When judging public forum debate I take seriously that it is "designed to be accessible to the average citizen". So, speaking clearly, comprehensibly and respectfully is essential. As I see it, that is the challenge. It's your job to take a complex dilemma and make your best case for one clear solution.

I have a PuFo background, but I have spent the year judging policy rounds so I’m familiar with the topic and many of the arguments. A few things to know about me:

1. Critiques are fine with me.

2. Spreading is fine, but slow down on your tags. If your are going too fast I will raise my hand to let you know to slow down.

3. I like clash during CX, but don’t be rude. If you are rude, it will count against you.

Thats it!

Cheers!

Todd

Please keep your delivery slow and clear. Speaking quickly is fine, but if I can't actually understand what your evidence is saying, I will likely not give that evidence as much weight.

Please approach each round as an opportunity to learn and with respect for your opponents. I appreciate clear analysis of why you should win in the final focus.

I value clearly naming your contentions,

citing reputable sources of data,

making rebuttals that specifically refute the other side's arguments,

and speaking clearly and not too rushed.

Hello, I am a parent judge with 1.5 years of experience.

I do keep flows and take into account how other teams rebut arguments. I also appreciate if you would talk at regular pace, if you talk too fast and I don't understand what your saying then I wont flow it through. If one team drops one of your arguments, I will keep track of it and you can mention it as well. I appreciate the off time road maps and please time yourself. Please be respectful and know there is a fine line when it comes to being aggressive vs. getting your point across. In final focus and summary please weigh your arguments and tell me why I should vote for you.

i'm katelyn (she/her). i am a freshman at the university of washington studying art history and finance. i previously competed on the washington state circuit and nat circuit for a bit.

ask me questions about my paradigm before the round, i don't mind. also, please let me know (send me an email/tell me in round) how i can accommodate this round to make you the most comfortable. my email is katelyndkim@gmail.com

i am a flow judge and will be tech>truth unless your ev is really really bad. however, please do not exploit this to read a lot of blippy, unwarranted arguments

my experience and outlook on debate

- i have competed in pf since my freshman year on both the wa and nat circuit. i have a good amount of experience.

- while i believe that debate is a game, it is not an excuse for you to be a jerk. please be aware that the arguments you make are about real people. looking back on my debate career, i really hope that you don't read arguments that commodity pain just for a ballot. your arguments do not disappear once you leave the round.

general judging stuff

- tech>truth, tabula rasa

- run whatever tbh

- i will not evaluate any arguments unless they are extended into summary and ff

- no new arguments in 2nd summary or final focus

- i will call for important evidence if you tell me to call for it

- collapse

- i can flow decently fast. if i can't understand you, i will say "clear"

- please signpost

in round

* tl:dr

- if you're above 350wpm, send speech doc

- extended your arguments into ff if you want me to vote on them. don't drop something in summary and then tell me to vote on it later

- i really like when people read cool cases and arguments (e.g. well written disads, kicking out, link-ins, pre-reqs, etc.)

* pre round

- start an email chain to share ev

* case

- whatever

- if you're going to read fast, send your case before you start speaking

* rebuttal

- if you are second rebuttal, frontline

* summary

- collapse

- no sticky defense

- extend your case + warrants

- frontline if you are first summary

- weigh

- extend by the author's last name. please don't extend by the author's full name or institution name because i will only flow the author's last name

* final focus

- actually weigh please (compare)

- extend important things

* after round

- give me a sec to fill out my ballot and i'll disclose if i'm allowed to

- don't post-round me

weighing

- weigh. start early please.

- tell me why you outweigh and actually compare impacts

- don't just re-read impacts

- i will weigh if you don't. don't risk my biases hurting your record

evidence

- i will tune out if you start a full evidence debate

- if you tell me to call for a card, i will card for that card. remind me if i forget at the end (tbh this will probs happen)

- if the card is misconstrued, i will dock speaks, and will not consider the card in my rfd

- please do not do evidence debates. i hate them so much

- do not take forever to send ev. i'll cut it off at some point if the round is running too long

prog

- please be aware that i have only done pf do i have limited knowledge about prog

- i'm am okay at evaluating pf level theory/ks (please explain them well if you read them)

- don't read friv theory or tricks

- read prog at your own risk

misc.

