important -

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

email me docs: griffinamos2@gmail.com

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

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

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

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

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

how do i decide who i vote for?

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

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

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

what types of arguments do i like?

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

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

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

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

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

technical stuff?

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

frontline in second rebuttal

don't read offensive overviews or disads in second rebuttal

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

theory?

read disclosure theory its just a true argument

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

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

defaults:

no rvis

competing interps

drop the arg

policy

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

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

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

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

I am a flay judge who votes truth>tech. I can handle speed but I don't care for spreading. I am not a fan of theory and am very unlikely to give you the ballot if you employ that tactic. If you link to nuclear winter, you better convince me that if I don't live in your world, I am actually going to die. I am a parent of a speech and debate kid so I understand how this works but I am more likely to be persuaded by the ideas and impacts you present rather than the technicalities and jargon. Convince me your world is better.

1. Weigh!! This isn't just telling me "we outweigh on scope, magnitude, etc" but also offering an explanation. You need to establish the comparative between your world vs. your opponent's world.

2. Please signpost!! If I don't know where it goes on the flow, it's going to be super difficult for me to consider the argument in my decision (and I just won't write it down). To that point, make sure when you extend cards, you don't just say "Extend the Smith card." You need to tell me what Smith says and why the card is important.

3. I really don't want (or need) an off-time roadmap.

4. I don't flow cross so if something important is said please bring it up in another speech. Let your opponents answer the question and don't be rude.

5. If you want me to actually vote off your link turn, you need to explain the impact of it in sum/FF.

6. Quality > Quantity. Cards are important but I also think creating a narrative and establishing the comparative is important as well. Just giving me all these cards with no explanation forces me to do the comparison for you, which I don't like doing.

7. I'm noticing that theory and Ks are becoming more common in PF. I'm really unfamiliar with them, and PF isn't really the type of debate for kritiks/theory in my opinion. I won't evaluate any theory/K's in my decision (unless I absolutely have to).

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

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

Be courteous and respectful to each other during round.

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

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

Most importantly, enjoy yourselves!

I'm a senior at Brown studying economics who debated 4 years of Public Forum for Acton-Boxborough. I'll flow to the best of my ability, but I've definitely become more flay as time goes on. In particular, I believe that the debate round can serve as a space for meaningful discourse around important issues, and as a result, I'm not afraid to admit a preference for arguments based in truth as opposed to squirrelly ones meant to catch your opponents off-guard without any basis in the real world. That being said, I have no qualms voting against my own beliefs or for untrue arguments that are insufficiently rebutted. If teams make claims that directly contradict one another, I'm often compelled by evidence comparison that specifically explains why one argument should be preferred. However, please still extend the warranting underlying the research throughout the round.

2nd Rebuttal: Must frontline turns, everything else is optional.

1st Summary: Please extend defense! If it wasn't frontlined in 2nd rebuttal, you can be very quick about it—just be clear and concise.

Theory/Ks: I'll evaluate any argument you make in the round, but I'm not very receptive to these types of arguments and have never voted for a team that's read one. I don't believe theory/Ks belong in PF and strongly prefer a substance debate.

Trigger Warnings: Please provide them if you're going to discuss any sensitive topic. If you're unsure, read one.

Topic-Specific Jargon: Although I'll try to have some level of understanding of the topic, please define any topic-specific acronyms or jargon for me (or avoid using them completely).

I will always analyze the round to the best of my ability, so please don't post-round me—the burden is on you as the debater to win my ballot. Asking me questions is totally fine though, of course.

MOST IMPORTANTLY: Please be kind to your opponents. If I think you're disrespectful or making the round an unsafe space, I'll tank your speaks with no hesitation and potentially drop you. Good luck everyone!

I competed in mostly Congress and extemp in high school, but I dabbled in PF. I also have a tiny bit of Policy and Worlds experience. Since graduating high school, I have judged locally in Northeast Ohio and on the Circuit (for Hawken), mostly in PF and LD but also a little Congress, since Fall of 2018. Here are some thoughts; I often update them after a tournament if something stands out to me.

Congress:

I flow Congress rounds, and I expect you to treat it like a debate event. I won't rank you if you're not a good speaker/presenter, but you also won't rank if you're not a good debater.

The top people on my ballot will need to do a few things:

1) Know your place in the debate. Are you giving a 1A or 1N? Set up the issue and relate it to the bill. Early-Middle of the round? You can give me a new point or two, but make sure you're refuting (and, for the record, just name-dropping somebody doesn't count as refuting). Late-middle? You should be mostly refuting. Last? Crystalize, summarize.

2) Show me that you're versatile. All other things equal, I will rank the person that gave an early and a late speech (see Point #1) higher than the person who gave two early speeches or two late speeches. That being said, I will probably think more of you if you give two late speeches vs two early speeches, because I think refutation is more impressive than a canned speech.

3) This line appears in my paradigm for every debate event I judge: You should not use evidence without logic. You should not use logic without evidence. If you read evidence and do nothing to contextualize it or explain it, I will likely not weigh it much. If you go on a wild logical tangent with no evidence, I will likely not weigh it much.

4) Impact.

5) Be good at answering questions. Be good at asking questions. Do both things consistently.

6) Don't be a jerk. I'm not going to describe what being a jerk entails, but you know it when you see it.

I'm also more than happy to rank POs, and I do it often. I judge the PO in the context of the round, and will rank anyone (often highly) if they maintain control of the round and are fair and quick. I really can't give more detail than this, but you know who's a good PO and who's not.

PF:

Full disclosure: I loved PF in high school, but I've cooled on it a bit as a judge for one reason: I cannot stand the debates that come down to cards, args, and impacts that don't clash or aren't weighed. There is too much talking at each other that goes on in PF, to win you need to make sure you clash and tell me why you beat your opponent. You'd think this goes without saying, and I guarantee that many of you reading this think you don't do this, but I promise many of you will. I need you to do impact calculus. I need you to tell my why your card is better than your opponents' if they clash. I want to do as little work as possible, so clearly tell me why you win. Also, don't extend through ink--this tends to be something PFers struggle with a lot.

Framework is important, but winning framework doesn't mean you win the round. You should not use evidence without logic. You should not use logic without evidence. If you read evidence and do nothing to contextualize it or explain it, I will likely not weigh it much. If you go on a wild logical tangent with no evidence, I will likely not weigh it much. Impacts are important, I want to see weighing and impact calc. I like to vote on impacts. Tell me a story in FF about why you win.

For the record, I flow and can handle speed. I won't be happy if you spread, but short of that I'm fine. I love CX, but I probably won't flow it, if there's something important bring it up in your speech or I likely won't weigh it. I won't ever call for a card unless you tell me to and tell me why; if you tell me to call for a card and there was no good reason for it I'll be unhappy.

It is my first time judging on this topic!

Pronouns: She/Her | Debated Policy 4 years & Public Forum 3 years, Experience coaching @ NOVA Debate | NYU Stern '24

- I consider myself a flow judge and score speaker points starting from 28 and going up or down from there

- Please sign post!

Public Forum

- Fine with speed as long as it is clear but I recommend slowing down online and much prefer quality>quantity

- You do not need to extend defense in summary unless it's frontlined in rebuttal (sticky defense)

- Be civil in cross, I'll intervene if I think it has gone too far.

- I do not flow cross fire, if you want something from cross say it in speech

- No new arguments in final focus

- Calling Cards: I'm fine with it and if gets to be an important issue in the round tell me to call for it in a speech, please have evidence ready to send

- Theory/progressive arguments: I'll vote on it if relevant but I have a low threshold for responses

- Weighing: Start early in second rebuttal, continue throughout the debate, and comparative weighing

- Please collapse!!!

Policy

Aff:

- Add me on email chain: irenedo2002@gmail.com

- In debate I typically ran a policy or soft left aff. I know some K affs relatively well, but you need to be really clear since it has been a while.

- Performance: Fine with it! Just be clear!

Neg:

- I personally ran K's (Cap, Neolib, Setcol, Ableism, Fem, Queer Pessimism), Politics, DA, and sometimes theory

- If you want to run a K (not the ones above) I'll need a clear overview/explanation on it

- Politics: I'll vote on it, but make sure you're winning the link, I find that the faultiest in most politics debates

- DA (general): Fine

- CP: Fine with it, but the net benefit should be really clear

- Theory: I know most of the common theory arguments (T, Plan Flaw, Disclosure), if it's not one of those just make sure to be clear

In Round Details

- Keep track of your own prep

- Don't be rude - I will lower your speaker points

Extras

- Feel free to email me with any questions or for extra feedback: irenedo2002@gmail.com

Background

I'm a college student (Oxford '23 lets go!!), former national circuit debater, and former PF captain at Ardrey Kell High School. I placed in the top 16 at CFLs 2019, and qualified for TOC Gold in 2020 (didn't attend because I graduated early RIP).

General

- I will not vote on electoral feasibility or electoral probability. You can't prove to me that Trump or Biden will win. Please don't try.

- Be funny, but don't be a jerk. Yes, that includes making faces while your opponent is speaking, using ad-hominem attacks, and shouting over your opponent. I'm not sure how well this applies for zoom debating, but I guess we'll find out.

- Please, please, please speak clearly. If I can't understand what you're saying, I'm not voting for you. This is really important for virtual tournaments because your mic quality is already lower than in person.

- I don't like spreading. There's a difference between speaking quickly and spreading. If you have to gasp for air in the middle of your speech, you're probably spreading. If you're speaking to quickly for me to flow, I'll raise my hand. If you keep speaking quickly, I'll say "clear." If you don't slow down after that then I'm not going to flow what you're saying. Again, speed is fine but spreading is not.

