Hi. My name is Swapna and I'll be your judge today. I am a parent judge and consider me a lay judge.

With that being said, I do take notes. Don't speak fast, I will miss it.

However there's a couple of things that I want to address:

1. If you want something to be weighed thoroughly, say it through every speech. Otherwise, I'll forget.

2. Don't be rude. Be respectful to your opponents.

3. The whole point of PFD is to convince your audience(lay judges). Treat me like one, but I will take notes.

Speaks:

1. Don't be too worried about it. I haven't dropped anyone below a 27.

Good Luck.

michaeldepasquale21@gmail.com

Public Forum

Short version: collapse onto one contention in summary, weigh weigh weigh, extra speaker point for each team if you start an email chain before each round and send evidence that way. Include me on the email chain.

I did policy debate for 3 years and now am coaching public forum. With that being said, i am okay with some spreading but i need to be able to understand what your saying. Ill vote on anything, however, if your going to go for something it needs to be rebutted throughout the entire speech. You should try and write my ballot for me at the end of the round by giving me 2-3 of your best arguments and going for them. If I look confused its because I am confused, so try to not do that. I pay attention to cross x, but i dont flow it. If I feel like theres an important point being made ill for sure write it down. Cross x is the most entertaining part of the debate, so make it entertaining. Be confident but don't be rude, theres a big big difference. I prefer that you have more offensive (your flow) than defensive arguments (your opponents flow) but you need to have both in order to win the round.

If you have any specific questions let me know and Ill be sure to answer them before the round.

Policy

Like i mentioned in my PF paradigm, i did policy debate for 3 years and am now coaching Public Forum. I am good with anything you do. That being said, I don't know a lot about this topic. I'm cool with speed, but you have to be clear. Bottom line, ill vote for anything, as long as you give me a clear reason to vote for you at the end of the round. I consider a dropped argument a true argument.

Im not okay with shadow extending. If something gets conceded, you need to explain to me the argument, and why its important to the round. If your going to do an email chain, which id prefer, id like to be on that. My email is at the top of the paradigm.

Topicality: love T debates, i need a clear limits story. I am more willing to vote for you if theres in round abuse, but you do not have to prove an abuse story to win.

Ks: I will listen to them, but i am not great with Ks. I am not up to speed with all the k jargon. I need a clear link and alt. If you can prove at the end of the round why you won, and i think its convincing, ill vote for you. I recommend slowing down in the 2nr, especially if your going for the K.

Das: I do not buy generic links. If your going to read a politics da, you need to give me case specific links. Ill also be more than likely to vote for you if you can provide me with good and comparative impact calc.

Case Negs: I love case specific debates. Ill vote on presumption, and honestly any type of solvency takeout. I give analytical case arguments, especially if they are good, a lot of weight. Love impact turns.

Affirmative: I tend to swing aff when it comes debating against ptix disads with a bad link story. Same goes for cp solvency, and k links.

If you have any specific questions let me know and Ill be sure to answer them before the round.

As a LD judge, it is important for the flow to be maintained so that your criterion and values are clearly articulated to me. For philosophical arguments, your value and criterion must clearly connect to your contentions. This information will take precedence to cards. If you are speaking too fast then I may loose your points during your flow. I am fine with speed, but please do not spread. If you spread and I cannot flow all of your arguments then they will not carry through the round. I expect for you to be able to establish your declarations and standards without being condescending. You may keep your own time but I will keep official time. If you continue speaking after time has elapsed, I will not flow your arguments. Please do not look at each other during crossfire but rather speak to me. When you call for a card I will begin using your prep time when the card is handed over to you. I will keep track of your prep time and I will tell you when I start and end the time.

As a PF judge, remember that your speed can negatively affect my ability to ability to follow your flow. I am fine with speed but do not spread. Please be mindful when calling cards as this can take significant time away from the debate itself. When you call for a card I will begin using your prep time when the card is handed over to you. I will keep track of your prep time and I will tell you when I start and end the time. I will not follow your directives to do so and the time that I keep is the official time. Decorum is important to me. Although you may not loose the debate over decorum, it can affect your speaker points.

Hi! I debated PF for four years at Stow-Munroe Falls High School in Ohio.

My email is ghawk1@kent.edu. Just add me to the email chain before the round.

General things:

I'm pretty tolerant to firmness/aggressiveness in rounds, just don't be an a-hole.

Don't be discriminatory in any way or I will drop you.

I will try to keep time, but I make no promises. If you go over, I won't penalize you, but please try and finish your thought/sentence quickly.

