I am a parent judge. I am looking for a clear articulation of the arguments. Clarity over speed. Respect each other.

I have been a judge for both league and invitational tournaments in PuFo, IE and LD. I prefer to have fairly normally paced speech - I don't want to miss your key points.

I am a lay judge and not a technical judge, though I will flow arguments. The more clear you can make the organization of your responses, the better. I prefer you round numbers and state your sources. Please make your weighing clear and specific - it is possible to lose many of the arguments but still win on weighing.

This is pretty standard for judges but if you are rude to me or your opponent or anyone in the round I will tank your speaker scores and while I might not make you flat out lose, it definitely won't help your side. There is no excuse for racism, homophobia or hate.

My son would call me a Lay Judge, since I have never had any debate experience prior to my son becoming involved his Freshman year. I have judged for the past three years, and I focus on the following when judging:

In no specific order:

1. Contentions are thoroughly supported with facts

2. Overall oral presentation

3. Overall quality of argument

4. Any rule violations (introducing new arguments during Final Focus, etc)

5. Respect for all participants

Rewrite 11/5/2020

Please include me in the email chain in policy debates: Alecbellis8@gmail.com.

Experience:

4 years college policy, 2 of those years with national circuit competition. Graduated in spring of 2020.
Read whatever you want and I'll evaluate it. I'm more interested in K's, but I do a lot of policy research for JMU still. I'm up to date on the 2020-2021 Policy topic. Liberty will be my first time judging this year. I've judged before, but not varsity.

Speed

I consider myself a good flow, but top speed (among very fast teams) is probably going to be too much for me. My hearing got fucked up this summer and I'm not sure how that's going to translate to online debates. I will do my best to communicate with you during the debate. I will say clear and slow.

Truth v Tech

Man this is so hard. A conceded argument doesn't make it true, but it does make it truer. A highly true argument still needs to be applied. My goal is to do as little work as possible for you.

Policy vs Policy

*A lot of your affs are blatantly miscut and/or double turns. Don't make me have to drop you for an ethics challenge.

If you want to read 8 off, fine. I don't think that's a good strategy because case debate is cool and more educational but you do you.

Condo is fine but I'll vote on theory if it's good.

More likely to vote on conceded args in these debates than any other.

These debates are boring, so please try to make them less so.

DAs -- I am probably more likely than an average judge to evaluate well warranted analytic arguments. this doesn't mean that you don't have to read carded impact defense, but it does mean that if you point out logical contradictions in their evidence, use historical examples you can get far efficiently. Uniqueness matters, but it is difficult to assess in absolute terms because there are many warrants for why, say, the economy is high low now. If your uniqueness ev kicks ass and you're up on it by a mile then the DA probably doesn't matter, but the direction of the link is more important in debates where uq is contested.

CPs -- Tricky/smart CPs can/should be the fulcrum of a policy based negative strategy. Again, don't change your wheelhouse for me. Textual and functional competition is important. Fake CPs like the states counterplan or ESR are uphill battles and I like theory against them.

T -- underused against policy affs.

Policy AFFs vs K NEGs

I debated 2 ish years of policy arguments, so feel free to run them. I will evaluate them and I still do topic research for JMU, so I'm pretty versed in that side of the 20-21 topic. That being said, my ideological leanings are heavily in favor of the K.

AFF -- I will do my best to be impartial, but I have a big problem with the way that policy affs try to make framework arguments. Arguments about plan focus are nonsensical. If the K doesn't have specific links to the aff, you will probably win -- that isn't a question of framework. Fairness arguments don't make sense because you read your aff and you still get to defend it. They aren't mooting the aff by disagreeing with your scholarhsip. Your framework should be about what education you produce and what my role in the debate is. Am I a policymaker? Ethical decisionmaker? What does that mean for how I approach impacts?

NEG -- You need to outweigh the affirmative's impacts. You can filter them out through a framework that limits what I evaluate, you can have a reject alt, an alt that legitimately solves portions of the aff, etc. Be flexible. I don't have a problem with kicking the alt -- I did that all the time. But you have to preface what that means in the debate. Ie: what does your link and impact mean in the world of the alt/without it?

If you have a reason to distrust their scholarship writ large, that should be articulated in terms of what it means for me as a decisionmaker. Pulling lines from evidence and explaining why their scholarship doesn't match their explanation of the evidence is very persuasive. Let's be real, most policy evidence is imperialist schlock.

Your biggest challenge is probably going to be defeating the util o/w + perm route.

Policy NEGs vs K AFFs

Cruel optimism vs "you're too pessimistic" debates are very tired and largely irresolvable. Both require winning a theory of power.

AFF -- I like topical K's with plan texts and nontopical affs as well. I prefer if the aff is relevant to the topic, but it doesn't have to affirm the topic. I think you are benefitted by clear counterinterpretations rather than tricky we meet arguments. Engaging the state bad is kind of a generic, I would prefer offense about how those debates produce violence for you and why they enshrine bad forms of education. IE: why your starting point is significantly better than the TVA/their model of education.

NEG -- Framework is the easiest argument in debate. You get to read a ~1 minute or less shell and give a 9 minute 2nc. I did this, so I'm not biased against it. That being said, FW offense should be about how the affirmative creates a bad standard for debates, why it hurts their education, why it hurts broader approaches to critical education. Topical versions of the aff and a detailed explanation of both a caselist in your world of debate and what arguments you lose are important. I don't care if you lost your generic CP and DA because if that's all you needed for a policy team then it's probably on you for not spending more time prepping K teams. You need to be able to articulate what engaging strategies you lost.

If your cap K link is that they didn't engage the state hard enough, what distinguishes this from FW? It's not that you can't make cap args, or this style of K. I did this stuff as well, but you should be heavily in the aff's literature base with your examples in links.

K vs K

Both sides will be benefitted by making distinctions between strategy and tactics when necessary.

My opinion has shifted on critical debate somewhat since I graduated. I think I am significantly better versed in antiblackness literature and more sympathetic to it than before. I was a cap debater -- now am less sympathetic to that K being mutually exclusive with antiblackness after reading more Wilderson. I think I was already pretty well versed in settler colonial and indigenous literature, and very well versed in security and cap literature.

Alts in KvK debates are often very squishy, so I think kicking the alt or just reject alts are a better bet for me. The permutation is just so often a devastator here. Something unexplored is what Baylor did last year by framing their alt as diagnostic analysis of the aff. In that world, links are more difficult for the aff to solve.

I am very open to presumption against these affs.

hi! my name is devanshi (she/her), i'm a current junior at mcgill university (it's in montreal) and i debated policy at lexington before that. if you're reading this, i'm probably your judge.

if the round's about to start:

- email: devanshisbhangle@hotmail.com

- be organized - subpoints, good line by line, etc.

- tech > truth - if you win the flow, you win the round.

- p l e a s e be clear. if you don't think you can be clear, slow down a little: you're better off going at 80% speed where i can understand everything you're saying as opposed to 100% where i can understand maybe half. i'm not shy about asking you to be clear but tbh it's not a good experience for any of us so please let it not come to that.

- pf specific: speed is fine. theory is fine, progressive args are fine, identity args are fine: i'll vote based on what's on the flow; simply reading any of these arguments doesn't guarantee a ballot for or against you.

- my topic knowledge is p limited - i study microbiology + immunology, so i get epidemiology / pandemics / public health, but outside of that, assume my understanding is what you'd expect for ur average college kid

- please don't make arguments or engage in behavior that threatens the safety and wellbeing of the people in the room or marginalized folks writ large. this includes, but is not limited to: making racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic comments, deadnaming / (intentionally) using incorrect pronouns, saying slurs, etc. i will not tolerate it, and doing so will result in an automatic loss, laughably low speaker points, and a word with your coaches.

- if your opponents are making you feel uncomfortable or unsafe, please let me know! i believe every video conferencing system has a function where you can privately send people messages. you can also email me. similarly, if there's anything i can do to make your experiences better (including using correct pronouns, avoiding certain topics, etc.) please let me know in whatever way is comfortable for you.

- disclosure = good - show me you disclose, and i'll give you + your partner +0.2 points

- speaks are fluid and arbitrary, but i do my best to default to higher speaker points :')

- for pf specifically: i have 0 idea what defense being "sticky" is ??

other stuff / if you have more time:

- an aff has to do two things: 1) create change; 2) be tied to the resolution in some way. beyond that, i don't really care whether it's a k aff or not. either ways, you should be able to defend your model of debate.

- i won't meticulously comb through your evidence for you. if there's a specific card that's really good for you or damning for your opponents, point it out to me in round.

- kritiks --> i'm minimally familiar with antiblackness, cap, and feminist literature, but beyond that, assume i have a very basic understanding (except for pomo, in which case, i know literally nothing). either ways, i find jargon confusing + unnecessary - in my experiences, the best k debaters have also been the ones who could most clearly explain what their theories are and how they link to the aff

- i do my best to consciously distance my decisionmaking from any preconceived biases. that being said, here are the ones i won't budge on: death is bad, racism/sexism/homophobia/genocide/bigotry is bad, climate change is bad, cancer/disease is bad.

- impact calc <3

- i like when counterplans have a solvency advocate that's specific to what the text mandates.

- not a huge fan of dodgy politics disads; make sure they're extended well and supported by your evidence.

- try not to be aggressive?? especially to novices / younger debaters / people with obviously less power in the situation than you. if you need to make someone feel small to look better, you're probably not a good debater lol

- recommend me a book/show: if i've read/seen it, +0.1 points; if i haven't, +0.2 points; if it's one of my favs, +0.3 points.

- tell me how to vote in the 2nr/ar!

good luck, be nice, have fun! <3

Hey there! Thanks for checking out my paradigm. Hopefully reading this can help us all have a nice clean round.

A little about me. I debated for 4 years in high school, so I can follow fast speaking or debate terminology. That said, remember that the goal of PF is to give a speech at a level accessible for everyone. Use this as an opportunity to hone your general speechcraft as well as your debate skills. Let's try and keep it simple. It doesn't matter how awesome your words are if they can't be understood by everyone! :)

We all know, or at least should know the rules. In the event that there is a rule infraction, let's calmly discuss it off time. Same with requesting evidence or anything that isn't part of your speech. However, I ask that you refrain from outlining your speech or giving an off-time road map. You are given 2-4 minutes to speak. Not 2-4 minutes and enough time to outline.

That said, I hope you enjoy debate! That's what we're here for. Good luck and have fun!

Parent judge since 2015

I use flow method to follow if team has made a contention stick, strength of opponents rebuttals, etc

You should use evidence to make your case; opinion and logic without supporting facts is not winning strategy

You should speak clearly and articulately; fewer points but ones made clearly and consistently are best

I will disclose in virtual tournaments when tournament organizer permits and will always provide general feedback if asked.

I am a flay judge and my daughter is a senior who debates on the local and national circuit. I have been an attorney for nearly 20 years, so I’ve been around the block.

Please be succinct and clear with your arguments and tell me what I should be voting on, especially in final focus.

Be courteous and respectful to each other during round.

I do flow, but don’t spread or run theory or I won’t be able to follow. Don’t just throw things at me and expect them to stick.

I am tech over truth. If you think your opponents’ evidence is flawed, call them out. Don’t expect me to call for evidence that was never contested in the round.

Most importantly, enjoy yourselves!

I debated four years in high school and three years for the New York City Coalition under the City University of New York. I continue to coach and judge for the City University of New York for the last seven years.

New Trends: I come from the debate world of tubs and expandos. I do not take prep for jumping. I do not want to be on the email chain. Debate is about convincing the judge. Therefore,  you have to explain your evidence in comparison to the other team. I do not read evidence because I flow the warrants of the evidence. Please be very clear when reading.

Framework: I do not mind as long as it is impacted and there is clash on the interpretation vs counter interpretation.

Disads/cps: I do not mind. However, on disads,  you need to explain the internal link to the impact. I won't just vote for you because you said nuclear war. For cps, I like when negative teams have creative ways to solve for the aff. As far as theory,  I am not that incline to vote on these args but in some instances theory args have been very well articulated and I have voted on them. These debates can not be two ships passing in the night.

Kritiks: I believe the negative have the ability to win this argument without an alternative. However, I like alternative versus solvency debates.

Performance: I believe debate is a space where students have freedom of expression.  While making your arguments, you need to indicate how I'm suppose to situate myself within the round.

Your stylistic approach to debate is entirely up to you. I'm just there to adjudicate the round. Have Fun!

Hello! I'll start by giving a little bit of background about myself. I am a fourth year student at Simon Fraser University currently majoring in Health Science. University deepened my interest in debate and thoughtful discussion through my time in philosophy clubs and courses, and I have been looking to expand my judging experience ever since. I have volunteered as a judge both at local high school tournaments across West Vancouver, and I have had the pleasure of judging at the University of British Columbia's Spring Debate Tournament.

As a judge, I appreciate speakers that take their time with their points, and speak in a respectful, concise manner. I believe it's important to explore the points carefully, breaking them down in a way that shows their strength from their foundation. Speak to those around you as people, and take the time to explain the truth of your side. The saying, albeit overused, remains exceptionally true: quality over quantity. There is no need to flood the room with sound.

TL;DR: Work as a team, speak with purpose, be respectful. You'll do great if you remember this.

Please remain respectful towards your opponents and your partner, and have fun while debating. It will be my privilege to see you debate. Best of luck!

Experience things:

Graduated from College Debate. 4 years NDT, 4 years NFA-LD, 4 years HS, coach HS CX too

He/Him

yes email chain, sirsam640@gmail.com

Please read an overview. Please. It will only help you and your speaks.

Speed is fine - please be clear

Tech over Truth always - the debaters make the argument, not what my preconceived notions of what is truthful/real arguments are.

1. I was frequently in policy v K rounds on both sides. At the 2022 NDT 8/8 rounds were K rounds for me, and 2023 2/8 were K rounds. I read a K aff with my partner one year, then an extinction aff the next year. I went for FW/cap the other half of the time. I am a clash judge and vote for K affs as much as I vote for FW versus them.

2. k affs justify why your model of debate is good impact turns to T are fine

3. 2nrs need a TVA (unless the aff just shouldn't exist under your model which is rare but can happen)

4. condo is good but fine voting that its bad

5. judge kick is probably bad, but if neg says its good and aff doesn't reply I'll judge kick

6. I went for impact turn 2NRs/1ARs a significant portion of my rounds

7. win that your reps are good affs

8. I think perms are a little bit underrated - they probably overcome the link and shield any residual risk.

9. Judging more and more I realize how awesome impact calc is in 2NR/2AR - I definitely think about debate in offense/defense paradigm and often vote for whoever's impact is bigger and accesses the other teams

Theory

CPs need a net benefit in order to win. The role of the neg is to disprove the aff, not just provide another alternative that also fixes the aff. "Solving better" isn't a net benefit. I have voted aff on CP solves 100% of the aff but 0% of net benefit.

PICs are good vs K affs. Pretty strong neg lean on this. It rewards good research.

Don't read death good in front of me.

T

I have come around a lot on T. I think that affs get away with too much in terms of being resolution-adjacent.

Competing interps > reasonability (as law school goes on, I am reverting back to reasonability. This is probably 55/45%ish)

Ground is probably the biggest impact in T debates IMO, I think specific links to affs is the largest internal link to good debates.

I think that community norms is very unpersuasive to me. I do not really care what the rest of the community thinks about T, I'm judging the round, not the community lol

PTIAV is silly but gotta have a decent answer to it.

Affs need to just have a large defense of "no ground loss" and "aff flex/innovation outweighs"

Likely the best way to win T in front of me regardless of side is to just impact out whatever you think is your strongest standard, and make it outweigh your opponents. I spend less time thinking about the specific definition of words and more time about what the models of debate look like (though if debaters tell me to evaluate interps in a specific way I will definitely spend time on it).

PF specific

You do you and I will evaluate to the best of my ability! Any questions feel free to ask pre-round!

You don't need to ask for x amount of prep, just take "running prep" unless you specifically want me to stop you when that time ends.

Last speech should start out with "you should vote aff in order to prevent structural violence which comes first in the round" or something like that. Write my ballot for me.

I find it very hard to vote on something that I don't understand, so while impacts matter a lot I need to understand the story of how we reach the impact

HI. I am a high school English teacher and a Speech and Debate Coach/Teacher.

I have equal experience in PF, LD, and Parli debates. Below are some general points regarding my judging philosophy (general for all debates)

I put equal value on delivery/performance as I do on case content/structure (win on delivery + win on flow).

Evidence RQ: If you need your opponent to show you a piece of evidence by all means ask for it, but don’t be abusive. Ask for what you really need and ask for it all at once. Make sure you can send evidence in 1 minute if you are asked for it. I don’t need to be on the chain/email.

Speed is fine with me but I generally hate spreading. I can hear you and follow but if the information is important enough to say, it’s important enough to get on my flow, and I just can’t flow that fast nor should I have to. Why is my flow important? (“If I must answer that, I will leave and I will not come back again!”). In general: this is a debate not a contest to see who can get the most words in. Spread at your own risk.

Kritiks: Make me engaged and interested in how you approach the round. I am not a stickler for or against anything at all. I want to see solid debates with clear argumentation and evidence. No K’s attacking the “safety of debate”: won’t buy it. If you feel the opponent is abusive or using trigger words, that shouldn’t be the “case” - that is something you stop debate for and tell the judge, your coach, tournament staff, etc.

Flowing/note-taking: I flow on paper or in a spreadsheet depending on where I am. I have my own shorthand and do not flow during crossfire because I would rather see the ammunition come up in speeches. I may, however, update or add points if needed on my flow. Note that if you want me to flow it, it better come up again in the speeches.

Cross: I value high quality arguments and courtesy. There's nothing wrong with being aggressive but it's possible to be aggressive and polite at the same time. (In other words - don’t ask a question then speak over the opponent when they try to answer it. Don’t abuse the use of follow up questions...etc).

Weighing and voter issues: If you don't weigh and tell me what you ultimately want me to vote for and why by the final focus.... then I will choose based on the flow. I prefer you set the framework up and weigh on it telling me specifically wheat you want me to focus on. I see often that new or intermediate debaters forget to clash. Don't just tell me why your case wins!

Off time roadmaps: On time, off time, don't care, but yes, do provide a roadmap. Be brief and please signpost during your speech.

FINAL NOTE: Remember that just because we are online doesn’t mean everything has to change. I prefer cam on and good eye contact. Have fun and be polite to each other! Have a great debate!

Raul Cepin (he/him/his)

Binghamton University '18

Bishop Loughlin Memorial High School ’13

Contact: cepin.jr@gmail.com

Debated for 4 years in high school, debated in college and qualified to the NDT every year I debated. Qualified teams to the TOC.

1. I think line by line as a guideline for the structure of flowing is effective

2. K, performance all okay - debated this kind of stuff. Be clear and make sure I get it.

3. T/FW - T is good and important, so is framework. You need to defend an interpretation.

4. Tricks are a no-go

I am a parent judge. For the past few tournaments that I attended, I immensely enjoyed the experience, particularly for the well prepared cases, arguments with well supported evidences from solid research. Students with the patience of letting the others finish their points impress me the most. A lot times, it is not just about what you argue, but equally important is how you argue. Because of the age and the passion, students sometimes spread, which in my opinion shows that you started to lose focus. Listening sometimes is more important, which is the basis of 2 way communication as supposed to just stressing your point of view.

