I did high school policy debate for three years debating as a performance and kritik debater. I have 4 years experience judging a range of debate styles and arguments. I prefer performance and kritik but i am open to judging anything.

I prefer you that you spend time on framing the arguments in the debate at the top of your speech. I'm not a line by line heavy judge and judge based on Big issues. First, I evaluate the framework for the debate to determine which impacts I should prioritize. Second, I evaluate Impacts and determine which are more important based on the Framework. Third, I evaluate the Status Quo, Plan, Counter-plan, Kritik Alternative, based on which best solves for in round impacts.

If you want my ballot, check all those boxes and I will most likely vote for you over your opponent if they are missing those parts.

jorman.antigua@gmail.com

school affiliation: acorn community high school (Brooklyn NY), NYUDL (new york urban debate league), stuyversant high school (New york, NY)
years debating: 4 years of high school, starting college debate

in a debate round i have done everything from cp and politics to performance

my first highschool topic was aid to south Africa, last one was reduce military (if that matters)

I will vote on whatever arguments win, this means I may vote on anything, it could come down to Counterplan-Disad, Procedurals, Kritiks, Affs with no plan text, to even performance. tell me what your argument is and what the ballot signifies (if it has a meaning)...i.e. policy maker etc...(...)

speaker points: be persuasive and make it interesting thin line between funny and ass hole at times may it be in cross-x or your speech you decide *background music* ...analysis/argumentation (don't lie about reading a hole card if u didn't,don't just read cards and tag~line extend ~_~ ) i will call for evidence if needed and i will hit you wit the world famous "cum on son" lol

specifics...

impact your arguments (duhh)

Topicality: i like a good t debate, their fun and at times educational, make sure you impact it, and give a correct abuse story...

counter plans: have a good net benefit prove how they solve the case

dis ads: you can run them i vote for anything and am familiar with most scenarios

k: i was a k db8er for the better half of my db8 career so i'm pretty familiar with most k~lit u will read unless its like some deep
nietzsche, zizek, lacan type ish but i get it...and if you explain it give a good story and show alternative solvency i will vote for it...it is also fine if you kick the alt and go for it as a case turn just debate it out...

preformance: i did this too...explain what the round comes down to...i.e. role of the judge/ballot/db8ers...and if their is a form of spill over what this is and means in real world and debate world... block framework lol...and show me why your/this performance is key...may it be a movement or just you expressing your self...i like methodology db8s so if it comes down to the aff and neg being both performance teams be clear on the framework for the round and how your methodology is better and how the other may recreate these forms of oppression you may be speaking about...may it be the deletion of identity or whiteness etc...same things apply if your running a counter~advocacy against a performance team...(*whispers* solvency)...k vs performance rounds same as methodology prove the link and as for the alt prove the solvency... framework vs performance rounds i had a lot of these, boring but fun to see the way they play out depending on interp, vio, impacts and stuff...

framework: any kind is fine...same justification as Topicality...depending on how your spinning framework within a round... *yells* education =)

theory: sure

short & sweet

#swag...have fun...do you...debate =)

Glenbrook South high school ‘15

University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign

Top Level
-Clarity is very important both in tags and card text. Slow down.
-Clash is the crux of any good debate.
-Explanation is key and the team that better explains their arguments earlier in the debate will be more persuasive in front of me.
-Tech over truth (usually).
- Impact calculus/comparison is truly awful in most debates. I think it should be more sophisticated than just probability/timeframe/magnitude and should include discussions of impact inclusivity, internal link short circuiting, etc.
-I have no predispositions that should preclude you from reading anything you would normally read. Tabula rasa is impossible but I’ll try and “you do you”.
-Cross-x is as important as your speeches and is binding.
-Have fun, don’t cheat.

Specific Arguments
Topicality— T debates are awesome but I am unfamiliar with the topic and as such have no idea what you consider a “core aff” or anything about the community’s consensus. I’m won over by contextualized and limiting interpretations (though I am willing to defer to reasonability if the aff is convincing). Also teams that take the effort to counter define words will make an impression on me.
Critiques— while not versed in every K imaginable I’m probably okay for whatever you want to read. Other than that I think specific links are great, critiques should have external impacts, and the framework debate is extremely important and you should have a clear role of the ballot. I dislike long overviews that are just summarizations and a grab bag of different K tricks. Explanation is once again key and will get you farther with me the earlier it is done.
Counterplans— once again specificity is great but I’m also fine with teams reading consult, PICs, delay etc., even if only for the fact that they will encourage counterplan competition debates which I think are awesome. With that being said I really only think that condo bad is ever really a reason to reject the team and not just the argument.
Disadvantages— not much to say with disads other than that I once again think specificity is great. I also like to see comparative impact calculus.
Politics— I think evidence quality matters a lot in politics debates but only so far as you the debater explains your evidence and compares and contrasts it your opponents’. I want to do as little work post round as possible. Everything above about disads also applies.
Impact turns— Some are good and some are dumb but almost all are hilarious so I really like seeing impact turn debates. They generate easy offense and can thus be very strategic.
Non-traditional affrimatives— Two of my beliefs regarding debate frame how I view non-traditional affs. These are the value of clash and the importance of explanation. I think negative teams often try to circumvent clash by just going for framework or some generic K and I think that affirmative teams slow play their aff with ambiguity or a lack of explanation in earlier speeches. I think both these practices lead to uninteresting debates. I would rather see negative teams try to engage the affs even if they have no evidence and I would rather see the aff being as clear about their aff their proposed role of the ballot as early as possible. All this being said I still do think that framework debates can carry a great deal of clash and explanation but only when done thoughtfully with both sides regarding the other’s arguments.

Closing Thoughts

Debate is an educational game and should be treated as such so please have fun.
My personal goal is that at the end of the debate you were able to learn at least something from having me as your judge.
Lastly, everything is up for debate and that is the beauty of the activity. Each team has 26 minutes of my undivided attention to explain their arguments and persuade me why they should win; this matters much more than any part of my philosophy.
Please feel free contact me with questions or anything at Nishanthasokan97@gmail.com

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

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

General Background:

I did S&D for four years in High School. I did PF, Congress, Extemp, Impromptu, and Duet. I competed on the national circuit in Congress my junior and senior years. I am the three-time Arizona Division II State Champion in PF 2016, 2017, 2018. I have coached PF, LD, Parli, and Congress. This paradigm goes in the order of PF, LD, Speaks, Congress. I went to Fordham University for my bachelor's in philosophy. I am now a 1L at the University of Nebraska College of Law.

This paradigm has been updated 11/20/20 to consolidate my preferences (so that LDers aren't looking at the PF section for some things -- they are consolidated to the general section) and present them more clearly. Speaks section added on 12/1/20. Change-log: 3/18/21 edited truth skep section for clarity and emphasis. 1/22/21 added minor tweaks to the LD and speaks section for emphasis and clarity, nothing fundamentally changed in evaluation. Updated 12/12/20 to reflect points I want to emphasize after Stanford. Updated 2/16/22, PF section for minor clarity in advance of Harvard. Update 2/19/22 PF section to emphasize points about impacts half-way through Harvard.

Updated 1/4/23 to reflect updated biographical data; new note on RFD/Ballot construction with arguments on presumption; clarification and organization in LD section.

Debate in general:

-I hesitate to say flat out "debate is a game" but I believe that at its core debate is an intellectual activity. Whether or not education is part of that is something to be established in round. Debate is like chess.

-Include content warnings where appropriate to make debate a safe and accessible space. Avoid sexism and other harms that have cropped up in the debate scene. I will vote off theory on this if its ran.

-I've previously had in this paradigm to try to say a full citation instead of the author's last name and year. This isn't necessary. What I want to stress is that I have a hard time writing down names quickly. The rate at which you say Kowalczyk should be slower than your normal rate (dare I say, 1/2 of your normal rate) so I can figure out how to bastardize the spelling when writing it on my flow. Some teams still are having a hard time doing this - If you need an example of what I expect let me know. I will handle any speed, spreading with a doc (add me to the chain: jcohen83@fordham.edu), I will give a verbal 'clear' if needed.

-I am not timing in the debate round. You cross-time. It is 100% up to the competitors for flex-prep and/or timed-evidence.

-I will give an oral RFD and disclose at the end of the round.

-OTRMs: If you are running something progressive that will require me to get another flow out, please let me know in a roadmap about the off. Otherwise, OTRMs waste time if its "going down one side then back to the other".

