Tabroom.com

1st Annual Spring Scholarship Showdown

2021 — Online, MD/US

Public Forum Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Griffin Amos Sidwell Independent

Last changed on Sat March 16, 2024 at 9:27 AM EDT

important -

i wrote this when i was mostly judging pf, but i'm open to any types of arguments in policy. i pretty much exclusively read Ks when i debated, but i've voted on t-fw, politics disads, and all kinds of other boring arguments in the past too. more policy stuff is at the bottom, but ask questions before the round starts if you have any.

email me docs: griffinamos2@gmail.com

i debated for 4 years at cosby high school from 2016-2020 and did policy, ld, and pf. i also did apda a bit at william & mary.

let me know if you want to see my flow of your round after it's over - i'm uncomfortable sending flows to debaters that weren't in the round though because i think that unfairly helps debaters w more clout

feel free to postround me respectfully, i recognize that i'm capable of making wrong decisions or understanding arguments incorrectly - i'm here to learn too

don't misgender someone, your speaks will get tanked and you'll pretty much auto lose if they make an argument about it

**ESPECIALLY IMPORTANT FOR LOCALS - I'm only going to vote on the arguments in your last speech. Don't expect to win on a contention from your constructive if you just say "Oh and extend contention 1" - tell me the whole story and do comparative weighing.

how do i decide who i vote for?

first - i go through every piece of offense in each final focus and determine if every important piece of the argument is extended (all too many rounds i vote based off a team failing to extend a link, warrant, or impact)

next - i look at the defense on each of these - if no weighing is done, i default to whichever argument is the path of least resistance - if both teams have no offense left, i presume the first speaking team - this is also when i call any cards i'm told to or that i think are sus

then - assuming there is weighing, i vote based on whichever weighing mechanism is best justified - if none are justified, i default magnitude first, probability second, and timeframe third - i think lots of other mechanisms used in pf fall into one of these (for example, severity is a type of magnitude, strength of link is probability)

what types of arguments do i like?

i will vote on anything that isn't problematic and i don't hack for any particular type of argument - i'm comfortable evaluating theory, kritiks, or any type of progressive argument because that is what my background is in.

the substance based debates i find myself enjoying the most generally incorporate some form of structural violence framing, i won't hack for or against it, that's just what the most interesting rounds to me look like. i find myself enjoying rounds where teams collapse on turns in the latter half too, this seems to happen pretty rarely in pf

the kritikal arguments i'm most familiar with are queer-pess, baudrillard, psychoanalysis, and afro-pess but i think you should always explain every kritikal argument as if i'm a lay judge because i think kritiks in pf are too often run against teams that don't understand the arguments.

the theory arguments i find myself agreeing with the most are disclosure, any type of gendered language bad, paraphrasing bad, and trigger warning theory - again i won't hack for or against any of these, i'm just as willing to vote on disclosure bad as i am disclosure good - the exception for this is trigger warning theory, if you trigger someone and they make it clear they don't feel safe, i will drop you, end the round early, and give you the lowest speaks i can w/o having to justify it to tab.

i'll also begrudgingly vote on frivolous theory or trix if they're won - i'm super open to impact turns based on this type of argumentation though and feel like most of them tend to be true

technical stuff?

defense is sticky - i've been asked to include that turns are not defense

frontline in second rebuttal

don't read offensive overviews or disads in second rebuttal

i won't vote on a piece of offense unless it is in summary, and final focus - that includes the warranting for it, not just a blippy extension

theory?

read disclosure theory its just a true argument

i don't care if you read theory in shell format or more simply - all that's important is that all the crucial parts of the argument are there in some capacity - that means i want some interpretation on how you think debate should look, how the other team violates this, the reasons that debate should look this way, and why i should drop the other team for it

if you're going to read theory that is just like i should drop someone because they break x rule (maybe like "this tournament says u can't read counterplans so drop them for reading one"), you need to justify why the rule is good or following rules in general is good. just the fact that it is a rule is not persuasive to me, i don't care

defaults:

no rvis

competing interps

drop the arg

policy

mostly read Ks on aff and my 1ncs tended to be like a K, some dumb argument like the sorites paradox, some form of theory, and just dumping impact and link turns on case

open cross is chill, flex prep and using cross as prep are cool too

i hate the trend of just reading a string of cards on case in 1ncs. i love uncarded, but warranted arguments on case. solid warranting that comes from you is just as persuasive, if not more so, than warranting from some random card you stole from the wiki or camp files.

please stop going for every argument in your 2NR. respond to offense on arguments you're going to kick and then just give me a really persuasive story for why whatever you're collapsing on wins.

Nilesh Chander American Heritage Broward HS

Last changed on Wed January 3, 2024 at 6:44 AM EDT

Add me on the email chain: nilu6060@gmail.com. Please send constructives at a minimum

Short Version

American Heritage School ‘19

Georgia Tech ‘22

Any offense in final focus needs to be in summary. First summary only needs to extend defense on arguments that were frontlined in second rebuttal. Second rebuttal should answer all offense on the flow.

Tech > truth

Long Version

Presumption:

- If you want me to vote on presumption, please tell me, or else I'll probably try to find some very minimal offense on the flow that you may consider nonexistent.

- I will default neg on presumption, but you can make an argument suggesting otherwise.

Extensions:

- The warrant and impact of an offensive argument must be extended in summary and final focus in order for me to evaluate it.

- Your extensions can be very quick for parts of the debate that are clearly conceded.

Weighing:

- Good weighing will usually win you my ballot and give you a speaker point boost, but please avoid:

1. Weighing that is not comparative

2. Weighing instead of adequately answering the defense on your arguments

3. Strength of link weighing - this is just another word for probability and sometimes probability weighing is just defense that should've been read in rebuttal

4. New weighing in second final focus that isn't responding to new weighing analysis from the first ff.

Evidence:

- I will read any evidence that is contested or key to my decision at the end of the round.

- I won't drop a team on miscut evidence unless theory is read. I will drop speaks and probably drop the argument unless there's a very good reason not to.

Speed:

- Go as fast as you want but I'd prefer it if you didn't spread.

- Don't sacrifice clarity for speed. If I can't understand it, it isn't on the flow.

Progressive Argumentation:

- I have a good understanding of theory and have voted on less conventional shells albeit my threshold for a response and your speaks could go down. Please read theory as soon as the violation occurs.

- I wouldn't trust myself to correctly evaluate a K. Most of the time I find myself thinking they don't really do anything. Read at your own risk and I will try my best to properly evaluate.

- If there are multiple layers of prog. (ie theory vs K vs random IVI) do some sort of weighing between them.

- I don't evaluate 30 speaks theory. I tend to believe disclosure is good, but won't intervene.

Other things:

- I think speaks are arbitrary, but humor helps, especially sarcasm.

- Paradigm issues not mentioned here are up for debate within the round

- Reading cards > paraphrasing, but paraphrasing is fine

- Postrounding is fine

- Preflow before the round start time

- I will not vote on explicitly oppressive arguments.

Rishab Chimmanamada Hire 8 rounds None

Sophia Dal Pra Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Thu February 1, 2024 at 7:19 AM EDT

Any pronouns, they/she listed - it's complicated, referring to me using feminine descriptors is fine, though any are accepted. I have no strong feelings about my gender.

***Apparently to search my paradigm, you need to type "Sophia Dal" instead of "Sophia Dal Pra" - just a heads up***

Background: Wooster HS '20, Kentucky ex-pat, Now debate at West Georgia, Class of '25

Conflicts: Wooster High School, Reagan High School,

Put me on the email chain - sophiavansickle477@gmail.com

---Updates---

2/1/24 - This is not the high school level of "We'll take the rest as prep" debate. This is the high school level of cross examination debate. Use your time. CX is important to me and your speaks.

1/18/24 - Sending the plan in the email chain is scuffed. Put it in the speech doc.

10/14/23 - My personal style of debate has become a lot more critical. I coach policy teams pretty much exclusively, but I'm way more familiar with the engagement between lit bases in K v. K debates. As always, I love organized, technical debates, but I have no strong preclusions whether I'm in the back of a policy throwdown or a method debate.

2/22/23 - Some things in debate that others may view as non-negotiables (i.e. flowing, speech-times, etc.) are things I lean towards as being so, but I can be persuaded by framing arguments that these are things I should disregard.

---Top Level---

I think that debate is amazing and unique because of the diversity of positions and stances that we can take, from typical substance debate to debates about the rules to debates about debate. I think that debate is a competition at its foundation and that the educational benefits we gain are shaped from its research benefits. I also think that debate as an activity or as an institution is not shielded from critique.

Feel free to ask me about anything below or any thoughts you have in the pre-round!

My RFDs - are scripted as best I can to organize my thoughts. I have pretty bad ADHD and I tend to have a lot of external thoughts about arguments in any given debate, so I do this to stay organized. It's also how I verify that my decision can be delivered in a sensical manner. My decision on any given debate is usually made at a relatively normal pace, but writing out the decision, (and sometime a separate decision for the other team/over another argument in close debates) usually takes me to d-time in elim debates. I will sometimes read them to myself aloud as well for good measure. I would want my judges to care about the decisions in my debates, so this is my way of returning the favor.