Nonetheless, debating skills are highly regarded and critical in schools and work places. The tournaments provided an excellent forum for you to develop those skills. I wish that I had that when I was attending high school in China.

I attend Rutgers University - New Brunswick.

I am new to debate and so I won't know debate jargon.

You can time yourself and I will give my own feedback at the end.

If I get some rules wrong, please correct me!

i would appreciate a somewhat slower pace of speech so i could fully absorb all the material you have worked hard preparing, thank you and good luck!

I am a lay judge with limited experience.

Don't go too fast. Clarity is always more important than speed.

- I'm not very familiar with debate speak. i.e "magnitude", "turn", "Uniqueness". You can use these terms, but try to explain what they mean in the later speeches.

- I will be flowing, and I will look at the arguments that each side presents when deciding my ballot.

- Second summary is too late to bring new arguments.

- No new arguments in final focus. Just make the debate clear in final focus, and explain why I should vote for you.

- Weighing is very very important. Please weigh so that I can look at the arguments more holistically. 

- I don't flow cross, but I definitely listen to it.

I am a parent judge, and was never a debater myself. I have judged both Parli and OPOFO.

Your approach with me should be different than with an experienced judge. I appreciate outlines/roadmaps. I also appreciate you speaking clearly and concisely. I will not draw conclusions, or make connections, rather I expect you to make them for me.

I will drop speaker points if there's any sexist, racist, homophobic, or ableist actions or rhetoric.

Be polite. Have fun.

Hi,

I currently debate for Cornell in British Parlimentary/Worlds debate. In high school, I competed in policy, worlds schools, and public forum.

It is important that you have a very clear link chain throughout the debate. It is also important that you clearly weigh and impact your arguments (the earlier in the debate the better). BE COMPARATIVE. Do not make me have to choose which impact I think might be more important than another. Don't just tell me what your impacts are. Weigh and tell me why they matter, and comparatively weigh against your opponents.

I am okay with some amount of speed, but I do not like spreading in PF or LD. If the speed at which you are speaking requires you to take a double breath, maybe reconsider.

I will evaluate whatever arguments you present in round. Please try not to be squirrely. If your argument is constructed to throw off your opponent, your opponent probably does not have to spend a lot of time responding to it.

Please do things to make your speech easier to follow. Slow down/emphasize for taglines. Signpost. Etc.

Also, please be nice to each other.

Hi! I am a parent judge, so please speak slowly and clearly. I will try my best to flow the round and vote on an argument, but presentation will also play a factor in my decision.

I work for the United Nations, so I have some background knowledge on this topic.

Please don't be rude, sexist, racist, homophobic, etc.

I do not need to be on the email chain.

Speak slow and clear. Be respectful to your opponents.

Thanks

Lay judge with judging experience. Keep your own time.

I am a parent judge with some overseas debate experience from decades ago. I work in a multi-national corporation with assets in most habitable continents.

While I am familiar with the PF format, speed is as new to me as technology is to my parents. While I understand speed, my preference is conversational or slightly above that. The content of speeches as well as how they are articulated will heavily influence speaker points.

This is my first time judging and I would like to review any evidence that is challenged.

Please be respectful to each other, dress presentably and speak confidently with the cameras on.

Good luck!

I hold a college degree in electrical engineer and a master's in computer science. Although I started as a lay parent judge in 2019 to support my child’s growth and participation in local tournaments, since that time, I have acquired expertise in evaluating Public Forum debate by adjudicating several national and local debate competitions. I have judged top-ranked debaters in the past thus I have enough experience in understanding complex arguments.

In my career as a business owner and engineer, I also have experience evaluating professional presentations, contracts, and negotiations. I speak three (3) languages and have traveled to seven (7) countries, but I am fluent in English and value the democratic ideals of freedom of expression and the rule of law found in the United States. When evaluating students, I treat each individual as unique and worthy of respect, maturity, and intellectual growth to achieve his/her highest potential in school and in future professional endeavors. Then proceed to the paradigm, and expand on what you look for in definitions, value frameworks, contentions, rebuttals, cross-fire, final focus, and speaker points. It would also be good to create an email chain so we can create a fast evidence exchange.

prefer no long "off time" roadmaps

please stick to your time

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

avoid reading very long passages/quotes

Hi, I'm Alec Farber, 20 years old, from NYC, and currently in college. I did public forum debate for four years, but now do parliamentary and regularly judge/coach for my college team. .

I know all the PF debate terms and jargon. If for some reason they have me judge policy, then perhaps explain any policy-specific terminology just to be safe. I assume everything which is said is true unless refuted - If Pro says that the sky is yellow, and nobody refutes that, I judge with the assumption that the sky is yellow.

I will be flowing everything you say, and will use it heavily in my RFD. However I don't flow crossfire - If something important was said in a crossfire, make sure to bring it up in the next speech.

I love debate but I am also perpetually tired, so aside from having good arguments and refutations, the best thing you could do to win this debate is make my life easy: Make it easy to flow what you're saying, and make it easy to see at the end of the debate why you won.

You can speak quite fast with me, but I struggle to follow people who are really fast spreaders - Let's say 8/10 on the scale of speed is good.

You guys are awesome, have a good debate!

Parent judge. I take notes during round - the most logical and most clearly explained arguments win. The accuracy of your arguments is highly important. Do not speak fast or yell: your speaking style will affect my decision. Quality of arguments/responses is more important than quantity. Truth>Tech.

- Written by my son

I am a parent and lay judge who has been judging for 2 years.

When debating, I look for people who are able to stand by their arguments well. I don't care what the argument is, as long as you are able to back it up and defend it against your opponent's rebuttals.

I am a parent with limited judging experience. I appreciate debaters who develop a story I can follow and assist me by clarifying at the top of your time what speech you will deliver. My debater tells me this is called "an off-time roadmap." You can explain in lay terms where you are on the debate outline I'm following and from what side you're speaking. I will keep notes that highlight cases and rebuttals. I am however experienced enough to know that new clever arguments introduced in final focus do not count (so don't try to fool me and no debate jargon please ;)

I am a lay (parent) judge who is new to debate.

Speaking:

Please speak slowly and clearly. If you would like to go fast, please do so at your own risk, as I may not get everything down. Personally, I would rather that debaters go slowly so that I can understand their arguments rather than spread and be incomprehensible. Also, try to refrain from using debate jargon. Finally, be polite and courteous in crossfires. Any rudeness, racism, etc. will result in a severe deduction to your speaks, and I will drop you.

Argumentation:

Please reexplain your arguments in every speech to create cohesiveness and consistency so that I can cleanly evaluate the round. Also, please weigh impacts comparatively. If you do not weigh, I will do it for you, and you may not like the result.

i did 4 years of pf (2016-20)

my paradigm is essentially the same as danny's

my understanding of the round will trade off with speed. if you plan on spreading send a speech doc to greenicamilla@gmail.com

i attended 1 progressive argumentation lecture at ndf in 2019. that is the extent of my understanding of theory

Parent judge with 4 years of experience, I do flow the entire round.

If possible, please make it easy for me, collapse or go for a very well explained turn.

I am not a a pro and wont necessarily understand all the jargon and nuance.

My prefs:

1. yes - signpost; off-time roadmaps, extending from SUM to FF;

2. warrants > blips = I will have a hard time voting for poorly explained arguments;

3. no - spreading, anything new in 2nd SUM or FF;

4. Happy to skip grand-X if you are...

5. If K and Theory is read, I will do my best, but no promises that I will do a good job of it.. so swim at your own risk.

you can add me to email chains and case - viettagrinberg@gmail.com

Please speak clearly and at a normal pace. The main points I consider when judging debate are:

1) The quality of the facts and the details stated

2) Speech presentation and voice modulation

3) A persuasive argument

4) Logic-based arguments and reliable evidence

5) Very important: Treat your opponents with respect

Benjamin Hagwood, Director at Vancouver Debate Academy

About me - former college policy debater, flow-centric, like all arguments but the politics DA (Elections gets a pass)

Debate is a game that can be played in a multitude of ways. It is the responsibility of the students to determine the parameters of the games and to call "foul" if they think someone has done something abusive. I will judge the round as it happens. Here are a few things about me that you might find useful when preparing for a round:

1. Flowing - I do my best to have as accurate a flow as possible while trying to capture but the context and citation of your arguments. Dropping arguments could be detrimental if your opponents extend and weight those arguments properly.
2. Observer not a Participant - I won't do work for you or insert myself into your debate. You will win OR lose based on the arguments in the round not my person opinion.
3. Style over Speed - swag is subjective - bring yours.
4. Petty but not Disrespectful - don't be unnecessarily rude to your opponent - but I must admit being petty is strategic.
5. Challenges - if you challenge someone and lose the challenge you lose the debate (this could also apply on theory debates depending on the debate - but not RVI's)

Universal Speaker Point Adjustments: all students are evaluated on their level. A 29 in novice is not the same as a 29 in open. 28 is my base for completing all your speeches and using all your speech time.

1. Wear a bowtie (+.5 point)
2. Be entertaining (tell jokes...if I laugh...you get points...if I don't you won't be punished) (+.5 point)
3. Be rude (-.5 point)
4. Don't use all your time (-.5 point)
5. Steal prep (-.5 point)

If you have any questions feel free to reach out to me and ask. Students may request my flow and written feedback at the end of the debate if they want. I will only share it with the students in the round unless they consent to the flow being shared with other opponents.

Hi there! This is my 5th season judging public forum. That being said, I am not a debate wonk. I am not a lay judge, but not as technical as many other judges in the circuit. I do not coach and really don't dive into the ethos and technicalities of this activity. This being said, I have a few expectations.

Clash

I love love love clash in debates. One of the best things for me is weighing the merits of arguments and cards rather than a game of everyone throws whatever they can at the wall to see what sticks. This being said, a debate that devolves into constant critiques of the ethos of sources is frustrating to me: there's a fine balance.

"Spreading"

I can follow kids talking fast in debate but after constructive you need to be able to extrapolate what is important instead of just auctioneering your arguments to me. This isn't super important to me relative to more of the fundamentals to me, and I don't expect you to re-tool your debate style for me.

Pre-written Blocks, Turns etc. and Speaker Points

Especially on the local circuit, this is easily my biggest pet peeve. I won't hold it against you, but as an alum, the single biggest skill I gained in this activity was my extemporaneous speaking abilities. I think pre-written blocks and turns really hinder that from you, especially when I've heard the same blocks from your teammates over the course of the same or multiple tournaments. I do weigh this when I consider speaker points (not heavily, but no one with pre-written blocks is getting a 30 from me). In general, speaker points come from your ability to conduct yourself professionally and effectively during extemporaneous parts of the debate (everything except constructive).

Conduct during Cross and Rebuttal/Summary

My BIGGEST pet peeve in debate is how high-level debaters act in response to their opponents during responses, especially the sort of hyper-casual style that is condescending. I don't care about archaic notions of "professionalism" because I believe they are rooted in classist and racist connotations, but I'm really not okay with being condescending to your peers. It's hard to articulate this conduct, but every debater knows it when they see. I don't expect you to refer to your opponent's as "my good friend" or "the right honourable gentleman" but just be respectful.

Arguments with Nuance

If you're going to make a claim that relies on an assertion that isn't a universal belief or value (e.g. "free market solutions are inherently better than government solutions" or vice versa), you need to justify your assertion. I enjoy unconventional arguments, but if your case relies on a belief that is often challenged in the court of public appeal, you can't just state it and move on.

Hi! I'm Mac Hays (he/him pronouns)! I did 4 years of PF at Durham Academy. I have spent 4 years coaching PF on the local and national circuit. I now debate APDA at Brown. Debate however is most fun for you without being exclusive.

Disclaimers:

* TLDR tabula rasa, warrant, signpost, extend, weigh, ballot directive language makes me happy, metaweighing ok, framing ok (I default "pure" util otherwise), theory ok, speed ok (don't be excessive), K ok, no tricks, be nice and reasonable and have fun, ask me questions about how I judge before round if you want more clarity on any specifics. Ideally you shouldn't run theory unless you're certain your opponents can engage.

* Nats probably isn’t the place for theory/Ks unless the violation is egregious and your opponents can clearly engage. Don’t run whack stuff for a free win

* Please send all evidence you read in the email chain (ideally before speeches)

* Every speech post constructive must answer all content in the speech before it. Implications: No new frontlines past 2nd rebuttal/1st summary (defense isn't sticky, but that doesn't mean that 1st summary must extend defense on contentions that 2nd rebuttal just didn't frontline), any new indicts must be read in the speech immediately after the evidence is introduced, etc. New responses to new implications = ok. New responses to old weighing = not ok.

* How I vote: I look for the strongest impact and then determine which team has the strongest link into it as a default. See my weighing section for more details. If you don't want me to do this, tell me why with warranting.

* Add me to the chain: colin_hays@brown.edu.

* The entirety of my paradigm can be considered "how I default in the absence of theoretical warrants" - that is, if you see debate differently than I do, then make arguments as to why that's how I should judge, and, if you win them, I'll go with it. (exceptions are -isms, safety violations, speech times and the like, reasonability specifics are in the doc below).

Have fun!

My paradigm got unreasonably long so I put it in a doc, read it if you want more clarity on specifics:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lFX0Wja9W_h1xC1YBrUl8XZZzRenxOGOx7LCKd9liRU/edit

Debate History: I debated for Towson University & Binghamton University (4 years college).

First and foremost, I will not tell you how to engage in the debate. Whether it be policy or K affirmatives I'm open to debaters showcasing their research in any format they choose. However, I do prefer if debaters orient their affirmative construction towards the resolution. 

When evaluating a debate I tend to weigh the impacts of the affirmative to any disadvantage or impact the negative goes for in the 2NR. Therefore, if the affirmative does not extend case in the 2AR it becomes more difficult for me to evaluate the debate unless you tell me the specific argument I should be voting on otherwise. 

Next, is framework. I evaluate this before anything else in the debate. If you run framework in front of me go for decision making, policy research good, learning about X (insert topic related policy discussion i.e. warming, tech, economy, education, etc.) is good, clash or ground. I do not want to feel as though your framework is exclusionary to alternative debate formats but instead debate about its inherent benefits. 

I also really enjoy case debate. If you are on the negative please have case turns and case specific evidence so that the debate for me is a bit more specific and engaging. 

CP's and DA's are also arguments I evaluate but I need to have a good link for both or it will make it difficult for me to vote for them. 

Please focus more on explanation of evidence and not on the amount of evidence introduced in the debate. 

I tend to keep up on politics and critical literature so don't be afraid of running an argument in front of me. I will always ask for preferred pronouns and do not tolerate racism, white supremacy, anti-blackness, sexism, patriarchy, transphobia and xenophobia. 

Hi! I'm Tom, a parent judge, in PF for about 3 years. Be careful about speaking exceedingly fast, I will certainly miss some parts of your arguments! Please keep track of your time, I will as well, and will raise my hand if you are running out and don't seem to be coming to a conclusion. Carry your arguments through the rounds, I'll weigh a hotly contested contention more than one which has been lightly discussed or basically forgotten about. By the end make sure you make it clear why your side has won, as if it isn't clear to you, it certainly won't be clear to me.

Be considerate during cross, ask your questions and allow your opponent to answer. Feel free to answer a question through the end of cross time, but don't start a new question with very few seconds left.

Off-time roadmaps are fine. Card sharing is also off-time, between speeches and cross-fire.

Good luck!

PS. I have only judged Parli once, but it was a pleasure.

I prefer debaters who articulate clearly instead of word speeding.

I prefer debaters who reason not only logically but also have factual data to back up the reasoning, instead of only having factual data.

I prefer debaters who use common logic instead of convoluted reasoning.

I prefer debaters who understand not only your own contentions but also your opponents contentions.

I prefer debaters who can come up with good counter arguments to their opponents contentions using pertinent evidence and reasoning instead of going in circle.

I prefer debaters who are respectful to their opponents. Aggressively interrupting your opponents during cross should be avoided.

I am a Program/Agile manager at Cisco. I have judged quite a many rounds for Public Forum and enjoy listening to everyone's speeches.

I like standards and collapsing into your opponents frameworks.

I enjoy seeing weighing and word to word comparisons either in summary or final focus. Final Focus I mainiy look for voters issues, and if u bring up dropped arguments I wont count them.

I also look for good impact and links and extending main arguments to the end of your cases. And good warrants with statistics such as percentages or ratios. Good solvencies are also important to show me why your world solves better for the resolution.

I would prefer sign posting so its easier for me to keep track of arguments and also prefer slow speaking so its easier for me to follow and take notes. Speaking too fast also doesn't help make clarity in arguments.

I also look for more direct responses and in crossfire I look for open ended questions that help me better understand your side of the resolution.

Overall confidence , good mannerism,voive modulation is the key.I prefer team on video as expressions matter in debating:)

I am a lay parent judge, and new to judging public forum.

Though I am new to judging, I understand how public forum works as my daughter debates on the national circuit. Because of that, I have a good understanding of each debate resolution. That being said, I come into debate rounds with a blank and unbiased slate. Show and explain to me in depth why your arguments are better than your opponents.

Since I haven't debated in the past or know as much as a traditional flow judge, please refrain from running any theory arguments in rounds, as I won't be able to flow them properly.

I don't call for evidence unless I absolutely need to, but please add me to the email chain or google doc at jsuren@yahoo.com.

I trust that you and your opponents know the rules and can keep track of your own time.

Please speak slowly and clearly so I can have an easier time flowing. Do not spread!

Have fun and good luck!

Conflicts: San Marino

Experience: HS/Circuit- LD 2 years, PF 3 years, CX 1 year (2016-2020)

As of 3/13/2024: I have not been involved in debate since 2020. Most of my knowledge of debate has atrophied; if you plan on running technical arguments be prepared to explain them thoroughly.

Send me speech docs: j4ng.debate@gmail.com

discord: j4ng#0099

If the panel includes other lay judges - I am a lay judge. Please adapt to the other judges.

Speed is OK but don't exceed 350 WPM. I can't vote for a team if I cannot understand what they are saying. Spreading is not accessible and I prefer that everyone in the room can actively participate in the round :)

I ran generic, stock, LARP, and Ks in HS. If you are running anything else, I will do my best to evaluate them.

This is the paradigm that I wrote in 2021. It is wordy and extends into debate lore that I barely remember today. You can use it as general guidance. here

Feel free to ask any questions. I do not consider myself the most impartial judge, but I promise everyone that I will do my best to facilitate a fair and educational round.

I am a parent judge.

Please try to be as clear as possible and stay under 200 wpm.

Good Luck!

G'Day!

My name is Meg Kandarpa, and I am a Cornell ILR student in the Class of '23. I currently debate for Cornell in British Parliamentary/Worlds debate. (It seems counterintuitive to list BP qualifications on a site that is not used for BP but if you truly want to know ask me).