-I will not pay attention to crossfire/crossex. Anything that happens needs to be brought up in a speech.

-If you want me to read a piece of evidence, tell me to call for it in a speech. Anytime I ask for evidence I will want to see the cut card first, asking specifically for the full pdf if needed.

PF:

-Bringing LD into PF? Go for it; I like progressive argumentation. Just make sure it actually is justified/be prepared to argue the merits of the progressive debate should it come up.

-Don't extend through ink, and make extensions actually an extension. Extensions should have something new, or at least re-explain what was before. Don't give me "Extend the Worstall card" or "Extend the entirety of our C1" and leave it at that because that isn't extending. If your gonna do that the bare bones is to explain what the cards say. You should use the card names while extending because it helps me flow - but don't only leave it at the card name.

-If you are extending an argument in summary you need to include warrant, link, and impact level extensions where applicable. I can't buy the impact calc if the warrant & impacts aren't extended - even varsity teams have trouble with this.

-every argument has to pass a believability threshold. Even if it’s not refuted, if I am not convinced or I don’t ‘buy’ the argument, I don’t weigh it (See Truth>Tech). I get a lot of questions on this: Basically - you need a warrant. I'm a reactive/visible judge most of the time, you can use this to your advantage to see what arguments I'm nodding towards.

-Don't violate the nsda handbook.

-I most likely won't flow final focus. I never did as a competitor so I don't like to as a judge. I was a first speaker. What I am doing during FF is looking around my existing flow and circling/drawing lines/checking things off, etc. The reason for this is that nothing new should be in FF. Anything you are talking about in your final focus should already be extended through summary (this includes briefly mentioning the impacts while extending the case). Like if something is dropped by both teams I'm not just gonna pick it up in the FF. Most importantly with this, summary speakers needs to extend the defense. Defense is non-sticky.

-I prefer Voter Summaries over two world or line by line (with the rule change to 3 minute summaries this is less important but still helpful for my flow, just make sure to signpost well).

-I will truth>tech in PF, my truth is skep. I will not blindly flow anything you say. If you say the sky is green don't expect me to count it on my flow without any warranting. Similarly, if you don't tell me why an impact matters, i.e. terminalized, then I'm not going to be able to use it for the construction of my ballot. I start from a position where I don't know if war is good or bad and if you don't tell me and say "decrease risk of war" as an impact I'm not going to know how to construct a ballot around that. I'm not Tabula Rasa, I default to dropping every argument in the round. If you drop the warrant or don't terminalize, I drop the argument.

Want to be safe? Every impact chain causes death.

-If I end up dropping every argument in the round, my ballot and RFD will get flukey. Flukey as in I technically don't have any material anymore to construct a decision. This can go one of two ways and I've alternated between both of these approaches depending on how the round goes.

1) I relax a little bit on the flow and take non-terminalized arguments and "risk of advocacy" to make a ballot as in "this team was closer to making my ballot so they get the win"; or

2) Presumption, in which I generally will defer to SQUO unless told otherwise although this is not a guarantee or promise.

Therefore: teams, if you want me to do something specific within my ballot construction, argue for it. If you think (1) is better for you, then say I should do that and tell me why. If you think (2) is better, then give me a presumption argument telling me which way to presume.

LD:

If you're traditional, read the PF paradigm and:

If you are traditional please do not misrepresent philosophies. This is an area I am not tab. at all. If you say Kantian ethics justifies murder I will not weigh it. More progressive philosophies are less subject to this as I haven't studied critical theories as much as I have the basics of moral frameworks. I am very receptive to hearing post-structuralism and post-colonial arguments like if you want to run Baudrillard, CyberFem, Afropess, or something -- I will be more tech on those.

If you are progressive:

I am competent with progressive debate but you should keep in mind adaptation to a PF judge. I would rather have a progressive debate than a bad traditional one (read: please don't let the round have me concluding that PF is a more intellectual form of debate than LD).

I have no predisposition towards PICs. If you want me to drop because PICs are "abusive", you must argue that in round.

If you are running something super LD-y you should be watching my reactions to make sure I understand and explain more if needed, e.g. trix/tricks.

Some things, e.g. performance/performative args/Ks, you will need to clearly explain the path to my ballot and what the role of the ballot in relation to the advocacy is in the round. This includes a hesitancy to vote on theory - you will need to have it be explained as clearly as possible for me to vote on it - if it gets muddied where I don't understand why the theory is being ran I'm liable to not vote on it...

In general with Progressive LD is something where "I will get it and be able to follow along until I suddenly reach a point where I don't". In most rounds I've seen that go progressive I don't have any issues.

I wish I could give you like those rankings of what arguments I prefer like other LD judges, but in my experience, I don't really care as long as its argued well so that I can understand it.

Speaker Points:

I assign speaks in what I assume is a non-traditional (and harsh) way. I will not evaluate speaks based on your speaking ability or performance. Speaks for me are purely reflective of how I assess your technicality in debating relative to a varsity debater championing a tournament. Because of this, I will almost never assign a low point win; if you are technically better on the flow you most likely won the round (unless its a "good at everything but impact calc" vs "average enough to be able to win on strong calc" thing). I do not adjust speaks based on tier of debate I am judging. I do not refrain from giving lower speaks in fear of 4-2 screws. I view 30-25 as an A-F scale. I start from a position that 27 is an average debater who is making various errors in terms of addressing arguments and who is missing a lot of what I think could have been argued. Here is how I think the breakdown goes:

PF: 25-25.9 wow you really did some egregiously bad in the round or have missed so much of the fundamentals of debate that if I were teaching a class I would flunk you. 26-26.9 you missed a lot, you could have done something that was on the flow the opposite of what you should have done. You most likely are missing a lot of components of winning the ballot based on the flow. This is a 'D', my way of saying you aren't at the level of debate you are competing in. 27-27.9 is most likely the most common place for me to put speaks. You did things right enough to consider this an okay debate but I still desired a lot more to come out of it. 28-28.9 is the best I can give to a debater that neither stuns me nor shows something beyond normal technicality. In LD: I will almost never give above a 29/29.5 to someone who isn't running progressive arguments. In PF: above 29.5 means I think you are destined to reach far into elims and should be a contender to win the tournament. If your opponent is a 26.0 and you perform at a 28.5 because you couldn't express the technicality for a 29< due to a lack of substance to wrestle with that is a tough break (and perhaps the biggest flaw with my speaks standards -- but I would rather assign speaks this way [as that scenario is mitigated by power matching] to be as unbiased as possible -- away from any unconscious affects towards things you can't control regarding how you actually speak and sound to me).

Good way to get good speaks with me? Surprise me by doing something on the flow I wouldn't think of or don't see coming. Here is an example of something from a round that blew my socks off: A team got up for their rebuttal (2nd speaking) and read delinks/dewarrants to their own case, then full sent a bunch of turns on the opposing case. On the flow it made perfect sense and was a level of technicality I hadn't seen performed before. They even responded to theory challenging the abusiveness of the tactic. This was a team that was in deep eliminations at a national circuit tournament. It is the kind of of debate on the flow that affords above a 30.

Congress:

This is congressional debate, not mock congress or congressional speaking. Clash is the most important thing to this; without clash, congress isn't debate.

Know where you are in the round. On the topic of clash, nothing is more boring than a rehashed point on the 7th cycle of debate on a bill. Yes I get you want to speak but please follow the life-cycle of debate on a bill. If we're past the first two cycles, I want refutation, if we're getting late into the cycles I want to hear some crystallization.

By all means please caucus and plan motions together for efficiency, but don't exclude people from this activity because a select number of you have clout from the national circuit or camps.

Questions show if you are truly in tune with the debate or not. Asking questions isn't just more speaking time or to show your activity for the ballot. It's about leadership and continuing the clash. Questions are truly an extension of your speech and they will count toward your placement on the top 6 ranking.

For POs: Be quick and efficient. Your job is to get the most debate done in the fixed time we have. If you are fuddling around because you can't remember the process for an amendment that is a problem. Your charisma and leadership of the chamber are important to your efficiency. Don't expect a top 4 ranking just for POing. You earn that top 6 by virtue of how well you do as a PO.

