UCLA MSW '22
Georgetown University BS. Latin American Studies '17
Bellarmine College Prep '13
Constraints: Loyola

I'm a former policy and public forum debater (2009-2013). Since college, I've worked as a researcher on Latin American financial crime, then as a counselor and social worker. At this time, I am not actively involved in the debate community or the topic, so please assume a minimal level of familiarity.

Notes for online debate: I'm a pretty slow flower to begin with, and that has only gotten worse online. I would really appreciate going 10-15% slower than top speed, and to be honest most people are usually trying for a speed beyond which they're actually capable anyway.

Notes for lay debate: I'm very comfortable judging a lay round, and if there are lay judges on the panel I would strongly prefer that you accommodate them and make this an enjoyable and coherent experience for everyone. I'll reward your speaker points for doing so.

General notes, in order of importance:

I usually evaluate on tech over truth, but I also believe strongly that debaters who control the framing, weighing, and decisionmaking criteria should be rewarded over the debater who technically "covered" every argument on the flow without telling me why that matters. It's not enough for a debater to drop an argument, I should also understand why that argument is important for how I evaluate the debate.

The strength of your internal link is so much more important to me than your terminal impact. I am usually quite willing to vote on presumption if neither team has done any work convincing me why their highly contrived extinction impact is connected in any meaningful way to their case.

From Debnil Sur: "I care more about link centered debate than impact, so focus on uniqueness and link framing over terrible turns case arguments. I don't think you need evidence to make an argument -- I think many bad advantages can be reduced to zero through smart analytics, and I shower debaters who do this with high speaker points. But, the better their evidence is, the more likely you'll need your own."

I'm also generally pretty friendly to arguments that high-probability or systemic impacts are more important than high-magnitude impacts that rely on a Rube-Goldberg machine of unlikely events to get there. Even if you don't have cards on a specific impact, smart analytics here will go a long way.

On Ks: I would consider myself relatively well-versed in the postmodern literature. I deeply enjoy framework debates, actually, and I tend to be relatively friendly to role-of-the-ballot claims that don't assume fiat in either direction. That said, I would much rather listen to no K debate at all than listen to K debate that poorly understands the theory at hand or fundamentally misinterprets the author's scholarly intent (i.e. most non-Black people who read Wilderson in the year 2023).

I will almost certainly make my decision off what I actually heard in the round and not your speech doc, and if you're not clear enough to be legible I will consider the argument to be too poorly communicated to flow.

Hi! I'm Josefina.

You can reach me at artigas.josefina@gmail.com, please include me in the email chain.

I recently graduated from Binghamton University with a degree in biochemistry and a minor in soc.

I'm pretty new to debate, my experience has been teaching online policy style debate and judging at tournaments. I'm still learning, so I'm always open to feedback.

I am neither truth vs. tech. I believe that they're both integral to debate.

You can debate at whatever speed you feel comfortable.

What usually helps me make a decision:

- Case extensions with thoughtful warrants

- A clear path towards a decision. Let me know what I should be weighing, and impact out your arguments.

- Using the evidence to your advantage, just giving a card and a claim are not enough to be an argument.

- I consider both offense and defense in terms of your own argument and answer to opposing ones.

I am a lay judge. This is my second time judging.

Please speak slowly and make sure to signpost.

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

Four years policy debate at GMU

Yes I want to be on the chain - Email: bbigbiggs1@gmail.com

General Notes

- PLEASE treat everyone in the room with respect, especially your opponents

- I flow straight down, it's in your best interest to keep it as organized as possible

- More familiar with policy args, but have and will vote for critical args

- Inserting re-highlighting is good if you are pointing out specific context that is left out and in small doses, not if you are essentially making a new card out of it

• These are my general thoughts but things can obviously change on a debate by debate basis depending on how the round goes

- This paradigm is geared towards policy debate since that is what I judge most frequently. If I am judging you in a different format; do no stress about the nuances here, I adopt to the norms of whatever format I am judging without bias to the best of my ability/knowledge

Notes for Online Debate:

- Please be conscientious of speed and clarity. I never will negatively impact your speaks because of mic issues but I can only vote on what I hear.

- If my camera is off assume I am not there.

Policy v Policy

- I will look through the evidence so a card doc would be useful; however, good evidence shouldn't be a substitute for poor explanation.

- Please make sure to extend full arguments. If you just say there is "no impact to US-China war" in the 1ar with no explanation for why, I will not vote for it in the 2ar even if dropped in the 2nr. That is just a phrase not an argument.

T:

- Limits/ground is the impact I find most persuasive. It will take more work to go for precision or other impacts but I can be swayed

- I tend to err on competing interpretation but actually can be persuaded by reasonability IF explained properly

Theory

Condo - tend to be neg leaning though more than three starts to push it. More open to condo args if the CP's are particularly abusive or if they've read multiple with no solvency advocates

PICs - I'm fine with PICs out of specific portions the aff defends. Not the judge for word PICs (unless they say something absolutely egregious in their plan text)

No solvency advocate CPs - I probably don't think this is a reason to reject the team, but I will likely be annoyed and lower speaks if you don't have one. Exceptions if you're against new affs or it is a very niche CP to answer a specific impact.

Other theory - 99 out of 100 times, if it's not condo, it's a reason to reject the arg. You need a clear reason why they skewed the round to get me to drop them even if it is dropped. Having said that, if you win that a CP is illegitimate you're probably in a good spot anyways.

Clash

Top Level: I've found myself judging more of these debates than I expected so I want to update this portion of my paradigm. I tend to have a higher threshold for 2ar re-articulation of arguments than most judges so I find myself voting neg more often in these debates than other rounds I judge.

Policy aff v the K:

- I tend to err aff on the f/w portion of the debate. Weigh the aff vs the alt, key to fairness, etc. are all args I tend to find more persuasive. Impact framing is the portion of the debate you should focus on. Make sure you're answering all the nuances of the util v structural violence (or any other framing) debate

- Be careful with the link debate. Even if you win that your case outweighs the neg can still win a link turns case arg that can make it tough for you to get my ballot.

K's v Policy Affs:

- Impact framing will essential. You will have a hard time persuading me that I should just reject the aff for some reason, but can definitely persuade me that your impact outweighs/is more crucial to discuss in the debate space.

- Specificity of the link is going to be important. Generic state bad links aren't going to be as persuasive as links to the specific action of the plan.

- Simplify the debate. Don't spread yourself too thin, try and pick just one link for the 2NR (unless two are very poorly answered but I'd cap it there) and really impact it out.

- I find embedded turns case args on the link debate very persuasive if it is a specific link to the aff.

- Clarity on the alt will be important. This is an area of the debate that I feel like gets under-explained throughout the debate. I like some explanation of what your alt materially looks like and how it resolves the link.

F/W v K affs:

- Fairness can be an impact, but I generally find the way teams explain it is more of an internal link to education (a pretty good one at that).

- When the aff is reasonably in the direction of the topic - I tend to place a lot of weight on the TVA and need explanation of lost ground and why the ground you lost is good.

- When the aff is blatantly anti-topical or an aff that is meant to be a personal strategy, go for clash good. I don't believe you need a TVA in this instance (or should extend one) as long as you have a good reason why the discussions that happen under your model of debate are good.

K affs v F/W:

- The easiest way to get my ballot is if you win your impact and win the "limits/clash means they can't access the aff's benefits even if it is theoretically good" arg you are in a very good place so long as you don't royally mess up the TVA debate or SSD. Having said that: I am open to other strategies, do your thing, but just understand that I will need more explanation than your typical judge.

- We meet probably not ideal unless the neg messed up the interp.

- If you are an aff that is in the direction of the topic, counter-definitions should be your friend.

- If your aff is outside the scope of being able to do so, you need to impact turn their model of debate. I am not gonna be persuaded by a counter-interp that was clearly designed to include your aff. Obviously extend your interpretation, but don't use it to try and mitigate their offense.

- Things to avoid: I do not find blanket stating "k debate is predictable" persuasive. Give me a reason why your specific aff is predictable for the negative to debate if you want to go that route.

K v K

I will not be as knowledgeable in K literature as either team is going to be. The best thing you could do to get my ballot is to make the debate simple. I may not be familiar with a lot of your terminology - and I am not going to vote on something I do not understand - so you may benefit by clearly explaining certain terms or at least having evidence that is clearly highlighted to define abstract terms/concepts.

Impact framing/explanation is going to be key in these rounds.

I am a parent-judge that is new to the debate tournaments. I will judge how you clearly your arguments across overall and how you counter the other teams. Make it clear to me why you won.

This is a debate not an argument. I expect you to keep track of the other teams times and be respectful during cross.

Good Luck and Have Fun!

I enjoy a lively and respectable debate but most importantly, weigh! It tells me what I need to vote for and why and assures I'm more likely to vote for your side.

Please try not to spread or be rude to your fellow opponent (Speaker points may be affected).

Personal debate experience in college approximately 15 years ago. First year judging debate.

Expectations

1. Be respectful.

2. Clearly identify contentions and impact.

3. Signpost key points.

4. Roadmaps are welcomed, but during the allotted time.

5. Manage your time.

6. Speak clearly.

Note: If a competitor speaks too fast to be understood. The points or arguments are not understood.

7. Debate the resolution; disregards technical theory arguments.

Parent Judge. Please ask any questions before or after the round, and I will do my best to answer.

Please be respectful and professional at all times. You can be assertive without being rude or unkind.

I value brevity and clarity, and please speak clearly. Please don't expect me to understand technical terms and references. You may need to explain the basics because I may have no knowledge of your topic.

I will try to take notes on the round, but I do not know how to flow. Make it easier for me by SIGNPOSTING every response, warranting EXTREMELY explicitly, and extending WITH WARRANTS in every speech. If something is important, let me know. Point out concessions, cross isn't binding. That being said, I'm not stupid, so don't be abusive (esp. in second FF).

As a judge, I am emphasize clarity. I can only evaluate those arguments that were presented in a manner that was clear and understandable.

Former debater. No spreading. No new evidence after summary. Definitely, no new arguments in second summary, except to respond to a new argument brought up in first summary. I won't look at cards, so if you call a card and it's wrong, you have to tell me how it is wrong; evidence falsification/fabrication, however, is a whole other issue, which should be taken up with Tab. I principally vote on what is in the Final Focus, so extend your arguments through every speech until FF.

Engineering grad and IT professional living in DC; I did PF in Virginia 2013-2017 and have been judging debate since 2018.

General:

1. Please pre-flow before round start time. I value keeping things moving along, and starting early if possible, so that the round does not go overtime.

2. I'm fine with speed, if you speak clearly and preferably provide a speech doc.

3a. Time yourself. When you run out of time, finish your sentence gracefully, on a strong note, and stop speaking.

3b. I will also time you. When you run out of time, I will make a hand gesture with my fist, then silently stop taking notes on my flow and wait for you to finish. I will cut you off if you are 30 seconds over time; if I cut you off, it means I didn't listen to anything you said for roughly the last 30 seconds.

4. I don't care if you sit or stand. Do whichever you prefer.

5. I am unlikely to vote on a K. I like hearing Ks, I think they're cool, I like when debaters deconstruct the format/topic/incentive structure of debate, I'm learning about them, but evaluating them as a voting issue is outside my comfort zone as a judge and I don't have the experience and confidence to evaluate Ks in a way that is consistent and fair.

6. I like case/evidence disclosure. It leads to better debates and better evidence ethics. When a team makes a pre-round disclosure of case/evidence or shares a rebuttal doc, I expect that the other team will reciprocate. I expect that you have an evidence doc and can quickly share any evidence the opposing team calls for. If you have not prepared to share your evidence, you should run prep to get your evidence doc together. I want rounds to proceed on schedule and will note it in RFD and speaks if a significant and preventable waste of time occurs in the round.

PF:

I vote on terminal impacts. Use your constructive to state and quantify impacts that I as a human can care about. I care exclusively about saving lives, reducing suffering and increasing happiness, in descending order of importance. Provide warrants and evidence for your claims, then extend your claims and impacts through to final focus. In final focus, weigh: tell me *how* you won in terms of the impacts I care about. You should also weigh to help me decide between impacts that are denominated in different units, for instance if one side impacts to poverty and the other side impacts to, idk, life expectancy, your job as debaters is to tell me why one of those is more important to vote on. If you both impact to the same thing, like extinction, make sure you are weighing the unique aspects of your case, like probability, timeframe, and solvency against the other side's case.

1. If you call a card and begin prepping while you wait to receive it, I will run your prep. Calling for evidence is not free prep.

2. Be nice to each other in cross; let the other person finish. Cut them off if they are monopolizing time.

3. If you want me to consider an argument when I vote, extend it all the way through final focus.

LD:

The way I vote in LD is different from how I vote in PF. In the most narrow sense, I vote for whichever team has the best impact on the value-criteron for the value that I buy into in-round.

This means you don't necessarily have to win on your own case's value or your own case's VC. Probably you will find it easier to link your impacts to your own value and VC, but you can also concede to your opponent's value and link into their VC better than they do, or delink your opponent's VC from their value, or show that your case supports a VC that better ties into their value.

Congress:

I don't judge Congress nearly enough to have an in-depth paradigm, but it happens now and then that I judge Congress, particularly for local tournaments and intramurals. I will typically give POs top-3 if they successfully follow procedure and hold the room together.

Ranking is more based on gut feeling but mainly I'm looking to evaluate: did you speak compellingly like you believe and care about the things you're saying, did you do good research to support your position, and did you take the initiative to speak, particularly when the room otherwise falls silent.

BQ:

I've never judged BQ before and have been researching the format, watching some rounds and bopping around Reddit for the last week or so to understand the rules and norms. Since I'm carrying some experience with other formats in, you should know I will flow all speeches, and only the speeches. I will give a lot of leeway to the debaters to determine the definitions and framing of the round, and expect them to clash over places where those definitions and framings are in conflict, and ultimately I will determine from that clash what definitions and framing I should adopt when signing my ballot.

I debate currently at CSUF Until further notice

I debated for around 5.5 years and my background is mostly K args, but dont be afraid to run policy, I’m cool with both

Keep me on the chain por favor – ccarrasco244@gmail.com

If you have any questions for after the round or just need some help feel free to email, I’ll try to get back

general -

- I will distribute speaker points based off the accumulated performance from y’all, I like hearing arguments more if you truly believe in what you’re saying, especially debating Kritiks, be funny tho I’ll probably laugh, try to have fun and be the chill ones, try not to be toxic and even more so do not be violent, no -isms

- I will try to keep up on the flow but do not hyper-spread through theory blocks or any block for that matter, I will most likely not catch it

- be chill with each other but you can be aggressive if thats just your style, try not to trigger anxiety though in other debaters if you’re going too far

———- some more specifics ———-

I run and prefer Kritikal arguments, I am more comfortable listening to Settler Colonialism, Afro-Pessimism and Marxist literature, but that does not mean you can just spew jargon and hope to win, explain what your theories mean and your arguments, it will go a long way for your speaker points as well

Speaking of, i will be in the range of 27.5 - 29.9 for speaker points, I will try to be objective as possible but you do you, if you can do that well the speaker awards will come too

On T/FW, please make sure that your standards are specific to the round and are clearly spoken, I am substantially less convinced if you do not argue how that specific aff loses you ground and/or justifies a bad model of debate, but I will not vote it down for no reason, argue why those skills are good to solve the aff or provide a good model that sustains KvK debate in a better way than the aff justifies. Just don’t try to read your generic 2NC blocks, it gets more obvious the longer the debate goes on, do it well.

On Counterplans, try to have a net benefit, be smart with it, try not to have a million planks, having a solvency advocate is cool too, not much here.

Disads - do your link work as usual, I will vote on who does the better impact framing, just make sure you still got that link :) p.s for affs, just dont leave it at the end of the 2AC with a 2 second “they dont link isn’t it obvious”, please explain your answers and divide up time strategically

on K’s, I love good 2NC/1NR link stories, try not to just extend some evidence and answer 2AC args, evaluate why your links implicate the aff and how their specific aff makes something problematic. I dont mind a 2NC only the K with no cards, just make sure you’re not reading prewritten blocks, please be as specific as possible

Please stick to your arguments and embody them, just tell me what to evaluate at the end of the debate, I will very much appreciate if you can tell me how that happens, be revolutionary if you want to, I would probably enjoy the debate more.

Current Senior at the University of Chicago

Prior experience in PF and slightly in LD

email: chaej@uchicago.edu

Here are some of my preferences:

I'll flow the round and take all claims into account as long as you have warrants to support these claims. I have some knowledge on the February topic but try to explain everything to the best of your abilities.

Please go at a reasonable speed. I can flow but going too fast is usually just a result of poor word economy. That given, I will try my best to comprehend whatever you say and I'll tell you if you're going too fast.

I don't flow crossfires but I'll listen. If in cross there's anything particularly important, I'll probably identify it but it only matters if you bring it up in following speeches. Otherwise, it carries virtually no weight and I can't evaluate it.

Warrant your responses and try to explain why they are correlative to your opponents' case. 2nd rebuttal should frontline turns.

Whatever isn't in summary isn't in final focus and whatever is in summary should be in final focus.

Try not to use theory, I don't think I'll evaluate it properly.

Speaks aren't only reflective of if you're winning the round. Public speaking, sportsmanship and decision making are taken into account.

Have good evidence ethics, I won't call for anything unless you tell me to look at something but don't mishandle what the evidence is trying to say.

Good luck

email: ericchen314@gmail.com

I did PF at Montgomery Blair for 2 years. I'm a first-year out at the University of Maryland.

TLDR: Speak slowly and clearly. I will vote for the team that is better dressed and smiles more.

Stuff about Baltics:

I don't know sh*t about the arguments. Please be clear and articulate; it'll help me follow along.

Presuming is not something I want to do on this topic, but I will flip a coin if I have to.

Some general comments:

1. Tech > Truth, but be reasonable. I am pretty stupid anyway, so a lot of stuff will probably fly.

2. Do not scoff at your opponents. No one else needs to know that you don't like what they're saying. If you want to make faces, do it off-camera.

