Hello! I have four years of high school competitive experience in both speech and debate events. Regardless of event, I encourage competitors to provide content warnings at the beginning of their speeches if applicable, and this goes doubly for speech events such as DI and Oratory.

CON

I place the greatest emphasis on how well your points are evidenced. My feedback and ranking are focused on the strength of your warrants. Past the first cycle of debate, you should be referencing previous speakers. Don't introduce new debates regarding the legislation later in round; there won't be sufficient clash on it. Maintain presence in round with solid questioning. High speaker points are awarded based on how well your argument is structured. Limit rhetoric and pathos. Keep your impacts realistic. Do not abuse the grace period and @ POs: do not be afraid to verbally stop a competitor if they go over the grace period.

My background is 5 years of debate for Oak Ridge High School, Texas. I've achieved Superior Distinction from NSDA and my main events are LD, PF, and Extemporaneous speaking

For LD: I am a fairly traditional judge. I like impact level debates, either on the framework level or contention level. If you're running anything off-case, especially a plan/counterplan, provide solvency. I'm not into theory level debate.

For PF: I'm a traditional judge for PF as well, and I expect both sides to heavily weigh impacts and provide solvency, especially if you're running an off-case.

Speaking Events(Extemp, OO, etc): Speak clearly and link impacts from sources into the main topic idea. Try to reflect on the points of the opposing side of your viewpoint to reflect on how your solution/resolution can better be embraced.

Tabula rasa within the limits established here. Speed as fine as long as (1) your volume is loud enough for me to hear you and (2) know that I usually give high speaks but will deduct points if you're talking into your laptop. No tricks.

Clash is good. I like creativity and will reward that in the round. A creative case is better than one I'm going to hear every round. Open to theory but I hate tricks.

I like an efficient round - please have speech doc sharing etc completed before the round begins. I will deduct speaker points if you delay the debate over a speech doc is not ready before the round.

Clements '20 | SLU '24

Email chain/Gdoc: yesh.dhruva@slu.edu

PF

Hi! I debated Public Forum for four years at Clements HS in Houston TX (didn't compete on the nat circuit much). I'm the average 'flow judge' and would also describe my (previous) debate style as an average 'flay' debater. For background, I qualified to TFA State twice and NSDA Nats. In short, I would suggest you focus on persuasion and quality of arguments, rather than quantity and jargon.

Read this above all: "I will not evaluate any Ks, theory (particularly disclosure theory), or other forms of technical argumentation from Policy/LD that are not common in PF. Not only am I uncomfortable with my ability to seriously evaluate these, I don't think they should exist in an event designed with as low of a barrier of entry as possible. If your opponent is racist, sexist, ableist, etc. I will intervene as necessary." -Jacqueline Wei

1. Exercise PF style judgment. Collapse, full frontline in second rebuttal, and extend defense in summary. DO tell me explicitly to call for evidence and signpost clearly. DON'T tag team speeches, flex prep, or spread. Speaker points are based on the above mentioned strategy but also decorum.

2. Present a cohesive narrative. Speeches throughout the round should mirror each other and have a strong central idea. As such, developed arguments and smart analytics always trump blips. I find myself not voting for arguments with little work done on them when they don't fit a story. By the end of the round, each argument should have extended evidence with a claim, warrant, and impact.

3. Weighing decides rounds. Weighing and meta-weighing should be done early and throughout the round, but with quality over quantity. This means implicating your weighing to engage with your opponent's arguments. I encourage you to create a lens to view the round by weighing turns, evidence, and case arguments in novel ways.

**As mentioned above, Please watch for speed when competing online, if you would like to go fast I will expect a speech doc so I can make sure I get everything**

Couple of last ideas I don't really want to type out:

-Please skip GCX if you can, we both want to get out of the round asap and I don't think it really does much for the round anyways

- Please make sure evidence is legit, if I notice it's not what you say it is, I won't buy the argument

- Save my soul and don't waste time sending evidence

LD/CX

- treat me as a lay, I flow as much as I can. I will try to make the best decision possible, but I honestly have no idea what I'm doing in this event.

- if you spread kiss the ballot goodbye. I did PF so don't go all out on me.

- If it helps, look at my PF paradigm (above), if you want some idea of how I judge PF.

Congress

- I have no idea what I'm doing.

- I can tell who's doing good and who's doing bad.

- Be nice.

---

Ask any questions to me if necessary (contact me at yesh.dhruva@slu.edu or tbh just message me on FB - I respond here fastest), and remember to enjoy each round!

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.

Updated 11/2/2021 for The Hebron Standard

Background

Hebron High School, 2016-2020. I did NCX for one year, debated in VPF for ~three years, and have done Congressional Debate once or twice as a filler. I've been judging for a year now.