General Argument Preferences - I prefer well-crafted strategies over all else. I do have a soft spot for specificity, but I understand when that is not an option because of new affs, team resources, or miscellaneous reasons. Linearly, the more thought you have put into the strategy, the more I will probably like it.

I have found that I am increasingly annoyed by debates that do not have a substantial portion of them dedicated to answering the aff in some way. This does not have to be with a specific strategy; it can be with making the most with what you have. This can be through generic impact defense, deconstructing a poorly-constructed aff, citing 1AC lines when explaining how the K links, creative counterplanning, etc. Policy debate is plan-focused, and your strategy should be to address it, not to empty your box in the least appealing way possible.

This does not mean that I have apprehensions about the amount of offcase that you read. I think that thought can go into a 12-off strategy as much as a no off/only case turns strategy.

Evidence - Evidence comparison is a great way to get me to like you. Recency isn't everything when it comes to ev comparison. Give me author indicts, prodicts, think-tank biases, etc. The best skill that debaters take from debate is the ability to critically process large amounts of information, and it is becoming increasingly apparent that the analysis of the evidences' sources is important to that processing in our day-to-day lives. If you would be embarassed to read the qualifications of an author aloud during a debate, don't include that piece of evidence and find a better one.

Another point of contestation that should make its way into more debates is the way that authors make their arguments, or the way that debaters have highlighted these claims. Is the author making this claim based on one case study or based on a peer-reviewed, time-series cross sectional statistical analysis? Does the card itself not provide any warrants? Is the highlighting of the edvidence not able to lend itself to a claim and a warrant, or even a complete sentence? Point these issues out during your debating.

I believe the highlighting of your evidence should be coherent enough to read as a public speech, and not phrased like Rupi Kaur's new poetry anthology.

You can "insert the re-highlighting" if you need to discuss the quality of your opponents evidence. I think that having debaters re-read bad evidence means that there is a disincentive to do this type of evidence comparison because of the time it takes out of a speech.

I love evidence-based debates and will want a card doc at the end of the debate. My evaluation of these card docs will be in a way in which I feel I have done the least amount of intervention. To me, this means that cards/arguments that are referenced heavily by the debaters in the final rebuttals, even if they aren't by name, will be read and I'll adjust my thoughts on them accordingly. I will assign the meaning to the evidence that the debaters give it, so, for example, if the 1NC has a highlighted link argument within a card on the kritik, and the 2NR doesn't go for that link argument but goes for another claim in the card, I will not evaluate the extraneous link argument as meaning anything. The evidence you read does not give your argument more weight than you gave it. If you read stellar evidence but can't interpret it for me or move your analysis beyond tagline extensions, then I will not rely on the fact that that card is better than your opponent's.

CX is binding, but that doesn't mean you can read evidence in CX or finish cards in CX. There is a reason that CX is denoted as separate from speech time, and I still hold folks to the threshold of bringing those arguments into speeches, which means that you will just be wasting a lot of time.

Even if someone else cut the evidence you are reading, you are responsible for any issues of academic integrity that arise when you read that evidence, even if you weren't aware of the issue beforehand.

This is not to say I will not vote for teams that don't read evidence. I vote for teams that win debates.

Flowing - I only flow what I catch you saying. Please try to recognize communication break-downs and adjust. I will be following along in the speech document as you read, but I want to be able to understand you.

One of the biggest negative impacts of online debate along with a drop in participation is the increasing card-doc-ification of debates. I am not a fan. Make arguments, do line-by-line, know what evidence they read, FLOW THE DEBATE YOURSELF!

ADAPTATION: I have an auditory processing disorder that makes it especially difficult to flow unclear, online speeches. I can flow top speeds and follow along, but you do not understand how big of a difference clarity makes.

I have recently been attempting to learn how to type with more than my pointer fingers, and am a good flow on my computer but still, please don't let that be a substitute for your own communication.

When flowing debates, I will attempt to line up arguments next to each other, and I would appreciate it if line-by-line is clear as to facilitate this. If I can't do this, I will flow straight down and match arguments and their responses together at a later point, though, this may extend my already egregious use of time post-debate to deliberate.

Absent a defense of splitting up speaking times, the partner that is supposed to be speaking in that speech based on their speaker position is the one I will flow. I will not flow arguments that are being fed to another debater by their partner.

Tech and Truth - I am a "tech" judge. The arguments from the debate that make it on my flow and their implications will be compared based on the connections and the argument resolution that debaters have made.

Above all, when technically evaluating arguments, I value the way that debaters have characterized specific arguments rather than relying solely on evidence to make those comparisons or connecting the dots for them. Cross-applications still need explanation as to how they apply to the new argument. Debates are won and lost through small link distinctions, and especially in buzzword-heavy theory debates, this nuance is lost and leaves me in no way ready to vote on them without explanation.

I have a low threshold for "out-teching" stupid arguments. Stupid arguments can have just as stupid responses. However, if an argument is factually incorrect or incomplete, I'll disregard it. This includes, but is not limited to, voting issues without warranted standards and anything that I can easily google.

(Former) Argument Non-Starters

While rewriting my paradigm, I critically thought about my previous argument inhibitions and realized that they were just based on what I thought were accepted community norms, left over from when I created my paradigm when I was first introduced to national circuit debate. That was stupid of me, and I think that I should be able to defend to myself why I completely exclude an argument from evaluation. Other than, obviously, arguments that are on-face violent, I am fair game for any position.

My previous nonstarters that are now on the table include

- Death Good

- Objectivism

- "No perms in a method debate"

There are two arguments that are difficult for me as a judge:

1. A very pessimistically-read "Debate Bad" argument. Without a way to resolve the offense, I am left wondering why this doesn't link to every debater participating in the debate.

2. This is more of a brand of argument than a specific argument, but any personal arguments that I cannot verify within the current debate. This includes previous debates against this team or incidents between the teams. Debate competition is not the best accountability method for interpersonal violence, you should take these issues to tab, coaches, or relevant authorities to resolve it, not me.

All of my dispositions can be overcame through outdebating the other team. There is always the chance that you could be the debater who makes me enjoy judging issues that I once disliked.

---Misc---

If your strategy involve humiliating the other debaters in the round you should strike me. I am fine with passion about arguments and the way that people communicate them, I do not want harm to come in personal attacks against debaters and their unique positionality in debate.

Online Debate - PLEASE BE MORE CLEAR. I cannot stress this enough. In some of the rounds I have judged, I was very close to losing the argumentation to mumbling or a lack of clarity of speech. Start off slower please. I can flow at fast speeds, but high schooler's laptops are usually not the best, so please be as clear as possible.

The timer stops for medical issues and tech issues.

Lay Debate/Non-Circuit Styles - I debated on a semi-lay circuit for my high-school career, so if your debate style is more stock issues, traditional, or slow, go for it! I will not penalize you for sticking with a local style that you have no control over, just know that I am still a "flow" judge. I'm not a lay judge or blind to circuit norms by any means, I just think that it is not a team's fault where they begin debating, and will not penalize a different style that does not match progressive debate norms.

Speaker Points - are based on skill, respectfulness to the judge and your opponents, clarity, roadmapping, and how you execute your strategy. I do not give you higher speaks based on you telling me to. If you ask for speaker points, I will give you the tournament minimum.

Procedural issues always come before substance.

---Topicality---

I like T debates. I especially enjoy T debates where a substantial amount of evidence is read, epecially evidence about caselists and interpretations with intent to define and exclude. Please explain to me your visions of the topic and why that should frame my decision. Impacting out these debates is important. T is always a voting issue. Some things that I think you should focus on:

1. What is the distinction between the interpretation and the counter-interpretation? I find that debaters oftentimes lose the forest for the trees and dive into the violation debates without solidifying what makes each team's views of what should be included in the topic distinct. A great way to do this for me is with caselists, from both teams, prodicting their interpretations and indicting the opposing interpretation.

2. In what way does the aff violate the interpretation? This seems like a basic portion of T debate, but I see so many high school shells being whitled down so much so that the violation doesn't make it in. If the violation is poorly written or non-existent, point that out to me. I have judged way too many T debates where the violation hinges on an assertion from the negative that the aff is not a thing, when they probably are that thing. I give affirmatives the benefit of the doubt when explaining intriciacies of their plan. This is an area where neg T evidence can really help.

---Theory---

I default to rejecting the argument on theory except for conditionality. If you want me to reject the team on anything else, impact out why. I think that you shouldn't rely heavily on blocks in these debates, or at least make those blocks responsive. Impacts to theory should be clear and articulate; the less buzzwords, the better. The offense of your interpretation or your counter-interpretation should be intrinsic to the interpretation/counter-interpretation.