Speaking things:

I'm fine with speed (just don't spread) but please remember that I will be flowing (most likely on paper).

Speaks are mostly dependent on clarity and the actual round itself (I'll get more into that later).

Debating things:

I don't really flow cross, I'll listen along, but unless you get the other team to concede, then I probably won't weigh it in the round.

If you're giving the second rebuttal, I'm expecting you to frontline your offense.

With that in mind, I don’t require the first speaking team to extend defense in the 1st summary speech. However, if said defense is frontlined in 2nd rebuttal, the 1st summary needs to interact with the frontlines.

Please collapse and weigh. If you don’t weigh, I may or may not weigh for you and thus the RFD may be skewed. Furthermore, explain to me why you outweigh, whether it be on scope or magnitude. The earlier you collapse and weigh, the higher your speaks!

Properly extend your warrants and impacts. All offense should be in summary and final. That means links and warrants should be in your summary and final, don’t just extend through ink (it also helps you with lay judges). I’m more likely to vote for a well-warranted argument with some clash over a small argument that doesn’t have a good warrant or large impact.

My RFD:

When casting my ballot I tend to take the path of least resistance for well-warranted, well-weighed arguments. If you easily explain and write out for me why I should vote for you, you are more likely to win.

Evidence:

If the other team is constantly saying the card is misconstrued, I’ll probably look at it if it’s super important. Please don’t miscut cards, there’s a high chance that if I suspect you’re miscutting/cherry-picking, I’ll ask to see the whole card.

If you have any questions please ask! Super excited to judge your debate!

You do you and I'll judge accordingly. Run the arguments with which you are most comfortable.

Email chain, please! jhollihan18@gmail.com

he/him

Policy:

I debated for four years in high school, most of that time being a 1A/2N, and on these topics: China Relations, Education, Immigration, and Arms Sales. Most of my 1ACs were soft left and I usually went for DA + case or the Cap K in the 2NR.

Please try not to spread or at the very least, SLOW DOWN. I have not debated competitively since high school and have become more numb to spreading; I've also become more ideologically opposed to it. If you are going at top speed, odds are I might miss something you say and you don't want that to happen. I try not to look at the speech doc, but that may depend on the speed at which you read. Try to go slower than you normally would. If you are zipping through your theory/T blocks, I will assume that you have not read this and I will be annoyed.

PF/LD:

I find myself judging very similar debates halfway through a resolution cycle. However, please don't assume I know the ins and outs or the trends of a given topic (e.g., acronyms, legislation/litigation, key arguments/data).

As a debater with a policy background, I really dislike evidence sharing norms in PF and LD. Why are we not just sharing the speech docs? Since email chains are not the community norms, you should have ALL of your evidence ready to go (though, an email chain would always be appreciated). Wasting 5-10 minutes to find one piece of evidence is not only frustrating for me, it can also hold up the tournament.

I am a parent judge, please speak clearly, slowly if possible, and emphasize the key reasons.

Please do not interrupt when your competing colleague(s) is(are) speaking.

When you quote with numeric data, please be slow to tell clearly with naming properly a correct source.

I am a traditional lay judge who is new to judging. I'm very lay, meaning you should explain your arguments thoroughly while also being clear and concise. I will be voting off of whichever side leaves me with the strongest argument by the end of the round, defends their case while putting strong and extended responses on their opponent's case, and proves to me why their impacts outweigh that of their opponents.

No me importa lo que de mí se diga Vida usted su vida, que yo vivo la mía Que solo e' una, disfruta el momento Que el tiempo se acaba y pa'trás no vira Bebiendo, fumando y jodiendo Sigo vacilando de party to' lo' día' Síguelo, oh-oh-oh, oh-oh-oh, oh-oh (¡Farru!) Síguelo, oh-oh-oh, oh-oh-oh, oh-oh (de rola y pepa) Pepa y agua pa' la seca To' el mundo en pastilla en la discoteca Pepa y agua pa' la seca To' el mundo en pastilla en la discoteca Desacatao' Empastillao' (Qué maldita nota) (Arcoíris) ¡Fa-Fa-rru! Sube la' mano' y las botella' pa'rriba (¡blep!) Siempre la movie la tenemo' prendi'a Hoy vamo' a darle hasta que se haga de día Sigo rulitón en la mía Salió el sol, sol (sol) Prende la hookah y el alcohol (Y el alcohol) Y préndelo, oh-oh, woh-oh-oh (Woh-oh) Esto se salió de control (De control) Síguelo, oh-oh-oh, oh-oh-oh, oh-oh (de rola y pepa) Pepa y agua pa' la seca To' el mundo en pastilla en la discoteca (desacatao') Pepa y agua pa' la seca To' el mundo en pastilla en la discoteca (empastillao') ¡Blep! ¡Fa-Fa-rru! (Qué maldita nota) (Arcoíris) No me importa lo que de mí se diga Vida usted su vida, que yo vivo la mía Que solo es una, disfruta el momento Que el tiempo se acaba y pa'trás no vira Bebiendo, fumando y jodiendo Sigo vacilando de party to' lo' día' Síguelo, oh-oh-oh, oh-oh-oh, oh-oh (¡Farru!) Síguelo, oh-oh-oh, oh-oh-oh, oh-oh (de rola y pepa) Pepa y agua pa' la seca To' el mundo en pastilla en la discoteca Pepa y agua pa' la seca To' el mundo en pastilla en la discoteca Desacatao' Empastillao' (Qué maldita nota) (Arcoíris) ¡Fa-Fa-rru! Dimelo, Chino The Most Winning Victor Cárdenas White Star Sharo Towers La 167 La 167

