I competed in Lincoln-Douglas for three years in high school, and Public Forum for one. I've been coaching and judging LD and PF since then.

Lincoln-Douglas Paradigm

Disclosure

I don't want to be on the email chain/speech drop/whatever. Debate is a speaking activity, not an essay writing contest. I will judge what you say, not what's written in your case. The only exception is if there is an in-round dispute over what was actually said in a case/card.

Timing

You are welcome to time yourself but I will be timing you as well. Once my timer starts, it will not stop until the time for a given speech has elapsed. You may do whatever you like with that time, but I will not pause the round for tech issues. Tech issues happen and you need to be prepared for them.

Speed

I prefer a slower debate, I think it allows for a more involved, persuasive and all-around better style of speaking and debating. It is your burden to make sure that your speech is clear and understandable and the faster you want to speak, the more clearly you must speak. If I miss an argument, then you didn't make it.

Flex Prep

No. There is designated CX time for a reason. You can ask for evidence during prep, but not clarification.

LARP - Please don't. Discussion of policy implications is necessary for some topics, but if your case is 15 seconds of "util is truetil" and 5:45 of a hyperspecific plan with a chain of 5 vague links ending in two different extinction impacts, I'm not going to be a fan. Realistically speaking, your links are speculative, your impacts won't happen, and despite debaters telling me that extinction is inevitable for 15+ years, it still hasn't happened. Please debate the topic rather than making up your own (unless you warrant why you can do that, in which case, see pre-fiat kritiks). If there is no action in the resolution, you can't run a plan. If there is no actor, don't a-spec. If you want to debate policy, do policy debate.

Evidence Ethics

I will intervene on evidence ethics if I determine that a card is cut in such a way as to contradict or blatantly misrepresent what an author says, even if not argument is made about this in the round. I have no patience for debaters who lie about evidence. Good evidence is not hard to find, there's no need to make it up and doing so simply makes debate worse for everyone.

Arguments

Role of the Ballot: A role of the ballot argument will only influence how I vote on pre-fiat, not post-fiat argumentation. It is not, therefore, a replacement for a framework, unless your entire case is pre-fiat, in which case see "pre-fiat kritiks". A role of the ballot must have a warrant. "The role of the ballot is fighting oppression" is a statement not an argument. You will need to explain why that is the role of the ballot and why it is preferable to "better debater". Please make the warrant specific to debate. "The role of the ballot is fighting oppression because oppression is bad" doesn't tell me why it is specifically the role of this ballot to fight oppression. I have a low threshold for voting against roles of the ballot with no warrants. I will default to a "better debater" role of the ballot.

Theory: Please reserve theory for genuinely abusive arguments or positions which leave one side no ground. I am willing to vote on RVIs if they are made, but I will not vote on theory unless it is specifically impacted to "Vote against my opponent for this violation". I will always use a reasonability standard. Running theory is asking me as the judge in intervene in the round, and I will only do so if I deem it appropriate.

Pre-fiat Kritiks: I am very slow to pull the trigger on most pre-fiat Ks. I generally consider them attempts to exclude the aff from the round or else shut down discourse by focusing the debate on issues of identity or discourse rather than ideas, especially because most pre-fiat Ks are performative but not performed. Ensure you have a role of the ballot which warrants why my vote will have any impact on the world. I do like alts to be a little more fleshed out than "reject the affirmative", and have a low threshold for voting for no solvency arguments against undeveloped alts.

Post-fiat Kritiks: Run anything you want. I do like alts to be a little more fleshed out than "reject the resolution", and have a low threshold for voting for no solvency arguments against undeveloped alts.

Topicality: Fine. Just make sure you specify what the impact of topicality on the round is.

Politics Disadvantages: Please don't. If you absolutely must, you need to prove A: The resolution will occur now. B: The affirmative must defend a specific implementation of the topic. C:The affirmative must defend a specific actor for the topic. Without those three interps, I will not vote on a politics DA.

Narratives: Fine, as long as you preface with a framework which explains why and how narratives impact the round and tell me how to evaluate it.

Conditionality: I'm permissive but skeptical of conditional argumentation. A conditional argument cannot be kicked if there are turns on it, and I will not vote on contradictory arguments, even if they are conditional. So don't run a cap K and an econ disad. You can't kick out of discourse impacts. Performance is important here.

Word PICs: I don't like word PICs. I'll vote on them if they aren't effectively responded to, but I don't like them. I believe that they drastically decrease clash and cut affirmative ground by taking away unique affirmative offense.

Presumption - I do not presume neg. I'm willing to vote on presumption if the aff or neg gives me arguments for why aff or neg should be presumed, but neither side has presumption inherently. Both aff and neg need offense - in the absence of offense, I revert to possibility of offense.

Pessimistic Ks - Generally not a fan. I find it difficult to understand why they should motivate me to vote for one side over another, even if the argument is true. I have a fairly low threshold to vote on "psychoanalysis is unscientific nonsense" arguments because....well, they're kinda true.

Ideal Theory - If you want to run an argument about "ideal theory" (eg Curry 14) please understand what ideal theory is in the context of philosophy. It has nothing to do with theory in debate terms, nor is it just a philosophy which is idealistic. If you do not specify I will assume that you mean that ideal theory is full-compliance theory.

Disclosure - I will not vote on disclosure arguments.

Framework - Please have an actual warrant for your framework. If your case reads "My standard is util, contention 1" I will evaluate it, but have a very low threshold to vote against it, like any claim without a warrant. I will not evaluate pre-fiat framework warrants; eg, "Util is preferable because it gives equal ground to both sides". Read the philosophy and make an actual argument. See the section on theory - there are no theory-based framework warrants I consider reasonable.

Speaker Points

Since I've gotten some questions about this..

I judge on a 5 point scale, from 25-30.

25 is a terrible round, with massive flaws in speeches, huge amounts of time left unused, blatantly offensive things said or other glaring rhetorical issues.

26 is a bad round. The debater had consistent issues with clarity, time management, or fluency which make understanding or believing the case more difficult.

27.5 is average. Speaker made no large, consistent mistakes, but nevertheless had persistent smaller errors in fluency, clarity or other areas of rhetoric.

28.5 is above average. Speaker made very few mistakes, which largely weren't consistent or repeated. Speaker was compelling, used rhetorical devices well.

