Hi there! I debated PF for Harker for 4 years and currently am a junior at Columbia.

1) I'd prefer if you speak slowly, but I'm ok with some speed if you enunciate well. That said, spreading in PF decreases the format's accessibility to lay judges and novice debaters in my opinion.

2) Please understand (or at least make me think you understand) your warrants. I will almost never call for evidence unless there's blatant abuse/misuse of it; it's your responsibility to effectively weigh your warrants.

3) I don't flow cross-x, but I'll listen to it (and hopefully be entertained).

4) Signpost! Tell me where you are going down the flow.

5) I have a very rudimentary understanding of theory, but if you run it you must be explicit in how I should evaluate it.

6) Weigh your arguments in summary/FF (heck, you can even start in rebuttal sometimes). Don't just repeat the warrants of offensive arguments; tell me why your arguments (or their warrants/link-chains) outweigh the opponents' on timeframe, probability, magnitude, etc. In final focus, extend necessary defense and give me your offensive voters/weigh them.

Have fun, and feel free to ask me any questions you have before/after round!

Background:

My background is in public forum. I competed all throughout high school on the national circuit and local circuit in Georgia. Currently, I am the President of the New Haven Urban Debate League and coach parliamentary debate at Yale.

PF Paradigm:

WEIGHING IS THE MOST IMPORTANT THING YOU WILL EVER DO IN DEBATE! IT IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN KNOWING YOUR OWN NAME!! PLS WEIGH.

If you don’t weigh, I’ll have to resort to my own weighing mechanism, which may be different every round depending on my mood. You don’t want that, so pls for the love of god, make my life and yours easier by weighing. It’s the easiest way to my ballot.

Other stuff:

-I can handle 250 words/minute. Go over, well...your arguments might not make it on my flow.

-I don't expect the first speaking team to extend defense in summary. However, you need to respond to turns. Second speaking teams need to extend defense and respond to turns.

-Second speaking team should TRY to respond to turns in rebuttal.

-Voters in final focus should be mentioned in summary.

-If your links don’t logically make sense, I’m probably not going to buy it, so warrant everything.

-I don't weigh anything in cross in terms of the ballot, so bring it up in speeches if there's something important.

Parli Paradigm:

I'm familiar with East Coast parli. I don't do well with theory, so I might not understand it. You can try it, but you still must interact with your opponents' arguments. The way to my ballot is by weighing. You don't need to go for everything at the end of the debate, but you should still respond to opponents' arguments and not extend through ink! Break the last speech into voters and weigh!

Other points (very similar to my paradigm for PF, so take that for what you will):

-Because you're not using evidence, please maintain a 200 word/minute maximum.

-Rebuttals should not be in the final speech. I believe that your rebuttals, at the very minimum, should begin in the member speeches. This allows for final interactions in the final speech between the two sides, and this avoids the idea of "no new arguments in the last speech."

-No tag teaming.

-If your links don’t logically make sense, I’m probably not going to buy it, so warrant everything. If I don't buy it, I will most likely not vote for it...

-Do not extend through ink! Conceded arguments are arguments that were poorly responded to or not at all; to which, you can extend, but if your opponents provide multiple warrants/responses to the argument, you must also respond to the rebuttals.

If you have any questions, please ask in rounds or after by emailing me at mary.chen@yale.edu

Here is my email for the email chain:

Williamc0402@gmail.com

Here is my short biography for you to know who I am:
Hi, my name is William. I finished a PhD in German at NYU. My focus was on literature, critical theory, and to some extent black studies.
As for debate experience, I used to debate for CUNY debate in college for 4 years, reading critical arguments in the Northeast. I won a handful of regional tournaments and broke at CEDA. I also coach for Brooklyn Technical High School (sometimes we sign up at Brooklyn Independent). I have been coaching there for 8 years and have had my debaters make it far in national tournaments as well as qualify for the TOC a bunch. Because I work with Brooklyn Tech (a UDL school), I am also connected to the NYCUDL.

Here is the start of my paradigm:
As everyone else says, rule of thumb: DO WHAT YOU’RE GOOD AT
Whether your go-to strat is to throw stuff at the wall and hope it sticks, a straight up disad/cp, or a one-off K; I will be more than happy to judge your round…
given that you:

1) Have a claim, warrant, and impact to every argument. It isn’t an argument absent these three elements, and I will have some trouble adjudicating what you’ve said.
2) Properly explain your positions—don’t make an assumption that I know you the abbreviations you use, the specific DA scenario you're going for (perhaps fill me in on the internal link chains), or the K jargon you're using. Help me out!
3) Have comparative analysis of evidence, arguments, and preformative styles between your own positions compared to those of the other team.