PF Paradigm:

I am a lay judge, so if you speak slowly and clearly, that would be good. Treat me as if I am brand new to the topic, and make sure that your evidence/cards are clear. Tagline your contentions.

I look for which side has better content and analysis. Whichever side has better weighing and impacts is likely to win the round. If you can clearly defend your contentions and logically disprove your opponents, you will win the round.

I believe that Cross-Ex is important to the debate. If you are able to poke holes in your opponent's case, and defend your case well, it will look good to me.

Off-time roadmaps are helpful.

I am not familiar with Progressive Argumentation, so please do not run it.

Also, please time keep track of time so that speech times are constant.

Please do not be mean/bully your opponents.

Most importantly, have fun!

My strength is in speech and I have years of both coaching and judging students in every speech event. I also have several years coaching and judging debate as well. When presenting (regardless of what event you are in) you have multiple tools available to use to enhance, PERSUADE and connect with your audience. Vocal intonation, vocal modulation, dynamic voice, appropriate pacing and pausing, CLEAR ENUNCIATION, eye contact, facial expressions, and gestures are all tools that can support your presentation. Whether you're presenting an interpretation, an oratory, or a position in a debate use those tools. While debating, present your argument, your facts, your position and connect it all to persuade me you're correct. Spreading and gish galloping in my opinion are NOT tools and if you choose those tactics I will not be happy and your rank will reflect that mis-step. Also DO NOT waste your time telling me why I should be voting for you when you should be persuading me. In Congressional Debate be strategic in asking questions to better position your argument. Additionally, always move the debate forward. Be HONEST and RESPECTFUL in your presentation.

Please put me on the email chain -- julialynch101 AT gmail.com

I debated for four years at the University of Miami and mostly ran traditional policy arguments. However, I am open to listening to anything and will try my best to understand positions based on the arguments and evidence presented in the round. I respect the time and effort you are putting into this activity and hope that you will share that same respect for me and your opponents.

Top Level:

I flow on paper and lean more tech over truth.

Evidence quality (and analysis!) over quantity.

I prefer impact calc early and most definitely by the end of the round. “Even if”-esque arguments go a long way with me.

I love cross-ex and will reward speakers that are strategic, assertive, yet respectful.

Stealing prep is one of my biggest pet peeves -- please don't do it. I appreciate it when teams keep track of their prep (in the chat, if online).

Counterplans: As a former 2N, I loved running them and appreciate hearing well-thought-out and strategic CPs. However, I am skeptical of multi-plank counterplans that have no/few solvency advocates. In those instances, particularly, I can be easily persuaded by “links to the net benefit” args. Negs should identify net benefits early and clearly – I’ll hold you to what you say originally. Conditional planks and cross-application of planks/CPs to different pages frustrate me unless specifically flagged as a possibility early in the round. I will only “judge-kick” the CP if explicitly told to do so and can likely be persuaded otherwise with solid aff arguments.

Topicality: T is a voting issue and I believe that affs should have a plan, and if not, an advocacy statement. Otherwise, it’s unclear to me what the aff has to defend which likely makes in-depth engagement grounded in a point of stasis difficult. Reading blocks and blocks of definitions without analysis or embedded clash is not a winning strategy with me. I enjoy hearing arguments regarding topical versions of the aff and the value of debate and topic-specific education. Extra-topicality is an independent voting issue.

Disads: DAs are a great strategy either with a CP or straight up versus case. However, uniqueness and links need to be solid. I greatly appreciate “case turns the DA” and “DA turns case” args and prefer case-specific DAs over generics (read: politics).