30 is perfect. No breaks in fluency, no issues with clarity regardless of speed, very strong use of rhetorical devices and strategies.

Argumentation does not impact how I give speaker points. You could have an innovative, well-developed case with strong evidence that is totally unresponded to, but still get a 26 if your speaking is bad.

While I do not take points off for speed, I do take points off for a lack of fluency or clarity, which speed often creates.

Please please please cut cards with complete, grammatically correct sentences. If I have to try to assemble a bunch of disconnected sentence fragments into a coherent idea, your speaker points will not be good.

Judging style

If there are any aspects of the debate I look to before all others, they would be framework and impact analysis. Not doing one or the other or both makes it much harder for me to vote for you, either because I don't know how to evaluate the impacts in the round or because I don't know how to compare them.

Public Forum Paradigm

Frameworks

I default to an "on balance" metric for evaluating and comparing impacts. I will not consider unwarranted frameworks, especially if they are simply one or two lines asserting the framework without even attempting to justify it.

Topicality

I will evaluate topicality arguments, though only with the impact "ignore the argument", never "drop the team".

Theory

Yes, I understand theory. No, I don't want to hear theory in a PF round. No, I will not vote on a theory argument.

Counterplans

No. Neither the pro nor the con has fiat.

Kritiks

No. Kritiks only function under a truth-testing interpretation of the con burden, I only use comparative worlds in Public Forum.

Burden Interpretations

The pro and the con have an equal and opposite burden of proof. Because of limited time and largely non-technical nature of Public Forum, I consider myself more empowered to intervene against arguments I perceive as unfair or contrary to the rules or spirit of Public Forum debate than I might be while judging LD or Policy.

I am a debate coach in Georgia. I also competed in LD and Policy out west. Take that for whatever you think it means.

• LD - Value/Value Criterion (Framework, Standard, etc,) - this is what separates us from the animals (or at least the policy debaters). It is the unique feature of LD Debate. Have a good value and criterion and link your arguments back to it. I am open to all arguments but present them well, know them, and, above all, Clash - this is a debate not a tea party.
• PF - I side on the traditional side of PF. Don't throw a lot of jargon at me or simply read cards... this isn't Policy Jr., compete in PF for the debate animal it is. Remember debate, especially PF, is meant to persuade - use all the tools in your rhetorical toolbox: Logos, Ethos, and Pathos.
• Speed - Debate is a SPEAKING event. I like speed but not spreading. Speak as fast as is necessary but keep it intelligible. There aren't a lot of jobs for speed readers after high school (auctioneers and pharmaceutical disclaimer commercials) so make sure you are using speed for a purpose. If you spread - it better be clear, I will not yell clear or slow down or quit mumbling, I will just stop listening. If the only way I can understand your case is to read it, you have already lost. If you are PRESENTING and ARGUING and PERSUADING then I need to understand the words coming out of your mouth! NEW for ONLINE DEBATE - I need you to speak slower and clearer, pay attention to where your mike is. On speed in-person, I am a 7-8. Online, make it a 5-6.
• Email Chains Please include me on email chains if it is used in the round, but don't expect me to sit there reading your case to understand your arguments - pchildress@gocats.org **Do not email me outside of the round unless you include your coach in the email.
• Know your case, like you actually did the research and wrote the case and researched the arguments from the other side. If you present it, I expect you to know it from every angle - I want you to know the research behind the statistic and the whole article, not just the blurb on the card.
• Casing - Love traditional but I am game for kritiks, counterplans, theory - but perform them well, KNOW them, I won't do the links for you. I am a student of Toulmin - claim-evidence-warrant/impacts. I don't make the links and don't just throw evidence cards at me with no analysis. It is really hard for you to win with an AFF K with me - it better be stellar. I am not a big fan of Theory shells that are not actually linked in to the topic - if you are going to run Afro-Pes or Feminism you better have STRONG links to the topic at hand, if the links aren't there... Also don't just throw debate terms out, use them for a purpose and if you don't need them, don't use them.
• I like clash. Argue the cases presented, mix it up, have some fun, but remember that debate is civil discourse - don't take it personal, being the loudest speaker won't win the round, being rude to your opponent won't win you the round.
• Debating is a performance in the art of persuasion and your job is to convince me, your judge (not your opponent!!) - use the art of persuasion to win the round: eye contact, vocal variations, appropriate gestures, and know your case well enough that you don't have to read every single word hunched over a computer screen. Keep your logical fallacies for your next round. Rhetoric is an art.
• Technology Woes - I will not stop the clock because your laptop just died or you can't find your case - not my problem, fix it or don't but we are going to move on.
• Ethics - Debate is a great game when everyone plays by the rules. Play by the rules - don't give me a reason to doubt your veracity.
• Win is decided by the flow (remember if you don't LINK it, I don't either), who made the most successful arguments and used evidence and reasoning to back up those arguments.
• Speaker Points are awarded to the best speaker - I end up with a rare low point win each season. I am fairly generous on speaker points. I disclose winner but not speaker points. Even is you are losing a round or not feeling it during the round, don't quit on yourself or your opponent! You may not like the way your opponent set up their case or you may not like a certain style of debate but don't quit in a round.
• Don't browbeat less experienced debaters; you should aim to win off of argumentation skill against less experienced opponents, not smoke screens or jargon. 7 off against a first-year may get you the win, but it kills the educational and ethical debate space you should strive for. As an experienced debater, you should hope to EDUCATE them not run them out of the event.
• Enjoy yourself. Debate is the best sport in the world - win or lose - learn something from each round, don't gloat, don't disparage other teams, judges, or coaches, and don't try to convince me after the round is over. Leave it in the round and realize you may have just made a friend that you will compete against and talk to for the rest of your life. Don't be so caught up in winning that you forget to have some fun - in the round, between rounds, on the bus, and in practice.
• Rule of Debate Life. Sometimes you will be told you are the winner when you believe you didn't win the round - accept it as a gift from the debate gods and move on. Sometimes you will be told you lost a round that you KNOW you won - accept that this is life and move on. Sometimes judges base a decision on something that you considered insignificant or irrelevant and sometimes judges get it wrong, it sucks but that is life. However, if the judge is inappropriate - get your advocate, your coach, to address the issue. Arguing with the judge in the round or badmouthing them in the hall or cafeteria won't solve the issue.
• Immediate losers for me - be disparaging to the other team or make racist, homophobic, sexist arguments or comments. Essentially, be kind and respectful if you want to win.
• Questions? - if you have a question ask me.

