I am a parent judge with 5+ years of PF/LD/ Policy experience. Please consider me a Flay Judge.

• Speak as fast as you would like, but I will ask you to slow down if I cannot understand. No spreading please. I am fine with 15 seconds of grace time.
• Please be respectful of your opponents and give them a chance to speak. Do not keep interrupting or be rude or condescending. If not, I will drop your speaker points.
• Please do not read any form of progressive argumentation (theory, kritiks, etc.) as I cannot evaluate them and will not give you credit for them.
• Off-time roadmaps and sign-posting are encouraged. It helps me follow your debate better.
• My decision will be based on your contentions, evidence, rebuttals, impacts, summaries and weighing. I will evaluate all those on both sides to come to a decision.
• I like to see well-researched cases backed by strong and credible evidence. Please include me in the email chain to share cards as I like to review them as well.

Good luck and have fun!

- Be confident in round

- Be respectful of your opponents

- Please speak slow and clear

Parent judge with no prior experience.

Please be respectful and speak clearly.

Try to avoid using debate jargon and make sure to explain your arguments thoroughly, as anything that goes unexplained may not be taken into consideration.

I competed in Public Forum debate for a number of years at Loyola High School. Personally, I view debate as a game in which I look at arguments in an offensive/defensive structure. It is up to the debaters to define the rules of the game through framework, observations, etc. However, I also focus highly on real-world and logical impacts for arguments and certainly weigh the policy implications of any contention brought up in round.

Regarding speaker points, I focus on the overall flow of a speech, eye contact, posture, etc. I am fine with speed so long as I can clearly understand what is being said.

Pronouns: He/Him/His

Email: tjbdebate@gmail.com

I'd really appreciate a card doc at the end of the round.

About me

Debated in policy for four years at Damien High School in La Verne, CA. I had 5 career bids and I participated in the 2020 eTOC. I placed pretty well at some national tournaments and received some speaker awards along the way. I have worked as a judge and staff member at the Cal National Debate Institute. I was a consultant/judge for College Prep, and this is my first year as an assistant coach for College Prep.

I mostly think about debate like her. If you like the way she thinks then I probably think the same way.

Top Level

**** I will try my hardest to flow without looking at my computer so I suggest debating as if I have no reference to what is being read. Clarity is much more important than unchecked speed ****

Debate is a competition, but education seems to be the most intrinsic benefit to the round taking place. I believe that debates centered around the resolution are the best, but that can mean many different things. Debate is also a communicative activity so the first thing that should be prioritized by all the substance is the ability to clearly convey an argument instead of relying on the structure and tricky nature of policy debate.

The most important thing for me as a judge is seeing line-by-line debating instead of relying upon pre-written blocks. Drops happen and that is debate, but what I most hate to see are students reading off their laptops instead of making compelling indicts of their opponents' arguments off the top of their heads. Debate requires some reaction to unexpected things but I think that it enhances critical thinking and research skills.

When it comes to content, I sincerely do not have any big leans toward any type of argument. Just come to the round with a well-researched strategy and I will be happy to hear it. My only non-starters are arguments that promote interpersonal violence, prejudice toward any group of people, or danger toward anyone in the round. If those arguments are made, the offending team will lose, receive a 0 for speaker points, and I will speak with their coach. The safety of students is the number one priority in an academic space such as debate.

Thoughts on Specific Arguments Below:

Disadvantages: Impact calculus and Turns case/Turns the DA at the top, please. These debates are won and lost with who is doing the most comparison. Don't just extend arguments and expect me to just clean it up for you. I like politics DAs, but I want more comparisons of whose evidence is better and more predictive instead of just dumping cards without any framing arguments. Go for the straight turn. I love bold decisions that are backed up by good cards.

Counter plans: I am all about good counterplan strategies that have great solvency evidence and finesse. I have grown tired of all the nonsense process, agent, and consult counter plans, and while I will vote for them, I prefer to hear one that is well-researched and actually has a solvency advocate for the aff. Regarding theory, most violations are reasons to justify a permutation or to lower thresholds for solvency deficits, not voters. Consult CPs are however the most sketchy for me, and I can be convinced to vote against them given good debating.

Topicality: Love these debates, but sometimes people get bogged down by the minutiae of the flow that they forget to extend an impact. Treating T like a disad is the best way to describe how I like teams to go for it. Please give a case list and/or examples of ground loss. Comparison of interpretations is important. I think that the intent to exclude is more important than the intent to define, but this is only marginal.

Kritiks: Over time I have become more understanding of critical arguments and I enjoy these debates a lot. The alternative is the hardest thing to wrap my head around, but I have voted for undercovered alternatives many times. I think that the more specific link should always be extended over something generic. Extending links is not enough in high-level rounds, you have to impact out the link in the context of the aff and why each piece of link offense outweighs the risk of the aff internal link. I prefer that the negative answer the aff in these rounds, but I do not think it is impossible to win without case defense. The only thing that matters is winning the right framework offense.

Planless Affs: Performance 1ACs are great but there has to be an offensive reason for the performance. I won't vote on a dropped performance if there is no reason why it mattered in the first place. I prefer that these affs are in the direction of the topic, but if there is a reason why only being responsive to the resolution matters, then I am fine with it not being so. Framework is a good strategy, but I don't like voting on fairness, because I don't believe that it is a terminal impact. I believe that having a fair division of labor is important, but not because debate is a game. Debate has intrinsic educational value and both teams should be debating over how they access a better model of the activity. For the negative, I like it when teams just answer the aff method and clash over the effectiveness of the 1AC.

Conditionality: I think that up to 3 advocacies are fine for me. Anything more and I am more sympathetic to the aff. Don't get it twisted, if the neg screws up debating condo, I will vote aff.

Feel free to ask me anything before the round. Most importantly compete, respect each other, and have fun.

Yes, I want to be on the email chain - shabbirmbohri@gmail.com. Label email chains with the tournament, round, and both teams. Send DOCS, not your excessively paraphrased case + 55 cards in the email chain.

I debated 3 years of PF at Coppell High School. I am now a Public Forum Coach at the Quarry Lane School.

Standing Conflicts: Coppell, Quarry Lane

If there are 5 things to take from my paradigm, here they are:

1. Read what you want. Don't change your year-long strategies for what I may or may not like - assuming the argument is not outright offensive, I will evaluate it. My paradigm gives my preferences on each argument, but you should debate the way you are most comfortable with.

2. Send speech docs. I mean this - Speaks are capped at a 27.5 for ANY tournament in a Varsity division if you are not at a minimum sending constructive with cards. If you paraphrase, send what you read and the cards. Send word docs or google docs, not 100 cards in 12 separate emails. +0.2 speaks for rebuttal docs as well.

3. Don't lie about evidence. I've seen enough shitty evidence this year to feel comfortable intervening on egregiously bad evidence ethics. I won't call for evidence unless the round feel impossible to decide or I have been told to call for evidence, but if it is heavily misconstrued, you will lose.

4. Be respectful. This should be a safe space to read the arguments you enjoy. If someone if offensive or violent in any way, the round will be stopped and you will lose.

5. Extend, warrant, weigh. Applicable to whatever event you're in - easiest way to win any argument is to do these 3 things better than the other team and you'll win my ballot.

Online Debate Update:

Establish a method for evidence exchange PRIOR to the start of the round, NOT before first crossfire. Cameras on at all times. Here's how I'll let you steal prep - if your opponents take more than 2 minutes to search for, compile, and send evidence, I'll stop caring if you steal prep in front of me. This should encourage both teams to send evidence quickly.

PF Overview:

All arguments should be responded to in the next speech outside of 1st constructive. If is isn't, the argument is dropped. Theory, framing, ROBs are the exception to this as they have to be responded to in the next speech.

Every argument in final focus should be warranted, extended, and weighed in summary/FF to win you the round. Missing any one of these 3 components is likely to lose you the round. Frontlining in 2nd rebuttal is required. I don't get the whole "frontline offense but not defense" - collapse, frontline the argument, and move on. Defense isn't sticky - extend everything you want in the ballot in summary, including dropped defense.

Theory: I believe that disclosure is good and paraphrasing is bad. I will not hack for these arguments, but these are my personal beliefs that will influence my decision if there is absolutely no objective way for me to choose a winner. I will vote on paraphrasing good, but your speaks will get nuked. I think trigger warnings are bad. The use of them in PF have almost always been to allow a team to avoid interacting with important issues in round because they are afraid of losing, and the amount of censorship of those arguments I've seen because of trigger warnings has led me to this conclusion. I will vote on trigger warning theory if there is an objectively graphic description of something that is widely considered triggering, and there is no attempt to increase safety for the competitors by the team reading it, but other than that I do not see myself voting on this shell often.

I think RVI's are good in PF when teams kick theory. Otherwise, you should 100% read a counter-interp. Reasonability is too difficult to adjudicate in my experience, and I prefer an interp v CI debate.

K's/Non-Topical Positions: There are dozens of these, and I hardly know 3-4. However, as with any other argument, explain it well and prove why it means you should win. I expect there to be distinct ROBs I can evaluate/compare, and if you are reading a K you should delineate for me whether you are linking to the resolution (IMF is bad b/c it is a racist institution) OR your opponents link to the position (they securitized Russia). I think K's should give your opponent's a chance to win - I will NOT evaluate "they cannot link in" or "we win b/c we read the argument first".

I will boost speaks if you disclose (+0.1), read cut cards in rebuttal (+0.2), and do not take over 2 mins to compile and send evidence (+0.1).

Ask me in round for questions about my paradigm, and feel free to ask me questions after round as well.

Graduated from La Salle College Preparatory in 2021

Attending Hawai'i Pacific University studying History and competing casually in British Parliamentary debate here.

Went to TOC in 2020 in Public Forum

I am a flow judge. I will vote on the cleanest issue on the flow in the round so try not to waste your time on things that have gotten too muddled throughout the round. I ran K's and theory in high school in Public Forum so if you know how to introduce that into the round correctly I am totally in support. However, don't try to run a K or theory without basis and in out rounds make sure that is something all your judges will both understand and be willing to vote for.

The easiest thing to vote off is weighing in a round. If you do not weigh your arguments I have no idea how to evaluate or vote for them. I debated on the Nat Circuit Level frequently so I am fine with speed. Please ask questions and you are welcome to postround as long as its helpful.

Hi! I'm Brian, and I'm a student at Cypress College. I've had 3 years of experience in Highschool IE's (Impromptu, Extemp, Duo), and I was my school's Impromptu/Extemp Captain for 2 years. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me before your rounds! I have been doing debate for 3 years in my high school and I am comfortable with LD, I have also judged college debate for my 2nd year of college, judging PF, Exempt, and LD.

Golden Rule: Be nice to your opponent. Not too aggressive, not mean, treat each other with respect. If I see you are not being nice, I will lower your speaker points.

Also, a quick preface to this paradigm. I know it seems scary that it's so long, and I'm not here to intimidate you, I just find it fun to have a long paradigm full of references and humour, in an effort to lighten the situation (and make me look more knowledgeable HAHA). If this is scaring you, I promise that is not my intent; I'm not a scary guy (or at least, I try not to be lol). Now, read on :)

A Brief TL;DR Of This Excessively Long Paradigm

Nah, no TLDR. It's your round, make sure you read and understand everything, and please ask me if you don't. I suggest listening to Writer in the Dark by Lorde while you read this.

A Tad About Me

Hey, I'm Vivek! I'm currently a college student, and previously served as PF Captain for Mountain View-Los Altos Speech and Debate (los altos >>). I'm a massive Taylor Swift fan (like my top played artist in 2020 AND 2021 oop), which makes me sound very basic, I'm aware. In my free time, I enjoy watching TV, going on car drives, eating, spending time with friends, etc. I'm excited to see y'all debate (I may scroll through Reddit if I'm bored, jkjk); below is a (very) comprehensive paradigm on what you should be doing to tailor to my preferences.

Also, my pronouns are he/him.

Lying

Look..... just don't lie. I used to have a whole paragraph here about not lying, but honestly, if you've made it this far, you know how bad lying is. If you're going to win, do so the right way.

Spreading

Do not.

Signposting

Do! I need to know where to flow.

Off-Time Roadmaps

Oh god yes please. So helpful.

Crossfire

Just answer your questions well and ask good questions. Don't give like super long answers, because that wastes the crossfire time for me and your opponents. If you want to elaborate, do so in your upcoming speech. At the same time, I don't flow crossfire, so even if you don't do so great, that will only be reflected in speaker points, not in my ballot.

Framework/Standard

If you do not list a framework, I will use your opponents'. Please list one, or you may end up regretting it.

Impacts

This is important, list your impacts, it helps me know who is helping the most people in the rounds. It doesn't necessarily need to be quantified, but it could be helpful for magnitude weighing.

Weighing

Taken from the paradigm of Daniel Fernandez.

Don't just make arguments and respond to your opponent's arguments; invest time to explain why the arguments you make the matter more than the arguments your opponent makes. The earlier you start and the more often you bring up your weighing, the better!

One note on weighing: I would advise teams against saying that their arguments are more likely than their opponent's arguments because the strength of weighing comes from the ability to accept your opponent's argument as true and still win the debate by demonstrating why your own argument matters more. When you argue that your argument is more probable than your opponent's, you put the added burden on yourself to win their case because you need to win a reason why their argument is not true or improbable. You should always seek win-win the debate by winning the fewest amount of arguments.

Extend

Extend your cases and refutations all the way through Final Focus so I know you didn't drop anything! If you drop something, I probably will not consider it in my final delegation. I once lost an eliminations round at Berkeley because I didn't extend one point in summary :( ......so, extend!

Speed/Pacing

I'm fine if you want to go fast, just don't go super-duper spready fast (spreading = bad. sry policy and LD!). Also, have a constant pace, don't speed up and slow down - time management!! Plus, speak clearly! If I can't understand you, then I might drop your point by mistake!

Arguments

Just don't be offensive, and also run creative arguments! Feel free to run squirrelly arguments. Plus if you make me laugh (yay!) I will probably raise your speaker points. :)

Evidence

Some may dislike me for this (myself included), but for evidence, I follow Charles Schletzbaum's preferred rule - NSDA Public Forum Rule #7.1B. In accordance with this rule, please have the author's name and date, along with their agency (ex. for Adrian Jones from the Mayo Clinic in 2013 should become "Jones 13"). I may call for cards, so be ready for that, and don't have any sketchy/shady evidence (debate math discussed below).

Debate Math

Eh. I used plenty of sketchy debate math myself throughout my debate career, so I can't really fault you for this one. Just make sure it makes sense in context of the actual world, and that you have the statistics to back it up.

Speaker Points

Taken from the paradigm from Christian Jochi Vasquez :) :

My average is a 27 for the losing team and a 28 for the winning team. I think speaker point inflation is pretty ridiculous these days. A 30 to me means that there is nothing I can critique about your speech and it was perfect [Vivek's edit – look for ways to improve speaker points below]. Somethings that can help you with getting a higher score:

A) Voting issues, not just blind extensions. Talked about this a bit up above. I want to hear real weighing in the round, and that means actually applying some form of calculus to the arguments. I think categorizing arguments into broader issues allows you to do this. Feel free to prove me wrong though, and I mean that sincerely.

B) I like clever lines of questioning. In PF this is a little bit more difficult to do, since crossfire is double-sided but I think it can still be done. You're never going to get a good opponent to concede some major point by just blatantly asking if they're wrong. Rather, asking small questions that build up and setting a trap is not just strategic, but makes me impressed as a judge

C) Jokes. I like to laugh and smile, but lately a lot of rounds have done the opposite for me.

Fun ways to get better speaks (for a maximum of 29.25 points - the rest must be from your actual speaking) :)

Firstly, I'd like to preface this section by saying that I want to make debating less stressful for you, and more entertaining for me. Therefore, I include this section, because it's so much fun to hear y'all's amazing references and stuff - please try to include like at least one reference to a show/movie listed below, because it's fun for everyone and makes the atmosphere just generally more comfortable. As a debater, I have never had a judge give me the option to reference entertainment I like (and believe me, there have been a lot of situations where I could have) - I want to be the judge that gives you a creative platform, so while the debating aspect is still pretty serious, you can also have a bit of fun with it :)). (note: obviously try to be tasteful where you say it, not in a random sentence about poverty and starvation in some part of the world or something lol)

- Puns in speeches (but NOT in contention titles): +0.25 speaker points

- Incorporate the first line of "All Star" by Smash Mouth into your rebuttal or summary in a way that makes sense: +1 speaker point.

- Reference one of these (and it must be a clear reference, I suggest making analogies to situations. It cannot just "Aang said 'war' once and so did I," have something tangible. And feel free to ask me for a review on any of these, I will let you know if it's good or not): + 1 speaker point:

(*clears throat*)

ATLA; LOK (omg the ending, my heart <3); MCU (including Deadpool (1&2), AOS, Daredevil, MCU Disney+ shows; ps Daredevil is amazing); Breaking Bad/El Camino/BCS (but not s5 of bcs); DCEU (including The Flash, Arrow(s1), Doom Patrol, Gotham, Lucifer, Peacemaker); Michael Schur Universe (The Good Place, The Office, Parks & Rec, B99); Dan Harmon shows (Community, Rick and Morty); The Umbrella Academy; Star Wars (including Clone Wars, Rebels, Mandalorian, BOBF); most things Disney (ask for clarification); Disney Channel Shows! (GLC, DWAB, A&A, L&M, Jessie); Stranger Things; Kim's Convenience; NBA stuff in general; Any Harry Potter movie/books; Literally anything Rick Riordan; Crazy Rich Asians (one of my all-time fav movies, and the books are solid too); legit anything Taylor Swift (omg my fav, like....champagne problems? paper rings? illicit affairs?? we stan!! lmk if you want recs); also anything Ben Platt, he ruled my high school junior year (what is it with sad music and junior year? hmm); The Last Dance; Columbo; Once Upon a Time; New Amsterdam; Johnny English (any of the three films, but preferably #2 because that's my favorite oop); Die Hard (1,2,3,4); Feel Good (PG please); Bridgerton (I caved into the trend oop, and probably lost a few hundred braincells because of that); Rocky (1,2,3,4,5,6); Creed (1&2); The Karate Kid (I,II,III); Cobra Kai (ahh i love this show); The Queen's Gambit; You. Basically, you've got options here. It's an easy speaker point. Do it. Please. Make me laugh. I am starved for entertainment (and, yes, I see the irony).

- Rap your summary/final focus: 2 speaker points

Get 30 speaks 101

There are two ways to get a 30:

1. Roast your opponent's case. However, not just a simple, boring roast, it needs to be a really unique, brutal comment. Again, DO NOT attack your opponent personally in any way – I would never advocate for that. If you're going to attempt this, go for their arguments. Also, I decide whether your roast is 30 points-worthy.

Theory/Kritiks

Hmmm, theory and K's and similar stuff are very interesting, but I have no real idea on how to weigh them in context of the round lol. I completely understand Abigail Spencer's gender K, and do agree that is a problem in public forum; if such a situation (or other situations with similar severity) arises, definitely feel free to address it. However, don't run theory or a K just for the fun of it, as it will probably backfire on you. If there really is a legitimate reason to run the K or the theory, then of course I encourage it, but if not, then just don't.

Disclosure

Eh. As a competitor, I understand wanting a judge to disclose. Therefore, I will try my best to disclose; however, if I'm just not feeling it, I may not disclose, and that's no reflection on your abilities to debate, I'm probably just having my own personal reservations to doing so (which can and will be influenced by numerous external factors, not limited to the round).

Non-PF rounds

If I'm judging you in Parli, LD, or Policy, I probably have no clue how to judge your round lol. Parli, I can get by (preferably keep the theory to a minimum). For LD I can also sort of understand, but weighing the morality aspect of the round can be confusing, as PF doesn't have anything like that. Policy..... I have no clue mate. I just hope that nobody assigns me policy rounds (hint hint tab).

Extra! (Though probably also helpful to read)

Don't title your contentions with something punny, like "Big Bad BRI" (from the BRI topic in Septober 2019). As much as I like puns, preferably not in your contention titles, as I want to know what the contention is about. If you can find other places to incorporate puns/jokes, then feel free to do so!

Also, please don't start your speeches with "I'd like to thank the judge for this round, I'd like to thank my opponents yadda yadda yadda" because it's so, so, so infuriatingly pretentious.

For all intents and purposes, I am a flow judge, but definitely also go for lay appeal lol. While I generally don't vote based on perceptual dominance, instead on your arguments, it does unconsciously factor into my decision (I am human, after all).

You can probably count on me having some background information on the topic, but it will definitely not be anything specific; now that I'm no longer debating, I don't have the proximity to these topics, and I'm not really staying updated about the Baltic States or the South China Sea in my free time.

I may have already added this somewhere, but I'll reiterate it here. I support sticky defense, but that is only if the evidence/argument has gone unresponded to by your opponents by the end of the round. Sticky offense is not a thing; please extend.

Watch this. It is so cute.

And at some point, please read this. It was written by a good friend of mine, and points out some very interesting points on debate itself. And on that note, please treat sensitive issues as sensitive issues.

I'm going to leave you with a life tip (which implies that I've lived long enough to experience much more than you all, which really isn't true, but whatever heh). Public Forum Debate is one of the most interesting, inclusive, and exhilarating activities I have ever done. I gained an entire second family here, one I conversed with daily and trusted with all of my heart. Public Forum will always hold a special place in my heart, and nothing could change that. That said, competition often transforms debate into a very toxic atmosphere to be in. Treat each other with respect and just be polite. While this is an important point for debate, the real world is a very toxic place as well - just try to be the nice person. Everybody is going through something: maybe their parents are having a divorce, their grandfather just died, they just broke up from a long-term relationship. Don't add to their internal problems. In rounds, debate your hearts out, but do not go for any personal attacks. Don't say anything that can be perceived offensive, including acting homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anything of the sort. At that point, I will drop you if you're actively contributing to debate's toxicity. Just be nice.