I am a coach for the Summit High School debate program. I've been judging since 2018. Email: melaco@gmail.com

School Affiliation: Summit HS, Summit, NJ

Number of Years I Competed in Speech/Forensic Activities: 4 years

FOR PUBLIC FORUM:

If you read nothing else, read this: Be very clear in Summary/Final Focus on why you are winning the round. State clearly what impacts you have access to and what those impacts are. I favor a clear path to well-defined impacts in summary and final focus with weighing. I want to judge without intervention, so you need to give me the exact reason to vote for you on the flow. Go ahead, in final focus tell me the RFD you want me to write!

The Basics: I strive to be a flow-oriented judge. I prefer factual, carded evidence. I accept tight academic reasoning. I accept published opinions of recognized, experienced professionals within their realm of knowledge. I strive not to intervene, so I expect teams to clearly show why arguments should be voted on, including weighing. I value argument over style.

I don't vote on anything in cross-fire, unless it has been brought into a speech. I don't vote on arguments first raised in summary or final focus.

I like a little aggression, but I don't like rudeness. In other words, show kindness to the other team before & after the round and common courtesy throughout. But when it comes to the round, I'm good with a strong aggressive posture.

Organization: I need you to be clear and organized in order for me to follow you to your best advantage. If you are speaking fast and your thoughts are a bit muddled or unorganized, you will be doing yourself a disservice as I won't be able to follow you adequately on the flow. Sign-posting in speeches and line-by-line in rebuttal is always appreciated, it ensures that I'm following you adequately.

Timers and Prep: I generally run a timer, but I appreciate it when team members are also keeping time. When you run prep, I like to know how much time you think you've run, so I can compare it to my own time. Also, if you call a card, I expect all prep to stop while the card is being searched for, then prep can start again when the card is found.

Cards: If a card is called by a team, and the other team can't find it, I'm going to strike it from consideration.

I rarely call cards unless there is a dispute about the card. I really hate judge intervention, so I flow on how cards are argued by the two teams. Generally speaking, I will not call a card based on disputes that are only raised during questioning or grand crossfire. I will only call a card for two reasons: 1. if there is a dispute about a card between the two teams made during rebuttal or summary & final focus and it is an important dispute for the judging of the debate or 2. if the other team has given me reason to believe evidence is fake or fraudulent. Dishonesty (such as fabricating research sources) will be reported to tournament officials immediately.

Disclosing: I personally feel it is good for a judge to disclose, because it keeps us accountable to the teams that we are judging. So, if tournament rules and time allow, I don't mind sharing results with you after I've finished submitting for the round. However, I will not disclose if that is the rule for a particular tournament or if there are time constraints that need to be taken into consideration.

Plans/Kritik/Theory: It should go without saying that in PF rounds I will NOT vote on formalized, comprehensive proposals for implementation (aka plans or counterplans).

It's good to consider me a flay judge when presenting theory/kritik. I will judge a round on theory/kritik, as I believe it is a practice that can establish equity and allows debaters to advocate for themselves for fairness in PF. That being said, I don't like frivolous theory, so please try to be very clear on why the theory/kritik is important in your particular round. In addition, I need to see that you completely understand your argument, it needs to be clearly presented in an accessible way. I do need well explained, warranted voters if you are planning on running theory in a round I'm judging. I have found some educational voters around PF to not be well warranted, so please be especially careful if that's your voter. Be specific about what the educational value of PF is and clearly define impact. Also, please warrant your implication, I need to know why said action is warranted.

FOR LINCOLN DOUGLAS:

I'm new to LD beginning 2021.Treat me like a lay judge. Thanks for your patience.

FOR PARLI:

General:

My judging experience is mostly in the NYC-metro/Northeast USA area. I will entertain most any well-reasoned argument. I prefer very clear warrants and impacts. Telling me how impacts connect with a framework is also a huge preference. Signposting is very important to me as I flow and I don't like to get lost.

Speeches:

I will not consider new arguments presented in the final two speeches. Still, please call out any argument you believe is new.

If you go over time, I will stop flowing at the end of grace. I will cut you off if it gets to be particularly egregious.

Who is the House?

I want to know who is this house and what are their preferences? Doesn't have to be fancy.

Speaking style:

Talk quick, talk slow, I don't care. Just speak well and signpost. Also, it's nice if you introduce yourself at the beginning of the round without me asking.

SPEAKER POINTS:

Default Speaker Point Breakdown (unless one is supplied by the tournament. NOTE: Parli is weighted about two points under this scale.):
30: Excellent job, you demonstrate stand-out organizational skills and ability to use analytical skills to clarify the round.

29: Very strong ability. Good eloquence, analysis, and organization. A couple minor stumbles or drops.

28: Above average. Very strong analysis but with some errors.

27: Average. Ability to function well in the round, however analysis may be lacking. May have made a drop or flaw in argumentation.

26: Is struggling to function efficiently within the round. Either lacking speaking skills or analytical skills. May have made a large error.

25: Having difficulties functioning in the round. May have a hard time filling the time for speeches. Very large error(s). Or an incident of offensive or rude behavior.

Below: Extreme difficulty functioning in or completing the round. Or a speaker displaying consistent offensive or rude behavior.

Hello!

I am a parent judge. Please don't speak too quickly, I will try to flow but I am not very experienced. I understand most terms and arguments so no need to simplify terms. I also do not flow crossfires.

“Too long, didn’t read”:

- safety>tech>truth.

- Start weighing as soon in the round as you can.

- Signposting (i.e., telling me where you are on the flow) is essential.

- Debate is comparative.

- Do not forget to also warrant in the back half of the debate.

I’m a parent judge who has judged PF for four years. This paradigm was influenced by my son. I flow important points throughout the round.

Preferences:

1. Have both warrants and impacts backed up by evidence in your case. Carry them through the round if you want me to vote on them.

2. Do comparative weighing in summary AND final focus, this is important. Don’t use buzzwords.

3. If you want me to vote on an argument, it must be in summary AND final focus.

4. Don’t speak too quickly. If I can’t understand you, you  won’t win my ballot.

5. Be respectful, especially in crossfire, or  I will dock speaker points.

6. No new arguments in final focus, they will not be considered. Bring them up earlier in the round so your opponents can respond to them.

7. Have all evidence ready to show your opponents. Don’t take too long when evidence is asked for..

8. Signpost throughout your speeches. This also includes short offtime roadmaps. It makes it much easier to flow.

9. Clearly explain your arguments in each speech, do not just assume I have a prior understanding of every argument. I do some reading on the topic before the tournament, but I am by no means an expert.

10.  Don’t run progressive arguments (Ks, theory), I don’t know how to evaluate them.

Speaker Points (adjusted based on division):

<26: Very poor OR offensive, rude, tried to cheat, etc.

26-26.9: Below Average

27-27.9: Average

28-28.9: Above Average

29-29.5: Great

29.6-30: Amazing

Rice 24

email me or put me on the chain: 100gecsfanpage@gmail.com

I try and be tech>truth but obvs no one is completely tab, in general I vote for the team that I think is easiest to justify a vote for in my rfd

.

Some comments

- Speaks: I am a speaks fairy. If you don't get blessed, I'll explain why post round or in my ballot

- Speed: The faster you go, the shorter each line of my flow gets. There is a point at around 225-250 wpm where what I type starts looking something like "bad econ, investment" and when I look over the flow I have no idea what it means

- What my flow looks like: I flow vertically on excel. I would prefer teams line by line, at least when frontlining or doing rebuttals/extensions of defense. It's a little harder for me to tangibly flow "clash" summaries over a line by line. That being said, these are just disclaimers. I'd prefer everyone to debate the way they do so best, and doing so will make it easier to win the ballot than conforming to my preferences poorly

- Evidence: Bad evidence is bad. If I call for a piece of evidence and it is misconstrued in a way that would give you a tangible advantage on the flow compared to if it was read correctly, i'll drop it

- Rebuttals: Please frontline the arg you want to go for in 2nd rebuttal. If the 2nd speaking team doesn't frontline, I'll allow sticky defense. Also please weigh your turns

- Weighing: A lot of the time "weighing" is like new implications of your contention on their contentions. If this is the case, it should be happening in rebuttal or summary. I do not want to hear new implication weighing in the 2nd FF

- Cross: I try and pay attention to cross for like speaker points, I think cross can be genuinely important in debate because it can show judges who actually knows the topic when directly interacting with the other team but usually cross in pf is kinda sad, so teams who get something substantial to happen in it will have a special place in my heart. Any concessions should be brought up in speech

- Theory: Theory is ok if there's actual abuse or a legitimate norm. Friv theory is frivolous (woah) and getting me to vote on it is an uphill battle. Read content warnings if your argument has the potential to be triggering and offer an opt out

- Useless frameworks: definitely an interesting choice. Sometimes I see teams read a framework and don't extent impacts in relation to the framework. If a framework is read, please commit. I want to see reasons why I should evaluate the round this way or why the role of the ballot is ____

- Disclosure/Postround: I will always disclose who won as long as the tournament permits and I URGE you to ask questions about my decision. One reason that the judging pool in PF can be so screwy is because judges don't really care about the round, don't really think about the arguments, and just give half-assed decisions that they haven't really thought over. I would love it if you asked me "how did you evaluate X argument" or something like that - I try my best to think over everything, but sometimes that won't always work out.

