I prefer teams with a clear and consistent line of logic with proper effort given to analyze ideas in a comparative manner. The teams should prioritize quality of the arguments over quantity.

Hi! Adapting to this online judging stuff, I former national representative at WSDC Singapore and Stuttgart, multiple international regional tournaments, BP national champion, a consultant on energy and infrastructure projects, and a practicing attorney of law. As you're judge, I've been where you are standing. I look forward to a high-level debate, for which I suggest the following:

1. RESPECT.

2. Enjoy yourselves! My old coach used to say "half of winning is looking like you are winning". I want you to relax, take a deep breath, and speak at a well-intended speed. Try not to rush. I would rather have you present a solid argument (analysis-based) with one or two examples than an argument lacking analytical depth.

3. You don't have to win every argument or debate in absolutes. Don't get hung up on points or arguments that are not the main scope of the debate. Furthermore, don't just "avoid" arguments. Briefly examine why they are not relevant or why your arguments are more important for the debate. I like debates in which participants are not afraid of presenting multiple layers of analysis and can debate on the metaanalysis of each.

4. Always impact your arguments. As a judge, I try to be as unbiased and tabula rasa as possible. I will not make the arguments for you in my mind. I will only judge what is actually brought up in the debate, particularly regarding the impacts of your arguments. Tell me why should I care about (bla bla bla), or how does X affect the people, etc. I want you to be as explicit as possible and bring emphasis on how does the engineering of your argument has an effect on the debate and why should I give you my ballot.

5. Stay active throughout the debate. Interact with the other team through points of information. Communicate with your teammates. Show consistency throughout the bench.

6. Don't be afraid to use a mechanism when needed.

Finally, if there is anything I can help with throughout or after the round please let me know. I love giving feedback (last pointer: being open to constructive criticism and feedback is the fast track to becoming a world-class debater).

See you soon,

Alex

General Background

I have an MA in communication studies and have served as an adjunct professor of communication, public speaking, and argumentation at US universities and internationally.

In Beijing, I partnered with private academies to create the first policy debate circuit for private English institutions in China and built communication departments with curricula in public speaking, debate, emotional intelligence, and logical reasoning.

I have been judging and coaching debate for around ten years. My original focus was policy and LD, which I competed in in the early 2000s. More recently I have begun coaching and judging World Schools tournaments including the European Open, Winter Holidays Open, Stanford, and Harvard invitationals.

My students have consistently broken in Worlds tournaments and placed in the top ten of Speaker Awards for ESL students. My expertise in coaching is in public speaking and coherent logical presentation slightly more than debate tactics.

Brief Debate Background

My own experience in debate is around twenty years ago as a policy debater. I won seven state tournaments and two regional championships in a row in my two years competing before going to university. I did not compete in college forensics, choosing instead to pursue positions with political groups and I gave speeches in campaigns and in support of bills I wished to see passed. I even had the opportunity to be a direct sponsor of a bill and speak to a congressional committee. Unfortunately, the bill was shot down. I was an impressive speaker but my opponents had money.

Judge Paradigm

As a judge, my paradigm can generally be categorized as stock issue with elements of policymaker. I believe each motion has clear-cut burdens and that the affirmative or proposition team must meet them to win the round.

I expect the arguments to stay focused on the motion and to understand the motion and the spirit of the motion clearly.

The elements of policymaker can be seen in how much I love the weighing of ads vs. disads and well-designed counter-plans. Are you designing the counter-plan to incorporate or replace and can you clearly elucidate mutual exclusivity? Very fun.

I respect evidence but debates are not won or lost on the strength or deliverance of evidence. If any piece of evidence is presented without analysis of its significance and relationship to the motion and to the debate do not expect me to make those connections for you.

In LD, I come from a time when it was still a pure value debate and the points made were based on a logically reasoned explanation of the value clash with presented values and criteria for upholding that value rather than cut cards of evidence. I still expect "ought" motions to be debates about the existence of moral obligations rather than evidentiary proof of solvency.

I know I sound old when I say that, and I am adaptable, but I do love the difference between an LD debate and a policy debate and hate to see those differences dissolving. That being said, I do still appreciate good evidence and will still decide the round on the major points of clash, burden meeting, and weighing.

I don't like PICs, particularly when the difference is tiny and makes the debate semantic. If I want to affirm the motion, I will vote affirmative. I expect a meaningful clash not manipulating the debate to earn a vote. A PIC suggests that negative has little to offer beyond what the affirmative has already offered. CPs are fine, love a good CP, but I expect it to be mutually exclusive and categorically non-topical.

I have seen and debated Ks... Haven't seen one yet that would justify deciding my vote, mostly because they are poorly presented. Race and gender Ks consistently come across as a way to avoid the actual argument. Present the K if you want to point out poor judgments in language, the motion's perspective, or assumptions, but don't make that an excuse not to engage with the underlying arguments being presented.

And honestly, I've watched debaters try economic K's about capitalism being the source of all evil in the world and must be stopped at all costs. So far, the debaters who tried it have shown that it is impossible to prove without a predetermined ideology. But I'm always willing to hear someone take on the challenge and I think there is potential in this and all K's when presented correctly.

However, leave the anti-humanism out of it if I am your judge. To argue that it is "better" if more humans die is not going to win a debate or turn an impact on my flow.

I think that's enough. Be respectful.

I have judged extensively in both BP and WSDC, and have on occasion judged APDA. I believe strongly in conforming to the standards of the formats I judge, and therefore will approach WSDC slightly differently than I will BP. That said, there are a couple of commonalities.

I tend to view debating as an effort as persuasion. Imagine that there is a panel either of governmental officials, or senior officials at a company who are empowered to act on whatever policy or position you are advocating. The goal of a proposition team is to convince that they should do this. Central to such an effort is explaining why there is a problem which needs to be solved, but equally important is explaining what you expect them to do. It is all well and good to say that there is a principled obligation to do something, but if you cannot explain what they should do in order to fulfill such an obligation it can become unclear why it is important in the first place.

If this sounds like a burden on proposition, opposition teams should also actually explain why a policy should not be done, or why a principled statement is untrue. It is very easy for opposition teams to slip into the habit of poking holes in the proposition cases that were presented to them.

Hello there! I’m Ishan. I am excited to hear what y’all have to say!! For what it’s worth, I haven’t been involved in a couple of years, so please explain jargon and debate a little slower than you would otherwise.

Email for LD: ishanbhatt42@gmail.com. Could you make the subject line something like: “ Tournament -- Year -- Aff vs Neg”?

Updated for Harvard 2024

Form Preferences:

1. Read what you want if it is well-warranted and well-explained. This is theoretically a content-neutral preference, but I may be worse for very short arguments with very extreme implications. The size of an argument’s implication and its length should be inversely correlated.

2. Please be sure that every word you say is understandable. I’ll say clear. If I do, please go back, and say your argument again. I don’t open speech docs until after the round, so I do want to hear all the words of the card.

3. If an argument is dropped, you get the warrant, not the tag. The implication of a dropped argument can still be contested.

4. I’m more persuaded by specific arguments. It’s hard to win no progress if you drop aff solvency, threat inflation if you concede the China war scenario, “fairness always first” without some debating about the internal link, etc.

5. Please be transparent about your argument. Don't be coy about the function or content of the argument, or else I may not understand it either! And please don’t refuse to answer questions at all.

6. The 1NC must fully develop the argument. My sense of the meta is only based on judging twice in the last two years, but I thought many off-case positions I saw weren’t complete arguments and the 1AR could’ve briefly dismissed them.

Content Preferences:

Plans/CPs/DAs:

• I really don’t need everything to lead to extinction.
• For most “cheating” counterplans, a clear theory of “what should be competitive” is most compelling.
• A perm needs explanation in the speech in which it is introduced.

Theory:

• Predictably defining the words in the topic matters the most for topicality. Once you’ve defined a word, proving a good vision for the topic regarding research, ground, limits, etc. is great.
• I basically won’t vote on bad theory arguments, especially really contrived interpretations (e.g., “may not do exactly what you did”). A solid “this is arbitrary + reasonability + don’t drop the debater” push should do the trick for me.
• Reasonability, to me, makes most sense as “voting on theory means we lose out on a substantive debate, therefore defense is sufficient.” I’m often confused by reasonability “bright line” arguments.
• Please don’t claim that a debate practice (like a new case or conditionality) makes debate “unsafe.” I feel like safety is meaningful thing and is probably outside the realm of technical debating.

Ks:

• You need to explain a structural claim, not just say the claim.
• I likely won’t vote on an argument about personal stuff.
• I really don’t understand most arguments over fiat. “Fiat” makes most sense to me as shorthand for the “is-ought” fallacy.
• I might be stricter than the median judge for neg DA links – if you “destroy the system of capitalism,” the neg is probably right about the link to the econ DA.

See also: Andrew Garber's paradigm.

Graduating Senior at Emory University studying Business Administration.

Debated for Dreyfoos School of the Arts and NSDA Team USA.

I help run World Schools for the Global Debate Symposium.

I’m a fan of organized clash, strong persuasive speaking techniques, energy, and weighing!

I have vast experience coaching and judging in the WSDC format. In 2019 I was a coach in the Mexican debate camp, in 2020 I was hired as the co-coach for the Mexican development team, in 2021 I was hired as the co-coach for the Team Mexico 2021 national team and for the 2022 edition of WSDC I am once again a co-coach for the Team Mexico 2022. In total I have judged and coached for the WSDC circuit for 3 years now. I also have diverse experience in the BP circuit in Latinamerica, I have debated, coached and judged in the circuit for 5 years now, I have coached two different universities that include the Universidad de Guadalajara and Instituto Autónomo de México.

School Affiliation/s:

I am currently not affiliated with any schools or institutions outside of Mexico.

I graduated in 2018 from the American School Foundation of Guadalajara, currently I study economics in Tecnológico de Monterrey.

Debate experience:

Most of my debate experience has been developed in the spanish language Latinamerican BP circuit, but I have also participated in the Mexican WSDC english debate circuit for 3 years. My experiences include:

Coaching:

Debate Coaching at Universidad de Guadalajara:

-Assistant coach 2018-2019

-Part of the academic committee during 2019

Debate Coaching at ITAM:

-Academic director for the 2019 spring and autumn semesters

-Co-coach during the 2019 spring and autumn semesters

-Co-coach during the 2020 spring semester

-Head coach during the 2020 autumn semester

Coaching at Debate Camp:

-Debate Camp 2019 junior coach

Development Team Mexico Coaching:

-Hired by the Asociación Mexicana de Debate to be co-coach of the 2020 Development Team Mexico for over 150 hours

Tec de Santa Fé Debate Coaching:

-Coach of the Tec de Santa Fé school’s debate team 2020

ASDC CDMX Debate Coaching:

-Coach of the CDMX American Spaces Debate Club 2020

Team Mexico 2021 coaching:

-Co-coach of the Mexican national team for WSDC 2021

-Break 8th in Hegel Division

Team Mexico 2022 coaching:

-Co-coach of the Mexican national team for WSDC 2022

Various debate lectures regarding argumentation, rebuttal and debate strategy.

Debate:

2016:

-Mexican Universities Debating Championship (MUDC) 2016

-Open break: 3rd place

-Open tournament semifinalist

2017:

-Campeonato Nacional de Debate (CND) 2017

-Open break: 6th place

-Novice break: 1st place

-Open tournament quarterfinalist

-Novice runner-up finalist

-3rd best novice speaker

-Torneo Interuniversitario Invernal de Debate (TIID) 2017

-Open break: 2nd place

-Runner-up finalist

-6th best speaker

2018:

-CND 2018

-Open break: 2nd place

-Open tournament semifinalist

-4th best speaker

-TIID 2018

-Open break: 1st place

-Tournament runner-up finalist

-2nd best speaker

-Torneo Metropolitano de Debate (TMD) 2018

-Open break: 4th place

-Open tournament semifinalist

-Torneo Rosarista de Debate (TRD) 2018

-Open break: 1st place

-Open tournament runner-up finalist

-4th best speaker

-Campeonato Mundial Universitario de Debate en Español (CMUDE) Chile 2018

-Open break: 24th place

-Open tournament quarterfinalist

-Copa Leones de Debate (CLD) 2018

-Open break: 6th place

-Open tournament semifinalist

-LIBRE OPEN

-Open break: 3rd place

-Open tournament runner-up finalist

2019:

-CND 2019

-Open break: 6th place

-Open tournament runner-up finalist

-6th best speaker

-CMUDE 2019

-Open break: 30th place

-Open tournament octofinalist

-PanAms UDC 2019

-Open break: 7th place

-Open tournament runner-up finalist

-Torneo Relámpago de la Megalópolis Toluca

-Open break: 1st place

-Open tournament runner-up finalist

-2nd best speaker

-CLD 2019

-Open break: 4th place

-Open tournament runner-up finalist

-9th best speaker

-LIBRE OPEN

-Open break: 2nd place

-Open tournament runner-up finalist

-5th best speaker

2020:

-MX Debate Virtual 2020

-Open break: 1st place

-Open tournament second place

-2nd best speaker

-TORRE 2020

-Open break 5th place

-3rd best speaker

-Open tournament semifinalist

-TMD 2020

-Open break: 3rd place

-Open tournament semifinalist

-Top speaker averages in the tournament

-E-CND 2020

-Open break: 1st place

-Open tournament runner-up finalist

-3rd best speaker

2021:

-TODI 2021

-Open break: 15th place

-Open tournament runner-up finalist

Judging:

2017:

-Torneo Abierto de Debate Occasio 2017

2018:

-Campeonato Hispanohablante Internacional de de Debate y Oratoria 2018

-Break as adjudicator

-Three Torneo Interno de Debate UdeG

2019:

-ASOMEX 2019

-Break as adjudicator

-Middle school semifinal chair

-High school final chair

-Debate Camp Judging

2020:

-Torneo Colegial PT Colombiano

-Break as adjudicator

-Best judge of the competition

-AZOOMEX

-Torneo Internacional UNED Madrid

-Break as adjudicator

-Top 10 judges of the competition

-Semifinal and final panel judge for the novice division

-Torneo MX Debate Virtual

-Break as adjudicator

-Recognized within the top 3 adjudicators in the competition

-Quarter finals chair judge

2021:

-UPenn WSDC Tournament

I have NO experience with the following formats:

__x__ Congress

__x__ PF

__x__ LD

__x__ Policy

__x__ Extemp/OO/Info

__x__ DI/HI/Duo/POI

I have chaired several WS rounds before. Chairing a WS round involves the calling of speakers to present their speeches and considering all of the points that were explicitly brought out in the debate, not what I personally believe or what I think should have happened in the round. As a chair, I always make sure that every panelist votes and justifies their decision to include it as a part of the verbal feedback team receive. I also make sure that panelists send their ballots on time so as to not delay the tournament. As a panelist, I always deliver with the rest of the panel the points that I always found critical for the debate to help the creation of a strong feedback and reason for decision. As a judge I am always open for personal feedback and questions regarding the debate.

A World Schools round is made up of two teams: proposition and opposition. Proposition has to defend the motion and opposition goes against it. Both teams are built of 3 speakers from which we will listen to 8 minute speeches and a 4 minute reply. The reply speaker is either the 1st or 2nd speaker of the round, ensuring that only one speaker from each team will speak twice during the debate. Points of information are allowed between the first and seventh minute of the 8 minute speeches, however, they are not allowed during the 4 minute reply speech.

I am usually flowing the debate on my computer or my iPad, taking thorough notes on every speaker’s remarks, POIs and answers to the POIs.

Personally, I find both principle and practical arguments to be as valuable in the round as long as speakers explain the importance of these arguments and weigh them against each other. I don’t like taking arguments at face value, I like hearing constructive analysis as to why an argument is true/untrue and a proper explanation of the comparative between cases. I usually find it easier to follow a debate case when teams present metrics/burdens for the round and when their style is ordered and logical. I personally don’t mind fast speakers, I ponder strategy and content over style but the points need to be crystal clear.

In terms of strategy, I always take into consideration contradictions in the cases and the weighing that each team gives an argument. I also ponder heavily the proper development of arguments, this means that speakers should be spending a reasonable time developing arguments, not leaving a full on argument for the last minute. I find persuasiveness to be key in the presentation of the arguments, it is important to balance analysis/mechanization and rhetoric.

I do not think that evidence is necessary to prove an argument so long as it is proven through persuasive analysis and realistic characterizations. I also believe that teams should respect the fiat the motion gives each side of the house, meaning that teams can actually do or think they can do whatever the motion is asking from them. Despite this, it is important for teams to also characterize and analyse why their model is likely to happen/be accepted, why it would solve issues they are trying to fix and how they will carry this out.

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!

Hi! My name is Anh, and I'm super excited to see y'all debate! In high school, I competed mainly in WSD and attended WSDC my junior and senior years. I now (occasionally) do BP in college. 

A couple of things I look for in a round: 

1. Argument Construction/extension

When I hear your arguments, I should understand why your impact occurs, the extent to which it occurs (the degree of harm/benefit), and why it is unique to your side. 

