Cathedral, Emory | sarang.arun17@gmail.com

—***Last time I debated was 2021, so I am a little rusty, bear w. me please

—TLDR: Debate however you like, and I'll attempt to adapt to you - you can do everything/anything you want to do in front of me as long as it's clear. Fair warning though, I'm not really experienced with evaluating Ks or theory or really any progressive arguments but that doesn't mean I won't evaluate them: it just means you'll need to explain the nuances of your argument to me more. I did circuit PF in high school, and I think that's still pretty flay/tame compared to other events.

PF

—Defense is not sticky (explicitly call out drops), 2nd rebuttal must frontline everything that the 2nd speaking team wants to go for in the back half, offensive overviews are fine in 2nd rebuttal, good defense extensions > bad weighing <=> good weighing > bad defense extensions, weigh link-ins (link turns) when first read or I won't evaluate them, you don't need to extend author names when extending an argument, extend all levels of the link chain, I'll default to competing interps, yes RVIs but you must respond to no RVIs adequately if read, collapse or I'll be annoyed, speak slower because I really dislike speed (I have a hard time flowing speed because of auditory issues, where words get jumbled), everything must have a warrant, be kind to everybody in the round, if both teams win offense at the end of the round and don't weigh I'll intervene arbitrarily, disclosure is a good norm (+1 speaks), reading cut cards are a good norm (+1 speaks), I'll rarely presume neg/first (what I end up doing in a given round is subjective)—if I have to everyone's speaks are capped at 27, the median speaks I give out are 28s (so, if you disclose and read cut cards, you start out with a 30), & I'll disclose barring any specific requests.

—Add me to the email chain - no google docs for evidence please, people unshare them after rounds and that's a) unfair to the other team that actually debated in the round b) gross because all you did was cut/find said evidence - it's not your intellectual property so don't be stingy; if you make a google doc despite my request, I'll cap your speaks at 28.

—Content warnings are good and you should read them (within reason, use your better judgement) & barring a legitimate reason (like Wifi problems if we're online), I won't flow off a doc so adjust your speed accordingly. I will clear you twice before I stop flowing; take that as you will.

—have fun & breathe; you got this. Let me know how I can make the debate round more enjoyable for you.

Update: If you do everything you can to make the round go as quick as possible, I will increase your speaks (joining early if pairings go up early, not frivolously calling for cards or taking forever to produce them, etc.)

I'm Tejas, I debated a couple years at Del Norte

I STRONGLY prefer it if you frontline offense and whatever you're going for in second rebuttal

Defense is sticky for the first speaking team for whatever the second rebuttal doesn't frontline. However, if the second speaking team DOES frontline, defense is NOT sticky. However, even if second rebuttal doesn’t frontline turns, they need to be extended in the summary for them to generate offense.

If they are extended from rebuttal to final by the first speaking team, given that the second rebuttal did not frontline them, they will be evaluated as terminal defense.

I need full extensions in summary and final

Weigh as early in the round as possible, preferably starting in rebuttal

I'm fine with speed, but send a doc if you're spreading or if your opponents aren't comfortable with speed

Collapse in the back half please

For theory, K's, tricks, etc. I'll evaluate it, but I'm not the best judge for it, as I haven't debated it much myself, so tread with caution

I usually default competing interps and always yes RVIs unless told to do so otherwise

I default con for policy resolutions and first speaking teams otherwise unless contrary arguments are made

I'm tab

Be aggressive and interrupt as much as you want during cross I literally don't care at all

You can also do flex prep, tag team cross, skip grand, etc.

You don't need to add me to the email chain, I'll call for evidence only if I'm asked to do so

I'm pretty nice with speaks, I'll usually average at least a 29

I don’t call for evidence unless told to do so

If a team thinks they are getting absolutely nuked and forfeits prior to grand cross, I’ll give them double 30s

Have fun

Hello. I am tech.

signpost extend and weigh. frontline in rebuttal

don't go fast if you can't

I prefer 2019-20 to 2022-2023.

quality over quantity. please analyze your responses heavily, but don't do the silly irrelevant weighing people sometimes do on responses, do real implications.

I will make a point to deprioritize new weighing and analysis in second (and hopefully first) final focus.

I will evaluate anything. don't trust to evaluate nontopical K's; I will do what I want. theory: disclosure is probably good, paraphrasing is probably bad. I am reasonable; you don’t need a counter interp you can just respond logically if you want. friv theory (round reports and friends) is fine but I will evaluate it how I feel like

About me: I am an undergraduate at the university of Concordia and am majoring in both Anthropology and Foreign relations. I debated for 4 years (mainly doing PF) at Katy Taylor Highschool. I do have experience with LD, CD, and FX/DX but am most comfortable in judging PF. As of 2021 this is my 2nd year being a part of the Concordia Debate Society. During my junior year in high school I amassed three silver bids and one gold bid to TOC and participated in nationals in PF for my Sophomore, Junior, and Senior years. During my senior year I experimented around and did some LD, IX and DX where I ended up competing in nationals for LD and earned a NIETOC bid for IX.

Email chain: Jonathonblack766@gmail.com

----Public Forum-----

- "Flay” judge I guess. About 90% of my decision is decided solely off the flow, but if neither side weighs or properly extends their arguments/warranting I will be forced to vote like a lay judge which means you probably won't like the decision.

- Don't spread unless you absolutely have to.

- Only read theory if an actual violation has occurred, if you run theory because you know your opponents can't respond to it properly, your speaker points will suffer. Severely.

-When reading overviews or when weighing always tell me beforehand where to flow them.

-I don't flow cross but will listen. If you think your opponent conceded something critical or said something that might be to your advantage make sure to bring it up in your speeches if you want me to flow it.

----Lincoln Douglas----

- More of a traditional judge

-Tech over truth majority of the time-just make sure your arguments are well warranted

- Don't run a progressive argument and expect me to automatically understand what you're talking about, I'm fine with theory or K's as long as it's not frivolous.

- I am fine with speed as long as clarity is good-if you're planning to spread to the point where it's nearly unintelligible you should strongly consider sending me a speech doc

-Don't read blippy arguments/warrants, i.e. one liners and expect me to buy it

-Do flesh out your arguments with warrants and analysis

5 Things to Remember…

1st-Sign Posting/Road Maps- tell me the order and where to flow

After constructive speeches, every speech should have organized narratives and each response should either be attacking entire contention level arguments or specific warrants/analysis. Please tell me where to place arguments otherwise they get lost in the flow. If you tell me you are going to do something and then don’t in a speech, I will be upset. Road maps should be simple, anything longer than 15 seconds and I am starting your speech timer.

2nd-Framework

I will evaluate any arguments under frameworks that are consistently extended and should be established as early as possible. If there are two frameworks, please decide which I should prefer and why. If neither team provides any, I default evaluate all arguments under a cost/benefit analysis.

3rd-Extensions

Don’t just extend card authors and tag-lines of arguments, give me the how/why of your warrants and flesh out the importance of why your impacts matter. Summary extensions must be present for Final Focus extension evaluation. Defense to Final Focus ok if you are first speaking team, but you should be discussing the most important issues in every speech which may include early defense extensions.

4th-Evidence Ethics

"(https://www.speechanddebate.org/wp-content/uploads/HS-Unified-Manual-2019-2020.pdf)

The NSDA HS Unified Manual: pages 29-33 outline the rules around evidence. I will follow it carefully. I will evaluate all evidence presented in the debate as if its veracity is a voting issue, even if that issue is not raised by the competitors in the round.

Here is my list of requirements with regards to evidence. Failure to abide by these practices will result in a loss and very low speaker points. This section is non-negotiable. If any of these are an issue for you, you should strike me.

1. All evidence exchanged in an email chain must be a cut card, with a full citation present. No links to websites and instructions to “ctrl-F”. No random chunks of text with no tag or citation. A cut card. There are many guides to cutting a card available on YouTube.

2. Evidence must be produced within five minutes of its request, provided there are no technical issues. Failure to provide evidence after it is requested will result in either very low speaks and a loss or me not evaluating the argument associated with the evidence.

3. The evidence you send must also make the argument that you made in your speech. In other words, do not lie about what evidence says, and do not power-tag cards.

I will not end the round to enforce this, nor submit my ballot immediately. I will flow the entirety of the round and write out a decision as if the evidence had not been read so that both teams can take my comments post-disclosure and improve. However, the ballot will clearly indicate if you lost based on bad research practices.

Here is a list of my preferences when it comes to evidence. These are things that I think would be great norms for the community to set, and practices that I will reward with increased speaker points.

1. Quote evidence directly when it is first presented. I will not vote against you for paraphrasing. But, I will vote on the paraphrasing theory shell if argued persuasively (and I am predisposed to vote for it).

2. Level an evidentiary challenge against opponents who are misusing evidence. I will reward correct evidence challenges with a W and block 30s. Please do this if your opponents are lying about their evidence.

If both teams fail to ethically represent evidence in the debate, no team will get higher than a 26, neither side gets to tell me that their evidence is better, and all arguments become your own analysis, without cards."

5th-Prep

Tell me when you start and stop prep, I am fine with flex prep as long as both teams are as well. If your timer goes off at the end of your speech and cuts you off, you may finish your sentence. I don't flow anything that goes over 15 seconds. ( barring extenuating circumstances such as wifi outages)

SPEAKER POINT BREAKDOWNS

30: Excellent job, you demonstrate stand-out organizational skills and speaking abilities. Ability to use creative analytical skills and humor to simplify and clarify the round.

29: Very strong ability. Good eloquence, analysis, and organization. A couple minor stumbles or drops.

28: Above average. Good speaking ability. May have made a larger drop or flaw in argumentation but speaking skills compensate. Or, very strong analysis but weaker speaking skills.

27: About average. Ability to function well in the round, however analysis may be lacking. Some errors made.

26: Is struggling to function efficiently within the round. Either lacking speaking skills or analytical skills. May have made a more important error.

25: Having difficulties following the round. May have a hard time filling the time for speeches. Large error.

Below: Extreme difficulty functioning. Very large difficulty filling time or offensive or rude behavior.

***Evidence ethics borrowed from Bryce Piotrowski.***

debated for american heritage (c/o 2023), did mostly pf and a little ld

few must-know notes:

1. add me to the email chain (evan.burkeen@yale.edu).
2. don't miscut evidence.
3. warrants are super important, every argument must have them (and no, empirics without arguments are still not arguments).

few notes that aren't must-knows but helpful

1. I care slightly less about impact weighing than the average pf judge, weighing is just an issue of sequencing for me so you might want to spend more time winning the link in front of me. terminal defense >>> "outweigh on scope."
2. extensions on arguments should be thorough. im voting based on the backhalf, and I need a thorough extension to consider voting for your argument. keep it simple.
3. I don't read off docs if you're unclear, I just won't flow.
4. default to dtd, competing interps, rvis, no sticky defense, NO new responses past rebuttal (and no defense disguised as probability weighing), presume neg, and util. can be easily convinced to change any of these in-round. note on new responses: they must be flagged by the opposing team; I'll easily miss them if not.
5. uniqueness thumpers, impact defense, impact turns, and methodology explanations are heavily underused and I appreciate them a lot.
6. im fluent in progressive argumentation. update: these rounds usually don't have good engagement, and they're just read to escape clash. if you read progressive arguments, read them well, or don't read them at all.

things that get you really good speaks

1. analytical debating, I prefer and respect this a lot more than reading off a doc with copy/paste blocks (original analysis is a great skill!) engaging in line-by-line and clash rather than generic overview-esque responses will be rewarded. not exactly a fan of the "let me spread 10 unwarranted responses, hope they drop 1 and go for that" type of debating, although I'll still (reluctantly) evaluate it.
2. keeping the round fun and light-hearted, annoying debaters (one example is if you're wildly aggressive in crossfire) will get a lot lower speaks! sarcasm, wit, etc. are also funny, but don’t do too much.
3. judge instruction (one example: "judge, they have conceded terminal defense on their only piece of offense coming out of summary. if we have a risk of offense at all that's enough for you to vote affirmative").
4. keeping the round running on time.

if you have any questions before or after the round, please contact me at “Evan Burkeen” on facebook messenger. please let me know if there are any accommodations I can make to make the round enjoyable, accessible, and comfortable for everyone. if you are new to debate, and have no clue what im talking about in this paradigm, please don’t hesitate to reach out to me. the best way to improve is by asking questions. if you’re looking for no-cost camps, you can visit novadebate.org.

TLDR: This is just Eli Glickman's paradigm. He's cool.

DEBATE IS A GAME, PLAY TO WIN.

Tech>truth. I will vote for pretty much any argument as long as it's warranted well and it's not racist, antisemitic, sexist, homophobic, etc. I have experience with traditional and progressive. I will vote on the flow.

Things I Like:

Comparative weighing.

Signposting.

Roadmaps.

Weighing in rebuttal.

Summary/ff parallelism.

I prefer if instead of calling me "judge" you call me "justice" :D

Things I Don't Like:

New responses or wEiGhInG in grand cross because you dropped the argument

New offensive overviews or in second rebuttal

New responses to turns in second summary

Rudeness

DO NOT SAY 'DELINK,' SAY 'NO LINK.'

