I did not debate in HS Or college, but have coached Cypress Bay HS for 3 years now. I am primarily a speech coach but occasionally help with policy, LD and PF.

I'm okay with any argument (but theory)you should do what you do best. I think people should be nice to each other, debate is suppose to be a fun event. I prefer well researched, executed positions (aka you must read cards) whether that be in the form of traditional or non traditional strategies. While, you may read what arguments you prefer I am primarily a speech coach at Cypress Bay and may not be able to understand everything you say while spreading. You'll need to slow down when debating. If I am unable to follow what you're saying I'll yell Clear once. It's your responsibility to adjust or not after that. I will try my best to flow and will be using a flow template on my laptop. 

I'm a flow judge and have debated 4 years of PF at Trinity School. Broke to dubs at TOC '21.

Defense is not sticky - if you want defense to flow through, you need to extend it in every speech. That said, if first summary extends defense that wasn't frontlined in second rebuttal, second summary is too late to bring up a new frontline.

Screaming "Smith 18" is not an extension. If you want me to vote on something, you need to extend the warranting as well as the evidence.

I don't flow cross - if something important is said during cross, make sure to bring it up in a later speech.

Talk as fast as you want as long as you're clear (but I find that when people talk fast, their warranting suffers; I will not vote off blippy warranting).

No theory unless you actually, genuinely care about the issue (see TOC finals 2021 for a good example).

Bonus points for any jokes made during speeches :)

Junior econ + political science double major @ UChicago. Used to debate in HS/coached a successful team for 2 years but likely pretty detached from the topic/literature now, so just keep that in mind.

Email: saydinyan@uchicago.edu

---

Read content warnings for arguments that contain discussion of violence, whether it's gender-, race-, class-, or anything else-based. You should also send out an OPT-IN form before the round if you intend to read these arguments, and not read them if everyone does not consent to it.

---

TL;DR: I'm a normal tech judge. I like judging fast, techy rounds, but not when you sacrifice warranting and explanation for the sake of strategy. Please debate to your strengths and not my preferences. Winning on the flow is winning on the flow even if you do it differently than I'd prefer.

I am okay with most arguments except for ones that are offensive or exclusionary. Kind of a no-brainer.

I don't like intervention, and I think as a debater, it's in your best interest to close all doors to it. You should be resolving all clash that you want me to evaluate. This means you should be weighing and giving me specific reasons as to why I prefer your warranting/evidence/whatever over your opponents'. Obviously, if you make me intervene to resolve something I will try to be reasonable, but if you're leaving that door open, you also lose your right to complain about which direction the intervention goes.

Extend properly. I have pretty high standards for this, so to be clear, you should be extending the uniqueness, warrant, internal link, and impact on your offense, for theory you need to explicitly extend your interp, etc, etc.

I love hearing creative and/or smart strategies (baiting some type of response you can dump turns on, reading an impact turn on yourself to kick out of link turns or vice versa, smart overviews, etc.) Obviously not required but I'll have way more fun.

Progressive args: Just FYI I went to a small school and never ran/formally learned progressive arguments, but I've coached teams that read them and I'm fine with you reading them. In general, theory should be okay. IRL I think disclosure is good and paraphrasing is bad, but I'm not a hack for anything and you can convince me to vote either way on these. I definitely have some implicit bias towards theory when used to check abuse, and I do generally prefer good substance debates over theory debates. I'm not super familiar with K literature but have judged Ks before, and if you can explain it well and articulate how things function in the context of the round then you will not have an issue. However, as I said above, it's always in your best interest to close doors to intervention and tell me exactly how you want me to evaluate parts of your argument.

---

Remember that you're allowed to have fun and insert humor into the round. Please be nice to each other. It's a good real-world skill.

Finally, you can feel free to postround me. If a judge can't defend their decision it probably wasn't a good one. As long as you stay polite I'm happy to explain my thinking.

dont be mean!

be funny

My paradigm is based mainly on impact. I want to see what the Competors pull through at the end of the round, and most importantly that they apply good analysis of the topic in general. All that means that you need to clash with your opponent’s arguments and show me why yours are more important or relevant to the debate, and why they matter.

Debate isn’t about burying your opponents in contentions, it’s about good use of arguments and rhetoric. Of course, I also believe decorum is important, and that the competitors are respectful to each other.

