Forensics is a speaking competition in which the art of rhetoric is utilized - speaking effectively to persuade or influence [the judge].

I take Socrates's remarks in Plato's Apology as the basis of my judging: "...when I do not know, neither do I think I know...I am likely to be wiser than he to this small extent, that I do not think I know when I do not know" (Ap. 21d-e).

My paradigm of any round is derived from: CLARITY!!!

All things said in the round need to be clear! Whatever it is you want me to comprehend, vote on, and so forth, needs to be clearly articulated, while one is speaking. This stipulation should not be interpreted as: I am ignorant about debate - I am simply placing the burden on the debater to debate; it is his or her responsibility to explain all the arguments presented. Furthermore, any argument has the same criteria; therefore, clash, at the substantive level, is a must!

First and foremost, I follow each debate league's constitution, per the tournament.

Secondly, general information, for all debate forms, is as follows:

1) Speed: As long as I can understand you well enough to flow the round, since I vote per the flow!, then you can speak as slow or fast as you deem necessary. I do not yell clear, for we are not in practice round, and that's judge interference. Also, unless there is "clear abuse," I do not call for cards, for then I am debating. One does not have to spread - especially in PF.

2) Case: I am a tab judge; I will vote the way in which you explain to me to do so; thus I do not have a preference, or any predispositions, to the arguments you run. It should be noted that in a PF round, non-traditional/abstract arguments should be expressed in terms of why they are being used, and how it relates to the round.

Set a metric in the round, then tell me why you/y'all have won your metric, while your opponent(s) has lost their metric and/or you/y'all have absorbed their metric.

The job of any debater is to persuade the judge, by way of logical reasoning, to vote in his or her favor, while maintaining one's position, and discrediting his or her opponent's position. So long as the round is such, I say good luck to all!

Ask any other clarification questions before the round!

I am a flow judge. If I don't understand you, I won't put it into my flow. That said, there is a difference between speaking fast and spreading. You can speak fast but if it is incomprehensible (spreading), I will miss the argument and it didn't make it onto my flow. Also, do not expect me to understand the topic; it is up to the debaters to allow me to understand the round. Please clearly state your impacts in your final speeches.

In LD, there are 4 minutes of prep and I generally don't allow for flex prep. There's cross-x time for a reason. You can ask for evidence during prep but not clarification (again, that's what cross x is for).

I weigh on framework and impact analysis. I look for arguments that are both logically sound and that have proper evidence to support it. I would probably describe myself as leaning traditional but I am comfortable with progressive arguments.

I have judged Congress, Public Forum, Lincoln Douglas, and Parli, but I am most familiar with LD.

I would also request that there should be a non-aggressive and friendly cross-examination and class. Be respectful to each other. Keep track of your own time and your opponent's.

Updated for Berkeley 2015

Background:

Claremont High School 2006
Art Center College of Design (BFA in Fine Arts) 2011

I was a debater / speech student at Claremont High School for 4 years from 2002-2006.

I've been out of the debate community for a while now, so I'm not up to speed on your topic specific acronyms.

I enjoy both traditional policy and kritik/performance debate. My training in Fine Art / Art History involved a lot more study of postmodern/modernist philosophy than it did in classical philosophy, so i'm more familiar with postmodern K lit than I am with most other types. I still have a pretty strong foundation in enlightenment / modern philosophers.

I'm open to any type of argument / strategy, just try to stay away from arguments like 'racism good' (most '___-ism good' arguments of this type aren't a good idea in front of me)

Because I've been away from debate for a few years now, please speak slightly slower than you would in front of your judges that are at every tournament during the year. Especially if you get me during round 1 or 2, as my ear has to re-acclimate to spreading. 

Any other questions, feel free to ask me pre-round.

Top level

Debate is a game, and I'll evaluate as much on the flow as I possibly can. With that having been said, I'm not going to evaluate bigoted arguments. As well as that, if you're very rude to your opponent, I will tank speaks and I'll likely be looking for any reason to vote for your opponent on the flow. I really don't do well with evaluating LARP v LARP, so for my most accurate ballot consider running philosophy against LARP or a K or something of the sort, however I will certainly do my best to evaluate it. As a former judge of mine once pointed out, the debate is owned by the competitors and as the judge it is my responsibility to facilitate that debate that the competitors want to have as best as I can.

PLEASE CLARIFY BEFORE ROUND AND PLEASE SEND THE DOC I DON'T WANT TO MISS SOMETHING AND IT MAKES MY FLOW MORE CLEAR

Contact info

senddebatedocs@gmail.com -- email, send a message if you have a question before round, good if you also want to do file share over email.

Note that I prefer file share to be over speechdrop.net, especially in outrounds with many judges. It's just quicker.

Preferences

(1 is best, 5 is worst)

Meme case v meme case - 1 (this would be great)

LARP v K - 1

LARP v Phil - 2

Phil v K - 2

K v K - 2

Phil v Phil - 3

LARP v LARP - 5

Aff K v Trix - you're literally the worst just don't, ESPECIALLY not against idpol

Trix v Neg K - (2 - strike) (depends on the 1ar strategy)

Trix v Trix - 10 (I'd be terrible at evaluating this)

Theory / Topicality

Really hasn't been my style for the most part unless I saw real abuse, however I do like frivolous theory. Must wear santa hat, must bring a sled, must live in Texas, etc. can give me a chuckle and the debate over the shell, IF DONE WITH PROPER OFFENSE, is very interesting to me.

Topicality on aff Ks is gross for the most part. Stop whining and actually critique their position or run policy, a K v K debate has a much larger potential for critical education and real pedagogical value than your shell. With that having been said, I'll still evaluate topicality because the flow comes first, but please just run a K or larp.

Topicality on policy is interesting to me, I like to hear the different interpretations on the meaning of the resolution. That having been said, Nebel is gross.

I default to K comes before T, competing interps, no RVI, and drop the debater.