- i will default to the team that speaks first if there is absolutely nowhere for me to vote in the round

- i do not care about cross. i will probably be doing something else

- i will always disclose who won as long as the tournament permits. ask me questions about my rfd.

- ask me questions about my paradigm

speaks

- i am chill with speaks. if you don't do anything gross, i will probably give you a 27+

Don't talk over each other in crossfire

Please be respectful of the time

Outline your points before going into details

Slow and clear is better than fast and mumbled

As you cite evidence, put them in text in a docs or in chat

Info:

• I use she/her pronouns, and I'm tech>truth.
• I'm a freshman at Wesleyan, add me clei@wesleyan.edu to any email chains pls!
• I've debated for 6 years in PF at both the local and state level

More info: If you're going to read anything sensitive, give consent warnings otherwise change what you're running.

- Extend your links and impacts through all speeches, unless dropped by their summary

- New args in ff/2nd summary are unnecessary and unfair, don't do it/i wont evaluate them

-I'm good with speed, but don't speak fast if it won't be eloquent. It's much better to be slow and understandable (if you're 300WPM+ send a speech doc if you can

- Pls pls collapse

- When you weigh, tell me why. Don't just say "we outweigh" Metaweigh if you can!

Evidence:

- If you tell me to call for a card, I will.

- If the card is misconstrued I will dock speaks, and drop u if it’s a key card

Preferably, don't make it an evidence debate those are not fun :(

Other:

-I'll put your speaks as low as I can if you make any sexist/racist/homophobic/xenophobic comments and drop you

-Let your opponents finish speaking in cross. I don't evaluate cross but if you're being REALLY rude i'll deduct speaks

-tell me ur zodiac sign, and if we're compatible, ill start ur speaks from 29, otherwise they start from 28

Background:

I'm a fourth-year debater at Interlake, but this is my 5th year debating in general. I'm definitely a flay judge with a little more leaning towards the flow. If there are any questions, feel free to ask before round.

General:

• Be nice and I'll be nice :)
• Tech > Truth unless you are going for some extreme args (War is good)
• Email: anna.ziqi.li@gmail.com, add me to email chains
• Frontline in 2nd rebuttal
• Defense isn't sticky unless your opponents don't respond to it, when extending, please extend warrants, links, don't just toss me a card name
• Please weigh (I have some general knowledge on this topic, you don't want my biases to harm your outcome)
• No new args after first summary, I won't flow them
• Signpost!!

Evidence:

• Evidence debates are icky, just use legit evidence
• Paraphrasing is fine, cards are better
• If I find something really sketchy, I'll call cards after round
• If evidence is misconstrued, I'll drop it and possibly dock speaks

Theory/Progressive Args:

• Run at own risk, only experience is winning disclosure theory in a meme round

Other:

• Speaks start at 27
• Off-time roadmaps are cool
• Don't be homophobic, racist, sexist, etc

Post-round if time allows:

• I might disclose but don't count on it
• I'll probably give feedback
• Feel free to ask questions

I am a lay parent judge who has only previously judged in two tournaments. I like clearly organized, simply worded arguments and no jargon/acronyms. Please enunciate and speak plainly. Avoid speaking quickly, using unnecessary verbiage and sounding like you are speed reading to me, as I probably won't understand the point you are trying to get across. If you can organize your arguments by saying "My first point is...," "My second point is...," etc. and speaking slowly that will be very helpful. Also, please signpost in rebuttal.

In the final focus and summary speech, try to summarize and pick out the most important points that you think will win you the round, and make comparisons between your arguments and your opponents to make it easier for me to evaluate and to convince me. Thank you and good luck!

Hello debaters! I am a parent judge, but I have some experience with PF judging. Keep in mind that I am not a tech judge, I don’t value spreading, don’t talk extremely fast. I will be flowing in every speech, so dropped points are going to weigh very high. Please signpost, it makes everything much cleaner. Terminology is not my strong suit and if you say something like “that’s wrong because Mendel 18 delinks” and move on, that’s not something which would effectively do much for your side. Reconstructions are also important!Logical constructive and rebuttals will be impactful to me, and in final focus tell me why your impacts outweigh but don’t read outrageous impacts just because no one’s going to respond to it. Good luck!

Public Forum debater for four years, judge for three. Feel free to ask specific questions at the beginning of the round but here is generally what I will be looking for:

Sign Post (and Road Maps): Outlining and numbering in each speech not only adds organization to your arguments but ensures that I flow where intended.