2. Argument Interactions 

I will feel more compelled to vote for you if you weigh both mechanisms and impacts. For ex, you could tell me why your mechanism is more likely to achieve X than the other team's mechanism. Or why, assuming both mechanisms work, X impact is more important than Y impact. This type of weighing should certainly be in the 3/4s, but I welcome weighing earlier as well. 

GL!

I'm a senior at Harvard with experience in world schools and parli debate. I've never competed in PF.

General thoughts: I flow. I guess I'm tab in the way it's usually understood, but I think the way in which it's usually understand is wrong. This article was written for a different format but it's insightful and very close to how I think about debate.

Harvard Tournament 2023 (Public Forum):

1) I really like warrants. Evidence can make your argument stronger, but I weigh well-explained mechanisms very heavily. Don't claim that your argument is "just empirically true" because of cards, go beyond them and make your internal links as detailed as possible. Like Inko Bovenzi's paradigm says: "Strong Warrants > Warrants with Evidence > Warrants > Evidence"

2) Please weigh explicitly. Debaters tend to be smart and topics tend to be controversial. The logical conclusion is that both teams are usually saying something that makes sense. This is why it is crucial to weigh. If neither side weighs explicitly, you're relying on my intervention. This is unpredictable. I am moody. I'll give you a frustrating RFD.

3) I have a presumption against high-magnitude, low-probability impacts like nuclear war. I will listen to them and evaluate them, but generally believe that you're better off spending time on plausible and interesting arguments than showing how the resolution increases the risk of WW3 by one-millionth of a percent.

4) Please don't spread. Brisk conversational pace is ok but if you feel like you need to double breathe, you're going too fast.

5) I've never done a format with theory: I don't know anything about it and generally have a strong bias in favor of arguments about the topic. I will listen to theory if you read it, but make sure to over-explain every concept instead of relying on jargon--I won't know what an RVI is.

6) Be civil and respectful. I won't hesitate to drop you for being mean to your opponents.

7) I won't read a speech doc. I'll occassionally call for evidence, mostly when you tell me to, but use this very sparingly or I'll be angry at you. Remember point 1), I'm extremely unlikely to actually vote off evidence alone (unless you outright lie about it, then you'll lose!)

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.

Harvard '18; Harrison '14

I debated for Harrison on the national circuit. I used to coach and judge pretty frequently, but have become pretty inactive since 2016.

I have a high threshold for clarity, and I will drop you if I have to keep calling clear--I will not let you just re-explain things in later speeches. Be careful with new literature and debate strategies--I am happy and interested to hear them, but I am likely unfamiliar with them and will be hearing them for the first time when you read them. That means you need to be slower, not just what you think is clear.

I care much less about the types of arguments you run and much more about the way you run them--be clear, crystallize well, and clash with your opponent. I will vote on anything that has a claim, warrant, and impact, so long as it is not morally repugnant. That being said, I will be much happier with and give higher speaks to debaters who debate the topic and/or show creative, independent thinking. Perceptual dominance, making an attempt at being persuasive, and being kind and respectful will also be good for your speaks.

Ask me about any other specifics before the round.

Greetings!

My name is Vidit Desai and I have been debating for the last 8 years and coaching for the last 4. I have debated all throughout university at Western University where I currently study Political science and Spanish. I would contend that I have few things I consider in my judging philosophy:

1. I traditionally do not value speaker style to a great extent, I try my best to focus on the quality of the argument and not the stylistic elements of the speaker.

2. I believe comparative analysis is super important, it is often insufficient just to prove a harm occurs in the other side's world if it is not shown why such a harm is not symmetric.

3. I flow the round pretty closely so make sure you've tried to engage with all of the points made by the other side.

4. Avoid strawmanning, I believe that debate where teams are discourteous in their interpretation of the other side often are not the highest quality rounds.

Hi hi

I did WSDC and whatnot in high school, so I'm familiar with the norms of worlds judging and round expectations. A couple of specific things: (1) Make sure your arguments are properly mechanized. The term fiat is thrown around in world worlds too often without proper explanation or justification. I like interesting models, just explain them well and make sure they're reasonable. (2) Please impact things. This is straightforward, but if you have an argument, tell me why it matters relative to the debate. (3) Weigh! Be incredibly explicit about why one argument is more important than another in the back half. You don't have to win all/ the majority of arguments in world schools, just the most important ones!!

If both teams agree, i am willing to turn prep into 4 extra minutes of GCX.

Jay Garg has a really good paradigm (esp the part about Jackie's paradigm). Can we just pretend I copy and pasted it here? Jeremy Lee also has a good paradigm. If you are confused / unsure about how I evaluate anything or just want to shoot the breeze, please ask before the round to clarify.

Background:

Tawfique Elahi is currently pursuing MSc Information Systems at Lund University, Sweden. He got his bachelor's degree in computer science from NSU. He is an early-career researcher in Human-Computer Interaction.

He served as a debate coach at BL Debate Academy, Vancouver; and Debate Spaces Academy, Boston. In terms of leadership experience, he is currently serving as the Head of the Lund University Debating Society, and Chairperson at the United Asian Debating Council. Previously, he was the Secretary of the World Universities Debating Council (WUDC) and the Asian BP Debating Council. He brings a wealth of debate experience to the table. He has judged elimination rounds at ~100 debate championships on five continents (Asia, Africa, Australia, Europe, and North America), served on ~25 Chief Adjudication Panels, 3 Equity Panels, ~40 Grand Finals, and chaired ~20 elimination rounds. Among his major successes are serving as Chief Adjudicator at the McMaster High School Tournament and judging final series rounds at the World Championship of Debating (Korea WUDC), Hart House IV, and Canadian BP Championships. He is experienced with the WSDC, IPDA, CNDF, BP, CP, PF, LD, Policy, Asians, Australs, and Easters formats.

Certifications:

• NFHS Protecting Students from Abuse

• NFHS Cultural Competence Course

General Notes for speakers:

• I really admire teams that are well-structured and can clearly express the implications of evidence and properly tie back the evidence to their position.
• While you’re going to use evidence, it's preferable that you also explain the underlying trend/core issue associated with it.
• Engagement is important. Direct comparison and weighing make the lives of judges easier. It's preferable that you also illustrate how the advantages on your side outweigh theirs, and how their disadvantages outweigh their advantages.
• If you argue a comparative advantage, be prepared to justify it with proof that explicitly links to that piece of proof that your opposition used.
• If you’re presenting counter-plans, be prepared to analyze why your counter-plan is a better approach, for example, you reach the resolution faster/easier and take fewer resources.
• Please don’t present any point that will not be understandable to an average intelligent voter. If you do so, that piece of material will be discounted.
• Please don't use any offensive language that leads to equity violations.
• Roadmaps are appreciated.
• Speaking fast is fine, but please use clarity.
• Any kind of Style is fine with me as long as you're fairly understandable. I acknowledge that different debaters come from different backgrounds, and thus have different styles.
• I reasonably flow during speeches. During the crossfire, I take notes for the most important questions raised and how they're answered.

Email: connorengel@gmail.com

Things to know

[1] I have no interest in judging debates about bad theory arguments. They are bad, boring, and pointless. If you make an exceptionally terrible theory argument, I just won't vote on it. This doesn't apply to many arguments. For example, arguments that are fair game are CP theory, plans good/bad, some spec args, AFC good/bad, etc. This is only meant to exclude really awful arguments like "neg may only make 2 arguments," "must spec CP status in speech," "must read an explicit standard text," "must contest the aff framework," and "must spec what you meant when you said 'competing interps.'" Strategic theory is fine, but theory debates about arguments this bad are honestly just not worth my time.

[2] I value explanation a lot. I've found that I vote aff in a lot of debates in which the neg goes for a ton of arguments, each of which could be a winning 2NR but end up getting very under-explained. I have also voted for a lot of debaters whose evidence is not amazing but who give very good explanations/spin for that evidence. The best debaters I've seen collapse in rebuttals, give overviews, and weigh.

[3] I am unlikely to be convinced that something categorically outweighs something else (e.g. .01% risk of extinction outweighs, fairness outweighs everything no matter what, etc.). Your weighing arguments should be contextual/comparative.

[4] I really enjoy good T, policy-style, theory, and K v. policy aff debates. I’ve found that I normally do not like “philosophy”/ framework debates because they tend to involve bad mis-explanations of moral theories, cards cut out of context, and general trickery/tomfoolery. Paraphrasing Travis Fife: If you actually read moral/political philosophy and apply it to debate in a way that’s true to the literature, I might be a great judge for you. If you use moral theory as an excuse for engaging in trickery/obfuscation and making implausible normative claims, I am a very bad judge for you (and you should stop doing that).

[5] I have voted for T/framework against K affs more often than I have voted against it. When I vote neg in T/FW debates, I normally vote on skills-type impacts and topic education impacts, and I almost never vote on "fairness is an intrinsic good." When I vote aff in these debates, I normally think that the aff has done something to mitigate the neg's impact (e.g. a counter-interpretation that solves, link/impact defense) and won a good-size piece of offense for their counter-interpretation. I think the aff in these debates needs to have a counter-interpretation and should prove that that counter-interpretation is better than the neg interpretation.

[6] I actively enjoy K debate, but there's nothing worse than bad K debate. Just because I'm black and read certain identity politics args in high school doesn't mean I'll autovote on them without any explanation. In fact if you're going to read afropess the bar is set extra high for actually explaining and extending ontology warrants rather than just yelling at your opponent about the middle passage for 7 minutes.

[7] I don't really understand most "high theory" arguments (Baudrillard, Bataille, Deleuze, etc.). I won't vote on something that I cannot coherently explain, so the bar for explanation is pretty high. In general, you should not assume I am well-read on the critical literature you’re reading unless it’s marxism or identity politics. I have found that slowing down, collapsing, and giving examples all enhance my understanding of arguments made in rounds.

[8] I am very unlikely to vote on a "risk of offense" argument on theory. I'm inclined to think that the debater initiating theory has to generate a real/substantial advantage to their interpretation that I could describe without using the term "risk of offense".

[9] “Reasonability” means to me that the person answering theory need only meet a “reasonable” interpretation, rather than the optimal interpretation. “Reasonability” does not mean to me: “evaluate just whether our particular aff should be allowed,” “only demonstrated/in-round/whatever-you-call-it abuse matters,” or “we may ‘reasonably meet their interpretation.’”

I think that reasonability is most persuasive against theory arguments with a very small impact. The best arguments for reasonability argue that requiring debaters’ practices to meet a certain (reasonable) standard, rather than requiring them to meet the optimal standard, produces the best debates. Generic “competing interps is bad” arguments are not great args for reasonability.

[10] Please slow down on theory arguments, especially if you don't put them on their own pages. If you read theory args at the same speed that you read cards, I almost certainly won't get down everything that you want me to.

[11] I'm not interested in listening to call-outs of or jabs at other schools, debaters, coaches, etc. E.g. I don't want to hear "[School X] always does this!" or "Of course [Debater Y] is going for [Argument A]!" Lines like these do not help illustrate your argument at all, make the debate uncomfortable to judge, and are often just mean/uncalled for.

[12] You cannot "insert highlighting" or a list of what the aff defends. If either the warrant in a card is given by a chart/table or you want to insert a very long list, then you should at least describe what the chart/table says or identify the source of the list, what it's a list of, and that you'll defend it (respectively).

[13] I quickly get lost in debates that use the word "fiat" a lot. I don't think that the terms "pre-fiat" and "post-fiat" are very illuminating; it's not clear to me what they mean in most contexts or what the significance of supposed distinction between "pre-" and "post-fiat" is supposed to be. I also think that using the word "fiat" as a verb is obfuscatory in a lot of contexts; it's not clear to me that "fiatting" an action is anything over and above just saying that someone should do it. Relatedly, I don't think that "truth-testing" means the aff doesn't have to defend fiat or implementation. (This is largely because I don't know what "truth-testing" does to sidestep the justification for fiat, which comes from the word "ought" in the resolution.)

[14] In most of the K debates that I have judged, framework (the "role of the ballot") has been woefully underdeveloped on both sides. Often, the neg does not clearly extend a framework arg and articulate what it means. And often the aff's only framework arg is "let us weigh the case because fairness." This makes these debates very hard to judge. K 2NR's that include a robust framework argument and explanation of how that includes the neg impacts and excludes weighing the case make it much easier to vote neg. Similarly, 2AR's on the K that include robust "exclusive plan focus good" or "let us weigh the case + case outweighs" arguments make it much easier to vote aff. When neither side clearly labels and develops a framework argument, I find it very difficult to piece these debates together/determine what each side thinks I should be evaluating in the debate.

[15] What is up with this sending cards in the body of the email thing? Do people not make speech docs? It is fine in principle to send cards in the body of the email. But if your opponent asks you to send them in a document instead, then you need to take your prep time to compile and send a speech doc (or if you are out of prep time, you should start your speech time to compile + send the doc).

Things About Cheating

[1] I think that evidence ethics matters regardless of whether an argument/ethics challenge is raised in the debate. If I notice that a piece of evidence is miscut, I will vote against the debater who reads the miscut evidence.

I think that a piece of evidence is miscut if:

• it starts and/or ends in the middle of a sentence or paragraph.

• text is missing from the middle of the card (replacing that text with an ellipsis does not make it okay),

• the next paragraph or another part of the article explicitly contradicts the argument/claim made in the card,

• the card is highlighted in a way that modifies or does not accurately represent the author’s claim [Be careful with brackets - I don’t think they always mean a card is miscut, but I’ve seen that they very often do. I think that brackets, more often than not, are bad - if a bracket changes the strength of a claim made by the author, or in some other way changes the *meaning* of the evidence, it is miscut] [also, I think that highlighting only part of a word is the same as bracketing - if you highlight only part of a word, then the word you read is not what the author wrote],

If I decide a debate on evidence ethics, I will let the debate finish as normal. If the debate is a prelim, I will decide speaks based on the content of the debate and subtract two speaker points from the debater that I vote against. If the debate is an elim, I will submit my ballot and won’t say anything about my decision until the debate is announced.

If both sides read miscut evidence, I will vote against the debater who read miscut evidence first. (I really don’t love this as a way to evaluate these debates, but the only comparable scenario that I can think of is clipping, and that’s how I would resolve those debates.)

I do not plan to go out of my way looking for miscut evidence or checking to see whether every card is cut correctly. If I do notice that something is miscut, I will vote against the debater who reads it regardless of whether a challenge is made.

Please do not hesitate to ask questions about this before the debate.

[2] If a debater says that a piece of evidence is miscut in round and their opponent clarifies that they are making an "evidence ethics challenge" (and the former person confirms that they want to make a challenge), the debate ends. I will read all of the relevant stuff and then make a decision. Whoever is correct on the evidence ethics challenge wins the debate. The loser will get the lowest speaks I can give.

In lieu of an evidence ethics challenge, I am also ok with asking your opponent to just strike the cards from the doc/cross them off the flow in cx and have the rest of the debate but calling a challenge if they refuse to do so (this is noble but not required). You could also make arguments about why misquoting is bad, but I'm compelled by a response that basically says "call an ethics challenge or don't make the argument; we'll stake the debate on it." Indeed, I think that if you make an evidence ethics argument, you should be willing to stake the debate on it. If you don't stake the round on it, you'll still win (if they committed the evidence ethics violation), but your speaks will be worse than they otherwise would have been.

[3] Clipping is cheating! I read along with most cards, and if I notice that someone is clipping, I'll vote against them and give them the lowest speaks that I can give. I will not stop the debate unless a challenge is made, but if I notice clipping, I will vote on it regardless of whether a challenge is made. For clipping challenges, I'll follow the same procedure that I follow with evidence ethics (above). A similar procedure that might be helpful to look at is written out more formulaically in the NDCA guidelines: <https://static.squarespace.com/static/53416a18e4b0aa2aaadf85e4/t/53665f81e4b03af4b79e088f/1399218049326/clipping.pdf>. (The NDCA guidelines say that clipping has to be at least 5 words, but that seems to me like too many. Skipping ~3 words is definitely clipping, and skipping fewer (i.e. 1-2) is also bad and potentially a VI!)

Things I Won't Vote On

A prioris

Oppression good (if you concede that your position entails that oppression is good, then your position is that oppression is good)

Moral skepticism

Trivialism

Awful theory args

Speaks

I will give speaks based on how well I think you should do at the tournament. I also give higher speaks to reward strategies and arguments that I think are good/enjoyable to listen to/generally fun.
Here's a rough scale of how I'll give speaks:

30 = you should win everything

29.5-29.9 = you should be in late elims

29-29.5 = you should clear

28.5-29 = you should be on the bubble

27.5-28.5 = average

26.5-27.5 = you made some important strategic errors/lacked a clear strategy

<26.5 = I found something about this debate very annoying

Disclosure

Just disclose, ok? If you don't meet some minimum threshold for disclosure (the Harvard Westlake tournament disclosure policy requires what I consider the minimum acceptable disclosure) and your opponent reads disclosure theory, then you're going to lose. To be clear this does not require the disclosure of personal information that may endanger any debater (the brightline for which I leave to your discretion), but rather an attempt in good faith to provide your opponent with as much information about your position as possible.

The aff must tell the neg what aff they're going to read unless it's a new aff.

The wiki goes down every tournament. When it does, both debaters should make an effort to contact each other to disclose.

