Hello, I am a parent judge, please speak slowly.

I don’t have prior topic knowledge, so please thoroughly explain your arguments.
Please be respectful to your opponents, and provide evidence in a timely manner.

My name is Abraam, I'm a university student studying engineering. I don't have much experience in judging.

hints for high points

since the tournament is online please speak clearly and slowly, also send a copy of the case on Abraam778@gmail.com

good luck to everyone

I, Sohum Aggarwal, have about a year of experience in debate. I am also currently in ninth grade. I am going to be debating this topic in the future, so I am knowledgeable about the IMF. All the information below is similar to most judges, but it doesn't hurt to read the rest.

I will flow the debate, but I will only listen and not flow during the crossfire. You must bring everything to your speeches if you want it to really count towards the final decision.

If there is no verbally stated impacts to your arguments, it won't be easy to vote for your side.

Make sure to weight in summary and final focus.

You can speak as fast as you would like to, but 200 words per minute is optimal for me to hear everything you have to say.

I am not bias towards climate, healthcare, economy etc. So you should run any argument that you are most comfortable with.

Make sure to have your sources/credits ready before the debate. It helps the debate run smoothly if they are asked for.

Spirited argumentation is a fundamental part of a debate and I’m comfortable with passionate clashes, as long as they are executed in a civil manner. Make sure that you are not too aggressive and attacking the opponent because that will result in loosing points for that round. A few interruptions during crossfire is fine, but do not go overboard.

Don't use“my card is better than your card and thus judge you must vote Aff or Neg”. I understand using counter evidence to weaken your opponent’s case and strengthen yours, but simply saying Card X trumps Card Y with no explanation to it will not increase your argument’s credibility.

Feel free to ask me any questions before the debate.

Regarding speaker points: speakers who are respectful during CX to their opponent, who roadmap and signpost their speeches, and who speak to be understood are awarded higher points.

No matter the result, have fun!

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

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

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

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

General notes, in order of importance:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Elkins '20 | UT '24

Email: nibhanakbar@gmail.com

I did pf for 2 years

messenger is preferred

UPDATE:

For UT, please send all case docs to nibhanakbar@gmail.com, thanks

3 Ways to get the easiest 30, these speaker point bumps are going to be individual ie. first speaker does the james harden reference only he/she would get the 30 so you would have to each do a reference if you choose that route.

1. Any POSITIVE James Harden Reference

2. Skittles - either sour or normal

3. a coke - don't do this one anymore thanks I already have 3 of them thanks

Overall

straight up, I will NOT evaluate any form of progressive argumentation. I don't know how to evaluate it, and if you fail to meet this requirement, I simply won't flow. I'm open to any other substantive argument, but this is the one hard rule I have.

I like link debate it makes my job easy, and impacts don't matter unless both teams win their respective link thanks in advance

I flow on my laptop so I can handle top limits of pf speed, but if you double breathe or don't go faster properly, that's unfortunate. In all honesty if you keep it a medium leaning fast pf speed i would prefer that

If you run an offensive overview in second rebuttal it will make me really sad :(

I mess with paraphrasing

General

- I consider myself tech > truth I'm going to vote for the team with the least mitigated link chain into the best-weighed impact

- Defense you want to concede should be conceded in the speech immediately after it was originally read

- a concession requires an implication of how the defense interacts with your argument not just "we concede to the delinks"

Rebuttal

- Any turns not frontlined in second rebuttal have a 100% probability

- If you are going for something in the latter half of the round, collapse in second rebuttal and frontline the entire thing

- Defense do be sticky till frontlined

- Don't extend in second rebuttal it makes zero sense

Summary Overall

- Extensions - Author and Warrant thanks

- You have to extend uniqueness - link - impact for me to vote on something

- For turns - if you want to collapse on a turn in FF the extension has to have the argument/impact that you are turning in the first place

First summary

- New evidence for frontlining is cool

- Extend some defense ig

Second summary

- Extend defense

- Y'all should weigh if you don't that's kinda chalked

Final focus

- Extend uniqueness link and impact

- Extend weighing pls

Cross

- Don't be rude but if you are sarcastic that's cool but there is a pretty thin line between being rude and sarcastic

- If y'all skip gc that would make me very happy which in turn leads to a bump in speaks for everyone

Evidence

- I'll only call for evidence if it sounds fire or someone tells me to

Post Round

- I'll try to disclose every round

- Post-rounding is cool with me, you can do it after rfd or on messenger after the round.

- I presume neg if there is no offense in the round

Donts

- Be toxic

- Spread on novices, if its clear that you are winning just show them respect and give them a chance to learn ie: explain the implications in cross in an understanding way

• Say something that’s blatantly racist/sexist/misogynistic/ xenophobic and all those lists

Extras

Also if you made it to the end, I've noticed the quality of extensions has exponentially decreased since I have been judging. I honestly just want you to extend case and then frontline or the inverse, or if you are the goat frontline and extend thanks.

Please do not feel obligated to get the extra speaker points they are there for two reasons 1) So I can enjoy a debate round a little more 2) So I don't get hangry.

email: aa4688@columbia.edu

about me

hi my name is ayaan (pronounced "ah-yawn"). i'm an undergrad at columbia. i debated pf @ brooklyn tech hs for three years. i have very much been out of the competitive debate scene for the past year and a half. i'm like 20 years old, im not a real adult yet, please don't call me judge.

basic norms & round decorum

have your own timer, but my clock supersedes all; avoid massive card shuffling; do not steal prep from your opponents.

if road maps help you deliver speeches, feel free to give them, but i'm neither here nor there to their value.

arrive to the round on time, preferably if you can get here early, please do. starting early means we end early.

please be respectful at all times. this includes avoiding the use of harmful language and ad hominem attacks (avoid logical fallacies in general). practice empathy, communication, and kindness. please feel free to pull me aside if you are feeling uncomfortable for whatever reason.

i might ask for your cards if they're outlandish. the parameters of what outlandish means to me are dependent on the case. just be ready to share them if requested.

if there are any technical/logistical issues, please let me know before the round starts.

round spectators are fine, just be quiet and respectful.

i will disclose if a) required b) both teams request that i do. i will also attach a link to my flow in the rfd.

i'm not heavy on writing essays in the feedback section, if you want details on your performance, you're more than welcome to email me.

speaks allocation is pretty round-dependent, meme cases get 30 speaks (for the meme) but i don't vote for them.

i'm pretty monotone and boring, so i always appreciate a joke or two in speeches to lighten the mood.

core evaluatory philosophy

tech > truth always, and i am not super versed in progressive argumentation, but i have taken a western philosophy seminar, so i think i'll survive.

please cut your cards properly, i cannot stress this enough. poor card cutting destroys the structure of my flow and lessens my opinion of your arguments.

if there is intense evidence clash, your job should be to explain to me why your evidence is better.

the second rebuttal should ideally respond to the first constructive and first rebuttal.

if you do run non-frivolous theory

my ideal shell: interpretation -> violation -> standards -> voters -> implication.

respond to the violation in the speech immediately following it.

the key to winning my vote -> a fantastic summary

the summary is the most important speech in the entire debate (especially the first one). it's also one of the hardest speeches to master, so don't beat yourself up over it if you're struggling. in an ideal round, i should be able to listen to just the summary + ff and make the correct decision.

the core formula for a good summary:

• pick the best offensive and defensive arguments to extend (this also means collapsing on stuff that didn't work for you).
• gain access to the offense that you choose to extend.
• make an argument about why that offense should win you the round (aka weighing).

(more details are in this lecture)

picking arguments to extend

• choose arguments that weren't responded to / poorly responded to by opponent (easy to access).
• choose arguments with large impacts (easy to weigh).
• consider how all of your arguments fit within the context of the round (generic advice, takes practice).

gaining access to offense

• frontline: respond to the responses to your argument, you must do this for *all* active responses to your argument. a common structure for a frontline is the "they say ... we say ..." format.
• extend: now that you've frontlined your argument, restate your cards and explain the jist of the claim again, must extend link + impact.

why you should win (weighing)

• comparativeness is your friend. directly compare your offense with your opponent's offense and explain why yours is better. please have warranting for your impacts (nuke war prereqs the economy is not as solid as you might think).

additional info: how to extend

• the easiest way to extend is to just give a short tag on your card and explain why it supports your claim
• practice practice practice extending your arguments before the round!

final thoughts

• summaries are very hard to master, but they are formulaic and can be executed successfully with enough practice. i believe deeply that most flow/tech judges will be convinced of one side after the summary, and without a good summary, the final focus is bound to be weak.
• without adequate knowledge of your topic, all the advice above becomes relatively trivial. come prepared!
• remember that you need to extend throughout your speeches all the way to the ff.
• don't get too stressed out! debate may seem like the end of the world, but the grass is greener on the other side. have fun, argue with passion, and make the most of it.

Hey everyone.

I'm a third year out originally from Tampa, Florida. I debated in PF for 4 years at Newsome HS as the A in Newsome EA, currently studying at Boston College.

- I do not need defense in first summary, but if you deem its relevant I'll flow it

- I'm pretty good with speed and was always a debater that talked fast, so as long as I don't yell "Clear!" then you're fine

- Please be nice in cross, I already think that CX is annoying in it's very nature, you will win exactly 0 brownie points with me as a judge if you intentionally dominate or demean your opponent at any time

- If you say something outright offensive you're definitely not going to win

- Collapse and weigh arguments starting in Summary. This means that by the summary speeches I should have a clear idea of exactly what you want me voting on and WHY I should do in comparison to the one's your opponent is ahead on.

- I will vote on theory or Ks if they are thoroughly explained and warranted. However, I believe that both of these should be used as a check back on either an egregious abuse instance in the round or within the resolution itself. Senseless use of theory or a K just to waste time or to limit your opponent's ability to debate will result in less speaker points and depending on how I see it in the round might even cost you the win. I won't buy disclosure theory.

- Lastly, and arguably most importantly to win my ballot, be very concise and clear in the Final Focus, I always find voting off of arguments way more compelling if you only extend the relevant ones and you tell me the story of how you win them and how they're the most important thing in the entire world to me.

If you have any questions at all feel free to either email me at Nick.Arozarena@gmail.com, or ask me before the round. See ya soon!

I am a cardiologist in the Washington, DC area and I have no background in debate. I have been a parent judge for 5 years, so I do know some of the basic rules.

Please speak clearly and be respectful with asking and answering questions.

Keep your arguments generally socially acceptable.

I prefer probable arguments as opposed to farfetched arguments.

In addition, I am not a fan of references that don't really relate to the topic or distract from the evidence. I want to hear a good debate. Avoid repeating what others have said. Make sure you address previous speakers and expound on arguments.

Debated for six years, qualled to TOC three times

*****General*****

Yes I will disclose give me like a minute. I also default to oral rfds, so let me know if you want me to type it out. Also add me on the chain at anika.bastin@gmail.com

I am massively tech > truth. HOWEVER this does not mean that I will weigh your one unspecific muddled link at 100% probability because there was no ink on the flow over someone’s well warranted argument which has some responses which were well weighed

Bad evidence ethics are probably one of the biggest icks for me. Contextualize and warrant your arguments. I don’t want a random card. I want an explanation as to why it’s going to happen. Please just cut good evidence so you don’t hear my rant on how bad ev ethics are ruining debate :(

If you’re second rebuttal frontline turns from first rebuttal.

Please have good case extensions in summary. Like good warrant extensions, otherwise you have no case offense going into final. If it's not in summary, it's not in final focus.

If I look confused, it's cause I am. It means clarify. I’m also fine with p much any level of speed, so it’s probably not that (but if you’re going to spread fr, just save time and send the doc. I’ll yell clear three times before I stop flowing).

WEIGH. Thanks. (By weighing I don’t mean yelling WE OUTWEIGH ON SCOPE MAGNITUDE TIMEFRAME AND PROBABILITY. Tell me why) Metaweigh and i will be so happy :))))

I'm fine with aggression just don’t be crazy rude. Any kind of discriminatory behavior will get you dropped w 25.

I presume neg if aff has no offense, presume 1st speaking team if both teams are equal.

I probably won't listen to crossfire. If something important comes up in crossfire, bring it up in speech

*****PROG*****

I did debate prog and have run theory and k’s before, so I’m pretty familiar with the arguments and the lit surrounding it in general.

Ok look. I get that Theory and K’s are seen as the whole new thing sweeping the circuit, but they were created for specific reasons, and I think that’s really important to understand. Please don’t run them to commodify the ballot. If you don’t understand the lit and you’re reading it for the sake of winning, it won’t go great.

I would consider it a fair prog round if your opponent is familiar with prog or you’re in a high bracket/elims at a circuit tournament. If they have not, I will have a lower threshold for how they answer. If it’s not fair for everyone, it’s not educational no matter how much you argue. HOWEVER if you’re running the prog for a specific purpose (e.g. a well established K or a clear in round abuse), I’ll go looser on this.

1. Theory

1. I believe that paraphrasing is good and disclosure is bad. Wild takes on the circuit ig but I can explain my norms if y’all actually want to hear why in round.

2. All in all though, I’m flow so I’ll evaluate what you say. It’s just if you’re reading wild things (like bracket theory or something) I will be very sad and the threshold for answer will be super low.

2. K’s

1. Ok look so this is another rant I can give y’all in round if you want, but please be careful with how you read K’s. They were created to do something specific, and reading them for the sake of winning is just not going to fly with me,

2. DO NOT READ IDENTITY K’S IF YOU/YOUR PARTNER IS NOT OF THAT IDENTITY. That will be an instant drop from me, I don’t care how valid your take is. It’s not your place to comment for that community. If you’re curious whether I qualify something as an identity K, please just ask before reading it. I will drop without hesitation, so better safe than sorry.

3. Tricks

1. Tricks are not for kids :(

*****Speaks*****

I default btw 28-29 and go up and down depending. No one's going to get super low speaks (like 27's) unless you were rude or offensive.

Ways to boost speaks

1. Weigh and Extend, signpost and offtime roadmaps. Basically just do your job.

2. just say everyone ready, don't go jUDge ReADy, oPpOnenTS ReaDY, ParTnER REadY, oKaY!

3. Strategic drops and kicks. I love seeing a perfectly timed kick.

4. Boba (passion fruit green tea is so good fr)

Ways to drop your speaks

1. problematic rhetoric

2. Making the round inaccessible/toxic

~~haha you say "they dropped all of our arguments"(when they didn't) and i drop your speaks big time.~~

Rewrite 11/5/2020

Please include me in the email chain in policy debates: Alecbellis8@gmail.com.

Experience:

4 years college policy, 2 of those years with national circuit competition. Graduated in spring of 2020.
Read whatever you want and I'll evaluate it. I'm more interested in K's, but I do a lot of policy research for JMU still. I'm up to date on the 2020-2021 Policy topic. Liberty will be my first time judging this year. I've judged before, but not varsity.

Speed

I consider myself a good flow, but top speed (among very fast teams) is probably going to be too much for me. My hearing got fucked up this summer and I'm not sure how that's going to translate to online debates. I will do my best to communicate with you during the debate. I will say clear and slow.

Truth v Tech

Man this is so hard. A conceded argument doesn't make it true, but it does make it truer. A highly true argument still needs to be applied. My goal is to do as little work as possible for you.

Policy vs Policy

*A lot of your affs are blatantly miscut and/or double turns. Don't make me have to drop you for an ethics challenge.

If you want to read 8 off, fine. I don't think that's a good strategy because case debate is cool and more educational but you do you.

Condo is fine but I'll vote on theory if it's good.

More likely to vote on conceded args in these debates than any other.

These debates are boring, so please try to make them less so.

DAs -- I am probably more likely than an average judge to evaluate well warranted analytic arguments. this doesn't mean that you don't have to read carded impact defense, but it does mean that if you point out logical contradictions in their evidence, use historical examples you can get far efficiently. Uniqueness matters, but it is difficult to assess in absolute terms because there are many warrants for why, say, the economy is high low now. If your uniqueness ev kicks ass and you're up on it by a mile then the DA probably doesn't matter, but the direction of the link is more important in debates where uq is contested.

CPs -- Tricky/smart CPs can/should be the fulcrum of a policy based negative strategy. Again, don't change your wheelhouse for me. Textual and functional competition is important. Fake CPs like the states counterplan or ESR are uphill battles and I like theory against them.