How I Judge:

If my paradigm is unclear, my favorite judges are 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 DLs 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: LOGISTICS———

Content Warnings:

Read a content warning for arguments that are potentially upsetting. You must have alternative cases ready in case your opponents or I am not comfortable with the content of your case. Keep the space safe for participants please. I default reasonability on CW theory, I am not inclined to vote for 'no bright line' RVIs or 'they didn't read a CW for econ growth' even if those responses win on the line-by-line.

Voting:

I default to util. If there's no offense I presume to the first speaking team. I will always disclose after the round, whether the tournament permits it or not. I can also disclose speaks if you ask.

Evidence:

—Evidence Part 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 Part 2—

When evidence is called for, take less than 2 minutes to pull up the card please.

—Evidence Part 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 R1 F1 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. If you choose to send a speech doc with cut cards before the given speech begins, I'll start your speaks at a 29 and won't go below that.

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, be efficient.

Disclosure:

If you've disclosed on the NDCA PF wiki properly I will give you +0.5 speaks, there's no punishment for not disclosing. Let me know if you are disclosed before the round so I can boost your speaks. (How to disclose.) Disclosure should include round reports and open source documents (I believe that disclosing highlights is bad, I will not increase speaks or look more favorably on highlights having been disclosed).

Speaks:

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

Good Star Wars references will result in higher speaks; the better the reference, the higher your speaks.

Postrounding:

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

———PART III: PROGRESSIVE DEBATE———

I enjoy progressive debate; I run 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 partner Roy Tiefer, "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

Non-T Kritik - 4

High Theory - 4

Performance - 5 (Strike)

Tricks - 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 but I'll evaluate it; 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 1st 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 K judge rounds. I'm more familiar with security, cap, and imperialism than anything else. You can run high theory Ks just explain them well, I'm fairly familiar with Nietzsche, Foucault, Agamben, and Baudrillard. If you are running a non-T aff/performance argument I am probably not your judge... I am not confident in my ability to evaluate them and I default T>K.

Tricks:

I do not know how to judge these, I also really, really, really do not like tricks... I'll vote for them if you win them but I'll cap your speaks at a 27.5.

Everything Else:

Framework, soft-left Ks, and DAs are fine. I've never run a CP, I don't really know how to evaluate that; you probably shouldn't do that in PF...but...if you want to...give me a really good reason why it's true or why I should evaluate it.

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.

Did PF and Policy for 4 years in high school. I now actively coach PF and attend UT Austin.

Contact info (for email chains): lnj.deutz@gmail.com

Basics

1. I'll try my best to adapt to your style - debate the way you want and enjoy the activity
   
   

2. I have little patience for people stealing prep and for long evidence exchanges. you will be in my good graces if you make sure the wasted time between speeches is reduced. send cards before your speech for a boost in speaks.
   
   

3. If you follow (2), my speaks usually range around 29. If you get 29.5+, I was very impressed.
   
   

4. As for speed, I am ok with it generally but I flow on computer so if you conjure up a blip-storm in summary (ie- read a bunch of one-liners) because you don't properly collapse, I will end up missing something.

PF Basics

1. I'll vote off of the least mitigated link chain with an impact at the end of the round
   
   

2. To make an argument into a voting issue, it should be properly extended in the latter half of the round, warranted throughout the round, and weighed against other arguments
   
   

3. Have tangible impacts (extinction works) - statistics about the economy growing don't count and reading "x increases trade and a 1% increase in trade saves 2 million lives" doesn't make the impact of your individual argument 2 million lives

PF Rebuttal

1. Frontlining is required in second rebuttal - if you drop offense, it becomes conceded and defense on an argument you collapsed on should be frontlined or it'll be an uphill battle
   
   

2. Each response should have a warrant - you can read as many as you'd like, but no warrant means it doesn't matter. 10 warranted responses with weighing is generally far more effective then reading 30 blips
   
   

3. In my experience, most rounds can benefit from collapsing early & weighing in second rebuttal
   
   

PF Summary/Final Focus

1. Any argument (defense or offense) that wants to be a voting issue needs to be in both speeches - "sticky" anything doesn't exist
   
   

2. Extend and weigh any argument you go for
   
   

3. Arguments not responded to in the previous speech are conceded - just call it that and extend it and move on
   
   

4. Metaweighing is good but hard - try your best to do it when needed and you'll be rewarded
   
   

Theory

1. Read what you want but I'd prefer shells to be accompanied by examples of in-round abuse; for example, if you are reading paraphrase theory, it would be nice to see which piece of evidence in their case is misconstrued (although it's not required).
   
   

2. Out-of-round abuse cannot be adjudicated by me - this stuff needs to be reported to your coach or the tournament's committee if a reportable offense
   
   

Other non-standard arguments in PF

1. I'm down to vote on anything that is well warranted. I'm a big fan of frameworks (with clear standards) and will vote on K's as long as they are well laid out (ie- if you want me to vote on biopolitics, explain in a couple of sentences what that means and what it looks like in the real world). For reference, in high school, I read versions of neolib, imp, bioptx, spark, and cap in pf
   
   

2. Try something new! I've gotten to the point where I've judged so many debates that look virtually identical to another that I will probably reward you with speaks if you try out a new strategy/case position/argument, etc.

Evidence

1. Every piece of evidence needs to be cut - you can choose to paraphrase but must still have cut evidence for it
   
   

2. Make evidence issues part of the debate rather than out-of-round issues - each team should be given a chance to justify the abuse or explain why it warrants a loss.
   
   

3. I'll never call for evidence unless explicitly told to - if you want me to read evidence don't just call it bad and tell me to read it, take the time to explain why you believe it's bad if it's a critical part of the debate
   
   

Post-Round Info

1. I will always disclose as long as the tournament allows it - if they don't, shoot me a message on messenger and I will
   
   

2. Ask questions! You should use the post-round opportunity to learn what you could've improved on.

Quick Summary - I am a former high school debater, I am a flow judge but will change to however you debate. DISCLOSE AND DO NOT PARAPHRASE! Have fun and be nice. I will be voting in a vacuum of the debate without any bias.

Background - Hi, I'm Blake Dodd I am currently a Freshman at the University of Kansas. I am a former Champ Public Forum debater, I have competed in PF my entire debate career but know how to evaluate other forms of debate as well. I always will be flowing and evaluating your arguments. My pronouns are he/him/his.

Style - I am much more of a flow judge then a lay judge. Do what you want though, I'll accommodate to your style of debate. Slow down during tags, If I don't flow it you didn't say it. Any discriminating slur used will tank your speaker points and most likely the loss. Most importantly, remember it is a debate round, learn lots, and have fun. I know the pain of a judge not evaluating or just not listening. So with that said I will be flowing everything you say. Tech>Truth, you must explain why arguments matter or do not matter. I will not make arguments for you. Otherwise I am a pretty chill debater and judge. Be nice to your opponents. If you want to spread ask your opponents and check with me before you do. If you are going to spread I expect a speech doc with what your are reading. I strongly believe in disclosure, please disclose before round on the PF/Policy debate wiki (if you have more questions about disclosure please email me or ask before the round), if your opponents ask for your case or any evidence give it to them. I am strongly against paraphrasing, I highly recommend to not do it in front of me. There is no grace period beyond 3 seconds, once your speech time is up stop reading.

Specifics - "Abuse" This is a soapbox issue for me. In a world of significant actual abuse (domestic abuse, child abuse, elder abuse, bullying, etc.), the use of the word to describe something as trivial as reading a counterplan, going over cross-x time by 3 seconds, or even not disclosing seems incredibly problematic. There are alternative words like problematic, anti-educational, etc. that can adequately describe what you perceive to be the issue with the argument. Part of this frustration is also due to the number of times I have heard debaters frustrate community judges by saying they were abused when the other team read an argument they didn't like. Please don't use this phrase. You can help make debate better.

Pronouns - If you have different pronouns or would like to be addressed in a different way please let me know and I would be happy to change my language. Please always use your opponents preferred pronouns or your speaker points will drop very quickly.

Theory/Progressive Arguments - I am perfectly fine if you want to read any progressive arguments in front of me such as disclosure theory or paraphrase theory. Other progressive arguments just check with me before you read it. More than likely it will be fine.

Contact - Email: blakedodd04@gmail.com

For evidence exchange, questions, etc., use: ishan.debate@gmail.com.

Add (for email chains): strakejesuitpf@mail.strakejesuit.org

I competed in PF at Strake Jesuit from 2019-2023 and now coach. Most results are viewable here.

I view debate as a communicative, research-centric game. Winning requires you to persuade me. The following should give you enough information to do so:

General

I dislike dogma and judge debates more from a "tech" perspective than "truth", although the two often go hand-in-hand.

Quality evidence matters. Arguments require a warrant. Impacts are not assumed. Sounds analytics can be convincing, but usually not blips.

I will not vote for arguments I cannot make sense of.

Speak clearly. Slow down on taglines and for emphasis. I flow by ear.

Cross-ex is binding otherwise it's useless. Bring up relevant concessions in a speech.

By default, I presume for the side that defends the status quo.

Evidence practices

Send speech docs before you speak. This should include all the cards you plan on introducing. Marking afterwards does not require prep.

Stop the round and conducting an evidence challenge if you believe someone is violating the rules.

Avoid paraphrasing.

PF

Defense is not sticky.

Second rebuttal should frontline.

Extensions are relevant not for the purpose of ticking a box but for clarity and breaking clash.

Cards should have descriptive taglines.

I like to reward creativity.

My threshold for non-utilitarian framing is higher than most.

1FF weighing is fine, but earlier is better.

I dislike the pre-fiat and IVI trend.

Theory

These debates may have more intervention than you'd like.

I dislike heavily semantical and frivolous theory debates.I believe that paraphrasing is bad and disclosure (OS in particular) is good. That said, I am not a hack.

Defaults are no RVIs (a turn is not an RVI), reasonability > CI, spirit > text, DTA, and respond in next speech.

Ks

Be familiar with your stuff and err on the side of over explanation.

Very hesitant to vote on discourse-based arguments or links not specific to your opponents actions and/or reps in the debate.

Any response strategy is fine. Good for Fwk and T.

Non-starters

Ad-homs/call-outs/any unverifiable mud-slinging.

Tricks.

Misc

Avoid dawdling. Questions, pre-flowing, etc. should all happen before start time.

Post-rounding is educational and holds judges accountable. Just don't make it personal.

Have fun but treat the activity and your opponents seriously and with respect.

Howdy, y'all!

My name is Tarun. I did 3 years of Debate for Bentonville HS and currently compete in college. I specialized in BQ and PF and competed in LD, Congress, Policy, and have a base knowledge of Worlds. I also know a lot about speech, so that shouldn't be an issue.

General notes for all styles [PF, CX, LD, WS, BQ]

Add me to the email chain pls(taruneisen61@gmail.com)! I am tech > truth. I will buy any arguments, as long as they are extended, warranted, etc. Make sure to collapse on weak args and extend on the winning ones. I think that while FW is important, it isn't the main attraction. If you're running prog, make sure everyone is okay with it. Please don't run Trix and theory shells just to get that easy dub against a novice. I prefer debates on substance, but if it turns into a technicality debate, make sure it's good. If the round turns into a definition debate, I will give everyone 26's. Please bring up all-new cards before FF. I also will not evaluate new contentions beyond 1st AC/NC. Please signpost as well, and give a roadmap. This allows everyone to keep everything organized and allows a clear mind. All weighing and impacts should start in Rebuttal, but I will buy it in Summary if it's strong enough. Link chains should also be presented in Rebuttal and extended through FF. I am not a fan of judge intervention, so make sure the ballot is crystal clear. I will also keep time, so if you go over time, I will stop flowing. You can finish your sentence, but beyond that, I won't flow anything else. Also, speed is fine, but don't spread (unless policy). Again, don't run abusive args. 

Evidence

I love evidence. If you are paraphrasing in your case, make sure you have the cut card, or at the very least, the URL for me to find it. Please warrant cards and show why they are both unique and impactful. I will call for any cards that I need, so please have them handy. I always had cut cards when I competed, so please have them. Make sure the cards actually say what you're telling. If you're going to present more cards in Rebuttal and Summary, warrant them and tell me why they outweigh the other side. Make sure those cards are also cut. If you just say the card (e.g., Jones 20) and give me info, but don't warrant it and show why it actually matters, I most likely won't buy it. If the source is biased or flawed, make it an issue. I won't buy new evidence past Summary, so any significant cards have them before that.

Cross X:

Please be respectful. I don't flow CX, but I will pay attention. If you're rude or a bully, I will down your speaker points. I am also chill with flex prep, but make sure your opponents are also okay with it. This time also shows how you flourish with direct questioning, so try your best.

Weighing/Voters:

Just because you say something's a voter does not automatically make it one. Make sure you tell me why this warranted voter is crucial. I will weigh probability, magnitude, timeframe (in that order of importance). Please do all weighing starting in Rebuttal, but I will accept it if you start in summary if it is crazy important. Any beyond that will not be bought. Be sure all voters are fleshed out, warranted, all that jazz. All voters should be in Summary. You can do voters in Rebuttal, but Summary is that last chance. Please show why you outweigh the opponents. It does me and you no good to show weighing A, B, C, but not why they matter more than opp. weighing D, E, F.

Last-minute thoughts:

-I will ave. speaker points at 28.5, but will go up and down accordingly.