Northview '21

University of Illinois - Urbana Champaign '25

Debated LD in high school for 3 years and coached for 1 year, 10 career bids, cleared at TOC in 2020 and 2021

I've competed in Policy and PF as well - the below paradigm should be flexible enough across all debate divisions

Doc sharing is good for evidence ethics and accessibility, spreading or no spreading.

I prefer using Speech Drop for docs, its easier.

Email: sreyaash.das@gmail.com

Some quick notes and preferences:

1) I'll call clear/slow 3 times, so do be clear.

2) I like fast and efficient debates, so feel free to uplayer and spit out blippy analytics but make sure they're warranted arguments

3) Tech> Truth. Crazy args are fine, but the threshold for answers get lower. Higher level debates should always incorporate some level of truth behind arguments.

4) Non negotiable: speech times/rules, prep can be CX but CX can't be prep, compiling a doc is prep but flashing/emailing isn't, there's no "clarification time" before CX, clipping and ev ethics.

5) I'll disclose speaks. I think its a good norm to follow.

6) Don't let the type of debater you are facing affect your arguments. Exposure to different forms of argumentation on both sides is what spreads education within debate, regardless of experience; I wouldn’t have joined circuit LD if I hadn’t faced different progressive arguments at locals. Only condition is that you should be nice and reasonable: spread but send docs, be nice in cx, and your speaks will be boosted. Be sketchy and tricky just to get an easy ballot, and I'll nuke your speaks.

7) "If you are clearly better than your opponent and it is obvious that you are winning the round, please, dear lord, do not use all of your speech time just because you have the time- win the round and sit down so we can have a discussion and make it more educational than just you repeating conceded arguments for 13 minutes." ~ Stephen Scopa

8) I disclosed with good practices - open source with round reports and first/last 3. If your wiki is a model of what I believe to be good disclosure norms, show/tell me before the round and I'll bump up speaks.

9) Arguments and their truth level start at 0 and work their way up based on effective warranting. Conceded claims don't mean I automatically vote for them if they were originally unwarranted.

Prefs Overview

Note: Just because certain things are ranked low, DOESNT mean I won't vote off it, nor does it mean I don't enjoy it. I pride myself on trying to be as flex as possible, so feel free to run virtually anything. 1 = Most familiar/Best at judging this. 4 = Least Familiar/Worst at judging this

Policy/Larp -2

Kritiks - 2

Theory - 1

Phil -3

Tricks -2

I'm serious with these pref ranks - I'm comfortable with judging any form of argumentation

Policy/Larp:

Defaults: Judge Kick, ev > analytics

Be smart and do link analysis

Politics and process args are fine, higher bar for explanation tho

Zero risk is a thing

Explain cards - these debates are won with good analysis AND evidence

Ev comparison is key - don't make me spend 20 minutes reading through all the cards

1ARs - read theory vs CPs, low bar for case extensions if its simple

2NRs - answer theory vs CPs, please structure the collapse

Don't forget to kick out of things

Theory

Defaults: F/E are voters, drop the debater, competing interps, rvis

Standard weighing is dead - plz do it

Paragraph theory is fine

Be clear on standards so I at least have the standard name flowed

Terminal D on a shell is a thing even under competing interps, there has to be offense isolated at the end of the round.

Send interps/counter interps plz

Combo shells are cool, reasonability is persuasive versus them

Kritiks:

Dont be a doc bot the entire time

Link analysis contextualized to the aff is cool, it isn't enough to win your theory of power

Framework (weigh/cant weigh case) determines the result most of the time - win it

Buzzwords don't mean anything - just because the 1ar didn't explicitly say the words "Role of the ballot" doesnt mean there isn't defense on the kritik's theory of power

K Affs/T:

These Affs should have isolated a problem and proposed a method or model

Personal narratives hold little weight to me since the ballot isn't a referendum on one's identity

Reading a K aff isn't an excuse to not be technical, same for the 2NR on T

Fairness/Clash/Research is cool, do weighing if going for T

No preference in a K aff v. framework debate - I've been on both sides

Nuanced framework interps and warrants are cool (sabotage, passive voice, etc.)

Philosophy:

Defaults: epistemic confidence, comparative worlds

I'm cool with anything - the denser the phil the more explanation required

I think this type of debate still requires some level of interaction with actual offense

Spec phil affs are cool and I wish I saw more

Tricks:

Defaults: presumption negates unless the neg defends an advocacy, permissibility affirms

If it's gonna be a tricks round, delineate all arguments and dont be sketch in cx

Rebuttal extensions have to point me to what I am extending on the flow

Slow down on blips - flowability is key

Otherwise, I'll vote on anything explained.

Traditional:

I was a trad lad for a year, so you can have a traditional round, though I'd prefer otherwise.

Substance > V/VC debate

Frameworks are so arbitrary in lay debate, half the time theres no distinction between 2

I vote off the flow, ethos/pathos boosts speaks but won't just get you the ballot. Contrary to most beliefs, even traditional debate is based off of some level of technicality.

Speaker Points:

I think speaker points are based off of arguments made, and the strategies taken to attempt to win the round. As long as I understood you throughout the round, and you made sound strategic decisions in the round based off my paradigm, you'll get high speaks.

Shortened paradigm

Will hear Traditional, LARP, Counter-Plans, Plans, and warranted Neg Ks. Theory/T arguments lose my attention (if you have nothing to disprove their evidence, default to turns. argumentative creativity =/= abuse) but I will vote on them if I buy abuse took place. Besides T arguments, I judge on the flow using the framing mechanism that won the round. Don't read Aff Ks. Don't browbeat less experienced debaters; you should aim to win off of argumentation skill against less experienced opponents, not smoke screens or pure esoterism. 7 off against a first-year may get you the win, but it kills the educational and ethical debate space you should strive for.

Defaults

[1] Competing interps > Reasonability

[2] Tech vs Truth- See below

[3] Aff gets presumption, Neg gets permissibility

[4] RVIs are fine

[5] More than 2 Condos is excessive and errs Aff

Longer paradigm.