General Info

I am affiliated with the DebateDrills Club Team. Should you have any questions or concerns, please look through the below links or email leadership@debatedrills.com

1) Roster and Conflict Policy: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BJ9lWr2hMGtyNVsi4JlQ4fL9YZ084EYLQejwpGoZFCU/edit?usp=sharing

2) Code of Conduct and Relevant Team Policies: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qCZjjSlvg0HHfuyQcMT9yjmzrtrutipfqiSnYQqzZY4/edit?usp=sharing

3) Harassment/Bullying Complaint Form: https://forms.gle/c4npvCuawT9Kgv9n7

I'm a Blake debate alumna and now an assistant coach.

Worlds Schools debate was my main format, and I competed it for three years at the national level. Speech content: include the principle debate, rebuild / extend arguments from the first speech in the second speeches, and become more globalized for third and fourth speeches. Weigh - and early!! Speaking style: signpost.

As a secondary format, I competed in PF. I am very familiar with the format, and lay on most topics. Read dates, signpost, and I prefer cards / evidence over paraphrasing.

Be nice to each other! At the end of the day, debating is about learning and having fun.

EMAILS FOR EMAIL CHAINS: blakedocs@googlegroups.com and sierra@u.northwestern.edu

extra speaks if you show your pets

Hello! Quick background on me, I did PF all four years of high school and now do APDA/BP with the Harvard College Debating Union.

I'm a pretty standard judge:

1) Summary/Final Focus

i. I generally will only vote off offense that is included in summary AND final focus.

ii. Turns that you want me to vote off of must be in first summary.

iii. Defensive responses for the second speaking team need to be in both summary/final focus.

2) Please WARRANT the cards you care about. Otherwise, they generally don't matter.

3) YOU MUST TERMINALIZE AND WEIGH YOUR IMPACTS! If you do not do this, it will be up to my judgment what matters most in the round. (My judgment will likely not be what you like, so PLEASE collapse and weigh your voters).

4) I am not a fan of theory unless it's clearly relevant to the round.

TL;DR: speak at a fast conversational pace (or even just a conversational pace); read fewer, better-explained positions; I'll try not to intervene much. I'm bad at flowing.

Update (Harvard RR 2023): I haven't judged since last year. Please take the speed stuff seriously.

Background. I debated national circuit LD for Cambridge Rindge and Latin, qualifying to the TOC twice. I graduated high school in 2019 and have debated and judged little since then. My email is andrewg4000@gmail.com -- feel free to email me any time (even if you just have random questions about debate or want book recommendations or something).

Defaults. I aim to be as tab as possible as long as the round remains safe for the debaters. I'll try to assume whatever the debaters assume so that I minimize intervention. If both debaters assume fairness is a voter, then I'll assume that it's a voter, even if it's not explicitly justified. As a debater, I ran philosophical frameworks, theory, some policy positions, and the occasional K. Because of my experience as a debater, I will be more familiar with some positions than with others. That said, I will try my best to understand your arguments and evaluate them fairly.

Speed. Speak slowly. I do not flow off speech docs. I am terrible at flowing and listening, and always have been. I am likely much, much worse at flowing than I was as a debater, since I judge LD about once per year. You might think that while spreading you're clear, or slow, or understandable, but you're probably not. If you slow to a fast conversational pace, I will be grateful and reward you with higher speaks. Given all this, if you're going fast, don't get upset at me for missing some of your arguments.

Arguments I don't understand. I am not receptive to arguments I don't understand. (To clarify, I mean positions that were ill-explained. For example, I know something about Kantian moral philosophy, but explain it to me as though I don't.) Debaters often cut cards from dense or poorly written sources (e.g., Kant, Baudrillard... really most K and phil authors fall under here) and then specifically cut the cards so as to be as information dense as possible, making the arguments extremely hard to follow. I will probably from now on be more receptive to just not evaluating these arguments or at least having a low threshold for responses. Unfortunately, most debates I've judged have come down to trying to evaluate two positions I don't understand. My decisions in these cases are probably fairly random; you have been warned.

Respect. If you are debating against someone with clearly less knowledge about debate than you have (e.g., you're varsity debating a novice or a circuit debater debating a lay debater), please make the round as accessible to both debaters as possible. If you can only win with obscure positions and debate jargon, then debate has failed you; you're not good at debating, you're just good at playing inside baseball. (For the same reason, I like arguments that I can understand without being an expert in the relevant area of academia/public policy/whatever the current debate trend is. My role is not to be an educator, but nonetheless I want to judge engaging, educational rounds.)

On a related note, I dislike when debaters are mean to each other. I was vicious in this sense as a debater. For example, I sometimes cracked jokes at the other debater's expense when I had a decisive advantage. I regret doing so, and this sort of behavior usually makes me uncomfortable. I particularly dislike the personal call-outs in some debates. Although in very rare instances this behavior might be justified, I think that it is more often close to bullying or intimidation than a just accusation. You are in high school, and I'd like to see you be respectful and kind to each other.

See also Ishan Bhatt's, Pacy Yan's, and Jacob Nails's paradigms.

Appendix A. Important Articles.

I highly recommend "Plato Beyond the Platitudes" by Marshall Thompson. I also recommend "Politics and the English Language" by George Orwell.

Appendix B. Miscellaneous paradigmatic thoughts.

- I don't need voters on a theory shell to be extended unless contested.

- I don't understand most issues with fiat. See this excellent article. For example, if you defend the resolution and say that you "don't defend implementation," I am willing to dismiss this argument if the other debater says "they don't defend implementation -- hahahahahaha" and moves on, unless you give a compelling explanation for why not defending implementation is coherent.

- I default truth testing.

- I default epistemic/ethical confidence rather than epistemic/ethical modesty.

- On theory, I default drop the arg, reasonability (sufficient defense is enough to reject the shell), and no RVIs. The threshold for sufficient defense depends on the strength of the arguments for reasonability. For example, if you say that theory is almost always bad, substance is amazing, and only the most extreme circumstances make the round such that the judge can't vote for the better debater, then my threshold for sufficient defense will be low (i.e., my threshold for what counts as sufficient offense for voting on the shell will be high). If I have to default to reasonability or if there are not many arguments for reasonability, then I will assume a fairly high threshold for sufficient defense.

- I don't evaluate arguments that tell me to change speaks (e.g., "give me a 30").

- I think that debaters should justify something like drop the debater if they want to make an independent voter. I am unlikely to vote on independent voters unless such a warrant is present (see above: I default drop the arg). If it's the 2NR or 2AR and you're answering an independent voter without a drop the debater warrant, quickly pointing out that the voter lacks drop the debater and providing a quick reason to drop the argument instead of the debater should be more than enough.

- I am still a bit confused about how I should evaluate 2AR weighing. Right now, I tend to think that if 1ARs have impacts to weigh against NC impacts, then they should weigh in the 1AR rather than in the 2AR. I have so far erred neg on debates where the aff could have weighed in the 1AR but waited until the 2AR to do so. I think that the same should apply to NCs against impacts from the AC. But this is probably the least certain part of my paradigm.

- Here's another thing that annoys me: people who try to spread, but they're basically going at a fast conversational speed while changing their pitch of voice so that it sounds kind of like they're spreading. Spreading doesn't help you here.

Appendix C. Against Spreading

Spreading is bad:

1. It makes debate much less accessible;
2. It makes it easier for people to get away with nonsense (e.g., cards that make no sense, extremely blippy arguments) since judges can't tell what the debaters are saying;
3. Usually it encourages debaters to learn pretty useless skills (e.g., talking extremely fast) rather than some actually useful speaking skills (speaking with good emphasis, efficiency, eloquently).

Counterarguments:

1. Spreading teaches people how to process information quickly. Reply: I haven't seen much evidence for this claim, nor that it transfers beyond a narrow type of information (speeches/lectures delivered quickly orally). Anyway, this skill is very specialized and not that useful. It's good for listening to videos at faster speeds, but most of my non-debater friends can do this too.
2. Spreading allows people to introduce more evidence, make debates more interesting, go more deeply into cool literature. Reply: See point 2 above, which moots most of this argument.
3. If I don't spread but my opponent does, I'll lose! Reply: This is why I want to enforce both debaters not spreading. Anyway, I don't think the disadvantage is that great; efficiency and good strategy can make up most of the loss.

Didn't cover most of the things here, nor did I explain them well. Hope you get the gist though.

Hey all! If you have me as a judge, chances are that I'm super excited to judge your round and meet you all if I haven't already :)

A couple things about me. I debated in PF for four years at Newton South High School. I understand how a flow works and should have no problem following along with speed (if I am having trouble, I'll let you know). Second speaking teams do not have to frontline in second rebuttal unless they want to, and first speaking teams can extend dropped defensive arguments from rebuttal to final focus.

That being said, I tend to prefer arguments that I believe over speeches that are technically dazzling. I will be willing to vote off of theory, but I am also fairly skeptical regarding how important it is. If you have to use it, go for it; if you don't, probably better to not run theory. I love good warranting, and will not vote for a point if the warrant is not extended throughout the round. (Update: If I think an argument is stupid, I will also not vote for it. Convince me!) Going for fewer arguments with great explanation and weighing is probably the easiest way to win my ballot.

Oh also, putting this in here because it's a thing people are starting to do differently. I still default NEG, not first. If you want me to explain why, just ask.

Along those lines, the worst feeling in the entire world is when you lose a judge because they voted in a way that you didn't know they were going to vote. If there's anything I can answer for you before the round, please just ask.

Jacqueline Wei has a really good paradigm. Can we pretend that I just copy-and-pasted it here?

Hi! My name is Kyle and I've been doing debate and public speaking for about 6 years now since. I mainly debate and judge using the British Parliamentary format and various 3v3 formats. My primary standards for judging include the engagement of material across teams (how well arguments clashed with one another) and explicitly proving to me why your team wins assuming a very generous characterization/frame of the opposing team as well the comparatives launched throughout the debate. I'm also more than happy to provide comments on content, style, and strategy which will be integrated in my feedback when deciding on the round. Please be kind and courteous as well, see you all during the tournament! :)

My Background:

I debated PF for three years on local and national circuit.

I also did LD and Parli a couple times, am a novice in APDA, and can greatly appreciate big picture/philosophical arguments.

PFers- I don’t flow cross ex (so if it’s important mention it in your speech)

I look for a few things in a successful round:

1. Clear speaking: I believe one of the most important aspects to strong debating is developing oratorical skills. That being said, I want to see clear, concise argumentation. Additionally, although I flow all rounds, I am not a “tech judge”. I do not buy arguments said while spreading and I certainly will not extend things on the flow just because you say “extend this.”
2. Narrative building: By this I mean paralleling summary and final focus to enhance consistency and establish cohesive links around the issue you choose to crystallize. I need to know what the ramifications of what you are talking about mean in the big world AKA I want to see all your Impacts extended and clearly contextualized in the final speeches.
3. Weighing on impacts AND links: While weighing on impacts is the most intuitive portion, I really want to know why your link into the impact is more significant than your opponents link into theirs. Especially if you are impacting to the same thing, this is probably going to be the most crucial portion to my decision.

All of this said: I will not stand for sexist/racist/intolerant views in round. Please be respectful, be rational, be clear, be assertive, and enjoy yourself!

Hi, make funny jokes = boosted speaks

Be respectful during the crossfire.

No preferred speaking style.

Try to send evidence asked for during crossfire in the chat after crossfire/during prep time, let's not waste time searching for cards during questions.

Provide trigger warnings for topics your fellow debaters may find sensitive.

If you're worried about time mid-sentence just complete your thought, I will stop you when I have to.

Go read Justin Qi's paradigm. I'll judge based on it.

I was on the Canadian high school circuit for four years. Won nationals and provincials a handful of times each. Broke Cambridge Schools, Harvard WS, and a couple of other tournaments. Now I'm in university and blissfully retired from competition. I do not know any American debate terminology. Don't spread. I will credit quality over quantity every time. I am not the type to fill in analysis for you as a judge. My biggest pet peeve is defeatist self-talk (e.g. "ugh that speech was so bad") during the round. If you have questions ask me before the round.

Hello, I'm Kate, a senior at Eastern Michigan University. I have been out of the debate for awhile now, and my paradigm might be a little outdated. With that, this is what I know and what will help you understand how to best win me over as a judge :)

In short, my paradigm depends on what event you are competing in, so I will break all that down below. For the most part, please be kind. Do not be rude or condescending in the round. My speaker points usually range from 25-30. If you are rude during a round, I will drop you. I am considerate of all tech issues that may arise, as I am not that tech-savvy myself. Please be mindful and do not take advantage of this.

I do not disclose in rounds, no matter the event. I have never seen the education or advantage of disclosure, so I tend to favor not disclosing unless I have to.

For world schools

Worlds Schools Debate relies on style and strategy. I believe this to be a conversational debate where rhetoric and argumentation can come into play. As a third speaker, this should not be another rebuttal. I want to see the breakdown of arguments through either questions or key areas of analysis. You should be answering at least three questions each speech, and I am okay with multiple people asking points at the same time. With that, please be respectful and mindful of the speaker. Points of clarification are also fine but keep them brief: these are not rebuttals. There are no follow-ups in Points of Information, so be concise with your wording when asking a question.

If you have any questions about my paradigm, please ask before the round. I will not go over my entire paradigm with you. Please do not ask me what my paradigm is, as I will be very angry with you :(

For LD

If you are in LD, do not look at my policy paradigm, they are separate for a reason. I was a traditional debater all through high school, but I was also successful on the national circuit, so I know my way around progressive LD. I am okay with speed but not spreading: there is a time and place for spreading, and it is not in LD. also, for most of my debates, I would say I am truth>tech.

YOU MUST HAVE A VALUE AND A VALUE CRITERION. There is no plan text in LD, there is no solvency on the aff. If you plan to run a counterplan, don't. If you do not have these or plan to run these, you do not want me as a judge. I believe this is a philosophical debate, and thus you should focus on the framework heavily throughout. I really hate theory and would not like to see it, often times it gets very abusive and I cannot follow it.

Cross-examination is always my favorite, and I like it when used wisely, so take advantage of that without being rude. I have to see the clash to find a winner. Clash on whose evidence was better or more recent doesn't cut it. I want to know who had the better impacts, value, weighing mechanism- this should also show up in your KVIs in the last speech.

For PF

I would rather see clash on arguments than cards. pf is an on-balance debate which means that at the end of the round, you should be telling me what you are winning and how you out-weigh on impacts, solvency, framework, etc. every speech should essentially be different and have its own reasons for being there, so I don't want constant rebuttals throughout the whole round. I appreciate the whole picture of what the pro and con worlds look like.

speed is okay, but don't spread, and please sign-post throughout the round and the speeches. I want to know what I am putting on my flow and where it needs to go. line-by-lines are also cool in pf. If you are calling for cards you should have a pretty good reason to call the card I think more time is simply wasted on calling for every single piece of evidence when you aren't even making an attack on the evidence you do call.

For Policy

I am a tech>truth for policy so please make sure that if you are running arguments you are not running them to waste time but to win them. I am okay with speed and spreading as long as I have the doc and you slow the tags down for me. I am more familiar with stock issues within the debate, but I am a tabula rasa when it comes down to it. I really don't like affKs so be aware and try to avoid them around me as much as possible. If you want to win with me as a judge, tell me what you have won and how you have won it in the 2NR and 2AR, and if you are running something you know I don't particularly like, spend more time on it.

topicality- only run this if you plan to keep it in the 2NR, but if not then don't run it just to waste time. I am all too familiar with running T on a random word just to waste your opponent's time, but I would rather see fewer arguments and more impacts.

Ks- I really don't like Ks all too much unless it is a really fleshed-out K that not only makes sense but also creates a valuable debate. I think there are a ton of really good Ks that you can find, I am more familiar with: Cap K, Neolib, Hauntology, psychoanalysis K, and afropes K. I know some of these can be a little older but if you know of Ks that might be similar then it would be best to try that then something that is like way off. YOU MUST HAVE AN ALTERNATIVE. I have seen too many Ks run without alts which kind of defeats their purpose.

theory- not gonna lie I never ran theory as a policy nor LD debater, but I have seen it and I don't like it. often theory can get really abusive and if it comes to that within a round I will drop you for it. if you need to run theory then make it good and simple or I will not be able to follow it and thus I cannot vote on what I do not know.

CPs- they're great, I've always loved a good CP debate and would vote on these easily as long they are good and you have won it.

tag team CX is fine with me as long as it doesn't get too abusive and the person who is supposed to be asking and answering questions is the one mainly talking. I don't use prep when flashing evidence just don't abuse that or I will start timing it if I need to. if you have any questions or if I have missed anything pls ask any questions but pls read the paradigm. I will drop you for things that are not followed on the paradigm.

I have 6+ years experience between debating, judging, and coaching debate. Started out with WSDC, various Australasian formats, and BP, but have picked up policy along the way. This means I understand all the technical debate lingo, but overuse annoys me. Being able to explain yourself clearly shows greater mastery of the material than spouting jargon. Numbers help quantify impacts only insofar as the numbers and link work are clear.

Re. online debate: I cannot score you fairly if I cannot understand you.