Note for 2020-2021 and 2021-2022 season of debate. Please do not sit with your partner, on the same screen, together (AKA not social distancing). Not only is it not safe for you and your partner, it's just annoying because there are so many teams that get disadvantaged for taking the proper safety precautions.

With that, good luck everybody.

Background: I am a 4 year former high school debater competing in the West Virginia, Pittsburgh, and National circuits. I am a strong proponent of a student run round (keeping track of your speech time, prep time etc.) (Please, unless you are the one speaking do not use a timer that is going to create any sound at the end of time.) That being said, the judge is the arbiter of the round. While I encourage discussion and asking questions, please be respectful to both the judges and your competitors. If I am alone judging, I will make the final decision about an given issue, and if I am on a panel of judges, I will yield to their opinions unless my input is needed. During my debate experience I found that nothing bothers me more than disrespectful, condescending, and rude debaters. Now as a judge, being one of the aforementioned competitors is a guaranteed way to lose points and/or the round.

Public Forum:

1. Speed- When it comes to speaking in Public Forum, I have no preference as to how fast you speak. As long as you are coherent, you can speak at whatever speed you'd like. Spreading does not bother me, though I do often find that spreading overall weakens the points you are trying to cover.

2. Argumentation- When it comes to argumentation in public forum, I like when competitors weigh impacts or their contentions. A well developed contention is great, but if I don't understand how it impacts the world I live in, it doesn't hold a lot of weight. I prefer empirical arguments rather than theoretical and hypothetical, though if both teams decide to argue this way, I will not object. I think the stronger side is not only the one that extends their case, but who also refutes their opponents case and their arguments in response to their case. I think the best use of the summary speech is to respond to the opponents rebuttal, and save the key issues and weighing for the final focus. I will vote solely on what you tell me to, but if I am not presented with issues to vote on, my decision will ultimately come down to who wins more individual points.

3. Evidence- Paraphrasing in PF is okay, but you must provide the source. If you don't cite your source, the evidence will only be upheld if the other team doesn't clash or provide different evidence. All evidence has to be accessible to your opponents (and to me should I call for evidence after the round). Give evidence in an efficient manner. I won't start your prep time on reading evidence until your opponents hand it to you and you start reading and I'll stop your prep when you stop reading. I usually won't call for evidence after the round, but if the context or validity of a source are important to the debate, that evidence should be readily available for me to see after the round has concluded. If your evidence is called for, and you cannot provide it, any arguments that are based on or supported by the evidence will be automatically dropped.

4. Format- Please do signpost(roadmap) before any extemporaneous speeches so I know exactly what I will be listening to. You may do this offtime, so that the time of your speech can focus on content. You may time yourselves, but I will stop flowing once your time is exhausted.

Crossfire- I don't flow cross, but I will listen. If something important is said, be sure to bring it up in a later speech.

If you have any other questions about judging preferences, please ask me before the round starts.

Yes I want to be on the email chain mattconraddebate@gmail.com. Pronouns are he/him.

My judging philosophy should ultimately be considered a statement of biases, any of which can be overcome by good debating. The round is yours.

I’m a USC debate alum and have had kids in policy finals of the TOC, a number of nationally ranked LDers, and a state champion in Original Oratory while judging about a dozen California state championship final rounds across a variety of events. Outside of speech and debate, I write in Hollywood and have worked on the business side of show business, which is a nice way of saying that I care more about concrete impacts than I do about esoteric notions of “reframing our discourse.” No matter what you’re arguing, tell me what it is and why it matters in terms of dollars and lives.

Politically, I’m a moderate Clinton Democrat and try to be tabula rasa but I don’t really believe that such a thing is possible.

I have been a judge associated with Notre Dame High School since 2018 as my older sister is the director of speech and debate there. Tournaments I have judged include invitationals and state qualifiers. My experience includes debate events such as public forum and Lincoln-Douglas, as well as interpretative, oratory and extemporaneous speech events. My debate judging style focuses on the value criteria of net benefit or maximizing welfare. If I feel the proposal would potentially do more harm than good compared to the status quo, I would vote for the negative. If the proposal seems to be more beneficial compared to the status quo, I would vote for the affirmative.

My kids wrote this for me: I'm an experienced parent judge who has been judging for 5 years. I like turns (sometimes I'm even ok with impact turns), weighing and impacts. I hate bad evidence, and will call for cards if I think evidence is suspicious.

I'm familiar with some jargon, but not all of it. I don't really know how to evaluate theory or K's. Please be civil during cross. I do understand the flow, I just don't use jargon to describe it. I will know if you dropped something. FF matters a lot to me.

Hi! I am a lay judge.

I dislike spreading and value interacting with your opponent's arguments well.

Hi all! I am the Head Coach of Speech and Debate at Pinecrest High School in North Carolina. I am a former extemper with pretty deep knowledge of the happenings in the world.

LD & PF

--I am fine with speed, but remember with speed comes the risk I won't get it on the flow. If you see me stop typing/pen is no longer writing/I am staring blankly at you, consider that your cue to slow down.

--Make sure to differentiate your sourcing. Authors' last names are great, but tell me where the source comes from first. John Doe from the Council on Foreign Relations in 2022 sounds better than Doe 22. After that, you can refer to the source as CFR or Doe and I'm good on what you are referring to.

--Please weigh. Please. You have to do this in order for me to be able to determine a winner.

--Respect. Respect your opponents, partner (if in PF), self, and the host school. Competitive debate is a great activity; but you must maintain some sense of decorum throughout your time in the round.

Congress

--When you go to an in-house recess to determine splits, or inquire as to why no one is speaking, you have done yourself and your fellow competitors a disservice by not being prepared. Please avoid this as much as possible.

--I'm fine with rehashing arguments to a point, but you need to add more evidence to support this rehashed point. Something niche and unique that can catch the opposing side off guard.

--Presiding Officers: thank you for volunteering to run the chamber. Please only defer to the parli when you are unsure of certain procedure.

Hello all!

I competed public forum and speech in both the CHSSA and NSDA circuits for four years.

In debate, I think it is integral that you show your competitors respect. Do not be rude or condescending towards one another and do not yell over one another.

I prefer to judge rounds where competitors do not spread. Also I appreciate rounds where students clearly pronounce their words and have descent speaking skills overall.

Oftentimes the feedback I give will include holes within an argument or a piece of evidence I think you can include. I like when debaters have quality sources with solid analysis. That being said, I do not judge what could have been said only what actually was said. Plus, I flow throughout the debate.

I prefer a simple structure in the debate. There is no need to make things overly complex and convoluted.

I’m a parent judge who has judged PF for four years. This paradigm was influenced by my son. I flow important points throughout the round.

Preferences:

1. Have both warrants and impacts backed up by evidence in your case. Carry them through the round if you want me to vote on them.

2. Do comparative weighing in summary AND final focus, this is important. Don’t use buzzwords.

3. If you want me to vote on an argument, it must be in summary AND final focus.

4. Don’t speak too quickly. If I can’t understand you, you  won’t win my ballot.

5. Be respectful, especially in crossfire, or  I will dock speaker points.

6. No new arguments in final focus, they will not be considered. Bring them up earlier in the round so your opponents can respond to them.

7. Have all evidence ready to show your opponents. Don’t take too long when evidence is asked for..

8. Signpost throughout your speeches. This also includes short offtime roadmaps. It makes it much easier to flow.

9. Clearly explain your arguments in each speech, do not just assume I have a prior understanding of every argument. I do some reading on the topic before the tournament, but I am by no means an expert.

10.  Don’t run progressive arguments (Ks, theory), I don’t know how to evaluate them.

Speaker Points (adjusted based on division):

<26: Very poor OR offensive, rude, tried to cheat, etc.

26-26.9: Below Average

27-27.9: Average

28-28.9: Above Average

29-29.5: Great

29.6-30: Amazing

Quick TLDR - I vote off the flow to the best of my ability. I value quality of argumentation over quantity, please collapse, warrant, and make it OBVIOUS in Sum and FF who is winning (weighing, point out drops, concessions - this is gonna be one of the biggest things I look at). With all that said, come in with your amount of experience, and I will evaluate you fairly. Debate is a weird game, and not everyone has the same access to the tools "normalized." Don't worry, do your best, and know we are all here to learn.

Background: I am a recent graduate from Duchesne Academy, and I have been a second speaker in PF for three years. I debated on the local and national circuits and consider myself to evaluate rounds pretty technically. I also did speech on the local and national circuit, but you defs don't want me judging that.

Basic Judging Philosophy: I vote off of what is warranted, I prefer what is weighed. If you make a well-structured argument, then give me reasons to prefer your warranting over their warrants, and finally do weighing that COMPARES your impact to their impact, and tells me why yours is more important and WHY it's more important. Don't just say a buzzword like "scope" and move on.

Here are some more specific notes

- Jargon and Speed: Honestly, I can handle a fair amount of speed, just please don't spread. Also, its important to make sure you don't exclude your opponents from the round; spreading as a tactic to lose your opponents is really inconsiderate in my opinion. If everyone in the round is cool with jargon, I'm fine with it too.

- Evidence: Love it. Please note that I usually flow ideas, not card names, so feel free to extend your evidence but make sure you extend what the evidence says. Please make sure evidence is exchanged quickly- if it isn't, speaker points will be dropped. Citations are needed, and at a minimum must be an author and a date, but more information is always better. Feel free to go after poor-quality evidence in round, I love a good indict (always exciting).

- Topic Knowledge: (tailored for the Beyond Resolved Tournament) - I am going to be honest, I don't know much about this topic. I will do my best to inform myself on the basics before your round, but you really need to pretend I don't know anything. I can pick info up quick so explain it effectively and you'll be fine. :D

- Rebuttal: Pretty short here. I think 2nd rebuttal should defend case. Disads in first rebuttal are cool. Second rebuttal they are sketchy. Make sure you tell me where you are on the flow, and I reeeaaallly like numbering your responses to things, it makes flowing easier for everyone.

- Summary: This is a hard speech; I have no idea how my partner Danielle did this. I expect you to reiterate and defend your case with warrants AND extend responses on your opponent's case while still weighing. I don't care how you structure it so long as it is logical for me to follow. First summary I will be a little more lenient towards, but you still need the previously mentioned things at a minimum. YOU HAVE TO COLLAPSE IN SUMMARY. Make a few, strong arguments and win them, and you will win my ballot. Weighing should be in second summary.

- Final Focus: Mirror the summary speech, collapse and warrant your few arguments even harder. Don't make new arguments or new weighing metrics, please. Warrant and weigh what you have to work with and you'll be fine.

- Crossfires: I won't be flowing them, I might listen in, but if you get an important concession, mention it in a speech! Debaters are bound to what they say in crossfire, so don't lie. Remember to be kind; I take note of that intensely!

Theory/Kritiks: I am not very well versed in T/K; I wouldn't do it infront of me tbh. Sorryyyy!

Decorum: Please be nice; it shouldn't be hard. I'm not flowing cross, and I frankly don't value it that highly, so please don't turn it into a screaming match - instead, try to get valuable/strategic info out of it. If you are rude, racist, sexist, homophobic, or take another obviously unacceptable actions, I will 100% drop your speaks as low as I can and, depending on the infraction, it will affect my decision. So please, be kind. Debate is stressful, don't make it harder than it has to be.

Speaks: Honestly, the idea that public speaking skills should be valued excludes people from the debate space. I will give speaks solely off the quality of the argumentation you make in your speeches and your ability to signpost so it is easy for me to follow you on the flow. If you are one of those people who are "dominant in cross" and are rude to your opponents, I will drop your speaks (not joking). In short, the best debaters with the best structure will get good speaks, not the best speakers.

Experience: I am a senior at the University of Iowa where I study political science, international affairs, and philosophy. I was a competitor in public forum for 6 years and was the collegiate national champion in 2018. I have experience and working knowledge with all speech and debate events. I have previously coached in Des Moines, Iowa, and for NSDA China. I am currently unaffiliated with any team, school, or individual competitors.

PF: I value accessibility. Public forum ought to be an event that is able to be understood by any member of the public. Clear, concise communication at a reasonable speed is expected ie conversational. I WILL DROP YOU IF YOU TRY TO SPREAD. Each team will be given one warning on speed in the form of a dropped pen or calling out “Speed.” If spreading/speed persists after the warning I will immediately drop the team with the most violations. (If both teams accumulate one violation in their respective constructive, the next team to violate will be dropped.) I will flow cross-examination if you make important points. I value complex arguments and respectful clash. Being rude in my rounds is a great way to lose speaker points and a round.

Important things:

- If at all possible, I would like to start rounds early. I understand that's not always possible or teams need to prep, so I'm just appreciative if we do start early. No problem if you need to take your time though.

- While in evidence exchange, I expect all students to have their hands on screen and mics unmuted to ensure that time is not used for prep.

- Summaries should SUMMARIZE the round.

- FF should Crystalize not line by line, give me impact calculus and weighing. Impact calc within every speech is most persuasive.

- Summaries and FF should have voters not line by line.

TL;DR, Be respectful, conversational, bring solid evidence and analysis to my rounds and you’ll do fine.

LD/CX: Pretty much anything goes. I absolutely prefer arguments that are directly resolutional (ie not a fan of certain Ks, love me some T and theory though) but if the debate goes a certain way, it is not my place to wrangle it. LARP is chill. On the rare occasion, I may ask you to slow down a little bit or clear you, but that will not be weighed against you. I'm almost always good with speed. I prefer competitors disclose to ensure flow clarity. I will flow cross-examination if you make important points.

Hello! :)

I'm a policy/ipda/parli debater in uni.

I vote based on how well you carry your arguments, if you answer/drop/kick arguments. Did you answer your opponents? Does your arguments outweigh or have stronger points? Do you argue why your side is better? Did you clash with your opponents and show your side to be a better choice for me to vote on? (BTW Creating a narrative/story with your evidence/cards in your rebuttals is also nice cause it strengthens your side. It's more visual and emotional hence more persuasive.)

--------------------------

Preferences:

- Have a road map and sign post -

clear road maps and sign posting = better understanding of what arguments are being used = clear flow = higher chance of your win

_______________________________________________________________

- Can spread, but emphasis your main points (slow down, deliberately tell me, repeat it a few time, etc.) -

by emphasizing a certain point, you give it value and in turn I give it value and know what you want to argue for. makes your point clear and understandable so I can easily write it down in my flow

_______________________________________________________________

- Tag teaming is fine -

make sure you speak eventually since cx is a part of your speaker points. I can't evaluate speaker points properly if I don't hear you in both speeches and cx. (example: if you mumble a speech and don't really participate in cx, it generates a lower score then mumbling a speech and participate in cx)

_______________________________________________________________

- Convince me as a judge -

go ahead and use logos, pathos, or ethos to try to convince me. talk to me as a judge on a one on one level, and tell me how to flow, explain important concepts, how to judge the debate, reason to prefer, or if you caught your opponents dropping something, being contradictory, or even rude. ultimately your judge has the final say on if you win or lose, so appeal to your judge

_______________________________________________________________

try not to say "is anyone not ready?" it's a very awkward phrase with bit of a negative connotation, but don't worry if you do say it, it won't really affect your speech score. it's just very weird to hear it and "is everyone ready?" is quicker

---------------------------------

Also be kinds to others. It's not fun being in a round where there is malice. No good judge votes based on who "wins" cx, so please don't yell or bully your opponents too much during cx.

See you in a round! (:

for email chains: nicolettaenciu@gmail.com

Leland High school 2021

Cornell college '25

Debated for 4 years for Leland, did ok. Mostly under the code "Leland FS" for those who want to stalk

Paradigm Stolen from Karsen Wahal:

How I vote:

1. Who is winning the weighing?

2. Who is winning a link into that weighing?

3. If no one is winning a link into any weighing, then I'll either find the best remaining offense, or, if none exists, presume whoever lost the coin flip (that'll be rare, though).

Tech > truth, but I'm probably marginally more inclined towards truer arguments.

I debated pretty quickly and I'm totally good with PF fast, but not policy spreading. If you do really want to spread for some reason, at least provide a speech doc.

Second rebuttal must frontline -- all turns must be frontlined and frontline the argument you're going for.

Weighing is the most important thing for me, and it's typically how I evaluate rounds. Give me warrants for your weighing and do clear comparisons (don't just use buzzwords).

Tell me why to prefer your arguments -- give me impact comparisons, link comparisons, evidence comparisons. If you do that effectively, you'll almost always win. Sidenote: Probability weighing is fake 95% of the time, but if you warrant it well, I'll buy it. If it's the only other weighing in the round, I'll probably also buy it.

Warrant everything. Don't just extend your impact, extend your whole argument.

Please collapse.

Logic is great -- evidence is better, but I'm more than willing to vote on well-warranted logical turns or defense.

If you do cooler weighing mechanisms than just scope/magnitude etc., you get bonus points.

Defense is sticky, but if defense is frontlined, it must be responded to in the next speech.

Signposting is important. Tell me how to vote in FF (treat me like a lay judge in your final focus).

I won't call for evidence unless a) it's contested in the round and it'll affect my decision or b) I just think it's interesting. But please don't misconstrue evidence: if it's really horrendous, I'll drop you for it. Progressive argumentation is fine, but I didn't run theory/Ks in high school. Run it at your own risk (I might not understand it at all).

Cross: I don't pay that much attention, and don't flow it, so if something important happens, tell me. I'll pay some attention though, so don't screw around too much.

Please time yourselves.

I appreciate humor.

Most importantly, don't be exclusive. To anyone. Period.

I'll almost always disclose. Feel free to ask questions.

I'm a lay judge please adapt.

I am a college student at uchicago. I did both speech and debate in high school, but mostly competed in public forum.

I am a flow judge but I still want you to take the time to explain your cards and ultimately why you're winning. Hearing your own words is so much more persuasive to me than listing off cards. You definitely don't have to talk slow but, if you're speed is preventing you from enunciating or completing sentences, I don't want it. PLEASE don't argue with me post-round unless an NSDA rule was broken/card issue/etc.

Quality > Quantity ; tech > truth

If your competitor is lying or overreaching, say something or I'll assume that you're fine with it and flow accordingly.

DO NOT BE RUDE TO YOUR OPPONENTS. If you choose to be rude/condescending/etc to an opponent, I will at best give a horrible speaker score and at worst vote against regardless of my flow.

Signposting is nice for me to keep up, but not necessary. In PF, if you drop frameworks or don't use them correctly then I will default cost-benefit. But I really like framework debates :)) In LD, you need to have a value and value criterion.

If you don't know technical terms/debate vocabulary, I won't think you're dumb for asking the other team to clarify or if you don't use any. It's more about the content of your evidence and lines of reasoning.

Always remember (for my judging):

- if you don't say it in a speech, I drop it. You don't have to frontline if you're speaking first though, that's fine to bring up later as long as it's not a new argument ofc

- don't tell me to extend things that have clearly been lost

- links are KEY to winning arguments. spouting off big numbers is not as persuasive to me as a concrete link to a potentially smaller impact

- Impact calc >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tell me WHY you have the best impacts!

Please contact me any time, including before or after our round, with any questions or comments: aricf@staff.harker.org.

Above all else: Treat the round as an educational experience, and your fellow participants as you would like to be treated. This means being reasonably kind in general, but also ethical within the debate. I may intervene, even when not asked to by the opposing team, if a competitor:

○ fabricates evidence, including disingenuous paraphrasing, or

○ employs hateful language, or

○ is disrespectful vis-à-vis trigger warnings for unexpected arguments (either neglecting to give one or, more rare, asks that a potentially-triggering argument is avoided as an act of strategy rather than legitimate self-care).

Background

○ PF and LD in high school (2011–2014), both events on the national as well as local circuits

○ Coached PF at the Champion Briefs Institute (now part of ISD)

○ Now an Assistant PF Coach at The Harker School.

The upshot: I have been in a lot of debate rounds, so I am comfortable with debate-specific jargon and can flow at most speeds (I will call "clear" if needed). Please know, though, that clarity can be a factor in speaker points.

Sign-posting is especially appreciated, as I keep a detailed flow and base my decision on it.

Winning My Ballot

My preference is to do as little work as possible, so tell me what to do: clear weighing of well-linked impacts within a well-established framework will go a long way. Try to anticipate the places in the debate where I have to make a non-obvious decision; if you give me reasonable instructions on how to make that decision, and the other team does not, you are ahead. I am open to almost anything that is sufficiently justified within the round, though the farther you stray from the resolution, the more you are inviting me as a judge to insert my own subjective views on reasonableness.

Things I wish I saw more of in PF:

○ Contextualize your impacts against the alternative(s). If you have a link to a small percentage decrease in the chance of, say, a famine, your impact is not that voting for you saves 100% of the death toll of said famine.

○ Be selective. For example, it's often not a great use of time to read turns and mitigation on the same argument. If the turn is strong, mitigation only hurts you, and if it's weak, why read it?

○ Be comparative. If you read a card that says something is true, and your opponent reads a card that says it is false, you need to give me reasons to prefer your argument to theirs. Do not just repeat your argument and insist that it is true without engaging in the clash.

Let's have fun!

I've been in debate for a little over a decade now as a high school policy debater, coach for numerous teams across multiple events, as well as professionally at the Bay Area Urban Debate League. Essentially, do what you want. Debate is a unique educational and competitive space, please make the most of it. I will vote on most things if you give me a good enough reason. I do not lean towards traditional or K/performative debate. Both are good and valuable. Again, do what you want. Have fun. Be nice to each other.

Go ahead and add me to whatever email chain: gabriel.gangoso@gmail.com

Flex prep is fine. In's and Out's are fine. Any other practices like this are probably fine. If you don't recognize these terms don't worry about them.

ADD ME TO THE EMAIL CHAIN: brian.gao@stern.nyu.edu

Hi guys! My name is Brian Gao (don't call me judge), and I'm an aspiring finance bro at NYU Stern. I did three years of PF and one year of LD, so I am relatively familiar with debate jargon and have experience with both events. That being said, I have not debated in a while, so no theory and nothing too technical. Everything else goes. I will vote off the flow.