T -- underused against policy affs.

Policy AFFs vs K NEGs

I debated 2 ish years of policy arguments, so feel free to run them. I will evaluate them and I still do topic research for JMU, so I'm pretty versed in that side of the 20-21 topic. That being said, my ideological leanings are heavily in favor of the K.

AFF -- I will do my best to be impartial, but I have a big problem with the way that policy affs try to make framework arguments. Arguments about plan focus are nonsensical. If the K doesn't have specific links to the aff, you will probably win -- that isn't a question of framework. Fairness arguments don't make sense because you read your aff and you still get to defend it. They aren't mooting the aff by disagreeing with your scholarhsip. Your framework should be about what education you produce and what my role in the debate is. Am I a policymaker? Ethical decisionmaker? What does that mean for how I approach impacts?

NEG -- You need to outweigh the affirmative's impacts. You can filter them out through a framework that limits what I evaluate, you can have a reject alt, an alt that legitimately solves portions of the aff, etc. Be flexible. I don't have a problem with kicking the alt -- I did that all the time. But you have to preface what that means in the debate. Ie: what does your link and impact mean in the world of the alt/without it?

If you have a reason to distrust their scholarship writ large, that should be articulated in terms of what it means for me as a decisionmaker. Pulling lines from evidence and explaining why their scholarship doesn't match their explanation of the evidence is very persuasive. Let's be real, most policy evidence is imperialist schlock.

Your biggest challenge is probably going to be defeating the util o/w + perm route.

Policy NEGs vs K AFFs

Cruel optimism vs "you're too pessimistic" debates are very tired and largely irresolvable. Both require winning a theory of power.

AFF -- I like topical K's with plan texts and nontopical affs as well. I prefer if the aff is relevant to the topic, but it doesn't have to affirm the topic. I think you are benefitted by clear counterinterpretations rather than tricky we meet arguments. Engaging the state bad is kind of a generic, I would prefer offense about how those debates produce violence for you and why they enshrine bad forms of education. IE: why your starting point is significantly better than the TVA/their model of education.

NEG -- Framework is the easiest argument in debate. You get to read a ~1 minute or less shell and give a 9 minute 2nc. I did this, so I'm not biased against it. That being said, FW offense should be about how the affirmative creates a bad standard for debates, why it hurts their education, why it hurts broader approaches to critical education. Topical versions of the aff and a detailed explanation of both a caselist in your world of debate and what arguments you lose are important. I don't care if you lost your generic CP and DA because if that's all you needed for a policy team then it's probably on you for not spending more time prepping K teams. You need to be able to articulate what engaging strategies you lost.

If your cap K link is that they didn't engage the state hard enough, what distinguishes this from FW? It's not that you can't make cap args, or this style of K. I did this stuff as well, but you should be heavily in the aff's literature base with your examples in links.

K vs K

Both sides will be benefitted by making distinctions between strategy and tactics when necessary.

My opinion has shifted on critical debate somewhat since I graduated. I think I am significantly better versed in antiblackness literature and more sympathetic to it than before. I was a cap debater -- now am less sympathetic to that K being mutually exclusive with antiblackness after reading more Wilderson. I think I was already pretty well versed in settler colonial and indigenous literature, and very well versed in security and cap literature.

Alts in KvK debates are often very squishy, so I think kicking the alt or just reject alts are a better bet for me. The permutation is just so often a devastator here. Something unexplored is what Baylor did last year by framing their alt as diagnostic analysis of the aff. In that world, links are more difficult for the aff to solve.

I am very open to presumption against these affs.

Policy Debate Paradigm:

Overview:

The things you are probably looking for:

Speed: I’m fine with whatever you are comfortable with--no need to try to impress me.

Performance: I do not mind a performance but make sure the performance is tied directly to the case and purpose of the debate. I am NOT some old fart, but I am a bit old school with a blend of progressive ideology.

Pre-dispositions: Please do not make arguments that you do not understand/cannot explain in order to fill the time or to confuse the opponent—I will definitely take notice and probably will not vote for you. Keep things well researched and logical and everything should be fine.

Sportsmanship: Please always be respectful of your opponents. Mean-spiritedness is not a way to show me you’re winning. Even though I will always vote for the better arguments, if you display signs of cruelty towards your opponent, your speaker points will suffer.

****Make sure you have great links…nothing worse than sitting through a round where no one understands how any of the arguments relate to the topic*********

Specifics:

Disadvantages: Unless if your strategy is extremely sophisticated/well thought out/well-rehearsed (I have encountered quite a few when I competed), I think you should always run at least 1 DA.

· The Counterplan: If done well, and the strategy around them is logical and thought-out, these are generally winners. If done poorly and you just inserted one to fill the time, I will be sad and bored.

· Procedurals/Topicality: I love a good meta-debate, and I am open to these if you guys have a solid strategy around these arguments (for example: if your opponents are illogical/made mistakes, point that out to me). However, I usually see T’s used as generic fillers, and I will not vote for a generic filler.

· The Kritik: Love Ks if done well and showcases your knowledge of the topic and argument. However, if I can sense that you don’t know what you’re talking about, running a K might hurt you.

Overall, have fun ( I understand how stressful this event can be), show me you're prepared, and always try to learn something.

Lincoln-Douglas, Big Questions Debate, and Public Forum Debate Paradigm:

My job as a judge is to be a blank slate; your job as a debater is to tell me how and why to vote and decide what the resolution/debate means to you. This includes not just topic analysis but also types of arguments and the rules of debate if you would like. If you do not provide me with voters and impacts I will use my own reasoning. I'm open all arguments but they need to be well explained.

My preference is for debates with a warranted, clearly explained analysis. I do not think tagline extensions or simply reading a card is an argument that will win you the debate. In the last speech, make it easy for me to vote for you by giving and clearly weighing voting issues- these are summaries of the debate, not simply repeating your contentions! You will have the most impact with me if you discuss magnitude, scope, etc. and also tell me why I look to your voting issues before your opponents. In terms of case debate, please consider how your two cases interact with each other to create more class; I find turns especially effective. I do listen closely during cross (even if I don't flow), so that is a place to make attacks, but if you want them to be fully considered please include them during your speeches.

Hello! I'll start by giving a little bit of background about myself. I am a fourth year student at Simon Fraser University currently majoring in Health Science. University deepened my interest in debate and thoughtful discussion through my time in philosophy clubs and courses, and I have been looking to expand my judging experience ever since. I have volunteered as a judge both at local high school tournaments across West Vancouver, and I have had the pleasure of judging at the University of British Columbia's Spring Debate Tournament.

As a judge, I appreciate speakers that take their time with their points, and speak in a respectful, concise manner. I believe it's important to explore the points carefully, breaking them down in a way that shows their strength from their foundation. Speak to those around you as people, and take the time to explain the truth of your side. The saying, albeit overused, remains exceptionally true: quality over quantity. There is no need to flood the room with sound.

TL;DR: Work as a team, speak with purpose, be respectful. You'll do great if you remember this.

Please remain respectful towards your opponents and your partner, and have fun while debating. It will be my privilege to see you debate. Best of luck!

Experience things:

Graduated from College Debate. 4 years NDT, 4 years NFA-LD, 4 years HS, coach HS CX too

He/Him

yes email chain, sirsam640@gmail.com

Please read an overview. Please. It will only help you and your speaks.

Speed is fine - please be clear

Tech over Truth always - the debaters make the argument, not what my preconceived notions of what is truthful/real arguments are.

1. I was frequently in policy v K rounds on both sides. At the 2022 NDT 8/8 rounds were K rounds for me, and 2023 2/8 were K rounds. I read a K aff with my partner one year, then an extinction aff the next year. I went for FW/cap the other half of the time. I am a clash judge and vote for K affs as much as I vote for FW versus them.

2. k affs justify why your model of debate is good impact turns to T are fine

3. 2nrs need a TVA (unless the aff just shouldn't exist under your model which is rare but can happen)

4. condo is good but fine voting that its bad

5. judge kick is probably bad, but if neg says its good and aff doesn't reply I'll judge kick

6. I went for impact turn 2NRs/1ARs a significant portion of my rounds

7. win that your reps are good affs

8. I think perms are a little bit underrated - they probably overcome the link and shield any residual risk.

9. Judging more and more I realize how awesome impact calc is in 2NR/2AR - I definitely think about debate in offense/defense paradigm and often vote for whoever's impact is bigger and accesses the other teams

Theory

CPs need a net benefit in order to win. The role of the neg is to disprove the aff, not just provide another alternative that also fixes the aff. "Solving better" isn't a net benefit. I have voted aff on CP solves 100% of the aff but 0% of net benefit.

PICs are good vs K affs. Pretty strong neg lean on this. It rewards good research.

Don't read death good in front of me.

T

I have come around a lot on T. I think that affs get away with too much in terms of being resolution-adjacent.

Competing interps > reasonability (as law school goes on, I am reverting back to reasonability. This is probably 55/45%ish)

Ground is probably the biggest impact in T debates IMO, I think specific links to affs is the largest internal link to good debates.

I think that community norms is very unpersuasive to me. I do not really care what the rest of the community thinks about T, I'm judging the round, not the community lol

PTIAV is silly but gotta have a decent answer to it.

Affs need to just have a large defense of "no ground loss" and "aff flex/innovation outweighs"

Likely the best way to win T in front of me regardless of side is to just impact out whatever you think is your strongest standard, and make it outweigh your opponents. I spend less time thinking about the specific definition of words and more time about what the models of debate look like (though if debaters tell me to evaluate interps in a specific way I will definitely spend time on it).

PF specific

You do you and I will evaluate to the best of my ability! Any questions feel free to ask pre-round!

You don't need to ask for x amount of prep, just take "running prep" unless you specifically want me to stop you when that time ends.

Last speech should start out with "you should vote aff in order to prevent structural violence which comes first in the round" or something like that. Write my ballot for me.

I find it very hard to vote on something that I don't understand, so while impacts matter a lot I need to understand the story of how we reach the impact

Tabroom

Instagram

YouTube

Experience: Roughly a decade of debating and coaching.

I don't need an off-time road map beyond you telling me which side you're going to start on.

Truth or tech: Truth and Tech :)

Spreading is fine, and paraphrasing is fine, but paraspreading (please credit me when you use this fantastic neologism/portmanteau) is a bad decision.

Aff gets some reasonable amount of durable fiat, but they will need to justify any other fiat not explicitly made clear in the wording of the resolution.

The first round of card calling happens after 2nd constructive, not after the 1st constructive. Please feel free to tell the other team my paradigm says this.

I don't want to hear the vast majority of theory/progressive arguments in PF. I understand their value, and I read them in college. That said:

(a) there are already 2 other categories where you can easily make these arguments. There's zero good reason to bring it to the world of PF.

(b) at least 50% of the time I hear such arguments they are used as bludgeoning tools to beat an opponent who simply doesn't know much about this side of the debate world. As much as I enjoying "playing the game," I find this to be one of the more depressing aspects of the current state of our debate community.

(c) there are still ample ways to be progressive or read theory in a PF style. Example: Reading a blanket (topical) contention about US regime change as a way of critiquing whether or not we should withdraw our military presence in the middle east. Example: Reading an observation for why a certain interpretation of the resolution is the most fair in round, while appealing to the norms and standards of PF.

Kritiks are of course not ok, nor are new arguments in the Final Focus, etc.

I don't think that the 2nd speaking team has a requirement to frontline in the rebuttal, nor do I think every last drop of an argument has to be perfectly extended through every speech for it to be evaluated in the Final Focus. However, I think the 1st Final Focus is allowed to make responses to the 2nd summary, and they should have had extra time to weigh in the prior speeches anyway, meaning that their Final Focus is not particularly hurt. Further, if (and only if) no frontlining is done in the 2nd rebuttal, 1st speaking team's defense is sticky so long as it's extended in the 1st Final Focus following the 2nd summary's frontlines. All of this being said, I still advise the 2nd speaking team to pursue some frontlining earlier, as I will take into consideration the ability for a team to respond to an argument in time when weighing the link strength and probability of an argument.

I will vote down teams for egregious evidence violations. This is probably the most "hands-on" aspect of my judging paradigm; my standard is lower than the NSDA's rulebook. I don't need to think you're lying for me to consider it an evidence violation. Here's my test:

(a) Does your evidence clearly say something different from what you claimed?

(b) Is that difference significant, or minor? (Example of minor: You read a card that says Arms Races increase the chance of war three-fold, but the evidence [Rider '11 for anyone interested] is more specific to mature state rivalries that begin an arms race. Example of major: you claim the Rider '11 card says that giving aid to Ukraine increases the chance of nuclear escalation by 300%).

(c) Is it integral to my RFD on the flow? If no, I'll probably just chuck the argument. If yes to all of the above, there's a good chance I'll look for any way I possibly can to vote for your opponent. All of this said, I'm not going to go out of my way to find evidence violations. If I did that, I'd be awarding a lot of double losses :P

Please free to tell me to call for cards, including your own in the event of a dispute. I will read them.

Experience: Purdue University, 1 year of debating NFA-LD (essentially, progressive college one-person policy following nearly the same NSDA-LD format), 1 year of coaching NFA-LD, a few years of judging traditional LD and HS policy (some circuit, some trad).

Flowing everything includes flowing arguments about how one debater excluded the other. If there's a component of my judging that is not tabs, then it's definitely this. About 50% of the time I hear fringe K's or disclosure theory, it feels like they are used as bludgeoning tools to beat an opponent who simply doesn't know much about this side of the debate world or you found a cheap shot to take advantage of. As much as I enjoying "playing the game," I find this to be one of the more depressing aspects of the current state of our debate community. This doesn't mean I'm going to try to intervene, but...we all have biases. If you go for it, make sure you win it convincingly.

Similarly, I have recently become more "solidified", so to speak, in my opinions regarding the value of the style of intentionally technical, intentionally obtuse, and intentionally performative debate. To put that bluntly: I find most of the current K and games debate to be highly dubious in its educational value. AS a point of reference, if you watched the NDT 2023 Final Round, I found it to be a joke and an embarrassment to debate. I would be genuinely ashamed to show somebody not in debate that round. All of that said, and as hard as it may be to believe, don't construe this as me as a judge aiming to intervene or punish you for the choices you make in the debate. The only thing I dislike more than a totally gamified, pretend-philosophy 1NC is a judge who thinks their job is to be a debater. I will try very hard to avoid that. Put simply: I'll probably still vote for whatever the performative non-topical K is that you're winning, I'll just complain about it to myself later.

I have a BA in philosophy, so if you talk about a cool philosopher I'll be happy and can hopefully follow along pretty well.

Truth or tech: Truth and Tech :)

Spreading is fine, and paraphrasing is fine, but paraspreading (please credit me when you use this fantastic neologism/portmanteau) is a bad decision.

Pronouns: (she/her)

Preferred name: Kat

I would like to be on the email chain: cazeaupatricia@gmail.com

*****IF YOU READ/REFERENCE SEXUALLY EXPLICIT/VIOLENT CONTENT I AM NOT THE JUDGE FOR YOU.*****

Debated at Liberty, and I debated policy for 4 years in high school (shout out to Long Branch High!).

My credentials ig:

- 2021 NDT third team

- 2022 NDT First Round (TOP TEN YERRRR)

- First Liberty invite to the Kentucky Round Robin

- Long Branch High volunteer Policy Coach

- Judged Policy, LD, Parli, PF, and speech events

Kritiks:

I'm a black woman with an immigrant background. Do with that what you will.

If you're a K team, I'm a huge fan of K's! I'm familiar with: Cap K, Thoreau, Antiblackness, Afropess, Afrofuturism, Orientalism, Bataille, Nietzsche, Fem, Baudrillard, and I'm sure I'm missing others. Just bc I'm comfortable with these, don't be sure I'll know all of your buzz-words and theory. Explanations are good, detailed explanations are best.

If you win the following, you'll win the debate:

1.) Give me the Link. Just because I consider the truth doesn't mean that you could assert that the Aff is racist, sexist, neoliberal, or whatever without a specific link. If you can prove to me why the foundations of the Aff are suspect and make your impacts worse, you've done your job and the link debate is yours.

2.) Impact weighing. I need clash and impact comparison. Sure, tell me what your impact is and why it matters, but explain why it matters in relation to your opponent's impacts (ie: structural violence is happening now, extinction is far off. Immediacy outweighs).