Tech issues are completely normal and we all experience lag from time to time. Enunciate when presenting evidence, emphasize critical links, and take a breath where required - especially during cross. If you have a critical piece of information that you need me to hear, make sure to speak more slowly during that portion of your speech so that I actually pick it up.

PF/Policy:

Off-time roadmaps are cool. Honestly anything goes as long as your speech has some sort of structure. Logic is the easiest way to win me over, as long as it's paired with evidence. I generally don't love theory arguments, but if you run them, make sure to link them clearly to the motion. I would prefer you provide logical/structural reasons for why your arguments are superior instead of simply making assertions.

Open to take questions and give feedback if there's time. Just ask!

I am an Australian judge (currently an active member of the Harvard College Debate Team) most familiar with the Australs/World Schools format and spent 8 years over the course of my adolescence debating in this format. I will pick you up if you are reasonable and warrant well, and will drop you if you run a case that is very inaccessible or technical.

Note here that I WILL intervene if I think that something has been said in the context of the debate that is so unreasonably far-fetched that it is clearly empirically incorrect, and drop it (regardless of whether or not this has been refuted --> applies mostly to formats lenient toward intervention such as World Schools and less to APDA unless that is your collapse).

I will always buy practical arguments over principle.

Do not assume that I am an expert on the topic you are discussing, and spell it all out for me, including specific weighing.

Finally, don't be rude. It's against the spirit of debate generally and doesn't do much in the way of creating an environment conducive to making everybody feel comfortable.

Canadian judge with experience in BP, CP, Parli, WSS and CrX. Preference for analysis/warranting, impacts, weighing and strategy over lists of examples. No strong preferences for speaking style or speech format.

I'm a novice college debater and did not do debate in high school so I can't give very useful RFDs but won't be very strict giving out speaks either, especially to teams that seem inexperienced.

Please don't speak too quickly and try to signpost whenever possible, it will only hurt you if I can't understand your arguments!

PF: My paradigm for public forum is fairly simple. If you are using a framework make sure to weigh properly on it throughout the round. Weigh your arguments in the summary and final focus so I know who to vote for. Also be nice to each other please.

LD: Please do not spread in the round. I am a more traditional LD judge and was very traditional when I competed. If you run policy args you are going to have to do a very good job of convincing me because I will be coming in with a bias towards those types of arguments. Please use a value and value criterion and engage in the value debate.

I have 8 years experience with WSDC and BP, around 3 coaching and judging PF. I understand all the jargon, so don't hesitate using it.

For PF rounds:

Off-time roadmaps are cool. Honestly anything as long as your speech has some sort of structure.

Enunciate when presenting evidence. Numbers help quantify impacts insofar as the numbers are clear

Logic is the easiest way to win me over, as long as it's paired with evidence

I'd rather you don't spread because it's generally hard to flow that, but if you do, make sure to share your speech doc with me and your opponent. IMO, spreading should be used to fit more material but not to confuse your opponent.

I generally don't love theory arguments, but if you run them, make sure to link them clearly to the motion.

I debated PF at Stuyvesant High School for 4 years.

Update for Harvard Tournament: i am old now. please do not speak fast because i truly will not be able to follow it. please disregard everything below. a slow, logical, and captivating speech delivery will surely convince me.

Speech-docs & questions about the decision should be emailed to: jeremylee@college.harvard.edu.

If you are going to read an argument about a sensitive topic, please include a content warning. Give a phone number for participants to anonymously report any concerns, and if there are any, you must have an alternative case ready to read.

TLDR: Treat me like a lay judge. I will evaluate rounds with a technical standard, but I dislike fast, blippy "tech" debate. As tech as I try to be, your persuasive ability will inevitably skew me one way or another, so please don't throw away presentational skills for the sake of spewing jargon. Every argument needs a clearly-explained warrant for me to consider it. I will vote for the team with the least mitigated link to the greatest impact.

Technicalities

- Cross will not impact my evaluation of the round. Use it for your own benefit to clarify arguments.

- First summary doesn't need defense.

- I care little about numbers and number comparisons in weighing. Most of the time, impact quantifications in PF are over exaggerated because impacts that happen on margins are extremely difficult if not impossible to quantify.

- Weigh turns & disads (If you don't, I won't know whether to evaluate your response or your opponents' case first. This means I can still vote for a team with a dropped turn on their flow.)

- Compare your weighing to your opponents. If this is not done, know that I weigh primarily on the link level because I think it is the key factor in determining the marginality of your impact (or if it happens at all). If you don’t want an unexpected decision, do the weighing yourself. Side-note: Link ins don’t count as weighing unless you show that your link is stronger than theirs.

- It is my belief that weighing fundamentally comes down to two things: how large your impact is and how probable your impact is. I take both things into account so if you weigh on probability and your opponent weighs on magnitude (and you both don't interact with each other's weighing), I will intervene to determine which argument is more important.

- I won't vote off of dropped defense if it is not extended

- Paragraph theory is good with me and is probably more accessible. However, this does not mean you do not read blippy theory for the sake of throwing your opponent off. Still give me a clear interpretation, violation, standard, and voter. [Note: I am not very familiar with progressive argumentation and would prefer it not to be run unless there is real abuse in the round. If you do choose to run it, I will evaluate it as logically as I can, but I cannot guarantee that I will evaluate it the same way your typical "tech" judge would.]

- No CPs or Ks.

- Weighing in first FF is okay, but it's better if done earlier (not in second FF though)

- No new arguments in FF. This applies to extensions. If there isn't a clean link and impact extension in summary, I won't evaluate it even if it is in FF.

- Second rebuttal must respond to turns (I count as dropped otherwise)

- No offensive OVs in second rebuttal. I just won't vote on it

- Tech>truth most times, but the crazier an argument gets, the lower my threshold for responses to that argument is.

- Extensions of offense need to be in summary and final focus. You need to always link the argument back to the resolution and draw it out to an impact. If this isn't done, you will 90% of the time lose the round because you have no offense. I have a relatively high threshold for what counts as a clear extension because it is essential for transparent collapsing.

- Please don't use the abusive strategy of kicking out of all of your opponent's responses to your case just to read a new link to your impact. If your opponents do this, call them out for it in speech.

- If no offense is left by the end of the round, I presume the team that lost the coin flip. If the round is side-locked, I presume the first speaking team because I believe it is at a structural disadvantage in the round.

Etiquette (how to get high speaks)

- Don't spread. I flow on my computer, so I can follow speed, but the faster you go, the more likely I am to miss something on the flow. Additionally, I find that 99% of the time, you do not need to go fast to cover the flow; you simply need to improve your word economy. Finally, I believe that spreading is bad for the activity. It excludes so many people from being able to comprehend and learn from the round, making the activity overall less accessible. If you can speak at a moderate speed while still covering the flow efficiently, you will be rewarded with high speaks.

- Signpost. If I am not writing on my flow, there is a good chance that I just don't know where you are on the flow.

- Do not be rude to your opponent. This includes making faces while your opponent is speaking, speaking over your opponent in cross, and making jokes at the expense of your opponents. Excessive rudeness that makes the activity inaccessible to marginalized groups will result in me dropping the debater. My threshold for this is not that high because I despise this behavior in an activity that is meant to be fun and educational for all participants.

- I will give you high speaks if you speak pretty and are smart on the flow.

- Do not read 30 speaks theory.

Evidence

- Please don't call for every piece of evidence your opponents read. I understand if you think the card is super important to win the round, but in 99% of rounds, I do not even consider evidence in my decision. I instead look at logic and argument quality, so call for evidence sparingly.

- I think evidence is overrated and warrants matter much more. This means you need to attach warrants to evidence and also should discourage the misconstruction of evidence. Your insane card won't win you the round. Read your evidence ethically and then explain its role in the round.

(Guide) Warranted analytics + evidence > warranted analytics > unwarranted evidence > assertions.

- At the minimum, last name and year

- I am fairly lenient with paraphrased cards because I understand that when all evidence is taken word for word from the source, word economy suffers and many debaters resort to speaking faster. However, this is on the condition that evidence is NOT misconstrued. If you are to paraphrase evidence, make sure to fully understand the source and maintain the source's intention; do NOT paraphrase evidence for the sake of getting it to say what you want it to say.

- I will only call for evidence if you tell me during a speech or if I find it relevant to my decision at the end of the round.

- To discourage cheating, if you blatantly misrepresent evidence, I will drop the entire arg/contention.

Misc.

- I expect all exchanges of evidence to take no longer than 2 minutes. If you delay the debate significantly while looking for a specific card, I may dock your speaker points for being disorganized and wasting time. If someone requests to see your evidence, you should hand it to them as soon as possible; don't say "I need my computer to prep."

- Please don't try to shake my hand after the round.

- Wear whatever you want, I don't really care.

- Feel free to ask questions about the decision after the round. I won't feel offended if you disagree with my decision, and I am happy to discuss it after the round.

If you have any other questions, ask before the round.

Hi!

I've debated and judged at 50+ uni and high school tournaments before on BP, AP, WSDC and PF formats.

My judging habit is to record nearly every single word debaters say and then cautiously evaluate how each part of speeches functions on each clash, regardless of your speaking rate.

1. I don't automatically believe assertions as valid/strong arguments, unless they're proven or supported. Don't worry! It doesn't mean extra burdens on supporting every sentence you say.

But I suggest you to offer your understanding for the materials you use & minimum explanations & mechanism & analysis & reasoning.

2. I believe warrants should effectively support your stance, not just be listed.

About me:

I did PF from 2013 to 2017 at Walt Whitman High School in Maryland. I coached/ judged frequently as a first year out, although I've been semi-retired from high school debate since 2018. Currently, I'm a student at Brandeis University in Massachusetts, where I'm majoring in economics and history. I regularly compete in APDA and BP style parliamentary debate. I use he/ they pronouns.

Major preferences:

Unless you want me to intervene, you have to weigh competing impacts as well as links into the same impact. Weighing should be comparative (X outweighs Y because) or superlative (X comes before everything else because). Comparative weighing tends to be more persuasive than superlative because it actually accounts for the quality of your opponents' arguments instead of precluding them on face. That being said, I'll vote for any weighing as long as it's done correctly.

I touched at this in the last paragraph, but to reiterate: you must weigh your link(s) against your opponents' link(s) when you're both trying to access the same impact. In all the rounds I've judged, failure to weigh links is easily the most common mistake that costs debaters the round. (This is especially true for higher-level rounds.)

Don't wait until second final focus to weigh, doing so deliberately avoids clash and makes it nearly impossible for the first speaking team to win on weighing. I will reluctantly evaluate new weighing in second final focus if it's the only substantive weighing in the round, or if it's the only way to resolve clash over existing weighing.

As you may have noticed, the past three paragraphs have all been about weighing. That's because weighing is important. A lot of successful debaters have a habit of telling teams they judges to "weigh more" or "weigh better" without explaining how, and I despise this. If you want to improve your weighing but you're not sure how, find me after the round and we can talk.

Second rebuttal doesn't need to address defense, but they must cover offense and/or theory arguments introduced by the first rebuttal. Weighing from first rebuttal should probably be addressed, but I'm fine with you waiting until summary. Dropped defense must be present in final focus for me to evaluate it, but I don't need it in first summary (first summary still needs to extend/ rebuild defense if it was responded to in second rebuttal, otherwise I won't buy them in final focus.)

Offensive overviews, new "advantages" or "disads", and "turns" that are really just blippy new arguments with the same terminal impact as your opponents are fair game in first rebuttal, but not in second. Actual turns on their arguments are fine in second rebuttal.

As long as they're properly warranted, I usually don't care if arguments are carded. (Arguments predicated on empirical/ fact claims are the exception to this.) Evidence comparison is not as compelling as argument comparison, but I'll vote on it if you tell me to. In rounds where teams should have compared warrants but didn't, I often intervene on evidence. Your opponents get free prep time while you're searching for evidence; this is a good norm because it encourages teams to have evidence readily available

Theory is fine in the case of egregious abuse by your opponents. If you read theory and I think it's frivolous, I probably won't drop you but I will tank your speaks. I default to reasonability because this is PF and your opponents probably don't know what a counterinterp is. Theory must be introduced immediately after the violation has occurred if you want me to evaluate it. Cross (or questioning during prep) checks. Feel free to ask me how I feel about specific theory arguments before the round.

Plans and CPs are fine as long as the resolution actually proposes an action. You don't need to prove your advocacy is probable unless your opponents make an argument saying otherwise. If you read a specific plan/ CP that's very unpredictable and probably abusive, I'll heavily err towards your opponents if they contest it. (So don't be afraid to call your opponents out!)

Kritikal arguments are fine if you actually know how to make/ implicate them. I'm probably most conducive to cap, security, or orientalism (especially on the BRI topic). Read dense continental philosophy or postmodern arguments at your own risk.

Try not to speak above 215 words per minute. My upper limit is probably around 230 WPM, so go fast at your own risk.

Don't be mean. Stop making dramatic faces at your opponents' arguments, they're not going to persuade me. Avoid repeatedly cutting your opponents off in crossfire. Don't be blatantly dismissive or hostile towards your opponents' arguments when you respond to them (this is mostly directed at you, male debaters with non-male opponents).

Minor preferences (there aren't round-deciding, but please show some competency and do what I say):

Flip for sides and preflow as early as you can. (This especially goes for you, second flight.)

Please don't give me a full-on roadmap unless you're doing something really unusual. (I've judged enough rounds to know that you're going down their case and back to your own if time permits.)

Please don't try to shake my hand after the round.

I don't care if you sit or stand, so please don't ask me.

I don't care if a coach, teammate, or family member observes the round, so please don't ask me.

Hi!

My name is Isabella but I go by Izzy. I am a BP debater with over 6 years of experience. I have been judging for five years and have broken to numerous outrounds as a judge.

Please do not speak too quickly and make sure you are clear.

I favour substance over style because I believe rhetoric is less important than the content of your speech.

I will give you a 30 if you make a good Taylor Swift reference :)

I'm a parent judge with the observation of three years of CNDF debate training, 40 hours of BP training, and 54 hours of PF training, and 26 hours of World School training classes. This will be my fifth time to judge PF debate.

I'll be appreciated your clarity, get to the points and logical analysis. Please don't spread, so I can follow your points.

In most cases, I don't have any background knowledge of your motion, so I judge based on what you are saying in the rounds, not my own pre-set opinions. I won't give you detailed comments like your coach, but I will go with the flow and decide my votes by which side are more persuasive.

Name: Klaudia Maciejewska

School Affiliation: N/A

Number of Years Judging Public Forum: -

Number of Years Competing in Public Forum: -

Number of Years Judging Other Forensic Activities: 6

Number of Years Competing in Other Forensic Activities: 7

If you are a coach, what events do you coach? BP Debates, WSDC, AP

What is your current occupation? Competitive coach

Please share your opinions or beliefs about how the following play into a debate round:

Speed of Delivery: writing down important points, trying to type as much as possible fo being able to deliver RFD

Format of Summary Speeches (line by line? big picture?) Comparison of both sides, depends on speaker if prefer clashes or other structure, should provide crucial points for the debate

Role of the Final Focus: unclear what final means

Extension of Arguments into later speeches: Allowed but unstrategic - left little time for rebuilding and responding to rebuttal

Topicality: important, arguments should be linked to the particular context

Plans: structure and strategy are helpful

Kritiks: depends on the format

Flowing/note-taking: im writing most of speeches, marking my comments to be sure after the round what i add

Do you value argument over style? Style over argument? Argument and style equally? Argument over style

If a team plans to win the debate on an argument, in your opinion does that argument have to be extended in the rebuttal or summary speeches? Ideally rebuttal, conclude outcome of rebuttal in summary speech

I care deeply about warrant strength and will intervene against over-claimed impacts. Please avoid theory and be reasonable.

Hello! I'm a sophomore in college and have been a part of the Harvard College Debating Union for 2 years. I did 4 years of PF in high school.

I will flow your rounds, but please do not spread or speak quickly to try and cram things into your speeches. Quality over quantity, my friends. If you speak at a pace where your opponents and I simply can't understand you, it's a bad time for everyone involved.

Just because an article was published more recently or in a "more reputable journal/source" than another does not necessarily mean that it is more true or should be weighed more in my decision. If you revert to this as your sole rebuttal to dismiss your opponents' evidence, it makes me think you don't understand the evidence you're using.

On that note, just saying something is "empirically true" is not a rebuttal. Please elaborate if you're going to say this or I will be very sad.

Arguments must be present in both summary and final focus for me to vote on them.

Remember to have fun! Bonus points if you can make me laugh during your round. :)

I did LD for 3 years at Cambridge Rindge and Latin (MA), graduating in 2016. I almost exclusively competed on the national circuit, and qualled to TOC senior year.

HARVARD 2021 UPDATE: I will not be judging probably any prelims, but I will be in the elim pool. I haven't judged on this topic, so please explain any topic-specific references. I also truly cannot flow anymore, so pref accordingly.

I used to have a fair number of preferences & thoughts about this activity, but I'm far enough out that most of those preferences have faded. I will listen to anything that is not horribly messed up and try to intervene as little as possible. Please be nice to each other!