Clarity and Presentation: Your arguments are only as good as the way you present them. Apply this concept to speed; speak at a pace so that your points are not only heard but also processed. Present arguments in both a logical and supported manner (with qualitative and quantitative evidence). Rely on BOTH evidence and logic throughout the round, not only the evidence, because I am much more likely to buy into evidence that is BOTH credible and that you can explain (since that shows you have a thorough understanding of what you are advocating for). Succinct explanation, including clear claims, warrants, and impacts will work in your favor. Impacts are especially crucial in explaining to me why what you are saying matters and why your impacts should be prioritized. Remember that link chains should not be implied but explicit.

Respect: Always keep in mind that the round should be clean, civil, and based in evidence. Anything you say will ultimately be a reflection of your character so stay level-headed and grounded in fact. If you question evidence, talk about its credibility, reliability, citations and card-cutting, etc. rather than using subjective words such as bad, atrocious, terrible, etc.

Weighing: Please refrain from squeezing this in at the very last minute! It does not matter if an argument goes uncontested if its impact, and all others, are not weighed against the other side and explained in terms of magnitude, morality, time frame, scope, probability, etc. Use world comparison to explain why it should be a clean ballot for your team. This will help relay a cohesive story to me on why to vote PRO/CON.

Above all, be confident and have fun with the round!

Email: rayelucamyers@yahoo.com

**it's kinda long, tl;dr read the bold to avoid nasty surprises post-round. If possible, please flip and pre-flow if y'all are outside the room waiting. For background, I was team captain of PF 3 for years at Interlake and debated at nationals, TOC, and State. I will always disclose, as I believe it's good to have solid feedback for your future rounds. Majority paradigm credits to Kayla Chang.

I feel like it's best if you probably treat me like a flay leaning tech judge? If you have issues with any parts of my paradigm I'm happy to discuss and/or potentially change some preferences for the round.

---Normal tech stuff

First speaking teams: terminal defense is sticky if you extend it into FF (obviously you must respond if it's frontlined), any offense must be in summary but I'll extend dropped turns thru FF as mitigation/terminal D.

Second speaking teams: Turns and disads coming out of 1st rebuttal must be responded to or it's a drop, you can respond to terminal D in summary, but it comes off way stronger if you respond to it from second rebuttal. If you read DAs in 2nd rebuttal, I'll have a very low threshold for responses needed to block it. New carded offense in second summary is a no go.

Tech~Truth: I will buy anything that at least kinda makes sense, as your arguments get more extreme (ex. War is good) I will need more work from you to win it and less work from opponents to lose it.

---More unique stuff

You need cards, but more importantly warrants; I will buy a strong analytic over a unwarranted card. Extend internal links (logical warranting) in addition to overall links/impacts otherwise I won't want to vote on it (99% of the time this is the reason I squirrel in out rounds)

Please signpost by voter tag, links, or impacts (ideally numbered). I don't always catch card names and I guarantee I'll miss content if I don't know where to flow.

No new evidence in FF. I don't count it, you make the other team mad, you lose speaks.

Give off-time road maps. Makes my job soo much easier, just tell me the order on the flow your going through OR signpostreally well. Bad signposting for a messy flow is the easiest way to lose speaks.

Don't extend through ink. If you tell me to "extend this dropped argument" I'm not going to, you need to extend the warranting and or evidence that applies to that argument.

If it not in FF, its not a voter. yeah.

If you run a useless framework, - 3 to 5 speaks.

---Other stuff

-Crossfire: I don't flow crossfire, in my eyes it's only a means to get concessions and clarify sticky situations. The only way concessions end up on my flow is if you bring it up in a speech. Please don't talk between partners in the first two crosses, they're intended to be 1v1. You can call for cards, but read the cards in prep time.

- Speaking: Speed is fine short of spreading but it's annoying when people try to speak fast and can't. The faster you go, the more likely it is for me to miss it on the flow, speed at your own risk. Speaks are based on speaking and content, I will bump if you pull off a cool strategy in round well. Don't be a bully, don't let yourself be bullied. I might not be looking/flowing during cross but I'm generally at least listening, make jokes and stuff, have fun :).

