolerate sexist or misogynistic actions or statements made by the participant. If your evidence has these connotations, I expect you to preface these matters before round or to choose a different piece of evidence. This also means I will not tolerate calling a team sexist or misogynistic for reading off charged evidence when the team rejects the narrative personally. Any behavior of such will be reported to tabroom. Please do not define participants via their arguments and please be respectful.

3.) I will not tolerate cuss words being used in my rooms. I understand that you are a high schooler and I am a college kid, but we will not be using this language. It is not conducive with a semi-professional environment and I do not see it as a way of adding to an argument in any way. Do not use profanity. If you do, I will deduct points from your speaker points.

4.) You will not talk over one another in a debate. If you need to cut someone else in cross, please do so politely and with grace. Most importantly, if you are in a partnered debate, do not correct or interrupt your partner in way that is disrespectful. I will dock points if this persists throughout the round.

Policy Debate Judging Paradigm

Judge Type: Policy-Maker and/or Tabula Rasa.
- You drop an argument, you lose the argument. This includes your case!
- If you are extremely disrespectful in rounds, you will lose and be reported to tab.

Evaluating Topicality: Traditional; Needs Standards, Violation, and Impact of it. I see Topicality as a vital part of Policy Debate, but it is also a time-suck. Extratopicality arguments are normally a wash for me.

Evaluating Inherency: I believe in Structural and Attitudinal Inherency. Either way, you need an inherent barrier for me to buy your plan. Validity arguments are welcomed for Attitudinal Inherency.

Evaluating Solvency: I weigh solvency very heavily. I have seen teams win on Solvency and will vote accordingly. Remember that Magnitude and Time-Frame should be discussed when Solvency is brought up.

Evaluating DAs: Outline your Link, Brink, Impact, and Uniqueness. I accept Generic DAs, but have UQ arguments ready to go on both sides.

Evaluating CPs: Your CP must be nontopical, it must be competitive, and avoid the DAs. I will largely compare in policy making-mode, but feel free to expand CPs to include more if you want.

Evaluating Ks: Tell me what type of a K it is, the Links of the K, and why I should buy the K over an argument or plan. Please only run a K if you know what you are getting into. Outline your K with detail so that everyone understands. Do not use buzzwords and expect people to know what they mean.

Rebuttals: I will not accept new evidence in rebuttals. Please use these to summarize your round and make final, quick arguments. Remember to flow your case through these as well. Use this time to overview the round!

I coached in Northern Colorado for three years. I now coach in the Denver-Metro area.

Policy: I won't vote on K's. You are welcome to run a K as a DA if that suits you, but I will not evaluate a Kritik at the end of the round. Other than that, I like to hear creative, original, and smart arguments. Debate is a story. I'll evaluate the round through the lens of a policymaker.

LD: LD is not policy, and if you run the round like it is, there's a very high chance I will not vote for you. I'll evaluate the round through the core value/criterion that wins (whoever convinces me their framework is best) and which team fulfills that framework.

Have fun and be nice.

Edit in progress! It will reflect the fact that I have not coached policy in a few years. Still a fan, but I'm rusty on what all the cool kids are doing these days.

Policy:

I'm happy judging whatever crazy, creative argument you think you can make me believe (which you will do by providing awesome evidence, links, etc.) BUT you better enunciate those crazy arguments clearly. My number one pet peeve in policy debate is debaters who try to spread but stutter and stumble through their speeches. I can flow as fast as you can speak, but if I can't understand what you're saying, I will say "clear" once or twice, and then simply not flow what I can't understand.

I'm fine with tag-teaming in cx.

If the round is shared via email chain, I'd prefer you still make an effort to say actual words.

A few caveats to the "I'll buy anything" -

I'm fine with Ks, but it's got to be a pretty killer kritik for me to vote on one K alone - it's more likely I'll weigh it as part of a larger strategy.

PICs are abusive as they take too much affirmative ground, BUT occasionally there's a PIC that justifies the existence of PICs, and those make me happy.

Run topicality if it's justified. If it's not, and you're running four Ts as a time-suck, I won't buy any of them.

I prefer textually competitive CPs. If it's only competitive through a link to a DA, then I'm going to give it the stink eye. Never say never - I do periodically vote for arguments I claim not to like - but you better advocate for that CP really, really well.

IN summary with the PICs, Ts and CPs - just run a good, relevant argument. If you're throwing crap at the wall to see what sticks, I'm probably going to dismiss it as crap. But if you're confident it's an awesome argument, tell me why I should buy it; it's distinctly possible I will, just understand those arguments have a higher threshold for me.

Signpost, give me clear voters, be polite. When a team starts showing contempt for their opponents, I start looking for reasons to vote against them.

And have fun.

Lincoln Douglas:

Value/Value Criterion Clash - I expect you to have a clear value and value criterion, but I use them as a way to evaluate the round (framework), not as a voting issue (unless they're really, really bad, abusive, or maybe unexpectedly brilliant). Show why you meet your opponents' v/vc as well as your own, or why yours makes much more sense in context of the round, then move on. It's probably not going to be a big independent voter for me.

If you're doing circuit LD - please don't make it dumbed-down policy. Arguments still need to be fully developed, relevant to the topic, and coherently articulated.

If you're doing traditional LD - I appreciate someone who can talk pretty, I really do, but I want to see CLASH. Weigh arguments. Compare sources, and delve into what cards actually say. I like to vote for debaters who can help me see the big picture in the round, but can also weave a convincing narrative out of all the minutiae.

As with all debate - be confident, be aggressive, but don't be a jerk.

Public Forum:

I'm fine with speed in PF - but same as other debates, enunciate clearly!

More than any other debate, I expect PFers to be respectful of opponents. Be confident, be aggressive, and never show contempt.

Please maintain a consistent strategy between both partners' speeches - you need to be on the same page as to what you're going for and how you argue things. If I see two different debates from one partnership, I don't know what I'm supposed to vote for, so I'll usually vote for the other team.

Most (not all, but most) topics benefit from a framework, so have one! Tell me how to evaluate the round so I can judge the debate on what's debated, not on my preconceived notions of what's important.

I am okay with paraphrased evidence, but make sure to represent the facts and perspectives of your sources accurately. If I ask for a card after the round, I want to see the paragraph before the portion (highlighted) read, the paragraph after, and of course, the evidence itself, with all non-read portions viewable as well. Do not send or show me a 30-page journal article.

I prefer that you begin to narrow the debate in your summary speech, and then highlight voters in your final focus. Maybe that's obvious?

Anyone, good luck, have fun.

I debated Policy exclusively for 4 years in high school, I won 4A state in 2006 and went to Nationals 3 out of the 4 years. Pick your position and defend it, then defend your evidence. I'm a tab judge, I'm open to any issues and all schools of thought, this is your debate and I want you to own it even if that means taking a few risks.

Stock Issues: Don't expect me to make any assumptions;

CX Time: Please use it, this is your chance to shine;

Speed: Go for it but don't be sloppy, I can still flow;

Discursives, PICs or Ks: Be firm in your stance if you're going to go this route because I am happy to entertain them;

Time: Keep your own but I'll be tracking.

Speech and Debate is one of the best activities you could participate in, I won't say "do what you want" but that is how I feel. I believe debate should be accessible to all and should foster inclusivity - even if you're winning the flow, racist, sexist, homophobic and/or other problematic speech will be voted down. Have fun!

I was a high school debater for Rock Springs High School, one time national attendee. I have debated Public Forum and World's Schools, but I spent the most time in Policy debate.

add me to the email chain, x.hannacrockett.x@gmail.com

feel free to email me after the round if you have questions

POLICY

I will vote on just about any well-articulated argument. If someone brings up an outlandish argument but the other team drops it, that argument wins, so long as it is properly structured.

I vote on impacts, even if they're theoretical. Impact calculus is big.

I believe that the merits of arguments should be debated in round, by which I mean, I won't vote you down because I think XYZ is unfair. That is an argument to be made in round by the other team. Again, there must be impacts for the argument to be weighed (I tend to not vote on "fairness" arguments. Education is a much more compelling in-round impact).

I'm well versed in speed, but if clarity is sacrificed, you'll lose speaks (yes, even if you put me on the email chain).

I'm comfortable with any kind of argument, so go ahead and run your K's and theory args.

I won't vote you down for being impolite in cross, but if things are blatantly aggressive, you'll lose speaks.

Faking/misrepresenting evidence will lose you the round, but it's up to the other team to point that out.

Open cross is fine, but if both teams prefer it to be closed, that's also fine.

I won't do the work of extending arguments for you. I will only flow what you tell me to.

I'm not directly familiar with this year's topic, keep that in mind.

PF

I support progressive PF, so try it out if you'd like, but I'm also very familiar with trad style. The point of this event is to show that you are an exceptional communicator, so I expect clarity and in depth explanations.

The team that better handles clash, and best articulates the superiority of their case, wins.

LD

I am the least familiar with LD as a debate, but I am well versed in the philosophy that is often used, and am familiar with most values/criteria.

I have the most experience with traditional LD, but I will not hold you to the traditional standard. Feel free to run progressive arguments or use progressive styles.

I lean heavily on provided frameworks when judging LD, but please for the love of everything, give me good clash.

As with any debate, I judge mainly on impact calculus. In this particular style of debate, creating a narrative that displays your impacts will serve you well.

I am not familiar with this topic, clarity is expected.

OVERALL

I will not vote for a team that is racist, sexist, homophobic, ableist, or otherwise makes the debate space unsafe. I will give you the loss, zero speaks, and I will inform your coach.

I did speech and debate all four years of High School and I love it! I went to nationals and state so I’m aware of the program and how each form functions. I’m so excited to hear you!

I look for logical arguments. I care more for points that preferably have good evidence rather than making an argument just to look good to the judge or to have more points than your opponent on the flow. In other words, I like quality over quantity.

Lots of evidence means very little to me unless you can explain its impact and significance.

I prefer very clear reasons as to why I should vote for your side at the end along with signposts (telling me which contention or plank you're moving onto).

I prefer traditional debate style but will not dock points if your case/points are progressive. That being said, please don't spread/talk really fast: again, quality over quantity.

I would like an impact calculus(telling me what points mean the most in round according to you and why) just to make my job easier but it's not necessary.

For L/D (The best One) :

I love the Value/Criterion debate and will use that portion of the debate to determine how to weigh certain points in the round.

I like philosophical arguments in this form of debate but are not required.

For Policy:

Make sure it's clear which plank or part of their plan you are attacking.

Any Kritiks should be discussed in the beginning of the speech

For PF:

Just make sure things are very clear in the debate

Interpretation events paradigms:

I have no problem with materials that are edgy or considered "triggering" - this are events that are meant to raise awareness of issues and to allow competitors to push boundaries. Please do not chew gum.

Speaking events paradigms:

I have no problem with materials that are edgy or considered "triggering" - this are events that are meant to raise awareness of issues and to allow competitors to push boundaries.

Debate events paradigms:

I expect competitors to speak clearly and not race through their points. Quality over quantity is important to me. If I can't understand you, then I have a hard time voting for your side. I like evidence, evidence, evidence. I want your points backed up with valid sources. I expect civility - debate can happen without being rude and disrespectful.

I'm a traditional LD coach/judge. I coach CX, as well, but don't care to see CX-style argumentation (CPs, Ks, etc.) in LD (or PF) rounds. That includes CX-style speed. I look for who resolves clash by winning the substantive issues, preferably with a coherent story or clear voters in the rebuttals. I think your values framework is central to warranting how I should interpret the resolution, and any corresponding arguments you make about obligations of how to act should be internally linked to this framework.

In CX, I'm a real world policy maker judge. I see CX as a training ground for future policy makers and voting citizens, so I want to know if plan makes the world a better place or not. When it comes to weighing the round, I'm not swayed by the magnitude of impacts if they are logically absurd, and I'll accept analyticals that tell me why they are so. I'll vote on T but not if the plan is clearly topical. I'll listen to critical positions, but I am unlikely to vote for them unless they are impacted back to a real world impact. If I can't hear the warrant in a card because of your speed, I'm unlikely to find it persuasive.

One may call me a traditionalist, but I am not a fan, at all, of speed or anything policy related drifting into LD or PF debate.

The reason PF was created was to eliminate all of the lexicon/jargon and to make it easier for a judge off of the street to follow. The reason LD was created was to examine the values within our society that can be held dear to how we function as human beings. When debaters ignore those foundational components, they may as well go into policy debate. If you feel the need to run theory, topicality, kritiks, and do everything else but debate the actual topics, policy is always looking for more teams. I would encourage you to join it to try and save it.

I don't think that judges that put paradigms as "...I will give you one half of a point if you make a Pokémon reference..." are doing any good to PF or LD. Keep that stuff/junk in policy. There's a reason policy is dying around the country, and that is a part of it. It's juvenile, it's nonsensical, and it is non-educational. Judges should be here to help you learn how to improve your communication skills, critical analysis, writing, and research skills...not point bait you.

About Me:

-- Pronouns: he/him

-- Debate Background: I competed in policy for four years in high school and 2 years at the University of Wyoming.

-- Judging Background: I have judged at 3-5 tournaments a year for the last 8 years.

-- Yes, put me on the email: cullencdilldine@gmail.com

Tl;DR:

-- I think debate is an activity that should center on storytelling and strategy. The best teams I've judged/watched can strategically weave together their arguments into a cohesive and compelling story about why they should win and/or why the other team loses.