Extraneous things that may/may not be relevant to you:

• My flowing ability has significantly regressed over time, which means I'm probably not the judge for a very fast tricks debate (though a slow one is fine). Similarly, you should significantly slow down for theory interps and other important analytics.
• I won’t call for cards unless 1) there’s a genuine dispute over what the card says or 2) I fell asleep/experienced a comparable loss of consciousness and missed it
• I read a fair number of Ks back in the day, but you should not take that to mean (a) I know what you're talking about or (b) you do not need to explain your arguments
• The fastest way to lose my ballot is to concede a bunch of preempts in favor of reading a few cards that "implicitly answer" those preempts. Please just make implicit comparisons explicit, so I don't have to drop you on a silly argument because you didn't pay lip service to it. This is particularly relevant to topicality debates.
• I was fairly flex as a debater, and appreciate well-designed neg strategies that capitalize on a variety of styles.
• If you say "game over" in your speech, it's "game over" for your speaks! :)

Have fun, be nice to each other, and feel free to ask me any extra questions before round.

tabs judge. be nice, please :).

give explicit voters and weighing. basically, summarize the key points and tell me why your team deserves to win the debate.

did LD for 2 years, PF for one. Currently debate for the Harvard College Debate Union

I have a lot of experience competing in debate as a high school and college student (30 years), so you can expect me to be passionate about the issues you are speaking for and against but I will not bring personal preferences into debate like some other judges. I judge various events so here is a general outline of what I am looking for in a speech:

1. Passion - no matter what I want to see that you care about what you are speaking about. If this is lacking you can expect a poor ballot.

2. Good Arguments - when I have a tie between two capable and passionate debaters, this is where I go to break the tie. If you repeat arguments expect a poor ballot. Also note for formats like WSD and LD, I will try my best to flow the round, but you need to tell me arguments are dropped. I look for sound reasoning and logic flow in all of the debates and in LD, PF and other evidence based debates I will be asking you to read all of your cards.

3. Inflection and Voice - If I lose interest during your speech you are doing something wrong. Keep me engaged throughout. If you lose me when you are describing an argument you will not be on my flow and I will drop that argument completely.

4. Any type of rudeness and any chance at cutting other competitors speaking time (especially for POs in congress) will result in the lowest rank possible. RESPECT PRONOUNS and POI choices.

Hi I'm Swapna! I'm a university debater with 5 years of experience in British, Australian, and Asian Parliamentary but I'm relatively new to PF

Off-time roadmaps are cool. Honestly anything as long as your speech has some sort of structure.

Enunciate when presenting evidence. Numbers help quantify impacts insofar as the numbers are clear. Im fine with speed but make sure that you're still speaking as clearly as possible. This means enunciating as much as possible which is especially important during an online tournament.

I understand that cards are an important part of PF style debate but please state clearly what evidence you got from what source, not just throwing names around. This helps me take clearer notes.

Please make sure you are weighing your impact versus the other side throughout the entire round.

Good luck!

Welcome back and I'm glad to be back for another year.  Here is my updated paradigm.  This has general information and then items specific to LD

PERSONAL:

I have been a coach for 22 years and I have judged all forms of speech and debate.  This means I am pretty open to any time of argument. I will go with what I hear in the round and will not input myself into the debate.  I am a judge, not a competitor so I will not inject myself into the debate.  You don't need to send me your case.  I only want to judge what I hear, not what I can read.  So while I am okay with speed and I can handle spreading, only use spreading in Policy.

DEBATE:

Don't be condescending in your cross ex. Acting like you don't care about the answer the other person gave or interrupting them before they get the answer out is not okay. If you wanted a shorter answer then ask a more succinct question. All debates need to clash. I don't want to only hear prepared speeches on both sides. Show me that you are listening to what the other person/team is saying and advance the debate.

LD

I am definitely more traditional than progressive but I will listen to progressive arguments IF they still fall under the philosophical ideas of LD. I do not want to hear a plan or use the motion as the plan text. That doesn't do anything for me. Don't use a K to avoid debating. That's not what debate is about.  I WILL NOT vote on disclosure theory so don't take the time to run it.  That is not debating the topic but finding a way to not have to debate.  Otherwise, I will listen to Ks, Ts, Disads, etc if they are relevant to the debate. If you don't have a V and a VC, you won't get the win from me!  

Also, I am creating this paradigm for you so don't ask me about other items before the round. Everything else is fair game as long as it is done well! Address the resolution and give me reasons for your claims. I don't need to be on your email chain. Also, I do not disclose unless required to and it will be brief. As a coach, I want the coaching to come from me and not the judges.  As I said earlier, I am not here to relive my competitive days so I won't explain all that I am thinking.  

Good luck!

Go read Ye Joo Han's paradigm. I'll judge based on it.

Paraphrasing is ok

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

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

Policy Making: Legislative Model – Weigh advantages versus disadvantages

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

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

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

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

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

I competed in World Schools Debate in Mexico City for 3 years, currently I coach BP for my university Instituto Autónomo de México (ITAM) and I am co-coach of Team Mexico for WSDC 2021, alongside Ilhui Bravo Rosas.

School affiliation/s:

I am currently not affiliated with any schools or institutions outside of Mexico.

I am a hired judge for this tournament. I graduated in 2017 from The Churchill College in Mexico City. Currently I am enrolled at the Instituto Autónomo de México in Mexico City, I study economics :)

College debate experience:

I participate mostly in the spanish language BP circuit, events competed in include:

• TMD 2018 Open Broke 9th (Quarterfinals)

• Libre Open 208 Open Broke 3rd (Finalist)

• 5th Best Speaker

• Copa UNAM 2019 Open Broke 3rd (Finalist)

• 7th Best Speaker

• Relámpago 2019 Open Broke to Final

• Panam UDC 2019 Open Broke 9th (Semifinalist)

• 7th Best Speaker

• CLD 2019 Open Broke 7th (Finalist)

• 9th Best Speaker

• CND 2019 Open Broke 17th (Semifinalist)

• 9th Best Speaker

• CMUDE 2019 Open Broke 7th (Octos)

• 5th best Speaker

• Libre Open 2019 Open Broke 2nd (Finalist)

• Best Speaker

• TIID 2019 Open Broke as a judge (Quarters)

• ADMM 2020 Open Broke 8th (Semifinalist)

• 4th Best Speaker

• Round Robin 2020 -

• Torneo INE 2020 Open Broke 1st (Finalist)

• 2nd Best Speaker

• UNED 2020 Open Broke 16th

• Torre 2020 Open Broke 4th (Finalist)

• TMD 2020 Open Broke 3rd (Quarterfinals)

• Best Speaker

• E-CND Open Broke 1st (Finalist)

• Best Speaker

Tournaments as Adj Team in BP tournaments:

• Torneo INE Categoría menor 2020

• CMUDE trailer 2020

• CNDI Perú 2021

World Schools debate coaching experience:

- Team Mexico WSDC 2021 co-coach.

- Team Mexico’s Development Team Coach 2020

- Mexican Debate Summer Camp from 2017-2019

I have judged World Schools debate for 4 years now. TFA state will be the first World Schools tournament of 2021 that I judge. I judge regularly for the Mexican World Schools circuit, since 2020 I have judged on two occasions on USA tournaments and at the Winter Holiday Open tournament as a hired judge.

I have NO experience in the following formats:

__x__ Congress

__x__ PF

__x__ LD

__x__ Policy

__x__ Extemp/OO/Info

__x__ DI/HI/Duo/POI

- I have chaired a WS round before. Chairing a WS round involves calling on speakers to present their speeches, considering each and every speaker's remark, judging based on what happened during the round , not what could've happened, or what I personally would have liked to hear, pondering each argument made by each speaker, and making sure the panelists fill their ballot and send them on time.

A WS debate is made up of two teams, proposition and opposition, proposition is for the motion of the debate, opposition is against. Both teams are made up of three speakers that participate in a particular role, 1st, 2nd, 3rd and the reply speeches. The first three speeches are sustantive speeches, the last speech is the reply speech, which will be delivered by the first speaker or the second speaker of the round. This means a single speaker from both teams will do two speeches. Sustantive speeches are 8 minutes long, reply speeches are 4 minutes long. Points of information are allowed between the first and the seventh minute of the sustantive speeches, POI's may not be given during the reply speech.

I take thorough notes with many colour pens and markers :) every speaker's speech is noted, along with POI's and each speaker's response,

I believe practical and principled are equally valuable in a round, I don't prefer one over another. I evaluate the analysis delivered in order for the argument to be proven true, I evaluate the impact of each argument and the construction and justification for the given impact. I also refer back to the metrics or burden of proof presented at the beginning of the debate to evaluate the arguments.

I evaluate strategy through the POI's given in a round, through the congruency of a team (for example if there is a clear contradiction between speakers, that tells me there's a lack of strategy), and sometimes time management of a speaker in their speech (if the second argument in a 1st speech is given past 7 minutes, for example, that's a lack of strategy).

if a speaker is going too fast I would deduct points from the style section of their speech. I do want to clarify, I speak English fluently and there is no need to speak extra slowly for me, please speak as you would normally.

Evidence isn't necessary in order for an argument to be true, an argument without evidence should be sustained through analysis and mechanization of that argument. Models can be criticized, however, proposition can claim fiat in carrying out what the motion is asking them to do. Models and countermodels should respond to; who is going to carry out the model (what institution for example), how are they going to carry it out? When... etc.

Position yourself so I can hear you. Don't speak into your laptop or stand on the opposite side of the room. Don't read typed-out things like they are the text of a card. Slow down and change the intonation of your voice when you're speaking.

I normally look to impact calc throughout debate

If I don't understand something, I will not vote on it even if it is conceded.

I am getting tired of multiple conditional cp's. Seriously, it is getting out of hand. The neg gets 1 conditional cp or Kritik.

I not only look for argumentation but also HOW you debate (aka how well you can convince me).

Clarity is key. If you are spreading and I can not clearly hear your arguments I will not flow them.

last speeches should start with telling me exactly what should be on my ballot.

I WILL NOT VOTE FOR:

Things I will not vote on:

Arguments that suggest students should engage in risky behavior.

Death is good.

Fear of death is bad

Bataille

Baudrillard

Everett Rutan

Judging Paradigm

I’m primarily parli these days, but the principles would apply to any form of debate I might judge.

I check all the boxes: successful, national circuit high school debater (policy/cross-ex); debate coach for over 25 years; tab director for over 20 years; debate league director for over 15 years; taught at a respected parliamentary debate summer workshop for 10 years. However, my career was in business, not education or the law, which does affect my point of view.

None of that is “actionable”, in that it is of no help to you if I’m sitting in the back of the room with my flow and stopwatch waiting for you to begin. The following may be more useful.

My role as a judge is to sort through the debate you and your opponent choose to have and produce a reasoned, persuasive decision. My “case” (RFD) should accurately reflect what was said and be acceptable to each of the debaters as a valid opinion on what occurred, even if they may take issue with that opinion.

This judge-as-debater approach has certain implications:

· My source material is the debate you choose to have. If you don’t agree on what it should be about, then my decision should be based first on your definitional arguments. If you do agree, then my decision should be based on the relative weight of arguments on the issue. If both teams agree—explicitly or tacitly—to have a particular debate, my opinion as to what the motion or debate should have been about is not relevant.

· The more work you do to lay out a path to a decision, the less work I have to do building my own, and the fewer decisions I have to make as the judge. That generally works in your favor.

· Your arguments should be based both on what you present and, perhaps even more so, on what your opponents present, with a fair comparison and weighing.

My business background has certain implications:

· Debate is intended to be educational. I have less sympathy for arguments that no one would make or consider in the real world. Theory arguments should be clearly explained and shown to have a serious impact on the matter at hand. The more distantly related an argument is to a plain reading of the motion, the greater the need to justify that argument.

· Not all arguments are equal. Judging is not simply counting arguments won, lost, or dropped, but comparing the persuasive weight of each side. I expect both sides will win some arguments and lose some arguments and drop some arguments. If you don’t weigh them, I will.

· Explanations count more than facts (at least explanations broadly consistent with the facts). For any arguable topic there will be examples that favor each side. The fact that some people survive horrendous accidents unscathed is not in itself an argument against safety equipment; that many will refuse to use safety equipment that is inconvenient or uncomfortable is, at least against that particular type.

· I don’t have a problem making decisions. I rarely take long or agonize over them. However, I will do my best to provide a detailed written RFD, time permitting.

Finally, debate is about the spoken word. It is your job to persuade me and in your best interest that I clearly understand what you want to say. It is not my job to be persuaded, nor to intuit what you intended to say beyond a reasonable effort on my part to do so. This has the following implications:

· Speak as fast as you think appropriate. I flow well and can tolerate speed. But if I don’t hear it, don’t hear it as intended, or don’t get it on my flow, it won’t help you. It’s not my job to signal you if you are speaking too fast or drifting off into unintelligibility.

· Why wouldn’t you present more arguments than your opponents can handle in the time allowed? Spread is a natural consequence of time limits on speeches. But 13 weak reasons why an argument is true won’t help you even if your opponent drops 12 of them, but wins the one most important to the issue. And debaters with more than one level of subpoints almost always get lost in their own outline. Quality spreads as surely as quantity and has more impact.

· I understand some debaters provide outlines, cards, briefs, etc. I will listen carefully to what you say, but I will not read anything you give me.

I have published a great deal of material of varying quality on the Connecticut Debate Association website, http://ctdebate.org . You will find transcriptions of my flows, various RFDs, topic analysis and general debate commentary reflecting my opinions over the years.

FAQs

Definitions? Definitions are a legitimate area of argument, but don’t ask me to rule on them mid-round. Gov has the right to a reasonable definition of terms. If Opp does not like them, Opp should challenge in a POC, POI or at the top of the LOC. Don’t wait to challenge definitions late in the round. Gov need not explicitly define terms or present a plan: clear usage in the PMC binds Gov and must be accepted or challenged by Opp. In other words, if it is obvious what Gov is talking about, don't try to re-define the terms out from under them. P.S. No one likes definition debates, so avoid them unless Gov is clearly being abusive.

Points of Clarification? Like them. Think it’s a good tactic for Gov to stop and offer Opp a chance to clear up terms. Should occur at the top of the PMC immediately after presenting definitions/plan/framework, etc.

Pre-speech outline or road map? A common local custom not to my taste. Speeches are timed for a reason, and I see this as an attempt to get a bit more speaking time. But, when in Rome… They should be brief and truly an outline, not substance. I will listen politely but I won't flow them.

New contentions in the Member constructives? Perfectly legitimate, though it was considered old-fashioned even when I debated 50 years ago. It also presents certain tactical and strategic issues debaters should understand and have thought through.

Counterplans? If you know what you are doing and it’s appropriate to the motion and the Gov case, a counterplan can be extremely effective. Most debaters don’t know what they are doing, or use them when there are less risky or more effective options available. Many counterplans are more effective as arguments why the status quo solves or as disadvantages.

Written material? I’m aware in some leagues debaters give judges a written outline of their case, or pass notes to the speaker. I accept all local customs and will not interfere or hold these against you. However, debate is by spoken word, and I will not read anything you give me.

New arguments in rebuttal (Point of Order)? You should call them if you see them. But if you see them every five words it begins to look like an attempt to disrupt the rebuttal speaker. Landing one good PO puts me on watch for the rest of the speech; multiple “maybes” will likely annoy me.

Evidence? Even in heavily researched debate like policy, facts are cherry picked. Even in the real world one rarely has all the facts. Explanations generally outweigh simple facts (though explanations that contradict the facts aren't really explanations). Information cited should be generally known or well-explained; “what’s your source” is rarely a useful question or counter-argument. I am not required to accept something I know to be untrue. If you tell me something I don’t know or am not sure of, I will give it some weight in my decision, and I will look it up after the round. That’s how I learn.

Theory? (See “business background” comments above, and "Definitions".) These are arguments like any other. They must be clearly explained and their impact on the round demonstrated. They are not magic words that simply need to be said to have an effect. Like all arguments, best present them as if your audience has never heard them before.

Weird stuff? Everyone in my family has an engineering degree. We’re used to intelligent arguments among competent adults. We know we aren’t as clever as we think we are, and you probably aren’t either. The further you drift from a straightforward interpretation of the motion, the greater your burden to explain and to justify your arguments.

Rules of debate? There are none, or very few. If your opponent does something you think is out of bounds, raise a POI if you can and explain the impact on the arguments or on the debate in your next speech. Most "rules" debaters cite are more like "guidelines". If you understand the reason for the guideline, you can generally turn a weak "that's against the rules" into a much stronger "here is why this is harmful to their case."

ejr, rev July 2023

Hey! I’m Albert Sanchez. In HS I did PF for a couple tournaments, LD for 3 years, and Worlds for 1 year. I’m in college on the American Parli team, where I run some IR/HIR stuff.

In terms of cases, I ran a lot of lay and some LARP stuff in HS. If you’re not sure what to run in front of me, ask yourself if my 8th grade sister would be able to understand your argument the way you read it. This goes for content and speed. Please don’t spread. I’m not perfect at flowing so if you really want me to catch on to something in the line by line please emphasize it. Flowing on a computer makes it easier to get stuff down tho so that’s a plus.