Note that I am very compelled by theory on misgendering and other practices that exclude marginalized groups from the debate space. I do not believe that apologies check -- without any punishment for these practices, debaters would have no reason to change. However, provided that one of these practices is not ACTIVELY bigoted (EG misgendering on purpose, impact turns on homophobia / sexism / antiblackness, etc) I will not intervene, and I will evaluate everything based on the flow, I just want to be clear on where I stand (c'mon, it's not that hard to at least use they/them pronouns to refer to people in the round...)

LARP

This is likely my weakest position as a judge, when both debaters perform very well it becomes very hard for me to evaluate. Luckily, at least 1 debater makes a major mistake in almost all debates except for the best of the best national circuit rounds, but know that LARP is not my strongest subject. I have a very poor understanding of the policy literature for this topic, so please metaphorically hold my hand throughout the debate. That having been said, I will do my best to evaluate it and I will do my best not to judge screw.

With that having been said, I love LARP going up against philosophical or critical positions; it's extremely interesting to watch the debate move between extinction, ontology, the value of the state and debate, the ethical validity of consequences or teleology, and all of the rest of the arguments that occur in these debates!

K

My personal favorite is queer pessimism, and I love every permutation of it. I've judged many K debates, so I think I have a good grasp on most of the standard Ks. However, in the case that I don't understand an argument or its implications, it's always great to be clear of the implications for my flow. I don't believe that it's always the competitor's fault that the judge doesn't understand the K, and as well as that I don't believe that it is a reasonable ask for the competitor to teach the judge multiple books worth of critical theory in their 1NC, so even if I don't fully understand a K I'll do my best to evaluate it fairly.

Phil

The more obscure the better! I do love watching philosophy against LARP in any permutation (EG LARP v Kant), however my favorite debates to watch include perspectives that I haven't heard before with creative implications. I love hearing rebuttal speeches leverage their philosophy in creative ways that wouldn't be expected.

Pet Peeves (please read novices)

There's a few things that really, in the words of Amy Santiago from Brooklyn Nine-Nine, really "grate my cheese".

[1] DEBATERS WHO DON'T USE ALL OF THEIR TIMES IN THEIR SPEECHES: Now I've been known to not use all of my 1AC on some cases in the past and while I don't think it's strategic of me to do that sometimes I do it just to mess with the other debater or because I have no idea what I can add without having the judge view me as too abusive, BUT 1NRs, 1ARs, 2NRs, and 2ARs should use all of your time. This is competitive debate, I want to watch you debate. If you read out a document and you have 3 minutes left in your 1NR, I want to hear you line-by-line their case, not just say "uh I'm finished". Your speaker points will SUFFER if you do this.

[2] DEBATERS WHO CONCEDE IMPORTANT ISSUES IN THE DEBATE: Many times it's the debaters who don't use all of their time who do this. Even if you personally agree with an argument or it seems frustrating or confusing to respond to, just make something up! Take time in prep to think about it if necessary. When you're going into a round you have to have an idea of what your ballot is going to be already. If you do this and your opponent does this as well, the round will be VERY difficult for me to evaluate and I will not be nice with speaker points.

[3] DEBATERS WHO MAKE CLAIMS WITHOUT WARRANTS: Now I'm fairly lenient with warrants, obviously I don't have to agree with your warrant, but you can't just say "evaluate the debate after the 1AC" for example, you have to provide a reason why. For example, "evaluate the debate after the 1AC, key to deconstruct debate" if your case opposes debate. Now that's an example of a case where it's very close to not enough warranting, but I will allow that. However, the weaker the warrant the more easy it is for your opponent to respond, so warrant lightly at your own risk.

[4A] DEBATERS WHO DON'T EXTEND THEIR ARGUMENTS: Now this doesn't have to be that long, but if you want me to evaluate an argument you've got to show me that it's still in the debate. I give a lot more leeway with the 1AR and extensions can be quick

[4B] EXAMPLES OF EXTENSIONS THAT I'M FINE WITH:

1. Long: (EG Extend the Biden advantage -- Trump is set to win the election, that's Bedard 7/22, and that will lead to extinction, that's Starr 19, but compulsory voting increases voter turnout and nonvoters are by in large democratic that's Mukuthu 19 and Badger 18, which leads for a victory for Biden which o/ws the neg on a] opportunity cost because their counterplan costs more and at best achieves the same effect, b] magnitude, nuclear extinction is irreversible, and c] timeframe because our case impacts are contextualized to the death of Breyer and RBG, with RBG having died this impact is closer than ever)

2. Short: (Extend the Biden advantage, Trump will win the election without compulsory voting and that leads to extinction through warming, nuclear prolif, and middle east instability. This o/ws the neg on a] timeframe because the election is in a few months and b] magnitude because extinction is irreversible)

Note that the length of your extensions should definitely depend based on your opponent's case, EG if they run a different philosophy that doesn't evaluate your consequences and they don't engage much with your advantage, it's better to spend more time on the framework debate.

Favorite Cookie Recipe

(If you tell me your favorite cookie recipe and you give me a link before the round, I'll boost your speaks by 0.1 - 0.5 or POSSIBLY higher depending on how likely I am to try it out. This also serves as a reward for reading my paradigm)

This is a recipe for snickerdoodles. I've tried a lot of snickerdoodle recipes before, but this is by far my favorite one. It turns out consistently great snickerdoodles and in my opinion the best form of cookie to test baking prowess is a snickerdoodle, because it relies less on quality of ingredient than baking style, ratios of ingredients, and patience.

Ingredients:

• ½ cup butter, softened
• ½ cup shortening
• 1 ½ cups white sugar
• 2 eggs
• 2 teaspoons vanilla extract
• 2 ¾ cups all-purpose flour
• 2 teaspoons cream of tartar
• 1 teaspoon baking soda
• ¼ teaspoon salt
• 2 tablespoons white sugar
• 2 teaspoons ground cinnamon

Directions:

• Step 1: Preheat oven to 400 degrees F (200 degrees C).

• Step 2: Cream together butter, shortening, 1 1/2 cups sugar, eggs, and vanilla. Blend in flour, cream of tartar, soda, and salt. Shape dough by rounded spoonfuls into balls.

• Step 3: Mix 2 tablespoons sugar and cinnamon together. Roll balls of dough in mixture. Place 2 inches apart on ungreased baking sheets.