Please speak clearly! Speed (to a certain extent) is okay, but also remember that I probably have no background on whatever topic you guys are debating, so don't expect me to pick up on everything you're saying (i.e. acronyms or topic-specific phrases) if you aren't going to explain them to me beforehand. Please signpost!

I was the self-proclaimed king of card dumping, but that being said, I also hated anybody who card dumped against me. I think it's okay if you do it, but please give some explanation before you give me another author's name and the year the card was published. If you're reading them as a group of responses, explanation at the end is also okay. Make sure to warrant your arguments as well.

Truth > Tech - don't give me some BS argument and expect me to buy it. If you think you're giving me an argument that's a bit out there, you better have some pretty good warranting behind it. You're not going to impress me with the fancy stuff you learned at debate camp because a) it's not fair to your opponents that didn't go b) I probably won't understand it and c) you sound pretentious.

My biggest pet peeve is miscut evidence, so if you think your opponents have some shady stuff, please call it out for me, and I will review it at the end of the round. If your evidence is miscut, I will drop you depending on the severity, and your speaker points will suffer.

LD Section: Everything written above applies. I enjoy util debates with good weighing that don't focus on unlikely impacts. Don't give me an argument like how writing this paradigm leads to extinction. Don't get too caught up in the value debate either - I'd much rather hear the substance of your arguments.

Now the fun part! I think debate gets taken a bit too seriously sometimes, so I will appreciate any humor that you can give in cases/cross/rebuttals. Clever introductions and taglines are encouraged! You will not win the round just by making me laugh, but I'll add some speaker points. If you wear any exotic clothing (I wore watermelon socks to every tournament), I will also be less critical with speaker points. Finally, I will also not complain if you cater the round once it is safe to do so.

I never took debate too seriously but still managed to do pretty well. I understand that you guys want to win, but please enjoy the moment. Your four years of high school and high school debating careers will be over before you know it, so live in the present. My favorite memory from debate is eating Fruit Loops out of the highly coveted bowl that my partner and I won at Harvard! I feel like I sound like an old man typing this, but I promise that you will feel the same way in a couple years.

If you're looking for some low-quality entertainment in between your rounds, my TikTok is @briangao59. I think all of my posts are great, but I am quite fond of the video of me imitating a seagull. I hope you are too.

Hugs and kisses,

Brian

Hey, my name is Sam! I debated on the GA circuit for 3 years and nationally for 2 (2014-2017), breaking even my senior year at ToC and Nationals. Since then, I have judged and coached for several programs. Weigh your arguments and their terminal impacts against your opponent's arguments and impacts in summary/final focus. Second-half cohesion is important, make sure the summary and final focus work well together. I will not vote off of anything that fails to be extended from speech-to-speech. I can follow most speeds you're used to, but please do your best to speak clearly. Be polite to each other and enjoy the learning experience: D.B.A.A!

Archbishop Mitty 18

Brandeis 22

Did pf for 4 years and a little bit of circuit ld

2008 Beijing gold medalist in Public Forum

contact my manager at rghoshal@brandeis.edu for any business inquiries

Tournaments are stressful, if you need to take a quick break and look at pictures of cute animals or something I will not hold it against you if you come late to round by a few minutes.

if you hit me up for flows of teams I have judged I will give general taglines but probably no more unless its some sketch stuff.

Preferences:

1. You and your partner must be astrologically compatible. My aura will detect if this isn’t the case and I will drop you.

2. If you incorporate Minecraft or League of legends into your speech/background ill bump up your speaks by 1.

3. If someone uses a framework in their constructive and never brings it up again I will bring out a nerf gun and shoot my camera multiple times.

4. If you do not weigh, I will base the round off of whether or not your vibes are right.

Actual preferences:

1. Don't go fast unless both teams are fine with it (same for K’s/Theory, this is pf).

2. I lean towards wanting second rebuttal to cover your side of the flow, but at the end of the day I won’t drop your case for not doing it.

3. First summary doesn't need to extend defense that is not responded to unless its also offense (turns).

4. Try to pause for a quick second after saying a tagline, a lot of teams go straight from a tag to a card and I sometimes will miss card authors or other important info if u do that.

5. Earlier u collapse the better, preferably in summary.

6. I like good evidence ethics, if both teams are down I am fine with making it so when both teams are looking at evidence it doesn't count towards prep time. That being said if the tournament is running late try not to spend too much time looking at stuff.

7. P L E A S E use cx educationally, I will not be flowing so use it to actually learn about how your opponents case works rather than trying to poke holes in it for the sake of looking good and making cross really boring.

8. I don't care if you tactically drop stuff, if u literally delink your entire case but extend turns ill vote for u. In fact you should probably not be going for everything and should be dropping some stuff, but then again I come from a time of 2 minute summaries so idk how stuffs changed.

9. I may call for evidence after round if its important and has been contested, this is online so idk if there's an email chain throw me on it

10. If u do not weigh I will assume you are calling me fat and be sad

11. Reread number 10

ask any other questions you have. This includes in the middle of the round I would rather you ask late than just guess what my preferences are.

here's a dope card: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1tCRQEPeJfypLTmdu3o4YX7YqmXoHrznLgT9g96Jcxqw/edit#heading=h.5t60pvwizdrn

Mike Girouard

Years involved in debate: 20+ (policy 20+years, PF 7yrs, LD 7yrs)

Coached at Baylor, Kansas State, U of Rochester, The New School, Augustana College, The Asian Debate League and several High Schools - Debated at Univ of North Texas

I hate people who try to pigeon-hole judges into fitting a particular mold or label them as hacks that only vote for certain args or certain types of arguments. That being said I would say that I feel as though I can judge and evaluate any kind of debate that you want to have. I have some feeling about args and I will discuss those more in detail below, but it’s important to keep in mind that when you debate in front of me you should be comfortable in yourself and your arg and you should be fine. Have the debate that you want to have, because in the end that will make it more enjoyable and educational for everyone involved.

One last caveat, as this year has progressed and with the transition to paperless debate I find myself calling for less and less evidence after the round. I feel as though you should be doing the debating in the round. If it is a question of what the card says or doesn’t say I will probably call for the evidence, but don’t expect me to piece together your argument by reading all of your evidence after the round. I feel as though this does a disservice to a team that is at least attempting to do the argumentation on the line-by-line.

Prep Time – my default is that prep time should stop when the other team is flashing their evid. That being said if there is blatant disregard for this or abusing of this I will revert to prep-time not ending till after the speech has been flashed and given to the opponents. Before this does occur I will say something in the round.

CP’s – I love a good PIC. I think it should be the burden of the Aff to defend every aspect of the plan and should have some defense of including it in the plan. I really don’t like to vote on theory, but I will if that is what you want the debate to be about. As far as perms go, use them as you like. Just justify your theory and your fine. If you are going for a CP in front of me keep a few things in mind: it must have a net benefit and some sort of DA to the perm, it doesn’t necessarily have to solve for all of the Aff, but you need to have something to answer the portions that you don’t solve for, you can have a critical net benefit if you like, just explain how it functions in relationship to the Aff and the advocacy of the CP.

DA’s – Not really a whole lot to say here. I like U cards to have some sort of a warrant. Debate the warrants in the round and don’t make me have to evaluate 15+ U cards to help settle that debate. I would prefer fewer cards with more warrants to help settle this problem. Make sure you are giving me some sort of impact calc in the last few speeches and weighing all the potential outcomes of the impacts (i.e. – even, if statements). If the aff reads a K of your impacts you have to justify them or you will probably lose that argument. I prefer scenarios with fewer and more warranted internal links as to avoid the proliferation of outlandish impact scenarios. Make sure there is a solid link and you are weighing everything in the last few speeches and you should be fine.

The K – I am open to most K’s. I don’t believe that Realism/Framework is the end all answer to the K. Try engaging in the arguments that are being run and you have a better chance of picking up the ballot in front of me. Arguments that question your representations or epistemological starting point are best answered by providing an offensive justification for your reps or your starting point. Just make sure you are explaining how you want me to evaluate your K in relationship to the Aff. What are the impacts, what are the implications, do you have an alt, and what is the link. Make sure all of these things are in the debate and you will be fine. I do find that most people don’t answer one fundamental question in these types of rounds: What is the role of the critic? Just answer or at least recognize that these questions exist and you should be alright.

Topicality – My default is that this debate should be about competing interpretations. You should attempt to answer the question: which interpretation is better for both this debate round and the community as a whole. This being said, if you don’t want me to evaluate it based on competing interpretations just make the arg and justify it with warranted args and you should be fine. If you are going for T in front of me you probably need to spend a little bit of time on it in the 2NR. I’m not saying that you have to go for T and nothing else, but I think it’s an arg that requires a little bit of time for you to adequately go for it. Things I look for in a T debate: Clear distinction between interpretations, warranted reasons for why your interp is better as well as why the other interp is bad, and the impact these have on not only the round but the community at large.

Theory – Not a big theory hack, but will vote on it from time to time, especially in instances of clear articulated in round abuse. Just make sure you are giving warranted reasons why your theory is legit, the specific abuse that has occurred and the impact of them being allowed to do what they did. That being said, theory should be more than just a whine, engage their args and make sure that you are at least answering their args. If you expect for me to vote on theory you should devote some time to it in the last couple of speeches.

Performance – I’m fine with different styles of debate. There are instances where you can ask me to not flow or be so “flogo-centric” and assuming there is a warranted reason why this is legit I will be alright. A few things to keep in mind if you do chose to do this in front of me: why is your method better than what exists now? why should it be preferred and what are the larger implications on the debate community? Just make sure you are attempting to at least perceptually engage the other teams args and you will be fine.

I coach for the College Preparatory School. I debated for two years for Bethesda-Chevy Chase HS. In my senior year I won Glenbrooks, the Strake Round Robin, Blake, Durham, the Barkley Forum, Stanford, Harvard, the King Round Robin, and NDCAs.

Add eli.glickman@berkeley.edu AND collegeprepdocs@gmail.com to the email chain. Please label email chains properly. Ex. "TOC R1 F1 Email Chain Bethesda-Chevy Chase GT v. AandM Consolidated DS."

TL;DR

Tech>truth. Weigh, give me good warranting, and speak as fast as you want. Defense is sticky; first FF may read some new weighing (NOT elaborate weighing… no overviews, prereq analysis, etc.). Extend your arguments with card names, warrants, links, and impacts in the back half. Weigh links and turns, defense, and pretty much everything else. Please read the evidence section of my paradigm and abide by those rules, they will be enforced.

DEBATE IS A GAME, PLAY TO WIN.

Tech>truth. I will vote for pretty much any argument as long as it's warranted well. have experience with traditional and progressive. I will vote on the flow.

How I Judge:

If my paradigm is unclear, my favorite judges were Will Sjostrom, Chad Meadows and Marcus Ellinas; anything PF-specific in their paradigms should give you a fairly good idea of how I hope to evaluate the round.

———PART I: SPEECHES———

Signposting:

This is essential; do it.

Cross:

I might listen but I won't vote off or remember anything said here unless it's in a speech. Don't be rude. Feel free to skip GCX if everyone agrees—both teams get 1min of prep.

Rebuttal:

Read as much offense/DAs as you want, just please implicate them on the line-by-line and weigh them. Second rebuttal MUST frontline terminal defense and turns, probably some defense too, but blippy NLs from the first rebuttal don't all need to be answered here.

Summary:

First summary only needs to extend turns but should also extend terminal defense if you have time. Defense is sticky, however, I’d prefer for the second summary to extend as much defense as possible. The only new turns or defense I’ll evaluate in summary are as responsive to new implications made by the other team.

Final Focus:

First final can do new weighing but no new implications of turns, or anything else UNLESS responding to new implications or turns from the second summary. Second final cannot do new weighing or new implications. Final focus is a really good time to slow down, treat me like a flay judge in these speeches and my decision becomes a lot easier.

———PART II: TECHNICAL STUFF———

Voting:

I default to util. If there's no offense I presume to the first speaking team. I will always disclose after the round. I can also disclose speaks if you ask.

Evidence:

—Evidence §1—

I will not accept paraphrased evidence. I treat paraphrased cards as equal in link strength to analytics. (You can make a theory argument as to why I shouldn't). If there are two pieces of competing evidence that will determine the round and both teams want me to look at it... I will almost always err on the side of the non-paraphrased evidence. Whether or not you paraphrase, YOU MUST have cut cards, if you don't I will cap your speaks at 27 and you should strike me (27 speaks cap does not apply for MSPF, NPF or JVPF).

—Evidence §2—

When evidence is called for, take less than 1 minutes to pull up the cards or it comes out of your prep.

—Evidence §3—

If you misconstrue evidence—you know who you are—and I find out, I will either drop you or give you the lowest possible speaks, depending on the severity of the misconstruction (I am more than willing to assign an L20 or below). If you catch your opponents misconstruing evidence, call it an independent voting issue (IVI) and I will treat this as a pre-fiat round-ending argument if the evidence is sufficiently misconstrued.

Email Chains:

Please label email chains adequately. Ex. "TOC R1F1 Email Chain Bethesda-Chevy Chase GT v. AandM Consolidated DS."

Whether or not the tournament is online I will require an email chain for every round, evidence exchange is faster and more efficient. If you are spreading or reading any progressive argument you must send a doc before you begin; otherwise, sending a doc will not be required.

Prep Time:

Don't steal prep or I will steal your speaks. Feel free to take prep whenever, flex prep is fine too.

Speech Times:

These are non-negotiable. I stop flowing after the time ends, and I reserve the right to scream "TIME" if you begin to go over. Cross ends at 3 minutes sharp, if you’re in the middle of a sentence, finish it quickly.

Speed:

I can follow speed (300wpm+) but be clear, if I can't understand what you're saying that means I can't flow it. I'd like a speech doc if you're going to go over 275 words per minute. Speed is good in the first half and bad in the second half, collapse strategically; don't go for everything. If you spread (300+ wpm) paraphrased cards there is no way you get above 27 speaks. If I miss something in summary or final focus because you're going too fast and I drop you it's your fault; slow down, don't go for everything, and be efficient.

Speaks:

Clarity and strategy determine your speaks. I disclose speaks as well, just ask.

Postrounding:

Postround as hard as you want, I think it's educational. Before you start make sure I've submitted your speaks.

Trigger Warnings:

I do not require trigger warnings. I will not reward including them, nor will I penalize the absence of them. This is informed by my personal views on trigger warnings (see J. Haidt and G. Lukianoff, The Coddling of the American Mind) This means that I will never opt out of an argument. I will not hack for trigger warning good theory; I am open to trigger warning bad arguments (though I will not hack for these either).

———PART III: PROGRESSIVE DEBATE———

I enjoy theory debate; I ran theory frequently. You do not need to ask your opponent if they are comfortable with theory; 'I don't know how to respond' is not a sufficient response. To quote my former partner, "don't put your kids in varsity if they cannot handle varsity arguments" (saying that is terminal defense against any 'idk how to respond' argument and will result in a 30 for whoever says it).

Preferences:

Theory/T - 1

LARP - 1

Kritik - 3

Tricks - 3

High Theory - 4

Non-T Kritik - 5 (Strike)

Performance - 5 (Strike)

Theory:

Yes, I think paraphrasing is bad and disclosure is good. No, I will not hack for either of these shells.

I really like theory. I think frivolous theory is bad. I'll evaluate it, but I have a lower threshold for responses the more frivolous the shell. Poorly executed theory will result in low speaks. If you've never run theory before, and feel inclined to do so, I'm happy to give comments and help as much as I can.

I default to competing interps and no RVIs. I believe that winning no RVIs applies to the entire theory layer unless your warrants are specific to a shell, C/I, etc. Non-friv theory should be a zero risk issue to check abuse, I will still vote for RVIs if you win them.

Unless I am evaluating the theory debate on reasonability you must read a counterinterp... if you do not all of your responses are inherently defensive because your opponents are the only team providing me with a 'good' model of debate.

Theory should be read immediately after the violation. Eg. if you're speaking first disclosure must be in your constructive for me to evaluate it. However, I am willing to vote off of paraphrasing theory read after rebuttal if your interpretation is that people shouldn't paraphrase in rebuttal. You MUST need to extend your own shell in rebuttal if it was read in constructive; you must frontline your opponent's shell in the speech after it was read (unless there is a theoretical justification for not doing this).

Kritiks:

I have run Ks a few times, however, I am not the best judge for these rounds. I'm more familiar with biopower, security, cap, and imperialism than anything else.

Tricks:

These are pretty stupid but go for them if you want to.

Everything Else:

Framework, soft-left Ks, CPs, and DAs are fine.

TKO:

If your opponent has no path to the ballot (conceded theory shell or them reading a counterinterp that they do not meet themselves) invoke a TKO and you win with 30 speaks (unless you have violated any previous clauses related to speaker points), if they did have a path to the ballot you lose with 21s.

PARADIGM WRITTEN BY SON:

I am a (f)lay judge and have been judging for 4 years, please go slow and articulate well but that doesn't mean ignore the flow. No theory or K's. I am truth>tech. I approach the round without my biases but won't vote off very farfetched/squirrely args even if they are conceded. I probably won't vote for you because of a turn/DA either. UNLESS THEY ARE VERY EXPLICITLY WON AND WEIGHED AND COLLAPSED ON. I vote off impacts, weighing doesn't matter to me if you don't win the link. Be respectful in cross, speaking style dictates speaker points.

I am a parent judge and been doing this since 2020. I am convinced with the team that delivers the speech with clarity and logic. I would like the debaters to be respectful, speak slowly and explain your arguments clearly to win the round.

Have fun and enjoy debate!

Hello debate enthusiasts,

I am a parent judge who enjoys watching public forum debate. For the benefit of the community, I would like to use this passion and turn it into service as a debate judge.

Regarding speaking preferences, clarity is very important to me. I dislike spreading and prefer a more moderate pace.

Also, I value thoughtful and insightful debates with emphasis on impacts and command over topic literature. Make sure you effectively extend your claims in summary and crystalize your impacts in final focus.

In my book of judging, logic is as important as evidence.

Wishing good luck to all the competitors at the tournament!

I am a parent judge with some experience.

Please speak slowly and clearly.

Please respect other speakers during crossfire and do not interrupt opponents.

Your case is the most important part of the round.

Please weigh in the round and compare your arguments.

Good Luck!

-All claims should have a clear link to evidence or precedent. If you’re going to tell me that UBI leads to nuclear war, you need to have some incredibly strong evidence.
-Don’t be rude to your opponent. We debate because we enjoy it, don’t ruin that for someone.
-I do not like spreading. I believe it makes debate incredibly inaccessible for many people who are not neurotypical. I understand that some forms of debate require it, so if you spread, make sure you are still saying words. If I have your case and can not even track your arguments while reading them, that is too fast. I will say clear if that is the case.

Benjamin Hagwood, Director at Vancouver Debate Academy

About me - former college policy debater, flow-centric, like all arguments but the politics DA (Elections gets a pass)

Debate is a game that can be played in a multitude of ways. It is the responsibility of the students to determine the parameters of the games and to call "foul" if they think someone has done something abusive. I will judge the round as it happens. Here are a few things about me that you might find useful when preparing for a round:

1. Flowing - I do my best to have as accurate a flow as possible while trying to capture but the context and citation of your arguments. Dropping arguments could be detrimental if your opponents extend and weight those arguments properly.
2. Observer not a Participant - I won't do work for you or insert myself into your debate. You will win OR lose based on the arguments in the round not my person opinion.
3. Style over Speed - swag is subjective - bring yours.
4. Petty but not Disrespectful - don't be unnecessarily rude to your opponent - but I must admit being petty is strategic.
5. Challenges - if you challenge someone and lose the challenge you lose the debate (this could also apply on theory debates depending on the debate - but not RVI's)

Universal Speaker Point Adjustments: all students are evaluated on their level. A 29 in novice is not the same as a 29 in open. 28 is my base for completing all your speeches and using all your speech time.

1. Wear a bowtie (+.5 point)
2. Be entertaining (tell jokes...if I laugh...you get points...if I don't you won't be punished) (+.5 point)
3. Be rude (-.5 point)
4. Don't use all your time (-.5 point)
5. Steal prep (-.5 point)

If you have any questions feel free to reach out to me and ask. Students may request my flow and written feedback at the end of the debate if they want. I will only share it with the students in the round unless they consent to the flow being shared with other opponents.

DEBATE: Please speak clearly and not too fast. I value evidence especially for bold arguments, refutation of opponents arguments, and respect given to fellow competitors.

SPEECH: Prove your interpretation to me, I go into every round with no agenda, and take my perspective out.

-Debated 4 years LD, graduating in 2013; qualified to TOC twice and reached Quarterfinals my senior year.

-Have coached for 10 years; am currently the Head Debate Coach at Lynbrook High School.

LD PARADIGM

1. My goal when judging is to be tab.
2. That being said, I am way better at judging phil debates than policy debates.
3. Start your last speech with an overview that tells me as directly as possible why you win. It shouldn't be prewritten. It should go something like: 'I'm winning X argument because Y, and it comes first because Z.'
4. Please compare clashing arguments as soon as possible (i.e. in the NC/1AR). Weighing is more important to my ballot than extra cards.
5. I like theory but NOT when it's extra ridiculous (i.e. shoe theory).
6. Please don't read disclosure theory in front of me. When I competed, disclosure wasn't a thing yet. Nobody knew what the aff was going to be until the timer started. I think this was a way better model for debate because it forced competitors to actually think on their feet. Debate seems very robotic nowadays and I think a large part of that is because of the very uptight disclosure practices.

PF PARADIGM

1. The time it takes PF teams to share evidence is a massive problem in this activity. Please, please, please don't take too much time to share evidence -- this drastically increases the length of rounds and delays tournaments.
2. I feel like PFers often assume a far greater familiarity with the topic, current events, and economic theory than I actually have. Please over-explain your arguments, and don't instantly assume I understand your responses.