FAQ:

Will vote on spreading is bad. If you spread spreading is bad, I don't know what to tell you.

Stance on Ks? As long as I can understand them from what you tell me in the constructive, go for it. If it requires me to go read over the cards 10 times to understand what you're saying, don't read it.

Stance on LARP? Cool with it.

Stance on T/Theory? If there's clear abuse in the round, sure.

Email chain? Always for it. I'll give you my email in round if you're going to start one.

Time yourselves!

Speaks are silly and arbitrary so I'll be as transparent as possible (DOES NOT APPLY TO WORLD SCHOOLS).

- You will start at a 28 pt minimum unless otherwise told by tab. You can only go up unless you are offensive in round, don't use up all your time (like you have 3 min left in the NC), or spread without clearing it with me and the opponent.

- I don't care about eye contact, posture, hand gestures, or stuttering

- Give me good signposts

- Roadmap before you start your rebuttals (AND FOLLOW THE ROADMAP YOU GIVE ME)

- In rebuttals, don't just read the name of the card. Summarize what it said.

- Write my ballot for me: In the last speech tell me what the round come downs to and why you win

- (If we're in person): If aff sits on my left and neg on my right without asking me, I will bump both your speaks. If only one does so, I'll only bump that person's speaks. If no one does so, you just start at the 28 pt minimum

Feel free to ask questions before or after the round. I’ll talk about the round (if I’m allowed to) but I’ll also answer questions about college debate and stuff in general.

I vote on framework. Respect your opponent, have fun, and don't spread. I mean it. For real. Don't spread. You might WANT to... but don't. Resist the impulse! Please? Please?! Please. Wait, actually? The ONLY scenario where spreading would be cool is if you put it to music. Or if it rhymed. If anyone sings their speech I will give them full speaker points. That would be so cool please do that.

Also - be kind! For real. This is more important than the spreading thing. I have an incredibly low tolerance for condescension. Like, none.

And have fun :)

You can either spread flow or spread happiness. I like only one of them.

**Updated October 2022**

Hi, I'm Ellie (she/her)! I have experience competing and judging in PF and WS. For four years I competed mostly in APDA for Yale. I coached for Blake after my high school graduation. I have judged many rounds over time, but not recently, so be aware of that. 

Feel free to message me for feedback (if I forget you can nudge me), if you have questions about APDA, for moral support, or anything else. I'm happy to help!

Please put debate.ellie@gmail.com and blakedocs@googlegroups.com on the email chain if you make one!

This paradigm is for PF, though some things apply across events (eg: the decorum section).

The Split

Everyone frontlines now. That's nice.

Speed

I can flow speed, but proceed at your own risk. You can "clear" your opponents but do this sparingly. I don't use speech docs to fill in things I could not catch/understand.

Types of arguments

You are the debater and I want you to enjoy debating things that interest you. There are few things I refuse to hear.

Progressive arguments are important. I'll do my best to evaluate them fairly. I am not super well versed in K lit so while I will try and understand whatever you read, there's a risk I just miss something.

I really don't like when teams run squirrelly arguments just to throw off their opponents. Your points may suffer even if I vote for you and my threshold for responses will be lower.

If you're on a topic where people tend to run "advocacies" please prove there's a probability of your advocacy occurring.

I am not amenable to speaks theory.

The only other args I refuse to listen to are linguistic and moral skep – I have yet to hear them in PF, but don't even try lol

Dates

read them lol

Evidence

I very strongly prefer cards > paraphrasing, but it isn't a hard rule. I will punish you for misrepresenting evidence or knowingly reading authors that are fraudulent or very clearly unreliable.

Know where your evidence is. If you can't find it, it's getting kicked. Do not cut cards in round.

Bracketing is bad. No debater math pls.

Summary and Final Focus

Extend defense. Don't go for everything. Args needs to be in summary to be counted in FF. Also, weigh.

~~Decorum~~

Being funny or witty is fine as long as it isn't mean. I am not afraid to tank your speaks if you are rude.

Prep

keep track of it i won't

Misc

sIgNpOsT!!!!!!!!

don't delink your own case to escape turns just frontline them

You can enter the room and flip before I get there (when we're back in person that is).

If you want to take off your jacket/change your shoes/wear pajamas, go ahead!

If you're trying to get perfect speaks, strike me. A lot of my speaks end up in the 27.5-29 range.

As a judge, I will adapt to you too. Do what you do best!

That said, I am a pretty standard PF tech judge, with a couple of specific preferences, outlined below:

(1) I only vote off offense that is in both summary and final focus – if it’s in one but not the other, I probably won’t consider it in my decision. If you’re the first speaking team, defensive responses to your opponent’s case do not need to be in summary – I’ll still evaluate them if they’re in final focus. Turns that you want to win off of must be in 1st summary. If you’re the second speaking team, defensive responses need to be in both summary/final focus for me to evaluate them. If you have questions on this, please ask!

(2) If I have the choice between voting for an impact that’s weighed as the biggest in the round but is muddled versus a less important but clean impact, I will resolve the muddled impact every time. I hope this encourages y’all to collapse, develop, and weigh arguments instead of going for like 4 different voters (unless you weigh all four of them :) ).

(3) I care very little about what your cards say. I care a lot more about the warranting behind them. I will never vote on the idea that something is just "empirically true," although empirics do help when you're doing warrant comparisons/maybe a probability weighing analysis.

(4) I rarely receptive to progressive arguments (Ks/theory) unless there's a real instance of abuse in the round. I strongly dislike disclosure theory. If you don't know what that means, don't worry about it.

(5) In case it's helpful, I did nat circuit PF 2013-2017.

- and don't forget to have fun!

I’m from Chennai, and did World Schools as a high school student. I currently debate for Stanford (where I’m a junior studying math and economics), in BP and APDA. You can find my APDA paradigm here.

WSDC

I’ll pretty much just follow the most recent WSDC briefing. Some notes:

1. I dock 0.5 speaks if you fail to take a POI despite regular offers, pretty consistently.

2. It’s also probably bad for your speaks to leave a ton of new rebuttal to the P1 speech to the O3 – the rules require me to credit such rebuttal, but I think it’s a tad unfair, so it will probably result in some implication on speaks.

3. I really prefer reply speeches that incorporate new weighing and examples, and try to be additive (given the constraints of no new arguments or rebuttal). I think Proposition reply should adapt to the Opposition block. I think reply speeches can win debates on their own, with appropriate weighing. I’m not a fan of reply speeches that are entirely rehashes (and my speaks for reply speeches tend to be lower than my speaks for constructive speeches due to the frequency of rehashes at reply).

4. I don’t like the recent trend of having a ton of “framing” at the top of your speech before you launch into your arguments/rebuttal. It’s usually more useful and easier to follow in the context of a specific argument you’re making.

PF

Meta

You can’t convince me to change my paradigm in-round (obviously, if my paradigm says something is defeasible, I can change my mind on it, but that’s not changing my paradigm itself). My paradigm is exogenous to the round’s substance.

General

Do not spread. My limit is ~230 WPM. I will clear you if I don’t understand you, and I will not flow something that’s too fast for me to catch.

Be clear, and avoid using technical jargon (either from debate or from the topic area), particularly acronyms, that I might not understand. I don’t have tons of knowledge about the topic.

Add me to the email chain (tejassubramaniam@gmail.com). If I call for evidence, give me a clear cut card with a citation, but I’ll only credit you for parts of evidence that you read. Be prompt in sending evidence to your opponents if they ask for it. If you ask me to call for evidence from your opponents in a speech, I will.

You don’t have to disclose your entire case beforehand. I will ignore any theory that says you should. That said, you are obliged to give your constructive speech docs to your opponent after your speech is over if they request it, and to share any evidence that you read during the round if they request it.

I will not hear any theory, under any circumstances. If you have an issue with your opponents’ conduct, send me an email or text, and I’ll do my best to help you – I don’t think the decision on conduct violations, and keeping the round safe and fair, should be tied to how skilled you are at making a theory argument. I am never going to flow or vote on a theory shell. Leave the theory to other events.

You must debate the topic. I will never vote on a prefiat issue. Additionally, I will, by and large, not hear critical argumentation unless it has a very clear, postfiat connection to the topic. Moreover, despite being postfiat, I won’t hear epistemic, moral, or existential skepticism. I’ll simply not flow it.

I don’t flow cross, but it affects my speaks, and you can’t waive cross for prep.

Who wins?

Framework

Feel free to debate the moral framework to adjudicate the round. If no ethical theory is argued for or debated, I will default to implicit agreement among teams (e.g., whatever teams seem to agree is valuable).

My priors (i.e., starting assumptions before the debate that I’m happy to change my mind about) are (1) risk neutrality (i.e., I will maximize “expected value,” which is probability times magnitude of impact) and (2) moral pluralism (i.e., many different things, including increasing happiness, decreasing suffering, justice/fairness, and autonomy are important parts of what I consider “value”). These are pretty defeasible – I’ll only rely on them if there’s nothing in the debate I can rely on for a coherent normative theory to adjudicate the round.

Fiat

Pro gets fiat that the topic happens, but does not get to advocate a specific plan (but is free to argue that a topic would likely be implemented in a particular way). Con does not get to advocate a counterplan (but is free to argue that an alternative will likely occur).

Extensions

Offense has to be in (1) one of constructive or rebuttal, (2) summary, and (3) final focus for me to evaluate it. Defense doesn’t have to be extended in summary, but has to be extended in final focus. An extension should extend both link and impact for me to credit it.

One exception: if something is answered in rebuttal, and the summary and FF of the other side ignore your answer and extend through ink, I will let your rebuttal speech’s defense (but not offense) stick. In other words, I will almost never vote on an argument extended through ink. That said, don’t rely on this, and please extend defense anyway, as there’s some ambiguity here.

Weighing in final focus (of either team) takes automatic precedence to weighing in summary, but if an argument is extended in FF and not weighed by either FF, I will consider weighing in summary. New weighing is fine in both summary and final focus – but I have a lower threshold for newness in FF, if I’m uncertain about whether it’s weighing or argumentation I will default to not crediting it, so I recommend that most/all the substance in FF is also in summary.

Rebuttal is your last chance for new responses to constructive. 2nd rebuttal has to do all frontlining -- I won’t let 2nd summary do new frontlining. (By necessity, 1st summary has to frontline new responses to offense in 2nd rebuttal.)

You can’t read defense on your own links to escape an impact turn. I simply won’t evaluate that. You have to beat or outweigh the impact turn.

Argument construction

I’m happy to vote on just analytics. I don’t think a logical argument quoting someone else is inherently preferable to a logical argument you made up. A corollary is that you should try to exploit your evidence to make empirical arguments (because using it to make non-empirical arguments is not substantially different than an analytic).

An argument needs a warrant for me to vote on it. I just expect some link that makes an honest effort to connect your impact to the topic. “Immigration causes job gains because the sky is blue” is not true for the round even if dropped, “immigration causes job gains because immigrants increase demand for goods” is true for the round if dropped, “immigration causes job gains because [statistic in your card]” is true for the round if dropped, and “immigration causes job gains (no warrant or card)” is probably not true for the round if dropped.

If an argument is dropped, you receive the implication of its warrant, not its tag. For example, if your argument proves that tensions between the United States and Russia increase in some way, but claim the impact of nuclear war, I won’t credit you for nuclear war unless there is some link connecting “tensions” to “nuclear war” (this is, of course, pretty easy to do, e.g., miscalc).

I will not credit blatant factual falsehoods. “The sky is green” is not true for the round regardless of whether it is pointed out. However, this is only for blatant lies – I don’t plausibility check arguments.

Presumption

I presume the first-speaking team. I don’t anticipate having to presume, though.

Some preferences

Collapse and weigh. Don’t go for four voters in final focus.

I like actual efforts at topic research. Cite peer-reviewed research. Actually break down your opponents’ evidence. I’d love to hear a serious debate, for example, about empirical methodology.

A significant contributor to my speaks will be how true your arguments are. My decision on who wins will be tech > truth, but I want to incentivize you to make plausible arguments, and speaks seem like a good way to do that.

BP debater at Harvard.

Do not rush speaking. Weigh your arguments. Give logic behind why things are true.

Theory is a loss. It does not prove anything and probably is wrong anyway.

Lies about Ukrainian will not be viewed favourably.

Speak slowly and always explicitly weigh. I don't appreciate theory or spreading.

• About me: 2018 NSDA National Champion: Congressional Debate - Senate. 2019 USA Debate Team Member. Currently the Assistant Coach of Congressional Debate at Taipei American School. he/him

  Congress Paradigm:

  • Tl;dr don’t try to “adapt” to me as a judge because I see value in all styles of Congress. The best part about Congress is that there are a myriad of ways to be successful in the event. I can appreciate all speaking and argumentation styles - just give the best speech in the round. I do not care if you speak early, mid-round, or late.

  • You have to give the speech that is appropriate for when you are speaking in order to get me to rank you. By this, I mean that if you give a constructive speech when you should be crystallizing or give an authorship that doesn't sufficiently explain the legislation and the main impetus for the legislation's creation, then I will not rank you. Adaptation is the name of the game in Congress.

  • PLEASE weigh! Weighing (to varying extents) should happen at every stage of the debate.

  • Name-dropping a bunch of people and half-way refuting their claim is not nearly as impressive to me as picking the most strategic argument and thoroughly refuting it (i.e. show why the warrant is untrue instead of just saying "X said this bill decreases jobs. Well, here's a statistic that says it increases jobs!)

  • Presentation vs. argumentation balance: Congress is a debate event. This means that I will prefer competitors with the best arguments. Speaking/rhetoric is a tie-breaker between students with arguments of equal quality. Obviously, if your presentation is so poor that it detracts from your argumentation then I cannot credit you for that argumentation. This means that at high-level debates (e.g. semis-bid final rounds) odds are that argumentation will be the most important thing because almost everyone will meet my bar for being a solid speaker. Rhetoric/speaking then will likely be the tie-breaker between first and second between the competitors with the smartest/most strategic arguments.

  • My biggest pet peeve is having a one-sided debate. I’d prefer you just call for the previous question and move to the next item on the agenda.

  • I’ve been in the game for awhile now, so I know all the canned intros and impacts. You should avoid using them when I’m judging you because I will notice that your content is not original. And please have the decency to not use rhetoric/intros that I came-up with. You’d be surprised how often this happens, and it is a good way for me to drop you.

  • The struggle of historically marginalized groups is not a tool for you to weaponize to win a debate trophy. If you slap on "also this helps *insert historically marginalized group here*" as an impact at the end of your point without sufficiently explaining the context and warrant, then you are guaranteed to be at the bottom of my ballot. Just be tactful and respectful and you will be fine.

  • I don’t mind if you have an untraditional speech structure as long as it is easy to follow.

  • If you’re rude I will not rank you.

  • POs: I see the value in presiding, as I know it is necessary for the event to function. Thus, if the PO does a solid job, then I am likely to rank them.

Aaron Timmons

Director of Debate – Greenhill School

Former Coach USA Debate Team

Curriculum Director Harvard Debate Council Summer Workshops

Updated – April 2024

Please put me on the email chain – timmonsa@greenhill.org

Contact me with questions.

General Musings

Debate rounds, and subsequently debate tournaments, are extensions of the classroom. While we all learn from each other, my role is a critic of argument (if I had to pigeonhole myself with a paradigmatic label as a judge). I will evaluate your performance in as objective a method as possible. Unlike many adjudicators claim to be, I am not a blank slate. I will intervene if I see behaviors or practices that create a bad, unfair, or hostile environment for the extension of the classroom that is the debate round. I WILL do my best to objectively evaluate your arguments, but the idea that my social location is not a relevant consideration of how I view/decode (even hear) arguments is not true (nor true for anyone.)

I have coached multiple National and/or State Champions in Policy Debate, Lincoln Douglas Debate, and World Schools Debate (in addition to interpretation/speech events). I still actively coach and I am involved in the strategy and argument creation of my students who compete for my school. Given the demands on my time, I do not cut as many cards as I once did for Policy and Lincoln Douglas. That said, I am more than aware of the arguments and positions being run in both of these formats week in and week out.

General thoughts on how I decide debates:

1 – Debate is a communication activity – I will flow what you say in speeches as opposed to flowing off of the speech documents (for the events that share documents). If I need to read cards to resolve an issue, I will do so but until ethos and pathos (re)gain status as equal partners with logos in the persuasion triangle, we will continue to have debates decided only on what is “in the speech doc.” Speech > speech doc.

2 – Be mindful of your “maximum rate of efficiency” – aka, you may be trying to go faster than you are capable of speaking in a comprehensible way. The rate of speed Is not a problem in many contemporary debates, the lack of clarity is an increasing concern. Unstructured paragraphs that are slurred together do not allow the pen time necessary to write things down in the detail you think they might. Style and substance are fundamentally inseparable. This does NOT mean you have to be slow; it does mean you need to be clear.

3 – Evidence is important - In my opinion debates/comparisons about the qualifications of authors on competing issues and warrants (particularly empirical ones), are important. Do you this and not only will your points improve, but I am also likely to prefer your argument if the comparisons are done well.