Experience & Education
Carrollton HS Speech & Debate '08-'12.
CHS S&D (Assistant Coach) '12-'16.
-
BS Political Science - University of West Georgia '16
Master of Public Policy - Georgia State University '20

~~~

PF: I prefer that PF stays as close to it's original intent (in terms of the use of debate theory, jargon, etc.) as possible - i.e., I should be able to judge this round as a layperson with no prior knowledge of the high school debate space. If you're going to spend a considerable amount of time between speeches calling for cards please weigh every card you've asked for.

LD: I appreciate as much of a straightforward framework and/or case debate as you can give me.

Please speak at a conversational pace. If I can't understand your argument, I can't flow your argument.

Prefer quality over quantity. One solid argument will persuade me more than a dozen undeveloped arguments.

When speaking, please introduce evidence with the author’s full name, qualifications, publication, and publication date. This information is essential to evaluating the strength of your evidence. While last name/year may be the minimum requirement per NSDA rules, it is not sufficient to win the ballot. Each piece of evidence should be introduced with a brief pause or by saying “quote/unquote.” This is necessary to distinguish between evidence and analysis.

Please signpost with arguments, not authors.

Please ensure that your evidence supports the claims you are making. Disconnects between claims and evidence will seriously damage your credibility.

Add me to the ev share doc: maximumbanach@gmail.com (do not use an email chain it's tedious)

Short Version

- I debated PF for three years at Pine View School and was ranked 193 out of 2889 on the nat circuit. I currently double-major in Economics & Electrical Engineering at the University of Florida. I coached Pine View KP 2022-23. I'm voting off the flow so put any offense you want in final focus in summary. First summary only needs to extend defense on arguments that were frontlined in second rebuttal. Second rebuttal should answer all offense on the flow if you want me to vote for you.

- Truth > tech, the point of debate is trying to convince someone; you have a higher burden of proof the longer the link chain and thus a higher threshold for my vote. I will still evaluate complex arguments obv

- Tabula rasa, don't expect me to know topic-specific terminology especially if it's the first round of the tourney

Long Version

Extensions:

- Warrants and impacts need to be extended for an argument to be voted off of

- Don’t just read author names and expect me to remember what they say, contextualize each piece of evidence as the round goes on

Weighing:

- The earlier you start the better (rebuttal is great)

- If you weigh in summary (which you should) final focus should mirror the mechanisms used

- good teams always craft a narrative

Evidence:

- Include author name and year published if you want me to evaluate it (postdating is good).

- I will call for evidence if it's contested and key to my decision.

- Tell me if you want me to read a card, but don’t start showing me random ones to try and argue the round after is over.

- My threshold for dropping teams for misconstruing evidence is very low, BUT you need to run T saying why it makes the round unfair if you want it as a voter (this includes the interpretation, the violation, standards, and the voter(s)).

Prep time:

- prep stealing is bad but again I won’t vote off an unfairness claim unless a full theory arg is fleshed out by the opponents.

- if you can’t pull up a piece of evidence within a minute, I’m dropping the ev off the flow.

- if you don’t cut cards shame on you.

Speed:

- 300 wpm is probably my higher comfortability range, anything greater and you risk cards not getting on the flow.

- If you can’t speak fast, don’t.

Progressive Argumentation:

- I am comfortable evaluating theory and have taken philo coursework. Understand that prog arguments often don't fit into the PF speech timing and I will frown on you if you do try it against an opponent who isn't comfortable

- I don't evaluate 30 speaks theory and I have a high threshold for disclosure theory (often teams will just use it as a cheap way to the ballot)

- Don’t just run T as an easy way to pick up against inexperienced teams, ask your opponents if they’re comfortable arguing it (if they aren’t and you go ahead and do I’ll be sad).

Misc.:

- Reading cards > paraphrasing, but paraphrasing is fine

- Preflow before the round

Speaker Points Scale

30 - you're one of if not the best debater I have seen.

29 - 29.9 - You're one of the best debaters at the tournament

28 - 28.9 - You're good, you’ll probably break (hopefully).

27 - 27.9 - You're an okay debater, you need some work, you didn't drop anything major.

26 - 26.9 - You dropped at least one or more important arguments that lost you the round.

25 - 25.9 – You did something very wrong.

At the end of the day, debate is an educational event. If you’re not having fun, there’s no reason to be doing it. Above all, try your best, and be civil.

Update: Here's some SetCol lectures and links to hella lit I compiled a while ago:

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1UzbBrwOK3BDTgMTgV2KNnS14BiLKb4e1

Update: If you love to run theory in LD, you probably should strike me.

I've never particularly liked theory, but over the last couple years theory in LD has turned into a profoundly uneducational whine-off that devolves into students running baseless accusations of "abuse". Especially in a time where debaters are starting to call out real life abuse they may face from the debate community, it's becoming harder and harder for me to stomach rewarding "their definition is abusive because now I have to run theory and that's a time skew" (which is self-fulfilling) type theory arguments with a ballot. I firmly believe that the discourse we use in rounds can shape our worldviews and community norms. "Abuse", a term that should carry significance, is subconsciously rendered meaningless because it's flippantly tossed around to win a ballot. It develops connotations of self-serving technicalities that I firmly believe seep into how we view people speaking out about real abuse.
(It occurred to me that some debaters may want to borrow the above paragraph, so if you do, please keep the cutting I've bolded to avoid accidentally misrepresenting the argument.)

Short version: I’m a flow judge down with most K’s, spreading, CPs (condo or uncondo) narratives, performance, and projects. If you bite into your own K, you're screwed. For the love of coffee, SIGNPOST. Don’t run bad science. I love IR and current events. I hate Eurocentric perspectives. Theory debate is meh at the best of times when it’s done well and downright painful when it’s done poorly or unnecessarily. (update: just don't run theory in front of me) I really don’t have a strong opinion one way or the other on RVI’s. Topicality: ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ . Weigh impacts. I will listen to whatever you have to say as long as it is well supported, do not just assume certain things are good or bad. Case debate is fun. Framework debate is interesting, whoever wins framework controls how I will view the round and usually gets my ballot. I’m incredibly non-interventionist (unless someone’s winning the “the judge should be a critical intellectual” arg, then be prepared for what intellect you have unleashed.) and rarely vote on presumption, unless something egregious happens in round. Don’t be a jackass - at this point, and especially given how misogynistic debatespace can be, if you're excessively rude to your opponent I am not going to reward that type of behavior with a ballot if it's an otherwise close round. Like, it's not that hard to not be a jerk, it usually saves you time.

Last thing - lots of teams have been running Indigenous something or other in front of me. I guess they inherently assume this is good judge adaptation. It frequently is not. If you are planning on doing this, please scroll down to the bottom and read my opinions on this instead of telling me how to think about my own identity.

(Also, I like a lot of different things. I'm super nerdy. Please don't feel constrained in the breadth of arguments you can run in front of me; there's more to me than my race. *cries single tear*)

^you’ll probably be fine with just that, the rest is provided for kicks and giggles.
Launching the Logorrhea

Use your head! Analysis: I want to see critical engagement with the literature. Don’t just say that something is true or desirable because some author said so. Explain what you are arguing in your own words, tell me why it matters and why it is important to be heard in this round. Blippy arguments aren’t going to have much punch. When you extend, restate the analysis; I dislike extending points for the sake of just having stuff on the flow, tell me why it’s important in the round.

Disads: I want a clear link/internal link story. This is often lacking in politics disads, which are interesting when done well and awful when they’re like “voting for this bill drains the president’s political capital”. Be specific and intrinsic. Impact calc is important as is reminding me why I should be weighing all this under your framework. I’m not tied to Probability >Magnitude or Manitude>Probability – you convince me which one I should prioritize. Timeframe can be a good tie-breaker for this.

Theory: See update at the top. If you run it, please make sure it's warranted. I have voted on it and will if it isn't responded to, but it’s not exactly my favorite type of debate. Clarify what you mean by “reasonability” and why you are being more reasonable.

Non-topical Affs: Go for it. Extra-topical plans: If you’re all debating the resolution straight up, being extra-T isn’t very fair.

Let's be clear on the need for speed: I can handle pretty fast spread, just make sure to enunciate. I will yell clear if needed, but after 2 or 3 "clears" you will start losing speaks if you don’t listen. Please don’t spread out teams that can’t spread; it’s mean and I will be mean back to you on the ballot.

Speak up! I award speaker points for content, strategy, and structure more than talking pretty.Let's all play nice. Watch your rhetoric; anything racist, sexist, xenophobic, homophobic, abelist, or transphobic will nuke your speaks. My speaks are generally higher than 26. 27-27.5 is average-proficient, 28 is awesome, 29 is " I really wanted to give you 30, but there was (blank) tiny issue". 29.5-30 means the round was pure beauty in motion.

RVI's: Ok, for whatever reason, this is like cilantro for most people in the debate community; they either think they're the best, most clever thing ever or that they're a horrible abomination. I really, seriously, don't have a strong opinion either way, I think it is very much a case by case situation.

K's: Feel more than free to be creative and unique, just make sure it makes sense. What I mean is that you should thoroughly understand what you are running, stay consistent with your framework, be able to handle the obvious questions it will incur. Back it up with analysis and justify why this is significant. It is always really obvious when somebody is running a case that was just handed to them by a coach or more senior competitor. I’m decently familiar with critical literature/arguments regarding Anthropocentrism, Ecofem, Indigeneity/Settler Colonialism, and Racial Positionality. I know little bits and pieces of other areas (like Disability Politics or Queer Theory – and a bunch of random stuff written by Marxist doctors on healthcare and neoliberalism; I had a weird summer in 2016.) and am more than happy to listen to whatever you want to run, I just might not be terribly familiar with the lit so make sure to clearly explain the thesis. Please feel free to ask me before the round if you want a clarification on my knowledge base. Furthermore, if you are critiquing somebody's rhetoric within the round and tell me that the role of the judge is to be a critical intellectual, don't bite into that rhetoric. It will end badly for you.
There are a few specific K's that I have more strict criteria for.
Nietzsche: Please for the love of all that is good in the world, don't run a Nietzsche K in front of me unless you have actually read some Nietzsche. All the bastardized embrace suffering stuff I hear all the time is not Nietzsche.
Give Back the Land/Decolonization: This can either be done really well or really poorly. A lot of the time, running this is pretty much just commodifying the suffering and exploitation and genocide of hundreds of Peoples for the ballot in a round. Please don't be one of those teams or I will drop you. Read “Decolonization is not a Metaphor” if you disagree with this and then think about what I said again. If you are running this case without any cards from Native authors, that is a serious paternalistic problem. It's also hard when the "plans" proposed don't leave room for biracial Native Americans, especially considering we have the highest "out-marriage" rates of any ethnicity. I don't wanna hear any "Noble Savage" type garbage. If you argue that we need to increase Indigenous knowledge production and all the stuff happening to Natives is really bad and oppressive and stuff, but you don't have a goddamn plan for tangibly reducing harm to people like me, stop talking. Things like rates of substance abuse, suicide, domestic violence, poverty,and cultural erasure have affected my life and my family and friends. THIS IS NOT A GAME TO ME. These are not arguments for your academic curiosity. These are real things that affect real people. I do not have the luxury to play with these concepts in academic abstraction, and I won't tolerate you doing so. If you want to argue in-round solutions, they better actually be solutions. None of this "we need to imagine a different government" BS. We have been imagining for a long time. If you are running this case to help rhetorically overthrow colonialist power structures and are actually representing Native voices, then you belong on the other half of the equation are running this case for the right reasons.

Also
Speed K's: Just have solid reasons for why your opponent spreading is abelist or exclusionary. If you have a disability that makes spreading either impossible for you to perform yourself or listen to/flow, if you have asked your opponent not to spread before the round, and your opponent still spreads, then yes absolutely run a speed K.

Quick thing on poetry- a lot of arguments I’ve heard against poetry being used in round are really classist and racist. I do not believe that poetry is only a tool of the elite and educated or that marginalized individuals who use it are traitor pawns of the ivory tower. Arguments that essentially boil down to “poetry is exclusionary because it’s bourgeoisie” are not going to work for me. Arguments that say poetry only embodies White ideals of beauty and that PoC poetry will inevitably be co-opted are viscerally offensive to me.
I won't drop you in the round if you run this, but I will drop the argument.

Narratives: Hell. Yes. I strongly believe narrative debate has an important role in asserting the voices of marginalized groups in academia. These are experiences and perspectives that the overwhelmingly wealthy white able cis/het male institutions of academia have isolated. Other authors publishing nuanced work on these topics can be rare, which is part of where narrartives come in to fill that gap. Narratives are NOT whining- narrative debate is a way for the debater to become a producer of knowledge. Talking about structural violence with first person language does not make these topics any less academic; somebody else does not need to study you for your problems to be worthy of being heard and debated.
That being said, if you are running a narrative – do NOT make sweeping assumptions about your opponents or judges, particularly in regards to things that nobody should have to feel forced to disclose about themselves to a room full of strangers, like mental health status, gender identity, sexual orientation, or a history of experiencing abuse/domestic violence. Your job is to attack power structures, and I have no tolerance for teams who invalidate their opponents' identities and their rights to display them how/when they choose to.

Please don't let the round turn into the Oppression Olympics. Don't let your args against narratives devolve into "actually, I am more oppressed than you because X " - narratives are to highlight structural violence, it's not personal. It is not about you, the debater running a narrative is an empiric to a larger argument that highlights particular systems of power. We shouldn't have to pretend like these systems don't apply to us in some way when we run cases, and at the end of the day, nobody is attacking YOU, they are indicting particular systems of power. Engage with the power structures in the round.

Each round is different, so these are just guidelines and if you have a question that this didn't answer, feel free to ask.
Good luck, have fun!

Hi, I'm Evan, I go to University College London and I study Politics, Sociology, and East European Studies, I did debate for 3 and a half years in highschool qualed for TOC my senior year.

PF-

Boring technical stuff-

>include me in all evidence exchanges please:)

>Tabula rasa (everyone says this but built different I guess), I will never be the type of judge to rattle off a rebuttal during my decision, if it wasn't said in round, it won't affect my judgement, no matter my opinions on topic/argument/political stance

>Flow/flex judge, can handle some speed, that being said speaker points may lower if you're not clear.

>better/more clear arguments always better than speed though

>I much prefer one really well thought out, explained, and carded response to 10 blippy ones with no warranting, don't just flood the flow because you can

>Progressive debate is fine but don't be abusive, don't read theory unless theres actual abuse, will buy disclosure if done well and opponents are running a squirly case, will definitely buy paraphrase, will 100% buy any theory about things that ruin the space of debate for some(TW, excessive gendered language, etc.)

>that being said, progressive debate will make your job as a debater significantly harder, if you think you can win progressive arguments you might as well run normal ones if you just want to win the round

>Must extend through every speech, if not extended through summary will consider it dropped especially on impacts

>Please don't bring up an impact, statistic, or voter in final focus if it wasn't in summary

>Impact calculus is very important but 75% of the time won't be the reason I vote a team up, especially if its done without case extension/defense

>that being said if i'm evaluating 2 arguments extremely closely and one had impact calc and the other didn't I will always vote for the former

>Tech>Truth most of the time, don't run obviously wrong args tho

>Please run unique or interesting cases, stock with spikes or weird warrants are fire too

>aggressive during cross is fine, however don't be a jerk, don't speak over your opponent, don't be rude

>don't be sexist, homophobic, racist, transphobic, instant 0 speaks and most likely vote down, debate is supposed to be a safe space

>will call for evidence even if not brought up during round only if it seems extremely sus, if you want me to look at evidence I will post round, say it in speech and i'll evaluate it as need be, it's the debaters job to recognize sus evidence, not mine

>please both quantify impacts as well as actualize them, "GDP skyrockets" (tell me how much) "GDP rises by 200%" (better/fine, but what does this mean for people, or government, or one specific area) "GDP rises by 200% meaning every mom in America can by 2 more jugs of chocolate milk" (perfect)

-fun "quirky" stuff-

>I don't care what you do in round as long as it isn't blatantly disrespectful to your opponent, illegal, or something that could get me in trouble

>cursing is fine but no need to over do it

>TKO, if you think your opponent has literally no paths to the ballot you can call technical knockout, 30W if right, 25L if wrong

Congress:

>please don't be boring

>clash is an instant way to get my attention

>if you bring up the same points as everyone else don't expect to be well ranked

>if you use a prewritten speech late session that doesn't respond to anyone else don't expect to be well ranked

>if you read off of a laptop or ipad don't expect to be well ranked
>don't be obnoxious with parli pro

>funny intros are enjoyable

>speeches should be atleast 2:30

>use logic or evidence in your speech, make actual arguments please

If you have any questions email me:) i sound mean but i'm not, I just would rather express what I explicitly want in a round so there's no guesswork

evanbeck2021@gmail.com

Kempner '20 | Stanford '24

Email: b.10.benitez@gmail.com

or just facebook message me

4 years of PF, qualified to TOC twice

________________________________

23-24 update: I haven't thought about debate in a minute, so the likelihood I know the intricacies of your arguments is low. However, don't hold back, treat me as tech judge, ask any questions beforehand.

- I've thought about it more, read whatever you want to read. However, my standard for technical proficiency rises as the more technical an argument becomes. i.e. if you want to read non-topical arguments, you'd better make sure you're doing a near perfect job in the back half to win because I won't search for a path to the ballot for you unless it's obvious. TLDR: make our lives easier by having good summaries and finals, I won't do the work for you.

- my old paradigm is here. Lots of my thoughts are the same, just ask me.

- if look confused, i probably am

General stuff

• Flex prep is cool and tag team speeches/CX is fine with me

• if ur down to skip grand for 30 seconds more prep (during the time of grand), i'm down

• absent any offense in the round, i'm presuming neg on policy topics and first on "on balance" topics

• Defense you want to concede should be conceded in the speech immediately after it was originally read.

• A concession requires an implication of how the defense interacts with your argument not just "we concede to the delinks"

• discourse links are super sketch (i.e vote for us bc we introduced x issue into the round)

TL;DR - tech>truth, clarity in thoughts and in speech (do not spread), be logical in linkchains and among your arguments, weigh, no theory, K, etc.

Although I am a parent judge, this is my eighth year judging debate tournaments, so I am not new to judging. I will flow arguments and will vote off of the flow (I'll mostly do tech > truth unless the arguement is so obviously false that nearly everyone would agree without googling it). That being said, please do not spread, because I'm bound to miss some of your arguments (if it doesn't make it onto my flow, I won't be able to evaluate your arguement). It is your job to make sure that you communicate your arguements clearly and logically.

Please note:

- clarity, especially clarity of thought and logic, is more important than speed

- I will focus on the weigh, and whether you've proven that your standing argument(s)'s impacts are greater than your opponents. This means that as you go through your arguments (before you weigh), you must tell me what the impacts of your arguments are-- don't assume they are obvious, and I'm not likely to make them up for you. You can be creative about how you weigh, potentially including scope, magnitude, timeframe, probabilty, or a metaweigh, etc.

- I do not like off-topic/theory arguements that try to disqualify the other team. Debate the topic at hand.

- I appreciate roadmaps and signposting. I'm OK if the initial roadmap is off-time, but they really should be part of your speaker time. And be sure to continue to signpost as you address new arguments-- you don't want me to put your arguments on a random part of my flowsheet.

- Gov/aff does have the right to define terms, and I do give leeway for that. Don't abuse it though-- I really don't like having to judge a "definitions" debate, and if the definition doesn't allow a path for opp/neg to win, I'm voting with opp/neg.

- Warrant your arguments. Completely unsubstantiated arguments are hard to vote on, especially if rebutted by the opposing side. If both sides are unwarranted, I'll view it as a wash and it won't survive the round.

- And to quote Ryan Lafferty: Be charitable to your opponents’ arguments! I’d much rather you mitigate the best version of your opponents’ claims than demolish a heavily strawmanned version of them.

For PF specifically:

- I value warrants over cards. Tell me why your argument(s) make sense logically rather than telling me a card said so. I have faith that you can always find someone who will say just about anything (e.g.-- the earth is flat).

- Focus on the weaknesses in your opponents link chains rather than reading from a prepared block file.

- The clash should be obvious by the rebuttal speaches. Second rebuttal can start to frontline in addition to rebutting the prior speech, however they must respond to all offense (including turns) or else I'll assume the argument is conceded.

- I won't be on your email chain and almost always wont look at your evidence. It's up to you to convince me, rather than me determining whether the evidence is worthy. That being said, if someone asks me to look at evidence (e.g., in order to determine whether the evidence was represented correctly), I will.

Speaker scores are ultimately subjective based on impefect judging. For PF, in addition to the above, I'll also be analyzing the quality of the research in determining speaker scores. For Parli, broad background knowledge is a big plus.

Speech:

I am a relatively inexperienced speech judge but have plenty of experience in forensics. Please feel free to ask any questions.

Public Forum:

Flow judge.

Stating something that contradicts what your opponents have said isn't debating; it's disagreeing. AKA implicate your responses and don't repeatedly extend through ink.

I look for the path of least resistance when I'm deciding a round.

If you misrepresent evidence, I will drop you.

Theory: Generally, I don't think theory belongs in PF debate. I think PF is unique in the sense that accessibility is an integral part of the activity and in my opinion the speed at which debaters often have to speak and the evidence cited in theory shells are simply not accessible to the public at large. That being said, I understand the value of theory with respect to protecting competitors from abuses in round and out of respect for all debaters and arguments alike I will listen and flow theory and evaluate it in the round. I've even voted for a team who ran it once. All I'll say is the only thing worse than running theory is doing it badly. If you don't know what you're doing and you don't actually have a deep understanding of the theory that you're running and how it operates within a debate round, I wouldn't recommend that you run it in front of me. Lastly, if you're going to run theory you should know that I really value upholding the standard that you run in and out of rounds and across all topics.

Experience:

Debated in PF during all four years of HS for Bronx Science, dabbled in Policy for a year at Emory. Coached for 3+ years. Currently a law student at Emory.

Judged various forms of debate since 2013.

Please add me the to email chain: bittencourtjulia25@gmail.com

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

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

Standing Conflicts: Coppell, Quarry Lane

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

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

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

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

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

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

Online Debate Update:

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

PF Overview:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Judge adaptation is overrated and leads to worse debates. I’ll do my best to make the most robust decision I can based on the debate you would like to have. I can and will vote for any argument presented - I'm studying Communication, Politics, Philosophy, Economics, National Preparedness and Homeland Security so there's a decent chance I have some academic background in whatever it is you are debating about. In high school, I went for pomo Ks, framework and heg good. In college I went for the cap k, framework, and the Econ DA. My favorite AFFs I wrote were small policy AFFs with disproportionately large impacts; my second favorite had plans and a robust defense of not defending them.

I used to be really devoted to picking a side on framework but have largely given up trying. Instead, I now want to watch teams defend what they said. This is the bare minimum, not a ceiling. I'm incredibly tired of watching teams squirrel out of impact turns they link to and their opponents not calling them out. As long as a debate has meaningful clash, line-by-line, and good attitudes everyone gets a 28.8 minimum.

I am a former parent judge and now I suppose a citizen judge (our daughter who did Speech & Debate graduated high school in 2019), and this '21-'22 school year is my 7th year judging.

I have primarily judged Debate (all events), but have judged Speech as well.

I enjoy having the opportunity to watch students press themselves intellectually while expanding their speaking and debating skills. In addition I believe our Speech & Debate coaches and those who run and support tournaments are performing a meritorious service for students. For these reasons I can think of almost no better way to spend my volunteering time.

I take judging seriously and as such I try to ensure to always put forth my best effort.
Thus you can expect for debate events that I will have an at least abecedarian understanding of the subject(s) being debated and will have done reading on the resolutions and topics leading up to tournaments. I would like to think this enables me to do a more equitable job in judging.
What I won't have is a predetermined way of thinking based on my individual beliefs or preferences.

I am fine with spreading on any topic so long as it does not get too fast to capture key points and facts (which I will be using when weighing the results of the debate). I will be flowing down points as fast as I can make my fingers move.

I like to think that I am a pretty "vanilla" judge. Meaning that when judging I am going to be primarily focused that (depending on the event) contentions, values, frameworks, criteria and arguments are clear, and that they are backed up with impactful facts.
I may be slightly different than a completely "vanilla" judge in this last point - meaning that I am looking for points and facts which impact the argument the most. As this shows not only that the debater / speaker has done her or his homework, but that he or she is able to put the argument into perspective by bringing in impactful facts and figures into the debate/discussion which promote her or his argument.
Additionally I will be looking that debaters are able to think on their feet based on their opponents arguments as this is a mark of a good debater. Asking questions, poking holes in your competitors key points in a reasoned manner, as well as defending your arguments logically is what makes the debate a debate, and in congressional debate shows that you are attentive and engaged in the round.

Finally I will also be looking to ensure that all rounds are conducted in a professional and respectful manner. If conduct towards competitors crosses the line it will impact my ballot.

Most of all I look forward to doing as fair and good a job as I can.

I'm Anna (she/her). I’m a sophmore at Brown University. I coach PF for Durham where I debated from 2018-2021.

Add me to the chain: anna.brent-levenstein@da.org

TLDR:

At the end of the day, I’ll vote off the flow. Read whatever arguments, weighing, framework etc. you want. That being said, I don’t like blippy debate. Don’t skimp on warranting. If your argument doesn’t have a warrant the first time it’s read, I won’t vote off of it. I am especially persuaded by teams that have a strong narrative in the back half or a clear offensive strategy.

Specifics:

1. I always look to weighing first when I make a decision. If you are winning weighing on an argument and offense off of it, you have my ballot. That said, it must be actual comparative, well-warranted weighing not just a collection of buzzwords(e.g. we outweigh on probability because our argument is more probable is not weighing). Prereqs, link ins, short circuits etc. are the best pieces of weighing you can read.

2. Collapse and extend. I'm not voting off of a 5 sec extension of a half fleshed out turn. It will better serve you to spend your time in the back half extending, front-lining, and weighing one or two arguments well than 5 arguments poorly.

3. Implicate defense, especially in the back half. If it is terminal, tell me that. If it mitigates offense so much that their impacts aren't weighable, tell me that. Otherwise, I'm going to be more likely to vote on risk of offense arguments. Impact out and weigh turns.

4. I will evaluate theory/Ks/progressive args. When reading Ks, please make my role as a judge/the ROB as explicit as possible. Additionally, please know the literature well and explain your authors' positions as thoroughly and accessibly as possible. I see theory as a way to check back against serious abuse and/or protect safety in rounds. I will evaluate paraphrase and disclosure theory but find that the debates are generally boring so I won't be thrilled watching them.