[Background] I’m currently attending Fordham University (NY) majoring in Political Science. Previously, I debated at Vista Ridge High School (TX) in PF on the local/state/national level, reaching TFA State & TOC. Add me to the email chain: jhayes48@fordham.edu

[Evidence] I probably won’t call for cards unless they sound too good to be true; if you think I shouldn’t buy one of your opponent’s cards, tell me to call for it. I do, however, expect properly cut cards that can be produced in a timely manner at your opponent’s request. If you take a long time locating evidence, it will affect your speaks.

[Argumentation] I can go along with much of what you will run, with a few exceptions. I will NOT evaluate theory unless there is a legitimate violation in the round; paraphrasing and disclosure are not legitimate violations. For me, the most important aspect of your argumentation is your ability to develop a clear narrative for me to follow: I am more likely to buy arguments that have a strong internal link into a smaller impact than those that have a weak internal link into a larger impact. I prefer weighing from first rebuttal on; it must be extended through final focus for me to evaluate it. I expect some line-by-line in the summary, but I think you should spend much of your time comparatively weighing/framing the round. Repeating your impact and tagging “scope” and/or “magnitude” after it is not comparative weighing, it’s just proving to me you know how to memorize a number.

[Speaks] I can handle a bit of speed; I’ll let you know if you’re going too fast for me. Speaks will range from 28.5-29.5 mostly, based largely off my subjective view of how articulate and convincing you sound as a debater. I don’t pay much attention to CX, but I still expect you to be civil; if not, it will definitely affect your speaks.

Paradigms I agree with: Amod Daherkar, Jonathan Daugherty, Max Fuller, Nahom Tulu

Don’t be afraid to ask me questions before the round. Good luck!

Please be civil and courteous during the entire round, including cross-fire and rebuttals. I am fine with each of you keeping time, ok if you use your phone for the timer. Please have your cards ready to present within an appropriate amount of time so the rounds aren’t slowed down.

I discourage spreading… I would much rather see a concise and analytical presentation rather than simply speeding through your material. You can run theory and kritiks but do not expect me to understand and evaluate them. Clear signposting and quantifiable impacts are important to me.

27: Average Speaker

28: Good Job!

29: Very good speaker

30: You wowed me

I'm a college student who did Public Forum throughout high school. I have experience with debates at all levels ranging from extremely lay to Nationals level competition.

The biggest things I look for are clash between cases and weighing arguments within that. It's your job to actively interact with the opposing teams arguments and then be able to tell me why your side is better. If you don't weigh in round, then I'll have to do it at the end and it may not be favorable to you. However, if you give me your own framework and/or weighing mechanism to evaluate the round, I will judge through that lens.

hey! im a lay judge -- just be sure to have fun & im excited to see y'all debate!

I debated at La Salle College Prep in Public Forum on the National Circuit for all of my high school career, reaching outrounds at tournaments such as Berkeley and Yale and qualling to the TOC and Nationals twice. I am currently studying International Relations at Durham University in the UK.

I would consider myself a flow judge(tech>truth) I have a soft spot for theory(not frivolous) and K's however you still need to win the round to win my ballot. I am perfectly ok with spreading just let me know if you plan on it before the round and send a speech doc. Here are some things you can do to win my ballot.

General Debate:

Constructives can be anything, I don't ever take my own opinions of policy into a debate round, just do not be offensive

Framework must be responded to in the following speech(ex. if someone reads structural violence framing in 1st constructive, propose an Alt framework or concede in 2nd constructive)I will evaluate and abide by the conceded/won framework very strictly

Rebuttals can do whatever, I evaluate offensive overviews coming from 2nd rebuttal, unless theory is read telling me why I shouldn't. I expect 2nd rebuttal to handle offense. If you do not frontline in 2nd rebuttal, its highly likely I wont vote for you.

If you do not weigh in summary, I will default to whoever brought up weighing in summary and if neither team does I default to util. Please do comparative weighing and meta-weighing if necessary (i.e. why scope is more important than timeframe). Absent weighing, I default to to the most terminal impact in the round aka lives.

Extend the entirety of an argument. Have the whole story in there, don't assume parts of the argument even if they drop it. If they drop it, you can be quicker on the extensions that are predicated on concessions, but still do them (re-tell the warrants).

Big Picture in Final is preferred, unless something has happened in the round that prevents you. If there is an offensive overview you can respond, aside from that nothing new

Theory and K Debate:

K's should have links to the consequences of the plan or a very very good alternative. I am most likely to vote for the kritik if the K explains why the link turns the aff and takes out solvency at some level.

Links of omission are not compelling and the alternative needs some solvency mechanism other than reject the affirmative, whether that be a policy option or to burn down the state. If I think that you are relying on buzzwords to explain the position, my understanding of your argument won't be very good.

I am most familiar with Fem, Securitization, and Afropessimism however, I am read on most general K literature(militarization, orientalism, etc.) so read whatever you want in front of me

I will evaluate any Theory, however, I strongly dislike Topicality theory against Identity based argumentation. Please read a ROB in the theory and if you are against the theory RVI!!

Speaks:

If you want good speaks, be respectful, clear and follow my paradigm

mention harry potter or star wars, i will boost you .5

IF YOU ARE SEXIST, RACIST, HOMOPHOBIC, TRANSPHOBIC, CLASSIST, I WILL DROP YOU AND CONTACT YOUR COACH. PLEASE MAKE DEBATE A SAFE PLACE.

********************************************************************************************

I will give teams 1 extra speaker point per speaker if they properly use an email chain during the round. This means:

-Case writeup with the cards used in case below should be sent in a word/google document (like this) BEFORE your first constructive speech

-Any cards being planned on read after that should be sent in a word/google document (like this) right BEFORE it is read in speech.

This likely means you'll have to cut your cards BEFORE ROUND (I know, shocker!). Don't be spending 5 minutes cutting cards during the round to earn this point, you'll each lose half a point as a result if you do. Case docs should be ready to send the second you enter the call too

Email is adnan.m.ismail@berkeley.edu.

***********************************************************************************************

I'm a 4th year bioengineering student at UC Berkeley, and I've competed in PF for about 5 years in middle and high school.

Lets start with the obvious: DON'T BE RACIST TRANSPHOBIC HOMOPHOBIC SEXIST ABLEIST ELITIST OR EXCLUSIVE IN ANY WAY OR I WILL DROP YOU, GIVE YOU 0 SPEAKS, AND MAYBE MORE.

-Warrants in everything are especially important to me, and it's really important your warrants are clear. Lack of clarity will make me confused, drop your speaks and most likely drop you the round.

-Additionally, I look for the path of least resistance to the ballot. In other words, if you have an argument that's been clean dropped and you weigh that argument very well, 8/10 times I'm voting on that argument.

-The best way to create a clear-cut path to the ballot and follow the first two bullet points is by collapsing well on good arguments, especially in the second half of the round. Collapsing creates a much more narrowed/focused round that is easier to judge and follow, and it allows you to nuance and explain your arguments more fully. The more in-depth analysis you do when collapsing/as a result of collapsing, the more likely I'll vote for you.

-For the most part, anything that you say in final focus should be in summary. On the note of the second half of the round/frontlining in 2nd rebuttal or whatever,...I don't care. Just be consistent. Specifically:

----If you frontline in 2nd rebuttal, it's gonna be hard for me to accept new frontlines in 2nd summary. I'll give more leeway for defense that's not frontlined in 2nd rebuttal but almost impossible for turns.

----So long as the defense is untouched, first speaking teams can extend defense from first rebuttal to first final focus. But if the first speaking team extends defense in first summary, that defense is the only defense that can be extended into final focus.

-You can start your weighing whenever, even in final focus. But BIG weighing mechanisms (like those overviews that outline a certain argument/impact as the most important in the round for example) should arrive before second rebuttal. On that note, weigh! It's good to get the ballot. Not just buzz words. But like, actual weighing. Answer questions like these in your weighing: "How does your impact outweigh on magnitude?"

-Lastly on the note of the second half of the round, and I cannot stress this enough: YOU HAVE TO EXTEND EVERY PART OF THE ARGUMENT YOU WANT ME TO EVALUATE. THIS INCLUDES THE LINK, THE INTERNAL LINK(S), AND THE TERMINAL IMPACT OF YOUR ARGUMENT WITH THE WARRANTS FOR EACH PART OF THE ARGUMENT. NOTHING BLIPPY!!

-Don't spread please. I'm good with a brisk pace of talking (If you're confused, err on the side of slightly slower instead of slightly faster).

-I'm not extremely familiar with more technical argumentation (K's, theory, etc.). My philosophy is that while they look more "spooky" or "cool", all arguments share the same structure, where they require some sort of link, an explanation for why it matters (an impact) and warrants all throughout and in between. So just make sure to make the warranting for these arguments crystal clear.

-On that note for theory, the bar for whether or not a team is abusive is quite high. So run at your own risk. If you do think that your theory shell is very warranted and the abuse is substantial and you want to win off of it, I should expect it to dominate your speech time in the second half of the round. As in your entire FF should be dedicated to the shell that you read. Also if you read theory, I'm more inclined to listen to a well hashed shell compared to "paragraph theory." It's easier to flow and simply more clear for me. But I won't get angry at you if you read paragraph theory.

-And lastly don't know much, if anything, about the topic, and definitely not familiar with the topic lit at all. So clarity in warrant/impact analysis and extension of arguments and whatnot is esp key to pick up my ballot this tournament.

Good luck and have fun! Any questions email me at adnan.m.ismail@berkeley.edu

Lay judge

Speak understandably, not too fast.

I will judge based on what is presented in the round, not based on validity of arguments or my opinions.

Hi, I am a parent judge who has some experience judging. I would classify myself as a lay- judge. I have a vast understanding of this topic and I can understand different view points.

-- I am looking for arguments that have a logical basis

-- Please make sure that you understand your arguments and that you do not make arguments that you can't justify.

-- I feel that debate is about bringing your logic to another level so if your argument is not clear or lacks logic, I will not vote for it.

-- Please do not spread because it will result in you losing speaker points

-- Please do not use debate jargon

--Make sure to extend your arguments and impacts into summary and final focus or else I won't evaluate them.

--Weighing is super important to me so make sure that you do it

--Do not be rude to your opponents and make sure you give them a chance to speak.

If you have any specific questions, please ask me during the round! Good Luck to you all!

I am a judge in PF for Dougherty Valley High School.

Basic Preferences:

- Please do not speak fast, and try to be as clear as possible when you speak.

- You should be telling me how I should be weighing the round.

- Be polite to your opponent and be respectful.

Good luck!

I am a new judge this year, please don't spread in your speeches and talk at a moderate pace.

Follow these guidelines and you will be successful with me as a judge -

1. The Most Obvious - Be Nice!

Be nice to your opponents in round, and if you are rude in crossfire or speeches I will drop your speaker points.

2. Please provide full cards

When giving cards, please send the link to the website, the authors name and date, and the paragraph from the website.

3. I am big on weighing

Please make sure to weigh your impacts to show why you are winning the round and tell me what you are weighing off of.

4. Make sure to time yourself

Happy debating!

bellaire '21 | rice '25

Email is: saumyajhaveri17@gmail.com

PF:

Tech > Truth

Defense is sticky

I don't like progressive arguments

Won't call for evidence unless the team explicitly asks me too

Good extensions are key, including a claim, warrant, and impact.

Comparative Weighing wins the round

Congress:

1. Sponsors are underrated, so there's a good chance I score them high. The sponsor should be able to set the tone for the rest of the round. A great sponsor > late-round rehash speech.

2. Argumentation is the most important thing in this event, so your speech needs to have a clear link chain

3. Use strong passionate rhetoric smartly. Meaning, the whole speech shouldn't be full of metaphors and hyperbole.

4. Please don't say "right now in the status quo." It's the same thing.

5. Have fun and find ways to make yourself stand out from the chamber.

I prefer a resolution of debate issues in the round and speaking skills when I judge debate. Be organized. Use structure and roadmaps.

In CX I fall under policy or stock issues when I am making decisions. At the end of the round when I sign my ballot, your plan is in action. That means that aff must have a developed plan in the round. Don't just read evidence in a round. Explain your arguments.

In LD, I am a traditional judge. You must have a value and criterion. You need a philosophy and philosopher in the round. Weigh the round in your speeches.

hi! i'm sky.

email is spjuinio@gmail.com. add me to the email chain.

please try to have pre-flows done before the round for the sake of time.

tech over truth. i don't intervene, so everything you say is all i will evaluate. be explicit; explain and contextualize your arguments. extend evidence properly and make sure that they are cut correctly. tell a thoughtful and thorough story that follows a logical order (i.e. how do you get from point a to point e? why should i care about anything you are telling me? i should know the answers to these questions by the end of your speeches). pursue the points that you are winning and say why you are winning the round. remind me how you access your impacts and do NOT forget to weigh. telling me how to prioritize the arguments read in round is helpful (generally, this is the case for judge instructions). sounding great will earn you higher speaks, but my ballot will ultimately go to those who did the better debating.

read any argument you want, wear whatever you want, and be as assertive as you want. any speed is fine as long as you are clear. i will yell "clear!" if you are not. my job is to listen to you and assess your argumentation, not just your presentation. i'm more than happy to listen to anything you run, so do what you do best and own it!

just don't be rude.

rfds. i always try to give verbal rfds. if you're competing at a tournament where verbal rfds are impermissible, i will still try to give you feedback on your speeches. write down or type suggestions that you find helpful. feel free to ask me any questions regarding my feedback. i also accept emails and other online messages.

now, specifics!

topicality. it would behoove you to tell me which arguments should be debated and why your interp best facilitates that discussion. make sure your arguments are compatible with your interp. if you go for framework, give clear internal link explanations and consider having external impacts. explain why those impacts ought to be prioritized and win you the round.

theory. make it purposeful. tell me what competing interps and reasonability mean. i like nuanced analyses; provide real links, real interps, and real-world scenarios that bad norms generate. tell me to prioritize this over substance and why.

counter-plans. these can be fun. however, they should be legitimately competitive. give a clear plan text and take clever perms seriously. comparative solvency is also preferred. impact calc is your friend.

disadvantages. crystallize! your uniqueness and links also matter.

kritiques. i love these, a lot. i enjoy the intellectual potential that kritiques offer. show me that you are genuine by committing to the literature you read and providing an anomalous approach against the aff. alts are important. again, tell me to prioritize this over substance and why.

cross. i listen, but i will not assess arguments made in crossfire unless you restate your points in a speech. use this time wisely.

evidence. i'll read your evidence at the end of the round if i am asked to do so, if your evidence sounds too good to be true, or if your evidence is essential to my decision in some fashion. however, this is not an excuse to be lazy. extend evidence that you want me to evaluate or else it flows as analysis. the function(s) of your evidence should also be clear. narrative coherence is crucial!

public forum debaters should practice good partner coordination, especially during summary and final focus. arguments and evidence mentioned in the final focus need to have been brought up in summary for me to evaluate it. i flow very well and will catch you if you lie, so don't read new arguments or new evidence. focus on what you are winning on and please weigh, meta-weigh, and crystallize!

tl;dr. show me where and why i should vote, thanks :)

you are all smart. remember to relax and have fun!

Hi y'all! I debated PF with a good mix of district and circuit tournaments all 4 years of high school.

essentials:

- be fair & respectful in and out of your rounds and stay within time limits of speeches and prep. going about 10 seconds over in speeches is generally ok, but I'll stop flowing anything after that.

- everything collapsed on during final focus should be extended through summary. give me a way to weigh the round; please don't leave me to decide how to evaluate everything. you also don't have to wait til summary/final focus to start weighing impacts!

- in terms of frameworks, I'd prefer if you gave me one and actually used it throughout your round, but otherwise I'll default to cost-benefit analysis.

- for me to buy an argument, you have to explicitly state your warranting and links, otherwise it's harder to access any impacts. doesn't hurt to extend warranting all the way to final focus.

preferences:

- PLEASE SIGNPOST! off-time roadmaps are also fine.

- if you're the second team giving the rebuttal, you should frontline your case, though i'll still flow through frontlines brought up in summary. but it'll probably be harder to for everyone in the round to respond to it.

- i think reading full cards can be a waste of time, paraphrasing is ok as long as you cite it. but don't just cite the card and expect me (or your opponent) to know what you're talking about.

- i'm a fan of using frameworks to run creative arguments! using the framing actively during the round and to weigh impacts keeps debate interesting :)

- most importantly, have fun!! debate is a such a cool and engaging activity and our primary reason for being here is to learn about these topics analytically and in depth.

She/her

Background: 3x nats senate 1x toc congress, 1x toc info 2x nietoc various events, decent amount of experience in PF, I understand LD and progressive debate but I've never done it done it and so better to err on the side of caution if you are going to get funky, if I'm judging policy then we all better put our big brain hats and cross our fingers

add me: alexandrakallaher@gmail.com

Some things to consider if I'm judging you no matter event + a note on online judging:

1. Signpost. You could have the best refutation ever but if you don't signpost I might miss it.

2. don't be rude, debate is supposed to be accessible and fun for everyone, so respect your opponents! Debaters who look like they're having a good time are way more fun to judge.

3. If for some personal or act of god reason you need to step away from the computer please just say something. I will do my absolute best to accommodate you within timely reason.

4. Speed isn't an issue for me but online there might be some lag problems so just know your wifi.

5. I enjoy niche arguments in every event as long as they aren't unfairly specific

Some things to consider if I'm judging you in Congressional Debate:

1. Key word up there is debate. I highly value refutation in congress speeches. No worries if you give an authorship, but try to show me different facets of your argumentation skills and speaking styles. I'm judging on a holistic model of who is the best legislator in the round- not necessarily who has the best argument or speech.

2. I'm not a fan of when no one is prepared to give speeches. If you get up to give a speech because there is a lull, even if you are not perfectly prepared, I will mentally award you brownie points and it will contribute to the "best legislator" notion.

3. I do pay more attention to CX in congress than other debates because of how few times you get to speak. But it won't make or break you. That being said, if you ask the same question again and again to different speakers I will probably find you annoying and not contributing to the debate.

4. I love crystallizations and later round speeches in congress. If you are giving the last speech do not give a constructive. Congress is about engagement and adaption. If you give a constructive 13 speeches in the debate I am going to wonder what you have been doing. The later the cycle goes the more weighing should be done.

5. I value argument>speaking 99% of the time. But, congress does have speaking elements to it. As long as you are loud and clear we should not have a problem. It is nice if you don't look at your flow pad too much.

Some things to Consider I'm judging you in PF/LD:

1. Voters. I will vote off of what you tell me to. If a team doesn't give me voters I default to the other teams. Be clear and do the work for me and I won't care

2. Weigh

3. I'm tech can be over truth but I do like hearing warrants and am responsive to teams calling out logical gaps/ inconsistencies in link chains

4. If you want me to read a card than tell me to call for the card otherwise sry bud

5. Don't flow cross so if something happens than you better bring it up in a speech

A note on Theory and K's:

1. Theory is necc. to keep debaters in check but I'm not a fan of tricks, time wasters or other trivial nonsense. Please explain it clearly like you are talking to your well educated but slightly demented grandma

2. running theory just to be strategic kinda makes me queasy and I will have more leniency for your opponent if it's silly

3. Running theory against clearly inexperienced debaters is a form of abuse in itself

This is my first full year judging public forum debate and consider myself an amateur "parent (lay) judge."

- I flow the debate to the best of my ability and make my decision mainly on the contentions you win on the basis of evidence & weighing in the Final Focus. Please try to be clear on laying out the contentions, rebuttals, sub-points, and so on (preferably with numbers), so that I can "connect" them to the pertaining arguments accordingly.

- I judge on content and delivery, but clarity is crucial: I am comfortable with most speeds but don't go too fast. One clearly communicated contention (and argument) is better than two incomprehensible ones.

- This is a Public Forum format, so please be reminded that you are trying to convince a general public. Please refrain from being too heavy on industry-specific jargon and terminology.

Hello! Currently I am a community college student in something of an academic limbo who will soon, God (Catholic or otherwise, I’m open to letters of recommendation) willing, be transferring to UC Berkeley.

I’ve debated for quite some time for the Mount San Jacinto Community College team but now I am something of a debate mercenary debating for College of the Canyons for whom I am the only member of the team.

This will be my first time filling out a judging paradigm form so please forgive me if it is somewhat unorganized.

Experience

So, in regards to my personal debate experience I was a High School Parli debate and thus qualify as a debate veteran. I have competed in Parli and am well acquainted with both the types of arguments as well as the sort of meta "culture" I suppose surrounding this. What this means is that I will typically be familiar with most debate terminology and will not be suprised get a case of the vapors if you propose a K or run an abuse argument. However, that being said I do certainly have grievances with some form of debate, somewhat due to personal trauma being a debater with only a club to compete with and encounter suited barbarians who would constantly run K's and definitional arguments in a round. I will also mention that although I have started to judge it more, I am not someone who has competed in Policy debate nor Public Forum, and as such I would perhaps advise you to try to use terminology that isn't only in that format, or at the very least take a moment to explain it as assuming the judge knows your secret debate society language can occasionally make it difficult to judge you in round.

Judging Style

So, I will firstly start out by saying that I am very much not a conventional judge in regards to some of my beliefs regarding judging during the round. I will take something resembling a flow, however I see rhetoric and narrative to be important aspects of a debate round that exists alongside the actual arguments themselves. I typically do not do a hard calculus of impacts and individual dropped arguments if they do not seem significant to me. I will also mention that I am willing to do slightly more labor on the judge's side than perhaps others. If you propose an argument but perhaps don't give an exact impact or connect to an the other team’s argument but I can see a connection, I will still consider it in that context but perhaps with not as much enthusiasm than if you explain to me why you argument about social media turning the Zoomer generation into zombie like drones of the state also relates to the opponents contension about twitter cancel culture being the next religious revival.