4 – Online Debating – We have had two years to figure this out. My camera will be on. I expect that your camera is on as well unless there is a technical issue that cannot/has not been resolved in our time online. If there is an equity/home issue that necessitates that your camera is off, I understand that and will defer to your desire to it be off if that is the case. A simple, “I would prefer for my camera to be off” will suffice to inform me of your request.

5 – Disclosure is good (on balance) – I feel that debaters/teams should disclose on the wiki. I have been an advocate of disclosure for decades. I am NOT interested in “got you” games regarding disclosure. If a team/school is against disclosure, defend that pedagogical practice in the debate. Either follow basic tenets of community norms related to disclosure (affirmative arguments, negative positions read, etc.) after they have been read in a debate. While I do think things like full source and/or round reports are good educational practices, I am not interested in hearing debates about those issues. ADA issues: If a student needs to have materials formatted in a matter to address issues of accessibility based on documented learning differences, that request should be made promptly to allow reformatting of that material. Preferably, adults from one school should contact the adult representatives of the other schools to deal with school-sanctioned accountability.

6 – Zero risk is a possibility – There is a possibility of zero risks of an advantage or a disadvantage.

7 – My role as a judge - I will do my best to judge the debate that occurred versus the debate that I wish had happened. I see too many judges making decisions based on evaluating and comparing evidence after the debate that was not done by the students.

8 – Debate the case – It is a forgotten art. Your points will increase, and it expands the options for you to win the debate in the final negative rebuttal.

9 – Good “judge instructions” will make my job easier – While I am happy to make my judgments and comparisons between competing claims, I feel that students making those comparisons, laying out the order of operations, articulating “even/if” considerations, telling me how to weigh and then CHOOSING in the final rebuttals, will serve debaters well (and reduce frustrations on both our parts0.

10 – Cross-examination matters – Plan and ask solid questions. Good cross-examinations will be rewarded.

11 - Flowing is a prerequisite to good debating (and judging) - You should flow. I will be flowing your speech not from the doc, but your actual speech..

Policy Debate

I enjoy policy debate and given my time in the activity I have judged, coached, and seen some amazing students over the years.

A few thoughts on how I view judging policy debate:

Topicality vs Conventional Affs:

Traditional concepts of competing interpretations can be mundane and sometimes result in silly debates. Limiting out one affirmative will not save/protect limits or negative ground. Likewise, reasonability in a vacuum without there being a metric on what that means and how it informs my interpretation vis a vis the resolution lacks nuance as well. Topicality debaters who can frame what the topic should look like based on the topic, and preferably evidence to support why interpretation makes sense will be rewarded. The next step is saying why a more limiting (juxtaposed to the most limiting) topic makes sense helps to frame the way I would think about that version of the topic. A case list of what would be topical under your interpretation would help as would a list of core negative arguments that are excluded if we accept the affirmative interpretation or model of debate.

Topicality/FW vs critical affirmatives:

First – The affirmative needs to do something (and be willing to defend what that is). The negative needs to win that performance is net bad/worse than an alternative (be it the status quo, a counterplan, or a K alternative).

Second – The negative should have access to ground, but they do not get to predetermine what that is. Just because your generic da or counterplan does not apply to the affirmative does not mean the affirmative cannot be tested.

Conditionality

Conditionality is good but only in a limited sense. I do not think the negative gets unlimited options (even against a new affirmative). While the negative can have multiple counter plans, the affirmative will get leeway to creatively (re)explain permutations if the negative kicks (or attempts to add) planks to the counterplan(s), the 1ar will get some flexibility to respond to this negative move.

Counterplans and Disads:

Counterplans are your friend. Counterplans need a net benefit (reasons the affirmative is a bad/less than desirable idea. Knowing the difference between an advantage to the counterplan and a real net benefit seems to be a low bar. Process counterplans are harder to defend as competitive and I am sympathetic to affirmative permutations. I have a higher standard for many on permutations as I believe that in the 2AC “perm do the counterplan” and/or “perm do the alternative” do nothing to explain what that world looks like. If the affirmative takes another few moments to explain these arguments, that increases the pressure on the 2nr to be more precise in responding to these arguments.

Disadvantages that are specific to the advocacy of the affirmative will get you high points.

Lincoln Douglas

I have had students succeed at the highest levels of Lincoln Douglas Debate including multiple champions of NSDA, NDCA, the Tournament of Champions, as well as the Texas Forensic Association State Championships.

Theory is debated far too much in Lincoln – Douglas and is debated poorly. I am strongly opposed to that practice. My preference is NOT to hear a bad theory debate. I believe the negative does get some “flex;” it cannot be unlimited. The negative does not need to run more than four off-case arguments

Words matter. Arguments that are racist, sexist, transphobic, homophobic, etc. will not be tolerated.

I am not a fan of random; multiple sentence fragments that claim to “spike” out of all of the other team’s arguments. At its foundation, the debate should be about argument ENGAGEMENT, not evasion.

I do not like skepticism as an argument. It would be in your best interest to not run it in front of me. While interesting in a philosophy class in college, training young advocates to feel that “morality doesn’t exist” etc. is educationally irresponsible.

I do not disclose speaker points. That seems silly to me.

Dropped arguments and the “auto-win” seem silly to me. Just because a debater drops a card does not mean you win the debate. Weighing and embedded clashes are a necessary component of the debate. Good debaters extend their arguments. GREAT debaters do that in addition to explaining the nexus point of the clash between their arguments and that of the opposition and WHY I should prefer their argument. Any argument that says the other side cannot answer your position is fast-tracking to an L (with burnt cheese and marinara on top).

It takes more than a sentence (or in many of the rounds I judge a sentence fragment), to make an argument. If the argument was not clear originally, I will allow the opponent to make new arguments.

Choose. No matter the speech or the argument.

Cross apply much of the policy section as well as the general musings on debate.

World Schools

Have you chaired a WS round before? (required)

Yes. Countless times.

What does chairing a round involve? (required)

How would you describe World Schools Debate to someone else?

World Schools is modeled after parliament having argumentation presented in a way that is conversational, yet argumentatively rigorous. Debates are balanced between motions that are prepared, while some are impromptu. Points of Information (POIs) are a unique component of the format as speakers can be interrupted by their opponent by them asking a question or making a statement.

What process, if any, do you utilize to take notes in the debate? (required)

I keep a rigorous flow throughout the debate.

When evaluating the round, assuming both principle and practical arguments are advanced through the 3rd and Reply speeches, do you prefer one over the other? Explain.

These should be prioritized and compared by the students in the round. I do not have an ideological preference between principled or practical arguments.

The World Schools Debate format requires the judge to consider both Content and Style as 40% of each of the speaker’s overall score, while Strategy is 20%. How do you evaluate a speaker’s strategy? (required)

Strategy (simply put) is how they utilize the content that has been introduced in the debate.

World Schools Debate is supposed to be delivered at a conversational pace. What category would you deduct points in if the speaker were going too fast?

Style.

World Schools Debate does not require evidence/cards to be read in the round. How do you evaluate competing claims if there is no evidence to read?

Students are required to use analysis, examples, and interrogate the claims of the other side then make comparative claims about the superiority of their position.

How do you resolve model quibbles?

Model quibbles are not fully developed arguments if they are only questions that are not fully developed or have an articulated impact.

How do you evaluate models vs. countermodels?

I utilize the approach of comparative worlds to evaluate competing methods for resolving mutual problems/harms. The proposition must defend its model as being comparatively advantageous over a given alternative posed by the opposition. While many feel in World Schools a countermodel must be mutually exclusive. While that certainly is one method of assessing if a countermodel truly ‘forces a choice,” a feel a better stand is that of net benefits. The question should be if it is desirable to do both the propositions model and the opposition countermodel at the same time. If it is possible to do both without any undesirable outcomes, the negative has failed to prove the desirability of their countermodel. The opposition should explain why doing both would be a bad idea. The proposition should advance an argument as to why doing both is better than adopting the countermodel alone.

I have been involved with debate as a participant, judge, school coach, national team coach, and UDL Executive Director. I have coached multiple state and national championships in the following events: Congress, LD, Policy, and World Schools Debate; Extemporaneous and Impromptu Speaking; and Prose/Poetry/Program of Oral Interpretation. I coached the 2023 WSDC World Champions as well.

I believe that speech and debate provides transformative life skills and that my role in the round is adjudicator/educator.

All speeches should be communicative in delivery, persuasive in style, and adhere to ethical standards in every aspect. Respect should be displayed to all involved, at all times.

In a competitive space, your role as a speaker/performer is to persuade me that your arguments/reasoning/evidence/performance is more compelling than the other competitors in the round. I will endeavor to base my decision on what happens IN the round and what I write on my flow, but I don't leave my brain at the door. Act accordingly.

I currently judge more WS rounds than anything else. WSDC/NSDA/TSDA norms should be adhered to. Speaking should be conversational as regards speed/style. Refutation may be line-by-line or utilize grouping, but you need to be clear where you are on the flow. Weighing is key. Stick to the heart of the motion and avoid the extremes. Unless the motion is US-specific you should provide international examples. Make it clear what your side of the debate looks like: what does the world of the Prop look like? the Opp? Framing/definitions/models should be fair and in the middle of the motion. Stakeholders should be clear; put a face on the motion.

A good debate round is a thing of beauty; respect your craft, the event, and your fellow competitors.

add me to the email chain - maloneurfalian@gmail.com

Notre Dame high school - 2018

Micro: The burden of the affirmative is to interpret the resolutional question and the burden of the negative is to act as the rejoinder of the aff. This can be whatever you want it to be if it is both flowable and making a clear argument that I can evaluate.

Macro: Clear, both argumentatively and speaking wise, debates are good. Unclear and not ideologically consistent arguments are not as good. Teams that tell good stories, see how arguments interact with each other, and contextualize warrants to the round are winning more debates. Debaters that are having fun are also probably happier and gaining more from the activity.

There is an inherent risk in presenting arguments, that is a good thing. Taking these types of intellectual risks helps you grow both in what you know and how you have come to know it. Leaving your argumentative comfort zone is the only way to improve these skills, wether you are reading the new argument or a new argument is presented to you in round.

Debate is fun and also silly! Everyone is doing silly things. It is good to laugh about it.

I added this section below because as much as I think saying, 'if you think you can win on it go for it' is sufficient. I am sympathetic to the idea that it maybe unclear what that means and does nothing to explain why I see things the way I do. So here are some thoughts and examples of what informs me in the present, what has gotten me here, and my position on what makes things convincing.

Extended thoughts:

I have no ideological disposition against any argument. Debate is a free for all. If you think you can win on it, you should go for it. Particularly fond of impact turns and any arguments that challenge an assumption of the argument it is in response to. My version of the truth of an argument has little bearing on my decision, but evidence quality has a high bearing on how the argument is evaluated. Arbitrary line drawing of what I 'will or will not' vote on seems silly, but not in the good way. If had the inverse of this paragraph that said, 'the fifty states counterplan is a non starter for me' I would not be in the back of your round and you would not be reading this.

So,I do not tend to believe that arguments should be dismissed on the grounds of not being 'real', 'practical', or 'worth talking about.' I do not think that a jobs guarantee solving a wage spiral has anymore truth to it than china war good. I do not think that any argument that is not directly personally violent to another debater is a non starter. Autodrop L + ratio for offensive conduct. Judged more than one debate this year where the response to a word pic was to double down on that word. Not a winning strategy. I believe in a good faith apology as defense and some form of offense is a sufficient response. Good faith apology sounds subjective, I think there is a bright line that can demonstrate wether or not an act was intentional and malicious or a result of ignorance and a opportunity to learn. This should be established in the link debating. I would prefer the ballot not be a referendum on someones character. I believe an accusation of a clipping or evidence ethics auto ends the round and supersedes the content of the debate.

I find arguments that exist on polar ends of a bellcurve are more convincing to me because the larger the gap between what my ballot is endorsing and/or resolving the easier it is to think about i.e. heg good vs decol is easier to resolve to me then the perm of a soft left aff about the BIA's failings. I've probably voted for Wilderson and X country first strike about the same amount of times. Both many more than any 'soft left' aff vs a disad or a k. It is not as I don't find these arguments 'real', but that it is rarely debated out to the be the 'best' option to resolve the harms or framing of harms they have presented. I think these fail to capitalize on the benefits of either a critical or policy aff, but they have strategic value in theory. I think soft left aff's sweep non specific links or alts that don't access the impact. But that seems to be reflective of a skill issue on the negatives construction of the link debate more so than endorsement of middle ground strategies. Inversely, meeting on the bottom between poles makes a lot of sense to me and is under represented in negative strategies against arguments on either ideological end.

In the vein of critical affs I believe debate is a game. I find k affs interesting, strategic, engaging, and fun to think about. When the timer goes off it is still a game to me. I give my rfd, I talk to my debaters about what happened in the round, what we can learn from it, and I move on. Maybe I download some PDF's, cut responses, or pull backfiles if it is particularly compelling. It can be a good game with a code that can be modified round by round, but it is insulated to the 8 speeches. I think tying a personal endorsement to the ballot can be parasitic and result in a negative experience with the game. This can be debated and changed of course, but when I walk into the round I am under the assumption I am adjudicating a game with four players. The way to play that game is up to you. Some rules are non negotiable. Some aren't. I think the negative is best serve disproving case in the 2nr when they are going for education/clash impacts. I find it unconvincing that a critical aff is 'unfair and impossible to debate', most of them are not very good. Most of them can be dismantled by reading the book or grad thesis their solvency card comes from. Invest the time do that once and it will change your relationship to the argument. Ballot can solve fairness. Reflecting on past RFD's I have given, to win the fairness impact you need to win that stasis is good and/or their overarching impact turn to fairness is wrong. Usually when I vote against fairness it is because the negative team has not articulated what that means. If your args on case in the 2nr are consequence focus good and pragmatism good, you need to prove why the aff doesn't access these framing arguments. Also why do you? Whats the internal link between consequences and fairness? Why is fairness something that is pragmatic? Why do games nessitate equal starting points? You get to chose where you jump off the battle bus. What is the impact I am evaluating the consequence of when you are going for fairness? Where are analogies and examples that demonstrate how it would materializes in or out of debate?

Where is the global south?

I enjoy reading cards. I enjoy cutting cards. That being said you do not need more than 5 cards to win a debate. If you send me a card doc and I did not hear those author names in the 2nr/2ar something has gone wrong in your construction of that card document. Technically conceded warrantless claims unrelated to the content of the debate do not earn ballots, but this does not mean an argument should not be answered because you think it's 'stupid'. If you cannot beat bad arguments you should not win.

Wether you chose to go for a strategy that centers around material action, epistemological framing, or theoretical illegitimacy, you need to resolve the arguments you are going for. The speech you give should be responsive to the speech before you, not just what you have written on your blocks.

I value technical debate, but I think the energy of a round is inescapable. That energy, moments on the flow, is something lost with eyes locked on the screen. Instead of a folder on my computer theres a crate in my closet of every round I've been in and judged. Hundreds and hundreds of individual memories scribed onto long paper. Worlds. Moments. Captured. Even if I never look at them again. There is a reason I wrote it down and I think that is valuable. I'll believe anything. Inverse relationship between how much eye contact I make with the person giving the speech and how good my flow is. Directly correlated is eye contact to my chances of resonating with the argument and voting for it.

Is it more truly more efficient to get your 27th condo subpoint out? Maybe it is. But I do not find that style of debate as convincing as taking up the opponent on their position on any level and having it out with them over the course of the round.

/end

this was my extended section pre TOC:

judge kick -- seems scared when people ask me to judge kick.

multiplank counterplans -- each plank is conditional unless in a set. These probably also need solvency advocates if they are more than 'ban x'

I remember the rounds I have judged, rooting for you all to get smarter, stronger, and faster when I am in the back of your rounds again !

Personal notes if you want to understand my world view better:

I went to school for aesthetics and semiotics. I love the assurance disad. I wrote my college thesis on hyperstition and death. Outside of debate I work writing for gallery openings and literary critiques in LA. I love animals. Reading I enjoy that has informed my academic thoughts: CCRU 1997-2003, Glas (Clang) by Derrida, dead french guys, auto/spec fiction anon bloggers, and everyone I have ever debated, coached, coached against, been coached by, and talked to in the hallway of a tournament.

I wouldn’t say I have many particular judging paradigms. I follow speaker guides pretty closely but am down for rewarding good and entertaining speeches. Auto-losses aren’t a thing and if you aren’t sure if I see what you see in a round, call it out, although odds are I have.

I’m not up to date on any changes surrounding meta-debate that may have arisen over the last year or with regards to online debating. Basing your arguments around meta-debate will likely prove unconvincing unless you’re down to break it down in relation to the round.

School affiliation/s - please indicate all (required):

The Hockaday School

Years Judging/Coaching (required)

24

Years of Experience Judging any Speech/Debate Event (required)

22

Rounds Judged in World School Debate this year (required)

Check all that apply

__X___I judge WS regularly on the local level

__X___I judge WS at national level tournaments

_____I occasionally judge WS Debate

_____I have not judged WS Debate this year but have before

_____I have never judged WS Debate

Rounds judged in other events this year (required)

~50

Check all that apply

____ Congress

____ PF

____ LD

____ Policy

____ Extemp/OO/Info

____ DI/HI/Duo/POI

____ I have not judged this year

____ I have not judged before

Have you chaired a WS round before? (required)

Yes

What does chairing a round involve? (required)

Chairing means making sure everyone is present and ready, calling on individual speakers and announcing the decision. I usually announce the decision then ask the other judges to provide feedback before providing my own.