3.) Alt explanation. I gotta know what it does. In explaining the Alt, you need to explain how it's different from the SQUO, and why a permutation wouldn't immediately resolve your impacts and the links. If you don't need to win the Alt, just gotta explain why not.

4.) Judge Instruction. Give it to be straight, what do you want me to do? What is my role in the discussion/in this competitive space? What are the implications of the ballot?

Do these things, and you're golden. :^)

K-Affs:

Do most of the same stuff as above, only difference is that you should have substantive answers to framework. Again, don't just assert that FW is sexist, racist, whatever WITHOUT a reason why. I jive with K-Affs, and I think performances could be powerful. Just make sure everything is done with a purpose.

Your counter-interpretation is the framing for my ballot as well as the model of debate you advocate for. I'll vote on any, esp if the other team drops it.

ROB's are muy importante in a framework debate.

I'm guilty of wildly-long overviews-- but for your sake pls no more than 2 minutes. Pls.

Policy, because I can't abandon my first love:

I love me some tasty DA's and CP's, as long as the internal link chain makes sense.

I'm sympathetic to Condo as an arg if it's 6+ off. Anything below that and you're on your own, my friend.

Impact turns are cool. I'll vote for anything as long as it isn't death/extinction good and structural violence/racism good.

Framework:

1.) FAIRNESS ISN'T AN IMPACT! It's an internal link to education.

2.) Clash is the most convincing impact to me.

3.) Predictability is sort of a toss-up. If you didn't prepare for Cap or other K's that you knew would come with the topic after the first few tournaments, that's on you. But I will vote for it if you tell me how predictability makes you all better debaters.

Please do not put me in any T or Theory debates. I can't do it.

***PF***

>Impact calc is MUY IMPORTANTE!!! Weigh between your and your opponent's impacts, please. Explain why you outweigh.

>Ask QUESTIONS in Cross-Fire! This is two-fold: 1. "[explains case]... what do you say to that?" isn't a question, and 2. Being POLITE when asking questions is key. Please don't bully the other team.

>Tell me how to write my ballot, and what you're going to win on in this debate.

>I'm a policy person so I don't see a problem with counterplans in PF. This being said, "This is PF, counterplans aren't allowed!" isn't an argument. Attack it instead.

>In addition, speed isn't a problem for me. But do recognize that if the other team makes it a voter, you have to justify your use of speed in that instance.

>And please, PLEASE, answer as many of the opponent's arguments WHILE extending your case. Chances are they didn't answer everything you said.

>Finally... have funsies. :^)

If you're racist, sexist, ableist, homophobic, rude, or discriminatory in any way toward your partner or opponent, I will stop the round and your speaks are getting docked. Behaviors like that make the debate space less hospitable. And, yes, that includes extremely 'punking' the other team.

Rhetoric is a voter. If it frames the debate and it's a big enough deal to potentially ruin your debate experience, I'll vote on it.

HAVE FUN!

about me:

• first year out
• did pf for six years/competed under St Francis BC
• I now do APDA at Stanford, but I'm very much a beginner at parli so please bear with me if I'm your judge for it.

email chain: alexchas@stanford.edu

**General**

Tech > Truth, but my barrier for overlooking your evidence that says that the moon is made of cheese is low if you don’t support it with well substantiated warranting when faced with a response or evidence challenge.

My view of a good strategy/performance is simple:

1. Warranting is your friend: whether you’re reading a turn, weighing, extending, or reading framework, warrant warrant warrant. Teams that read concise, well intentioned, and well substantiated warranting have never in my eyes been hurt by it.

But Alex if I warrant that aggressively I can’t read my blippy contentions, turns, and weighing anymore :(

Haha so true bestie, that’s the point

1. Towards the back half of the round, I want to see both teams collapse and weigh to make it clear to me what your narrative is, why I should vote for your case/link/turn specifically, and how it interacts with the round as a whole.

2. #1 also implies that speeches between partners will share a common vision and strategy, which definitely ain’t happening if your FF doesn’t mirror your Summary.

3. This is a preference but I prefer cohesive and nuanced cases over spamming multiple contentions with subpoints, because in my experience, #1 and #2 of my views of a good strategy don’t often happen with the latter.

4. This doesn’t happen in all rounds, but doing things like kicking case for turns (when done well) are quite impressive for me and fall under what I would deem “good performance”

5. If you plan on reading a framework, actually understand the literature behind each of your framework’s warrants and use that to your advantage to weigh against other arguments.

What I mean by good weighing:

Good weighing is not me voting for you because your number is bigger than theirs. It’s giving me an understanding why I should turn to your arguments first. That also implies that you will be comparing weighing mechanisms as well. Because telling me you win on one metric while the other team wins on another brings me back to square one, where I’m back to being forced to pick and choose based on what I personally think.

I’ll always look at weighing first, then any offense connected to that weighing, then all other offense (if there is no other weighing, which would make me sad)

Speed:

1. Speed is fine with me, and I’ll yell clear if I need to. But, note that as the months go by I’ll be less in tune with high school forensics, so it might be to your advantage to not go too crazy. (Crazy means speech doc levels)
   
   

2. Slow down for tags
   
   

3. I don’t like flowing off docs
   
   

Tiny rant about extinction framing:

This is not an excuse to avoid any meaningful weighing by simply reading your 100 trillion deaths card over and over again. Still weigh. Also actually read the lit behind your links because some cards I’ve seen have been so outrageous and not in the good way.

**Random Things**

Cross is binding. I won’t be flowing, but I’ll be paying attention so don’t pull anything morally ambiguous.

If you want me to read evidence, tell me to call for it. With that said, if it's irrelevant to the bigger picture of the debate, I won’t be reading it, and I’ll explain why in relation to the round in my rfd.

Postrounding is ok, I make mistakes. But note that my decision was also impacted by what has happened in the round, so ideally we could avoid this situation. If there was a game changing piece of weighing or delink that should’ve given you the win, you should’ve been making it clear in the backhalf.

**Prog**

Theory: I’ve run and debated against theory a decent number of times, and I’ve got to say it isn’t my favorite. Most rounds turn into the same thing over and over again with similar-ish standards that just end up going in favor of the team that has the most experience with theory to begin with. It’s also frankly quite clear that a majority of teams that run theory don’t do it for the sake of “spreading norms” or “prioritizing education,” rather they see it as a way to pick up rounds, so forgive me if my eyes roll to the back of my skull.

In addition, the notion that theory checks back against ad hominem, in-round abuse is absurd. If someone says something problematic and offensive about me in a round, the last thing I’m thinking about is how to format their violation into a shell and taking prep time to prepare an off for my next speech.

With that said, if you feel uncomfortable in the round, don’t hesitate to email me with my email above, and I will stop the round.

No Friv theory

Kritiks: I only ran two kritiks (neo-colonialism/intersectional queer futurity) in my time debating, and although they were quite fun to learn about and read, I will be the first to acknowledge that I barely knew what I was doing. I know about kritiks in concept and understand their function and format, but in practice, the lines become blurred for me. With that said, I find that critical literature raises a lot of interesting questions, especially if they discuss a cause you are particularly passionate about, so be my guest if you want to run it, I’d love to engage with you on the subject matter, just note that I might not evaluate the round as formally as someone proficient on the matter.

About me:

Email: mcopeland2017@gmail.com

Background: Currently, I am a coach for Liberty University, where I also debated for four years, NDT Octofinalist and CEDA Octofinalist; I started by doing policy args, moved to Kritical/performance things with most of my arguments starting with black women and moving outward such as Cap, AB, Set Col, and so on). As a novice, I started debate in college and worked my way to varsity, so I have a pretty good understanding of each division.

Judging wise (general things)

How I view debate: Debate is, first and foremost, a game, but it's full of real people and real consequences, so we should keep that in mind as we play, even though it's a game with real-life implications for many of us.

Facial Expressions: I often make facial expressions during the debate, and yes, they are about the debt, so I would pay attention to it; my face will usually let you know when I am vibing and when I'm confused

Speaker points: --- subjective these days. I try to start at 28.7 and then go up and down based on a person's performance in a debate. Do you want to earn higher speaks? Don't risk clarity over speed. I'm not straining my ear to understand what you are saying. And a 2NR and 2AR that have judge instruction and tell me what I am voting on are chefs ki.ss

K AFFs --Tend to think these should be in the direction of the room. You should be prepared to answer these questions if you read these affs. What is the point of reading the 1AC in debate? What is your beef with the debate or the resolution? I think you need to have a reason why people should have to engage with your model of debate and why the education you produce is good.

K's --- What's the link? Links need to be contextualized to the aff; generally, don't be generic or links of omission unless they are entirely dropped—the more specific the aff, the better. Leveraging the framework in your favor is an underrated strategy, but I enjoy those debates. At the end of the debate, some explanation of the alternative that solves the links needs to be explained. Less is more condensed than the K in the 2NR, and you can sit and contextualize the args you go for to the 1AC and what is happening in the debate. In general, I understand most K's. Still, you should assume that I don't explain your literature base/theory or power, especially if you read psychoanalysis, Baudrillard, or anything like that in front of me.

(Putting the K on the case page makes my flow so messy, and I like pretty flows....lol)

Policy AFFs -- I always think less is more; the more advantages and scenarios, the less likely those internal link scenarios make sense.

Framework -- Framework makes the game work. The most important thing with the framework is getting OFF your blocks and answering the specific offense. I don't think TVA has to solve all of the AFF, but I do think they need to be TOPICAL, and I think you need to prove that they can access the same scholarship under the TVA.

DAs and CPs -- These are fine; CPs need to be competitive and solve the aff or significant portions of the aff with a net benefit. DAs are okay links that should be specific to the aff, and impact weighing in the 2NR is key.

Theory: Theory is fine, but just reading blocks back and forth at one another is not --- to win theory, a significant portion of the 2NR and 2AR need to be dedicated to them to win this in front of me -- and disclosure is something I would say I have a higher threshold on really need to prove in round abuse to win

Current college student, did PF for 4 years of high school so I'm familiar with speech times and the general structure. Try not to go too fast and speak comprehensibly.

Hi! My name is Kerry. I am a junior at Dartmouth College majoring in Biochemistry and German. I've grown to love speech and debate over the years. Above everything, I value a well-structured and substantive debate. Evidence should be well cited and should not misconstrue the author's intent. I like clean debates, so steer clear of ad hominem remarks. I expect everyone to flow themselves just as I flow you. I will keep time but I expect you to keep time for both yourself and your partner to keep things running as smoothly as possible. I also ask that speakers slow down when speaking, as especially over an internet connection it can be difficult to hear everything said. I will focus on whichever team can best convince me of their stance, but also how well you speak - do you stutter or use filler words? Are you always looking at your notes or do you know your material? I expect you guys to enjoy yourselves - above all else, have fun!

Email: maverickedwards1@gmail.com

I think that conditionality should be a last resort; I am not sure why it has become so prevalent.

Reasonability as an alternative to competing interpretations does not make a lot of sense because I must endorse an interpretation at the end of the debate. Instead, I think reasonability is best used as a framing argument to raise the threshold for the abuse or potential abuse Negative teams must prove.

Counterplans that result in the plan are problematic; I have a preference for theoretical objections over perm do the cp.

I generally think that fairness is good and the only impact a ballot can 'solve.' Impact turns to clash, fairness, predictability, etc. are difficult to win in front of me absent technical concessions.

I prefer to vote for arguments with concrete, material strategies. An alternative or 1AC that advocates and defends a movement instead of USFG-based action is much more appealing to me than a strategy based on criticism without contestable action.

Critical teams should spend time explaining arguments in front of me in practical terms without jargon. I think the pedantry in academia can easily permeate debaters' blocks and strategies. Big words or concepts that are familiar to people versed in the literature but not the general public will hurt your application of the theory and may lead to a frustrating decision.

I am a parent judge who is fairly new to PF Debate.

Please avoid speaking too fast so that I can follow you.

Please back up your claims and rebuttals with evidence from reputable sources. Claims without evidence tend to be ignored.

It is a good idea to develop your arguments with depths while rebutting opponent's arguments and counter-arguments with evidence.

Most of the times one well developed argument is much better than many arguments that are not well supported/developed or dropped during debate.

Please treat opponents with respect!

Have fun in debating!

Hi everyone,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am a lay judge with little knowledge on this topic.

Please speak slowly and clearly and explain why your arguments are weighted.

Spend a lot time to explain your argument and your talking point is the most important for me.

I will not disclose in prelims.

Please do the timing yourselves.

Hello!

Clarity, and strength of argumentation are my two judging criteria.

Remember, this is not a fight; it's a debate!

All the best,
Anuveer Guraya

Benjamin Hagwood, Director at Vancouver Debate Academy

About me - former college policy debater, flow-centric, like all arguments but the politics DA (Elections gets a pass)

Debate is a game that can be played in a multitude of ways. It is the responsibility of the students to determine the parameters of the games and to call "foul" if they think someone has done something abusive. I will judge the round as it happens. Here are a few things about me that you might find useful when preparing for a round:

1. Flowing - I do my best to have as accurate a flow as possible while trying to capture but the context and citation of your arguments. Dropping arguments could be detrimental if your opponents extend and weight those arguments properly.
2. Observer not a Participant - I won't do work for you or insert myself into your debate. You will win OR lose based on the arguments in the round not my person opinion.
3. Style over Speed - swag is subjective - bring yours.
4. Petty but not Disrespectful - don't be unnecessarily rude to your opponent - but I must admit being petty is strategic.
5. Challenges - if you challenge someone and lose the challenge you lose the debate (this could also apply on theory debates depending on the debate - but not RVI's)

Universal Speaker Point Adjustments: all students are evaluated on their level. A 29 in novice is not the same as a 29 in open. 28 is my base for completing all your speeches and using all your speech time.

1. Wear a bowtie (+.5 point)
2. Be entertaining (tell jokes...if I laugh...you get points...if I don't you won't be punished) (+.5 point)
3. Be rude (-.5 point)
4. Don't use all your time (-.5 point)
5. Steal prep (-.5 point)

If you have any questions feel free to reach out to me and ask. Students may request my flow and written feedback at the end of the debate if they want. I will only share it with the students in the round unless they consent to the flow being shared with other opponents.

I have been doing Public Forum for about 4 years, and I was the Novice Director at Brooklyn Tech. Overall, I love judging and I really do enjoy giving you feedback on how to grow as a debater.

If you do disclose please email me your case, it makes it easier for me to flow the round and decide who should win the round, my email is nabila.hoque2004@gmail.com.

1. Theory: YES. I love it when people run theories. However, you have to realize you're fighting an uphill battle since many judges won't know how to evaluate that. I, however, am bored and get excited about interesting arguments. The well-argued theory makes for interesting debates. This, for example, is how you call people out on rulebreaking - don't just say "it's illegal/not allowed," make it an argument with impacts.

2. Card-calling: I believe that being able to call for a card is an important strategic tool. That means it should be used, get this, strategically. You should have your cards ready and it should not take that much time to get it, however, if you are taking a long amount of time I will start running your prep.

3. Crossfire: Crossfire is your time to clarify. Don't expect me to write any argument you make during crossfire because it won't happen. Instead, follow up on strong points during your next speech. Finally, resist the urge to engage in shouting matches, it will definitely cost you speaker points and is a terrible use of everyone's time.

4. Attitude. If you are rude to either your opponent or me I will deduct your speaker points and if your attitude is off the charts I will give the other team the win regardless of the flow. Overall, be nice.

5. Rebuttals. Signposting is something I want to see all throughout the debate, however, in rebuttals it is key. I like off-time road maps and I expect that you should follow your off-time road map during the speech. I also want a logical and concise analysis of the faults of the opponent's argument, not just "this card says otherwise." Tell me why their argument is faulty and why your argument is better.

Speaker Points

30 - If you run a good meme case/if you speak with an eloquence that can only be personified by someone like Barack Obama/Best speaker in the tourney in my opinion.

29 - If you speak really well with minimal error.

28 - Good job but you can use some improvement.

27 - You need improvement, but it's only an upward climb.

26 - There's a lot of room for improvement. Don't get down if you receive this from me. The debate is all about improvement, and if you attain this score then I will definitely give you tips on how to improve and better yourself in the verbal and digital feedback.

25 - Why are you here?

24 - If I have to go down here then you should go to policy/LD/Parli/Anything that isn't PF...