• Step 4: Bake 8 to 10 minutes, or until set but not too hard. Remove immediately from baking sheets.

I am a lay judge. If you’re worried that I might not understand a certain term, explain it or use a synonym.

My knowledge about the topic could be limited. It is likely that I don’t know any of topic-specific concepts or acronyms.

I want to be put on the email chain. kantguo@hotmail.com.

I am not a fan of spreading. If you spread, probably I will not fully understand.

Here is what I prefer – signposting, enunciating your claims, extending your arguments, explaining their relationships with the value structure, being respectful, etc.

Have fun… and good luck!

I am blank slate, tabula rasa. What I hear is how I judge.

I want to understand you while speaking (I’m in sales) and I want you to debate each other for the topics presented in the round. I will not read any files unless there is a clear distinction of misunderstanding.

Background:

Any pronouns, ask for my email to put me on the chain. Former LD/PF/IPDA debater / speech competitor, and es/ms/hs/college coach.

General:

Tech versus Truth: I lean towards tech over truth, but I will intervene in cases where a debater and/or their advocacy is in some way harmful, violent or offensive (i.e. racism, transphobia, sexism, etc). I will always respect the wishes of the non-offending debater(s) in the round, but I also believe my role as an educator requires me to step in when no preference is indicated by competitors. All things equal, I will happily vote for an argument I don't believe if it won the round.

Speed: I find that online debate tends to exacerbate issues with speed (ex; lack of clarity, lagging, etc). Be mindful of this.

I'm stealing a quote from my good friendEva Lamberson's paradigm: "Rounds should be accessible to your opponent. This means that you should, of course, use inclusionary language, correct pronouns, content warnings if necessary, etc. but also means that you should not spread complex Ks or tricks or anything otherwise unnecessarily high level against novices, lay debaters, etc. If you do this I will be supremely annoyed and you will be very unhappy with your speaks. What is the point of winning a debate round if your opponent never has a chance to compete?" In general, I am very dissatisfied when debaters intentionally and unnecessarily make debate more exclusive and difficult to engage in.

Use of evidence: I believe debate is, at least partly, an educational activity, and evidence ethics are an academic issue. In the same way you might fail a paper or be academically punished for plagiarism, you will face consequences if you choose to misrepresent or manipulate evidence.

Public Forum

How I Decide Winners:

- The most important thing in picking me up as a judge is offering framing and comparative analysis. Specific judge instructions are key. Tell me what to vote off, why to vote off of it, and how it interacts with your opponent's offense. The more you tell me what to do, the less I have to think, and the more objective my ballot will be.

- My judging philosophy in PF tends to be what I describe as "the path of least resistance" or the "cleanest" way to vote. In other words, I'm more likely to vote for an argument that had very little interaction from your opponent versus trying to resolve a twenty argument long back and forth about who accesses nuke war. In other words, be strategic and don't just focus on the clash.

What I Like To See In PF:

- I am typically very persuaded by link clarity or strength of link arguments. I much prefer well developed link stories over well developed impact scenarios. Most PF debaters tend to lean towards the latter, but, as a judge, I will almost always vote for the argument with a smaller impact but far better explanation for how it is actually accessed. In other words: do more work on the link level.

- I really like impact scenarios that are specific to your link story. Often times, PF debaters will show X policy causes some arbitrary increase in X bad thing, and X bad thing can cause (insert maximum possible damage). But there isn't specificity on the policy/rez itself causing a certain portion or quantity of said impact.

- Extend last name + date on evidence AND actually extend the point of your evidence/arguments. Far too often, I see PF debaters extending "contention one" or "smith evidence" with no explanation of what it actually says/how it impacts the round, beyond the first speech it was introduced in. I have a low threshold for extensions, but I won't tolerate failing to even give me the tag of an argument or piece of evidence.

- Whatever is in final focus, should have been said in summary. I lean believing that defense is sticky, but can be persuaded.

- 2nd speaking team should frontline in rebuttal, always. At the very least, address offense/turns on case.

- Please, please sign post. The #1 problem I see with PF debaters: the lack of structure and organization in speeches. I will get lost, and your arguments poof into oblivion when that happens. The more you tell me what is happening and where on the flow I should be writing, the better my flow is!

What I Do Not Like To See In PF:

- Don't paraphrase. It undercuts debate, and often leads to really, really poor evidence norms. If you paraphrase, I expect you have fully cut cards available. If you are sending docs, you better include fully cut cards. To clarify: fully cut cards = actually highlighting/underlining of the evidence read, not just a blob of text from a source.

- Disrespectful comments, attitudes, or expressions. I see this most frequently in PF debate. Elitism will not win you rounds, at least with me.

- Perhaps one of the hottest takes I have is that I really prefer you don't use jargon much. I find PF debaters over-rely on jargon (half the time without even understanding what it really means). I much prefer you actually explain what you want me to do. This isn't to say I am anti-jargon, but rather, I think less is more.

- PF cases are increasingly more difficult to flow. With the popularity of paraphrasing and every single line being another argument or critical piece of information, it causes me to always feel "behind" in flowing. Pair that with fast speaking in the 1AC/1NC and you'll find a lot of gaps in my flow. If this applies to you: send a doc or speak slower if you don't want me missing your 6 word sentence that is an entire "card".

Progressive / Circuit in Public Forum Debate:

- Public Forum debate is still a relatively new event. It is "finding itself", so to speak. I am, generally, very willing to allow debaters to test those bounds. This means I am fairly okay with progressive concepts in PF, and am fairly competent at evaluating them. However: I do think debate should be accessible to your opponent (see more on that above). So, be mindful of whether the argument you're going to introduce into the round creates barriers for engagement.

K's/theory in PF often lack the level of structure and nuance you see in other events, which is fine! But it means that the way I evaluate these arguments it highly dependent on how they are introduced and debated.

Ultimately, you're the debater and I want you to have fun/enjoy debating. It's not my job to tell you what to do in a debate round, as long as it's moderately respectful. Read stock arguments or four blippy contentions or a k - I'll evaluate it all the same.