Quick Notes

If you don't want to read the whole thing because it's five minutes before round, I'm tabula rasa, tech > truth. Give me reasons to believe your arguments and warrant clearly. I'll probably vote for whoever has the more robust and fleshed out arg at the end of the round.

I'll nod at you if I like the way you're taking the round, if I look really unamused with you, that's not a good thing. Humor, when appropriate, scores you big points with me.

Concessions can be as easy as, "we concede the delink, onto our next argument", don't waste time explaining an argument you're not going to focus on.

I don't believe in open cross, the first two crossfires should be one on one only. Mainly because I like to see what individual team members know, strong case and topic knowledge in crossfire is always fun to see. I also don't like flex prep, but if both teams agree to it before the round, it can happen.

Second speaking team has to respond to the first rebuttal (particularly turns) or the arguments are dropped.

If you want to run super technical theory args, I can follow them, but I am not receptive. This is Public Forum, your arguments should be accessible to a layman. Strike me if this is your plan. That being said, there is a place for theory. If there is legitimate in-round abuse with a non-frivolous harm, go for it.

If you read theory against novices I'm dropping you.

If you flip second and proceed to read a weird/substantially non-standard or non-topical framework, I will be very, very receptive to in-round abuse args your opponents make against you. If you want to do this, flip first, flip side or strike me.

I'll usually default util on framework unless I think another one is better for a specific topic. If you provide an alternative framework I'll probably go with it. If you want me to default to the listed framework don't bother reading framework. Default frameworks for specific topics are below.

Novcember Blockchain: Utilitarian

!!! - Virtual Accommodations and Regulations

I don't really know how tournaments are going to go given the prevailing circumstances in the world right now, but there's a few things that I'll probably do differently given the different format.

- You'll probably get high speaks, if whatever service we're using is having problems or if I can't understand what you're saying due to internet lag/poor mic quality I will request your speech doc so I can follow along.

- No need to dress up, really. You're probably at home, don't make yourself uncomfortable for my benefit.

- I can flip a coin on my end, one team can call it.

- Since I'm not available IRL for post-rounding I'll provide an email you can contact me at on the ballot if you have any further questions that come up after the round. Please be specific in your questions. I usually answer general "what could I have done better" things on the ballot.

- Unless tournament regulations specify another method to take, each team will get one 'tech resolution period' (i'm not creative with names) that they can use if someone gets disconnected or there are serious audio problems. Signal in the text chat, and I'll pause the round. You detail the problem to me and try to fix it, debate resumes from the start of the speech with time reset after the issue is fixed. If I find that teams are using this as a tactic to interrupt speeches, I will revoke it. If I find that you're cheating on prep by lying about tech problems, I'm going to be livid. These are already bad circumstances, please just try to be respectful and only ask for a pause during someone's speech if it is absolutely critical. This doesn't apply if I'm on a panel.

PF PARADIGM

- Coin Flip: Do it outside, or in the round. I don't care which. Or, if you can agree on sides/positions, that works too. The faster you chose sides and we can get to what matters, the better.

- Disclosing: I will almost always disclose and give my RFD following the round unless the tournament has specifically prohibited me from doing so. When you leave the room you'll know who won, if I'm not allowed to disclose I'll write as much as I can on the ballot. Feel free to ask questions about my decision. I think it's important for teams to understand why I decided the round the way I did, and having people ask questions is a great way to ensure that I'm doing my job as an evaluator well. I'm also receptive to post rounding, as long as you're respectful about it.

- Crossfire: Being overly aggressive in cross will not affect me, but it will affect your speaker points. Try to be respectful. The first speaking team should always get the first question in all crossfires unless they concede it. Second speaking teams already have massive structural advantages in the round, and I don't think crossfire should be another.

- “Clear”: If your opponent is going too fast, I’m fine if you say clear to get them to slow down. Abusing this will lead to a sharp decline in your speaker points, and possibly a lost round. I will clear you when you're either going too fast, mumbling, or any other circumstance where I can't understand you. If you have a heavy accent/stutter don't worry, I will do my best to accommodate that, but I may require your speech doc to follow along.

How I Evaluate Rounds

- Extremely tech > truth. If you run something, and if your opponents don't challenge it, it flows through and I'll consider it when I vote. I prefer more unique arguments in general, but if your stock argument makes more sense than your opponent's arg that impacts out to nuke war (somehow), that should be really easy for you to dismantle.

- With tech > truth in mind, probability still matters. I'll value an outlandish argument with like zero probability if your opponents don't contest it, but if they can show how their impacts are more probable, they'll win that weighing issue. If you don't want me to weigh that way, give me a reason not to.

- Collapse on arguments! If you don't, it makes for a messy flow and muddles the weighing at the end. You should start collapsing as early as summary. I need a clear voting issue that has been weighed against your opponents' by the end of the round. Extending smaller stuff like turns in conjunction with your main arg is fine, but if you just put a bunch of impacts on my flow without any weighing, I have to do that myself. If my RFD is your Final Focus, and your Final Focus mirrors the summary, you've done your job perfectly.