In high school, I primarily partook in APDA/parliamentary debate but also competed in world schools, congress, public forum, and MUN/speech.

Judging Paradigm

My judging paradigm is relatively simple - If the round doesn't say it, then I don't judge in it (this is 100% based off the flow - not my intuition). This includes not pointing out contradictions, missing links, and other case failures. I'm not one who believes in "punishment judging" - eg if a first speech fails to provide a needed definition, I don't take "away" points.

Refutation is also a good practice - direct responses to teams and telling me why you win also does help!

Also - please weigh/impact. I always see myself questioning "so what" at the end of most cases. Don't let that be your case.

If there's any way I can make the round more accessible for you in any way please don't hesitate to let me know before (or even during) the round.

Specificities to Online Debate (Credit to a University of Rochester buddy - Ali Abdullah who wrote this)

Please please slow down a bit; online debate certainly isn't conducive to blazing fast speeds (especially when most of y'all aren't even enunciating properly in person). This doesn't mean you can't speak fast, just be sure to slow down enough that I can make out every word you're saying. I'll try to tell you if I can't comprehend you but chances are by the time I do I've already missed something important.

Please try avoiding speaking over each other during CX; I love heated CX but 2+ people with their microphones on become incomprehensible in an online setting.

On video, you certainly don't have to have it turned on when I'm judging you. There are a multitude of reasons for this from privacy reasons to personal comfort, etc. Basically, you do you. I may also ask you to turn your video off if my internet is being slow, but I'll never ask you to turn it on. I find myself paying infinitely more attention to what you say and the tone/form in which you say it than your facial expressions anyway.

On that note, my video will most likely be on as it makes me stay connected and focused - and for debaters to feel comforted knowing that I am not watching Netflix in round. I never make facial expressions when I'm judging anyway so it wouldn't really be useful to y'all in that sense.

Debate Etiquette

I make it effort when doing introductions to offer a space for pronoun preferences. This is by no means required, but helpful if needed. If someone discloses pronouns or doesn't - always best to defer to the speaking position over assumptions.

I'm all for heated debates, but behavior that can frankly be determined as just jerkish is not something I stand for. This includes aggressively cutting debaters off, excessive facial expressions (if it's that ludicrous, 99% sure I caught it as well) and any generalizations/insinuations towards an entire group of people.

Again - generalizations of groups of people - bad and unpersuasive. That goes for debate, and just life advice while we are at it.

Cheers, and thanks to all who have read this far (good luck if I'm judging you!)

Meg Kandarpa

I'm a lay judge, speak slowly and clearly your arguments. Be polite. I won't disclose in person so please leave the zoom room after both final focuses are over. Please keep track of your own time.

I am a parent judge from Hunter College High School. I have been judging for a few years now. Please speak slowly and clearly, no jargon. You should concentrate on the 1-2 most relevant arguments at the end of the round and point out to me why I should vote on those. If you want to win off of an argument, please highlight it in the summary and reiterate it in the final focus speeches. Please be civil to your competitors.

I am a lay judge and have some basic knowledge of the structure of PF.

Please speak slowly and tag all your arguments properly so I know what point you are referring to.

I look for clear weighing and claims for why I should vote for your side.

Also, please be respectful to each other in the debate.

I am a parent judge. I enjoy listening to PF debates. When not judging, I am a chemistry professor.

Please speak clearly. Assume I don't know anything about the topic. Quality is more important than quantity. Roadmapping and signposting help me follow your arguments. I am not the right judge for theory or progressive arguments.

Please note that my decision is based on what is said in the round. I do not read between the lines. I do not connect dots unless you do it.

Criteria for speaker point evaluation: (1) Cogency, (2) Mental agility (as demonstrated in rebuttal, frontlining, and crossfires), and (3) Civility.

For email chains: akawamur@gmail.com

I am a parent judge. Please do not use debate-technical terminology unless you adequately define it. Please speak slowly and clearly.

10 years judging and coaching PF—6 times at TOC (gold and silver divisions), 7 times at Nationals

I coach only Public Forum.

I am a high school English teacher full time.

Speed is fine with me.

I prefer big picture summaries

Role of the Final Focus: Crystallize the round (cliché, I know), but if it does not follow through on the flow I won’t weigh it.

Extension of Arguments into later speeches: I want to see everything on the flow. I look specifically at the summary and the final focus to see what you want me to really focus on in my decision.

Topicality/Plans/Kritiks: Make me engaged and interested in how you approach the round. I am not a stickler for or against anything at all. I want to see solid debates with clear argumentation and exceptional evidence.

Flowing/note-taking: I flow on the computer in an excel spreadsheet. I have my own shorthand and do not flow during crossfire because I would rather see the ammunition come up in speeches.

I value arguments. Style is irrelevant to me as long as I can understand your speaking—be snarky, be rude, whatever. Just get your point across.

If a team plans to win the debate on an argument, in your opinion does that argument have to be extended in the rebuttal or summary speeches? I think that the argument should be clearly flowed across. However, that does not mean I would not consider a major missing element from the constructive if it was crucial to the round.

If a team is second speaking, do you require that the team cover the opponents’ case as well as answers to its opponents’ rebuttal in the rebuttal speech? No, I do not require this. It can be effective at times, but not required.

Do you vote for arguments that are first raised in the grand crossfire or final focus? Sure. If it is clear and well grounded.

Weighing: I want you to weigh for me if the resolution and your case are really asking for it (usually you would know if you need to.) If you don't weigh and tell me what you ultimately want me to vote for and why by the final focus.... then I will just choose based on the flow.

Crossfire: I'm listening to what you are saying, but I don't write anything down for the most part, unless I am checking my flow against what you are saying and editing. If you want me to flow it, it better come up again in the speeches.

Framework: Sure. Do it. But if you both have one, you better make sure you decide which one to use and why and convince me of that.

Off time roadmaps: Don't care.

My only expectation is good clear debate. I do not like the argument that Public Forum is only for “lay” people off the street. I think it has much more potential to be an intellectual and engaging technical challenge. I am not a big fan of weighing lives because it really seems to be about the pathos/narrative and not the actual argumentation. Not that I don’t care about lives or whatever, it just is generally not an effective argument and most times there are more interesting ways to approach a topic than that.

I competed in PF for four years for Theodore Roosevelt High School in Des Moines, Iowa, both on the national and local circuits. I coached at NDF in 2018, 2019, and 2020, and for the 2020-21 season I'm an Assistant PF Coach at Eagan High School. I'm now a junior at the University of Notre Dame studying political science.

Don't be afraid to ask me questions about anything on here - I love answering them, and it shows me that you're making a serious effort to adapt to me, which I appreciate!

Add me to the email chain - ellie.konfrst@gmail.com.

How to win my ballot:

Find the cleanest piece of offense on the flow and weigh that. This is probably the most important thing in my paradigm. I want to avoid intervention as much as I possibly can, but if arguments get muddy and don't get sorted out, that's hard for me to do. I would far prefer to vote off a conceded, well-implicated turn than a case arg riddled with ink and conflicting warranting.

You need to collapse in the second half of the round, it's a huge strategic mistake not to do that.

Use the persuasive nature of PF to your advantage. I evaluate the round off the flow, but that doesn't mean I'm not a human and can't be persuaded. Ultimately, your job is to convince me you're right. In close rounds, sometimes that's less logical and more emotional.

In the spirit of persuasion, you should be collapsing on a clear narrative in the second half of the round.

You have to weigh. If you don't weigh for me I'm forced to literally just pick things I think are more important, which means you lose control of the round, and I'm forced to interfere. Weighing should be clear in summary and final focus, and it might even be helpful to start weighing in rebuttal. (NOTE: In order to weigh your argument, you also have to win the argument. I've seen way too many teams weigh arguments that they lose, and that leaves me forced to intervene just as much as if you don't weigh. Remember, you need to extend warrants and impacts).

Extensions:

If you want it on the ballot, it needs to be in summary AND final focus.

Extend warrants and impacts. Make a point to especially extend impacts - I have literally no reason to vote for your argument if there's no impact, and failing to extend impacts in final focus can be fatal.

Defense you need to win needs to be extended in first summary. Especially with 3 minutes for summary, y'all - if you expect defense to be sticky from rebuttal to final focus you are not debating well.

You need to respond to your opponent's rebuttal if you're speaking 2nd. I prefer defense and offense, but I'm significantly more forgiving with dropped defense than dropped offense. If you speak second and you drop a turn read in first rebuttal, I consider it dropped for the round. With that said, please do not "extend" your case in 1st rebuttal, I will probably just stop listening.

Extend card names along with what the card says.

Conduct:

I know debate rounds can get heated, but I think it's important to respect your opponents. If you're unnecessarily aggressive, patronizing, or rude, I'll definitely dock your speaks. I'm not telling you to not be assertive or loud, but I can tell the difference between someone who believes their opponents are wrong and someone who believes their opponents are not even worth their time.

If you are sexist, racist, homophobic, ableist, transphobic, etc. I'll drop you and tank your speaks.

This is a small thing, but I really dislike when teams call out strategic errors made by the other time in cross, i.e. "didn't you drop this in summary?" It's a waste of cross-ex time and it feels rude to me - tell me in a speech, don't turn it into a cross question.

Arguments:

I like interesting arguments a lot! Obviously squirrely/unwarranted args probably won't win you my ballot, but judging 6 double-flighted debate rounds in a row can get super monotonous, and I'll probably reward you if you at least make the round more interesting.

I'm open to any type of impacts, as long as you weigh them.

However, I have 0 background in policy or LD, so if you want to run theory/Ks/pre-fiat arguments you're gonna need to explain them to me in the simplest possible terms. To be clear, I have rarely encountered any kind of shell when debating or judging, and only rarely encountered ROB args as a debater. I am pretty uncomfortable evaluating these arguments and while I'll evaluate them as best I can, you run them at your own risk.

Framework:

I will evaluate under whatever framework is presented to me in the round.

That means, if you drop your opponent's framework, I will weigh the round based on that.

I'm super hesitant to use framework brought up in 2nd rebuttal, especially if it fundamentally alters the way I need to evaluate the debate. If your framework is something very different from a CBA (e.g. deontology) it needs to be in constructive.

I love weighing overviews and will 100% evaluate them as long as they're brought up by rebuttals.

Evidence:

If you tell me to call for a card OR seeing a card is necessary in order for me to make my decision, I'll call for it.

When sharing evidence with either me or your opponents, the evidence should be in cut card form or a highlighted PDF. Sending just a link is unfair to your opponents and annoying to me!

Don't paraphrase, however I tend to be pretty lenient on evidence ethics. If evidence is bad, I basically just evaluate the round as if the evidence didn't exist. I'm not opposed to dropping teams solely on terrible evidence ethics, but you'd probably have to act pretty awfully in order for me to do so.

Other stuff:

I talk really fast in real life, and I talked really fast in debate, so I can handle max PF speeds. Spreading is harder online and early in the morning - I'll do my best, but remember that if I don't get stuff on my flow because you were talking too fast that's your fault. With that said, if you are clearly speaking too fast for your opponents, I'll probably dock your speaks - I think that's rude and exclusionary for an event that's supposed to be open for anyone.

Please time yourselves and your opponents! I am not timing and will let you keep talking if no one else stops you, which just makes the round last longer and is unfair to everyone else.

This is an unpopular opinion, but I LOVE roadmaps. They should be brief, and I can tell when teams use it to steal prep, but if you do it well I will love you. I don't think it ever hurts to make sure you and your judge are on the same page.

This is also why it's crucial for you to signpost. There's nothing worse than you giving killer responses, but me missing them because you lost me in your speech.

You should be using voters in summary/final focus! It's not a dealbreaker for me but it will make me like you more and I'll probably boost your speaks. It also just makes for better debates, so do it!

If you have any questions I'd love to answer them, just ask me before the round!

Background:

Director of Debate at Georgetown Day School.

Please add me to the email chain - georgetowndaydebate@gmail.com.

For questions or other emails - gkoo@gds.org.

I do not share speech documents from rounds I have judged. Please reach out to the teams who debated.

Big Picture:

Read what you want. Have fun. I know you all put a lot time into this activity, so I am excited to hear what you all bring!

Policy Debate

Things I like:

• 2AR and 2NRs that tell me a story. I want to know why I am voting the way I am. I think debaters who take a step back, paint me the key points of clash, and explain why those points resolve for their win fare better than debaters who think every line by line argument is supposed to be stitched together to make the ballot.
• Warrants. A debater who can explain and impact a mediocre piece of evidence will fare much better than a fantastic card with no in-round explanation. What I want to avoid is reconstructing your argument based off my interpretation of a piece of evidence. I don't open speech docs to follow along, and I don't read evidence unless its contested in the round or pivotal to a point of clash.
• Simplicity. I am more impressed with a debater that can simplify a complex concept. Not overcomplicating your jargon (especially K's) is better for your speaker points.
• Topicality (against policy Aff's). This fiscal redistribution topic seems quite large so the better you represent your vision of the topic the better this will go for you. Please don't list out random Aff's without explaining them as a case list because I am not very knowledgeable on what they are.
• Case debates. I think a lot of cases have very incredulous internal links to their impacts. I think terminal defense can exist and then presumption stays with the Neg. I'm waiting for the day someone goes 8 minutes of case in the 1NC. That'd be fantastic, and if done well would be the first 30 I'd give. Just please do case debates.
• Advantage CP's and case turns. Process CP's are fine as well, but I much prefer a well researched debate on internal links than a debate about what the definition of "resolved" "the" and "should"" are. Don't get me wrong though, I am still impressed by well thought out CP competition.
• Debates, if both teams are ready to go, that start early. I also don't think speeches have to be full length, if you accomplished what you had to in your speech then you can end early. Novice debaters, this does not apply to you. Novices should try to fill up their speech time for the practice.
• Varsity debaters being nice to novices and not purposefully outspreading them or going for dropped arguments.
• Final rebuttals being given from the flow without a computer.

Things:

• K Affirmatives and Framework/T. I'm familiar and coached teams in a wide variety of strategies. Make your neg strategy whatever you're good at. Advice for the Aff: Answer all FW tricks so you have access to your case. Use your case as offense against the Neg's interpretation. You're probably not going to win that you do not link to the limits DA at least a little, so you should spend more time turning the Neg's version of limits in the context of your vision of debate and how the community has evolved. I believe well developed counter-interpretations and explanations how they resolve for the Neg's standards is the best defense you can play. Advice for the Neg: Read all the turns and solves case arguments. Soft left framework arguments never really work out in my opinion because it mitigates your own offense. Just go for limits and impact that out. Generally the winning 2NR is able to compartmentalize the case from the rest of the debate with some FW trick (TVA, SSD, presumption, etc.) and then outweigh on a standard. If you aren't using your standards to turn the case, or playing defense on the case flow, then you are probably not going to win.
• Role of the Ballot. I don't know why role of the ballot/judge arguments are distinct arguments from impact calculus or framework. It seems to me the reason the judge's role should change is always justified by the impacts in the round or the framework of the round. I'm pretty convinced by "who did the better debating." But that better debating may convince me that I should judge in a certain way. Hence why I think impact calculus or framework arguments are implicit ROB/ROJ arguments.
• Tech vs. truth. I'd probably say I am tech over truth. But truth makes it much easier for an argument to be technically won. For example, a dropped permutation is a dropped permutation. I will vote on that in an instant. But an illogical permutation can be answered very quickly and called out that there was no explanation for how the permutation works. Also the weaker the argument, the more likely it can be answered by cross applications and extrapolations from established arguments.
• Kritiks. I find that K turns case, specific case links, or generic case defense arguments are very important. Without them I feel it is easy for the Aff to win case outweighs and/or FW that debates become "you link, you lose." I think the best K debaters also have the best case negs or case links. In my opinion, I think K debaters get fixated on trying to get to extinction that they forget that real policies are rejected for moral objections that are much more grounded. For example, I don't need the security kritik to lead to endless war when you can provide evidence about how the security politics in Eastern Europe has eroded the rights and quality of life of people living there. This coupled with good case defense about the Aff's sensational plan is in my opinion more convincing.

Things I like less:

• Stealing prep. Prep time ends when the email is sent or the flash drive is removed. If you read extra cards during your speech, sending that over before cross-ex is also prep time. I'm a stickler for efficient rounds, dead time between speeches is my biggest pet peeve. When prep time is over, you should not be typing/writing or talking to your partner. If you want to talk to your partner about non-debate related topics, you should do so loud enough so that the other team can also tell you are not stealing prep. You cannot use remaining cross-ex time as prep.
• Debaters saying "skip that next card" or announcing to the other team that you did not read xyz cards. It is the other team's job to flow.
• Open cross. In my opinion it just hurts your prep time. There are obvious exceptions when partners beneficially tag team. But generally if you interrupt your partner in cross-ex or answer a question for them and especially ask a question for them, there better be a good reason for it because you should be prepping for your next speech
• 2NC K coverage that has a 6 min overview and reads paragraphs on the links, impacts, and alt that could have been extended on the line by line.
• 2NC T/FW coverage that has a 6 min overview and reads extensions on your standards when that could have been extended on the line by line.
• 10 off. That should be punished with conditionality or straight turning an argument. I think going for conditionality is not done enough by Affirmative teams.
• Debaters whispering to their partner after their 2A/NR "that was terrible". Be confident or at least pretend. If you don't think you won the debate, why should I try convincing myself that you did?
• Card clipping is any misrepresentation of what was read in a speech including not marking properly, skipping lines, or not marking at all. Intent does not matter. A team may call a violation only with audio or video proof, and I will stop the round there to evaluate if an ethics violation has happened. If a team does not have audio or video proof they should not call an ethics violation. However, I listen to the text of the cards. If I suspect a debater is clipping cards, I will start following along in the document to confirm. If a tournament has specific rules or procedures regarding ethics violations, you may assume that their interpretations override mine.

PF Debate:

• Second rebuttal must frontline, you can't wait till the second summary.
• If it takes you more than 1 minute to send a card, I will automatically strike it from my flow. This includes when I call for a card. I will also disregard evidence if all there is a website link. Cards must be properly cut and cited with the relevant continuous paragraphs. Cards without full paragraph text, a link, a title, author name, and date are not cards.
• You are only obligated to send over evidence. Analytics do not need to be sent, the other team should be flowing.
• Asking questions about cards or arguments made on the flow is prep time or crossfire time.
• If it isn't in the summary, it's new in the final focus.
• Kritiks in PF, go for it! Beware though that I'm used to CX and may not be hip on how PF debaters may run Kritiks.

Rose's are red

Violets are blue

Ask me my prefs

Otherwise good luck to you

Hello!

• I am an an amateur parent judge
• I will flow the debate and make my decision mainly on the contentions you win on the basis of evidence and weighing in the Final Focus
• I judge on content, not delivery. I am comfortable with most speeds but please don't go too fast

Good luck and I am excited to see your debate.

I debated policy for four years in high school and have judged public forum since starting in 2020.

I'm good with speed and all arguments, just do both well. I flow the entire round and listen to cross.