My leanings on conditionality are that it's good, but I'm not opposed to pulling the trigger on condo bad by any means. I think going for conditionality when mishandled by the negative is perfectly viable and more aff teams should do it. I don't necessarily have a lower limit if you want to pull the trigger. As long as your standards are intrinsic to your interpretation, I'm fine with it. I find that the general practice of conditionality can be argued against and potential-abuse based arguments that come along with it are pretty compelling in these debates.

---Case Debate---

Please do more of this, as per my rant above. I seriously love a good case debate. Have good 1NC answers to the advantages and good explanations and clash on the aff, and we'll have a good day. I think that advantages can be beaten by zero risk arguments. I will vote on presumption if the aff has a ridiculous, completely misconstrued scenario with 0% risk of any of it being a thing.

I think that I can vote negative on presumption if a CP has no net benefit but the neg team proves that presumption lies with them.

I prefer framing pages that are specific to the aff. Debate tends to be extremely reductive of ethics and moral philosophy. Conflating consequentialism and utilitarianism, conflating deontology and structural violence, etc. Pointing out discrepancies in a team's framing and the way they view arguments in the debate is very convincing to me, i.e. a team advocating deontology making a consequential claim, etc.

---Impact Turns---

I love impact turn debates. Please be nuanced with the uniqueness question - I need a very good unsustainability argument to weigh against their impact, otherwise I will still give their impact risk.

---Disadvantages---

Please read a full shell in the 1NC. The link is the most important part of the DA, please explain it well. I think the Aff team can beat a DA with zero risk arguments. Please have a reason why it turns the advantages.

---Counterplans---

Neg must prove competition and that the CP is net-beneficial to the aff. I think process CPs are fine, more so if they are topic-relevant. CP and Perm texts should be specific. "Do Both" or others mean nothing unless the aff explains how the perm functions.

Multi-plank CPs should be broken down for me; please explain how each plank functions and solves the advantages. If planks can be kicked, and the CP is egregiously long, then each plank functions as a conditional advocacy

I think that judge kick needs to be flagged in the debate. This can be through saying "judge kick" explicitly or "The status quo is always a logical option", which I take as meaning "judge kick + conditional".

CPs - Novice and JV Debate: Please y'all, you need a net benefit to your CP. I will not vote on a CP that "just solves better". This has happened in almost all of the JV/Novice debates I have judged this year. Please be a stand-out and don't do this.

---Kritiks on the Negative---

Disclaimer: Though the common theme of this section is that you should explain your thing, this is because I am a perfectionist when it comes to how literature is represented, not because I think teams that read kritiks need to break down their stuff more than policy teams. I recognize that teams that read "policy" style arguments get away with the most blippy characterizations of their arguments too often, and this is a practice that I would like to stop in any style of debate I judge. Both teams will be held to the same standard of explanation of any argument. I despise 5-word theory arguments, framework standards, etc. All arguments have to have a claim and a warrant. Explain the link and the impact of the K in the context of the advocacy you are criticizing.

High theory is fine and welcomed, as long as you show you know what you are talking about.

I need a lot of alternative explanation. What is it and how is it distinct from the aff? Does it capture the aff? Why is it mutually exclusive to the aff? Most importantly, how doe the alternative resolve the links to the K? I think a very convincing way the aff can beat the alt is a defense of your method and DAs to the way the alternative explains the case, if at all. Alts should have a consistent text throughout the debate.

I think Ks should have an alternative or something external that resolves the offense (framework, CP with the K as a net benefit, etc.) I don't like evaluating linear DAs based on K impacts and links if the status quo does not resolve the offense.

In K v. K debates, I need the debaters to explain to me the distinction between the methods. What impacts do each of the methods access? What does the perm look like OR Why does the perm ruin the alt? How does the aff's method resolve the K's links?

Debaters should decide for me whether there are perms in a method debate, but I tend to lean neg on this question. See below.

---Framework/T-USFG v. K Affs---

After the first semester on the water topic, I maintain an exactly 50/50 voting record for for or against framework.

I think that the way that most people evaluate fairness impacts writ large is based on personal preconceptions and biases about what it good. I want to make mine as clear as possible here, while also emphasizing that any framework impact to me is fair game. However, the most convincing genre of impacts for me in framework debates are clash, argument refinement, and iterative testing in relation to how they affect advocacy skills.

I like affs that have creative counter-interpretations that include your method and creative impact turns. If you articulate to me why the aff should be included in the topic better than the neg does, you win. This is best done for me through an indict of the neg's interpretation and the research it creates, not by reading a linear DA against debate norms as a whole.

My only caveat is that I believe that there should be limits on the topic of debate, and I think that the aff will always have a more expansive view of the topic (unless only the aff is topical/some explanations I have yet to find convincing). However, placing at least some defined limits on the aff's interpretation mitigates the offense the neg gets and puts me in a good spot to weigh your impacts against however-better limits the neg's interpretation provides.

I don't think that the reading of framework constitutes violence. Arguments that are loose metaphorizations of debate norms to real-world violence are difficult to win in front of me, and I would be keen to vote on arguments from the negative that that metaphorization is bad. However, more nuanced versions of the "policing/exlusion" DA that involve connections to the aff's lit base and academia as a whole and have an impact that is focused more around your research and education are more convincing.

---K Affs (General/K v. K)---

I'm fine with K affs as long as you have both (A) some sort of advocacy statement and (B) a reason why you shouldn't defend this year's topic. This seems intuitive, but in some K debates I have judged, the affirmative is focused more on the community as a whole rather than

I'm not a great judge for K affs that don't have a robust method defense in the 1AC. I think there is a common trend for these types of affs to defend as little as possible in the 1AC and then shift their explanations to defend whatever suits their fancy in the 2AC and beyond after the neg lays down their core offense.

Because of this, I feel as if, in direct opposition to my previous opinions, I am leaning neg on "no perms in a method debate". It is easy for me to buy that the ability for the aff to permute the K incentivizes writing affirmatives with vague theses to eliminate competition, which hurts kritikal clash, education, advocacy, etc. I think that the negative can do a better job convincing me of this when they read literature-specific offense. Aff, you should have a hearty defense of your method. A specific perm text or hearty explanation, coupled with answers to "no perms" should be enough for you to argue and win that "this perm is good and we should get it". Cards for perms are especially helpful when deciding whether you get a perm or not.

Reflected in the the update above, I find myself spending more and more time reading K literature in my free time. I am familiar with the basics of many areas and their key authors, and I have done some assistant coaching for teams that primarily read kritkal positions, but am not an expert on the latest stuff. Therefore, while I would love to judge more of these debates, I understand that I may not be the best for you in terms of pre-existing knowledge.

Performance - Fine with it as long as it's educationally appropriate.

---Lincoln Douglas---

Judging LD is something I don't commonly do, but you can translate a lot of the above here.

ATTN: My standard for what is a complete argument is high for current norms in LD. Claim, Warrant, Implication. Make less arguments and use that time to make better quality arguments.

I am best for policy debates, quality T/Theory debates, and Policy v. K debates.

I am fine for K v. K debates, and my reading and debate style has put me in way more of these than in the past.

I am less ok for dense phil. I need a lot of explanation and impacting.

I am not good for frivolous theory or tricks.

---Bottom Level---

Behavior - Being rude/obnoxious gets speaks taken away.

Please be humble and considerate if you win and patient if you lose. As long as I'm in the room, no comments should be made about the skill of your opponents or their knowledge on certain subjects. Post-rounding is welcomed until it crosses the line from picking my brain to being angry at me for not seeing that you are so obviously right. If you have a habit of post-rounding aggressively, break it. I have PTSD and will not spare a second going to tab if you react in a way that may trigger an anxiety attack.

I will intervene and stop a round if I think that there is violence, physical or verbal, that endangers those participating in that round. Those who perpetuate the violence will receive an instant loss, 0 speaks, and coaches will be contacted. I will fight tab to give you 0 speaks or have you ejected.

Evidence Ethics Violations - Clipping, Paraphrasing without reading the evidence, and cutting evidence out of context is what I define as academic dishonesty. Academic dishonesty mean an instant loss and I will award you the lowest amount of speaks that the tournament allows.

I understand the novelty of the activity for novices, but I hold JV and Varsity debaters to the standard of being able to properly read a card.

To quote Ryan McFarland, “Clipping is cheating no matter the intent."

Vinay Durbhakula Hire None

Lucy Fang Potomac Debate Academy

Adam Freilich East Chapel Hill High School

Gabriel Grodan Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Sat July 10, 2021 at 6:30 AM EDT

EXTEND YOUR ARGUMENT. You can't win an argument if you don't extend it. If you don't extend your argument, it is like there is terminal defense on it. Frontlining your argument and then failing to extend it is a waste of time. EXTEND YOUR ARGUMENT.

TLDR: Think of me like a traditional PF judge/someone who has been coaching for 20 years. Quality>Quantity. Logic>Evidence

Experience: I debated in Public Forum for Valley International Prep. I quartered at the TOC

How I evaluate rounds: Your primary concern should be winning and extending your argument. That is a prerequisite to any impact weighing you want me to consider. Generally, I think most of the impact weighing teams do is fairly elementary and ineffective. I don't need you to tell me you outweigh on scope because you affect more people. I think link ins, short circuits, and pre recs are far more valuable than impact weighing.