3. Just be respectful and keep discussions civil. Do not intentionally try to embarrass your opponents. Make sure they're good with any sensitive topics in case.

4. Jokes and humor will be rewarded. Funny analogies will be crowned. Keep it tasteful, though.

5. Please do not argue debate rules in crossfire. I don't want to hear bickering about how debate should be interpreted and they never go anywhere. Just tell me the violation in the next speech. Furthermore, even if your opponents dropped something in a previous speech, they are allowed to ask questions about it in cross. Don't shut them down. If they do try to bring it up in speech, just let me know.

6. Always remember. Warrant + Empirics > Warrant or Empirics alone. Use this to your advantage if your opponents lack one of the elements. It works for me when it comes to contradicting evidence or arguments. Warrant > Empirics usually because numbers don't always tell the full story. However, if you're able to articulate why empirics matter more in your particular scenario, I may believe it. This is usually only true for clear-cut statistics.

7. I am not familiar with progressive debate. I've heard a couple of theory rounds but I won't be familiar with strange theory arguments. Don't try to read progressive arguments on inexperienced teams just to dominate them or get an easy win.

8. Blip no good. Dumping one-line responses and turns will not fly with me. I expect warrants. Don't try to expand on these one-liners in the back half of the debate.

9. Shall you send evidence quickly, I will be happy. Shall you send evidence slowly, I will be filled with rage. With that in mind, set up the evidence chain before the round, please. I shan't look at evidence unless commanded to. Evidence ethics is greatly important to me, so be sure you represent your evidence accurately.

10. Speed is probably fine, but it may become a burden on you if you push it. I cannot understand LD or Policy spreading, so please do not go anywhere near that fast.

11. Need ballot directive language. Tell me why I should vote for you and how I should evaluate the round. Also, tell me which link you're going for (if there are multiple). Signposting is incredibly important otherwise I may miss stuff.

12. Off-time roadmaps should be < 5 seconds unless you're doing multiple overviews or have a complicated order. If you read a roadmap, you better be darn sure you follow it. I should be able to flow your speech without needing a roadmap, so be organized nonetheless.

13. Nothing is auto-extended for me. Every speech should respond to the previous speech (other than case). Must have frontlines in 2nd rebuttal and defense extensions in summary. I expect weighing in 2nd Rebuttal and 1st Summary. It is quite difficult to frontline, read defense, and weigh in 2nd Rebuttal, so doing it well will get you good speaks. Good time management and organization will help you. Collapsing will, too.

14. I really don't think you need more than one offensive argument at the end of the round. Do it at your expense. If you go for a turn, make sure it's really flushed out starting from rebuttal. If you're able to weigh it early on and extend warrants through the entire debate, I will be impressed.

15. I will find it extremely difficult to vote for an argument I do not understand. Realize you know your arguments because you wrote it and know the cards and the warrants. I -- and your opponents -- will be hearing it for the first time. Try to make it easy to understand.

SPEAKS

It should be fairly easy to get good speaks from me. This is because I will grant you points for extremely simple things. Take advantage of this. Your speaks will start at a 28. Below a 27 means you did something incredibly wrong during the round (it will probably be like a 22).

1. Send cut cards to the chain before you finish your constructive speech for +0.5 speaks.

2. If you rhyme, your speaks will shine.

3. Make a good reference to Avatar the Last Airbender that actually makes fits in with your speech/cross-question for +0.3 speaks.

4. If you send a funny meme within the email chain before the start of the round, +0.2 speaks. Send an unfunny meme and you will get -0.3 speaks.

5. If you say "Iris Gupta is the best debater in the world" in any speech (or cross), +0.3 speaks. Reference "Blair Bebaters" for +0.2 speaks. If your opponents ask why you suddenly said these random things, you may not tell them that I directed you to do so in my paradigm. If you do, no speak bonus. This is your reward for reading this far and you do not want your opponents to receive the same bonus if they didn't read this.

6. Weighing link turns will make me smile at you favorably.

7. Speeches way over time will absolutely crush your speaks. I will give you a buffer to finish a concluding thought, but not a buffer for you to blippily extend a response after time.

8. If you can speak slowly and clearly while covering a lot of content, you will be rewarded. A lot of the time, it is more efficient than if you went super fast and hiccupped the entire way.

10. Numbering responses is a good organizational habit.

11. I like good rhetoric and fancy one-liners. Many flow rounds are super technical, but if you can do that while being persuasive, I will be very impressed and reward you with high speaks.

Examples: Our opponents are seeing Africa through rose-tinted lenses.

Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

The devil is in the details

Credit to Horace Mann FR for this one: Take a second to admire your reflection because this round is crystal clear. I absolutely loved this, haha.

12. Be chill. Rounds shouldn't feel intimidating. Chill rounds will net everyone good speaks, even if your speeches are questionable.

13. Last one! If you insert "Big Chungus" into your speech in a way that makes sense and isn't at the expense of your opponents, +0.5 speaks. Saying it randomly is a no-go.

I'm a 4 year pf debater at the high school level who has competed in over a dozen competitions. Therefore, I am a flow judge and care about the usual important pieces of pf debate.

1. Warrant everything you say. Never just give me a card or a tag and expect me to understand why it is important.

2. Make extensions (repeat key arguments/rebuttals/responses to rebuttals) through summary and final focus.

3. WEIGH!!!! This is the most important piece of it all. You must give me a clear and logical link chain that leads to an impact that you weigh against the opposing impacts. If you do not weigh your impacts, I'll either have to go off of the other team's weighing or weigh on my own which is most likely something you do not want.

At the end of the day, I know how stressful and agonizing debate can be at times (trust me, I've had my fair share of losses), but I'm going to try to make the round as easy for you guys as possible while coming to a fair decision that I can explain to you.

Good luck to all those reading this paradigm and let's have some fun!

The key for me when it comes to deciding most debates is two fold. First it is easier for me to vote for a team that weighs what is is being debated instead of just continuing to reiterate what their argument is. Well argued impacts are essential to choosing who is doing the better debating. I will look at the round objectively regardless of what I personally believe in almost every case so the way you frame your arguments and position them in the real world is very important to me.

Second, I think that since I am on the other side of the round, all I have to go on is what you're giving me; I will not do the work for you. In other words, if you make a really convincing argument in the first speech or in cross fire and you don't extend through the entire debate it or you let the other team take out the impacts without you addressing them, I can't just ignore that they're doing the better debating just because you may be right. I hope that makes sense.

As for me, I have a mostly policy background as a debater so I am good with spreading or k debate if you want to take it there, I have no real preference of specific arguments, i will hear whatever you say to me and weigh it as such. Just be respectful of everyone's space and time to speak, don't be an a**hole, and truly most importantly, have fun. I'm dead serious, if you're not having It'll just be a rough time for everyone, energies are tangible even over zoom.

Background

My pronouns are he/him. I've competed in debate for seven years - four years of high school Policy (CX) debate, and three years of college parliamentary (NPDA) debate. Since then, I've taught/coached both middle school and high school debaters in PF, LD, and Policy. Bottom line with me is do what you do best and what you enjoy most.

Big Picture

I consider myself a flow judge. That means the arguments you make in the round I'll evaluate, and I compare them to your opponents arguments and both of your interactions and clash with them/each other.

I don't have an issue with speed for the most part, but if your opponents ask you to slow down or to be clearer, please adjust accordingly.

I generally think you're in a better boat when your warrants for your claims are clearly explicated, which is easier when you somehow differentiate them from one another (speed makes that harder, so adjust accordingly).

Lastly, be respectful to your opponents and remember that you're here to have a good time. These things should be hand in hand.

Specifics

I don't have any arguments that are just no-go's/non-starters for me. Any argument you make should just be well justified and persuasive.

On K's: I think a good kritik needs a robust framework for how I should evaluate the argument(s) in the round. Equally important is an explication of the solvency for the alternative, which can often times be under-developed or under-explained.

On T/Theory: I don't need proven abuse to pull the trigger on these arguments. Good T debates I think treat the debate on the components similarly to a DA, so take from that as you will. Also I tend to believe if you're going for T/Theory that should result in the other team losing the debate and not just an argument, you should go all in on that argument.

On non-topical aff's: I did this quite a bit during my time in NPDA, so I don't have anything against it. That being said, I think the Aff should have a clear and persuasive reason why they're not topical.

Blake '21, UChicago '25

Did PF on the nat circuit for 3 years and I am currently an Assistant Coach for Blake.

Tl;dr:

- Pls run paraphrasing theory: Paraphrasing is awful, evidence is VERY important to me and I am happy to use the ballot to punish bad ethics in round.

- Send speech docs, its better for everyone.

- Strike me if you don't read cut cards/if you paraphrase or don't think evidence is important, you will be happy that you did.

- I flow.

- Tech>truth.

- All kinds of speed are fine, spreading too as long as you are not paraphrasing.

- 2nd rebuttal must frontline, defense isn't sticky, and if I'm something is going to be mentioned on my ballot, it must be in both back half speeches.

- Please weigh.

- I will let your opponents take prep for as long as it takes for you to send your doc or cards without it counting towards their 3 minutes, so send docs pls and send them fast.

- The following people have shaped how I view debate: Ale Perri (hi Ale), Christian Vasquez, Bryce Piotrowski, Darren Chang, and Shane Stafford.

jenebo21@gmail.com AND blakedocs@googlegroups.com -- Put BOTH on the email chain, and feel free to contact me after the round (on Facebook preferably, or email if you must) if you have questions or need anything from me. I am always happy to do what I can after the round to help you out.

General Paradigm:

- I will enforce speech times, prep time, etc with a timer and the ballot (if its like absolutely egregious, taking multiple minutes longer than you are allowed, etc)

- In most PF rounds, roadmaps aren't necessary, just tell me where you are starting and signpost. If there are 8 sheets, then yes, please give a roadmap.

- The Split: 2nd rebuttal must frontline; turns and defense.

- The Back Half: If I am going to vote on it, or if it is going to be apart of my RFD (all offense or defense in the round), it needs to be both in the summary and the final focus. None of this sticky defense nonsense. Weighing needs to start in summary, and final focus should be writing my ballot for me.

- Speed: I can handle all speeds in PF. More often than not, clarity matters more than WPM. I know debaters who speak super fast, and I can understand every word, and I know debaters who don't speak fast but are still super unclear, and vice versa. I will say clear if I cant follow. You can spread IF you are doing it like it is done in policy (spreading long cards, not a bunch of paraphrased garbage, slow down on tags/authors, sending out a speech doc is a must). IF you spread AND paraphrase, however, your chances of winning points of clash immediately plummet.

- Pls send speech docs with cut cards, I will probably ask for them so then I can read cards without having to call for a million different ones, and it shortens the amount of time taken for ev exchange by a million, so just pls send them.

- Weighing: You need to weigh on both the link and impact level, very often the team that weighs will pick up my ballot. I don't hate buzzwords as much as other PF judges, but I do need an explanation. Please start weighing as early as possible, in the rebuttals if you can. Early weighing helps you make strategic decisions and makes my life easier since weighing is what guides my ballot. I will always prefer weighing done earlier and dropped, over late weighing so weigh early and often. The evaluation of the round on my ballot starts and ends with weighing and it controls where I look to vote. I don't need a story or a super clear narrative, but write my ballot for me and make it easy. In line with this, I would highly encourage you to go for less and weigh more.

- Collapse: PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE collapse, preferably starting in second rebuttal. This makes all of our lives easier because you don't want to have to spam buzzwords blippily in response to some poorly extended argument, and I don't want to sift through a flow with tons of tags and zero warrants or weighing. Pick an argument to go for, and weigh that argument. That is the easiest way to pick up my ballot. Debate isn't a scoreboard, winning 3 arguments doesn't mean you get my ballot if your opponent only wins 1 argument.

- I cannot believe I have to make this a part of my paradigm, it should be exceedingly obvious, but no delinks or non-uniques on yourself (specifically that delinks the link you read in case or something which makes the opposite argument that you made initially) to get out of turn offense. It makes being first impossible and its just so stupid. I won't evaluate those arguments and your opponents are free to extend those turns. Obviously, you can concede your opponents defense, but you cant read it on yourself, new in second rebuttal.

- If the 1st constructive introduces framework, the 2nd constructive probably should respond to it (or at least make arguments as to why they can respond later). I don't know where i stand on this technically yet, but this is where i am leaning now, arguments can be made either way on this issue in round and i will evaluate them normally, but if the 1st constructive introduces framework and the 2nd constructive drops it, i think its ok for the first rebuttal to call it conceded unless otherwise argued.

- On advocacies/T: This is something that should be resolved in the round and I will eval the flow if this argument is made but my personal thoughts are as follows. Because the neg doesn't get a CP in PF, the aff's advocacy does not block the neg out of ground (basically neither side gets to control the others ground). The aff does the whole aff, the neg can garner DAs off of the aff's advocacy or any interpretation of what the aff could look like, not just what that aff was in that round. An example would be the neg could still read a Russia provocation negative on the NATO topic (Septober 2021) even if the aff does not read a troop deployment advocacy for their advantages. Alternatively, if the neg can get a CP then I suppose the aff can get an advocacy. Either way works - the point being that PF should consider some sort of method to adjudicate this in round.

- Be nice and respectful, but keep it light and casual if you can! Debate is fun, so lets treat it as such.

- I will be quick to drop debaters and arguments that are any -ism, and I won't listen to arguments like racism, sexism, death, patriarchy (etc) good. The space first and foremost needs to be safe to participate in.

- I don't care what you what you wear, where you sit, if you swear (sometimes a few F-bombs can make an exceedingly boring debate just a little less so!), if you do the flip or enter the room before im there, etc.

Evidence:

I like cut cards and quality evidence, I hate paraphrasing. Disclaimer: this is going to seem cranky, but I don't mind well-warranted analytics. I just hate paraphrasing. Ev is always better than an analytic, but if you introduce an arg as an analytic, I won't mind and will evaluate it as such. But if your opponents have evidence, you will likely lose that clash point. Here a few main points on evidence issues:

- Evidence is the backbone of the activity, otherwise it devolves into some really garbage nonsense (I do not value debate as a lying competition). As a result, debates about evidence are very easy ways to pick me up. Arguments about evidence preference are very good in front of me, and I will probably call for cards at the end of the round because most debate evidence is horrifically miscut or paraphrased. Evidence quality is very very important, and I have NO PROBLEM intervening against awful evidence especially in close rounds. Good evidence is important for education and quality of debate, so if you have bad evidence, I am happy to drop you for it to improve the activity and hopefully teach you a lesson. This applies to both if you cut cards or paraphrase, because cutting cards doesn't make you immune to lying about it, so generally cut good cards, and read good evidence.

- Paraphrasing: The single worst wide-spread practice in PF debate today is paraphrasing. Its just so obviously silly. Its bad for the quality of debate, its bad for all of its educational benefits, and its unfair. I hate it so so much. So please cut cards, its not difficult and it makes everyone's lives better. That said, I know that it happens regardless so here are a few things important for the in round if you do paraphrase:

a. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE have a cut card or at least a paragraph, you absolutely need to be able to have this, its a rule now. Your opponents do not need to take prep to sort through your PDFs, and if you cant quickly produce the evidence and where you paraphrased it from, I'm crossing the argument off my flow. I have very little tolerance for long, paraphrased evidence exchanges where you claim to have correctly paraphrased 100 page PDFs and expect your opponents to be able to check against your bad evidence with the allotted prep time.

b. If you paraphrase, you MUST be reading full arguments. 40 authors in 1st rebuttal by spreading tag blips and paraphrasing authors to make it faster is not acceptable and your speaks will tank. Claim, warrant, ev is all required if I am going to vote on it or even flow it.

c. If you misrepresent a card while paraphrasing, not only is that bad in a vacuum, but I will give you the L25. If you realize its badly represented OR you cant find it when asked and you make the arg "just evaluate as an analytic" I will also give an L25 and be in a really bad mood. Its a terrible, terrible argument, so please dont make it. If you introduce the evidence, you have to be able to defend it.

d. Dont be mad at me if you get bad speaks. There is no longer world in which someone who paraphrases, even if they give the perfect speech gets above a 29 in front of me. I used to be more forgiving on this, but no longer.

- Evidence exchange: if the header "paraphrasing" meant you skipped over that part of my paradigm, I will reiterate something that is important regardless of how you introduce the evidence; if you cant produce a card upon being asked for it within a minute or two, at best you get lowest speaks I can give and probably the L too.

- Even if its not theory, arguments that I should prefer cut cards over paraphrased cards at the clash points are going to work in front of me. Please make those arguments, I think they are very true.

- Another thing im shocked i have to put in my paradigm, but you need to cite the author you are reading even if you paraphrase from them, for it to be counted as evidence and not an analytic. if you read something without citing an author, I will flow it as an analytic and if your opponents call for that piece of ev, and you hand it to them without citing it in the round, I am dropping you. Its plagiarism and extremely unethical. This is an educational activity, come on ppl.

Progressive paradigm:

DISLCAIMER: Deep in my bones, I believe that debate is good. It may presently be flawed, but I believe the activity has value and can be transformative. Arguments that say debate is bad, and should be destroyed entirely (often times this is the conclusion of non-topical pess arguments, killjoy, the like) will be evaluated but my biases towards the activity being good WILL impact the decision. Doesn't mean they are unwinnable, but it is probably wildly unstrategic to run them.

I'm receptive to all args, including progressive ones in the debate space, but they have been getting REALLY low quality recently. I worry about the long term impact about some of these really bad versions on the activity. Please, think about the model you are advocating for, think about if its sincerely going to make the space better for the people growing up in it.

- While there are obvious upsides to progressive arguments, I don't appreciate frivolous theory (see below). This does include spikes and tricks, I don't like them, pls don't run them. If the theory is frivolous, and I reserve the right to determine that, I won't vote on it no matter the breakdown of the round.