4) Frame things— tell me how I should prioritize impacts otherwise I will default to util (see section at the bottom)
5) Be Persuasive, it will go a long way to making me to sign my ballot your way if you can make the round enjoyable, touching, funny, etc – it will also help your speaks.
6) Write the ballot for me in your 2nr/2ar, tell me how you win. Take risks, and don’t go for everything. Prioritize your best offense and tell me why that offense is critical to evaluating the round—force me to evaluate the debate through a prism that has you winning

Also, some other things:

1) I will default to competing interpretations and util unless an alternative mechanisms of evaluating the round are introduced

2) I will default to rejecting the argument not the team unless you tell me otherwise

3) I will avoid looking at evidence unless there is a dispute over evidence in a round or a debater spins it as part of being persuasive
4) I am an open minded judge, and respect all “realms” of debate though my own experience debating and coaching revolves around mostly K debate.

Hey, I'm Steven (He/Him) and I'm a junior at Yale – please go ahead and put me on the email chain (steven.dykstra@yale.edu).

2022 Update: Haven't judged in a while so I have no prior experience with the topic (policy or LD).

Background: I debated at Arroyo Grande High School in California as a 2a/2n, running a mix of policy and K arguments. I knew most debate jargon (from 2019 and earlier) so go ahead and run whatever you want in front of me.

Topicality: Great! I think T is super strategic, however I think a lot of times people miss the "so what" of the debate. You should definitely explain why the specific violation is bad, what it impacts out to (preferably in round/debate) and then weigh their standards/voters against yours. I'm probably not going to vote for a shell that wasn't super developed in the 1nc and is then blown up in the block (1nr for ld).

Theory: Eh. As a debater I ran a little bit of theory but I think it's usually used as a tool to not engage with the aff when there are better options, so if that's your strat then maybe I'm not the judge for you. Otherwise, I default to competing interpretations. Same as T, debate whatever the violation's impact and show me some genuine impact calc. I have a pretty low bar for answering frivolous violations.

K: Sure! I ran a few K's (mostly PoMo) when I debated and I actually really like these type of debates. I have a pretty rudimentary understanding of "typical" K's but if it's something more unique/hard to understand then do more in-depth analysis and connections. For the aff, I think you can perm most K's in some way so I expect you to be making these arguments. On K-Affs, I didn't have much experience with them but I'm totally cool with you reading one (all the stuff above applies obviously), just know I probably lean towards the neg on these debates if T is read.

DA: Love them! I really love seeing creative and innovative DA's and think they are really underutilized. Try to make the links as strong as possible, as much as I understand the need for generic DA's I would much rather see (and would probably vote more for) specific links to the aff. If you're going for politics (or another time-sensitive DA) then your uniqueness should be pretty new. I like to see good impact calc so tell me why the DA totally outweighs the case!

CP: Yes! Make sure there is a net benefit to the CP (and explain it) or else there's literally no reason for you to waste the time reading it. I tend to think condo (within reason) is good for debate but can be persuaded otherwise.

Case: I'll listen to your stock core of the topic aff, but it's a lot more fun when affs are new and innovative. I find a lot of people repeat arguments over and over again, so be smart with your line by line and group arguments. Impact calc is key, so make sure that's a (big) part of the 2ar.

Speed: I'm cool with fast rounds, but if you start getting unclear I'll yell "clear" once or twice and then just stop flowing (would also like the speech doc if you're spreading). Update for online debates: for the sake of clarity, maybe go a bit below your full speed so that the microphone can pick everything up.

For LD: I started off in LD and love the event. With that being said, I certainly subscribe the paradigm of more circuit LD. Not to say I won't vote on traditional arguments, but it might be an uphill battle against more tech-y positions. Nonetheless, you'll do well if you warrant out your claims and provide substantive clash.

Speaker Points: I liked speaker awards and I'm sure you do too, as long as you don't do anything racist/sexist/homophobic/etc then you'll be fine.

I am a debater for CUNY, I have been debating in college for 2 years mostly in open and jv.I have judged for UDL tournaments and some tournaments in the northeast. How I evlautate debates I pretty much vote on anything , As long you are clear and give me a road map then I will be fine. Also I do like a Roll of a Ballot:). For people who care about speaker points im generous, as long you know your arguements, and speak clear yall be fine.

T- I dont really vote on T and I do not like the argument, but if you can convince me to vote for T I will.

DA/Cp/Fw- I like this arguements, and I dont mind policy stuff. But if your going to defend the USFG do it hard. Give me reasons why I should vote.

K- My favorite arguements, I am familiar with most K arguements but explain the K  arguement and what does the world of the alt look like, and explain your link to the resoultion if you are running a k aff.

Theory- I dont like theory arguements