Lincoln Douglas

How I Decide Winners:

- The most important thing in picking me up as a judge is offering framing and comparative analysis. Specific judge instructions are key. Tell me what to vote off, why to vote off of it, and how it interacts with your opponent's offense. The more you tell me what to do, the less I have to think, and the more objective my ballot will be.

- My judging philosophy in LD is framework first. I determine who wins framing, to then evaluate which impacts matter or do not matter. Win framework, and win an argument under framework (or win an argument under your opponents) - and weigh. My ballot is that simple. If nobody "wins" framework, I will generally give priority to like-arguments (example: neither side wins framework, but both debaters discuss the economy).

What I Like To See In LD:

- Unique framework debates and well justified frameworks. like learning interesting theories, and hearing different perspectives of a topic. Challenge norms and think outside the box.

- Technical debates, i.e. in-depth flow debates, good weighing, strategize.

- Be entertaining. I judge a lot of rounds at a tournament, and the more interesting you are, the more likely you are to capture my attention. Online debate exacerbates attention-span issues.

- Give content warnings if appropriate.

- Unique arguments - reading stock DAs and generic framing is boring. Do something interesting.

What I Do Not Like To See In LD:

- Pointless values debates. They don't matter.

- If you do circuit with me as your judge, I am unlikely to vote off of tricks. I find them uneducational.

- "They don't achieve their FW" is not a response to framework, and leaves their framework 100% untouched and unrefuted.

- A source isn't sufficient to explain why something happens; articulate to me why they came to that decision/conclusion.

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

Generally, I just want to see engaging and respectful rounds. Otherwise, I am open to you doing whatever it is you want/like! This paradigm is meant to give context to how I think as a judge, but not to limit you. Have fun!

Conflicts: San Marino

Experience: HS/Circuit- LD 2 years, PF 3 years, CX 1 year (2016-2020)

As of 3/13/2024: I have not been involved in debate since 2020. Most of my knowledge of debate has atrophied; if you plan on running technical arguments be prepared to explain them thoroughly.

Send me speech docs: j4ng.debate@gmail.com

discord: j4ng#0099

If the panel includes other lay judges - I am a lay judge. Please adapt to the other judges.

Speed is OK but don't exceed 350 WPM. I can't vote for a team if I cannot understand what they are saying. Spreading is not accessible and I prefer that everyone in the room can actively participate in the round :)

I ran generic, stock, LARP, and Ks in HS. If you are running anything else, I will do my best to evaluate them.

This is the paradigm that I wrote in 2021. It is wordy and extends into debate lore that I barely remember today. You can use it as general guidance. here

Feel free to ask any questions. I do not consider myself the most impartial judge, but I promise everyone that I will do my best to facilitate a fair and educational round.

Topicality/FW vs. Non-T Affs

- Affs probably should be topical, I’m just as willing to vote for impact turns against framework.
- I view most of these debates like a checklist. Affs probably need some answer to the following (and negs should be making these args): limits turns the aff, switch side solves, topical version of the aff. I have trouble voting aff if these are not answered. Similarly, I have trouble voting neg if these arguments are not made.
- The best affs generate their impact turns to framework from the aff itself. A bunch of random external criticisms of framework like just reading Antonio 95 or Delgado and calling it a day is not persuasive to me
- The debater that best defends their model of debate is the one that tends to win. Aff debaters who win their model of engagement/debate/education is better than the neg's will win more often than random impact turns to framework
- Should you read a non-topical aff in front of me? You can check my judging record, I think I have voted for and against these non-t affs about equal amounts.
- If you're going for FW: answer k tricks, don't drop thesis level criticisms of T, reading extensions for more than 3 min of the 2nr is an easy way to lose in front of me
- If you're answering FW: you need answers to the args I listed above, I think defense on the neg's args are just as important as development your offense against T, less is more when it comes to developing offense against T

Topicality/Theory/Tricks

- Defaults: Competing interpretations, drop the arguments, RVIs justifiable, not voting on risk of offense to theory
- Weighing standards is the most important to me
- I will miss something if you blaze through your theory dumps
- I’m probably a better judge for tricks than you might think. I’m just as willing to say “these theory arguments are silly” as I am to say “you conceded that skep takes out fairness.” If you go for tricks, go for tricks hard.
- I will vote on 1 condo bad in LD

Phil

- I think frameworks are usually artificially impact exclusive where they preclude all other arguments for virtually no reason. I'm inclined to believe in epistemic modesty but you can win confidence in front of me.
- I default comparative worlds, but it's not hard to convince me to become a truth-tester. What truth-testing means, you will have to explain it to me.

Ks

- I’m slightly more convinced by the state being good than bad, but don’t mind on voting on state bad
- I’m a little better read on identity type arguments as opposed to high theory arguments
- I’m not afraid to say I didn’t understand your K if you can’t explain it to me
- I don’t know why negs don’t have a prewritten perm block given that I vote on the perm a lot
- Specific link analysis is better than generics
- There has to be a lot of weighing done in the 2nr
- Case defense is underrated in these debates
- Case K overviews that aren't entirely pre-scripted are undervalued
- Performance is fine
- There should be more debate about the alternative
- The aff gets to weigh their aff, what that means is up for debate

I am okay with judging anything in round. I firmly believe that debates should be left up to the debaters and what they want to run. If you want to read policy or a new kritik; I am good with anything y'all as debaters want to run. Do not read anything that is homophobic, racist, ableist, or sexiest in round. Debate should be a safe place for everyone. A little bit about me I was a 1A/2N my senior year. I recently graduated from Sac State with a major in Communications and Women's Studies. I am currently applying to Law school and will be attending a law school in fall of 2024. I am currently a policy coach for the Sacramento Urban Debate League, coaching at CKM and West Campus.

Kritikal Affs: I love identity politics affirmatives. They are one of my favorite things to judge and hear at tournaments. I ran an intersectional k aff my senior year. If you run an identity politics affirmative then I am a great judge for you. For high theory k affs I am willing to listen to them I am just not as well adapted in that literature as identity politics. But on the negative, I did run biopower.

Policy Affirmative: Well duh.... I am good at judging a hard-core policy round or a soft-left affirmative. Once again whatever the debaters want to do I am good with judging anything.