Be Clear and Comparative: Want to make my decision easy? Implicate your responses. Don't assume I know if defense is mitigatory or terminal. Tell me, "This functions as terminal defense to my opponents case because..." Do comparative analysis. If you and your opponent read opposing evidence, tell me why to prefer yours. Is the author more credible? Is the study more recent or more comprehensive of all factors? If you outweigh on scope and your opponent outweighs on magnitude, tell me why scope matters more.

Want to make my decision really easy? Tell a clear story. If you have the stronger narrative, I’ll probably find a way to vote for you in close rounds that could go either way. PF is fundamentally a persuasion event - if you convince me your side is true, you’ll probably win the round.

Technical stuff:

2nd rebuttal has to frontline ALL turns and terminal defense on the argument they are going for. Defense isn't sticky. Any defense that you're going to read in final focus should be in summary.

Overviews?

There are three types of overviews in my mind.

1) New offense (oUr tHiRd cOnTeNtIoN iS...)

Don't read it. I won't vote on it. I prefer actual clash to random DAs.

2) An overall response to their case.

Good idea

3) Weighing overviews.

GREAT IDEA.

Speed: Keep it under 225 WPM. Quality>Quantity

I’m logic >>>>>> evidence. You can win my ballot without reading a single card. I care about ideas, not authors. I will not evaluate a card without a warrant. The warrant can be either in the card or made analytically by you. Only evidence > logic if both teams have rock solid logic but one has evidence.

I’m tech > truth with one caveat - the stupider an argument gets, the lower my response threshold gets. That said, a response has to exist.

Take your opponents at their highest ground. Don't lie to me. If they responded to your argument, don't say that they conceded it. If they read a warrant or an impact, don't tell me that they didn't. That's lazy, disingenuous, and bad debating. You'll do a lot better by saying, "Even if you believe everything my opponents said, we STILL win the round," and then weighing your arguments against the best iteration of theirs.

Theory? Sure. Paragraph theory is fine. I don't need it in shell form. If you call for evidence and it's really miscut, I WILL vote on an evidence ethics shell. I default to RVIs and I think teams should be able to read reasonability responses.

Ks? Ehhh. I prefer util debate. That said, I've read basic K stuff so if you wanna read a K and that's your topic strat, I wont change that or penalize you for it. Just please be really clear and explicit and explain stuff well.

Speaker Points: I will give speaker points based on your rhetorical appeal. Usually there are two different speaking styles that work pretty well. You can go the dominant route and be loud and confident. Think, "THE ROUND IS OVER." Or you can go the calm, quieter, confident route. Think, "The round breaks down pretty simply." Give me some alliteration or a catchy phrase and you'll probably get a 30. I probably won't give anyone below a 28 unless you explicitly do something I say not to do in my paradigm or say something problematic/offensive

Other Things:

1. I will disclose no matter what... even if it's against tournament rules (just don't tell on me). My least favorite thing as a debater was not getting any feedback or knowing the results of a round.

2. Please come to the round preflowed. If both debaters are in round, and you're wasting time preflowing, I'll take a speaker point off.

3. I'll only call for evidence if there is debate about what the evidence says.

4. I'll try to nod if I like/agree with what you're saying and frown if I don't. As a debater, the facial expressions of judges always helped me know what to go for and what to drop. I also just think that generally, reading the way people are responding to what you are saying and making adjustments when necessary is a valuable life skill, so I will help you do that.

5. Feel free to post-round me if you disagree with or have questions about my decision. I think post-rounding will help you improve/understand my decision better and will make me a better judge.

If you disagree with any of these philosophies and believe I should be judging the round differently, tell me in a speech and warrant it. I'm open to creativity. For example, if you think that I should be evidence > logic or think I should not require frontlining in second rebuttal, and your reasoning is sound (and not well responded-to), I'll oblige

Yisha Gu Montgomery Blair

Benjamin Hagwood BL Debate None

Byria Hamblin Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Sat August 1, 2020 at 4:22 PM CDT

I am very laid back judge, but here are a few things I would love to see:

1. Give me a roadmap; even something as simple as "it's going to be aff then neg" is greatly appreciated. If your speech is going to jump all over flow, be transparent about that at the top and signpost as you go. Overall, please be purposeful about signposting/claims and slow down for those statements. I need to be able to follow on the flow as this is the primary factor in my decision.

2. If anyone is using a framework, do NOT drop it post constructive or rebuttal. Once framework is introduced, how each side weighs into that throughout the round is crucial.

3. Utilize crossfire. Do not use that time to solely ask clarifying questions. Be offensive (even in the first cross), that's what we're here for. It's not going to win you the round, but it'll give the round depth.

4. FOR PF FIRST SPEAKERS SPECIFICALLY: The summary speech is the easiest way to win your round. Do NOT just merely extend every little thing your second speaker said; that's useless. Do NOT spend the entire time simply refuting your opponent's responses to your case. Give me a worlds/comparative analysis & weigh every impact. Defending your case can be integrated into these big picture analyses. This speech needs to only hone in on a handful of essential arguments. Be intentional with those two minutes.

5. Second speaking team, first speakers: if you want to dedicate some time in your constructive to rebuttal, DO IT. Keep the round entertaining.

6. Keep track of your prep time. I will also be keeping track, but you should be keeping track of each other as well.

7. If anyone is using hands off prep to get a piece of evidence, DO NOT PREP. I will down you.

8. Avoid blippy responses. I value the quality of your argument over the quantity.

9. If an argument seems to be a wash between opposing pieces of evidence, be prepared to show me the evidence at the end of the round.

10. I vote based on a combination of who won the flow, who outweighed, and who was the most intentional with their time.

If any of this is confusing, just ask me for clarification before the round! :)

Noah Hansen Georgetown Day School

Last changed on Thu February 20, 2020 at 12:08 AM CDT

Hi there! This is my 5th season judging public forum. That being said, I am not a debate wonk. I am not a lay judge, but not as technical as many other judges in the circuit. I do not coach and really don't dive into the ethos and technicalities of this activity. This being said, I have a few expectations.

Clash

I love love love clash in debates. One of the best things for me is weighing the merits of arguments and cards rather than a game of everyone throws whatever they can at the wall to see what sticks. This being said, a debate that devolves into constant critiques of the ethos of sources is frustrating to me: there's a fine balance.

"Spreading"

I can follow kids talking fast in debate but after constructive you need to be able to extrapolate what is important instead of just auctioneering your arguments to me. This isn't super important to me relative to more of the fundamentals to me, and I don't expect you to re-tool your debate style for me.

Pre-written Blocks, Turns etc. and Speaker Points

Especially on the local circuit, this is easily my biggest pet peeve. I won't hold it against you, but as an alum, the single biggest skill I gained in this activity was my extemporaneous speaking abilities. I think pre-written blocks and turns really hinder that from you, especially when I've heard the same blocks from your teammates over the course of the same or multiple tournaments. I do weigh this when I consider speaker points (not heavily, but no one with pre-written blocks is getting a 30 from me). In general, speaker points come from your ability to conduct yourself professionally and effectively during extemporaneous parts of the debate (everything except constructive).

Conduct during Cross and Rebuttal/Summary

My BIGGEST pet peeve in debate is how high-level debaters act in response to their opponents during responses, especially the sort of hyper-casual style that is condescending. I don't care about archaic notions of "professionalism" because I believe they are rooted in classist and racist connotations, but I'm really not okay with being condescending to your peers. It's hard to articulate this conduct, but every debater knows it when they see. I don't expect you to refer to your opponent's as "my good friend" or "the right honourable gentleman" but just be respectful.

Arguments with Nuance

If you're going to make a claim that relies on an assertion that isn't a universal belief or value (e.g. "free market solutions are inherently better than government solutions" or vice versa), you need to justify your assertion. I enjoy unconventional arguments, but if your case relies on a belief that is often challenged in the court of public appeal, you can't just state it and move on.

wyatt hatfield Hire 8 rounds

Jianxin Hu Montgomery Blair

Charles Huang Hire 8 rounds

Rajivk Kacholia Speech and Debate India

Ritika Kacholia Speech and Debate India

Murty Kotha The Golden State Academy

Mona Kothari Speech and Debate India

Florina Lam Hire 8 rounds None

Gabriel Levine Hire 8 rounds

Nethmin Liyanage Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Thu January 4, 2024 at 4:05 AM PDT

tldr do what you do best; i'll only vote for complete arguments that make sense; weighing & judge instruction tip the scales in your favor; disclosure is good; i care about argument engagement and i value flexibility; stay hydrated & be a good person.

About me:

she/her

policy coach @ damien: spring 2022 - present

ld coach @ loyola: fall 2023 - present

My strongest belief about argumentation is that argument engagement is good - I don't have a strong preference as to what styles of arguments teams read in front of me, but I'd prefer if both teams engaged with their opponents' arguments; I don't enjoy teams who avoid clash (regardless of the style of argument they are reading). I value ideological flexibility in judges and actively try not to be someone who will exclusively vote on only "policy" or only "k" arguments.