Send a song recommendation to my email! I'm trying to broaden my tastes

I am a parent judge.

Timing:

Please Time yourself (rounds and prep)

Speaking:

- Please speak at a reasonable pace and be clear.

- Please be courteous

I was a debater and public speaker from an extremely young age through to the end of university. I have debated most styles including those outside of North America and have experience as a coach and running debate and public speaking programs.

I prioritize the persuasiveness and clarity of argumentation, this should be grounded in the quality and focus behind your case. It is key that the team establishes the superiority of their arguments under the conditions they have set out. Try your hardest not to get bogged down in smaller issues and tangents, stick to the main clashes and make it clear that you win them in your summary and final focus.

I try to be as objective as possible and not credit missing argumentation so comprehensiveness and making logical links is important. Speed is not an issue but if an argument isn't clear it wasn't made, so make sure to enunciate and breathe.

I'm a lay judge, so please speak slowly. This is my first year judging a debate tournament.

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 have coached LD and PF for about 15 years now, but I am not a professional debater. I am a flow judge, and I prefer classic debate with clear clash, not jargon-laden spreaders with theory and K shells. I value clash and technical debate, but I will not vote for a blatantly false argument even if it is dropped.

Clear your impacts. I am OK with some speed, but you must be clear. At least slow down through authors and taglines. In the end, if I can't understand you, you will lose.

Extend, don't drop. I will consider dropped arguments to be conceded. Even if the other turn drops a turn, you should extend your warrant. Tell me what was conceded and why it matters.

Weigh your argument. The last two speeches should be about weighing and crystallization, not new arguments or a rehash of old ones. Tell me how to weigh your round, because if I choose the weighing mechanism, you might not win.

Don't make me work. If you tell me, I'll flow it, unless it goes by too fast. The more you link, the less I have to think. I will make reasonable assumptions and discount abusive arguments even if you don't call them out explicitly, but the more work I have to do, the less predictable the outcome will be for you.

Evidence clash is mostly neutral. I don't judge Policy. Trying to outweigh on evidence is not going to go very far for me. In most cases, if you toss just cards at each other, I will call that a wash.

Joshua F. Johnwell (he/him/they/them/queer/josh/whatever you want)

NYU Policy Alumni (2016-2020)
Houston, TX / Nat HS Circuit (4 Years) @ Dawson HS
GDI (Gonzaga) Alum - 4WK, 5WK Scholars, 2WK

Email questions to debatejosh@gmail.com
or just ask before round, preferably. oh & YAS, EMAIL CHAIN ME

Current Affiliations: NYU
Past Affiliations: BL Debate (2020-2021), Success Academy HS (2019-2020), Dawson HS (2012-2016)

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

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

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

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

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

In general

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

***Don't be a jerk.

***Please do not shake my hand.

meow

I am a junior at the University of Michigan-Ann Arbor, majoring in Statistics and Asian studies. I have four years of Public Forum debate experience and participated in major university tournaments every single year in high school. I have judged over 13 tournaments in the past two years. All in all, I am a flow judge, and speed is okay with me. Some suggestions are listed below:

1. Do not bring up new points in the final focus... I will not give you any credit as it will not appear on my flow sheet.

2. Please please please weigh your impact!!!!!!!

3. If your opponent drops a point/impact/link that you think is important, you better call it out.

4. Make sure to extend your argument throughout the debate to get full credit.

5. If I think a card is too good to be true, I might ask for it at the end of the debate.

6. I am okay with speed, BUT please make your words clear. Also, DON'T SPREAD!

7. Please do not interrupt your opponents during cross-fire...give him/her a chance to finish the response before inserting another question or response.

8. Please reconstruct your argument in the rebuttal.

9. I wouldn't flow crossfire. Therefore, if anything happens in the crossfire that you think is important, such as your opponent making a concession, you need to bring it up in your next immediate speech.

10. If you want me to vote for you, you need to have clear voters and link stories!

11. You have to reconstruct in rebuttal to extend your own argument. Or else I consider that to be dropping your argument.

At the end of the debate, there are three things that I will for sure do: disclosure, round analysis, and personal feedback. Please give me a few minutes at the end of the debate to allow me to choose the winning side. During these two minutes, I will also call for cards if the round is too close; just want to be careful :)

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

I did LD debate when I went to high school (2010-2014). I used to judge consistently but stopped in 2017. Since then, I've only judged once before this tournament.

I prefer the debaters speak slowly. I also prefer if they make arguments through creative thinking rather than just reading prewritten stuff. Weighing is also important because each side invariably wins some arguments, so I need to know which arguments are the most important.

That being said, you should debate however you prefer and I'll do my best to evaluate the round based solely on the arguments made in the round.

Let me keep it short. I have never been a coach nor a debater. English is my second language.

I view a debater as a presenter to convince a graduate committee or a business team on why his/her thesis or project should be endorsed or prevailed.

No matter what topics are, I do not take any consideration of their Pro/Con or Aff/Neg. 

I judge by the following:

- Clarity of your points to support your position is important. This incudes both information clarity and speak clearly.
- Whenever you state numbers and facts, I take particular attention to whether you have references. The party provides more precise and comprehensive references, I score the party higher on the specific point.
- I value your own thinking and work, such as your analysis of the information you collected and connecting the dots. I especially value if you can frame them in a way that I can follow and understand.
- I judge how you counter the other party’s points. Avoiding or missing the points is a deduction.

Please feel free to ask me questions anytime. 

I'm a lay parent judge. I will try my best to take notes and leave feedback on my online ballot once the round is over. I will overall be looking at which team is more persuasive. Good luck!

Who am I:

Public Forum BL Debate.

PhD CS/Cybersecurity candidate

7 Years of Debate mainly in public forum.

I am used to national circuit public forum. I won PKD Nationals in college public forum twice.

-------------------

Public Forum

I will do my best to come into the debate with no preconceived notions of what public forum is supposed to look like.

Tech > Truth unless the flow is so damn messy that I am forced to go truth > tech to prevent myself from letting cardinal sins go.

Here's the best way to earn my ballot:

1) Win the flow. I will almost entirely vote off the flow at the end of the debate. If it's not in the FF I won't evaluate it at the end of the day.

2) Impact out what you win on the flow. I don't care if your opponents clean concede an argument that you extend through every speech if you don't tell me why I should care.

3) Clash with your opponent. Just because you put 5 attacks on an argument doesn't mean it has been dealt with if your attacks have no direct clash with the argument. If you are making an outway argument, tell me and I can evaluate it as such!

4) Please.. PLEASE extend your arguments from summary to final focus. Public forum is a partner event for a reason. i don't want two different stories from your side of the debate. Give me an argument, extend it through all your speeches and that's how you gain offense from it at the end of the day.

K's/Theory

I am fine with K's but please be aware of the following:

Y'all this isn't policy. It's public forum where you have potentially 4 minutes to detail a K, link your opponents to it, and impacted it out. This doesn't mean I won't evaluate and potentially vote on a K, rather I would caution against running a K just to say you ran a K in public forum.

Theory makes debate a better space. Don't abuse it

Speed

I can keep up with pretty much whatever you throw at me. Signposting is critical but in the rare case I have trouble I will drop my pen and say clear to give you a notice.

Plan's/Counterplans

I will drop you if you run one of these. This is public forum.

Speaker Points

Speaker points will be given with a couple points of consideration:

1) Logic. Anyone can yell cards 100mph at the top of their lungs. Speaker points will be higher for individuals who actually use logic to back up their evidence. Honestly you should be using logic anyways.