Debate is an incredibly transformational activity. Please be kind, courteous, and respectful so everyone can get the most out of debate.

I am a US History, World History, Law, and Personal Finance teacher in Lexington, MA and have taught Civics in a past life outside DC. Meaning that I have a strong academic background on the policy issues that are being discussed. That said, I am a relative newcomer to academic-style Debate in my second year judging.

As a PF judge I expect solid arguments that correctly apply strong evidence and do not ignore major flaws or counter-arguments. I would much rather hear someone say "we do not disagree that the aff/neg argument is valid, but here is why ours is stronger/more relevant." Speak clearly. No spreading. Have fun!

As an LD judge I am new to the game but well versed in solid arguments. Refer to your framework in your arguments to strengthen them and do not engage in extensive de-linking unless you are on solid ground logically. I will lean on my understanding of logic in the arguments rather than fancy debate tactics. Also if you spread, I will not understand you. Keep it civil in CXs but don't be afraid to press your opponent if their answer is weak. Email is Plehmann@lexingtonma.org for speech docs.

I debated four years of public forum debate in high school for The Altamont School and now do APDA at Brown U.

I consider myself to be a really normal judge and don't have any really interesting demands, but here are some things that can help guide how you take on the round!

1) PRE-FLOW: please preflow before round! I will not let yall do it in the room if the round should have started already.

2) EXPLANATION: contextualize cards; explain why they are important and how they support your point/ interact with your opponents case. not doing this makes it really difficult as a judge to understand how you want the round to play out and usually leads to forced intervention

3) 2ND SPEAKING TEAM: you gotta cover turns in 2nd rebuttal. if you don't cover turns then it is offense for the first speaking team.

4) 1ST SPEAKING TEAM: you can extend defense from first rebuttal to final focus but pls try to have some in first summary. I expect at least some defense in 1st summary, especially since there are 3 minutes for the summary now.

5) WEIGHING: even if something is "clean-dropped" you still need to weigh it. I will have a hard time voting on any argument (no matter how cleanly extended) if I am not sure why it's important.

6) ARGUMENTS

A)if you are making an argument about harms to countries that are viewed as "developing" by a western hierarchical perspective, or discussing in your case or in weighing, please be respectful and don't make your own uncarded analysis about the struggles these countries have. I would also prefer not to hear weighing analyses about these countries that mention anything about "these countries have so little" etc.

B) if you are running an implementation/process of getting the bill to the public argument, do so at your own risk. I generally do not find these arguments persuasive or topical, and chances are that if your opponent says I should not evaluate those kind of arguments in a debate round I will drop it from my flow. An example of this is "the united states should not pass ____ because it would be torn up in the courts/loaded with riders."

C) if you are running an econ argument, please be sure to explain it really well in extensions in ff and summary. in my experience, econ rounds are the most difficult to judge because of clarity problems in link extensions and warranting, so make sure you spend time explaining it!

7) EXTENSIONS: don't extend through ink. interact with the argument you are responding to and dont just say "my opponents dropped ___" when they really did not. Frequent issues with extensions through ink lead to lower speaker points and a worse round :(

8) EVIDENCE: I will call for cards you tell me to call for if they are highly important to the debate round. I will also call for any card that seems too good to be true. Evidence ethics is very important and I will intervene if I catch faulty evidence

Email Chain: Geodb8 AT gmail dot com

[…]

Debated in the New York Urban Debate League (Bronx Law) 2008-2014 and the University of Iowa 2014-2019.

Summer Lab leader: 1x ECLI, 1x DDI, 2x NYUDL, 3x Cal Berk, 1x GDI.

Argument assistant: West H.S., McQueen H.S., Lane Tech H.S., and most recently, CSU Long Beach.

General thoughts:

I vote for the team that did the better debating. I default to first weighing the impact calc debate and focus almost exclusively on the flow to determine what arguments to evaluate. I do not like judge intervention and prefer you all successfully determine the best metric to evaluating the debate.

Speaker points:

While speed is completely fine, please do not sacrifice clarity to “get through a card,” it translate to poor spreading and muddles the rest of the speech. Remember to follow your roadmap, allocate time, sign post, and commit to line-by-line refutation. Refrain from disorganization, shadow extensions, and poor rhetorical skills. While all Cross examinations are open, consider they are as important to your speaks as constructives and rebuttals.

Affirmatives:

Whether or not you read a plan is less important than winning offense against a competing strategy, procedural violation, or DA. In short, win that the aff is a good idea/performance/policy implementation.

a) K/Performance AFF’s

I think 1ACs should be tangibly related to the resolution. 1ACs are research projects and yearly resolutions are the result of a research paper written and voted for by the community. Effectively your AFF is a response to community consensus and their underlying assumptions.

K’s

Critiques are arguments based on philosophical inquiries. If you do not know or understand the philosophy you are advancing it will likely show throughout the debate and can negatively effect speaker points. More importantly, I will not fill in gaps for inaccurate or poor-quality arguments. Remember I focus on what’s happening/the flow.

That aside, I am very familiar with philosophies across numerous cannons.

CP’s

Neg has the burden to prove mutual exclusivity, a CP without a net benefit is just another plan and plan plan debate isnt a thing, the permutation will probably win every time.

a) Method debates

While I am sympathetic to “no-perms,” the negative must prove a link greater than omission. The best Counter methods are stylistically, theoretically or methodologically different than the 1AC then generate offense based on those differences.

Procedurals

a) T/FW

Topicality is a debate about words, the (mis)use of them and their importance. T’s appendage, Framework is a heuristic for debate, a vision for how competitors should engage the activity. While the words topicality and framework are used interchangeably a good debater will identity what they are being called to answer/defend so to make more convincing arguments.

i) Framework specific

Limits is an internal link to a terminal impact; K aff counter interpretations should be bound by the resolution; ontology/epistemology arguments are responsive to FW; I usually vote for FW on TVAs, ground, and procedural fairness.

b) Theory

Easiest debates to decide. Difficult debates to execute. Do not go for theory if you aren’t informed of the meticulous refutation you must accomplish to get the ballot. Believe it or not, there was once a time people went for theory their entire final rebuttal. Conversely, ask whether those few seconds amounts to a W or just defense to prevent the other team from winning on theory.

c) Ethics violations:

These are acts or words done by a competitor that deserves ending the debate. Preferably the tournament organizers resolve the alleged issue. This includes card clipping.

Card clipping claims STOP the debate. Note: I am always either following a speaker on my own pc or listening for the last word they say in each card.However, a card clipping violation requires the claimant provides evidence otherwise I will be stuck piecing together what I believe happened as opposed to whatI know happened.

A more subtle way of committing an ethical violation is stealing prep.

I use to steal prep. Only in the sense that I put my plastic podium, laptop, flow, and sent out the email chain after prepping. But the intentional stealing of prep, actively writing materials, organizing speech docs or speaking to your partner is not fair and excessive prep stealing will result in considerable speaker point deductions.

DAs

Quick observation —the community has elected to have these debates in various parts of the flow as opposed to just a DA page. Linear DAs are on an all time high and overlooking these random DAs may cause a card to turn into a viable strat.

DA proper —I subconsciously rely on an offense/defense paradigm on every flow and can follow internal link chains so I am game for traditional DA debates.

En fin

I start deciding who won by organizing my flow in order of importance, I read evidence if contested or heavily relied on, I weigh your arguments against each other and confirm lines can be drawn between speeches so to discern new arguments.

Lastly, I’m usually flowing cross examination. Explain your arguments well, ask good questions and above all, be respectful.

—————————

Notes:

- James Roland an outstanding educator in the activity gave a lecture at the first camp I attended on being a successful Policy Debater: https://puttingthekindebate.wordpress.com/tag/james-rowland/

- Top 5 debate movie: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EacYl00YzZ0

Brenden Lucas

He/Him

Senior @ MoState

Yes email chain: brendentlucas@gmail.com

This is by no means comprehensive, it's just a few highlights to look at when the pairings get blasted.

I did 4 years of CX at Raymore-Peculiar High School, and now do NDT-CEDA at Missouri State

2X NDT Qualifier

My preference is fast, technical policy throwdowns. But, don't let that sway you from doing what you prefer. Do you and I'll adjudicate it.

If you need to use the restroom or step out of the room you don't have to ask.

Disclaimer for HS Topic: I'm not as active in high school coaching as I was last season, I don't really research or think about the topic all that much so watch your use of jargon.

CPs & DAs

I'm a big fan of CP disad debate, most of my HS 2NRs were CP disad.

The way I evaluate a disad doesn't deviate from the norm. Have all four parts and do impact weighing.

Turns case args are very nice

I'm down with most counter plans, especially agent and process. However, "cheating" counterplans like delay will not jive with me so keep that in mind.

I default to judge kick

T

Competiting interps is better than reasonability

Plan text in a vacuum is cool for me

Theory

Deep in my heart, I think condo is good. But, I'm open for a good condo debate. Tbh I prefer affs that limit the neg to 1 or none as opposed to like 1 and dispo or infinite dispo.

Most theory args are reasons to reject the argument, not the team.

K's

I think the topic is generally good and that debates about the topic are also good.

I'm not opposed to K debates, but my limited lit knowledge and liking for framework could make it an uphill battle for you.

I have voted for K affs before, FW is not an auto dub, debate well and you shall be rewarded.

Fairness on framework is a good impact imo.

TVAs are legit

"You link you lose" is nonsense. Teams can win by bitting the link and winning independent offense on the alt, so keep that in mind.

Other

If you read death good, I'm auto-voting against you and giving you the lowest speaks possible.

LD & PFD

I don't have a lot of detailed thoughts for these types of debates. I think they are valuable for students but my judging is policy-focused; so just do what you do best and I will judge accordingly.

GDS RFDs:

R1- voted neg, triggered presumption

R2- the aff had the only offense left

R3- novice round

R6- I voted for a fem k aff against 2NR cap k on no link and risk of aff method solvency in-round

Novice semis - I voted for neg case turns

Novice finals - I voted for a conceded disad

I don't know if people still read these, but if you are here welcome! This is updated for Georgetown Day School 2022.

email chain: uva234@gmail.com

People who's thoughts I generally agree with on debate: Gabriel Koo, Michael Koo, Sooho Park, Viraj Patel, Holden Bukowsky, Patrick Fox, Gabby Lea, Phoenix Pittman, Megan Wu, Evan Alexis, Khoa Pham

I have not been active in debate since the 2021 TOC where I coached and judged. I currently work as an economic analyst for Congress after graduating from UC Berkeley in 2020. Previously, I was active in debate for 8 years as a competitor/judge/coach in Texas and California primarily in national circuit LD. I will be admittedly rusty, but you will have my full attention and focus in round. I know nothing about the topic meta or what arguments are being run, but I am familiar with issues in the topic area. 

If you're doing prefs, I have no preferences for any kind/style of argument. As a coach/judge/competitor, I took a flexible approach in terms of k/policy/other kinds of arguments (You can read below the line to see what specifically I judged and voted for in 2020-21).

Things that will boost your speaks: specific and contextual k or DA links, good strategic decisions, quality evidence, logical advantages and link chains, clear impact calc and weighing, clear explanations of k concepts, taking strategic risks and all or nothing strategies like 26 minutes of framework/one off k or going all in on impact turns or something like condo in the 1AR.

Things that will make me unhappy: Poorly explaining arguments, reading bad evidence, long overviews, more than 3 condo, not collapsing as the round progresses, making me vote on arguments that don't make sense, being mean or dishonest in-round.

Be respectful of those in the room, and best of luck!

(Old paradigm below is LD focused, but left up for transparency)

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

*TOC 2021 running update*

(copied from megan wu's paradigm)

"given that toc is often the last tournament of the year/debaters’ last tournament, and also an unusually stressful tournament, i am happy to honor the wishes you may have about my rfd—i am happy to do anything from giving compliments instead of critique, to only sharing the decision with your opponent, etc. if you want me to do this, please communicate this to me before i begin with the rfd!

enjoy the toc experience—you deserve it!"

I work for the government--better explanations of inter-governmental processes or policymaking would be much appreciated.

R1, F2: Voted for Scarsdale ZS on their moral non-naturalism, intuitions good aff

R3, F1: Voted for Immaculate Heart BC on 1 condo bad.

R4, F1: Voted for American Heritage Broward EM on their contracts/internalism NC.

Conflicts: Garland (TX), Lindale PP, Westlake (TX)

Pref Shortcut: K: 1-2; LARP: 1-2, Phil: 2-4, T/Theory: 3-4, Tricks: Strike

If you'd like to see what rounds/who I've judged, how I voted, my side bias, average speak stats and what kinds of args I've judged, here's a spreadsheet: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1vs4kAHB-mdhbm7QInTPOX-Jp8KAZeO1s7WsGGX1m3fs/edit?usp=sharing

Past 2NRs that I've voted for this year (2020-21):

jan-feb: sgr-a1 PIC w/ korea NB, terror DA + case defense, queer pess k

sep-oct: T-"a", prison abolition k, disability pess k, anti-blackness kritiks [4 times], sortition cp and elections da, a multi-plank voting improvement cp and case turns, presumption

Past 2AR's that I've voted for this year (2020-21):

jan-feb: the aff itself [3 times]

sep-oct: AFC [:(], multiple dispo bad, vague alts bad, ableism independent voting issue on a spec shell, the aff itself [only once though *shockingly*]

I'm going back to (in an attempt to be a better listener in round): a) flowing on paper b) flowing what you say, not the doc c) re-tracing the round using relevant parts of the doc only after the round.

Speaks: I'll default to the tournament's speaker point scale if given, otherwise I'll start at a 28.6 and go up/down from there.

Things that will get you extra speaks:

---Writing my ballot in the 2NR/2AR.

---K 2NR's that have aff-specific links, use specific in-round issues to evaluate the debate, and generally explain the K well.

---Executing an aff-specific LARP strategy with robust argumentation.

---Explaining philosophy well. (I'll be super impressed with this specifically)

---A well-researched and well constructed aff.

---Strategic choices and concessions that get you ahead in the debate.

---Weighing

---An all or nothing strategy and winning it. Examples: a) the 2NR goes all-in on impact turns to the aff and nothing else b) the 1AR straight turns the 1nc's disads c) the 2AR only goes for their Kant framing and precluding all the neg's offense d) the 2AR goes for a 1AR discourse K

Things that will make me unhappy and likely lose you speaks:

---Poorly explaining arguments or reading bad evidence.

---Making me yell clear multiple times

---Going for everything in the 2NR or 2AR

---Making me vote on tricks, a random truth-testing argument, an RVI, or on a theory shell that doesn't pass the common sense test.

---Being mean or saying something awful in-round. [I reserve the right to intervene if what you said is truly awful]

---Long 2NR K overviews.

---Being overly reliant on blocks, or not utilizing the flow/issues that happened in-round.

Some thoughts I have on debate that reflect my thinking and may affect how I judge the round:

1] I prefer to hear smart, well-researched, good quality arguments. The bright line for this is whether or not a school administrator/sponsor would view debate positively after seeing/hearing the argument. This matters because all too often people are willing to vote on illogical, poor quality, or dumb arguments that reduce the value of debate as an activity. I would prefer that debate becomes a stronger and more vibrant activity, and to that end, I will strive as a judge to promote that goal.

2] At the end of the round, I want to only vote for arguments that I can explain back to the debaters. As a judge, I feel that this is only fair so that I can give a coherent RFD and not leave one or both debaters confused and/or angry. That means that in your 2NR or 2AR, you should explain the position/argument that you're going for well, in addition to winning the position/argument on a technical level.

3] Defaults I will use (in the absence of argumentation or being told otherwise):

Framing: Util

Competing Worlds > Truth Testing

Presumption: Neg

Theory paradigm issues: 1AR theory is legitimate, No RVI's, Reasonability, Drop the Argument

T paradigm issues: No RVI's, Competing Interps, Drop the Debater

Role of the Ballot: Vote for the debater who did the better debating.

Role of the Judge: To decide a winner, a loser, and assign speaker points if this is prelims.

4] While the 1AR or 2NR might be time-compressed or skewed strategy-wise, I believe that granting an RVI is not the right correction to make. Instead, reasonability and/or drop the argument make way more sense to me to correct the abuse incurred by skews or frivolous theory shells.

5] I find that unless there is substantial demonstrated in-round abuse, I'm skeptical of voting on theory and tend to think that it's a reason to reject the argument, not the debater.

6] Evidence ethics is a stop the round issue. If a challenge is initiated, I will evaluate it and nothing else in the debate. A successful challenge will result in an L20 for the evidence offender, and an unsuccessful challenge will result in an L20 for the challenge initiator.

Old paradigm (that's still true, but was scrapped for length and being overly complicated): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bxnud-Adkse3iBuHL3LW6WOx-tPHHxUHGVLSLpjTSO0/edit?usp=sharing

I tend to favor speakers who speak a bit slower!

cale@victorybriefs.com or SpeechDrop work

hi! i'm Cale. i've been coaching and judging pf & ld for 8 years. i debated in Texas before that.

general:

- read whatever you like: judging debaters who enjoy what they read is fun. however, keep in mind the coherence of my rfd will scale with your clarity- slow for analytics and tags, send well-organized docs, signpost, and number answers when you can. you'll be much happier with my decision.

- speaks reflect how strategic i found your debating to be. i'll evaluate any style, but admittedly prefer quick, clear debaters that read interesting arguments. (no 30 speaks spike or tko, please)

- i will not 'gut check' or strike an argument just because you've deemed it unwarranted or silly. instead, i encourage you to make an active response- it should be quick to do so if the argument is as underdeveloped as you say.

- extend your arguments. it doesn't have to be exhaustive, but something more than the tag is necessary, even if you think it's conceded.

- keep the round a safe and pleasant place for everyone. i will work hard to give you a thorough decision so long as we can all access the debate and speak about it afterwards without hostility.

- i am not going to use my ballot to make an out-of-round character judgement. if you are concerned your opponent is engaging in genuinely unsafe or violent behavior, a debate decision is not the appropriate means of redress- i will bring it to tab or the relevant party.

ld:

overall- i am best for policy debates, good for theory, worse for phil, and alright for Ks and tricks with some caveats (see below). ultimately, i'd like to judge your preferred strategy, but you will need to be more clear if it's something i'm typically not preffed into the back of. i am only human.

policy- i'll judge kick the counterplan. i lean neg on cp theory claims, and wish the aff would engage in a competition debate rather than read a blippy theory argument, particularly when the 1n is only like 3 off. i am good for your process/consult/intl fiat/etc cp, and, again, wish 1ars would just engage- if you are convinced there is not a discernable net benefit, the argument should be easier to answer. 3 word perms aren't arguments- explain the world of the perm. zero risk exists, and while it is difficult to achieve, it is entirely possible to make an argument's implication so marginal that its functional weight in the round is zero. i really appreciate well-executed impact turn debates, some of my favorite rounds to judge.

theory- no defaults, read w/e you want. always send interps and slow for anything you extemp. far too often in these debates there's no weighing or line by line done on paradigm issues: the 1n reads their theory hedge and vaguely crossapplies it to the 1ac underview, and then all of these arguments just float around in the 1ar and 2n without resolution- please lbl to make judging this tolerable. when going for T, keep in mind i do not actively cut LD prep or mine the wiki, so i don't have a reference point for your caselist or prep-based limits standard- add some explanation.