-- I'd rather judge a few well-developed arguments than listen to a wreck of cards that turn into a strategy in the 2NR. Reading multiple strategies is fine, but make choices and condensed down as the debate goes on.

-- I like when you tell me why you win. As a judge, I want to intervene as little as possible and will likely vote for the team that presents the clearest decision. For this reason, your speech overview should be my RFD. Tell me what is important, why you win that, and why winning it means you get the ballot.

-- I largely view debate through an offense/defense paradigm, so impact framing and impact calculus are essential.

Argument Specific:

-- K's on the neg: While I'm not well versed in a lot of K literature, I am generally a pretty good judge for k's given you have a clear and specific link story and a well-developed alternative. K teams that lose my ballot often do so because they don't pay enough attention to the alternative debate. I have a hard time figuring out how to solve the issues the negative is presenting without an alternative.

-- K's on the aff: I have voted on various k affs as a judge. The closer to the topic you are, the better. If you're going to read a k aff, don't be afraid to utilize the aff offense on the T/FW page. I will vote on T or FW. I think the most persuasive arguments for the negative deal with education and competitive equity. I"m not sure fairness is an impact in its own right; it's more of an internal link to competitive equity.

-- CP & DA/DA and Case: This is probably the world I am most comfortable in. I lean negative on most CP theory questions, but I think CPs should have a solvency advocate and am often annoyed by 10 plank CPs, most of which don't have a solvency advocate.

-- Case Debates: I love a good case debate, whether that features well-developed case turns, impact turns, or defense.

-- T & Theory: I love T, but understand that it requires a significant time commitment to win. Most theory arguments are reasons to reject the argument and not the team. I will vote on condo, but again, you'll have to invest a lot of time in it to win the debate on it.

Misc:

-- Debate should be fun! I love when debaters show their personality, and it's clear they're having a good time.

-- Be respectful. There's nothing worse than someone who is being a jerk in a debate.

-- My speaker points probably start at 28.5 and raise based on your performance. 28.7-28.9 probably means you're breaking, 29+ means you're probably a top 10 team at the tournament.

Feel free to ask questions before the debate!

For all debates: Sign post your arguments and be polite to one another. Speed is fine as long as you are clear.

CX: I am a stock issues voter. I have a high threshold on topicality and kritiks. There must be a substantial disadvantage for a team that is impacted out if a team wants to win the round solely on topicality. If the aff is truly untopical, then run topicality. Otherwise, if it is for a time-suck I would avoid this. The weirder the kritik the more work needs to be done developing the argument. Also, please use a roadmap to cover what part of the flow you will be on before you start.

LD: The value / value criterion clash is critical. Please go over this throughout the debate and use it as a mechanism to weigh the round with, rather than trying to solely win on the value / value criterion debate. Make sure to clash on the relevant issues in the debate and weigh the impacts on both sides. I look for arguments that are not just evidence based but also have a good tie to philosophy. In your final speech, I prefer that you use some of the time going over voters.

PF: Clash is critical in public forum. You should be weighing all arguments in the debate and bring new evidence in the round to support your position. If you have a framework, make sure to use it throughout your speeches and don't wait until the final focus to use your framework. You need to spend time utilizing your framework throughout. In your final speech, I prefer some voters.

I am a traditional LD judge with 35 years of experience in the event. V and VC are important to me as well as use of evidence, logic, flow of the debate, as well as speaker quality. No games please, no new fangled theory attacks and/or maneuvering. Just debate straight up and let the best person win. In summery if I were to hire a lawyer, I would pick the debater who I would feel most comfortable representing me in court. I would not pick the debater who wasn't respectful or who might sway the jury against me due to their speed or overly aggressive style.

In general:

Road maps off the clock, but don't abuse it.

I don’t like frameworks. It's one thing to analyze the resolution (in fact a good idea), but please don't tell me how to judge/what to judge on. I know what I'm doing. (If you press it too hard, it will work against you.)

LD:

How to win: Convince me that your value is more important and that your criterion achieves it better than your opponents. I'm old school in the sense that I view LD as a value debate, so while evidence (e.g. statistics, reports, etc.) are useful, their mere presence is not enough. It is possible for someone to win without these things if they can argue the value/criterion points more effectively. Part of this requires the ability to address and refute an opponent's attacks while also effectively attacking their case. Of course, all of this implies that you can communicate your points, which is reflected in speaker points.

How to lose: Ad hominems/attacking your opponent personally is an automatic loss. Period, no questions asked (not to fear--this has yet to happen in my experience).

Other: I have a degree in philosophy, so feel free (in fact, please do) talk about philosophers/philosophy. I will be able to follow arguments that center around Kant, for example.

PF: (I debated PF in high school.)

How to win: It is fairly straight forward: persuade me. How does one do this? Effective use of evidence is key, meaning the use of credible and relevant sources. This does not mean the more evidence the better. A single piece of powerful evidence is better than a hundred pieces of fluff. Naturally, this requires the ability to address and refute an opponent's attacks while also effectively attacking their case. Of course, all of this implies that you can communicate your points, which is reflected in speaker points.

How to lose: See above.

I am a community judge who has judged everything but CX debate for 10 years. I have judged at least 2/3 tournaments every month for the last two years. I have watched approximately 10 rounds on the current LD topic. I prefer traditional rounds and will vote on who simplifies main ideas and use of evidence.

Background: Debated LD in Colorado during high school; coach since graduation also in Colorado, MA in International Studies (Governance, Human Rights, and Civil Society). 2023 - 2024 season: I've watched mostly LD > PF > only a few CX rounds.

I have judged at Stanford and Berkeley tournaments for several years, plus numerous out rounds in LD and CX at NSDA Nationals.

Apparently I haven't updated this in a while...since that last update I've come to believe that paradigms are even more useless. I write it. You read it. We probably both ignore it.

General:

• Please impact your extensions. I won't simply flow through a card author.
• Give me voters! Probably with some weighing and clash...
• I dislike it when individuals run arguments that they don't understand: 1) quality over quantity; 2) don't waste my time. (I am seeing SO much power tagging. I can pull up your evidence very quickly and do a keyword search.)
• I think the best debate rounds are those in which the debaters agree what is being debated and don't try to play games--don't try to confuse your opponent, don't try to tell me you addressed something when you didn't, etc. Just be clear and engage with the issues of the round.
• If you want to ask me additional questions before a round, please be specific. Otherwise you prepped for a round and my paradigm is just some words on a screen.

PF Paradigm

I've never really thought about having a PF specific paradigm... My overall thought is that PF is meant to focus on the topic. I want substantive debate and not theory. I'm normally pretty tab at debate, but I find it so uninspiring to hear a whole round on theory.

LD Paradigm

Nothing special for LD. Be smart on time use.

CX Paradigm

My debaters have called me out and said I seem anti-CX here. Truth is, I think really good CX debate is better than anything else, and I've come to really appreciate CX. The problem is that it is rare to see a good round of CX. There's never clash. People read arguments they don't understand. People ignore evidence at a whim. There's a tension between just reading a bunch of cards and wanting the judge to do the work of analysis and then complaining about judges not understanding arguments. And more. And it's not unique to CX.

So, long-story short: I try to be pretty tab in CX -- because I wasn't a competitor I have very few preconceived ideas of what I want to see in a round. Take some extra time and explain any CX theory to me. I'm not going to love a lot of "education is better" or "truthiness is better" either. Do some work if it comes down to theory.

Speed: I have no preference and a pretty high threshold for an LD judge from backwards Colorado. I try to keep a rigorous flow so if you get too fast I will clearly stop typing or writing. If you also don't slow down a bit on taglines, arguments and cards probably won't get flowed where you want them.

Arguments: I tend to be more interested in philosophical debates and "traditional" LD (for CX this means I probably enjoy a good K debate, but I also appreciate a clear policy framework), but I will listen to, and flow anything. Start with a clear framework, provide clash, and make it clear for me where I vote. I have a pretty solid background in political theory and an interest in German philosophy broadly (Kant to Habermas).

Experience:

4 years of local/national LD+congress

2nd year of college policy at the University of Wyoming

Put me on the chain: calvin.gilmer@gmail.com

I’ll flow any arguments you make as long as:

1. They’re not disrespectful/problematic/dehumanizing. Please make the debate space one that’s welcome to everyone.

2. They’re structured in some way (warrants, links, impacts).

I enjoy nontraditional/kritikal debate so feel free to utilize it. I am not as deep in the lit as I'd like to be for the majority of K's, so tailor your speeches accordingly. Make sure that you clearly link whatever argument you’re making to your opponent’s position.

Condo is neither good or bad in and of itself, so debate it! I haven't voted on condo bad in the past but that doesn't mean I won't in future rounds given the affirmative can prove that, in the context of the round, the negative has done something terrible. I believe judge kick is a thing, but I won't kick the CP for you if the 2nr doesn't tell me I can/should.

Speak clear enough that I can flow. If I’m flowing you’re good (I know these instructions are hard with online debate, so if there's any major issues with my hearing of the round/arguments I'll speak up. The vast majority of the time it seems like people are 100% fine.)

Speaker points: perform well and you'll get good speaks. If you get higher than a 29 I considered your performance excellent and was impressed.

Things that will definitely tank your speaks:

- Furthering oppression in the debate space (sexism, racism, homophobia...)

- Being condescending to people who are obviously not as experienced as you

- Being condescending

Please don’t behave in an unkind matter…

If you have any questions email me!

Have fun and debate smart!

The only request I have is to speak clearly and be kind to your opponents.

Hi, all. I couldn't be more excited to be joining you for this tournament. I competed for 3 years in a number of events (including LD) and was the 1999 Wyoming state champion in Dramatic Interpretation. That same year I qualified for Nationals in both Dramatic Interpretation and Student Congress, so I know the pressure that comes with competition. But, don't forget to have fun! That's the best advice I can give to you, generally.

Specifically, as it relates to LD, I do not come into this with a particular style philosophy. Debate in the style you are most comfortable and use the tools that make the most sense to you. When you're comfortable you are more likely to present a clearly defined argument. Which is what I'm looking for.

Spell it out for me. Don't assume I am familiar with the topic or your contentions. I don't need a dissertation outlining the history of any given topic, but a rough overview is helpful. Define your thesis early, support it continuously, and conclude by identifying how you've supported and proven it. No one else at the podium is going to defend it. That's *your* job. Never forget the thesis. Never leave an argument/counterargument unanswered. CLASH!

Speak clearly. I am going to flow your speeches so I need to hear your argument. Too fast? Too soft? Too mumbled? How do I flow that? I won't necessarily take points for those styles, but I can't judge what I can't understand.

Don't present new arguments in final rebuttals. They won't be considered. Neither will contentions made after time is called.

Beyond that, the floor is yours. Relax. Present and defend your thesis. Clash. And have fun!

If I’m judging Debate, I prefer it to be traditional. Your job is to convince me that the resolution should either be affirmed or negated, bottom line. Please try to stick to NSDA standard rules for your respective event. There’s no need to bring Policy into PF or LD. If you are speaking so quickly that I cannot follow you, you aren’t helping your argument.

Online Congress: You’ll help us both out if you turn your camera on while you ask questions; I keep track of your overall participation and a face-to-the-name is appreciated. (unless you’re having WiFi issues, I understand) Also, please don’t talk over the speaker during questions - politeness will take you a long way with me. I love a good “hook” and analogies. Stand out.

Thanks and good luck!

*Reagan Great Communicator Debate Series: "Use logic, evidence, and personality, just as Reagan did throughout his life". I want to see personality!

I was a PF debater in high school and will be flowing each round. Tell me how you want the round judged! I want voters at the end of the debate; I'm willing to vote on just about anything. If you provide a framework (or in LD, your value/value criterion), I will vote on that so long as you argue it throughout the debate. If the only time your framework (or value/value criterion) is mentioned is in your case reading, don't expect me to vote on it.

Policy: I'm a stock issues judge, though I am willing to vote on a K or T if it is argued well.

Argumentation, Speaks

I weigh on theory

Impact Calculus

• Timeframe (when will the impact happen)
• Scope of Impact (How many people will be effected)
• Difficulty of recovery (How hard will it be get back to normal)
• Outright probability (how likely is this too happen)
• Intensity of impact (are the impacted individuals slightly hurt or seriously injured)

I respect pronouns. Just let me know.

I did policy debate and extemp in high school. It has been a while since I have debated or judged a round. I would consider myself a stock issues judge. Tell me where and why to vote and PLEASE be aware of your speed. It has been a while since I have flowed and I will likely be slower than you.

For LD and PF rounds I am very unfamiliar with your event. Be very clear and tell me how to vote and why.

I have judged Policy Debate rounds for 10 years, but never debated myself. Accordingly, I can get lost when subjected to a lot of theory and debate jargon presented in rapid fire fashion. I want tag lines and the Plan text presented clearly and at a normal conversational pace. T is a voter for me and I apply a standard of reasonableness in my analysis. If you are going to argue a K you had better be able to explain it clearly and in your own words. If all I hear is a bunch of canned philosophy you are unlikely to prevail. I expect offense from each side and want you to tell me why I should vote for you. I like running summaries. I strongly dislike when one debater prompts/talks over/supplements his or her partner. I think of myself as a big-picture kind of guy and try to base my decisions accordingly.