I won't tolerate discriminatory behavior of any kind. Read content warnings with anonymous opt outs. Respect your opponents and their pronouns.

Finally, I really appreciate humor and wit. Making me laugh or smile will give you a really good chance at high speaker points.

If you have any questions feel free to ask me before round. I will disclose and give feedback after the round.

I am a lay judge - make sense and I vote for you :).

Be kind and have a great debate.

Try not to spread because I won't be able to flow. If you don't see me flowing, you're probably going too fast.

I believe that public forum was designed to have a "john or sally doe" off the street come in and be a judge.  That means that speaking clearly is absolutely essential.  If I cannot understand you, I cannot weigh what you say.  I also believe that clarity is important.  Finally, I am a firm believer in decorum, that is, showing respect to your opponent.  In this age of political polarization and uncompromising politics, I believe listening to your opponent and showing a willingness to give credence to your opponents arguments is one of the best lessons of public forum debate.

Engineering grad and IT professional living in DC; I did PF in Virginia 2013-2017 and have been judging debate since 2018.

General:

1. Please pre-flow before round start time. I value keeping things moving along, and starting early if possible, so that the round does not go overtime.

2. I'm fine with speed, if you speak clearly and preferably provide a speech doc.

3a. Time yourself. When you run out of time, finish your sentence gracefully, on a strong note, and stop speaking.

3b. I will also time you. When you run out of time, I will make a hand gesture with my fist, then silently stop taking notes on my flow and wait for you to finish. I will cut you off if you are 30 seconds over time; if I cut you off, it means I didn't listen to anything you said for roughly the last 30 seconds.

4. I don't care if you sit or stand. Do whichever you prefer.

5. I am unlikely to vote on a K. I like hearing Ks, I think they're cool, I like when debaters deconstruct the format/topic/incentive structure of debate, I'm learning about them, but evaluating them as a voting issue is outside my comfort zone as a judge and I don't have the experience and confidence to evaluate Ks in a way that is consistent and fair.

6. I like case/evidence disclosure. It leads to better debates and better evidence ethics. When a team makes a pre-round disclosure of case/evidence or shares a rebuttal doc, I expect that the other team will reciprocate. I expect that you have an evidence doc and can quickly share any evidence the opposing team calls for. If you have not prepared to share your evidence, you should run prep to get your evidence doc together. I want rounds to proceed on schedule and will note it in RFD and speaks if a significant and preventable waste of time occurs in the round.

PF:

I vote on terminal impacts. Use your constructive to state and quantify impacts that I as a human can care about. I care exclusively about saving lives, reducing suffering and increasing happiness, in descending order of importance. Provide warrants and evidence for your claims, then extend your claims and impacts through to final focus. In final focus, weigh: tell me *how* you won in terms of the impacts I care about. You should also weigh to help me decide between impacts that are denominated in different units, for instance if one side impacts to poverty and the other side impacts to, idk, life expectancy, your job as debaters is to tell me why one of those is more important to vote on. If you both impact to the same thing, like extinction, make sure you are weighing the unique aspects of your case, like probability, timeframe, and solvency against the other side's case.

1. If you call a card and begin prepping while you wait to receive it, I will run your prep. Calling for evidence is not free prep.

2. Be nice to each other in cross; let the other person finish. Cut them off if they are monopolizing time.

3. If you want me to consider an argument when I vote, extend it all the way through final focus.

LD:

The way I vote in LD is different from how I vote in PF. In the most narrow sense, I vote for whichever team has the best impact on the value-criteron for the value that I buy into in-round.

This means you don't necessarily have to win on your own case's value or your own case's VC. Probably you will find it easier to link your impacts to your own value and VC, but you can also concede to your opponent's value and link into their VC better than they do, or delink your opponent's VC from their value, or show that your case supports a VC that better ties into their value.

Congress:

I don't judge Congress nearly enough to have an in-depth paradigm, but it happens now and then that I judge Congress, particularly for local tournaments and intramurals. I will typically give POs top-3 if they successfully follow procedure and hold the room together.

Ranking is more based on gut feeling but mainly I'm looking to evaluate: did you speak compellingly like you believe and care about the things you're saying, did you do good research to support your position, and did you take the initiative to speak, particularly when the room otherwise falls silent.

BQ:

I've never judged BQ before and have been researching the format, watching some rounds and bopping around Reddit for the last week or so to understand the rules and norms. Since I'm carrying some experience with other formats in, you should know I will flow all speeches, and only the speeches. I will give a lot of leeway to the debaters to determine the definitions and framing of the round, and expect them to clash over places where those definitions and framings are in conflict, and ultimately I will determine from that clash what definitions and framing I should adopt when signing my ballot.

Experience things:

Graduated from College Debate. 4 years NDT, 4 years NFA-LD, 4 years HS, coach HS CX too

He/Him

yes email chain, sirsam640@gmail.com

Please read an overview. Please. It will only help you and your speaks.

Speed is fine - please be clear

Tech over Truth always - the debaters make the argument, not what my preconceived notions of what is truthful/real arguments are.

1. I was frequently in policy v K rounds on both sides. At the 2022 NDT 8/8 rounds were K rounds for me, and 2023 2/8 were K rounds. I read a K aff with my partner one year, then an extinction aff the next year. I went for FW/cap the other half of the time. I am a clash judge and vote for K affs as much as I vote for FW versus them.

2. k affs justify why your model of debate is good impact turns to T are fine

3. 2nrs need a TVA (unless the aff just shouldn't exist under your model which is rare but can happen)

4. condo is good but fine voting that its bad

5. judge kick is probably bad, but if neg says its good and aff doesn't reply I'll judge kick

6. I went for impact turn 2NRs/1ARs a significant portion of my rounds

7. win that your reps are good affs

8. I think perms are a little bit underrated - they probably overcome the link and shield any residual risk.

9. Judging more and more I realize how awesome impact calc is in 2NR/2AR - I definitely think about debate in offense/defense paradigm and often vote for whoever's impact is bigger and accesses the other teams

Theory

CPs need a net benefit in order to win. The role of the neg is to disprove the aff, not just provide another alternative that also fixes the aff. "Solving better" isn't a net benefit. I have voted aff on CP solves 100% of the aff but 0% of net benefit.

PICs are good vs K affs. Pretty strong neg lean on this. It rewards good research.

Don't read death good in front of me.

T

I have come around a lot on T. I think that affs get away with too much in terms of being resolution-adjacent.

Competing interps > reasonability (as law school goes on, I am reverting back to reasonability. This is probably 55/45%ish)

Ground is probably the biggest impact in T debates IMO, I think specific links to affs is the largest internal link to good debates.

I think that community norms is very unpersuasive to me. I do not really care what the rest of the community thinks about T, I'm judging the round, not the community lol

PTIAV is silly but gotta have a decent answer to it.

Affs need to just have a large defense of "no ground loss" and "aff flex/innovation outweighs"

Likely the best way to win T in front of me regardless of side is to just impact out whatever you think is your strongest standard, and make it outweigh your opponents. I spend less time thinking about the specific definition of words and more time about what the models of debate look like (though if debaters tell me to evaluate interps in a specific way I will definitely spend time on it).

PF specific

You do you and I will evaluate to the best of my ability! Any questions feel free to ask pre-round!

You don't need to ask for x amount of prep, just take "running prep" unless you specifically want me to stop you when that time ends.

Last speech should start out with "you should vote aff in order to prevent structural violence which comes first in the round" or something like that. Write my ballot for me.

I find it very hard to vote on something that I don't understand, so while impacts matter a lot I need to understand the story of how we reach the impact

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

Short Version

American Heritage School ‘19

Georgia Tech ‘22

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

Tech > truth

Long Version

Presumption:

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

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

Extensions:

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

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

Weighing:

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

1. Weighing that is not comparative

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

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

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

Evidence:

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

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

Speed:

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

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

Progressive Argumentation:

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

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

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

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

Other things:

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

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

- Reading cards > paraphrasing, but paraphrasing is fine

- Postrounding is fine

- Preflow before the round start time

- I will not vote on explicitly oppressive arguments.

David Coates

Chicago '05; Minnesota Law '14

For e-mail chains (which you should always use to accelerate evidence sharing): coat0018@umn.edu

2023-24 rounds (as of 4/13): 89

Aff winning percentage: .551

("David" or "Mr. Coates" to you. I'll know you haven't bothered to read my paradigm if you call me "judge," which isn't my name).

I will not vote on disclosure theory. I will consider RVIs on disclosure theory based solely on the fact that you introduced it in the first place.

I will not vote on claims predicated on your opponents' rate of delivery and will probably nuke your speaker points if all you can come up with is "fast debate is bad" in response to faster opponents. Explain why their arguments are wrong, but don't waste my time complaining about how you didn't have enough time to answer bad arguments because...oh, wait, you wasted two minutes of a constructive griping about how you didn't like your opponents' speed.

I will not vote on frivolous "arguments" criticizing your opponent's sartorial choices (think "shoe theory" or "formal clothes theory" or "skirt length," which still comes up sometimes), and I will likely catapult your points into the sun for wasting my time and insulting your opponents with such nonsense.

You will probably receive a lecture if you highlight down your evidence to such an extent that it no longer contains grammatical sentences.

Allegations of ethical violations I determine not to have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt will result in an automatic loss with the minimum allowable speaker points for the team introducing them.

Allegations of rule violations not supported by the plain text of a rule will make me seriously consider awarding you a loss with no speaker points.

I will actively intervene against new arguments in the last speech of the round, no matter what the debate format. New arguments in the 2AR are the work of the devil and I will not reward you for saving your best arguments for a speech after which they can't be answered. I will entertain claims that new arguments in the 2AR are automatic voting issues for the negative or that they justify a verbal 3NR. Turnabout is fair play.

I will not entertain claims that your opponents should not be allowed to answer your arguments because of personal circumstances beyond their control. Personally abusive language about, or directed at, your opponents will have me looking for reasons to vote against you.

Someone I know has reminded me of this: I will not evaluate any argument suggesting that I must "evaluate the debate after X speech" unless "X speech" is the 2AR. Where do you get off thinking that you can deprive your opponent of speaking time?

I'm okay with slow-walking you through how my decision process works or how I think you can improve your strategic decision making or get better speaker points, but I've no interest, at this point in my career, in relitigating a round I've already decided you've lost. "What would be a better way to make this argument?" will get me actively trying to help you. "Why didn't you vote on this (vague claim)?" will just make me annoyed.

OVERVIEW

I have been an active coach, primarily of policy debate (though I'm now doing active work only on the LD side), since the 2000-01 season (the year of the privacy topic). Across divisions and events, I generally judge between 100 and 120 rounds a year.

My overall approach to debate is extremely substance dominant. I don't really care what substantive arguments you make as long as you clash with your opponents and fulfill your burdens vis-à-vis the resolution. I will not import my own understanding of argumentative substance to bail you out when you're confronting bad substance--if the content of your opponents' arguments is fundamentally false, they should be especially easy for you to answer without any help from me. (Contrary to what some debaters have mistakenly believed in the past, this does not mean that I want to listen to you run wipeout or spark--I'd actually rather hear you throw down on inherency or defend "the value is justice and the criterion is justice"--but merely that I think that debaters who can't think their way through incredibly stupid arguments are ineffective advocates who don't deserve to win).

My general default (and the box I've consistently checked on paradigm forms) is that of a fairly conventional policymaker. Absent other guidance from the teams involved, I will weigh the substantive advantages and disadvantages of a topical plan against those of the status quo or a competitive counterplan. I'm amenable to alternative evaluative frameworks but generally require these to be developed with more depth and clarity than most telegraphic "role of the ballot" claims usually provide.

THOUGHTS APPLICABLE TO ALL DEBATE FORMATS

That said, I do have certain predispositions and opinions about debate practice that may affect how you choose to execute your preferred strategy:

1. I am skeptical to the point of fairly overt hostility toward most non-resolutional theory claims emanating from either side. Aff-initiated debates about counterplan and kritik theory are usually vague, devoid of clash, and nearly impossible to flow. Neg-initiated "framework" "arguments" usually rest on claims that are either unwarranted or totally implicit. I understand that the affirmative should defend a topical plan, but what I don't understand after "A. Our interpretation is that the aff must run a topical plan; B. Standards" is why the aff's plan isn't topical. My voting on either sort of "argument" has historically been quite rare. It's always better for the neg to run T than "framework," and it's usually better for the aff to use theory claims to justify their own creatively abusive practices ("conditional negative fiat justifies intrinsicness permutations, so here are ten intrinsicness permutations") than to "argue" that they're independent voting issues.

1a. That said, I can be merciless toward negatives who choose to advance contradictory conditional "advocacies" in the 1NC should the affirmative choose to call them out. The modern-day tendency to advance a kritik with a categorical link claim together with one or more counterplans which link to the kritik is not one which meets with my approval. There was a time when deliberately double-turning yourself in the 1NC amounted to an automatic loss, but the re-advent of what my late friend Ross Smith would have characterized as "unlimited, illogical conditionality" has unfortunately put an end to this and caused negative win percentages to swell--not because negatives are doing anything intelligent, but because affirmatives aren't calling them out on it. I'll put it this way--I have awarded someone a 30 for going for "contradictory conditional 'advocacies' are illegitimate" in the 2AR.

2. Offensive arguments should have offensive links and impacts. "The 1AC didn't talk about something we think is important, therefore it doesn't solve the root cause of every problem in the world" wouldn't be considered a reason to vote negative if it were presented on the solvency flow, where it belongs, and I fail to understand why you should get extra credit for wasting time developing your partial case defense with less clarity and specificity than an arch-traditional stock issue debater would have. Generic "state bad" links on a negative state action topic are just as bad as straightforward "links" of omission in this respect.

3. Kritik arguments should NOT depend on my importing special understandings of common terms from your authors, with whose viewpoints I am invariably unfamiliar or in disagreement. For example, the OED defines "problematic" as "presenting a problem or difficulty," so while you may think you're presenting round-winning impact analysis when you say "the affirmative is problematic," all I hear is a non-unique observation about how the aff, like everything else in life, involves difficulties of some kind. I am not hostile to critical debates--some of the best debates I've heard involved K on K violence, as it were--but I don't think it's my job to backfill terms of art for you, and I don't think it's fair to your opponents for me to base my decision in these rounds on my understanding of arguments which have been inadequately explained.

3a. I guess we're doing this now...most of the critical literature with which I'm most familiar involves pretty radical anti-statism. You might start by reading "No Treason" and then proceeding to authors like Hayek, Hazlitt, Mises, and Rothbard. I know these are arguments a lot of my colleagues really don't like, but they're internally consistent, so they have that advantage.

3a(1). Section six of "No Treason," the one with which you should really start, is available at the following link: https://oll-resources.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/oll3/store/titles/2194/Spooner_1485_Bk.pdf so get off your cans and read it already. It will greatly help you answer arguments based on, inter alia, "the social contract."

3a(2). If you genuinely think that something at the tournament is making you unsafe, you may talk to me about it and I will see if there is a solution. Far be it from me to try to make you unable to compete.

4. The following solely self-referential "defenses" of your deliberate choice to run an aggressively non-topical affirmative are singularly unpersuasive:

a. "Topicality excludes our aff and that's bad because it excludes our aff." This is not an argument. This is just a definition of "topicality." I won't cross-apply your case and then fill in argumentative gaps for you.

b. "There is no topical version of our aff." This is not an answer. This is a performative concession of the violation.

c. "The topic forces us to defend the state and the state is racist/sexist/imperialist/settler colonial/oppressive toward 'bodies in the debate space.'" I'm quite sure that most of your authors would advocate, at least in the interim, reducing fossil fuel consumption, and debates about how that might occur are really interesting to all of us, or at least to me. (You might take a look at this intriguing article about a moratorium on extraction on federal lands: https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-oil-industrys-grip-on-public-lands-and-waters-may-be-slowing-progress-toward-energy-independence/

d. "Killing debate is good." Leaving aside the incredible "intellectual" arrogance of this statement, what are you doing here if you believe this to be true? You could overtly "kill debate" more effectively were you to withhold your "contributions" and depress participation numbers, which would have the added benefit of sparing us from having to listen to you.

e. "This is just a wrong forum argument." And? There is, in fact, a FORUM expressly designed to allow you to subject your audience to one-sided speeches about any topic under the sun you "feel" important without having to worry about either making an argument or engaging with an opponent. Last I checked, that FORUM was called "oratory." Try it next time.

f. "The topic selection process is unfair/disenfranchises 'bodies in the debate space.'" In what universe is it more fair for you to get to impose a debate topic on your opponents without consulting them in advance than for you to abide by the results of a topic selection process to which all students were invited to contribute and in which all students were invited to vote?

g. "Fairness is bad." Don't tempt me to vote against you for no reason to show you why fairness is, in fact, good.

5. Many of you are genuinely bad at organizing your speeches. Fix that problem by keeping the following in mind:

a. Off-case flows should be clearly labeled the first time they're introduced. It's needlessly difficult to keep track of what you're trying to do when you expect me to invent names for your arguments for you. I know that some hipster kid "at" some "online debate institute" taught you that it was "cool" to introduce arguments in the 1N with nothing more than "next off" to confuse your opponents, but remember that you're also confusing your audience when you do that, and I, unlike your opponents, have the power to deduct speaker points for poor organization if "next off--Biden disadvantage" is too hard for you to spit out. I'm serious about this.

b. Transitions between individual arguments should be audible. It's not that difficult to throw a "next" in there and it keeps you from sounding like this: "...wreck their economies and set the stage for an era of international confrontation that would make the Cold War look like Woodstock extinction Mead 92 what if the global economy stagnates...." The latter, because it fails to distinguish between the preceding card and subsequent tag, is impossible to flow, and it's not my job to look at your speech document to impose organization with which you couldn't be bothered.

c. Your arguments should line up with those of your opponents. "Embedded clash" flows extremely poorly for me. I will not automatically pluck warrants out of your four-minute-long scripted kritik overview and then apply them for you, nor will I try to figure out what, exactly, a fragment like "yes, link" followed by a minute of unintelligible, undifferentiated boilerplate is supposed to answer.

6. I don't mind speed as long as it's clear and purposeful:

a. Many of you don't project your voices enough to compensate for the poor acoustics of the rooms where debates often take place. I'll help you out by yelling "clearer" or "louder" at you no more than twice if I can't make out what you're saying, but after that you're on your own.

b. There are only two legitimate reasons for speed: Presenting more arguments and presenting more argumentative development. Fast delivery should not be used as a crutch for inefficiency. If you're using speed merely to "signpost" by repeating vast swaths of your opponents' speeches or to read repetitive cards tagged "more evidence," I reserve the right to consider persuasive delivery in how I assign points, meaning that you will suffer deductions you otherwise would not have had you merely trimmed the fat and maintained your maximum sustainable rate.

7: I have a notoriously low tolerance for profanity and will not hesitate to severely dock your points for language I couldn't justify to the host school's teachers, parents, or administrators, any of whom might actually overhear you. When in doubt, keep it clean. Don't jeopardize the activity's image any further by failing to control your language when you have ample alternative fora for profane forms of self-expression.

8: For crying out loud, it is not too hard to respect your opponents' preferred pronouns (and "they" is always okay in policy debate because it's presumed that your opponents agree about their arguments), but I will start vocally correcting you if you start engaging in behavior I've determined is meant to be offensive in this context. You don't have to do that to gain some sort of perceived competitive advantage and being that intentionally alienating doesn't gain you any friends.

9. I guess that younger judges engage in more paradigmatic speaker point disclosure than I have in the past, so here are my thoughts: Historically, the arithmetic mean of my speaker points any given season has averaged out to about 27.9. I think that you merit a 27 if you've successfully used all of your speech time without committing round-losing tactical errors, and your points can move up from there by making gutsy strategic decisions, reading creative arguments, and using your best public speaking skills. Of course, your points can decline for, inter alia, wasting time, insulting your opponents, or using offensive language. I've "awarded" a loss-15 for a false allegation of an ethics violation and a loss-18 for a constructive full of seriously inappropriate invective. Don't make me go there...tackle the arguments in front of you head-on and without fear or favor and I can at least guarantee you that I'll evaluate the content you've presented fairly.

NOTES FOR LINCOLN-DOUGLAS!

PREF SHORTCUT: stock ≈ policy > K > framework > Tricks > Theory

I have historically spent much more time judging policy than LD and my specific topic knowledge is generally restricted to arguments I've helped my LD debaters prepare. In the context of most contemporary LD topics, which mostly encourage recycling arguments which have been floating around in policy debate for decades, this shouldn't affect you very much. With more traditionally phrased LD resolutions ("A just society ought to value X over Y"), this might direct your strategy more toward straight impact comparison than traditional V/C debating.

Also, my specific preferences about how _substantive_ argumentation should be conducted are far less set in stone than they would be in a policy debate. I've voted for everything from traditional value/criterion ACs to policy-style ACs with plan texts to fairly outright critical approaches...and, ab initio, I'm fine with more or less any substantive attempt by the negative to engage whatever form the AC takes, subject to the warnings about what constitutes a link outlined above. (Not talking about something is not a link). Engage your opponent's advocacy and engage the topic and you should be okay.

N.B.: All of the above comments apply only to _substantive_ argumentation. See the section on "theory" in in the overview above if you want to understand what I think about those "arguments," and square it. If winning that something your opponent said is "abusive" is a major part of your strategy, you're going to have to make some adjustments if you want to win in front of me. I can't guarantee that I'll fully understand the basis for your theory claims, and I tend to find theory responses with any degree of articulation more persuasive than the claim that your opponent should lose because of some arguably questionable practice, especially if whatever your opponent said was otherwise substantively responsive. I also tend to find "self-help checks abuse" responses issue-dispositive more often than not. That is to say, if there is something you could have done to prevent the impact to the alleged "abuse," and you failed to do it, any resulting "time skew," "strat skew," or adverse impact on your education is your own fault, and I don't think you should be rewarded with a ballot for helping to create the very condition you're complaining about.

I have voted on theory "arguments" unrelated to topicality in Lincoln-Douglas debates precisely zero times. Do you really think you're going to be the first to persuade me to pull the trigger?

Addendum: To quote my colleague Anthony Berryhill, with whom I paneled the final round of the Isidore Newman Round Robin: " "Tricks debate" isn't debate. Deliberate attempts to hide arguments, mislead your opponent, be unethical, lie...etc. to screw your opponent will be received very poorly. If you need tricks and lying to win, either "git' good" (as the gamers say) or prefer a different judge." I say: I would rather hear you go all-in on spark or counterintuitive internal link turns than be subjected to grandstanding about how your opponent "dropped" some "tricky" half-sentence theory or burden spike. If you think top-loading these sorts of "tricks" in lieu of properly developing substance in the first constructive is a good idea, you will be sorely disappointed with your speaker points and you will probably receive a helpful refresher on how I absolutely will not tolerate aggressive post-rounding. Everyone's value to life increases when you fill the room with your intelligence instead of filling it with your trickery.

AND SPECIFIC NOTES FOR PUBLIC FORUM

NB: After the latest timing disaster, in which a public forum round which was supposed to take 40 minutes took over two hours and wasted the valuable time of the panel, I am seriously considering imposing penalties on teams who make "off-time" requests for evidence or needless requests for original articles or who can't locate a piece of evidence requested by their opponents during crossfire. This type of behavior--which completely disregards the timing norms found in every other debate format--is going to kill this activity because no member of the "public" who has other places to be is interested in judging an event where this type of temporal elongation of rounds takes place.

NB: I actually don't know what "we outweigh on scope" is supposed to mean. I've had drilled into my head that there are four elements to impact calculus: timeframe, probability, magnitude, and hierarchy of values. I'd rather hear developed magnitude comparison (is it worse to cause a lot of damage to very few people or very little damage to a lot of people? This comes up most often in debates about agricultural subsidies of all things) than to hear offsetting, poorly warranted claims about "scope."

NB: In addition to my reflections about improper citation practices infra, I think that evidence should have proper tags. It's really difficult to flow you, or even to follow the travel of your constructive, when you have a bunch of two-sentence cards bleeding into each other without any transitions other than "Larry '21," "Jones '21," and "Anderson '21." I really would rather hear tag-cite-text than whatever you're doing. Thus: "Further, economic decline causes nuclear war. Mead '92" rather than "Mead '92 furthers...".

That said:

1. You should remember that, notwithstanding its pretensions to being for the "public," this is a debate event. Allowing it to degenerate into talking past each other with dueling oratories past the first pro and first con makes it more like a speech event than I would like, and practically forces me to inject my own thoughts on the merits of substantive arguments into my evaluative process. I can't guarantee that you'll like the results of that, so:

2. Ideally, the second pro/second con/summary stage of the debate will be devoted to engaging in substantive clash (per the activity guidelines, whether on the line-by-line or through introduction of competing principles, which one can envision as being somewhat similar to value clash in a traditional LD round if one wants an analogy) and the final foci will be devoted to resolving the substantive clash.