In regards to the question of whether the judge's perspective is brought into the round, I will admit that I very much believe that the judge is an actor within the round and that their knowledge does influence the round as well. What this means is that if you give an argument that is just blatantly false or not well supported, even within your speech, I will not treat it as though its logical rational truth within the round. I will still consider it and perhaps expect the other team to address it, but I will still have some standard myself as a judge. This doesn't mean I will attempt to be intentionally biased, however, just know that if I am judging you I am not going to just readily give you the win on any dropped argument or piece of evidence just because it wasn't fully addressed by the other team.

I do appreciate organization and reading out the general themes of your argument. You don't have to lay it out in your first speech and I will generally arrange the argument myself in my notes, but it is something that certainly makes it much easier to judge you, and I know because I myself have horrifically difficult to follow debate organization at times, like, modern art living room arrangement style.

Spread

So....this one is a bit difficult. I am quite used to following and partaking in speedier, more beefy rounds so in that regard I am not a lay judge. However, I am aware that in certain formats, particularly Public Forum and policy it is occasionally expected that the judge should be able to follow even if the debater is reading at a ridiculous speed attempting to cram in an entire list of arguments which, while I appreciate the enthusiasm, can make the round very difficult to judge in a manner that actually considers the arguments presented. In regards to speed, while I will allow you to speak quickly, please make sure you are actually emphasizing certain points and pronouncing your words and actually taking time to separate out your contensions. Also, in regards to accusations of spread, I am very much willing to take arguments in regards to this specific form of abuse, and I think that thinking you can win a round purely based on dropped arguments that are not even fully addressed by your team, or due to drowning the opponent in them is one of the more obnoxious tendencies of debate. I am fine with devious tactics and questionable frameworks if you can protect them, however this is something where I tend to find it a bit intentionally disruptive.

Kritques

So, Kritqiues….I guess I will start out by saying that I do quite appreciate these. They are like little warlock wizard spells that you can cast to hex your enemies or make them have to contend with being accused of “promoting an American individualist mindset” due to saying they think the Avengers movies provide great role models. I also think that Kritiques also sort of tie debate into the actual academic concerns that you may encounter at the college level, so I am very much in favor of them as a concept. You should still explain how it relates to the round, and present properly for debate by explaining why either supporting the resolution or the way in which the other team debating requires a consideration of the kritique. It can be difficult to achieve a win based on a Kritique alone, however if you feel it's powerful enough and want to make it the focus of your speech then I very much support that.

Also, I have been accused of being slightly Commie before...

(Don't worry, I probably won't summon the CIA)

Hi, my name is Dominique and I am an assistant coach at my HS alma mater, where I competed in congress, extemp, and OO.

That said, I have experience judging some debate at the local level, but I am more often judging speech. I am a flow judge to the best of my ability, but spreading is not in your best interest. It is likely better that you don’t run any high level theory in front of me: straightforward, well-warranted arguments with clear impacts, good clash in rebuttals, and ample weighing are your best path to victory, not convoluted theory and technicalities. Tech over truth won’t win me over. In PF, write my ballot for me in summary and final focus, clear voting issues and framing of the round are a must. In LD, clear brightlines in the value criterion are a must, and clear weighing in the rebuttals and delineating the lines of clash will be helpful in writing my ballot. If you go over your allotted time, I will stop writing and raise my hands. If I didn't write it down, It wont be judged.

Good luck to everyone! You guys are awesome for choosing such a difficult categories and I have nothing but the utmost respect for all of you for it. I look foreword to hearing some great debates! :)

Background:

I competed in Public Forum and Congressional Debate in high school.

Rebuttal:

I want to see front lining (defending case) in the second rebuttal. I think it makes for better debate, and it's also strategic for you. Whether that's a 2-2 split is up to you, but just know that I think the bare minimum is addressing terminal defense and turns.

Summary and FF:

I should see your arguments properly extended in both of these speeches, that means both the warrant and the impact. Also, nothing you bring up in final is going to matter for my ballot if it wasn't also in summary. Please collapse your arguments and give me voters.

Weighing:

This is the easiest way to win the round. I should at least be seeing discussion on magnitude, scope, probability, but introducing things like strength of the link, clarity of impact, meta-weighing, etc, will usually earn you my ballot and good speaks. Start this as early in the round as possible (ideally rebuttal). This means that in addition to seeing you weigh arguments, I wanna see you weigh and implicate things like turns.

Theory/Ks:

I don't really understand these so please caution.

Evidence Ethics:

I'm ok with paraphrasing, and in some cases think it's better than reading cards, but you better be able to provide that source quickly. As far as citations in case, I wanna hear dates and author qualifications.

Other Important Things:

Signpost: I wanna know where you are on the flow, and I want you to number your responses. You do not want me to think you under-covered or even dropped something just because I didn't know where you were. Make sure we're on the same page and we'll be good.

Speed: While I debated for four years and I am comfortable with some level of speed, I really prefer average speaking speed and will not work to understand your arguments unless they are clear.

I am a parent and lay judge.

Please don't speak too fast. I will try to listen to every arguments.

Please weigh your in summary and final focus.

I will vote for whoever is more persuasive.

Be nice and good luck!

Well, I myself didn't have any debate experience at all. I've been judging public forum debates in the past several years, but I still consider myself a lay judge.

With that being said, my final decision usually heavily depends on your own summary and final focus. You help me to understand why you are winning, including why your team's contentions still hold while your opponent's do not.

I prefer you talking in a relatively slow pace but it's totally up to you to make yourself comfortable.

Enjoy!

Tech savvy truth telling/testing debaters who crystallize with clarity, purpose persuasion & pathos will generally win my ballot.

My email: wesleyloofbourrow@gmail.com

For CHSSA: Flow judge, please weigh impacts in rebuttals, please win line by line, please make arguments quickly and effectively, and make the largest quantity & quality of arguments that you can. Thanks.

Updated Paradigm for NDCA & TOC

My intent in doing this update is to simplify my paradigm to assist Public Forum debaters competing at the major competitions at the end of this season. COVID remote debating has had some silver linings, and this year I have uniquely had the opportunity to judge a prolific number of prestigious tournaments, so I am "in a groove" judging elite PF debates this season, having sat on at least half a dozen PF TOC bid rounds this year, and numerous Semis/Finals of tournaments like Glenbrooks, Apple Valley, Berkeley, among many others.

I am "progressive", "circuit style", "tabula rosa", "non-interventionist", completely comfortable with policy jargon and spreading, open to Kritiks/Theory/Topicality, and actively encourage Framework debates in PF. You can figure out what I mean by FW with a cursory reading of the basic wikipedia entry "policy debate: framework" -- I am encouraging, where applicable and appropriate, discussions of what types of arguments and debate positions support claims to a superior model of Public Forum debate, both in the particular round at hand and future debates. I think that PF is currently grappling as a community with a lot of Framework questions, and inherently believe that my ballot actually does have potential for some degree of Solvency in molding PF norms. Some examples of FW arguments I have heard this year include Disclosure Theory, positions that demand the first constructive speech of the team speaking second provide direct clash (rejecting the prevalent two ships passing in the night norm for the initial constructive speeches), and Evidence theory positions.

To be clear, this does not mean at all that teams who run FW in front of me automatically get my ballot. I vote all the time on basic stock issues, and in fact the vast majority of my PF decisions have been based on offense/defense within a role-playing policy-maker framework. Just like any debate position, I am completely open to anything (short of bullying, racism, blatant sexism, truly morally repugnant positions, but I like to believe that no debaters are coming into these elite rounds intending to argue stuff like this). I am open to a policy-making basic Net benefits standard, willing to accept Fiat of a policy action as necessary and justifiable, just as much as I am willing to question Fiat -- the onus is on the debaters to provide warrants justifying whatever position or its opposite they wish to defend.

I will provide further guidance and clarifications on my judging philosophy below, but I want to stress that what I have just stated should really be all you need to decide whether to pref/strike me -- if you are seeking to run Kritiks or Framework positions that you have typically found some resistance to from more traditional judges, then you want to pref me; if you want rounds that assume the only impacts that should be considered are the effects of a theoretical policy action, I am still a fine judge to have for that, but you will have to be prepared to justify those underlying assumptions, and if you don't want to have to do that, then you should probably strike me. If you have found yourself in high profile rounds a bit frustrated because your opponent ran positions that didn't "follow the rules of PF debate", I'm probably not the judge you want. If you have been frustrated because you lost high profile rounds because you "didn't follow the rules of PF debate", you probably want me as your judge.

So there is my most recent update, best of luck to all competitors as we move to the portion of the season with the highest stakes.

Here is what I previously provided as my paradigm:

Speed: Short answer = Go as fast as you want, you won't spread me out.

I view speed as merely a tool, a way to get more arguments out in less time which CAN lead to better debates (though obviously that does not bear out in every instance). My recommendations for speed: 1) Reading a Card -- light-speed + speech doc; 2) Constructives: uber-fast + slow sign posting please; 3) Rebuttals: I prefer the slow spread with powerfully efficient word economy myself, but you do you; 4) Voters: this is truly the point in a debate where I feel speed outlives its usefulness as a tool, and is actually much more likely to be a detriment (that being said, I have judged marvelous, blinding-fast 2ARs that were a thing of beauty)...err on the side of caution when you are instructing me on how to vote.

Policy -- AFFs advocating topical ethical policies with high probability to impact real people suffering right now are best in front of me. I expect K AFFs to offer solid ground and prove a highly compelling advocacy. I love Kritiks, I vote for them all the time, but the most common problem I see repeatedly is an unclear and/or ineffective Alt (If you don't know what it is and what it is supposed to be doing, then I can't know either). Give me clash: prove you can engage a policy framework as well as any other competing frameworks simultaneously, while also giving me compelling reasons to prefer your FW. Anytime you are able to demonstrate valuable portable skills or a superior model of debate you should tell me why that is a reason to vote for you. Every assumption is open for review in front of me -- I don't walk into a debate round believing anything in particular about what it means for me to cast my ballot for someone. On the one hand, that gives teams extraordinary liberty to run any position they wish; on the other, the onus is on the competitors to justify with warranted reasoning why I need to apply their interpretations. Accordingly, if you are not making ROB and ROJ arguments, you are missing ways to get wins from me.

I must admit that I do have a slight bias on Topicality -- I have noticed that I tend to do a tie goes to the runner thing, and if it ends up close on the T debate, then I will probably call it reasonably topical and proceed to hear the Aff out. it isn't fair, it isn't right, and I'm working on it, but it is what it is. I mention this because I have found it persuasive when debaters quote this exact part of my paradigm back to me during 2NRs and tell me that I need to ignore my reasonability biases and vote Neg on T because the Neg straight up won the round on T. This is a functional mechanism for checking a known bias of mine.

Oh yea -- remember that YOU PLAY TO WIN THE GAME.

Public Forum -- At this point, after judging a dozen PF TOC bid rounds in 2021-2022, I think it will be most helpful for me to just outright encourage everybody to run Framework when I am your judge (3 judge panels is your call, don't blame me!). I think this event as a whole desperately needs good quality FW arguments that will mold desirable norms, I might very well have an inherent bias towards the belief that any solvency reasonably expected to come from a ballot of mine will most likely implicate FW, and thus I am resolved to actively encourage PF teams to run FW in front of me. If you are not comfortable running FW, then don't -- I always want debaters to argue what matters to them. But if you think you can win a round on FW, or if you have had an itch to try it out, you should. Even if you label a position as Framework when it really isn't, I will still consider the substantive merits behind your arguments, its not like you get penalized for doing FW wrong, and you can absolutely mislabel a position but still make a fantastic argument deserving of my vote.

Other than "run FW", I need to stress one other particular -- I do not walk into a PF round placing any limitations whatsoever on what a Public Forum debate is supposed to be. People will say that I am not "traditional or lay", and am in fact "progressive", but I only consider myself a blank slate (tabula rasa). Every logical proposition and its diametric opposite is on the table in front of me, just prove your points to be true. It is never persuasive for a team to say something like "but that is a Counterplan, and that isn't allowed in PF". I don't know how to evaluate a claim like that. You are free to argue that CPs in PF are not a good model for PF debates (and lo and behold, welcome to running a FW position), or that giving students a choice between multiple styles of debate events is critical for education and so I should protect the "rules" and the "spirit" of PF as an alternative to LD and Policy -- but notice how those examples rely on WARRANTS, not mere assertions that something is "against the rules." Bottom line, if the "rules" are so great, then they probably had warrants that justified their existence, which is how they became the rules in the first place, so go make those underlying arguments and you will be fine. If the topic is supposed to be drug policy, and instead a team beats a drum for 4 minutes, ya'll should be able to articulate the underlying reasons why this is nonsense without resorting to grievances based on the alleged rules of PF.

College Parli -- Because there is a new topic every round, the threshold for depth of research is considerably lower, and debaters should be able to advocate extemporaneously; this shifts my view of the burdens associated with typical Topicality positions. Arguments that heavily weigh on the core ground intended by the topic will therefore tend to strike me as more persuasive. Additionally, Parli has a unique procedural element -- the ability to ask a question during opponent's speech time. A poignant question in the middle of an opponent's speech can single handedly manufacture clash, and create a full conversational turn that increases the educational quality of the debate; conversely, an excellent speaker can respond to the substance of a POI by adapting their speech on the spot, which also has the effect of creating a new conversational turn.

lysis. While this event has evolved considerably, I am still a firm believer that Value/Criterion is the straightest path to victory, as a strong V/C FW will either contextualize impacts to a policy/plan advocacy, or explain and justify an ethical position or moral statement functioning as that necessary advocacy. Also, V/C allows a debater to jump in and out of different worlds, advocating for their position while also demonstrating the portable skill of entering into an alternate FW and clashing with their opponent on their merits. An appropriate V/C will offer fair, reasonable, predictable, equitable, and functional Ground to both sides. I will entertain any and all theory, kritiks, T, FW. procedure, resolution-rejection/alteration, etc. -- but fair warning, positions that do not directly relate to the resolutional topic area will require a Highly Compelling warrant(s) for why. At all times, please INSTRUCT me on how I am supposed to think about the round.

So...that is my paradigm proper, intentionally left very short. I've tried the more is more approach, and I have become fond of the less is more. Below are random things I have written, usually for tournament-specific commentary.

Worlds @ Coppell:

I have taken care to educate myself on the particulars of this event, reviewing relevant official literature as well as reaching out to debate colleagues who have had more experience. My obligation as a fair, reasonable, unbiased and qualified critic requires me to adapt my normal paradigm, which I promise to do to the best of my abilities. However, this does not excuse competitive debaters from their obligation to adapt to their assigned judge. I adapt, you adapt, Fair.

To learn how I think in general about how I should go about judging debates, please review my standard Judge Paradigm posted below. Written short and sweet intentionally, for your purposes as Worlds debaters who wish to gain my ballot, look for ways to cater your strengths as debaters to the things I mention that I find generally persuasive. You will note that my standard paradigm is much shorter than this unique, particularized paradigm I drafted specifically for Worlds @ Coppell.

Wesley's Worlds Paradigm:

I am looking for which competitors perform the "better debating." As line by line and dropping of arguments are discounted in this event, those competitors who do the "better debating" will be "on balance more persuasive" than their opponents.

Style: I would liken Style to "speaker points" in other debate events. Delivery, passion, rhetoric, emotional appeal. Invariably, the power of excellent public speaking will always be anchored to the substantive arguments and authenticity of advocacy for the position the debater must affirm or negate. While I will make every effort to separate and appropriately quantify Style and Content, be warned that in my view there is an inevitable and unbreakable bond between the two, and will likely result in some spillover in my final tallies.

Content: If I have a bias, it would be in favor of overly weighting Content. I except that competitors will argue for a clear advocacy, a reason that I should feel compelled to vote for you, whether that is a plan, a value proposition, or other meaningful concept.

PAY ATTENTION HERE: Because of the rules of this event that tell me to consider the debate as a whole, to ignore extreme examples, to allow for a "reasonable majority" standard to affirm and a "significant minority" standard to negate, and particularly bearing in mind the rules regarding "reasonability" when it comes to definitions, I will expect the following:

A) Affirmatives will provide an advocacy that is clearly and obviously within the intended core ground proffered by the topic (the heart of hearts, if you will);

B) Negatives will provide an advocacy of their own that clashes directly with the AFF (while this is not completely necessary, it is difficult for me to envision myself reaching a "better debating" and "persuasion" standard from a straight refutation NEG, so consider this fair warning); what the Policy folk call a PIC (Plan-Inclusive Counterplan) will NOT be acceptable, so do not attempt on the NEG to offer a better affirmative plan that just affirms the resolution -- I expect an advocacy that fundamentally NEGATES

C) Any attempt by either side to define their opponent's position out of the round must be EXTRAORDINARILY compelling, and do so without reliance on any debate theory or framework; possibilities would include extremely superior benefits to defining a word in a certain way, or that the opponent has so missed the mark on the topic that they should be rejected. It would be best to assume that I will ultimately evaluate any merits that have a chance of reasonably fitting within the topic area. Even if a team elects to make such an argument, I still expect them to CLASH with the substance of the opponent's case, regardless of whether or not your view is that the substance is off-topic. Engage it anyways out of respect.

D) Claim-Warrant-Impact-Weighing formula still applies, as that is necessary to prove an "implication on effects in the real world". Warrants can rely on "common knowledge", "general logic", or "internal logic", as this event does not emphasize scholarly evidence, but I expect Warrants nonetheless, as you must tell me why I am supposed to believe the claim.

Strategy: While there may be a blending of Content & Style on the margins in front of me as a judge, Strategy is the element that I believe will be easy for me to keep separate and quantify unto itself. Please help me and by proxy yourselves -- MENTION in your speeches what strategies you have used, and why they were good. Debaters who explicitly state the methods they have used, and why those methods have aided them to be "on balance more persuasive" and do the "better debating" will likely impress me.

POIs: The use of Questions during opponent's speech time is a tool that involves all three elements, Content/Style/Strategy. It will be unlikely for me to vote for a team that fails to ask a question, or fails to ask any good questions. In a perfect world, I would like speakers to yield to as many questions as they are able, especially if their opponent's are asking piercing questions that advance the debate forward. You WANT to be answering tough questions, because it makes you look better for doing so. I expect the asking and answering of questions to be reciprocal -- if you ask a lot of questions, then be ready and willing to take a lot of questions in return. Please review my section on Parli debate below for final thoughts on the use of POI.

If you want to win my vote, take everything I have written above to heart, because that will be the vast majority of the standards for judging I will implement during this tournament. As always, feel free to ask me any further questions directly before the round begins. Best of luck!

I competed in both speech & debate on CHSSA (CA) and NSDA circuit for 4 years with a focus in platform events, but am familiar with all IEs.

I also competed in PF and Parliamentary but consider me a lay judge as I do not particularly like spreading. I will flow, however. As someone heavily trained in performance and delivery, I will take yours into account.

We may be virtual, but continue to behave appropriately and professionally.

I privately coach elementary, middle & high school speech and debate, as well as teach private speech writing and speech delivery classes. Contact me at jamiejjma@gmail.com for any comments, questions or concerns.

My email is irene.madejski@gmail.com for email chains.

I debated PF for four years at Nueva with Anjali Ramanathan and graduated in 2020. I'm now a senior at UChicago.

My view of debate is very similar to Anjali's and she does a good job explaining her paradigm here: https://www.tabroom.com/index/tourn/postings/judge.mhtml?judge_id=1287777&tourn_id=16664

TL;DR : I'll hear basically anything unless its problematic, I like clear narratives/link stories with weighing, I don't mind a little speed but I'm also usually pretty tired so know that it doesn't always work in your favor. I don't have a lot of experience with K's and theory, so I can't say I'll evaluate them perfectly, but I'm willing to listen to them. Also, more generally, have fun with your round :))

Do let me know if you have any questions and I'd be happy to answer them!!

General

I am a flay judge. Haven't debated, but judged PF for many years.

- DON'T SPEAK FAST OR SPREAD.

- Yes, I want to be on the email chain.

- I'm fine with you reading theory or K's as long as it is well explained and defended.

- Truth > Tech

- Be respectful and remember that cross is not for arguing but rather to further understand each other's positions and discuss about evidence.

- Don't waste cross time to call for cards. Do that separately, and prep time will count towards you reading the cards.

- Don't read anything new in the second half. I will accept new weighing and frontlining in summary but not in Final Focus.

- I work in the finance and banking sector so I will understand economy-related arguments better and will be more willing to vote off them

- BE PROFESSIONAL AND DON'T EAT DURING ROUNDS.

Decision

I give my ballot to the side that does the best impact comparisons and weighing, provides good quantitative statistics and logical evidence, and well constructs/explains their narrative.

Speaks

- I DO NOT TOLERATE RUDENESS/RACISM/SEXISM

- I give speaks based off of organization, clarity, participation, and ethics

I am a parent judge and I've been judging rounds for three years (mainly PF) - do not read any progressive arguments including, but not limited to

- Theory/T

- Kritiks

- Plans/Counterplans

If you make a non-topical argument, I will not evaluate it.

Please explain your arguments at a conversational rate as I will not consider them if I can't understand what you are saying.

Be kind and respectful to me and your opponents. Don't be rude during CX- I will reduce speaker points

Do not introduce new arguments in final focus, I will not consider them in my decision.

I will not disclose, please refer to the ballot for critiques. Please time yourselves.

Update -- January Section 230 Topic -I think this topic is where I start to shift a tiny bit towards truth > tech, so fair warning. Make the flow clean if you don't want me to intervene more than usual.

Background: I am a second-year law student at NYU and work with Delbarton (NJ). He/Him/His pronouns.

Email Chains: Teams should start an email chain immediately with the following email subject: Tournament Name - Rd # - School Team Code (side/order) v. School Team Code (side/order). Please add greenwavedebate@delbarton.org to the email chain. Teams should send case evidence (and rhetoric if you paraphrase) by the end of constructive. I cannot accept locked Google Docs; please copy and paste all text into the email and send it in the email chain. It would be ideal to send all new evidence read in rebuttal, but up to debaters.

Evidence: Reading Cut card > Paraphrasing. Even if you paraphrase, I require cut cards. These are properly cut cards. No cut card = your evidence won't be evaluated in the round.