- Tech > Truth with exceptions. If your argument has clear logical fallacies, makes ridiculous leaps, is rooted in bigotry, or if it contradicts undisputed facts, I'm going to take note.

- Weigh your arguments. Please. Please. Please.

- Signpost. I need to know where you are and what you're talking about.

- I believe that public forum is supposed to be a version of debate that anyone could judge. Because of that, I will consider your persuasive ability and presentation in my RFD. If you tell me about something that I know about but you fail to adequately explain it, you'll receive lower speaks.

- If you're going to run theory/k arguments, make sure you do it exceptionally well. I'm not well-versed in theory, so if you can't explain it clearly to me I'm not going to buy it. I'm not likely to vote for a theory case unless it's incredible.

- Minute technicalities will not win you the round.

Evidence

- Do your best to cite the author's last name, their publication, and the year before reading evidence (ex: Burns of the New York Times in 2019 notes that...)

- I don't care if your card is paraphrased, so long as it isn't misconstrued.

- Please have your evidence ready to present. If your opponent calls for a card and you can't produce it, I'll dismiss the card. If that card is critical to one of your arguments, I'll also dismiss that argument.

- If your evidence is egregiously misrepresented, comes from an awful source, or is made up, I'll drop it and I'll drop your speaks. Keep doing it and I'll drop your team. I care a lot about evidence integrity.

- If you have repeated evidence issues and your opponent makes it a voting issue, I'll consider that in my RFD.

- I'll ask for cards at the end of the round if any of the following criteria are met:

1) I have reason to believe you're misrepresenting what your evidence says (ex: if your card says "the coronavirus vaccine will save people that will otherwise die if they're exposed" and you read "the coronavirus vaccine...people...will...die", you've misconstrued it)

2) The source of your card is questionable (ex: Infowars)

3) The card is disputed in round without clear resolution. (ex: grand crossfire is entirely about what one card might or might not say and neither of you can agree)

4) The card sounds too good to be true (ex: President Trump personally saved 3 million people from dying last Thursday)

5) I am asked to call for evidence by you or your opponent (ex: "Judge, call the card and see for yourself.")

Case

- If you have a specific weighing mechanism you want me to use, tell me in your framework. If you don't give me a weighing mechanism in framework, I'll weigh based on a cost/benefit analysis. If both of you present a framework, please tell me which I should use and why.

- Make sure your case is organized so I can follow it.

- Link your evidence to your impacts. If you read me a card and tell me something is going to happen, but can't explain the relationship between them, I'm not going to consider it.

- You use logic to make a jump from evidence to impact as long as your logic makes sense.

Rebuttal

- I prefer line-by-line rebuttals, but if needed I encourage a broad overview that critiques the general flaw in a contention before you go into it.

- If an argument isn't responded to in rebuttal, I'll consider it conceded. You can still outweigh it later.

- Second rebuttal should attempt to frontline.

Summary

- Defense is needed in the first summary if the other team frontlines in second rebuttal.

- Extend turns in summary

- Use summary to weigh your impacts

Final Focus

- Give me clear voter issues.

- If you can, lay out a narrative here. Clearly explain to me why your arguments are more important.

- Don't spend a ton of time hashing out small details here. I want to hear the big picture, not irrelevant turns that don't significantly strengthen your case.

Crossfire

- I don't ignore crossfire. I won't flow crossfire in the traditional sense, but I will take notes.

- If you make a strong point in crossfire (turns, concessions, strong evidence challenge, etc) I will add that to flow. But BRING IT UP AGAIN IN YOUR NEXT SPEECH.

That's basically it.

(If you got this far, tell me you read the note at the bottom of my paradigm before we start the round. I'll be impressed. And I'll give you a .1 speaker point bump)

Parent Judge.

Please be respectful of one another. Assertiveness is fine but being rude or using inappropriate language will result in losing the round. The most important things are to use debate to get better at speaking and thinking and to have fun while doing so.

Please maintain a conversational speed - speaking extemely quickly only hurts you because I won't be able to write down your argument. Don't use excessive jargon with me, I only have basic knowledge of debate and I won't understand it.

I will *try* to take notes on the round. Make it easier for me by signposting every response, warranting explicitly, and extending with warrants in every speech. If something is important, let me know. Point out concessions.

Do not try any progressive argumentation or theory on me; I won't understand it and won't be able to vote for you.

I look for the strongest impact and then determine which team has the strongest link into it.

Tech > Truth, time your own prep, and I DON'T disclose -- good luck!

If you have any questions before or after the round, feel free to ask. JWElias97@gmail.com

please please PLEASE stop calling for so much evidence what kind of norm is this

**current thoughts on debate: i think the longer judges take to come to a decision the more incorrect their ballot is**

email: gantlasr@gmail.com

4 years PF @ canyon crest/carmel valley, also championed the prestigious and well-run del norte pf round robin w/ syon iain & maanas

all events:

if you're going to spread, i need the speech doc

no slurring pls and slow down for numerical stats

please no Ks

messy round = long wait for rfd, see above

explain any topic-specific terms clearly

PF specific:

-you're best served debating the way that you normally debate as i can understand pretty much everything within the realm of PF and can adapt to most styles

-that being said, a few things you should know (most important --> least):

i require everything to be frontlined in 2nd rebuttal to access case offense, not just turns - be strategic

dropped defense can go from rebuttal to ff

ideally, no theory/K/etc. i think these types of arguments aren't relevant in most PF rounds -- i have a low threshold for responses

ill probably call for cards but if there's anything you want to make sure i read, tell me to in your speech -- i only read highlights unless you tell me to read unhighlighted parts

misc:

preflow in your own time, show up to round & set up table tote ASAP, flip beforehand etc - please don't keep the tournament waiting

For speaks: if it's a really good round, expect 30s. otherwise, I tend to give out pretty average speaks. Default 25 if you're syon mansur or Yash gupta

if you have further questions, ask before round

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

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

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

My prefs:

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

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

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

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

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

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

I value clear communication, speed at a moderate & measured pace & professionalism at all times. Road maps not necessary.

Hello! I graduated from Millard North High School in 2019.

I am a flow judge, but I am not a particularly fast flower, so please don't go super fast in front of me. I will not stop flowing, but it is likely that I will miss stuff. You don't need to be conversational, but going super quick is a no-no.

I will default to util weighing, as that is the general PF weighing system. If you feel that that isn't good for you, convince me otherwise in the round.

Please explain all the components of your argument in the rounds, with a specific focus on your links to impacts. You should minimize the amount of stuff I have to infer, I can be an idiot sometimes. It sounds really easy but there have been a lot of rounds I have seen or been a part of where those explanations were not done and it wasn't fun.

DO NOT falsify or misquote your cards. I WILL drop you for it except in very extreme circumstances. In dropping you terms, if you are being homophobic, racist, etc. in the round, I also WILL drop you, regardless of how much you win on the flow.

I don't have a lot of expectations or preferences other than that, so just have fun and respect each other.

Please be civil and courteous during the entire round, including cross-fire and rebuttals. I am fine with each of you keeping time, ok if you use your phone for the timer. Please have your cards ready to present within an appropriate amount of time so the rounds aren’t slowed down.

I discourage spreading… I would much rather see a concise and analytical presentation rather than simply speeding through your material. You can run theory and kritiks but do not expect me to understand and evaluate them. Clear signposting and quantifiable impacts are important to me.

27: Average Speaker

28: Good Job!

29: Very good speaker

30: You wowed me

Written by William Hong

NOTE: The mic on the computer that my dad is judging on is broken so he can't speak but he can still hear everything just fine. He will just type in the chat if he wants to say anything.

Hello, my dad is a lay parent judge with little topic knowledge. No need to put him on the email chain, he probably won't look at it. Please speak clearly and walk him through your link so that he understands your arguments. If he can't understand your arguments, he probably won't vote for you. He doesn't know how to flow so make sure FF really is able to simplify the round for him clearly. Avoid any jargon like delink, turn, uniqueness, prereq, outweigh on scope/timeframe/probability, etc. but he's able to understand the actual content of your responses if you build on them. Be sure to time and conduct the flip yourselves. Have fun and good luck!

Background

I debated PF for 4 years at Bridgewater and was fairly successful, qualifying to the TOCs twice. I am currently a freshman at NYU Stern.

Preferences

1. You can go as fast as you want, as long as you don't spread. I can handle speed as long as it's reasonable but remember that the quality of what you say matters more than the quantity of what you say.

2. I will generally be tech > truth, but within reason. You can not get away with a blatantly false argument.

3. The second rebuttal should frontline, it doesn't have to be a 2/2 split but I want to see some interaction with the first rebuttal. I believe this makes for a better debate. If you don't respond to turns in second rebuttal, I will consider them dropped and evaluate them as such.

4. Please collapse in Summary and Final Focus, it makes judging much easier. Collapsing strategically will boost your speaks. Don't go for everything.

5. Please weigh, and start as early in the round as you can. In the scenario that both teams weigh, I would like some sort of metaweighing or comparative analysis between both weighing mechanisms.

6. Extend Links and explain them in Summary and Final Focus. I can not emphasize this enough. For example, you can't just tell me to extend the Jones analysis, tell me what Jones says and why it is important.

7. Make sure you terminalize your impacts in both summary and final focus, otherwise I don't know why I am voting for you.

8. I am not extremely well versed in progressive argumentation like theory and K debate, so if you choose to go this route just be aware that I might make a decision you don't agree with. I will drop you if you run frivolous theory.

Overall

Treat me as your typical flow judge, have fun, and everything should turn out all right. If you have any questions, ask before the round!