3. Please review the sections on "theory" in the policy and LD philosophies above. I'm not interested in listening to rule-lawyering about how fast your opponents are/whether or not it's "fair"/whether or not it's "public" for them to phrase an argument a certain way. I'm doubly unenthused about listening to theory "debates" where the team advancing the theory claim doesn't understand the basis for it.* These "debates" are painful enough to listen to in policy and LD, but they're even worse to suffer through in PF because there's less speech time during which to resolve them. Unless there's a written rule prohibiting them (e.g., actually advocating specific plan/counterplan texts), I presume that all arguments are theoretically legitimate, and you will be fighting an uphill battle you won't like trying to persuade me otherwise. You're better off sticking to substance (or, better yet, using your opposition's supposedly dubious stance to justify meting out some "abuse" of your own) than getting into a theoretical "debate" you simply won't have enough time to win, especially given my strong presumption against this style of "argumentation."

*I've heard this misunderstanding multiple times from PF debaters who should have known better: "The resolution isn't justified because some policy in the status quo will solve the 'pro' harms" is not, in fact, a counterplan. It's an inherency argument. There is no rule saying the "con" can't redeploy policy stock issues in an appropriately "public" fashion and I know with absolute metaphysical certitude that many of the initial framers of the public forum rules are big fans of this general school of argumentation.

4. If it's in the final focus, it should have been in the summary. I will patrol the second focus for new arguments. If it's in the summary and you want me to consider it in my decision, you'd better mention it in the final focus. It is definitely not my job to draw lines back to arguments for you. Your defense on the case flow is not "sticky," as some of my PF colleagues put it, as far as I'm concerned.

5. While I pay attention to crossfire, I don't flow it. It's not intended to be a period for initiating arguments, so if you want me to consider something that happened in crossfire in my decision, you have to mention it in your side's first subsequent speech.

6. You should cite authors by name. "Princeton" as an institution, doesn't conduct studies of issues that aren't solely internal Princeton matters, so you sound awful when you attribute your study about Security Council reform to "Princeton." "According to Professor Kuziemko of Princeton" (yes, she's a professor at Princeton who wrote the definitive study of the political economy of Security Council veto power) doesn't take much longer to say than "according to Princeton," and has the considerable advantage of accuracy. Also, I have no idea why you restrict this type of "citation" to Ivy League scholars. I've never heard an "according to Fordham" citation from any of you even though Professor Dayal of Fordham is a recognized expert on this issue, suggesting that you're only doing research you can use to lend nonexistent institutional credibility to your cases. Seriously, start citing evidence properly.

7. You all need to improve your time management skills and stop proliferating dead time if you'd like rounds to end at a civilized hour.

a. The extent to which PF debaters talk over the buzzer is unfortunate. When the speech time stops, that means that you stop speaking. "Finishing [your] sentence" does not mean going 45 seconds over time, which happens a lot. I will not flow anything you say after my timer goes off.

b. You people really need to streamline your "off-time" evidence exchanges. These are getting ridiculous and seem mostly like excuses for stealing prep time. I recently had to sit through a pre-crossfire set of requests for evidence which lasted for seven minutes. This is simply unacceptable. If you have your laptops with you, why not borrow a round-acceleration tactic from your sister formats and e-mail your speech documents to one another? Even doing this immediately after a speech would be much more efficient than the awkward fumbling around in which you usually engage.

c. This means that you should card evidence properly and not force your opponents to dig around a 25-page document for the section you've just summarized during unnecessary dead time. Your sister debate formats have had the "directly quoting sources" thing nailed dead to rights for decades. Why can't you do the same? Minimally, you should be able to produce the sections of articles you're purporting to summarize immediately when asked.

d. You don't need to negotiate who gets to question first in crossfire. I shouldn't have to waste precious seconds listening to you ask your opponents' permission to ask a question. It's simple to understand that the first-speaking team should always ask, and the second-speaking team always answer, the first question...and after that, you may dialogue.

e. If you're going to insist on giving an "off-time road map," it should take you no more than five seconds and be repeated no more than zero times. This is PF...do you seriously believe we can't keep track of TWO flows?

Was sich überhaupt sagen lässt, lässt sich klar sagen; und wovon man nicht reden kann, darüber muss man schweigen.

amod.daherkar@utexas.edu

just signpost during your speech, please no fOR aBrIeF oFfTiMe RoAdMap (unless there's tshells on top of substance).

I debated for Vista Ridge (graduated 2021) and study Finance at UT Austin

Currently I am involved with Texas Debate and previously coached for Seven Lakes

I’m a “tech > truth” judge whatever that means to you

Paradigms I agree with for reference: Jonathan Daugherty & Jack Hayes

Speak slow and clear. Be respectful to your opponents.

Thanks

Hey, I debated PF all four years of my High School so I am a flow judge but I value pretty speaking as well. Sneak in some clean rhetoric that'll make the speech more enjoyable and I'll award good speaks. I love listening to rhetoric lol but don't fill up your entire speech with it. (you can still get 30 speaks w/o rhetoric so dw)

I hate theory and any style of debate that extends out of the normal scope of PF, I prefer to hear a normal debate. If you read theories, Ks, or anything like that with me, I am likely to down you. I despise spreading more than anything. If I can't understand you, I can't up you. I also flow all rounds so make sure you are signposting.

Rebuttals can either be line by line or grouped- if you are grouping just say what your grouping. Both summaries have to mention and extend cards from rebuttal if you want to use them in ff, if they are not mentioned I will not flow them and they will be dropped in ff.

Weighing and impact calc are super important, show me why I should vote for you and explain why your impact is more important than the other team's. Give me a clear voters.

If you guys want to share evidence in the middle of round, set it up before round- I'll look at cards at the end of the round if you ask me to. I'll probably give oral critiques if time permits and disclose at end of round.

also time yourselves and time your own prep I won't be doing any of that.

I am an Americorps service member with less formal debate training.

My ballot is awarded to the team with the best speaking skills, articulation of their arguments throughout the whole round, proper refutation of all their opponent's points, usage of evidence, and comparative argumentation.

Speed and jargon are a no. Please don't immediately presume I know the intricacies of deep research on the resolution. The point of a public forum debate is that you should be able to break down the debate on the resolution for anyone and convince them why your side is right. Finding a way to make me care about your side by bringing out your emotions is a plus. Being mean or a bully does the opposite.

Be sure to time your own speeches and keep track of prep time. I'll also be keeping time, but there is a speaker point reduction for those who don't do it.

Pet Peeve: Poorly extended arguments. Please extend your arguments well. There is a sweet spot between brevity and depth that you should try to hit, but don't extend your case in 5 seconds please. This is a hill I will die on, and so will my ballot.

Feel free to email for questions, feedback, or flows: zdyar@wisc.edu. Please add Greenwavedebate@delbarton.org to the email chain

TLDR: I'm a typical flow judge. I value quality of argumentation over quantity. Please collapse, extend warrants and impacts, frontline, and weigh your arguments. I'm fairly tech (see my notes at the bottom and make your own assessment).

Background: Was a mediocre PF debater for 4 years in Minnesota at both traditional and nat circuit tournaments. Coached and judged since 2020. I'm also an Econ/Poli Sci major so I have a pretty solid BS meter.

Basic Judging Philosophy I vote off of what is warranted, I prefer what is weighed. Give me reasons to prefer your warranting over their warrants and do weighing that COMPARES your impact to their impact by telling me why yours is more important and WHY. Don't just say a buzzwords like "scope" or "de-link" and move on.

After the round: I will give you an oral RFD if possible once I submit my ballot, and feel free to question/post-round me because it makes me a better judge. I will also call for cards (see evidence section).

Speed

- I can handle around 250 words per minute BUT only if you SLOW DOWN ON TAGLINES. Send a speech doc if you are above 225 wpm or have bad clarity.

- Reading fast is not an excuse to be blippy. Speed should allow you to have better warranting and more depth, not less. Speed + 6 contention cases are not the move

- Just because you CAN read fast with me, doesn't mean you SHOULD. Read at whatever pace you debate best at, don't try and rush just because I'm techy.

Evidence

- You may paraphrase, BUT I expect you to send a cut card with a citation. DO NOT send me a full PDF and tell me what to control+F. I doc speaks for bad behavior in this department.

- After the round I will call for some key cards from case/rebuttal, even if they weren't relevant to my decision. This is my way of checking power tagging/bad cuts. If a card sounds too good to be true, I will call it. Even if the card isn't relevant to the round, I will drop your speaks if it is miscut.

Rebuttal

- Number your responses so it's easy for me to flow.

- Collapse in 2nd rebuttal (it's strategic in winning my ballot). you MUST frontline offense in 2nd rebuttal, and I strongly strongly strongly prefer you frontline every arg you are going for fully.

- Disads are fine in rebuttal. If a DA is read in second rebuttal, I'm more lenient on frontlines/responses in 1st summary. Try and link-in if you read a DA.

Summary & Final Focus

- I have a VERY high threshold for case extensions (lots of warrants plz). Don't underextend or you will probably lose.

- I prefer defense to be in summary (defense isn't sticky). I will maybe evaluate defense that is extended from 1st rebuttal to 1st Final Focus ONLY IF it is cold dropped, but there is a low chance I will evaluate 2nd rebuttal to Final Focus defense. I will never evaluate defense that isn't extended in Final Focus. Your best chance of winning defense is to extend it in both summary and final focus.

- Offense needs to be in both summary and FF.

- If you don't collapse, frontline, and weigh in summary, you probably won't win my ballot.

Theory

- I will vote on theory, but I prefer it to be read in the first speech possible (i.e., don't read a shell in 2nd rebuttal if it can be read in 2nd constructive). Disclosure, paraphrasing, content warning, misgendering theory, etc. are all fair game.

- Very pro-content warning shells, but ONLY when they aren't friv (i.e., I think reading one on a poverty impact is too much, but reading like a gendered violence content warning shell is definitely not friv). However, I'm non-interventionist so I'll vote on anything. I do believe that content warnings aren't a race to the bottom and that there is some reasonable threshold for me to buy them, but also this is one of the places I kind of default to a reasonability stance-- I think there is some gray area I want people to hash out in rounds though.

- If you use theory to exclude your opponents and you have structural advantages in the debate community I will you drop the shell faster than you can read your interp. But, if it's two rich private schools bashing each other over the head with theory, go ahead.

- Don't extend your shell in rebuttal (you shouldn't extend case in rebuttal either).

Ks

- I've voted on Ks several times before, but I'm not well-versed in the lit so slow down on tags and key warrants.

- You need to at least have minimalist extensions of the link, impacts, and all other important parts of your arg (framing/ROB) in summary AND Final. Don't try and read the whole thing verbatim.

Progressive weighing

- Progressive weighing is cool-- I like well-warranted metaweighing (though I've seen it done well only a handful of times), link weighing, and SV/Extinction framing.

- Saying the words "strength/clarity of link/impact" is not weighing :(

Assorted things

- If both teams want to skip cross/grand cross and use it as flex prep, I'm cool with that. Negotiate that yourselves though.

- Read content warnings on graphic args, though I'm more open to no content warnings non-graphic but potentially triggering args like human trafficking (will evaluate CW theory though). Google forms are ideal, but give adequate time for opt-out no matter how you do it.

Speaks

-Speaks are inherently biased towards privileged groups-- I will try and evaluate speaks strictly based on the quality of args given in your speech.

-There are 4 ways your speaks get dropped: 1) Arriving late to round, 2) Being slow to produce evidence or calling for excessive amounts of cards, 3) Stealing prep time, 4) Saying or doing anything that is excessively rude or problematic.

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

How tech am I? Here are some arguments and how I'd evaluate them.

- Climate change fake/good: While obviously untrue, I would vote on it as turn/defense. However, my threshold for frontlines would be low, so it likely isn't a super strategic choice.

- Election Args/[politician] bad: Would 100% vote on it-- run whatever so long as it isn't offensive

- Racism/sexism/homophobia good: Nope.

- Economic Growth Bad (DeDev): Would 100% vote on this.

- Tricks: Nope.

- Impacts to animal/plants: I would love the chance to vote on this with a framework.

PF:

TLDR:

Weigh

Please do not give me a line-by-line in Final Focus. If possible, I don't want it in summary. Write my RFD for me in summary and FF.

Signpost.

Please collapse. Good extensions and weighing requires this.

If you don't read warrant names in summary and FF, you probably will not win the round. The team that makes the best and most strategic extensions almost always wins, and dropping warrants irretrievably weakens your offense.

Don't extend offense that your opponent kicked unless you're extending a turn on it.

Cross-applications and grouped responses in rebuttal, when used sparingly and handily, can be useful.

I don't need a roadmap for expected strategies (ex. no need for "it's gonna be their case, then my case")

You are free to collapse grand cross if you'd like.

If it takes longer than one minute to find a (singular) card that is called for, prep starts.

#

(heavily drawing from the brilliant Mollie Clark throughout)

The Rebuttal
For both teams, I like to see layered responses and very clear road-mapping, when necessary, and sign-posting. The refutations should cover both the entire contention and also examine specific warrants and impacts, with weighing at these levels when possible. Frontlining defense seems to be the new standard, and I think that that's a good strategy. Extend framework if you want me to use it in order to weigh in the summary and final focus. I love a good overview. I loathe a bad overview.

Extensions
It’s important to note that to get an argument through to the final focus the team must extend the claim, warrant, and impact. If a single piece is missing, then it significantly weakens the point’s weight in the round. If an argument is dropped at any time, it will not be extended and you’d be better off spending your time elsewhere. WARRANT AND IMPACT EXTENSIONS ARE WHAT MOST LIKELY WILL WIN YOU THE ROUND. Extensions are the backbones of debate, a high-level debater should be able to allocate time and extend their offense and defense effectively. You will not have time to extend everything, and attempting to do so shows a major deficit in your ability to discern the central and successful arguments in the debate. Part of the challenge of this activity is making smart decisions about what to extend and what to drop on the the fly.

Speed and Speaking
I tend not to penalize speed with speaker points. I do penalize for incomprehensibility. Make sure you enunciate and are clear so that your opponent can understand you. Efficiency, eloquence, extensions, and strategy in later speeches will define your speaks. Basically, go as fast as you want so long as you're clear. Lack of clarity welcomes penalty.
I like to see strong engagement of the issues in CX and appreciate a deeper analysis than simple clarifying questions. Issues in CX will not be weighed in the round unless brought up in a following speech. CX is not binding, but speakers may use concessions in CX as offense in subsequent speeches. I say CX is not binding to encourage an earnest conversation in CX, rather than constantly defensive, abrasive, or self-conscious exchanges. I will, however, nonetheless take a good response to offense brought in from cross by the opposing speakers seriously if they contextualize that concession and produce sound analysis that supports them.
Organization through all speeches is essential, and is especially paramount in summary. Make sure I know exactly where you are so that I can help you get as much ink on the flow as possible.

I tend to give high speaks in general. 28.3-28.5 is a pretty common/average score from me at tournaments that utilize one tenth decimals. I find myself usually giving 28.8-29.1 in strong circuit rounds, though I did come across an array of really remarkable speakers at Yale, Bronx, and Blue Key who scored higher. I will, however, strictly adhere to a points rubric offered by any tournament when provided. This may elevate or deflate my speaker points to an extent. At tournaments that utilized a tradition scale with .5 increments (i.e. Glenbrooks), strong circuit debaters tended to score at 28.5-29.5, with generically good speakers at around 28 and average speakers at 27.

The extra stuff: I studied English @ Columbia, where I spent a lot of reading/writing about poetry and other things, critical theory, and the history of esotericism. I competed in many circuit PF tournaments in high school and judged many in college. I now write about curation, museology, and the poetics of the museum as a Henry Evans Fellow "at" the British Museum, and work in the Capital Markets group at a corporate law firm in New York. This is to say that I may not be extraordinarily studied in the things most directly related to what we're doing in round. But! I have consciousness and subjectivity and am, therefore, more than qualified to be in round. Be thorough in your analysis and don't make assumptions. I'm excited to learn with you + I'm excited to watch you have fun. I want to take every measure to resist elitism/inaccessibility in debate, so let's mitigate it! Please be courteous to your opponents, especially when it seems evident that there is an imbalance in resources/access in and out of round. A normal circuit round is accessible to me, but it may not be for your opponents. Please accommodate + make the round as accessible for your opponents as possible. If it is clear that you are being accommodating and kind, your speaker points will benefit!

LD:

I have a mostly basic knowledge of how this form works, yet I've nonetheless found myself in the position of having to judge 20+ rounds of it. Essentially, my decisions will be better when debaters read their tags somewhat slowly, try to explain things as early and coherently as possible, and order/analyze my decision for me. If you make assumptions about what you think I already know, my decision will likely be worse. Also, shouldn't really need to say this, but you need to impact your arguments and signpost clearly on the flow -- no shockers here. I really like the kinds of conversations that tend to emerge specifically from LD rounds, but you may have to be generous and accommodating about some of the more idiosyncratic qualities of the style.

Specifics:

Speed: If speed is important to your style or strategy, roll with what is necessary for you, but I'd prefer you give me about a 3/10 if you put your speed potential on a spectrum, if that makes sense. Most importantly, I'd really like you to slow down on the following: tag lines, spikes, blips, theory interps, and advocacy texts. Note: I don't want to have to yell clear...like ever, but I might throw it in the chat if I need to (I also might not and then miss a lot on the flow). In general, I'm probably a judge that you need to send a case doc to.

Theory: Honestly, I've always been okay with theory. If it's ridiculous, I'm obviously not going to vote for it. Just be smart.

Framework: Framework debate is critical, usually. If it's important, spend time on this. This debate should also heavily determine how I evaluate the round. Make this clear for me.

Ks: These can end up being pretty neat, but like I said before, don't assume I know anything. Lean toward overexplanation. You are going to have to do substantial work situating the K into the discourse posited by the topic, and superseding your opponent's arguments with the K. I suppose saying something like this would also imply that I think topicality is a somewhat important arena to address if you are a K debater.

But don't get the wrong idea: I am amenable to K debate; probably more than most other judges! I just really want to understand what's being said, which I do think that I have the capacity to do (see above about my study of critical theory).

A note: Be ethical in your practice of K debate. It is going to be hard for me to vote for you if it seems glaring that you are employing K debate as an opportunistic strategy to win rounds. For example, there is no reason for a white debater to be running an afropessimism K.

Value and criterion: What even are these? Why are these? These are probably vestigial to LD, yeah?? Or if they aren't, convince me otherwise?

You will want to pref me if you are reading: Max Weber, Jack Halberstam, Judith Butler, Saidiya Hartman, Fred Moten, Hortense Spillers, Frank Wilderson, or Sylvia Winter.

If I didn't cover something in this paradigm, just ask me in round. I want to be as transparent as possible.

Speaks:

This isn't the important part. Generally, when not given a speaks matrix by the tournament that dictates how I give these, I'm gonna treat every round like it's a bubble round + give speaks based on who should break and who shouldn't. 29-29.5 is a good typical breaking score.

Please be respectful. Respect lends itself to better speaks.

Another note: If you are unhappy with my decision, know that I, unfailingly, vote for whichever debater was most persuasive. Even if you are totally convinced that you have made transcendent, pristine argumentation, clearly some disconnect or error occurred in round that prevent me from, well, achieving transcendence alongside you. This means it is absolutely essential, even if you are the smartest high school debater in the world, to communicate clearly to me. I can't vote on what I don't understand, and it isn't my fault as a judge for being unable to comprehend 20 arguments/minute or some extraordinarily clunky analytic on techno-capitalism etc.

I want to be included on all email chains de2365@columbia.edu

Fourth year out from Hawken and did pretty well at ToC my senior year (he/him). My email: zelkaissi@uchicago.edu

General:

I would strongly prefer if you don't read theory or kritiks (but I'll try my best to evaluate them)

Warrant everything!

I don't care too much about cards. Warrants are more important to me than whether or not its carded. The only time I care about cards is if there's disagreement on a descriptive claim about the world, or some expertise/authority on a topic is needed.

If there is a disagreement on a fact, I will be very happy if you cite academic papers and describe why their methodology is better than some evidence the other team is citing

I like it when teams think creatively instead of mindlessly reading cards (including during rebuttal!). So make sure to implicate the evidence you read well, and don't be afraid to give analytical responses

I like strong and consistent narratives in round

To win my ballot you'll have to drop some arguments and focus on warranting, weighing, and winning the important ones.

Case/Rebuttal:

Slower cases are good, especially if its a hard to follow argument. I do really like creative and off-meta arguments though!

Signposting rebuttal well is very impressive and appreciated, so I'll reflect that in your speaker points

Summary/FF:

I won't vote for your argument unless I understand it, so please be clear!

Be very specific about what link/impact you're going for and how the defense you extend is terminal/not mitigatory so its easy to flow and I don't make a mistake.

Please weigh link-ins vs the link they read from case when you read turns

For cross, just give concise, direct answers, and don't be afraid to concede things. I don't like lots of fluff or evasiveness, and I'll reflect that in your speaker points.

After round, if you think you won but I drop you, please advocate for yourself at the end of the round/post round. I won't change my decision, but l still want to give you as much useful feedback as possible so please let me know if you disagree with anything I say in my decision

Random details (ask before round if you have any specific questions):

Speed in general is fine so long as both teams can understand everything

2nd rebuttal should respond to all offense-things in 1st rebuttal (including weighing)

Defense is sticky from first rebuttal to first final

First final can make new weighing, but second final can respond if its new in first final

Second case never has to respond to first case

Blake '21, UChicago '25

Did PF on the nat circuit for 3 years and I am currently an Assistant Coach for Blake.

Tl;dr:

- Pls run paraphrasing theory: Paraphrasing is awful, evidence is VERY important to me and I am happy to use the ballot to punish bad ethics in round.

- Send speech docs, its better for everyone.

- Strike me if you don't read cut cards/if you paraphrase or don't think evidence is important, you will be happy that you did.

- I flow.

- Tech>truth.

- All kinds of speed are fine, spreading too as long as you are not paraphrasing.

- 2nd rebuttal must frontline, defense isn't sticky, and if I'm something is going to be mentioned on my ballot, it must be in both back half speeches.

- Please weigh.

- I will let your opponents take prep for as long as it takes for you to send your doc or cards without it counting towards their 3 minutes, so send docs pls and send them fast.

- The following people have shaped how I view debate: Ale Perri (hi Ale), Christian Vasquez, Bryce Piotrowski, Darren Chang, and Shane Stafford.

jenebo21@gmail.com AND blakedocs@googlegroups.com -- Put BOTH on the email chain, and feel free to contact me after the round (on Facebook preferably, or email if you must) if you have questions or need anything from me. I am always happy to do what I can after the round to help you out.

General Paradigm:

- I will enforce speech times, prep time, etc with a timer and the ballot (if its like absolutely egregious, taking multiple minutes longer than you are allowed, etc)

- In most PF rounds, roadmaps aren't necessary, just tell me where you are starting and signpost. If there are 8 sheets, then yes, please give a roadmap.

- The Split: 2nd rebuttal must frontline; turns and defense.

- The Back Half: If I am going to vote on it, or if it is going to be apart of my RFD (all offense or defense in the round), it needs to be both in the summary and the final focus. None of this sticky defense nonsense. Weighing needs to start in summary, and final focus should be writing my ballot for me.

- Speed: I can handle all speeds in PF. More often than not, clarity matters more than WPM. I know debaters who speak super fast, and I can understand every word, and I know debaters who don't speak fast but are still super unclear, and vice versa. I will say clear if I cant follow. You can spread IF you are doing it like it is done in policy (spreading long cards, not a bunch of paraphrased garbage, slow down on tags/authors, sending out a speech doc is a must). IF you spread AND paraphrase, however, your chances of winning points of clash immediately plummet.

- Pls send speech docs with cut cards, I will probably ask for them so then I can read cards without having to call for a million different ones, and it shortens the amount of time taken for ev exchange by a million, so just pls send them.

- Weighing: You need to weigh on both the link and impact level, very often the team that weighs will pick up my ballot. I don't hate buzzwords as much as other PF judges, but I do need an explanation. Please start weighing as early as possible, in the rebuttals if you can. Early weighing helps you make strategic decisions and makes my life easier since weighing is what guides my ballot. I will always prefer weighing done earlier and dropped, over late weighing so weigh early and often. The evaluation of the round on my ballot starts and ends with weighing and it controls where I look to vote. I don't need a story or a super clear narrative, but write my ballot for me and make it easy. In line with this, I would highly encourage you to go for less and weigh more.

- Collapse: PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE collapse, preferably starting in second rebuttal. This makes all of our lives easier because you don't want to have to spam buzzwords blippily in response to some poorly extended argument, and I don't want to sift through a flow with tons of tags and zero warrants or weighing. Pick an argument to go for, and weigh that argument. That is the easiest way to pick up my ballot. Debate isn't a scoreboard, winning 3 arguments doesn't mean you get my ballot if your opponent only wins 1 argument.

- I cannot believe I have to make this a part of my paradigm, it should be exceedingly obvious, but no delinks or non-uniques on yourself (specifically that delinks the link you read in case or something which makes the opposite argument that you made initially) to get out of turn offense. It makes being first impossible and its just so stupid. I won't evaluate those arguments and your opponents are free to extend those turns. Obviously, you can concede your opponents defense, but you cant read it on yourself, new in second rebuttal.

- If the 1st constructive introduces framework, the 2nd constructive probably should respond to it (or at least make arguments as to why they can respond later). I don't know where i stand on this technically yet, but this is where i am leaning now, arguments can be made either way on this issue in round and i will evaluate them normally, but if the 1st constructive introduces framework and the 2nd constructive drops it, i think its ok for the first rebuttal to call it conceded unless otherwise argued.

- On advocacies/T: This is something that should be resolved in the round and I will eval the flow if this argument is made but my personal thoughts are as follows. Because the neg doesn't get a CP in PF, the aff's advocacy does not block the neg out of ground (basically neither side gets to control the others ground). The aff does the whole aff, the neg can garner DAs off of the aff's advocacy or any interpretation of what the aff could look like, not just what that aff was in that round. An example would be the neg could still read a Russia provocation negative on the NATO topic (Septober 2021) even if the aff does not read a troop deployment advocacy for their advantages. Alternatively, if the neg can get a CP then I suppose the aff can get an advocacy. Either way works - the point being that PF should consider some sort of method to adjudicate this in round.

- Be nice and respectful, but keep it light and casual if you can! Debate is fun, so lets treat it as such.

- I will be quick to drop debaters and arguments that are any -ism, and I won't listen to arguments like racism, sexism, death, patriarchy (etc) good. The space first and foremost needs to be safe to participate in.

- I don't care what you what you wear, where you sit, if you swear (sometimes a few F-bombs can make an exceedingly boring debate just a little less so!), if you do the flip or enter the room before im there, etc.

Evidence:

I like cut cards and quality evidence, I hate paraphrasing. Disclaimer: this is going to seem cranky, but I don't mind well-warranted analytics. I just hate paraphrasing. Ev is always better than an analytic, but if you introduce an arg as an analytic, I won't mind and will evaluate it as such. But if your opponents have evidence, you will likely lose that clash point. Here a few main points on evidence issues:

- Evidence is the backbone of the activity, otherwise it devolves into some really garbage nonsense (I do not value debate as a lying competition). As a result, debates about evidence are very easy ways to pick me up. Arguments about evidence preference are very good in front of me, and I will probably call for cards at the end of the round because most debate evidence is horrifically miscut or paraphrased. Evidence quality is very very important, and I have NO PROBLEM intervening against awful evidence especially in close rounds. Good evidence is important for education and quality of debate, so if you have bad evidence, I am happy to drop you for it to improve the activity and hopefully teach you a lesson. This applies to both if you cut cards or paraphrase, because cutting cards doesn't make you immune to lying about it, so generally cut good cards, and read good evidence.