Main PF Paradigm:

• Offense>Defense. Ultimately, offense wins debates and requires proper arg extensions, frontlining, and weighing. It will be hard to win with just terminal defense. But please still extend good defense.
• Speech specifics: Second Rebuttal -- needs to frontline first rebuttal responses. Anything in Final Focus should be in Summary (weighing is a bit more flexible if no one is weighing). Backhalf extensions, frontlining, and "backlining" matter.
• Please weigh. Make sure it's comparative weighing and uses either timeframe, magnitude, and/or probability. Strength of link, clarity of impact, cyclicality, and solvency are not weighing mechanisms.
• I'll evaluate (almost) anything. Expect that I'll have already done research on a topic, but I'll evaluate anything on my flow (tech over truth). I will interfere (and most likely vote you down) if you argue anything racist, sexist, homophobic, or fabricated (i.e., evidence issues).
• I will always allow accommodations for debaters. Just ask before the round.

"Progressive" PF:

• Ks - I'm okay with the most common K's PFers try to run (i.e. Fem/Fem IR, Capitalism, Securitization, Killjoy, etc.), but I am not familiar with high theory lit (i.e. Baudrillard, Bataille, Nietzsche). But please don't overcomplicate the backhalf.
• Theory - Debate is a game, so do what you have to do. If you're in the varsity/open division, please don't complain that you can't handle varsity-level arguments. *** Evidence of abuse is needed for theory (especially disclosure-related shells). I will (usually) default competing interps. I generally think disclosure is good, open source is not usually necessary (unless your wiki upload is just a block of text), and paraphrasing is bad, but I won't intervene if you win the flow.
• Trigger warnings with opt-outs are necessary when there are graphic depictions in the arg, but are not when there are non-graphic depictions about oppression (general content warning before constructive would still be good). Still, use your best judgment here.
• ***Note -- if you read an excessive number of off positions that appear frivolous, I will be very receptive to reasonability and have a high threshold for your arguments. So it probably won't work to your advantage to read them in front of me. Regardless of beliefs on prog PF, these types of debate are, without a doubt, awful and annoying to judge. I'll still evaluate it, but run at your own risk.

Misc: Please pre flow before the round; I don't think crossfire clarifications are super important to my ballot, so if something significant happens, you should make it in ink and bring it up in the next speech; I'm okay if you speak fast (my ability to handle it is diminishing now though lol), but please give me a doc; speaker points usually range from 28-30.

Questions? Ask before the round.

In general, I am not a huge fan of counterplans, unless the topic wording is so skewed so as to not offer the Negative much ground or pose serious morality issues. The burden of proof shift then occurs and most teams in negation that I have seen are not skilled enough to run these persuasively. I'm all about impacts, harms, how do you solve. I'm a very pragmatic judge. Top "half" debates are fun, but definitions or theory arguments seldom convince me, but if you have a really good one, I will consider it. Open-minded. A FIERCE independent politically. Fiscal conservative.

Hey! My name is Julian Silva. 

My paradigm is a little different than many others. I have no competetive debate experience besides advanced college debate courses. 

As such, I want to reward the skill I find the most useful in a debate: adaptability. 

A little history and background on me. 

I spent 5 years running an incredibly hot sales floor in a very technical field. I've sold over 15 million dollars worth of computers, servers, networking equipment and mass storage solutions. If a dirty negotation tactic exists you better believe I've used it or seen it used. 

I carry an associates degree in Computer Technologies and specialized in hardware repair and manufacturing. I also carry an associates degree in Communication. I am currently pursuing a bachelors in the field of Communication with a specialty in study of the First Amendment as well as rhetoric in War. I've done more neo-aristotelian criticisms than you have hairs on your head so I will definitely be looking at your ethos, pathos and logos. 

That said, if there's anything you want to remember about my preferences is this: I want to see chaos. I might even influence it myself by changing the setting of your debate if allowed. I want to see a passion for your arguments that burns with the white hot intensity of a thousand burning suns. Nothing will make you lose more points with me than a speaker that acts like a teleprompter. If I wanted to read your arguments I would've asked for your OS and read it myself. Dirty tricks are not only allowed, they are encouraged. Keep it civil, but don't be afraid to call out an opponent on a lie or insinuate that they insult the intelligence of the judge by stating an obvious fact and demanding evidence. Take risks, gamble all of your argument away on a hunch, throw a wrench into your opponents plans both literally and rhetorically. (I'm kidding, keep it civil. No felonies, but I will allow a class C misdemeanor to slide if the weather is nice.)

I always disclose results and give critique when allowed. I'm both the best judge you'll ever have and the worst. I will make sure you leave the debate a better person, but I will also break your heart by absolutely demolishing your arguments. 

I allow 5 minutes of Q&A so that both sides of the debate can ask questions they feel will help them win influence. (when allowed) "How was your morning? What kind of car do you drive? What are your thoughts on (x) topic?"

Bring your best and take risks. 

Miles Morton

Policy/LD:

Speed is fine

Not a fan of non-t critical affs

Don't love Ks either

I enjoy t debates

PF:

Speed is fine, but it's mostly up to your opponents. If they say "clear" or "speed" or something you should slow down.

Please just flash cases, if you don't I'm going to be annoyed if you call for like a half-dozen cards.

I'll evaluate most arguments barring anything offensive or insensitive.

Disclosing boosts speaks

Flashing cases probably means perfect speaks

If you flash cases or disclose and your opponents don't theory is super viable and a voter imo.

Be nice.

Weigh... That's what the decision is based on, don't focus on the line-by-line in FF, instead explain why your impacts matter more than the other teams.

Parli: PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE do not feel obligated to fill time if you're a beginner or just don't have 7 or 8 minutes worth of argumentation. I would much rather you give a 4-minute rebuttal than an 8-minute rebuttal where half of the speech is you just repeating the same things over and over again. Speed is cool so long as your opponents are fine with it. Any arguments will be evaluated unless they're discriminatory

Let me know if you have any questions

email for chain: milesmorton2@gmail.com

Have fun!

-Speak clearly

-Do not drop arguments

-Do not insult the other team

-Back up your claims with evidence, if the round is close I prefer the team with better/more evidence.

-Be equitable in the crossfires. If you are dominating the conversation and not allowing the other team to ask questions, I'll take it as a sign that you are unwilling to defend your argument. That being said, if the other team does not ask any questions when given the chance, feel free to continue asking questions. A decent percentage of rounds I see are decided by who performs better on cross.

Hello everyone! I am a university student studying Criminology at Simon Fraser University.

Please keep in mind that I am a lay judge and I have no experience as a debater. Please speak clearly and don't use too many debate jargon.

Tips on receiving higher points and winning the round:

1. Please speak SLOW and CLEAR. Because we are having our tournament online, it is very hard for others to hear what you are trying to say. If I don't catch your words clear, you will end up losing a few points. (I'd rather have you not finish your speech than mumble rush through the entire thing.)

2. Please send me your case beforehand so I can follow along. This will give you an advantage during the tournament. Please send them to n.hyunsun@gmail.com .

3. Once you enter the conference call, please turn ON your video and mute your mic.

4. Please time yourself. I will not warn you about your times unless they are very over. This will heavily impact your speaker points!

5. I normally don't give oral feedback usually so please wait until the ballots are posted for your feedback :)

6. I primarily focus on the structure and organization of the speeches. If I find it difficult to follow along and messy, I won't be able to favor your side! Please be organized!

7. I highly favor quantifiable evidence over others. So, use numbers!

Not Do's :

*** Do not yell into the microphone. If you speak too loud, it's going to sound like you are mumbling. If you speak too quietly, no one will hear you!! ***

*** any type of racism, sexism, discrimination, rude comments and negative behavior will give you very low speaker points. So please be polite to one another :) ***

Lastly, Have Fun:)

4-year varsity debater from College Prep. Graduated in 2021.

I evaluate the flow first, tech over truth.

I can handle most speed - would much rather prefer a slower, clear speech to a faster, garbled speech (esp with the online format)

Everything that's in Final Focus should have been in summary (unless it's responding to something new from second summary (which also shouldn't happen))

Weighing

Weigh the debate for me so I don't have to and you don't get mad when I "do it wrong".

The earlier you weigh the better.

Please make your weighing comparative, well warranted, and clear.

Pre-Reqs, short circuits, and link ins >>>

Progressive Debate

I will evaluate and weigh any argument. That being said, please make it very clear to me because I have less direct prog experience.

If you have any questions feel free to ask me before the round

Good Luck :)

my email is amyoco@bu.edu reach out if you have any questions or concerns

- Parent judge

- Please be respectful and make sure to speak clearly and not too quickly. It is also important to thoroughly explain each contention/analysis.

- Try to avoid using debate terminology.

- Good luck and have fun!

I'm a second year PF parent judge with MA in communications and political science. My judging is based on evidence and argumentation. You win points by playing by the rules and being polite: new arguments in final focus will be ignored.

I am a relatively inexperienced judge. I won't be able to get arguments down if you spread, so don't speak too fast.

I value clean extensions and cross-examinations when I make my decision.

Impacts and weighing are probably the biggest factors that affect my final decision.

Tech>Truth

*Varsity Speaks I changed my paradigm to include this last season mid-tournament and I'm keeping it this season. Boost in speaker points when you compliment your partner in-speech - the more fun or earnest, the higher the speaks boost :) I've found this gives some much needed levity in tense rounds.

*Online: Please go slower online. I'll let you know if you cut out. I'll try on my end to be as fair as possible within the limits of keeping the round reasonably on time. If the tournament has a forfeit policy, I'll go by those.

Background: 3 years of college super trad policy (stock issues/basic T & CPs) & some parli. I coach PF, primarily middle school/novice and a handful of younger varsity teams. She/her.

PF:

Firm on paraphrasing bad. I used to reward teams for the bare minimum of reading cut cards but then debaters would bold-faced lie and I would become the clown emoji in real time. I'm open to hearing arguments that penalize paraphrasing, whether it's treating them as analytics that I shouldn't prefer over your read cards or I should drop the team that paraphrases entirely.

Disclosure is good because evidence ethics in PF are bad, but I probably won't vote for disclosure theory. I'm more likely to reward you in speaks for doing it (ex. sharing speech docs) than punish a team for not.

“Defense is sticky.” No it isn’t.

As a result, frontline whatever you want to go for in summary in second rebuttal - first summaries, call it out if not.

If you take longer than a minute to exchange a card you just read, it starts coming out of your prep. I don't believe in the trend of judges I've seen that get upset at the team asking for cards rather than the team that can't produce the cards they just read. It's your stuff, you either have it or don't.

If it's in final focus, it better be in summary.

Collapsing, grouping, and implicating = good, underrated, easy path to my ballot! Dumping as many blippy, unwarranted responses as you can = overrated, not fun, will probably annoy me.

Messy debates make me sad. I think cleaner debates collapse earlier rather than later.

I'm super into strategic concessions. "It's okay that they win this, because we win here instead and that matters more bc..."

I have a soft spot for framing. I'm most interested when the opposing team links in (ex. team A runs "prioritize extinction," team B replies, "yes, and that's us,"), but I'll definitely listen to "prioritize x instead" args, too. Just warrant, compare, etc.

Other "progressive pf" - I have minimal experience judging it. I'm not saying you can't run these debates or I'm unwilling to listen to them, but I'm saying be aware and slow down if I'm the one evaluating it. Update: So far this season, I've voted down trigger warning theory and voted for paraphrasing theory.

I'll accept new weighing in final focus but I don't think it's strategic - you should probably start in summary to increase my chances of voting off of it.

All else fails, I will 1) look at the weighing, then 2), evaluate the line-by-line to see if I give you reasonable access to those impacts to begin with. Your opponents would have to really slip up somewhere to win the weighing but lose the round, but it's not impossible. I get really sad if the line-by-line is so convoluted that I only vote on the weighing - give me a clean place to vote. I'll be happy if you do the extra work to tell me why your weighing mechanism is better than theirs (I should prefer scope over mag because x, etc).

LD:

I’m a better judge for you if you're more trad/LARP. The more "progressive," the more you should either A) strike me if possible, or B) explain it to me slowly and simply - I’m open to hearing it if you’re willing to adjust how you argue it. Send a speech doc and assume I'm not as well-read as you on the topic literature.

All:

If it's before 9am, assume I learned what debate was 10 minutes ago.

Open/varsity - time yourselves. Keep each other honest, but don't be the prep police.

On speed generally - I can do "fast" PF just fine, but if it's anything that resembles spreading in another event, I'm not your best bet.

Content warnings should be read for graphic content. Have an anonymous opt-out.

Have warrants. Compare warrants. Tell me why your args matter/what to do with them.

Don't post-round. Debaters should especially think about who you choose to post-round on a panel when decisions echo one another.

Having a sense of humor and being friendly/accommodating toward your opponents is the easiest way to get good speaks from me. Be kind, have fun, laugh a little (but not at anyone's expense!!), and I'll have no problem giving you top speaks.

If I smile, you did something right. If I nod, I'm following what you say. I will absolutely tilt my head and make a face if you lost me or you're treading on thin ice on believability of whatever you're saying. If I just look generally unhappy - that's just my default face. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

NOTE: This is geared towards policy debate at the moment, but much of the logic here applies to PF.

Note for NSDA Nationals 2022

I am a very late add to the policy pool. I should mention that I haven't heard a round on the topic this year.

Additional PF-specific notes at the top:

I find the practice of card paraphrasing to be problematic. It's educationally unsound and ethically problematic because the structure of the event really makes it difficult to check abuse. I would much rather see a long card with aggressive highlighting than a paraphrase.

If you are reading one-sentence cards or paraphrased cards, you should know that I will be very receptive to a theory block about it. If you present a card inside quotation marks that is not an actual quote, I will vote on that evidence abuse almost every time.

If we're going to run 20+ cards in public forum rounds, my expectation is that both teams share speech docs with full cut cards at the start or end of their speeches. Don't send cards one at a time, don't send one-sentence quotes, send full, cut cards.

That being said, my preference is for evidence-heavy debate (at least in constructives) where the cards provide the warrants and backing evidence.

My biggest pet peeve is teams reading blocks in rounds that they don't really understand and are maybe reading for the first time. There are moments when you are going to be surprised by a position or case in a round, but most of the time, you should be familiar with the blocks you read. This activity has to be more than teams reading blocks written by their coaches and other debaters. I want smart, round-specific analytical arguments and will give far more credit to a round-specific claim than something you read from a block.

I have been involved with policy for a long time, but have been out of the judging circuit after a long pause from the activity as a coach. In general, that means I am open-minded about any kind of argumentation but tend to prefer a policy-oriented round. I will listen to and vote for kritiks and critical Affs but I will be very sympathetic to arguments against K Affs. Very sympathetic!

Happy to vote on big impact positions, but perhaps more inclined to listen to smart analytical analysis of flaws in the evidence and link stories than most judges.

Perhaps a bit more clarification here is warranted: I really dislike the trend of contemporary debate to have rounds boil down to arguments about fairness/reasonability/etc. These arguments are often reductive and repetitive. They also encourage judge intervention if they become major voting issues, Make them in the constructives, but by rebuttals, let's move to more substantive analysis.

A few things I don't like

Really rapid analytical arguments without context or development (fewer, better analyticals are better for me), arguments that are exclusionary or demeaning, misrepresentation of evidence, stripping cards of their warrants in your highlighting.

Things I do like

Thoughtful comparison of impact calculus in rebuttals, respectful debate that is inclusive, thoughtful analysis of framework debates, signposting arguments.

Things worth knowing:

I want the 2AC/2NC/1NR/1AR segment of the debate to compare evidence and analysis. It's great that you've got some prepared frontlines but I am far more interested in strong in-round analysis than in competing prepped positions.

If the Neg runs a series of contradictory 1N shells, I am very inclined to consider Aff arguments that claim it's an abusive strategy. I prefer the Neg to take an intellectually consistent approach to the round. Don't run a K that says state action is genocide and a states counterplan and expect that you'll easily get out of it by kicking one in the block.

I flow what I can hear. Sure, I will look at the e-mail chain, but even if we're on Zoom, I want to be able to hear and understand your cards. I am not particularly interested in policy debate becoming an activity where five people read Word documents sent to one another. I will use your doc to supplement my flow, but I expect you to be clear enough that I can understand both tag and cards.

I have many years of experience as both a debater and judge in both high school and college competitions.

Speed is fine as long as you are understandable. Please weigh arguments and explain why you should win the round.

Speak clearly and be persuasive. Be polite and respectful at all times.

Use speechdrop.net for sharing speech documents. No more email or flashdrive problems. The affirmative should have this ready to go before the round starts.

(Copy and paste Erick Berdugos paradigm ) but to summarize my general beliefs .....

Affirmative :

1) The affirmative probably should be topical. I prefer an affirmative that provides a problem and then a solution/alternative to the problem. Negatives must be able to engage. Being independently right isn't enough.

2) Personal Narratives - not a fan of these arguments. The main reason, is that there is no way real way to test the validity of the personal narrative as evidence. Thus, if you introduce a personal narrative, I think it completely legit that the personal narrative validity be questioned like any other piece of evidence. If you would be offended or bothered about questions about its truth, don't run them.

3) K -Aff : Great ,love them but be able to win why either talking about the topic is bad, your approach to talking about the topic is better,why your method or approach is good etc, and most importantly what happens when I vote aff on the ballot.

4) Performance : Ehh- I’m not the judge to run a good perf bu but I am willing to listen to the arguments if you can’t rightfully warrant them .
Perf cons ARE an issue and can cost you the ballot . Be consistent!
5) EXTEND ! EXTEND! EXTEND! “Extensions of the aff are overviews to the 1 ar” .... no they are not . I want to flow them separately not in some clump . It gets messy.

NEGATIVE :

1) Kritiks : I am not familiar with a large range of lit but I know plenty how to judge a good kritik and I enjoy it. Do not feel you need to run a K to win any sort of leverage in the debate ... you’re better off reading something you are comfortable defending than a crappy K you have no knowledge of . You need to be able to articulate and explain your position well don’t just assume I am familiar with your authors work. Alts need to tell me cause and impact aka what will the after look like ?? K MUST have a specific link. K arguments MUST link directly to what is happening in THIS round with THIS resolution. I am NOT a fan of a generic Kritik that questions if we exist or not and has nothing to do with the resolution or debate at hand. Kritiks must give an alternative other than "think about it." Have good blocks to perms !!! Especially if you have no links to the advocacy .

2) DA : Go for it ! I lean towards topical / substantive larpy rounds so I will definitely vote on a good DA . Make sure your impact calculus is outweighing and tell me how ! Internal links should be clear . If the impacts are linear that needs to be articulated as well . Pretty simple but feel free to ask me for clarifications !

3) CP/ PIC : Strategic if done correctly ! For the CP there needs to be net benefits and they should be extended throughout the round . Please don’t read generic cards you stole off a case file ( I can tell and it makes for a redundant debate ) I won’t vote against you for it but .. don’t plz . Theory against abusive CPs is completely legitimate. For the PIC - keep it clean ! *paradigm under construction *

Hi! My name is Julie (She/Her/Hers), and I am currently a sophomore at the University of California, Berkeley. I was a competitive debater and have competed in PF (with some parliamentary and worlds) in high school for 4 years.

Please add me to the email chain if one is being used in the tournament:

julieqi@berkeley.edu

Judging Paradigm

1. I love debates with fiery clash, but please remember to be respectful to each other! If I hear anything inappropriate (any ___ism), I will lower your speaks precipitously. If serious enough, you will not only lose the round, but I will also report you to the tournament officials or tabroom.

2. If you don't extend your arguments in your Summary and Final Focus, they will be dropped on my flow.

3. Do your best to write the ballot for me and PLEASE weigh your arguments. If you do not tell me how I should evaluate the round, you do not tell me how you win the round lol. At the same time, warrant your arguments! (don't rely on the existence of a card or a tagline as a sufficient explanation for your argument).

4. I do not flow crossfires, therefore if anything important comes up, please mention it in your speeches so I take a note of it when I weigh the round at the end.

5. I usually don't call for evidence, but I expect you to be prepared to hand any evidence requested to myself or your opponents ASAP. If you fail to provide evidence in a timely manner, I will start charging you prep time to find it. Usually, I will give you 30 seconds to find the card.

6. Only have a framework if you are going to use it throughout the round. I do not like super technical conversations about it if none of you are actually framing your impacts and arguments around it.

7. I can handle speed, but please no spreading if possible. Enunciate and project yourself, and do not mumble your words quickly. This will help both me and your opponents in making this debate as engaging as possible. My speaks usually start at 27, and I go up from there. I usually give speaks around 28-30. oh and if you manage to make me laugh, automatically +0.5 for you :)))

8. Evidence > Opinions

Most importantly, have fun! If you have any questions before/after the round, don't hesitate to ask.

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

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

FAQ:

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

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

Stance on LARP? Cool with it.

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

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

Time yourselves!

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

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

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

- Give me good signposts

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

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

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

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

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

I did speech and debate in high school, 3 years of LD and 1 year in PF. I'm alright with any kind of argument you want to read (theory, k's, etc) just explain what you're reading well and make sure you can communicate your advocacy. I'm also okay with speed, but if you are planning on speaking really fast, please email me your case. My email address is msavransky01@gmail.com.

I'm a flow judge and prefer tech > truth but your arguments obviously still have to be true for me to vote for them.

How To Win My Ballot

Arguments should be extended in the summary and final focus speeches, if an argument is brought up in the 2nd rebuttal and final focus but not the summary, I won't vote on it.

Weigh your arguments against those of your opponents, that's one of the most important things for me in the round! In your speeches, you should be explaining why voting for your side has a bigger impact than that of your opponents using different criteria like magnitude, scope, timeframe, probability, and reversibility. This is especially important in your final focus and summary speeches.

Your final two speeches should look somewhat like my ballot, explain the main arguments that the round comes down to and why they should be the key voting points. Say why those arguments flow your away and weigh them against the arguments your opponents.