Previous policy debater. I will vote on theory or anything traditional as long as you present it well. Put impacts and voters on your arguments. Don't shy away from probability impacts, we do not always need high magnitude climate/nuclear extinction impacts. Your tags should be clear, presenting the argument of the evidence. Think of your case through your tag lines, does it make sense if the cards are not included? If not, you should ake the outline structure of your case logical and it will do wonders for the case.

I did 2 years of high school LD and 1 year of humorous interpretation.

For debate, I judge mainly off of clash and I look at evidence. If this is LD, I will for sure weigh the framework debate (although I don't believe that's the only part of LD - even in LD I look a lot at the contentions and also evidence). I also ask that debaters be respectful to each other in round (I will dock speaks if you are bullying your opponent/opponents).

In terms of speaker points, if you get a 29 or 30 from me, that is very good! I don't really give speaks that high, typically in the 23-27 zone. If I gave you a 22 or lower, this may be because 1) you were rude to your opponent in round or 2) you didn't fill your time very well and dropped big chunks of your opponent's case. I don't really believe in speaker point inflation so the speaks you receive from me may look deflated compared to what other judges give and that's ok.

General Notes

Don't be a bigot. This includes misgendering competitors. You will lose the ballot.

I generally give relatively high speaks due to the subjective nature of speaker points and the issues therein.

Remember to time yourselves and your opponents.

At invitationals, add me to the email chain using crystal.debate.speech@gmail.com .

In all forms of debate, I value logical argumentation and strong analytics supported by credible evidence. Speed, if clear, is fine, as long as it remains at a level that works for all debaters in the round. Out-spreading an opponent kills education.

Policy (and Policy-Style Parli)

I am open to theory arguments and will rarely vote on T , but you need to explain them clearly and thoroughly in the round. I studied critical theory as applied to literature in both undergraduate and graduate school, so I have a strong background in feminist, Marxist, deconstructionist, queer, and psychoanalytic theory. I enjoy a well-executed K, but only run kritiks you know well -- not something you grabbed off the wiki/open ev.

I strive to evaluate the round using the framework agreed upon by the debaters and do not have a particular preference regarding stock issues, policy maker, etc.

LD

Support and bring everything back to your V/VC -- even if you're running a plan (for non-CA LD). Evidence certainly matters but evidence without analytics will do very little for you.

PF

I'll accept theory arguments when necessary to address in-round abuse, but please proceed with caution. I still value Public Forum as a form of debate that can be understood by lay judges, so please don't spread or run a K, and keep the jargon to a minimum.

Speech

In extemp, I want to see your introduction connect clearly with the topic and the rest of the speech (bring it back briefly at the end). Please clearly sign-post your main points and cite your evidence (ideally with more than just "According to the New York Times this year..."). Don't be afraid to use humor -- even if it's a little dark. Most of all, be authentic, engaging, and keep things flowing.

I will give time signals in extemp and impromptu.

In original oratory, original advocacy, & informative speaking, I look for well-crafted speeches delivered with fluency and appropriately varied tones.

If you're competing in an interp event, your intro should make me care about the topic at hand and should, of course, be your original words. Also, if you're competing in oratorical interpretation and the original speech includes cursing, please say the actual words or select a different speech (e.g., AOC's 2020 address to Rep. Yoho in which she quotes his profanity).

LD: I am a flow judge. Rarely do I vote on anything that is not on the flow for the round. Sound reasoning and logic are really important. I do not buy arguments ad absurdum. So, even if there is an argument on the flow, it must logically follow for me to find it persuasive. Debate is also a speaking event. Proper presentation is almost equally important as substance; though a reliance on rhetoric will not win my ballot. Breadth does not equal depth.

Congress: The event is called "Congressional Debate" for a reason. That being, while the format is different than a traditional debate round, it is still debate nonetheless. Logic and reasoning are important. Sources are very important to me. While we all think that we are experts on a given subject, none of us are. Rebuttals (just like traditional debate) are very important. Arguments must flow with the standing arguments for or against the legislation.

I debated PF for Centerville High School in Ohio for four years and coached the middle school team for three years. I am a senior at Vanderbilt University coaching the University School of Nashville's debate team.

I competed at a few national circuit tournaments, but most of my debating was done on the local circuit. I have judged all debate formats but have not competed in all of them. Most of this paradigm relates to PF but in terms of Policy, I am open to hearing every argument and will evaluate based on the flow.

Add me to the email chain at sung.jun.jeon@vanderbilt.edu. If you spread, send a speech doc.

In terms of a PF round, here are a few things that I want to see:

1) You don't have to read direct quotes. I am fine with paraphrasing. However, if I find that you are misconstruing your evidence to make your claim, then I won't vote for that specific argument. Your speaks probably will go down as well if your opponents call you out for misconstruing evidence.

2) If you are speaking second, make sure to frontline any offense. I think it is strategic to frontline everything but at the minimum frontline turns.

3) I won't flow cross-fire, but if something major happens, make sure to address it in the next speech.

4) When extending cards and offense in the latter half of the round, make sure that you explain the warranting behind it.

5) If evidence is called, make sure to produce it in a timely manner. Also, I will call for evidence if you tell me to call for evidence.

6) Don't just dump responses. Explain what your evidence indicates and how this piece of evidence is significant in responding to your opponent's case.

7) I like to see you start weighing in rebuttal. I think it is strategic to set up the weighing earlier in the round and then carry that through summary and final focus.

How I vote:

If you want me to vote on a certain argument, it should be in both summary and final focus. Your argument should be explained in a clear manner and your impacts should be extended. Weighing your argument and impacts against your opponent's argument and impacts will make your path to the ballot easier. I will try not to intervene, but please weigh arguments comparatively to make my job easier as a judge. If not, I will have to decide which arguments are more important.

If there is no offense generated from each side (highly unlikely), then I will default to the first speaking team. If you say things that are sexist, racist, ableist, homophobic, transphobic, or are extremely rude in any way, I will drop you and give you low speaks. The debate should be civil and debaters should be respectful.

Please do not postround me. I do encourage you to ask questions about the round and why I voted the way I did. I am always looking for feedback to improve my judging.

If you have any additional questions, let me know.

My biggest paradigm is to be respectful to your opponents. I want to see a clean fair debate. I want debaters to speak clearly and don't rush so fast that I can't understand them.

I competed in college forensics for four years, so I am very familiar with speech and debate. In high school, I competed in PF so don't break the rules, I'll know. You can talk quickly if it's understandable, however do not cross the line into spreading. If you spread in PF, I will stop flowing.

In PF and CX/policy, I vote on the flow, that is to say dropped argument, evidence, and the such.

I like clean debates so don't be rude to your opponents. Personal attacks will result in an automatic loss regardless of the rest of the flow.

In Ld debate I vote on the Value, Value Criterion, so make sure to carry that through.

If you are here because you are a policy debater... treat me kinda like a lay judge. I can follow complex arguments but I need you to clearly explain any lingo and give a good justification for why you are running a T or K over engaging with the resolution. If you choose to spread, make sure to clearly signpost everything and annunciate like your life depends on it. If I can’t understand and follow you then your arguments won’t make it to the flow.

This is my fourth year of judging speech and debate. I generally judge PF, LD or interp. I have a strong background in theater so I put a lot of weight into performance. I want to be able to hear and understand you. That means NO SPREADING. Thank you. This also means that for interp and speech events I appreciate eye contact, body movement, and using the space that you're given.

Clarity is very important to me. If you are speed reading and I can not understand you because you are mumbling. I will deduct points. It does not matter how good your argument is if I am unable to follow what you are saying. I also value organization in your delivery. When competitors are jumping around from argument to argument it is easy to get confused.

PF PARADIGM:

Head Coach at George Washington in Denver

I have watched many rounds on the topic and am very familiar with the literature base.

I will vote off the flow if I can which means you need to sign post and keep the same names and structures for arguments as they were coming out of case. In other words, do not rename arguments later in the round. If I cannot figure out where to flow the argument, I am not listening to what you are saying, but rather trying to figure out where it goes. I am most happy when you guide my pen to the flow and tell me exactly where to write and what to write!

Make sure whatever you carry into Final Focus, is also part of Summary. All of the sudden extending arguments that have not been part of the debate is not a winning strategy.

Weigh the round, explain why your arguments outweigh your opponents'. Be specific; do not just say you "outweigh" leverage certain cards and contentions to explain

Dropped arguments only matter if you tell me why they matter!

Truth over tech; facts and reality matters. I will not vote off improbable, unrealistic or fundamentally flawed arguments. This does not mean opponents can just say they are improbable and move on, work must still be done to explain why the arguments are flawed, but if it is close and the arguments have been discredited with evidence and analysis, I will err on the side of "truth".

Dates matter and NSDA rules say you should at a minimum read the year of the card; please follow these rules or I will not flow your cards.

Views on Theory: Not a fan of it in PF. Run at your own risk.

Kritiks: See theory above

Views on Spreading: Do not spread! Reading quickly is not the same as a full out spread.

Please share all cards you are reading in a speech before the speech. Set up an email chain! This will avoid the annoying wait times associated with "calling for cards." All cards should be appropriately cut, please do not share a PDF or link and ask the other team to look for the relevant passage.

I am not sure I am a fan of "sticky defense."

Pet Peeves

Please do not ask every single person in the room if they are ready before starting to speak. One simple, "everyone ready?" does the trick! Once you ask, give a little bit of wait time before you actually start speaking.

As far as I am concerned, the only road map in a PF round, is "Pro/Con" or "Con/Pro". Please do not use the term "brief off time road map." Or ask if I time them!

Avoid calling me "judge".

I stop listening to Cross-Fire if it is loud and the debaters talk over each other.

maryrosekohan@gmail.com

POLICY PARADIGM:

Head Coach George Washington High School.

If this paradigm isn't completely clear, please ask questions before the round! I'd rather you be informed than to be inconvenienced by a misunderstanding about anything said here.

Most Importantly: I haven't judged much circuit policy, but that doesn't mean I don't know what I'm doing.

If you want to have a good round in front of me, there's a couple things you should do/not do.

1. PLEASE take it easy on speed. Given that I do not judge on the circuit often, I'm a little out of practice flowing. This means that if you want me to understand what you're saying, you need to slow down. Obviously, this means you should far and away strive for clarity over speed.

2. If you are reading positions that are silly/don't make sense, expect to be disappointed with the decision that I make. Overly absurd Kritikal positions, and politics disads that seem to not have any internal links are definitely a no-go in front of me. I'm open to Kritikal positions, and I think they're interesting, but things like Death-Good aren't up my alley. Read a position that you know well in front of me and I'll enjoy it.

3. I'm comfortable evaluating Framework debates. I think affs should be at least tangentially related to the resolution. I'm not fond of just "Anti-USFG" affs. In addition, don't assume that I know all of the arguments that you're trying to make. On either side, the arguments should be explained clearly and concisely.

LD Paradigm

Although I come from a state that does primarily traditional value-criterion debate, I am an experienced policy coach (see the paradigm above). I can evaluate policy style arguments and am very open to them. I am much more persuaded by arguments that are related to the resolution and can be linked back to it as opposed to Kritikal arguments that do not link. I am, however, excited by some the resolution specific Kritiks and would love to hear them! I am familiar with a number of off case positions and theoretical arguments, please do not make assumptions and take time to give brief explanations.

I may not be able to easily follow or be familiar of all theory arguments. Slow down and explain them.

Dropped arguments only matter if you tell me why. You do not automatically win just because an argument is dropped.

As far as speed goes, I can keep up with it if it is clear and well articulated and has the purpose of covering more arguments. But I am not a fan of going fast just to go fast.

I was WY state champ for LD in 2020; I do policy at the University of Wyoming now (go pokes!) under instruction of Lawrence Zhou, Matt Liu and Brent Lamb. I also help coach LD voluntarily at Rock Springs High School (WY)

If there's a chain, please add me: knickknackmack@gmail.com

I use they/them pronouns

Last updated for the Bobcat Invitational

~~~

Summary for prefs (CX and LD)

Approach the debate however you like, just make sure you focus around the topic; I'll totally vote for K affs if they provide specific warrants to the topic's wording/content/epistemology and why it's harmful, and do this throughout the round.

I'm not apt to vote for tricks or arguments that are contingent on your opponent missing them.

I'll, of course, vote on any argument if it's not responded to well regardless of paradigm. That said, my paradigm does lower the threshold your opponent needs to meet for them to win/not lose on that particular arg.

For LD: I generally think Nebel T is true, but as always tech > truth. I do lean towards reasonability (if the aff is actually reasonable) but an undercovered T is an undercovered T, y'all.

Notes for all debates

1.) I'll vote by evaluating what the winning framework was (if this was a point of contention; if it wasn't I'll probably assume standard util) and then taking the most straightforward route to the ballot through that framework.

2.) Tech > truth, but very obviously untrue arguments have a much lower threshold to overcome, especially if they're analytics

3.) You don't need to ask me if I'm ready, I'll tell you if I'm not

4.) This should go without saying, but I'll vote you down for making the debate space unsafe. Slurs, intentionally misgendering someone after being corrected, mocking someone in a way that undermines their identity or personhood, those are all no bueno.

~~~~~

Policy paradigm

Pre-paradigm note: Don't assume I know the topic very well. I do college policy and help a bit with high school LD -- I know a workable amount of argumentation, not nearly as much content.