K- i frequently judge cap arguments, and often judge setcol. external to that, i'm much less experienced- happy to judge it, but i need instruction. please lbl clearly: i find myself most lost in k 2n/2ars when the overview is jargon-heavy and crossapplied everywhere. it is probably useful to know i can count on one hand the number of K v K debates i've been in the back of.

tricks- i often judge truth testing and skep and their associated tricks, but i don't have a deep enough understanding of the argument form to say i'm 10/10 comfortable if you read a nailbomb aff or a bunch of indexicals. in general, delineate in the doc and cross, be super clear abt the collapse strat, and i can vote for these.

phil- i have next to no experience with phil argumentation save for Kant tricks and some pomo (mostly just Baudrillard). need you to slow down and give me extra judge instruction if you're reading anything dense, but happy to learn.

pf:

extend defense the speech after it's answered and be comparative when you're weighing or going for a fw argument. otherwise, read what you think is fun- this includes theory, critical arguments, and other forms less common to PF. two things to add here: 1. don't read an argument just for the sake of it, read it well and 2. i am not amenable to the PF-style 'this argument form is holistically bad' response if we are in the varsity division- engage with substantive responses.

come to round ready to debate (pre-flowed, have docs ready if you're sending them, etc). the only way to frustrate me beyond being rude is to drag out the round by individually calling for a lot of evidence and taking forever to send it.

many PFers spend copious amounts of time impact weighing with multiple mechanisms. more often than not, you are better served reading one simple piece of weighing and investing that time elsewhere- either in more clearly frontlining and extending your case argument, or better implicating a piece of defense or turn on your opponents' case.

TLDR: I debated PF for four years at Whitman. So, I'm probably on the more tech-y side of things. Speed is ok, but no spreading please. If you think I might need a speech doc, it's probably too fast. More details about what I like/don't like in round below.

1. My email is annamcg23@gmail.com - please add me to the email chain :) Also, if you have any questions or if I can do anything to make the round more comfortable for you accommodations-wise, just shoot me an email before round.

2. Big fan of jokes and a sense of humor is much appreciated. That being said, being funny =/= being a jerk. Please don't be super mean/condescending (especially in CX), it won't make me very happy and probably won't make you very happy when you see your speaker points. It should go without saying, but this is especially true for any comments/arguments that are sexist, racist, transphobic, homophobic, ableist etc.

3. I haven't debated since 2017 and haven't judged since 2018. So while I'm familiar with progressive arguments (Ks and theory), it isn't something that was super common in PF when I was debating. So, if you really want to try running it, go for it, but just know I'm really not familiar with these arguments so it may be to your own detriment. That being said, if you think your opponents are being abusive in round, you can just say that--no need to run a shell.

Now Flow/Speech Stuff:

1. If you want me to vote on something in Final Focus, it should be in summary.

2. I don't flow CX, if there's a big *gotcha* in CX, bring it up in a speech.

3. I normally don't call evidence on my own unless something seems particularly hinky. So if you want me to call a card, please mention it (preferably in final!)

4. Pet peeve - every time you say something has been 'conceded' or 'dropped' and it hasn't been, I dock 0.1 speaker points. Consider yourself warned.

Debaters should advocate or reject the resolution in a manner clear to a non-specialist citizen judge. Clash of ideas is essential to debate.

Debaters should display logic and reasoning, advocate a position, use evidence, and communicate clear ideas using professional decorum.

Neither the pro team nor the con team should offer a plan or counterplan, defined as a formalized, comprehensive proposal for implementation. Rather, they should offer reasoning to support a position of advocacy. Debaters may offer generalized, practical solutions.

I am a former Army West Point Debater, 2016 JV/Novice National Champion, 2017 and 2018 NDT Participant, and three-time CEDA DoubleOcta Finalist.

I graduated from West Point in 2019 and have stayed connected to the community.

I will listen to Ks or Policy; just make sure it's warranted. Ultimately, my flow will determine who wins the round, so being efficient and orderly would be beneficial. I flow cross-ex. I enjoy, in the last rebuttals, each side telling me what to look for when determining who wins the round in the overview.

I enjoy good K debates, as I am a K debater! I am very familiar with black studies.

With that being said, whether or not it comes down to methodology or framework debates, it is up to the debaters to explain their evidence.

I won't connect the arguments for you and I expect to hear great articulations to win my ballot. Impact Calculus is always good.

I may or may not vote on T; depends on the answered and unanswered questions.

Speaker Points vary starting at 25. Not in favor of jerks, love comedy. PLEASE make me laugh :)

If you really want me to hear something you say, slow down and tell me so I can flow it. Remember, slow and steady can win races too.

Ks:

ROB is crucial. It is a framing question of how I should view the round. Explain your link story, how it turns the aff, how your alt functions (EXPLAIN your alt-give me something to weigh with the aff and its impacts of the aff), and how it interacts with the aff. If not, i'll have to vote on "perm solves, case outweighs" and other aff solvency claims. For aff, explain what the perm is and what is wrong with framework or whatever. Both sides: Make sure to interact with the other team's evidence. NOT generic blocks.

CPs:

Counterplans are okay. AFF should make any theory arguments that apply.

DAs/Case:

Disads should apply to the AFF. If it is a tricky disad, explain it. Trickiness does not win rounds if I don't understand. Always try to answer case.

Performance/Non-Traditional Debate:

You should explain why your performance is important, how it relates to debate, the resolution, the other team, and me. Don't just dance, sing, play tracks, or whatever and expect me to vote for you.

Theory:

Make your arguments as needed.

I generally take a tabula rasa approach to judging. However, having experience as a former debater, I will not evaluate arguments that are blatantly incorrect or offensive. I will normally disclose but If you want a good oral critique, then be willing to get roasted.

In the round:

• I need impact calculus with comparative analysis in the final speeches, otherwise I’ll be forced to evaluate your arguments myself which will likely not be as favorable for you.
• Don’t extend through ink.
• I only weigh arguments in the final focus if they were also in your summary.
• Don’t go for everything past the rebuttal. Employ strategic issue selection and tell me what the important voters are and why you are winning them.

 Arguments:

• I’m fine with most arguments but if you choose to go progressive (kritiks, theory, etc.) do it right, don’t butcher it, and stick to the procedurals.
• Framework is not an essential part of public forum. That being said if you choose to read a framework, utilize it because I will vote off it.

Delivery:

• I’ll give extra speaks for a tastefully savage remark. This is NOT an invitation to be rude which I have no tolerance for.
• When it comes to your rate of delivery, I’m fine with whatever but be sure not to sacrifice clarity for speed.
• I don’t flow cross so don’t get upset if I’m not writing while you and your opponent compete to talk over each other. This means that if you want me to account for an argument, you need to bring it up in a speech.

Contact info: Jess, They/She, jessodebato@gmail.com

Speech drop > Email

Quick Version :p

1 = Strike me; 10 = Pref me

Tech over Truth

K-Debate & LARP = 10

Phil = 9

Topicality = 8

Theory = 6

Trix = 2

Long Version :/

Experience:

- Queer+ Blasian

- Policy, LD, and NFA-LD (college LD).

- Read phil and k

I am a queer Asian/Black person. To be objective, requires me to acknowledge my social location. I read Reid-Brinkley’s essay on Debate and racial performance last summer and was struck by so many things that were purely true. I want those in debate to not have to perform something that they are not. Being a black debator doesn’t mean you have to read Afro pess or a queer debator doesn’t mean you have to focus only on queer issues. But in the flip side, I see how insidious debate is with the privileging of extinction level impacts that continuously abstract debators from the resolution and their embodiment. This is where I come into debate as a judge, educator, and learner — please feel free to perform as you would like to, your bodies, minds, and wishes precede those of what is expected of you to get the ballot. Being Tabula rasa, to me, means to be anything but a blank slate, it requires understanding a multiplicity of difference that integrally affects how I adjudate the round - “the thing then becomes it’s opposite”, subjectivism turns to objectivism.

Current paradigm (2022-current) ~~~~

Preferences are 1 (low) - 10 (high pref). X marks the spot.

Stock/Util affs: 1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-X-10

Notice how I put stock “LARP” affs on the same level as K affs. I think I have equally voted for both styles of argumentation equally. I have seen some fantastic Stock affs that fundamentally interact with K’s and explain the K’s theory of power better than they do. It’s not about what kind of argument, but how you have weaved what you are defending to attack your opponents stuff. For example, I watched an stock gun control aff hit a queer rage aff, whereas the gun control aff used the theory of criminalization of urban areas to impact turn social death - that absent threat of force, the criminalization of entire populations in urban areas, which include queer people would have no justification.

Kritiks/K-Affs: 1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-X-10

I love K debate that is explained well! Give me good links, clever argumentation that interacts with your opponents arguments/assumptions! I love queer pess, Afro pess, historical materialism ~ new developments in K lit. As long as you make your arguments apparent and not obscure to the point that your opponent doesn’t know what’s going on, then we’ll be good.

Theory: 1-2-3-4-5-6-X-8-9-10

I will and have voted on topicality before, but I also understand how FW debate has been used to silence alternative styles of debating. What this means is that I’ll evaluate T on offense/defense - as long as you give me a clear picture about why the standards are important to fairness/education and how these benefits outweighs any of the aff’s impact turns on the T she’ll, then we’ll be good.Please don’t be blippy - T debate often happens like so, just make it clear and It’ll do you lots of good.

I’m open to lots of diff t stuff - such as the Reid-Brinkley Three tiered process stuff that’s going around, accessibility arguments, disclosure.

DA/CP: 1-2-3-4-5-6-X-8-9-10

I was taught stock policy by this one funny norfolk mentor, who always ranted about the Stock issues With that being said, I’ll evaluate CP/DA akin to how policy debators in the past have debated it. I’m cool with that.

Trix: X-1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10

Trix are anti-educational - due to an over focus on semantics that is exclusionary to ELL debators, and a heavy emphasis on technique that is exclusionary to debators with dis/abilities, I won’t evaluate trix.

Okay so note on spreading - there’s a distinction between speed reading and spreading that is found on the nat circuit. I’m leaning more towards pretty quick speed reading - I may miss things if you spread. Most of all make sure your opponent isn’t excluded in your in round practices. I used to hate spreading because of not being able to understand things, but now listening to circuit debators I really think it’s just a clarity thing cuz debators were just not being clear.

Old Paradigm (2019-2021)~~~~~~~~

policy read this -

I'm cool with k's/k aff's/or very stock policy debate.

I have a leaning towards K's, but equally said, I love it when stock policy aff's have substantial meaningful engagment with K. I'll vote for a da, t, really whatever you give me. Sorry this is short, but i can answer more questions and also i forgot to write a paradigm.

If you were to read anything on my paradigm please look at these three things first.

1) No spreading at all. Here's why: Debate has become a hyper-competitive activity. Debaters don’t get better at uncovering the truth or debating, they become better at winning debates. The hyper-competitiveness of debate has pushed the development of itself toward a technique-orientation. In the final analysis, the rounds are not about the truth and passion of your arguments, it’s about how many arguments you can put down, how fast you debate, analytical tricks you hide in your case, and your ability to extemp answers on the spot. This high standard of professionalism and prioritization of technique over truth leads to an exclusionary space. It constantly skills checks debators – excluding debators with disabilities and shutting out truthful arguments that don’t conform to norms. As a judge, I am obligated to disincentive ableism in all its manifestations. I want to change my community for the better. Although spreading is a norm in both LD and Policy, in order for debate to be a truly educational and inclusive space I must be diametrically opposed to it. Moreover, spreading excludes debators who don't speak english as a first language. I had many friends who weren't considered "successful" in this activity because they couldn't keep up. With this in mind, I am wholly truth over technique. Even if you don't word an argument in the most fluent way, I will still give it credence when I see you try your best to explain something to the fullest. What matters to me in debate, is not how many arguments you can dish out, but how you carry through with your arguments, how you defend them, and how you develop them within the round.

2) I have a high standard for quality of evidence. If you read to me a bunch of extinction impacts with highly suspect warrants, I will, on face, throw the impacts away. Here's why: Extinction impacts have become oversaturated in the debate space in both policy and LD. Once again we return to the topic on how debate has become a hypercompetitive activity - it's easy to win off extinction impacts when you can prove the tiniest bit of a risk, even if there is little or no connection between the resolution and the actual terminal impact. This trend in debate suffocates the real and harmful oppression impacts that affects a plethora of disadvantaged groups. In so far as low probability extinction impacts could always be used to make light of tremendously harmful oppression concerns, I have the obligation as an educator to view them with more scrutiny. My requirement is this - in order to have me evaluate your extinction impact you must have tremendously high uniqueness and deliver to me a crystal clear scenario-link chain. I will be flowing every single sentence of your warrant.

3) If you are gonna make a bunch of turns and analytics, they must be as clear as day. I want your arguments to be fully developed. Please explain fully how something is a turn, rather than merely labeling it as one. If these turns and analytics aren't sufficiently warranted I won't be able to evaluate them.

LD Debate -

General: I try my best to vote off what I hear in round and to minimize my biases. Even though debate is competitve, be cordial with eachother. Hostility is anti-education and I will intervene if I have to. Genuine engagement with your evidence (don't card dump!) and one another is really important to me.

V/C: I evaluate the round through whatever ethical lens you give me. That can be value/criterion, standard, R.O.B, etc.

Tricks: Blippy arguments make me sad :(.

Affirmative: I think debates are better when Affs are resolutional, but am open to kritial affs.

Topicality: I have a higher threshold in terms of actual abuse, but the opponent has to give reasons as to why potential abuse is bad. I'll vote for topicality based on what ya'll bring to the table.

Kritiks: Those are fine as long as they are coherent. Explain your link, impact, and alternative well to your opponent.

Feel free to contact me if you have any questions!

PF Debate -

As an educator my role is to make sure the debate space is inclusive. I will take actions to ensure racist, sexist, anti-LGBT, and ableist arguments be not condoned within the round.

Framework - If you don't provide any, I'll assume cost-benefit analysis.

Extensions - Make sure your extensions are crystal clear and not blippy. If you want me to evaluate an argument it should be sufficiently explained.

Final focus and summary - Arguments that are presented in the summary should be consistent throughout the whole round. Make sure the arguments that you are going for in the summary exists in your final focus too.

Impact crystalization - Make sure you clearly crystalize the impacts of the round and weigh it against your opponents.

Hi!

I am the parent of two debaters and I am a research economist. I have no debate experience, but I have watched quite a few PF debates and judged a handful.

Some things you should know:

Please don't go too fast. I'm ok with a bit over conversational but if you overdo it I will lose you.

I will take notes throughout the debate, but it won't exactly be a flow.

I will disclose at the end of the round, unless there is a tournament rule against it.

In PF, you should be able to convince a layperson of an argument. I will try my best not to have my personal opinions influence the debate and I will try to just evaluate the strength of an argument, but I am not a tech judge. Usually arguments that make it for me are logically consistent and have some solid empirical backing. If you use jargon, there is a risk I will not understand it and it would not help you very much.

I will not evaluate any arguments that are made in final focus but are missing from the summary. Use your final focus to distill the whole debate in a simple reason of why I should vote for you.

I value high-quality evidence so I might call for cards at the end of the round. I am aware of the speaker points convention and, unless you do something really unusual, will not go below 27.

Keep your own timing, and most importantly, enjoy your round!

I am a lay judge. Please explain your arguments clearly and convincingly.

Also please be respectful to your opponents. I admire debaters who are convincing yet humble. I also appreciate a good sense of humor.

I am a parent/lay judge.

Please speak SLOWLY, I will not understand quick speeds.

I will try to vote off of argumentation so please make the argument you are going for very clear by Final Focus.

I am a parent judge with some experience. I will take a lot of notes, but I do not “flow”. Please be respectful of each other during the debate. Please speak slowly enough to be understood. You have done your research and worked hard on your case, but I can only give you credit if I can understand what you are saying. Fast arguments challenge my ability to follow you. I will expect teams to keep their own time. I would recommend quality arguments over quantity.

I hope you have fun. Good luck and have a great round.

I debated Public Forum for Edgemont Debate for five years.

My biggest pet peeve is when debaters say they are going to weigh and then don't give a comparative analysis. The point of weighing is to give me a couple sentences I can put on my RFD and vote off of. Please don't give me blanket statements such as we win on magnitude, that doesn't do anything for me. Tell me why your higher magnitude impact matters more than their higher scope impact.

Warrant. Please. Cards without warrants don't mean anything, and every argument does not need a card. I am much more likely to buy an argument with logical warranting than a card that just gives me a statistic.

Collapsing is good. Winning more offense doesn't make you more likely to win the round. I'll be much happier if I get one piece of offense with great warranting and weighing as opposed to getting three impacts and four turns with minimal warranting and rushed weighing.

I'm good with speed so long as you are articulate. If you mumble or slur your words while going really fast I will most likely end up flowing something wrong. That's on you.

I base my speaks predominately on how strategically affective your speeches were (how the speech helps you win the round/did you flow through ink etc). If you win the round for your team in rebuttal I'm giving you a 30.

I reserve the right to drop speaker points, or drop your team entirely, based off of any unsportsmanlike conduct. This includes, but is not limited to, misconstruing evidence and offensive behavior. Just be nice people.

For LD:

I have debated exactly 0 LD rounds, so please keep that in mind. I get the basics of LD and I have judged a few rounds, but if you are running something nuanced that you think I might not grasp, I'd rather you over explain it than under explain it.

Siva Sambasivam

<< if you can explain the meaning of the two coins above, I'll start your speaks at a 29 (unless u do smth problematic in round) >>

siva.m.sambasivam@gmail.com

Saratoga High '20; started circuit debate my junior year - I qualified to TOC, NCFL, NSDAs, and California States, and reached the TOC autoqual level at both NCFLs and Nats, my junior and senior year respectively. I now privately coach a few teams around the circuit, and run the Delta Debate Academy. My teams have won TOC and t5'd NSDA Nats, so I should be able to keep up with whatever type of panel you have.

Debate is a game, play to win.

Debate is an educational activity, play fair.

TLDR: Tech > Truth, please warrant args and do comparative analysis, I’ll vote for anything. I can handle pretty much whatever you wanna throw at me, I think I'm a pretty good judge. except if you are Zach Yusaf - only two times I've ever squirreled were against him, so if you're hitting Hackley, free ballot for you :))

Most importantly, I appreciate debaters that are technically sound, but debate without ignoring the persuasive element of the activity - i.e. don't spam args in the back-half knowing that I'll be ABLE to sort through the flow, because I'd rather have my decision be simple.

Also, please make the round pleasant - nothing I hate more than spending time on a weekend watching kids get mad at each other. It's just debate; not that deep.