- I won't vote for auto-30 speaker point arguments

Theory:

- I probably default to competing interps unless told otherwise, but that doesn't really mean much if you read the rest of this paradigm. I am going to evaluate the flow, so if you read theory arguments that I won't intervene against, I am going to evaluate it normally.

- I generally think no-RVIs. The exception to this might be an RVI on IVIs.

- IVIs are really bad for debate. If they are a rules claim, make it a theory shell. Most of the time, they are vague whines that are spammed off in the span of 4 seconds without any explanation. This proliferation is nearly existential for the activity, and it needs to stop.

- I have no problem intervening against frivolous theory (i.e. shoe theory), so if you run theory in front of me, please believe that its actually educational for the activity. Even theory like social distancing or contact info are ones where its hard to win in front of me, and in some contexts I probably won't vote on it. Resolved theory and other nonsense will barely warrant getting flowed for me, I won't vote on them.

- Theory needs to be read in the speech following the violation. Out of round violations should be read in constructive.

- Paraphrasing is bad: I will vote on paraphrasing bad most of the time, as long as theres some offense on the shell. I personally think its good for the debate space and am very predisposed to voting for it. I will NEVER vote on paraphrasing good, I don't care how mad that may make you to hear, I just won't do it. If you introduce cut cards bad or paraphrasing good as a new off (like before a para bad shell) I will instantly drop you. That said, you can win enough defense on a paraphrasing shell to make it not a voter. Paraphrasing theory is the exception to the disclaimers outlined above, I think paraphrasing should be punished in round and am happy to vote on it.

- Disclosure is good: I am less excited to hear it because typically, disclosure rounds are really bad and messy. Open source is good too, I have come around on it, so you can basically run whatever disclosure interp you want. Run it if you think you can win it, but dont be fearful to hear it ran against you in front of me. Respond to it, and I will vote as I would a normal flow.

- Trigger warnings: This theory has been read a lot more recently, I will eval it like a normal shell, but for the record, I think trigger warnings in PF are usually bad, and usually run on arguments that dont need to be trigger warned which just suppresses voices and arguments in the activity. You can go for the theory, but my threshold for responses will be in accordance with that belief typically.

Kritiks/Arguments that people in PF are calling "Kritiks" even when they are not:

- I am all good with kritiks, although im not as experienced with them as I am with other args, but that isnt a reason not to run a K in front of me. I will be able to flow it and vote on it as long as you explain it well.

- Blake 2021 made me think about this a lot, and I think the activity is just going through growing pains that are necessary, but some of these debates were really bad. So please think through all of the arguments you read, so that you can articulate exactly what my ballot does or what specifically I am supposed to be doing. This means implicating responses or arguments onto the FW debate, or the ROTB.

- Also, no one thinks fiat is real (pre/post-fiat is just an inaccurate and irrelevant label), so lets be more specific about how we label arguments or discourse. Make comparisons as to why your discourse or type of education is more important than theirs, this is not done by slapping the label "pre-fiat" onto an argument because NO ONE THINKS ITS REAL. Just get past that label and explain why.

- You also need to do a pretty good amount of work explaining why or how discourse shapes reality, just asserting it does isn't much of a warrant and this debate is always underdeveloped in rounds I am in.

Speaks:

I will probably give around a 27-28 in most rounds. I guess I give lower speaks than most PF judges, so I’ll clarify. 27-28 is middling to me with various degrees within that. 26-27 is bad, not always for ethical reasons. Below a 26 is an ethical issue. If you get above a 29 from me you should be very happy bc I never give speaks that high almost ever.

Here is a little bit about myself:

B.S in Kinesiology from SUNY Brockport

M.S in Special Education with a Math & Science Focus for grades 7th-12th from Brooklyn College

I value analysis of the round above all else: I can't vote for either of you over a contention where your opponent has given me a different link chain that leads to the same impacts. If you weigh, or provide some offense that interacts with their case, then I will tend to vote for you.

I also value respect in debate. Please do not be blatantly disrespectful during the round (Things like speaking over your opponent in cross when it is uncalled for or being aggressive when your opponents call for evidence may come off as rude, and even though things like that don't decide my ballot, they do play a factor in my speaker points.)

Have fun and enjoy debating! :)

I am a parent-judge. I'm excited to hear you debate, but please do not spread. It's more important that I can follow you. I'm looking for the team with the best argument, logical flow, and good sportsmanship. I will be taking notes during the debate, so you may see me looking down. Don't worry. I'm listening. I would appreciate it if you would keep time yourselves. In final focus, make it clear why you've won. I have great respect for you already. I know you have worked hard and prepared for this day. I'm pulling for each and every one of you.

Hi everyone,

My name is Elijah. I recently graduated from SUNY Geneseo with a BA in Geography and minors in Urban Studies and Environmental Studies. In high school, I participated in both policy and public forum debate (novice and varisty).

I have not been involved with the debate community for a few years now. Because of this, I might be a little slow when it comes to flowing and understanding high speed spreading.

Personally, I debated a range of different topics and arguments, from traditional policy case args to K's. I encourage you to run whatever arguments you want.

In terms of in-round preferences, here are some things I value:

- Extension of arguments throughout the entire debate: I have trouble voting for a argument that isn't extended consistently throughout the round. I like to see that clear extension on my flow all the way up to the final focus. I have a lot of trouble voting for an arg that is brought up in the Final Focus but not the Summary, even if it goes unanswered by the opposing side.

- Weighing of impacts: Describe why an argument matters and the impact of that argument when it comes to voting for or against you. Simply saying something is important, even if it may seem obvious, isn't enough

Obviously, racism, sexism, homophobia, antisemitism, and any other abuse will not be tolerated.

Overall, I am open to any arguments. I am excited to be participating in the debate community again. Also, I do have a good bit of knowledge on the current (February) PF topic.

I have debated public forum for 4 years and was captain of my debate team at Paramus High School.

I am currently a senior in college at the Stevens Institute of Technology studying computer science & quantitative finance

Qualifications: 2 Public Forum Gold Bids (Princeton & UPenn), ToC qualified (2019), and 2x States Qualifier. Now I spend my time in debate through coaching

Both summaries must extend important defense, if you don't its not a huge issue, I'll probably have it on the flow.

Final focus should be offense centered / reiterations of your own frontlines and weighing on your part.

Idc what happens in cross, just be respectful

Rebuttal line by line / dropping a ton of responses is nice, just make sure the responses are well warranted / warranted in the first place. I hate blippy responses where I have to make the connection to the argument you're responding to, I won't do that for you. Any responses w/o warranting gets automatically dropped from my flow.

if you have any other questions, email cavingada@gmail.com

I wont waste your time with this

he/they

if your comfortable with it id ask that everyone shares pronouns before the round starts or that we refrain from using gendered language and just use my opponent/opponents.

Im not sure exactly what ill be judging but i did every event besides policy in high school and im a debater at the collegiate level with UCSD. Speed is fine, Ks are fine, theory is fine, squirrely arguments like nuclear war are ok but your link chain better be flawless as im not inclined to vote for the magnitude outweighs probability argument for the 6 millionth time. Please signpost, please weigh at the end, be kind, be courteous, respect me and your opponents and just have a good debate overall. I dont give speaker points below 28 unless someone has been racist, sexist, xenophobic, ect...

I am a third year at UC Berkeley and an assistant debate coach for College Prep. I debated for Bethesda-Chevy Chase HS in high school and won the Glenbrooks, the Strake Round Robin, Blake, Durham, the Barkley Forum, Stanford, Harvard, the King Round Robin, and NDCAs.

Please add eli.glickman@berkeley.edu to the email chain, and label the chain clearly; for example, “TOC R1F1 Email Chain Bethesda-Chevy Chase GT v. AandM Consolidated DS.”

TL;DR

I am tech over truth. You can read any argument in front of me, provided it’s warranted. Extensions are key; card names, warrants, links, and internal links are all necessary in the back half. Good comparative analysis and creative weighing are the best ways to win my ballot.

———PART I: SPEECHES———

Signposting:

Teams that do not signpost will not do well in front of me. If I cannot follow your arguments, I will not flow them properly.

Cross:

I might listen but I won't vote off or remember anything said here unless it's in a speech. Rudeness and hostility are unpleasant, and I will ding your speaks if you do not behave professionally in cross. Teams may skip GCX, if they want. If you agree to skip GCX, both teams get 1 additional minute of prep.

Rebuttal:

Read as much offense as you want, but you should implicate all offense well on the line-by-line. Second rebuttal must frontline defense and turns, but blippy defense from the first rebuttal doesn’t all need to be answered in this speech.

Summary:

Defense is not sticky, and it should be extended in summary. I will only evaluate new turns or defense in summary if they are made in response to new implications from the other team.

Final Focus:

First final can do new weighing but no new implications of turns, nor can the first final make new implications for anything else, unless responding to new implications or turns from the second summary. Second final cannot do new weighing or make new implications. Final focus is a really good time to slow down and talk big picture.

———PART II: TECHNICAL THINGS———

Voting:

I default to util. If there's no offense, I presume to the first speaking team. I will always disclose after the round.

Evidence:

Paraphrasing is fine if it is done ethically. Smart analytics help debaters grow as critical thinkers, which is the purpose of this activity. Well-warranted arguments trump poorly warranted cards. There are, however, two evidence rules you must follow. First, you must have cut cards, and you must send cut cards in the email chain promptly after your opponent requests them. Second, I will not tolerate misconstruction of evidence. If you misconstrue evidence, I will give you very low speaks, and I reserve the right to drop you, depending on the severity of the misconstruction.

Email Chains:

I require an email chain for every round, so evidence exchange is faster and more efficient. If you are spreading or reading any progressive arguments, you must send a doc before you begin. You should not have any third-party email trackers activated; if you do, I will tank your speaks.

Prep Time:

Don't steal prep or I will steal your speaks. Feel free to take prep whenever, and flex prep is fine too.

Speech Times:

These are non-negotiable. I stop flowing after the time ends, and I reserve the right to scream "TIME" if you begin to go over. Cross ends at 3 minutes sharp. If you’re in the middle of a sentence, finish it quickly.

Speed:

I can follow speed (300wpm+), but be clear. If I can't understand what you're saying that means I can't flow it. Speed is good in the first half and bad in the second half, collapse strategically, and don't go for everything. If I miss something in summary or final focus because you're going too fast and I drop you, it's your fault. I repeat, slow down, don't go for everything, and be efficient.

Speaks:

Clarity and strategy determine your speaks. I disclose speaks as well, just ask.

Postrounding:

Postround as hard as you want, as I think it's educational.

Trigger Warnings:

I do not require trigger warnings. I will not reward including them, nor will I penalize excluding them. This is informed by my personal views on trigger warnings (see Jonathan Haidt and Greg Lukianoff, The Coddling of the American Mind). I will never opt out of an argument. I will not hack for trigger warning good theory, and I am open to trigger warning bad arguments (though I will not hack for these either).

———PART III: PROGRESSIVE DEBATE———

You do not need to ask your opponent if they are comfortable with theory. “I don't know how to respond” is not a sufficient response. Don’t debate in varsity if you can’t handle varsity arguments.

Preferences:

Theory/T - 1

LARP - 1

Kritik - 3

Tricks - 3

High Theory - 4

Non-T Kritik - 5 (Strike)

Performance - 5 (Strike)

Theory:

I think frivolous theory is bad. I'll evaluate it, but I have a lower threshold for responses the more frivolous the shell. Poorly executed theory will result in low speaks. If you've never run theory before, and feel inclined to do so, I'm happy to give comments and help as much as I can.I default to competing interps and yes RVIs. I believe that winning no RVIs applies to the entire theory layer unless your warrants are specific to a shell, C/I, etc. Unless I am evaluating the theory debate on reasonability you must read a counterinterp; if you do not all of your responses are inherently defensive because your opponents are the only team providing me with a 'good' model of debate.

Theory must be read immediately after the violation. You must extend your shells in rebuttal, and you must frontline your opponent’s shell(s) immediately after they read it.

Kritiks:

I ran Ks a few times, however, I am not a great judge for these rounds. I'm fairly comfortable with biopower, security, cap, and imperialism.

Tricks:

These are pretty stupid but go for them if you want to.

Everything Else:

Framework, soft-left Ks, CPs, and DAs are fine.

TKO:

If your opponent has no path to the ballot, such as conceded theory shell or your opponents reading a counterinterp that they do not meet themselves, you may call a TKO. If your TKO is valid, you win with 30 speaks, however, if your opponents did have a path to the ballot you will lose with very low speaks.

Debated at JMU for three years (novice, JV, some varsity tournaments). I’ve judged college policy debate and all styles of high school debate. I'm currently a graduate student studying International Affairs.

Etiquette – I will time the round, but please time yourself if you can. I've noticed a trend of competitors signaling their opponents when they run over time - as a judge, I will stop flowing and/or let a debater if they are over time. Be respectful and kind to other people in the round/room and focus on your own debating!

Ideas about debate:

1. I’ll watch and flow whatever debate happens. I consider myself fairly open-minded in terms of debate, and don’t care what I judge. I'm not actively coaching, so I may not be fully familiar with all of the acronyms for a new topic area (especially in high school LD/PF), explain key terms!

2. Good evidence analysis/argument comparison allows for good debate to happen. Create an interesting, in-depth debate by using the arguments and evidence already in the debate before reading more cards!

3. Run the arguments that you are comfortable with. I won’t walk into a round with my mind set to vote against anything. If you explain how you relate to/interact with the topic, or how you want me to view the round, we should all be happy!

Specific Arguments:

1. Theory/FW – Run what you are comfortable with, but make sure that all of your arguments are well-warranted and impacted in the round. Proven abuse wins over blippy analytics. The bar is a little higher to win an argument like ASPEC with a well written plan text, but create any neg strat you like.

2. Kritiks – I ran Ks, but that doesn’t mean I’m familiar with every single philosopher’s base of work. Flesh out the details if they’re important.

3. DA/CP – Great strat to go for, make sure your story is complete with full links, internal links, and impacts.

If you still have any questions, feel free to ask! Have fun!

I am a lay judge and have judged numerous state (MA) and national tournaments, both Public Forum and Lincoln Douglas.

I favor clear structure, comprehensibility, and the quality/integrity of arguments/data over quantity and complexity. I am not a subject matter expert on the topics you are debating or on the fine points of Lincoln Douglas debate technique. That said, I will listen to you very intently, take a lot of notes, and do my very best to render a fair and balanced decision.

I am not a fan of meme cases and not experienced enough to fairly judge tech cases. I may ask you to slow down if you speak too quickly. I expect you to keep your own time.

I will share critical comments if I have any, which may not be always. I will take careful notes throughout, disclose and provide an RFD after submitting the ballot.

Above all else - have fun and good luck!

Hello. I hope you are having a nice day.

I've debated PF for three years at Montgomery Blair High School! I am really not a fan of documents where everyone pastes their evidence in an unknown order - just include me in the email chain: iris.gupta02@gmail.com.

Note - I'll only intervene in situations where the safety of anyone in the round is compromised.

1. Speed - Imo there’s no need to speak quickly. And as Lara Ojha puts it, if you start spreading, I will fall asleep.

2. Weighing - I think weighing is more than comparing offense at the end of the debate. Tell me why to prefer your responses over their arguments, why your link is stronger, why your frontlines beat their responses early on. Basically, WEIGH EVERYTHING or I'll have to decide what's more important myself/consider it a wash. Note - clarity and probability are not real weighing imo

3. Progressive - I have VERY little experience with progressive stuff and am actually sympathetic to teams that argue debating the topic is more important. Idc if you disclose/paraphrase or not. Definitely don't read progressive stuff as a strategy to get ahead of opponents with limited experience.

4. Frontlining - I think second rebuttal needs to frontline all turns and any arguments y'all plan to go for otherwise it's considered conceded. Any argument that wasn't frontlined in second rebuttal simply does not have offense.

5. Extensions - Smh for blippy extensions. Make em nice. I will also just ignore things in FF that I didn't hear in summary.

6. Evidence - You can paraphrase but your speaks will be highly rewarded for reading cut cards. Evidence ethics are generally atrocious so I'm really sympathetic to indicts/looking at cards you tell me to. Especially for the West Africa topic, the debate should be about things that actually happened in West Africa, not just about things that sound good. This being said, PLEASE no miscut evidence or I will be sooooo sad.

7. Crossfire - I may or may not listen. I won't vote off of cross but your speaks will depend on it to some extent. +0.5 speaker points if you can make me laugh. Keep speaking time about 50/50 per side because I won't be impressed by "dominating cross".

8. Quality/Quantity - I value quality over quantity. I REALLY DO NOT VIBE WITH dumping blippy turns and disads in rebuttal. The other team can literally just point out if the opponent has dumped offense without giving warrants, impacts, etc. and I'll probably side with them there.

9. Other stuff - A good warrant will always beat evidence because methodology is flawed all the time and who knows how good the statistic is. Consider "we have a warrant and they don't" valid weighing.

10. Post-rounding - Shore.

11. Timing - I will keep time and give a 10 second grace period. I am really not tryna listen to a 5 minute rebuttal.

12. Roadmap - Shore. +0.2 speaks if you actually follow it.

13. Signposting - PLS do this and my flow will look a lot more like yours.

14. FF - Tell me how to evaluate the round! If not, my default is looking at who wins the weighing and then looking for a risk of offense under that.

15. Collapsing - I think both teams should only go for one or MAYBE two pieces of offense in the back half. This saves time to do important things, like frontlining, weighing, etc.

16. Concessions - If something that's read isn't responded to in the next available speech, it's conceded.

17. Speaks - If you say "Eric Chen is the best debater in the world" in any speech, +0.4 speaks.

email: colter.heirigs@gmail.com

POLICY PARADIGM:

I have been coaching Policy Debate full time since 2014. Arms sales is my 7th year of coaching.

I view my primary objective in evaluating the round to be coming to a decision that requires the least “judge intervention.”