2) Signposting and clarity: Organization and well-built arguments are key in PF and.. ya know.. life.

3) Coding jokes. I am a computer scientist and will probably lose it (.5 SP bump for adaptation)

Calling for evidence

I will only call for evidence that is contended throughout the round, with that being said if you want me to call for evidence, tell me to call for it and what is wrong with it so I don't have to throw my own judgement in.

Any other questions ask me in round!

Lincoln Douglas:

I have judged quite a bit of Lincoln Douglas in Idaho; however, I am primarily a national circuit Public Forum Coach. I have will no problem following your on-case argumentation. K's, while I have introductory knowledge about, are not my speciality and please adjust accordingly.

I have no problem with counter plans in LD and I will come into the round with an open mind of how LD is supposed to look.

4 Tips for me:

1. Win the flow by extending your arguments and collapsing on key voters.

2. I could care less if you win the value/c debate unless you tell me why it ties to your impacts in a unique scope that your opponent does not.

3. Coding jokes get a .5 SP bump for adaption. (I am a computer scientist and believe adaptation is important to public speaking. But you won't be penalized for this haha)

4. Have fun!

If you have any questions please feel free to ask!

Policy

I have judged well over 50 policy rounds in Idaho; however, I have never judged national circuit (TOC) policy. What does this mean for your adaption to me?

Add me to the email chain marckade@isu.edu

1. Run whatever you want. I have no problem with K's or any other argument some local circuits believe to be kryptonite. I believe debate is a game that has real world implications. I am tech > truth. See #3 for more info

2. I have ZERO issue with fast paced, spreading of disads, on case, and generic off-case positions such as counterplans. You can go as fast as you want on these as long as you are clear in the tagline.

3. If you decide to run something fancy (K's), you will need to slow down a little bit. I have judged K debate, but it is not my specialty and I am not up to date with the literature. But I believe most K's to be fascinating and I wish I judged them more. The most important thing you can do to help me vote for your K is EXPLAIN the links. Links are everything to me <3

hi (:

remi (she/ her) I'm a sophomore at gw studying IA and environmental studies. I did pf in hs but consider me flay

also tell me your pronouns and names before the round starts!

EXTEND your warrants and impacts (quantified preferably) plz -- if you want it voted on, it has to be said in summary AND final focus

basic jargon is fine (DL, turn, extend, time frame) but don't go crazy

I don't write down card names, stats or warrants yes but not names sources or years so if you mention a card name and don't explain it ill be confused

I don't evaluate cross fire, if something happens, tell me in a speech

time yourselves

read content warnings

if you wanna wear sweats or a hoodie that's fine, come in a hat for all I care!

I dont know how to evaluate theory and K's but if you wanna try you can lol

dont be rude and have fun!

put me on the email chain laurenmcblain28@gmail.com

Lincoln Park (CDL) 2016-2020

University of Kentucky 2020-present

don't call me "judge," lauren is fine.

Accessibility

preferrable to reduce speed by about 15%

analytics in the doc are appreciated and will result in a .2 speaker point bump

Policy

No experience on the current topic so don't overrely on acronyms or buzz words

Read whatever you want to read - i'll do my best to evaluate all arguments without bias. I have done all kinds of debate.

Tech > truth (mostly) - I have a lower threshold for silly arguments and think a smart analytic can beat a bad card.

T is good, theory is good, disads are good, counterplans are good, abusive counterplans are good, saying abusive counterplans are bad is good, Ks are good, K affs are good, framework is good. Everything that is not racist/sexist/ableist/and/or homophobic is probably good.

my voting record on framework is split 50/50.

im biased towards the aff on fairness - i have a hard time believing the aff makes debates procedurally unfair as long as there is a strong connection to the topic. that being said, i'll still vote for it even if i think it's a little silly. best aff strat --- nuanced counter interp that solves limits and ground or just straight impact turns. best neg strat --- tva + switch side.

K v K debates are cool and you should probably still make a framework argument about how to evaluate the round. i do not care if perms exist or not in a methods debate. convince me.

LD

I AM A VERY BAD JUDGE FOR TRICKS --- READ AT YOUR OWN RISK

PF

get your opponents emails and send your case to them before your speech. if you do not do this, i will make you take prep time for anything that exceeds cross time to send evidence back and forth to each other.

Novice

do line by line, respond to all arguments, and extend all parts of your arguments, split the block on the neg, and narrow down what you go for in the final speeches and you will be golden.

Evidence

Sometimes I follow along, sometimes I don't. I tend to only read the evidence when the debate is close or convoluted. Other than that, I think the debating should be left to the debaters in the room, not authors or coaches who cut the cards.

If you read a great piece of evidence but can't explain the warrants and your opponent reads a mediocre piece of evidence and can, I'm more likely to side with your opponent.

Speaker points

Most points I give are in the 28.3-29 range.

Card clipping = -.5 for every offense

being overly rude or threatening = -1 for every offense

the phrase "cold conceded" = probably will lose like -.1

if you make a funny joke about Ariel Gabay or Anna Stockstill = +0.2 speaks

I'm new to debate judging. Please speak clearly and not too fast - focusing on speaking skills/communication and the strength of your arguments rather than procedures. And please be respectful of each other during your debate.

cale.debate@gmail.com works, but prefer SpeechDrop

i coach some and am a director at vbi

former director at westlake & corona del sol

mostly judged/coached ld the past 2 seasons, pf before that.

overall:

i'm cool with anything you read, and any speed you go, as long as you are clear, signpost well, and keep the round a safe and pleasant place for everyone :)

ld:

1: policy, T/theory, cap

2: setcol, non-phil tricks

3: other Ks

strike: phil, trad, dense trix

policy: default judge kick. lean neg on cp theory claims, prefer affs substantively engage with the cp unless the abuse is egregious. cool w cheaty cps. 3 word perms aren't arguments. i <3 well executed impact turn debates.

theory: default competing interps, yes rvis, dtd, T>theory>rest, but idc ill change any of that. will entertain late restarts just pretty please send interps. speaks boost for shells in doc + slowing down for extemped shells/analytics :)

K: cap is my comfort lit base, so i'll be open to niche stuff, 1ac strats, and all impact turns. i'm also v comfortable with setcol, securitization, and ir-centric Ks. beyond that, my in-depth understanding is more limited, but i still often vote for these positions. just please especially actually resolve the lbl: far too many K 2n and 2ars are vaguely cross applying the overview everywhere in a way that hurts my head.

tricks: i can handle simple tricky positions given that they're not phil-adjacent, are clearly delineated in the doc, and you're willing to identify independent reasons to vote in cx if asked. that means i'm not the right judge for stuff hidden in the cut of a card, a full-force nailbomb 1ac, or a bunch of indexicals. i am the right judge for a standard truth testing 1ac, skep triggers, and common aprioris delineated in the 1ac text

pf:

frontline in 2nd rebuttal, extend defense the speech after its answered, and be comparative when you're weighing or going for a fw argument.

come to rd ready to debate (pre-flowed, have docs ready if you're sending, etc)

I debated in Public Forum debate (2013-2017) at Western Highschool in Florida.

I have a Bachelor's degree in Political Science from the University of Florida and a Master's degree in Liberal Studies from Georgetown University. Attending Northeastern University Law School in the fall.

a couple of things:

-Y'all should be timing the debate. I am the judge, not a babysitter. I like when teams hold each other accountable.

- don't read a new contention in rebuttal. that's not going on my flow

- The first summary should extend defense if the second rebuttal frontlines the argument. I think it is strategic for the second rebuttal to respond to turns and overviews.

- My attention to crossfire will probably depend on the time of day and my current mood. Please use it strategically if not I'll probably switch to watching youtube videos. - do not just read evidence explain the evidence in your own words. Tell me why the evidence matters to me at the end of the day.

- the summary is cool and all but don't go for everything on the flow, condense the round and give me a narrative. Quality of voters> Quantity of voters.

- Weigh, weigh, weigh, weigh, weigh.

-any other questions ask me before the round

SPEAKER POINT BREAKDOWNS

"30: Excellent job, you demonstrate stand-out organizational skills and speaking abilities. Ability to use creative analytical skills and humor to simplify and clarify the round.

29: Very strong ability. Good eloquence, analysis, and organization. A couple minor stumbles or drops.

28: Above average. Good speaking ability. May have made a larger drop or flaw in argumentation but speaking skills compensate. Or, very strong analysis but weaker speaking skills.