*English is my third language, my son wrote this for me*

My preferences are pretty standard. I like taking notes on the arguments, evidence, impacts etc while you are speaking. I don't like new ideas introduced later in the debate. Weigh as much as possible to differentiate your narrative from your opponents, starting from the summary.

I'll weigh everything at the end of all the rounds. Public forum should encourage well-rounded, persuasive debating. Be respectful during crossfire, no time wasting tactics. I judge on your preparation, ideas, evidences, rebuttal, arguments, and impacts. My final decision comes down to all of them on both sides.

I am a parent judge.

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

Good Luck!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How I vote:

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

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

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

If you have any additional questions, let me know.

I'm a former debater of Congress, but have been out for seven years.

The most important factor of your case is evidence/ethos. If you don't have evidence or your opponent discredits your sources, you will lose. Remember that it's not enough to have compelling evidence if it does not clearly link to the topic at hand. REMEMBER THAT IT IS YOUR THOUGHT I AM JUDGING, AND NOT THE CARD ALONE.

Please be clear and concise. The clearer you are (signposting; "For my second contention,.."; "My opponent's subpoint B of Contention 1 says...") the higher I will rate you.

Please be nice to your opponents. Tricking your opponents/failing to clearly answer their questions, using up time in crossfire on what should be obvious, and personal attacks will make you lose.

I did pf for 4 years in highschool.

I flow the whole round. Extend arguments your opponents don't respond to, that's an easy way to get my vote. On the other hand, make sure during rebuttal that I get something down on my flow in response to all points. 4 minutes is plenty of time, don't put 6 responses on one contention and gloss over the others with a card or two, make sure you get everything.

Summary is the most important speech for me. A good summary will make me completely disregard every legit response in your opponents rebuttal. There needs to be framework by the time summary is finished or tell me how I weigh impacts. Aka tell me what perspective I should be looking at the debate and the impacts with. Extend important cards with their names in both summary and final focus. In summary and final focus, if you dont walk me through the round and tell me which arguments your side is winning, it will be hard for me to vote for you.

Hi there!

I debated for Acton-Boxborough for four years on the national/local circuit.

I consider myself a "mostly flow" judge because I can flow but I have a hard time doing so when the debate gets fast. Please speak at a moderate speed.

Just a few notes:

1. I really won't tolerate it if speed is used to exclude more local/inexperienced debaters from competing. If you're going too fast for me, I will let you know after the speech and ask you for the speech document.

2. I prefer good warranting and well-explained responses over fast and efficient rebuttals, and this will weigh somewhat in my speaker point calculations. Similarly, I am more likely to vote on the argument that has been explained well throughout the round than a turn you didn't really warrant or weigh in rebuttal that you blow up in final focus. So, if you read a turn for ten seconds in rebuttal about how X leads to economic decline and then in summary it becomes a recession and final focus it becomes 900 million people in poverty, I will still only evaluate what you said in the rebuttal - i.e. some vague decline in economic activity.

3. Your speaks will also depend a lot on the way you speak and how convincing you are. Persuasiveness is subjective but so is debate in general, and I think "public forum debate" is supposed to value speaking ability as well.

4. Crossfire is binding.

5. 2nd Rebuttal must frontline turns; otherwise, they are dropped. I also am not a fan of disads in EITHER first or second rebuttal, but you can probably trick me into thinking a disad is a turn in first rebuttal, as long as it is somewhat responsive to the opponent's case.

6. I won't call for evidence unless if it is challenged. Moreover, if I think the evidence indicts itself later on in the pdf, I will ask you about the indict just in case you have that indict frontlined - I believe that specific warranting is more important, and I understand that not all evidence is perfect and that some teams often have frontlines prepared to their evidence.

7. I think weighing is very powerful, but I have a high threshold for it. Weighing with cards/quantifications is better, and no new weighing allowed in final focus. However, weighing is sticky, so if first or second rebuttal establishes weighing that is dropped in first or second summary, then that can be extended into the final focus.

8. I am not familiar with progressive arguments. Running them in front of me is risky, but if you're feeling lucky you could try.

I am a parent judge, but am experienced in judging LD and PF. I’ve also judged speech events. I have a few criteria to highlight which are focused on debate vs. speech events.

· Speak at a pace where you can be understood. If I can’t understand you, I can’t flow the debate whether it is LD or PF. I don’t understand the logic behind Spreading as a reasonable approach to a debate, unless your life goal is to be an auctioneer, but they can generally be understood. If you are going to fast I will drop my pen and stopping taking notes. This will impact speaker points and may impact the outcome of the debate because if I can’t flow one side of the debate my only option is to award the win to the person or team that can be understood.

· Spirited argumentation is a fundamental part of a debate and I’m comfortable with passionate clashes, as long as they are executed in a civil manner. Please do not personally attack your competitor(s) as that will result in loosing points for that round. I’m ok with some interruptions during Cross but will stop either or both teams if excessive.

· Please don’t play the “my card is better than your card and thus judge you must vote Aff or Neg”. I understand using counter evidence to weaken your opponent’s case and strengthen yours, but simply saying Card X trumps Card Y with no further explanation as to why that is the case will not enhance your argument’s credibility.

· Try to research your sources and find ones with counter ideology that also support your arguments. For instance, if you use the Cato Institute as a reference understand that is a Libertarian focused organization and you should look to something like the Brookings Institute, a more Democratic leaning organization, as a source to see if you can find something that would agree with the position of the Cato Institute.

· Have a framework for your arguments regardless if you debate LD or PF. You need the structure to be able to position your arguments in a way that can allow me as a judge to fairly flow the debate and determine if your opponents did or did not address your criterion and contentions. Cards should be carefully selected to support your positions and be readily available for your competitors to review when called.

· If you ask for a card, I will not count the time taken to find the card and present as prep time but will start prep time once the card has been given to you to review.

· If you are using an electronic device for opening speeches or to hold your evidence, please make sure you have properly charged it between rounds so you can provide evidence if asked by your competitors.

I appreciate that you are taking your time on weekend to compete and will do my absolute best to fairly judge the debates (or speech events if necessary), provide Reasons for Decisions that are concise but helpful in understanding why you won or lost, and will provide feedback to each person/team as well. I take my role as a judge seriously, but also recognize that these events are also supposed to be fun. So please come into the rounds with a positive attitude about the debate, treat your opponents as you would want them to treat you, and be respectful of me as a judge. I too am investing my Saturdays in you and your “sport”.

Relatively new to debate

I am a parent judge

Please make your arguments clear and articulate

I will understand most arguments but sorry if my RFD is not too clear

Hello! My fondest memories of high school are from high school debate (PF and Congress) tournaments! I also have memories of terrible judges - I will do my best to not fall into the latter category for you.

- The faster you talk does not = the better your argument.

- It doesn't absolutely have to have been in summary for it to be in final focus, but it really should be.

- Don't card dump in rebuttal. Don't read a new contention disguised as a response. If your opponents do this call them out for it and I'll drop the argument.

- Don't ask for more evidence than you need and use this as more prep time.

- You do not need to give an off time road map, in fact, perhaps do not.

- Winning in cross does not = the more speaking time you have. Ask and answer quickly, concisely and politely.

Love to be on the chain.... sfadebate@gmail.com

LD---TOC---2024

I'm a traditional leaning policy judge – No particular like/dislike for the Value/Criterion or Meta-Ethic/Standard structure for framework just make sure everything is substantially justified, not tons of blippy framework justifications.

Disads — Link extensions should be thorough, not just two words with an author name. I'm a sucker for good uniqueness debates, especially on a topic where things are changing constantly.

Counterplans — Counterplans should be textually and functionally competitive but I'm willing to change my mind if competition evidence is solid. I love impact/nb turns and think they should be utilized more. Not a fan of ‘intrinsic perms’.

Kritiks — I default to letting the aff weigh case but i'm more than willing to change my mind given a good framework/link push from the negative. I’m most familiar with: Cap, Biopolitics, Nietzsche, and Security. I'm fine voting for other lit bases but my threshold is higher especially for IdPol, SetCol, and High Theory. Not a fan of Baudrillard but will vote on it if it is done well.

K Affs — I'm probably 40/60 on T. If a K aff has a well explained thesis and good answers to presumption I am more than willing to vote on it. A trend I see is many negative debaters blankly extending fairness and clash arguments without substantial policymaking/debate good evidence. I default to thinking debate and policymaking are good but I'm willing to be persuaded otherwise absent a compelling 2NR.

Topicality — Big fan of good T debates, really dislike bad T debates. I don't like when teams read contradictory interps in the 1NC, you should have good T evidence, and I like a good caselist. Preferably the whole 2NR is T.

Theory — Not a fan of frivolous shells but i'm willing to be convinced on any interp given a good explanation of the abuse story. I default to In-round-abuse, reasonability, and have a high threshold for RVIs.

Phil — As an Ex-Policy Debater, my knowledge here is very limited. I'm willing to vote on it if it's very well warranted and clearly winning on the flow. But in a relatively equal debate I think I will always default to Util.

Tricks — Don't

edited for LD 2022-3

I have not judged a lot of LD recently. I more than likely have not heard the authors you are talking about please make sure you explain them along with your line by line. Long overviews are kind of silly and argumentation on the line by line is a better place for things Overview doesn't mean I will automatically put your overview to it. If you run tricks I am really not your judge. I think they are silly and will probably not vote for them. I have a high threshold for voting on theory arguments either way.

edited for Congress

Speak clearly and passionately. I hate rehash, so if you bring in new evidence and clash you will go farther in the round than having a structured speech halfway to late in debate. I appreciate speakers that keep the judges and audience engaged, so vocal patterns and eye contact matter. The most important thing to me is accurate and well developed arguments and thoughtful questions. For presiding officer: run a tight ship. Be quick, efficient, fair, and keep accurate precedents and recency. This is congressional debate, not congressional speech giving, so having healthy debate and competition is necessary. Being disrespectful in round will get you no where with me, so make sure to respect everyone in the room at all times.