Counterplans

Condo in policy is way more justifiable than it is in LD. I'll usually side neg with conditionality in the average debate (5 off with two counterplans will 9/10 times be fine). Judge kick is also fine. Of course, I'll still vote on condo bad if there's evidence of significant time skew on CPs that get kicked in the block, or if aff doesn't do a sufficient job at proving no abuse. I'm a 2A so I'm sympathetic to it, y'all

CPs must have a net benefit and be competitive (duh). Lots of CPs (agent and process specifically) don't do one of those very well. You don't need to read (and I'd prefer you not read) "Agent CPs bad" or "Process CPs bad" theory, just defend your mechanism via solvency deficits and use perms to test competition.

Impacts

Advantages/disads with nuclear war impacts that have an arbitrary mention of "extinction" in the tags but no mention of it in the internals are likely to work against you. Often people forget that their card does not, in fact, frame nuclear war as existential, in which case they lose impact calc

On the CJR topic in particular I will probably find myself leaning towards probability more than magnitude; I think the link story on either side is particularly tenuous when trying to connect the aff's domestic CJR action to extinction.

K affs

As always, it is the negative's job to prove the aff wrong. The aff needs to offer some point of predictable stasis so the neg can be prepared to prove the aff wrong. I will vote aff on kritikal affirmatives that a) are related enough to the topic to allow for enough neg prep, and b) are debated better than the negative on a technical level. A is a prerequisite to B; if you debate net better on a technical level but still don't prove sufficient points of clash I probably won't vote for you.

Ks

I really like Ks, however, I tend to find many difficult to vote for. Please tell me what the alternative does without obfuscating the discussion until the 2NR. This includes both the action and the actor

I find the "serial policy failure" argument powerful in the CJR topic because I think it is particularly true in this context. The aff should be aware of this and allocate time accordingly.

I would prefer K debates stay away from broad, overarching claims and narrow in on the nitty-gritty in terms of how the aff links, why this matters, and how the alt solves this specific problem. Example, one saying "Their epistemology legitimizes oppression and we solve by rejecting the state" versus "Their Smith 20 card talks about reform being good. This is a link -- reform is a tool of cruel optimism by the state, used as a smokescreen to hide its illegitimacy -- that's our Nguyen 20 card. This means as long as there is narrative around reform, the state can stay in power. The alt solves by disintegrating that narrative because the alt rejects reform in favor of abolition." Specificity is key in K debates, especially when they're often so broad that nobody knows what's going on.

~~~

Trad LD (if you're competing at the Bobcat Invitational, this is probably you)

I'm gonna keep it real with y'all, framework is not helpful in, like, 99/100 debates (that being said, it probably will be a bit more helpful with the LAWS topic.) Still, if both of you run util, please don't spend a minute on it in the 1AR. It is a) painful, but also b) doesn't help you get phat dubs. The only time I really see value clash as having any sort of... value (heheh) is when someone runs deontology and the other runs consequentialism.

One thing I've learned from college policy that can help with trad LD: you don't need to go for every one of your contentions in the 2AR. Let me repeat, for emphasis: you don't need to go for every one of your contentions in the 2AR. You can collapse down to a single one and just be like "This is incredibly important and makes the rest of the debate moot," and then explain why that contention matters so much. I will absolutely adore this and give you v high speaks.

~~~

Circuit LD Paradigm

ctrl+F Policy paradigm for policy stuff.

K Affs

The aff should be related in some way or another to the topic. Shifting the debate to something entirely inapplicable to the resolution is very likely to lose to T-FW.

If the K has an application to the topic that they explain well and with warranting (e.g. saying "Predictive policing and this specific rhetoric around it are used in these specific ways to uphold the state which is bad for these specific warrants" instead of "The neg supports the state"), I'll be more apt to dismiss neg FW args.

Phil

I am completely fine with philosophically based arguments, but if they are something I'm not familiar with (below), you will need to explain them knowing I don't have as much background on them.

Phil that's often used in LD that I'm familiar with (in order of most to least): Mill's util, Rawlsian justice, Kant's deontology, Baudrillard/simulation theory, a very small bit of Nietzsche, everything else

Tricks

I don't particularly like tricks, or any argument that is dependent on your opponent missing or misunderstanding it for you to win. I'll vote on them if you win them and they're warranted but I'm not a fan and would prefer you make other arguments.

Some tricks are so sneaky that they lose the opponent but also the judge. If you blow up a trick in your last speech, but it's not on my flow, I'm going to assume it's a new argument.

Counterplans

I love counterplans. In LD, I lean towards condo bad but can be convinced otherwise depending on how the aff handles the argument. If aff doesn't breathe a word about conditionality until the 2AR I, of course, won't vote on condo bad.

I reflect Jacob Nails' paradigm in that "perm do the counterplan" is almost always a better option than "process (or whatever) CPs bad." Any type of CP that has its competition resting on a single Merriam-Webster definition of "Resolved" is pretty shaky and will more often lose to tests of competition than to theoretical arguments.

Agent CPs need to clearly demonstrate a net benefit to the aff. Most of them don't do this unless they have an explicit solvency advocate with carded evidence on why "courts are key" or whatever the CP is.

Topicality

No preference. If you're neg and you legitimately think the aff is untopical, you're probably not the only one. If you're neg and you're running it to waste time on a very topical plan, the aff saying "we meet" is sufficient.