Speed and Email Chains- I'm very comfortable flowing <320 wpms. Above that, I will only flow args that were intelligible to me. If you plan on spreading, an email chain is expected to both me and your opponent. Your opponent is not obligated to send their case if they elect to read at clear speeds. My flow determines the round, not yours or your opponent's.

ID Pol- No ad hominem arguments will be flowed if addressed by your opponent. You may not use your opponent's race, gender, orientation, or other traits as a link into your case. I expect your identity politics to be directed towards processes occurring outside of the debate space in return for me ensuring no extremely problematic processes occur within ours.

Clash- the reason for debate. Every point your opponent makes should be either contested or mitigated. Extensions on dropped points are deadly, it is your job to cover your bases.

Tech or Truth- Don't make me choose. I will side with the flow over my intuition, but will side with fact over the flow. If you read carded analysis saying gummy bears were a root cause of WWII, that makes it on the flow. If you read a card that says MLK did not exist, that does not make it on the flow. Having cards does not alter history, but it is still the job of the debater to state that the card is false. I will call for cards; you should too.

CX- Both sides get speeches immediately after their questioning period. No excuse not to extend effective CX into them. CX is as binding as main speeches, but it is your job to address contradictions.

No new offensive args after the 1AR- The affirmative gets 4 minutes to answer a 7 minute speech. If you need to bring new arguments into your 6 minute rebuttal, you were the worse debater.

Turns- Effective turns win close rounds. Win back your turned arguments on the flow by proving that the NEG can't access the thesis or that the NEG's impact turn is bad under the framework.

I do not care about standing or sitting during speeches.

Decision- I decide winning framework before I decide who won the round. In your last speeches, make weighing arguments under the winning framework for me. I use the flow to determine who won the weighing arguments. If no weighing arguments are presented, we are defaulting to my intuition (this is bad, so make the args yourself).

RFD- I try to be as educational as possible, maybe providing suggestions on how to have better won different arguments. In addition to regular commentary, I'll try to share my flow with both debaters so you can see how an admittedly layish judge. I'll attempt to answer questions after round but if you or your coach have unaddressed concerns, email me at elijah.herring@gmail.com and I'll hope to meaningfully resolve any issues.

I have previously debated in high school and college and am now a parent of an LD debater. I work for an insurance company as an IT leader. Always been a tech nerd and excited to see the advances in technology and AI will bring to our future.

I DO NOT like spreading! Talk at a comfortable, normal pace that is easy for me and the opponent to understand. I enjoy a good argumentative debate, but I will not tolerate any rude or condescending behavior towards your opponent; stay respectful throughout the debate please.

I look for a consistent value framework supported by clear evidence and appropriate responses to the contentions of your opponent.

You can call me "Judge" or "Mrs. Jay"

I can be best described as "lay judge".

I have no debate experience however my child has participated in both public forum and lincoln douglas style of debate. I will try to take notes and will vote for whoever provides the more compelling argument.

I am still new to judging so please do not speak too fast and most definitely do NOT spread - I will not be able to understand what you are saying and it is the fastest way to lose points. Please time yourselves.

To increase speaker points, have your docs/cases ready to be sent asap. My email address is mouli_shaheen@yahoo.com.

As always, remember to be respectful during debates and have fun!

Update for judging: Been out of debate for a while now, learning the topic lit as I go. This means be clearer on args for evidence or stuff like acronyms. Don't make the mistake of thinking I know what you know. That being said, if you're gonna spread start slower than normal and don't max yourself out.

Note for Online: Try and use a good mic if you can, and slow down on analytics. Send an email chain anyways (jaypatel26687@gmail.com)

I've done both national circuit and traditional debate, so I'm cool with either style. That being said, I do like circuit debate more. Be accommodating plz and don't be racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. because that's bad and I will talk to your coach.

I'm cool with anything, run what you want and make arguments that you want to make. I try to be as tabula rasa as possible and on that note, I won't do work for you. If the argument is important, address it as such, if [x] is critical, tell me why. Impact and warrant out arguments, far too many debaters aren't doing this. AND PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF GOD WEIGH BETWEEN ARGS. Other than that, if you have specific questions ask me in round and I'd be more than happy to answer them.

Quick list of what debate I'm good at judging:

1 - LARP/Trad

2 - K (like the generics (i.e cap, biopower, fem, etc...))

3 - Theory/T (Run it if you want, but just know the more frivolous it is, the more I'll lower my threshold for responses)

4 - K (the less known ones are fine, but you're gonna have to explain the warrants and links a lot more and I mean A LOT more, if I can't understand the K or its implications in round, I won't vote on it. I don't want to discourage you from it, but be wary.)

5 - Trix (I've run them and I know what they are and can evaluate them, I just don't like to)

How to get high speaks:

Be clear, be funny (work in a good South Park reference and I'll add a point)

"If you are clearly better than your opponent and it is obvious that you are winning the round, please, dear lord, do not use all of your speech time just because you have the time- win the round and sit down so we can have a discussion and make it more educational than just you repeating conceded arguments for 13 minutes." ~ Stephen Scopa

How to get low speaks:

Be a dick

The Long Version (written while I had absolutely many, many better things to do)

Trad

- Unless you have some weird framework links/implications 99% of trad rounds end with util v util frameworks where far too much time is spent. If you realize you have the same or even similar framework as your opponent, it's fine to drop a framework. I feel like people don't really know this, but it saves time for you.

- Substance > V/VC Debate

LARP

- CPs, ADV/DAs, Plans, PICs, etc. this is my bread and butter and what I used to do a lot of while I debated.