Edited 20-21

Don't ask about speaks you should be more concerned with how to do better in the future. If you ask I will go back and dock your speaks at least 2 points.

Edited for WSD Nats 2020

Examples of your arguments will be infinitely more persuasive than analogies. Please weigh your arguments as it is appropriate. Be nice, there is a difference between arrogance and excellence

Edited for PF 2018-9

I have been judging for 20 years any numerous debate events. Please be clear; the better your internal link chain the better you will do. I am not a big fan of evidence paraphrasing. I would rather hear the authors words not your interpretation of them. Make sure you do more than weighing in the last two speeches. Please make comparison in your arguments and evidence. Dont go for everything. I usually live in an offense defense world there is almost always some risk of a link. Be nice if you dont it will affect your speaks

Edited for 2014-15 Topic
I will listen to just about any debate but if there isnt any articulation of what is happening and what jargon means then I will probably ignore your arguments. You can yell at me but I warned you. I am old and crotchety and I shouldn't have to work that hard.

CXphilosophy = As a preface to the picky stuff, I'd like to make a few more general comments first. To begin with, I will listen to just about any debate there is out there. I enjoy both policy and kritik debates. I find value in both styles of debate, and I am willing to adapt to that style. Second, have fun. If you're bored, I'm probably real bored. So enjoy yourself. Third, I'm ok with fast debates. It would be rare for you to completely lose me, however, you spew 5 minutes of blocks on theorical arguments I wont have the warrants down on paper and it will probably not be good for you when you ask me to vote on it. There is one thing I consider mandatory: Be Clear. As a luxury: try to slow down just a bit on a big analytical debate to give me pen time. Evidence analysis is your job, and it puts me in a weird situation to articulate things for you. I will read evidence after many rounds, just to make sure I know which are the most important so I can prioritize. Too many teams can't dissect the Mead card, but an impact takeout is just that. But please do it all the way- explain why these arguments aren't true or do not explain the current situation. Now the picky stuff:

Affs I prefer affs with plan texts. If you are running a critical aff please make sure I understand what you are doing and why you are doing it. Using the jargon of your authors without explaining what you are doing won't help me vote for you.

Topicality and Theory- Although I certainly believe in the value of both and that it has merit, I am frustrated with teams who refuse to go for anything else. To me, Topicality is a check on the fringe, however to win a procedural argument in front of me you need specific in round abuse and I want you to figure out how this translates into me voting for you. Although I feel that scenarios of potential abuse are usually not true, I will vote for it if it is a conceded or hardly argued framework or if you can describe exactly how a topic or debate round would look like under your interpretation and why you have any right to those arguments. I believe in the common law tradition of innocence until proven guilty: My bias is to err Aff on T and Negative on Theory, until persuaded otherwise.

Disads- I think that the link debate is really the most significant. Im usually willing to grant negative teams a risk of an impact should they win a link, but much more demanding linkwise. I think uniqueness is important but Im rarely a stickler for dates, within reason- if the warrants are there that's all you need. Negatives should do their best to provide some story which places the affirmative in the context of their disads. They often get away with overly generic arguments. Im not dissing them- Reading the Ornstein card is sweet- but extrapolate the specifics out of that for the plan, rather than leaving it vague.

Counterplans- The most underrated argument in debate. Many debaters don't know the strategic gold these arguments are. Most affirmatives get stuck making terrible permutations, which is good if you neg. If you are aff in this debate and there is a CP, make a worthwhile permutation, not just "Do Both" That has very little meaning. Solvency debates are tricky. I need the aff team to quantify a solvency deficit and debate the warrants to each actor, the degree and necessity of consultation, etc.

Kritiks- On the aff, taking care of the framework is an obvious must. You just need good defense to the Alternative- other than that, see the disad comments about Link debates. Negatives, I'd like so practical application of the link and alternative articulated. What does it mean to say that the aff is "biopolitical" or "capitalist"? A discussion of the aff's place within those systems is important. Second, some judges are picky about "rethink" alternatives- Im really not provided you can describe a way that it could be implemented. Can only policymakers change? how might social movements form as a result of this? I generally think its false and strategically bad to leave it at "the people in this debate"- find a way to get something changed. I will also admit that at the time being, Im not as well read as I should be. I'm also a teacher so I've had other priorities as far as literature goes. Don't assume I've read the authors you have.

Yes, Email Chain: mclelland0@icloud.com

Debated Congress, Extemp, PF, Policy and World Schools in high school. I am a well-rounded debater that understands the flow and structure of every event.

Public Forum:

My goal is to be as close to a tabula rosa judge as possible in PF. I am a flow judge and feel speed is okay in PF - let the natural course of the debate determine the speed. I live for solid clash. I will not hesitate to call for evidence at the end of a round if a card doesn't make sense or your opponent effectively convinces me your source/analytic is not credible.

While voters are important, I will vote on the entirety of the round. Don't mention something in your voters that didn't occur throughout the round. Make sure you weigh in your latter speeches - failure to weigh leaves it in entirely in my opinion of what occurred during the round.

Lincoln Douglas:

I am holistically a tabula rosa judge in LD. While I will accept any argument introduced in the round, I do not prefer K's, . This style of debate is value-focused - make sure that you provide me a solid weighing mechanism that aligns with your value criterion. Speed does not bother me - just ensure your opponent is at the same level as you.

While I typically won't decide a round based on theory, I will take it into consideration if abusive arguments or tactics are highlighted, not through a block and jargon, but a logical explanation of the theory and why it matters. Please... do not give me an off-time roadmap. The only time this is needed is for Policy/CX debate where I might have 8 million flows... in LD there's two flows - we can follow along.

Congressional Debate:

Reference my PF/LD paradigms to see what I look for from general terms on argument structure. I highly value clash in congressional debate. I do not like the congressional debate role play - use that time to make substantive and logical arguments. I pay close attention to evidence used in speeches - academic journals and case studies in addition to publications in the last two years will rank you higher. Congress speeches are short, so make you evidence use short, impactful and highly analytical to show your understanding - don't just read other people's work to me during your speech.

I fairly consider PO performance in my ranks. I will give the 1 to a PO that has zero issues with precedence/recency (speeches and questions), actually runs an efficient chamber (I should hear you talk as little as possible), understands Robert's Rules of Order (know the difference between majority and super-majority votes) and expertly manages the chamber (if there's no prefacing, rule down prefacing; stop speakers or questioners that go over time; enforce the rules that are set). Not everyone is GUARANTEED an opportunity to speak on every bill in this event. I expect a strong PO to strike down one-sided debate and use discretion to move to previous question without chamber approval for the sake of active debate.

Your ability or lack thereof to rebutt as a questioner and answerer in questioning will be considered in my rankings. Questioning is an exceptional opportunity to convince me of your ability to ask well-intentioned questions. As mentioned in the beginning of my congress paradigm... clash is vital to doing well on my ballot.

!! Note on Inclusion !!

Speech and Debate is SUCH a fun activity - which makes it even more important it's inclusive and accessible. Do not utilize CX time to assert dominance and/or privilege. Condescension, consistent interruptions of opponent, xenophobia, racism and classism are all behaviors that absolutely have no place in this activity. Your crossing of the above-mentioned lines will decimate your speaks and potentially get you dropped in that round whether it's round 1 or finals. There is absolutely no reason in this activity to make people feel unsafe or uncomfortable.

I am a parent judge. I try my best to flow however you need to speak slow. If you talk too fast I will put my pen down and stop flowing what you say.

I don't love theory and would really prefer if you not run it. If you still feel compelled to run it, go at your own risk because it has to be well explained.

You have to weigh in summary and the voter issues should be made clear by the end of the round.

Overall, be polite and you will be fine.

I'm a parent judge who likes logical arguments, and calm speaking. Be respectful throughout the round. If you send me your cases or add me to an email chain, +1 speaker points.

Been judging debate (PF and LD only) for almost 20 years. Coached PF at Cary Academy last year. While I try to stay up on the "technical stuff," to me, this misses the point of debate as an educational or, for that matter, a persuasive activity. So, while I can probably follow whatever case you want to run, put me in the truth (vs tech) camp. Running a well executed rhetorically sound argument will be the best way to win my ballot.

As for style, clear communications will win the day. Can probably flow at whatever speed you choose to run, but I don't value quantity over quality, whereas I do value clarity over vagary.

In addition to advancing rhetorically sound arguments, I expect debaters to find the clash in the round and give me a standard with which to weigh it. Don't expect me to do that work for you. You don't want me imposing my sensibilities by picking some arbitrary standard for the round. Moreover, between two sound cases, I will prefer any reasonable standard to no standard at all (even for an otherwise compelling/sound cases). Word of caution, though, don't let the round devolve into a pure weighing debate. At the end of the day, I will vote for the side that presents the most compelling case for affirming or negating the resolution.

If you're going to talk fast, share your google document with me.

lukepark1016@gmail.com

Do not ask if I am ready; I am always ready as I am listening to y'all talk.

Jonathan Peele
Director of Speech & Debate
Charlotte Latin School

Updated: January, 26, 2020

Public Forum Debate Paradigm
Emory 2020 update: I will drop you with haste if you run theory in front of me.