-If you make a joke, I will up speaker points, but it has to be good or so bad it's amazing. Any bland jokes will lose speakers.

-Any Eisen cards will raise speaks by 0.5

-If you run Texas theory shell, I will give you L20. So just don't do it.

Otherwise, I am looking forward to seeing y'all debate!

Prologue - Nuts and Bolts of My Judging

Have fun and learn something! Don't let a single bad debate round ruin your whole career (or even your weekend).

Hi! I'm Rae (they/them).I'm fine if you call me "Judge," "Rae," or "Mx. Fournier." I don't know why you'd call me anything else.

I'm fine with email chains if that's what you're most comfortable with. If you have problems where you "forget" to hit reply all or emails get magically "lost" in the ether, let's use speechdrop instead. Here is my email if not: reaganfbusiness@gmail.com If you have questions before or after the round you can email me as well.

Experience:

Charles J. Colgan High School (2018-2022) - I debated at Colgan for 4 years in PF, and Policy, LD, and Congress for my senior year. I debated the water topic my senior year in policy, but I honestly did such little research I don't know if it matters that much.

Western Kentucky University (2022-Present) - I'm in my second year of debating at WKU, where I do NFA-LD and am planning on switching to primarily compete in NDT-CEDA next year. For what it is worth, I won the 2024 NFA-LD Grand Prix National Tournament.

Do not run arguments about death being good in front of me. Do not read explicit material surrounding sexual assault in front of me. You will be dropped and given the lowest speaker points possible if you do this, and I will also probably talk with your coach. I am fine with non-graphic depictions of SA given a content warning.

If there is a problem with your opponent's evidence (ethical or otherwise), please bring it to them before you bring it to me.

If I think you're in the top 50% of the pool, you should get a 28.5 or above for speaker points. I don't try to make an exact science out of speaker points, because I don't think most judges follow those little charts they make. A lot of it is based on the context of the round and the tournament. You will be closer to the mean if you are in novice or JV because I struggle to identify who is at the top of the pack of these divisions, purely out of my own inexperience.

I've voted aff 38/64 (~59%) of the time. I attribute this more to a small sample size than a strong aff bias, especially considering that I've judged many different kinds of debate at several levels. You might think I have a disposition towards the aff based on this paradigm, but I think I have a disposition against the way negs try to engage in many instances. I’ve tried to be transparent about my prejudices to boost your chances of victory.

Try to keep your own time. I start time when you start talking, and I stop flowing after your time runs out, and will call it shortly after. Not making me do that is really cool too, though.

Number your arguments! It makes things easier for you and for me. In that same vein, slow down on tags and analytics (esp. If they weren’t in the doc). Sidenote: Numbers organize arguments, they aren't replacements for arguments. If your 2AC on case sounds like a calculator spitting digits at me then I'm going to stop flowing and be visibly miffed.

I’m fine with you “inserting” evidence if it is just for my visual reference, but if you want me to flow it as anything other than an analytic, you should be reading it because debate is an oral activity.

I am not a very fast flower, and I don't look at the docs which means that if you're speeding through your 2nc to condo and I didn't get any of it, you dropped it! In general I am going to signal to you whether or not I like an argument via facial expressions and body language, which is largely out of my control. It would do you good, then, to look at me when you’re giving a speech. I won't clear you because I think it is unfair but I will try to make it as clear as possible when I don't get something.

Something I have seen that bothers me - you cannot strongarm me into voting for you. Calling me “stupid” if I don’t vote for a DA (something that has happened on the circuit I compete on) is a surefire way to cap your speaker points at 27.5, even if you win. The core of debate is persuasion, and I cannot think of a less persuasive strategy than yelling at me, threatening me, accosting me based on a decision I haven’t made yet, etc.

I update my paradigm a lot. This is because I’m learning a lot about debate after being a (mostly) lay PF debater in high school. This also has the fringe benefit of making me understand my own positions better, and scratch out takes that end up being not very sound.

Chapter 1 - My General Debate Philosophy

I like debates that include affs who read a topical plan, negs who read arguments about the plan (excluding process counterplans that do the aff, Ks that don't rejoin the aff, bad theory arguments like ASPEC, etc.), and debaters who cut a lot of cards and do not run from engagement. Still, I will try to fairly evaluate debates I don’t like.

I think death is bad because suffering is bad and because life is good, thus extinction is bad. It is difficult to persuade me that any of the things stated in the previous sentence are wrong.

I don’t like arbitrarily excluding arguments based on content alone (sans the above warning in bolded letters, but that is strictly for personal reasons, and if reading “death good” is something you have to do every round for some reason, you should strike me regardless). Assertions that an argument is “problematic,” “science-fiction,” or “stupid” are unlikely to convince me to vote for you absent an explanation. Although, the bar for explanation becomes lower the worse the argument is. If you would describe your argumentative preferences as “trolling,” “memes,” “tricks,” or anything in that region - I am a bad judge for you, as your opponent will have comparatively little work to do to defeat you.

As an extension to this, if I feel neither side has explained their case sufficiently, I'll default to card quality / reading the cards. If you don't want this to happen, explain your argument.

You should assume I know nothing about the topic, and debate accordingly. I’m a big dumb idiot who needs everything (especially acronyms if it is a very technical topic) explained to me. This, in my opinion, will not only improve your explanation and avoid making your speeches a jargon salad, but is also probably the best way to approach having me as your judge, given that I do very little topic research for high school resolutions (if any).

Try or die framing is very intuitive to me, and it should guide many late rebuttals where the neg is going for a disad. It is hard for me to vote neg if the aff has definitively won that the status quo causes extinction, and there is a risk that voting aff can stop that extinction scenario. Negs should mitigate this through 1) in-depth weighing and turns case analysis and 2) impact defense.

Chapter 2 - Affs

I read up the gut, very topical affs in my own debating, and this is what I prefer to see debates about. I generally prefer big stick to soft left because I find the strategy of calling link chains fake to be generally unpersuasive, but I do not have any strong preferences here. I have also found some soft left affs to be frankly overpowered due to how true they are and to how little disads seem to link to them.

I think T/FW is true, but I by no means automatically vote neg in these debates. I think K teams have figured out ways to put a lot of ink out on the flow in addition to being more persuasive. However, I think that under closer examination, a lot of the arguments that these teams make are either (a) wrong or (b) misunderstanding the neg's argument. For instance, I find the claim that an unlimited topic is good because it gives more ground to the neg is facetious and is a blatant misrepresentation of the way neg prep happens.

Here’s how I prefer the traditional impacts to FW: Clash>Fairness>Skills

I don't know if fairness is an impact - but I think I'm more easily persuaded that it is than many other judges. I think the usual 2AC strategy of just saying “it’s an internal link” is insufficient given how much explanation FW debaters tend to give in the 2NC/1NR. I also think the aff probably relies on fairness as a value in the abstract as much as the neg does - else they would concede the round to have a much more educational conversation on the aff.

Clash as an abstract value, i.e., that it makes us better people by allowing us to come to new convictions about the world, seems extremely true. In my own personal debating career, deep debates over a singular resolution have allowed me to come to a very nuanced understanding about the topic. I think there’s also empirical research which backs this up, but I can’t remember the study.

I’m also fine with skills, especially since it’s frequently the more strategic option. I don’t know if it’s true that debate makes people advocates (it definitely gives them the tools to become better advocates, but I don’t know if there’s an actual correlation there). It also isn’t apparent to me that becoming an advocate is something that is something which can be exclusively achieved through plan-focus debate. A normative reason why debating the resolution you’ve been instructed to debate would be helpful for convincing me of this argument (e.g., learning about immigration policy is good to become an immigration lawyer and help people who are persecuted by ICE).

There are other impacts to FW, of course, but I’d like more explanation for these if you’re going to go for them in the 2NR, as I will be less familiar with them.

If you are for sure reading a K aff and I'm you're judge, here's what you can do to improve your odds:

• I need a strong reason in the 2AC as to why switch-side debate doesn’t solve all your offense.

• I prefer a well-thought out counter interpretation to impact turning limits.

• A functional critique of the resolution which mitigates the limits DA (if applicable)

If you're reading a K aff and I'm you're judge, here are some things that will not improve your odds:

• "Karl Rove, Ted Cruz, etc."

• Saying predictability is bad when you make debates incredibly predictable for yourself

• Saying that FW is intrinsically violent

Chapter 3 - Topicality (Not Framework)

Love it! I think that learning the difference in legal terms is incredibly valuable for topic education, and learning how to navigate those differences is a potent portable skill.

I think I'm better for reasonability than most judges. It doesn’t mean (despite popular explanations) that the aff is reasonable, but that their counter interpretation creates a reasonable limit for debate. Yes, this requires some judge intervention, but it is likely I will have to intervene anyways in T debates due to the fact that I don’t know what the topic (that I have done zero research on) should look like anyways.

Yet I still find myself persuaded by the neg in many debates on topicality. The aff frequently lacks explanation for what their version of the topic looks like, which makes it difficult to endorse it. Aff teams would do good by explaining what affs are topical under their interpretation, what kind of debates that invites, and why those debates are good.

Although I think in principle “T Substantial” having a quantitative definition is nonsensical absent a field-contextual definition, I find myself increasingly persuaded by negative pushes on this question. The argument that the resolution includes the word “substantial” for a reason, and that quantitative barriers are the only way to make the word matter, for instance, is compelling - especially if the aff meets a particularly low threshold of reductions/expansions (i.e., an aff that expands social security by 0.02% is probably not substantial).

Topicality is never an RVI. Don’t bother reading them.

Chapter 4 - Non-T Theory

SLOW DOWN ON THEORY PAGES-- I cannot flow as fast as you can talk. I get that you don't want to spend a lot of time on "New Affs Bad," but if I have nothing legible on my flow then if the neg goes for it, you're kind of toast!

I find the debate community’s shift towards counterplans which do the aff to be unfortunate. As a result, I am generally slightly more aff leaning on counterplan theory than some of my peers. However, I think the only reason I would reject the team absent a strong, warranted push by the aff is conditionality.

In general, theoretical arguments against counterplans should be articulated as reasons why it is not an opportunity cost, not why I should reject the team/argument.

Disclosure-- I will steal what Justin Kirk says about disclosure because I agree with it 100%: "While I am not an ideologue, I am a pedagogue. If you fail to disclose information about your affirmative or negative arguments on the wiki and then make a peep about education or engagement or clash in the debate, you better damn well hope your opponent does not mention it. Its about as close to a priori as I will get on an issue. If your argument is so good, what is the matter with a well prepared opponent? Disclosure is a norm in debate and you should endeavor to disclose any previously run arguments before the debate. Open source is not a norm, but is an absolutely preferable means of disclosure to cites only. If your opponent's wiki is empty, and you make a cogent argument about why disclosure is key to education and skill development, you will receive high marks and probably a ballot from me."

I hate the trend in high school LD where people read frivolous theory/trix, I’m not persuaded by it, and you’d be better off reading substantive arguments. Speaking more on trix, please don't read them if I am your judge. I am bad for them. If there is something you have a specific question about, feel free to ask me if I didn’t list it here.

Chapter 5 - Counterplans

I obviously have big feelings about process counterplans. Functional and textual competition is probably a good standard, though objections to textual competition also seem legitimate. I'm not too familiar with deep competition debates, so slowing down if this is going to be a big part of your strategy is a good call in front of me.

I'm honestly not very familiar with 2NC counterplans strategically speaking - heads up. I'm not necessarily opposed to them, but be slower when explaining why you get them if contested.

I am not a huge fan of uniqueness counterplans, though part of this could also be due to my inexperience in judging and hitting them in my own debate career.

Sufficiency framing seems intuitive to me, therefore affs should try to impact out their solvency deficits to the counterplan rather than sneezing a bunch of arguments in the 2AC and hoping the block drops something (I once judged a round where the 2AC read like, 12 solvency deficits which, from my perspective, all made no difference on whether or not the counterplan was sufficient to solve the case). If I have to ask at the end of the 2AC on the CP, “so what?” you have failed to convince me.

I will never vote on a counterplan that had no evidence attached to it when it was first read UNLESS that counterplan uses 1AC ev to solve it (i.e., if the aff's advantages aren't intrinsic). An example of this would be in the NFA-LD Democracy Topic (2022-23), where everyone read affs that said that we should ban a certain interest group from lobbying (ex. the pharmaceutical lobby) and then read advantages about how good medicare for all/price caps for drugs would be. These affs got solved 100% by reading an analytic counterplan that just passed these policies. Even if you are doing this, you should be inserting a piece of 1AC ev or justifying it analytically. I think a good standard is that you need to have solvency evidence that is on-par quality wise with the 1AC.

Chapter 6 - Ks

I am not well-read in most K literature, I’ll be honest. Explain things slowly, and try not to use your favorite $100 word every other word in a sentence.

Some would describe me as an aff framework + extinction outweighs hack. I think if debated evenly against most Ks, I do lean aff on this (especially framework), but I'm definitely not opposed to alternative forms of impact calculus and frameworks.

I don’t like how many judges just refuse to evaluate framework debates and arbitrarily pick a middle ground - this harms both teams as it arbitrarily has the judge insert themselves into the late rebuttals which is completely unpredictable and not reflective of the debate that happened. I will pick either the aff interp or the neg interp, and make my decision accordingly.