Case debate: I absolutely love case debate and respect debaters who put in the time to point out flaws and contradictions on-case, even if via just short analytics. On-case turns and solvency takeouts can go far if explained and deployed correctly.

Kritiks: As mentioned above, I did not run many Kritiks when I debated. As such, I am not as familiar with the literature and would appreciate a clear explanation of the link and the alternative. I prefer topic-specific Kritiks and/or ones with concrete links to the plan itself, not just “the aff” or a singular piece of evidence. I think it would be difficult for me to vote for a K without an alt; however, I can be persuaded into thinking otherwise if sufficient work is done at the uniqueness/link level.

Theory: 2 condo is fine, but conditional planks and contradicting positions are a tough sell for me. Condo is the only theory arg for which I will “reject the team.”

** PF **

I did PF for a couple of years in high school so I am familiar with the structure and style. However, given that I haven't been active in the PF circuit for a couple of years, please be mindful of throwing around PF-specific debate terms without explaining what they mean. Although the paradigm above is through the lens of Policy, many of my preferences apply to PF. Please ask me any questions you have before the round and I'd be happy to answer.

Public Forum: As a PF judge, I am fine with speed, but please do not spread. If you spread and I cannot flow all of your arguments then they will not carry through the round. My flow is greater than your flow. I am fine with all competitors keeping track of their time but I will keep the official time. If you continue speaking after time has elapsed, I will not flow your arguments. Please be mindful of time when calling for cards, it can be a time suck and you may end up using all of your prep time. I will keep track of your prep time (especially when card calling). I will tell you when I start and end the timer. I will not follow your directives to do so and the time that I have is the official time. Decorum is important to me as well, while I won't give you a loss for poor decorum, I will give you lower speaker points.

Lincoln Douglas: As a LD judge, I am more of a traditional judge and prefer that the debate come down to one of the framework rather than contentions. I am fine with speed, but please do not spread. If you spread and I cannot flow all of your arguments then they will not carry through the round. My flow is greater than your flow. I am fine with all competitors keeping track of their time but I will keep the official time. If you continue speaking after time has elapsed, I will not flow your arguments. Please be mindful of time when calling for cards, it can be a time suck and you may end up using all of your prep time. I will keep track of your prep time (especially when card calling). I will tell you when I start and end the timer. I will not follow your directives to do so and the time that I have is the official time. Decorum is important to me as well, while I won't give you a loss for poor decorum, I will give you lower speaker points.

Congress: As a Congress judge, I like to hear clear and supported evidence in order to make an opinion about the legislation being debated. I enjoy hearing passionate speakers who care about their constituents. Decorum is important to me as well, while I won't give you a loss for poor decorum, I will give you lower speaker points.

Hey, I'm Shaan. I did PF for 4 years at Jackson High School in Ohio. I'm a senior at OSU. Email: shaanparikh12@gmail.com

NSDAs 2023 Policy:

Keeping it straight up with y'all, I haven't judged a ton of policy. That said, run whatever you want -- I have experience judging every type of argument (theory, Ks). In general, I'm tech > truth and will pretty much vote for anything if you explain it to me. Spread however much you want, but don't spread tags so I can write them down. Really don't like voting for blippy args so if you are going to go for something, go for it and tell me why you win it through framing.

Lord have mercy please do not be racist or any of the -ist things or I'll drop you.

PF:

I don't wanna write it all out so read this:

https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=85168

1. Your arguments should have quantifiable impacts if you want to win; qualitative impacts will not be sufficient in most cases

2. I I cannot hear or compile your argument(s), I might not be able to judge it for correctness or completeness. Therefore, do not spread

3. Use logic to win your argument, pathos will not work with me

yes I want to be on the email chain: junewearden05@gmail.com

Pittsburgh Central Catholic '18

Pitt '22

WARNING: I have only been peripherally engaged with the immigration topic - if you're going to use acronyms / do in-depth law analysis you're going to have to slow down and explain it to me

When I debated in high school I primarily ran soft-left affs, but I don't (think) I have a strong ideological preference. I'm not going to pretend I'm tabula rasa but there are very few arguments I will a priori vote down. (For instance, I'm never going to vote for racism = good)

As long as you can provide me with a coherent explanation of your world-view and how that relates to what is being said in the round you'll be okay.

If you have questions about more specific arguments/positions feel free to ask.

Hello,

As a PF judge, I prefer fewer but more detailed arguments over numerous small ones. Hope it helps.

Thanks,

Maggie

I support logical and reasonable arguments with factual evidence.