TL;DR - Explicitly weigh and you can go kinda fast.

If you don't do it I'll try to vote on the arguments allocated the most time in the round, but I reserve the right to decide what's most important all on my own in the absence of arguments about which ones truly are. I'm a moderate on speed; doesn't have to be conversational, but my flowing definitely gets weak at top speed. If you won't think me an idiot for admitting what is true of every judge, my processing of a few, well developed arguments will be better than many underdeveloped ones.

Random thoughts on the state of the art:
- It doesn't absolutely have to have been in summary for it to be in final focus, but I definitely think that's best practice.
- Don't card dump in rebuttal. Don't read a new contention disguised as a response. If your opponents do this call them out for it and I'll drop the argument.
- I won't charge either team prep when cards are called for, but your prep time does begin once you're handed the evidence. Hand your opponent your device with the exact content they asked for displayed.
- Paraphrasing isn't the devil, but be ethical. It's essential you have the underlying text readily available (per the rules, ya know).
- I think case disclosure is ok. I distrust that this is really about enhancing education and suspect it's more often about enabling a school's war room to prep everyone out. Please don't read me disclosure theory in PF.
- I'd rather not shake your hand. It's just too much.

Public Forum lives in limbo between its Policy and Lincoln-Douglas counterparts. Frankly, one of the great things about being involved in the event right now is the lack of choking orthodoxy (which paradoxically really only tries to be as unorthodox as possible) to which our cousins in CX and LD have subjected themselves. (What a fun sentence!) Directly charged with neither the task of advocating a plan to execute a policy nor with advocating a particular value structure, as an emerging community we are only just now figuring out how to articulate what exactly debaters are supposed to be doing in Public Forum rounds. I certainly do not have the definitive answer to that question, but my best description of the event is that it is meant to be a policy-rationale debate. Public Forum debate at its best calls for a momentary suspension of the considerations of exactly how (i.e., a plan) to execute a policy and instead debating the rationale for changing/not changing the status quo. Allow me to qualify: I am not suggesting that Public Forum should systematically exclude all consideration of how policy would be executed (occasional assumptions about how the policy would unfold in the context of today’s America have a place in-round), but rather I am attempting to define appropriate parameters for Public Forum. If you've made it this far, you might also find some thoughts in my LD paradigm useful.

Lincoln-Douglas Debate Paradigm
I have remarkably low-self esteem as a Lincoln-Douglas Debate critic. I think I’m a good coach and possess somewhat above-average intelligence, but the gobbledygook that passes for “debate” in most circuit LD rounds I’ve seen is either A) so complicated and over my head that I should rethink those assumptions about myself or B) such a poor excuse for an intellectually honest discussion of the resolution that I’m glad to be an outsider in your realm. If I’m in the pool at a meaningful LD tournament it means that I’m doing a coaching friend a favor, failed to successfully hire out my commitment, or a terrible mistake of some kind has been made. I will almost certainly look miserable at the back of the room. Because I am.

As terribly negative as that sounds, I do on occasion find Lincoln-Douglas debates to be fulfilling and invigorating. What is it that can make me happy? Well, I suppose that’s what you’d like for me to attempt to articulate here. So here I go.

Speed – This is usually the only thing you ask about before you start debating. I do not believe that rate of delivery must be conversational and I will try to keep up with you. My pen can reasonably keep up, but since I don’t coach LD at a circuit-level full-time, and since I haven’t read the theory/critical literature that you want to throw at me at 500 words per minute, I’m probably not going to be very successful in evaluating it at the end of the round if you do go circuit-fast. You’ll see the frustration on my face if you ever look up. I can only vote on what I was able to process.

Framework – I do need you to articulate some weighing mechanism or decision-making calculus before you hit me with your case. I don’t care what you call it or what form it takes, but it does need to be clear, and the less variables you put into it the more comprehensible my decision will be at the end of the round. I tend to prefer specificity in criteria. If you never address this then what choice do I have but to arbitrarily decide? By that I mean don’t just put some nebulous, overly broad value at the top of your case and then never reference it. That’s just some vestigial relic from the way things were in LD 20 years ago. Then you’ll need to win why it’s preferable to use your weighing mechanism. Then just evaluate the arguments in the round (that’s “link back” I think in your vernacular) by that standard. If you do these things well and in a manner I can understand, you’re going to win.

Theory – I have opinions about what debate ought to be. You have opinions about what debate ought to be. Everyone has opinions about what debate ought to be. They differ wildly. I suppose then that I’m obligated to evaluating your arguments about how this activity should take place and to being open-minded about what best practices really are. But like everyone else, I have my personal biases and preferences and it’s going to be difficult to dislodge me from them. I prefer straightforward debate with comparison of the impacts in a world for which the resolution is or is not true. Now, you’re going to read that and think that I’m some sort of horrible “Truth seeker” judge. No. I just want to hear a debate of the resolution itself, not an advocacy primarily about what the educational value of debate is, some tenuous application of fringe academic theories, or some significant variation on the resolution that you wish to debate instead. That means I’m highly likely to accept some very simple topicality analysis as an answer when your opponent does any of these things. I like the way Joe Vaughan put it many years ago in an old version of his paradigm (I liked it so much I saved it), “I am open to a variety of different types of argumentation (kritiks, counterplans, et cetera), but only if such positions are linked specifically to a reasonable interpretation of the topic and are not an attempt to fundamentally change the focus of the issues intended by the framing of the resolution. Arguments that are only tangential to the conflict embedded in the resolution and shift the focus of the round to the validity of alternative philosophies are difficult for me to accept if challenged sufficiently.”

Disclaimer – While I deeply value winning as a worthwhile goal of debate, I am still also responsible for being a (albeit flawed) role model and an educator. If you are so profoundly rude or callous towards your opponent, or anyone in the community at any time for that matter, I reserve the right to drop you for that. I don’t have to accept all possible behaviors just because this is a game where we play with ideas.

Policy Debate Paradigm
I know the names of all the stock issues. I am a native speaker of English. I promise to try my best to be attentive and fair. Those are the only possible qualifications I have to be sitting in the back of your room (at least at any tournament important enough for you to be checking here for a paradigm). Go complain to the tab room immediately. I already tried and they didn't listen to me.

Past School Affiliations
Director of Forensics, Charlotte Latin School 2013-present
Director of Congressional Debate & Individual Events, The Harker School, San Jose, CA, 2009-2013
Director of Forensics, Manchester Essex Regional HS, Manchester, MA, 2007-2009
Director of Forensics, East Chapel Hill HS, Chapel Hill, NC, 2002-2007
Assistant Speech & Debate Coach, East Chapel Hill HS, Chapel Hill, NC, 2000-2002
Student (Primary Event: Congressional Debate), South View HS, Hope Mills, NC, 1996-2000

Camp Affiliations
Co-Founder & Co-Director, The Institute for Speech and Debate, Boulder, CO, Charlotte, NC & Fort Lauderdale, FL 2013-present
Director, Congressional Debate & Individual Events, University of California National Forensics Institute, Berkeley, CA 2012-2013
Director, Public Forum Debate, Capitol Debate Institute, Baltimore, MD 2011-2012
Instructor, Public Forum Debate, Harvard Debate Institute, Boston MA 2010
Instructor, Public Forum Debate, National Debate Forum, Boston, MA, 2008-2009
Instructor, Public Forum Debate, National Debate Forum, Fort Lauderdale, FL, 2009
Director, Public Forum Debate, University of Kentucky National Debate Institute, Lexington, KY, 2008
Director, Public Forum Debate, Florida Forensic Institute, Fort Lauderdale, FL, 2007
Instructor, Congressional Debate, Florida Forensic Institute, Fort Lauderdale, FL, 2006
Director, Congressional Debate, Research Triangle Forensics Institute, Cary, NC, 2003-2005

tinyurl.com/433bv36x

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

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

Triangle - only a Muppet would say that.

Rectangle - only a Muppet would believe that.

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

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

I am a trained parent judge for PF and I value clear communication. I am mostly familiar with debate terminology but if you can reiterate them sometimes that would always help. I value weighing and impacts. Tell me why your impacts specifically outweigh your opponents and give me specific reasons to vote for your side. Just be clear and concise and I will be able to follow you. Please be respectful during cross and not interrupt one another, I will deduct points. I allow follow up questions as long as you do so in a respectful way. If you ask multiple questions without giving your opponents an opportunity to respond or speak it looks bad on your side. I do not flow cross but I always listen and I might take a few notes regarding things that are said. Also, NO SPREADING. I will not follow it or flow it. You can speak decently fast as long as I can comprehend and flow what you are saying. Please do not run theory either. I am here to judge the topic, not listen to arguments about the NSDA rules. Overall, just listen and refute your opponents arguments respectfully and effectively and I will do my best to choose the winner.

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

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

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

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

Summer 89 American U Coaches institute (Debate)

Milpitas High, Milpitas CA
09-present co-coach

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

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

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

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

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

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

PUBLIC FORUM:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

POLICY:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LD

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Background:

I debated for four years in Public Forum on the national circuit for Flanagan in South Florida. I'm currently a junior at Duke University. This isn't fully comprehensive of my preferences as a judge.

Things I like:

- Consistency between the summary and the final focus. These two speeches should be very similar in that they re-iterate the same points that you think win the round for you.

- Weighing. You're probably not going to win every single argument in the round, so I want to give me tangible reasons as to why the argument you should win the round based on is more important than your opponents'. Beyond just regular magnitude, scope probability, I really like teams who get more creative with their weighing (ex: Strength of Link, Clarity of Impact, etc). Good weighing will usually win you my ballot and give you a speaker point boost.