I am a lay judge so please speak slowly and clearly.

Hi! I debated for four years on the Houston/Nat circuit and got 4 bids my senior year. My paradigm pretty much mirrors that of your usual flow judge so I don’t think you’ll need to dramatically alter your strategy for me or anything. If you have any specific questions, feel free to hit me up on fb (preferable) or at michael.huang13@berkeley.edu

Tldr: Path of least resistance is pretty compelling for me. Clearly explaining and warranting your arguments while sufficiently beating back frontlines is a solid place to start, assuming you’re not getting killed on weighing or framing or something.

If you can, preflow before coming to round. I’ll be annoyed if you’re flight 2 and aren’t preflowed. Feel free to post-round me; I thought it was super helpful when I got to see how certain arguments and strategies in the round played out on the judge's flow. If you're just gonna turn it into a 3rd FF I'll probably just leave.

Stylistic Preferences

1. I’m pretty tech over truth. But the more absurd the argument, the lower my threshold for responses--it doesn’t take much to respond to squirrelly/low low low probability arguments with me. Just clearly warrant why it’s not true and I’ll probably buy it.

2. I went kinda fast when I debated? So I’m down with reasonable speed. I’m not crazy good at flowing so just exercise good judgment. If you spread, there’s a decent chance I won’t catch a lot of what you’re saying. The faster you go, the more you need to signpost.

3. Extra speaks if you make an effort to make the round more accessible to clearly inexperienced teams, whether it's via speed or not going ten-off or whatever

4. Quality > quantity. I will always default towards a well-explained, contextualized link and impact story over a blipstorm of DAs. I like stuff that’s been warranted and makes sense. If you go super fast with minimal analysis and work done on your arguments, you might not like how I vote.

5. I appreciate smart analytics backed by evidence & implications. Taken from Aatreya Tewary: “don't hide behind evidence; if someone reads an analytical response that has a logical warrant behind it, it isn't enough to tell me to prefer you because you have some random author on your side, engage with your opponents and actually debate instead of screaming the names of research institutions back”

6. This goes without saying, but don’t read racist, sexist, or offensive arguments of any type. I’ll probably just stop the round and give you an L. If you’re reading stuff that requires a trigger warning, please make an adequate effort to let your opponents know before round.

7. Crossfire is not that important. Don’t be condescending or an ass during it, or any other point in the debate. I’ll think you’re a terrible person and tank your speaks

8. Signpost. Roadmaps. Pls.

Strategy

1. Obviously, all FF offense must be in summary.

2. Second rebuttal must respond to turns and DAs. If you don’t frontline defense then I’ll give your arguments much less weight when making my decision.

3. **My threshold for extensions is pretty high. I need an impact extended with a clearly explained link story. Collapse and extend warrants. I likely won’t give an argument too much weight if the link/warrants and impacts weren’t extended in summary/FF. Just be safe and extend stuff correctly.

4. I’m not a fan of offensive overviews in either rebuttal and my threshold for responses to them is pretty low. Chances are if you couldn’t read them as turns then they were probably unnecessary new contentions.

5. WEIGH. The earlier and more warranted, the better. 2nd FF weighing will only be accepted absent any other weighing. Not doing so won't lose you the round, but I'll probably intervene more than you'd like. Similar to how I evaluate arguments, the earlier you weigh and the more you develop it, the more I’ll be inclined to buy it over their blippy mAgNiTuDe weighing in FF.

1. On that note, be comparative with your weighing. Weighing helps me prioritize certain arguments over others. Don’t just throw out a bunch of buzzwords about why you outweigh on magnitude or whatever. Stuff like strength of link, clarity of impact, probability, or whatever you come up with is pretty compelling when used correctly.

6. You don’t have to extend dropped defense in first summary, but it probably greatly increases the threshold at which I’ll accept new second summary frontlines if you implicate it a little. ***If it’s important, extend it in first summary. I think it’s slightly sketchy to suddenly implicate defense as terminal in final focus for either team.

7. If you extend link turns, you MUST extend the impact off the turn. I will not do it for you.
8. I will only call for evidence if it's relevant to my decision and I want to check to see if the way you read/extend it is consistent with the text. **If you don't do the work and warrant your arguments in round, I won't search through your evidence for warrants.
9. If your evidence is super sketch, I'll probably evaluate all your arguments left at the end with a grain of salt.

10. I presume first speaking team.

Progressive Arguments

1. As a disclaimer, I never read this stuff when I debated so you might not wanna put your full trust into me evaluating it “correctly.” I think to some extent, PF was created as an event with low barriers for entry and will sympathize with smaller programs that are utterly lost on how to respond.

2. **If I think you suck at it/are looking for an easy win, your speaks are getting tanked. If you go 4 off on some inexperienced team, you’re an asshole and I’m downing you.

3. I have a high threshold for theory, and disclosure theory is a no. If there’s legitimate abuse, it can be in paragraph form too. Just pointing out whatever dumb abusive stuff they’re doing is probably good enough for me to be skeptical of anything they do. If I think it’s frivolous I might just not evaluate it. If you think there are actually implications on the outcome of the round that can't be rectified without a shell:

1. I’d prefer if framing and implications of the shell are read with it. I think it’s sketchy if they spend a ton of time on and obliterate your shell, only for you to proclaim 10 reasons why RVIs don’t exist in the next speech.

2. I’m much less likely to be skeptical and think you’re sketchy if you’re upfront about everything. Read drop the [whatever], RVIs, and whatever else is relevant in your shell. I default reasonability.

4. I'm not a fan of male-male identifying teams reading fem or white people reading afropess. Trivializing critical arguments is kinda fucked

Best of luck and have fun. Debate is pretty special to me but also got unnecessarily stressful and tiring at times. I think it's important to just remember why you put in all the time that you do and not get caught up in all the extra stuff. Have fun but take a break when you need it. And don't be the person who ruins someone else's experience in debate.

If you have any lingering questions before round, feel free reach out to me; I'm always happy to help.

Debated for Bronx Science for 4 years (2015-2019) and been judging for three years in college; polsci and public policy major at Hunter College

DISCLAIMER FOR CAT NATS: I am completely new to the water topic (haven't researched, coached it, etc.), keep this in mind while debating in terms of technical terms and knowledge of topic Ks, CPs, etc. I have also not judged policy in over a year so chill with the spreading

Feel free to run any argument in front of me. I want you to tell me how to vote and how I should view the round. Besides that, I'm down for anything.

Quarantine edition edit: My connection isn't the best so please send the analytics and/or spread like 5% slower so I can flow it, if the argument isn't on my flow I can't evaluate it ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.

Feel free to add me to the email chain: undercommonscustomerservice@gmail.com

tl;dr: run what you want

I decide rounds pretty quickly so I usually disclose right after the 2AR.

This is more for policy rounds but don't just card-dump, I hate it when teams just spew a bunch of cards at each other and expect me to do all the work.

If I’m on a panel with Eugene Toth there is a literal 100% chance that we will vote the same way.

My paradigm has been greatly influenced by my god-tier debate partner in high school so if you want to give it a look: https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=46818

TKO: If you think you 100% won the round at any point in the debate (i.e. other has no path to a ballot bc of conceded off case, etc.) then you can call a TKO and the round will stop. If I buy that the opponents have no path to the ballot, I will give you the win and 30s. If you are wrong, you will get an L and 25s.

DA

DA should at least have a aff-specific link and not just "Protecting water resources means Biden loses political capital". Make sure impact calc is tight, and good evidence comparison will notch up your speaker points. I want you to tell me a story of how the aff actually triggers the impacts.

CP

Haven't gone for that many CPs, not really my favorite argument. Please slow down for the CP text, especially if it's one of those really long ones. Whatever you run, make sure that you have a clear net-benefit.

FW/T

Unless its not even in the direction of the topic, I won't automatically vote down an aff because it violates your interpretation of framework and the resolution. If there is no significant impact and there is sufficient response from aff, I will weigh education over fairness.

I like to hear cleverly thought out T arguments against K affs that aren't just USFG, but an explanation, again, is necessary.

K

I run Ks very often and love a good K debate but I also hate it when the links for the Ks are not explained well or are just generic. Most of the K debate is rooted in the link debate and you have to be able to do this well in order for me to understand how the kritik functions in terms of the affirmative.

A side note: I am not a judge who thinks you need to win the alternative debate in order to win the round. As long as you can prove that each link is a non unique disad to the aff, and those disads outweigh, I will gladly vote neg. However, winning the alternative debate definitely makes your job a LOT easier. If you do go for the alt, I need to know what the alt is supposed to do, how it is supposed to do it, and why what it does matters. You have to be able to explain the alt well, a lot of debaters do not read the literature behind their kritik and this means they cannot explain their alternatives well or just summarize the tags of the cards when explaining the alt.

Love creative K args, topic-specific Ks are really cool too and I've been finding myself voting for more eccentric and high theory Ks so take that as you will

Ks I've ran: Cap (almost every variant of it: logistics, Dean, historical materialism, etc.), academia (Moten and Harney, Tuck and Yang, etc.), ID stuff (set col, queer theory), psychoanalysis.

K affs

I have read K affs the majority of my debate career. Love them, they great. But if it is a nontraditional aff, an EXPLANATION is necessary. If I don't understand what the aff is, what it does, or why it's good, then I will absolutely default neg

Theory

Have judged a fair amount of theory debates at this point and have voted for condo and ASPEC, so I'm down w it just make sure you have interpretation, violation, and standards esp in the last speech

Troll args

Been there done that, just don't be reading random files you found in the backfiles or online without knowing what they mean

UPDATE FOR HARVARD 2023.

For email chains: clj9264@nyu.edu

I have been both the head coach and assistant coach for Timothy Christian School for 5 years. Currently, I am not coaching because I am in grad school, but still keep up with PF resolutions. I was a local/regional/national circuit debater in both LD and PF for 3 years for Timothy Christian School. I then spent five years coaching and judging on all these levels. For the past two years, I have judged LD more than anything else but have mostly done case work in PF.

As one my old debate friends/partners has said (thnx Michael):

If you paraphrase a piece of evidence and your opponent calls the card and all you have is a link to an article and you have to control F your way through the page to find what you are referencing I WILL NOT EVALUATE THE EVIDENCE. CUT YOUR CARDS

Now back to my paradigm,

LD SPECIFIC:

A fair warning that I spent the majority of my high school debate career debating PF, but I have 50/50 judged VLD and VPF since 2017.

I have always been a judge that viewed spreading as okay, but I’ll be realistic with you saying that I haven’t judged LD in a year so I’m a little rusty. Run anything you want and run what will best help you win, but make sure to add me to any email chains and slow down for taglines. If you run a K, make sure that it is CLEARLY explained because I am not well-read on most K lit. Although, run whatever is best for you, and I should be able to adapt. I will truly flow anything you run and evaluate them in the round. However, this is also a warning that if you run anything offensive to either me or your opponent, I will not hesitate to drop you, or at the very least significantly drop your speaker points.

I will say clear a few times, but then it is up to you to remember.

While I will read anything presented to me in email chains, I still find it your responsibility to effectively communicate your speeches to both your opponent and me.

PF SPECIFIC:

Keep in mind, however, that PF has changed drastically since I graduated in 2017, although I did also debate VLD for a period of time so I have that experience to draw upon, and I have been coaching/judging PF since I graduated.

Run whatever you want but be sure to be able to engage with those who may not debate the same way as you (i.e., if you have adapted to be more of a tech debater but your opponents are not, be sure that you can still engage in traditional debate.)

As for basic debate preferences, continue reading:

Some things that are necessary for you to win any PF round, whether it be tech or traditional:

1. Extensions. If you want me to look at an argument in your final focus, it is essential that you extend it during your summary.

2. Outweigh. Give me a reason as to why your 25% is more important than your opponent's $200,000. Tell me how the people you are affecting are more important than your opponent's. Essentially, do not make me assume anything and do not make me pick which is more important. *This does not mean I automatically vote util. I love a good framework debate (it’s the LDer in me), just let me knowwhy I ought to look to your evidence as opposed to your opponents.

3. Write the ballot for me. Give me clear voters during the round. Literally, tell me what to write on my ballot. Again, do not make me pick which is more important. Forcing me to make a decision will only result in a messy RFD and critiques. Tell me why your side is more important.

I will vote off of the flow, so make sure to signpost. Don't bother with an in-depth off-time roadmap, instead, just tell me where you are starting. I will only intervene on the account that there are no voting issues during the round, no weighing mechanisms, and no real arguments standing, that being said be clear and very selective. Do not feel the need to argue every single point. I understand that not everything can be covered in a three-minute summary speech. Instead, make smart decisions about what is necessary to win the round.

FINALLY, FOR EVERYONE:

Regarding speaks, make sure you are respectful, or I will not hesitate to lower your speaker points. Low speaks never equates a loss in my book, but speaks are important as I am sure you all know (esp during bubble rounds). As a debater who got into one to many heated discussions, I saw how that could affect my speaks. I love when debaters show that they are passionate, but that does not have to translate as being disrespectful.

Essentially, debate is about having fun and gaining knowledge. It is meant to be a space where we are able to respectfully argue positions and learn from others, so make sure that every round is focused on this. Also, if you took the time to read this all and incorporate a musical theater reference into the round, this may benefit your speaks :)

oh hello there!

My name is Abel, I debated public forum at Clements High School for four years, qualifying to state and nationals a number of times in-between. I'm excited to hear you all debate! Here's some things you'll need to know about me before the round:

1. I'll vote on the cleanest, unmitigated link chain/offense I find in the round if no weighing is done. Make sure you compare the pro/con worlds for me, otherwise I'll have to do it myself and that means you no longer control who wins or loses the ballot.

2. 2nd Rebuttal should respond to defense + turns + weighing that first rebuttal might read.

3. Make it super clear in FF what I'm voting on - I would like to do as "little work" (judge intervention) as possible.

4. If the previous 3 points flew over your head and you don't know to what I'm referring, don't worry! You can always ask me questions before the round, but essentially I want you to present your arguments convincingly and logically while adequately responding to the arguments of the other team.

5. Evidence - If you don't have the evidence the other team (or I) called for within 2 minutes, it's dropped from the round. Please also make sure the cards really do substantiate what you say during the round, or this will work against you.

6. Speaks - Be kind (and a decent speaker lol) and I'll give you good speaks.

TLDR: Flay judge but zero topic knowledge. I'm not kidding. I have very minimal topic knowledge so make sure to put that 'public' into public forum lol

The most frustrating thing as a debater was not knowing how judges made decisions. It makes the activity more unpredictable than it already is.

How I make a decision:

1. Who is winning the weighing?
2. If team A is winning the weighing, I look to their argument(s) first.
3. If team A wins their argument(s), gg, I will not evaluate the rest of the flow
4. If team A is not winning the weighing, I look to team B's argument(s)
5. If team B is winning their argument(s), gg.
6. If team A and B are not winning their argument(s), I presume to the team who is winning the weighing debate (I have my reasons for this), unless other presumption arguments are read

General things:

• Preflow before the round. Delaying the round is the quickest way to lose speaks from me.
• Evidence exchange must happen in <1min or else it is discarded from the round
• Don't steal prep. Call your opponents out if they are.
• Let's skip the handshakes - germs are scary.
• I am not experienced with progressive arguments. You are free to run them, but don't expect me to make an ideal decision.
• I will call for cards at the end of the debate if (1) you tell me to (2) I need to clarify something
• Good analytics > unwarranted cards

Debate related:

• Weighing is cool but meta weighing is cooler
• Second rebuttal should frontline turns at minimum
• Don't be afraid to drop case and go for other pieces of offense on the flow (make sure it's still weighed)
• Fully extend arguments - I will not do any work for you
• Speed is usually fine, but because I'm not familiar with this topic, please go slowww
• Comparative analysis > more blocks

While I am comfortable with a wide range of styles, I do not prefer spreading in debate. Speak clearly so that I can follow your key points and cards. I like to see good use of evidence in the debate round, making your contentions sound. I'm open to your logical points and in this case try to link your logic directly to your case. Weigh your impacts as you progress deeper in the round and bring focus to the debate round as you explain why your team should win the ballot. Make the most of cross-ex / cross-fire and be courteous to your opponents. Use your time - both effectively, and all of it. I take a realistic view of the world economically/politically, so won't place a heavy emphasis on unrealistic or exaggerated impacts from a policy decision.