- These rounds are won with good evidence AND good analysis, one will not cover for the other, but that being said Evidence > Analytics

- WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH

- Be smart in your rebuttals, proper time allocation and a good collapse are key

- I'll listen to impact turns, use them well

Kritiks

- I'll likely have some familiarity with the lit base (refer to the examples above) but don't assume I know everything. It's your job to make things clear for me. If I can't understand it, I won't vote on it

- Contextualize the links to the aff, generic stuff like "state bad" isn't horrible, but just put the effort in and find a specific link

- ROB v FW weighing is super important here, win this you'll probably win the round

Theory/T

- Defaults: Competing interps, drop the debater, rvis, fairness and education are voters

- The more frivolous the shell, the lower my bar for responses (imo just use a good reasonability dump and the shell should lose every time)

- Send counter interps/interps, and slow down for standard names

- Do some standard weighing please

- Paragraph theory is lame :(

Trix

- Ehhhh..... I don't want to judge this, but I will if I have to

- Make sure all your stuff is delineated and just admit to what you're doing (it's easier on all of us) instead of being shifty is cross

- Extensions are gonna have to be really good, explain the implication of x spike in the speech and make sure you're slow enough that I can flow it

RAP Paradigm:

Clash. Most importantly, I value clash rather than distracters or debate "theory." For all forms of debate, clash is essential; beyond initial presentation of cases, "canned" or pre-prepared speeches are unhelpful.

Evidence. I prioritize proof. Therefore, I value evidence over unsubstantiated opinion or theory, and I especially value evidence from quality sources. Be sure that (i) your evidence is from a quality source, (ii) your evidence actually says what you claim it does, and (iii) you are not omitting conditions, limitations, or contrary conclusions within your evidence.

Delivery. I debated back in the day when delivery mattered. Persuasion is still key, so if you are monotone, turn your back, or never bother with eye contact, your speaker points will likely suffer accordingly. You may speak quickly, but you must be clear, particularly with contentions. Eye contact and a well-organized, well-documented case are much appreciated. Always bear in mind that you’re trying to persuade the judge(s), not your opponent(s) or your computer, and focus accordingly.

Weighing arguments. I don’t weigh all arguments equally. You can spread if you want, but the decision will go to the team that carries the majority of the most-substantive issues with greater impacts. I appreciate policy arguments (vs. theory), especially if they relate to law (e.g., the Constitution), economics, international trade (e.g., the WTO), international relations (e.g., the UN or international law), or government policy.

Organization. This is essential. Off-time roadmaps are okay. I try to flow carefully. Please structure your case with numbered/lettered points and sub-points. When refuting arguments, please cross-refer to your opponent(s) case structure (preferably by number/letter) and be very organized for me to keep track.

Resolutions. Please debate the resolutions. Thought has gone into these and their specific wording. Regardless of the form of debate, I prefer that students debate the resolution, and I am not a fan of “Kritiks,” “Alts,” or the like. Whatever the rubric or euphemism, if they relate specifically to the topic, okay, but if they are generic or primarily distractive, I may disregard them. In any event, they are no excuse for failing to deal with the current resolution, for failing to clash with the other side’s specific arguments, or for failing to organize your own points with a clear structure.

Ridiculous rulemaking. Please spare me any “observation” or “framework” that attempts to narrow the resolution or to impose all of the burden on your opponent(s) (e.g., “Unless the other side carries every issue, I win the debate”).

Other pet peeves. These include: not standing during speeches, answering for your partner, claiming that you proved something without reading evidence, claiming evidence says something it doesn’t, rudeness, speaking faster than you can organize thoughts, failing to clash, forgetting that debate is ultimately about persuasion, debating during prep time, etc. Avoid hyperbole: not every issue leads to “global thermonuclear war”.

Feedback. Some students find my feedback very helpful. Even if you don’t, it’s not a time for arguing against the decision or for being disrespectful, which is counterproductive with me.

My background. I was a Policy debater who also competed in Congress, Extemp, and OO. I’ve coached PF. I am an international business attorney and former law school professor, with a background in Economics and experience working on Capitol Hill. I also teach and tutor ELA, History, and SAT (Reading/Writing); words matter.

The above thoughts apply to all forms of debate. I judge a fair amount, primarily PF and L-D. Below are some thoughts specific to those types of debate:

PF—

--I prefer line-by-line refutation. I am not a fan of dropping or conceding arguments. I do not appreciate attempts to reduce the debate to “voters,” ignoring other arguments. This is particularly inappropriate when done during your side’s first two-minute speech.

--No “scripted” speeches after the initial presentations of cases. Clash is key.

--Framework is optional, not essential. It may not be used to narrow the resolution.

--Even though you are not required to present a plan, that can’t be used as a knee-jerk response to all arguments or questions concerning Solvency or Topicality.

--Remember that “There is no presumption or burden of proof in Public Forum Debate”.

L-D—

--I am not a fan of abstract philosophy. Any philosophical presentation must be tied specifically to the resolution and not presented in a generic vacuum.

--I don’t necessarily weigh framework over contentions.

--Your value and criterion should work with your contentions. Ideally, in discussing the relative merits of each side’s framework, explain specifically why your choice is more relevant rather than relying on a circular “chicken and egg” analysis (e.g., “My value comes before her value”).

I'm Griffin Richie (he/him). I graduated from Grady High School in Atlanta in 2021- I competed in LD on the local Georgia circuit and national circuit for three years, and in PF my senior year. I've broken at several TOC bid tournaments in LD and PF, won the 2020 GFCA Varsity State Championship in LD, and competed in NSDA Nats for 4 years, advancing in World Schools and PF. I'm new to judging.

Please put me on the email chain: griffin.richie@yale.edu. This should be set up before the round if possible. I'll boost speaks if there's an email chain in PF or traditional rounds.

This is my LD paradigm. It generally applies to PF and policy (if I'm judging that for some reason). My PF paradigm is at the bottom, as well as my thoughts on traditional debate.

T/L

I'll evaluate anything, as long as it is not explicitly racist/sexist/homophobic, etc.- I'll be as tabula rasa as possible. I'm tech>truth, but lower-quality arguments have a lower threshold of response.

You must have trigger warnings if you are talking about firsthand accounts of violence. Safety is important.

The affirmative must have a framing mechanism, whether it be in the traditional value-value criterion, standard, or ROB format. Absent an aff framework, I'm very comfortable voting off of any neg framing mechanism.

I'll read evidence if you ask me to, but that invites intervention. I'll really only do this if there are competing claims over warrants in key pieces of evidence.

If you're hitting a lay/traditional debater or novice, don't go lay- I think it's important for those debaters to be exposed to circuit debate, or they will never see the need to learn progressive strategies. However, if you go a little slower than usual, run strategies that are more accessible (basic phil, LARP), and are nice in cross, I will give you very high speaks.