Standing Conflicts: F.C. B.A.L.L. Prep Group (Foothill AD, Centennial BN, Brentwood HM, Bergen KC, Anderson BC, La Salle GN, Lynbrook RG) + Seven Lakes LW

For 2021 TOC:

• You should be disclosed at TOC - speaks boost if you do. That said, my threshold for any theory (disclosure or paraphrase) is super high here, because I really don't want to drop a team at TOC on theory.
• Getting a 29+ from me at this tournament is super easy: 1. don't take more than 1:30 to pull up any given card your opponent calls for, 2. don't steal prep (I know this one is tough for PF teams), 3. don't interrupt someone in cross.
• For online debate: Please send docs for case and rebuttal if you are going fast or reading something that's not stock - my zoom/NSDA campus cuts out often. Feel free to turn off export options or unshare me right after, I have no desire to take your prep, I just don't want to mess up a decision because someone cut out.
• If y'all are cool with this, let's skip grand cross and take it as 1:30 of prep. Gcx begs people to interrupt each other and bring up new responses or new wEiGHiNg to arguments. You can have it if you want - but know I'll probably be listening to Juice or Cudi rather than the yelling match going on.

------

What has four letters,

Never has five letters,

Occasionally has twelve letters, and

Sometimes has nine letters.

------

Now the juicy stuff:

• I will only intervene under two conditions: 1. If a team is skewed out of the round technically or accessibility is compromised. Keep debate safe and fun - read trigger warnings, send docs, etc (more on this below). 2. There is absolutely 0 weighing done - then I'll do my own impact calc because I really don't want to presume.
• If you haven't had me before: As a debater, my favorite judges on the circuit were Cale McCrary, Riley Shahar, John Nahas, Cara Day and Conrad Palor - This would have been my ideal 5 judge panel, and a lot of my paradigm is based on theirs, so I'll evaluate rounds most similarly to them.
• It's my job to adapt to you. Let me know if there's anything I can do to make the round more accessible and feel free to ask paradigm questions before round.
• Postround as hard as you feel like. I’ll continue the conversation for as long as you want (even after the tournament), unless I think it’s going in circles.
• Second rebuttal must frontline turns and respond to weighing, if you wish to contest them. Otherwise, they are conceded, with full strength of link. Don't try some wand-waving in summary, it's a waste of your time. First summary only needs to respond to arguments that second rebuttal interacted with. (If second rebuttal doesn't respond to defense, you can backline it in first final focus). I'm willing to buy arguments that second rebuttal needs to FL everything.
• I will ALWAYS disclose my decision and give an RFD, whether the tournaments bans it or not (pls don't snitch on me). I used to hate it when I didn't get a decision/feedback, especially from flow judges, because it prevented me from making mid-tournament adjustments. I think not getting judges' feedback gives a significant advantage to schools who can have coaches watch the round, and I want to level the playing field. Feel free to message me on facebook during or after the topic if you have any questions or want feedback/advice.
• The only time I expect disclosure is if you read a pre-fiat argument with discourse as an impact. If you don't, it's not an auto-L, but disclosing is a way to show me that you are not commodifying my ballot. This also means I'm inclined to buy disclosure theory in this type of situation - I hate people running arguments like these just for ballots. I think it's great if you actually care, though, because debate can be used to bring awareness and force people to research/understand arguments they previously wouldn't have.

Come to the round already preflowed & coinflip done pls unless you have a paradigm question

| LINE BY LINE | SIGNPOST | EXTEND ARGS | SUMMARY TO FF CONSISTENCY | HAVE FUN |

-General-

• Please extend your link story with warrants in the back half - one exception: if a certain part of your argument is conceded, I don't NEED that part. For example, if you read in case a warrant for nuclear war -> extinction, I don't need that warrant extended in the back-half if it's conceded. Remember, if it is conceded, I don't NEED this, but I'd prefer it. If your entire arg is conceded, I still need at the least the link and impact. Debate is about efficiently and persuasively articulating arguments - if you don't do that in the back-half I'll be hesitant to vote for you, and your speaks will take a hit.
• Cool with anyone speaking in cross, I don't see a reason why every cross shouldn't just have everyone involved, ESPECIALLY in rounds with pre-fiat and apriori arguments.
• Please send a speech doc if it's either, A: above 350 wpm (cards) or B: above 275 wpm and a lot of paraphrasing and blippy analytics. As my old coach would say: I'll probably be fine without a speech doc, but it won't help you when I get distracted for 0.2 seconds and miss your 12 rOuNd WiNnInG TuRnS. I think speed is good for the activity, just try your best not to be exclusionary.
• Speaker Point boost for disclosing - I think disclosing is good but I also have a very high threshold for disclosure theory and paraphrase theory because I don't believe teams should be *forced* to disclose. That said, I do believe it is a good practice and it does put you at a disadvantage, so let me know before constructive that you disclose, and I'll add 1 pt to speaks.
• TKO (Technical Knockout) Rule: if you believe your opponent has 0 path to the ballot as long as you properly extend arguments, not just a small probability chance (they drop a warranted and extended ROTB and a clean link and they don’t have an external link into your ROTB, for example), you can call a "TKO" and the round ends early. If you're right, you win and get 30s. If you're wrong, you lose and get 20s.
• For the second speaking team, no new final focus analysis is allowed unless it is responsive to new first final focus arguments.
• If you think there is something missing from my paradigm, ask me before round or make an argument in round for why I should follow a certain rule when judging.

-Substance-

• DAs in second rebuttal: Here's the deal. Most of y’all accidentally do this anyway cause people don’t read proper "link turns" or "impact turns". That's fine. However, let’s make sure these are all warranted and implicated. Remember, warrants make arguments, implications make responses. Also don't just read disads, sprinkle in some analytics. Like, if your rebuttal is “oN ThEiR CaSe - iTs GoNnA sTaRt wiTh An OvErViEw.... COnTeNtIOn FoUr Is..." then please abstain. I already said I’m cool with speed, read your 12 contentions in constructive. Let's make rebuttal somewhat responsive.
• Hidden arguments are fine as long as they have warrants.
• Summary - this is BY FAR the most important speech in the round. I know other judges are willing to do this, even some of the best, but I will not vote for a team with a second speaker that ghost extends stuff into final focus. I won’t do that. Please extend your arguments well in summary. I also find the warrants for defense and turns go away by summary for a lot of teams - my rule about not voting for unwarranted arguments still applies to these. Even if you are winning 5 pieces of conceded terminal defense, if a warrant isn't extended, then I won't buy any of the defense.
• sTrEnGtH oF LiNk meta weighing is the new "clarity of impact". I won't vote for it absent a very well developed warrant. Even if you do warrant it, I think it's stupid. This is pretty much a "trick" read by techy teams to skew another team out of the round. If someone reads it on you - here are 4 responses: 1. It destroys education because it encourages people to avoid impact calculus, which is key to real-world policymaking, 2. It also encourages people to extend tons of blippy defense through ink because frontlines are rarely terminal, as opposed to interacting with arguments, which is key to in-depth education, and 3. It discourages warranted link comparison, like historical precedent or uniqueness comparison, which is more applicable to the real world, and 4. If you win your argument, you also have 100 percent strength of link. Read these 4 responses and it'll probably take out the SoL metaweighing, if not serve as an independent reason to drop your opponents for setting bad norms (if you make this implication, obviously). I would absolutely love a team to drop if you win any of these. However, if you don't read these responses, I won't have any sympathy for you, because you should be reading paradigms before round.

-Weighing-

There are two ways I can comfortably vote for you: you either nuke them on the flow, meaning you just win the arguments indisputably and weighing isn’t needed, or you properly weigh. You'll likely have a better time in the latter category. With that:

PLEASE PLEASE WEIGH. Comparative and INTERACTIVE weighing specifically.

Carded weighing and framing are great. Meta weighing is awesome. Link comparison is even better.

• Weighing is not spamming random buzzwords. Weighing is not "OuR EcOn aRg OuTwEiGhS tHEiR LiVeS aRg On ScOpE." Do impact calc, and actually responsive impact calc (not just scope, magnitude, reversibility, timeframe, etc). While I do appreciate this traditional weighing, I would obviously prefer interactive and comparative analysis - i.e. link-ins, pre-reqs, short-circuits. I'm inclined to reward good internal link debate.
• Just a piece of advice: disguise link turns here (i.e. if you are winning an Econ argument and you’ve conceded a war link, just give reasons why a bad economy link turns war and why it outweighs on probability for example). This is also a great way to get back in the round if you drop something big. But also don’t read new substantive link turns as “weighing” - there’s a difference and I’ll catch it.
• Weighing that is not responded to in the next speech is conceded - that doesn’t mean you can’t do more analysis on it (i.e. linking into that weighing or reading a pre-req) but if the actual warrant on any weighing is dropped, it is conceded.
• "Probability" is not weighing on the impact level. If an argument is won, the probability is high. You can do strength of link weighing, but ultimately anything you say is "probability weighing" is just impact defense that needs to come in rebuttal. The only time that I’ll evaluate probability weighing is if it’s new comparative analysis done on the link level between multiple arguments that could not have come in rebuttal.
• Clarity of impact is not weighing unless you warrant why it is weighing (and there are ways to do this, ask me in round if you want) - but just saying that you have a number and your opponents don’t is a stupid way to look at debate, and encourages zero interaction and zero comparative analysis - I’m never going to vote on it absent a warrant. If you make a claim that your opponents don’t have impact contextualization, then sure, I’m more likely to vote for you, but pls pls pls don’t let cLaRiTy oF iMpAcT be your “weighing” in the round. Same thing with "uniqueness" weighing.

• Do meta weighing and link weighing - if two teams both have links into an impact (which should happen in high-level rounds) - do link comparison. (Strength of link, historical precedent, uniqueness, probability). In my career I always HATED when judges intervened with their own thoughts about which warrant or link “made sense” - I’ve had this happen in super late elimination rounds at bid tournaments. If I’m in this scenario I will 100 percent not intervene - it is your fault for not giving me reasons for why your warrant is better even if everyone can agree it “makes more sense” - So, if everyone has extended warrants into the same argument and there is no terminal defense from either side, I’ll default to (in order):

  • Which argument has less mitigatory defense (Strength of Link)
  • If there's any empirics read on the argument
  • Whoever is winning the uniqueness picture (since that makes it more likely that your link has a larger magnitude and greater SoL)
  • I’ll prefer a carded link over an analytical link turn
  • Remember, these are all easy ways to compare links, along with evidence comparison, that should be said in round, but if nobody says anything, this is how I’ll evaluate competing links.

-Theory-

TLDR: Default RVIs and reasonability, don't skew teams out of round with this

• I really hate teams being exclusionary with theory but here are my bright lines so there is something that is concrete -
• If a team is qualified to the GOLD TOC, they should be able to handle theory shells.
• If you are at a Round Robin, the same goes.
• If you are one round past the bid level at a tournament (i.e. sems at a quarters bid) go for it.
• Otherwise, I'd prefer if you didn't read theory, but if you must: go slow, no jargon, and paragraph form.
• If reading theory against a team that can handle it structure it properly and go as fast as you want. I’m cool with meta-theory. Do weighing between the shells.
• As a side note, if I’m on a panel, please only read your shell if all the judges can handle it. I hate teams reading theory and then getting the benefit of doubt from the judges that don’t know what they are doing. This also means I’m inclined to vote on a shell saying you can only read theory if judges all expressly say they can evaluate it.
• I default to RVIs unless told otherwise. Also, because theory is not a common argument, I default reasonability so that teams that are new to theory can respond to it like a regular argument. I will not drop a team if they responded to the shell adequately, but didn't know exactly what a "counterinterp" was. I'm more than down to default competing interps, but please (1) explain what they are for your opponents and (2) give me a WARRANT as to why.

• THIS is IMPORTANT - If you read no RVI’s - I do NOT believe winning no RVIs turn your shell into no-risk offense. I've heard from people that this is a hot button issue in policy as well right now, and because theory is still relatively new to PF, norms for theory debates are still being set. My stance on this is pretty simple - I've had theory debates (especially back when I didn't understand theory as well) where the warrants for an RVI never actually held up to what the judges considered an "RVI". For example:

  • I believe that if someone is winning a link turn on your shell (not reasons to prefer a competing interp) but a link turn - i.e. you read time skew bad and they say time skew good because it fosters critical thinking, an RVI does not get you out of that unless you explicitly explain why your RVI should preclude link turns. Like if your warrant for no RVI's is that it is illogical because you shouldn't win for proving that you are fair/educational - that isn't responsive to time-skew good, right, because their argument is that they are being comparatively more fair/educational than you.
  • (Chilling effect could be responsive, but you need to explain why) You can also read defense to your own shell/standards to get out of it, I think conditionality is fine.

Basically, theory is always more exclusionary than substance, so if we use jargon, let's not conflate what that jargon means.

If responding to theory/you’re reading my paradigm rn and worried some tech lord is gonna go 89 off on you, not to fret, just treat theory like any arg (logically) and you should be good ... this isn't an excuse to undercover it though.

-Tricks/K’s-

• Ks. I prefer util debate. That said, I've read and debated basic K stuff so if you wanna read a K and that's your topic strat, I won't change that or penalize you for it. Just please be really clear and explicit and explain stuff well. Once again, if you are hitting a team that doesn't understand it, please be extra slow. I just say I prefer util because I'm less likely to make a bad decision/have to intervene for yall.
• I’m definitely chill with forms of epistemological/deontological weighing, I think these aren't read well by teams and are often underutilized.
• Tricks - just don't. If you are thinking about reading tricks with me in the back, you'll probably win substance anyway, so just do that, please. If you REALLY want to, tell your opponents 30 minutes before the round, and disclose the tricks if they ask.

-Speaks-

• Speaks are subjective - If you are funny, chill and disclose - you’ll prolly get good speaks.
• To give you a gauge on what I like - My favorite debaters stylistically were Matt Salah, Max Wu, Gabe Grodan, and Ezra Khorman.
• Be calm and slow, or dominant and assertive, I don't care - I'm happy to give great speaks to both if you execute properly.
• I know I have implicit biases, so I’ll do my best to counteract them while giving speaks.
• 30 speaks shell: Please don't read this. I think it’s read by predominately male teams and it further hurts womxn, gm’s, and minorities in the activity. As I said, I’ll try to prevent any action on my implicit biases but I won’t vote for this argument, because I do think this fosters exclusionary practices.

-Other-

Formal clothes are stupid - pull up in whatever you want. Make the round chill.

CX: I don’t listen. That said concessions in cross, obviously, can be leveraged.

I don’t like calling cards because I don’t like intervening. I will only call a card if a) you tell me to in a speech and give me a reason to do so, b) I actually just can’t make a decision without seeing it, or c) your representation of the card changes as the round progresses

-Two quick things-

I know you want to win and debate can get super heated and competitive. Trust me, I was never known for being nice in round. But at the end of the day, even if you can’t see it now, you are going to value this activity for the connections you’ve made and the people you meet, not for the nice trophy you get with a horse on top of it. Instead of making enemies, try to be chill and create friendships with the people you debate.

I know lots of schools don’t have many resources or coaching. If you are in this boat - feel free to ask me for help/advice after round, or even after the tournament. I dealt with this for a while and I know, it sucks. We’ll never fully fix the inequities in debate but the least that I can do is try my best. :)

If you’ve gotten this far in my paradigm, I have quite a bit of respect for you. I used to stalk paradigms to learn more about debate, so I love people that read paradigms in their entirety. Let me know that you made it here before round, just pm me in the zoom chat, and you'll get a speaks boost.

I debated for Bronx Science for (almost) four years, and I'm now at NYU Tisch studying Drama. I'm a technical judge, but lay debate is perfectly fine for me! For more specifics:

For starters, disclose your case and speech docs to me at sarmad@bxscience.edu. I have autism, processing info can be hard, so please send me stuff to make my job easier. Please send your case as soon as you get your pairing.

- First rebuttal can extend into final focus. If something was frontlined, though, I expect to hear defense on it.

- I love probability weighing, and I'm inclined to have a low threshold for responses to high magnitude, low probability impacts.

- I care about truth value, don't run something objectively false and think I'll buy it when it's extended just because I'm tech. Tech > truth as a practice is intellectually dishonest and I think that judges need to stop valuing it.

- Please have a narrative.

- The only progressive stuff I can handle is theory in the case of abuse. You must disclose that you're going to read it.

Keep my flow clean. I shouldn't have to do any work in making a decision. Be organized in your speeches.

- Collapse!!!

- Warrant + Weigh = Win (Ty Tenzin <3)

- I HAVE NO TOLERANCE FOR ARGUMENTS THAT ARE RACIST, ANTISEMITIC, ISLAMOPHOBIC, SEXIST, HOMOPHOBIC, TRANSPHOBIC, ABLEIST, OR WHITE FEMINIST. RUNNING THESE ARGUMENTS WILL RESULT IN 20 SPEAKS AND AN AUTOMATIC LOSS. DEBATE IS NOT A SPACE FOR THAT TYPE OF BEHAVIOR, NOR SHOULD IT BE.

- I hate America First frameworks, I will drop you or give you low speaks if you run them, with some exceptions.

- I pay attention in cross, but don't flow it.

- I don't look at cards unless you ask me to.

I will always make an effort to give an oral RFD, but will write it down if pressed for time. Feel free to ask questions, but don't argue with me.

Include both emails please: Uhhbeessaidhi@gmail.com; Dukesdebate@gmail.com

Important Things To Consider:

Slow down and be clear. Especially in your rebuttals. Do not speed through your blocks or analytics, as I am an okay flow at best. I recommend including your analytics in your Speech Docs. Tell me why you have won at the top of the 2NR & 2AR and prove it throughout the rest of your speech i.e. make it easy for me to identify what your strongest reason for winning is. Try to put together the story of the debate at the end, otherwise if I have to, then the decision may not be the one you agree with.

Decision

I evaluate the case first. Does the aff solve its impacts, Aff solvency is paramount. In general, I/Ls are the weakest points of affs and DA's. They also are the strongest points when not well contested. So i would look at internal link D and impact D as well as internal link turns first. Regardless of the aff, there is almost never 100% risk of the internal link chain being true, its always probabilistic.

After that I try to find out if the neg has a way for me to filter out Aff offense/solvency. This means I try to determine whether the neg has a counterplan that solves the aff advantages or a k solves case claim. Other things I'd look for is whether the Neg offense turns the Aff offense. Remember that if you go for a case turn, you need uniqueness or else its just defense.

Next I see what the neg's impacts are for their K, DA or case turns. Again, Links and internal links matter. Rarely is the impact the thing that makes it or breaks it. Things to consider here are whether the magnitude of the internal link and the links are high. Inevitability arguments can be quite powerful. Additionally, I am in the camp that whether the uniqueness determines the direction of the link or other way around is fundamentally context dependent. Elections may hinge on a big link because things are muddled now. Lastly, there is the impact level. Turns case args are always well appreciated. They can really neutralize an aff and make debates easy. Impact comparison is obviously helpful; keep an eye out for strategic concessions you can use off of impact defense.