Inclusivity

It's good. If your opponent is trad please make it educational for them. As someone who was against progressive LD for a while because of opponents that were condescending and wouldn't explain what anything meant, I can tell you for sure that your behavior matters. More people and interactions with different styles of debate is net good for education and the inclusivity of small circuits.

~~~~~

Public Forum

PF is the debate I've admittedly done the least of. I do adore judge instruction, so if you tell me what to vote for and why, your chances of winning and/or achieving high speaks are pretty good.

Tech > truth, but the more untrue an argument is, the less your opponent will have to say about it to beat it.

Progressive arguments are totally fine as long as you keep them accessible to the opponent (explain them, answer questions about them straightforwardly, etc.)

You can read the rest of my paradigm to get a feel for me as a judge but it's not very PF-specific. I'm not very picky. Just have fun and don't be a dingus.

LD: I am a traditional judge. I do NOT believe is SPREADING. Do NOT speak fast! This technique of speaking does not show your ability to be clear in stating your contentions and using concise arguments. If you spread, I will miss your points and then most likely, you will not get the win. Definitions should be clear and concise. Competitors should have clash in the debate round. Since this is a philosophical debate, I would expect to hear which philosopher reflects your value/criterion and explain the connection. Stating voting issues at the end of the round is very important. Also, competitors must support their V and VC in their speeches. Stay away from WOKE responses...they are distracting and tell me that you can't defend this resolution. Careful that your sources are not from partisan sources.

Parliamentary debate: define the government and any pertinent definitions; stay away from LD jargon; convincing arguments are important; since this is less source-based, I want to hear the general reasons that support your argument; NO new contentions in the final speeches; each speaker should take at least one questions during their unprotected time; each competitor should pose at least one question during the entire round...this indicates understanding of your opponent's position and your engagement in the issue being debated; choice of strange or a very narrow definition of the "government" does not help a debate and wastes the round. Woke arguments or arguments that have nothing to do with the topic do not help your team. These arguments only distract and say to me that you can't address the issue at hand.

Congress: If you are the first speaker/author of the Bill/Resolution, your speech should explain the Bill and its importance. First negative, you need to explain why this Bill should not be passed. While sources are sometimes important in supporting your stance, use sources that are non-partisan. (ex. MSNBC leans to the left). Also, if you use a source such as Breitbart which I've heard often, cite the specific researcher or pollster who authors the supporting evidence. If you are 3rd or 4th on Pro or Con, you must have new information as to why you support this side of the Bill. Stay away from Woke arguments.

PF: remember this type of debate says that a person off the street should be able to come into the room and judge a round. Stay away from LD language. Fighting over sources is a waste of time in my opinion during the debate. If you have researched the topic, you have the sources that support your side of the resolution. Be specific in the source and use non-partisan sources. Sources that are stronger include governmental departments and possible university research. If you are using a source such as a magazine such as The Atlantic, mention the author and his/her qualifications in presenting the information that you use. No Woke arguments.

steve.larue@frontrange.edu

I judge regularly in Colorado, usually around 60-70 debate rounds a year, somewhat less this year. I've judged at Nationals for many years.  I've coached debate as an assistant for about 20 years.  What surprised me most in reading other paradigms is how much the PF paradigms sound like Policy paradigms.

I will be looking for:

Being on the e-mail chain.

Tab judging philosophy -- teams set the framework, and it's a debatable issue.

Weighing the round -- teams can collapse if they strategically decide to do so, depending on how the round is playing out.

Speed is not a problem. Clarity is better.

Lincoln Douglas debate is a value debate. You are debating a specific resolution, the contentions need to support the value and criterion. If your case doesn't address the topic, you can't carry the round.

Policy -- I'm a stock issues judge.

Parent judge. Very limited experience. Please speak at a reasonable speed (do not spread).

Matt Liu

University of Wyoming

Last updated: 9-12-22

Email chain: mattliu929@gmail.com

Feb 2022 update: If your highlighting is incoherent gibberish, you will earn the speaker points of someone who said incoherent gibberish. The more of your highlighting that is incoherent, the more of your speech will be incoherent, and the less points you will earn. To earn speaker points, you must communicate coherent ideas.

If you want to read far more than necessary on my judging process: https://wyodebateroundup.weebly.com/blog/reflections-on-the-judging-process-inside-the-mind-of-a-judge

I put a pretty high premium on effective communication. Too many debaters do not do their evidence justice. You should not expect me to read your evidence after the round and realize it’s awesome. You should make sure I know it’s awesome while you read it. I find many debaters over-estimate the amount of ideas they believe they communicate to the judge. Debaters who concentrate on persuading the judge, not just entering arguments into the record, will control the narrative of the round and win my ballot far more often than those who don’t. I have tended to draw a harder line on comprehensibility than the average judge. I won’t evaluate evidence I couldn’t understand. I also don’t call clear: if you’re unclear, or not loud enough, I won’t intervene and warn you, just like I wouldn't intervene and warn you that you are spending time on a bad argument. Am I flowing? You're clear.

Potential biases on theory: I will of course attempt to evaluate only the arguments in the round, however, I'll be up front about my otherwise hidden biases. Conditionality- I rarely find that debaters are able to articulate a credible and significant impact. International actor fiat seems suspect. Uniform 50 state fiat seems illogical. Various process counterplans are most often won as legitimate when the neg presents a depth of evidence that they are germane to the topic/plan. Reject the arg not the teams seems true of nearly all objections other than conditionality. I will default to evaluating the status quo even if there is a CP in the 2NR. Non-traditional affirmatives- I'll evaluate like any other argument. If you win it, you win it. I have yet to hear an explanation of procedural fairness as an impact that makes sense to me (as an internal link, yes). None of these biases are locked in; in-round debating will be the ultimate determinant of an argument’s legitimacy.

Clock management: In practice I have let teams end prep when they begin the emailing/jumping process. Your general goal should be to be completely ready to talk when you say ‘end prep.’ No off-case counting, no flow shuffling, etc.

Cross-x is a speech. You get to try to make arguments (which I will flow) and set traps (which I will flow). Once cross-x is over I will stop listening. If you continue to try to ask questions it will annoy me- your speech time is up.

Pet-peeves: leaving the room while the other team is prepping for a final rebuttal, talking over your opponents. I get really annoyed at teams that talk loudly (I have a low threshold for what counts as loudly) during other teams speeches- especially when it’s derisive or mocking comments about the other team’s speech.

I am a parent judge.

Also disregard the last update.

For policy: My biggest pet peeve I have is a debate with no clash. If there is no clash, there is no debate. On that note, tell me where you are arguing. The judge should have to do the least work in the round, so make sure to be very clear where your arguments should go, which arguments you win, and why. With that, tell me why to prefer your evidence. What makes it better than your opponents? I consider myself a traditional STOCK issues judge. This is flexible if you give me voters, but I prefer STOCK issues. That said, I love a good impact debate. Impact calcs are huge for me. See below for specific arguments.

DAs: Run them. Make the link very clear. In the impact debate, I hate terminal impacts. I usually want debaters to focus on probability rather than magnitude.

CPs: Make it clear why the CP is mutually exclusive, otherwise the Perm will probably win.

Topicality: I don't care as much if you run these as time sucks, as that hurts you the most. Just make sure to properly structure the argument. Properly structured topicality debates can be a lot of fun.

Ks: These are more dangerous. The more complex the K, the harder it is to win. Simple Ks are fine, but a good explanation at the end never hurt. I will not vote for a K if the alt is 'Do Nothing'. This isn't an alt. The only way you can win a K with this alt is if you make very clear why this is necessary and will fix an issue in the SQUO.

K affs: Please don't run these. I really hate them. There is a good chance I will sign the ballot against the K aff by the end of the 1AC. Remember, I'm a traditional judge. It has to be incredible for me to vote for it. These usually hurt the quality of debate, so this has to be the best Aff I've ever seen, K or not.

Speed: I am usually fine with it. Given the special circumstances, this is really at your own risk. If I am struggling hearing you, I will say 'Clear' once before I stop flowing. Make sure to really enunciate.

If you have any other questions, ask before the round starts! This is the only time to clear my paradigm up before starting. I will be more than happy to answer any questions. If you do an email chain, please include me at: marchap2@gmail.com with the subject line being your speech (1AC, 1NC, etc).

For PF: I did PF a couple times, but I am no expert. As you can see, I know policy much better. Because of that, I love clash. I understand there is less emphasis on evidence so I don't require it for arguments. However, if I have to weigh evidence vs analyticals, I will weigh the evidence higher. Tell me why to prefer your framework over your opponent's.

About me: I did congress and PF in high school. Now I do British Parliamentary debate in college.

Round expectations: Be polite and respectful, do not talk over each other!!! Have proof of all your evidence/cards/quotes ready incase something becomes contested and you need to verify it.

What I look for: Clear link chains, warranting, impact calc, weigh the round for me or I will not know what to vote on. Speak clearly and do not spread, a little speed is ok but not too much.

I give a 10 sec grace period and you will be cut off after that expires. Time your own speeches, your prep, and your opponents time to hold them accountable. I do not flow cross.

Hey guys, I did PF for about 3.5 years with decent success on the local and national circuit, so I know how the debate will go. Also, you can go any speed just don't speak to the point of spreading. Don't be nervous I don't expect you to be extremely serious at all times you can crack a joke before the debate begins or comment about my Mamamoo or Playboi Carti stickers on my laptop. Let's go over each part of the debate and what I value:

General Rules

*I will disclose at a tournament if and only if they allow it but always feel free to ask me about the rules

*There are a lot of germs out so fist bumps or air fives are greatly appreciated

*Please do not cap (lie) about info and create a situation where officials need to included in

* Please have your cards ready to be called if needed because I do not enjoy spending a minute for a team trying to find a card that they have probably been using for two tournaments before this situation

* If you want to wow me knowing the in's and out's of your information i.e sources and dates is Pog ( really good ), knowing the opponent's sources and calling them out is an absolute 200 IQ/5Head play and I will be in awe of the brain waves radiating from your cranium

* Even if the debate is sloppy still fist bump, shake hands, or acknowledge the work the everyone has put in to get to this point

Debate Rules

1. The constructive

Please speak decently loud because my hearing is the best, but do not yell at me. If you want some more closure you can ask me a good pitch before the debate. Also, it is okay if you stumble on words just please recover and do not panic because of a mistake we are all human.

2.

CrossFire/Grand Cross

Please be respectful, one of my biggest pet peeve during the debate would be when someone would filibuster and complain that their opponent would not let them respond or just generally speak over there opponents in a rude manner. With the previous statement in mind do not be passive during the debate because confidence is key and is a general component for me to vote for you (remember as a judge I'm a blank canvas and you are the artist). The order for cross should be question-answer-question-answer, but if the opposition does not have a question exploit that weakness and continue on. In grand cross please don't introduce new arguments or read new cards because they will not be weighed are a waste of time.

3. Rebuttal

PLEASE SIGN POST! Although im pretty leaniant with mistakes during the debate this one of skills that I value the most because if an argument is being fed towards me during rebuttal especially without structure I might miss it or not understand it fully which would be disadvantageous towards you. Also, I like off time roadmaps even if the direction of the rebuttal is predictable because they give me a break to ingest fully what is to come. Finally just because you overload me with a lot of reasons against your opponent's case does not mean you just completely eviscerated them, unless they fail to recognize them or they are quality arguments.

4. Summary

Since I did first speaker for all of my tournaments that I competed at except for about four, I have grown to realize how important the summary is and how hard it is. You guys have a little bit of a break with 3 minutes, because back in my day we only had 2 minutes ( I wanted to have an older voice for this part but this is on a laptop and I'm not reading out loud to you and I just graduated high school this year so I thought it was funny but to be honest it was not). I really need the 1st speakers to pop off and not int (INTentionally feed/ do bad) for the summary. The summary is where I will be weighing the majority of the debate on. For the summary I need the 1st speakers to please WEIGH and show me why you win and the other team loses. ALSO, I still need you to signpost through all speeches.

5. Final Focus

For the 2nd speaking team please do not say any new arguments that can not be responded to by the opposition. Flow over the voters to which should have been introduced in the summary and generally collapse on the debate with telling me why you won. To be honest, just take a deep breath and go crazy; and I believe you will be successful.

Topshelf -

Impact weighing is near the top of my priorities when making a decision it influences how i frame the rest of the debate and the offense/defense of the debate.

Kritiks - Fine by me but i prefer they have solid links to the opposing side and that they are based in the topic literature.

Theory. Fine as long as they have clear standards and a reject the team arg, i have a high threshold for reject the team args.

The looking at cards off of prep time is somewhat okay but don't use it super often it makes the round unnecessarily long

I think 2nd rebuttal should cover opponents case and offense but this isn't something i will vote on its just something to keep in mind.

Email for email chains - Joshuadalemitchell@gmail.com

I am not so new parent judge. You can use your own style of speaking. As long as it is not getting personal or racist I will allow it. I will be setting the room timer.

Debate:

LD: heavy framework clash is necessary because you are trying to prove why you are morally superior (and your opponent isn't)

Please also stick to the flow and be organized while also using roadmaps.

Make substantive claims with clear evidence and/or strong logic.

Please tell me why you your ideas are stronger than your opponent's. I wont make the connections on my own.

PF: Present strong evidence for all claims made, and elaborate on why its important.

You must be respectful during cx and do not talk over your opponents. that said, once you have gotten your answer you should politely ask to move to the next question

The case that is better supported by evidence and reasoning will win the round. that said it is not up to me to decide which one is better thus it is up to you to tell me why you have won the debate.

Speech

Present the best scene/speech that you can.

Extempt: Speak clearly and smooth with your speeches.

Congress: Use evidence and reasoning to support your claims, also be cordial in the chamber.

I am a parent judge with some experience judging speech and public forum. I will try to take notes, but I am not a flow judge. I look for competitors with a clear and smooth speaking style, solid gestures, but most importantly, logical and well-supported arguments.

I believe debate is a communication event, so I'm not too fond of speeding through cases and using too much jargon. You can have off-the-clock road maps and can use your phones as timers. Cross-examinations need to be respectful and thoughtful. Please provide voters with your final speech.

Howdy! My name is Breeze (she/they) and I am very excited to be judging whatever it is you are competing in.

A little about me I attend Hamilton College in Clinton, NY where I am a major in International Relations.

I did speech and debate for four years in High School. I did almost every event under the sun (PF, LD, Congress, OO, Info, DUO, PO, Impromptu). I like to think I was pretty good. I've got two national tournaments under my belt and a top 24 in congressional debate at the 2020 nat tourney.

If you are looking at this I'm gonna assume you are here because you are a debater so let's get to the good stuff.

All Debaters: Please, on-time road maps (With the exception of CX). I will be timing you, any speaking past a 10 second grace period will not be considered in the debate. This should be obvious and a standard at this point but hate speech and disrespectful debate are never tolerable. Got a chain? Add me breezepetty@gmail.com