- Theory/Progressive args: Run at your own risk, I'm not an expert but know the basics. I tend to think theory disadvantages new debaters though, so I'll probably only vote on it if: y'all all are down for it pre-round (and my level of judging lol) or there's actual discrimination happening or it's drop the arg not the debater. Apologies can work.

- Weighing: "Strength of link," "urgency," and "clarity of impact" mean nothing unless you warrant and implicate them. I have the same link standard for weighing as I do with voting issues. But weigh! Do it! Yes!

- Evidence: Don't lie. Even if it’s an accidental miscut, it’s still wrong. I have voted teams down and dropped speaks for bad evidence ethics. Find cards within a couple minutes or I'll ask you to drop them. I'll call cards if you tell me to DURING ROUND, but won't do it on my own unless a card is both important and sketchy - if it is bad, I won't consider it regardless of whether your opponents called it or not.

-Postrounding: As a debater, I had a saying: Even in rounds you believe SHOULD have won, there are always things you could do so you COULD have won. If it was unclear, it was unclear. You should have made it clear in your speech, don't try to clear it up with me post-round. Chances are, your postrounding will just reinforce my RFD in my head.

- Be sensitive and respectful: Co-opting issues for a strat is not ok - care about the issue, have a productive debate. Consider if you need a content/trigger warning + spare contention. These issues are real and affect the people around you, possibly including me and those in your round and I will not hesitate to vote you down and drop speaks if something is up. That being said, let me determine that please don't make "they don't care enough" args.

- Thoughts: I try to be easy to read, feel free to take those signs; I generally don’t presume (tbh I think I just forget it's an option so I have to not understand ANYTHING going on - but feel free to discuss w me or make an argument why and for whom I should), I'll generally instead just lower my link/round standards til someone meets them. My name is not judge.

Debate should be fun, so debate in a way that makes it fun.

P.S. if you have questions, want my flow after round, I’m running late, etc. text me! (425-635-8206).

Being a first time judge for debate, I would appreciate speech and argument which is clear. Go at a decent space which makes it easy to understand. Please specify your points and sub points clearly.

And finally be respectful to each other.

TL;DR

• Be kind in all that you do.

• I flow but not particularly well (especially the back half) and generally will not evaluate arguments that I don't understand, so please collapse and make sure you clearly extend your warranting.

• I am generally okay with spreading as long as I get a speech doc.

• I have a slight preference for truth over tech. My brightline here isn’t totally clear so you’re probably best playing it safe.

• Under no circumstances will I vote for a "death good" argument and under very few circumstances will I vote for an "oppression good" argument. Pretty much every other type of argument is fine.

• Theory should only be run for legitimate norms and legitimate violations. Running stuff like “tall people theory” or “formal clothes theory” almost guarantees a loss.

• For email chain purposes: thadhsmith13@gmail.com

Background

I’ve been a member of the debating world for about eight years now. As a competitor, I saw some success at the state and national level in Public Forum, Lincoln Douglas, and World Schools, qualifying for the state championship four times and placing 10th at Nats in 2019. I also competed in BP debate at the university level in England. I am currently an assistant coach for American Heritage School - Broward.

I have a Bachelor’s degree in Political Science and Gender, Sexuality, & Race Studies. I have a Master’s degree in Theory and Practice of Human Rights. You can expect me to have more than the average level of knowledge in those areas. I like to think that I know about as much as the average person on most other things, but for economic arguments (or anything involving math) I get lost easily. Do with that what you will!

Evidence ethics

I have voted on evidence ethics violations in the past, both with and without competitors calling them out in round. Straw arguments, aggressive ellipses, and brackets could all be round-enders.

Don't paraphrase! I will be very open to cut cards theory, direct quotes theory, or anything else like that. If you do paraphrase, you need to be able to provide a cut card or the exact quote you're referencing if evidence is called. It's not a reasonable expectation for your opponents or I to have to scrub through a webpage or a long document searching for your evidence.

Public Forum

I find myself leaning more and more truth > tech, especially with the state of evidence ethics these days. It's really important for you to explain the link chain and somewhat important for you to explain things like author credibility/study methodology, especially for big impact contentions.

Line-by-line rebuttal is really important in the front half of the round. That means you should be frontlining in second rebuttal, respond to arguments in an order that makes logical sense, and actively extend your own arguments. For an extension to be effective you need to tell me what the argument is, how it works, and why it's important. You can almost always do this in three sentences or less. These pieces are important - I don't flow evidence names, so saying something like "Hendrickson solves" without an explanation does nothing for you.