I am comfortable evaluating arguments that are commonplace in policy (cx) debate; less comfortable evaluating nonsense trick-blip-phil-paradox-skep-word-soup quirks of lincoln douglas. This means that any CX team that debates in a coherent and well-researched manner (whether policy or k) should be fine in front of me. LD teams that read real arguments should be fine in front of me. LD teams that read "eval after 1ar" should strike me before they strike a parent judge.

General note about reading my paradigm - most things are phrased in terms of policy debate structure & norms (2nr/2ar being 5 minutes, "team" instead of "debater," "planless aff" = "non-t k aff," etc). If I'm judging you in LD and you have questions about how something translates to LD, feel free to ask!

email chains:

ld email chains: loyoladebate47@gmail.com and nethmindebate@gmail.com

policy email chains: damiendebate47@gmail.com and nethmindebate@gmail.com

if you need to contact me directly about rfd questions, accessibility requests, or anything else, please email nethmindebate@gmail.com (please don't email the teamail for these types of requests)!

flowing: it is good and teams should do it

stolen from alderete - if you show me a decent flow, you can get up to 1 extra speaker point. this can only help you - i won't deduct points for an atrocious flow. this is to encourage teams to actually flow. i recently witnessed a 2ac that answered a whole k that was not read in the 1nc. it nuked my value to life. this is my attempt at remedying it:)

All of my deal-breakers/hard and fast rules/moments of "I won't vote on this" are dependent on four things:

1 - protecting the safety of the participants in the round (no harrassment, no physical violence, etc).

2 - voting for things that meet the minimum standard to be considered an argument (it needs to have warrants & make some amount of logical sense).

3 - rules set forth by the tournament (speech times, one team wins and one team loses, I have to enter my own ballot, etc).

4 - i will only evaluate the debate after the end of the 2ar. this is 0% negotiable. i did not think i would have to say this, but i guess i do.

My voting record is roughly 50-50 on most major debate controversies (yes, even planless affs vs framework). As long as your argument doesn't violate the above four criteria, go for it!

I think that warrants are hard to come by in many debate rounds these days, even ones with “good” teams. Err on the side of a little too much explanation, because if your arg is warrantless, you will be ballotless. Extensions need to include warrants, not just taglines.

Independent voters need warrants and an articulation of why they should be evaluated before everything else. These debates could generally benefit from more judge instruction and weighing. Simply calling something an independent voter doesn’t mean I vote for you if you extend it.

Disclose or lose. Non-new affs should be on the wiki & should be disclosed to the neg team a minimum of 30 min before round. Neg offcase positions that have been read before should be on the wiki. Past 2nrs should be disclosed to the aff team a minimum of 30 min before round. New affs don't need to be disclosed pre-round. I am 1000000% done with teams that don't disclose. I have zero belief that there is any good reason for non-disclosure. If your opponent engages in any disclosure nonsense, read theory and there's a 95+% chance I vote for you, regardless of how good they are at the theory debate. Don't like disclosing? Pref someone who is willing to tolerate your nonsense (not me).

note: i am far more lenient on disclosure with novices/debaters who haven't debated at national-circuit tournaments before. the grumpiness of the above section is directed at people who know how to disclose and purposefully avoid it. you know who you are:)

Some general notes

Accessibility & content warnings: Email me if there is an accessibility request that I can help facilitate - I always want to do my part to make debates more accessible. I prefer not to judge debates that involve procedurals about accessibility and/or content warnings. I think it is more productive to have a pre-round discussion where both teams request any accommodation(s) necessary for them to engage in an equitable debate. I feel increasingly uncomfortable evaluating debates that come down to accessibility/cw procedurals, especially when the issue could have easily been resolved pre-round.

Speed/clarity – I will say clear up to two times per speech before just doing my best to flow you. I can handle a decent amount of speed. Going slower on analytics is a good idea. You should account for pen time/scroll time.

Online debate -- 1] please record your speeches, if there are tech issues, I'll listen to a recording of the speech, but not a re-do. 2] debate's still about communication - please watch for nonverbals, listen for people saying "clear," etc.

I am not comfortable evaluating out-of-round events. The only exception to this is disclosure. I will vote on reasonable and good faith disclosure theory (yeah you should probably disclose on opencaselist, no you probably shouldn't lose for forgetting one round report). I will not vote on arguments about random out-of-round events, things that happened in another round, things that happened on a team's pref sheet, or any other arguments of this nature.

Speaker points:

Speaker points are dependent on strategy, execution, clarity, and overall engagement in the round and are scaled to adapt to the quality/difficulty/prestige of the tournament.

I try to give points as follows:

30: you're a strong contender to win the tournament & this round was genuinely impressive

29.5+: late elims, many moments of good decisionmaking & argumentative understanding, adapted well to in-round pivots

29+: you'll clear for sure, generally good strat & round vision, a few things could've been more refined

28.5+: likely to clear but not guaranteed, there are some key errors that you should fix

28+: even record, probably losing in the 3-2 round

27.5+: winning less than 50% of your rounds, key technical/strategic errors

27+: winning less than 50% of your rounds, multiple notable technical/strategic errors

26+: errors that indicated a fundamental lack of preparation for the rigor/style of this tournament

25-: you did something really bad/offensive/unsafe.

Extra speaks for flowing, being clear, kindness, adaptation, and good disclosure practices.

Minus speaks for discrimination of any sort, bad-faith disclosure practices, rudeness/unkindness, and attempts to avoid engagement/clash.

Opinions on Specific Positions (ctrl+f section):

Case:

I think that negatives that don't engage with the 1ac are putting themselves in a bad position. This is true for both K debates and policy debates.

Extensions should involve warrants, not just tagline extensions - I'm willing to give some amount of leeway for the 1ar/2ar extrapolating a warrant that wasn't the focal point of the 2ac, but I should be able to tell from your extensions what the scenario is, what the internal links are, and why you solve.

Planless affs:

I've been on both sides of the planless aff debate, and my strongest opinion about planless affs is that you need to be able to explain what your aff does/why it's good.

I tend to dislike planless affs where the strategy is to make the aff seem like a word salad until after 2ac cx and then give the aff a bunch of new (and not super well-warranted) implications in the 1ar. I tend to be better for planless aff teams when they have a meaningful relationship to the topic, they are straight-up about what they do/don't defend, they use their aff strategically, engage with neg arguments, and make smart 1ar & 2ar decisions with good ballot analysis.

T/framework vs planless affs:

I'm roughly 50-50 in these debates. I don't have a strong preference for how framework teams engage in these debates other than that you should be respectful when discussing sensitive material.

I think that TVAs can be more helpful than teams realize. While having a TVA isn't always necessary, winning a TVA provides substantial defense on many of the aff's exclusion arguments.

I don't have a preference on whether your chosen 2nr is skills or fairness (or something else). I think that both options have strategic value based on the round you're in. Framework teams almost always get better points in front of me when they are able to contextualize their arguments to their opponents' strategy.

I also don't have a preference between the aff going for impact turns or going for a counterinterp. The strategic value of this is dependent on how topical/non-topical your aff is, in my opinion.

Theory:

The less frivolous your theory argument, the better I am for it.

Please weigh! It's not nearly as intuitive to make a decision in theory debates - I can fill in the gaps for why extinction is more impactful than localized war more easily than I can fill in the gaps for why neg flex matters more/less than research burdens.

default to no rvis <3 medium uphill to change my mind on this one

Topicality (not framework):

I like T debates that have robust and contextualized definitions of the relevant words/phrases/entities in the resolution. Have a clear explanation of what your interpretation is/isn't; examples/caselists are your friend.

Grammar-based topicality arguments: I don't find most of the grammar arguments being made these days to be very intuitive. You should explain/warrant them more than you would in front of a judge who loves those arguments.

Tricks (this is mostly an LD thing):

I used to say that I would never vote on tricks. I've decided it's bad to exclude a style of argumentation just because I don't enjoy it. Here are some things to know if you're reading tricks in front of me:

1 - I won't flow off the doc (I never flow off the doc, but I won't be checking the doc to see if I missed any of your tricks/spikes)

2 - The argument has to have a warrant in the speech it is presented

3 - The reason I've been so opposed to voting on tricks in the past is that I've never heard a trick that met the minimum threshold to be considered an argument

Kritiks (neg):

I tend to like K teams that engage with the aff and have a clear analysis of what's wrong with the aff's model/framing/epistemology/etc. I tend to be a bit annoyed when judging K teams that read word-salad or author-salad Ks, refuse to engage with arguments, expect me to fill in massive gaps for them, don't do adequate weighing/ballot analysis/judge instruction, or are actively hostile toward their opponents. The more of the aforementioned things you do, the more annoyed I'll be. The inverse is also true - the more you actively work to ensure that you don't do these things, the happier I'll be!