- I'll call for cards following rounds if a dispute comes up over a particular piece of evidence during the debate, or if I believe one team is misrepresenting a piece of evidence. If I do find out that you've totally misrepresented/fabricated a piece of evidence, I'm giving you a loss, min speaks, talking to your coach, and the tournament organizer. Don't do it.

- In addition, if your opponents ask for a piece of evidence, you must present it in the form they ask for. If they ask for the full article/pdf and you only have access to the cut card form, I will drop that evidence based on their request.

- Underview > Overview for weighing, but you can structure your case however you like.

- I try to give speaker points based on team strategy, and my absolute minimum is a 27 unless you do something especially egregious. (dropping your case w/o any turns to go on, etc.) If your strategy makes sense you shouldn't need to worry about speaks, just debate.

- Extending arguments should be full. I’m way more likely to extend something on my flow that is clearly and well warranted and explained than a blippy “Extend Card Name, Year”. You literally don't have to extend the card author names or dates, extending the warranting and actual argument is way way more important to me.

CONGRESS PARADIGM

I'll judge your congress round like a debate round. Speeches should have clash and references to other speeches, and questions should serve to effectively poke holes, help out someone on the same side of the bill as you, or to set up an argument that you intend to make.

CX / LD PARADIGM

If you see me sitting in the back of your room in a CX or LD round, I kinda sorta know what I'm doing. A little. In all seriousness, I did CX for a year and am familiar with the argumentation involved and how to effectively evaluate a CX round. I do have problems understanding unclear spreading, but if you put me on the email chain / flash / share your docs with me or just make it so I can hear you and slow down on tags there shouldn't be a problem.

Parent judge. 1st time judge. Clarity over speed.

I am a PF former debater and know flow. Content and evidence are key for me. I will be paying close attention to each sides' contentions and their ability to refute the other team using evidence. Policy impact, human impact, and financial cost are points that I will be listening for. Aff you need to frontline your case and you need to go on offense. You cannot win on defense alone. Neg you need to delink, turn, and otherwise attack the case by Aff. I know the language of debate so don't be afraid to use it but you won't insult me by making sure a particularly crucial point is clear.  Make sure you signpost your case.  If I cannot understand it then I cannot weigh it.

I am flexible on speaker points but it will be hard to earn a 30. I am willing to split speaker points -- i.e. 29.5. Today's style of debate tends to emphasize speed over effective delivery. I prefer to be able to clearly follow the contentions made by each team so move quickly but be clear. If I cannot follow and flow your contentions then you lose. So, slow down! I also expect professionalism from all participants. Attack your opponents' points not them.

I like voters so tell me why I should vote for you.

Show me that you understand the big picture (why is your side the better choice) of your topic and can extend through to summary while refuting your opponents' contentions and you will earn my ballot. Weighing your impacts will help me see that you should win.

Pet Peeves: Exchange evidence during Prep and ask about it during Crossfire. Do not disrupt the debate by stopping to exchange evidence between speakers! This is a stalling tactic and disrupts the flow of the debate. You will be penalized for this.

Parent judge. Keep it lay. Clarity over speed. Give clear voters.

Updated 4/17 for the Tournament of Champions

Congrats on qualifying for the TOC! Being at this tournament is a substantial accomplishment on its own, and one that you should be extremely proud of.

Topic thoughts:

Both teams should spend more time explaining the mechanism by which they resolve their impacts. For instance - how does the UNSC prevent conflict? What would the UNSC do absent a veto to resolve x conflict? I think that the team that best explains those internal links has a better shot of winning in front of me. Using past examples of UN intervention (or lack thereof) seems to be important to explain warrants to me.

In short:

Put me on the email chain before I show up. Send speech docs (i.e., Word docs as attachments) before any speech in which you are going to read evidence. Read good evidence. Debate about what you want. I'd strongly prefer it have some relation to the topic. Speed is fine so long as you're clear, slow down/differentiate tags, and clearly signpost arguments. I will not read the document during your speech. Theory is silly and I'd rather vote on anything else. Critical arguments are fine, if grounded in topic lit and you can articulate what voting for you is/does. Debaters should read more lines from fewer pieces of evidence. If you have time, please read everything in my paradigm. It's not that long.

--

he/him

I've been involved in competitive speech and debate since 2014. I am the Director of Speech and Debate at Seven Lakes High School in Katy, Texas. I competed in PF and Congress in high school and NPDA-style parliamentary debate in college at Minnesota.

I am also a Co-Director of Public Forum Boot Camp (PFBC) in Minnesota. If you do high school PF and you want to talk to me about camp, let me know.