LD: Clash is super important obviously, but that includes value, value criterion, and contention clash. Don't get too caught up on one versus the other. I will be flowing so make sure you do your best to cover the entire flow in every speech. Evidence is good but philosophic debate is it's equal I just ask that every new argument you make is supported by one or the other, otherwise, it gets challenging to weigh it accurately in the debate.

PF: Clash is important, duh. I want to see evidence supporting every argument made in the debate and validity of evidence is a welcome point of contention in the event it is necessary.

CX: Not a big fan of spreading but if you speak clearly I will probably follow. Stock issues are important.

Congress: Wow I didn't think congress kids looked at paradigms, I'm impressed if you are here. I like to see good concise speeches with structure and evidence. If you are speaking later in the debate on a bill don't waste everyone's time arguing the same thing that's been argued before.

One could consider me as both traditional parent judge and non-traditional parent coach. When it comes to experience, I have never participated in actual LD debate myself. However, I have a strong interest in philosophy, history and political science and have formal education in these subjects, even though I work as a physician. I am very much involved with coaching my daughter who participates in varsity LD debate. It means that I have spent some time on the topic that you are debating in front of me, and I am very well familiar with most of aff and neg arguments. I leave my opinions at home. However, it is your job as a debater to convince me that your arguments are stronger than your opponent's. Everything matters. You have to explain how you derived your values and criteria from the resolution, provide a framework, construct contentions which connect and re-enforce your framework, demonstrate superiority of your values and criteria via clashes and rebuttals. Non-traditional routes such as debate theory, disclosure, tricks, etc are fine but it will not grant you victory if it is your only strength in the round. You may talk as fast as you want but I have to be able to flow your round. I do not like spreading - it puts emphasis on your ability to talk fast ( perhaps beneficial to your potential career at auction (just kidding)) but takes away the essence of an interesting and constructive debate. If, in my opinion, you are talking too fast. I will let you know. I evaluate your speech skills and ability to think on your feet. You have to present yourself professionally and be courteous to your opponent. Throwing ideological labels and calling your opponent's arguments idiotic, racist, misogynistic, leftists, right-winged, etc will not win this debate. You have to prove your side. That is the point of LD debate. It is an honor to judge your round, and I take this job very seriously. Best of luck. I am looking forward to your debate.

Judge Paradigm for Jeff Pope

I would describe myself as a policymaker. I also enjoy good in-depth topicality debates..But I am open to all arguments, including Kritiks. Although I have a higher threshold for voting critical arguments, including a requirement for the neg to read an alternative. Speed is fine, provided you are clear. Theory is also fine, but to win on theory requires that you do work to explain the impacts.

I also expect competitors to display good sportsmanship. Rudeness will impact speaker points.

If anyone has specific questions, please let me know.

they/them

uwyo 17-21 (go pokes!)

former GA for MO State (iyk yk)

jaxonp2241@gmail.com

-- experience --

• 3 years HS PF
• 1 year HS LD
• 4 years College Policy
• 1 year CPD GA

-- tldr / this person is judging me in 10 minutes what do i need to know asap --

debate should be an activity that is engaging for a wide variety of individuals in a wide variety of contexts. if i'm judging you i'll do all that i can to make the round educational, fun, and safe for all folks involved. i will not condone exclusionary tendencies and practices such as, but not limited to, ableist, racist, sexist, or otherwise derogatory language and/or practices.

i will do my absolute best to adapt to each round. understandably i may not be the right judge for you so i encourage you to read through my paradigm proper (below) to ascertain a better sense of how i will evaluate rounds and determine if i'm a good fit.

if you see my little fur baby on camera (if online debate) - that's Rocko - you should follow his IG (@rockoroni)

-- paradigm proper --

- K -

i love k debate. imo k debate holds the potential to produce more nuanced understandings of ourselves, others, and our relationships to the sociomaterial world which are especially important in producing portable skills to challenge conditions of marginalization. i have a base knowledge of most critical literature - most well versed w/ set-col, cap, puar, orientalism

1. k affs everyday all day <3 - performance is fun, should be accessible. clear impacts at the end of case are key to garnering a W. i'm more compelled by affs in the direction of the topic and think totally non-topical affs have a larger uphill battle in fw debates. k affs not tied to the res can win in front of me but you'll need to invest more time impacting out reasons justifying the 1ac.

2. i'll definitely vote on t/fw (more in t/fw section).

3. k. v k. debate - favorite debates easy. affs probably get perms in most cases but i can be compelled by clear, impacted arguments against them. method comparison is essential - DAs to opponents method are large voters on my flow. when evaluating these rounds i look to the clash of methods and evaluate which theory of power best resolves the violence either team isolates in the round. the negative must establish a clear link to their critique that isn't a link of omission. you should focus engagement on the link and alternative debate because it gives me the best instruction as far as which impacts outweigh/turn

4. alt - well developed methods, comparison to aff plan

5. links - links of omission aren't compelling but are enough if not responded to. link stories should be clear and extended throughout the entirety of the debate avoiding tagline extensions. most compelled by links that directly indict aff ev/authors.

6. i will vote on a heg da v a k aff

- pics / piks -

1. matt liu put a soft spot for pics / piks in my heart

2. pic / pik theory is pretty interesting and i'm honestly not sure where i fall in terms of what i personally believe. compelling argumentation on both sides is key to convince me why/why not to vote for the pic / pik

- cp -

1. go for it - less familiar w/ cps in a competitive sense

2. i don't love theory debates and prefer other strats but i'll vote on it

3. perms are good, encourage an emphasis on developing the narrative of how the perm operates

4. read contradictory off-cases if you want but it doesn't take much to sell me on condo (mostly because i feel like it's not responded to well by the affirmative)

5. impacts

- da -

1. go for it - less familiar w/ das in a competitive sense

2. develop a clear link & uq story in the block

3. go ham on da o/w and turns case - be creative and get funky

4. read contradictory off-cases if you want but it doesn't take much to sell me on condo (mostly because i feel like it's not responded to well by the affirmative)

5. impacts

- t -

1. reasonability can beat t but you've got to impact it out

2. i prefer overlimit args

3. grounds/limits are the biggest voting issue on t bc i consider them a pre req to fairness, education, argumentative/potable skills etc.

- fw -

1. i love k debate a lot but will absolutely vote on fw and consider it a decent and relevant strategy (so no need to strike me but do ya thang)

2. fw w/o case engagement will probably not get my ballot. you need to have offensive reasons against the 1ac you're debating in the round i am judging

3. i prefer clash debates on fw. i think this is the most effective method to counter a non-traditional aff through impact turns and production of offense

4. i don't think fairness is an impact independently. it's best framed as an internal link to impacts like clash, education, argumentative/portable skills etc.

5. TVAs are probably necessary

6. reading a da against fw can be a useful strategy if effectively leveraged.

- case -

1. case debates are fun and can be compelling. giving a 2nr on case offense will be rewarded.

2. i'll consider voting on presumption but need the argument explained and impacted out - just saying "vote neg/aff on presumption" doesn't get there for me

3. impact defense isn't gonna win the case flow, turns make these args more offensive but i'm unlikely to vote on an impact turn independently.

- speaks -

1. speaks are subjective af, i'm a point fairy

2. be clear, speed's cool too but not be all end all

3. be confident, not aggressive

4. if you can make me laugh i'll probably give you pretty good speaks

5. unresolved / unacknowledged problematic behavior = zero speaks

-- anything else --

1. i will not vote on arguments that say the suffering of a group of people is good.

2. i will vote on spark/nuke mal if done in a compelling manner.

please add me to the email chain 26kirura@gmail.com

--Experience--

3 years of high school local/national LD and Policy

4th year of college policy for the University of Wyoming

NDT twice

--Quick Notes--

- my email is 26kirura@gmail.com if you have questions about the RFD. If you're confused about a result feel free to reach out to me

- tech > truth

- I won't do work for you (aka extend unique offense speech to speech, I won't cross-apply arguments if you don't tell me to, etc).

- this is a shared space, so help make it enjoyable & safe for everyone!

Important stuff:

- impact out your arguments

- do impact & evidence comparison

- the only work I will ever do impact calc if I'm forced to.

- speak clearly. This is especially important with online debate. I can handle speed if you articulate and signpost. I will not say clear if you don't see me flowing I can't understand you

Kritiks:

- I have gone for k's on the aff and neg as well as policy arguments

-I like Kritiks but you need to explain your alt and the links in a way that makes sense because you are the one that has done all the research on it and I haven't

-how does the world of the alternative function and how does it compete with the world of the AFF

-you need a specific link to the aff and impact out your links

Topicality:

-make sure that you have clear impacts for T though why is it a voter?

-don't just say limits and ground but give examples and explain why limits are important and contextualize your interp

Theory:

- I will of course attempt to evaluate only the arguments in the round, however, on conditionality- I rarely find that debaters are able to articulate a credible and significant impact. Various process counterplans are most often won as legitimate when the neg presents a depth of evidence that they are germane to the topic/plan. Reject the arg not the teams seems true of nearly all objections other than conditionality. I will judge kick unless the aff tells me not to and has a good reason why I shouldn't

CPs and DAs:

-nothing special here run what you are good at

-as far as CPs go I don't care how many you have or if the planks are conditional

Generally, I will make decisions based on who presents a full and complete argument supported with evidence, not conclusions drawn upon conjecture and assumption, and one who is more comprehensive in delivery.

I look for the debater that has a balance of offense/defense and shows me that they have not only a comprehensive understanding of the resolution but also gives me, as the judge, a comprehensive understanding of your case.

I do not support a theory or disclosure theory debate. The resolution has been given to you. Debate it.

PF Debate: I would like to see an easy, organized flow throughout the round. Cards and logics must also be presented throughout your arguments

LD Debate: Your framework (V/VC) is very essential as a weighing mechanism throughout the debate. If both sides upheld this effectively, I will be basing my decision on philosophies, logic, and the flow of the debate.

Policy Debate: I want an effective policy, and a civilized debate.

debate: lay

interp:

I rank based on

- character development

- storyline

- commitment

- timing

- Real emotions

- message of the piece (intro)

- originality/unconventionality

I prefer to see good evidence and good conduct. I prefer to see traditional debate. I prefer conversational speeds. I inflate speaker points.

National competitor in World Schools, Extemp (IX), Policy, PF, and Duo. State level competitor in Congress

For debate: I will write really all of what I'm given as arguments, no matter what they are. That does not mean, however, that I'm willing to weigh random contentions, advantages, DAs, impacts, etc. the same as well-made and cited arguments. It just means that it's the burden of the responding team to point that out to me with or without cards. I will write down cross-ex, but it won't be on the flow unless a speaker brings it up in a speech as part of their argument. If you want to make my decision more predictable or precise, make sure that you bring up how your points fitframeworks in a round. If there's no framework debate, I will have to decide on my own how a round is weighed, which - try as I might - may not be on points or arguments you were thinking.

For speech: I tend to focus a lot on physical movement and tone when watching speech events. I love hearing that passion and confidence in a speech and seeing it in a competitor's movements as well. Of course if someone has a speech or movement limitation I will take that into account as I go about judging. I do understand the difficulty of limited prep events though and won't judge too harshly with that in mind. However, I expect points to be made with cited evidence where possible and, if a conclusion is made by yourself, lay out that logical chain as though I was a lay person. With prepped events, show off! Have some fun with it and show me that you've got this. I believe in you, and so should you. (For events in which it can be used, I speak Spanish, French, and some Maasri Arabic). Creative and stand-out uses of props, movement, or tone are great ways to show that you know your speech even down to the details.

For interp: Confidence. Is. Key. It comes with time and practice, I know, but of all the people in the room you know your piece best inside and out. Forget a line? That's fine, I've been there, too. Don't get too tripped up on the technical details so much that you forget that interp is a performance. You can always improve for the next tournament if something goes wrong or you forget lines, but there's no going back on the current round. Pops and voices should be sharp and distinguished unless there's a reason to have them otherwise.

Most of all, enjoy yourselves. Debate is educational, professional, and fun for everyone there, so keep up the good work y'all!

Tabula Rasa,

Clash necessary,

I flow everything,

Determine based on final voters and won definitions.

As a parent of two kids that have done speech and debate, I know a few things about judging. However, I’m still a ”lay judge” as I look for arguments that make the most sense and are communicated properly. I expect good sportsmanship and going against ideas, instead of people. Overall, these debates should be able to convince me to vote in one favor or the other, and it will be through a layman perspective.

Update for Peninsula 2021: I am sick and hence will have my camera off. I would especially appreciate it if you kept your own time and made me speak as less as possible. I would also appreciate if you send your case to rsarwal@gmail.com with your team code on the subject line so I can follow better. Apologies for the inconvenience, have fun debating!

Hey y'all. (If you see a lot of debate jargon here, blame it on my son).

I am a parent judge but that doesn't mean I'm stupid. So disclaimer if you're gonna try and go full "lay" or think I'm going to let an argument past me, you're wrong. However, don't start running K's, Theory Shells or any other of that progressive stuff because if you are reading this you very well know this is a traditional local tournament.

Preferences-

SPEAKING- Be clear, concise. Don't be mean. That's the main gist. If you can't speak in the best way or you have a speaking impairment, don't worry! All I should see is you trying.

-Speaker Points

30- You spoke really well. You demonstrated a well-versed understanding of the topics. You won all the arguments, and it seems as if the world relies on this ballot. You made me smile and gave me new insight.

29- You were excellent. Only very minor flaws, maybe in just not extending an impact or not explaining values that well. Other than that, you were pretty solid.

28- I see a lot of potential. You may lack in certain areas but you put up a, if not good, then reasonable fight.

27- You had a reasonable case. You couldn't defend your case, perhaps only one or two arguments. No solid offense but tried.

26- You need to go over the resolution again, understand it well. Learn to give voter issue, impacts, explain values.

**BELOW a 26**- If you were mean, super mean, violated rules like had a evidence violation or were 'super duper really you should learn how to behave' mean.

VALUES- I really really think values are really important. It gives me a weighing mechanism to judge the round and makes things easier. I expect you to tie back your arguments to your value structures. I generally prefer if you agree on a value premise but if you oppose your opponent's value structure, be clear. Don't use complicated theories of ethics and expect me to nod my head. Keep it clear, simple and explain your stuff.

WELL ORGANIZED ARGUMENTS- I don't want you to be going everywhere making a round hell for me. Be organized, be clear. Signpost. Refer to your card names, tell me where your argument is (ie Contention 1, Sub Point C). I also like Off Time Road Maps.These skills not only help me in round but also will help you as a debater. Also, do NOT drop arguments. I may be a parent but I judge off of arguments.

REBUTTALS- I honestly think rebuttals are very, rather the most important. If you come up with one on spot, that you warrant really well, without any evidence, I will really like that. That being said, if you use evidence or a card, then I still won't mind. Just warrant it out and explain it to me. Just reading evidence is useless.

What I don't like

- You either being super tech or super lay. Talk like I'm a lay judge, argue like a tech one. But not too tech, it will only go against you.

-Being mean. You know the reasons. I will deliberately judge screw you if you are mean or sarcastic. We all know how oof being judge screwed is.