You should disclose at TOC bid tournaments. I'm persuaded by disclosure theory, unless you're hitting a debater who clearly doesn't understand disclosure norms. I'll evaluate frivolous disclosure theory, but I would really rather not judge these rounds.

Cheat Sheet

LARP- 1

Phil- 2

Theory/T/Trix- 3

Ks- 4

Performance/Non T Affs- 5

LARP- I love a pure LARP/ util debate. If you plan on running this strategy, PLEASE weigh evidence quality, links, and impacts so you have a clear ballot story- if not, it will get messy. DA's, CP's, PIC's, Adv's, etc. are totally cool. 1 or 2 condo is fine, anything more is probably pushing it. Plans are fine, but the more specific it is, the more I'm persuaded by T.

Phil- I'm very comfortable with dense philosophical frameworks- I have an in-depth understanding of the common philosophies used (Kant, util, Rawls), and if you read a more nuanced philosophy, I've probably heard of it, but may not have a complete understanding of it- therefore, err on the side of overexplaining the warrants and implications. These debates get very messy when both sides just go for prerequisite or root cause claims, so weigh clearly and extend the syllogism throughout the round.

T/ Theory- Run it, I will vote off of it. I will not gut check theory or T, but the more frivolous it is, the more likely I will be to lower your speaks and have a lower threshold for responses. I'm not the best at evaluating theory, so clearly explain your abuse and ballot story. I'm very convinced by RVI's, especially on the Aff. Defaults- DTD, CI's, RVI's, Norm setting> In round abuse.

Trix- Cool with it. Don't make this debate messy (clearly explain the implications of spikes when you extend them), and don't be shady in CX. If you do either of those things, it'll make it hard for me to vote on trix, and if you're shady in CX, your speaks will suffer. I would prefer if there is clear delineation in the underview. The spikes K is a legitimate response, but I'm unpersuaded by 'spikes on top'.

Ks- Not a huge fan, but I have a basic understanding of many of the common lit bases (cap, afropess, etc.). If you really want to run a K, please do line-by-line and overexplain the warrants and implications, since I probably don't know the lit base that well. More nuanced links than "state bad" are definitely preferable.

Performance/ Non T Aff- You can run this if this is your main aff strat, but I'm not great at evaluating these rounds. I think the aff should be topical, and I'm very persuaded by framework- my main strat against Non T affs was 1 off framework. If you have a performance in the aff you need to explain why that generates offense and have some framework to filter that offense. Performance is probably not the best strategy with me in the back.

Lay/Traditional/Novice

I competed in local and regional lay/traditional tournaments for a large portion of my debate career. Totally cool evaluating this style. Values really aren't necessary. Generally whoever wins the value criterion wins the round, so make sure to do proper framework weighing. I don't really care if you sit/stand, etc., but make eye contact and be clear and passionate when you speak. I'll still vote off of the flow, but those elements are crucial for high speaks.

PF

I did this event for a year. Here are some preferences or must-have's for me:

[1] Anything that's in Final Focus MUST be in Summary. I give a little more leeway for new weighing in the first final focus, but it shouldn't be completely new.

[2] Framework isn't a must, but impact calculus is often necessary in the summary and final focus speeches to deliver a clear ballot story. If not, I may have to intervene.

[3] Extensions of contentions/ subpoints are a must in every speech. If you just do blippy line-by-line, I don't know what arguments you're going for, and it's extremely messy to evaluate.

[4] Please collapse to one or two key arguments in final focus, and preferably summary. It's not only strategically beneficial, but it leads to better clash and articulation of arguments.

[5] Not a fan of paraphrasing evidence at all. If it's particularly egregious, I'll lower speaks. I'm very persuaded by "hey judge, they didn't read actual evidence". Paraphrased evidence is only slightly better than analytics.

[6] I will evaluate 'Progressive PF' or whatever you want to call it, but because PF was designed to be accessible to all and explicitly bans certain arguments, I'd strongly prefer traditional arguments over Ks, Theory, etc. If you want to run these arguments, consider doing LD or policy, and I'll probably tank speaks.

Speaks

Spreading is fine, but send out a doc to both myself and your opponent. If you're not clear when you spread, that will make it very hard to evaluate arguments. Go about 70-80% of your top speed, especially because we are virtual.

I won't evaluate "Give me 30 speaks", because it's a terrible model for debate.

30- Best debater at the tournament

29.5-29.9- Top 5% - really strong performance

29-29.5- Top 10%- very, very good.

28.5-28.9- Top 25% - very solid- you'll probably break

28-28.5- Top 50%- solid- probably won't break

27-27.9- Average- needs improvement

26-26.9- Below average- needs a lot of work

20-25- Racist or offensive. I'm going to talk with your coach.

CX

1. Show your opponent respect- I'm totally cool with an aggressive CX, especially if your opponent is dodging questions, but know the line between aggressive and disrespectful/ demeaning. Your speaks will suffer if you cross the line.

2. CX is binding- if you make a concession in CX, you cannot try and sever out of it. That being said, I will only evaluate what happens in CX if it is brought up in your speech.

Hello! My name is TJ Riggs and I'm a Junior Policy Debater at Samford University (Qualed to NDT 2022 and 2023) and head coach of the SpeakFirst debate team. I have been debating since sophomore year of high school at both the state and national level. I always try my best to avoid intervention and I will generally weigh tech over truth. That being said, I reserve the right to gut check egregiously false claims. I am a pretty active listener, so if you see me nodding my head then I am probably vibing with your args. If I look confused or unconvinced you'll probably see it on my face. I look forward to judging you!

INCLUDE ME ON THE EMAIL CHAIN: tjriggs03@gmail.com

Below is a more comprehensive list of my judging preferences:

1 - LARP/Policy

2 - Trad

3 - K's

4 - Dense Phil

Strike - Tricks

Preferences (LD):

Traditional (V/VC Framework): Traditional debate is where I got my start, and I always love hearing a solid traditional round. Framework is important, however I also heavily value the impact debate. Explicitly tell me why under your framework your impacts matter. Being able to tie your case together is essential.

Dense Phil: Eh, not really my favorite. I am generally unconvinced that intentions matter more than consequences in the face of extinction level scenarios. Not to say I won't vote on it but I probably should not be at the top of your pref sheet.