27: About average. Ability to function well in the round, however analysis may be lacking. Some errors made.

26: Is struggling to function efficiently within the round. Either lacking speaking skills or analytical skills. May have made a more important error.

25: Having difficulties following the round. May have a hard time filling the time for speeches. Large error.

Below: Extreme difficulty functioning. Very large difficulty filling time or offensive or rude behavior."

***Speaker Points break down borrowed from Mollie Clark.***

if you want to learn more about debate and get better under my guidance.

Click on the link below and sign up now!!!!

https://vancouverdebate.ca/intrinsic-debate-institute-summer-camp-2022/

I am relatively well informed of the many issues being debated, and while I certainly have an opinion about various subjects, I do keep an open mind and can be persuaded by the well presented arguments. I do pay attention not only to the substance of the arguments, but also to the presentation style and competitors attitude and sportsmanship.

Hi there! This is my fourth year debating in Public Forum; I also have minor experiences with CNDF, BP, etc.

For email chains, please remember to include me at b.moon@columbia.edu!

Preferences:

Content comes before style for me; I want to see a solid debate with credible cards to back up your claim. With that being said, I would also like you to cut your cards at your pace, or else I'll be cutting them for you at my own discretion.

I hate debaters that spread, so please don't spread.

When you extend your argument, explain how you're extending your argument instead of saying "extend". I won't take it into my consideration if I encounter this during the round.

Weighing does not mean repeating your arguments, but please weigh your arguments so that things are easier for me.

Time yourself, especially during the crossfire. You may finish your question, but the opponent will not get a chance to answer. I won't be taking notes, so if you want me to put something into my flow, mention it in the next speech.

I am fine with speed but do not rush during the round. That's how I lost all my arguments from my own experience.

I prefer impacts over warrants.

Pet peeves

“Okay... time... starts... NOW”

“As an off-time roadmap I’m going to be extending the turn of their third contention, then going to our case and extending the CBO evidence off of our first contention and responding to the delink, and then outweighing on timeframe and magnitude.”

"Honorable judge", "They dropped the argument so that means they agree with it"

Nitty-gritty

Debate is all about having fun. Refute your opponents' arguments, but refrain from personal attacks. You'll experience magic in your speaker score if you don't.

My speaker score ranges from 25-29.5; a meme reference (not an attack though) or a physical 'turn' will get a 0.5 speaker boost :)

Be respectful to your opponents and your judge. As a debater myself, I don't want a rude opponent coming up with random numbers without any logic and evidence whatsoever.

I love giving feedback - feel free to email me after the round at b.moon@columbia.edu with your team name, and I'll be more than happy to provide you with feedback! Make sure to ask specific questions as well, or else I'm going to ignore your email.

Cheers!

Good luck winning your round, and have fun!

Qualifications: I competed in speech and debate tournaments for five consecutive years throughout all of high school. Most of my debate experience comes from public forum and I have extensive judging experience as well.

Paradigm:

- I am fine with speed, but please talk clearly. If I cannot understand you, what you say will not appear on my flow.

- Organization is important. If you are organized, I will be able to connect your speeches throughout my flow better and (hopefully) end up voting for your team. Be especially clear with taglines.

- Weigh the impacts and clearly tell me why you win. If you don't, I will end up having to put my input into the vote.

- Impacts are important. Even if you have a clear claim and warrant, nothing will count unless you have an impact as a result of that. I will most likely vote based on your impacts and voters, so make sure they are clear and strong.

- Warrants are important. If you have an impact but no clear warrant or link to the resolution, I will not vote for it.

- Be sure your arguments are backed up by evidence. The better your arguments are backed up, the stronger it will be.

- I do not flow during crossfire. If anything important comes up during crossfire, be sure to mention that within your speeches if you want that to go on my flow.

Any clarifying questions about my paradigm can be asked before the round starts or to anstlgus02@gmail.com.

First time judging, go slow and clear

Lay judge with limited local experience. Please do not spread.

I am a recent high school graduate from Scarsdale High school, and I debated PF for 2 years in high school.

I understand how stressful debate can be, so here are some tips and some of my preferences:

-I know it can be hard, but try to stay calm and speak loudly and clearly

-Use off-time roadmaps or sign-posting to keep your speeches organized

-Make sure you clearly explain your claims (I.E. always tell me a clear logical flow for why/how something happens)

-Be respectful to the opposing team, do not speak over them or interrupt during crossfire

-I believe that probability isn't weighed a lot and I think that works against teams.

-I will pay attention to cross but I will not flow most of it unless it is something that is being contested the entire round.

-Identify and clarify your voters in summary and final focus.

-I know how irritating it is to not have the round disclosed. I will do my best to make a decision and disclose the result, but sometimes it needs extra time. If I do disclose and you would like some more reasoning/tips after RFD if you ask me politely I will be more than happy to help.

-I won't usually call for a card unless it is the deciding factor in the round or I believe it is being misused.

-If possible keep debate jargon to a minimum

-I don't evaluate Ks and theory

Finally, just have fun and do your best.

I have recently completed my undergraduate degree in political science where I participated in various governmental simulations (i.e. Model United Nations and Canadian Parliament Simulations). I have also been a member of Toastmasters since 2019, which is an international nonprofit educational organization that operates clubs worldwide for the purpose of promoting communication, public speaking and leadership. I have been an adjudicator mainly for Public Forum, British Parliament, and Canadian National Debate styles. For the most part, I tend to approach debates with a very pedestrian perspective since I am still relatively new to the world of debate. Regardless, these are a few things I like to see throughout a PF debate:

1. Speed is okay with me as long as I can clearly hear your words.

2. If possible, I also appreciate clearly seeing the speakers fully on the screen. I really appreciate it when speakers have "stage" (or rather, "zoom") presence (a.k.a, great use of ethos), but I understand if there are technical difficulties that would get in the way of this. Above all, I would never let this have an impact on the final outcome.

3. Arguments should be perfectly clear with a detailed and original analysis.

4. Arguments should be soundly and irreparably clashed.

5. Speech structure should be clearly laid out at the beginning and followed to the letter, ensuring that speeches finish exactly as the timer expires with no second rushed or wasted.

6. I really love when the speech is fluent and it's an added bonus if the speaker shows a wide range of vocabulary and idioms. Furthermore, the speaker can also use wit, tone, and volume to appropriately emphasize arguments.

7. Overall, clarity is key. I like to remind debaters to remember the public in Public Forum. Imagine that you're trying to convince the general public.

8. I encourage debaters not to feel intimidated by me because it's quite honestly the opposite!

I am brand new to debate judging and debate. I want simple and clear presentations that do not use a lot of jargon. I will expect students to time themselves and help with administrative needs. I expect evidence-backed arguments so might call to see the background information. I worked in management consulting for many years, and am a professional investor so expect the quantitative aspects to be solid and qualitative aspects to be comprehensive. I do not want rushed presentations that are hard to follow so please slow down and be as clear as possible.

I am tabula rasa when it comes to judging. I expect competitors to tell me the judging criterion for the round in their constructive speeches and then explain how they have won the round using the judging criterion for the round.

I like a clean flow, so make sure you are signposting as you go along. In other words, tell me where on my flow pad to put the argument you are making/evidence you are using. Be sure to tell me where to cross apply your arguments and evidence. Don't assume I will automatically know where to put it and do it for you.

I debated and competed in individual events in high school and college (NSDA was the NFL back then!). I enjoy everything from topicality to counterplans to kritiques. I was that kid, who ran a space case when the topic as on the earth's oceans way back in the day.

I am open to taking the round wherever competitors want to take it. With that said when it comes to K, I do have a bias towards the resolution as it is written. The presumption is that competitors should be debating it unless they provide compelling arguments and evidence to the contrary. If you are going to think outside the resolution, make sure you are providing sound arguments to compel me to go there with you as your judge.

Debate is fun. It is more than okay to be passionate about your case and your position. It is not okay to be rude to another competitor.

I am a former Oklahoma Speech Theater Communications Association State Policy Debate Champion (1998) I also debated in CEDA in college and went on to coach in the Southern Oklahoma Jr. High and High School competitive speech teams.

Stock Issues: Legal Model – Topicality – Significance of Harm – Inherency – Solvency – Advantage Over Disadvantage

Policy Making: Legislative Model – Weigh advantages versus disadvantages

Hypothesis Testing: Social Science Model – Each negative position (some of which may be contradictory) tests the truth of the affirmative; it must stand good against all tests to be true.