- Frontlining in 2nd rebuttal. The 2nd rebuttal should answer all offense, including turns.

Things I don't like:

- Speed. I spoke relatively fast when I debated but hated it. I can generally flow speed but anything close to spreading shuts me off. You can usually get the same quantity of arguments out by just improving your word economy instead of picking up your speed.

- Theory. I definitely think theory and other types of critical arguments have a place in this activity, but only in certain, very limited circumstances (ie read theory when there is clear, substantial abuse in the round). You don't need to read full shells or anything for me, I'm totally fine with paragraph theory.

- Making absurd arguments. This event tests your ability to gain and disseminate knowledge and that needs to be done with integrity. If part of what makes debate an activity is discerning between misrepresentations and realities of the world and communicating them to the general public (in a forum), then I reserve the right to disregard silly arguments that blatantly misrepresent how the world works in my attempt to tell who has done the better debating. For example, impacting strictly to GDP growth as a good thing would be an argument I could not evaluate (ask me in person for why this absolutely makes no sense).

Going for TRUTH is not as incompatible with the TECH as you'd like to think. It's harmful to think they're unequivocally at odds.

Parent judge who prefers slower speaking.

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

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

Be respectful and time yourself accurately.

Overall, have fun!

Dylan Sutton's judging paradigm (click to open in Google Docs)

(updated Oct 2022)

Dylan Sutton (he/him/his)

dylan.sutton@gmail.com go ahead and include me on email chains please, but I try not to read evidence to make decisions unless it is unavoidable.

Background:

Debated national circuit policy for Fremont (NE) 2000-2004

Debated at UMKC for a hot second in 2004-2005

Assistant policy coach various schools in NE from 2005-2019

Head Coach & English teacher, Millard North (Omaha, NE) 2021-present

General judging philosophy (all events):

I’m an educator first. This means I view debate rounds as extensions of the classroom and believe the primary value of debate is education. That perspective causes me to value the truth of your argument over your argumentative technique and also informs a number of my argument preferences. It also means if you do things in debate that create a hostile environment I will intervene against you. This primarily means no violent actions or hate speech, but it is not strictly limited to those things. Basically, behave as you would in school. Violations of this sort will be brought to the tabroom’s attention as well.

More generally, kindness/positivity is encouraged and will help your speaker points. Nothing will cause me to have a stronger bias against you than if I perceive that you are being needlessly negative/rude/mean/etc. There’s enough negativity in the world.

I try to be objective in the sense that I try not to let my preferences influence my decisions. This is why I try not to read cards after debates, as I believe part of being objective is evaluating the words spoken in the debate rather than literature that is vaguely referenced. If you want credit for a warrant, state the warrant out loud rather than repeating an author’s last name or a tagline (a claim). That said, I am not perfectly objective. My social location influences how I understand the world, including debate rounds. The preferences for certain arguments over others that I will express in other places in this paradigm also evidence a lack of total objectivity.

I generally prefer depth of analysis over breadth. What that means is I would prefer you spend your time debating a small number of things very well, rather than a larger number of things at a lower quality. Specific practices that line up with this preference: Know the warrants for the evidence you read and be able to explain them. Read your opponents cards, read the underlined portion of them even and use those lines to make arguments. Make arguments about the quality of their sources. Debate the case.

I’m fine with speed reading (I have a background in national circuit policy). That said, debate is a communicative activity. This means 1. I flow what you say out loud. For example, if you say “the Smith evidence proves this” you get credit for those 5 words, which don’t contain the warrant for the Smith evidence. If I need to read cards to pick a winner I will, but I will actively resist doing so until it is absolutely necessary. 2. I can’t vote for arguments I can’t hear/understand. I don’t think it’s my job to say things like “clear” to tell you you are giving an unintelligible speech, so watch for nonverbals and err on the side of caution. This is especially true for analytical arguments (arguments that aren’t direct quotes from research/evidence). If you’re reading theory or an overview or that sort of thing, slow down a bit.

Cross-x is both important and binding. I don’t flow it but I listen and often do take notes, and it does influence my decision.

I think disclosure is good because it fosters higher quality, more educational debates. I’m aware disclosure isn’t the norm in every region or activity, but my general preference is for disclosure when reasonable. That said, I’m not interested in listening to debates about the minutiae of how teams ought to disclose. If they don’t disclose at all, read the theory and have a debate about disclosure in general. If they disclose something, it’s probably good enough. I would encourage full source/round reports, but the distinction isn’t significant enough for me to want to listen to a whole round about that.

The more you can do to write my ballot for me, the more likely you are to win. While I’m here as an educator, I’m also not trying to work harder than is necessary. Do things like compare warrants for competing claims, weigh impacts, create layers of ways you win (“even if” statements), and when appropriate engage in ‘meta weighing’ or ‘framework’ debates about which kinds of arguments I should prefer as a judge/critic. In the absence of these framing devices I generally default to a cost benefit analysis, usually pretty utilitarian. I’m not particularly beholden to that though. Defense wins champions. I believe offense is necessary but defense can result in zero risk of an argument, so it is also a good idea. Good defense beats mediocre offense.

Online debate - The biggest concern here is audio/technology. I will try to be as lenient and understanding as possible, but also understand that the tournament is on a schedule and ultimately if I can’t hear you I can’t vote for you. I will follow tournament instructions on this issue, but my patience for tech issues is going to be fairly low given that we’ve been at this remote stuff for two years now and most tournaments have ample opportunities for you to test equipment before the rounds begin.

I’ll have my camera on, I would ask that you do as well because I believe your nonverbal communication is part of debate and is important. That said, I understand there may be equity related reasons you’d prefer not to have your camera on so it is not something I require. You don’t have to explain yourself if that is your situation.

Speaker points - On a 30 points scale, I tend to give a 26 if your speech contained numerous egregious speaking errors. Anything below that is reserved for things like hate speech. You get more points as you speak better moving up to 30. I very rarely give a 30. Since it is the top of the scale, I interpret that to me there couldn’t be a better speech. So if I can think of ways the speech could have been better, it’s not a 30. If the tournament has a different scale I will comply with tournament instructions.

Lincoln Douglas:

Everything from the policy section of my paradigm also applies to LD. The things in this section are things that are unique to LD.

My big thing about LD is that the round/speech time is significantly shorter than policy so it can’t just be a one person policy event, in particular with regard to theory. I would also suggest that this means that speed probably isn’t as desirable in LD, again particularly in regard to theory. I think these are factors that make the 1AR harder, not easier. I’m new enough to judging LD though that I’m still developing my belief system about the best pedagogical practices here, so nothing is set in stone. Except tricks. Those will always be bad.

Topicality/Theory - 4

I’m not your guy for this debate in LD. I’ve only really gotten into judging LD since 2019, but in my experience there is FAR too much theory debate happening in LD and much of the debate that is happening is very shallow. I think the AR in LD is very hard and am willing to make appropriate accommodations, and the neg gets some reasonable amount of flexibility, but I would strongly prefer to hear debates about the topic and not about theory.

That being said, if you insist on going for theory you need to actually develop and warrant it, and respond to all the opposing arguments. This is what you would do when going for any other position, but for some reason in theory students seem to believe they can successfully go for theory in like 30 seconds. To “go for” any position in your last rebuttal should probably take at least 2 minutes, theory included.

I strongly prefer examples of in round abuse to potential for abuse arguments. I default to competing interpretations but can be easily persuaded to adopt a reasonability framework.

RVIs are way less popular in policy so if you want me to vote there I need more work than most. I find the arguments that are specific to the format of LD to be most persuasive on this question.

"Tricks" - Worse than 4

To my understanding, these are arguments that attempt to avoid clash and are primarily anti-intellectual. As such, I hate them and am very unlikely to be persuaded that they are a reason to vote for you. I’m fine with y’all having fun, but not at the expense of the value of the activity.

LARP- 1

I approach this as I would a policy round. I was primarily a K debater in my time in policy but we did a ton of DA/CP/Case debate as well.

K/Phil - 1

Again, policy paradigm. I have experience with most areas of critical scholarship with the exception of psychoanalysis. I don’t have a problem with psych, I'm just not as well versed in the literature. In K v LARP or framework debates, I generally dislike framing arguments that are just “this type of impact shouldn't be allowed” ie “no Ks” etc. On the other side, I strongly encourage K teams to have a defense of your prefered impact framing and your solvency method/mechanism (ie, I’m fine with you singing a song to create change, but you need to explicitly defend that as a method that is successful and not just do it to do it).

Policy :

In my general info section I talk about how I try not to read cards to evaluate debates because I feel like that is me judging more than the words spoken in the debate. That means that my absolute favorite thing for you to do is to directly quote from your evidence. You explaining specific warrants from your evidence or re-reading parts of your opponents evidence to make a counter-argument are perhaps the best way in general to increase your chances of success in front of me.

CP/DA/Case 1

If this type of debate is your thing, go for it. I read a politics DA almost every round and have coached teams on these strategies many times.

I strongly prefer specificity over breadth. This means things like:

• As I said in the general advice section, debate the case. The more specific to the aff, the better.

• DA links should be specific to the action/advocacy of the affirmative

• CP text and solvency should be very closely related. The CP solvency evidence should say the text of the CP solves.

• Permutations are more persuasive and harder to answer when you explain the combination, how it works/what it looks like rather than just saying “do both”.

T v traditional aff - 3

I’m an English major, so I find debates about words interesting. The best version of T debates are robust considerations of what the word/phrase means in the topic lit, what would be best for debate as an educational endeavor, and how individual rounds shape community norms.