Tricks: Tricks are really stupid and bad for debate. I honestly don't even really care if your opponent just refuses to acknowledge them the whole round, I'm still probably not going to drop them for it. Go ahead and strike me :)

Adv/DA: Easy, clean debate. Please clearly announce when you are moving to the next advantage or disadvantage. If you are reading an advantage aff please read a plan, even if it’s “Plan: Do The Res”.

CP: Counterplans are always nice. Run them as you please, and I’m happy to listen. I don't love PIC's in LD but I will listen to them. 1 or 2 condo is probably ok, more than that starts to push it. 3+ contradictory options and it starts getting bad for you (NOTE: New affs probably justify infinite condo).

Theory/T: Theory and T are fine as long as it’s reasonably warranted. Topicality really has to be warranted or I’m not going to drop them for it. I think topic relevant definitions are important, I probably won't drop them because your dictionary.com definition of "the" meaning "all" probably won't convince me they aren't topical. Please make sure you are familiar with the format of Theory and T shells, don’t run them if you aren’t. I will listen to RVI arguments (LD not Policy). I will listen to Frivolous Theory because it is your time and you can do with it as you please but I won't give you the round over it, so its most likely a waste of your breath.

Kritiks: Topical Kritiks are fine. Non-topical Kritiks are not my favorite but if it is properly warranted i'll vote on it. Familiar with most standard K lit, anything fancy please explain well.

Preferences (Public Forum):

Email Chains: Up to debaters if they would like to chain.

Evidence Standard: Not a fan of paraphrasing. Let the experts who wrote your cards do the talking for you. I won't instantly drop you for paraphrasing ev, but I will read the evidence and am open to arguments from your opponent as to why paraphrasing is bad. Excessive exaggeration of what your evidence says will hurt your speaker points and possibly even your chance at the ballot.

Extending Arguments: Please argue the substance of your ev, not just the taglines. I am going to be much more inclined to buy your evidence if you thoughtfully explain why it specifically answers parts of the flow. Just saying "Extend Riggs 2021" is not sufficient. Carry your arguments through the flow, I should be able to draw a line from your constructive to your final focus and see the argument evolve throughout the round.

Speech Preferences:

Speed: I'm cool with any speed. Spreading is fine, but please articulate. If I can not understand you I will say "clear". Please do not go faster than you are capable of, many arguments can be made just as well by slowing down and sticking to the point.

Speaker Points: Clarity is key for speaks. Please be respectful to your opponent, being rude will result in points being docked.

If you have any questions about my judging style, experience, or preferences, please feel free to email me at tjriggs03@gmail.com

General: Hey, I'm Lauren (she/her) and I look forward to judging your round today! :)

I'm a freshman at UGA studying philosophy and political science.

I debated in VLD for 3 years and was state champ in VLD and Congress.

I like debates that are clear and interesting. Include me in the email chain (Laurenjolie03@gmail.com)

Please signpost/roadmap - Since I'm a flow judge, I really hate when it is unclear where you are and I get bounced around the flow. ***If you don't tell me where you are, I can’t flow. Be sure to crystallize, please!

Speed: Don't sacrifice clarity. If I can't understand it, I can’t flow. Slow down on the tags and authors, please. I strongly dislike messy spreading.

CP's: CP's must have an articulated net benefit. I honestly think PICs aren't very fair so I am very easily swayed by aff theory args.

Disads: Impact calc is key and if you don’t clearly extend I won’t weigh! Also, I need to see an internal link. I can't/won't weigh your impacts w/o links.

K's: I am well-versed in K lit but I still expect clear articulation of link and impacts.

T: I feel like people often waste time with topicality, so I suggest you only run it if it is blatantly untopical. That said, I do believe T is a voter. I am very very much NOT a fan of disclosure theory so run it at your own risk.

I expect to hear voters in the 2AR and 2NR.

Other: Do not be cruel or rude to your opponent. I will not tolerate racism, sexism, homophobia, or any sort of bigotry in round, and I will dock speaks/contact your coach if neccesary.

Extra speaks for humor or a good taylor swift reference.

DO NOT POWER TAG.

If you have any questions feel free to email me!

Let's have a great round and a great tournament!!

Hey! I'm Yasmin! I'm a senior at Northview. My pronouns are she/her. I had a bid to the TOC in my senior year and have been in multiple bid rounds and elims of national circuit tournaments. Because I competed in both the national and Georgia circuits for LD, I'm good with a circuit or traditional round (with a preference for circuit). If you plan to have a circuit round and your opponent is lay, please be accessible, send speech docs, and actually answer CX questions.

Email: Yasmin1117@gmail.com

I think that sending speech docs is a good norm for debate even in traditional rounds. Add me to the email chain if you set up one.

Also, feel free to reach out to me if you have any questions! Facebook Messenger (yasmin.shalim.1) is the best place to reach me before and after rounds.

Top Level:

Tech > truth in most instances. Don't be racist, sexist, homophobic, ableist, or xenophobic in any way. I will intervene if I notice xenophobia and/or discomfort in the round.

Things I will automatically drop people for:

1) Saying any slurs or serious insults

2) Not abiding by people's requests in cases of accessibility e.g. reading spikes/analytics without spaces and proper delineation when explicitly told to do so

3) Purposeful misgendering - if you make a mistake, quickly correct yourself

4) Making arguments like racism, sexism, etc. good

Ks:

While I strove to be a flex debater, this was my favorite and preferred style of debate in senior year. Some of the lit bases I’ve read the most are: imperialism, fem kill joy, anti-humanism, cap, Grove, and cybernetics. Just because I read these Ks does not mean I will auto-vote for you if you read them. Make sure you understand the lit and can give a 2nr on them.

Even if the lit base is not mentioned above, feel free to run any K, but err on the side of robust explanation and analysis. Also feel free to read non-t k affs and include performances, but just be clear about what the ballot means and how offense operates in the round. Even though I read a lot of semi-topical affs, I'm not pedagogically inclined to vote for or against t-framework, so I'll vote solely based on the flow.

Framework:

I spent a lot of my junior year debating framework, so feel free to read whichever lit base in round. However, make sure you clearly explaining a framing mechanism through which impacts should be evaluated. Even if you’re winning offense, if it’s not relevant under the framework for the round, you will not win the debate. That means if you're going to larp, justify consequentialism or util.