Fiat is pretty much always a thing - There's a reason Public Forum topics usually ask "is this policy a good idea" and not "will this thing happen." My view of fiat is that it lets the debate take place on a principles level and creates a "comparative" between a world with a policy and a world without a policy. That said, politics arguments can work, but only if they relate to a political consequence of a policy being enacted and not if they try and say a policy will never happen in the first place.

Kritiks and theory are fine in PF. Be mindful of your time constraints. For kritiks, focus on explaining how your cards work and what the alternative is. For theory, make sure there's a legitimate violation and that it's something you're willing to bet the round on. Theory exists to create norms. I won’t vote on frivolous theory and I won’t vote on your shell if you aren’t actively embodying the norm you’re proposing.

Flex prep does not exist. “Open” crossfires don’t exist. As a whole, crossfire doesn’t matter that much but you still shouldn’t contradict yourself between cross and speech.

Lincoln-Douglas

I really enjoy a good framework debate and it’s something that I find is missing from a lot of modern LD rounds. One of the best parts of LD is getting to see how different philosophies engage with each other, and we’re gonna see that thru framing. I do my best to evaluate the framework debate at the very top and use it as my primary decision-making mechanism. Framing doesn't have to be done with a value/criterion if you'd rather run a K or Theory or something else, but you need to five me a role of the ballot if you don't use a value/criterion.

Please don’t spread philosophy or theory if you want me to flow it - I read and write it all the time and I still barely understand it, so I’m not going to understand what you’re saying if you’re going 500 words per minute. If you must spread your framework or K, send me the case or be prepared to explain it again next speech.

I’m fine with condo, fiat, and counterplans. Please don’t paraphrase and don't rehighlight.

"Debate bad" arguments are pretty weird. I probably won't vote on them because, at the most fundamental level, you're still participating in a debate round and perpetuating whatever core "harm" of debate that you're talking about. If your alternative is a reasonable alternative or reform instead of just "don't do debate", I could be persuaded, but you've got an uphill battle.

Congress

If you have me as your parli, there are two things you need to know about me: I love Robert's Rules of Order and I hate one-sided debate. Ignore these things at your own risk. Other important things, in no particular order:

• Display courtesy to your fellow competitors and do your best to ensure that everyone in the chamber is heard. I pay attention to pre-round, in-round, and post-round politics.
• Engagement with the other speakers is important, both through questions and through in-speech references. Every speech past the author/sponsor needs to have rebuttal or extension of some kind.
• Authorships/sponsorships (there's no such thing as a "first affirmative") need to explain exactly what the bill does. Don't assume I'll read the packet.
• Good Congress rounds have a narrative arc - The first few speeches should present core arguments and frame the round, the next few speeches should be heavy on refutation and extension, and the final few speeches should crystallize the debate.
• Many things that people do in-round have no basis in either the rules or parliamentary procedure. Many motions don't exist - There are no motions to "address the chamber," "open the floor for debate," "amend the agenda," or "impeach the presiding officer." You can't rescind a seconded motion (or a second), you can't object to a motion to move the previous question, most tournaments don't have a requirement to track question recency, elections should really be handled by the parli, etc.
• At this point, I've heard every canned intro under the sun. If I hear you use the same exact intro on multiple different bills/rounds, or the same intro as a dozen other people, or the same unfunny meta-references with random names subbed in, you are getting docked speech points. It takes barely any effort to come up with an intro that's relevant to your content.

World Schools

The most important thing for you to do is to remember the purpose of your speech. Your speech should not be defined by the "line-by-line," rather, you should have a clear idea or set of ideas that you are trying to get across and I should be able to understand what those ideas were at the end of your speech. I am a big believer in the "World Schools style," meaning that I like it when debaters lean into the concept of being representatives in a global governing body, when debaters deploy flowery rhetoric about grand ideals, and when debaters spend a lot of time establishing and engaging with the framework/definitions/plan for the debate.

Theory

I'm fine with theory as long as it's a legitimate norm and a legitimate violation. Don't run frivolous theory (I'm not going to vote on something like "debaters should sit during their speeches", for example) and don't run theory if it isn't a norm you're actively doing yourself (don't run disclosure theory if you didn't disclose either). I don't have a preference on DtD vs. DtA or Competing Interpretations vs. Responsibility. I lean rather heavily towards theory being a RVI, especially in PF debates where it often becomes the only argument in the round.