Please do not spread. Lay judge.

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

I did PF at Mission San Jose for 4 years 2019-2023; email is msjselinakao@gmail.com.

1. weigh & warrant arguments. warrants>evidence, showing me the logic behind why something happens is more valuable than a number. give me a story to convince me that i should be voting for you. weighing should always start as early in the round as possible.
2. go slow. i am fine with speed if you choose to do so, but there's really no need to go so fast. be efficient and choose a couple arguments, flush them out, & convince me why you're winning them. i'll always prefer those strategies as opposed to a million blippy turns.
3. 2nd rebuttal should frontline defense and turns. summary & FF must extend all arguments that you want me to vote off on

Rose's are red

Violets are blue

Ask me my prefs

Otherwise good luck to you

I've judged public forum debates for a while now, so I'm familiar with common positions and arguments. Please speak at a moderate pace and slow down for taglines and author names.

I'm an open-minded judge. Sticking to the resolution is crucial, and creative thinking is valued. However, the ability to handle strong arguments and deep thinking is just as important.

Remember, let's keep the focus on the topic and have a constructive exchange of ideas. Good luck to both teams!

September/October in LD: If you refer to Africa as a country or participate in creating an ideology that the entire African continent is homogenous, I will decrease your speaker points. Please avoid preaching false stereotypes about other nations/groups of nations or making assertations about a country's access to resources or economic status without knowledge or evidence.

Hi, I am Triniti.

Simpson College (Studying Global Management & Political Science)

Public Forum Coach at Valley High School

Contact: TrinitiKrauss@gmail.com

I am on the Simpson College Debate team and have competed at the collegiate level in Parli, PF, and LD. I graduated high school in 2018 and since then, I've judged many debate tournaments, primarily LD and PF. In high school, I competed in WSD, PF, and LD, and Congressional Debate.

The Short Version: Run anything you want. Know what you are running. Explain and develop your arguments well. Interact with your opponent (pretty please). Don't be a jerk. Favorite debate to watch for LD: LARP. Favorite PF judge to watch: One where people know what they are talking about.

What I LOVE to see:

- Clash. Clash. Clash. Did I forget to mention clash?

- Impacts. Love ‘em.

-Tell me why I should prefer your warrants, impacts, and sources over your opponents.

- Tell me how I should weigh the round.

- Links - crazy right? I want to see the 'how' we get from the resolution to your case to your impacts.

LD Specific Paradigm:

If I have a trad Debater against a non-trad debater: Debate jargon is less important than responding to every component of your opponent's case. Example: If your opponent says "do both" instead of "perm," respond to the argument because I will still evaluate "do both."

Case Style: Run anything as long as you can run it well.

T: Go for it. I want to see a developed T-shell and I will vote on T. However, using T as a strat to time-suck is annoying. Because I think that it is annoying, I am happy to vote on an RVI. I would prefer that T be used when there is a very clear violation.

Theory: I’ll buy a well-developed theory shell.

Tricks: Not my favorite.

Kritikal Debate: Have fun. Show relevance/link to resolution.

LARP/CPs/DAs: Love it. Probs my favorite. Just make sure your links/impacts are there.

Speaking: Just speak clearly. Slow down when you read tags/authors of cards, please.

FOR THE LOVE - know what you are talking about - as in, understand the arguments that you are making.

Just don't be a jerk.

Background for Bill Lemonovich

Extemp,Oratory ,Poetry and DI were all HS areas of competition I pursued during while in High School as well as American Legion Oratory

I was a policy debater for 4 years at Cal State University and enjoyed the State and National Tournaments;happy to have been inducted into the Debate /Speech fraternity :Pi Kappa Delta. Competing at this time was an incredible experience.defeating Harvard University was an Honor.

Email:lemonovich@verizon.net

High School teacher in New York, Montgomery County,Md.and Pennsylvania :German.Russian,World History and Psychology and Debate.

I have coached 10 HS teams in several states and have been a Tournament Director with 30 schools competing as well as organizing the Cal State University tournament a few years ago..Treasurer of the MCFL ( Montgomery County, Md. ) National NSDA tournments have included Kansas City,Las Vegas, Ft.Lauderdale, Dallas and Birmingham.Presently moving towards my Second Diamond status in NSDA.

Judging preferences :Clear, direct presentation of contentions including a clear statement of the R and a definition of key terms

~~ Impact arguments by both the Aff/Neg should be clear stressed,extended and REITERATED ..if you feel you have the winning arguments,it's worth repeating and stressing !

~~ Spreading is not clear communication...if you gasp and moan while delivering your speech I will not be pleased !

~~ Clash is imperative..you must convince me that your arguments outweigh those of your opponents !

~~ In PF and CX..teamwork is a must..your partnership should be smooth in in sync or it will likely be confusing

~~ I am not a fan of 'trick cases' or some variant of a 'Counterplan'..Make your case clear,logical and 'persuasive'

IE Judging

~ There is often a very 'thin line' between Ranking 1-5 in IE events..I look for Topicalty,a strong intro,2-3 major points and a

'Call to Action' when you speak..a little humor can go a long way...ENGAGE your audience..I want to be informed,enlightened and entertained..doesn't everyone ?

I don't have topic knowledge.

Can't give you offense on your impact if I do not understand your link.

Will flow the round and vote off of the flow.

Don't spread. If I miss something you say, it will not be on my flow.

If it's in final focus, it should've been in summary otherwise I will not vote off it.

Please give me CLEAR voters in the final focus. Let me know why you're winning the debate.

Now that I have judged 100+ debate rounds, you can think that I (mostly) know what I am doing.

Please clearly organize your contentions (for example) using a numbered theme, let me know exactly what the evidence is and what the links are from your evidence to your contentions. Also weigh your impact well, not only what could happen but how probable it would happen. It would be best if you could weigh your marginal impacts, that is, how much impacts can be attributed to your contention.

When you repudiate your opponent's contentions, I'd appreciate critical reasoning, such as what are exactly the logical flaws and/or why their evidence is weak. Remember, no matter how ridiculous an argument is, it will stand if you don't point out why it is wrong.

Don't use scare tactics. Don't tell me the world will end tomorrow if I don't vote for you :-)

I take notes but not as detailed and organized as your coaches train you to do. I don't take notes during crossfire. Include whatever you get from the crossfire in your speeches. Make crossfire purely Q&A. Don't try to make your questions like speeches.

Keep time yourselves so that I don't have to interrupt. Being able to keep your own time shows how disciplined you are in the debate. Nonetheless, I will run a timer as well and will give you a 10 sec grace period before I interrupt.

Finally, stay calm, respect your opponents, and avoid using any provocative or condescending language.

Have fun debating!

Please do not spread. Lay judge.

Hey guys! My name is Hrishi (pronounced Rishi). I competed in Public-Forum Debate for four years, and qualified to TFA state three times, so I consider myself a flow debater/judge.

Here are a few basic things to help y'all understand me as a judge.

Pre-Round things

1. Pre-Flow before the round starts
2. Create the email chain before round starts, my email is linked below.

Tech things

1. Extensions are important. If you want to go for an argument it must be extended in every speech. If you drop defense or offense, I am not going to evaluate it.

2. Unless you are kicking case to go for turns/disads, Second Rebuttal has to respond to defense and turns that are read in First Rebuttal.

3. Collapse in the second half of the round. Trust me going for one arg is always better than extending 6 different contentions.

4. Don't misconstrue evidence, it's really annoying for both me and your opponents. Please share evidence in a timely manner. (If it takes an abnormal amount of time to find something, it will be dropped from the round)

5. Weighing is important but make sure you do it well. Don't just shout mechanisms at me without explaining the warranting behind them

6. I'm not familiar with progressive args, so run them at your own risk. I never ran progressive args while competing and I have very little experience evaluating these arguments. If you still want to run progressive arguments you are welcome to, but don't blame me if you don't like how I evaluate them.

Other things

1. If you say something that I know isn't true I'm probably not going to buy it.

2. I am a PF debater at heart, I am not a fan of spreading. Don't speak faster than I'm able to flow.

3. If the debate is a wash I will presume Status Quo. (This rarely happens though)

4. Don't be a jerk. If you are sexist, racist, homophobic, transphobic, or xenophobic then I'll drop your team.

5. It's okay to match energy in round, just try to stay civil and respectful towards everyone.

6. My debater brain has deteriorated after I came to college, so I don't particularly care about the minor technicalities.

7. I know debate is stressful, but have fun. Make jokes and laugh, I promise you the world will not end because of the results of one round.

If you have any other questions ask me before the round begins.

TLDR: Focus on warranting, extensions, and weighing and you'll do great.

Good luck with y'alls rounds!

Email: hrishika.marakani@gmail.com

Harvard Judging Update: I am very familiar with the PF feb topic

I have competed in PF and help write the Debatetrack brief and run Public Forum Debate Academy on YouTube.

Add me to the email chain if there is one (I'll provide my email at the beginning of a round). I like speech docs and can handle up to ~200 wpm.

I enjoy debates where people incorporate some logic into the round. You can have as many arguments at the beginning of the round, just make sure there is time to explain each one in-depth (examples and a detailed impact are helpful). At the end of the round I’m likely to consider voting in one to three places, so you should condense your arguments as the round progresses (especially in summary speech for those in Public Forum). Additionally, having a narrative/story alongside your contentions is helpful and can aid in getting high speaker points.

While I don't need off-time roadmaps/order of your speech, I am happy to accept them (so long as they are brief). Regardless of that, please tell me where you are starting, whether that is stated in the roadmap or at the beginning of your speech.

Do not be aggressive in cross or speeches, I value respect, and continually interrupting the other side in the crossfire almost always is not good for your ballot. Smugness, head shaking, and smirking/laughing at your opponents will lose you speaker points.

For evidence, I like to have dates and author's last name in accordance with NSDA guidelines. Ideally, you should qualify your sources/authors and let me know what type of study or article the evidence is. After the first mention of the evidence, you can refer to the evidence as the author's last name.

In close rounds, I want to be persuaded and I may just listen to both Final Focus/LD Neg Rebuttal & Aff Rebuttal speeches, checking off things that are extended on my flow.

If you put in believable and effective weighing mechanisms, then I will almost certainly vote for you if there is no other clear-cut comparative analysis. If there are multiple weighing analyses from both sides, I vote for the most compelling (best explained, most realistic) weighing. You can also refute the weighing and I am thus less likely to vote off that weighing unless it is defended.

In particular, I find the truest arguments to be the best place to vote. Thus, discussion of probability is usually more important than the scope or magnitude of an issue. This is not to say scope is unimportant, I am willing to default to the believability of an argument before I consider how many people are impacted.

If there's no weighing, I generally vote for the argument that has been defended the most. In Public Forum, I am looking for arguments to be extended in Summary and Final Focus if they want to be considered

As for time, I will let each team finish up a sentence/concept but f a new response is made overtime, I will not consider it.

In crossfire, I appreciate two things. First, logical questions are appreciated. Second, evidence indicts are also good, although they can be a tad tougher to execute.

At the end of the day, while I do flow, I am more lay than most teams recognize. Great rounds for me include the NSDA National and State finals because they incorporate logic and analytics with solid evidence. I respect a mature, calm, and logical team.

Theory - I don't think I am qualified to vote for a full theory shell but if the opponents have bad evidence ethics I am open to theory. Paraphrasing theory is ok as well, just don't make the shell too technical

Kritiks - really not familiar to these.

I'll be looking for well-organized arguments that demonstrate the impact and significance of your points. I'll also be looking for direct responses to your opposing team's points. Good luck!

I am a parent judge and have been actively judging since 2019 in multiple national tournaments. I have completed the NSDA judge training and Cultural Competency course. As a global business professional, I travel extensively and am fairly familiar with most topics debated in NSDA PF.

Speak at a reasonable pace – clarity is your responsibility. If you make an argument, you should explain and weigh the argument. Warranting is important. Clearly signpost throughout the round. Extending an impact, without explaining its warrant won’t win you the impact. Paraphrasing is fine – but needs to be accurate. Explain clear voting issues in the final focus. I like to hear why you should win.

Cards: Exchange of cards is mandatory when requested. If you cannot produce a card in 2 minutes, I will ignore it.

Timing: Time yourself (rounds and prep)

Audience: This is public forum – public (especially parents) are welcome.

I am a public forum debater at Brooklyn tech. I will flow everything, including important points made during crossfires. Speak well, loud, and clearly for speaker points. I don’t mind spreading and because it’s your speech you can do whatever you want. Weighing impacts throughout the round, tangible evidence, and link chains are the biggest factors in a debate so clearly emphasize them. Ultimately whichever side has stronger evidence, impacts, and extended points will win. Note to not drop any points or else they won’t be counted on my flow.

I am a parent judge with my two girls enrolled in debates.

- No spreading, speak loud and clear at a reasonable pace. If you speak too quickly, I may not get all of your arguments down and understand what you are saying. Quality of arguments/evidence over quantity.

- Respectful to each other and present yourself well. Do not talk over your opponent. Discourtesy will result in deducted speaker points.

- Always have a framework or prove that your case supports the opponent's framework better.

- Use credible evidence and logic to back up your claims and attack an opponent's case. Explain why your impacts matter more than your opponent's. Your rationale should be clear so that your opponent can adequately address your points. Don't just attack, you need to defend.

- Signpost your arguments/rebuttals

- Your summaries should be to clean up anything vague or muddled, and final focus to make me vote for you. Everything in the final focus must also be in the summary speech. If something isn't in summary, don't bring it up in the final focus.

- Please track your time. You may finish a thought after time ends, but do not abuse this by adding multiple sentences or thoughts when I call for time should end.

- I value the time and energy you have invested in debate and will make sure to be a thoughtful, attentive judge. Just debate and have fun.

- For the virtual tournaments, my decision is not influenced with the issue of technical difficulties debaters might have during the round. However, please try to resolve technical issues during the tech check before the round. My decision-making and comments are related only to the content and quality of the presentation or speech itself.

NSDA’s Online Tournament Guide

Hello everyone! I am a university student studying Criminology at Simon Fraser University.

I am currently a PF coach, but my main focus of teaching is younger students in PRO-CON debate.

Tips on receiving higher points and winning the round:

1. I personally like off-time road map for easier flow.

2. Please have your camera on AND time yourself. It is important for you to get in the habit of timing yourself and being able to adjust to the timer.

3. I am HEAVY on frontlining (reconstruction) during second rebuttal AND summary. If I don't hear a frontlining in the second rebuttal, I will be disappointed.

4. I like clear weighing mechanism and USE the weighing mechanism terms in your speech. (ex. we outweigh on ____).

5. If your case is a sole contention, make sure to emphasize the subtopics AND impact and terminal impact.

6. Make sure your contention title is related to your argument and what you are talking about.

7. I highly favour quantifiable evidence over ANYTHING ELSE. So, use numbers!

Not Do's :

Any type of racism, sexism, discrimination, rude comments and negative behaviour will give you very low speaker points. So please be polite to one another :)

Do not talk over people OR cut people off during crossfire. I care a lot about mannerism and etiquette during the rounds. It is important to get your idea addressed, but please let others talk.

Lastly, Have Fun:)

Currently a PF debater at Brooklyn Technical

The most important thing to be aware of in my round (and any round) is that you will immediately be dropped from the tournament if you say anything sexist, racist, homophobic, etc. Please be aware of the way you speak to your opponents. For whatever reason, sometimes debaters think being condescending is a good strategy. It’s not. Your speaks will be dropped if you are guilty of that.

Speed - I’m totally ok with speed as long as it is comprehensible. If you fear that it’s not, please send a speech doc. I also encourage sending a speech doc anyway because it makes sure that debaters with internet issues are not disadvantaged.

Evidence & Speeches - I only flow what you say in your speeches. I will watch the crossfires but I will not take notes of any kind. As for evidence brought up in the round, I prefer empirics and the least amount of paraphrasing as possible. If your opponents do not call out an issue with your evidence, I will flow it through onto your side. Please provide analysis & warranting with any cards you use. Pointing out faults in arguments is useless without some kind of logical analysis. Do not assume that I will use “common sense” to make decisions for you in the round. Everything you want and don’t want to be flown through needs to be explicitly stated.

Please make sure all of your arguments have links. I will flow arguments with messy linkage through, but it will be much easier for your opponent to convince me to drop them. Additionally, anything brought up in FF that was not extended in summary will be dropped.