If debaters do not give me instructions on how to evaluate the debate, and/or leave portions of the debate unresolved, they should not expect to get my ballot. My decision will end up being arbitrary, and (while I will likely still try to make my arbitrary decision less arbitrary than not) I will not feel bad.

In the final rebuttals, debaters should be giving me a “big picture” assessment of what’s going on in the debate to give them the best chance to get my ballot. Extending 25 arguments in the rebuttals doesn’t do much for me if you’re not explaining how they interact with the other team’s arguments and/or why they mean you win the round. In my ideal debate round, both 2NR and 2AR have given me at least a 45 second overview explaining why they’ve won the debate where they dictate the first paragraph of my ballot for me.

Important things to note:

-I don’t ever think Topicality is an RVI (*this is distinct from kritiks of the neg’s interp/use of topicality*)

-If you don’t signpost AND slow down for tags, assume that I am missing at least 50% of your tags. This means saying a number or a letter or “AND” or “NEXT” prior to the tag of your card, and preferably telling me which of your opponents arguments I should flow it next to. Speech docs are not substitutes for clarity and signposting.

-I'm probably a 7 on speed, but please see above ^^^^

-High-theory will be an uphill battle.

-I would prefer not to call for cards, I believe it’s the debaters job to clearly communicate their arguments; if you tell me they’re misrepresenting their cards – I will probably call for them. But if I call for it and they’re not misrepresenting their evidence you’ll lose a lot of credibility with me and my cognitive biases will likely run amuck. Don’t let this deter you from calling out bad evidence.

-You can win the line-by-line debate in the 2AR but still lose the debate if you fail to explain what any of it means and especially how it interacts with the 2NR's args.

-Don’t assume I have any familiarity with your Acronyms, Aff, or K literature

-Swearing is probably word inefficient

-You’re in a bad spot if you’re reading new cards in the final rebuttals, very low propensity for me to evaluate them

-CPs that result in the aff are typically going to be a very hard sell, so are most other artificially competitive CPs. Perms are cool, so are time tradeoffs for the aff when this happens. If you really think you've got a sick techy CP make sure to go out of your way to win questions of competition/superior solvency / a specific link to the aff plan alone for your NB

-I think debate is a competition.

-the best “framework” arguments are probably “Topicality” arguments and almost probably don’t rely on cards from debate coaches and definitely don’t rely on me reading them after the round

-Impact everything out... Offense and Defense... I want to hear you telling me why your argument is more pressing and important than the other team's. I hate having to intervene... "Magnitude," "Probability," and "Timeframe" are not obscenities, please use them.

Arguments you shouldn’t waste your time on with me:

-Topicality = RVI (*this is distinct from kritiks of the neg’s interp/use of topicality*)

-Consult CPs

I am going to have the easiest time evaluating rounds where:

-warrant and evidence comparison is made

-weighing mechanisms and impact calculus guiding how I evaluate micro & macro level args are utilized

-the aff advocates a topical plan

-the DA turns and Outweighs the Case, or the CP solves most of the case and there's a clear net benefit that the perm doesn't solve for

-the negative has a well-researched neg strategy

-I am not expected to sort through high-theory

-the 2NR/2AR doesn't go for everything and makes strategic argument selection

Presumptions I bring into the round that probably cannot be changed:

-I’m voting Neg on presumption until the aff reads the 1AC

-Topicality is never an RVI (*this is distinct from kritiks of the neg’s interp/use of topicality*)

-There is no 3NR

-Oppression of humans = bad (note: I do not know how this compares to the end of the planet/human race, debaters are going to have to provide weighing mechanisms for me.)

-Earth existing = good (note: I do not know how this compares to other impacts like oppression of humans, debaters are going to have to provide some weighing mechanisms for me.)

-I will have a very difficult time bringing myself to vote for any sort of Consult CP if the aff even mumbles some type of “PERM”

-Once the 2AC perms, presumption goes to the neg to prove the perm unworkable or undesirable if the CP/Alt is not textually/functionally competitive

Unimportant things to note:

-Plz read your plan before you read solvency – I will be annoyed and lost if you don’t

-I really enjoy author indicts if/when they’re specific – it shows a team has worked hard and done their research

-I really enjoy case specific strategies – I enjoy it when a team can demonstrate that they've worked hard to prepare a case specific strategy

-I enjoy GOOD topicality debates

-I’ve been involved in policy debate in some capacity for 11 years now – Education is my 5th topic coaching.

-I put my heart and soul into policy debate for four years on high school. I worked tirelessly to put out specific strategies for specific affirmatives and I like to see debaters who I can tell have done the same and are having fun. So, show me you know your case better than anyone else if you're affirmative, or on the neg, show me specific links and answers to the affirmative... I tend to reward this in speaker points. ...That being said, generics are fun, fine, and essential for the negative team. Feel free to run them, you will not be penalized in any way.

Specific Arguments

I'm good for just about anything that is well debated: T, Theory, DAs, CPs, Ks... I can even be persuaded to vote solely on inherency if it is well debated - if the plan has literally already happened, for the love of god please punish the aff.

That being said, I enjoy seeing a strategy in argument selection, and appreciate when arguments don't blatantly contradict each other (i.e. the DA linking to the CP, or Cap Bad and an Econ Impact on politics). Especially in the 2NR.

********************************************************

LD Paradigm

I am pretty tab when it comes to LD. My goal is to reach a decision that requires the least amount of judge intervention.

Signpost and slow down on tags. Slow down even more for theory args. Spreading through tags and theory interps is absolutely not the move if you want me to be flowing your speech. I will not be flowing from the doc.

Slow down. No, you don’t have to be slow and you should certainly feel free to read the body of your cards at whatever max speed you are comprehensible at. If you’ve used signposting, slowed down on tags and pre-written analytics, you’re golden. It's inexcusable and unforgivable to not have signposting in the 1ac.

I come into the round presuming:

-the aff should be defending the resolution

-the aff is defending the entirety of the resolution

-my ballot answers the resolutional question

-debate is a game

These presumptions can likely be changed.

Stylistically agnostic, but probably not your best judge for:

-dense phil that you’re spreading through

-undisclosed affs that don’t defend the entirety of the resolution

-process CPs that result in the aff

-more than 2 condo

-friv theory - I ❤️ substance

-Probably not interested in hearing condo if it’s just 2 condo positions

-theory interps that require me to ignore other speeches

I think that I have a low propensity to vote for most arguments regarding things that happen outside of the round or prior to the 1ac. I am not interested in adjudicating arguments that rely on screenshots of chats, wikis, or discord servers.

Questions, or interested in my thoughts on particular subjects not covered in my LD paradigm? Check out my POLICY PARADIGM above!

Public Forum Paradigm:

First speakers get to ask the first question in crossfire. If you ask about the status of this in round, expect to get one less speakerpoint than you would have otherwise.

File Share > e-mail chain.

Depth > Breadth. You only have four minutes to construct your position, would far prefer to hear 2 well-developed contentions rather than 3-4 blippy ones unless they are incredibly straight-forward. Much less interested in adjudicating “argument checkers” than most.

Hello! I'm Natasha. I debated for Lincoln-Sudbury 2011-2015. My email: natasha.kadlec@gmail.com. Please do ask any questions you might have before or after round.

I'm a former debater and current coach but also a human, so I prefer clarity and sound argumentation over an exorbitant number of unwarranted responses/cards/etc.

"Off time road maps": please do not use "off time road maps." If absolutely necessary, an on time road map will be fine.

Ks: not in favor and not opposed.

CX: I don't flow it, anything you procure in CX should be extended

Inspirational Quote: “small number of little groups and individuals who are trying to separate themselves from the basic questions of reality with their nonsensical, mumbling lies” (see: https://tinyurl.com/3bu2aah4)

I am a flow judge. If you want me to vote on an argument, make sure it is brought up in summary and final focus. Weighing your arguments is very important; I'll vote for the side that does the better weighing for me. Summary and final focus should explain to me perfectly why you win the round. Good luck!

Middle School Paradigm:

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

• Weigh your impacts!

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

• I like very organized speeches

• Summary and FF should be similar

• Be nice (especially in cross)

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

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

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

Hi I'm Enya! I debated for 4 years at Newton South, mostly on the nat circuit. I'm a few years out.

Add me to the email chain - enya@kamadolli.com (this is solely for convenience in case y'all ask me to look at evidence, I'm almost never looking at evidence unless a team asks me to)

Pronouns: she/her/hers

Please introduce yourselves w/ pronouns

---- For Novices ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1) You are amazing and we are all here to learn so please don't be stressed or nervous and try to have fun :)

2) Weighing is the easiest way that you can get me to vote for you. Please make it comparative though. Also please remember to also extend a warrant and an impact in summary and final focus (and it should be the same warrant and impact).

3) I don't vote off cross. Obviously I'll pay attention and give you feedback as to what were strategic questions, etc, but nothing you say in cross will be written down by me. That means that you should focus on asking about things that will help you out, not asking about things and saying things that should probably be in a speech.

4) Please please please collapse on just one or two arguments. I do not evaluate rounds by counting. I will only vote for something if there is a warrant and impact and ideally weighing. If you extend three contentions in summary/final focus, you have to do this for each contention.

(If you don't understand any of the things above or below, please ask. Also if at any point during round you are confused about speech times, cross times, or prep time, please ask)

---- General things-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

***if you say anything or act in any way that is sexist, racist, homophobic, transphobic, classist, egregiously elitist, islamophobic, etc, I will drop you and likely report you to tab***

1) Tech > Truth. Keep in mind that if you lose the flow, you will lose the round.

2) I require the frontlining of all offense in 2nd rebuttal. That means turns AND weighing. If those are not addressed, I consider them conceded in the round. You might want to frontline some other stuff too. That’s up to you :)

3) Evidence+warranting > warranting > bEcaUse thE EvIDenCe SayS sO.

4) Please use they/them pronouns with anyone that you don’t know the pronouns of

5) Everyone gets a 10 second grace period. Please do not start anything new during the grace period. However, certainly DO NOT interrupt your opponents, raise your hand/fist, or do anything else disruptive during that 10 second period. I frown upon this practice even after the 10 second period, given that I am also timing the speech and I will put my pen down after the 10 second period, so there's no need to frantically wave your timer at me.

6) the Zoom/NSDA platform technology picks up deeper voices. That essentially means that if a person with a deeper voice and a person with a higher voice are talking at the same time, only the person with the deeper voice will be heard. Please be aware of this and adjust your behavior in cross accordingly!!! If you are a person with a deep voice who ~literally~ does not let anyone else get a word in and/or interrupts others, expect a 26.

7) Feel free to ask me questions about my decision. If you have any questions about how I evaluated any specific argument/weighing, I encourage you to ask them if my RFD didn't make it clear enough. I'll most likely give an oral RFD unless the round runs really late, but if for some reason I don't, feel free to email me with questions once you get my RFD.

8) I'm willing to entertain progressive argumentation if you explain it well and you aren't running it against novices or teams that clearly don't know how it works. I'm quite open to kritiks, but please keep in mind that I don't have a ton of experience with them, so keep them accessible. Any sort of minority advocacy argument will be well-recieved by me. I'm not a huge fan of disclosure and paraphrase theory, but if it's on my flow I'll evaluate it.

---- Things that’ll boost your speaks -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Giving your opponents prep time if they use all of theirs up (+1)

Collapsing in second rebuttal (+1)

Rebuttal weighing overview (+0.5)

Having some good weighing mechanism that I’ve not encountered yet on a topic (+0.25)

LD:

I am a flow judge. Do not spread. I like Cap Ks.

If your opponent has read a utilitarian/on-balance framework, and you agree with it, you do not need to read your own utilitarian framework in your next speech, just say you agree with theirs.

PF:

I am a 'flow' judge, but I am a pro-interventionist. I think judge intervention makes debate better. I'm also pretty traditional.

Don't add me to the email chain.

Truth over Technology. Yet what is true is up to you. Convince me.

General

I will flow the round. Probably not well. I don't really like flowing.

Speak slowly, no spreading.

I won't evaluate/will tank speaks for -ist or problematic arguments.

Read trigger warnings or you lose.

DEFENSE IS NOT STICKY. Reexplain.

I will know if you are new in the two. Don't test me.

Warrants>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Evidence. You will lose if you don't read warrants.

I reserve the right to intervene on stupidity. If I think an argument is dumb, I will not vote off of it. Please explain your arguments to avoid this. Or just don't explain your stupid arguments.

I'll probably vote for whoever has a better understanding in cross of how the round is going.

Collapse by summary (offense and defense) FF should be a second summary, except less line by line.

2nd speaking team needs to respond to all 1st speaking team's offense in rebuttal.

No need to extend impacts.

I have very particular views on weighing/evidence/theory pls read.

Weighing

I evaluate the round through weighing. If you win weighing and offense, you win the round.

However, I don't like all weighing.

Weighing I don't evaluate:

- Probability. If you say that word you will get L26s. If you say '100% probability' you will get L25s.

- Clarity of link/impact: Doesn't mean anything.

- Strength of link: Nobody reads warrants for this stuff. You can't really.

- Urgency: No thank you.

- Timeframe: Also dumb.

- Weighing that involves defense.

- Reversibility: These words are meaningless to me.

- Food/Water/important things FIRST!!!!: It isn't weighing or a pre-req. It's just dumb. Don't read.

Weighing I evaluate:

- Magnitude/Scope/My impact is bigger: It's true. But don't say the word magnitude, or I will not be happy. Explain why. Numbers mean nothing to me.

- Pre-req/Short-circuit: Read this before second summary. It should make sense.

If you read weighing I have said I don't evaluate, I won't, and I'll intervene.

I evaluate framing arguments, but they need warrants.

I like meta-weighing.

Evidence

Debate is not about evidence. In fact, I don't evaluate evidence. Evidence is bad for debate.

No need to read evidence in rebuttal or extend evidence. Honestly, no need to read evidence in case.

I don't evaluate evidence clash. I don't care.

If your offense in the round boils down to whether or not a piece of evidence is good, you'll probably lose (if your opponents have warrants)

I don't care if your evidence is miscut. Whatever. In fact, I will give .0005 speaker points for every completely miscut card in your case - please have a list ready before the round so that I can do the math quickly.

I will NEVER call for cards. Even if you beg me to. It's bad intervention. If you ask to show me evidence after the round you will lose speaks.

Don't extend card names, I don't flow them anyways.

Progressive Args

Theory

I think most theory is stupid. I don't want to judge a theory debate.

Paraphrasing is good, disclosure is bad. I don't want to evaluate either of those shells. But if both sides make it clear that they want to have that type of debate, I won't stop you.

If you run theory against a team that doesn't understand what is going on/are being exclusionary, I won't evaluate it and you will probably lose.

Even if they understand what theory is, all they need to do is interrupt you and say 'theory bad' and I won't evaluate theory in the round. Seriously.

I'll evaluate joke stuff like shoe theory, but not if your opponents don't know what's happening.

I don't know what Reasonability or Competing interpretations means and I don't want to know.

The K

I don't know much about Ks.

But I will vote for a Cap K.

CP

Under certain circumstances, I may be convinced to consult in a certain extraterrestrial.

DA

meh

Tricks

Yes please. Have fun.

MISC

I will try hard not to presume. If I have to presume, I presume to whichever team lost the coin toss.

Flex prep is fine.

No need to do GCX, prepping instead is fine.

I care about first cross, but not about the other 2.

Speaks do not exist.

I literally could not care less whether an impact is quantified or not.

You can be rude in crossfire if you are both being rude. If only one person is being rude, I will deduct .5 speaks for every 30 seconds that you are rude.

I always disclose.

I refuse to adjudicate an evidence challenge. If you try to start one, you will get L0s.

Anyone can talk during any cross.

No TKOs.

Postround as much as you want, but NO THIRD FINAL FOCUS. If you do so, I will give L26s.

If you nod or shake your head vigorously while your partner/opponent is talking, you are losing speaks.

DO NOT laugh at your opponents in the round. I'm serious. Unless they say something really stupid, or you are both messing around/joking. Laughing at something that isn't actually stupid is mean and demeaning. Especially since you are probably saying things that are just as stupid. Speaks are in play.

I am a parent judge, and I appreciate well thought out, intelligent arguments & logic. I will vote for the team who presents the stronger arguments supported by clear logic. I would request you to not use too many technical debate terms or speak too fast, I will be able to follow a medium-speed. I am a good listener, and I am eager to judge your debates!

Pronouns she/her.

Updates for 2023

I have not judged during the 2022-23 season so may be out of practice and unaware of new arguments.

Please be thoughtful about class, race and gender dynamics happening during the debate. My threshhold for abusive behavior in the debate space lowers every year and I become more and more willing to vote on theory in all formats. If I see abuse against an inexperiened team that doesn't know how to run theory, I will drop you all the same and spend my rfd time teaching them how to run theory.

For PF:

My flowing will only be as good as your sign-posting, tagging and articulation. I am not a fan of the pf cases that read like an oratory and are impossible to flow. I expect teams to extend tags, evidence and warrants. Offense is not sticky. I won't flow dropped arguments in later speeches so you don't need to tell me. I also expect teams to follow NSDA evidence rules.

I am open to theory arguments in PF as I see it as one of the only effective mechanisms for addressing some of the ills of pf. You should have a proper theory shell though.

Let's all be nice and generous and kind. I believe good PF debate should be a relaxed exchange of ideas as opposed to suppressed (or not) rage.

Don't give speeches during crossfire. I like a crossfire that is clarifying and illuminates areas of dispute. To that end, I prefer that everybody be super chill. Yelling, berating, and asking obviously abusive questions are all good ways to tank your speaks. You will never impress me by out-aggressing your opponent during CX.

I'm not a fan of blippy debate and tend to vote on the arguments that are fleshed out, well evidenced and that provide a clear path to the ballot. I personally think the emphasis on weighing overlooks the need to have a clear link with good warranting and strong evidence. I'm not entirely tech > truth because I can't always bring myself to vote on technical arguments that are not fleshed out enough to be plausible.