I prefer links that critique the impacts or implementation of the plan. I do not like links whose only win condition is mooting the entire 1ac post-hoc, because a representation of the aff is the plan text.

If you’re a K debater, this all might seem a bit daunting. I admit, I do have a bias towards the policy side of the spectrum. However, superior evidence, technical debating, and explanation can overcome every bias I have presented to you. I promise that if I am in the back of the room, I will try to evaluate the debate as fairly as possible.

Epilogue - Weird things that didn’t fit anywhere and I think make my preferences unique

I do not care nearly as much if you reference my paradigm compared to other judges who "cringe" when you make clear that you care about adaptation. I've judged so many rounds where it is evident one (or both) teams decided to completely ignore the fact that I am the one who is in the back of the room. Referencing my paradigm is not only a signal that you've read it, but I believe that a paradigm is a contract that I have signed that indicates how I will vote.

Open CX is fine, don't be obnoxious though. 2Ns and 2As, please let your partner ask and answer questions I'm begging you. (Especially 2Ns, though). Policy debate is a team activity, and part of working in a group is trusting other people. Talking over your partner destroys your credibility.

In and outs are fine - never judged one of these but I truly don’t care as long as both debaters give one constructive and one rebuttal each.

i did pf for four years at leland high school in san jose, california (c/o 2023). lhuang2023@gmail.com

important notes

• conceded cards, even if misconstrued, are true if not called out. i will not reference the email chain unless I am told/have to.
• speed is fine, but clarity matters. I flow what I heard, not what I read.
• new arguments need to be flagged for me to strike them, with the exception of new arguments in the second final focus.
• second rebuttal must collapse. defense is not sticky.
• in a lay setting, i ask you adapt to the most lay judge on the panel. i appreciate when debaters make rounds accessible to everyone involved.
• terminal defense >>> weighing > mitigation >>> "we outweigh on scope."
• i have a low bar for extensions. a 10-second repetition of what affirming does and why that's good/bad is enough in my book.

progressive argumentation

• i will always prefer good explanation over buzzwords. leaving me confused in round = my decision is confusing. in other words, do good judge instruction.
• theory: fine for anything, would prefer not to be in the back of a disclosure round if your opponent does disclose in some form.
• ks: understand these to a very minimal extent, explain your literature well and any links to opposing argumentation.
• k affs: i don't understand these but you can run them if you want to. please err on the side of over-explaining everything if you do.

Hello my name is Rakesh Jain. I am an experienced debater and know how to flow

Email: pandanjain@gmail.com

Cases: I want case the disclosed to me. You don't have to send it to the opponents but please send it to me

Topic: I know quite a bit about the march topic but not too much

Evidence Sharing: You can call for evidence but like please don't like for 100 cards otherwise I will knock your speaks down. Btw after round I will probs be asking for cards so if I do plz send it to me.

Tech> Truth

Speed: I don't care if you speak fast. I always speak fast in round. But if you do speak fast, please send speech doc. Otherwise, if I don't catch something I won't evaluate it.

Weighing: Please do it in SUMMARY AND FF. If it is not in both then i don't evaluate the weighing. I also like simple weighing like magnitude and stuff. If you are going to give complex weighing explain it well.

2nd Rebuttal: YOU HAVE TO FRONTLINE. If you don't frontline in 2nd rebuttal then i immediately look at 1st speaking teams flow and if they have access to their case then no matter what they will win.

Summary and FF: They should be pretty much the same. NO NEW EVIDENCE IN FF. I AINT A LAY JUDGE.

Cross: I don't care. I wont listen to cross

Warranting: Plz provide a warrant and EXTEND it. Tho if you do extend without warranting and the opponents do not call you out I might give you the arg. But if they do call you out then I won't consider the response.

Theory and K's: I understand theory and I will evaluate if it is run properly. NO K's. I will drop the whole K if you run it.

SIGNPOSTING IS NECESSARY: I need it otherwise I will be very confused and you don't want that happening.

Prepping: You have to time your own speech and prep. I won't do it because I am too lazy to.

LINK EXTENSION: THEY HAVE TO BE READ IN SUMMARY AND BEYOND. IF NOT I DROP YOUR CASE.

Speaks: I really hate speaks that is why I will give everyone around 29. I don't just base speaks on if you speak clearly. I base it on the content and did the speech make sense and stuff. I will drop your speaks if you are rude in cross and just being annoying to the opponents.

he/him

TLDR: Have fun. Try hard. Take risks. Ask for accommodations. Safety > Ethics > Everything Else.

Hi, I'm Ethan. I debated for four years at Seven Lakes High School in Katy, TX, mainly in Extemp and Congress.

General Notes:

1) Pronouns, honorifics, and names matter. Default to singular they/them when no pronouns are provided.

2) Recycling prep is bad.

3) I like to give visual cues. Read them

4) The segregation of the debate space along racial, gender, and class lines is real and important. Make every effort to stop it.

5) Cheating is bad.

Extemp:

1) I evaluate Extemp on these three metrics, in order:

a) How accurately and completely did you answer the question?

b) How much did I learn from your speech?

c) How entertained was I by your speech?

2) Structure: I eat up substructure like Choji eats bbq. I also dig a good two-point speech. Framing and definitions in the intro are nice. Signpost.

3) Sourcing: There is no such thing as too many sources. Good sources are specific, reliable, and academic, but not necessarily recent.

a) Books > Government sources > Scientific research > Think tanks > News organizations.

b) Be creative with how you use sources; for instance, use an older source to show the change from past to present, your Economics textbook to explain monetary policy, or Fox News to show the conservative viewpoint on an issue.

c) If evidence doesn't have a date, say "no date."

d) I will flow and check your sources. Don't lie.

4) Timing: Be between 6:50 and 7:10. The grace period shouldn't exist. Also, I suck at remembering to give time signals, sorry in advance. Yes, you can time yourself.

5) Delivery: Smile. Be facially expressive. Vocally, live on the extremes of pace, volume, and tone. Anything in the middle is boring. On-tops are cool, and thematically linked on-tops are even cooler.

5) Purge "considering" and "as explained by" from your vocabulary.

6) CX: Be aggressive. Don't feel pressure to split your time equally between points.

Congress:

1) I evaluate Congress on these three metrics, in order:

a) How clearly did you prove a net benefit or net harm of the legislation?

b) How engaged were you in the chamber and debate?

c) If you were running for Congress, would I vote for you?

2) Early round speeches are the easiest to give and the easiest to evaluate. I love a good sponsor.

3) Please have a real AGD. Stealing rhetoric/AGDs is an auto 9.

4) Make me care. Authentic and powerful rhetoric is a product of a strong warrant and a humanized impact.

5) Take risks! Mix up your speech structure, make references, and be funny.

6) Getting screwed by precedence sucks. Show me you can adapt.

7) If you give me rehash, I will visibly shake my head for the duration of the point.

8) Weigh, especially in crystals.

9) Be between 2:50 and 3:00. The grace period shouldn't exist.

10) Have fun in questioning. Pose scenarios, point out contradictions, and propose counterexamples.

11) Amendments, evidence challenges, turns, and thematic speeches are underutilized.

12) Purge "at their highest ground," "allow me to expand," "affirm," and "negate" from your vocabulary.

13) If possible, please take 10 minute recesses. I am a human who has biological needs.

14) POs: 12 speeches per hour-->top 3. No mistakes. Fairness matters. Be funny but not forced. "I guess we'll never know" is an abomination.

PF:

1) I'm a flay judge who did one year of NPF and watches an unhealthy amount of PF Videos on Youtube.

2) I vote on offense. Present the path of least resistance.

3) Weigh early. If you can tell me what "clarity of impact" or "strength of link" means, I will buy you a car.

4) Extend each part of an argument into FF. Defense is not sticky.

5) Signpost. Roadmaps are helpful.

6) Compare evidence.

7) Number responses.

8) Collapse.

9) Narrative building is important. Tell a story.

10) Don't steal prep.

11) I have a loose understanding of theory and Ks. I am willing to vote off of both. Please do not abuse progressive argumentation to bulldoze unprepared or novice teams.

a) Priors: Open-source disclosure is good, trigger warnings are good, hypocritical theory is bad, paraphrasing is bad, competing interps, no RVIs, drop the debater.

12) I'll disclose if allowed to. Please postround me, but do so respectfully.

LD: Traditional judge. Don't steal prep.

Platform: Structure matters. Be yourself. Open to anything.

Interp: Tell your story honestly. Develop characters. Open to anything.

I debated Public Forum for 4 years.

Most important: Please collapse and comparatively weigh your argument as early as possible! The more arguments I have to evaluate, the less likely you get the decision you want

Some specifics:

- Frontline ALL offense you plan to go for in 2nd rebuttal (and don't go for too much!!!). You can expand on frontlines in 2nd summary, but they should all be in rebuttal.

- Extending = explaining/summarizing your argument, not just reading the tagline

- I will evaluate K's and theory arguments but don't assume I know common jargon

- Content warnings are mandatory for potentially triggering content

- Misconstrued evidence will significantly lower your speaks even if it isn't important for my decision

- Skip grand cross for 1 minute of prep if both teams agree

- Be nice to each other and have fun!! I don't flow crossfire and the nicer you are the happier your speaks will be :)

Ask any questions you have about the decision if you want - it helps me improve as a judge. As long as you aren't rude :)

flow judge

didn’t read theory much but i’ll evaluate it

near 0 K experience so read if u rly want

typically do not feel like flowing off a doc, but it depends on the day

be nice

add me to the email chain - melindalipc@gmail.com

Arguments:

- Provide a content warning if necessary

- I can't evaluate Ks / theory very tech so run at your own risk

- I presume first speaking team

Round:

- speech docs and cut cards are a good norm

- I don't flow cross -- feel free to do open cross, take flex prep, or skip gcx if everyones cool w it

- Second rebuttal must frontline

- Defense is not sticky

- Extend your full argument in summary and final focus or I'll drop it

- warrants and implications matter a lot to me

Speaks:

- speaks are dumb, i usually give decent speaks

- If you're rude in cross, your speaks will drop. Be respectful. It's not that hard.

- If you spread, provide a speech doc, be clear, and ask if your opponent is comfortable with it. If they aren't, slow down. (I can't keep up w policy/LD spreading, but im ok w/ PF "spreading")

- +speaks if you make a joke in round

4 years of pf @ oakton || karinliu2011@gmail.com for email chains

lmk if you have questions about my paradigm! ◡̈

general

- resolve clash/compare warrants (!!!!!), collapse, extend, & weigh

- alright with speed, send a doc if going fast (but i still might not catch everything)

- second reb should frontline, if not i'll be very hesitant to buy new frontlines in 2nd sum

presumption

- unless given warrants otherwise, i'll presume the team that lost flip

- if it's side locked i'll presume the squo

prog

- i understand theory a lot more than k's, no friv theory or tricks

^ i have v basic understanding of prog so i might vote wrong, make sure it is rly warranted

speaks

- L20 if you run problematic arguments or run prog/spread on newer debaters

^ aka don't ask anything starting w/ "but wait"

Oakton High School 23' he/him/his ddlz5427@gmail.com I've been doing PF for 3 years (local and nats)

-I admire and participate in flow debate but consider me as a flay, mainly bc I am flay

i always get nervous and shaky before a round starts so i know how it feels if you are in that situation. so if you ever need anything to make the round more comfortable don't be scared to ask, ill do my best to do so.

-debate well

-ask for opponents pronouns if not given

-theory fine, I only fully understand disclosure, paraphrasing and cw theory. no friv theory/trixs cause me wont understand and ill hate to drop you for something you worked hard on just to drop to it cause i didnt understand. save the move friv stuff for the judges that can evaluate it

-be careful how you use theory, make sure you point out abuse.

-Debate at ANY speed you want. I can't force you to speak in a certain way. just note that IT IS ON YOU if your speed is incomprehensible and i cant catch anything from your speech. you decided to go fast, i might not write down every single piece of evidence and neither are your opponents

-extend your case every speech or its considered dropped on the flow

-defense is sticky in rebuttal meaning you dont gotta extend in reb, only until summary & ff

-rather than telling me "we extend Lopez 20" , tell me what the evidence says/warrant rather than just the author name or i basically wont evaluate it

-if you want to win, give warrants and compare them with your opponent's warrants

-instead of saying "they have no warrant", just give your own

-if it comes down to an analytic vs a cut card, 9 times out of 10 the analytic will win. I really like teams who use analytics and not dump 25 turns and 15 delinks from their lil blockfile as a crutch.

srs dont card dump*

-i like teams who weigh in rebuttal and extend it every speech

-signposting is for winners

-no racism, sexism, -isms, i will legit give you an L15 (or whatever the lowest speak I can give)

-if both teams agree (and if the tourney allows it ofc), we can skip grand cross (which i think is useless) and each team gets 45 seconds each of prep time instead

-if you loose: 28 speaker points, win: 28-30 speaker points

-get extra speaker points if you make me laugh, disclose your cases on the wiki (lmk if you have)

-no new in the 2/new responses in ff

-lmao dont make me intervene, i might make a wrong decision

-don't try to postround me

-steal prep and ill steal your speaks

-if your speech is more than 5 seconds off time/a new response after speech time I wont evaluate it

-ill disclose if the tourney lets me

-i default to to util

all in all, be respectful, you know the implications of not doing so. dont be "smug" or laugh at your opponents "stupidity", im not a lay judge, im not gonna buy your BM unless it makes sense why you did it.

uil circuit policy debater

he/him - georgetown - add me to the email chain: anmol.malviya0827@gmail.com and label accordingly (tournament, round #, teams).

tldr: I debated on the national circuit for 3 years at Oakton; I currently coach Langley (RC, SG, BG, LJ). traditional pf judge that's tech>truth, big on thorough execution of fundamentals (weighing, collapsing, efficiency)

Update for TOC

All of the below still applies, but some specific things:

1) My experience with prog this tournament has not been rewarding, and has reminded me that I don't think I'm the best judge to evaluate progressive argumentation. As always, I will try to vote on anything that is explained and warranted and this is not meant to discourage theory/make it seem unviable, but I do not think you should read progressive argumentation with me in the back unless it's an in round safety issue (think CW) where I will intervene!