Tech over truth.

Theories/K’s - I actually enjoy hearing these when its beneficial to the debate space, and not a ploy to win. Feel free to run it.

Weighing/Impacts - This is what I am going to make my decision off of. The team that does it better wins the ballot. If neither team weighs nor impacts efficiently, I'm forced to decide based off of who I think has the stronger arguments. I really don't want it to come down to that, because it requires judge intervention.

I am open to sending my flow/ further reasoning for decision if you request it.

Currently a PF debater at Brooklyn Technical High School (2018-2022).

TL;DR: Just debate good.

Strike me:

- If you are _____-phobic or _____-ist. This is an automatic drop for me. I don't care how much you are winning on the flow, making the debate space safer comes before substance.

- If you don't cut cards properly. If I want to evaluate a card, I don't want to cut it for you mid-round.

- If you steal cases or prep from other teams without asking.

Speaker Points:

- I'll generally inflate speaks if it's an important tournament because I don't want my biases or preferences to decide your seed.

- Speak clearly, although you can safely get away with spreading if you send a speech doc.

- It's impressive when you can outsmart your opponents rather than speak better than them. If you can do something big brain, speaks go up.

- I don't care what you do in cross. If you can make me laugh, speaks go up.

- If we ever go back in person, bringing me snacks is an automatic 30.

Extensions and Weighing:

I will automatically assume that any points you don't extend after second rebuttal are dropped and I expect that you collapse on at least one argument during your summary. If you expect me to vote on random points that you gave throughout the round or a rebuttal to your opponents' contention, that will not be convincing enough for me. I'd rather have a fully fleshed-out argument or fully fleshed-out turn to your opponents' argument to vote on rather than fragments of reasons why your side is better.

Make sure you weigh effectively and convincingly as early as possible! If you were losing the whole round but win on weighing at the very end, you have the round right there.

Evidence:

What ever happened to debaters talking about the credibility of sources? You don't necessarily have to mention it in round, but be wary of what sources you use and call out your opponents' sources if they're faulty. If I end up calling for the card at the end of the round because you didn't explain it enough, trust me, I do not care if your uncle wrote a shady article in the New York Post about extinction being imminent, I will vote it down.

I would prefer the least amount of paraphrasing as possible to avoid falsifying the sources you use. Imagine that the author of the source is listening to the round; they should generally agree with you, not shake their head in disappointment. Never assume that I will use logic or make decisions by myself, you must tell me everything that you want, and don’t want, me to flow through.

Speech Formatting:

I expect the second rebuttal to include frontlines to arguments brought up in the first rebuttal. I'm down for whatever strategic method you may have in terms of organization, but summary (especially second summary) is the most important speech in the round so make sure that it effectively explains the position you are in and why it is the best position to be in. As most judges say, your final focus should be my RFD, try to make me think as little as possible by the end of the round. Stay away from bringing up new evidence/arguments in both summary and FF as your opponents will call it out and I won't flow it through.

I am all good with theory debate and progressive rounds as long as you can make them work in the CONTEXT OF PF DEBATE.

Hi. I debated policy for years at Brooklyn Tech, mostly running soft left policy affs & the cap K, and now I'm debating policy at NYU. I have experience judging policy, PF, and parliamentary debate.

I always want to be on the email chain. My email is jzs9739@nyu.edu

Policy- general thoughts

-I don't flow or evaluate cx.

-I want to see every card that is read. Be prepared to send evidence quickly and efficiently, please.

-I love analytic args, and I don't believe a card is necessary to make an argument, but PLEASE change tone, slow down, or verbally indicate important analytics.

-The 2nr/2ar should write my ballot very clearly. The top of the speech should include fw, framing, impact calc. Role of judge/role of ballot args are a prior question to anything else in the round in my opinion so be sure to win that debate throughout, and emphasise in the 2nr/2ar.

-Don't be mean or rude to other debaters. Don't be unecessarily aggressive. This is probably the only reason I will dock speaks. Be kind to everyone in the room. Debate is a lot. Let's make the experience nicer for eachother.

Policy - Aff

-I'm very likely to vote neg on presumption because most affs don't do anything. You have to win some sort of solvency, and I've noticed most aff teams just don't do enough convincing me their plan does anything.

-I don't believe that in-round activism spills out to the real world, so you'll have to do a lot to convince me if that's your solvency mechanism if you're running some sort of K aff.

-There needs to be a strong internal link chain for me to want to vote aff, so make sure that is present and extended throughout speeches.

Policy - Neg

-I like voting neg on presumption. Most aff teams can't prove their aff does anything, so take advantage of this and make the round easier for everyone.

-fairness itself isn't a convincing impact for me most of the time. However, fairness could be an internal link to education (which is my preferred impact for theory/t/fw args)

-don't drop case in the block or the 2nr. this makes it extremely hard for me to vote neg.

PF -

I don't care what you wear/how you look. Not really any specific notes; I'll vote on the team that did the better debating.

Hi, I'm Jeremy. I did policy debate in high school and now in college..

Some thoughts, not necessarily in any order:

--the 2nr/2ar should write my ballot. that requires judge instruction surrounding key framing questions and how those framing questions implicate my evaluation of the rest of the debate. the best rebuttal probably wins a framing arg at the top and then goes down the flow to apply it. Recently i've been persuaded by role of the judge arguments because they provide me with a epistemic/ethical position from which to adjudicate arguments on the flow. If you want me to do work for you in my decision, this is how, you just need to implicate it.

--If ur a 2n, probably don’t drop case. if you’re a 2a, punish the 2n for dropping case.

--hypothetical/universal models of debate probably don’t exist in so far as my ballot can not fiat them into existence, there is just the specific debate under adjudication and real existing debate practices within the concrete totality of the activity - whether that is true or not is ultimately up for y’all to prove/disprove - that means that in round abuse tends to be more persuasive than potential abuse because it means ur impact exists rather than being hypothetical

--The same logic folds true for other impact analysis. I tend to think that institutions/systems/entities, etc. have historical existence (for instance, "historical capitalism") which binds their coming-into-Being (past) to their Being (present). That is to say that violence isn't just an ethical choice in a vacuum, but something that accumulates through the reproduction of its existence over time and through space. that means that hypothetical impacts are probably less important than real-existing impacts since the future existence of hypothetical impacts is not certain and/or necessary. That being said, if you win your internal link chain is true, that the hypothetical impact outweighs, and that you solve it, i probably will vote for you absent some tricky framing argument you drop.

Topicality

• I like these debates. i don't judge a ton of them though, especially not on this topic.
• Fairness is probably the best impact if you're reading T, but you should have inroads/internal link turns on clash/edu because i'm willing to be persuaded that the inclusion of debatably (un)topical aff into the activity is good because it provides a unique type of education not accessed by existing affirmatives
• the current college topic has made me believe in subsets (do with that what you will)

Framework vs K affs

• hypothetical/universal models of debate probably don’t exist in so far as my ballot can not fiat them into existence, there is just the specific debate under adjudication and real existing debate practices within the concrete totality of the activity - whether that is true or not is ultimately up for y’all to prove/disprove - that means that in round abuse tends to be more persuasive than potential abuse because it means ur impact exists rather than being hypothetical
• I tend to think that FW is chosen ground vs many k affs unless its a new aff because many teams get by fine without reading fw
• Fairness is probably an impact, but its not necessarily the most important impact and is often just an internal link to other things (clash/education/etc.)
• The biggest issues that i have with 2nrs that go for fw is a) the lack of an external impact (people quit, debate dies - participation has decreased over the years, explain that impact flows ur way and how you solve it) and b) not explaining why debate is a valuable activity that should be preserved (this is where things like education, skills, and fun often become terminal impacts to the internal link of education) c) lack of defense (SSD or TVA) that absorbs the educational net benefits of the aff
• The biggest issue that i have with 2ars responding to fw is insufficient impact calculus - i will probably let you weigh ur aff's theory of power/understanding of the world vs fw, but you have to explain you impacts on the level of the activity and contextualize that as offense vs their reading of fw - does FW, particularly the invocation of procedural norms, insulate debate from a critique of its ideology? Are the content-neutral education/skills produced by their content agnostic model good?
• I don't really care whether you go for a C/I or an impact turn, but a mix of the two can be good i.e. a straight impact turn might leave you without defense, whereas a C/I means your vulnerable to the normative impacts of theory debates. I think that if you isolate a critique of the outcomes of their model, then provide an alternative model, you're probably in a good place.

K v K Debates

• Affs probably get a perm, theoretically (if the 1nr is 5 min of perm theory that would be pretty devastating) but whether the perm solves the links is up for debate.
• A good 2ar either goes for the perm with case, link turns, and alt DAs as Net benefits OR goes for case outweighs with a disad to the alternative
• A good 2nr has an impact which outweighs the aff with either an alt that resolves the aff impacts OR presumption
• you can probably win presumption with me in the back. I used to go for baudrillard a lot

DA/CP

I don't judge these debates very often and thus don't have any specific thoughts that aren't captured by stuff i said above. just win the flow.

Please do not use progressive arguments in PF rounds; speak at an average rate and be nice to each other.

Hey, I'm Aesha, a senior at Northview High School!

I'm pretty experienced debater in both Policy and Public Forum, as I've been debating for about 3 years in Policy and 4 years in Public Forum.

This is a generic outline of the bare minimum I'm looking for in a round; you can ask me to elaborate on topic-specific preferences before the round starts.

Evidence: Paraphrasing is perfectly fine, but make sure you have cut cards and evidence for each point that you state. If call for a card, you should be able to show it to me in a timely manner.

Warranting: Explain your arguments thoroughly and make sure I can clearly depict what your team is conveying. Give logic for all of your cards, and explain why they matter to your claim.

Weighing: I will most likely be judging the round based on how well both teams weigh the debate, tell me what should matter and why it should matter, and you must compare, simply weighing will not suffice.

Frontlining: Although, not doing this isn’t technically against the rules, I highly encourage it and will reward teams that do it effectively with better speaker points. I expect teams to cover everything you plan on extending.

Collapsing: Having multiple points is completely fine, but better warranting with fewer points will most likely increase your chances of winning the round.

Prep: Make sure that you time your own prep. I'm fine with the teams prepping during the other side's prep.

Speaks: I’ve done policy so I can handle some speed, but speak clearly and don't spread too much. If your speaking is way too fast, I will stop flowing, so I suggest that you speak slowly from the start. During cross, look at me, you are trying to convince me not the other team. And if you can do everything that I just said above, I will most likely give you higher than a 27. I tend to give most speakers above 28s, so just make sure that you articulate and emphasize, and it should be fine!

Specifics:

PF: Everything that you want me to consider from the summary when evaluating the winner, should be restated in the final focus. I won't flow it for your team unless I hear it in the final focus. Don't bring up any new evidence in the 2nd summary.

- Summary: Condensing down to a few key voting issues is important to me. If you haven’t weighed in rebuttal, then it should most definitely start here. Everything, including defense, must be in the summary if you want me to evaluate it.

- Final Focus: Clear and concise points as well as weighing should be the general structure of this speech. I will only flow points that have also been mentioned in the summary, and don’t forget to answer extended responses. Make sure to not just extend them, but explain them, answer the summary, and detail the implications.

- Crossfire: any argument established in crossfire must be brought up in the next speech for me to flow and evaluate it. Please don’t be rude or aggressive in the crossfire. That will definitely hurt your speaker points. I don’t mind if you sit during grand cross.

Policy: Everything that you want me to consider from the entire round, should be pointed out in the 2NR & 2AR, but don't spend much time on it, make sure that you leave time to weigh the round.

Ask any questions you have, after reading this, before the round starts. Good Luck!

debated pf in hs, policy in college (wake forest '27)

add to email chains - hannasapples@gmail.com

typical flow judge + will evaluate literally any argument

things i really like to see in pf

• overviews/fw that are weighed and extended through
• collapsing on turns is so cute + make sure you're impacting the turn
• line by line + signposting in the first half (if you number responses in rebuttal i'll be so happy)
• aggressive - not rude - cross
• my flow is messy pls tell me where to look/where to vote
• analytics in rebuttal not j prewritten blocks

notes

• whatever speed is fine
• tech>truth - i will vote for whatever offense if its extended
• kritiks are hard to run in pf bc pf was not designed for it - ill 100% evaluate it if you do it, but i will be shocked/appreciative if it is done well
• restating your impacts is not weighing
• if its late in the tournament i've probs judged the same round several times - keep it interesting

Charlotte Slovin (she/her/they/them)

If there’s an email chain I’d like to be on it (sasadebate@gmail.com). Absolutely no to PocketBox or whatever other document uploading site.

I did National Circuit Policy for 4 years at Oakwood. I am now a sophomore at Barnard College.

I’ll disclose after the round so please stick around for a verdict and comments.

Conflicts: Oakwood (CA)

Top-Level:

1. Debate is an educational activity but too many times made inaccessible or an unsafe space for students and participants. Please please PLEASE remember that your opponent is a person before they are a competitor. Don’t make this a space that breeds inconsiderate individuals. It is up to YOU to cultivate an activity where everyone can feel safe, have fun, and learn.

2. I generally have no preference for what you read (minus arguments that are offensive, racist, homophobic, etc.), as long as you understand what you’re reading and it clashes within the round.

3. It’s been a good minute since I’ve heard spreading so please be clear. Incoherence because of speed makes debate a useless activity.

4. More nuanced/contextualized debate on fewer positions >>>> your 12 blippy offcase and shadow extensions in the block.

5. LBL is important– doesn’t matter if you’re a traditional policy team or only run k and k affs. It’s incredibly frustrating if you go for a 4 minute overview and then blow through the line-by-line saying, “refer to the O/V”. The most interesting debate comes from clash and specificity of arguments within the context of the round.

Policy:

(a lot of this is stolen from Hannah Ji’s paradigm because we share most of the same brain)

Topicality: The way look at T debates is 1) does the aff meet the neg interp 2) If it doesn’t why should I vote for the neg’s interpretation. It’s not enough for a neg team to say, “aff doesn’t meet”. Tell me what debate looks like in the world of the Aff’s interp vs the world of the neg’s interp and why neg’s interp is better (actually articulate the impacts of the T violation/contextualize it to the world of the aff).

Theory: SLOW DOWN!! If you are giving rapid-fire theory args and not sending analytics, you better make sure that you are speaking with high clarity. Although a 5 minute 2ar on condo is really not my favorite debate, I’ll vote on it as long as you warrant out why the other team should lose because of the argument.

Policy Affs: Ran mostly soft-left policy affs throughout high school with a heavy emphasis on framework. In general, Aff teams should know their case inside and out. I LOVE case debate and think affirmative teams don’t use their case enough to their strategic advantage. Good case debate can be magical— it’s literally an entire 8 minutes of your speaking time so make it count.

Plan vs CP/DA strats: For affirmative teams, use your 1ac to gain strategic leverage against the negative. You should know your case better than anyone else to the point where the neg should be behind on specific solvency/link issues on the CP and DAs. For negative teams, I am sympathetic to teams that run generic politics/topic DAs. I was the only policy team at my high school and understand if your squad isn’t big enough to generate a bunch of new specific DAs for every plan on the topic. However, please try to form specific link and impact scenarios. Even if you don’t have a specific link card for every aff, you should be able to spin and create a persuasive story in the neg block.

On that note, please do impact calc. Like,,, PLEASE.

Plan vs K: This goes for teams on both sides– specificity and contextualization of your arguments will be most rewarded in the round. Affirmative teams need to substantively engage in the literature of the negative team and use their own case strategically to hedge back against the K. This should come in the form of both carded and analytical arguments.

Ks: Can be seriously rewarding and meaningful. That being said, don’t presume I know all the literature of your K and even if I do, I still put the onus on debaters to explain and contextualize the K. It can be incredibly frustrating to listen to high schoolers give shallow and butchered explanations of their lit, so please know what you are talking about (read your authors, please). Please do not throw around buzzwords and K tricks without explaining and warranting out arguments. I think its highly persuasive when neg teams not only flush out the theory of the K, but give empirical examples to prove the thesis of the K.

By the end of the round, as a judge, I should know a specific link story to the aff, not just to the squo. I am much less persuaded by generic USFG/state links and more persuaded by indicts to the aff itself. This goes the same for if you are going for the alt. While I don’t think an alt functions the same as a CP, I’m only going to vote on it if I have a clear understanding of how it works, and how it resolves the k’s links to the aff.