I am conflicted against Seven Lakes (TX), Lakeville North (MN), Lakeville South (MN), Blake (MN), and Vel Phillips Memorial (WI).

Put me on the email chain. Please flip and get fully set up before the round start time. My email is my first name [dot] my last name [at] gmail. Add sevenlakespf@googlegroups.com, sevenlakesld@googlegroups.com, or sevenlakescx@googlegroups.com depending on the event I am judging you in. The subject of the email chain should clearly state the tournament, round number and flight, and team codes/sides of each team. For example: "Gold TOC R1A - Seven Lakes CL 1A v Lakeville North LM 2N".

In general:

Debate is a competitive research activity. The team that can most effectively synthesize their research into a defense of their plan, method, or side of the resolution will win the debate. I would like you to be persuasive, entertaining, kind, and strategic. Feel free to ask clarifying questions before the debate.

How I decide rounds/preferences:

I can judge whatever. I will vote for whatever argument wins on the flow. I want to judge a small but deep debate about the topic.

I've judged or been a part of several thousand debates in various formats over the past decade. I have seen, gone for, and voted for lots of arguments. My preference is that you demonstrate mastery of the topic and a well-thought-out strategy during the round and that you're excited to do debate and engage with your opponents' research. The best rounds consist of rigorous examination and comparison of the most recent and academically legitimate topic literature. I would like to hear you compare many different warrants and examples, and to condense the round as early as possible. Ignoring this preference will likely result in lower speaker points.

I flow, intently and carefully. I will stop flowing when my timer goes off. I will not flow while reading a document, and will only use the email chain or speech doc to look at evidence when instructed to by the competitors or after the round if the interpretation of a piece of evidence is vital to my decision. There is no grace period of any length. I will not vote on an argument I did not flow.

There is not a dichotomy between "truth" and "tech". Obviously, the team that does the better debating will win, and that will be determined by arguments that I've flowed, but you will have a much more difficult time convincing me that objectively bad arguments are true than convincing me that good arguments are true. In other words, an argument's truth often dictates its implication for my ballot because it informs technical skill.

I will not vote for unwarranted arguments, arguments that I cannot explain in my RFD, or arguments I did not flow. I have now given several decisions that were basically: "I am aware this was on the doc. I did not flow it during your speech time." Most PF rounds I judge are decided by mere seconds of argumentation, and most PF teams should probably think harder about how to warrant their links and compare their terminal impacts than they do right now.

Zero risk exists. I probably won't vote on defense or presumption, but I am theoretically willing to.

An average speaker in front of me will get a 28.5.

Critical arguments:

I am a decent judge for critical strategies that are well thought out, related to the topic, and strategically executed. I am happy to vote to reject a team's rhetoric, to critically examine economic and political systems of power, etc. if you explain why those impacts matter. In a PF context, these arguments seem to struggle with not being fleshed out enough because of short speech times but I'm not ideologically opposed to them.

I am not a great judge for strategies that ignore the resolution. I will vote for arguments that reject the topic if there are warrants for why we ought to do that and you win those warrants. But, if evenly debated, relating your strategy to the topic is a good idea.

I am a terrible judge for strategies that rely on in-round "discourse" as offense. I generally do not think that these strategies have an impact or solve the harms with debate they identify. I've voted for these arguments several times, and I still find them unpersuasive - I just found the other team's defense of debate worse.

Theory:

Theory is generally boring and I rarely want to listen to it without it being placed in a specific context based on the current topic.

I am more than qualified to evaluate theory debates and used to go for theory in college quite a bit.

I would strongly prefer not to listen to debates about setting norms. Disclosure is generally good. Paraphrasing is generally bad.

Here is a list of arguments which will be very difficult to win in front of me: violations based on anything that occurred outside of the current debate, frivolous theory or other positions with no bearing on the question posed by the resolution, trigger warning theory, anything categorized as a trick or meant to evade clash, anything that is labeled as an IVI without a warranted implication for the ballot.

I recognize the strategic value of theory and that sometimes, you need to go for it to win a debate. If you decide to do that, you might get very low speaker points, depending on how asinine I think your position is. I will be persuaded by appeals to reasonability and that substantive debate matters more than your position.

Evidence:

Evidence ethics arguments/IVIs/theory/etc. will not be treated as theory - I will ask the team who has introduced the argument about evidence ethics if I should stop the debate and evaluate the challenge to evidence to determine the winner/loser of the round. The same goes for clipping. This is obviously different than reasons to prefer a piece of evidence or other normal weighing claims. I reserve the right to vote against teams that I notice are fabricating evidence during the round even if the other team does not make it a voting issue.

You should read good evidence and disclose case positions after you debate.

I have lots of other thoughts on speech and debate that you can read here if you would like - it encompasses some past paradigms, etc.