Disads:

Zero risk probably doesn't exist, but very-close-to-zero risk probably does. Teams that answer their opponents' warrants instead of reading generic defense tend to fare better in close rounds. Good evidence tends to matter more in these debates - I'd rather judge a round with 2 great cards + debaters explaining their cards than a round with 10 horrible cards + debaters asking me to interpret their dumpster-quality cards for them.

Counterplans:

I don't have strong ideological biases about how many condo advocacies the neg gets or what kinds of counterplans are/aren't cheating. More egregious abuse = easier to persuade me on theory; the issue I usually see in theory debates is a lack of warranting for why the neg's model was uniquely abusive - specific analysis > generic args + no explanation.

Judge kick - you've gotta tell me to do it. I'm not opposed to it, but I won't assume that you want me to unless the 2nr tells me to. No strong opinions for/against judge kick.

currently no strong opinions on things like normal means or counterplan competition on the fiscal redistribution topic. this means you can probably get away with more in front of me as long as you warrant it/read good evidence.

Arguments I will NEVER vote for:

-arguments that are actively discriminatory or make the round unsafe ("misgendering good," "let's make the debate about a minor's personal life," other stuff of that nature).

-any argument that attempts to police what a debater wears or how they present (this includes shoes theory/formal clothes theory).

-any argument that denies the existence/badness of oppression (i don't mean i won't vote for "extinction outweighs." i mean i won't vote for "genocide good.")

if there's anything i didn't mention or you have any questions, feel free to email me! if there's anything i can do to make debate more accessible for you, let me know! i really love debate and i coach because i want to make debate/the community a better place; please don't hesitate to reach out if there's anything you need.

Omar Lopera Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Tue October 10, 2023 at 10:57 AM EDT

Updated: Fall 2023

About myself:

I have debated LD for 3 years. And I have Judged Variety LD prior to Covid-19 and during the pandemic. I graduated from the University of Florida in Business administration with specialization in Agriculture and currently Im in graduate school studying Health Administration.

I'm ok with any argument. If you found another Omar Lopera on the judge wiki that sounds like a parent. That's my father(yes we have same named). I'm completely different from my father to judging.

Spreading

I'm ok with spreading just as long if your opponent is ok with spreading. Personally, I think debates get boring if one debater is spreading, while the other debater doesn't understand what's happening. It's not productive nor educational for any parties involved. So please ask the opponent if there good with spreading prior to the round.

Secondly, I prefer if your spreading, please tell where you are on the flow and pinpoint to what argument are extending across the flow so I can clearly understand where the argument is. Please sign post with taglines and make sure you tell the warrant and impact of the extension as well. This just help with clarity on the flow.

Role of The Ballot

I Like the role of ballot, it just makes thing easier on my end to focus on what evaluation Im looking during the debate. If the ROB is just the resolution restated, I dont evaluate it because thats just the debate itself nothing new. ROB should be weighing analysis or something along those lines, or how I should think differently when evaluating the meaning of the resolution.

Larp debate

I'm ok with any plan text argument the consistent with the topic at hand. Give me IMPACTS and Warrants. I seen and alot of plan text arguments only talk about inherency of the problem but provide very little impacts, which makes the case not fulfill its purpose of providing benefits to voting aff

Phil debate

I personally love the idea of the Phil debate. However if its super deep philosophy, please explain in 1AR or 1NC what it means before you start laying the groundworks for your arguments. I want to make sure I clearly understanding your argument and not misinterpret it. Also, make sure you give me impacts and weighing especially if its ideal vs. policy debate. Also I need impact coming from phill debate, it makes thing much easier to evaluate if I can link a impact extending from phill framework. If the debate comes to two differentPhil perspectives a weighing analysis or comparative world analysis makes thing clear to evaluate.

Theory

I'm ok with theory. If it is a wordy interp, just simply explains what it means. I believe the theory is the highest level of debate. In my opinion theory debate gets muddled so I wouldn't focus all your time on it. Also please extend the voters it makes judging theory a lot easier. One last thing, do not try frivolous theory, I think its annoying and waste of time.

Kritks

I love Ks. Personally, I think the reject alt is boring, but I won't hold it against you. If you want my vote on the K debate. Really go in for Alt. Without the alt I tend to default aff since most K impacts are that aff continuing a system that bad, and if I don't see an alt then how I see it is why should I care about any of negative impacts if you yourself don't have a solution. So I see the first link, alt then impacts for Ks

DA's

I consider DA as an off so in my view it's above the aff. I see a DA's argument that doing the aff is worst than doing nothing. So aff has the burden to disprove the DA's.

Spikes

I'm not used evaluating theory spikes, honestly try avoiding them if you can. Im not going hold it against you its just that I'm used applying spikes on the flow. This more of your benefit since I don't misinterpret a good argument or burden you put on your opponent's just because I'm not used to evaluating them.

Speaker points

You shouldn't expect anything lower than 27. Unless you straight up punch the other debater.Other than that explain your arguments and you should be fine.

Lastly

Keep grudges at the door.

If their prefer pronouns that debater would like to use. Please address the debater by their pronoun.

Please ask any questions about the round.

vaibhav Mahajan Potomac Debate Academy

Nicholas Marques Hire

Cinthia Moncores Hire 8 rounds None

Benjamin Oestericher Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Mon April 19, 2021 at 2:47 PM EDT

Hello! I’m Ben and I debated for four years at the Bronx High School of Science. The biggest of shoutouts goes to Mr. Huth and the whole Bronx Science team. I am probably best viewed as a pretty traditional flow judge. If you want the details:

I don’t believe that defense needs to be in first summary to answer any argument that was not frontlined in second rebuttal. If it was frontlined, then you need to answer it in summary. Turns should be extended in first summary if you want me to evaluate them as offense. Don’t extend through ink.

You do NOT have to frontline defense in second rebuttal. I personally rarely did so and I often believe it is unstrategic to do so. That being said, take whatever strategy you believe is most strategic for your team in the round.

Weighing is very important to me. I think it is important to weigh early (preferably rebuttal but no later than summary) and have consistent weighing throughout the round. Try to explain your weighing instead of just repeating it. Saying you outweigh on scope, timeframe, magnitude, etc without explaining why doesn’t mean anything. I look to weighing first when I evaluate my ballot -- if you are winning the weighing I will look to your arguments first. I personally believe that probability is often the strongest form of weighing as no matter how large your impacts -- if you don’t win your links they can’t materialize. Focus on winning your links and explaining how you access them better than your opponents. I am a technical judge but I care a lot about truth value, and my threshold for a response to a high-magnitude low-probability argument is pretty low.

If you don’t weigh, I will be forced to intervene which is very sad.

I default to looking at impacts globally. I will drop America First framing in a heartbeat.

I care about your overall cohesion in your speeches. Having a single narrative that you defend over the course of the round is more persuasive to me than a set of many arguments that change with each speech.

I believe that theory is only justified in instances of significant abuse where there is no other mechanism to check back against the abuse. I will try my best to evaluate any argument presented to me on the flow, but I am not good at evaluating progressive argumentation including theory and Ks. I am inclined to believe that they are bad for Public Forum, but that’s just my opinion. I always want the round to be a safe space for all debaters.

I can handle speed. I debated fast and I can handle fast debate. That being said, don’t sacrifice quality for quantity and don’t speak so quickly that your words are not clear. Don’t spread.

I will only call for evidence if I believe it is both a) important to my overall decision in the round and b) was cast into doubt by the opposing team.

Don’t shake my hand. Virtually or in person. Yes, virtual handshakes are a thing.

You will get 30 speaker points if you find an earthworm (or any worm for that matter) and place it on the head of Adriana Kim at a tournament. Please show me photographic proof before the round.

Good luck :) Feel free to ask me any specific questions before the round.

Ulrich Palha Fort Lee High School

Dhaval Panchal Speech and Debate India

Sarah Park Hire 8 rounds

Rama Rajita Pentapati The Golden State Academy

Raj Rani Potomac Debate Academy

Giovanna Schischoff Moncores Hire 8 rounds

PANKAJ SHARMA Potomac Debate Academy

Christian Sheerer Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Fri October 16, 2020 at 11:24 AM EDT

Background:

I debated for four years in Public Forum on the national circuit for Flanagan in South Florida. I'm currently a junior at Duke University. This isn't fully comprehensive of my preferences as a judge.

Things I like:

- Consistency between the summary and the final focus. These two speeches should be very similar in that they re-iterate the same points that you think win the round for you.

- Weighing. You're probably not going to win every single argument in the round, so I want to give me tangible reasons as to why the argument you should win the round based on is more important than your opponents'. Beyond just regular magnitude, scope probability, I really like teams who get more creative with their weighing (ex: Strength of Link, Clarity of Impact, etc). Good weighing will usually win you my ballot and give you a speaker point boost.

- Frontlining in 2nd rebuttal. The 2nd rebuttal should answer all offense, including turns.

Things I don't like:

- Speed. I spoke relatively fast when I debated but hated it. I can generally flow speed but anything close to spreading shuts me off. You can usually get the same quantity of arguments out by just improving your word economy instead of picking up your speed.