Framework: I feel like the question for framework that debaters are asking here is if I am more of a tech or truth kind of judge. I would say its important for debaters to give me judge instruction on how they want to me to judge the round. If you want me to prefer tech or truth you need to tell me that, and also tell me WHY I should prefer tech or truth. The rest of the debate SSD, TVAs etc need to be flushed out and not 100% blipy. But that's pretty much how I feel like with every argument on every flow.

CP/DA: If you want to read 9 off you can.

Theory: I will be honest; I am not the best at evaluating theory arguments. I know what they are, and you can run them in front of me. But if you go for them, judge instruction is a must, and explaining to me how voting for this theory shell works for the debate space etc.

I like being told what to vote for and why. I am lazy to my core. If I have to look at a speech doc at the end of the round I will default to what happened in the round, not on the doc.

On a side note, go follow the Sacramento Urban Debate League on Twitter, Instagram, and Facebook. Also, I want to be in the email chain. My email is smsj8756@gmail.com thanks!

Tech savvy truth telling/testing debaters who crystallize with clarity, purpose persuasion & pathos will generally win my ballot.

My email: wesleyloofbourrow@gmail.com

For CHSSA: Flow judge, please weigh impacts in rebuttals, please win line by line, please make arguments quickly and effectively, and make the largest quantity & quality of arguments that you can. Thanks.

Updated Paradigm for NDCA & TOC

My intent in doing this update is to simplify my paradigm to assist Public Forum debaters competing at the major competitions at the end of this season. COVID remote debating has had some silver linings, and this year I have uniquely had the opportunity to judge a prolific number of prestigious tournaments, so I am "in a groove" judging elite PF debates this season, having sat on at least half a dozen PF TOC bid rounds this year, and numerous Semis/Finals of tournaments like Glenbrooks, Apple Valley, Berkeley, among many others.

I am "progressive", "circuit style", "tabula rosa", "non-interventionist", completely comfortable with policy jargon and spreading, open to Kritiks/Theory/Topicality, and actively encourage Framework debates in PF. You can figure out what I mean by FW with a cursory reading of the basic wikipedia entry "policy debate: framework" -- I am encouraging, where applicable and appropriate, discussions of what types of arguments and debate positions support claims to a superior model of Public Forum debate, both in the particular round at hand and future debates. I think that PF is currently grappling as a community with a lot of Framework questions, and inherently believe that my ballot actually does have potential for some degree of Solvency in molding PF norms. Some examples of FW arguments I have heard this year include Disclosure Theory, positions that demand the first constructive speech of the team speaking second provide direct clash (rejecting the prevalent two ships passing in the night norm for the initial constructive speeches), and Evidence theory positions.

To be clear, this does not mean at all that teams who run FW in front of me automatically get my ballot. I vote all the time on basic stock issues, and in fact the vast majority of my PF decisions have been based on offense/defense within a role-playing policy-maker framework. Just like any debate position, I am completely open to anything (short of bullying, racism, blatant sexism, truly morally repugnant positions, but I like to believe that no debaters are coming into these elite rounds intending to argue stuff like this). I am open to a policy-making basic Net benefits standard, willing to accept Fiat of a policy action as necessary and justifiable, just as much as I am willing to question Fiat -- the onus is on the debaters to provide warrants justifying whatever position or its opposite they wish to defend.

I will provide further guidance and clarifications on my judging philosophy below, but I want to stress that what I have just stated should really be all you need to decide whether to pref/strike me -- if you are seeking to run Kritiks or Framework positions that you have typically found some resistance to from more traditional judges, then you want to pref me; if you want rounds that assume the only impacts that should be considered are the effects of a theoretical policy action, I am still a fine judge to have for that, but you will have to be prepared to justify those underlying assumptions, and if you don't want to have to do that, then you should probably strike me. If you have found yourself in high profile rounds a bit frustrated because your opponent ran positions that didn't "follow the rules of PF debate", I'm probably not the judge you want. If you have been frustrated because you lost high profile rounds because you "didn't follow the rules of PF debate", you probably want me as your judge.

So there is my most recent update, best of luck to all competitors as we move to the portion of the season with the highest stakes.

Here is what I previously provided as my paradigm:

Speed: Short answer = Go as fast as you want, you won't spread me out.

I view speed as merely a tool, a way to get more arguments out in less time which CAN lead to better debates (though obviously that does not bear out in every instance). My recommendations for speed: 1) Reading a Card -- light-speed + speech doc; 2) Constructives: uber-fast + slow sign posting please; 3) Rebuttals: I prefer the slow spread with powerfully efficient word economy myself, but you do you; 4) Voters: this is truly the point in a debate where I feel speed outlives its usefulness as a tool, and is actually much more likely to be a detriment (that being said, I have judged marvelous, blinding-fast 2ARs that were a thing of beauty)...err on the side of caution when you are instructing me on how to vote.

Policy -- AFFs advocating topical ethical policies with high probability to impact real people suffering right now are best in front of me. I expect K AFFs to offer solid ground and prove a highly compelling advocacy. I love Kritiks, I vote for them all the time, but the most common problem I see repeatedly is an unclear and/or ineffective Alt (If you don't know what it is and what it is supposed to be doing, then I can't know either). Give me clash: prove you can engage a policy framework as well as any other competing frameworks simultaneously, while also giving me compelling reasons to prefer your FW. Anytime you are able to demonstrate valuable portable skills or a superior model of debate you should tell me why that is a reason to vote for you. Every assumption is open for review in front of me -- I don't walk into a debate round believing anything in particular about what it means for me to cast my ballot for someone. On the one hand, that gives teams extraordinary liberty to run any position they wish; on the other, the onus is on the competitors to justify with warranted reasoning why I need to apply their interpretations. Accordingly, if you are not making ROB and ROJ arguments, you are missing ways to get wins from me.

I must admit that I do have a slight bias on Topicality -- I have noticed that I tend to do a tie goes to the runner thing, and if it ends up close on the T debate, then I will probably call it reasonably topical and proceed to hear the Aff out. it isn't fair, it isn't right, and I'm working on it, but it is what it is. I mention this because I have found it persuasive when debaters quote this exact part of my paradigm back to me during 2NRs and tell me that I need to ignore my reasonability biases and vote Neg on T because the Neg straight up won the round on T. This is a functional mechanism for checking a known bias of mine.