2) Send case/reb speech docs. Traditional evidence exchanges are incredibly time consuming, this is not optional.

3) Full disclosure -- my ability to evaluate speed has definitely decreased as I've spent time away from the activity but spreading/speed in general is more than fine; as long as you're clear it shouldn't be an issue (I won't flow off of docs)

4) Time yourselves, I don't flow cross, and don't say "this argument is missing a warrant/reason/contextualization" on its own. Add any positive content - reasoning about why that factor's relevant, weighing, some example, connection to another point, etc.

non-negotiables

1. be respectful or L20 (be equitable, read anonymous content warnings with ample opt out time, nothing remotely _ist)

2. weigh and compare at every single level to resolve clash and minimize intervention

3. if an argument is dropped in the next speech, it's conceded, and if an argument is not extended, it's not there

4. i have minimal experience with progressive argumentation but am willing to vote on almost anything (no tricks), run at your own risk

other than the above debate how you want - i'll try and adapt to you

ask questions before/after round if you have them, and if there's anything i can do to try and make the round less intimidating/more accessible, please let me know before round or reach out to me via email

yoooo

no prog, defense is sticky

cosby '21 fsu '24

put me on the email chain jackmerkel57@gmail.com

3 years pf (Qualled to TOC, States, Broke at many Nat Circuit Tourneys), 2 year NFA-LD (Qualled to NFA Nats 2x - Octos 2024)

important stuff

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

feel free to postround me respectfully, i recognize that i'm capable of making wrong decisions or understanding arguments incorrectly - i'm here to learn and improve just as much as both teams are

i will drop you for misgendering someone, apologies don't solve and i'm not at all open to hearing arguments that claim otherwise.

please read an opt-in cw for any argument that may contain sensitive content, if you don't and a team reads cw theory I honestly don't see myself ever not voting for it. when in doubt err on the side of reading one.

NFA-LD

Case-Yes topical plan affs. I am probably the best at judging this style, with that being said non-t/k affs are fine, just a higher threshold to win my ballot.

T-Came from PF so never debated T before NFA, as a result not as good of a T judge compared to more established LD/Policy judges. Prob lean aff in most cases on T but will obv vote on it if the neg provides good warranting and definitions as to why its not T. Overall tho found T pretty boring and probably went for it less than 10% of the time so take that as you will.

DA-Yes please, I love a good disad that is creative in its link from the aff and has good weighing against the aff scenarios. Probably the most fun kind of debate to judge.

CP-Never really read or went for these, that being said I love a good/strategic cp that can solve the aff and has unique net benefits. Just explain how the cp solves the aff and why its competitive.

K-Read a lot more of these my last year debating, mainly read security but have experience running Cap and Psycho (Lacan/Matheson). I struggle a bit on higher phil like Baudy but I can prob still evaluate it. In addition performance/identity Ks are fine, obv dont have much experience running these but can still evaluate them. Idc if your alt isn't a material action, just describe what the alt world looks like whether its a mindset shift, rejection ect. On framing prove why your rotb matters and why I shouldn't weigh the aff, interact with your opponents fairness/education/predictability claims and prove why I should prefer your interpretations, weigh pre vs post fiat implications ect. "Perm do both" isn't a response, explain why the aff and alt are not mutually exclusive and explain how the aff and alt can function together and why that solves better.

Theory-I honestly like theory, obv as stated above didn't come from a LD/Policy background so don't have as much experience debating/evaluating procedural theory but have debated theory enough that its still fine to run. I love disclosure theory and just think its prob a true argument on both aff and neg so feel free to run this.

Misc- Speed is fine, I personally never really spread but I can evaluate it. Speaks are stupid and I think judging speaking ability is the most pointless thing in the activity, read 30 speaks theory and Ill give both debaters highest speaks allowed, regardless you will both prob get high speaks.

PF Stuff

how do i decide who i vote for?

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

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

then - assuming there is weighing, i vote based on whichever weighing mechanism is best justified - if none are justified, i default magnitude first, probability second, and timeframe third - i think lots of other mechanisms used in pf fall into one of these (for example, severity is a type of magnitude, strength of link is probability) i also look to framing at this step if there is any and apply that as well. also on weighing, the most convincing and best weighing is link-ins and prereq weighing, this prob comes before any other generic mechanisms

evidence

paraphrasing is fine, just please have a cut card for whatever ur paraphrasing. if someone calls for ev and u send an 80 page pdf and tell me to control f something and read around it im not evaluating your ev. its really not that hard to just copy and paste that paragraph and highlight what your reading.

prog stuff

see NFA-LD section, tldr open to most prog stuff except trix which im just never voting for. if you have more specific questions just ask before the round

most importantly i want to make debate an inclusive space where everyone can have a fun and educational time so please let me know if there is anything i can do to make the space more accessible

adammimou82@gmail.com

Assistant LD coach for Peninsula HS

tech over truth - i will flow all arguments and vote on what you extend into your final speeches.

"like many before me I have decided that I am not a fan of cop-out or cheap shot strategies designed to avoid clash and pick up an easy ballot. This means my threshold for an argument that is warranted and implicated is much higher and I feel more comfortable giving an RFD on 'I don't know why x is true per the 2ar/2nr.' If you would like to thoroughly explain why creating objective moral truths is impossible or why disclosing round reports is a good norm then please feel free to do so, but 10 seconds of 'they dropped hidden AFC now vote aff' isn't going to cut it" - lizzie su

i do not feel confident in my ability to evaluate the following debates:

-phil ac vs phil nc

-k aff vs non cap kritik

-phil ac vs kritik

non-condo theory shells are dta unless otherwise justified

convinced by reasonability - affs need a c/i

i tend to read a lot of evidence - spending more time reading quality evidence will serve you well

better for framework 2nrs that go for fairness

i try not to be expressive in round if i make any facial expressions it is probably unrelated

UNC '25

I am tech.

I understand prog.

send speech docs and cards to robertmg@ad.unc.edu

no CW/TW (for arguments that need it) means u get 25 speaks max

:)

TLDR: Standard FYO flow judge, tech>truth, must respond to offense in the next speech (lenient to dropped offense in 2nd rebuttal), warranting is essential, speed must be justified by content, don't be harmful to the debate space, weigh comparatively, have ev at the ready and don't misconstrue, don't read dedev

- For email chain: rohansnair03@gmail.com

Bio:

Paradise Valley '21 | ASU '25

Did PF all 4 years at Paradise Valley in Arizona (2017-2021), competed at local level first 3 years and almost exclusively national circuit senior year, got to a couple bid rounds, and qualled to NDCA. I was also captain senior year.

PUBLIC FORUM:

General Stuff:

**** Don’t be harmful to the debate space; absolutely zero tolerance for sexist, racist, homophobic, etc. behavior - You will get an L20 for this****

- Debate is a game, win the flow

- Collapse and weigh to clean up the debate; too many people try to win every part of the flow and it almost always hurts them because they don't give themselves the time to do the comparative analysis.

- Weighing goes a long way - as a judge I have to decide who's case is truer/more impactful - do the work for me so I do not have to intervene

- SELF TIME

- If something is dropped, call it out, it's not my job to call it out for you. Dropped evidence has 100% strength of link ONLY if you extend and flesh out the warranting for it.

- You HAVE to frontline offense in 2nd rebuttal (you SHOULD frontline everything in 2nd rebuttal but if opps dump turns on you there's only so much you can do)

- Extend in every speech after rebuttal (Don't be blippy do real extensions - If I absolutely feel there is no way to vote at all because no one extends I either defer to the NEG on policy change topics, or the 1st speaking team on "on balance" topics, etc.)

- Extending through ink is the same thing as conceding your arg

Trigger Warnings:

- If you run ANY form of argument that potentially may make your opps uncomfortable, you MUST use get ALL members' approval before the round. Ex: Use an anonymous Google Form prior to the round, make all of us fill it out, and if even one person opts out, you do not run the argument

- If you do NOT use content warnings on args that obviously warrant it, I already am inclined to vote for your opps

Weighing:

- Weighing isn't: "We outweigh on magnitude because it's more people" (nah fam i could care less if u don't do the in-depth comparative)

- Prereqs are my favorite type of weighing because it is the easiest to do the actual comparative

- If yall go for the same type of weighing, then explain why your weighing is more important. Ex: If both teams try to prereq explain why your prereq happens first or subsumes their prereq

- If you have the same impact, please please prioritize any type of weighing EXCEPT magnitude. Ex: If both teams impact extinction, win probability or TF (I genuinely don't know why people do magnitude/severity weighing when it's the same argument)

- The first time you weigh should most definitely not be in final. Personally, I've done weighing sometimes as early as first rebuttal (I obviously don't expect this, but make sure it starts in summary)

Cross Ex:

- Likely won't even be paying attention, cx is for you

- If something relevant comes up, bring it up in a later speech

- Skipping grand for a min of prep is chill if both teams agree

Evidence:

- Likely won't ever call for cards unless you tell me to

- If I read the card and it is misconstrued it will not bode well for you (PF evidence ethics is dog so gotta enforce it somehow)

- If you have clashing empirics/evidences, tell me why I prefer your evidence -- otherwise I will call for both of them and intervene towards which one I agree with more (I may call cards anyways just to be curious and see who's evidence is rly better, but won't factor that unless you give me a reason to)

- I won't start prep when looking for cards if you find it within reasonable time, otherwise I will

- Don't just send a link and just tell your opponents to ctrl + F, its lazy, you should be cutting the card for them

Speaks:

- Usually high speaks, with a base of 27, but you have to earn a 30

- If you earn lower than a 27, you likely did something unethical in the round.

Speed:

- Please, please, PLEASE do not go faster than you should be. Too many people try to speak fast so they can sneak responses in and then collapse on them(this is lowkey abusive, just don't do it). Speed is fine, but I should be able to understand it, and it should not sacrifice your clarity

Theory:

- Avoid it if you can, because I feel that too much nowadays real issues are tokenized for the sake of a ballot. However, theory can be a valuable asset in shining on a light on real issues, so use it only if you actually are trying to promote awareness about the issue you talk about.

- I personally almost never hit theory on the circuit, so make sure you explain it as well as you can. This also means don't be mad if u get screwed after running theory lol

- For theory and theory only, it'll be truth>tech, otherwise there is rly not any point in running it if u cant logically argue it

LINCOLN DOUGLAS:

- Never done this event, and don't know too much about the structure, so treat me like a lay for the most part

- I can handle speed, but it has to be justified by content, meaning don't spread unless every additional word you say helps you (SEND SPEECH DOCS)

- If you wanna know how I flow, read the PF section

MISC:

- I'll pretty much always disclose

- If you read stupid stuff like extinction good, I have a VERY low threshold for defense on it (this is literally fake PF)

- If you read like 40 turns in rebuttal and flat out response dump, I feel that is incredibly abusive and not at all inclusive to small schools who can't get the same prep (speaking from the perspective of a one entry school), so I will allow your opps to respond to them very late

- TKO rule applies

- If you find a creative way to incorporate sports references or jokes(have to be funny lol) in your speeches you get +0.5 speaks

- Don't postround me, but feel free to ask questions about my RFD

For some background info I'm mainly experienced in Public Forum. I can handle just about any speed, so long as you clearly state your contentions and the framework of your case. A roadmap before second rebuttal and summary would also be much appreciated.

I have some knowledge on LD and very limited on speech, thought I'm happy judging anything.

My biggest preferences are:

- weighing (this gives me a reason to vote for you beyond the arguments and cards you present at the beginning of the round)

- use your prep time to exchange cards (I don't like spending more than five minutes simply to exchange a card; if you think you might need more than five minutes, please use your prep time to ensure we don't take up unnecessary time)

- be respectful during CX

- clash (don't just state your points, prove why they're better than your opponents with evidence and make sure you actually go against your opponents, rather than avoiding what they say)

I try not to be too picky and, like I said earlier, I'm genuinely happy judging anything.

I am a relatively new judge to debate. Please be proactive and let me know what you need. Thank you in advance.

Did Policy and PF for 4 years. Comfortable with any argument, be innovative!

If you can ever "that's what she said" me, you get 30 speaks, if you do that to your opponents more than 3 times, 30 speaks and I presume for you. That would be based.

I want all speech docs where evidence is read to be on the chain. (all constructive speeches 1AC/1NC 2AC/2NC. That's rebuttal for you kids). If you don't have ev for the 2AC/2NC well ummmmm ya. I won't look at it but it is for evidence exchange purposes. srikartirumala@gmail.com.Add both to the chain!