- Theory. I definitely think theory and other types of critical arguments have a place in this activity, but only in certain, very limited circumstances (ie read theory when there is clear, substantial abuse in the round). You don't need to read full shells or anything for me, I'm totally fine with paragraph theory.

- Making absurd arguments. This event tests your ability to gain and disseminate knowledge and that needs to be done with integrity. If part of what makes debate an activity is discerning between misrepresentations and realities of the world and communicating them to the general public (in a forum), then I reserve the right to disregard silly arguments that blatantly misrepresent how the world works in my attempt to tell who has done the better debating. For example, impacting strictly to GDP growth as a good thing would be an argument I could not evaluate (ask me in person for why this absolutely makes no sense).

Going for TRUTH is not as incompatible with the TECH as you'd like to think. It's harmful to think they're unequivocally at odds.

Evan Streams The Dalton School

Atul Suri Del Norte Independent 8 rounds

Malhar Tamhane Hamilton High School

Last changed on Thu January 5, 2023 at 6:43 PM CDT

Hello

I have not judged a debate round in around 2 years and have not competed for a few years. my ears are probably not accustomed to very quick speaking and I would appreciate slightly slower speeches. rapid is fine but full speed probably not the best idea

email: mtamhane@asu.com

I did policy for four years at Wichita East, nat circuit senior year (2015-2019)

I am currently on the Arizona State Speech team (2019-present)

I was relatively mediocre in high school, but I know how much work debate is and I hope I can a put fraction of the work into judging as y'all put into competing

Policy Paradigm:

Overall Philosophy

explain your arguments please

You do you-- I want to hear the arguments you know the best and are most comfortable with

I think impacts are important--what those are and how they should be evaluated compared to your opponent's impacts should be clear.

I 100% have preconceived notions about debate but if you tell me to evaluate the round differently, I will. I just need a persuasive reason why your framework for the round is the best. Please tell me how I should evaluate the round, it makes my job easier and your arguments more persuasive.

Fairness is an internal link to education, but is not an impact (this one is pretty ingrained--if you believe fairness is an impact please just impact out to education. I have a very low threshold for a fairness impact, that is just not that persuasive)

Racism, sexism, anti queer garbage etc. is very bad. You'll lose.

case

I love case debate. I will vote on presumption if the negative demolishes the affirmative case on defense alone. I know thats probably weird, but honestly if you put in the work thats required crumble an aff case I will reward you in speaks and the round. Offense is great though.

Das

Unique impact scenarios are fun. Ptx das esp fun if you have a solid story. I love a good disad case debate. Offense is best strategy for 2ACs imo, but im willing to vote aff on defense if your arguments are strong/uncontested.

Some cps are definitely cheating, but that doesn't mean I won't vote for them. Read theory if its cheating, please.

Just make sure to explain your argument with the least amount of jargon as possible. I'm not super familiar with many literature bases, but I think the best K debaters can explain their Ks without jargon. I've read some setterlism lit, some baudrillard, and I have some small familiarity with Lacan but I am by noooo means an expert. Like at all.

K affs

Im down. I wil vote for T/FW or the aff, just make sure your impact turn/response to T is clear and rooted in your affirmative.

KVK

Just makes sure to flesh out and explain your links.

I will vote on it, but please don't just scream jargon within jargon. Explain clearly why they don't meet, why their interp is bad for education etc.

Other Theory

Go for it, just don't go top speed when reading a wall of text or at the very least send me that wall of text. Please respond to opponents when engaging theory and don't just read your blocks.

Condo is good, but it could be bad if you are convincing

Miscellaneous

save the aliens plz

please be nice to each other.

LD is weird

Because of this I have decided my default is consequentialism/util unless you tell me otherwise

please have uniqueness in your disads

Patrick Tapia HS2 Academy

Catherine Terrace Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Sat February 10, 2024 at 3:42 AM CDT

TABROOM PARADIGM

As a judge, I am committed to addressing barriers to accessibility in debate.

EXPERIENCE:

I did high school Lincoln Douglas for 4 years, and JV Policy at the collegiate level (Trinity University) for 2 years until 2018 or so. I have experience judging policy, LD, PF, and some speech events. I judged tournaments in the Houston, Austin, and San Antonio areas from around 2015-2018, took a break, and have been regularly judging online tournaments since 2020. At this point in my judging career, I'd say I'm still very knowledgeable with the basics, but I'm less comfortable now with high-jargon arguments in policy and LD (see, theory in LD, K literature). Having good and clear voters is important to me - I'd say the best 2NRs/2ARs are the ones that write my ballot for me. Tell me why I should vote for you!

SPEAKER POINTS:

I judge speaker points based on how clearly you navigate the flow (sign post, please!) and how clearly you articulate your voters in the final speeches. No speaker points will be deducted for stuttering - so long as you sign post (tell me where you are on the flow), have good organization on the flow, and tell me what arguments I should vote on, you will get above a 29. You will get low speaks if your speech is disorganized, and lower speaks if you are rude to your opponent.

My scale is usually (but not always):

30-29.5: excellent sign posting, clearly outlined voters, very good round. 30s will write a well warranted ballot for me

29.4-29: mostly good sign posting, at times a bit unclear, but you did a generally good job.

28.9-: not enough sign posting, your speech was somewhat disorganized.

LD/POLICY:

SPREADING:

For policy: I will permit spreading evidence if all debaters in the round are okay with it – if you wish to spread (evidence only), please ask beforehand in front of all participating members. If you or your opponents do not want to spread, no reason is necessary, and I will not flow any arguments that are spread if your opponent and I have explicitly asked you not to spread before the round (these requests to/ not to should be made before the round - I will not drop debaters for spreading, but I always welcome spreading kritiks). Spreading can be an accessibility issue, and it is important to make our rounds respectful. Good debaters do not need to spread to win!

If all debaters agree to spreading, then you HAVE to slow down for tag lines – if it’s important and you want it on my flow, then you HAVE to slow down and provide emphasis. It's been awhile since I did debate, so I'm not fast to flow anymore - ESPECIALLY for final speeches, do not spread analytics if you want your arguments on my flow/ ballots. I cannot give you a good RFD if I cannot flow your arguments

For LD: Please do not spread (and if you do talk quickly, just do so with cards, not tags or analytics). These rounds are too short, and at this point in my judging career I miss too much in LD rounds with spreading - treat me like a traditional judge, and give me quality arguments, and you will win against opponents with blippy speedy arguments

EXTENSIONS:

When extending an argument, you must extend the warrant as well. A dropped argument is a conceded argument.

And - weigh your arguments!! If you are losing an argument, but you are winning another and tell me why that’s more important, I will be more likely vote for you. Weigh, weigh, and weigh some more!

FRAMEWORK:

I enjoy framework debates, but they usually aren't enough to win a round alone. Clearly weigh your winning offense through the winning framework - whether that’s yours or your opponent’s - and you will win

I evaluate the round by: 1 looking at the winning framework (ROB, standard, etc), 2 relevant voting issues/ offense, and lastly (and arguably most importantly) 3 weighing (tell me why your offense matters more)

KRITIKS:

Ks are okay, but make sure your arguments are clear. Especially if you're reading denser philosophy, be sure to explain it clearly - I'm good on stock Ks, but if it's high level/ complex, explain it to me like I'm a lay judge (and I generally recommend erring away from these in front of me)

PLANS/CPs/DAs:

Love them, and I especially enjoy a good comparative worlds debate. I am able to write the best RFDs for these debates

TOPICALITY/THEORY:

IN CX: Topicality is fine, I will vote for it if there is a clear violation and it's articulated well. I am not the biggest fan of Theory.

IN LD: TLDR: Treat me like a lay judge if you're running theory, please do not spread your theory debates - I will not be able to follow. It is best not to run theory in front of me

My longer response: I think that theory in LD is very different than theory in policy. I was never really into the technical aspects of theory, and my skills in being able to judge it have eroded over the years. If you want a good and coherent RFD from me stay away from theory, and probably stay away from T as well (though I am more willing to hear this). If you are running theory/T in LD, you cannot spread if you want it on my flow/ ballot - I will not be able to keep up. If you choose to run theory and spread in front of me, I will do my best to judge this, but I would encourage you to run any other arguments in front of me. Judge adaptation is an important skill to have!

PF:

Everything above applies! Some additional notes:

If you plan on speaking quickly/ spreading, then please make sure your opponents are comfortable with that before the round - I generally prefer it if PF rounds stay at a conversational pace, but if both teams want to speed up the speeches, that's okay.
PF is not policy/LD. Remember - one strong argument with good weighing is better than multiple poorly warranted ones - know how much time you and your partner have to commit to addressing all arguments in play. I am okay if you want to run more policy-like arguments.
In my experience, rebuttals should address all arguments, summaries whittle them down to the key arguments, and final focuses look at the voting issues. Again, I think the best final speeches are the ones that write my ballots for me!

MISC:

- Open cross is fine.

- I don't count flashing in prep, but keep this within reason.

- You are responsible for timing your own prep - I prefer to not have to keep time myself. Same with timing speeches - you are responsible for keeping track of your own time.