I'm ambivalent about trigger warnings. I'm not going to be the arbiter of somebody else's experience and there's not much evidence that they're actually harmful in any meaningful way. Be aware that simply saying "trigger warning" tells us nothing - If you have one, be specific (but not graphic) about the potentially triggering content.

Kritiks

Kritiks are an incredibly powerful education tool that let debaters bring light to important issues. That said, you do need a link, preferably a resolutional/case one. I'm not opposed to hearing kritiks that tackle the structure of debate as a whole, but I think that it's difficult for you to justify that while also participating in the structure (especially because I've seen the same debaters participate in debate rounds without talking about these structural issues). Just like theory, you should be talking about legitimate issues, not just trying to win a round.

Death Good/Oppression Good

"Death good" is a nonstarter in front of me. I get it - I was a high school debater too, and I have vivid memories of running the most asinine arguments possible because I thought it would be a path to a technical victory. As I've stepped away from competition, entered the role of an educator, and (especially) as I've become immersed in human rights issues indirectly through my research and personally through my work, I no longer hold the same view of these arguments. I've been in rounds where judges and the audience are visibly, painfully uncomfortable with one side's advocacy. I've voted on the flow and felt sick doing it. I don't anymore. Do not run "death good" in front of me unless you want a loss and 20 speaks. It's not good education, it actively creates an unsafe space, and its often incredibly callous to actual, real-world human suffering.

"Oppression good" is also generally bad but I can at least see a potential case here, kinda? Probably best to avoid anyway.

As a new-ish parent judge so please talk slowly and clearly. Make a rational and compelling argument delivered with clarity. This is a debate so confront and address the side's ideas and don't just talk past them with your own ideas. Have fun with it! :)

ingraham

toc qualled and all that stuff - i'm qualified

i reserve the right to exclude gamers

vincent xiao 6 9 7 at gmail dot com

top level

i won't vote for arguments that are violent to the other team. example: i won't vote for death good for personal reasons because it is psychologically violent to me.

most debates are decided by dropped arguments. try not to have those debates. organization and explanation are critical. if i don't understand the argument or its implications, i probably won't vote for it - this goes both for k stuff and economics. if i don't have the argument on my flow, tough luck. i won't make cross applications for you and you need to explain the implications of arguments. please do line by line, "embedded clash" is a nightmare to evaluate as a judge.

i am just way too biased towards consequentialism. not util necessarily, but i just believe that expected value is true. you can alter the way i calculate that value from policy-style util to something else, but in the end it's very hard for me to ignore consequences.

arguments must have a claim and a warrant. something that matters for me is whether the warrant backs up the claim. an inductive argument that looks like "nazi germany was expansionist, therefore offensive realism is true" is weak and uncogent because the premise does not likely prove the conclusion. that's like saying, "1 ball out of this bag of 30 is red, so all balls in the bag are red." people get away with this too much. i rate system level statistics(established statistical correlation with a high r value) much higher than other forms of evidence, and comprehensive examples(a preponderance of recent and relevant examples going one way) are up there too. your argument relying on a single analogy or a single example is really not up to the standards of the real world.

something i'm still struggling with is how to evaluate these types of arguments when they're dropped. i lean towards being lenient and giving the conclusion at least some weight, but if you piss me off i may not. i expect to get more ideological about this, honestly.

arguments:

t - interp, violation, standards is a full shell. softer on we-meet & reasonability - i'll buy 100% risk of we meet, and you'll never hear me say "any risk of a violation means i vote neg". top level impact analysis is probably the most important thing. i'm honestly pretty good for t - i think lots of topics these days are massive and encourage terrible "functionally limited"(read: there is one theoretically illegitimate cp that solves everything) topics.

- i care about the quality of t evidence quite a bit. i think that literature determines preparation which is probably the best internal link to impacts.

- i hold the 2ac to the 1nc - if the 1nc is a single card and a line about limits, the 2ac can be about that quality and the 1ar can be very new.

da - clear link chains and impact weighing. good defense can equal 0% risk, but that's a very very high threshold and you should not bank on it. tell me the story of the disad. i like it when people go for good, core of the topic disads. i really dislike poorly constructed politics disads, but i understand why you're running them if the topic is really bad. at the very least, please have them make structural sense.