-Super advanced stuff. Maybe you even explain it, I will still not understand it. But at the end of the day, I hardly know what a K or theory or plan is. (This is my son assuring me that I don't know this stuff).

-Giving impacts without reasons. I don't want to hear "Climate Change is bad." Tell me how it is bad and connect your value premise's to it.

In the end, I appreciate you, your time and your skills as a debater. I may sound super picky in this paradigm but my son says it helps debaters. All this is for you to learn.

Good luck debating!

Co-Director: Milpitas High Speech and Debate
PHYSICS TEACHER
History
Myers Park, Charlotte N.C.
(85-88) 3 years Policy, LD and Congress. Double Ruby (back when it was harder to get) and TOC competitor in LD.
2 Diamond Coach (pretentious, I know)

Email Chain so I know when to start prep: mrschletz@gmail.com

Summer 87: American U Institute. 2 weeks LD and congress under Dale Mccall and Harold Keller, and 2 more weeks in a mid level Policy lab.

St. Johns Xavierian, Shrewsbury, Mass
88~93 consultant, judge and chaperone

Summer 89 American U Coaches institute (Debate)

Milpitas High, Milpitas CA
09-present co-coach

Side note/pet peeve: It is pronounced NUUUUUU-CLEEEEEEE-ERRRRRRRRR (sorry this annoys the heck outta me, like nails on the blackboard)

ALL EVENTS EXCEPT PARLI NEED TO KNOW NSDA RULES OF EVIDENCE (or CHSSA RULES OF EVIDENCE) OR DO NOT EXPECT ME TO COUNT IT(NSDA MINIMUM IS "NAME" AND "DATE" ****READ IN ROUND****) Anything else is just rhetoric/logic and 99% of the time, rhetoric vs card mans card wins. ALSO: SENDING ME A SPEECH DOC does NOT equal "READ IN ROUND". If I yell clear, and you don't adapt, this is your fault.

If you put conditions on your opponent getting access to your evidence I will put conditions on counting it in my RFD. Evidence should be provided any time asked between speeches, or asked for during cx and provided between speeches. Failure to produce the card in context may result in having no access to that card on my flow/decision.

Part of what you should know about any of the events
Events Guide
https://www.nflonline.org/uploads/AboutNFL/Competition_Events_Guide.pdf
13-14 NSDA tournament Operations manual
http://www.speechanddebate.org/aspx/content.aspx?id=1206
http://www.speechanddebate.org/DownloadHandler.ashx?File=/userdocs/documents/PF_2014-15_Competition_Events_At_A_Glance.pdf

All events, It is a mark of the competitors skill to adapt to the judge, not demand that they should adapt to you. Do not get into a definitional fight without being armed with a definition..... TAG TEAM CX? *NOT A FAN* if you want to give me the impression your partner doesn't know what they are talking about, sure, go ahead, Diss your partner. Presentation skills: Stand in SPEECHES AND CX (where applicable) and in all events with only exception in PF grand.

ALL EVENTS EXCEPT PARLI NEED TO KNOW NSDA RULES OF EVIDENCE (or CHSSA RULES OF EVIDENCE) OR DO NOT EXPECT ME TO COUNT IT(NSDA MINIMUM IS "NAME" AND "DATE"****READ IN ROUND****) Anything else is just rhetoric/logic and 99% of the time, rhetoric vs card means card wins.

PUBLIC FORUM:

P.S.: there is no official grace period in PF. If you start a card or an analytic before time, then finish it. No arguments STARTED after time will be on my flow.

While I was not able to compete in public forum (It did not exist yet), the squad I coach does primarily POFO. Its unlikely that any resolution will call for a real plan as POFO tends to be propositions of fact instead of value or policy.
I am UNLIKELY to vote for a K, and I don't even vote for K in policy. Moderate speed is fine, but to my knowledge, this format was meant to be more persuasive. USE EVIDENCE and make sure you have Tags and Cites. I want a neat flow (it will never happen, but I still want it)

I WANT FRAMEWORK or I will adjudicate the round, since you didn't (Framework NOT introduced in the 1st 4 speeches will NOT be entertained, as it is a new argument. I FLOW LIKE POLICY with respect to DROPPED ARGUMENTS (if a speech goes by I will likely consider the arg dropped... this means YES I believe the 4th speaker in the round SHOULD cover both flows..)

Also: If you are framing the round in the 4th speech, I am likely to give more leeway in the response to FW or new topical definitions in 1st Summ as long as they don't drop it.

Remember, Pofo was there to counteract speed in Circuit LD, and LD was created to counter speed, so fast is ok, but tier 3 policy spread is probably not.

ALL EVENTS EXCEPT PARLI NEED TO KNOW NSDA RULES OF EVIDENCE (or CHSSA RULES OF EVIDENCE) OR DO NOT EXPECT ME TO COUNT IT(NSDA MINIMUM IS "NAME" AND "DATE" READ IN ROUND ) Anything else is just rhetoric/logic and 99% of the time, rhetoric vs card mans card wins.

PLANS IN PF
If you have one advocacy, and you claim solvency on one advocacy, and only if it is implemented, then yeah that is a plan. I will NOT weigh offense from the plan, this is a drop the argument issue for me. Keep the resolution as broad as possible. EXCEPTION, if the resolution is (rarely) EXPLICIT, or the definitions in the round imply the affirmative side is a course of action, then that is just the resolution. EXAMPLE
September 2012 - Resolved: Congress should renew the Federal Assault Weapons Ban
the aff is the resolution, not a plan and more latitude is obviously given.

If one describes several different ways for the resolution to be implemented, or to be countered, you are not committing to one advocacy, and are defending/attacking a broad swath of the resolution, and this I do NOT consider a plan.

ALL EVENTS EXCEPT PARLI NEED TO KNOW NSDA RULES OF EVIDENCE (or CHSSA RULES OF EVIDENCE) OR DO NOT EXPECT ME TO COUNT IT(NSDA MINIMUM IS "NAME" AND "DATE" ****READ IN ROUND****) Anything else is just rhetoric/logic and 99% of the time, rhetoric vs card mans card wins.

POLICY:

If your plan is super vague, you MIGHT not get to claim your advantages. Saying you "increase" by merely reading the text of the resolution is NOT A PLAN. Claiming what the plan says in cx is NOT reading a plan. Stop being sloppy.

I *TRY* to be Tabula Rasa (and fail a lot of the time especially on theory, Ks and RVI/fairness whines)
I trained when it was stock issues, mandatory funding plan spikes (My god, the amount of times I abused the grace commission in my funding plank), and who won the most nuclear wars in the round.

Presentation skills: Stand in SPEECHES AND CX (where applicable) and in all events with only exception in PF grand.

Please don't diss my event.
I ran
Glassification of toxic/nuclear wastes, and Chloramines on the H2O topic
Legalize pot on the Ag topic
CTBT on the Latin America topic.

In many years I have never voted neg on K (in CX), mainly because I have never seen an impact (even when it was run in POFO as an Aff).(Ironic given my LD background)

I will freely vote on Topicality if it is run properly (but not always XT), and have no problem buying jurisdiction......
I HAVE finally gotten to judge Hypo-testing round (it was fun and hilarious).
One of my students heard from a friend in Texas that they are now doing skits and non topical/personal experiece affs, feel free, BUT DON'T EXPECT ME TO VOTE FOR IT.

I will vote on good perms both ways (see what I said above about XT)

SPREAD: I was a tier B- speed person in the south. I can flow A level spread *IF* you enunciate. slow down momentarily on CITES and TAGS and blow through the card (BUT I WILL RE TAG YOUR SUBPOINTS if your card does not match the tag!!!!!!)
If you have any slurred speech, have a high pitched voice, a deep southern or NY/Jersey drawl, or just are incapable of enunciating, and still insist on going too fast for your voice, I will quit flowing and make stuff up based on what I think I hear.

I do not ask for ev unless there is an evidentiary challenge, so if you claim the card said something and I tagged it differently because YOU slurred too much on the card or mis-tagged it, that's your fault, not mine.

LD

I WILL JUDGE NSDA RULES!!!! I am NOT tabula rasa on some theory, or on plans. Plans are against the rules of the event as I learned it and I tend to be an iconoclast on this point. LD was supposed to be a check on policy spread, and I backlash, if you have to gasp or your voice went up two octaves then see below... Topicality FX-T and XT are cool on both sides but most other theory boils down to WHAAAAAAHHHH I don't want to debate their AFF so I will try to bs some arguments.

-CIRCUIT LD REFER to policy prefs above in relation to non topical and performance affs, I will TRY to sometimes eval a plan, but I wish they would create a new event for circuit LD as it is rarely values debate.

- I LOVE PHILOSOPHY so if you want to confuse your opponent who doesn't know the difference between Kant, Maslow and Rawls, dazzle away :-).
Clear VP and VC (or if you call it framework fine, but it is stupid to tell someone with a framework they don't have a VC and vice versa, its all semantics) are important but MORE IMPORTANT is WHY IS YOURS BETTER *OR* WHY DO YOU MEET THEIRS TOO and better (Permute)

IF YOU TRY TO Tier A policy spread, or solo policy debate, you have probably already lost UNLESS your opponent is a novice. Not because I can't follow you, but because THIS EVENT IS NOT THE PLACE FOR IT!!! However there are several people who can talk CLEARLY and FAST that can easily dominate LD, If you cannot be CLEAR and FAST play it safe and be CLEAR and SLOW. Speaker points are awarded on speaking, not who wins the argument....

Sub-pointing is still a good idea, do not just do broad overviews. plans and counter-plans need not apply as LD is usually revolving around the word OUGHT!!!! Good luck claiming Implementation FIAT on a moral obligation. I might interrupt if you need to be louder, but its YOUR job to occasionally look at the judge to see signals to whether or not they are flowing, so I will be signalling that, by looking at you funny or closing my eyes, or in worst case leaning back in my chair and visibly ignoring you until you stop ignoring the judge and fix the problem. I will just be making up new tags for the cards I missed tags for by actually listening to the cards, and as the average debater mis-tags cards to say what they want them to, this is not advisable.

PLANS IN LD
PLANS
If you have one advocacy, and you claim solvency on one advocacy, and only if it is implemented, then yeah that is a plan. I will NOT weigh offense from the plan, this is a drop the argument issue for me. Keep the resolution as broad as possible.

EXCEPTION, if the resolution is (rarely) EXPLICIT, or the definitions in the round imply the affirmative side is a course of action, then that is just the resolution. EXAMPLE
September 2012 - Resolved: Congress should renew the Federal Assault Weapons Ban
the aff is the resolution, not a plan and more latitude is obviously given.

If one describes several different ways for the resolution to be implemented, or to be countered, you are not committing to one advocacy, and are defending/attacking a broad swath of the resolution, and this I do NOT consider a plan.

I repeat, Speed = Bad in LD, and I will not entertain a counter-plan in LD If you want to argue Counterplans and Plans, get a partner and go to a policy tournament.

GOOD LUCK and dangit, MAKE *ME* HAVE FUN hahahahahah

http://www.vbriefly.com/2012/05/23/201205comments-for-the-circuit-on-the-ncfl-and-nfl-nationals-by-brad-taylor/

I have coached and judged for over 20 years. I am willing to judge just about any event.

In debate I always wait until after the last speech to make a decision. Each speech is important and I like to hear the overall picture....the ideas...the research....how your ideas clash.

I don't have a checklist of arguments I like to see (or don't like to see) I prefer for debaters to set their own stage. I like it when debaters run advanced arguments, but in a way that supports civil discourse. Be nice to each other in round, professionalism is just as important as a well researched and presented argument.

riley.rosalie@gmail.com ; 7 years of policy debate experience

Debated at the TOC level in high school for 4 years, debated at the University of Wyoming from 2017-2021

Judging 2021-Present (Policy, CARD, sometimes high school policy & LD)

Over the last few years of judging policy and CARD, I find myself being a big picture type judge. While I still believe that a dropped argument is true and I can follow tricky framing arguments on the flow, debaters need to provide clear judge direction in the rebuttals on what those arguments mean and how I should deal with them at the end of the round. I am most persuaded by teams that go for fewer arguments in the rebuttals, spend time impacting/fleshing them out, and telling me how it implicates the rest of the debate.

Impacts need to be fleshed out in the final speeches. I need to know what is triggering the impact, where some war is happening, why it's uniquely coming now, etc. I find myself voting for teams that spend a lot of time in the final rebuttal giving me specific details on their impacts, how they can be avoided, and doing impact comparison with the other team. Same goes for more structural impacts. Use your evidence! The details are there but they need to be brought into your analysis.

Case engagement is one of my favorite aspects of debate. I find the block not spending as much time on case, and it makes the debate a lot closer than it should be. If you read one off vs. a policy aff, reading impact defense, solvency take outs, and evidence indicts to these policy teams will go far in front of me. If you are aff, I am persuaded by teams that know their ev in/out and consistently talk about their aff (thorough impact explanations/comparison, drawing me a picture of what the aff world looks like, talking about the aff on other sheets, etc).

If you want me to vote on a role of the ballot/judge, there needs to be clear weighing and impact extension as to why this plays an important role in the debate. Evidence comparison and indicts are also great weighing mechanisms that I find are underutilized.

For kritiks v. policy affs, I prefer teams that give extensive analysis of their evidence and provide specific examples to contextualize their link with the aff, rather than dumping a bunch of cards or shadow extend arguments. If you read psychoanalysis or other high theory, I am going to need a lot of explanation on some basic concepts so please keep this in mind.

With counterplans, I default to judge kick unless told otherwise.

If you want to have some fun with what you read, I am all for it! I love impact turns including nuclear war good, untraditional styles where you’re playing games instead of debating with speech times, etc. – so long as there is a metric for how I as the judge evaluate the debate I am here for it.

--- LD ---

While I have not competed in LD, I have judged numerous varsity LD rounds from the local to national level. I do not have a preference to a style in which you debate the topic, i.e. philosophical, kritikal, traditional, etc., however, I do care that you debate the topic in some way.

Here are some thoughts that I have about particular arguments but also how I evaluate LD debates:

1. I view the value-criterion as the framing for the debate and typically go to that debate first so I can filter the rest of the debate through this framework. In some debates it matters, others it doesn't (especially if the teams agree on/have similar value-criterions).

2. I am going to take a bit from a former coach's paradigm because I believe this is something I encounter a lot in LD: "too many debaters do not do their evidence justice. You should not expect me to read your evidence after the round and realize it's awesome. You should make sure I know it's awesome while you read it...Debaters who concentrate on persuading the judge, [by thoroughly explaining their evidence and why it matters in the debate], will control the narrative of the round and win my ballot."

3. I do not like when debaters will read/extend a bunch of arguments that do not provide a good warrant or reason why the argument matters. I would rather the 1NC read 1 less off case position in favor of more developed case analysis, impact calc, or fully complete arguments. I would rather the 1ar make 1 less theory argument in favor of actually explaining what the words "perm do both" mean, why the case outweighs, and sinking time in where it matters.

4. Impacting out your arguments and doing impact/evidence comparison in the final rebuttals is very important to me. Tell me why your arguments matters, why they are a priority, and overall why you won the debate. Ships passing in the night or blippy extensions are not advantageous for you.

5. Conditionality is probably bad in LD, but it's not that hard to defend condo good and I think most of these counterplan issues are best resolved at the level of how competitive they are with the aff, not theory. Again, sink time into arguments where you feel confident in going for them and explaining thoroughly in your final rebuttal.

6. I do not discriminate against certain arguments but if you read Kant, I am probably not the judge for you. I have judge a few of these debates and they are pretty confusing to me. If you are a Kant person who gets me as a judge, I need a lot more explanation on some of these buzzwords. I am also convinced that many students who read Kant don't really go for an impact or tell me how it relates back to the resolution so please do these things.

In debate I seek clarity and organization. Your arguments are ineffective if they are not clearly presented and linked to your case.

I prefer substance over presentation. If you have clearly stated arguments that get to the heart of your case and address the concerns of your opponents I will reward that over style or presentation.

hi! i debated pf in hs. toc '19! i was a former co-director for nova debate camp and go to uva now. i also coach ardrey kell VM and oakton ML. add me to the email chain: iamandrewthong@gmail.com

tl;dr, i'm a typical flow judge. i'm tab and tech>truth, debate however you want (as long as it does not harm others). for more specific stuff, read below

most important thing:

so many of my RFDs have started with "i default on the weighing". weighing is NOT a conditional you should do if you just so happen to have enough time in summary - i will often default to teams if they're the only ones who have made weighing. strength of link weighing counts only when links are 100% conceded, clarity of impact doesn't.

other less important stuff:

online debate: unless you're sending speech docs, please just make a shared google doc and paste cards there. i get it, you want to steal prep while waiting. but really, it's delaying tournaments and i get bored while waiting :( (you don't have to though, esp in outrounds - but i will be happier if you do)

also, if you're debating from the same computer, it's cool, just lmk in the chat or turn your camera on before the round so i know, because i usually start the round when i see 4 ppl in the room