Don't go for too many arguments in the final speeches, you shouldn't be talking about everything discussed in the debate, only the most important things. Otherwise, the debate tends to get messy as there ends up being a lot of extended arguments that have little interaction with each other.

Cards should be explained through out every speech, when you extend a card, you should not only be saying the name of the author but also the warrant of the card and the implication of it. Also, you should be weighing your cards against those read by your opponents i.e say why your evidence is better quality, why there is more of it, and so forth. When two teams have competing cards, this is what helps me decide which one to believe and side with.

All I'm all, just extend your arguments and cards in every speech, weigh the most important arguments against each other in the final speeches and you'll definitely win the round/get great speaks.

Thanks for reading and I look forward to judging you !

Please do not use progressive arguments in PF rounds; speak at an average rate and be nice to each other.

Competed: University of Minnesota
Coach (Present): Emporia State University; College Prep
Coached (Past): Augsburg College; Highland Park Senior High (MN)

PUBLIC FORUM

Although my primary background is in policy, I am familiar with the procedures of public forum and spent a season of my high school career competing in the format. Below are my answers to the suggested PF philosophy questions provided by the TOC.

Please share your opinions or beliefs about how the following play into a debate round: Speed of Delivery: Speed is fine so long as clarify doesn't suffer.

Format of Summary Speeches (line by line? big picture?):Both effective line by line and big picture storytelling are important to my ballot.

Role of the Final Focus: Providing a rubric/judge instruction for my ballot

Topicality: Generally these debates are done poorly, it's important to have a comparative metric for evaluating interpretations and a robust discussion of the various impacts to the violation. I do not view topicality in a purely "jurisdictional" way - offense/defense is important.

Plans: Not needed but not automatically disallowed.

Kritiks: Sure although just like any argument, it must be explained, applied, and impacted thoroughly.

Flowing/note-taking: I will flow the entirety of the debate.

Do you value argument over style? Style over argument? Argument and style equally? Quality and depth of argument is the primary thing I will evaluate, but style is not unimportant by any means.

If a team plans to win the debate on an argument, in your opinion does that argument have to be extended in the rebuttal or summary speeches? Yes.

POLICY

"I view my role in the debate not as arbiter of truth, but critic of argument, as such I attempt to divorce myself from relative "truth" values of arguments." - Chris Loghry

I like to see debaters deploying arguments that motivate and interest them.

I don’t call for many cards. This does not mean evidence quality does not matter, or that I don’t call cards often. What it does mean is: the debaters make the arguments, not the cards. I will not view them as placeholders for warranted explanation. Not every argument requires a card to answer.

Framing matters: provide me a macro-level filter through which to view the micro-components of the debate. The debates I find myself most frustrated with are the ones in which the 2NR and the 2AR have respectively delivered me 2NC #2 and 2AC #2 and left me to sort through the pieces. Rebuttalists that present a clear story while closing the right doors will be rewarded.

The more explicit you are with me in terms of my ballot, the better. This mostly goes for presumption and judge conditionality, but also for competing Frameworks/Role of the Ballots. If debaters are not explicit, there becomes no objective standard for me to use as a reference for when and where I infer these arguments.

Have a plan for Cross-X.

Things I like to see in cross-x: Asking precise, critical questions. Giving succinct, impactful answers. Writing down all concessions for utilization in the next speech.

Things I hate to see in cross-x: Ad-homs. Open-ended softballs. Questions that blatantly indicate a lack of flowing. Refusal to answer reasonable questions. Repetition of questions to avoid giving answers. Poorly-timed invocations of false ethos. 4-person shouting matches.

If you are reading critical literature, whether on the Affirmative or Negative, please explain and utilize your method. Make the links turn the case. Have a robust explanation of the alternative. Strive for internal, philosophical consistency. Your authors have particular theories of subjectivity, violence, etc., and I want to thear them; just remember that they all can and SHOULD be ACTIVELY applied broadly to frame many portions of the technical debate.

A speech doc is not a flow substitute.

Debate matters just as much to your opponents as it does to you, even if for different reasons. Be mindful of this and respect your competitors.

Co-Director: Milpitas High Speech and Debate
PHYSICS TEACHER
History
Myers Park, Charlotte N.C.
(85-88) 3 years Policy, LD and Congress. Double Ruby (back when it was harder to get) and TOC competitor in LD.
2 Diamond Coach (pretentious, I know)

Email Chain so I know when to start prep: mrschletz@gmail.com

Summer 87: American U Institute. 2 weeks LD and congress under Dale Mccall and Harold Keller, and 2 more weeks in a mid level Policy lab.

St. Johns Xavierian, Shrewsbury, Mass
88~93 consultant, judge and chaperone

Summer 89 American U Coaches institute (Debate)

Milpitas High, Milpitas CA
09-present co-coach

Side note/pet peeve: It is pronounced NUUUUUU-CLEEEEEEE-ERRRRRRRRR (sorry this annoys the heck outta me, like nails on the blackboard)

ALL EVENTS EXCEPT PARLI NEED TO KNOW NSDA RULES OF EVIDENCE (or CHSSA RULES OF EVIDENCE) OR DO NOT EXPECT ME TO COUNT IT(NSDA MINIMUM IS "NAME" AND "DATE" ****READ IN ROUND****) Anything else is just rhetoric/logic and 99% of the time, rhetoric vs card mans card wins.

If you put conditions on your opponent getting access to your evidence I will put conditions on counting it in my RFD. Evidence should be provided any time asked between speeches, or asked for during cx and provided between speeches. Failure to produce the card in context may result in having no access to that card on my flow/decision.

Part of what you should know about any of the events
Events Guide
https://www.nflonline.org/uploads/AboutNFL/Competition_Events_Guide.pdf
13-14 NSDA tournament Operations manual
http://www.speechanddebate.org/aspx/content.aspx?id=1206
http://www.speechanddebate.org/DownloadHandler.ashx?File=/userdocs/documents/PF_2014-15_Competition_Events_At_A_Glance.pdf

All events, It is a mark of the competitors skill to adapt to the judge, not demand that they should adapt to you. Do not get into a definitional fight without being armed with a definition..... TAG TEAM CX? *NOT A FAN* if you want to give me the impression your partner doesn't know what they are talking about, sure, go ahead, Diss your partner. Presentation skills: Stand in SPEECHES AND CX (where applicable) and in all events with only exception in PF grand.

ALL EVENTS EXCEPT PARLI NEED TO KNOW NSDA RULES OF EVIDENCE (or CHSSA RULES OF EVIDENCE) OR DO NOT EXPECT ME TO COUNT IT(NSDA MINIMUM IS "NAME" AND "DATE"****READ IN ROUND****) Anything else is just rhetoric/logic and 99% of the time, rhetoric vs card means card wins.

PUBLIC FORUM:

P.S.: there is no official grace period in PF. If you start a card or an analytic before time, then finish it. No arguments STARTED after time will be on my flow.

While I was not able to compete in public forum (It did not exist yet), the squad I coach does primarily POFO. Its unlikely that any resolution will call for a real plan as POFO tends to be propositions of fact instead of value or policy.
I am UNLIKELY to vote for a K, and I don't even vote for K in policy. Moderate speed is fine, but to my knowledge, this format was meant to be more persuasive. USE EVIDENCE and make sure you have Tags and Cites. I want a neat flow (it will never happen, but I still want it)

I WANT FRAMEWORK or I will adjudicate the round, since you didn't (Framework NOT introduced in the 1st 4 speeches will NOT be entertained, as it is a new argument. I FLOW LIKE POLICY with respect to DROPPED ARGUMENTS (if a speech goes by I will likely consider the arg dropped... this means YES I believe the 4th speaker in the round SHOULD cover both flows..)

Remember, Pofo was there to counteract speed in Circuit LD, and LD was created to counter speed, so fast is ok, but tier 3 policy spread is probably not.

ALL EVENTS EXCEPT PARLI NEED TO KNOW NSDA RULES OF EVIDENCE (or CHSSA RULES OF EVIDENCE) OR DO NOT EXPECT ME TO COUNT IT(NSDA MINIMUM IS "NAME" AND "DATE" READ IN ROUND ) Anything else is just rhetoric/logic and 99% of the time, rhetoric vs card mans card wins.

PLANS IN PF
If you have one advocacy, and you claim solvency on one advocacy, and only if it is implemented, then yeah that is a plan. I will NOT weigh offense from the plan, this is a drop the argument issue for me. Keep the resolution as broad as possible. EXCEPTION, if the resolution is (rarely) EXPLICIT, or the definitions in the round imply the affirmative side is a course of action, then that is just the resolution. EXAMPLE
September 2012 - Resolved: Congress should renew the Federal Assault Weapons Ban
the aff is the resolution, not a plan and more latitude is obviously given.

If one describes several different ways for the resolution to be implemented, or to be countered, you are not committing to one advocacy, and are defending/attacking a broad swath of the resolution, and this I do NOT consider a plan.

ALL EVENTS EXCEPT PARLI NEED TO KNOW NSDA RULES OF EVIDENCE (or CHSSA RULES OF EVIDENCE) OR DO NOT EXPECT ME TO COUNT IT(NSDA MINIMUM IS "NAME" AND "DATE" ****READ IN ROUND****) Anything else is just rhetoric/logic and 99% of the time, rhetoric vs card mans card wins.

POLICY:

If your plan is super vague, you MIGHT not get to claim your advantages. Saying you "increase" by merely reading the text of the resolution is NOT A PLAN. Claiming what the plan says in cx is NOT reading a plan. Stop being sloppy.

I *TRY* to be Tabula Rasa (and fail a lot of the time especially on theory, Ks and RVI/fairness whines)
I trained when it was stock issues, mandatory funding plan spikes (My god, the amount of times I abused the grace commission in my funding plank), and who won the most nuclear wars in the round.

Presentation skills: Stand in SPEECHES AND CX (where applicable) and in all events with only exception in PF grand.

Please don't diss my event.
I ran
Glassification of toxic/nuclear wastes, and Chloramines on the H2O topic
Legalize pot on the Ag topic
CTBT on the Latin America topic.

In many years I have never voted neg on K (in CX), mainly because I have never seen an impact (even when it was run in POFO as an Aff).(Ironic given my LD background)

I will freely vote on Topicality if it is run properly (but not always XT), and have no problem buying jurisdiction......
I HAVE finally gotten to judge Hypo-testing round (it was fun and hilarious).
One of my students heard from a friend in Texas that they are now doing skits and non topical/personal experiece affs, feel free, BUT DON'T EXPECT ME TO VOTE FOR IT.

I will vote on good perms both ways (see what I said above about XT)

SPREAD: I was a tier B- speed person in the south. I can flow A level spread *IF* you enunciate. slow down momentarily on CITES and TAGS and blow through the card (BUT I WILL RE TAG YOUR SUBPOINTS if your card does not match the tag!!!!!!)
If you have any slurred speech, have a high pitched voice, a deep southern or NY/Jersey drawl, or just are incapable of enunciating, and still insist on going too fast for your voice, I will quit flowing and make stuff up based on what I think I hear.

I do not ask for ev unless there is an evidentiary challenge, so if you claim the card said something and I tagged it differently because YOU slurred too much on the card or mis-tagged it, that's your fault, not mine.

LD

I WILL JUDGE NSDA RULES!!!! I am NOT tabula rasa on some theory, or on plans. Plans are against the rules of the event as I learned it and I tend to be an iconoclast on this point. LD was supposed to be a check on policy spread, and I backlash, if you have to gasp or your voice went up two octaves then see below... Topicality FX-T and XT are cool on both sides but most other theory boils down to WHAAAAAAHHHH I don't want to debate their AFF so I will try to bs some arguments.

-CIRCUIT LD REFER to policy prefs above in relation to non topical and performance affs, I will TRY to sometimes eval a plan, but I wish they would create a new event for circuit LD as it is rarely values debate.

- I LOVE PHILOSOPHY so if you want to confuse your opponent who doesn't know the difference between Kant, Maslow and Rawls, dazzle away :-).
Clear VP and VC (or if you call it framework fine, but it is stupid to tell someone with a framework they don't have a VC and vice versa, its all semantics) are important but MORE IMPORTANT is WHY IS YOURS BETTER *OR* WHY DO YOU MEET THEIRS TOO and better (Permute)

IF YOU TRY TO Tier A policy spread, or solo policy debate, you have probably already lost UNLESS your opponent is a novice. Not because I can't follow you, but because THIS EVENT IS NOT THE PLACE FOR IT!!! However there are several people who can talk CLEARLY and FAST that can easily dominate LD, If you cannot be CLEAR and FAST play it safe and be CLEAR and SLOW. Speaker points are awarded on speaking, not who wins the argument....

Sub-pointing is still a good idea, do not just do broad overviews. plans and counter-plans need not apply as LD is usually revolving around the word OUGHT!!!! Good luck claiming Implementation FIAT on a moral obligation. I might interrupt if you need to be louder, but its YOUR job to occasionally look at the judge to see signals to whether or not they are flowing, so I will be signalling that, by looking at you funny or closing my eyes, or in worst case leaning back in my chair and visibly ignoring you until you stop ignoring the judge and fix the problem. I will just be making up new tags for the cards I missed tags for by actually listening to the cards, and as the average debater mis-tags cards to say what they want them to, this is not advisable.

PLANS IN LD
PLANS
If you have one advocacy, and you claim solvency on one advocacy, and only if it is implemented, then yeah that is a plan. I will NOT weigh offense from the plan, this is a drop the argument issue for me. Keep the resolution as broad as possible.

EXCEPTION, if the resolution is (rarely) EXPLICIT, or the definitions in the round imply the affirmative side is a course of action, then that is just the resolution. EXAMPLE
September 2012 - Resolved: Congress should renew the Federal Assault Weapons Ban
the aff is the resolution, not a plan and more latitude is obviously given.

If one describes several different ways for the resolution to be implemented, or to be countered, you are not committing to one advocacy, and are defending/attacking a broad swath of the resolution, and this I do NOT consider a plan.

I repeat, Speed = Bad in LD, and I will not entertain a counter-plan in LD If you want to argue Counterplans and Plans, get a partner and go to a policy tournament.

GOOD LUCK and dangit, MAKE *ME* HAVE FUN hahahahahah

http://www.vbriefly.com/2012/05/23/201205comments-for-the-circuit-on-the-ncfl-and-nfl-nationals-by-brad-taylor/

I competed for 4 years, primarily in PF and a bit of policy. When it comes to Public Forum I don't want you to just read evidence at me, stop trying to make PF policy! Explain your evidence and warrants, give good analysis. Also I really enjoy Framework debates, if you're going to read framework carry it through the entire round. Care about FW arguments because thats how i'm going to end up voting if i'm not given an alternative FW. Make sure there is actual clash, dont just tell me why your positions are important.

Since im fairly new to CX I dont have a ton of preferences, just dont expect me to understand super high theory off the bat, and if you do run it, make sure to explain it really well. Other than that just do your thing and be kind to each other. I am generally a laid back person, however i have a zero tolerance policy when it comes to being purposefully cruel or bigoted to your opponents or otherwise. Lets have fun and learn from each other, thats what this is all about.

Hi guys!

My name is Zoey and I debated PF on the national circuit for all four years of high school at Rowland Hall in Salt Lake City Utah. I qualified for nationals two years in a row and have made it pretty far in some high skill national tournaments, such as Alta, Jack Howe, ASU, etc. I love debate and know a lot about debate so no need to be worried about me being a lay judge in any way.

As for what I would like to see in rounds. First and foremost please please please be respectful. If I see or hear any homophobia, xenophobia, racism, or ignorance of any kind, wether in arguments or in cross, I will nuke your speaks if not drop your entire team. Abusiveness in arguments or presence is not welcome in the debate space. Additionally if I see debaters, specifically female or nonbinary ones, being spoken down to, interrupted, or made uncomfortable I will, again, either injure your speaks or drop you depending on the severity.

Okay, secondly, I am totally okay with progressive debate, speed, theory, K's, tricks, etc. If you are planning on speed, I would prefer you just speak at a pace where I can flow on my computer or, if needed, send me a doc. I am pretty good with theory and K's and tricks, but please if the other team is not do not use it as a cheap way to win, I will view that as bad debate.

As for speeches in general, I am tech over truth, but don't push that, lie, and be abusive. Framework is cool but not necessary. PLEASE FRONTLINE! Frontlining starts as early as second rebuttal, and I expect extensions to be from resolution to impact, do not just extend through ink. Additionally please collapse, taking on too many arguments at once makes for bad debate. I expect summaries to be the best speeches in the round because you have the most to do in just three minutes so make use of your time and learn what matters in a speech. Final focus is pretty simple, weigh weigh weigh, impact impact impact. I believe that weighing should be brought up in rebuttals, but I also understand not having enough time. That being said if one team weighs in rebuttal and extends through FF, and one team waits until FF to start, there will be a large advantage for the other team. Honestly just debate well, weigh, extend resolution to impact, collapse, and be respectful :)

Cross will in no way impact who wins or your speaks but if there is abuse that can change. Please make cross fun, yes use it as a way to answer questions you need answered, but also the best part about cross is making your opponents get flustered and feel behind. Use it to your advantage, it can help in speeches. If you bring up something said in cross during a speech I will flow it but in general I will not be flowing cross.

As for evidence, I have high evidence standards, I am cool with paraphrasing don't worry, I think it is needed in PF, but please have everything carded and ready to show your opponents. I will only call for cards if it is contended or seems sus.

If I am forgetting something feel free to ask me before the round starts! Also please be on time to rounds :) have fun, debate well, be kind, and good luck

speak slow and clear

I will judge based on argumentation, use of evidence, and logic. I am not a big fan of spreading either, so please talk clearly.

Also, it would be great if you could send a speech document after the constructive speech as my Wifi is not very good and I would not want you to lose because of that.

I'm a parent judge with no prior experience to formal debate until becoming exposed to it as a parent of a debater. However, I really enjoy listening to what you have to say! Bottom line, I'm a lay judge though my daughter says that I'm 'flay'. However much I try, I guarantee novices flow better than me.

If you spread or go too fast, I won't understand you, and that really puts you at a disadvantage. Please make sure you're understandable. K's or Theory at your own risk. I likely won't know what to do with that.

The whole point of debate is mastering the art of persuasion. I try to follow flow but may miss technical details. Don't rely on technicalities to determine if you think you won the round. Persuade me to vote for you. Make me buy your argument. I will vote based off of who holistically convinces me to affirm or negate. If the round gets muddy I go for the path of least resistance. Don't overthink it, just do your best.

I expect teams to keep and police the timing of their own rounds. I'll only interject if I think it's egregious, but poor time management may negatively impact my impression.

Be genuine and show your personality. If you tell a joke that makes me laugh I may give you an extra speaker point.

Low speaker points are generally from low energy, an extreme lack of eloquence or an abundance of ummms and uhhhs.

Abusive behavior, racism, sexism and homophobia etc. will be reported to your coaches, and I reserve the right to drop you on the spot.

Have fun and good luck!

I'm a parent judge who has little bit of experience judging tournaments over the past year. I can follow contentions to some degree as long as they are delivered in a conversational pace the way average human beings communicate. I have limited knowledge about Article 9 but I'm planning on educating myself before the tournament. If you plan on running theory, I might not be a suitable candidate. I generally relate to arguments that are quantified. I can make good decisions when the main contentions are repeated with impacts.

Good Luck to all of you!

I have been debating and doing IE's as a competitor and judge since the 1970's with a long break in the 90's and 2000's while working in the private sector. I have been coaching a team that does primarily Oregon-style parli and Public Forum debate, but I did NDT and CEDA as a college competitor and understand all formats.

I judge as a policy maker looking for justification to adopt the resolution, and will accept well-justified arguments on both substance (the issues of the resolution) and procedure (framework, theory). In policy rounds I have a bias against affirmative K's, because I believe the Aff prima facie burden requires that I be given a reason to adopt the resolution by the end of the first Aff constructive in order to give the Aff the ballot. Arguments founded in social justice approaches are fine as long as they lead to a justification for adopting the resolution and changing the status quo.

I can handle speed but remember I'm not seeing your documentation--a warrant read 600 words a minute at the pitch of a piece of lawn equipment might as well not be read from the judge's seat. You flash each other, but not me, so make sure I understand why your evidence supports your argument. I won't debate for you, and I don't flow cross-ex/crossfire. If you want me to consider an argument, introduce it during one of your speeches. In formats other than policy, particularly in Public Forum, I expect a slower rate and more emphasis on persuasion with your argumentation as befits the purpose of those other formats. In LD, I expect arguments to be grounded in values, not "imitation policy."

I will automatically drop any debater who engages in ad hominem attacks--arguments may be claimed to have, for example, racist impacts, but if you call your opponents "racists," you lose--we have too much of that in the contemporary world now, and we are trying to teach you better approaches to argument and critical thinking.

Above all else, I like good argumentation, clash, and respectful conduct. No personal attacks, no snark. Humor welcome. Let's have some fun.

Brief background of my debate experience:

I have been involved in speech and debate since the 90's. I debated policy in high school and another 4 years as a scholarship debater at USC (NDT). I also coached a LD program in a Southern CA high school a few years back. Recently, I have been judging rounds quite frequently over the last 4 years, mostly in PF and LD, but I am also familiar with this year's policy topic.

LD specific:

Speed is fine as long as it's clear. I will buy k's as long as the links are clearly explained and contextualized. I will only buy theory if there's clear in-round abuse. Leave tricks for Halloween.

Feel free to add me to the email chain for evidence: ptapia217@gmail.com

About:

Claremont McKenna College '23 | Archbishop Mitty '19

Hi there! My name is Jon Joey (he/they) and I competed in Parliamentary, Public Forum, and Congressional Debate at the national circuit level for three years at Archbishop Mitty High School. After graduation from Mitty, I served there as an Assistant Debate Coach for two years and personally coached the 2021 CHSSA Parliamentary Debate State Champions. I also briefly competed in National Parliamentary Debate Association tournaments in my undergraduate years and was heavily involved in the collegiate MUN circuit.