Things I would encourage:

• I strongly prefer examples of in round abuse to potential for abuse arguments.

• I default to competing interpretations but can be easily persuaded to adopt a reasonability framework.

• Case lists. What is topical under your definition?

• No RVIs. I can be persuaded otherwise but in general not my preference.

That being said, I would expect you to develop T or any theory with the same level of rigor you would a DA or CP if you want me to vote on them. Nobody extends a DA for 30 seconds and seriously expects a win, but it happens all the time on theory. If you insist on going for theory you need to actually develop and warrant it, and respond to all the opposing arguments.

Theory 4

Please slow down when reading/going for theory. It’s all analytics, there’s no breaks. So unless you want to risk me missing arguments/warrants, slow down.

I’m going to say this again because it applies more to theory arguments than it does T: I would expect you to develop any theory with the same level of rigor you would a DA or CP if you want me to vote on them. Nobody extends a DA for 30 seconds and seriously expects a win, but it happens all the time on theory. If you insist on going for theory you need to actually develop and warrant it, and respond to all the opposing arguments.

I don’t have particularly strong opinions about specific theory arguments, but in general I would prefer that theory debates be a defense against practice that materially harmed/altered the debate for one team and not just a way to win. IE if the neg reads 5 contradictory timeframe CPs, sure. If it’s one conditional CP, not so much.

K (general) - 1

I ran Ks, I coached Ks, I’m fine with the K in general. As a debater ran pretty generic K positions - cap bad, etc. When I was the assistant coach at Millard South our teams ran some more performative things. I’ve read at least some of many fields of critical scholarship and feel very comfortable judging debates about those issues. My biggest weakness is psychoanalytical theories; I just haven’t read much of that field so I’m less familiar with jargon and the relationships between scholars and ideas. I would encourage you to simplify psychoanalytic ideas as much as possible, or perhaps over explain them.

My biggest advice for the K is make it as specific as possible. The more specific the link is to the affirmative (whether that be the action of the plan, the words they said, the philosophies they advocate) the better. Same with the Alt. The more specific the description of what the action of the alt is and how it resolves the impacts, the more persuasive. The less specific the link & alt, the more leeway the aff gets on the permutation. On that note, have a defense of your methodology - however you are trying to create change, read some evidence or make some arguments about its effectiveness.

One important note for K debaters - I’m fine with multiple worlds/condo in general, but if one of your other off case positions links to your K, you are going to have a hard time overcoming arguments about how your advocacy as a team links just as much as your opponents, that if you get to kick things that link so do they, that it justifies the perm, etc.

K affs - 1

Conceptually fine. I ran critical affs as a debater and most of the team’s I’ve coached have done so at least once. I strongly encourage K aff teams to have a defense of your prefered impact framing and your solvency method/mechanism (ie, I’m fine with you singing a song to create change, but you need to explicitly defend that as a method that is successful and not just do it to do it).

Framework v K - 4

I generally dislike framing arguments that are just “this type of impact shouldn't be allowed” ie “no Ks” etc. If you’ve read my old paradigm, it called these kinds of frameworks “violent”, amongst other things. That should give you a sense of my opinion. Just because the ground you came prepared to debate (like a politics DA) doesn’t link to this aff doesn’t mean the aff is conceptually bad, it just means you have to have been prepared for different ground. This isn’t different than traditional affirmatives that don’t link to your generic positions.

While I am sympathetic to the reality that you can’t prep a specific strat to every possible K aff, and that sympathy causes me to be more understanding of FW in rounds where the K is obscure or opaque, in general I think the arguments about how you couldn’t predict a relatively known K (for instance cap bad) and don’t have any ground are silly. Especially when part of a framework that attempts to entirely exclude a particular genre of argument, like the K, I think that’s pretty bad pedagogically. Better version of that would be less exclusive (ie, still allowing all types of arguments to be read) and used against less generic/stock K positions.

Public Forum:

This isn’t an event I judge very often, so I’m not very familiar with community standard practices and norms. I would strongly encourage you to read the “general judging philosophy (all events)” section to get a sense of how I think about judging.

More specifically, I try to approach PF as I would a traditional policy debate round. So if you also look at the “CP/DA/Case” section of the policy part of my paradigm that might also give you some insight.

One thing I’m annoyed by - no more one word tags (or tags that don’t summarize the card). The whole purpose of a tagline is to summarize the card so that I can flow the summary and then listen to the warranting in the card. Using a tag like “therefore” is meaningless, you might as well just read the citation and then the body of the card. The system I’m asking you to use is WAY EASIER than trying to flow every single word you read in the entire speech, which is the only way the one word tag makes sense. Even in a world with speech docs, I’d have to copy the body of the card into my flow for the flow to make sense. You may lose speaks for this since it makes your speech harder to flow, seemingly by design.

In general in PF, here’s my advice:

• Even though I’m policy, don’t try to do policy in PF. Just do your thing. I’d rather see you be a really awesome PF debater than try to do something you’re not familiar with just to accommodate me. Doing a bad version of something I love is not going to endear you to me.

• More specificity is better. I’d rather you be very detailed and nuanced in winning one impact than be shallow in winning 4 impacts. Same thing applies to your attacks on your opponent's cases. The more specifically your attack applies to what the other side is defending, the more likely I am to vote for you.

• That specificity also extends to evidence. I hate the practice of summarizing/indirect quoting of evidence. I hate it because it makes it much less likely that there is debate about specific lines/quotes/warrants from evidence, which is basically my favorite part of debate. So direct quote your evidence, and read your opponent’s evidence to find things you can use against them.

• Impact analysis/weighing is vital. There aren’t very many rounds where you just win 100% of the contention level, so impact weighing becomes an essential way for the judge to resolve two competing contentions that are both mitigated. If you don’t weigh your impact compared to your opponent’s, you probably won’t win.

OLD PARADIGM

dylan.sutton@gmail.com is my email but I don't need your speech docs. If I need to read evidence I'll call for it after the round. I try very hard not to call for evidence though, so you should do your best to extend specific warrants on the flow.

He/Him

Background:

My job is teaching. As such, I approach debate from the perspective of an educator. This isn't itself super relevant but it does inform how I approach debate. So I'm going to default to an educational paradigm absent any other given to me by the debaters in round - this means things like truth over tech, quality over quantity, and most importantly be respectful of one another and the spaces in which we compete.

I'm from Nebraska and have coached in some capacity since 2005.

I am primarily a policy trained debater and judge, but I have been coaching and judging LD and PF over the last couple years as well. Because of my background, most of the assumptions you would make about a "policy judge" likely apply to me, for better or worse.

In general:

I won't tolerate violence or discrimination in round. You will lose my ballot immediately and I will talk to your coach and the tab room.

Speak from where you are comfortable. Tag team CX is fine. Please time yourselves (I will too but more is better). I will allow for a reasonable period of time to exchange speech docs, but don't abuse that privilege or we'll run prep time.

I try to be very flow centric and not impose my beliefs about particular arguments or styles onto the round, but that being said I am human so I am susceptible to bias just like anyone else. What that means for you is I will take every effort to resolve the round using only the words spoken by the debaters on the line-by-line. If I find that not to be possible, that is where I'll start to resolve issues based on my preferences.

My overwhelming preference is for specificity. Specific warrants are better than generic claims, specific links are better than generic ones, etc.

It is my belief that a well executed "defensive" argument can still win you a round.

Don't contradict yourself.

I'm not a fan of theory/"tricks".

Otherwise, I'm down for whatever you can defend. As long as you can make well warranted arguments for a given subject or method, I'll vote for it if you win the line-by-line. I've coached students who read very complicated K arguments, others who were very traditional in their style, others who sang songs, painted, re-enacted famous protests, read poetry, narratives, anything and everything so long as you can make a good argument. That said, I am still an educator so messing around just for the sake of messing around is not a path to my ballot.

Everything below the line is my old paradigm, which I wrote when I was only judging policy. It still has good insight into what I believe about debate, but it is mostly relevant to policy arguments.

_________________________________________________________________________________________

the least i'd hope you'll read:

This is written assuming policy debate. If I'm judging you in another event, I apologize. I'm just getting back to judging after taking about 5 years off, so I may be a bit out of date on topic knowledge and specific literature. I try to keep a very open mind about how I should evaluate rounds, and as such am willing to listen to most any role for myself as a judge or my ballot you wish to defend. That being said, I'd very much rather not judge anymore framework debates, I would much rather you engage the content of that which you would seek to frame out of the round. I've done the DA/CP/T thing extensively in the past and have no problem with it, but am at this point more grounded in critical literature and will be more entertained by a more creative round. Regardless of your argument, you shouldn't be worried that I will categorically refuse to listen. Pretty much only violence and hate speech are out of bounds. Don't be rude. Tag team cx is fine. Speak from where you are comfortable. Time yourselves if possible. Be reasonable about speech docs. Feel free to ask questions.

everything i care to say:

I debated in both high school and college, predominantly in the midwest. Specifically I debated for Fremont High in Nebraska (graduated '04) and the University of Missouri at Kansas City. I've since judged and coached for Fremont, Lincoln East, and Millard South, and Westside. So all told I've been active in the regional circuit since about 2001 until I stepped away to finish my degree. I worked at the Nebraska Debate Institute in the summers since of 2006 until recently.