Topicality

I prefer affs that have some relationship to the topic and that generally means more than just adding a couple words from the resolution into your 1AC. That relationship can be debated though. If you are not topical I would prefer to see you provide unique insights about the topic that traditional policy affirmatives miss. I am unlikely to be persuaded that debating topicality is the worst kinds of violence. It might be a very serious problem. You can win impact turns in front of me about why T is a problem, explain your metaphors and have in depth reasons and examples that contextualize how topicality mirrors or causes the problems you highlight. Limits is the internal link I tend to be most persuaded by. Topical versions of the Aff are big for me that actually make inroads into solving harms identified by the affirmative.

Clash Debates

Not likely to be convinced Ks shouldn't be allowed in debate. Winning framework i.e. Util vs structural violence is huge to how I filter out the Impacts of the debate round. I/L turns are important. Affs that make inroads into solving harms the K has identified helps to tip the scales. The Alt does not necessarily have to solve in order for me to vote on a K but it does leave the negative in a tenuous position that the Affirmative should take full advantage of. I am not likely to vote outright on presumption or you link you lose. If you make well evidenced and developed impact claims from the links you win is a different story. Ks that win the "theory" of their critique on a metaphysical/ontological level but do not apply how that alters or shapes the specific impact/solvency scenario the affirmative is narrating can leave the negative in a vulnerable spot. On the flip side, affirmatives should try to take full advantage of how their unique scenario/solvency mechanism overcomes or blunts the link to the critique.

Theory

Slow down. If you're expecting me to evaluate two teams reading blocks at each other at top speed, I am not the judge for you. In these instances, if I do not have the arguments flowed, it will be a lot harder to win theory debates on technical concessions in front of me. Textually AND functionally competitive counterplans AND advantage counterplans are legitimate to me. Otherwise I tend to be a bit less forgiving for CPs that are not both. Having a CP solvency advocate, especially a good one is something that would go a long way in how I view the legitimacy of the CP, not a prerequisite but certainly a boost for you. Unless theory is outright dropped or mishandled I wouldn't make it your A strategy in front of me.

rifatrehman@hotmail.com for the email chain.

I am a parent judge for Mount Si High School, and have been judging locally for 3 years.

A few things to keep in mind:

-Arguing for debate is healthy. Arguing for arguments' sake is not.

-Please be respectful and considerate. Don't be abrasive or cocky.

- Your argumentation should be logical.

-Extend all your arguments. I like a healthy clash.

-List out voters, and weigh.

-Please speak clearly.

-If you take too long to find a card, I’ll start running your prep.

This paradigm is time tested, and daughter approved!

Background: I was an LD debater for four years (2005-2009) and competed at Nationals my junior year. I coached LD for four years at summer camp (Nebraska Debate Institute) and coached policy for the Urban Debate League in St. Louis for two years during college (2009-2011). I coached for West Lafayette Jr/Sr High in Public Forum for two years (Fall 2018-Spring 2020). In between, I earned a PhD from Purdue University (October 2020) in Rhetoric & Composition, specifically in Theory and History.

General: I have judged everything from TOC/circuit rounds to a tournament in the homeschool league, so I am familiar with most styles of debate. However, I skew traditional. I prefer good speaking that doesn't go too fast, good impact weighing, and topicality. World comparisons/analysis in final speeches impress me. For me, the ability to see the larger picture and contextualize all the arguments in the round demonstrates advanced debate skills. This is why I tend to weigh final rebuttal speeches heavily - if you've won that speech, you've won the round.

Do good signposting. Weigh impacts. Tell me what it means that you've won an argument. Cards don't make arguments, debaters do.

__________________________________________________________________________________________

Lincoln Douglas: Please make framework and standards debate important. They are weighing mechanisms that help judges adjudicate and prioritize impacts in the round, and can be strategically used to block out your opponent's arguments. And, simply winning your standard doesn't count as a voting issue; if you win your standard, you must then link your impacts to your standard. If you win your standard, but your opponent links to it better, then your opponent wins the round. FW/standards is also an opportunity to really explore and apply philosophical concepts.

Don't debate framework if you both basically agree on what it is, or have the same FW/standard; that is a waste of time, move to your case arguments.

I hate the overuse of statistical evidence in LD, which has gone from reasonable to overdone, and debaters now feel that their facts speak for themselves, leading to lazy debate where cards simply get asserted over one another. Leave statistical debate to PF and Policy, and not just because they do a better job of it. Your facts do not erase or negate or outweigh substantive and well supported philosophical/theoretical reasoning. Even in PF, competing facts are resolved by impact weighing, strategic linking, and warranting - reason based argumentation, in other words. LD was intended as a debate form to explore the ethical underpinnings of urgent social, economic, or political problems. I want to hear reasoning rooted in concepts of justice, morality, human rights, etc. This is why if your opponent makes even one smart rational argument that dismisses all your statistical evidence (and especially in that last speech, and even if they don't have competing cards), then my vote automatically goes to them.

I have my PhD in Rhetorical Theory & History, and I am particularly versed in continental philosophy, as well as feminist, anti-racist, queer, and postcolonial studies. This means that if you use philosophy incorrectly, or claim that these thinkers say things they don't actually say, or you use their words completely out of context, I'll know. It'll be very hard for me to find you persuasive. Please respect the basic assumptions, arguments, uses, and limits of any philosophy you use. If you have to twist the words of any thinker to fit your arguments, that's bad debating and case writing; I guarantee you there's a thinker out there who fits your case better, so use it as a sign to find someone else if you start twisting cards.

If a round boils down to two circuit debaters, I'll adjust, and judge based on the standards set within that debate subculture (off k, ground/burden argumentation, and theory shells are in play, so I evaluate them best I can). However, if I hear circuit style debate in what is supposed to be a traditional round in a traditional circuit, there better be an really, really excellent reason why. If there isn't, and you're using circuit elements simply to intimidate opponents or appear impressive, that will reflect really poorly on you. I will buy traditional arguments in that setting if they win on reasonable claims against circuit style arguments.

I am ok with kritiks as long as there is sound rational ground to use them. It has to be topical. Kritiks written on, say, a single word in the resolution like the world "the" are terrible, and I will have a hard time voting on it.

I hate a priori arguments. Please don't.

Special Note on Theory Shells Regarding Uploading Cases Online: Please don't run this. I will stop flowing and disregard it, for both sides. It's simply wasting your speech time. There are a dozen immediate reasons why declaring abuse because your opponent didn't make their case open source is a terrible argument. Buck up and debate.

_________________________________________________________________________________________

Public Forum: Impact weighing and warranting are the strongest reasons for dismissing some cards and accepting others. Asserting a competing card against another doesn't automatically resolve the clash between them. Also, make sure your card use has integrity. PF'rs should work within boundaries set by hard facts (or find good ways to dismiss them as flawed). If there are disputes/indicts on cards that are unresolved by the end of the round, I will ask to see those cards.

Cross Fire is NOT extended rebuttal time. Please ask questions. I don't flow Cross Fire, so if something comes up during that time, it's your job to bring it up in the next speech. I don't appreciate rudeness, laughing/smirking at your opponents in general, or assuming they are stupid and proceeding with the debate that way. I don't appreciate constant interruptions. Let your opponents respond to your questions. In general, I value etiquette.

PF was intended as a debate form that prized eloquent speaking and good delivery. Debaters that win their arguments but also are good speakers are much more likely to get my vote. I am very willing to give low-point wins on good speaking.

I don't have a preference either way if you do a rebuttal in the second speech; go with your strengths, and I don't penalize for different debate styles on that point. Just make sure the arguments you want to win make it into the Final Focus.

__________________________________________________________________________________________

Policy: I accept and understand most forms of argumentation in policy. I judge mainly on impact weighing at the end of the round. I don't flow cross-x. If anything comes up that's important, bring it up in your next speech.

I have enjoyed all performance rounds in policy that I've ever seen, and feel reasonably confident in my ability to judge that style. I find performance rounds that criticize systemic injustices, especially in the world of debate, particularly interesting and I'm willing to buy them; counterarguments that simply try to dismiss those types of criticisms/styles as unimportant or non-Topical are not compelling for me. Engage with the claims being put forth, even if they are performative.

If you use "role of the ballot" arguments, please do so because you're sincere about the position you've taken, and not just because you are strategically using this idea to outmaneuver and outweigh your opponent. I'll buy that type of argumentation if it's well done.

Charlotte Slovin (she/her/they/them)

If there’s an email chain I’d like to be on it (sasadebate@gmail.com). Absolutely no to PocketBox or whatever other document uploading site.

I did National Circuit Policy for 4 years at Oakwood. I am now a sophomore at Barnard College.

I’ll disclose after the round so please stick around for a verdict and comments.

Conflicts: Oakwood (CA)

Top-Level:

1. Debate is an educational activity but too many times made inaccessible or an unsafe space for students and participants. Please please PLEASE remember that your opponent is a person before they are a competitor. Don’t make this a space that breeds inconsiderate individuals. It is up to YOU to cultivate an activity where everyone can feel safe, have fun, and learn.

2. I generally have no preference for what you read (minus arguments that are offensive, racist, homophobic, etc.), as long as you understand what you’re reading and it clashes within the round.

3. It’s been a good minute since I’ve heard spreading so please be clear. Incoherence because of speed makes debate a useless activity.

4. More nuanced/contextualized debate on fewer positions >>>> your 12 blippy offcase and shadow extensions in the block.

5. LBL is important– doesn’t matter if you’re a traditional policy team or only run k and k affs. It’s incredibly frustrating if you go for a 4 minute overview and then blow through the line-by-line saying, “refer to the O/V”. The most interesting debate comes from clash and specificity of arguments within the context of the round.

Policy:

(a lot of this is stolen from Hannah Ji’s paradigm because we share most of the same brain)

Topicality: The way look at T debates is 1) does the aff meet the neg interp 2) If it doesn’t why should I vote for the neg’s interpretation. It’s not enough for a neg team to say, “aff doesn’t meet”. Tell me what debate looks like in the world of the Aff’s interp vs the world of the neg’s interp and why neg’s interp is better (actually articulate the impacts of the T violation/contextualize it to the world of the aff).

Theory: SLOW DOWN!! If you are giving rapid-fire theory args and not sending analytics, you better make sure that you are speaking with high clarity. Although a 5 minute 2ar on condo is really not my favorite debate, I’ll vote on it as long as you warrant out why the other team should lose because of the argument.

Policy Affs: Ran mostly soft-left policy affs throughout high school with a heavy emphasis on framework. In general, Aff teams should know their case inside and out. I LOVE case debate and think affirmative teams don’t use their case enough to their strategic advantage. Good case debate can be magical— it’s literally an entire 8 minutes of your speaking time so make it count.

Plan vs CP/DA strats: For affirmative teams, use your 1ac to gain strategic leverage against the negative. You should know your case better than anyone else to the point where the neg should be behind on specific solvency/link issues on the CP and DAs. For negative teams, I am sympathetic to teams that run generic politics/topic DAs. I was the only policy team at my high school and understand if your squad isn’t big enough to generate a bunch of new specific DAs for every plan on the topic. However, please try to form specific link and impact scenarios. Even if you don’t have a specific link card for every aff, you should be able to spin and create a persuasive story in the neg block.

On that note, please do impact calc. Like,,, PLEASE.

Plan vs K: This goes for teams on both sides– specificity and contextualization of your arguments will be most rewarded in the round. Affirmative teams need to substantively engage in the literature of the negative team and use their own case strategically to hedge back against the K. This should come in the form of both carded and analytical arguments.

Ks: Can be seriously rewarding and meaningful. That being said, don’t presume I know all the literature of your K and even if I do, I still put the onus on debaters to explain and contextualize the K. It can be incredibly frustrating to listen to high schoolers give shallow and butchered explanations of their lit, so please know what you are talking about (read your authors, please). Please do not throw around buzzwords and K tricks without explaining and warranting out arguments. I think its highly persuasive when neg teams not only flush out the theory of the K, but give empirical examples to prove the thesis of the K.

By the end of the round, as a judge, I should know a specific link story to the aff, not just to the squo. I am much less persuaded by generic USFG/state links and more persuaded by indicts to the aff itself. This goes the same for if you are going for the alt. While I don’t think an alt functions the same as a CP, I’m only going to vote on it if I have a clear understanding of how it works, and how it resolves the k’s links to the aff.

Don’t gloss over the fw debate. First, it sucks to lose to k tricks on fw but also will help you a lot on the alt debate for both neg and aff teams.

Nontraditional/Planless Affs: For the most part, I think these debates are incredibly educational if debated well. Although I never went for planless affs, I think well developed and strategically written affs are incredibly persuasive. That being said, I do think they generally should have some relation to the topic. I generally don’t think that the ballot should be viewed or used as a survival strategy for the team. The ballot should be about arguments, not people, and I think opening this up has more negative implications than people realize.

For T-USFG/FW: I went for this 9/10 in HS against planless affs. When going for it, please 1) engage with the aff and tailor your T blocks to the aff to garner offense on your model of debate. 2) Don’t go for too many impacts in the 2NR - just for one or two with strong internal links 3) Read a TVA 4) please get to the case debate and debate it substantively. Try to make your case arguments work cohesively with your T args.

For the aff team: warrant and flush out clear arguments rather than generic state bad, rez violent, etc. Your aff was probably written with specific strategic advantages in mind so use them! Also, provide a C/I and actually explain what your world of debate looks like in comparison to the neg.

LD:

Most of the Policy stuff applies but email if you have questions. The more Policy-like you make the round the more likely I am to follow. I have substantially less experience in LD but here are my preferences based on things I have witnessed:

- disclosure is good

- fairness is a voting issue

- contextualize!!!

- I will reward you for good and specific link chains

- tricks/spikes/blips/etc. hurt clash, and clash is good

PF:

I continue to be disappointed by the incredibly low standard of what is considered "evidence" in this activity. This is not to say that research is not being done (sometimes...hopefully), but that within a given round the "paraphrasing" of evidence that is accepted along with difficult access to the actual evidence is shameful. I am trying to come up with a system where debaters are held accountable for having their evidence accessible and while I know that this cannot be asked of every Public Forum debater I BEG of you to PLEASE have your evidence/PDFs on hand before the round starts. If it takes an egregious amount of time to find your ev I will run prep.

- Speed is fine but don’t do it just if you think it’s “cool” or you think you’ll get points with me. Incoherence because of speed makes debate a useless activity. Speak the way that is best for you and your strategy.

- The link chains in this form of debate are absolutely ridiculous in terms of how little evidence tends to back up arguments. If you articulate your scenarios and impact them out it will seriously benefit you.

- Please warrant and weigh your claims if you want me to evaluate them.

- Please signpost. It will help both of us.

- Theory is fine but I will take it very seriously. ONLY run it if there is serious and overt abuse but warrant it well if you want it to be a voting issue.

- When applicable please give an offtime roadmap/order

- Minus 0.1 speaks every time you pronounce nuclear as “nuke-you-lar” I am completely serious.

I am a parent judge

Speak slowly

Quality of argument over quantity of points and numbers

Make it easy for me in summary 

Be respectful

Aff on the left of me, Neg on the right

Please. Please. Please. Just go slow. I am convinced that the definition of slow has changed. Whatever you think is slow, go slower. Run whatever you want but just go slow.

Kempner '20 | UT '24

Email: rajsolanki@utexas.edu

its probably easier to message me on facebook though

30 speaks if i get a good speech without a laptopI will give you 30 or the next highest speaker points literally possible if you go slow and clear

Round Robin Update - please send cases and speeches in the email chain - no google docs

Round Robin Update 2 - I judged my first round and I genuinely could not understand an argument that was made... and I am certain that was not because of any hearing issues or inability to process a competitive debate round. If you want me to flow your speech, go slower and actually explain your arguments.

Warning: Proceed with caution when choosing the arguments you run against clearly inexperienced teams. Idk if I reserve the right but just cause it sounds cool Imma go ahead and reserve the right to drop you if I think that you are making the event inaccessible for anyone.

everytime i come back and judge debate i feel like people's standard for the term fast is changing. I am a technical judge, but honestly, please go slow(er) its way more fun for my experience and your ballot.

Clear link-warrant-impact extensions is fundamental to getting my ballot

The Jist

• Debate is a Game, you play it how you want to. But I also have my own bias as to how the game is won. This means that doing what you do best along with adapting to my paradigm is the way to go.

• My role as a judge is not as a norm setter. It is as a policy maker and voting on the implications of a policy action. This means that I will not evaluate any theory shells, tricks, or any other super progressive stuff. I want you to debate PUBLIC FORUM. However, I still want to see a good tech>truth debate. So imagine that you're in an out round and like 30 people are watching. Debate the way where every single person can understand those arguments and form a decision on their own. The only exceptions to this preference are Ks and paragraph theory. With Ks, i think they are technically answering the resolution, but I don't prefer them because i'm not that well versed nor do i particularly enjoy judging them.The other exception is paragraph theory. By this, if you see clear abuse and think they should actually be dropped mid round, then just explain why. I don't want a shell, just explain the abuse story as if it were a traditional argument

• dont run disclosure theory or paraphrase theory
• love a good framing debate hate a bad framing debate xD

• "I'm going to vote for the least mitigated link into the best weighed impact" - Andy Stubbs.

• My favorite American Asher Moll puts this quite exquisitely, "weighing is important but is not necessary to win my ballot, provided i think your defense on the offense that they go for is terminal. that said, you should still weigh in case i grant your opponents some offense. if i think both sides are winning offense, i resolve the weighing debate first when making my decision. i will only evaluate new 2ff weighing if there was no other weighing in the round"

• Speed is a really subjective thing here. I honestly think it depends. When I debated, I was always relatively faster because I'm used to speaking in a faster pace in all my conversations. So when I debated, I would say I debated at a normal speed, but it was still relatively fast and understandable because that's just how I talk. So to be as objective as possible, speed should be like my Thai Food spice level: Medium! This means a little kick in the pace can be advantageous, but too much is going to make my brain explode and I might just give up on flowing. If you're going too fast, my mind is just going to lag and my flow across the rest of the speech is going to drop like dominos. That might frustrate you when it comes to my RFD. But if you do want to go super fast, send a speech doc to me and your opponents. dont go fast but maybe read the strikethrough

• I'm tech over truth, read any substance you want

• Crossfire is 100% binding. Im going to pay attention. The speech exists for a reason and im being paid to pay attention. It's also a skill that you need to learn and it promotes not being bailed out by a partner if a mistake is made.

• If you believe your opponent has no path to the ballot, you can call TKO. The round is then officially over. If your opponent has no path to the ballot at that point, you get a W30. If you are incorrect, you get an L 25.

• The summary and final focus speeches of the round MUST have a link, warrant, AND impact extended. I have a mid-tier threshold for impacts but an extremely high threshold for the link and the warrant. You must explain the entire link story or else none of y'all will be encouraged to collapse.
  
  
• i feel like a lot of debaters had trouble distinguishing in round humor with being a dick so you can mess around but it better be good.