I think the second rebuttal should respond to turns but I'm okay with other responses coming in summary. I see defense as sticky. I like to see teams collapse and don't love the style of debate where final focus is an exact rerun of summary --would rather see that the debate has progressed or that your weighing and warranting has advanced b/c of clash.

For LD and Policy

****Disclosure on the Wiki is encouraged. Please add me to the email chain: danisekimball@gmail.com ****

I can handle a fair amount of speed but haven't judged LD/Policy in a year so you may lose me if you are super fast. It helps me a lot if you make it clear when you are ending a card. I will say "clear" if I can't understand and "slow down" if I can't keep up.

For LD

I am open to different styles including LARP and K debate. Slow down for theory shells and K alts, especially if they are novel. I am much more likely to vote for an argument that has been well explained. I am less technical in the sense that arguments that do not have a clear story with warrants won't always win a round even if they got under-covered.

I am not a fan of silly theory arg's but they still need to be responded to. I will do RVI's in LD but I don't love them.

I am pretty familiar with a lot of the K literature and it is difficult for me to vote for debaters who use it so badly that it is nonsensical.

For Policy:

I like both traditional and progressive debate. I really want students to engage directly with the arguments, their underlying assumptions and areas of clash with the opponent. It is hard to be convinced by an argument you don't understand.

I'm open to role of the ballot/framing issues when weighing structural violence impacts.

Debated for Saratoga HS from 2015-2019 // email : ddkoh2000@gmail.com

**please slow down to ~80% of your normal speed for e-debates and over-enunciate author names**

Policy

Have been out of the activity for ~3 years now. I can tolerate speed, but err on the side of over-explaining your arguments and don't assume I have any prior knowledge to fill in blanks.

I don't really have any argumentative preferences, I think that anything that is well explained and weighed can be voted on. PLEASE signpost clearly.

LD

General:

-I read very basic K's (cap, security, etc.), DA's, CP's, and big stick or soft left AFFs in high-school. With that said, I'll vote on anything as long as it is explained well.

-For e-debates -- if you can locally record your speeches it would be helpful in case the connection drops or any issues come up.

Theory:

-Probably not a good judge if you’re reading more than 2 theory shells.

-Disclosure is good -- probably won’t be able to convince me otherwise

-Slow down - if I miss an argument I won’t vote on it.

-Hate messy theory debates, don’t extend through ink or jump around on the flow.

-Don’t read joke theory shells in front of me please

Ks:

-I like a good K debate, but a few buzz-words won’t convince me to vote for you.

-I tend to be most skeptical of alt solvency, if it’s not clear to me by the end of the debate what your alt actually does, I’m probably not voting for it.

-Tell me how to weigh the K vs the aff.

-If you can point directly to lines of text in the AFF that link to the K I’ll be happy.

DAs/CPs:

-Probably my favorite debates to judge.

-Love smart PICs, but can be convinced that they are cheaty

-Have updated evidence, I tend to be skeptical of brink arguments that have cards from 3+ months ago.

-Please collapse even if you’re obviously winning on multiple layers. Do impact calc, weigh, compare evidence.

-Usually believe condo is good up to 2 CP’s.

K Affs:

-Haven’t really had much experience with these. I tend to believe that the AFF should defend the resolution.

-Make sure it’s clear what the aff actually does.

-NEG - Read nuanced and smart FW arguments. Specific TVAs, DAs to the aff method, etc.

-I’ve seen Boggs / CTP arguments in every FW shell so far, while I can be convinced to vote on them, I’d love to see some new and unique args that are specific to the aff.

PF

-Anything goes, don't be sexist / racist / xenophobic or offensive.

-Fine with speed. Make sure your opponents are fine with it too. I’m fine with opponents calling slow or clear, but don’t be obnoxious or overuse it.

-Love a heated cross-x, but please avoid spending the entire time arguing back and forth about a single point. Don't be disrespectful.

-Evidence weighing is very important to me. I will call for cards if it comes down to it, but would appreciate it if you did the work for me.

-Don't just extend author names / the same tags over and over again, extract warrants and extend those.

-Sign-post clearly, don't just read a stream of arguments and expect me to automatically know where to flow them.

-High threshold for voting on PF theory, something blatantly egregious must have happened for me to vote on it. -- If your opponents do read theory against you, I will lean towards reasonability, if you’re able to prove that a substantive debate could still be had.

-The best way to avoid judge intervention is to write my ballot for me in FF. Collapse in summary.

Hello,

My name is Bharat Krishnan and I'm a student at Duke University. I have been a national circuit PF competitor for 4 years and I qualified for the Tournament of Champions in both my junior and senior year. Having competed in the past, I know how nerve-racking and anxious tournaments can be, so I encourage all of you guys to relax and not to stress at least during the rounds that I am judging you. I am very familiar with PF technicals and I flow rounds, but this does not mean to entirely rely on high tech strategies that are overloaded with PF jargon and it definitely does not mean spread. Coming from a school with a small debate program, I don’t enjoy when teams use their advanced knowledge of PF to gatekeep the activity from others since Public Forum was literally a format created to be open to the wider public. Likewise, while I will be able to keep up with you if you choose to use tech, I would very much prefer it if you kept your debate jargon to a minimum and to speak at a reasonable pace. At the end of the day, PF is about arguments, research, and logic and it should not be about how much you know about the PF format. I also expect everyone to be respectful to each other, but a little bit of aggression in crossfire is expected.

Content Preferences

• Please re-warrant your contentions in summary and final focus because if you simply tell me to extend some random card name (author, year) without explaining what that card is, I won’t have any reason to do so.

• I don’t usually flow crossfire so please bring up any points that happened in crossfire in a main speech for me to count it as an argument

• Please extend defense in summary definitely and if you can final focus as well.

• Please weigh. This should seem obvious but it’s incredibly easy to forget in round.

• Collapsing in Summary or Final Focus is great since it's easier for me to vote for you off one fleshed-out argument than two half-baked ones.

• I don’t usually call for cards so if a card is contested, please just recommend that I look it after round in one of your speeches.

Logistical Preferences

• While I will be keeping time, I prefer if it competitors could manage their own time and to stop speaking when their time is up so I don’t have to interrupt speeches

• You do not have to ask if I am ready before a speech, just assume I am

• I give high speaker scores so unless you say something openly racist, sexist, or unnecessarily offensive, you should be good.

• I pretty much always disclose so please just wait a few minutes after round for me to make a decision

Overall, just have fun and relax. Don’t take rounds super seriously and just try your best. Good luck guys!

** Assume that I am a flow judge, but lay on the topic

If you want me to vote on an argument, it has to be in summary and final focus.

I appreciate world comparisons, weighing, and logically explained arguments.

I do not like speed. I will not flow your arguments if I do not understand what you are saying.

I will decide your speaks based on the clarity and content of your speech.

In general

***Before you start your speech tell me which side of the flow you are starting on, and sign post clearly as you go along.

***Don't be a jerk.

***Please do not shake my hand.

LD - I prefer less spreading on virtual platforms, please enunciate clearly if you are going to speak fast.

Email: notwyattlayland@gmail.com

Background

University of Reno, Nevada 2023
He/Him/His

Speech Paradigm (Also applies to all debate)

Please do your best to speak loudly, steadily, and fluently. I am sympathetic to fluency breaks caused by stress or general nervousness, so if you need a second to collect your thoughts I will not reprimand you. Besides that, I value organization and conciseness--I want to feel like you've put thought into what you're saying, why you're saying it, and even how you say it

Congress Paradigm

+ Unless I indicate otherwise, assume I'm always ready. I typically write down my comments during the cross-ex period, and by the time the period has elapsed I'm pretty much done and ready to listen to the next speech. I also keep my own time of all speeches and write down the times on your ballots for future reference

+ Roleplaying GOOD. Refer to your opponents as Representatives/Senators. I'm not one of those judges, however, who ranks competitors if they "act like legislators" by helping set the docket or resolve procedural conflicts. Just don't speak out of order and don't attempt to step over the PO or Parli

+ RHETORIC. I enjoy unique rhetoric and purposeful speaking, so please go beyond the forensic grain when delivering your speeches. If you REALLY want to rock my ballot, a strong hook or extended metaphor in your speech and altogether sturdy rhetoric will expedite your path to a higher rank. Hearing debate jargon in this event (e.g., "contention", "block", etc.) tends to be a pet peeve of mine, so best rely on standard words and phrases

+ Maximum points for sophisticated, structured speeches. On GOD. If you warrant your claims and support them with reliable evidence, and on top of that impact your arguments to a broader context, and do all of this without filler or awkward digressions that interrupt the focus of your speech, I will rank you. Plus I want to hear your speech provide at least two distinct contentions (ik I said no debate jargon but whatever) so that your arguments don't blend into one-another

+ CLASH ON REBUTTAL SPEECHES. After the second or third cycle of speeches I expect that you spend your time speaking off the cuff and refuting/crystalizing the speakers before you. If you're called up late to deliver a speech and decide to NOT adapt to the situation and instead read off a constructive speech, you will fall in ranks. Even if you're not the best extemporaneous speaker, it still shows that you're engaged with the debate and want to make an impression

+ INTERNALIZE YOUR IMPACTS. I listen to impacts above all else, and to that end I expect your arguments will always point directly to a basis in reality. If you can make the room understand what it's like to be part of the population this legislation impacts most, you're not just giving a good argument, you're giving a great speech

+ For the Presiding Officer (PO): I will always rank the PO unless if they do something contemptible that specifically urges that I do otherwise (e.g., flagrantly violating procedural rules, favoring some competitors over others, unwarranted or nasty remarks towards others, etc.). Besides that, if you go fast, make little to no mistakes, and treat your fellow competitors equally and impartially, I will guaranteed rank you in the top 3

Public Forum Paradigm

+ Truth > Tech. I weigh on a framework of benefits and harms--fewer vague appeals to common sense, the better

+ Clearly warrant, cite, and explain evidence--no speculation or over-generalizations

+ SIGNPOST. If you could signpost where you are in your rebuttal (E.g., "Starting with my case", "Moving onto my opponent's case", etc.), that would be great

+ Separate rebuttals of your opponent’s case and your case if possible. Jumping around makes it difficult to follow your args

+ Please don't interrupt during cross-ex. Moreover, I would prefer to see strong and even engagement across the board during questioning, but don't abuse your platform to give shallow or overly long answers

Lincoln Douglas Paradigm

+ My paradigm for PF carries over to LD, ESPECIALLY truth > tech. Instead of benefits and harms, however, I expect you to take a step back and focus on the moral admissibility (or the lack thereof, if you're on neg) of the resolution under your framework. Unless if the affirmative puts forward a plantext I'm less inclined to go for policy or post-fiat negs

+ Value/Value criterion debate all the way. Standards are fine as long as the presumptive value is morality (it should be anyway). Not gonna lie, I almost exclusively pay attention to criterion because they address real-world implications, so please focus your framework debate around that. If you and your opponent have similar criterions, you should just cut to the chase and explain why your case works better under that framework

+ I already said my PF paradigm carries over, but please, I BEG you: clearly cite, warrant, and explain evidence in your speeches, and do not rely on appeals to common sense in your arguments

Policy & Tech Debate Paradigm

+ For prefs: The more trad you are, the higher you should pref me

+ My emphasis is typically on stock issues, which almost always defaults to my primary voter.

+ I am cautiously open to technical negative strategies as long as they are A) relevant to the substance offensive and B) realistic in the sense that they authentically reflect prima facie obligations in debate

+ I have a high threshold for Kritiks based mostly on alt solvency & impact calc

+ If your CP is not competitive I will hate you, and if you PIC I might just die

+ Assuming the interpretation and violation are accurate, I only ever listen to voters on T or Theory and expect the debate to revolve around those factors, so good luck convincing me on competing interps

One last, super important thing for my master debaters

Regardless of events, I will feel more compelled to vote for you (or, and especially if you're in Congress, rank you high) if you demonstrate effective extemporaneous speaking in your speeches. Just have fun!

Debated 4 years on local NJ circuit + National circuit (2014-2018)

Judging Ohio Local Circuit + National Circuit (2019-2024)

1. If you use prep time, clarify how much you've used so that we are all on the same page and can hold one another accountable.
2. Grace periods of up to 10 seconds. If you abuse it more than that, I will not listen beyond that.
3. First summary is not expected to extend defense, but terminal defensive responses SHOULD be brought up.
4. Second summary should extend defense and likely discuss important responses from First Rebuttal
5. I do not flow crossfires. It is your responsibility to reference crossfire if you think an important concession or argument was made.
6. If it takes you longer than 3 minutes to pull up evidence, you can dip into your prep time to continue looking or drop the evidence
7. Speed doesn't matter to me. If you are not understandable, I will yell "CLEAR" once so that you know I cannot follow along, but will not do so again afterward.
8. No new arguments in final focus please. It's abusive and I will not evaluate it!
9. Whatever you discuss in final focus HAS TO be in your summary, or that is an extension through ink!
10. Any questions - let me know!

For starters, I am a parent judge who has judged before a public forum for High School. I am excited to be here amongst you excellent debaters, and Spar format judging will be new to me.

Please note the following -

1. I don't want too much speed. I can follow a reasonable pace but please don't "spread".

2. I want to be persuaded. It won't mean much if you read lots of responses but don't tell me why it's important, or why it wins you the round.

3. I will vote on logical arguments that are explained and weighed well. I'm new to judging, but that doesn't mean that there doesn't need to be warranting for your claims. I will try my best not to intervene, but please don't make outlandish claims/arguments without a. evidence b. warranting to support it.

4- I don't like opponents interrupting each other during cross, let your opponent finish his thoughts/dialogue. If he/she is taking more time its okay to show timer on screen, however I also keep track of time taken, and it will go against them if they take more time than allocated.

I did pf in high school a few years ago but the event has changed a lot since I last debated.

I can understand and would really appreciate if you spoke at a regular debate pace; i hate reading speech docs and flowing people as they spread

weigh and extend

have fun, don't be a bad person, any mention of drake or a drake bar would be a +0.1 speaker point boost

if you wanna ask me something specific about my paradigm or add me to the email chain, use rohanmahtani27@gmail.com

I debated for 4 years both varsity LD and PF. I never really liked super tech debates but if you can convince me of an argument that actually make sense and isn't a huge stretch then I will vote for you. If you don't explain it well enough for me to understand then I'm not going to vote for you. You can spread if you actually are saying words and enunciate your taglines.

I will vote off of the flow. Please make sure to include any arguments you want me to vote off of in both summary and final focus. Your final focus should basically write my ballot. That being said, your attitude will affect your speaker points. Try to be nice to each other in cross-fire; get your point across, but don't scream.

Most importantly, be confident, and have fun! You have prepped a lot, and you know what you're doing. Good luck!

4th year pf debater at Stuyvesant High School

Not a big fan of speed

Logic > Evidence

Ian Miller

I debated at Grapevine and OU. I help coach Grapevine in PF and CX.

ian.m11er1@gmail.com

Being nice is important when it comes to speaker points. If your opponent is unfamiliar with spreading, slow down a bit. If your opponent seems like they are a lot worse than you, don't be rude to them. If an argument could include a trigger warning, ask before the round. If you’re giving evidence to your opponent, don’t cut out the taglines.

PF:

Disclosure is good and the PF wiki should be used more, especially in national tournaments. Evidence quality would increase substantially if so - I find that a lot of PF evidence is miscut. Because of this:

1 - I will vote on disclosure theory. However, it isn’t an automatic W, you still have to win the argument and be persuasive.

2 - I weigh evidence comparison more heavily than other judges.

Speed in PF is fine with me. However, online settings can hamper your clarity if you go too fast.

Ask questions, don’t just make arguments during crossfire.

CX:

T:

Go for it, potential abuse > in round abuse. Case lists are persuasive

DA:

They're good. Specific DAs are better and I will reward good research. Turns case should be contextualized as specifically as possible.

Good risk analysis framing helps my decision. 1% risk of extinction is kinda silly risk analysis but the other team will have to explain why in the debate.

Read a complete shell in the 1nc - that means include uniqueness.

CP:

They're good. Smart advantage CPs and PICs are my favorite. Process/consult/delay CPs I like much less - unless it has a specific enough solvency advocate. I will vote for anything though - just make sure to explain why it solves the aff and is theoretically legitimate. Solvency advocates help a lot in making something theoretically legitimate.

K:

Super generic Ks about the "state" or "fiat" aren't very persuasive to me.

Don't read evidence written by or for debaters.

i've found that a part of the k that really matters is its theory of power/how the world works. if the aff wins that those assumptions don't make sense then they will probably win. same for the negative, winning that the world works in a particular way makes me more likely to vote for you

if you advocate for suicide or death literally being good you'll probably catch an L

K Affs:

K affs are fine but please have a clear position you take on the resolution and a reason why the ballot is key. Shifting out of different negative positions makes me sympathetic to FW arguments.

A lot of judges think that TVAs are necessary every FW debate - I disagree. Having persuasive arguments that frame the ballot in relation to the impacts you are going for is sufficient.

I really value creative forms of engagement with K affs. Pull out CPs and DAs. You should not be afraid to go for some variant of heg good, cap good, or liberalism good in front of me in conjunction with some case defense. If you have a strategy that contests a core thesis of the affirmative, go for it.

K affs will almost always get a permutation - if you think it is unfair why not just go for fw?

Case:

read the aff's evidence.

Internal link defense, even if not supported by evidence, is often more persuasive than the generic impact defense that every team reads. Many aff's have terrible solvency arguments - I wish more negative teams would point this out.

I am a fan of impact turns, provided they aren't genocidal or offensive.

Theory:

In order to make it a reason to reject the team explain why it impacts your ability to debate different flows. Otherwise it is probably just a reason to reject the argument. I don't really have a ton of biases here. Make sure you do things like answer their specific counter interp/standards instead of just reading the same generic block.

have fun!