- most links and most uq is not yes/no. you should acknowledge that and work around it rather than pretending it's not true.

cp - run whatever, but i'm probably more willing to pull the trigger on theory than most people. i think negs are probably getting away with too much. if your options are to read solvency deficits you know are terrible or go for theory, probably go for theory. bad cps should be taken down by analytics.

-judgekick should start in the 2nc.

ks on the neg - if i don't get it, i won't vote for it. simple ks like cap or security are no problem. if it's more complicated, i will probably lean aff on "i don't know what this is" if it's poorly explained. even if it is a k i know relatively well(wilderson, mainline setcol, deleuze, agamben, baudy) i dislike being obscurantist because you know the other team knows less than me. i am willing to at least reduce speaks and if it's really poorly explained it's possible i won't evaluate it.

framework isn't always that important - consider what actual strategic value it gets you. i see affs which can directly challenge the thesis of the k waffling around talking about fairness or whatever and i don't like that. to be honest, i probably lean neg on k framework - it just makes sense to me that discursive/epistemological implications of the 1ac should be weighed first. however, if the aff wins that their discourse/epistomology is good(not that hard to win against ks that aren't high theory), i vote aff even though the neg won framework.

the counterpoint to that for the neg is that links of omission make me sad. please have a link to the aff. running abolitionism against an aff that legalizes corporate crime for the economy isn't gonna work, because that aff isn't a reformist strategy. i think this applies a lot for extinction affs vs the k - the neg runs some link that's for soft lefts affs, and the aff just concedes it. please don't do that.

the alt should resolve the impact. i won't do cross application and implicit clash for you.

ks on the aff - i think framework is a good argument vs k affs. you should try to be topical, or at least follow the words in the resolution. i don't really have any ideological views on fairness or anything - i think it's mostly impact analysis. consider going for the k vs the k aff even if you're a policy team.

i will be honest and say that i didn't go for framework much. i didn't hit k affs much, and when i did, i usually ended up going for some kind of k. maybe not the greatest for clash debates, but probably solid for both straight policy and kvk debates

edit for ld:

turns out i understand phil pretty well, but you should probably still go to larp/k debate for me. no tricks though please.

edit for pf(which i keep getting shoved into):

i am a policy judge. four things:

1. i care a lot about tech. arguments in the final focus must be in the summary, and not cross-ex. the summary is not allowed to make new arguments that aren't extending their case or directly responding to a point the other team made. i will not evaluate arguments that aren't extended through each speech, and i will evaluate every dropped argument as presumptively true.

2. i default to utilitarianism. this seems to be a big deal this topic, because everyone reads these authoritarianism impacts. absent a clear reason why preventing democratic backsliding is more important than preventing people from dying, i will default to preventing people from dying.

3. i don't care about stylistic things. it doesn't matter if you spread, which arguments you make, what you wear, etc. absent a compelling reason to care about those things, argumentation always comes first

4. i care a lot about evidence ethics. in policy, it's expected to sent the entire text of the evidence, as well as a link, author quals, etc. you also have to read directly from the text of the evidence to cite it. it's incomprehensible to me that this is not the case in pf.

- time taken to find evidence comes out of the team finding evidence's prep. it should take no time to find evidence(you are allowed to take time sending evidence)

- you should challenge evidence often, and if you find inconsistencies point them out. +1 whole speaker point if people send out speech docs in a policy-esque fashion.

for this nsa topic, i actually probably have more topic knowledge than you because of the 2015 surveillance and to some extent the 2019 executive authority topics.

also, i've judged a lot of rounds but mostly in tournaments that don't show up in tab, locals and stuff.

Public Forum Paradigm

1. Respect. Show your respect and answer question directly, I accept honest answer if you are not prepared.

2. Strategy. I really like your case and rebuttal being constructed based on a framework. Direct clash. Signposting of all your contentions and break down into segments, A,B,C, etc...

3. Conclusion. In summary speech, please show me the specific reasons that your opponents are losing not just why you are winning. In final focus speech, please let me know specifically why you are winning the debate.

I am not a huge fan of spreading. I weigh on clarity and quality not on quantity.

Enjoy yourself and have fun!