Everything is pretty much a "make smart arguments" situation. I have no aversion to any particular type of argument so long as it is sufficiently explained and justified. That said - "the sun's not yellow, it's chicken". That is to say, I've become relatively bored by "traditional" policy debate. I am infinitely more interested in the critical, particularly the creative. Don't get me wrong, I've read/wrote lotsa DAs and some CPs in my time and voted on them quite often. I've just come to see that whole world as at best tiresome and at worst absurd to the degree of appearing to be self-mocking parody. Word to the wise - don't read this as me trying to code in something like "I'll automatically vote on Ks". If you read something that's either nonsensical or strategically a blunder, those things probably overcome the fact that I might find what you said intellectually stimulating. It would, however, be safe to read this as me saying "I'm down with anything" and actually meaning anything.

I conceptualize the round in terms of what actually comes out of your mouths, especially in the rebuttals. That means if you say "The Smith '05 evidence answers this", those 6 words are pretty much all you get credit for. What I'm trying to say is, you're better off saying the argument/warrant from the evidence as a part of the extension rather than expecting me to read your evidence after the round. I make a conscious effort not to read evidence after rounds. That's not an absolute, but it's the way I lean in evaluation. That said, I also believe that form and content are to some degree inseparable. so if you believe the form your arguments take (whether that be poetic or lyrical or whatever) is important, or theirs is bad, make that an issue.This belief is probably also at the heart of my disdain for multiple contradictory arguments. I want to make this fairly clear because I am apparently exceptional in this way: I will drop you because your cp/da/whatever link to the k you read, even after you've collapsed the round to one flow. Obviously like anything that assumes the argument is made and won in the round, but i am very easily persuaded that at very least the aff gets the perm, severance, and to kill the solvency for the alt. A foolish consistency may be the hobgoblin of little minds, but a foolish inconsistency likely loses you my ballot.

Something else you'll probably wanna know is that I don't minimize the importance of so-callled 'defensive' arguments like a lot of people do. Often you'll hear people talk about giving "risk" to an argument despite the presence of a very smart, unrefuted 'defensive' argument against it. Just know that the risk i will give arguments that have good defensive arguments left standing against them is not very high, not high enough for the position to matter much at all.

The specific issues I tend to mention are topicality and theory. In terms of interest level, I enjoy a good topicality debate. I have been told that according to my voting record, I tend to not vote on topicality. I am one of those guys that requires an impact topicality (crazy I know). That is to say, voters require some work - or at least

more than simply being asserted. Perhaps keep in mind that my teams like to "impact turn" T when you're deciding how much time to devote to your voters.

Also, theory. A good general rule is to ask yourself "Am I just playing a game with this argument"? If your answer is largely "yes", you should probably reconsider. I know I don't often vote on theory. I have nothing conceptually against voting on theory, but it is rarely executed in a way I find persuasive enough to vote on. If you're wanting me to vote solely on theory you need to devote the depth to it that you would anything else you want me to vote solely upon. Noone extends a

disadvantage for 45 seconds and expects a vote on it, but it happens on theory all the time. I'll need specific analysis of the round that is happening and how it has been effected by the theory issue, refutations to their arguments, and comparisons between your theoretical impacts and theirs.

things i don't like: contradictory conditional arguments, states counterplans, policy only frameworks, and mint.

Any other questions you may have you can ask me in person. I'm really laid back about judging rounds. I'd like it if you'd talk to me, because otherwise things get sort of boring.

I coached Public Forum starting from its beginning in 2002 until I retired from teaching in 2011. I have continued on as an active judge: judging at the local, state, and national levels. Nearly all of my judging in recent years has been Policy but with Lincoln Douglas and some Public Forum in the mix.

PF:

In the traditional spirit of Public Forum, the debate is best presented in a clear, understandable manner.

PF is a relatively short, quick-paced form of debate. Complexity is fine but be judicious. Stay focused and relatively succinct. Communicate well. I judge Policy, but spreading has no place in PF - at least for me. If I can’t follow what you are saying, well…

Base your contentions on reliable evidence. Draw conclusions using sound reasoning. Clash (of ideas) is great. Obnoxious, aggressive behavior, if it gets ugly, may cost a round.

Limited tag-teaming during crossfire is OK.

A strong final focus can often win a close round.

LD:

Questions worth considering are: What is good (or at least the greater good), and what form should it take in the real world? Philosophers have had a lot to say about this. But so does common sense. Consider me the man on the street who sometimes digs philosophers when they also have their feet on the ground. Using a good strategy can be a winner. Getting beyond philosophy and reason, within limits, emotional appeals can be persuasive.

Moral, ethical and philosophical considerations should be a foundation for your case.

Policy:

I characterize myself as a "Policy Maker Judge." I can handle a modest amount of spreading but don't overdo it. It's more effective to rely on the quality of arguments and evidence than on quantity. Substance counts and so does style. Limited tag-teaming is OK. It is a real art to be confrontational while also being genuinely respectful of your opponent.

While Kritiks are a worthy part of Policy debate, I have never found them to be a decisive, or sometimes even a relevant, factor in my decisions. For some judges they are significant so when there is a panel, feel free to use them. Just be sure to present a strong arguments that support or negate the Affirmative case.

Learn from your experience.

Do what you do best.

Enjoy the competition!

I'm a lay judge. So speak clearly and slowly.

Background:

I am a professor in the department of Ecology, Evolution, and Natural Resources at Rutgers University. I have a BA in political science from Dartmouth College and Ph.D in Ecology & Evolutionary Biology from Princeton University.

Judging Experience:

This is my third year as a parent debate judge in PF. Thus I have a reasonable amount of experience in PF including judging TOC. Nonetheless I am definitely a lay judge, not a tech judge; see further notes below. If I am judging you in an event other than PF, please be aware that I am unfamiliar with the type of speech / debate you are doing. I will do my best to evaluate the round according to the instructions judges are given for your type of event, but I will likely be evaluating at a naive level, e.g., are you articulate and clear? I will almost certainly miss the finer points of a non-PF event.

Preferences:

As a scientist in an environmental field, I interact frequently with policy professionals and the media. This experience has taught me the importance of focusing on the most likely and important impacts of a decision (as opposed to getting lost in arcane, less likely impacts), of contextualizing the arguments being made (i.e., providing justification for why certain issues are important or not important to the issue at hand), and presenting evidence that is unbiased and evidence-based (as opposed to failing to critically assess ones sources, or exaggerating the evidence and/or the likely impacts). My debate judging follows these preferences.

Please do not spread. If you speak too fast for me to follow your argument then I cannot give you credit for it. Also, be aware that I am not a tech judge, and may miss the more technical aspects of the round, such as offense and defense for example. What I will notice and reward is appropriate and unbiased use of evidence, contextualization, logical reasoning, and higher-order thinking.

Hi,

My name is Sahaj Zalavadia and I am a sophomore at NC State. I participated in public forum debate at Myers Park High School for 3 years on the North Carolina circuit as well as the national circuit.

Since I have experience in debate, I can handle speed and understand technical terms. However, this does not mean you should speak extremely fast or spread to an extent that I can’t understand what you are saying. I will not flow any arguments that I can’t keep up with.

I believe crossfire can be extremely useful and teams should use it wisely. However, I will not flow anything in cross. If you think it is important you need to bring it up in a speech. You also NEED to be respectful during cross. Let your opponents ask questions and give them time to answer before you jump in. I know the difference between being slightly aggressive and straight up rude. I will cut speaker points if I feel you have been rude and will not tolerate any form of discrimination throughout the round for that matter.

Second speaking teams are not required to frontline in their rebuttal, but I highly recommended that you do so. Additionally, I prefer the quality of responses over the quantity of responses. 7 average responses to an argument sounds great but if you have 3 solid responses that are explained well and logical, then I prefer the latter.

Summary is probably the most important speech in the round. Both teams should frontline in summary because I will not allow new responses or arguments to be brought up in final focus. If you don’t frontline and the opponent's responses are strong then I will likely drop your argument. Turns count as offense for the other team so make sure you respond to them.

Off time road maps should only be used if you are doing something out of the ordinary. If you want time signals, please let me know before your speech. I will give a 5 second grace period for every speech but will cut you off after that.

General things I like to see:

• Signposting: Clearly label your contentions and arguments so I know what you are talking about. Make sure you tell me what part of the opponent's case you are responding to or what part of your case you are talking about as it makes it easier to follow the debate. Also, it can be hard to keep up with author names so try to give a short explanation of the evidence when using it or responding to it.

• Claim → Warrant → Impact. Your arguments must be well warranted with logic and evidence. There must be a link between the claims you make, the evidence you provide, and the impacts you show. I will not give you access to impacts unless I see a clear link with proper evidence and analysis. I will call cards if the round comes down to it so make sure you have full PDFs saved or the article pulled up.

• Weighing: You MUST weigh your arguments, specifically in summary and final focus. You need to tell me why your arguments are more important than the opponents and the best way to do that is by weighing. If you don’t provide a weighing mechanism, I will have to use the opponents if they provide one or I will have to come up with my own.

• Summary and final focus must be cohesive. There should be a connection between the two speeches. If you don’t bring up an argument in the summary speech, I will not vote for it even if it is brought up in final focus. The only thing you can bring up in final focus without bringing it up in summary is terminal defense.

If you have any questions about my paradigm, please feel free to ask me before your round.

This is Charlie's son Ben

My dad's a typical lay parent judge, so do things like:

Speak clear and slow

Don't use jargon

Don't read like theory or Ks or even nontypical framing that he might not understand

just normal lay judge stuff

No excessive speed unless u want me to miss something. No prog idk how to evaluate.

Don't talk too fast and don't be rude. Please respect each other and me. Plz don't be too technical.

If you say a line from Polo G's "rapstar" I will give you a bump in speaks depending how well it was integrated to your speech/cross/etc.

Worldstar rule applies though: https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?search_first=hebron&search_last=daniel