Did public forum debate at Blake for 4 years (Blake '21)

email chain (blakedocs@googlegroups.com) - please put what the tournament, round number, and name of both teams

"tech>truth"

cards >>>>> paraphrasing -- all args need to have warrants

______________________________________________________

When it comes to evidence, read cards. At the very very least, you need to have a card with the full cite (not just the url) ready if your opponents call for your evidence. You need to produce a card if your opponents ask for it. I do not like long evidence exchanges - you should already have the card cut and ready to be sent.

2nd rebuttal needs to frontline the answers from 1st rebuttal as well as answer the opponents case. Summary needs collapse and weigh. Summary and final focus need to mirror each other. In order for an argument to make it into my ballot, it must be in summary and final focus. Signpost everything.

Weighing: The very best way to get my ballot is to weigh. There absolutely needs to be comparative analysis in round. The earlier weighing happens in the round the better. Weighing should always come earlier in the round than second final focus. If there is no weighing in the round or the weighing comes too late, you may not like the decision I make. Weighing gives you the best opportunity to influence the outcome of my ballot.

Arguments need a link, warrant, and impact.

In order for something in crossfire to be flowed through, it must be brought into speeches.

I really do not have a lot of experience evaluating progressive argumentation. I am still learning how to evaluate progressive arguments. If you plan on reading any theory, kritiks, etc., please explain the arguments fully and clearly. I will do my best to evaluate them. That being said, if you are reading a progressive arg you probably want to decrease the speed that you read and extend the arg.

Be accountable for timing your own speeches, crossfires, and prep time.

I can flow public forum speed.

no tricks

don't read new ev that directly contradicts your links to get out of turns

Be respectful of your opponents and your partner. Racist/sexist/homophobic/any other hateful and offensive arguments won't be tolerated.

If you have any questions about my paradigm, please feel free to ask!

hey Ale

Debate Experience:

High School Policy - 3 Years

College Policy (City University of New York)- 4 Years

Cumulative Judging/Coaching (CUNY, NYU, NYCUDL, Bronx Science, Rutgers University) - ~ 5 years

GSU 2017 Edition

I'm coming out from a 2 year debate hiatus and an intensive video production/broadcasting program. I haven't been up to date with the latest literature on the debate circuit so don't assume I know your Jackson evidence is hot fire without any warrants. I also may not be your top pick for your fast and clever Consult CP debate because my hands are not fast enough to send that message to my brain. This might change with more judging throughout the season but I'll let you know.

On to the general stuff...

I evaluate the debate based on who did the best debating. That's usually done through my flow unless you create a framework for me to do otherwise. Run what argument fits your style and do it to the best of your ability. Args of the meme variety are on the table but you would have to do a lot, and I mean a lot of work, for me to vote on them. Please also note that I won't be down for your oppression good, rights Malthus type of args.

Make sure you can jump / e-mail chain files in less than 5 minutes (not for me but for the tournament staff).I will do my best to keep my rhetoric gender neutral. As a generalrule, I tend to stick to gender-neutral pronouns however I will do my due diligence to be familiar with your preferred pronouns and you have every right to correct me on the spot if I fail to do so.

Case Debate

Solid. I'm not the best public policy analyst on the circuit to know some of the nuances of your args so this would require some explanation of what these abbreviations mean and what do they look like in the context of the debate.

Politics/Disads

I'll listen/flow them. I vote on them every now and then.

CPs

As I mentioned above I'm not the best when it comes to CP theory. My general opinions on CPs, in general, is neutral so if you need someone with a firm stance on whether a consult CP is legit or not then you should defer to a different critic.

The K

They're ok.

Framework/T

Debatable.

Debated for two years in Public Forum at Half Hollow Hills High School East. I'm currently a senior at Binghamton University,

I'm probably tech > truth, meaning I'm not going to vote on unwarranted and poorly contextualized arguments.

I should see your arguments properly extended in both of these speeches, that means both the warrant and the impact. Also, nothing you bring up in final is going to matter for my ballot if it wasn't also in summary (exception is that defense is sticky). I know some judges are ok with new weighing in final, but I'm personally not a fan of it.

Weighing arguments is the easiest way to win the round. I should at least be seeing discussion on magnitude, scope, probability, but introducing things like strength of link, clarity of impact, etc, will usually earn you my ballot and good speaks. Start this as early in the round as possible (ideally rebuttal), and do it in every possible instance. This means that in addition to seeing you weigh arguments, I want to see you weigh and implicate things like turns.

Former open debater at GMU from 2018-2022. I ran mostly queer theory, disability, and various forms of cap for the last couple years and am most familiar with those lit bases.

She/they pronouns. Put me on the email chain please, ceili1627 at gmail dot com. Feel free to email me after rounds with questions.

TL;DR: run whatever you want and I'll judge as best I can. I think my role as a judge is to be an educator/facilitator of idea exchanges regardless of whether those ideas are connected to anything from USFG action to interpretive dance performances. Keep in mind that even though debate is a game that you should have fun playing, it has real-world consequences for the real people who play it. As a great woman once said, "At the end of the debate, be sure to tell me why I should vote for you; if you don't, then you can't get big mad when I don't ... periodt" and I live by that <3

Policy:

K Affs: I'm totally down with k affs but I prefer them to have at least a vague link to the topic. It's super easy for the narrative of k affs to get lost during the round so please keep the aff story alive!! In FW/T debates, make sure to explain what debate rounds look like under your counterinterp, and that plus solid impact turns is usually a fairly easy ballot from me.

FW/T: As the same great woman once said, "I have voted against framework, I have voted for framework, but at the end of the day I don't really want to be there when framework is read." Run a caselist. Reasonability isn’t really an argument and fairness definitely isn't an impact. I tend to default to competing interps unless given a good reason otherwise. The neg needs to really spell out why I should err towards them on limits. TVAs are pretty useful for mitigating offense against fw as long as they're explained and contextualized well. Please for the love of god contextualize all your fw blocks to the round & aff in question instead of just reading a transcript of fw blocks from an NDT outround half a decade ago. I'm not persuaded by args that debate doesn't shape subjectivity--if you come out of a round the exact same as you entered it (regardless of if your opinions/beliefs have changed) then you're probably playing the game wrong.

Theory: Trying to convince me to care about potential abuse is an uphill battle. Don’t spread through theory blocks please. For blippy args I generally err towards rejecting the arg but will (extremely) reluctantly vote on it if dropped.

DAs/Case: Impact calc and clear internal link chains are both super important for me to vote on a DA. I tend to think that links determine DA direction but can probably be persuaded that direction is determined by uniqueness. I really enjoy heavy case debates and am disappointed that's increasingly missing from a lot of rounds. Also I think re-highlighting your opponents' ev is a bold move that's cool and often persuasive when it's done right but is pretty cringe if done poorly.

Ks: I was mostly a k debater in college and I'm most familiar with lit bases for queer theory, cap, set col, and debility. Still, you need to clearly explain your theories of power and all that good stuff instead of throwing around a bunch of obscure terms expecting me to know what you’re talking about. Please please please don't read a k just because you think that's what I want to hear--it makes for a bad debate and a grumpy judge. I’d like to think my ballot actually means something so explain to me what it does and I'll be more likely to pull the trigger for you. I feel most comfortable voting on specific links to the aff though I prefer the debate to go beyond the level of you-link-you-lose. Please give me a clear and coherent framework under which I consider the aff vs the alt, but also I think too many policy affs use framework to avoid engaging with the k at all which is both frustrating to judge and not at all strategic.

CPs: 50 state fiat is definitely core neg ground at the high school level. I’m fine with the neg having 2 conditional worlds, 3 makes me lean aff, and the neg shouldn't ever need 4+ conditional worlds. I don't judge kick and I'm likely to entertain most if not all CPs as long as they have a clear net benefit and explanation of how they solve the aff. Super meta CP theory confuses and bores me.

General: Tech > truth (often but not always, e.g. I usually tend to evaluate the debate through tech > truth but can be fairly easily convinced otherwise), debate is a game that you should have fun playing, clarity > speed (especially for zoom debate), I reserve the right to tank speaks if you're being homophobic, transphobic, sexist, racist, ableist, excessively rude, or clipping cards. Please don't make me have to judge something that happened outside the round like authenticity checks or happenings from other tournaments/seasons. I usually have little HS topic knowledge but that doesn't necessarily mean you shouldn't pref me ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ it's good for the neg on T insofar as I don't have a predetermined view of what the topic should look like, but it's also good for the aff because I don’t have much knowledge on the nuances of what affirmatives look like under particular definitions. I'm pretty hit or miss on reading ev after rounds unless explicitly told to, and on that note please highlight your cards in as close to complete and coherent sentences as you can. Violent verb fragments aren't arguments.

PF:

I did 4 years of PF in high school so I'm quite familiar with this format. Extend your own args, don’t drop your opponents’ args. I vote on the flow and default to util for impact comparison unless you tell me to frame impacts differently. I’m most likely to vote for a PF team that nails impact calc in the rebuttals, does solid work extending offense, and uses effective warrant-level evidence comparison. My 3 biggest pet peeves with PF are (1) labeling literally everything as a voter, (2) saying "de-link,", and (3) using "frontline" as a verb.

LD:

I never debated this format, though I understand it, and I tend to judge it from a somewhat policy perspective. I'm cool with both traditional and progressive formats--do what you do best/enjoy most and I'll vote off the flow. What bugs me most is the introduction of some kind of framing lens at the beginning of the round (like value/value criteria or another kind of framework) that isn't extended or used throughout the rest of the debate.

The Gamble

If you use One Direction lyrics in your speechI will raise your speaks a max of 0.5. Do with that what you will.

they/them

uwyo 17-21 (go pokes!)

former GA for MO State (iyk yk)

jaxonp2241@gmail.com

-- experience --

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

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

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

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

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

-- paradigm proper --

- K -

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

- pics / piks -

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

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

- cp -

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

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

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

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

5. impacts

- da -

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

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

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

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

5. impacts

- t -

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

2. i prefer overlimit args

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

- fw -

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

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

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

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

5. TVAs are probably necessary

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

- case -

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

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

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

- speaks -

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

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

3. be confident, not aggressive

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

5. unresolved / unacknowledged problematic behavior = zero speaks

-- anything else --

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

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

Parent Judge. Relatively New. Speak slowly and clearly. Make sure you explain your points and the topic well.

Hi, my name is Syed Hasan Rizvi.

I am a lay judge, but I will pay attention to the content of the round.

Preferences:

- talk at a speed at which I am able to understand you. I understand that you have a lot to say, however it is pointless if I cannot understand.

- try and stay within time

- be polite to one another. I like heated rounds, however rudeness will not be tolerated.

- Take note that I may not be able to understand debate terminology

Have fun!

About me: I am a parent judge in LD, PF, and Parli. My professional background is in IT.

Basics:

• Tell me why and on what grounds you’re winning -- this matters a lot
• Tell me how I should evaluate the round. Give me the standards
• ALWAYS make comparative claims about the other teams evidence & arguments (in relation to yours). Direct clash is important
• Speed is good, but clarity is far better. Be efficient with your speeches. If you can’t speak quickly without slurring, don’t speak quickly
• LD and Policy Specific -- Favorite strats to least favorite. Respect this order, but avoid if possible.
• Politics/Case
• Impact turning the whole case
• Topic specific T
• Politics/Process CP
• PIC with internal net benefit
• Ks
• Be nice. I will not give good speaks to people who act inappropriately in rounds or to their partners/team. Being offensive is not funny. I refuse to accept abuse in round.

General

Performance/Non-traditional: I default to traditional.

Speaks: 28 is average. I doubt you'll get a 30. Try not to talk into your paper/flows/laptop because I won't say "louder" unless it's really extreme and I might be missing arguments. Speak clearly and persuasively.

Hello! I am a senior in high school, and this is my fourth year doing PF debate.

Some preferences:

- Feel free to speak quickly as long as you enunciate.

- Make sure to respond to all relevant arguments in rebuttal. If you don't rebut a point, your opponent can say you conceded it. Also, you must extend the contentions in summary that you'd like me to vote on or else I cannot count them.

- I won't be flowing crossfire. If you or your opponent says something you'd like me to take note of, bring it up in a later round.

- And please make sure to leave lots of time to weigh in summary and FF! This is very important. In final focus (and throughout the round), write the ballot for me. I won't do any work or make any conclusions for you that you don't bring up yourself.

In addition, you all should keep time, and I will as well.

And please be respectful to each other! I can't hear anything if you all are talking over each other. It'll matter for your speaks!

Please let me know if you have any questions!

-Sabrina

I am a flow judge and am looking for

1. solid logic and reasoning;

2. strong advocacy of your position;

3. clever usage of your evidence and your opponent's;

4. clear communication;

5. I am open to new ideas and out-of-the-box thinking;

6. and, I prefer dialogue to monologue after the initial phase of constructives.

Good luck everyone!!

Hello!

A little bit about me, I am a senior in high school and have been debating PF for four years.

Some preferences: feel free to speak quickly, I can understand fast speaking, as long as you enunciate. Please keep your own time + prep time, but I will keep track of it as well. Also, most importantly, you must WEIGH in the summary and the final focus. In the final focus, write your ballot for me, a judge should not have to jump to conclusions for anyone's team. Also, please signpost in every speech.

I do not flow crossfire, so if your opponent concedes/says something you want me to flow, bring it up in the later rounds of the debate. That is the ONLY way it will count to your side! Please also in cross be respectful of one another and don't talk or yell over each other; this will impact your speaker points.

Marie

Michael Siller Paradigm

About Me: I am a parent judge on behalf of either Stuyvesant High School or the Bronx High School of Science, depending on the tournament. I am not a "technical" judge. I have been a practicing attorney for over 30 years and have a good sense of what makes a persuasive argument and an effective presentation style.

Procedural Preferences: There are a few guidelines I will ask you to follow as you present your case, to allow me to most effectively understand and judge your arguments:

(i) Please identify yourself at the start. I want to make sure I get your names, schools, the side you will be arguing, and the order in which you will present so that I can correctly assign speaker points.

(ii) Please try to avoid speaking too quickly. I prefer that you speak clearly, focus on your most important points, and avoid trying to cram in every argument you can think of. It will be more difficult for me to follow the flow if you are speaking too quickly.

(iii) Mind your time: I will not be judging you by how many seconds you are under or over the limit. A few seconds over is not going to be penalized; on the other hand, you should strive to use up as much of your available time as possible.

(iv) Be polite. There's an apt maxim from the field of legal ethics: One may disagree without being disagreeable. Attack and criticize your opponents' arguments, not your opponents.

"Theory" arguments. If you intend to make theory arguments that's fine, provided you also engage on the merits of the topic at issue. Debaters will be judged and scored on how they address the assigned topic.

Evaluation Criteria: I will evaluate your presentation based on a combination of how well you: (a) appear to demonstrate a mastery of the substance (about which you may I assume I know far less than you); (b) present your arguments logically, coherently, and persuasively; and (c) refute and weigh your opponents' arguments, as well as on your presentation style (e.g., poise, professionalism, and ability to think on your feet). Concerning thinking on your feet, I pay particular attention to how well you comport yourself in cross-fire.

For purposes of sharing evidence, my email is mbsiller1@gmail.com

I wish everyone good luck and look forward to your presentations!

Hello! My name is Victoria and I have just graduated from Barnard! I did public forum debate from 7th-11th grade, and for that reason am a flow judge. Make sure to extend your arguments throughout the round, address what has been dropped, and address framework (if one is given). In the final speeches, give me clear voters. Logic and reason are still important to me, so just extending an argument isn't enough: explain your link chain, and convince me! I also prefer that teams keep track of their own time, and don't take too long finding and sending cards.

**If you are waiting for the first flight to finish, please use the time to set up the email chain so we can begin as quickly as possible - it would make me very happy!**

Hi, I’m Hannah (she/her).

A few things about me:

- I am a recent graduate of the Blake School and I did PF on the national circuit throughout my time there. I currently coach for Blake.

- I am generally pretty flexible when it comes to how you debate. My one preference is speed. Please do not spread. Too often it is super unclear and I can't understand it. Overall do what makes you comfortable :)

- Sexism, homophobia, transphobia, and racism are still all too common in debate and will not be tolerated. I will give you a loss and terrible speaker points if you make your opponents or anyone in the space feel uncomfortable

- I am in college, so my life is very busy. I have very limited topic knowledge so please explain things

Please add me to the email chain: hannahjsweet@gmail.com AND blakedocs@googlegroups.com -- Put BOTH on the email chain and feel free to contact me after the round if you have questions or need anything from me. I am always happy to do what I can after the round to help you out.

How I evaluate rounds and generally what I would like to see:

- The Split: 2nd rebuttal must frontline all turns and frontline defense.

- Dropped turns are considered offense for the other team if they choose to capitalize on it.

- The Back Half: In order for me to vote on something (offense, defense, and weighing), it needs to be in the summary and the final focus. Also please collapse. Don't try to win every single point in the debate. The summary and final focus should narrow the round down to a few key ideas. The depth of your arguments is much more important than the number of arguments you make.

- Weighing: Weighing is the first place I look when I make my decision. The sooner you weigh, the better. Additionally, it is important that your weighing is comparative. If there are multiple weighing mechanisms in the round, please explain why your mechanisms are more important.

- Evidence: Evidence is incredibly important to winning my ballot. Debate is an educational activity and research is a key part of that learning. It is important that you site a reputable author and that you are reading cards. I have found that it is extremely easy, whether intentional or unintentional, to misrepresent evidence when you paraphrase. Additionally, academics are held to an extremely high level of scrutiny when it comes to their writing. Directly quoting these sources will a, ensure that what you are saying is backed up by those who are experts within their discipline, and b, it will also boost your persuasion. Evidence quoting an expert in that field is much more convincing than an analytic.

If you are paraphrasing, which would make me sad but I understand that it is hard to change your practices for a single round, please make sure you are doing the following:

- Per NSDA rules, please have a cut card or the paragraph readily available for your opponent or me to see if requested. Your opponents should not need to take prep to sort through your PDF and we should not be waiting longer than a minute for you to produce evidence. If you can't quickly produce the evidence and where you paraphrased it from, I'm crossing the argument off my flow.