- Paraphrasing: The single worst wide-spread practice in PF debate today is paraphrasing. Its just so obviously silly. Its bad for the quality of debate, its bad for all of its educational benefits, and its unfair. I hate it so so much. So please cut cards, its not difficult and it makes everyone's lives better. That said, I know that it happens regardless so here are a few things important for the in round if you do paraphrase:

a. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE have a cut card or at least a paragraph, you absolutely need to be able to have this, its a rule now. Your opponents do not need to take prep to sort through your PDFs, and if you cant quickly produce the evidence and where you paraphrased it from, I'm crossing the argument off my flow. I have very little tolerance for long, paraphrased evidence exchanges where you claim to have correctly paraphrased 100 page PDFs and expect your opponents to be able to check against your bad evidence with the allotted prep time.

b. If you paraphrase, you MUST be reading full arguments. 40 authors in 1st rebuttal by spreading tag blips and paraphrasing authors to make it faster is not acceptable and your speaks will tank. Claim, warrant, ev is all required if I am going to vote on it or even flow it.

c. If you misrepresent a card while paraphrasing, not only is that bad in a vacuum, but I will give you the L25. If you realize its badly represented OR you cant find it when asked and you make the arg "just evaluate as an analytic" I will also give an L25 and be in a really bad mood. Its a terrible, terrible argument, so please dont make it. If you introduce the evidence, you have to be able to defend it.

d. Dont be mad at me if you get bad speaks. There is no longer world in which someone who paraphrases, even if they give the perfect speech gets above a 29 in front of me. I used to be more forgiving on this, but no longer.

- Evidence exchange: if the header "paraphrasing" meant you skipped over that part of my paradigm, I will reiterate something that is important regardless of how you introduce the evidence; if you cant produce a card upon being asked for it within a minute or two, at best you get lowest speaks I can give and probably the L too.

- Even if its not theory, arguments that I should prefer cut cards over paraphrased cards at the clash points are going to work in front of me. Please make those arguments, I think they are very true.

- Another thing im shocked i have to put in my paradigm, but you need to cite the author you are reading even if you paraphrase from them, for it to be counted as evidence and not an analytic. if you read something without citing an author, I will flow it as an analytic and if your opponents call for that piece of ev, and you hand it to them without citing it in the round, I am dropping you. Its plagiarism and extremely unethical. This is an educational activity, come on ppl.

Progressive paradigm:

DISLCAIMER: Deep in my bones, I believe that debate is good. It may presently be flawed, but I believe the activity has value and can be transformative. Arguments that say debate is bad, and should be destroyed entirely (often times this is the conclusion of non-topical pess arguments, killjoy, the like) will be evaluated but my biases towards the activity being good WILL impact the decision. Doesn't mean they are unwinnable, but it is probably wildly unstrategic to run them.

I'm receptive to all args, including progressive ones in the debate space, but they have been getting REALLY low quality recently. I worry about the long term impact about some of these really bad versions on the activity. Please, think about the model you are advocating for, think about if its sincerely going to make the space better for the people growing up in it.

- While there are obvious upsides to progressive arguments, I don't appreciate frivolous theory (see below). This does include spikes and tricks, I don't like them, pls don't run them. If the theory is frivolous, and I reserve the right to determine that, I won't vote on it no matter the breakdown of the round.

- I won't vote for auto-30 speaker point arguments

Theory:

- I probably default to competing interps unless told otherwise, but that doesn't really mean much if you read the rest of this paradigm. I am going to evaluate the flow, so if you read theory arguments that I won't intervene against, I am going to evaluate it normally.

- I generally think no-RVIs. The exception to this might be an RVI on IVIs.

- IVIs are really bad for debate. If they are a rules claim, make it a theory shell. Most of the time, they are vague whines that are spammed off in the span of 4 seconds without any explanation. This proliferation is nearly existential for the activity, and it needs to stop.

- I have no problem intervening against frivolous theory (i.e. shoe theory), so if you run theory in front of me, please believe that its actually educational for the activity. Even theory like social distancing or contact info are ones where its hard to win in front of me, and in some contexts I probably won't vote on it. Resolved theory and other nonsense will barely warrant getting flowed for me, I won't vote on them.

- Theory needs to be read in the speech following the violation. Out of round violations should be read in constructive.

- Paraphrasing is bad: I will vote on paraphrasing bad most of the time, as long as theres some offense on the shell. I personally think its good for the debate space and am very predisposed to voting for it. I will NEVER vote on paraphrasing good, I don't care how mad that may make you to hear, I just won't do it. If you introduce cut cards bad or paraphrasing good as a new off (like before a para bad shell) I will instantly drop you. That said, you can win enough defense on a paraphrasing shell to make it not a voter. Paraphrasing theory is the exception to the disclaimers outlined above, I think paraphrasing should be punished in round and am happy to vote on it.

- Disclosure is good: I am less excited to hear it because typically, disclosure rounds are really bad and messy. Open source is good too, I have come around on it, so you can basically run whatever disclosure interp you want. Run it if you think you can win it, but dont be fearful to hear it ran against you in front of me. Respond to it, and I will vote as I would a normal flow.

- Trigger warnings: This theory has been read a lot more recently, I will eval it like a normal shell, but for the record, I think trigger warnings in PF are usually bad, and usually run on arguments that dont need to be trigger warned which just suppresses voices and arguments in the activity. You can go for the theory, but my threshold for responses will be in accordance with that belief typically.

Kritiks/Arguments that people in PF are calling "Kritiks" even when they are not:

- I am all good with kritiks, although im not as experienced with them as I am with other args, but that isnt a reason not to run a K in front of me. I will be able to flow it and vote on it as long as you explain it well.

- Blake 2021 made me think about this a lot, and I think the activity is just going through growing pains that are necessary, but some of these debates were really bad. So please think through all of the arguments you read, so that you can articulate exactly what my ballot does or what specifically I am supposed to be doing. This means implicating responses or arguments onto the FW debate, or the ROTB.

- Also, no one thinks fiat is real (pre/post-fiat is just an inaccurate and irrelevant label), so lets be more specific about how we label arguments or discourse. Make comparisons as to why your discourse or type of education is more important than theirs, this is not done by slapping the label "pre-fiat" onto an argument because NO ONE THINKS ITS REAL. Just get past that label and explain why.

- You also need to do a pretty good amount of work explaining why or how discourse shapes reality, just asserting it does isn't much of a warrant and this debate is always underdeveloped in rounds I am in.

Speaks:

I will probably give around a 27-28 in most rounds. I guess I give lower speaks than most PF judges, so I’ll clarify. 27-28 is middling to me with various degrees within that. 26-27 is bad, not always for ethical reasons. Below a 26 is an ethical issue. If you get above a 29 from me you should be very happy bc I never give speaks that high almost ever.

Put me on the email chain: keganferguson@gmail.com.

Previously ADOD at North Broward Prep for 3 years. Did policy debate at Indiana University and PF/LD/Extemp at Ben Davis High School in Indianapolis, IN.

***Policy***

Debate is primarily a competition. Yes it teaches us many skills and influences how we develop as people, but is still a game with a winner and a loser at its core. I believe that central truth produces debate’s best and worst outcomes.

It can result in thorough, well-researched rounds that delve into the nuances of a specific issue. Or it can produce scattershot 12-off strategies that rely on mistakes to have a chance of victory. It can make people view competitors with respect and admiration for their commitment to the activity. Or it can make us view them as our opposition, to be steamrolled and reduced to nothing whenever possible. I’ll evaluate arguments fairly regardless of the strategy used or the way you treat opponents, but will use speaks to reflect what I perceive as the quality of the round. It's not too hard to get high speaks in front of me. Have a clear strategy, execute it well, and make the debate enjoyable for all involved.

No argument is ‘too bad’ to win in front of me. If it’s truly so egregious, it’s the burden of the opposing team to explain why in the debate. I try hard not to intervene and inject personal biases, but I do still have them (listed below) and they influence the decisions I make.

All this being said – I’m an educator at the end of the day, and debate is an activity for students in an academic setting. If you do things to make the debate space feel unsafe for those involved I will intervene.

K AFFs

I prefer critiques to include research about the topic, but it’s not required. Clear impact turns to the core negative standards on framework are vital – spewing nebulous and blippy arguments titled things like ‘Plasticity DA’ to T in the 2ac is terminally unpersuasive. If you’re not contextualizing your impact turns as direct answers to fairness, clash, etc. you’re in a hole from the start. Ideally, you will also present a straightforward and well explained vision of debate and develop reasons why it can preserve a limited argumentative venue.

I’m more persuaded by presumption arguments vs. K affs than most judges. 2AR’s tend to mishandle offensive, cruel optimism-style arguments and get themselves into trouble.

T USFG

You need to explain how the aff’s C/I explodes limits and to what extent, same as you would against a policy affirmative when going for T. What style affirmative does it allow for? Why is it bad for debate, and how bad?

When I vote affirmative it’s usually because of a sequencing claim about dropped case arguments or an unclear response to the aff’s impact turns to framework impacts.

When I vote negative it’s usually because you win fairness is a priori and the only thing the ballot can resolve, that a limited model of debate internal link turns aff impacts through improved research/iterative testing, or that the Aff’s scholarship is included in your model.

Theory

Not a fan of heavy theory debates, but I’ve judged quite a few. Definitely lean neg on conditionality – but willing to vote for it if competently extended and technically won by the affirmative. As a 2a, process counterplans were not my favorite argument in debate, and I tend to lean aff on competition arguments depending on the scope of the topic + CP mechanisms. Still not afraid to vote neg quickly and easily if you’re ahead on the technical aspects in this portion of debate.

Theory debates that rely on me to fill-in arguments where you have just said random technical debate jargon - nonstarter. You should slow down on your theory analytics as well – I often find myself missing nuance when it’s extended by reading blocks as fast as possible.

*** Public Forum Debate ***

I competed in Indiana in high school, and very much understand the frustrations of losing debates on new arguments, evidence spin, ‘I just don’t believe you,’ etc. in front of lay judges. I’ll try my hardest to purely evaluate the debate off of the flow, which means giving equal weight and consideration to arguments that are not traditionally made in Public Forum. I think judges should approach debate with an open mind, and be ready to listen to students who put just as much effort and thought into their non-traditional strategies as other teams have.

Indicating an openness to theoretical and critical arguments does not mean that you should necessarily try reading these arguments in front of me for the first time. I find myself judging very poorly executed strategies in these lanes pretty often, and the speaker points reflect it. Please stick with what you’ve been practicing, as this is the best way to win my ballot. Trying to punk another team on theory if you never go for it will usually not work out well for you.

Competing in policy for 4 years in college has left me with many, somewhat negative, opinions on the pedagogical quality of argumentation in PF. Research is often not presented to me in a clear and digestible way (read: cards), and I’ve been handed a 20+ page PDF as the ‘source’ for an argument too many times to count. Saying ‘nuclear war doesn’t happen, MAD checks that’s Ferguson,’ and then handing me a piece of evidence with 2 minutes of highlighted text will not go your way. I won’t read deep into evidence that has not been explained and warranted during the debate, as I think that leads to pretty sizable judge intervention and more arbitrary decisions than one that remains flow-centric.

I’m a big advocate of disclosure in PF. The best debates are ones where one team has a thoroughly prepared strategies against a case, and the other team really knows the ins and outs of their own contentions. I’m not sympathetic at all to arguments about prep-outs – I’m terminally convinced that they’re good. I’m not convinced by arguments about how they hurt small schools – I competed at a very tiny college program that ONLY survived because of the wiki. I’m not sympathetic to arguments about people ‘stealing research,’ because it’s obviously not ‘stealing’ and lazy debaters that download wiki cases usually get beaten because they don’t know the nuances of the arguments they’re reading. If you disclose on the wiki, you will get a slight speaker bump. If you disclose pre-round, same deal. Note: this does not mean that disclosure theory is an auto-win by any means. You will have to technically execute it and win that disclosure is good during the debate – I won’t copy and paste my paradigm into the ballot.

Nitpicky other thoughts that may be helpful:

· Don’t take forever finding your evidence – especially if it’s in your own case. If it drags on too long (3-4 minutes) I will begin to run prep time. There’s clearly a reasonable window of time in which you can find a piece of evidence you claimed to have literally just read. If you can’t find it, you probably didn’t actually cut/read it.

· Don’t ever go back to your own case in first rebuttal just to ‘build it up some more.’ I will not be flowing if you are not making new arguments, and it’s a complete waste of time to rebuild a case they have not yet answered. There are some exceptions to this if you have framing arguments or whatnot – but 99% of the time you should just be answering your opponent’s case. To me, it reads as a clear sign that someone is a relative beginner in Public Forum when this occurs.

· Second rebuttal should frontline their case.

· Summary should include defensive and dropped arguments, but time should be allocated according to the other teams’ coverage.

· Impact framing arguments that are simply ‘X issue is not discussed enough, so prioritize it’ are not convincing to me in the slightest. You need to have a clear and offensive reason why not prioritizing your impact filter is bad, not just say that it’s important and people never give it notice. Ask yourself this question: what is the impact of your framing being ignored?

· Warrants beat tagline extensions of cards 99% of the time.

None of the above are ‘rules’ for how to go about earning my ballot. You could violate any one of the above and still win, but it’s likely only going to happen if your opponent is making major mistakes. Lastly, I think that topic knowledge wins just as many debates as a cleverly constructed case does. You should try your best to be the most knowledgeable person in the room on any given PF topic, because you’ll usually have what it takes to flexibly respond to unpredicted arguments and embarrass your opponents in cross.

Speaker point scale:

29.5+ - You’re debating like you’re already in the final round, and you deserve top speaker at this tournament.

29-29.5 – Debating like a quarterfinalist.

28.5 – 29 – Solid bubble/doubles team

28-28.5 – Debating like you should be around .500 or slightly below

27.5-28 – Serious room for improvement

Below 27.5 – You were disrespectful to the extreme or cheated. Probably around here if you just give up as well.

Hello Everyone! My name is Beth Fowler and I am an historian and Senior Lecturer at Wayne State University. I am looking for clear, concise contentions supported by solid and specific pieces of credible evidence that builds to a persuadable argument. I also want debaters to listen carefully to their opponents arguments, and to be able to address them clearly rather than simply reiterating their own points. Use the cross-examination to ask probing questions about opponents’ evidence and arguments, and the summation to clearly explain how the argument your team built is more persuasive than your opponents’ argument.

I've judged a handful of tournaments starting in 2021, but no prior first-hand debate experience. So explain things very clearly if possible, and assume I do not know anything about the topic.

I'm a parent judge for Acton Boxborough.

Please talk slow. It is hard to make a decision if I don't know your arguments.

I listen to crossfire in order to scope the strength of your arguments.

Evaluate me as a lay judge.

I've debated for three years in high school parli and three years in college parli. I have experience with varsity LD in both hs and college circuits. I coach debate for Illini Forensics at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. I will go for most arguments you can think of if the other side doesn't respond to them (strategy agnostic save for explicit/intentional verbal attacks). I don't like most K's in parli (especially not lazy stock ones) but I'll still write a K ballot if it's well-connected to case/provides a good pre-fiat level debate. Don't spread if you're in a limited prep event, and generally don't be an ass hole in round. Any other questions feel free to ask me.

He/Him/His

gerlachgus11@gmail.com

Debated PF at Lakeville South for 5 years. Now a junior at Washington University in St. Louis.

General:

Warranting/weighing determines the result of most rounds.

Speed won’t be an issue for me but be responsive to your opponent’s requests to slow/clear.

Flex prep, open cross, etc. is ok with me if it’s ok with both teams.

Evidence:

I feel completely comfortable dropping teams for bad evidence ethics – even if it’s not a voting issue in round.

Email chains > google docs/any other method of sending evidence. Please don't make me dig through a google doc.

Produce cut cards quickly upon request.

Rounds with lots of time between speeches due to long evidence exchanges are annoying. Sending full speech docs remedies this and makes it easier to check back on bad evidence. To that end, rounds where full speech docs are sent by both teams will be rewarded with substantially higher speaker points.

PF paradigm:

I’m a tech judge.

I will vote for the team with the best link into the best-weighed impact.

Frontline in second rebuttal. Any argument not responded to in second rebuttal is considered dropped.

Defense isn’t sticky. If you want to talk about it in final focus, it should be in summary.

Collapse to one uniqueness argument, one link, and one impact. There are exceptions to this rule but generally going for fewer arguments while warranting them out more is a better strategy.

Similarly, choose 1-2 best arguments on their side to collapse on. Warrant the argument, respond to frontlines, and explain why it means you win the argument.

Comparative weighing is super important. If you win the weighing and have a risk of offense, I’ll almost certainly vote for you. Meta-weighing is necessary if you and your opponent are using two different weighing mechanisms.

Progressive Arguments:

I'm comfortable in my ability to effectively adjudicate progressive debate in PF.

A few considerations:

1) Theory should be used to check abuse. The bar to respond to frivolous theory is low. I generally support disclosure and the reading of cut cards (these are the shells I have experience reading), although this doesn't mean I'm a hack for disclosure/para shells. I would rather not watch you read theory against a local circuit team or a team you are clearly technically superior to.

2) I don't think public forum is the ideal format for Kritiks because speech times are too short. I'll still do my best to evaluate them.

3) Maddie Cook has a more comprehensive section on progressive arguments. I agree with her.

Policy Paradigm:

I'm typically a PF judge (I'm sorry). I can handle even the quickest PFers but probably won't be able to flow spreading without a speech doc. I would regard myself as a 'progressive' public forum judge, meaning I've both read and judged theory, Ks, etc. I won't understand progressive arguments as well as you do (especially more niche Ks) so feel free to dumb it down for me. I have no hard preferences on what type of arguments you read, although an advantage vs disadvantage debate would probably be more familiar to me.

I am a third year at UC Berkeley and an assistant debate coach for College Prep. I debated for Bethesda-Chevy Chase HS in high school and won the Glenbrooks, the Strake Round Robin, Blake, Durham, the Barkley Forum, Stanford, Harvard, the King Round Robin, and NDCAs.

Please add eli.glickman@berkeley.edu to the email chain, and label the chain clearly; for example, “TOC R1F1 Email Chain Bethesda-Chevy Chase GT v. AandM Consolidated DS.”

TL;DR

I am tech over truth. You can read any argument in front of me, provided it’s warranted. Extensions are key; card names, warrants, links, and internal links are all necessary in the back half. Good comparative analysis and creative weighing are the best ways to win my ballot.

———PART I: SPEECHES———

Signposting:

Teams that do not signpost will not do well in front of me. If I cannot follow your arguments, I will not flow them properly.

Cross:

I might listen but I won't vote off or remember anything said here unless it's in a speech. Rudeness and hostility are unpleasant, and I will ding your speaks if you do not behave professionally in cross. Teams may skip GCX, if they want. If you agree to skip GCX, both teams get 1 additional minute of prep.

Rebuttal:

Read as much offense as you want, but you should implicate all offense well on the line-by-line. Second rebuttal must frontline defense and turns, but blippy defense from the first rebuttal doesn’t all need to be answered in this speech.

Summary:

Defense is not sticky, and it should be extended in summary. I will only evaluate new turns or defense in summary if they are made in response to new implications from the other team.

Final Focus:

First final can do new weighing but no new implications of turns, nor can the first final make new implications for anything else, unless responding to new implications or turns from the second summary. Second final cannot do new weighing or make new implications. Final focus is a really good time to slow down and talk big picture.

———PART II: TECHNICAL THINGS———

Voting:

I default to util. If there's no offense, I presume to the first speaking team. I will always disclose after the round.

Evidence:

Paraphrasing is fine if it is done ethically. Smart analytics help debaters grow as critical thinkers, which is the purpose of this activity. Well-warranted arguments trump poorly warranted cards. There are, however, two evidence rules you must follow. First, you must have cut cards, and you must send cut cards in the email chain promptly after your opponent requests them. Second, I will not tolerate misconstruction of evidence. If you misconstrue evidence, I will give you very low speaks, and I reserve the right to drop you, depending on the severity of the misconstruction.

Email Chains:

I require an email chain for every round, so evidence exchange is faster and more efficient. If you are spreading or reading any progressive arguments, you must send a doc before you begin. You should not have any third-party email trackers activated; if you do, I will tank your speaks.

Prep Time:

Don't steal prep or I will steal your speaks. Feel free to take prep whenever, and 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. Speed is good in the first half and bad in the second half, collapse strategically, and don't go for everything. If I miss something in summary or final focus because you're going too fast and I drop you, it's your fault. I repeat, slow down, don't go for everything, and be efficient.

Speaks:

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

Postrounding:

Postround as hard as you want, as I think it's educational.

Trigger Warnings:

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

———PART III: PROGRESSIVE DEBATE———

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. Don’t debate in varsity if you can’t handle varsity arguments.

Preferences:

Theory/T - 1

LARP - 1

Kritik - 3

Tricks - 3

High Theory - 4

Non-T Kritik - 5 (Strike)

Performance - 5 (Strike)

Theory:

I think frivolous theory is bad. I'll evaluate it, but I have a lower threshold for responses the more frivolous the shell. Poorly executed theory will result in low speaks. If you've never run theory before, and feel inclined to do so, I'm happy to give comments and help as much as I can.I default to competing interps and yes RVIs. I believe that winning no RVIs applies to the entire theory layer unless your warrants are specific to a shell, C/I, etc. 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 must be read immediately after the violation. You must extend your shells in rebuttal, and you must frontline your opponent’s shell(s) immediately after they read it.

Kritiks:

I ran Ks a few times, however, I am not a great judge for these rounds. I'm fairly comfortable with biopower, security, cap, and imperialism.

Tricks:

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

Everything Else:

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

TKO:

If your opponent has no path to the ballot, such as conceded theory shell or your opponents reading a counterinterp that they do not meet themselves, you may call a TKO. If your TKO is valid, you win with 30 speaks, however, if your opponents did have a path to the ballot you will lose with very low speaks.

I am a parent judge. I judge a handful of tournaments a year of varying difficulty. I will try to flow the round if you move too quickly through a point, I may miss your point. I need you to speak at a conversational rate with clarity. Signposting does help me follow your argument. Talking louder does not create emphasis, it is very distracting to me as a judge, slow down or create eye contact to make your point.

I may not be aware of all the debate jargon or even jargon within the topic. Clear and concise weighing will be key to getting the ballot, MAKE SURE you give clear reasons to prefer your case, and don’t go all in for turns. Address the topic given, I am not in favor of alternative types of cases being presented. Speaker points will be decided upon by respectful dialogue and a knowledgeable presentation of the argument.

I have been working as a judge for school districts since 2017. As a 2016 graduate from the University of Minnesota - Twin Cities, I have staffed five presidential campaigns. I also have worked in the field of public health and tutored economics. I staffed a COVID testing center for four months. I am passionate about environmental economics, and how the intersections of public health and economics have an impact on human health and wellbeing. I wrote a paper about the differences between carbon taxes and cap and trade policies during my junior year of high school, and have worked for both Kirsten Gillibrand and Tom Steyer. Gillibrand received an A- for her campaign from Greenpeace, and Steyer has been a proponent of carbon taxes. My other academic work involves performing a chi-square analysis on Brasica rapa to determine the effect of a carcinogen. I have helped coach students and also was the captain of the speech team my junior year of high school, and I competed in Student Congress. I try to judge public forum as much as possible, and have judged multiple times in a year.

Speaking

If a student is speaking too fast, I will let the student know they are speaking too fast. I can also provide time signals when students are at one, two, or three minutes. Students can speak as fast as they would like to speak.

Evaluating Speeches

I evaluate speeches based on evidence and reasoning. The role of the final focus should be to succinctly summarize an argument. The argument should be extended in the summary speech. I weigh evidence over analytics. While style is important, please recognize that rational speeches are generally stronger and my preference. Reasoning should be based on facts, and either argument can be supported if it is argued well.

I would like to see speeches that are content driven and are well-researched. In the past, I have recognized when evidence is factually incorrect. Evidence should also support the overall argument.

I am a parent judge who has some experience judging PF and BQ tournaments.

Be respectful to the judge and fellow competitors.

Be nice and enjoy your debate. Tell a clear story and make it count.

Speak slowly and clearly. Absolutely no spreading.

I value presentation, clarity of argument and good eye contact.

I am fine if you go a bit overtime with prep.

Except for responding to responses, DO NOT bring up any new arguments in summary

Don’t go overboard with debate terminology.

I will immediately drop you if you say anything sexist, racist, homophobic etc.

Hi, I am a parent of an avid debater, and I am a scrupulous note taker. I always read up on the topic prior to judging, but explain things to me as if I am learning about it for the first time. I have an extensive history judging on the national circuit for PF. I like teams which have good evidence to support their claims. Try to tell me a story with your arguments about why your impacts matter in the first place. Links in your logical reasoning should be clearly explained, and I won't consider your impacts unless your links make sense. Also, if it is not in summary, then it shouldn't be in final focus. During Cross-X try be as respectful of your opponents as possible, and being respectful helps your speaker points. If you're going to turn your opponent's argument, make sure there is an impact. Also last but not least, weighing during summary and final focus definitely makes it easier for me to judge your round. Look forward to judging your round!

Hello! This paradigm was written by my daughter, a senior in PF (Cecilia Granda-Scott from Ransom GR).

Treat me as your typical lay judge. No spreading, no debate jargon. Do NOT be rude in crossfire. No elitist/sexist/racist/homophobic comments.

My email is ocgranda@gmail.com. Please send me speech documents for your case so that I can follow along and be sure not to miss anything.

I will try to take notes but will not catch everything, I also tend to write less in the backhalf and just listen. Use your evidence well, use logic to explain everything properly and give me clear impacts. Speak clearly and persuasively: presentation matters a lot to me. I will probably vote on whoever gives me the best narrative and sounds good doing it.

I will try to disclose every decision and why I made it but if I forget or run out of time you can Facebook message my daughter.

I did 4 years of congress and a little bit of extemp at Hawken and debated a lot nationally. I am a 2018 grad. I was pretty meh(made TOC and nats senior year and some out rounds at circuit tournaments). I'm a Senior econ major with math and public policy minors at Carleton College. I was very tech for a congress debater and I judge whatever debate event Hawken needs judges for so I got some experience in everything (Including Middle School Big Questions, it was epic) but policy.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE TOPIC IS BUT I PROBABLY KNOW SOMETHING ABOUT IT BECAUSE I CASUALLY READ NYT AND RANDOM ECON PAPERS.

Email: griffina2@carleton.edu

PF:

TLDR: I was not bad at national circuit debate. I'm a lay judge who tries to vote off the flow. PLEASE WEIGH AND SIGNPOST. Have fun. Risk-taking will be rewarded. Good nuanced argumentation. Got any questions please ask before the round starts

If you have had any Hawken judges before who are either coaches or ex-competitors I probably have a pretty similar paradigm and will vote similarly. Some of these I have taken straight from them.

1. I'm not that great at flowing. Sorry, I didn't do PF and I have slow handwriting. That being said I do flow to the best of my ability and I vote based on the flow I have created throughout the round. I am fine with speed but please NO SPREADING. I can understand and follow it but my slow handwriting might mean that it might not be super detailed on my flow. You can go just as fast as you want but just understand that when I look back at flows in the end I might miss some of the intricacies. So slower is probably better and I tend to believe that quality is better than quantity. .Because of this, I don't really flow card names (sorry I think your analysis is more important) so if I ask what a name is a reference too after a speech this me just trying to clarify and make sure the round stays fair. Calling the card by the stat/number/analysis is just a little easier for me to follow but not as efficient for yall.

2. In crossfire, if you say something that seems important or tell me that you will mention it in a later speech I will flow it. Otherwise, I will just sit and listen.

3. The best way to convince me to vote for you is by telling the most convincing arguments. I think the best tech arguments are the ones that are also true. I really enjoy unique and nuanced arguments and would encourage teams to run things that are not just stock. However, do not be ridiculous with what you run. It must be based in reality, this is not a policy where everything leads to nuke war. I would encourage arguments that bitcoin ruins the environment, we should fear the rocketship lobby because they will weaken regulation or other arguments that are kinda funky, out there, and super cool. Long link chains are fine but just keep it real.

4. Please Weigh. if you didn't you probably lost and I thought what the other team said was more important.

5. Theory and Ks are fine but I think disclosure theory is a bit silly so I probably won't vote for it. I did congress so beware that I have little experience with theory so explain it to me like you would a novice and tell me how to weigh it. Ultimately it is up to you to decide what arguments to run and not my job as a judge to decide if you can run it. That being said I don't have a lot of experience with progressive debate and I think we are here to debate the resolution, not the rules of debate, so I would prefer normal debate.

6. Humor, wit, puns, making me laugh, banter, and pop culture references are encouraged and will earn you extra speaks. Debate is for a bunch of nerds but let's not be super uptight and have a good time as you do it. Have some flair

7. Please Signpost because it really helps me flow. Tell me where on my flow the response should go like on the second warrant, or the link to the impact, or this piece of evidence, ETC. Also, number your responses or tell me how many you are going to make in a particular spot, I think it helps everyone keep track of where you are. In late speeches tell me where to vote, how to vote, and why to vote there and I will follow you. Makes my decision super easy. Literally say "you vote here on____ for ____ because" or " do not vote here on ___ for ___ because".

8. Logic > evidence. I am under the belief that you can find a card for almost anything so the important part is the warranting and analysis. Anyone can just read cards. The challenge of debate is building a narrative and effectively communicating why the matter and why I should believe them. Tell me why cards are true. If you just card dump I probably won't vote you up. I will call for cards if you tell me to or if I find them important to my decision(I really should not have to do this, if I do the round is probably a mess). Since I should be on the email chain, I will try to read anything that gets sent through there.

9. Y'all know the topic better than I do so it's up to you what your frontline second rebuttal is. You know what the best responses are so frontline those first. I think turns tend to be pretty powerful so just generally frontlining those is a good idea, but if they are then spend your time somewhere else.

10. Anything in the final should be summary and most stuff from summary should be in rebuttal. No new response in final focus, that's pretty squirrely, especially in the second final. Adding new stuff in summary is fine if you didn't get to it in rebuttal or are frontlining responses in the second rebuttal but for the most part, it should be clarifying the round and weighing.

Congress:

TLDR: I was not bad at national circuit debate. Have fun. Risk-taking will be rewarded. Good nuanced argumentation. Got any questions please ask before the round starts

I did 4 years of congress at Hawken and debate a lot nationally. I was pretty meh. I'm a sophomore econ major with math and public policy minors at Carleton College.

1. Have fun and be yourself. Enjoy yourself I feel like oftentimes people take this event too seriously and its 20 miserable people sitting in a room. We all know what's that like and none of us want that to happen. At the end of the day when I am doing ranks, the people that are the most memorable will probably be towards the top. The best way to do that is to have some witty banter and make me laugh.

2. Argumentation > presentation. I don't care if you give the most eloquent speech of all time, if you don't add anything new, say anything relevant, or you don't make sense, then I will be bored and cranky. No one wants that. explain everything thoroughly, weigh, refute, no glaring holes, and make sure as a judge I am not asking myself a ton of questions when you finish speaking.

3. PLEASE WEIGH EVEN IF ITS A FIRST AFF. As an aspiring economist, I have learned the job of research is just to spit out the numbers. it is your job to tell me why they matter and what they mean.

4. Be risky and not stock. I hate rehash tell me something I don't know, please. My favorite argument of all time is bitcoin killing the environment. Spicy stuff like that will make you memorable but don't overdo it. Policyesque arguments about everything creating nuke is ridiculous. Be bold but believable.

I graduated 2020 from hawken. debated four years of pf, 2 on nat circuit and did fairly well.

Also email chain: grantgriffin2025@u.northwestern.edu (I took a gap year)

I had a rly long paradigm last year and got rid of it but if you remember from last year its still probably all applicable.  I can flow fast-ish and am generally tech, but like, do good tech debate. Just reading 70 one card turns is lame. Id prefer if people read arguments in rebuttal and case with multiple warrants and multiple cards rather than more blippy one card responses and turns. I dont love theory because I dont understand it super well. Please weigh, please read warranted arguments, please do actual analysis, please use your brain instead of just mindlessly reading cards, please listen to what the other team is actually saying instead of what you think they are saying. Also I really like when people talk about the implications of certain responses on other arguments in the round because I think that type of analysis is difficult and shows the difference between people who just read their teams prep and people who actually understand debate rounds. ie if you say something smart and Im like 'wow i havent heard that in literally every other round ive judged' ill be happy.

Hello debate enthusiasts,

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

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

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

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

Wishing good luck to all the competitors at the tournament!

sophiargustafson@gmail.com is the email for the email chain!

Resources

I have compiled some resources to get better at debate here!

TLDR

Always tell me "Prefer my evidence/argument because." Meaningful and intentional extensions of uniqueness + link + internal link + impact (don't forget warrants) in combination with weighing will win you the round. NOTE: I am a PF traditionalist. Spreading will not get you far in rounds with me.

Experience

I attended Theodore Roosevelt High School in Des Moines, Iowa and debated with Ellie Konfrst. I was a two time state champion when competing. I broke at the TOC and placed ninth at NSDA nationals my senior year (2018). I have also coached at NDF the following years: 2018, 2019, 2020. I am currently a 3L law student at the University of Iowa. I am the current varsity PF coach at Iowa City West. I have coached two teams (Duchesne Academy of the Sacred Heart BB and Iowa City West KE) to qualifying to the gold TOC.

What you should expect of me

It is my obligation to be familiar with the topic. I am also a very emotive judge, if I look confused please break down your argument. It is my obligation to provide for you a clear reason why my ballot was cast and to ensure that you and your coach are able to understand my decision. However, it is not my job to weigh impacts against each other / evaluate competing frameworks. I am always open to discuss the round afterwards.

Flowing

I love off time road maps and they help me flow, please give them! What is on my flow at the end of the round will make my decision for me and I will do my best to make my reasoning clear either on my ballot or orally at the end of the round. If you are organized, clean, clear and extending good argumentation well, you will do well. One thing that I find particularly valuable is having a strong and clear advocacy and a narrative on the flow. This narrative will help you shape responses and create a comparative world that will let you break down and weigh the round in the Final Focus. I also appreciate language that directly relates to the flow (tell me where to put your overview, tell me what to circle, tell me what to cross out).

Extensions

It’s important to note that to get an argument through to the final focus the team must extend the uniqueness+links+impacts. If a single piece is missing, then it significantly weakens the point’s weight in the round. If an argument is dropped at any time, it will not be extended and you’d be better off spending your time elsewhere. Extensions are the backbones of debate, a high-level debater should be able to allocate time and extend their offense and defense effectively.

Framework / Overviews

Framework

If a framework is essential for you to win the round / to your case it should be in constructive. I want to see your intention and round visions early on, squirrel-y argumentation through frameworks muddles the whole round. Only drop the framework if everyone agrees on it. If there is no agreement by summary, win under both.

Overviews

There are two types of overviews in my mind.

1: An overall response to their case.

Good idea.

2: Weighing overviews.

GREAT IDEA

I prefer overviews to be in rebuttal.

The Rebuttal

Extend framework if you want me to use it in order to weigh in the summary and final focus. I also have a soft spot for weighing overviews and usually find them incredibly valuable if done and extended correctly.

If extended and weighed properly, turns are enough to win a round, but if you double turn yourself and muddle the debate you wasted critical time that could have been spent on mitigation/de-linking/non-uniques.

My preference is that the entire first rebuttal is spent on the opponent’s side of the flow. For both teams, I like to see layered responses and very clear road-mapping and sign-posting. The refutations should cover both the entire contention and also examine specific warrants and impacts. The second rebuttal should engage both the opponent’s case as well as the opponent’s responses. Ideally, the time split should be between 3:1 and 2:2.

Summary

I believe the job of the summary speaker (especially for first speaking teams) is the hardest in the round and can easily lose a debate. Extending framework/overviews (if applicable), front lining, and weighing are the three necessary components of any narrative in summary.

Structure:

1. Case extensions (uniqueness, link, internal link, impact)
2. Frontlining
3. Defense/Turn extensions
4. Weighing (this can be put anywhere among the other three above).

Frontlining =/= narrative extension.

Defense in the first summary. Make smart strategic decisions. If the defense is being blown up - or mentioned - in final focus it needs to be in summary.

Final Focus

This should be the exact same as your summary with more weighing and less frontlining. It is okay to extend less arguments if you make up for it with weighing.

Speed

Clarity is critical when speaking quickly. My wpm is about 200, going faster than this is risking an incomplete flow on my ballot. If I miss something because of speed, there was an error in judge adaptation.

Organization through all speeches is essential and especially paramount in summary. Make sure I know exactly where you are so that I can help you get as much ink on the flow as possible. Tell me where to flow overviews otherwise I'll just make a judgement call on where to put it on the flow.

Progressive Arguments

I'm fine with Theory / Ks / role of the ballot though you always should "dumb them down" to language used in PF and you must clearly articulate why there is value in rejecting a traditional approach to the topic. Theory / Ks / role of the ballot will also need to be slowed down in terms of speed. Also, you need to read theory right after the violation happens. If you read it as a spike to throw the other team off, I will not evaluate the argument.

I value teams taking daring strategic decisions (EX: drop case and go fully for turns EX2: non-uniquing / severing contentions to avoid opponents turns) and will reward you smart and effective risk-taking with speaker points. That being said, if you do it poorly I will still drop you.

Cross

I like to see strong engagement of the issues in CX and appreciate a deeper analysis than simple clarifying questions. Please be polite and civil and it is everyone’s responsibility to de-escalate the situation as much as possible when it grows too extreme (some jokes are always preferred). Issues in CX will not be weighed in the round unless brought up in a following speech. Making jokes in grand cross to liven up the debate is always good for your speaker points (but don't be that person who tries too hard please).

Speaking

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.

(Last Updated 6/10/21)

General (read in addition to specific event):

I debated 4 years of policy in high school. After graduating I participated in 3.5 years of American Parliamentary debate with the University of Massachusetts Amherst. I am currently the Public Forum Coach at Westridge School and Flintridge Preparatory.

I try to evaluate all arguments fairly. I have no preference between kritical or traditional style arguments. My only reservations when it comes to non-traditional arguments are when they are poorly executed. If you are running a K your link and framework should be clearly outlined. The same goes for theory.

I think the best debate happens when both teams fully grasp each other's contentions. If your opponent can't understand your contention the judge probably can't either. So be clear and transparent.

I also don't do any work on the flow for you. If you want me to vote or extend something tell me to do so and why.

I understand that debate can be competitive and get heated from time to time. That is no reason to be rude to your opponents. Just be respectful and enjoy the debate.

Policy/LD:

I'm definitely a more old school policy debater. I spent my policy career running policy affs, T, politics, and responding to Ks with framework. That being said, please don't alter your strategy heavily because of that. I understand the debate space changes so if you're a K team I'll consider your args just as much as I would consider a standard disad/cp combo or traditional aff. I just might be a bit slower grasping the thesis of your arg so be as clear as you can be.

I am not the biggest fan of conditionality or similar args, but if you feel they are particularly applicable in a round feel free to run them.

I am fine with speed, but it takes me a second to adjust to any given speaker, especially with online and different mics. So start off your speech below your max speed then work up to it over the next few seconds so I can adapt.

You can add me on the email chain (email at the bottom), but I won't evaluate any of it throughout the round as I believe that invites too much opportunity for judge intervention. If a point in the debate really comes down to who's ev is better then I will evaluate it post round before submitting my ballot. Throughout the round give me the warrant for why to prefer your ev.

PF:

I really don't have much patience with evidence exchange. You should have all your evidence cut into cards and easily accessible to send. If it is a matter of slower internet or tech limitations, or your opponent requested a large amount of ev that is fine. However, "looking" for a piece of evidence to send shouldn't take longer than 10-20 sec.

I won't doc you for it, but I'm against paraphrasing in PF. If your ev is solid there shouldn't be much of a difference from using a card vs paraphrasing, so read the card.

I can keep up, but I hate speed in PF. If you really want to spread you should be in policy or LD. PF is supposed to be accessible to everyone, spreading is a barrier to that in PF. Although spreading through a bunch of arguments and then collapsing to whichever the other team misses is a viable strategy I don't think it is substantial or productive debate. I won't drop you because of this, but if your opponents clearly can't keep up or understand I might doc a few speaker points.

I don't want to be on email chains. I feel that invites too many opportunities for judge intervention throughout a debate. Additionally, I don't want debaters going through the round under the assumption that I am reading through all the ev that is exchanged. If there are contradicting pieces of evidence give me the warrant for why to prefer your ev. If a point in the debate REALLY comes down to who's ev is better, then I will ask for the relevant cards post round before making my decision.

I do appreciate collapsing when appropriate, and starting your weighing earlier rather than later in a round.

Feel free to ask me any questions about my paradigm or preferences.

Email: isaacjgutierrez97@gmail.com

I am a parent judge, my son is a junior in high school. He did not write my paradigm.

And awayyyyyy we go!

TLDR: Tech > Truth, Line-by-Line good, Signposting good, writing my ballot good, progressive good.

I have found the best thing to do from an evidence sharing perspective is to put a link to a google doc in the chat that we can all edit and view. Please do this.

I self-identify as a progressive tabula rasa flow judge.

Tech > Truth. Underdeveloped or ridiculous arguments are hard to vote on (low bar for !truth).

Speed: I will clear you if I feel the need. I like a speech doc as much as anybody, but I feel like it is intellectual laziness on my part or poor speechifying on your part if I rely on it. I should be able to understand and flow what you are saying, right? But I do like to spell an author's name correctly when flowing citations.

Theory and T are fine. I am a bit out of touch with reasonableness vs. competing interps debates. I am a bit out of touch with modern CP theory, so make sure you are clear on your advocacy. I am familiar-ish with K but not up to speed on my Heidegger or whatever. You will need to make sure your argument is extremely clear. Frivolous theory or tricks seem easy to vote against, but you are welcome to try your luck.

I sometimes judge Novice and JV rounds. If I had to identify the thing I have enjoyed the least in these rounds, it would be the technical lack of proficiency most commonly expressed through the cliche “two ships passing in the night”. Good flowing leads to good line-by-line. Good line-by-line leads to a good story. Write my ballot for me. If any of this is unclear, make sure you ask before the round. If this is a novice round or JV, if you show me a good flow after the round, I will bump your speaks.

A common pre-round question I am asked is how I feel about tag-team CX. If your partner is about to give away the farm, by all means jump in. If you have a question prior to your speech that you just really need to ask, jump in. Otherwise, why not just let the appropriate people interact in the usual way? Do you enjoy CX that much? Also, I'm probably not listening.

This is an educational activity and I don't like a hostile environment. Let's keep it fun.

Public Forum:

Everything above applies. If it is in Final Focus, it was in Summary, right? People ask me if defense is sticky and while these terms of art are somewhat confusing to me, my response is that if you want to do stuff in the Final Focus, it should be in Summary, but you can extend dropped arguments very, very quickly. I don't need you to do this (common in PF) line-by-line, card-by-card extension in Summary. You can tell the story in Final Focus.

I expect, starting in Rebuttals, people to answer arguments in prior speeches. I know this makes the 2nd Rebuttal hard, but I believe in you and can think of no reasonable alternative. Happy to discuss.

I see people saying they will bump speaks if you read cards instead of paraphrasing. I am on the train: If you show me before the round that you are reading carded constructives, I will bump your speaks. Paraphrasing may have started as an attempt to increase persuasion, but I feel like it devolves to blippy args. I am considering transitioning to "paraphrase = lower speaks".

I find that with the volume of paraphrasing, people can blur through tags and authors. Please be articulate on the tag and author so I know what you want me to flow. In policy, I feel like I have the time they spend reading the card to write down the tag and author and the tag/citation/card model makes it easy to differentiate between tags and cards. PF seems to be somewhat sub-optimized for flowing by blurring the tag and content via paraphrase. I assume you want me to flow a tag and author if you go to the trouble to say something, but I probably can't write as fast as you read.

After judging several rounds at a recent tournament where I had a problem, let me say this: If your 1st constructive is paraphrased and has more than 20 citations, you are probably over paraphrasing and/or going too fast. I write down your citations. I have seen multiple instances where cases or arguments are so heavily paraphrased that there are two or more citations in a single sentence. I will not be able to write down your argument if you are expecting me to write down two arguments and two citations in a single sentence. And it is probably abusive to the other team. This is a real opinion. If you think this is an unfair standard, I would love to discuss.

Progressive PF is fine.

And I just want to say, for whoever happens to be reading this: It's strange to me that a judge would say that they don't like theory or progressive arguments. I understand if you say you have a bias against tricks, but if people can't feel comfortable making an argument about abuse in round in front of you, that opens the door for off-topic advocacy. Why would we want that? Policy debaters didn't have theory day one, theory evolved to check abuse. I get that people may not have experience with theory, but close-mindedness and a pre-conceived idea of what is acceptable seems super meh and interventionist. Just putting it out there as a check against all the judges that try to actively discourage theory, which I dislike. Happy to advocate for theory before or after round if people want to shoot the breeze.

I have more opinions, just ask.

This is my 39th year teaching and most of that I have also coached speech and debate. As far as debate goes, I coached LD starting in the mid 80's running on and off through 2017. I coached policy on and off from 1990-2000. I have coached PF on and off since its inception. I have coached congressional debate since the early 80's. I don't have a paradigm for Speech events, but I have coached and judged all speech events since the early 80's as well.

As a Congress Judge:

Delivery: I embrace the role play. You are all portraying legislators from across the country and should behave with the decorum that role suggests. That being said, we have legislators from across the country with various styles and habits -- that makes congress debate AWESOME! There is no single, perfect way to deliver!

Evidence Usage: CD is, at its core, a debate event. Arguments should have sound, sourced evidence that follows NSDA rules. Empirical claims require empirical evidence.

Analysis - If I am judging Congressional Debate, chances are the tournament is a national caliber tournament (otherwise I would be working in some capacity in tab). I expect high level analysis at a high level tournament. If you are the 4th speaker and beyond - I expect unique arguments and I expect analysis and refutation of earlier speakers. Crystallization speeches do not merely mention every speaker that spoke earlier on a piece of legislation. It literally crystallizes the two sides, weighs the impacts of the two sides, and persuades me of their chosen position.

Argument Impacts: Please identify who or what is impacted. Be specific. In CD, please explain real world impacts. The narrative of impacts is as important (if not more) as the numerics of impacts.

On the topic of cost benefit analysis and weighing... Be careful of playing the numbers game. A large number of persons harmed may not necessarily outweigh a single person harmed, if the single person's harm is total and complete and the larger number still enjoy existence.

Decorum: Behavior in and out of chambers is important. Respectful, educational, kind, and full of fun... these should be in balance! (I don't like boring debate)

I don't have a calculator on the above. Very seldom is there a debater who is awesome at them all... But all need to be part of the mix. If I am judging a top round, I suspect that all speakers will be amazing! That means the final ranking will come down to relevance in the round. If all speeches were brilliant, questioning and answering were spot on, and knowledge of topics is at the top, who stood out as the genuine, 'real deal'?

PF Paradigm - I embrace the notion that the event is intended to be judged by an informed public forum. That does not mean dumbing down arguments because you think the judge is dumber than you because they didn't go to camp (adults don't go to camp). I think most judges want to hear good arguments that pertain to the resolution and want to hear clash between positions. That being said, here is my more specific paradigm:

Speed - I love an energetic debate, but save spreading for policy (and sadly LD). You should have written a prima facie case that either affirms or negates. It should be written so that the first speaker can energetically deliver it. Most PF spread isn't really spread, it is spewing and incoherent choking due largely to the student's failure to adequately cut their case. I am fine with clean, clear, speed. Can I hear arguments delivered at 385 wpm? yes. Will I flow them? probably not.

Frameworks - Sure, if you really are running a framework. If it is legit (and stays up in the round throughout), both sides will be weighing impacts within that framework.

Observations - Sure, if they are observations. Observations are not arguments. They are observations. "It is raining - observation: things are wet." "If Trump wins the election it will trigger nuclear war" is an argument, not an observation.

Warrants and Impacts are your friends!! Numbers are just numbers - how do they happen? why do they happen? who is affected and why them? is there possible counter causality? Really good logic if well explained will beat blippy numbers. Well explained statistics that are connected and clear will beat poor logic.

Flowing - Yes, I flow. I expect you to do so as well. I don't flow card names and dates - so make sure when you refer to a piece of evidence you reference what it says, not a name.

Jargon - I am not a fan. Don't say de-link. It is often unwarranted. Explain how and why. Unique is a noun, not a verb. You cannot 'non-unique' something. I love turns, but don't just spout 'turn.' Explain why their argument works against them. Or show how their impacts actually are good, not bad. At its heart debate is a communication education activity; I take your education seriously.

Kritiks - They are arguments. I was okay with them in policy when they were a 'thing,' largely because policy is more game than debate. I was not okay with them in LD when used as a gimmick. I am the LD judge that still clings to the notion that we should have value debate. However, a well thought out K that communicates the impact of the issue must be answered in any debate! In PF, I might be okay if a team ran a kritik that they truly believed in, and they clearly had the ethos and pathos to convince me it wasn't just a gimmick, I MIGHT vote on the K if it is argued well. OR, if their opponents clearly understood the K but just didn't want to deal with it. A K is still an argument, and the premise of the K needs to be responded to as an argument. If not, chances are I am going to vote for the K.

I am not a fan of: rude behavior, gender put-downs, dog whistle language, or individuals being mean/cocky just for the heck of it. =26s-27s. I would go lower, but most tournaments won't let me.

I love intense and lively debate. I love true arguments that are well researched, argued, and impacted. I love smart. Smart gets 29.5s and 29.9s. It has been a very long time since I gave 30's but I do give them!

My pronouns are she/her.

Email: olivia.hardage3@gmail.com

I did PF at Westlake and I currently coach there.

You only need to extend defense in first summary if it has been frontlined otherwise, it sticks.

I think 2nd rebuttal needs to at least frontline offense and preferably defense as well. I won't automatically down you if you don't do this but I prefer it and I think it's more strategic.

If you want to concede a de-link to kick out of a turn you can't just say that phrase, you need to explain why the particular arguments allow you to do that. If you only say "we concede the de-link so we kick out of the turn" and move on and your opponent extends the turn, I will grant them the turn.

I will vote on the least mitigated link chain leading to the most weighed impact. I will vote for a team with a fleshed-out link chain and a poorly extended impact over a team that does the opposite.

I give speaks mainly based on presentation or if I think a team should be in out rounds. However, if you want a 30 from me focus on speaking clearly and having good round etiquette.

I'll evaluate any arguments like theory/Ks but I don't have pervasive knowledge of how they traditionally function in rounds so make sure everything is explained thoroughly.

I'm good with speed to an extent, anything getting close to spreading I probably can't follow.

The most important thing in debate is weighing! If you don't weigh, I am forced to decide what I think is the most important argument.

If you want more specifics, feel free to ask me questions!

Elkins '20 | UT '24 | UHL '27

Email: rhasib01@gmail.com

I don't have experience with this topic

I did PF for 4 years

2 gold bids 3 silver bids

Overall

- I cannot keep up with speed. I cannot keep up with speed. I cannot keep up with speed. The quality of the debate is better when its at a reasonable pace

- I dont want your speech doc

- Reading any progressive arguments (theory, tricks, Ks, etc) = L20. Please strike me if you plan on reading these types of arguments, I will not vote for you.

- Sit or stand I don't mind

- Assume I'm ready at all times unless I say otherwise

General

- Tech > Truth. I'm going to vote for the team with the least mitigated link chain into the best-weighed impact

- If you do not sign post properly, I will miss a lot of your speech. This is VERY important.

- PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE frontline first AND THEN extend the argument, otherwise it looks like ur extending through ink until you decide to frontline.

- Defense you want to concede should be conceded in the speech immediately after it was originally read. a concession requires an implication of how the defense interacts with your argument not just "we concede to the delinks"

Rebuttal

- Frontlining turns in second rebuttal are crucial, any turns not frontlined in second rebuttal have a 100% probability

- I recommend collapsing starting 2nd rebuttal but it's up to you

- You don't have to extend at all in second rebuttal, just frontlining is cool with me

- Please do not read an offensive overview in second rebuttal

Summary Overall

- Do all extensions with author names and the warrant behind them

- If you want me to vote off case offense, you have to extend uniqueness - link - impact and then you should be good

- For turns - if you want to collapse on a turn in FF the extension has to have an impact ie: if you extend a link turn you also have to extend the other teams impact

First summary

- New evidence for frontlining is ok