Don’t gloss over the fw debate. First, it sucks to lose to k tricks on fw but also will help you a lot on the alt debate for both neg and aff teams.

Nontraditional/Planless Affs: For the most part, I think these debates are incredibly educational if debated well. Although I never went for planless affs, I think well developed and strategically written affs are incredibly persuasive. That being said, I do think they generally should have some relation to the topic. I generally don’t think that the ballot should be viewed or used as a survival strategy for the team. The ballot should be about arguments, not people, and I think opening this up has more negative implications than people realize.

For T-USFG/FW: I went for this 9/10 in HS against planless affs. When going for it, please 1) engage with the aff and tailor your T blocks to the aff to garner offense on your model of debate. 2) Don’t go for too many impacts in the 2NR - just for one or two with strong internal links 3) Read a TVA 4) please get to the case debate and debate it substantively. Try to make your case arguments work cohesively with your T args.

For the aff team: warrant and flush out clear arguments rather than generic state bad, rez violent, etc. Your aff was probably written with specific strategic advantages in mind so use them! Also, provide a C/I and actually explain what your world of debate looks like in comparison to the neg.

LD:

Most of the Policy stuff applies but email if you have questions. The more Policy-like you make the round the more likely I am to follow. I have substantially less experience in LD but here are my preferences based on things I have witnessed:

- disclosure is good

- fairness is a voting issue

- contextualize!!!

- I will reward you for good and specific link chains

- tricks/spikes/blips/etc. hurt clash, and clash is good

PF:

I continue to be disappointed by the incredibly low standard of what is considered "evidence" in this activity. This is not to say that research is not being done (sometimes...hopefully), but that within a given round the "paraphrasing" of evidence that is accepted along with difficult access to the actual evidence is shameful. I am trying to come up with a system where debaters are held accountable for having their evidence accessible and while I know that this cannot be asked of every Public Forum debater I BEG of you to PLEASE have your evidence/PDFs on hand before the round starts. If it takes an egregious amount of time to find your ev I will run prep.

- Speed is fine but don’t do it just if you think it’s “cool” or you think you’ll get points with me. Incoherence because of speed makes debate a useless activity. Speak the way that is best for you and your strategy.

- The link chains in this form of debate are absolutely ridiculous in terms of how little evidence tends to back up arguments. If you articulate your scenarios and impact them out it will seriously benefit you.

- Please warrant and weigh your claims if you want me to evaluate them.

- Please signpost. It will help both of us.

- Theory is fine but I will take it very seriously. ONLY run it if there is serious and overt abuse but warrant it well if you want it to be a voting issue.

- When applicable please give an offtime roadmap/order

- Minus 0.1 speaks every time you pronounce nuclear as “nuke-you-lar” I am completely serious.

Put me on the email chain please - jettsmith7@gmail.com They/He pronouns

Info: I am the head Coach at Highland High School, located in Pocatello, Idaho. I have been coaching for 5 years, I competed for 5 as well. I did mostly Policy in HS but I dabbled in LD and PF as well. I debated in Idaho which had a very traditional circuit, which is sad because I find the progressive style more fun. I Have a bachelors in Communication, Media, and Rhetoric, and I double minored in Advocacy, and Gender and Sexuality studies. Either way I am a flow judge, speaking skills matter factor into my decision insofar as good speaking is necessary for getting your arguments clearly on the flow. I am pretty much cool with whatever, but I think accessibility is really important. If your opponents ask you not to spread or to slow down and you speed right past them, that might be enough to get you dropped. I will vote on anything except impact turns to structural violence (IE homophobia/racism/sexism, etc good)

LD Paradigm:

I default to judging off offense weighed on the value premise/value criterion debate. Essentially, I pick one value at the end of the debate based off of who proves theirs is the best/most important standard to judge the round off of, and then I see the criterion for that value as a scale. Only arguments that apply to that specific criterion factor into my decision. But I can be convinced to judge under a tabs paradigm. Kritiks and Theory are great but I am not "in the know" when it comes to the current Meta of LD so please walk me through it. Speed is also fine but accessibility matters a lot to me so please be cognizant of your opponents speed preferences.

PF Paradigm:

I prefer traditional PF because I want it to be accessible to debaters at all levels and from all backgrounds, but I have judged Nat Circuit PF a lot. Accessibility is important to me. If your opponents don't do K's, Theory, or Speed, I would ask that you don't either. I believe that second rebuttal needs to both defend and attack, and I do not weigh new arguments given by the second final focus. Weighing also needs to be answered in the speech following it. For offense if I can't draw a clean line from final focus back to the speech the argument started at I won't vote on it.

CX:

I love policy debate. I default to stock issues but will vote on anything except impact turns to structural violence. Make sure you layer the debate for me (what comes first). Collapsing onto your most important arguments in the last two rebuttals is essential, as is splitting the Neg Block. I love Topicality but need your shell to be complete with standards, voters, and a standard to judge it off of. I love Kritiks but they need to have a clear link, impact, alternative, and framework to judge off of. I love Disadvantages but they need to have clear uniqueness, link, internal link(s), and impacts. And I love Counterplans but they need to have a text, be competitive, and have a net benefit. I love On Case debate but it should be more than just generic impact defense. Analytical arguments are great as long as you can tell me why you don't need evidence for it.

Hi, I am a former policy debater: 4 years at Emory and 3 in HS. I have worked with Urban Debate Leagues in Atlanta, Chicago, and NYC. I have recently been teaching philosophy, so I am very familiar with ethics. Please discuss as much theory and critique as you want. Also, speed is not an issue if clear. I am also interested in science and religion (and the relationship between the two), but argue about what you are passionate about.

Please extend your points and rebuttals throughout the entire round. Don't ask me if you're allowed to do or mention certain things during the round. Time yourself. Any speed is fine. I'm not exploring or making assumptions based on where I think you are going, you guys have to explain everything to me.

I want to see a good debate.

Respect for everyone is very important.

No yelling, I will drastically lower your speaker points.

If you send me your cases or add me to an email chain, +1 speaker points.

Email - chulho.synn@sduhsd.net.

tl;dr - I vote for teams that know the topic, can indict/rehighlight key evidence, frame to their advantage, can weigh impacts in 4 dimensions (mag, scope, probability, sequence/timing or prereq impacts), and are organized and efficient in their arguments and use of prep and speech time. I am TRUTHFUL TECH.

Overview - 1) I judge all debate events; 2) I agree with the way debate has evolved: progressive debate and Ks, diversity and equity, technique; 3) On technique: a) Speed and speech docs > Slow no docs; b) Open CX; c) Spreading is not a voter; 4) OK with reading less than what's in speech doc, but send updated speech doc afterwards; 5) Clipping IS a voter; 6) Evidence is core for debate; 7) Dropped arguments are conceded but I will evaluate link and impact evidence when weighing; 8) Be nice to one another; 9) I time speeches and CX, and I keep prep time; 10) I disclose, give my RFD after round.

Lincoln-Douglas - 1) I flow; 2) Condo is OK, will not drop debater for running conditional arguments; 3) Disads to CPs are sticky; 4) PICs are OK; 5) T is a voter, a priori jurisdictional issue, best definition and impact of definition on AFF/NEG ground wins; 6) Progressive debate OK; 7) ALT must solve to win K; 8) Plan/CP text matters; 9) CPs must be non-topical, compete/provide NB, and solve the AFF or avoid disads to AFF; 10) Speech doc must match speech.

Policy - 1) I flow; 2) Condo is OK, will not drop team for running conditional arguments; 3) Disads to CPs are sticky; 4) T is a voter, a priori jurisdictional issue, best definition wins; 5) Progressive debate OK; 6) ALT must solve to win K; 7) Plan/CP text matters; 8) CPs must be non-topical, compete/provide NB, and solve the AFF or avoid disads to AFF; 9) Speech doc must match speech; 10) Questions by prepping team during prep OK; 11) I've debated in and judged 1000s of Policy rounds.

Public Forum - 1) I flow; 2) T is not a voter, non-topical warrants/impacts are dropped from impact calculus; 3) Minimize paraphrasing of evidence; I prefer quotes from articles to paraphrased conclusions that overstate an author's claims and downplay the author's own caveats; 4) If paraphrased evidence is challenged, link to article and cut card must be provided to the debater challenging the evidence AND me; 5) Paraphrasing that is counter to the article author's overall conclusions is a voter; at a minimum, the argument and evidence will not be included in weighing; 6) Paraphrasing that is intentionally deceptive or entirely fabricated is a voter; the offending team will lose my ballot, receive 0 speaker points, and will be referred to the tournament director for further sanctions; 7) When asking for evidence during the round, refer to the card by author/date and tagline; do not say "could I see your solvency evidence, the impact card, and the warrant card?"; the latter takes too much time and demonstrates that the team asking for the evidence can't/won't flow; 8) Exception: Crossfire 1 when you can challenge evidence or ask naive questions about evidence, e.g., "Your Moses or Moises 18 card...what's the link?"; 9) Weigh in place (challenge warrants and impact where they appear on the flow); 10) Weigh warrants (number of internal links, probability, timeframe) and impacts (magnitude, min/max limits, scope); 11) 2nd Rebuttal should frontline to maximize the advantage of speaking second; 2nd Rebuttal is not required to frontline; if 2nd Rebuttal does not frontline 2nd Summary must cover ALL of 1st Rebuttal on case, 2nd Final Focus can only use 2nd Summary case answers in their FF speech; 12) Weigh w/o using the word "weigh"; use words that reference the method of comparison, e.g., "our impact happens first", "100% probability because impacts happening now", "More people die every year from extreme climate than a theater nuclear detonation"; 13) No plan or fiat in PF, empirics prove/disprove resolution, e.g., if NATO has been substantially increasing its defense commitments to the Baltic states since 2014 and the Russian annexation of Crimea, then the question of why Russia hasn't attacked since 2014 suggest NATO buildup in the Baltics HAS deterred Russia from attacking; 14) No new link or impact arguments in 2nd Summary, answers to 1st Rebuttal in 2nd Summary OK if 2nd Rebuttal does not frontline.

Please put me on the email chain 4ristotle.x@gmail.com.

Background - I did Policy, LD, and PF, and now coach LD and PF.

PF: I have 5 minutes before round and I need a TLDR - I'm happy to vote for a team that does good work on the line-by-line and uses creative round vision. Debaters reading fun arguments and having fun is my favorite part of this event. Grand crossfire is my least favorite part of this event and I greatly appreciate it when teams use grand cross differently/creatively (i.e. students who use grand to ask how everyone's day is; students who use grand to discuss and propose moves towards equity in the event). I believe Ks need alts in PF.

LD: I have 5 minutes before round and I need a TLDR - Ask me how I feel about (x) body of literature and I will let you know if I need you to err on the side of over-explanation. I would love to see more creative sequencing in this event.

Preferences -

1- performance, non-topical affs, K

2- LARP

3- theory

4-phil

5-tricks

General - I judge infrequently now. I judge each round with the default assumption that the role of the judge is to be a (temporary) ethical educator and that the ballot endorses your form and content. If I am nodding/shaking my head/raising my eyebrows/other weird facial expressions, please ignore me. Those are just my thinking expressions, and not a reflection on how I feel about the debate. I love performances, creative args, clash of civs, anything that experiments with the space and the activity.

Speaks- My speaks average a 29.4. They start/remain high most of the time, especially during bubble rounds. I will not vote on 30 speaks theory as a shell -- just tell me why you want 30 speaks for you and/or your opponent(s) and I will evaluate that instead if it is important for you. If there's something really egregious pointed out to me in the round, speaks will reflect that.

Speed - Number your responses. Please. More things on doc (even if it is just '12 responses' and the rest is on your flow) is good for me to follow along. If your opponent asks you to not spread, please don't be that person who does so anyways. Just cut down the case. Cut an off if you can. I am totally down to vote on speed bad in these rounds.

Here's how I evaluate the round:

1- I look at my flow for arguments that are warranted as coming before any explicit framing in the round or arguments that tell me to intervene. Especially for arguments labeled as independent voter issues, there needs to be a warrant why I don't evaluate any of the framing prior. If I'm told to throw out the flow for a compelling reason, I will do so and close my laptop/fold up my flow.

2- I evaluate the framing. I then vote however the winning framing mechanism tells me to.

3- I look for the path of least resistance to the impact I am told is most important. An argument has a warrant. I look at the remaining offense in the round and then evaluate the comparative under the framing.

Let me know if you need me to speak to tab or an ombudsperson after the round with you.

Defaults - Competing interpretations, no reverse voting issues, and drop the argument. I don't err one way or another on if debate is good/bad but I think it's an important discussion to have. I will not vote on any argument that frames a structure of violence as good (i.e. racism good). I presume the negative when there is no offense/when all offense is violent (i.e. racism good vs. sexism good).

Online Debate - In case of any wifi drops/disconnects, please have a local recording of your own speeches. If there's a disconnect and you have a local recording of your speech prepared, I will bump your speaks by 0.5. If you need to turn off your camera to debate, that’s fine. The Association of Black Argumentation Professionals (ABAP) has a "Digital Debate Bill of Rights" (you can find it online by googling "ABAP Digital Debate Bill of Rights") that informs my philosophy on safety and inclusion in online debate.

Community Clause - For 30 speaks, go above and beyond in-round to advocate for material action or to create affirming spaces for yourself/your community. Some past examples include but aren't limited to -- proposing and testing community projects through debate, mutual aid, passing out educational zines, listing action items to support local circuits (volunteer judging, helping tab or teach, pledging mutual aid).

Note on Post-rounding - I'm happy to answer your questions. Please be respectful of my time. Ask me for lit recs! (Critical literature, poetry, prose...)

Last thoughts- For every student I judge, but especially students of color, queer/trans students, misogyny-affected students, students with disabilities, and first generation/low-income students: I know firsthand that debate can sometimes be hard, cruel, and exhausting, and I hope you all find/have some sense of community and joy here. I hope you all have wonderful support systems of educators, trusted adults, and peers. We are all here to learn, in one way or another, and I find myself leaving every round having learned something new. Thank you for trusting me to be in the back of the room for your round. Y'all are going to change the world -- be proud of yourself. From Audre Lorde's The Master's Tools Will Never Dismantle The Master's House: "Without community, there is no liberation."

-

Lengthier version here: Ask me for questions/preferences/opinions. I am comfortable evaluating most things. Otherwise, please just do a good job on the line-by-line.

Note on scholarship: I am a good judge for you if you are new to the K and you are doing your best to engage, and a good judge for you if this is your millionth time reading your favorite K author. I have the same expectations for your engagement with the scholarship in both cases; this is to say, I hope you provide a rigorous and original synthesis of the author(s) that you read with the topic that you choose to think through/with/against/beyond. What does this look like: you are identifying specific parts of the topic that you are critiquing, articulating how the impact interacts with the affirmative, and explaining why I need to frame the round in a certain way.

K aff: Do what pleases you (or do nothing if that is the aff). I appreciate when kritikal affirmatives include a ballot story. Later in the round -- leverage the 1AC! Effective sequencing is how I find myself voting for the aff, and I appreciate well-warranted sequencing that tells me how an opponents' strategic decisions (i.e. their collapse) can reflect or influence the sequence of evaluating arguments in each debate. The theorization in the affirmative should be used to indict the theory/topicality page -- how you debate is intertwined/produced from what you debate, and vice versa.

Against the K aff: I am excited to see new strategies that rely on scholarship/strategies that you love. I think this sets up the round for great debates around competing methods. I am not excited to see multiple blips as offs and a 2NR strategy that relies on going for the most undercovered off. I appreciate it when teams identify framing deficits and propose creative CROTBS. I appreciate it even more when the framing debate is specific, prioritized, and applied to the space that we take up in this round.

T-FW: I think T-FW needs to have a TVA with some form of solvency advocate (doesn't need to be carded, I'm happy to evaluate warrants, please just tell me why the TVA solves). I live for creative TVAs. The TVA to "dismantle anti-queerness in the workplace" compels me less than the TVA to crash the courts because the former engages with the aff in a much shallower manner than the latter. I would like to see more forms of TFW that experiment with what it means to be topical, or why topicality is necessary to access liberatory impacts. I would like to see less forms of TFW that go for fairness as a voter, "ballot subjectivity impossible," and "debate is a game." These arguments tend to be overhashed and non-interactive. I default to fairness as an internal link to education but have been compelled to vote otherwise. Tell me why TFW forecloses aff outs (i.e. epistemic suspicion).