- You still need to cite authors and read warrants. Reading 40 different paraphrased arguments in rebuttal does nothing to enhance the debate. You are simply reading blippy arguments that do little to increase the depth of the round.

- Progressive argumentation:

I am a fan of progressive debate. I think Ks and theory if done well and used properly, can make the debate space a much safer and more inclusive community. However, there are a few things you should know if you decide to run a progressive argument.

- I ran a lot of critical cases when I debated, but I never ran a full-on K. While I am familiar with some of the literature, you will have to explain some of it to me.

- I have only been in a few rounds where theory has been read. I am familiar with the structure of a shell and I will evaluate the shell the same way I would evaluate any other type of argument, but you may need to slow things down a bit for me.

- I am not a fan of frivolous theory. If you run arguments such as shoe theory or 30 speaks theory, I won't vote on it.

- I am more biased towards arguments like paraphrasing bad and disclosure good. I generally think these practices are good for the community. That being said, I will still evaluate the shell and if you win the shell and make the implication that it wins you the round, I will still vote for you. I will just be sad doing it :(

I did PF for 4 years at Stuyvesant High School. I prefer a more lay/flay style of debate.

Hi! I am Selma Tabakovic (she/her pronouns) and I debated Public Forum in high school. I went to American University. Now I'm going to Brooklyn Law School. I am an external PF coach for American Heritage Palm Beach/Boca.

Generally: Debate in a way that will make you feel most comfortable and confident within the round! I will be able to adapt to you and your style. My paradigm below is just some specifics about my preferences, but you should feel free to compete in your own style.

I definitely look at the flow to decide who wins the round, but if I think that something is not handled effectively on the flow (ex: really under-covered argumentation in response to major points in the round), I will likely vote on the truth of an argument.

What I like to see in the round:

Comparative weighing in FF is key! Tell me why an argument matters more than another. Comparing worlds to each other will make the round more wholistic. If I have to decide which argument matters more than another, it is technically intervening and I would prefer if I didn't have to do that.

If you want me to vote for an argument it has to be extended from Summary to FF. Please extend the warrants for your arguments from case that you want to go for. Please frontline in second rebuttal and collapse on the argument you want to win on!

I love hearing unique arguments in PF! Feel free to run any argument about imperialism/colonialism/etc within the PF topic. I think engaging with these types of arguments within a round makes debate more educational, impactful, and interesting.

What isn't necessary in the round:

Please do not give me an off-time roadmap unless you are running theory. I will be able to follow your train of thought if you sign post!

Please do not ask "I am first speaker, so can I have first question?" Please just assume that first speaker in the round has first question.

Please do not spread! I would prefer if the round is slower so that I can fully understand the warranting of your contentions. I prefer slow, well warranted debates over fast, blippy debates.

Evidence Exchanges:

Please share me on the evidence exchanges -- selma.tabakovic@ahschool.com.

I do not like paraphrased evidence and would much rather prefer you read cut cards.

Progressive Debate Rounds:

I am happy to adjudicate progressive rounds, but I strongly prefer adjudicating rounds that engage on substance within the resolution. I will adjudicate progressive rounds purely off of the flow, so all responses must be on the flow. If you run theory please clearly explain your link. For Ks, please clearly explain how the alternative is worse and how voting pro solves.

Hi! I did PF for 4 years at Hunter (2016-2020) & am a flow judge with pretty conventional preferences. Do what you do best & have fun! I will try to be nice with speaks & give lots of feedback.

Short Osterweis update (April 2023)

I don't have too many super-specific parliamentary preferences!

I will make sure to pulling arguments through from the leader/constructive speeches (the first two) to the rebuttal speeches (the last two) even if they aren't mentioned in the member speeches (the middle two).

If you have other questions, please feel free to ask them!

Pretty important preferences

- At the end of a round, if I'm choosing between a larger impact and a smaller one, even if the links into large one aren't won as cleanly, I will probably vote for the larger one. In the context of the round, that means it's a good idea to focus on winning the weighing debate.

- To win an argument, it must be in summary and final focus. I'm not a huge stickler on what does or doesn't count as an extension, but you should at least give a basic overview of the link(s) and the impact. Also sorry but "extend Doofenshmirtz 2019" isn't an extension. What does Doofenshmirtz say?

- Depth > breadth. I'd rather hear one or two really good, nuanced arguments than a lot of meh ones, and the same with responses. I love to judge rounds where there's a lot of engagement on a few points, rather than rounds when there's a only bit of engagement on a lot of arguments.

- Well-explained logical reasoning beats a card, a card beats an example.

- I'm receptive to unconventional strategies. For example, going for a turn is often super smart. I am also a big fan of arguments that are creative with what the counterfactual world looks like. If you plan on running an argument like this, see [a].

- Any defense you want me to evaluate should be in second summary, only turns need to be in first. In other words, you don't have to extend link responses in first summary for me to consider them.

- Tech > truth mostly. I won't intervene against an argument just because it's out there. That said, for more on this, see [b].

- Here are some things I think will help you win: Overview responses that apply to an entire case, turns, weighing, and collapsing rather than spreading yourself thin in the later speeches. For more on what I do and don't consider weighing, see [c].

- I don't love theory or other sorts of progressive arguments, but I am willing to evaluate them. That said, I'm not super familiar with them, so if you read them please explain and implicate everything very clearly. For more of my thoughts on theory, see [d].

- I don't like to intervene, but I reserve the right to or severely dock speaks if something truly bad happens. I can't really define what something truly bad would look like, but I know it when I see it. Think: something extremely rude or offensive.

Less important preferences

- If no one has any offense, my default is to vote for the first-speaking team. I'll also evaluate arguments that I should default in some other way too, though.

- Cross may influence your speaks, but it doesn't go on my flow. If someone makes a concession in cross, please bring it up in a speech.

- If I don't have a framework I default util.

- I'll call for a piece of evidence if it's challenged, but not just because it sounds sketchy.

- If you're planning to go around or over 250 wpm, please provide me and your opponents with a speech doc.

- I'm happy to skip cross if both teams agree.

- Per NSDA rules, fabricated evidence is an auto-drop. Evidence that's merely misconstrued will be judged on a case-by-case basis, I'll probably just drop that card.

More detailed thoughts on a few topics I mentioned earlier

[a] On creative arguments: Again, I'm pretty flexible as to what is or isn't topical, you just need to win that your vision of the world is the most likely real-world implementation of the topic (remember: I'm tech > truth). For example, if the topic is whether we should lift Venezuelan sanctions, I'm happy to evaluate an argument saying lifting sanctions is inevitable and doing so now is better/worse, or that sanctions will be lifted then re-imposed and that’s good/bad.

[b] On when I'm not strictly tech > truth: If the opponents tell me to gut check an improbable impact (e.g. nuclear war when mutually assured destruction & hotlines have prevented it in the past), then I won't give you access to it if you don't have strong warranting and just repeat that some random author says it'll happen. Also, if you're going to read high-magnitude, low-probability impacts, it's probably a good idea to meta-weigh and tell me why magnitude is a more important weighing mechanism than probability (I won't give you arguments for this, but they're definitely out there).

[c] On what is and isn't weighing: Here are some examples of things that I DO consider weighing —

- "Our argument impacts the whole world and theirs just impacts X country/region"

- "Our impact happens in the long-term and theirs doesn't"

- "If our argument happens, then we also solve for their impact in X way"

- "Their link chain is super long so it's inherently tenuous"

And some things I DON'T consider weighing, and why —

- Saying your argument is more probable because you think I'll think it's more plausible... you need a reason

- Saying your argument impacts more people because of some "big number" card that isn't specific to your impact, like the 900 million people go into poverty if a recession hits card

- Jargon without an explanation

- Saying that because the impact of some argument is extinction, it automatically outweighs everything. You need to go a step further: why is even a .1% chance of extinction worse than a 50% chance that 50 million people go into poverty, or whatever else the competing impact is?

[d] On theory/progressive arguments:

- I'm receptive to arguments that introducing theory first (or just frivolous theory in general) is bad.

- I also believe paraphrasing is a good norm and don't have strong feelings on disclosure. I try to be somewhat tabula rasa, so you can definitely convince me to vote against these personal views. That said, reading these arguments just probably isn't a good use of your time: you lose time on the substance debate to read something I've said I don't love, and give your opponents lots of potential offense in the process (introducing theory first bad arguments, turns to your shell, & RVIs). I wouldn't, but ultimately it's up to you.

- Also, my bar for winning drop the debater theory is much higher than my bar for winning drop the argument theory. You need to convince me that there's real abuse going on and win your argument quite cleanly.

That's all. Good luck! Email: teddytawil99@gmail.com.

hello! i started as a novice at gmu where i debated for 5 years. i then went and coached at binghamton for 2 years and then back to mason for 3.

my email is mthomasgmu@gmail.com

for hybrid, I tend to keep my camera on during speeches. If my camera is off please assume I am not there and do not begin. I’m probably not far from my computer but if it’s been a while shoot me an email. '

Do whatever you do best. i was a flex 2n and read both k affs and policy affs, so i am down for just about anything

I am pro-Palestine. It is already worrying enough how little care debaters take when debating about current events when people’s lives, families, and liberation are on the line, but for one where an ethnic cleansing is currently being funded by our tax dollars, I have very little patience for this topic coming up in policy debates in an unethical way. Tread carefully

FW - this is a huge chunk of the db8s i have judged/debated during my now decade long tenure in debate, so i have heard just about it all. i find clash impacts more persuasive than fairness. topic education das are generally not a winner in front of me - the process of debate does not translate well to the real world so i dont believe you when you say debating w/e topic is going to make you a more persuasive advocate or a better congress person. most of us are far too busy between school, debate, work, etc for this to leave the space so lets not pretend like it will. take advantage of the other teams screw ups - if their counter interp is nonsense, take advantage of that. meanwhile, make sure your tva is relevant and can actually engage with the content of the aff. please also always answer the aff - presumption and turns case args are your friends! side note, if the aff gives you disads or impact turns, i far prefer that debate and will be very grumpy if you chose to go for fw instead.

for answering fw - please defend some sort of action that solves some sort of impact. it obvi doesnt have to be capital T Topical, tho preferably it is in the direction or spirit of the revolution. i have voted for affs with no relevance to the topic, but i have a much lower threshold for fw in that world.

t - again i know little to nothing about the topic but i love a good t debate. ive voted on my fair share of bad t args before (shout out to t subs) because aff teams never seem to provide a meaningful limit with their c/i. i need it explained to me exactly what the case list is under either interp, and what ground was lost. i obvi dont really know the aff/neg ground on this topic but i like to think i can follow along.

Counterplans - not the biggest fan of cheaty cps. condo is good up until a point (probably max 3, preferably 2). dont like perf con or condo planks. not a fan of states but i guess y'all dont really have a choice this year.

case debate - big big fan of good impact turn debates. presumption is also a useful argument.

K - it would be cool if your link would be about the aff - i have judged too many clashless debates where the neg just goes on some adjacent historical tangent but never brings it back to the aff. i like alts but they are not necessary - win the framework debate and you're golden. idk why theres a trend to go for a cap k and then spend a ton of time on framework when it is functionally an impact turn debate??

some odds and ends -

im typically a big picture thinker, so meta level questions and framing args are critical to instructing my ballot, especially in debates involving a k. im very interested in what the ballots relationship is to voting for whichever side, particularly in issues involving things within and outside my social location. i dont really like being perceived as a judge, but what does my ballot as a white queer woman mean? (aka i find the ballot k persuasive more often than not)

if im in a straight up policy debate, i dont get these too terribly often, so id recommend not making it too big - id prefer depth over breadth.

ive found im a pretty expressive judge, and if i am confused or cant understand you my face will make that clear.

Have fun, be clear, be clever.

My approach to adjudicating rounds is somewhere between Eli Glickman's and Alessandro Perri's

P.S.

A long time ago, I responded to a claim about paraphrasing theory being inaccessible with the phrase "don't put your kids in varsity if they can't handle varsity arguments". This is still true. But, in response to an astonishing deterioration in PF speech quality over the last two years, I would like to add an addendum. Don't put your kids in varsity if they can'tmake varsity arguments.

Hi! I am a parent judge with very limited prior experience; I judged one debate over a year ago. Therefore, please speak slowly and clearly so that I can follow your arguments and evidence. Sign posting will be super helpful. Thanks and I’m looking forward to the debates!

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

-I don't mind speed, just speak clearly

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

-I do prefer when you stand when giving speeches

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

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

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

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

-Please signpost, makes flow easy

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

I have 7 years of both debate and judging experience combined, ill go into deeper detail before an actual debate round (feeling lazy)

I consider myself to be an all around judge, in the sense that my sole purpose in the debate round is to evaluate it and vote on who made the most convincing argument. 

I am a parent judge. While I have only had limited experience judging tournaments, I do have a bit of a paradigm

1. I prefer clarity over speed. Better to have a few well reasoned arguments than a series of half baked ones.

2. Be cognizant of the time

3. No ad hominem attacks. Be respectful.

I am a lay judge. This is my first time judging, so please speak slowly and clearly.

I am a Varsity Policy Debater for Southwestern College. I am currently a Psychology Major going to SDSU (No I don't compete for them, I like policy more than Parley :/ )

However, please do not change your style of debate to make it more policy debate friendly, DO YOUR THING! I will do my best to keep up!

So, with that said, I can flow pretty well. You are more than welcome to run any single argument you would like in whatever performative method you find best! Trust that I will be able to keep up and give good feedback!

I have judged for many high school tournaments. I have judged speech, impromptu, parley, policy, LD, PF, and Congress.

Below I am going to give my opinion on several argument types, however, while I may like some argument types more than others, I will always remain unbiased during rounds. So as much as I love K debate, you can still lose to framework or T.

T- I find T debates FASCINATING. They reveal the nuances behind the debate give debaters a chance to really show their intellectual capacity in being able to debate abstract concepts and articulate them in their own manner. I do however find T to be a little lazy. especially when against a K aff, because they are more often than not untopical, but a good T debate on a policy aff is always exciting to see, a good impact calculus on fairness can definitely win my ballot. Also,TVA's are one of my favorite arguments (I never run it, I just find them hilarious), so if you can manage to win why being topical is good, what it prevents, and how a TVA solves any of the 1AC's impacts + does not link to T impacts, you get my ballot.

DA- No strong opinions on DA's. I run them very often because turning a DA into a K creates a debate around the alt and whether or not it solves the impact and sidesteps the discussion of the link and the impact, which is pretty boring. Nonetheless, love a good DA with strong links and clear and succinct impact calculus.

CP- I LOVE a good counter-plan debate, its essentially an affirmative vs affirmative debate, except the neg team has more offense on the aff team, but suffers a lack of case solvency and defense. It showcases whether the affirmative can articulate its solvency whilst also creating offense on the spot in the debate, whilst also highlighting the negs ability to not only make good presump arguments, but also the 3rd option for me to prefer which, albeit, makes my job harder is much more enjoyable to watch.

Framework- My feelings to framework are similar to T, I find FW debates against K affs lazy, but sometimes I understand that is what some debaters are comfortable with and genuinely believe and are passionate about. I don't auto-vote framework and do not auto-vote on K's, I won't fill in any blanks for you on framework arguments so make sure you are CLEAR and ARTICULATE about what your interpretation of debate should be, why I should prefer it, why it's best for debate, what the other team did to violate it, and (in my opinion, the most important aspect of FW argument.) WHY I SHOULD CARE. Give me a clear argument as to why I as a judge matter, what my ballot signifies, and what happens if I don't vote for you. Framework is a particularly difficult argument to run, it takes a very skilled and well-rounded debater, but if you fit the above criteria then I will more than likely vote for you.

K- My absolute favorite argument style in the te. K's are incredibly informative about the way society functions in one-dimensional ways and how the assumptions we make about everyday activities should constantly be under strict scrutiny. K's are incredibly difficult (especially for a high schooler), they require a vast knowledge of the literature, well-articulated link arguments, clear impacts, and an alternative that is viable, solves, and does not link to aff offense. I love running K's and going against K's but that does not mean I will give you any leeway. I don't auto-vote K's much like I do not auto-vote FW or T.

Policy Affs- Not much to say here, good policy debaters have won NDT. Trust your case, extend it, show me why I should vote for you, and make sure to answer line by line so that nothing is conceded that may implicate the aff plan.

K affs- I run a K Affirmative as a policy debater, so I already know you are more than capable of answering T and FW, however,you can still lose to them so make sure you answer every aspect of the argument not just why their interpretation is bad. K affs are always very engaging (and if performative, all the more enjoyable to watch and learn). Trust your case, explain to me how you solve itnd why my ballot is important, especially when having FW, T, CP's, and TVA's thrown at you. You need to tell me why my ballot means something and how that translates to your harms being solved and why it's important that we debate about this. Bonus points: K affs are difficult to run at this level, but if you manage to describe to me why your K aff is important, why you as debaters performing the k aff is important, and why the debate that you are having right now with my ballot pushes us int he right direction, you will more than likely get my ballot.

Voter Issue arguments- If a particularly egregious event happens in the debate round, I typically give 90% leeway to the team that suffered the action, so it does not take much, but you still need to explain to me how it was bad for debate and why my vote is going to stop it (saying "the negative team misgendered me and this is bad for debate because _____ and your vote prevents this because _____" will work fine.)

Speaker points are given based on performance whilst giving speeches and during Cross-Examination. Nothing you say before or after rounds will affect your score. Charisma, effort, and conviction are preferred over bravado or aggression.

LASTLY: Do your thang. Be yourself. Do you boo boo. I will be able to keep the flow as organized as I can, signposts and roadmaps are always helpful. Trust yourself as a debater, you are here because of the work you have done, and win or lose your performance and courage in debating is more than enough. GO YOU!

Hi! I'm Skylar, was formerly a debater at Blake. Please put skylarrwang@gmail.com and blakedocs@googlegroups.com on the email chain, and don't hesitate to reach out with any questions.