Tabula Rasa: Democracy/Anarchy Model – Whatever basis for decision the debaters can agree on will be used as a judging standard.

Game Player: Gaming Model – Debate is a rule-governed game; you play by (and are judged by) the rules.

I am familiar with all of these judging paradigms. If you believe I should follow one then present an argument for it and support it with evidence. Without evidence and analysis, I default to being a stock issues judge.

For additional insight on how I judge individual issues please see the following link: https://www.nfhs.org/media/869102/cx-paradigms.pdf

Hi, my name is Syed Hasan Rizvi.

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

Preferences:

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

- try and stay within time

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

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

Have fun!

Put me on the email link chain dinaellis@paulhastings.com
Parent Judge. Please speak clearly, identify your main arguments at the beginning, and make clear transitions. I can't follow people that talk too fast, have too many citations or use debate lingo. I spent most of my career on Capitol Hill working on House Financial Services and Senate Banking Committees. I currently am an attorney at Paul Hastings where I represent fintech, crypto and blockchain companies before Congress and the agencies.

Mark your contentions or I can's follow the arguments.

Nuclear destruction is not something that I think is credible. Your arguments would have to be very good against the other team.

Facts matter but don't bring up brand new arguments at the end.

I am a former debater from Binghamton University (please reserve all judgements about how critically skewed I am - they do not apply here) who debated competitively at the varsity-level and has judged at national tournaments. I've judged at many tournaments in both prelims, outrounds, and final rounds across all divisions. What you're not going to see in this paradigm space is an elaborate run-down of my position on every argument. My job is not to give you a roadmap - that's ultimately for you to decide regarding your in-round strategic choices. The reason I am able to say this, is there aren't restrictions as to what I'll vote for. I'll vote for anything as long as it's warranted and executed well - whether that be exclusively critical, policy, or performance-based styles. This round is what you make of it as a debater, and I am willing to go along with the flow. Below are a few thoughts on what I like to see as a critic in-round:

• Excellent cross examinations - I think this is what separates a good debater from a great debater. Debates can be won and lost in this 3 min. window, and if you do a great job of analyzing an opponent's speech, critically examining and challenging evidentiary claims, as well as addressing the judge throughout the examination, you will certainly get bonus points in my book. If you find a way to make it both witty and entertaining, while maintaining respect for your opponent, expect a bonus point boost.
• Clash - I am not a fan of watching debates where two ships pass each other in the night. I realize this is very typical of novice and JV debates, however it should be avoided in front of me at all costs. The entire point of debate for me is to present an argument and engage an opponent on all levels of that argument. Otherwise, the debate spirals into tense conversation where the person speaking loudest wins. Interact with the other team's arguments and prove to me why your warranted claims deserve my endorsement above the opposing team. 
• Strategic choice - by this I mean, crafting a strategy that challenges a core compenent, policy or tenet of another teams advocacy. Whether that be an extremely well executed C/P that PICS out of an area of a plan exposed to the D/A links, or a rap performance that adapts to attack the ideology of Afro-pessimism, I don't care - make it a succint strategy, and execute it in a well thought out way. If you do this, you will certainly be on the right track with me in the back of the room.
• Ballot definition - Especially if you are a performance team, this is crucial. I'll vote for us to all sit in silence and stare at each for two hours, if need be. I just need to know why, and be successfully persuaded on that point. Explain clearly what my endorsement means, and why it is important for me to execute such a decision. 

Other than these few points, I leave the round to you. I'm fine with speed, as well as any type of performances. I'm typically flow-oriented unless explicitly told to do otherwise. Other than that, I'll leave the rest of the round to you. Good luck.

I debated Public Forum for Edgemont Debate for five years.

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

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

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

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

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

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

For LD:

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

I did speech and debate in high school, 3 years of LD and 1 year in PF. I'm alright with any kind of argument you want to read (theory, k's, etc) just explain what you're reading well and make sure you can communicate your advocacy. I'm also okay with speed, but if you are planning on speaking really fast, please email me your case. My email address is msavransky01@gmail.com.

I'm a flow judge and prefer tech > truth but your arguments obviously still have to be true for me to vote for them.

How To Win My Ballot

Arguments should be extended in the summary and final focus speeches, if an argument is brought up in the 2nd rebuttal and final focus but not the summary, I won't vote on it.

Weigh your arguments against those of your opponents, that's one of the most important things for me in the round! In your speeches, you should be explaining why voting for your side has a bigger impact than that of your opponents using different criteria like magnitude, scope, timeframe, probability, and reversibility. This is especially important in your final focus and summary speeches.

Your final two speeches should look somewhat like my ballot, explain the main arguments that the round comes down to and why they should be the key voting points. Say why those arguments flow your away and weigh them against the arguments your opponents.

Don't go for too many arguments in the final speeches, you shouldn't be talking about everything discussed in the debate, only the most important things. Otherwise, the debate tends to get messy as there ends up being a lot of extended arguments that have little interaction with each other.

Cards should be explained through out every speech, when you extend a card, you should not only be saying the name of the author but also the warrant of the card and the implication of it. Also, you should be weighing your cards against those read by your opponents i.e say why your evidence is better quality, why there is more of it, and so forth. When two teams have competing cards, this is what helps me decide which one to believe and side with.

All I'm all, just extend your arguments and cards in every speech, weigh the most important arguments against each other in the final speeches and you'll definitely win the round/get great speaks.

Thanks for reading and I look forward to judging you !

My methodology envisages a three pronged approach

Depth of research that the participants have undertaken in order to build up their arguments

Clarity of thoughts and synchronization of various cues to support the position

Presentation of position and thoughts in an erudite manner.

While clarity of presentation is highly marked sometimes participants manifests it as being argumentation or aggression which indeed are treated as negative scores in my paradigm.

I am a flow judge and am looking for

1. solid logic and reasoning;

2. strong advocacy of your position;

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

4. clear communication;

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

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

Good luck everyone!!

I am an inexperienced judge, so please expect results to take time.

As a former debate captain, I enjoy hearing well thought out arguments. I expect the debaters to run the debate through consensus. I will only participate if asked to rule on a question

Ultimately, the quality of your logic and evidence will win out over strictest pedantry. Please speak clearly and concisely. Speed is fine and you must time yourselves.

Coarse language and discussions of sensitive topics are acceptable if it is appropriate to the debate. Do not engage in personal attacks.

Discrimination and cruelty will automatically lose you the round. I do not tolerate it.

1. I am a new judge. Please speak clearly, identify your main arguments at the beginning, and make clear transitions between arguments.

blank

Make sure you time yourself. Try not to go over the time limit.

I will drop you if you try to cheat during the round.Examples of cheating are taking extra prep time,card clipping, etc..

Make sure you flow the opponents arguments and respond to all of their responses/case.

What I Vote For

-The arguments are clear and make sense.

-Weighs Impacts Clearly in final focus and summary.

Weighing is a big voter for me. If your impact is 2,000 people are dying, but the opponents impacts are 10,000 people dying I will vote for whoever articulates and weighs their arguments better.

hi! i debated pf in hs. toc '19! i was a former co-director for nova debate camp and go to uva now. i also coach ardrey kell VM and oakton ML. add me to the email chain! bergendocs@gmail.com

tl;dr, i'm a typical flow judge. i'm tab and tech>truth, debate however you want (as long as it does not harm others). for more specific stuff, read below!

most important thing:

so many of my RFDs have started with "i default on the weighing". weighing is NOT a conditional you should do if you just so happen to have enough time in summary - i will often default to teams if they're the only ones who have made weighing. strength of link weighing counts only when links are 100% conceded, clarity of impact doesn't.

other less important stuff:

online debate: unless you're sending speech docs, please just make a shared google doc and paste cards there. i get it, you want to steal prep while waiting. but really, it's delaying tournaments and i get bored while waiting :( (you don't have to though, esp in outrounds - but i will be happier if you do)

also, if you're debating from the same computer, it's cool, just lmk in the chat or turn your camera on before the round so i know, because i usually start the round when i see 4 ppl in the room

speed is ok. i think it's fun. i actually like blippy disads (as long as they have warrants). but don't do it in such a way that it makes the debate inaccessible - drop a doc if your opponents ask or if someone says "clear".

whenever you extend something, you have to extend the warrant above all else.