Oh yea -- remember that YOU PLAY TO WIN THE GAME.

Public Forum -- At this point, after judging a dozen PF TOC bid rounds in 2021-2022, I think it will be most helpful for me to just outright encourage everybody to run Framework when I am your judge (3 judge panels is your call, don't blame me!). I think this event as a whole desperately needs good quality FW arguments that will mold desirable norms, I might very well have an inherent bias towards the belief that any solvency reasonably expected to come from a ballot of mine will most likely implicate FW, and thus I am resolved to actively encourage PF teams to run FW in front of me. If you are not comfortable running FW, then don't -- I always want debaters to argue what matters to them. But if you think you can win a round on FW, or if you have had an itch to try it out, you should. Even if you label a position as Framework when it really isn't, I will still consider the substantive merits behind your arguments, its not like you get penalized for doing FW wrong, and you can absolutely mislabel a position but still make a fantastic argument deserving of my vote.

Other than "run FW", I need to stress one other particular -- I do not walk into a PF round placing any limitations whatsoever on what a Public Forum debate is supposed to be. People will say that I am not "traditional or lay", and am in fact "progressive", but I only consider myself a blank slate (tabula rasa). Every logical proposition and its diametric opposite is on the table in front of me, just prove your points to be true. It is never persuasive for a team to say something like "but that is a Counterplan, and that isn't allowed in PF". I don't know how to evaluate a claim like that. You are free to argue that CPs in PF are not a good model for PF debates (and lo and behold, welcome to running a FW position), or that giving students a choice between multiple styles of debate events is critical for education and so I should protect the "rules" and the "spirit" of PF as an alternative to LD and Policy -- but notice how those examples rely on WARRANTS, not mere assertions that something is "against the rules." Bottom line, if the "rules" are so great, then they probably had warrants that justified their existence, which is how they became the rules in the first place, so go make those underlying arguments and you will be fine. If the topic is supposed to be drug policy, and instead a team beats a drum for 4 minutes, ya'll should be able to articulate the underlying reasons why this is nonsense without resorting to grievances based on the alleged rules of PF.

College Parli -- Because there is a new topic every round, the threshold for depth of research is considerably lower, and debaters should be able to advocate extemporaneously; this shifts my view of the burdens associated with typical Topicality positions. Arguments that heavily weigh on the core ground intended by the topic will therefore tend to strike me as more persuasive. Additionally, Parli has a unique procedural element -- the ability to ask a question during opponent's speech time. A poignant question in the middle of an opponent's speech can single handedly manufacture clash, and create a full conversational turn that increases the educational quality of the debate; conversely, an excellent speaker can respond to the substance of a POI by adapting their speech on the spot, which also has the effect of creating a new conversational turn.

lysis. While this event has evolved considerably, I am still a firm believer that Value/Criterion is the straightest path to victory, as a strong V/C FW will either contextualize impacts to a policy/plan advocacy, or explain and justify an ethical position or moral statement functioning as that necessary advocacy. Also, V/C allows a debater to jump in and out of different worlds, advocating for their position while also demonstrating the portable skill of entering into an alternate FW and clashing with their opponent on their merits. An appropriate V/C will offer fair, reasonable, predictable, equitable, and functional Ground to both sides. I will entertain any and all theory, kritiks, T, FW. procedure, resolution-rejection/alteration, etc. -- but fair warning, positions that do not directly relate to the resolutional topic area will require a Highly Compelling warrant(s) for why. At all times, please INSTRUCT me on how I am supposed to think about the round.

So...that is my paradigm proper, intentionally left very short. I've tried the more is more approach, and I have become fond of the less is more. Below are random things I have written, usually for tournament-specific commentary.

Worlds @ Coppell:

I have taken care to educate myself on the particulars of this event, reviewing relevant official literature as well as reaching out to debate colleagues who have had more experience. My obligation as a fair, reasonable, unbiased and qualified critic requires me to adapt my normal paradigm, which I promise to do to the best of my abilities. However, this does not excuse competitive debaters from their obligation to adapt to their assigned judge. I adapt, you adapt, Fair.

To learn how I think in general about how I should go about judging debates, please review my standard Judge Paradigm posted below. Written short and sweet intentionally, for your purposes as Worlds debaters who wish to gain my ballot, look for ways to cater your strengths as debaters to the things I mention that I find generally persuasive. You will note that my standard paradigm is much shorter than this unique, particularized paradigm I drafted specifically for Worlds @ Coppell.

Wesley's Worlds Paradigm:

I am looking for which competitors perform the "better debating." As line by line and dropping of arguments are discounted in this event, those competitors who do the "better debating" will be "on balance more persuasive" than their opponents.

Style: I would liken Style to "speaker points" in other debate events. Delivery, passion, rhetoric, emotional appeal. Invariably, the power of excellent public speaking will always be anchored to the substantive arguments and authenticity of advocacy for the position the debater must affirm or negate. While I will make every effort to separate and appropriately quantify Style and Content, be warned that in my view there is an inevitable and unbreakable bond between the two, and will likely result in some spillover in my final tallies.

Content: If I have a bias, it would be in favor of overly weighting Content. I except that competitors will argue for a clear advocacy, a reason that I should feel compelled to vote for you, whether that is a plan, a value proposition, or other meaningful concept.