Defaults: Epistemic Confidence > Epistemic Modesty & Truth Testing > Comparative Worlds - These are only if no paradigm issues are read in the round. Both sides can just as easily be won in front of me.

Theory/T:

I'll evaluate anything even if it's frivolous insofar as you're winning the flow. However, if a shell is ridiculous on a truth level e.g. “Must be from [X] state”, I’ll have a lower threshold for responses. That said, I won't hack against shells and gut check unless they’re xenophobic in any way.

I default to competing interps, drop the debater, no RVIs, and norm-setting if no other paradigm issues are read, but reasonability, drop the arg, RVIs, and in round abuse can just as easily be won in front of me.

Please weigh standards and voters because I don’t want to have to intervene.

Shell and paragraph formats are both fine, but be clear and a little slower on the interp/voting issue, especially if you're spreading unsent analytics.

Tricks:

I understand the strategic value of these arguments and go for them occasionally, so I will vote on them. However, don’t be sketchy. If your opponent asks you to list out all the a prioris/tricks in the doc, please do. Also, make the doc’s formatting accessible. Have spaces between spikes. Number spikes, and if a spike has multiple warrants, label each warrant.

Example:

1) Affirming is harder...

a) Time skew...

b) NC reactivity advantage...

If your opponent calls you out on inaccessibility regarding spikes, especially if they have a note on the Wiki (like I do) or let you know before round, I will not vote on the spikes.

However, I'll vote a prioris, skep, presumption, permissibility, condo logic, paradoxes, etc. if you win truth testing or a weighing mechanism in which they’re relevant. If the debate ends up being a tricks blipstorm, please weigh!

On the other, I think the norm of using tricks to skirt discussions about serious issues, especially anti-blackness and other forms of xenophobia, is extremely problematic, so be cautious if this is your strat versus serious Ks. If I hear stuff like "racism doesn't exist under my index", I'll tank your speaks. If it gets even more problematic and offensive, I won't hesitate to drop you.

LARP:

Read all the plan texts, CPs, DAs, impact turns, etc. you want, but please weigh and use impact calc. There's nothing worse than impacts being thrown at you but no way to evaluate which ones matter most absent intervention.

I don’t err aff or neg on issues such as conditionality and PICs, consult, process, etc. CPs bad. I will vote for whoever wins the flow.

Traditional:

You must win your value and value criterion or framework before I evaluate your contentions. I know there is a norm of reading definitions in constructive cases. However, unless your definitions have a direct impact on your strategy, there is no reason for you to read them in my opinion. Instead, add more contentions so that the debate is more nuanced.

Misc:

I disclose on the Wiki with open source, cites, and round reports, and I think that it can be a good norm in a lot of cases, especially as a small schooler who used the Wiki to become more progressive at debate. However, I understand that not disclosing is a preference of many debaters, and I respect that. Overall, this means that I will vote on disclosure theory if it's won, but if people have reasons for why they don't disclose, please consider them and don't police people for their actions.

For online debate, I think it's a good norm to record all speeches as you're giving them because Wi-Fi issues are fairly common.

You can use flex prep (asking your opponent questions during prep), but I'd prefer if you didn't use CX for prep.

I will disclose speaker points if asked.

I graduated from Columbus High School and did 3 years of LD debate.

Speaks: I speak somewhat fast in debate, so I can handle speed when flowing but do not spread. If you decide/must speak fast or spread, create a speech doc and add me to the email chain @ hsigili01@gmail.com

If you are making an important point, you need to slow down to make sure I catch everything I need to.

Argumentation:

1. I am more of a traditional debater. However, I am open to progressive styles of LD, but honestly I don't like/know Theory, K, etc. I am more comfortable with CPs and DAs though. So, keep in mind that I am not too familiar with it so if you're gonna do it, do it well.

2. I vote off the flow. You need to be responding to every argument that's brought up in the round, including their responses to your arguments. Please sign post because it makes my life so much easier. That being said, I don't really flow card names (i.e. Doe 19) so if you're gonna address or extend it in a later speech, use the tagline otherwise I don't know what to do on my flow.

3. The framework debate is the most important thing at the end of the round. If the framework debate is lost or no one wins, then I look towards the contention level.

4. If anything important happens in cross x, make sure you bring it up in speech because I do not flow in cross.

5. Voters in your last speech are very helpful for me to make my decision.

PF Debate:

1. I have not debated PF but I have judged plenty of rounds and am very familiar with this style. However, I won't be open to Theory, Ks, etc. So if you must, explain it as if you were talking to someone much younger. As mentioned above, I vote off the flow, so extend any arguments made.

2. If you do present a framework and the other team doesn't, I will weigh all arguments in regards to that framework so keep that in mind.

3. Everything else is the same as above.

Otherwise, if you have any other questions, please feel free to ask or email me at hsigili01@gmail.com !! :)

I am a high school English teacher at Lambert High School, working mainly with 9th and 10th grade students. I am the Assistant Coach of the Debate Club here at Lambert, where I work closely with our Head Coach. While this is only my second year in this position of being an Assistant Coach, I have been learning greatly from the head coach, who has ten years of experience in judging debate. I have judged our Big Questions tournament and practice rounds. I have a Bachelor's Degree in English and Elementary Education. I studied public speaking in both high school and college. Additionally, I have been teaching high school English for six years, where I have experience in debate, argumentation, persuasive writing, and open-discussion.

I have completed the NSDA Cultural Competency training, and have worked in a variety of diverse schools around the country. I treat each debater as a unique individual worthy of respect, regardless of background or lifestyle, but you need to tell me a story, connect the dots, and support theory with examples to win.

When judging, I am looking for a logical progression of ideas and argumentation. You need to articulate so that I can understand you; it should be easy to follow and understand. Furthermore, this includes consistent use of definitions, frameworks, and logical arguments. Ultimately, students who present their argument in the most clear, logical, and consistent manner will win.

Email chains are good for evidence ethics and accessibility, spreading or no spreading.

Email: f38132@forsyth.k12.ga.us

For Debate:

- I focus on the flow of the argument

- I look for clashing - I want to see competitors breakdown the opponent's argument

For Speech Events

I look at the creativity in the speech, but also listen for tone and inflection and to present a speech or performance to convince me in what you are saying.