- Defense is not sticky even in 1st summary, mb

Second summary

- You gotta extend defense

- Weighing has to start here if you want me to evaluate it in the round

Final focus

- Still extend uniqueness link and impact

- Extend weighing

- Mirroring your partners summary is key, don't extend anything that was not in summary

Cross

- Don't forget to time cross, happens way too much

- Cross is for yall more than it is for me

- I like cross makes the debate kind of interesting

- You can skip grand cross, up to you

Evidence

- I'll only call for evidence if it's SUPER important for the decision or the other team tells me to call for it

- If you take forever pulling up evidence I will be very mad

Post Round

- I'll disclose unless tourney directors say otherwise

- I presume neg if there is no offense in the round

Donts

- Spread on novices, if its clear that you are winning just show them respect and give them a chance to learn ie: explain the implications in cross in an understanding way

- If you still for some reason want to run something progressive and are doing it for an easy ballot because you know your opponents can't respond properly, L20

Have fun and let me know if you have any questions :)

email: colter.heirigs@gmail.com

POLICY PARADIGM:

I have been coaching Policy Debate full time since 2014. Arms sales is my 7th year of coaching.

I view my primary objective in evaluating the round to be coming to a decision that requires the least “judge intervention.”

If debaters do not give me instructions on how to evaluate the debate, and/or leave portions of the debate unresolved, they should not expect to get my ballot. My decision will end up being arbitrary, and (while I will likely still try to make my arbitrary decision less arbitrary than not) I will not feel bad.

In the final rebuttals, debaters should be giving me a “big picture” assessment of what’s going on in the debate to give them the best chance to get my ballot. Extending 25 arguments in the rebuttals doesn’t do much for me if you’re not explaining how they interact with the other team’s arguments and/or why they mean you win the round. In my ideal debate round, both 2NR and 2AR have given me at least a 45 second overview explaining why they’ve won the debate where they dictate the first paragraph of my ballot for me.

Important things to note:

-I don’t ever think Topicality is an RVI (*this is distinct from kritiks of the neg’s interp/use of topicality*)

-If you don’t signpost AND slow down for tags, assume that I am missing at least 50% of your tags. This means saying a number or a letter or “AND” or “NEXT” prior to the tag of your card, and preferably telling me which of your opponents arguments I should flow it next to. Speech docs are not substitutes for clarity and signposting.

-I'm probably a 7 on speed, but please see above ^^^^

-High-theory will be an uphill battle.

-I would prefer not to call for cards, I believe it’s the debaters job to clearly communicate their arguments; if you tell me they’re misrepresenting their cards – I will probably call for them. But if I call for it and they’re not misrepresenting their evidence you’ll lose a lot of credibility with me and my cognitive biases will likely run amuck. Don’t let this deter you from calling out bad evidence.

-You can win the line-by-line debate in the 2AR but still lose the debate if you fail to explain what any of it means and especially how it interacts with the 2NR's args.

-Don’t assume I have any familiarity with your Acronyms, Aff, or K literature

-Swearing is probably word inefficient

-You’re in a bad spot if you’re reading new cards in the final rebuttals, very low propensity for me to evaluate them

-CPs that result in the aff are typically going to be a very hard sell, so are most other artificially competitive CPs. Perms are cool, so are time tradeoffs for the aff when this happens. If you really think you've got a sick techy CP make sure to go out of your way to win questions of competition/superior solvency / a specific link to the aff plan alone for your NB

-I think debate is a competition.

-the best “framework” arguments are probably “Topicality” arguments and almost probably don’t rely on cards from debate coaches and definitely don’t rely on me reading them after the round

-Impact everything out... Offense and Defense... I want to hear you telling me why your argument is more pressing and important than the other team's. I hate having to intervene... "Magnitude," "Probability," and "Timeframe" are not obscenities, please use them.

Arguments you shouldn’t waste your time on with me:

-Topicality = RVI (*this is distinct from kritiks of the neg’s interp/use of topicality*)

-Consult CPs

I am going to have the easiest time evaluating rounds where:

-warrant and evidence comparison is made

-weighing mechanisms and impact calculus guiding how I evaluate micro & macro level args are utilized

-the aff advocates a topical plan

-the DA turns and Outweighs the Case, or the CP solves most of the case and there's a clear net benefit that the perm doesn't solve for

-the negative has a well-researched neg strategy

-I am not expected to sort through high-theory

-the 2NR/2AR doesn't go for everything and makes strategic argument selection

Presumptions I bring into the round that probably cannot be changed:

-I’m voting Neg on presumption until the aff reads the 1AC

-Topicality is never an RVI (*this is distinct from kritiks of the neg’s interp/use of topicality*)

-There is no 3NR

-Oppression of humans = bad (note: I do not know how this compares to the end of the planet/human race, debaters are going to have to provide weighing mechanisms for me.)

-Earth existing = good (note: I do not know how this compares to other impacts like oppression of humans, debaters are going to have to provide some weighing mechanisms for me.)

-I will have a very difficult time bringing myself to vote for any sort of Consult CP if the aff even mumbles some type of “PERM”

-Once the 2AC perms, presumption goes to the neg to prove the perm unworkable or undesirable if the CP/Alt is not textually/functionally competitive

Unimportant things to note:

-Plz read your plan before you read solvency – I will be annoyed and lost if you don’t

-I really enjoy author indicts if/when they’re specific – it shows a team has worked hard and done their research

-I really enjoy case specific strategies – I enjoy it when a team can demonstrate that they've worked hard to prepare a case specific strategy

-I enjoy GOOD topicality debates

-I’ve been involved in policy debate in some capacity for 11 years now – Education is my 5th topic coaching.

-I put my heart and soul into policy debate for four years on high school. I worked tirelessly to put out specific strategies for specific affirmatives and I like to see debaters who I can tell have done the same and are having fun. So, show me you know your case better than anyone else if you're affirmative, or on the neg, show me specific links and answers to the affirmative... I tend to reward this in speaker points. ...That being said, generics are fun, fine, and essential for the negative team. Feel free to run them, you will not be penalized in any way.

Specific Arguments

I'm good for just about anything that is well debated: T, Theory, DAs, CPs, Ks... I can even be persuaded to vote solely on inherency if it is well debated - if the plan has literally already happened, for the love of god please punish the aff.

That being said, I enjoy seeing a strategy in argument selection, and appreciate when arguments don't blatantly contradict each other (i.e. the DA linking to the CP, or Cap Bad and an Econ Impact on politics). Especially in the 2NR.

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

LD Paradigm

I am pretty tab when it comes to LD. My goal is to reach a decision that requires the least amount of judge intervention.

Signpost and slow down on tags. Slow down even more for theory args. Spreading through tags and theory interps is absolutely not the move if you want me to be flowing your speech. I will not be flowing from the doc.

Slow down. No, you don’t have to be slow and you should certainly feel free to read the body of your cards at whatever max speed you are comprehensible at. If you’ve used signposting, slowed down on tags and pre-written analytics, you’re golden. It's inexcusable and unforgivable to not have signposting in the 1ac.

I come into the round presuming:

-the aff should be defending the resolution

-the aff is defending the entirety of the resolution

-my ballot answers the resolutional question

-debate is a game

These presumptions can likely be changed.

Stylistically agnostic, but probably not your best judge for:

-dense phil that you’re spreading through

-undisclosed affs that don’t defend the entirety of the resolution

-process CPs that result in the aff

-more than 2 condo

-friv theory - I ❤️ substance

-Probably not interested in hearing condo if it’s just 2 condo positions

-theory interps that require me to ignore other speeches

I think that I have a low propensity to vote for most arguments regarding things that happen outside of the round or prior to the 1ac. I am not interested in adjudicating arguments that rely on screenshots of chats, wikis, or discord servers.

Questions, or interested in my thoughts on particular subjects not covered in my LD paradigm? Check out my POLICY PARADIGM above!

Public Forum Paradigm:

First speakers get to ask the first question in crossfire. If you ask about the status of this in round, expect to get one less speakerpoint than you would have otherwise.

File Share > e-mail chain.

Depth > Breadth. You only have four minutes to construct your position, would far prefer to hear 2 well-developed contentions rather than 3-4 blippy ones unless they are incredibly straight-forward. Much less interested in adjudicating “argument checkers” than most.

I debated at Westlake for awhile.

he, him

debate is a game.

i am ok with whatever you run

speed is ok ✅

have fun

For online debate, I am more inclined to give highest speaker points to both parties, since internet issues can result in some speech not coming through clearly. With that leeway being said, there's still some points in the speaker point section that would greatly benefit you chances of winning the round, so if you do read the entire paradigm, don't shy away from it.

During the constructive speeches, make sure you are clear. I cannot stress this enough. If you decide to spread, at the very least, be clear. Most people don't have a problem with being clear but actively annunciate. (doing this in all speeches is preferred)

I really like the 1st crossfire. There's a lot of good things that can come out of 1st crossfire that the other crossfires can't necessarily benefit from. 1st speakers start with 29 speaker points and 1st crossfire can really boost y'all up to 30. Make it productive and polite, yet still, be aggressive.

Rebuttals should have weighing, which is something most people don't do, but would help the round move more smoothly. Attack wise, I always prefer line-by-line, but going big picture won't cost you the round. 2nd speakers start with 28 speaker points. A good rebuttal with clear signposting and line-by-line gets y'all 29 speaker points. Weighing will add another .5 speaker points.

2nd crossfire should have a lot of hardball questions now that your opponent's strategy is more clear. Like the 1st crossfire, make it productive and polite, yet still, be aggressive.

Both summary speeches need to incorporate defense brought up in rebuttal. On top of that, establishing your path to the ballot is key here. Weighing is the best way to gain a speaker point if you didn't get it in the 1st crossfire. If you don't say it in summary, your partner can't say it in the final focus. That's pretty normal for most rounds, but I will actively listen for new arguments and actively not write them down.

Grand crossfire is a time to have fun. You can expand on summary arguments, so "new arguments" are sort of allowed. Establishing dominance is key in this crossfire because if you as the individual are dominant, you can make up for the speaker point you didn't get in the other speeches. That being said, being dominant doesn't mean being mean. There is a perfect middle ground that most people can get to. If you are being mean, you won't lose speaker points, but if you actively insult your opponents, expect you and your partner to lose speaker points.

Final Focus is my favorite speech. First, voters. If you don't have voters from the summary, you can't win. Making new arguments is bad. My summary speech paradigm explains this pretty well. This is where 2nd speakers can get their final speaker point for straight 30s. The way you do that is pretty easy: give me your voters and tell me why I should value your voters over your opponents. The 1st final focus will have a harder time on this, but it's not impossible especially considering that you heard your opponent's summary.

For reference, I did Public Forum for 4 years with Lincoln Douglas and a couple of speech activities sprinkled in around.

Something that does bother me for some reason is when an entire speech's time isn't filled up. Do try to fill it up as much as possible. If you don't, I'm hoping you only have at most 30 seconds left of the speech. If your speech is shorter than that, I am inclined to remove .5 speaker points. However, comma, if there really isn't anything left to talk about in your speech and there is more than 30 seconds left in your speech, DO NOT RAMBLE. I sometimes rambled on at the end of my speeches because I had nothing so say, and it didn't add to my argument. State the facts and be done with it.

Empirics is something that each team should have. Straight empirics are more important than philosophical arguments to me. If you do run theory, don't call it a theory. It's not terribly hard to adapt theory to PF, but if your opponents call you out for theory, I may just drop the whole theory from the debate. You be the judge of when it'll be appropriate. If you do use theory, I will tell you at the end of the round if I valued it or dropped it. If I dropped it, feel free to attempt to convince me that I should've valued it. If you slip up and get angry and yell at me, I'll call the cops. That's a joke. I won't get offended, I know what it's like to lose an argument that I spent a lot of time developing both outside and during the round. Please be nice and don't waste time.

Something I tend to hear in PF now is a colorful analogy. I really like analogies because it makes it more family friendly for lay judges and tired judges. What I like more than analogies are references. If you make a bad reference to pop culture, you lose .5 speaker points. So don't spend too much time on analogies. A good reference will follow nonnormative meme culture (if you don't know what that is, I would shy away from pop culture reference and stick to vanilla analogies).

If you have any specific questions, ask me. Most judges will be a little peeved if you just ask "What are your paradigms?" instead of specific questions, but I won't get mad. Ask.

If you have scrolled this far, welcome to the LD Paradigms.

I absolutely need clear roadmaps for each speech. It will help me be able to catch all the important details as well as your opponent in order to have a productive exchange of arguments.

I do not mind progressive debate. Progressive debate is a staple of LD and can be used very effectively. However, I will not value progressive aspects of the debate over physical evidence directly pertaining to the Resolution. Feel free to ask specific questions about certain strategies before the round starts in order to make sure that what you are utilizing isn't too farfetched and way out of left field.

SPEECHES

The 1AC is simple. Feel free to spread, do what you need to do to get everything out on the table.

The 1NC is a little less simple. Anything not addressed by the Negating side is assumed to be conceded for the Affirmative side. This will make is easier for the round as a whole, but harder for the Negating side for obvious reason. Even if it is just mentioned briefly I will still let it fly as you addressing it and you can clarify further in CX or the NR.

CX as a whole should be respectful, but also definitely demanding. whichever side is questioning has a lot of power to drive the narrative, so use the full force of the examination. In PF, CX can get a little disrespectful and it can hurt speaker points, which is why I am most likely not going to deduct any speaker points based on CX performance. I will only add speaker points.

1AR's focus should be a rebuttal of course, but there also needs to be plenty of weighing. This will make it easier for me to find the path to the ballot for the Affirmative. Any weighing not done here cannot be brought over to the 2AR.

The NR has the hardest job. Not only do you have to rebut all terminal attacks, but you also have to weigh and give me the Negating side's path to the ballot. New arguments in the NR won't be written down by me, but like I said in the 1NC, if you at least mention your attack and give some brief understanding of where you're going, you can further extrapolate on that idea in this speech.

2AR should almost be a mirror of the 1AR in my opinion. No new arguments, only crowd control is allowed. If something truly diabolical is said in the NR, go ahead and address it, but make sure it has direct relevance to your speech content.

SPEAKER POINTS

It's pretty easy to get 30 speaker points. I'm fairly nice about it. The way I give speaker points is the Affirmative side starts with 27 speaker points and the Negating side starts with 28. I will add speaker points with each speech you give. As long as you are clear when you spread you will probably get the point.

But let's assume you choke up in your 1AC and either don't finish your case reading or you skipped too far down and missed an important link. It's alright because if you perform well under the pressure of your opponent's questioning in your CX, I will give you .5 of a speaker point back to you. In order to get the other half of the speaker point, you must ask important and relevant questions in your CX of the Negating side, making sure you keep your opponent in check while still being somewhat respectful (but go ahead and be rude it's more fun that way). And of course, this works for the Negating side as well, these terms are not exclusive for the Affirmative side. For obvious reasons, I can't give more than 30 speaker points (I don't think).

Like my PF paradigm, ask any and all questions you have before the round starts. If you have any questions during the round you would like to ask me, feel free to do so. I can understand the stress of debating and now having technology as the middle man will jumble up your mental processes. It will disrupt the immersion and flow of the round, but if it's a necessary question then it's a necessary evil. Just make sure it doesn't happen more than once or twice.

If there are any questions or concerns after the round regarding either my paradigm or RFD, feel free to email me at jhoang19@mail.strakejesuit.org I might not get to it immediately, but if you make the subject line what round and flight you were for what tournament, I will be more likely to answer promptly

Flow and respond to what the other team says.

I don't have the speech doc open so do things that make it easier for me to flow. Position yourself so I can hear you. Don't speak into your laptop or stand on the opposite side of the room. Don't read typed-out things like they are the text of a card. Slow down and change the intonation of your voice when you're speaking.

If I don't understand something, I will not vote on it even if it is conceded.

Corss-x starts right after the constructive speech ends.

Starting and stopping prep each time you need to use more prep time will cost at least 15 sec.

Very simply, if you have trigger warnings because the topics are more taboo then I am not the judge for you. If you can't explain it to your school administration or parents without them raising concerns then don't run it in front of me. Time and place are important.

Things I will not vote on (AUTO 25 Speaks):

Arguments that suggest students should engage in risky behavior.

Death is good.

Fear of death is bad

Aff's that don't defend the resolution.

Aff's that link to debate in general instead of the resolution.

Judge pref disclosure

Disclosure

Asking me to vote on something that happened before the debate round started.

Asking me to vote on something that happened after the debate round is over.

Vote for a team because they are part of a marginalized group.

Bataille

Baudrillard

Settler Colonialism

Deleuze

Psychoanalysis

ontological argument

epistemological arguments.

In fact, it would be better if you just didn't run a K.

PIC's

Condo CP's

Topical CP's

Consult CP's

conditions CP's

A Critique of Full Text Disclosure

Spreading bad

A Critique of Disclosure

Vote only for women

This list will be ongoing. I will update it to let you know.

So what is left you might ask:

Case debate

Topicality

Da's

CP's that are not listed above.

Other things you might want to know:

1. Da's can have a zero-risk.

2. Aff adv's can have zero risk

3. Solvency can have zero risk

4. Substantial will be important in these types of debates.

5. The neg will get a healthy dose of presumption.

I really would like to listen to a debate about the resolution.

Updates:

PF is different from Policy. PF shouldn't try and be policy. If you try to be policy in a PF then you won't be as successful. You don't need to spread. Few cards are better. Explaining good. Tagline extensions only are bad.

I have been judging lots of PF rounds. And here are some things you should know.

1. I am more truth over tech. I would consider it
2. You might have evid on the world is flat. It doesn't mean it is true. The other team might not have evid on the world is round. I am still going to vote on the world is round, if they say it is round without evid.
3. The more internal links you have to your impact. The less likely it is.
4. Probability is more important than possibility.
5. Having 20 cards with two-sentence each won't get you very far.
6. Cutting evidence out of context is becoming a problem. Don't do that. Seriously, don't do that.
7. The big questions on the topic matter.
8. Common sense arguments are better than stupid arguments with cards.
9. Saying the other team dropped an argument when they didn't will cost you speaker points! I am tired of hearing this and I would suggest you flow.
10. I listen to cross-x. Cross-x is binding.
11. Spreading in PF is not needed. Your time is better spent going for fewer arguments better than lots of arguments poorly. The whole point is to collapse and explain.
12. When the timer goes off, I stop flowing.

Your evidence better match your claim. It is becoming a race to the bottom with evidence. If the evidence does not match your claim then I will not evaluate that argument. simple!

Maybe I am getting old. I like what I like. If you don't want to adapt to this judge then strike me. If you have me and don't feel the need to adapt then you take the risk on what happens at the end of the round, not me.

If you have questions before the round ask me.

UPDATE: 10/27/23---- Be on time! In fact, be early.

I am the parent of a current debater and have judged several online tournaments.

Please speak slowly and clearly, so I can follow your arguments. I will take notes as best I can and will vote on the main issues.

I appreciate clear analysis in your final focus as to why you should win this round. 

Be respectful of one another and add me to the email chain for evidence exchange using the email: hotzandrea@gmail.com.

Please do not present theory as I will not know how to best judge it.

Lastly, good luck!

Organized roughly by importance

General stuff: Tech > truth. Speed is fine, slow down on tags, send speech docs if you have them. 2nd rebuttal must frontline. Summaries need defense. Limit the offense you go for in final speeches. I don't flow crossfire. If neg doesn't get a CP, the aff's advocacy can't block the neg out of ground (however the reverse is also true). For speaks, I average around a 28.5 and won't go below a 26 save for ethical or equity reasons.

Please weigh. If I have to weigh for you I will spontaneously combust (but seriously if I have to intervene and weigh args because they weren’t weighed in the debate it will be reflected in speaks).

My ballot usually goes to the least mitigated link chain into the best-weighed impact. I'll pick up neg if there is no significant offense left in the debate I feel conformable voting on.

Evidence:

-Good Evidence and good analytics > good analytics without evidence > good evidence without analytics > bad evidence > bad analytic.

- If you read evidence in the debate that is misrepresented or you cannot find it/send it out to your opponents/me, you will get dropped with 26s.

Thoughts on Theory

- Disclosure: Good for the health of individual debates and the health of the activity as a whole. Pretty hard to win a disclosure bad ballot in front of me. The level of disclosure necessary however is completely up for debate.

- Paraphrasing: Don't see why it's necessary and I think it opens up room for bad evidence ethics but I won't explicitly vote for or against it.

- RVIs: Generally good but I won't explicitly vote for or against it.

- Trixs/a prioris/nibs/"frivolous theory": I will never vote here >:(

Please ask questions in rounds if you have any. Have fun :)

Greetings everyone! My name is Timothy Huth and I'm the director of forensics at The Bronx High School of Science in New York City. I am excited to judge your round! Considering you want to spend the majority of time prepping from when pairings are released and not reading my treatise on debate, I hope you find this paradigm "cheat sheet" helpful in your preparation.

2023 TOC Congress Update

Congratulations on qualifying to the 2023 TOC! It's a big accomplishment to be here in this room and all of you are to be commended on your dedication and success. My name is Timothy Huth and I'm the director at Bronx Science. I have judged congress a lot in the past, including two TOC final rounds, but I have found myself judging more PF and Policy in recent years. To help you prepare, here's what I would like to see in the round:

Early Speeches -- If you are the sponsor or early speaker, make sure that I know the key points that should be considered for the round. If you can set the parameters of the discourse of the debate, you will probably have a good chance of ranking high on my ballot.

Middle Speeches -- Refute, advance the debate, and avoid rehash, obviously. However, this doesn't mean you can't bring up a point another debater has already said, just extend it and warrant your point with new evidence or with a new perspective. I often find these speeches truly interesting and you can have a good chance of ranking high on my ballot.

Late speeches -- I think a good crystallization speech can be the best opportunity to give an amazing speech during the round. To me, a good crystal speech is one of the hardest speeches to give. This means that a student who can crystal effectively can often rank 1st or 2nd on my ballot. This is not always the case, of course, but it really is an impressive speech.

Better to speak early or late for your ballot? It really doesn't matter for me. Wherever you are selected to speak by the PO, do it well, and you will have a great chance of ranking on my ballot. One thing -- I think a student who can show diversity in their speaking ability is impressive. If you speak early on one bill, show me you can speak later on the next bill and the skill that requires.

What if I only get one speech? Will I have any chance to rank on your ballot? Sometimes during the course of a congress round, some students are not able to get a second speech or speak on every bill. I try my very best to evaluate the quality of a speech versus quantity. To me, there is nothing inherently better about speaking more or less in a round. However, when you get the chance to speak, question, or engage in the round, make the most of it. I have often ranked students with one speech over students who spoke twice, so don't get down. Sometimes knowing when not to speak is as strategic as knowing when to speak.

Questioning matters to me. Period. I am a big fan of engaging in the round by questioning. Respond to questions strongly after you speak and ask questions that elicit concessions from your fellow competitors. A student who gives great speeches but does not engage fully in questioning throughout the round stands little chance of ranking high on my ballot.

The best legislator should rank first. Congress is an event where the best legislator should rank first. This means that you have to do more than just speak well, or refute well, or crystal well, or question well. You have to engage in the "whole debate." To me, what this means is that you need to speak and question well, but also demonstrate your knowledge of the rules of order and parliamentary procedure. This is vital for the PO, but competitors who can also demonstrate this are positioning themselves to rank highly on my ballot.

Have fun! Remember, this activity is a transformative and life changing activity, but it's also fun! Enjoy the moment because you are at THE TOURNAMENT OF CHAMPIONS! It's awesome to be here and don't forget to show the joy of the moment. Good luck to everyone!

2023 - Policy Debate Update

I have judged many debates across all events except for policy debate. You should consider me a newer policy judge and debate accordingly. Here are some general thoughts to consider as you prepare for the round:

Add me to the email chain: My email is huth@bxscience.edu.

Non-Topical Arguments: I am unlikely to understand Ks or non-topical arguments. I DO NOT have an issue with these arguments on principle, but I will not be able to evaluate the round to the level you would expect or prefer.

Topicality: I am not experienced with topicality policy debates. If you decide to run these arguments, I cannot promise that I will make a decision you will be satisfied with, but I will do my best.

Line-by-line: Please move methodically through the flow and tell me the order before begin your speech.

Judge Instruction: In each rebuttal speech, please tell me how to evaluate your arguments and why I should be voting for you. My goal is to intervene as little as possible.

Speed: Please slow down substantially on tags and analytics. You can probably spread the body of the card but you must slow down on the tags and analytics in order for me to understand your arguments. Do not clip cards. I will know if you do.

PF Paradigm - Please see the following for my Public Forum paradigm.

Add me to the email chain: My email is huth@bxscience.edu.

Cheat sheet:

General overview FOR PUBLIC FORUM

Experience: I've judged PF TOC finals-X------------------------------------------------- I've never judged

Tech over truth: Tech -------x------------------------------------------- Truth

Comfort with PF speed: Fast, like policy fast ---------x--------------------------------------- lay judge speed

Theory in PF: Receptive to theory ------x------------------------------ not receptive to theory

Some general PF thoughts from Crawford Leavoy, director of Durham Academy in North Carolina. I agree with the following very strongly:

- The world of warranting in PF is pretty horrific. You must read warrants. There should be tags. I should be able to flow them. They must be part of extensions. If there are no warrants, they aren't tagged or they aren't extended - then that isn't an argument anymore. It's a floating claim.

- You can paraphrase. You can read cards. If there is a concern about paraphrasing, then there is an entire evidence procedure that you can use to resolve it. But arguments that "paraphrasing is bad" seems a bit of a perf con when most of what you are reading in cut cards is...paraphrasing.

- Notes on disclosure: Sure. Disclosure can be good. It can also be bad. However, telling someone else that they should disclose means that your disclosure practices should be very good. There is definitely a world where I am open to counter arguments about the cases you've deleted from the wiki, your terrible round reports, and your disclosure of first and last only.

Now, back to my thoughts. Here is the impact calculus that I try to use in the round:

Weigh: Comparative weighing x----------------------------------------------- Don't weigh

Probability: Highly probable weighing x----------------------------------------------- Not probable

Scope: Affecting a lot of people -----------x------------------------------------ No scope

Magnitude: Severity of impact -------------------------x----------------------- Not a severe impact

(One word about magnitude: I have a very low threshold for responses to high magnitude, low probability impacts. Probability weighing really matters for my ballot)

Quick F.A.Q:

Defense in first summary? Depends if second rebuttal frontlines, if so, then yes, I would expect defense in first summary.

Offense? Any offense you want me to vote on should be in either case or rebuttal, then both summary and final focus.

Flow on paper or computer? I flow on paper, every time, to a fault. Take that for what you will. I can handle speed, but clarity is always more important than moving fast.

What matters most to get your ballot? Easy: comparative weighing. Plain and simple.