- If time is up, you can finish your sentence, but do not go significantly over. I do usually time speeches and will stop flowing when your time is up - if you're going towards 30 seconds over, this will reduce your speaker points.

- I will not vote on any morally repulsive arguments.

- Do not be rude. Debate is a competition, but we should respect one another and do our part to make this a welcoming educational environment.

- Weigh your arguments!! Generally speaking, you're not going to win every single argument in a round. That's okay. Win the most important argument, and tell me why it's the most important argument/ more important than the argument(s) your opponent is winning

COVID/ VIRTUAL DEBATING UPDATES:

- Please try to show up on time to rounds - that includes showing up to whatever "report time" or "check time" the tournament outlines. That being said - technical difficulties happen, and this will not factor into my RFD.

- If you think you'll be asking for evidence, collect emails/ create a Google Doc BEFORE speeches begin. No prep time is needed to share evidence, but try to be as quick as possible so that we can have an efficient round. Please get my email in round so I can be on the email chain. I think Google docs are the easiest and best way to share evidence

If you have any specific questions about my paradigm, feel free to ask me before the round begins! I am more than happy to clarify, and always appreciate when debaters read paradigms before rounds. Best of luck y'all, and have a great round!

Andrew Thong The Dalton School

Last changed on Sun January 28, 2024 at 5:51 AM EDT

hi! i debated pf in hs. toc '19! i was a former co-director for nova debate camp and go to uva now. i also coach ardrey kell VM and oakton ML. add me to the email chain: iamandrewthong@gmail.com

tl;dr, i'm a typical flow judge. i'm tab and tech>truth, debate however you want (as long as it does not harm others). for more specific stuff, read below

most important thing:

so many of my RFDs have started with "i default on the weighing". weighing is NOT a conditional you should do if you just so happen to have enough time in summary - i will often default to teams if they're the only ones who have made weighing. strength of link weighing counts only when links are 100% conceded, clarity of impact doesn't.

other less important stuff:

online debate: unless you're sending speech docs, please just make a shared google doc and paste cards there. i get it, you want to steal prep while waiting. but really, it's delaying tournaments and i get bored while waiting :( (you don't have to though, esp in outrounds - but i will be happier if you do)

also, if you're debating from the same computer, it's cool, just lmk in the chat or turn your camera on before the round so i know, because i usually start the round when i see 4 ppl in the room

speed is ok. i think it's fun. i actually like blippy disads (as long as they have warrants). but don't do it in such a way that it makes the debate inaccessible - drop a doc if your opponents ask or if someone says "clear".

whenever you extend something, you have to extend the warrant above all else.

defense is not sticky, but my threshold for completely new frontlines in second summary is super high. turns must be frontlined in second rebuttal.

new implications off of previous responses are okay (in fact, i think they're strategic), but they must be made in summary (unless responding to something new in final). you still need to have concise warranting for the new implication, just as you would for any other response.

i don't listen during cross - if they make a concession, point it out in the next speech.

weighing is important, but comparative and meta weighing are even more important. you can win 100% of your link uncontested but i'd still drop you if you never weigh at all and the opps have like 1% of their link with pre-req weighing into your case. don't just say stuff like "we outweigh because our impact card has x and theirs has y and x>y", but go the next step and directly compare why your magnitude is more important than their timeframe, why your prereq comes before their prereq, etc. if there is no weighing done, i will intervene.

i encourage post-round questions, i'm actually happy to spend like however long you want me to just answering questions regarding my decision. just don't be rude about it.

progressive arguments:

i will evaluate progressive arguments (Ks, theory, etc).

no friv theory, no tricks

i default to reasonability, RVIs, and DtD *if not told otherwise* - before you start e-mailing me death threats, this is just so teams can't read random new shells in summary unless they're going to spend the time reading warrants for CI and no RVIs - i prefer theory debates to start in constructive/rebuttal, and i'll be sympathetic to teams that have to make new responses to a completely new shell in summary or final focus

i'm less versed on Ks than i am theory. i can probably follow you on the stock Ks (cap, sec, etc), but if you're going to run high level Ks (performance, afropess, etc), i'll still evaluate them, but i advise you run them with caution, since i might not be able to get everything down 100%. it's probably best to make these types of Ks accessible to both me and your opponents (you should honestly just explain everything like i'm a lay judge, and try to stay away from more abstract phil stuff like epistemology/ontology/etc).

if you have any more questions, feel free to ask or e-mail me before the round!

Maria Valerio Skyhigh Debate Academy None

Sofia Vicente Skyhigh Debate Academy

James Wu Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Sun June 14, 2020 at 7:54 AM CDT

Debated for Washburn Rural, 2012-2016

Tl;dr: Mostly did policy, but you should debate how you're most comfortable. Speed is fine, but I'm not familiar with this year's topic so you should prob not go your absolute fastest. Prefer few, well-developed, smart args to a high quantity of shallower args. Very pro-topical affs/topicality. Fine for k's that prove the plan is a bad idea, meh for k's that do not. Framing issues are important. Buzzwords are bad. CLAIM WARRANT IMPACT. Dropped/conceded arguments are "true" but are not automatically "relevant." You still have to win an impact.

I believe debate is an incredibly valuable and life-transforming activity. For this reason, I take every round seriously – and I think you should, too. This means respect your opponents and each other. It’s ok to be assertive, but there’s a big difference between being confident and being rude.

I like: Rebuttals that paint a clear picture of what an aff/neg ballot means, Evidence comparison, Debaters who are funny/having fun, Warranted args/smart analytics, Well thought out strategies

Do not like: Reading args you don't really understand, Topicality=genocide, Death good, Ambush-y args like wipeout, General rudeness, Affs with shaky internal link chains (but if neg doesn't poke holes, I'll give aff the benefit of the doubt)

Case/Disads/Counterplans:

I've been a 2N my entire debate career. Most of my 2NRs have been the politics DA, topic DA, topicality, and the occasional kritik. My favorite types of debates are ones where the neg has prepared a specific strategy and is well-versed in the technicalities of the 1AC. I think the best neg teams can go for the squo and question the 1AC’s logic. For example – why does a collapse of one industry in the US mean the entire economy declines? Why does that mean global nuclear war? Deficits in the 1AC’s internal links are often underutilized by the neg on the case in favor of generic impact defense. Make sure to use your DA to turn the case at the impact and internal link level. This means impact calc is essential. Zero (negligible) risk is a thing. Not a fan of politics theory args. If the DA's so bad, beat it on substance, not on "the neg dropped intrisicness". These CPs are usually fine: PICs, Advantage, States. These are susceptible to theory: International fiat, consult/conditions/recommend, Word PICs. I can be convinced either way. Delay CPs are probably cheating. I can easily be convinced conditions and consult CPs are cheating, but having a solvency advocate helps. I'll reward you for specific CPs that are well-researched and prepared.

Kritiks:

I'm not well-versed in K literature. That doesn't mean I won't vote on it, you'll just need more explanation. I'm fine for generic or topic specific K's. I'm not great for complex/high philosophy K's. My biggest problems with K's are usually that the alt doesn't do/solve anything, the links are triggered by the squo, and most importantly they don't say the plan is a bad idea. If you decide to go for the K, make sure to explain your args very clearly to me. This means being explicit in how the alternative functions and how the alt resolves the links to the K and probably portions of the affirmative. Otherwise you will be susceptible to losing on the aff outweighs. I am not familiar with "K-tricks", so don't expect me to recognize your argument and vote on it absent a clear explanation. Weighing the aff is good - it is difficult for me to ever believe a framework which holds the aff to a perfect standard (in terms of epistemology, representations, etc) is one that is fair. Fiat is good - obviously voting aff doesn't usually cause change outside the round, but the notion of fiat allows for intellectually stimulating debates about the costs and benefits of public policy.

Framework/Topicality:

I have a very strong bias towards the need for a stable, predictable advocacy. K affs can gain a lot of leeway with me by being in the direction of the resolution and defending at least some links in the realm of topic literature. I am not a great judge for affs that have no resolutional basis. I usually default to competing interpretations – which is why I think T debates should be framed as two “counterplans” each with respective net-benefits (education, fairness, etc). Saying “depth over breadth” isn’t an argument – one of the hardest parts about going for T (and answering it), is making sure not to only explain the “link” but also implicate this in terms of terminal impacts (What does lack of education mean for debate? Why is that important? What impact outweighs the other, and why?). I think the best impacts to T are competitive equity and process-based education from deliberating with a well-prepared opponent. Both of those impacts are about the existence of a predictable topic as opposed to the merits of any particular topic. Limits are good.

Theory:

Don't particularly like theory debates because it's usually just reading blocks back and forth. I typically default to rejecting the argument and not the team. Conditionality is a potential exception to that rule. Theory should be impacted if you’re going for it – buzzwords aren’t enough for me to vote for your argument unless you explain it.

Good luck, have fun, and debate with heart. Feel free to ask me any clarification questions before the round.

Login to Tabroom

1st Annual Spring Scholarship Showdown

2021 — Online, MD/US

Public Forum Paradigm List

Judges