• There has to be some basic response to the first rebuttal if you want to wash away their defense/turn/DA in the second half of the round. For instance, if a response is made in 1st rebuttal, a basic response to it in the second rebuttal would suffice, but a more well-explained response in second summary would be required. This means that I think it is strategic to frontline in the second rebuttal. It's your loss (not the actual L but probably the actual L) if you don't. Personally, I spent 2-2.5 minutes in second rebuttals front-lining and then the rest on their case, simply because i already had more time to create a more efficient and selective rebuttal by going second. NOTE: if you frontline their entire rebuttal and you put solid coverage on their case, i am going to give you a 30 regardless of how good/bad the final focus is. I think those types of speeches are the most impressive.

• I don't think that defense is sticky anymore with the 3 minute summary, but I don't think this should be a problem and it's probably to your advantage that you extend defense regardless. If you make one or two solid defense extensions that are poorly or not responded to, then that's really hard to come back from, so just do it.

• Obviously the rule of thumb is that you should not bring up new stuff in summary and final focus, unless first summary is making frontlines.

• DO NOT and i mean DO NOT try reading offensive overviews or new contentions, what you all like to call "advantages or disadvantages" in second rebuttal. I am straight up not going to evaluate it especially if you just kick your entire case and collapse on it. FREE ELKINS AP

• If there is no offense left in the round, I presume NEG. Remember, I said I was a policy maker so in super basic terms if I don't see any comparative change as a result of affirming the resolution, then I negate. if its a benefits versus harms resolution then I presume to the side (usually aff) that is also the squo

• take flex prep if needed

• Signposting is crucial or else my flow is going to drop like dominos part 2

• When you make extensions don't just say the author name make sure that you're giving a clear explanation of what the author is saying. Not only is this better practice but I don't get every single author name down so make sure you are clear.

I am a relatively new judge. Please speak slowly and clearly (do not spread). I flow on paper and I will lift my pen if I cannot keep up with you. Please be respectful in cross and interact with your opponents' arguments.

Hello!

I am a parent judge. However, I do have extensive knowledge in the business world. I have also judged over 50 rounds of Public Forum debate. I also do flow the main points of the rounds.

Please add samuelsun99@gmail.com to the email chain. This should be started before the speeches. Please include at least the cases and call the email chain like "Stanford Round 1 - Team AB vs. Team BC."

Everything Else is Negotiable, but these aren't:

~No cheating: that means no card clipping, stealing prep, lying about your disclosure, etc.

~Debate is a safe space: I will not tolerate any blatantly offensive arguments. That means no racism, sexism, homophobia, etc.

If you are running an argument that is potentially a trigger warning, then you MUST ask the opponents if they are fine with it.

Violations of either are grounds for auto-loss and the lowest speaks I can possibly give you

General Preferences

~Please speak at a slower/normal pace. If I don't understand something, then I won't put it in my decision.

~Please don't read any weird arguments (Theory, K's, etc). It will be much less persuasive if you do so. Furthermore, if you run a non-generic case, then please explain it very well or I will have a hard time keeping track of it.

~Please send me your speech doc (cases) for the round. This will help me understand your case better and recall your key details.

~Please be civil in cross. I don't like aggressiveness. If the worst occurs, then I'll dock your speaks

~I view the round from your overall performance in the round. This includes being professional, taking a short time to pull up your evidence, have well-explained reasons and statistics, and consistently bringing up your points.

~I personally value the truth of an argument over an argument that will probably not occur.

~I will judge this round off a clean slate meaning I will try to not use individual bias to affect my decision.

~I also really like weighing so please do a lot of weighing to convince me more.

~I vote my decision mainly off of summary, final focus, and sometimes cross. If you can not respond to your own case in cross, I might count that in my decision if it is cleanly extended.

In all, be independent/responsible through the debate. I will be keeping time, but I also expect you to keep your own speech and prep time. Just let me know when you start/stop prep and don't go over the time limit, etc. I dislike it when debaters try to steal prep. I trust all of you debaters and good luck in your round!

Importance of Weighing

-Prob>Timeframe

- Timeframe>Pre-req

- Pre-req>mag

---

Specific to September topic.

I'm not very knowledgable about this specific topic.

Good Luck Debaters!

My 2 most important preferences:

1. Please, please slow down. I suggest 1 to 1.5x conversational speed; I think ideal case length is 680-700 words. If you could imagine someone asking for a speech doc, SLOW down! Implications for you:

-- If your speed means I miss something important, it’s like it never existed. I’m not gonna be like, “Hmm, maybe I heard something kinda like that” when you extend it. It’s goodbye

-- If your opponent cannot understand and asks you to slow down (do this by loudly saying “clear”), you must do so. Within reason; I will intervene in obvious cases of abuse

-- This preference is also reflected in speaks. Selective vision >>> brute force coverage. Extreme speed = low speaks

2. I place a strong emphasis on warranting. Implications:

-- If you and your opponent disagree on something, I prioritize your comparisons in this order: 1. Warrant comparison 2. Warranted evidence comparison 3. Evidence comparison that is just: “dates”

-- If an arg is not warranted and your opponent mentions this, I won’t let you bring in new warranting. Don’t go for something that wasn’t warranted in case and expect me to vote off it. Only exception is commonly intuitive statements

Notes on the flow

--Theory/K's/progressive args: I consider them a barrier to entry in PF and probably won't vote on them. 99% odds I won’t buy theory about dates, speaks, disclosure, paraphrasing, etc. If you do it in combination with extreme speed, consider it an auto-drop. If it's something you're genuinely concerned about, you impact it convincingly, and you make it accessible, you can give it a try. I seriously and strongly recommend against it, but you can

--I’m not super picky about extensions (e.g. if you extend a paraphrased version of your impact in summary and one specific impact card in FF, that’s fine). But ofc any argument in FF should be in summary

--1st FF can extend defense from rebuttal if it isn’t frontlined in 2nd rebuttal. But I’d still recommend extending a couple of your favorite responses in summary

--2nd rebuttal doesn’t need to frontline their voters, though it must frontline major turns/ offensive overviews

--2nd rebuttal shouldn’t go overboard with disads; > 1 minute on them is too much. If a ton of your speech is disads and it feels abusive I may drop you. Even if I don’t, the speaks will suffer and I’ll allow blippier responses in 1st summary

--if there’s no offense in the round that I can see, I default first speaking team. (I realize this is unusual, I personally think it's fairer)

Please be kind to each other. If you have any questions don't hesitate to ask me at beginning of round. Good luck!

I’m a parent of a debater and will judge based on a combination of general logic, common sense, and grace.

No debate jargon please.

On speed: Don’t do it. If I can’t understand what is being said, I won’t be able to give you credit for it.

Please write my RFD for me in both summary and final focus.

Don't be rude, good luck, and have fun!

I'm a parent judge at Hunter College High School and I've judged at a few PF tournaments before. Please speak slowly and clearly, and don't use any jargon.

If you want me to vote off of an argument, please make sure to bring it up in both summary and FF. At the end of the round, you should only focus on the 1-2 most important arguments and weigh them against your opponents' arguments. Have fun!

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!

TL;DR: I think I'm slowly becoming a flay judge :(

Taken directly from @Gabe Rusk for Emory 2022 (there are only two modifications, listed at the very bottom):

Drug Debate

FYI Emory's rules on prep and evidence exchange: 4 minutes of prep (RR is still 3) and"When requested, teams have one minute to produce evidence. If requests for multiple pieces of evidence are made, the exchange should occur in a comparable time frame. At the end of the minute, if the team cannot produce the evidence, preparation time for that team will then be used to locate that evidence. The team may choose to have the evidence dropped from the round if they choose."

First, the detailed implementation of the resolution isn't obvious. Whilst we can't offer plans in PF we can speculate on what is the most likely form of implementation. Legalization can take many forms and can be based on existing proposals in congress, based on state models, or even models abroad. If your argument is contingent upon a facet of legalization that is not reasonably inherent to the process please provide evidence and warranting to why this would be a likely feature. I.E. lobbying watering down regulations, substance abuse programs being mandated as a portion of tax revenue, therapeutic legalization for certain drugs only. These are all features that require additional support in my opinion and are not inherent to a generic legalization process. Just provide the evidence or warranting to why they would be likely. Also on the reverse please don't quip that legalization wouldn't look like that. Why? You need competing evidence or warranting to why that feature wouldn't be included.

Second, for the classic debate about price, use, and abuse. Both sides are trying to access increasing or decreasing trends as a result of the resolution. Do not. I repeat do not just throw back and forth case studies of prices going up or down. Use going up or down. Abuse going up or down. Compare them! Is one case study better than another? Do you have a meta study? Do you have a study that is most recent or longitudinal? I am especially not sympathetic to the lazy argument that "your evidence is just from a state or country that decriminalized so it's irrelevant to this debate. Legalization and decriminalization is different." Of course it is but legalization is the erasure of all penalties including criminal and civil within the regulations the governments set up. Explain to me why the distinction matters in this evidence debate and do not just say they are different. What if the evidence debate is close? What warranting makes more sense? This also gets to net or gross weighing of impacts. Y'all.... it can be simultaneously true that abuse, use, and prices go up and down but at different times or have total net differences. Please be clear on when these trends happen, why that matters in the short and long term, and more importantly what the net effects are.

Third, uncarded or unwarranted claims. Due to the rhetoric around this topic in the real world I have found judging rounds to be plagued with more asserted claims than with other topics. You can't just say LSD is bad. You can't just say weed is good. Provide evidence and warranting for claims just like you would other topics. There are a bunch of built in biases we have on topics but I think you are assuming based on decades of bad media and policy exposure there are claims that need no support on this topic. Maybe but it's rare. "We turned their LSD good argument because it's bad!" Ok this debate can be fruitful. Compare the studies? Are there meaningful differences in who was studied? When? Is there decent evidence on both sides? Engage the warranting. For example, you could explain to me biochemically what is going on in a brain that does heroin and why that creates a neurological and biochemical dependency cycle etc. Give me something to compare.

Big Things

• What I want to see: I'm empathetic to major technical errors in my ballots. In a perfect world I vote for the team who does best on tech and secondarily on truth. I tend to resolve clash most easily when you give explicit reasons why either a) your evidence is comparatively better but more often when you tell me why b) your warranting is comparatively better. Obviously doing both compounds your chances at winning my ballot.
• Weighing Unlike Things: I need to know how to weigh two comparatively unlike things. If you are weighing some economic impact against a non-economic impact like democracy how do I defer to one over the other? Scope, magnitude, probability etc. I strongly prefer impact debates on the probability/reasonability of impacts over their magnitude and scope. Obviously try to frame impacts using all available tools but it's less likely I will defer to nuclear war, try or die, etc on the risk of magnitude. Probability over magnitude debates unless I'm given well warranted, carded, and convincing framework analysis to prefer the latter.
• Weighing Like Things: Please have warrants and engage comparatively between yourself and your opponent. Obviously methodological and evidentiary comparison is nice too as I mentioned earlier. I love crossfires or speech time where we discuss the warrants behind our cards and why that's another reason to prefer your arg over your opponent.

Little Things

• What needs to be frontlined in second rebuttal? Turns. Not defense unless you have time. If you want offense in the final focus then extend it through the summary.
• Defense is not sticky between rebuttal and final focus. Aka if defense is not in summary you can't extend it in final focus. I've flipped on this recently. I've found the debate is hurt by the removal of the defense debate in summary and second final focus can extend whatever random defense it wants or whatever random frontlines to defense. This gives the second speaking teams a disproportionate advantage and makes the debate needlessly more messy.
• DA's in general or second rebuttal? You mean the borderline new contentions you are trying to introduce in the round that are tentatively linked at BEST to the existing arguments in the round order to time skew/spread your opponents thin? Don't push it too much.
• I will pull cards on two conditions. First, if it becomes a key card in the round and the other team questions the validity of the cut, paraphrasing, or explanation of the card in the round. Second, if the other team never discusses the merits of their opponents card the only time I will ever intervene and call for that evidence is if a reasonable person would know it's facially a lie.
• Calling for your opponent's cards. It should not take more than 1 minute to find case cards. Do preflows before the round.
• My favorite question in cx is: Why? For example, "No I get that's what your evidence says but why?"
• My favorite phrase in debate is: "Prefer our warrant or evidence because" or "comparing our warrants you prefer ours because..."

ONLY MODIFICATIONS

• I'm NOT familiar with kritical, theoretical, and/or pre-fiat based roads. Really wish I was though.
• I'd prefer if you don't spread, but if you do be prepared for the chance that I may not process all of it. Even with clearing or speech docs I'm not that fast anymore. And yes, speech docs will probably be necessary for accessibility and accommodation.

I am a parent judge. Speak slowly and clearly. Explain technical terms. Don't use debate jargon.

I was a public forum second speaker for three years at Randolph High School. Employee and coach with the NYCUDL for a few years now.

I flow the round but am overall pretty relaxed on technicalities. Make sure the things you want me to vote on are in summary and final focus.

No spreading please.

LD:

I am not very familiar with LD and have never competed it. Regardless, I will flow everything you say and do my best to make a fair decision. Don't get too fancy if possible. Thanks!

Put Me on the Email Chain: Cjaswill23@gmail.com

Experience: I debated in College policy debate team (Louisville WY) at the University of Louisville, went to the quarterfinals of the NDT 2018 , coached and judged high school and college highly competitive teams.

Policy Preferences: Debate is a game that is implicated by the people who play it. Just like any other game rules can be negotiated and agreed upon. Soooooo with that being said, I won't tell you how to play, just make sure I can clearly understand you and the rules you've negotiated(I ran spreading inaccessible arguments but am somewhat trained in evaluating debaters that spread) and I also ask that you are not being disrespectful to any parties involved. With that being said, I don't care what kind of arguments you make, just make sure there is a clear impact calculus, clearly telling me what the voters are/how to write my ballot. Im also queer black woman poet, so those strats often excite me, but will not automatically provide you with a ballot. You also are not limited to those args especially if you don't identify with them in any capacity. I advise you to say how I’m evaluating the debate via Role Of the Judge because I will default to the arguments that I have on my flow and how they "objectively" interact with the arguments of your opponent. I like narratives, but I will default to the line by line if there is not effective weighing. Create a story of what the aff world looks like and the same with the neg. I'm not likely to vote for presumption arguments, it makes the game dull. I think debate is a useful tool for learning despite the game-structure. So teach me something and take my ballot.

Other Forms of Debate: cross-apply above preferences

Wylie High School '17

University of Houston '21

Please put me on the email chain: jacobw9997@gmail.com

Policy Debate Thoughts:

I'll listen to anything you want to read but be sure to explain denser critical literature bases or more complex policy scenarios. I default to competing interps and am a really big fan of well researched and prepared positions, whether that's critical or policy.

On some more minutia:

I'll vote for the politics disad as I lean tech over truth but I generally believe the politics DA as its often constructed isn't true and can be defeated by some good analytics or evidence comparison in the 2AC in many cases.

I will vote on presumption I think lots of 1ACs are bad and more time should be spent on case in the block. I really love a good case debate. Having good cards against their aff is good but so is reading their evidence and making good analytical arguments.

I think generally on framework debates that the aff's should have some relation to the topic or a good defense of why that is bad. I think clash is very good and the more the better.

Generic arguments like topic disads and kritiks made specific to the aff through evidence rehighlightings and comparison will be rewarded.

Don't just read your arguments at each other and let me figure it out at the end because it may not come out the way you want. Tell me how your arguments interact and apply to one another. Close doors and tell me why to sign my ballot for you.

If you have any other questions feel free to email me or ask before the round.

Public Forum Thoughts:

I competed for a year in public forum in high school but have done policy ever since. I am comfortable with speed but I've noticed in PF especially the shorter speech times means debaters can get kind of blippy when responding to arguments. Clearly marking new arguments or slowing down slightly when you have multiple warrants or arguments you want me to flow in a row would be helpful and will be rewarded.

Having lots of impacts at the beginning of the debate can be a good thing but I find I'm voting for teams at the end of the debate with one or two impacts that are clearly articulated with strong internal link stories and explanations of how they turn the other sides impacts. Most of the debates I've judged have come down to one or two impacts both teams claim to solve and so warranted internal link analysis will be heavily rewarded.

If you have any other questions feel free to email me or ask before the round.

Updated 2/6/24

Hi! I'm a graduate of Santa Clara University, studied Finance and I debated PF for Gunn High School for 4 years.

I haven’t judged/done anything debate related in a while and know nothing about this topic

----

I'm cool with all types of argumentation so feel free to do whatever you want - if you're planning on running a K or T please explain your argument thoroughly.

I am fine with speed but if you are going way too fast or speaking totally unclearly, I'll let you know. Have fun in cross and please stay calm and polite.

Some important things to note:

- read TWs if/when needed

- defense is sticky

- no new evidence in second summary, unless responding to new evidence in first summary

- I will typically only vote on something if it is in both summary and final focus

- tech > truth

- I will ALWAYS (unless you argue otherwise) presume first because I believe the first-speaking team has a structural disadvantage and significant time skew.

- weighing is def a good idea (also pls read substantive comparative weighing - just saying the words "scope" or "magnitude" does not count as weighing)

- respond to all turns in 2nd rebuttal AND frontline

- engage with clash

- if you are extremely rude or offensive (racist, sexist, ableist etc.) in any way at all I'll drop you and give you 25 speaker points.

- I won't call for evidence unless you tell me to and it's a) essential to adjudicate the round and b) sounds misconstrued

- evidence exchanges under 2 minutes

- email any piece of interesting news to me before the round, I love learning about anything tech, finance, economic, gaming, and sports related.

Feel free to email me at zhang.max616@gmail.com if you have any questions after the round - I'm happy to give advice or further explain my decision at any time!

Social studies teacher with a background in debating and judging college parlimentary debate and coaching and judging 6-12 public forum debate.

As a judge, it's my job to evaluate what is presented in the round, and only that. I expect both teams to clearly explain their position and reasoning, not rely on me to "fill in the gaps" (beyond prior knowlege appropriate for the average adult). I expect both teams to be able to present a clear case. To me, that is made up of: a clear argument, relevant, well-sourced supporting evidence, and a conclusion that all flow logically. Cross-x and critiques should focus on the crux of the arguments made by the opposing team. I value respectful interactions between all participants in a round.

Provide a framework on how the debate is to be judged. This is different from your side's burden of proof.

For example, if the topic is "On balance, eating your vegetables is beneficial to your body" you need to first establish the framework of "what is good for your body" and if the impact of eating your vegetables meet those criteria.

Weigh the impact of each argument against your opponent's. The team that wins is the one who can directly connect their benefits and harms to the topic by demonstrating subject matter expertise.

Rebuttal is more effective when it's deliberate, think of it as a reactive constructive speech.

CX should be used to clarify your opponents points and help set up for your later speeches.

Each argument should answer the following questions:

-Why is this true?

-Why is this good or bad? For who?

-Why should the judge care?/ Why is it important?

Note: There's no such thing as a "off time roadmap" - it should be a part of your speech.

I am a parent, so a “Lay judge”.

Please signpost.

TRUTH > TECH ALWAYS

Re-stating your case is not a front-line.

New offense in 2nd Summary will not be counted.

No Kritikal or Theory debate.

Speak slow. I will reduce speaker points for going over speed limit.

Announce the start and stop for your prep-times.