speed is ok. i think it's fun. i actually like blippy disads (as long as they have warrants). but don't do it in such a way that it makes the debate inaccessible - drop a doc if your opponents ask or if someone says "clear".

whenever you extend something, you have to extend the warrant above all else.

defense is not sticky, but my threshold for completely new frontlines in second summary is super high. turns must be frontlined in second rebuttal.

new implications off of previous responses are okay (in fact, i think they're strategic), but they must be made in summary (unless responding to something new in final). you still need to have concise warranting for the new implication, just as you would for any other response.

i don't listen during cross - if they make a concession, point it out in the next speech.

weighing is important, but comparative and meta weighing are even more important. you can win 100% of your link uncontested but i'd still drop you if you never weigh at all and the opps have like 1% of their link with pre-req weighing into your case. don't just say stuff like "we outweigh because our impact card has x and theirs has y and x>y", but go the next step and directly compare why your magnitude is more important than their timeframe, why your prereq comes before their prereq, etc. if there is no weighing done, i will intervene.

i encourage post-round questions, i'm actually happy to spend like however long you want me to just answering questions regarding my decision. just don't be rude about it.

progressive arguments:

i will evaluate progressive arguments (Ks, theory, etc).

no friv theory, no tricks

i default to reasonability, RVIs, and DtD *if not told otherwise* - before you start e-mailing me death threats, this is just so teams can't read random new shells in summary unless they're going to spend the time reading warrants for CI and no RVIs - i prefer theory debates to start in constructive/rebuttal, and i'll be sympathetic to teams that have to make new responses to a completely new shell in summary or final focus

i'm less versed on Ks than i am theory. i can probably follow you on the stock Ks (cap, sec, etc), but if you're going to run high level Ks (performance, afropess, etc), i'll still evaluate them, but i advise you run them with caution, since i might not be able to get everything down 100%. it's probably best to make these types of Ks accessible to both me and your opponents (you should honestly just explain everything like i'm a lay judge, and try to stay away from more abstract phil stuff like epistemology/ontology/etc).

if you have any more questions, feel free to ask or e-mail me before the round!

(Paradigm Updated as of March 22, 2022)

Dear Competitors:

Hello all! I am glad to be your judge at this tournament. I have competed for Green River High School in Wyoming for 4 years. My best event was in Extemporaneous Speaking; however, I also had success in Original Oratory and Informative Speaking. I did 2 debates in my high school years: Public Forum (3 years) and Lincoln-Douglas (1 year). I had a decent success record in debate, but I was much better in the realms of Speech.

These are my updated paradigms for the 2022-2023 Speech Season:

General Debate Paradigms:

In debate, I was that edgy traditionalist/progressive debater. Arguably, I was a bit more progressive than I was traditionalist; thus, either form of debate is fine with me. I do ask that if the speaker chooses to be progressive that they do not push the limits of what progressive debate is. There is a point in time where debate does become irrational in nature. Please try to avoid that.

1 - Offense over Defense

This is the number one thing that I look for in rounds, as a flow judge. This is basically assuming that debate is a sport; the more arguments you get across the finish line leads to the more arguments that win the round. The person that wins the round has the most arguments won on the flow, whether the argument is factually correct or not. (Note: I would prefer that you are factually correct, but my job as a judge is not to judge whether or not the information provided is correct. I try to be an impartial judge.)

An "offensive" argument is an argument that is either a cross-application, a turn, or any form of impact calculus. Typically, anything other than this is considered defensive on the flow. If possible, I would urge you to use the technical terms to help me on the flow; otherwise, I will make an assumption based on the argument that is presented to me.

2 - Impact Calculus

As mentioned above, I love to hear impact calculus. I believe that you can win an entire debate by just weighing the consequences of impacts against one another. Any form of impact calculus is good: timeframe, probability, magnitude, scope, irreversibility, pre-requisite, and root cause.

The best part of impact calculus is when you can make a reasonable assumption between the two impacts. Even though I prefer evidence, it is safe to assume the importance of some impacts. (i.e. The effects of climate change are irreversible.)

3 - Framework Debate

If a side wishes to run a framework, I am fair game for it. If no framework is presented on the round, assume that I will vote on cost-benefit analysis. This is the typical voting of your judges. Cost-benefit analysis should not be ran as a framework as most judges already vote on it.

If both sides propose frameworks, I would love to hear the framework clash. As mentioned earlier, offense over defense is preferred in the framework debate.

4 - Cross-Examination

I am not one of those judges that says that everyone should be nice in debate; however, there is an imperative to uphold some sort of debate etiquette. Thus, I prefer a "tense" cross-examination. What this means is that you are not being excessively rude, but having your opponent get to the point is perfectly acceptable. I am fine with people cutting others off to get to the next question.

If you are excessively rude in questioning or in debate, it will result in a significant cut in speaker points. I believe that a cut in speaker points is appropriate versus a complete loss in the round.

5 - Clarity/Signposting

All debaters, before every speech, must give me an off-the-clock road map. I need to know where we are going on the flow. If you jump around, it will be harder for me to follow your arguments and I will be more likely to miss an argument that you are making. Remember, it is my flow that counts toward your ballot.

I am pretty good with speed. My general rule is that if you are too fast, I will stop flowing and look at you.

6 - Tech over Truth

More evidence is always better. If one team has 14 pieces of evidence versus the opposing team's 1 piece of evidence, I will likely vote for the 14 pieces of evidence. This is because there will likely be more offensive arguments. The evidence debate constitutes the best form of debate, in my opinion.

With this philosophy, credibility does not matter (unless if you provide me evidence or logistical arguments as to why, of course). If the 1 source is from a Ph.D. who is well known and the 14 sources are from a variety of journalists, then I view this in favor of the 14 journalists. If credibility should be viewed as important, I ask that you run it as a framework to override this paradigm.

7 - Overview/Underview Debate

This is a unique paradigm of mine, but one that does not have to be implemented. I am a fan of people running overviews and underviews; they act as extra arguments in the round and are burdens that are placed on opponent's cases (or your own, if you choose). With these, please tell me where on the flow you would like me to put them.

With this type of debate, you can run a framework. Because there are no rules on where a framework can be stated in the round, you are certainly allowed to run a framework in your second to last speech and put it on the flow as an overview. Setting the debate up like this allows me to see how arguments narrow down, as the debate furthers.

Specific Debate Paradigms:

1 - Stock Issues (CX)

I consider myself to be a stock issues judge, but on a more traditional level. For clarity, the burden of stock issues is for the Affirmative to uphold all five and the Negation to prove that the Affirmative cannot uphold one of them. If the Affirmative upholds all five stock issues, then the debate proceeds to the argument level (advantages versus disadvantages, counterplans, etc.).

The reason why this is important: If the Aff cannot prove how the plan essentially would work, then I cannot vote for the plan. If the plan cannot solve the problem that it illustrates that it can, there is no reason for me to consider the arguments presented in the round. I also believe that this allows for a fair debate for the Neg, as I feel in CX, the Neg has a much more difficult job.

2 - Topicalities (CX)

In recent years, I have grown more accustomed to the idea of Topicality arguments. If you wish to run these, please make sure that it follows the normal debate argument structure (claim, warrant, and impact). I understand why a Topicality may be important for a team to run, but make sure that you can explain to me the importance of why they are ran.

An important note about Topicality - oftentimes, teams put Topicality at the top of the flow, which can be problematic. Topicality sometimes becomes the central focus of the debate and can result in the debate becoming indecisive. If the team wishes to run a Topicality, ensure that you have time to run the Topicality with your other arguments. As mentioned in a later paradigm, if you do not cover a specific advantage, disadvantage, etc. in the following attack speech, I regard the argument as dropped. If the Topicality takes too much time, it may be in the team's best interest to either kick arguments or have the Topicality kicked.

3 - Ks/Theory Debate (CX)

The National Speech & Debate Tournament, at the High School level, has typically frowned upon this type of debate. Historically at this tournament, these arguments are voted down, not because of the argument, but because they wish to keep the etiquette of CX. For this reason, I will vote down any K or Theory that is presented in the round. If it is unlikely to succeed at the national level, there is no reason for me to vote for it.

*Note: If this changes in future tournaments, this paradigm will be updated to reflect the results of the National Speech & Debate Tournament, at the High School level.

4 - Dropped Arguments (CX, LD)

An argument becomes dropped on the flow if it is not directly addressed in the corresponding speech. In LD, if the Neg does not attack any of the Aff arguments in the NC, then the arguments automatically flow to the Affirmative. This rule applies to each speech, in this debate (the 2AR in LD should only be voters, or a wrap-up of arguments).

For CX, this rule applies starting in the 2AC. Any dropped arguments from the Negation's proposal in the 2AC will be automatically flowed to the Negation. In the 2NC, this rule applies to the Affirmative, as well as the Negative's arguments.

If both teams do not discuss an argument, after it has been introduced, the argument flows to neither team.

5 - Value/Criterion (LD)

I find that Value/Criterion debate is the biggest misconception in LD. LD Debaters receive about 20% of their ballots being focused on this. For this reason, Value/Criterion is not a voting issue for me.

Value/Criterion is the mechanism in which the debate is bounded by. This is not a framework. With this being said, Aff can win the Value while Neg can win the Criterion and vice versa. Once a Value and Criterion has been determined on the flow, I will judge the offensive arguments based to that Value/Criterion and make a ballot decision. A framework can be added to the debate to ensure that a specific type of voting does occur, in addition to Value/Criterion.

6 - Progressive Criterion Debate (LD)

This is something that I do accept. This is where the sides spend less time discussing Values, but more time discussing Criterions. Effectively, what this does is it says that the Criterion best upholds both Values presented in the round rather than having a specific focus on the Values that are accepted.

An example of this would be a Value of Life versus Morality. A debater can run a Criterion of Teleology and claim that it fits under both Values; thus, there is no need to promote one value over another. If the debater convinces me that both Values shall be viewed equally in the round, then I will uphold two Values and the corresponding Criterion that sets the debate. An important note: If you run this, make sure that your case and your arguments fall under both values. Otherwise, I may have to vote for the other team.

7 - Voters (LD, PF, BQ)

Voters are important for me to see what offensive arguments took place in the round. When crafting the voter speech, make sure to tackle the most important points that you (or your team) won. A voter is not winning on "impact." A voter is winning on "my opponent's Contention 2."

8 - Logistical Argumentation (LD, PF, BQ)

While I prefer tech over truth, I understand that logic is sometimes the best for these debates. Just remember, if your opponent brings up a piece of evidence that says the opposite, then I will be more likely to believe that argument.

Logistical arguments are typically defensive, but are great setups for offensive arguments. If you want to claim that an argument is non-unique, then keep it short and set up a turn or cross-application to put more weight as to why you should vote for your side.

9 - Dropped Arguments (PF, BQ)

Since these debates have a different structure than CX and LD, the rule for dropped arguments is quite different. Typically, it is a case constructive, an attack speech, a summary speech, and a final focus. Since the 1st speaker can only attack in the corresponding speech, I find it unfair to call drops to their arguments. Thus, drops on arguments begin in the 3rd speech of this debate (for PF, this would be the Summary speech).

The final focus should remain focused on voters and basically should extend what was brought out by your partner (or yourself for BQ). If the final focus does not establish what was stated in the previous speech, I will assume that those arguments are dropped.

I am happy to be your judge and good luck in this round and your future rounds!

Cheers,

Spencer Travis

Hello I'm kc! I've judged a lot of high school policy and LD over the past decade. I did policy debate in high school and college between 2003-2010. I'm new to judging college debate, but I have plenty of experience working with online competition/judging platforms. I recently completed my JD and competed on the international moot court team.

I have significant experience reading and interacting with critrical literature, so feel free to go for critique arguments. When I debated, I read both traditional policy arguments and critiques.

The most important thing to me when judging debate is that the debaters identify the crucial issues and explain their importance. 

Some other things to consider:

Impact calculus is important, explaining interactions between your impact and your opponent's will go a long way in front of me. 

Generally I feel that the aff should read a topical plan, but I can be persuaded otherwise. I like procedural and theory arguments. 

Conditionality has limits and the aff can win that the neg has exceeded acceptable practice.

I'm more aff on theory/competition issues for process counterplans, international counterplans, states cps, etc.

I flow carefully, and I look for who has command of the round in terms of content, organization, and delivery. I love when you give me a clear reason for decision in your closing speech, and I tend to be swayed by weighing arguments. Debate is a public speaking activity, so I will pay attention to presentation.

I like to see the flow of the arguments, particularly your Value and Value Criterion throughout the debate.

All Events:

-On the clock roadmaps

-Speak at a speed/rate that the judge and audience can understand

LD Debate:

-Value/Value Clash is Prioritized

-Use of analytical and empirical evidence

LD: I tend to favor more "traditional" flavors of LD, but I will vote on critical affirmatives and other departures from the norm if they are appropriately impacted and extended throughout the round. While I appreciate framework clash, I do not consider framework to be an independent reason to vote AFF or NEG. You should win the framework debate and then apply the framework to the contention-level debate and motivate voters there.

PF: I will flow carefully and appreciate extensions of specific cites and warrants rather than pure volume. Summary and Final Focus speeches which fail to collapse the debate to a manageable list of voters should be avoided. I don't like to intervene in any round, so provide clear reasons to vote in Final Focus. Propose and apply some weighing mechanism....

Policy: I favor policy making and stocks debates, but I will vote on anything if properly developed and weighed in the round. I tend to look less favorably on procedurals and theory shells which multiply lots of standards and substructure in the round but don't amount to much after the block.

Don’t be rude. Don't speed-read.

It is your job to convince me why I should vote on flow or key argument clash.

I have four years of experience in PF debate both in the local Wyoming circuit and the national circuit. I prefer tech over truth so I'll buy any argument you present as long as it's well-warranted and not unethical (i.e. racist, sexist, etc...). I want to see clash and weighing because I think that makes for more interesting debates. That being said you should tell me how I should vote in the round. I won't intervene in the debate. However, if you don't tell me how to vote I will definitely evaluate the link debate first and probably vote off of whoever has the biggest impact second. I will consider dropped arguments as conceded unless you can give me a reason why I should consider the new answer. I don't really want to hear any new arguments in summary though. If it's something that can be cross-applied to an argument that you have already made, most likely I'll buy it. If there was only defense read on your contention but it's something you're not going to go for I'll let you kick it if you don't bring it up again in summary or final focus. If there is offense on the contention and you don't want to go for it you have to kick it yourself, I will not kick it for you.

It should be assumed that you shouldn't be mean in rounds so I expect good debate etiquette. If you are rude during the round at the very least I will give you low speaks. Debate is supposed to be a fun and open environment and we should keep it that way. Overall, just have fun!

If you have any questions about my RFD or feedback feel free to email me at yuyu.yuan927@gmail.comIf you have any questions regarding my comments at the end of the round email me at yuyu.yuan927@gmail.com with your name, school, event and questions.