Performance: See K aff section. I am on board with almost whatever you choose to perform. I am super compelled by arguments that identify performative offense on any page (i.e. their collapse, reading evidence/not reading evidence, actions in cross). Don't be afraid to sit on things and just sequence it out! The flow is never my end-all-be-all in these rounds. The performative contradiction needs to be sequenced. I'm less compelled by reasons why the perfcon decks fairness than I am by reasons why the perfcon reinforces a system of domination or damages the team's pedagogical/liberatory value. If you are going to include me in the performance that is fine, please just be clear what your expectations for my participation are before the speech (i.e. the judge should play Mahjong during the 1AC). My one exception to this is that I will not physically touch a debater I am judging. Please extend the performance beyond the constructive. It is good offense and you should be able to synthesize your theorizing and your performance to articulate how it affects you, me, us. Be safe when you perform (i.e. please do not injure yourself and/or others) -- if you are reading an argument and you are worried anyone other than you/your partner will read the ballot, PLEASE LET ME KNOW and I will alter my language on my ballot to give you educational feedback while respecting your privacy and give you a longer verbal rfd.

K: Link evidence needs to be specific in both tags and analysis. Please pull quotes!! If you are reading a K with pulled links from another round, I can tell and it will make me sad. I think it is incredible and reflects how rigorous your work is as a debater when you historicize the K or provide compelling reasons as to why we shouldn't/cannot. I think it is even more incredible when you can point to your experiences in debate or in this round and say, "Here is how the theory of the K has influenced the way we act and talk and judge in this round." I am happy when the K builds links from the form of the affirmative debater and justifies why performances in collapsing, cross, docs/cites, etc. are all links to the K. I am sad when the K overview is only an extension of your theorization and not a reactive implication of how the K out-sequences or interacts with the rest of the round. Against the K, perms I am not compelled by are often a little too blippy and don't ID a net benefit or contextualize themselves through the aff. I would love fewer well-contextualized perms instead of plenty of underdeveloped perms.

A note on the K in PF: I know times are shorter. I will not fault you for not completely hashing out a theory of power so long as the extension/overview contextualizes the K to the round. Please stop reading a K and also your case. Just use the full time to sit on the K. Trust me. I will be happier with four minutes of a kritik as opposed to two minutes of the K and two minutes of why U.S. diplomacy is key to resolve oil prices.

LARP: I like creative case turns. I like impact scenarios with rigorous internal links. I like when debaters can defend or draw on increasingly-recent events and historical trends to explain situations as more than isolated events.

DA: See LARP.

CP: There comes a point where there are diminishing returns on the number of conditional advocacies you choose to read. Please include full text in your doc/please don't extemp your text. I am also not super convinced by "risk of net benefit" as a reason to instantly write a negative ballot. I am super convinced when the affirmative is able to takeout or weigh against the net benefit, because this makes it easier for me to understand how offense at the end of the round interacts with each other under different metrics. I don't think process CPs, internationally-fiated CPs, or PICs are terrible. I think creative CPs (i.e. consult tumblr) are incredible.

Phil: I'm fine for most foundational authors and some of their secondary literature. This is definitely the section where you should ask if I am familiar with (x) author. If I am not, please slow down and over-explain the evidence. I recognize the overlap between phil and critical scholarship (i.e. Spinoza and Deleuze), and I'm able to follow along best when you explain things in K terms to me (sorry). Generic arguments about non/ideal theory good/bad are not super compelling to me in the backhalf -- instead, they are excellent foundations for you to enter a critical conversation about scholarship, and it helps me to evaluate phil debates better when you're able to use them as the foundation for contextualized criticisms of the aff/neg.

Theory: I am happy when I judge a shell with standards that are comparative and isolate unique benefits of your interpretation. I get more persnickety about theory the later it's introduced and I absolutely need to hear an interpretation, violation, and standards extended to vote on it. The blippier it is the less compelled I am to consider it. See notes on defaults at the top.

Tricks: I understand if this form of debate brings you joy. It usually does not for me and I am probably not the best judge for this. If you are reading this ten minutes before your round and have nothing prepared except for skep/paradoxes, please know I am more compelled by you reading/writing a poem in these ten minutes as a path to the ballot than I am by tricks. Please. Give me poetry instead of tricks.

Things debaters do to make me vote for them:

-Taking the time to compare between different warrants, or compare methodologies, or compare evidence.

-Adding me to the email chain or flashing me your speeches (Please don't do the latter unless absolutely necessary--I would prefer to social distance).

-Being kind to yourself and to others.

Things debaters do that will result in the proverbial hot L (and will likely result in a conversation with tournament administrators and/or your school):

-Any form of impact turn on racism/sexism/fascism/a turn that frames a structure of violence as good. Seriously? Debate has no space for these types of arguments. I am hard-pressed to find pedagogical value in them, and even as some form of satire/accelerationism/whatever justification you come up with, I find it difficult to justify the harm that's being done in round if I endorse violent content. I did not think I would have to include this on my paradigm, but I am sad that arguments like these are still run. I would like to believe that debaters are brilliant, kind, and caring towards each other in the community. I will drop you immediately and assign the lowest speaks possible.

-Misgendering. Language like "they," "the aff/neg," "the rebuttal," is good and should be your default. Disengaged arguments about "non-verifiability," "mutual harm," "lying for the ballot," or "new in the 2AR/NR" will not convince me and will make me unhappy. I understand that mistakes happen. However -- if you are misgendering another debater repeatedly and that debater introduces it as a reason to drop you in the round, I will vote on it and give you the lowest speaks possible. If you have 5 minutes to prepare for your next round, you have 5 minutes to practice your opponent's pronouns and avoid using gendered language that misgenders them. If your opponent has not disclosed pronouns, please use gender-neutral language. One way to practice: "They dropped the argument." "This is their flow paper." "The charger belongs to them." Using students' correct pronouns is important for them to feel safe and engage with the debate round at a level that is educational for both you and your opponent. If you wish, you can include your pronouns on Tabroom to be sent in blasts in your profile (the icon of a person) here.

-Direct outing. Financial status, disability, queerness/transness, gender, trauma -- if you force your opponent to disclose that they have a disability to avoid a theory shell, I will be unhappy. I like it even less when y'all spend half an hour before round digging up your opponent's personal information, school, neighborhood, etc. It's unsafe, violating, and makes a lot of assumptions. If your opponent argues that this should be a reason to drop you, I will be inclined to drop you and give you the lowest speaks possible. I evaluate direct outing differently from arguments that a certain model/method outs people and renders them vulnerable to structures of harm. What does this look like? "Are you queer?" "Can you afford a coach?" "Do you have a disability?" I understand debaters have good intentions and want to make rounds accessible sometimes. I also understand finding spaces of affinity is difficult. But I ask that y'all not do it under the competitive tensions of an adjudicated round. One way that has been helpful for me (and perhaps you have other suggestions) has been to ask, "What are some things I can do to make the round accessible for the both of us? For me, it would help to have 14pt or larger font for our tags."

-Theory arguments that criticize your opponents' presentation -- shoes theory, hat theory, formal/informal clothes theory are the fastest ways for me to cast a (losing) ballot before first cross. I will not evaluate these arguments under any circumstances -- not even as time-fillers or as the only offense in the round. If you have a genuine concern about something your opponent is wearing, notify the tournament administrators or a coach. I will not use my ballot to tell a student how to dress.

Debate experience:

I am a "parent judge" but a former debater. I debated policy in high school and another 4 years as a debater for USC (NDT). Was away from debate for about 15 years, but the over last 5 years, I've been frequently judging PF and LD rounds (with several TOC-bid tournaments the last couple of years for LD).

Feel free to add me to the email chain for evidence: ptapia217@gmail.com

Me Likey / Me No Likey:

LARP - 1

K's - 2

Phil / Theory - 3

Tricks - not unless it's Halloween

Speed:

I can handle a reasonable amount of speed. College debate is pretty fast. However, I dislike super blippy rebuttals full of analytics read from a doc. While I will probably flow most if not all of it, I'd prefer you to slow down a bit to articulate warrants of arguments you feel will be critical for you to win.

Kritiks:

I am reasonably familiar with most generics (setcol, cap, afropess) and a few postmodernist positions, but it might be safe to assume that I may not be as familiar with the literature base as you might be.

K Affs:

I have tended to vote close to 50/50 for and against K affs, so I tend to be fairly open-minded about these positions, but I am more persuaded when you can articulate a clear and compelling reason as to why you need my ballot. However, I also enjoy a good framework debate that's clearly contextualized for the aff (and the round) rather than something mechanically just read from premade blocks.

Speaker Points:

I tend to be reasonably generous and won't give anything below a 28.5 in a bid tournament. If I think you're strong enough to break, I won't give you less than a 29.5. I won't disclose speaker points, however.

I am a public forum debater at Brooklyn Tech with a parli background. I pay attention to how well you weigh impacts, how well you refuted the other side (no dropped arguments) and obviously who was most convincing in content. Please be respectful.

I am Amit and Working as a Product Manager in the Washington DC area. . I am a parent judge.

Please do not spread. Speak clearly. Please try to focus on the contents.

Be respectful to your opponents. Points will be taken out if you show disrespect to your opponent.

Have fun and good luck!

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

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

I'm a Public Forum debater at Lakeland High School in Yorktown Heights, NY.

If you still have any questions after reading this, please feel free to ask.

Email if you need an email chain or questions after the round: izabella.wid@gmail.com

And if you don't have time to read this - TLDR; I flow, explain arguments, have evidence, keep time, and have fun!

Flowing

I will be flowing everything except crossfire. Use crossfire as a way to clear confusion or build upon what will be in an actual speech. Emphasize what you really want to have flowed.

Signposting, and telling me what you are addressing, does help.

Speed

In terms of speed, I do not care anymore. Keep in mind, it becomes difficult to understand what you're saying for not only me but for your opponents. I will struggle flowing it. Make sure to emphasize and enunciate appropriately.

Types of Arguments

I generally prefer well-warranted impacts.

As long as you explain well I can handle obscure arguments, but nothing major. I am not all-knowing, sometimes things do not make sense.

Dates

I prefer you read the year for your cards.

Evidence

Evidence is not everything but I find it important.

If you misinterpret evidence, read from authors or sources that are clearly unreliable, or make an argument that isn’t backed up by evidence at all, that lowers the traction of the argument, especially if the other team calls you out on it.

Please explain your arguments in a sensible way that I can vote on.

Summary and Final Focus

You don't have to extend your defense from the rebuttal into your Summary but if your opponent has made massive turns, you should put up some defense. In Final Focus, please weigh. You should be the ones telling me throughout and prominently in final, my reason for decision.

No new arguments in Final Focus.

Decorum

Funny jokes and witty puns are welcomed, but be chill about it. Getting heated is fine but keep things civil, intelligent, and respectful.

If you say "judge" I will look at you with anticipation for something you want on the flow above all.

Prep

I can keep your prep time or speech time if necessary but I would prefer you do that yourselves.

Further, if you go overtime I am fine with finishing a sentence or two but I won't flow evidence over time.

Miscellaneous

I couldn't care less about what you do before the round. You could throw a chair out the window and I won't take off speaks (but I will testify against you in court).

How you debate means more to me than what you wear.

It is your debate, not mine. Do you. Just stay organized and tell me where and why to vote.

Feel free to ask me anything about your individual performance, or for any debate-related advice. At the end of the round, I would not mind if you showed me your own perspective of the round, I would want to help you guys improve as debaters but I also want to improve as your judge. If you think I did something unfair feel free to let me know.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Finally, have fun. You guys are doing something that takes a lot of effort and willpower, so just enjoy yourselves and hopefully, you'll remember these times fondly.

Wylie High School '17

University of Houston '21

Please put me on the email chain: jacobw9997@gmail.com

Policy Debate Thoughts:

I'll listen to anything you want to read but be sure to explain denser critical literature bases or more complex policy scenarios. I default to competing interps and am a really big fan of well researched and prepared positions, whether that's critical or policy.

On some more minutia:

I'll vote for the politics disad as I lean tech over truth but I generally believe the politics DA as its often constructed isn't true and can be defeated by some good analytics or evidence comparison in the 2AC in many cases.

I will vote on presumption I think lots of 1ACs are bad and more time should be spent on case in the block. I really love a good case debate. Having good cards against their aff is good but so is reading their evidence and making good analytical arguments.

I think generally on framework debates that the aff's should have some relation to the topic or a good defense of why that is bad. I think clash is very good and the more the better.

Generic arguments like topic disads and kritiks made specific to the aff through evidence rehighlightings and comparison will be rewarded.

Don't just read your arguments at each other and let me figure it out at the end because it may not come out the way you want. Tell me how your arguments interact and apply to one another. Close doors and tell me why to sign my ballot for you.

If you have any other questions feel free to email me or ask before the round.

Public Forum Thoughts:

I competed for a year in public forum in high school but have done policy ever since. I am comfortable with speed but I've noticed in PF especially the shorter speech times means debaters can get kind of blippy when responding to arguments. Clearly marking new arguments or slowing down slightly when you have multiple warrants or arguments you want me to flow in a row would be helpful and will be rewarded.

Having lots of impacts at the beginning of the debate can be a good thing but I find I'm voting for teams at the end of the debate with one or two impacts that are clearly articulated with strong internal link stories and explanations of how they turn the other sides impacts. Most of the debates I've judged have come down to one or two impacts both teams claim to solve and so warranted internal link analysis will be heavily rewarded.

If you have any other questions feel free to email me or ask before the round.

Hey everyone!

I’m a parent judge and don’t have a lot of experience judging.

For the november/december topic, I would say that I have enough knowledge on the topic to understand most arguments.

Please do not run any squirrely arguments.

I am more of a truth>tech judge rather than a tech>truth judge.

I vote off of what makes the most sense to me. If you want to win my ballot, then you need to explain your argument thoroughly. I would rather you spend all of your speeches explaining your argument rather than spend the whole time talking about your opponents case.

Weighing is important but Case is the most important thing in the round.

Please do not speak fast, a 600 - 700 word case would be preferable.

I do speaks off of how well I can understand you.

Good afternoon students! I am looking for good premises that can strongly support your conclusions. Logical fallacies such as bias fallacy will weaken your argument so please try to minimize logical fallacies as much as possible. Throughout your argument, please make sure the premises are true and that they are strongly needed for your conclusions to stand. Also please make sure to work collaboratively with your teammates as teamwork is essential in any debate. Thank you and have fun! I look forward to judging your arguments and I know all of you will do very well!

I'm the parent of a debater, treat me as a traditional judge. Speak well and be consistent between your speeches. I expect everything to be brought up in the final focus be in the summary. I always prefer a debate with less arguments but more analysis than a debate with more arguments but less analysis. I prefer a fact supported by quantifiable measurement and good reasoning. I value logical arguments that happen in the real world as I am interested in the implication of these topics in the real world. Don't run progressive arguments such as theory, Ks, or tricks as i don't know how to evaluate them. Have fun and be respectful of each other at all times.

I look at argumentation and clashes. To be more specific, I look at how arguments are carried throughout the debate and how well debaters are able to defend their arguments in clashes.

Firstly and most importantly, it'll be difficult for me to follow your argument if you speak too fast. Speak slowly.

I prefer weighing in summary and final focus.

Crossfire matters, I flow cross, although it's not as important as the other speeches to me.

I'm not too strict on time, I'll usually give a grace period of a few seconds after you go over time in your speeches, but please try to keep track of your own time.

Extend your arguments, I also expect both teams to frontline their arguments.

I expect you all to keep track of your own prep time.

Another small thing, I don't really care what year both team's cards are from, although it would be great if both teams cross-examined each other's evidence.

I'm a lay judge but I've been judging debates for a while now. I promise I'll be unbiased and work hard as a debate judge.

Thanks.

I'm a parent judge with about 2 years of judging experiences, mostly in PF and some in LD.

Never done Policy before so please don't spread. If I can not catch what your arguments are, I can't vote for them.

If may be helpful if you want to share your case doc with me: zhusufeng@hotmail.com.

Be confident, respectful and have fun.