Notes for 12/2 -I'm not familiar with this topic, so make sure to say the full name of something before abbreviating!

General:

- Please preflow before the round and give an off-time road map that tells me which specific argument you're starting on

- Second rebuttal should rebuild your own case and respond to theirs, and begin the weighing debate! ALL speeches after 2nd reb should have weighing

- Comparatives are very important: tell me why to prefer your reasoning over your opponents (eg. maybe because it's empirically proven, maybe because you have the best evidence on the question), most close rounds are resolved this way.

This can be evidence comparison too (eg. our ev is more holistic source, takes into account xyz factors). Please do this if you have conflicting evidence on a question, otherwise I have to sift through the email chain myself afterward to resolve this

- Impact calc is key, but make sure it's comparative and warranted!

- Link-ins and prerecs are good and useful weighing args that should be made. However, I think they're often given too much weight on the ballot and come out too late in the round, so if you want to use this mech make sure it's well warranted and well developed from summary (extra points if they come out in rebuttal). I also have a very low threshold for responding to them if they're blippy or simply asserted.

- Don't hesitate to call for evidence! Also, when you're sending it in the email chain, send cut cards, not just a link.

More on evidence, borrowing from Ale Perri: "Cut cards. Paraphrasing is becoming an easy vehicle for total misrepresentation of evidence. So I would strongly advise reading cut cards in front of me. The NSDA requires that you are now paraphrasing from a cut card or paragraph, meaning that if you are paraphrasing an entire pdf or article, I will evaluate the flow without that argument and your speaks will get tanked. I still strongly believe that even paraphrasing from cut cards is unacceptable because of the time skew that it enables against a team that is cutting and reading cards (i.e you are able to read 3 "cards" for every actual card they can read), but I will not drop you or the evidence for this if the paraphrase is legitimate."

- I'm down to hear progressive arguments but run them well. On a relative level, I'm more receptive to Ks than theory (pref disclosure and paraphrasing theory; don't run stuff like resolved theory)

- Any speed is alright, but this isn't an excuse for blippy arguments. If you're going faster this means more depth in each arg/more of the card being read.

Back half specifics:

- Extensions (re-explanations of arguments) in summary need to be clear and warranted

- Strategy in summary/ff need to be similar, I won't vote off of a blippy claim made in summary and blown up in final focus

- For the arguments they've collapsed on, defense in ff needs to be in summary

- Collapse hard on a few arguments! If I see this properly executed earlier in the round, I'll boost your speaks

Speaks:

- I'm cool with any style. I don't think debate boils down to persuasion, but instead understanding the nuances of the argument and being able to do effective comparison. I view debate more as an academic means to unpack policy, and much less a speech event. It's a test of your research and efficiency, not your language.

- avg is 28

- will drop you and your speaks for exclusionary language or behavior

Feel free to ask any questions before round! Best reachable by email.

I'm a lay judge who can write flows - but consider my flow for 30% of the vote.

I don't judge crossfire, that's for you to ask clarifying questions on your opponents case.

I don't need an off-time roadmap, but if it helps you, feel free to to provide it.

Please make counterpoints with facts in the rebuttal and summary.

Your job is to convince me that the weight of your points / counter points is better than your opponents.

During the round if someone mentions that the sky is green, unless the other team refutes the point, then sky is green for the round.

We're here to learn and I provide verbal feedback on the decision at the end of the round as well as constructive feedback on your cases and rebuttals.

Please debate the topic as prescribed by the tournament.

Hi all

-----Paradigm Starts here-----

Background:

Current Head Coach/ADoD? at Binghamton University (2021 - Present)

Debated/Coached for George Mason University (2009-2019)

-----Super short version 10 min before round-----

I always want to be on the email chain - email to woodward@binghamton.edu

I have judged or have seen pretty much every argument in debate at least once.

As a debater I mostly read policy arguments, but ended my career doing critical arguments. I was also a 2A and 2N at different points.

I prefer you do what you're best at- don't over adapt to me

Am a sucker for judge instruction -> If you tell me to evaluate in a certain way and the other team doesn't rebut it then I'm going to.

I require explanation - my understanding of K lit is better because I've been at Bing for a while now, but I still not super great at it. Assume you know your lit more than I will. Examples from the 1AC or historical examples go a long way. This also applies to policy things. I cut policy cards but that's not my main focus most of the time so I'm not gonna be super up to date on the latest meta shifts/counterplan acronyms.

Good analysis and explanation beats a card the majority of the time in front of me

Be polite. (This is different from being nice, but there is a cutoff point)

Have fun!

Would prefer that people slow down/go to about 90% of top speed. I don't think this matters for most debates but it would be appreciative. I will yell slow/clear as applicable.

Harvard HS Tournament specifically - Two things to note.

1. I have read/judged/thought 0 about the HS topic- most of my time is focused on NDT/CEDA topic. I will need explanation and clarifications about jargon, arguments, etc.
2. My limits for "acceptable" behavior in terms of how people should treat each other is lower than in college rounds.

-----You have time to read/more specific things-----

---Novice/JV---

Is the most important division. We should be doing what we can to help the division grow and new debaters to improve and feel welcome- the community depends on it.

The packet at this point is not helpful outside of providing evidence to programs who need it to help start their programs. It needs healthy reforms to make it a better educational tool. That being said I will not enforce packet rules after the first two tournaments, or in any division above novice.

I'm fine with novices learning whatever arguments they wish. I would prefer if novices did defend the topic, or if they took alternate routes to the topic they still defended topic DAs and were in a topic direction.

I am also not a fan of misinformation type arguments in novice. This doesn't mean hiding DAs or case turns on case, or an extra definition on T (because those promote better flow practices) This means arguments that are obtuse to be obtuse for no reason.

---Topicality---

Is a voting issue and never a reverse voting issue.

I am not persuaded by "norms" or "it's 1st/last tournament etc." style arguments. I do not need abuse to vote on topicality.

Competing interpretations is what I default to.

After Fall Semester/Wake- I feel even more strongly we have overcorrected and have made the Nukes topic entirely too small. I still have some limits when it comes to subsets of topic areas, but I can be persuaded that allowing a few more affirmatives is a good thing.

Going into Districts/NDT/CEDA thoughts - Still think letting the aff have subsets makes this topic more interesting but after hearing 2-3 debates on it, I am still 50/50 on this debate but my default leans aff, if both sides debated perfectly. I'm still down to hear the argument because I do think there's some room to convince me.

---Disadvantages---

DAs are good, turns case arguments are good, I think there isn't a ton of nuance here. My only 2 caveats are as follows.

I wish more teams would attack DAs on the internal link level-

Politics and Elections DAs are decent educational discussions and are strategic. But the current political system is so flawed it is hard to take the arguments seriously. I am very persuaded by arguments about why radicalism in our government has doomed the ability for it to function. (or arguments that explain why congress is in a terrible spot for legislation currently)

Elections/Midterms DAs, the closer we get to November 2024, the better the DA sounds in front of me. Interpret this as you wish.

---Counterplans---

They're good - but I reward teams for more specific reasons why the CP solves the aff vs no federal/xyz process good key warrant. I'm not a fan of no solvency advocate + just the CP text in the 1NC, but generally i'm cool with most counterplan ideas.

I don't judge kick the counterplan, it promotes neg terrorism. I can be persuaded otherwise, but outside of strong neg defenses, and/or a lack of aff response I will not give the neg the status squo if a CP is in the 2NR.

I default to reject the argument on theory. I can be persuaded most things could be a reason to reject the team, or gives leeway on other arguments. My standards for voting on theory even with this are somewhat high.

Conditionality in limited instances are good. That being said my cutoff is lower than most judges. The max before I start to err affirmative is 2 conditional worlds. If there is a new aff, i'm fine with 3. I do think more than 3 conditional worlds isn't needed. I also think kicking planks compounds and makes any conditionality arguments even stronger

---Critiques (When you are neg) ---

Judge instruction + framework is your friend. I usually compare the aff vs the alt in a vacuum, but when one team is telling me what to do, and one is not with this information this goes a long way into deciding my ballot. Sometimes good judge instruction can overcome technical drops. "Weigh the aff" is not an aff interp on framework. I think it does you a disservice unless the neg's interp is legitimately you don't get the aff without jumping through multiple hoops. I would prefer interps based on something more specific, whether it's extinction/impact based, or even better education towards an issue, or even the self serving ROB = best at fighting nuke weapons.

I require a bit of explanation. My critical knowledge is better than it was in the past but you are more likely to know your argument more than me. Empiric examples, applications to the affirmative, etc are all useful and persuasive.

Go for tricks, if the aff messes them up then it's a valid strategy, I don't think you need the alt alone if you're winning a sizeable enough impact + link for a case turn type of argument

But do what you do best, I do genuinely like any presentation or idea for argument, as long as it's explained clearly and developed before the 2NR.

--- Critiques (When you are aff) ---

I prefer affirmatives that are in the direction of the topic and do something, or if they do neither have a good justification for doing otherwise.

Defend your arguments and be strategic. IF your 1AC is saying Heg + Prolif, it does not make sense to go for the link turns. This doesn't mean don't make the arguments if it's what you've prepped for but think about what your aff is designed to do and don't shy away from impact turns or alt offense.

Framework is viable and a decent strategy in front of me. I default to Limits > Fairness > Skills based arguments. Another thing from being at Bing is I am slowly leaning towards Fairness is more of an internal link vs an impact alone BUT I can be persuaded otherwise. I am also fine with impact turn debates but not having defense on neg framework standards (Or case defense to the aff) is pretty devastating and a problem for the team without said defense.

Something I have noticed as a pattern for lots of the framework rounds I judge is that not having defense, or at least references/cross applications that can be clear to answer terminal impacts on either side is usually something that can be a round ender. I find that I am somewhat persuaded by 2NR/2ARs that go for conceded impact scenarios on framework/affirmative answers to framework. Outside of heavy framing articulations this is usually hard to overcome.

When resolving a clash debate (most of my rounds) I think my preference is Case specific strat > Framework > Cap unless that is your specific thing you do.

Case should be in the 2NR in some way or fashion. I am willing to vote on presumption or case turns alone.

Critical teams should think hard about if they want to defend DAs or not. I'm not sold one way or the other, but i do get a bit concerned if the 2AC says they'll defend the deterrence DA, but the 1AR/2AR drastically doesn't apply (unless the neg doesn't read a link)

---Misc---

Speaker points are weird and rough at the moment. I don't want to keep people from breaking however. My speaks guidelines end up looking like this for varsity. This may adjust due to trends at all levels.

Nationals

Speaker award - 29.3

should/can clear - 28.7

Regional

Speaker Award -29

Should clear - 28.6

I adjust for division, but IF I give a student in JV or Novice a 29+ I believe they could debate a division up and succeed.

I don't like trolling - if you do not want to debate, simply forfeit, or have a discussion/pursue other methods of debating. IF you read an argument with the sole plan of being disruptive or trolling a debate you get a 15. IF you're funny you get a 25.

Don't cheat- I have fortunately only had to resolve this in 1 round. But if you accuse someone, round ends and will not restart. We don't have that many rules in debate, we should follow them, especially the rules about academic honesty/evidence.

Be polite- doesn't have to be "nice" but generally we shouldn't make rounds overly hostile for 0 reason. We will see each other multiple times over the next few years. There is a cutoff for being snarky and being a jerk.

---Other Events---

I am a policy coach. I have spent the vast majority of my time coaching and preparing things in policy formats. I will flow, I evaluate my decisions based on that flow. I believe the best debaters are ones who both prove their side of an issue is the most effective, and have combatted the opposing side effectively. I will never determine a round solely based on presentation, decorum or speaking style unless something problematic happened to where coaches/tab have to be involved.

LD - i've judged maybe 40 LD rounds in my life (if being generous). I still am shaky about value criterions, I will have done 0 topic research. If you do LD like it's mini policy I am prob very good for you. Disclosure is virtually mandatory. I have heard explanations from LD'ers about theory. My gut is if it's something like counterplan competition or conditionality it is fine. If it's something frivolous or ridiculous I am not great for your speaks or chances to win the ballot. But do what you do best. I don't believe in RVIs

PF - I did PF in 2007-2009 while in high school. I coached a team in PF in the spring of 2021. I generally vote on and will flow. I will heavily follow judge instruction. Disclosure theory is a very persuasive argument and I think evidence practices are egregiously awful for PF. Paraphrasing, and only sending links for evidence is not acceptable for evidence. It must be in a format that is easily accessible and reviewable by both teams AND should be provided before the speech. I'm very flexible on most things, Evidence and disclosure I am not.

Other formats- have 0 experience but will take notes and evaluate based on the rules given.

Good afternoon students! I am looking for good premises that can strongly support your conclusions. Logical fallacies such as bias fallacy will weaken your argument so please try to minimize logical fallacies as much as possible. Throughout your argument, please make sure the premises are true and that they are strongly needed for your conclusions to stand. Also please make sure to work collaboratively with your teammates as teamwork is essential in any debate. Thank you and have fun! I look forward to judging your arguments and I know all of you will do very well!

I did Policy in HS and College. I coached Middle/HS LD for six years, and am now coaching Policy for UWyo.

I am collecting anonymous feedback and data about my judging. If I've judged you and you'd like to contribute, please fill out the form!

Above any ideological loyalty or stylistic preference is my appreciation and need for clean, organized, structured debates.

natalieforensics@gmail.com

Mechanics of Evaluation

I try my hardest to be tabula rasa, but I'm also a person. I vote on dropped arguments more than most people.

Major things that make me different from other judges:

I'm somewhat hard of hearing - try to talk way louder than you would. This is usually only a problem during physical (not online) tournaments and in rooms with much echo. If you are unclear, I'll yell clear twice before I stop flowing. Don't slur your words together. Use complete sentences while avoiding filler words. If you've never recorded yourself giving a speech and tried to flow yourself, chances are you think you are far clearer than you really are.

Tech and Truth - it's not hard for me to see the connections between arguments. I vote on many conceded args with impacts, and heavily undercovered args. I guess that makes me more of a tech judge, but I also will be very grumpy about arguments that don't make sense, so I'll vote on them but I'll complain about having voted on them.

1ar/2nr/2ar dynamics - I like to protect the 2nr. If the arg wasn't in the 1ar or the 2ar pivot is outlandish, it can be a problem for me. That being said if the 2nr spin on the block strat is heavy, 2ars should be pointing that out as a reason to justify new 2ar args.

Speech docs- I hate having to follow along on the doc. I think debaters' flowing skills have rapidly deteriorated since judges were added to speech docs. But now, with mixed modalities, it's very much necessary. That being said, I'm not gonna base much of my decisions on your evidence unless there's a disagreement about what it says - the parts that are most relevant should be paraphrased and cited by author name and the speech they were introduced in the rebuttals.

It's also silly how often people spread through their analytics (especially on theory) as though they're highlighting within a card and expect the judge to follow along on the speech doc.

Try to be pleasant - It's not gonna swing my ballot unless it's turned into an argument, which usually has to do with critiques of how people talk.

Events that happened out of round -This is a gray area for me. I guess on some level I think you should be held accountable for things that happened that can be proven to have happened. On the other hand, how many times does someone have to lose on something for them to be free of their past? I guess that's for y'all to debate about and me to find out.

-

Ideologies and their Juxtapositions

K v K Debate

This is the format that the algorithm has determined I'm destined to judge the most...

Be organized. Distinguish between claim warrant and implications. Writing the story of the ballot can be crucial. Detailed perm theory about what the aff does or does not get to permute is essential for me.

Framework/T-Usfg

When I vote on Framework, there's usually an offensive answer to "you don't address the aff impacts" via a conversation about how affs that have no tie to the topic or completely foreclose upon state engagement to trade off with opportunities to learn about the values of state engagement or ways in which the topic hurts the people the aff is talking about. I do think that soft framework with interps such as "aff must defend a tangible strategy," "aff must have a connection to the resolution," "aff must be in the direction of the resolution," etc. with most of the same justifications as regular framework can be solid round winners in front of me. My neg ballots on this usually start with "the topical version of the affirmative resolves most of the aff's offense and has better inroads into dialogue/clash and advocacy/policymaking skills for the following reasons:" or because the aff undercovered switch-side debate.

Plan v K Debate

Aff: Don't over-rely on framework, perms and theory. Read these arguments when they really make sense, not out of fear of engaging the substance of the K. Make sure that the K actually violates the rules you want to set up before spending time setting up those rules.

Neg: Don't be lazy! Read specific, offensive links with well-explained alts that are both paradigmatic and can be translated into action that helps people. You can advocate for specific solutions (that may or may not be state policies) as examples of a broader and more general alternative. Find a good balance between examples, explanations, and warrants/proof.

Discourse/rhetoric links: this is my jam. Neg teams answering these - perm and framework go a long way, but honestly people should sometimes just defend their rhetoric. You're not gonna have a defense of every word you use so offensive args about why the 1ac performance is net good even if it's messy or not ideologically pure. The defense of the performance of the 1ac is the key here, and what impacts it addresses. Labeling it as "the value of the performance of the 1ac outweighs the negative harms of their links" really goes a long way with me because it's a clearer contextualization of what "policymaking good" and "research on this topic is good" are actually doing for you besides getting you out of "roleplaying bad" debates. This isn't a theory arg either - you're just weighing the costs vs benefits of the 1ac speech act, in addition to a robust strategy about why my ballot should prioritize the outcomes of the plan over the performance of the speech.

Critiques based on consequences: winning the impact/root cause debate is key? Idk what else to say here.

Traditional

I did this style in High School, and while I coach a team that predominantly does traditional debate, I don't spend much time thinking about this side of the topic. My favorite traditional debates have been more technical than most. Since I'm more unfamiliar I tend to be a lot more tech over truth, given as I'm not exactly doing regular work on your politics disad or specific uniqueness claims. I am also not very knowledgeable about what many acronyms on the topic mean.

I am a parent judge. I need to understand your case so if your speed is too fast then I might not get all your points. Make sure you don’t drop any contention.