PAY ATTENTION HERE: Because of the rules of this event that tell me to consider the debate as a whole, to ignore extreme examples, to allow for a "reasonable majority" standard to affirm and a "significant minority" standard to negate, and particularly bearing in mind the rules regarding "reasonability" when it comes to definitions, I will expect the following:

A) Affirmatives will provide an advocacy that is clearly and obviously within the intended core ground proffered by the topic (the heart of hearts, if you will);

B) Negatives will provide an advocacy of their own that clashes directly with the AFF (while this is not completely necessary, it is difficult for me to envision myself reaching a "better debating" and "persuasion" standard from a straight refutation NEG, so consider this fair warning); what the Policy folk call a PIC (Plan-Inclusive Counterplan) will NOT be acceptable, so do not attempt on the NEG to offer a better affirmative plan that just affirms the resolution -- I expect an advocacy that fundamentally NEGATES

C) Any attempt by either side to define their opponent's position out of the round must be EXTRAORDINARILY compelling, and do so without reliance on any debate theory or framework; possibilities would include extremely superior benefits to defining a word in a certain way, or that the opponent has so missed the mark on the topic that they should be rejected. It would be best to assume that I will ultimately evaluate any merits that have a chance of reasonably fitting within the topic area. Even if a team elects to make such an argument, I still expect them to CLASH with the substance of the opponent's case, regardless of whether or not your view is that the substance is off-topic. Engage it anyways out of respect.

D) Claim-Warrant-Impact-Weighing formula still applies, as that is necessary to prove an "implication on effects in the real world". Warrants can rely on "common knowledge", "general logic", or "internal logic", as this event does not emphasize scholarly evidence, but I expect Warrants nonetheless, as you must tell me why I am supposed to believe the claim.

Strategy: While there may be a blending of Content & Style on the margins in front of me as a judge, Strategy is the element that I believe will be easy for me to keep separate and quantify unto itself. Please help me and by proxy yourselves -- MENTION in your speeches what strategies you have used, and why they were good. Debaters who explicitly state the methods they have used, and why those methods have aided them to be "on balance more persuasive" and do the "better debating" will likely impress me.

POIs: The use of Questions during opponent's speech time is a tool that involves all three elements, Content/Style/Strategy. It will be unlikely for me to vote for a team that fails to ask a question, or fails to ask any good questions. In a perfect world, I would like speakers to yield to as many questions as they are able, especially if their opponent's are asking piercing questions that advance the debate forward. You WANT to be answering tough questions, because it makes you look better for doing so. I expect the asking and answering of questions to be reciprocal -- if you ask a lot of questions, then be ready and willing to take a lot of questions in return. Please review my section on Parli debate below for final thoughts on the use of POI.

If you want to win my vote, take everything I have written above to heart, because that will be the vast majority of the standards for judging I will implement during this tournament. As always, feel free to ask me any further questions directly before the round begins. Best of luck!

Email: oddoye.sean@gmail.com

Experience: Speech (Varsity DI and Extemp.); 2 years, HS LD (NJFL); 2 years, College parli (APDA and BP); 2 years.

1. I competed in circuit LD in high school, however that was a few years ago, so I am a bit rusty, however, I do keep a good flow.

2. Again, since I am a bit out of practice, I'd prefer if you don't spread if it's not necessary (if you are going to spread, just slow down on the tags, if I'm having trouble keeping up I'll raise my hand or say "clear"). Additionally, I value narration and explanations over quick technical blips -- make sure I know what I'm voting for.

3. Please weigh comparatively and clash with each other, win your warrants and explain why your evidence or standards are better.

4. I'm more used to traditional debates, I can count the number of times I've read a theory shell/ks on one hand, as such, I'm most comfortable judging traditional value/value criterion/contention or plan/counterplan debates. The same thing goes for tricks, LARPing, etc-- absent some sort of detailed and comprehensive explanation, I probably won't know what's going on or how to adjudicate lol.

6. If I've missed something, or if you have any other questions, just ask me.

Have fun, and pref/adjust accordingly : )

TL;DR: Don't be rude or discourteous; speak well and clearly

parli and extemp mainly in hs but i dabbled in almost everything

Debate:

Run what you want, as long as it isn't morally reprehensible (i.e. kill all puppies). I prefer fewer, well created arguments with solid warranting and reasoning. Walk me through the link chains and terminalize your impacts and the debate will be so much more educational that way.

the more you can genuinely enjoy giving ur speech and make me laugh the higher i will score you

I'm totally and completely fine with tech/theory arguments and default on reasonability unless told to otherwise.

Speaking:

Please don't spread its unproductive, inacessible, and unpersuasive. Make me want to vote for your arguments not just default on # of points scored here and there.

I start speaks at 28 (yw) and go up or down from there, with 1.5 being style and persuasiveness and the other .5 being creativity of arguments. You could be the reincarnation of Churchill himself and still get a 29.5 <3

Speech!!!!:

Don't have much to say to y'all, as speech is very much event based. I judge speech based on how much you are able to meet the intent of your event. I.e. in HI I want to laugh but in Ext I want to come out of it knowing something new about the world. Other than that, as long as you're enjoying the speech you're giving I believe that your best will shine through. Have tons of fun!!

I’ve been Involved with Speech and Debate since 2015, although I’ve been judging almost nonstop since 2019. Available as a judge-for-hire via HiredJudge per request.

9.9/10 if you did not receive commentary on your ballot after the tournament, you (hopefully) would get my judge email on there instead.

I don’t currently operate from a laptop so my ballot speed is not ideal atm; I’m usually typing out paragraphs from a doc until the last allowable minute, but my timing is not the most perfect. You won’t always get a pageful but its my personal policy to give a minimum of 5 sentences. If you send over an email asking about your round; it might take up to 24 hours post tournament but I -will- reply back.

_____

Ballot Style:

Where possible I add timestamps to help students pinpoint exact moments in their speech that address the issue as noted by comment.it is a personal philosophy of mine to try never have less than 5 sentences on any ballot.

Debate Philosophy: I can comfortably judge parli, LD, PF, SPAR & Congress due to judging almost nonstop since the start of the pandemic. I don't have a lot of experience with policy debate as of this writing, I’m working on understanding spread speak as I do more tournaments. [current speed: 2 notches down from the fast verse in Rap God ]

I LOVE it when students are able to be fully themselves and have fun in a round
Debate Judging: I’m not the biggest fan of utilitarian as a value metric, but otherwise I try to approach the round as a blank slate. I like hearing both Ks & Traditional Argumentation however my rfd really depends on how you use them (or inverse thereof) in the debate.