Don't ask me to verify I'm there before every speech. I want to flow, not keep unmuting. Just assume I'm always ready.

Philosophy:

I am a fairly tab judge who operates solely on an offense/defense paradigm. Tech>truth to the fullest. I will do no work for you as that's your job (so I won't even implicate defense for you as terminal). You do you -- don't change how you debate for me. I will adapt to your style (unless your style does not hit the basics like extensions, comparative weighing etc.)

Do not

1. Any -isms. Just be a good person it's not hard. For the people who read "racism is a democratic value kick people off social media" this is you!

2. Bad ev. You will not win a round trying to fake ev in front of me if it is called out. For me faking or misrepresenting ev is as good as cheating and all your opponents need to say is "it's a voter for education/fairness/legit anything". And I'll hack. But you need the prove the evidence is actually bad IN ROUND. Ie - it's not enough to say "It's faked" U must say "It is faked because of X reason -- that's cheating and it's a voter for fairness/education".

I do not like

1. Paraphrasing

2. "Discourse" as solvency. I'm sick of it and probably will insta delete your "K" from the flow. Have a real alt / well thought out method.

3. No speech Docs.

4. "Probability weighing". This is just reading empirics, anything else is just a link mitigation or a no link argument and ways smooth brained teams with bad rebuttals can sneak new defense into summary @Sarvesh babu looking at you.

5. Claiming any progressive stuff isn't "public in public forum" I will laugh at you during RFD whilst playing Laughing to the bank. If you're in varsity, you should be prepared to deal with all the arguments no matter what.

This part is stolen from THE beach

***If you are in varsity at a TOC bid tournament, I will by NO MEANS evaluate a "we do not understand theory or K/theory or K excludes me because I don't know how to debate it" response. In fact, I will give you the lowest speaker points the tournament reasonably permits-- you're perpetuating horrible norms in this activity. Do not enter the varsity division of tournaments if you are unwilling to handle varsity level argumentation. ***

As an aside to this ^, if you a reason why theory/ K is bad, I won't automatically intervene but your speaks are GONE and I will legit buy "bruh what the heck is this it allows for bad norms" and then strike it off my flow. This is one of the worst takes I've ever heard, and I'm really sick of people perpetuating the narrative that "public forum should be for the public" or whatever dumb thing boomers in this activity who are afraid of anyone that isn't a cishet white male doing well in the activity propagate. I also will not buy any "people don't know how to disclose or access wikis" it's just blatantly untrue and disrespectful to small school debaters. It's not a response -- it's just you not knowing how to interact. this is the one spot I feel 0 shame in intervening, I will laugh at you while I do it and play Laughing To The Bank by Chief Keef while I read the decision.

I like these

1. Theory (but not stupid and friv)
2. Kritical args (But actually with solvency not DiScOuRsE)
3. Framing / Meta Weighing
4. I errheavily towardsparaphrasing being bad, speech docs being good, and disclosure being good, and will evaluate procedurals based on that.
5. Lots of explanation on what's happening in the flow (I won't do any work, if you don't tell me why it's important or what to do with it it's nothing)

Why do I care so much about good ev?

I've had teams straight fake ev against me and it hurts. As a researcher the skills you get from research in debate is unparalleled to other activities. Faking evidence is akin to cheating, and this is a competitive activity. There's y'alls little procedural.

Strike me if you

1. Fake evidence / do not cut your cards (you know who you are)

2. Think I'm going to buy your "persuasive appeal" BS, speaks are a construct and don't matter in a W/L

3. You are going to run problematic arguments, I won't deal with them. I don't like to intervene on the flow, but I will in these cases. I might even physically stop the round depending on how bad it is.

Arguments:

1-5. 5 means I love

LARP: 5

Go crazy, idc. I mostly LARPed in HS

Framework: 4.5

- not much to say, I read fw in HS a lot. I never really did LD, so if I'm in judging it, please explain phil? I'm actually really confused and bad at phil debate. Tbh, if i'm judging you and you are going to read phil, please just treat me as a lay judge (just on the fw, u can spread or do w/e later).

T/Theory: 5

- If I believe theory is frivolous, I might not give you good speaks. Make sure it's accessible. I used to read theory like crazy in HS. I am 100% fine if you read it in shell or paragraph form, that's your choice.

- I completely tab on most theory args unless it's p obvious it's friv against K or against a novice. I'mma hold you to a high burden when it comes to extensions in these cases. I tend to err towards paraphrase bad and disclosure good but I will not hack at all. I've read both paragraph theory and shell in HS so I'm ok with w/e u are. If you are in Policy./LD where there are a billion different AFFs, I think disclosure is definitely a good norm. If you are in Policy/LD I expect better. if you paraphrase in any event ur speaks are gone.

Dude, Condo is Dispo don't try and cap otherwise.

K : 4

- I started reading more Kritical arguments my senior year, this being said, any argument can be explained properly. I tend to err towards K over T, but I'll be tab. High theory is fine dumb it down. If I'm confused over the K, it means ur OV or your extension wasn't good enough or explained well, and I'll probably vote on something cleaner.

- Note, I rarely read K in policy, I was more of a LARPER, but I will probably understand most of what you are saying if you bother to try to explain it to me. This means get rid of a lotta the K-specific jargon "e.g. state of exception". I'll understand some of the stuff i'm familiar with but still be careful. In policy / LD though you need to really explain the K. I’m going to be lost if ur just spreading cards. The 1NR/2NC needs to have REALLY good OV extension that REALLY explains your theory.

- I am fairly familiar with most K lit. I read Set Col, Sec, Orientalism, Imperialism, Neolib, Biopolitics/Biopower, but I'll buy k about anything just PLEASE don't just spread ur usually jargony OV. Very familiar with most IR terms / list

This is my hot take, I don't like identity AFFs that much in PF. Trust me, I am VERY VERY HAPPY to vote them up, and often do, just know I don't really like how it's being done in PF where I can't tell WHAT SOLVENCY IS! If you do it right I'll enjoy it.

Plans/CP : 5

- IN ANY EVENT These are perfectly ok in my mind, I will buy a good plan bad theory tho. All u have to prove is that the plan potentially could be viable, some sort of implementation or actor and I think the theory doesn't apply. I am fine if u just tell me a counter plan to the AFF/Neg, and defend that it's good. Rules are meant to be broken if they are bad so a response to a CP can't be "NsDa RuLeS sAy No CP" give me a reason why I should uphold that norm.

• I prolly think process CPs are another method of doing the plan.
• I think infinite condo on CPs are bad

DA: 5

- All good,weigh them!

Trix: 3

If you want me to vote neg on presumption/AFF risk of solvency/1st speaking team -- warrant out why, don't just yell this. Aka IL how how the trick applies to your presumption, lot of people, miss this. Don't j be like "EMPIRICUS 2 BC *Breath* fehhfuiewhfewhfewfhewewh. Ok next trick"

I think especially in PF this is a bad strat but in LD / Policy I guess I get it a bit more.

I started keeping tally of how many times I voted for Trix: IIIIIIII

Speed: 4

- PF spread fine, I am cool with full policy spread, just make tags distinct from cards ("AND", Slow down). If you aren't sure how distinct your tags are from cards, just speech doc. Also make sure the opponent can understand, or speaks might be hurt. I will call clear twice, then I will give up. People ask what I can flow, I can probably flow up to 300 wpm without a speech doc with card names.

- I will probably not need to use your doc, make your tags really clear, and if ur not clear when spreading I will clear you. if I clear your thrice, your are capped at a 27.

Performance/Non T AFFs : 4

You need to make the ROTB very clear and win it. also PLEASE READ A LINK! Why is the ballot needed? What is my role as the judge? Also like how does ur case link into the ROTB? Make it very clear. Honestly I tend to err K > T so this might be a good strat, but make sure you are ready to win the AFF. Also please tell me why your method is uniquely key.

• If you are hitting a non T aff it isn't enough to tell me the rules are something I must maintain, I say screw the rules unless u tell me why the rules are good.
• Tbh if there isn't a CLEAR method / solvency you're capped at a 26

Presumption:

- Absent presumption warrants given in speech, I default to whoever lost the coinflip.

TKOS: 2

- saves us all time. Typical rules apply, if there's a path to the ballot, you L20, if none, W30. I won't stop round ever -- but if you're right I'll be like ok and stop flowing. Don't really like tho there's always a chance u drop the ball but if u call one go for it. DO NOT LIKE THESE but I'll consider the following

1. A procedural on no speech docs is a TKO vs a team that does not disclose or a team that spreads random paraphrased stuff -- if it's dropped

2. Bad evidence is a TKO -- treat this similar to an NSDA challenge if the ev is crap call it out I won't like it

3. No cut cards is a TKO if it's conceded.

4. Problematic language is a TKO. This includes repeated misgendering or anything of that form. I don't understand why some judges DON'T make this a TKO?

5. Any IVI on a team that says "prefiat offense is bad" is basically a TKO, I won't stop round but lol I'm not going to flow responses to it.

6. Bad haircuts is a TKO. I don't wanna look at your receding hairline. My kids know what I'm talking about. (obviously a joke)

Hey, I'm Cade (he/him). I debated and did extemp for Teurlings Catholic on the Louisiana and national circuits for four years. Now I compete for LSU (Geaux Tigers!) and occasionally coach/judge for Isidore Newman.

Generally, do what you do best, make smart arguments, be clear, and be unproblematic. Also, I do want to be on the email chain. My email is cadetsavoy@gmail.com.

For Louisiana tournaments/traditional rounds:

I enjoy lay/traditional debate as much as I enjoy circuit debate. Sometimes, though, I find it frustrating. To avoid frustrating me (and to get more speaks and my ballot), I suggest avoiding the following practices:

-- Spending a lot of time on the framework debate when it really doesn't matter. Don't be afraid to concede framework if you think you can weigh your impacts under your opponent's framework. 39 times out of 40, the "value debate" has no weight in my decision-making process. Ask yourself how winning the framework debate affects your overall chances of winning the debate.

-- Not collapsing. Pick one or two arguments and go for them in your final speech. This allows you to develop your central claim much more fully than you otherwise would be able to in a 3-minute 2AR. I promise you will not be able to properly extend all of the offense you read in the constructive in your final rebuttal. Trust.

-- Not having real impacts while reading a consequentialist framework. Your impacts should be a scenario. Try to paint a clear picture of what the world of the aff/neg looks like. Err on the side of over-explaining your impacts. Also, weigh them against your opponent's impacts in terms of probability, magnitude, time frame, etc.

Housekeeping:

1] Post-rounding is good! It promotes education and keeps judges accountable. Feel free to ask me as many questions as you like after my RFD. However, I will be capital p Pissed if your coach comes and fusses at me after the round has already ended — especially if you didn’t ask me questions when you had the opportunity. My only obligation as a judge is to make the best decision I possibly can. Sometimes, those decisions will be flawed. But under no circumstances will I ever be interested in engaging in any flavor of weird national circuit politics.

2] Don't be bigoted. Tech and truth go out the window the second you make a blatantly racist, sexist, homophobic, or otherwise exclusionary argument/remark.

3] For online debate: keep a local recording of your speeches in case someone loses connection. I really don't want to hear a rebuttal re-do.

LD/Policy

I'm putting LD and Policy in the same section because I think most of my relevant thoughts regarding LD and Policy apply to both events. If I have a thought that I think applies to either LD or Policy but not both, I'll flag it as such. Be mad if you feel so inclined.

Run whatever you want. I'll be fine. Still though, there are some arguments that I'm more experienced/better at evaluating than others. Here's a pref shortcut:

1- policy, traditional, stock Ks

2- T, theory, phil, more dense/complex Ks

3/4- tricks (depends on the level of density)

1] An argument is a claim, a warrant, and an impact. I won't vote on anything that doesn't meet that threshold. I also won't vote on an argument that I can't explain back to your opponent in the RFD, so be clear.

2] Impact framing is really important in every debate, regardless of whether its a standard DA/CP v case debate or a K v K smackdown. I don't see myself connecting the dots for you, so, again, be clear.

--add on: I've found that I'm very reluctant to vote on vague/poorly explained impact scenarios. Err on the side of over-explaining the story of your impacts. I might care about it more than other judges.

3] I think I'm alright at flowing, but I would really appreciate it if you slowed down on tags and analytics, especially when you're reading theory. I'll say "slow!" or "clear!" as much as I need to, so I won't feel bad not voting on an argument because I missed it on my flow.

4] I think I'm fairly neutral in most K aff v T Framework debates, but I'm more receptive to T Framework arguments that leverage education/clash as impact instead of just "pRocEDurAl faIRnEsS." But in these debates, I think the side that paints the clearer picture of what their model of debate looks like typically wins.

5] For LD specifically, I don't understand what it means to defend the resolution but not defend "implementation." "Defending implementation" seems to me to be a logical consequence of fiat.

6] Also for LD specifically, I wish phil debates focused more on the logical syllogism of whatever normative theory is being debated than a bunch of poorly developed reasons to prefer.

7] I have a couple of defaults that dictate how I evaluate the round. They can all be changed with proper argumentation.