How would you describe WS Debate to someone else? (required)

WSD is what debate would be if people stopped the tactics that exclude others from the debate and arguments. The delivery and required clash of WSD means that there is no hiding from bad arguments or from good arguments.

What process, if any, do you utilize to take notes in debate? (required)

I flow on excel using techniques like other formats. I attempt to get as much of the details as I can.

When evaluating the round, assuming both principle and practical arguments are advanced through the 3rd and Reply speeches, do you prefer one over the other? Explain. (required)

It depends on the motion. On a motion that tends towards a problem-solution approach I will tend to prefer the practical, but on a motion that is rooted in a would or believes approach I tend towards the practical.

The WS Debate format requires the judge to consider both Content and Style as 40% each of the speaker’s overall score, while Strategy is 20%. How do you evaluate a speaker’s strategy? (required)

For me, strategy is how the speaker addresses the large clashes in the debate and compares those clashes for one another. For example, if the debate is about the efficacy of green patents I am looking for the speaker to address something that exists in the assumption that efficacy is good or bad.

WS Debate is supposed to be delivered at a conversational pace. What category would you deduct points in if the speaker was going too fast? (required)

I do that in the style section.

WS Debate does not require evidence/cards to be read in the round. How do you evaluate competing claims if there is no evidence to read? (required)

I tend to grant both claims as being true and then look to see if the claims are mutually exclusive. If they aren’t then I look at whether the teams advanced a burden/principle that supports their side. Included in this is an evaluation of whether a side has compared their burden/principle to the other team’s.

How do you resolve model quibbles? (required)

I don’t like to resolve these issue because they often revolve around questions of fact, which I can’t resolve in a debate where there are no objectively verified facts. I tend to go through the same process as I do when it comes to evaluating competing claims.

How do you evaluate models vs. countermodels? (required)

First, I think both sides have the option to have a model or countermodel, but it is not required in the debate. Second, I think about the practical and the world each side creates. If a team is comparing their world to the world of the other team then I tend to follow that logic. Hopefully, both teams are doing this and then they are using their burden/principle to explain why their world is more important for me to vote for. One item that I tend to not enjoy is when teams treat models and countermodels as plans and counterplans and attack each other’s position without a comparison. Keep in mind that reasons the other team’s position fails are not reasons your position succeeds!

If I am judging you in an event other than WSD.

I am sorry, it has been several years since I have judged anything else but WSD. I do not subscribe to the technique over truth paradigm, nor do I want to listen to a mistakes driven debate. I want to see clash, not strategies geared towards avoiding/trapping the other side. Please do not spread, I will not flow that fast and I will not go back and reconstruct your speech using a speech document. Acts of exclusion will result in low points and possible loss of the ballot. I know this is a list of do not's rather than do's so I'm happy to answer any questions you might have.

I'm currently a senior at Harvard debating with a decent amount of APDA and British Parliamentary experience. I did not do PF in high school – keep that in mind when you use technical jargon / speak faster.

Judging Philosophy: I flow. I'm tab, but I think that no judge is truly tabula rasa. Though not written for American HS formats, this article is very insightful and very close to how I think about judging.

I — and most judges, I hope — have an innate disposition towards liberal principles (not like Democratic, but like free speech, democracy, equal rights, alleviate unnecessary suffering, etc). This doesn't mean that I will always vote this way, but the more extreme your position is from this starting point, the harder it is (and the more work you must do) to convince me.

Some of my other thoughts are listed below:

TLDR, in image form:

TLDR, in written form: PF is an event designed for the public — please don't make me think too hard. Focus on weighing and warranting. Frontline in 2R. Don't be a dick. Debate, don't argue.

Paradigm:

1) Warrants: I like warrants. I weigh well-explained mechs much more heavily than evidence. Cards capture a specific instance of a phenomenon — tell me why that phenomenon has happened beyond pure luck. I don't find card disputes very persuasive; instead, debate on the warrant level. Make your internal links as detailed as possible.

2) Weighing: I like weighing.Do it more. I will always pick up a weighed argument over an unweighed argument, even if its warranting is not fully fleshed out. If neither side weighs, I will evaluate the arguments based on my own intuitions. My intuitions are bad. Don't let my intuition cost you the round. Barring any other explicit weighing, I evaluate strength of warrant as implicit probabilistic weighing.

3) Evidence: I don't really care about evidence. I will probably never call for a card unless I think someone has dramatically lied / misquoted / badly paraphrased it. See point 1. Add me to the chain if you must: azwang@college.harvard.edu.

4) Impacts: I have a significant presumption against high-magnitude, low-probability impacts (extinction, nuclear war, etc). I will listen to them, but I generally believe that you are better off spending time on plausible and interesting arguments.

5) Speed: Don't spread. If you're double breathing, I'm not fully flowing.

6) Theory: I don't know how to evaluate theory. I'm willing to evaluate it, but your burden of explanation is much higher in order to combat my strong bias of arguments about the topic. Err on the side of over-over-over-explanation.

7) General Vibes: Don't be a dick. Don't be any of the -ists. I will probably drop you if you affect anyone's ability to participate in this educational activity.

Thanks for reading this far. Here's a haiku to remember my paradigm:

mechs mechs mechs mechs mechs

weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh

weigh your arguments.

I mostly judge WSD, the below applies to such.

Clarity and cohesion (as a team) are good. Build off of each other.

If you don't have enough content to fill the entire allotted time, don't feel pressured to drag it out. A good speech can be shorter than 8 minutes.

Try to resolve conflicts on definitions and assumptions quickly. Not doing so cuts into the amount of time debating the substantive points, and it helps neither side.

Debate is a performance as much as it is intellectual exercise, so try to make sure your audience can understand it -- speaking at a conversational pace is best.

I have been doing debate for over 8 years now and have debated in pretty much every format possible both in America and Canada. If you have specific questions that aren't covered here, ask me before hand.

TL:DR - I like quality debates that are built on good strategic decisions that are appropriate in the context of your format. I do not believe in replacing thorough and nuanced logic and explanations with jargon, even in the interest of efficiency. IF YOU HAVE ME AS A WSD JUDGE, THERE IS A SPECIFIC SECTION BELOW.

While I can keep up with pretty much anything you run, I will not do any work for you. If you are competing in an American debate format and are running something progressive, assuming its appropriate for your format, make sure you do everything you need to do to make it a convincing and mechanically complete argument. That includes explaining what you're running and why you're running it. While I likely have experience with the progressive arguments you are running, in the interest of judging tabula rasa, I will pretend I have none.

I can keep up with spreading but would prefer not too. If you are going to spread, flash me your case beforehand.

I have nearly zero tolerance for tactics and strategies that are exclusionary to your opponent and other debaters in general, especially when those tactics are used against newer debaters. I will not awards losses for this behavior because I realize it is somewhat subjective, but I will adjust speaker points.

WORLD SCHOOLS SPECIFIC INFO

WSD is not an American format and I have zero tolerance for debaters that treat it like one. Understand the different assumptions and rules that underpin WSD before debating in it and do not assume they are the same as American debate formats because they are not. While there are many differences, here are some key ones to keep in mind:

- No cards

- No technical jargon

- No progressive arguments

- No spreading

- Greater emphasis on rhetoric and logic

- Debates must focus on the core of the issue rather than niche arguments

- It is acceptable to drop arguments if they are no longer important. Dropped arguments do not immediately mean a team has won

- MOST IMPORTANTLY: WSD debates are focused on the entire world, or some reasonably large segment of it, rather than just America

With that being said, WSD is a growing format in the US and I understand and respect that. People will make mistakes and default to habits from American formats and that is okay as long as you are not intentionally trying to change the format by bringing in American debate strategies and rules.

Update for Stanford 02/08/20 Elims: Please!! Slow down!! Zoom and the online format just simply cannot handle full speaking speed! P l e a s e. If I cannot understand what you're saying because you are are not accommodating the online format, I just won't flow it. I can only flow what your audio can accommodate!

Update for Stanford 02/05/20: This is my first time judging this topic, and I am not very familiar with the lit/terminology, so please explain acronyms, critical terms, etc. very clearly.

Update for Apple Valley 10/06/20: I cannot overemphasize the importance of slowing down your speaking speed for online debate! Even when you think you have slowed down, please slow down another 20% just to accommodate for delays and weird technical hiccups. As such, you will likely need to adjust the amount of material in each speech to match the slower speed, so please prepare accordingly!

Update for Yale 10/02/20: Online debating is challenging for a number of reasons, but technological difficulties (e.g. unclear audio, static) can uniquely hinder auditory comprehension. As such, please slow down more than you think you need to when speaking to account for these issues; similarly, it is more than imperative that you proactively disclose all relevant materials with myself and your opponent via email chain to ensure clarity.

--

Hello! My name is Liz Yount (she/her/hers), and I’m currently a senior at The George Washington University studying English with a concentration in Critical Theory/Cultural Studies and Classical & Near Eastern Studies. I debated at Harvard-Westlake for three years, as well as on the NSDA’s USA Debate Team for two years. I have experience in Lincoln Douglas, Worlds Schools, and British Parliamentary debate formats.

I will be generally responsive to most lines of argumentation (except those explicitly stated below). If you are reading a position you find meaningful and generating a passionate discussion, I will certainly pick up on that. Do what you do best, as long as you are making good arguments and being respectful. I also love coaching debate! If you have questions, please ask!

Important/Must Read:

1. Disclosure: Please flash. This is fairly self-explanatory. I’m not going to count every second you spend emailing/passing a flash drive, but if it becomes superfluous I will be annoyed. Please include me on every email chain. I will read your cards/analytics/whatever and compare it against your in-round performance. If there is a discrepancy, that would be bad. My emails are lizyount@gwmail.gwu.edu and liz.yount22@gmail.com. Feel free to include both emails if you want to ensure I have received your documents. If I do not receive your spoken material via email or other means, I will assume you did not read this and, consequently, deduct speaks.

2. Trigger Warnings: Mandatory for all debates in which potentially difficult material is presented, such as sexual violence, suicide, police brutality, etc. You must provide a verbal trigger warning before presenting potentially trigger material. As debaters, the onus is on YOU to adjust your material to the room; that is to say, debaters and judges, unlike spectators, cannot leave, so if one of us feels triggered by material, you must have a secondary strategy prepared. You are also not the judge of whether someone else is triggered. (*Important Note: Please do not read narratives of sexual violence in front of me! I will leave the room and the ballot will reflect the fact that you did not take my statement into account. Thank you in advance for being respectful!) Rodrigo Paramo’s paradigm also echoes my thoughts on this subject in more depth, if you would like further explanation.

3. Speaks/Respecting the Debate Space: Your speaks are inextricably linked with your treatment of the debate space. Clearly good argumentation warrants higher speaks (which I will go into), but maintaining the integrity of debate as a safe classroom is highly important to me. I will not vote on arguments that are racist, sexist, ableist, etc. Please do not cut your opponent off during CX each time they begin to answer your question or be condescending. Understand the way power dynamics function in debate and act accordingly; that is to say, no mansplaining, whitesplaining, etc. Asking for pronouns is also encouraged. If your opponent is significantly less experienced than you, there is no need to outspread them on a complicated position. If you are exhibiting toxic behavior, I have no issue intervening with my ballot after the round, or during round if the behavior is becoming particularly dangerous.

4. Speed: I will not flow what I cannot understand. Quality over quantity. I would much rather you clearly read one off and utilize it well than spew through a million things. Similarly, do not go for five blippy arguments when you could go for one fully articulated one (see: Extension). If you include me on your email chain, as requested, there should not be a speed issue; however, I will say clear twice if necessary. After that, I will just begin deducting speaks.

Arguments:

1. Policy: Great! I read a lot of policy arguments when I debated. Please have an explicit perm text which is written and disseminated to judge/opponent and ideally supported by some kind of textual advocacy. I would much rather you read one well explained perm than three quick “perm do something” then move on. Again, quality over quantity. Simply stating “perm do both” does not generate offense. You must make it explicitly clear why the perm is a voting issue for you.

2. Kritiks: This is my favorite type of argument, but it can very, very quickly become my least favorite in a given round. Debating in LD partly influenced me to pursue a higher degree in cultural critique. With that said, DO NOT read bizarre positions you do not understand that only vaguely apply to the debate. Before you read a K, ask yourself these questions:

a. Have I actually read the article/book from which the K is cut? If not, do not read the K.

b. Can I explain the K using terms other than buzzwords? If not, do not read the K.

c. Does my K have a topic-specific link, or am I reading it for kicks? If not, do not read the K.

d. Does my K have an explicit alt of some nature? If not, do not read the K.

I will not vote on a poorly articulated K simply because it is a K, nor will I cut you technical slack for reading a “difficult position.” In fact, the standard for what constitutes good explanation/extension is higher given the nuanced nature of the literature. If you cannot explain your position or are clearly being disingenuous to the literature with the hope that either your opponent or I will fall for your doctored version of the material, I assure you that will not work and my disappointment will likely be reflected on my face and in the ballot. That being said, if you understand the position, have read the literature, and execute your K well, you will make me extremely happy and likely get very high speaks.

3. Theory: Slow down on theory! Especially interps. I was never big on theory when I debated and still am not. Clearly if there exists a true violation, go for it; however, if you like to read frivolous theory just for the sake of reading theory, do not pref me. I also default to competing interps. If you spend your 2ar going for time skew, I will be sad. Finally, please do not make a blippy and unsubstantiated “I meet” claim and move on.

4. Topicality: I am probably 50/50 on K vs. T must defend the topic. I like the topic, and it exists for a reason; however, if there exists valid ground to critique the topic, I will also be responsive assuming (a-d) under Kritiks is met.

5. FW/Phil: (Do people even read this position anymore?) Anyway, I enjoy philosophy and have read a lot of ethics, political theory, etc. My same standards for Ks also apply to dense philosophical positions (see Kritiks, a-d). If you read a thousand bizarre analytics and spikes/tricks with the intention of being confusing, I will be sad.

6. Spikes/Tricks/Skep: Yikes.

Technical/Other:

1. Extension: I have a relatively high standard for what constitutes proper extension. I will lean Aff in a debate wherein Neg has presented a lot of good arguments but underextends them in the NR. Conversely, whatever unequal speech time distribution that might exist does not give Aff a blank check to underextend. It is not enough to solely extend impacts. You must also extend the warrant behind the impact in order to fully have extended the argument. Again, quality over quantity.

2. Overviews: These can be good, but please do not read a long K overview in the NR without explaining how the K interacts with the Aff. Please signpost and follow the line-by-line.

3. Dumping Turns: It is probably a good thing to read turns to the AC. (That should go without saying). It is not good, however, to dump a ton of tangential cards without indicating how they interact with the Aff and then going for a blippy “drops = conceded” argument in the NR. Again, quality over quantity. (Are you sensing a trend?)

If you have any questions about anything stated above, please do not hesitate to email me or ask before the round. Overall, please have fun and be respectful!

World Schools + British Parliamentary background

intro:

ld @ cypress woods high school '20, parli @ harvard '24.5. dabbled in worlds (usa dev '19)!

please time yourself

worlds:

ask me anything before round!

ld:

i qualled to the toc my senior year and taught at nsd flagship & tdc. if you have questions / for sdocs: angelayufei@gmail.com

shortcuts:

1 - phil/theory. i probably give more weight to k v phil interactions, phil v theory interactions, and k interactions in a truth testing paradigm than the average tx judge. i also enjoy interesting paradigm issue interactions on theory

2 - tricks/larp. i’m not familiar with the topic though, nor do i know what the principle of explosion is - you still need to explain things!

3 - k unless they're reps ks, which i read a lot of. i prefer lbl to floating overviews that im not sure what to do with.

speaks:

- have the doc ready to send ahead of time

- i enjoy a good cx

- i'll call slow and clear as many times as i need to but speaks will drop. im fine w ur opponent calling slow/clear too as long as it's not malicious.

- scripting the entire speech and/or big words without explanation is an ick - i have no idea what, for example, hapticality is.

- postrounding / being aggressive (esp against trad/novices/minorities) makes me sad

miscellaneous:

- you have to provide evi to your opponent/judge. that does not mean you have to disclose (you can have that debate) but should show them, if requested. evi contestation (clipping, miscutting, etc.) is evaluated however the debaters decide: theory shell, stopping the round, etc.

- reading problematic args (eg racism good) is obvs an L. however, the validity of death good, trigger warnings, etc. are debatable (at least in front of me)

- online rounds - record your speeches in case internet gets funky

- i think the ability to spin evi should be rewarded; having good evi helps but "call for the card" puts me in a weird position. do that weighing for me.

- send any relevant screenshot for violations

i don't want to use defaults but here they are for accountability:

- comparative worlds

- permissibility negates, the side with less of a change from the status quo under comparative worlds gets presumption

- epistemic confidence

- dta on theory, dtd on t, competing interps, no rvis

- no judge kick