Sportsmanship (like, dont lower your performance/ be rude on purpose, please) > Argumentative Cohesion & Organization > CX utilization & Clash > Framework Discourse > Delivery > Structural Presence, but I am a little stricter on citation~ doesn’t need to be the full date but it needs gotta be there

Congress: (also see above) but I like those who can flip arguments in their favor;You dont need to be extroverted to be PO, but POs should be attentive with overall energy in the chamber and facilitating ethical and intentional inclusion beforesilence becomes a huge issue in round, in addition to strict yet -visible- timekeeping.

RFD FLOW - I try to have at least a paragraph summary explaining my flow (sometimes it’ll be copy/pasted)

Speech Judging: I can judge any speech event across all levels!

I would sincerely appreciate if students could self time so I can focus on ballots.

(For those who have read all the way through, some free interp gems that will be erased in a month, besides the basics: storyboarding, stop animation, pixar’s “inside out,” samurai jack, sound track your pieces.)

Debated 4 years of HS (Winfield, Kansas), 2 years in College (Los Angeles City College, CSUFullerton)

Coach for SUDL

General Thoughts (whatever "thinking" is)

I am open to anything. I am also incredibly judgmental. I would rather hear a unique, new argument with perhaps less precise execution than the tightest strategy executed in the most boring way possible. That being said, what I would rather hear and what will win a substantive debate may not be the same. Use your own discretion; you are the debater, right? Don’t be mean and overbearing. Don’t be too timid.

Policy arguments (whatever "policy" is)

Implementation and the allowed viability of current affairs are important if you're going this route. The more precise the better. I'd like to feel how far the effects of my ballot travel, gloriously stamping the world with my verdict; as a god would upon mortal puppets.

Critical Arguments (whatever "ontology" is)

These are the arguments with which I have the most familiarity. Please don't buzzword me to death here.

I am inclined to believe that permutations to “critical arguments” make little to no sense unless the aff is already winning substantive arguments on the link and impact level. Impact comparison and/or link turns will be necessary if you want me to vote for these so-called "permutations".

Topicality/Theory (whatever “is” is)

If you know what you’re talking about or have a crafty violation, I’m certainly willing to vote on topicality. That being said, I have a higher threshold on topicality than most. However, your "fairness" "education" "ground" abuses aren't worth my time. Tell me the direct violation and I'll decide how you were afflicted in the round (by watching the round). If you prove no affiliation with the resolution, or a direct connection through the resolution, I will vote on topicality first and then weigh the impacts. If the abuse warrants my ballot, then you will win my ballot.
Aff should at least discuss its pertinence to the resolution and/or debate or have a cogent defense of the presentation of your argument or a criticism of the necessity of such discussions. If someone tells me that these affs don't matter, I will listen to their arguments and remain open to persuasion on the issue. Not unexpectedly, I find that the smart cheaters are often very far ahead on these debates. Take that for what it is.

Additional Note On Topicality/Theory: I have seen T violations that had real world impacts (as opposed to in-round impacts) that link the definition of the word to impacts for a disad. This is genius, and if you can do it you should try. My favorite 2AC analysis happened when a debater showed the performative contradictions of conditional neg arguments as framing for impact calc beyond the life-or-death story run by the neg. I think there is an interconnected approach to the debate that involves holistic unity (literally, not like "you should try some lavender that burn" holistic).

“My” background (whoever “I” am)

Raised in KS, living in CA. I used to be a Nietzsche debater, then transferred to UCD and read everything he wrote, and Plato/Aristotle, most of the Modern types, did graduate work on Plato and Weber, suffered a short obsession with DuBois and Hegel, then panicked when none of it helped me study int'l econ. I am confident that most people don't debate Nietzsche right, and it doesn't matters that they can't. Something happens in there. I am a hard nerd for bureaucratic politics and regime cooption. I'm the type to get really excited about information systems or comparing organization structures. While debating I took most organization cooption examples from the fall of the USSR. I have a life outside of that stuff though, as I hope you do as well. If you can make me laugh during a debate, that will bode well for you. But don't try too hard. Trying too hard is like caring too much about not being a fascist: it only makes you a fascist.

Lastly, I plagiarized a lot of this from an old friend who's now an IP lawyer, and I think that's so funny. FYI all

PV Peninsula '18, NYU '22

Former middle and high school debater, I did 4 years of parli and 6 years of public forum (my high school discontinued PF going into my senior year which is why I returned to parli after a 3 year hiatus). I also dabbled in impromptu for a few years but speech wasn't really my thing. I vote on actual arguments but I'll take the flow into account. I'm not really an expressive judge, but don't be completely monotonous the entire round. I know my college might make you think I lean a certain way politically, but I do my best to put away my biases and consider the substance of your arguments and evidence.

Parli:

Theory: I don't prefer theory arguments but I'll vote on them if they're valid and well executed. Don't run T just because you can, and keep kritiks clear and concise. Debating definitions are fine, but don't nitpick. I'll interpret that as you wasting time because your case is weak. Also, try and limit the canned cases.

Spreading: Eloquence over speed. I care much more about what you say and how you say it than how much you say. If I can't understand you, I can't flow.

Organization: Please sign post! Clear framework is big for me. Remember, I take the flow into account. If I can't clearly flow your arguments, it makes my life (and yours) more difficult.

Communication: I will only flow what is being said by the person who is supposed to be speaking. No puppeteering, but notes, ect. are fine.

Public Forum:

Criteria: Please have one. I can vote without one but it just makes the round so much easier to judge in my opinion.

Cards: Please read the source before you start reading the information that the source will provide, it just makes it easier for me to flow. If you read some really impactful evidence with huge numbers that sounds like it could win you the round, but you don't provide a source and your opponents don't call you out on it, I probably won't hold it in high regards. Ask for cards before prep time starts if you want a card.

Dropped/Extended Arguments: If your opponents by chance drop an ENTIRE argument, just extend it across the flow and move on. Don't repeat the entire argument word for word when they didn't even respond to it in the first place. Personally, I think dropped arguments are a big enough deal that I will vote on a singular dropped argument if it's impactful enough, no matter how well the rest of the debate goes.

Email: zhouji@gmail.com

I judge on framework, refutations, extensions and impacts.

Spreading is fine as long as you speak clearly. I will flow all that I can understand.

Crystallization improves clarity and is highly preferred.