• competing interps
• DTA unless it's something that's irreversible like T
• No RVIs
• Epistemic confidence
• No judge kick
• presumption goes to the side whose advocacy deviates least from the squo
• permissibility goes neg
• comparative worlds

8] Debate means different things to different people. Be cognizant of that.

9] Be accessible. In the context of debate, this means not doing things that would jeopardize debate as a site of inclusive, constructive, and critical discussion. I think most people intuitively know what "accessibility" means in debate, but, just in case, I'll outline a few implications of the "accessibility" maxim:

a] Don't be a dick.

b] Don't be shady. Obviously, don't clip cards or falsify evidence. If you do, you'll lose. But also, be forthright about the arguments you're making. Don't act like you don't know what a floating pik is in cross. Don't send a doc with only some analytics (i.e. sending eight out of your nine frontlined responses to T but not the "I meet").

c] If you're debating a novice or a traditional debater, consider reading arguments with which your opponent can substantively engage. I won't penalize you for going for any particular strategy, but your speaks will look better if you make an effort to make the round productive.

PF

All of the stuff from my LD/Policy paradigm apply to PF too. It's worth noting that I only competed in PF like three or four times, so I evaluate PF rounds the exact same way I would a policy-style DA v case debate in LD. I don't see why that would be problematic in any way, but it might be worth considering. Here are some of my PF-specific thoughts.

1] I think a lot of PF teams get away with really lazy extensions. It's not enough to just jump to impact weighing without explaining the link story of the argument you're going for. I won't vote for an argument that isn't properly extended.

2] It irks me when grand cross is dominated by only one debater from each team. I view every speech as a performance, and cross-ex is no exception.

3] PF rants and side quests:

a] Why are evidence ethics in PF so bad? Paraphrasing is stupid. I will give you +.3 speaks if you read highlighted sections of the actual text of what you're referencing. If you're going to paraphrase evidence anyway, put the full text of the card in the doc and highlight the parts that you're referencing. Also, every card you read should include the name of the author(s), the title of the piece, the date on which it was published, and a link/DOI if applicable.

b] Why are email chains in PF so weird? It seems incredibly inefficient to send cards your opponent calls for after the speech has already ended. Just send a complete doc before the speech starts! I will give you +.2 speaks if you send the doc before the speech starts.

Hello

please have pre-flows done before the round for the sake of time. don't be late.

tech over truth. i won't do work for you. your arguments should have explicit explanations and contextualization. tell me a thoughtful and thorough story with substance. even if you sound pretty, 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. my job is to listen to you and assess your argumentation, not your presentation. i'm more than happy to evaluate anything you run, so do what you do best and own it!

do note that the only exception to this philosophy is if you make blatantly ignorant statements.

rfds. i always try to give verbal rfds. if you have any questions regarding my feedback, feel free to ask. 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. if you go for framework, give me clear internal link explanations and consider having external impacts.

theory. not a huge fan of it, but that doesn't mean i won't vote for it. make it purposeful. tell me what competing interps and reasonability mean. i like nuanced analyses; give me real links, real interps, and real-world scenarios that bad norms generate.

counter-plans. these can be fun. however, they should be legitimately competitive. give me 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 provide an anomalous approach against the aff. judge instructions make my life easier and can win you the debate.

cross. i'll listen, but i won't weigh 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 you tell me to or if it sounds too good to be true. however, this isn't an excuse to be lazy. narrative coherence is very important to me.

public forum debaters should practice good partner coordination, especially during summary and final focus. arguments and evidence mentioned in final focus need to have been brought up in summary for me to evaluate it. please weigh and again, crystallize!

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

Please do not signpost by cards (ideally, number voters and use contention tags)

---Other stuff

- Speaking: Speed is fine short of spreading. Speaks are based on speaking and content, I will bump if you pull off a cool strategy in round well. Don't be a bully, don't let yourself be bullied. I might not be looking/flowing during cross but I'm listening, make jokes and stuff, have fun :)

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

- Weighing: "Strength of link," "urgency," and "clarity of impact" mean nothing unless you warrant and implicate them. I think you should consider thinking of weighing less with buzzwords and more by literally thinking about why one is more important than explaining it (truth is convincing).

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

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

make the debate space fun, educational, and safe. please ask questions before the round and postround if anything is unclear or if you disagree my evaluation (of course, it won't change the ballot). i'll always disclose

summary is the most important speech in the round, make sure you: collapse, extend link chains and impacts, frontline, do comparative weighing. any offense/terminal defense needs to be in summary and FF. basically, i should be able to listen to only summary and FF and make the correct decision.

Please please please if you have 11 free minutes watch this video.

i'll listen to cross carefully but nothing goes on the flow

i'll evaluate Ks and theory but i have little experience with progressive args so I'll probably make the wrong decision (so you probably shouldn't run it)

spreading is also okay but i'm not the most experienced and i might miss something (so you probably shouldn't)

don't be mean, say "this is the easiest ballot you'll ever sign", steal prep, go 10+ seconds over time, misconstrue evidence, or be late to round. minimum of 28.5 speaks if you follow these. 29+ if you're decent, 30 if you're good.

have fun, wear whatever you want

TL;DR

Tabula rasa judge. 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. Please, for the love of God, weigh links and turns, defense, and pretty much everything else.

DEBATE IS A GAME, PLAY TO WIN.

Tech>truth. I will vote for pretty much any argument as long as it's warranted well and it's not racist, antisemitic, sexist, homophobic, etc. I have experience with traditional and progressive. I will vote on the flow.

Things I Like:

Comparative weighing.

Signposting.

Roadmaps.

Weighing in rebuttal.

Summary/ff parallelism.

I prefer if instead of calling me "judge" you call me "justice" :D

Things I Don't Like:

New responses or wEiGhInG in grand cross because you dropped the argument

New offensive overviews or in second rebuttal

New responses to turns in second summary

Rudeness

How I Judge:

If my paradigm is unclear, my favorite judges are 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 DLs 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: LOGISTICS———

Content Warnings:

Read a content warning for arguments that are potentially harmful. You must have alternative cases ready in case your opponents or I am not comfortable with the content of your case. Keep the space safe for participants please. I default reasonability on CW theory, I am not inclined to vote for 'no bright line' RVIs or 'they didn't read a CW for econ growth' even if those responses win on the line-by-line.

Voting:

I default to util. If there's no offense I presume to the first speaking team. I will always disclose after the round, whether the tournament permits it or not. I can also disclose speaks if you ask.

Evidence:

—Evidence Part 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 Part 2—

When evidence is called for, take less than 2 minutes to pull up the card please.

—Evidence Part 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 R1 F1 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. If you choose to send a speech doc with cut cards before the given speech begins, I'll start your speaks at a 29 and won't go below that.

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, be efficient.

Disclosure:

If you've disclosed on the NDCA PF wiki properly I will give you +0.5 speaks, there's no punishment for not disclosing. Let me know if you are disclosed before the round so I can boost your speaks. (How to disclose.) Disclosure should include round reports and open source documents (I believe that disclosing highlights is bad, I will not increase speaks or look more favorably on highlights having been disclosed).

Speaks:

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

Good Star Wars references will result in higher speaks; the better the reference, the higher your speaks.

Postrounding:

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

———PART III: PROGRESSIVE DEBATE———

I enjoy progressive debate; I run 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 partner Roy Tiefer, "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

Non-T Kritik - 4

High Theory - 4

Performance - 5 (Strike)

Tricks - 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 but I'll evaluate it; 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 1st 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 K judge rounds. I'm more familiar with security, cap, and imperialism than anything else. You can run high theory Ks just explain them well, I'm fairly familiar with Nietzsche, Foucault, Agamben, and Baudrillard. If you are running a non-T aff/performance argument I am probably not your judge... I am not confident in my ability to evaluate them and I default T>K.

Tricks:

I do not know how to judge these, I also really, really, really do not like tricks... I'll vote for them if you win them but I'll cap your speaks at a 27.5.

Everything Else:

Framework, soft-left Ks, and DAs are fine. I've never run a CP, I don't really know how to evaluate that; you probably shouldn't do that in PF...but...if you want to...give me a really good reason why it's true or why I should evaluate it.

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.

PS

majority of this paradigm is from fire debaters like Eli Glickaman and Junio Sky. I barely understand half of it ;)

TLDR:

I'm flow/tech until you are racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. I can handle spreading, just send a speech doc that includes anything you read so I don’t accidentally miss something, I'd hate to vote someone down because audio cut out or my hearing failed me. If you're gonna read primarily analytics or logic include bullet points.

If you want more details read below. If you want the most up to date info, ask me in round.

Important Note: I will not look at any evidence unless it is asked of me to do so in round, once you ask me to examine the evidence I assume you give me full discretion to read the entire article or study and make judgements based on its contents.

Experience:

I have 4 years of experience in PF, Congress, and LD. I have no exposure to Ks, but I do have experience with and enjoy judging theory debate. I am currently studying economics at Tufts University and have familiarity with urbanization and healthcare. This will not affect decision making, but I believe in the spirit of fairness I should disclose my familiarities with related subjects.

Speaker Point System:
Here's a rudimentary point system

24: You broke a rule or were racist
27: Worst you can get normally, your speeches were messy and impossible to understand.
28: Mediocre, you gave your speech monotone or had several issues with clarity
28.5: Average
29: Good, you gave your speeches clearly most of the time and had few issues during cross.
30: Great, you didn't have any noticeable issues

This is what will lose you points
1. Interrupting during crossfire or trying to turn it into another speech instead of asking a question
2. Not speaking clearly(I give a lot of leeway on this)
3. Lying
4. Being rude or disrespectful

How I judge debate:

I vote almost solely on what happens in the round with framework being the first thing I consider and speaking and strategy being the last. So if you impact to only economic downfall but forget to attack the framework that says we should focus on saving lives then that’s an L for you.

While I am a flow/tech judge, if you run blatantly untrue or abusive arguments I will step in because then I see you as just being an awful human being. This hasn't ever happened, but I want it to be known that I reserve the right to intervene in order to be transparent as a judge. This shouldn't ever happen unless you run "racism is good" like that one kid in Oklahoma.

If you hold your opponents to a standard in round you must meet that standard too.

What I like:

1. Thorough and well done weighing

2. Collapsing of arguments

3. Clearing extensions through till final focus

4. Clear and quantified impacts

5. Well written theory

How to annoy me:

Here are a few ways you can annoy me in the round: lying, not giving your opponents the evidence they call for in a timely manner, defining every word in the resolution, acting arrogant, expecting me to weigh for you, running arguments that are immature and demeaning such as racism good or that sexism doesn't exist.

Debate is meant to be inclusive and any attempts to undermine that will lose you speaker points very quickly.

Extra notes:

Occasionally I will have suggestions for evidence, cases, or arguments that I do not have the materials on standby for, if you ever want to follow up on an RFD and ask for a clarification you can email me at tait.milo.smith@gmail.com.

How I judge extemp:

To me, extemp is just as much about being a charismatic speaker as it is having good arguments. If I’m not interested in what you’re telling them you’re not doing a great job. There are several ways to get my attention including being humorous or having a good introduction. I’ve had people win rounds despite having weaker arguments because it actually became painful to listen to the other speakers' monotone performances. Your speaking abilities makes up half your ranking.

My email is walkersmith2022@gmail.com if you need to contact me for any reason.

Debated PF for 4 years in HS.

Got some bids, qualified to NSDAs, and made it to finals at NCFLs so I wasn’t completely terrible.

Random Thoughts:

- Tech>Truth, but the less grounded in reality the argument it, the less it has to be responded to.

- Remember that debate is not about just "winning" as many arguments as possible, but about being persuasive, even in the most technical rounds. Make sure you are constantly tying arguments back to the central question of "So what?" or in other words, why does what you're talking about matter?

- If a framework is introduced in case, it should be extended and applied in every speech.

- Theory is fine but I prefer substance debates, if it’s really fringe and not serious (for example shoes and singing constructives), little response will be required.

- I am fine with talking fast but don't spread, I will not look at a speech doc.

- Preferably use an author name and date, but if you cite cards in any way and don't lie it will probably be fine. (Much stronger evidence is cited from a credible source, for example Smith '22 from RAND >>> Smith '22 from Buzzfeed)

- I will not flow crossfires but I will listen and they may shift my perception of the round, what is said in crossfire should be consistent with positions in the speeches. I am fine with whatever format of crossfire as long as there is equal speaking time.

- Rebuttals should throughly respond to the opponent's entire case, 2nd rebuttal should throughly defend its case, and 1st summary should also throughly defend its case while also covering the round as a whole and weighing.

- No new major arguments in summaries, no new evidence in finals, and no new weighing in the second final. Arguments and responses in finals should have appeared in summaries. Ideally, summary and final should be boiled down to the fewest voters/issues necessary to win the round.

- Actual weighing (explaining how your impacts are more important than your opponent's impacts, not just saying "we outweigh on scope" and then moving on) is guaranteed to boost speaks (and greatly increase your chances of winning the round), comparative weighing (explaining how your weighing mechanism is superior to your opponent's weighing mechanism) is even better.

- If neither side has produced a reason to vote for them by the round, I likely will default to the neg. (depends on the resolution) (this is super rare, nothing I've really had to personally deal with).

- I will only call a card if there is a direct clash or I am told to call a card. If you lied about it or something, you would probably lose.