defense is not sticky, but my threshold for completely new frontlines in second summary is super high. turns must be frontlined in second rebuttal.

new implications off of previous responses are okay (in fact, i think they're strategic), but they must be made in summary (unless responding to something new in final). you still need to have concise warranting for the new implication, just as you would for any other response.

i don't listen during cross - if they make a concession, point it out in the next speech.

weighing is important, but comparative and meta weighing are even more important. you can win 100% of your link uncontested but i'd still drop you if you never weigh at all and the opps have like 1% of their link with pre-req weighing into your case. don't just say stuff like "we outweigh because our impact card has x and theirs has y and x>y", but go the next step and directly compare why your magnitude is more important than their timeframe, why your prereq comes before their prereq, etc. if there is no weighing done, i will intervene.

i encourage post-round questions, i'm actually happy to spend like however long you want me to just answering questions regarding my decision. just don't be rude about it.

progressive arguments:

i will evaluate progressive arguments (Ks, theory, etc).

no friv theory, no tricks

i default to reasonability, RVIs, and DtD *if not told otherwise* - before you start e-mailing me death threats, this is just so teams can't read random new shells in summary unless they're going to spend the time reading warrants for CI and no RVIs - i prefer theory debates to start in constructive/rebuttal, and i'll be sympathetic to teams that have to make new responses to a completely new shell in summary or final focus

i'm less versed on Ks than i am theory. i can probably follow you on the stock Ks (cap, sec, etc), but if you're going to run high level Ks (performance, afropess, etc), i'll still evaluate them, but i advise you run them with caution, since i might not be able to get everything down 100%. it's probably best to make these types of Ks accessible to both me and your opponents (you should honestly just explain everything like i'm a lay judge, and try to stay away from more abstract phil stuff like epistemology/ontology/etc).

if you have any more questions, feel free to ask or e-mail me before the round!

I've judged in the Canadian University circuit for a while. I like cases with clear mechanisms that engage and weigh out against the other team. In general, I award wins to whichever team contributed to a higher quality of debate overall. Feel free to speak fast, although I might not flow everything if you try and speak as quickly as physically possible for a human to speak. I won't credit anything that isn't said in the round, so if a team hasn't engaged with one of your points please do point this out for me or else I may not notice. I will not read evidence unless it becomes a point of contention, so if evidence is bad please tell me why. Off-time road maps are appreciated. Any type of theory is completely fine with me.

I competed in PF for 4 years at Oakton HS. Now I'm a freshman at Georgetown.

3 things you MUST do to win my ballot

1. please please please collapse

2. weigh, preferably starting in second rebuttal but definitely in summary (weigh your turns too!)

3. offense MUST be extended in summary and ff to be evaluated (this applies to turns as well)

Not doing these three things will give u speaks no higher than 28

Preferences

If defense is dropped, I consider it to be "sticky" until the speech immediately after it is frontlined. In that speech you must extend it. For example, if second rebuttal frontlines half the defense, you only need to extend that defense in first summary if you want to go for it. The rest can be in first final focus.

idrk how to evaluate progressive arguments (i have some experience with theory) so run it at your own risk, but i would prefer you not to

February topic specific

A frequent thing I see in rounds is this:

"GDP has gone up 15% the past 10 years"

"No, GDP has shrunk by 4% this year and 30 million are in poverty"

There is a lot of competing evidence. Please do an evidence comparison and don't just say the same card over and over again without any analysis as to why your evidence is better. And fyi, good but uncarded warrants beat cards w/no warrant every single time.

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

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

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

Please make counterpoints with facts in the rebuttal and summary.

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

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

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

Please debate the topic as prescribed by the tournament.

Email chain: syangedgemont@gmail.com

Debated PF at Edgemont HS in NY for 4 years, currently a first year out.

Basics:

As long as you are willing to risk me missing a response/argument, go at any speed you’d like as long as you are clear, but don’t spread. Tech > truth. If an argument is dropped, the link is true for the purposes of the round. Walk me throughout the entire link story to win the argument. COLLAPSE and WEIGH. I may actively call for evidence at the end of the round to discourage any misconstruing of evidence. If it's not in the final focus, it won't be in my ballot either. I look for the easiest path - the cleanest link with the most important impact. The cleaner the link, the more of the impact/weighing that I grant you. This means that winning the link debate should be your highest priority with me (ofc don't forget to do comparative weighing if both sides end up with offense).

Specifics:

- I’ll say "clear" if you are going too quickly/I can’t understand you. If you can't understand your opponents, you should also shout "clear." I will expect both teams to accommodate the speed/comfort level of both me and the other team.

- I've never had any experience with theory or Ks. Don’t run any progressive arguments in front of me.

- Tech over truth. If you have good warrants and good evidence, I'll buy just about anything. It is YOUR responsibility to call the other team out on BS arguments. That being said, the crazier the argument, the more my threshold for responses will decrease. Debate is educational, and I should be hearing arguments that are primarily realistic. I try to be as noninterventionist as possible - even if someone is reading an abusive argument you have to call them out on it.

- Signposting is important to help me keep my place on the flow. I like numbered responses.

- Extensions: I don't evaluate things that aren’t extended in both summary and FF. People are super lazy with their internal warrant extensions. Every single link in the argument must be extended. If both teams don't have a completely extended argument after FF - I will default which argument has a more "complete story"

- Terminal defense is sticky if not frontlined in summary for both sides. Turns that aren't extended in summary but in FF act as terminal defense

- 2nd rebuttal needs to be at the very least a 1-3 split. There needs to be time spent frontlining. 2nd speaking advantage is so large that I prefer a 2-2 split. Turns must be responded to in 2nd rebuttal or they’ll be conceded.

- If something is conceded or you want to bring up an important point from cross, blow it up in a speech.

- if both teams want to skip grand cross that's good with me

- wear whatever you want to online rounds

Evidence:

- I HATE misconstrued evidence. I will tank your speaks if you read intentionally misconstrued evidence (e.g. One team I judged literally added in a word to change the meaning of the evidence). This may also result in an entire argument being dropped – meaning it could cost you the round.

- While I am noninterventionist in big picture argumentation, I may call for multiple pieces of evidence. This is to encourage educational debate that is built on actual research and discourage mishandling of what qualified authors say. This is not to say that evidence is more important than warrants, but evidence is used to magnify the claims you make and make the argument much more convincing. Misconstruing evidence attempts to circumvent actual argumentation. No, this doesn't mean throw cards at me in rebuttal - I still value responses that are logical.

- Warranted evidence > warrants > unwarranted evidence > assertions

- I’ll boost your speaks by 0.5 points if you read non-paraphrased cases. Just show me beforehand.

- I call for evidence in a couple scenarios:

o Someone tells me to read it during a speech

o There is substantial time spent in the round over what it says

o Something sounds super fishy

o The way you portray the evidence seems to shift as the round progresses

- You have one minute to pull up evidence your opponent calls for

Lastly, remember to have fun and don't stress! I'm a chill judge, and you'll be fine if you screw up a little bit. Let me know if you have questions after round and you can shoot me an email at syangedgemont@gmail.com or message me on FB.

I'm currently a university student studying Political Science at University of California - Berkeley. I started doing Public Forum in 7th grade, so I have around 6 years of experience in debate.

What I'm looking for in debate rounds:

I will definitely flow all your arguments, and the arguments I have written down on my flow will be the most important factor when I'm deciding who won the round. But more specifically, I am looking for clear, quantifiable impacts that I can consider when weighing.

If you drop an argument during your summary/final focus, I will not incorporate that into my voting issues. It is your responsibility to extend through all evidence and arguments to the very last speech if you want it to win you the round.

I was also a second speaker during my time as a high school debater, so I am looking for direct clashes to arguments in the refutation speech. I want you to directly attack the links and analysis to an argument when refuting.

In terms of speaking style, I am okay with speed, as long as it is not spreading. If you spread, especially in an online tournament, I will not be able to understand you as it is much harder to understand through a zoom call compared to an actual in-person debate.

Other than that, speak clearly and persuasively, but at the end of the day, if you have better arguments and evidence, speaking style comes second.

I am a parent judge.

Don't go line by line and give "debatey" rhetoric

Clear, narrative, and weighed speeches are your clearest path to the ballot.

-I will drop you if there is any racist, homophobic, etc. (also just be respectful in general)

No need to add me to the email chain.