My current affiliation is with Crystal Springs Uplands School, where I am the Head Debate Coach for both the Middle and Upper Schools.

In the interest of inclusivity, if you have ANY questions about the terms or jargon that I use in this paradigm or other questions that are not answered here, feel free to shoot me an email at jtelebrico23@cmc.edu—and please cc your coach or parents/guardians on any communication to me as a general practice!

Fun Data* Stuff (last updated 11.17.23):

• Rounds Judged: n = 167
• Aff Ballots (Parli, LD, PF, WSD): 68 (40.9%)
• Neg Ballots (Parli, LD, PF, WSD): 99 (59.6%)

*As a caveat, this is based off of Tabroom data imported and available as of the last update. I've done my best to include tournaments that have since hidden their prelim data (e.g. 2019 NPDI) and no longer appear under my judging record but it may not be entirely accurate.

Feel free to use this to analyze general trends or to inform elim flips.

I'll update w/ PF paradigm in January ahead of Cal.

Parli Paradigm (last updated 11.09.23 for NPDI)

Important parts bolded and underlined for time constraints.

General

• TL; DR: Debate how you want and how you know. If you need to adapt for a panel, I will meet you where you are and evaluate fairly.

• STOP stealing time in parliamentary debate! Do not prep with your partner while waiting for texts to be passed. There is no grace period in parliamentary debate—I stop flowing when your time ends on my timer. In the event of a timing error on my end, please hold up your timer once your opponent goes overtime.

• The debate space is yours. Run as slow or fast, lay or tech of a round as you want. Don't be mean and exclusionary. This means a low threshold for phil, tricks, etc. but I will exercise a minute amount of reasonability (speaks will tank, W/L unchanged) if you're being intentionally exclusionary towards younger/novice/inexperienced debaters (e.g. refusing to explain tricks or clarify jargon in POIs or technically framing out teams for a cheap ballot). No TKOs, sorry.

• Please adapt to your panel! I will evaluate as I normally do, but please do not exclude judges who may not be able to handle technical aspects of the debate round.

• I keep a really tight flow and am tech over truth. Intervention is bad except with respect to morally reprehensible or blatantly problematic representations in the debate space—I reserve the right to exercise intervention in that case.

• I prefer things to be framed as Uniqueness, Link, Impact but it doesn't matter that much. Conceded yet unwarranted claims are not automatic offense for you.

• Doing impact weighing/comparative analysis between warrants is key to coming out ahead on arguments.

• Collapse the debate down to a few arguments/issues/layers. Extend some defense on the arguments you're not going for and then go all in on the arguments that you're winning.

• Rebuttals are also very important! The 1NR cannot be a repeat of the 2NC and the 1AR should be engaging with some of the new responses made in the block as well as extending the 2AC. Give overviews, do comparative world analysis, do strategic extensions.

• This paradigm is not a stylistic endorsement of one form of debate over another. Debates should debate according to how they know how to debate—this means that I will still evaluate responses to theory even if not formatted in a shell or allow debaters to weigh their case against a K argument. There is always going to be a competitive upshot to engaging in comparison of arguments, so please do so instead of limiting your ability to debate due to stylistic frustrations and differences.

Framework

• In the absence of a weighing mechanism, I default to net benefits, defined therein as the most amount of good for the most amount of people. This means you can still make weighing claims even in the absence of a coherent framework debate.

• Framework cannot be backfilled by second speakers. Omission of framework means you shift framework choice to your opponents.

• For CFL Super Debate: Please respect trichotomy as these topics were written with a particular spirit and are meant to serve as preparation for CHSSA (should = policy, ought or comparison of two things = value, on balance/more good than harm/statement = fact)

• Down for all kinds of trichotomy arguments, theory interps are permissible here (i.e. feel free to run policy rounds on value/fact/metaphor topics if you want to justify it to me).

• Any and all spec is fine.

• Read and pass texts to your opponents.

Counterplans

• I tend to default that CPs are tests of competition and not advocacies. Whether running the CP or articulating a perm, please clarify the status of the CP.

• I think counterplans are super strategic and am receptive to hearing most unconventional CPs (PICs, conditional, advantage, actor, delay, etc.) so long as you're prepared to answer theory. These don't have to necessarily be answered with theory but affirmative teams can logically explain why a specific counterplan is unfair or abusive for me to discount it.

Speaks

• Speaker points are awarded on strategy, warranting, and weighing. As a general rule: substance > style.

• The path to a 30 probably includes really clean extensions and explanations of warrants, collapsing, weighing.

• Despite this, I am pretty easily compelled by the litany of literature that indicate speaker points reify oppression and am pretty receptive to any theoretical argument about subverting such systems.

• My current speaks average aggregated across both Parli & PF is 28.7 [H/L = 30/27; n=234; last updated 09.24.23].

Kritiks

• Kritiks are a form of criticism about the topic and/or plan that typically circumvents normative policymaking. These types of arguments usually reject the resolution due to the way that it links into topics such as ableism, capitalism, etc. I am receptive to hearing these during a debate and am otherwise agnostic to how I evaluate them compared to other forms of arguments.

• Specific links > topic links > generic links. Make links as specific as possible.

• I find KvK debates quite confusing and difficult to evaluate because debaters often don't operationalize framework in strategic ways and leave a lot of the line-by-line comparison to judge discretion. Win the RotB debate, use sequencing and pre-req arguments, and contest the methodologies of each K. On the KvK debate, explain to me why relinks matters—I no longer find common analogues (e.g. manslaughter v. murder) as sufficiently explanatory in and of itself. I need debaters to implicate relinks to me in terms of one's own framework or solvency.

• Read good framework, don’t double turn yourself, have a solvent alternative.

• When answering the K, and especially if you weren’t expecting it, realize that there is still a lot of offense that can be leveraged in your favor. Never think that a K is an automatic ballot so do the pre- v. post fiat analysis for me, weigh the case against the K and tell me why policymaking is a good thing, and call out their shady alternative.

• I think that teams that want to run these types of arguments should exhibit a deep understanding of their scholarship and provide accessible explanations if you want me to evaluate these arguments fairly but I don't arbitrate over that in my direct evaluation—it just reflects in how you debate and how interactive these arguments become.
  
  

Theory

• I'm a lot more willing to evaluate theory, or arguments that set norms that we use in debate.

• I default to competing interps over reasonability, meaning that both teams should probably have an interp if you want to win on theory, or at least make it a substantive layer of my evaluation. Feel free to change my mind on this and of course, still read warrants as to why I should prefer one over the other. Saying "Gut Check" doesn't trigger reasonability for me. Explain why I should do so and explain its implications.

• In the interest of minimizing interventionism, I'm slowly beginning to care less if theory is frivolous as my judging career progresses but at the same time, try not to be exclusionary if you're aware of the technical ability of your opponents. Inclusivity and access are important to this activity's long-term growth.

Points of Information/Order

• PLEASE take at least two POIs. I don't really care how many off case positions you're running or how much "you have to get through" but you can't put it off until the end of your speech, sit down, and then get mad at your opponents for misunderstanding your arguments if you never clarified what it was in the first place. On the flip side, I won't flow POIs, so it's up to you to use them strategically.

• Tag teaming is fine; what this looks like is up to you.

• Call the P.O.O.—I won't protect the flow.

For anything not covered here, feel free to reach out and ask me before the round!

Hello Everyone! Find the event you are competing below and read the paradigm!

Congress:

I want to see proper etiquette in round and respect to every single Senator/Representative.

Argumentation, Creativity, and Presentation are my top 3 things I look for when I judge.

Argumentation: Your arguments need to make sense. You need to have a clear warrant/evidence and you need to show how your evidence links to your position.

Creativity: Be funny. Give me a funny intro or make me laugh and that's a huge bonus to your rank. Congress invitational rounds are very long and some speeches get blended together. Stand out. Puns are huge for me and originality is key. Arguments that are unique to the debate/not stock arguments, add a lot to the debate and I really appreciate it.

Presentation: Be presentable. Act like you want to be here. Effective gestures and facial expressions add a lot to what you are talking about.

Flow of Debate:

If you are speaking in the 5th or 6th cycle, try not to give constructive speeches but crystallization speeches/consolidation speeches. Giving constructive speeches late kind of ruins the flow of the debate.

Cross Exam:

I only mark off points if there is a lack of knowledge of content or presentation that isn't adequate. (example: stuttering during CX, giving a blank face during CX, or anything in between.)

As a competitor, you must ask questions. It helps the flow of the debate and really allows the judges to see the cross-examination aspect of Congress. When no one asks questions, it's extremely boring and really doesn't allow the judges to see if the competitor knows their stuff.

For PF/Policy/Parli

PLEASE add me to the chain @ttsudama@gmail.com (if rules allow)

- Please don't be late.

- Speak coherently and make sense.

- While I have experience in debate, I want you to speak slowly and calmly. Yelling doesn't make you right. If the volume does become too loud I will mark that off speaker points. If you are speaking too fast and become incoherent I will say "clear" one time as a reminder that you are either going too fast or because you are incoherent. After that, there are no more warnings and you have a higher chance of losing the debate because most likely I will have stopped flowing.

- I prefer case debate. I ask that there is no theory or kritiks. IF there is one ran, it must be well said// easy to understand. Run at your own risk.

-Think of me as a parent judge who flows. Please do not get too technical.

- I default to the voting framework. For example, if you say your Weighing Mechanism is Net benefits, I will choose whichever side provides the most amount of net benefits. Make sure to signpost, organization is key, and bouncing everywhere on the flow gets really confusing and leads to a dock on speaker points+ missed arguments on my flow.

IF you have any questions, email @ttsudama@gmail.com. Ask anything there is no such thing as a dumb question. Just ask honestly. Email is free.

By profession, I am a Program Manager with Bank of the West and have worked for 2 decades with several diverse teams with different opinions on matters. I enjoy considering conflicting points of view. I am a PF judge and have a reasonable familiarity with the rules.

- Please do not use extremely complicated debate jargon.

- I try to keep my evaluation exclusively to the flow. In-round weighing of arguments combined with strength of link and conceded arguments. I default to arguments with substantive warranted analysis.

-I strongly encourage debaters to cut cards as opposed to hyperlinking a google doc.

- Please collapse

- Defense should be extended in both summary speeches if you want to go for it in the final focus

- Speaker points are used to indicate how good I think debaters are in a particular round

- Be respectful in cross as I play close attention to it.

- Don't speak too fast but if you do please give me the speech doc

- Time yourself and make your opponents accountable for their speech and prep timings

- Weigh your impacts and explain

- Provide an off-time roadmap

- Have Fun!

Please let me know if you have any questions. My email is dhira.vaidya@gmail.com

I mainly have a preference for speaking speed. I prefer speeches to be within the realm of a reasonable conversational speed.

I am an intermediate-level judge. I have judged PF a handful of times. I understand the content well but am unfamiliar with some debate jargon. I respond well to logical arguments and appreciate respect between competitors.

I'm a lay judge. Please be kind to each other , speak clearly and slowly, and no yelling. Read good quality evidence from credible sources.

+1 speaker points if you send your cases with the evidence cards

add me to the email chain- anusha_venk2002@yahoo.com

I debated from 16-19 doing PF and LD and coached a top 10 parli team in the 19-20 season. Davis CS '23. This is my fifth year judging and eighth year in the debate-space.

Three absolute essentials from my friend Zaid's paradigm:

1. Add me to the email chain before the round starts: vishnupratikvennelakanti@gmail.com. Make sure that the documents are .pdfs (so that I can open it directly within the browser).

2. Preflow before the round. When you walk into the room you should be ready to start ASAP.

3. I will NOT entertain postrounding from coaches. This is absolutely embarrassing and if it is egregious I will report you to tab. Postrounding from competitors must be respectful and brief.

I do not view debate as a game, I view it almost like math class or science class as it carries tremendous educational value. I generally dislike how gamified debate has become - especially LD. There are a lot of inequities in debate and treating it like a game deepens those inequities. Progressive argumentation is a practice which big schools utilize to extend the prep gap between them and small schools. Hence, I believe that traditional debate is the MOST educational way to go about this activity.

Your job as a competitor is to make my job AS EASY as possible. The easier you make it, the greater the likelihood of getting my ballot. The less truthful the argument, the more work you have to do to convince me that your argument is true. I am tech over truthbut it's a lot of work to prove factually untrue arguments. It's in your best interest to make sure your arguments are truthful because then you do a lot less work to convince me which makes the round easier for you to win.

I'll accept theory on the condition that there's real demonstrated abuse in the round(going over time repeatedly, spreading when asked not to etc). You should be willing to stake the round on theory - meaning that it should be the only argument that matters in the round. Running shells and dropping them is dumb. Breaking "norms" are not indicative of abuse - you cannot expect someone new to debate to be familiar with every norm on the national circuit.

I generally dislike theory shells like Nebel or hyperspecific/friv shells. You have to do a ton of work to convince me that bare plurals is actually abuse and not just an article written by some random guy at VBI - and there's a variety of other shells that this applies to.

Disclosure theory created by big schools to trick smaller schools into giving up their prep advantage on the wiki because it's "more equitable". A fundamental part of debate is developing the ability to think and interact with your opponents' case, not reading off pre-written responses that coaches write for you (which is really easy to tell when you're doing it and irks me).

Performance Ks, K Affs, RVIs and tricks are a byproduct of debaters seeking to win this "game" of debate so needless to say I don't really enjoy listening to them.

Ks are fine. If it's something unique, you need to explain it thoroughly. If I don't understand the K, I can't vote for it.

Spreading is silly. Slow and good >>> fast and bad. I don’t think being unintelligible on purpose is a very good strategy to winning debates in real life either.

Thus, my threshold for progressive debate is high.

Generally in LD, the arguments in which you will have to do the least work to convince me are substance debate and policy debate. Phil is enjoyable as well. But you need explain explain explain explain.

I don’t think off-time roadmaps are a real concept. When you speak, outside of introductions and niceties, it should be running on someone's time.

Framework debate is good but I'm not a huge fan of value/VC debate (because the analysis is really shallow - "they don't support my VC so they auto lose". If its not that then I really enjoy it. )

If I am judging PF and you run progressive nonsense, it's an automatic loss. PF is MEANT to be accessible to the public. My 90 year old grandpa should be able to judge a round and understand what is happening.

In all events, I don't really care about cross since it's an opportunity for you to set up future arguments. I usually know who's won by the second to last speech (1NR in LD and negative summary) so unless the round is particularly close I don’t flow the last speech (2AR or FF).

It will serve you best to think of me as a deeply experienced flay judge rather than a circuit judge.

I will reward smart arguments with higher speaker points. Weigh effectively and weigh often and provide warrants for your arguments. This is the path to my ballot! Just tell me how and why to vote for you, do not trust me to understand and extend your implicit arguments.

Other than this, have fun, crack jokes, reference anecdotes and be creative. I'll give you +1 speaker points if you use a computer science concept in an analogy.

My background:

I have a background in speech and forensics, having done policy debate (CX), oratory, congress, etc. and other speech and debate activities throughout high school and college. I'm a KUDI alumna and my graduate work is in policy analysis and rhetorical discussion of same by young people. I love debate and I want you to learn something and yes, have fun. This should be enjoyable, and you are learning critical thinking skills by doing this.

My public speaking approach:

I do not expect public speaking perfection. If you are working on your public speaking skills, you can absolutely tip the scales with your argumentation and intellect. This is a technique that you should be practicing more than a spread/speed flow. I don't mind a spread - and practiced spread debate myself - but remember -- if you can't back up that approach with a lot of intellectual discipline, it will fail. I will see right through it.

I don't care what you wear, how you sit, if you stand. I want to see "a mind at work."

You can send me your case. My email is coringilbert@gmail.com Why would you do this? Because you just want to save time. Because you've crafted a case that will dominate the discussion and you are focused on stock issues and wish to empower me to dig in to prep.

General Paradigm

Anything is valid if you signpost, signal and stick to your framework. Don't try to do too much. I appreciate attention to the stock issues, but I appreciate the evolving nature of this activity and if you choose to adjust to T/R, gaming model, or offer a kritik -- do so with confidence and walk the judge(s) fully through the model you are using. Strive to make sense. Work to be crystal clear, as the round moves on, what elements are being dropped by the other side.

Theory: I'm open to them, but you had better bring the thunder in terms of providing clear rationales for each element of the theory. DO NOT ASSUME that your theory will be acceptable. Theoretical debate frames have to float and if you present one, it's got to be focused on a traditional debate outcome. Your judges (myself included) expect to be able to explain clearly a rationale for a decision on the ballot. Read the room. If your theory is ineffective -- don't be afraid to punt.

If I hear an argument that is racist, homophobic, Islamophobic or Anti-Semetic -- you will lose. Similarly, I have no issue with passion, healthy intellectual aggression, and even a little passive-aggressive gamesmanship. But candor should never be confused with condescension.

I love a clean flow at the end of the day. Give me a reason to cross out arguments that have been covered, circle things left untouched and structure a ballot with insight on how you might improve.

Second year lay judge.

1. Do not speak too fast. Be Clear.

2. Rather than just reading cards, make sure to clearly warrant everything you say in round.

3. Make sure your arguments are consistent throughout the round.

4. Any arguments made in final focus must have been mentioned in summary.

5. Be sure to weigh clearly. Interactive weighing is great.

6. Do not be rude to your opponents during the round.

Flay Judge.

Did public forum for about 3 years

Like to judge more lay but will understand terms

I like to see weighing done earlier but don't like weighing that doesn't add any value

I don't like theory arguments

be respectful

Don't really listen to grand cross so if both teams agree, we can just skip it and take prep instead

Have a good understanding of pf topic so I will understand most of the arguments

Very experienced judge and coach for Saint Francis high school. I will consider pretty much any arguments that are not blatantly sexist, racist or crudely discriminatory (blatant is the key word here, much of this stuff is debatable and I will try not to punish you for my general feelings about your arguments).

It is important to me that debaters be respectful and polite to each other, this puts the spotlight on the arguments themselves and I am not a fan of extra drama.

I try hard to be fair and the following things help me do that:

- I rarely call cards. I like to focus the debate on the analysis given by the debaters (of course I will usually give more weight to analysis that is taken from qualified sources). I do not like to decide debates on random parts of a card that neither debater really focused on. I will call cards if I forget what they said, if there is a conflict about what they say and I can not remember, or if I am personally interested in the card.

- I try to judge on the flow in the sense that I evaluate the debate on the arguments presented, explained and extended into the rebuttals. I will occasionally do the work to weigh impacts or decide framing if the debaters are not doing that for me.

- I will not yell "clear", so mumble and slur at your own risk (I don't yell clear because I don't want a team to find that sweet spot where I can understand them but their opponents can not). I will also not evaluate arguments that I can not hear. I do not read speech documents during the debate rounds, sometimes I will look at them after the round (see calling cards stuff above).

Argument preferences:

I am cool with critiques on the aff and neg.

I am cool with framework (I like the debaters to work this out and I am pretty neutral on this question).

I like clarity (both in speech and arguments). I am not impressed by things that are "too complex" for me to understand but I will do my best to try to make sense of it. I am confident enough to not pretend I know your position and I will not fill in the blanks for you.

I am cool with policy arguments.

I have a wide breadth of knowledge but little depth on certain positions, don't assume I know your literature.

Speaks:

I give high speaks for clarity, efficiency, a pace that I can flow, respectfulness and occasionally speaking style.

I feel like the speaker point range I give is pretty close to average (I am not a reliable source of high speaks for everyone, but I will reward excellent debate with high speaks).

Contact info

mail all speech documents to: headofthewood@gmail.com

anything else (if you want me to read the e-mail or respond): thomaswoodhead@sfhs.com

I'm a parent judge. This is my second year judging.

Please don't go too fast. I have lived in the US for almost 30 years now and am very familiar and interested in all kinds of political topics.

I will try my best to take some notes, so please signpost.

Thanks! Good luck!

Pronouns: They/She

Email: patriciayango@arizona.edu

I am a 2020 graduate of Perry High School (AZ) and a 4 year competitor in a variety of speech and debate events at both the local and national levels. I am competing for the University of Arizona. I'm the Arizona District Assistant Coach of the Year (2021).

tldr; signpost always. run whatever you want (no trix tho pls). check your privilege.

you are responsible for the weighing, extensions, and impact calc (and explaining unfamiliar lit).regardless of if you debate trad or progressive, good comparative impact calc will prob win you my ballot. if i don't understand ur contention, i probably wont vote on it. if i don't understand ur k/t/phil/da/cp/whatever else i probably wont vote on it.

i am a lazy judge. in an ideal world, you are filling out my ballot for me. tell me what i need to vote on EARLY IN THE ROUND and why. if you leave that up to me, you probably wont be happy with my RFD. pretty much any argument goes as long as you have a warrant and can explain it well.

I'm currently a university student studying Political Science at University of California - Berkeley. I started doing Public Forum in 7th grade, so I have around 6 years of experience in debate.

What I'm looking for in debate rounds:

I will definitely flow all your arguments, and the arguments I have written down on my flow will be the most important factor when I'm deciding who won the round. But more specifically, I am looking for clear, quantifiable impacts that I can consider when weighing.

If you drop an argument during your summary/final focus, I will not incorporate that into my voting issues. It is your responsibility to extend through all evidence and arguments to the very last speech if you want it to win you the round.

I was also a second speaker during my time as a high school debater, so I am looking for direct clashes to arguments in the refutation speech. I want you to directly attack the links and analysis to an argument when refuting.

In terms of speaking style, I am okay with speed, as long as it is not spreading. If you spread, especially in an online tournament, I will not be able to understand you as it is much harder to understand through a zoom call compared to an actual in-person debate.

Other than that, speak clearly and persuasively, but at the end of the day, if you have better arguments and evidence, speaking style comes second.

Hi. My name is Wenhan Zhu. I have been judging debates for more than two years. I enjoy hearing debaters speak passionately about their chose topics. When debating I prefer if a debater allows the other side to finish speaking before they speak. This is especially true during crossfires.