Good luck, have fun!

arjunsurya473@gmail.com

Did PF & LD in high school, now do NPDA now at Rice.

Fine with most arguments, just be be clear and slow down on Ks/theory. I'm not super sure how norms are in LD so if you're going to go for an argument be very clear about what the link story is in the rebuttals and do enough weighing so I know how to evaluate it.

I don't have any particular preference for RVIs, Spec, Condo, or anything really. Just make clear arguments about why you should win with it. For Ks, I'm familiar with cap/futurism/Baudrillard/Lacan/Hauntology/ but you should still explain the alts to me like I'm a PFer because I low key don't really know what most of these arguments mean even when I read them.

I don't really know what a judge kick is but from my understanding I would err on the side of not doing that in front of me. Just collapse normally or do weighing to get out of an argument.

Sidwell '23, Dartmouth '27.

Please put me on the chain - s.k.wallace.09@gmail.com AND georgetowndaydebate@gmail.com (if policy).

Debate should be fun for everyone. If I can help you in any way when it comes to your comfort or safety in the round, let me know.

OV:

1. I don't have much topic knowledge.

2. I will not open docs until after the debate ends.

3. You must disclose anything that isn't new.

4. I am best for teams that, in the 2NR/2AR, tell a cohesive and pretty story about the technical debating that has occurred. If this is helpful, I am most persuaded by teams that debate like: Georgetown AM/BK/KL, Dartmouth SV/TV, Wake EF, Harvard BS.

Policy stuff:

I judge this most.

I basically only read cards as a tiebreaker for technical debating in close debates.

Try or die framing is not very persuasive to me. I evaluate relative risk of advantage vs disadvantage. The risk of the advantage linearly decreases with the risk of solvency.

Arguments about the procedure of debate/debating counterplans are more persuasive to me as theory, not competition. This is not a particularly strong opinion.

I will almost certainly not reject the team for anything other than conditionality.

Planless affs:

I don't judge this much. My voting record is 50/50. I vote affirmative either when the negative drops a trick, or the aff wins sufficient defense to neg debatability offense such that a K of the reading/imposition of T outweighs.

I can't imagine a 2AR that convinces me to vote on "they flipped neg to read T and that's bad." It's a logical criticism of a non-topical affirmative. Similarly, if the 2NR doesn’t go for T, it will be hard to persuade me to vote on disads to their interpretation.

K:

I judge this a bit more. My voting record leans slightly policy. This is broadly a reflection of who has done the better technical debating in the particular rounds I have judged. I generally vote negative when the neg wins a framework argument and a link that outweighs aff link turns.

I really enjoy critiques that make aff specific and nuanced arguments for why the affirmative is bad, premised on framework arguments that emphasize the importance of how we do research or justify policy.

I am very bad for Ks that rely on the logic of cause and effect - if links are non-unique, it makes no sense to attempt to attempt to garner offense from a unique consequence of the plan.

"Debaters should presume good-faith engagement by their opponents. If your strategy primarily relies on ad hominems, references to out-of-round events, screenshots, or accusations that could have been resolved by emailing your opponents or their coaches before the round, you should strike me."

he/him

PF:

add me to your email chain: Johnsondebateemail@gmail.com

I prefer all debaters to send speech docs with cards before each speech, case and rebuttal

TL;DR

Tabula rasa judge. I really like roadmaps and clear signpostings. For theories or K's to be evaluated, it must be explained very well. If you spread, send a speech doc and make sure to enunciate. make sure to always extend and weigh. clean warranting is very important. Defense is sticky. Have cut cards ready to send.

Please be respectful, don't say anything problematic.

Things I like:

Roadmaps and clear signpostings

Comparative weighing

Starting weighing in rebuttal

Parallelism in backhalf

Non-stock arguments (I like smart arguments, not frivolous arguments)

Things I don't like:

New responses or wEiGhiNg in grand cross because you undercovered the argument

New offensive overviews or DA dumps in second rebuttal

New responses to turns in second summary

Extending through ink or incomplete extensions

Being rude

Voting:

I default con for policy resolutions and first-speaking teams otherwise unless contrary arguments are made

I'm fine with TKOs but if your opponents did have a path to the ballot you lose with 25s

Progressive debate:

I evaluate theory, kritiks, LARP, performance, tricks, non-T kritiks, high theory, and basically anything.

You do not need to ask your opponents if they are comfortable with theory: "I don't know how to respond!" is not an actual response.

I have a lower threshold for responses the more frivolous the shell.

General:

tech > truth. but my threshold for responses also decreases with the quality of the arguments made.

Second rebuttal must frontline, defense is sticky. if you want me to evaluate turns make sure to extend, implicate, and weigh throughout.

Extend offense and defense through summary and FF to be weighed. saying the word "extend" is not extending, you must explain your extensions. also make sure to weigh

Weighing is super important. If both sides have some risk of offence (which they usually do) I'll look to weighing. saying "we outweigh on magnitude isn't weighing because our impact is big" isn't weighing. Weighing must be interactive and try to start weighing early on.

I will not evaluate new material brought up in the backhalf except in first summary.

don't spam evidence, please explain why your evidence is preferable, don't just repeat your cards.

Worlds/Parli:

I make my decisions based on the flow, meaning I'll be more heavily convinced by good content than good style. However, I do evaluate truth>tech so please have good mechanization as well.

You should treat me as a person who is interested and generally knowledgeable in politics, philosophy, economics, etc

The burden of proofs and rejoinder always apply

I carry a slight bias towards liberal principles, ie free speech, democracy, believing that we have an obligation to alleviate unnecessary suffering, etc

Please be realistic with your impacts, this is not pf.

Weighing is still very important. Debaters tend to be smart people and motions tend to be controversial. This means that both teams are usually saying something that makes sense. This is why it is crucial to weigh. If you don't explain why your argument is more important than your opponents' points and they do, you will likely lose. If neither side weighs explicitly, you're relying on my intuition. This is unpredictable. I am moody. You'll likely dislike my call. Don't do this.

Framing and characterization can help greatly with weighing and is just generally a good thing to do.

Overall:

Warrants/mechanisms are the most important in all formats of debate

Please be respectful, don't say anything problematic

Feel free to ask me any specifics before the round

Most importantly, enjoy the debate and learn from this activity, it is a great one.

Follow @johnsonnwuu on Instagram for +0.5 speaks !

he/him

PF:

add me to your email chain: Johnsondebateemail@gmail.com

I prefer all debaters to send speech docs with cards before each speech, case and rebuttal

TL;DR

Tabula rasa judge. I really like roadmaps and clear signpostings. For theories or K's to be evaluated, it must be explained very well. If you spread, send a speech doc and make sure to enunciate. make sure to always extend and weigh. clean warranting is very important. Defense is sticky. Have cut cards ready to send.

Please be respectful, don't say anything problematic.

Things I like:

Roadmaps and clear signpostings

Comparative weighing

Starting weighing in rebuttal

Parallelism in backhalf

Non-stock arguments (I like smart arguments, not frivolous arguments)

Things I don't like:

New responses or wEiGhiNg in grand cross because you undercovered the argument

New offensive overviews or DA dumps in second rebuttal

New responses to turns in second summary

Extending through ink or incomplete extensions

Being rude

Voting:

I default con for policy resolutions and first-speaking teams otherwise unless contrary arguments are made

I'm fine with TKOs but if your opponents did have a path to the ballot you lose with 25s

Progressive debate:

I evaluate theory, kritiks, LARP, performance, tricks, non-T kritiks, high theory, and basically anything.

You do not need to ask your opponents if they are comfortable with theory: "I don't know how to respond!" is not an actual response.

I have a lower threshold for responses the more frivolous the shell.

General:

tech > truth. but my threshold for responses also decreases with the quality of the arguments made.

Second rebuttal must frontline, defense is sticky. if you want me to evaluate turns make sure to extend, implicate, and weigh throughout.

Extend offense and defense through summary and FF to be weighed. saying the word "extend" is not extending, you must explain your extensions. also make sure to weigh

Weighing is super important. If both sides have some risk of offence (which they usually do) I'll look to weighing. saying "we outweigh on magnitude isn't weighing because our impact is big" isn't weighing. Weighing must be interactive and try to start weighing early on.

I will not evaluate new material brought up in the backhalf except in first summary.

don't spam evidence, please explain why your evidence is preferable, don't just repeat your cards.

Worlds/Parli:

I make my decisions based on the flow, meaning I'll be more heavily convinced by good content than good style. However, I do evaluate truth>tech so please have good mechanization as well.

You should treat me as a person who is interested and generally knowledgeable in politics, philosophy, economics, etc

The burden of proofs and rejoinder always apply

I carry a slight bias towards liberal principles, ie free speech, democracy, believing that we have an obligation to alleviate unnecessary suffering, etc

Please be realistic with your impacts, this is not pf.

Weighing is still very important. Debaters tend to be smart people and motions tend to be controversial. This means that both teams are usually saying something that makes sense. This is why it is crucial to weigh. If you don't explain why your argument is more important than your opponents' points and they do, you will likely lose. If neither side weighs explicitly, you're relying on my intuition. This is unpredictable. I am moody. You'll likely dislike my call. Don't do this.

Framing and characterization can help greatly with weighing and is just generally a good thing to do.

Overall:

Warrants/mechanisms are the most important in all formats of debate

Please be respectful, don't say anything problematic

Feel free to ask me any specifics before the round

Most importantly, enjoy the debate and learn from this activity, it is a great one.

Follow @johnsonnwuu on Instagram for +0.5 speaks !

Flow judge

4 years PF at Leland

he/him

PF:

-Put me on the email chain: dxie18@gmail.com

-Frontline in second rebuttal

-Anything you want me to vote on must be extended in both summary and final focus

-Weigh comparatively -- don't just say your impact is important, show why it's more important than your opponent's

-Give warrants. Don't just read statistics with no reasoning or warranting.

-Terminal defense > Weighing. make sure you at least access your impact in some way before weighing it

-Metaweigh, otherwise I'll probably just default to prereq/short circuit > link-in > everything else or evaluate based on mitigatory defense/whatever feels intuitive

-I don't like DAs that don't interact with the case at all but I'll evaluate them reluctantly

-Misconstrued evidence won't be evaluated and you'll probably lose speaks

-I really really prefer that you don't spread. I don't like flowing off a doc. I will evaluate spreading if you give me a doc but I'd rather not have to.

-Please time yourself.

-Tech > Truth. I'll vote on anything but keep in mind that crazy arguments that don't make a lot of sense are a lot easier for your opponents to respond to

-Don't be problematic

-I don't flow cross and won't vote on it. If something important happens in cross, it must be mentioned in speech for it to be on my flow.

-I don't like calling for cards. I will try to avoid calling for cards. MAKE MY JOB EASY, do the indicting and the evidence comparison in your speech. I will always try to evaluate evidence clashes solely based on what is said in the round, me calling for evidence should be the last last resort if I can't break a clash.

-If you want to concede defense to kick out of a turn it needs to be done the speech after the turn is read, you should also explain why the defense takes out the turn

Progressive Arguments

-Theory and Ks: I'm not too familiar with them, especially Ks, but you can run them (sorry if I make the wrong decision though). I don't like friv theory but I won't hack against it

-No CPs/Tricks

Not PF:

-frontline in the speech after responses are made

-warrants please

PF for 4 years at Bronx Science (Bronx Science MY), freshman at Cornell, coach for Bergen County CM and Awty ZZ

TLDR: pls warrant and if nobody does GOOD comparative weighing I'll prefer the least mitigated link first and then the largest impact. At least be good at frontlining if you can't weigh.

For TOC: I’m gonna have a much higher threshold for extensions, warranting, and comparative weighing than I normally would throughout the season, teams have gotten WAY too lazy. also genuinely don’t care what you read, j send all docs.

add me to the email chain - vy.debate@gmail.com - send speech docs and I'll boost speaks

spec notes on how to adapt to me:

• "Fast PF speed" is fine - faster then 210wpm is when I start to have issues. Spread at your own risk bc tbh I suck at flowing off speech docs and will probably make a worse decision and be annoyed if you make me do so
• I hate blippy weighing without warrants. Don't just say "I outweigh on timeframe" tell me why, make it comparative, and implicate it on the flow. Bad weighing makes me sad
• Link in's need weighing on top of them or else they just function as a piece of non-comparative offense
• Extend warrants, not card names. chances are if you just say "extend John 19" I won't remember what John said and I won't flow it
• Second rebuttal MUST frontline turns, and terminal defense if you want to go for the arg later
• If you want me to vote on an Impact turn or rebuttal disad/adv it also need to have an impact and be weighed
• I won't listen to cross unless someone says smth funny, then ill tune in
• not having actual cut cards on hand = .5 drop in speaks

my rant about "probability" weighing
If you read new defense in summary or final and label it probability weighing I am docking ur speaks and will be saddened. A lot of probability weighing just isn't real weighing its just defense in disguise- any conceded defense or argument is 100% true, at that point any "probability weighing" is just some sort of mitigatory or terminal defense so just implicate it as that instead and do it in rebuttal.

non-subs debate
Im good to eval any theory or K debate as long as speeches aren't spread (seriously don't trust me to eval a K round if I have to read everything off docs), yes trix are fun but like pls don't in front of me

most importantly, have fun! let me know how I can accommodate you in round in any way