I think you do this by first collapsing in your later speeches. Boil it down to 2-3 main points. This allows for better comparative weighing. Tell me why your argument matters more than your opponents. The team that does this best will 99/100 times get my ballot. The earlier this starts to happen in your speeches, the better.

Overviews: Do it! I really like them. I think they provide a framework for why I should prefer your world over your opponent's world. Doing this with carded evidence is even better.

Signpost: It's very easy to get lost when competitors go wild through the flow. You must be very clear and systematic when you are moving through the flow. I firmly believe that if I miss something that you deem important, it's your fault, not mine. To help with this, tell me where you are on the flow. Say things like...

"Look to their second warrant on their first contention, we turn..."

Clearly state things like links, turns, extensions, basically everything! Tell me where you are on the flow.

Also, do not just extend tags, extend the ideas along with the tags. For example:

"Extend Michaels from the NYTimes that stated that a 1% increase in off shore drilling leads to a..."

Evidence: I like rigorous academic sources: academic journals and preeminent news sources (NYT, WashPo, etc.). You can paraphrase, but you should always tell me the source and year.

Theory in PF: I'm growing very receptive to it, but it really should be used to check back against abuse in round.

Pronouns: I prefer he/him/his and I kindly ask that you respect your opponents preferred gender pronoun.

Speed: Slow down, articulate/enunciate, and inflect - no monotone spreading, bizarre breathing patterns, or foot-stomping. I will say "slow" and/or "clear," but if I have to call out those words more than twice in a speech, your speaks are going to suffer. I'm fine with debaters slowing or clearing their opponents if necessary. I think this is an important check on ableism in rounds. This portion on speed is credited to Chetan Hertzig, head coach of Harrison High School (NY). I share very similar thoughts regarding speed and spreading.

Email chain/ questions: char.char.jackson21@gmail.com

they/them

As a topshelf thing, I will probably vote for arguments I don't understand

LD Paradigm:

arguments in order that i am comfy with them are

theory>larp>K's>tricks> phil

i can flow p much any spreading as long as its clear if i have a problem i will say something

I will vote on any argument as long as its not problematic, only if you sufficiently extend warrant, and implicate said argument.

PF Paradigm:

Send docs even in person i expect docs from all of you

If you want the easy path to my ballot; weigh, implicate your defense/turns, tell me why you should win.

Smart analytics > bad evidence or paraphrased blips.

Debate is a game, as such I will normally be a tech>truth judge except in circumstances where I deem an argument to be offensive/inappropriate for the debate space.

Rebuttal:
I prefer a line by line. Second rebuttal should respond to turns/disads.

Extensions:

I wont do ghost extensions for you even if the argument is conceded, extend your arguments.

Arguments that I am comfortable with:

Theory, T, Plans, Counter Plans, Disads, Kritiks, most framework args that PFers can come up with.

Presumption

I presume too much, tell me why I should presume for you if you think you aren't going to win your case, if you don't make any arguments as to why I should presume I will presume based on a coin flip, aff will be heads and neg will be tails.

I also think I will be starting to vote more on risk of offense, in this scenario.

i get bored so easy please make the round interesting.

debate is problematic in many ways. if there is anything I can do to make the round more accessible, please let me know beforehand

I am an Americorps service member with less formal debate training.

My ballot is awarded to the team with the best speaking skills, articulation of their arguments throughout the whole round, proper refutation of all their opponent's points, usage of evidence, and comparative argumentation.

Speed and jargon are a no. Please don't immediately presume I know the intricacies of deep research on the resolution. The point of public forum debate is that you should be able to break down the debate on the resolution for anyone, and convince them why your side is right. Finding a way to make me care about your side by bringing out your emotions is a plus. Being mean or a bully does the opposite.

Be sure to time your own speeches and keep track of prep time. I'll also be keeping time, but there is a speaker point reduction for those who don't do it.

Email- JKaminskii34@gmail.com

TLDR (updated 11/4/22)

1. Speed is fine, you won't go too fast
2. Win the flow=win the round
3. Presumption =neg
4. Theory is cool, run it well (Interp, violation, standards and voters. RVI's have higher burden)
5. K debate is even better
6. Defense needs to be extended
7. I default to magnitude/strength of link weighing
8. You can run any and all args you want, but they cannot be problematic/discriminatory/ attack your opponents. This will be an auto 20 speaks and L.

My debate experience:

Current assistant PF coach at Trinity Prep

3 Years of NFA-LD Debate

4 Years of Public Forum debate

Paradigm-

It should be pretty easy to win my ballot. In my opinion, debate is a game, and you should play to win. Here are the specific things most debaters would want to know.

PF

- I am cool with speed, so long as you don't use it to push your opponents out of a round. I will call clear if you become hard to understand, so keep that in mind.

- I will evaluate all types of arguments equally unless told otherwise.

- I am willing to listen to things like K's and theory arguments, so long as they are impacted out in the round.

- I really enjoy framework debates as well. I think these can be particularly beneficial for limiting the ground your opponents have in the round.

- I am tech over truth, which means so long as it is on my flow, I will evaluate the argument regardless of my own feelings on it. I will also not flow arguments through ink on the flow, so be sure to engage with your opponents answers in order to win the link level of your argument.

- Summary and FF should be somewhat consistent in terms of the direction they are going. Inconsistencies between these speeches will be harmful, especially when it comes to evaluating the strengths of your links and impacts

- On that same note, I want to see some sort of collapse in the second half of the debate- going for everything is typically a bad strategy, and I want to reward smart strategic choices that you make.

- I default to a net benefits impact calc, unless given a competing way to view the round. I am cool viewing the round through any lens that you give me, so long as you explain why its the best way for me to evaluate the round. If absent, I have to intervene with my own, which is something I hate to do.

- If you want me to call for cards, you need to ask me to do so. In that same regard, I wont intervene unless you leave me no other option.

- I dont flow CX, so if you want me to hold something that was said as binding, you need to bring it up in all of the subsequent speeches.

-Speaker points, in my opinion, are less about your speaking performance and more about your ability to present and explain compelling arguments, interact with the opposition, and provide meaningful analysis as to why you are necessarily more important. Content above style

-On a more personal note, I want the rounds that I judge to be educational and allow debaters to articulate arguments about real world issues, all of which deserve respect regardless of your own personal opinions. I have seen my partners and teammates experience sexism, racism, and other types of discrimination, and I have absolutely zero tolerance for it when I am judging.

-If you have any other questions about my paradigm, please feel free to ask me. I also will give feedback after rounds, you just have to find me and ask.

LD

- All of the above applies here as well. There are a few extra points that may be helpful.

- I will always evaluate framing first, so long as there are competing positions. If values are the same, just collapse and move on. These can be either traditional or more progressive/kritical frameworks.

- For the NR/2AR, don't go for everything- there simply is not enough time and debates are not lost by making strategic decisions to go for one or two arguments instead of extending the entire case.

- I dont need voter issues- just go top down the AC and NC and win your offense/extend defense.

- Impact calc is necessary- PLEASE weigh your impacts. I default to a net benefits impact calc, unless given a competing way to view the round.

***ALL cards read during ANY speech need to be sent in the email chain PRIOR to the speech. If you are not comfortable adapting to this standard, please strike me

North Broward '20 Wake Forest '24

Quartered @ TOC and have minimal college policy experience

Head Public Forum Coach @ Quarry Lane

Email: katzto20@wfu.edu

tech>truth

I would prefer both teams talk about the topic. I have given up on judging bad PF theory / K debates.

debate is a game and the team that plays the best will win.

DO NOT SPEAK FAST, AND DO NOT SPREAD

I am a lay judge, so try to explain everything well, and clearly. You can time your own speeches, but I will also time; you must stop as soon as the timer goes off, not one second later.

Don't be disrespectful.

Did PF for 4 years from 2016-2020. I've been removed from the debate circuit for 2-3 years at this point, so please treat me as lay :)

General Requests:

• Please go slow for me; conversational speed is good.
• Please explain your arguments to me. I'm not well-versed in the topic so would love to hear how your argument relates to the topic and explain all the parts that make your argument relevant.

Flow Elements:

• I'm mostly lay, but I will frown if new in ff or something egregious happens. Don't abuse the lay privilege, just have a good conversation.
• Weigh explicitly, please. If not, I'll just choose as I please.
• I don't know progressive argumentation :) My policy on progressive is I will drop you and give you high speaks.

Final Thoughts:

• Let me know if you have any questions. I probably forgot a lot of stuff in my paradigm.
• Assume I know nothing about the topic
• Have fun: if you bring me food I'll give you +2 speaks :) (in person)

Hi, my name is Vaidya Kolar. I am a lay judge. Please speak at a moderate pace and absolutely no spreading.

I will always try to flow, but it is difficult for me to not miss everything you say. Thus, I require a full speech doc for constructive sent to me by email because I cannot always follow the constructive speech properly. Any additional cards called between teams must also be sent through an email chain with me in it. Also, if you have a rebuttal speech doc as well send that to me too via email. My email is vaidya.kolar@gmail.com.

I won't flow crossfire unless you bring it up in another speech.

email: rakoort99@gmail.com.

former debater at UH, now judge/coach there.

You do you. I have few predispositions about how the round ought be. I have no real preference between policy and K arguments, but I am significantly more experienced with the policy side of things. I won't be as familiar as you with your specific lit base.

Judge instruction is important and I take it seriously. It is better for you as debaters and me as the judge when you explain a clear path to the ballot rather than having me do unguided forensic analysis on the flow.

I love case debate. I think it is underutilized. The 2ac is often allowed to get away with far too much. I am not unwilling to zero solvency when affs are missing key pieces. I take evidence quality seriously when it is made an issue in round.

Almost certainly won't vote on condo or new affs bad, won't default to judge kick but can be swayed.

Be kind, have fun.

About me:

I have been coaching and judging PF for eleven years. I judge on local circuit tournaments and have also judged many national circuit tournaments, including the TOC. I am familiar with the topic, but that does not mean that you should not explain your arguments. As a coach I am very aware of all the nuances of Public Forum debate.

Put me on the email chain: nkroepel@district100.com and belviderenorthpf@gmail.com

Round specifics:

Tech>truth (I always try to be tabula rasa and not interject my knowledge into your round). I will vote on just about anything besides abusive, offensive arguments. I will take arguments as true, unless otherwise argued by your opponent for the scope of the round.

I can flow speed, but I prefer not to. I do not want you to use it as a way to exclude your opponents. In the end, Debate is about intelligible conversation, if you are going too fast, and don't do it well, it can get in the way of clarity of expression, which upsets me.

I do not flow cross-fire, but I do pay attention to it. However, if you make an excellent point in cross-fire, you will have to bring that information up in a subsequent speech. Also, DO NOT be rude, I will reduce your speaker points for it. It is inappropriate for teams to make their opponent's feel inferior or humiliate them in the round.

If you are speaking second, please address your opponent's responses to your case, especially turns. It does not have to be an even split, but make sure it is something that you do. Defense is not sticky, you need to extend it.

I expect that summary and final focus are cohesive to each other. First summary needs extend defense. Second summary needs to address responses on your case, especially in areas you are going to collapse on, and it should also respond to turns. I do expect that you collapse and not go for everything on the flow in summary. I WILL NOT vote on an issue if it is not brought up in summary. Please weigh in your final two speeches and clash your arguments to those provided by your opponent.

As I expect the summary and final focus to be consistent, that also means that the story/narrative coming from your partnership also be consistent. I may not give you a loss because of it, but it is harder to establish ethos. Defend a consistent worldview using your warrants and impacts.

Make it easy for me to fill out my ballot. Tell me where I should be voting and why. Be sure to be clear and sign-post throughout.

Extensions need to be clean and not just done through ink. In order for you to cleanly extend, you need to respond to responses, and develop your warrant(s). You cannot win an impact without warranting. In rebuttal, please make sure you are explaining implications of responses, not just card dumping. Explain how those responses interact with your opponents' case and what their place in the round means. DO NOT just extend card names in subsequent speeches.

The flow rules in my round for the most part, unless the weighing is non-existent. I will not call for evidence unless it is a huge deal, because I view it as interventionist.

DO NOT make blippy arguments-warranting matters!

DO NOT make the round a card battle, PLEASE. Explain the cards, explain why they outweigh. A card battle with no explanation or weighing gets you nowhere except to show me why I shouldn't vote on it.

And finally progressive debate-I'd strongly prefer you do not read atopical arguments. I think most kritikal positions are exceptionally unpersuasive on a truth level, but this should not explicitly influence how I evaluate them, except to say that I'm probably more willing than most to evaluate intelligent analytical defense to Ks even if your opponents have "cards" to make their claims. I am still learning when it comes to judging/evaluating theory. I need a slower debate with clear warranting-neither K or T are a big part of my judging experience either. You CAN run it in front of me but combining it with speed makes me even more confused. I can't promise that I will always make the right decision.

NOTE FOR BERKELEY: IF YOU MEOW AT MY CAT AND SHE MEOWS BACK YOU GET A 30. IDK IF SHE WILL SHE DOES LIKE HALF THE TIME. UP TO YOU IF YOU WANNA TAKE THAT RISK

hey! i'm nate. put me on the email chain. natenyg@gmail.com facebook.com/nate.nyg

he/him! will boost speaks +.1 for debaters who ask before round :)

i did ld at hunter and qualled to the toc my senior year. I was a 2n at wake forest for 2 years where my partner and i reached quarters of ceda. i did pf my freshman year, so i'm familiar, but don't assume i know every single thing about the activity and its conventions.

i'm willing to vote on anything and am purely tab with the caveat of intervening against oppressive argumentation. if you're reading theory or k's in pf, i'd vote on it, but please make an effort to make your arguments accessible to your opponents -- pf has not entirely adapted to new norms and if you don't try to adapt your arguments to pf and instead just assume your opponents will know your exact format and everything i'll be annoyed and speaks will suffer. bad theory and k debates are lame, frivolous theory in pf is probably the stupidest thing i can think of lol

oh also i'm judging policy now lol -- what i said above is still true -- was a 2n at wake, haven't debated in like a year, my partner and i quartered ceda reading black feminist lit on the aff and cap on the neg, that's a pretty good indicator i think of the types of arguments i enjoy voting on and judging the most. i'll judge a policy round if you want to have it obviously, i also have been coaching pf 2 years now so my ears are at least a little more attuned to util impacts than previously. in the same way that critical teams are expected to justify why they are moving away from the topic, i believe policy teams should be justifying why they are choosing to debate the topic in clash rounds -- this doesn't mean i'll hack for Ks -- it just means that the same standards apply because i view topicality/its reading as a speech act and i'm not sure why the fact that a speech act is also a procedural would mean i should disregard its implications or its context. that being said, my sophomore year my partner and I won R1 at the season opener reading disclosure, i'm willing to vote on whatever. if you're racist or talk down to women or misgender your opponent or do some other messed up stuff without both making good faith attempts to repair the potential for a safe debate and apologizing without reservation for said messed up act you will get an L20. one time my partner and i debated this guy who would only respectfully talk to me and refused to listen to her whatsoever, talking over her constantly. when we called him on it he said it was because of his adhd and then kept doing it (as a psych major i have never heard of adhd that only appears when you're talking to women!). please use that as an example of what NOT to do.

in the same way i try to hold policy teams to higher standards -- if you're reading a k -- i'm not just gonna hack. justify why the aff is necessary in debate, this round particularly, what my ballot does, make and justify spill up claims, have an awesome theory of power, make material arguments (the best thing i ever learned as a debater is how to read cap links that are 100% disads to the aff -- do that)

good luck have a great round hope it's fun feel free to ask me any questions i am happy to answer them

if you're curious -- my thoughts on debate right now are most influenced by asya taylor, darius white, jacob smith, and the wake coaches who read Ks when they debated (jgreen also)

for k teams -- i am in big support of high schoolers reading k's, i think it's super educational and definitely made me a lot of who i am now (ew. hate typing out that debate made me part of who i am, kinda gross), in support of that practice please feel free to after rounds ask me any random questions you have about lit or strategy, even if it's not related to the round you just had -- i'll do my best to give you some help! it's my understanding these tournaments are designed in part to increase debate access/let teams that might not otherwise get to too many nat circuit tournaments attend -- i coach a lot and have worked at ld camps the past few summers, i also understand wake has a very genius/expensive coaching staff and would be happy to redistribute some of what i've learned from debating here down because truthfully the coaches here are incredible and it should not just be a few debaters at random colleges getting their knowledge!!

Crawford Leavoy, Director of Speech & Debate at Durham Academy - Durham, NC

Email Chain: cleavoy@me.com

BACKGROUND
I am a former LD debater from Vestavia Hills HS. I coached LD all through college and have been coaching since graduation. I have coached programs at New Orleans Jesuit (LA) and Christ Episcopal School (LA). I am currently teaching and coaching at Durham Academy in Durham, NC. I have been judging since I graduated high school (2003).

CLIFF NOTES

- Speed is relatively fine. I'll say clear, and look at you like I'm very lost. Send me a doc, and I'll feel better about all of this.

- Run whatever you want, but the burden is on you to explain how the argument works in the round. You still have to weigh and have a ballot story. Arguments for the sake of arguments without implications don't exist.

- Theory - proceed with caution; I have a high threshold, and gut-check a lot

- Spikes that try to become 2N or 2A extensions for triggering the ballot is a poor strategy in front of me

- I don't care where you sit, or if you sit or stand; I do care that you are respectful to me and your opponent.

- If you cannot explain it in a 45 minute round, how am I supposed to understand it enough to vote on it.

- My tolerance for just reading prep in a round that you didn't write, and you don't know how it works is really low. I get cranky easily and if it isn't shown with my ballot, it will be shown with my speaker points.

SOME THOUGHTS ON PF

- The world of warranting in PF is pretty horrific. You must read warrants. There should be tags. I should be able to flow them. They must be part of extensions. If there are no warrants, they aren't tagged or they aren't extended - then that isn't an argument anymore. It's a floating claim.

- You can paraphrase. You can read cards. If there is a concern about paraphrasing, then there is an entire evidence procedure that you can use to resolve it. But arguments that "paraphrasing is bad" seems a bit of a perf con when most of what you are reading in cut cards is...paraphrasing.

- Notes on disclosure: Sure. Disclosure can be good. It can also be bad. However, telling someone else that they should disclose means that your disclosure practices should bevery good. There is definitely a world where I am open to counter arguments about the cases you've deleted from the wiki, your terrible round reports, and your disclosure of first and last only.

- Everyone should be participating in round. Nothing makes me more concerned than the partner that just sits there and converts oxygen to carbon dioxide during prep and grand cross. You can avert that moment of mental crisis for me by being participatory.

- Tech or Truth? This is a false dichotomy. You can still be a technical debater, but lose because you are running arguments that are in no way true. You can still be reading true arguments that aren't executed well on the flow and still win. It's a question of implication and narrative. Is an argument not true? Tell me that. Want to overwhelm the flow? Signpost and actually do the work to link responses to arguments.

- Speaks? I'm a fundamental believer that this activity is about education, translatable skills, and public speaking. I'm fine with you doing what you do best and being you. However, I don't do well at tolerating attitude, disrespect, grandiosity, "swag," intimidation, general ridiculousness, games, etc. A thing I would tell my own debaters before walking into the room if I were judging them is: "Go. Do your job. Be nice about it. Win convincingly. " That's all you have to do.

OTHER THINGS

- I'll give comments after every round, and if the tournament allows it, I'll disclose the decision. I don't disclose points.

- My expectation is that you keep your items out prior to the critique, and you take notes. Debaters who pack up, and refuse to use critiques as a learning experience of something they can grow from risk their speaker points. I'm happy to change points after a round based on a students willingness to listen, or unwillingness to take constructive feedback.

- Sure. Let's post round. Couple of things to remember 1) the decision is made, and 2) it won't/can't/shan't change. This activity is dead the moment we allow the 3AR/3NR or the Final Final Focus to occur. Let's talk. Let's understand. Let's educate. But let's not try to have a throwdown after round where we think a result is going to change.

I am a parent judge with limited experience, so apologies in advance. Outside of debate, I work as a law professor and am fairly familiar with following complex arguments, weighing evidence, and assessing logical soundness.

my email: klil.loeb@gmail.com

I did debate all four years of high school for Lexington. I debated LD for 3 years and PF for 1, so I'm pretty familiar with any type of argument. That being said, I do have some preferences that'll be helpful for me and you in terms of evaluating a round.

SCROLL DOWN FOR LD PARADIGM

PF Paradigm:

- Weigh. Clash is SO important and is too often avoided. All your arguments should be connected and should flow in a way that I can directly compare one to another. If both teams are talking about separate topics that don't interact, that's a pretty unsuccessful round, and I won't know where to vote.

- Extend. If something is dropped in any speech, I won't evaluate it, even if it's brought up again later. Make sure anything you want to factor into the decision is mentioned in every speech, and is especially emphasized in final focus. If its not brought all the way into your last speech, I'll consider it conceded, and won't vote on it.

- Sign post. If I don't know what you're talking about, I won't factor it into my decision.

- Be polite to your opponents. If you're rude, definitely expect me to lower speaks. It doesn't help you in any way to ruin what should otherwise be a good round with a bad attitude. Have fun and be nice and you'll have no problems.

- Most importantly - and what I'll be paying most attention to - use your last two speeches (especially final focus) to CLEARLY tell me why you should win the round over your opponent. The clearer you are, the easier it will be for me to make my decision, and the happier you'll be with the outcome. I vote off both offense and defense so make sure to maximize your voters.

Some little things:

- I'm fine w speed

- Time your own speeches and prep

- I don't flow/vote off cross. Anything you want me to remember should be brought up during speeches

- I love unconventional arguments

- DON'T have a loud conversation while I'm filling out my ballot omg i cannot express how much this irritates me

- Also feel free to make the round fun in any way - whatever that means to you, I love when people make me laugh (when its appropriate)

The debate is about you so have fun! I'm chill with anything as long as you do everything listed above:)

Feel free to ask any other questions before the round!

.

LD Paradigm:

I’d prefer if you didn’t read Israel-Palestine specific colonialism / genocide in front of me.

- do what you want for the most part i don't care if you just tell me why i should vote for you

- Tech > Truth

- I love plans/counterplans/disads etc.

- I like K's. I ran K's.

- I'm not super into phil but I'll vote on it if it's explained well. Make sure you actually understand what you're saying otherwise how am I supposed to figure it out from you.

- I like theory

- WEIGH AND WARRANT. If there's no clash, I won't know where to vote. The easier your arguments are to understand, the easier it is for me to vote

- FOR ONLINE DEBATES: slow down! It's almost impossible to understand when either my or your computer's slow. I'm fine with speed otherwise though if you're CLEAR!! If i can't understand you though, I'll dock your speaks.

Good luck:)

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

My email: wesleyloofbourrow@gmail.com

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

Updated Paradigm for NDCA & TOC

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

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

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

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

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

Here is what I previously provided as my paradigm:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Worlds @ Coppell:

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

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

Wesley's Worlds Paradigm:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is a retired account as I no longer coach or compete in competitive high school debate. However, here is a video of me doing the activity I loved way back in 2019:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNKKYA5KiO4

Here is my old paradigm:

Debate is a game, play to win.

-General-

Started circuit-level pf my junior year, was a speech kiddo before that. Qualified to Gold TOC both years and auto-qualified for the second, qualified to NSDA junior year and auto-qualified for senior year.

I'll vote on anything. Tech > truth, tabula rasa.

Postround as hard as you want. (Post-round means ask questions about my decision)

Cool with anyone speaking in any cross-examination, I don't see a reason why every cross shouldn't just have everyone involved.

If you're going over 300 wpm(words per minute), send a speech doc and slow down on analytics not in the doc.

If the tourney is online, send the speech doc anyways in case something cuts out

If you think there is something missing from my paradigm, ask me before round or make an argument in round for why I should follow a certain rule when judging.

-Substance-

Dump all you got, but at least be responsive.

First summary doesn't need to extend dropped defense.

Weigh. "Probability" is not weighing. If an argument is won, the probability is high. You can do strength of link weighing, but ultimately anything that you say is "probability weighing" is probably just impact defense that needs to come in rebuttal.

-Progressive-

Go for it, I encourage it.

Know the difference between theory and a K, and structure your theory shells.

Go as may off as you want against willing teams.

Hello! My fondest memories of high school are from high school debate (PF and Congress) tournaments! I also have memories of terrible judges - I will do my best to not fall into the latter category for you.

- The faster you talk does not = the better your argument.

- It doesn't absolutely have to have been in summary for it to be in final focus, but it really should be.

- Don't card dump in rebuttal. Don't read a new contention disguised as a response. If your opponents do this call them out for it and I'll drop the argument.

- Don't ask for more evidence than you need and use this as more prep time.

- You do not need to give an off time road map, in fact, perhaps do not.

- Winning in cross does not = the more speaking time you have. Ask and answer quickly, concisely and politely.

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

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

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

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

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

Pronouns: She/her/hers

Pre-req: I will not vote on any case arguments addressing sexual violence, rape, or suicide/suicidal ideations that were not preceded by a pre-round trigger warning. If, upon hearing this trigger warning, the opponent requests the argument not be made and that request is denied, I'll be very receptive to theory arguments about why I ought to vote against you based on the introduction of that issue.

I believe that problematic arguments are problematic whether the opposing team points them out or not. I believe that this is not a space where any argument can be made. Problematic arguments at minimum impact the people in the round and can impact discourse outside of the round. I want the opposing team to point out problematic arguments and abuse. However, arguments that promote sexism, racism, or other forms of hate will not be persuasive for me and are likely to result in a down ballot.

Style: I am one of those judges who responds very negatively to rudeness, disrespect, and offensive language

Speed: I don't like speed. Learning how to talk fast has no post-debate benefit, so I do not support it as a strategy in an educational debate round. I can follow fast talking, but if you are spreading, then I will put down my pen and stop flowing. If I stop flowing, it probably means I am confused; either because you are going too fast, or I don't understand what you are saying.

Style: I need to have a weighing mechanism in PF debate. I need to know how to decide who won the round, otherwise I will get very frustrated. I do not want to decide using my own metrics, I want YOU to tell me how to judge the round. I will be using this weighing mechanism as I look at my flow to decide who won the round.

I tend to be a flow a judge. By that I mean that I flow and will be following the flow to see who has the strongest arguments at the end of the round.

Evidence This is also very important to me. By that I mean that I need evidence that is clearly cited and explained. Actually READ me your evidence, don't just give me your summary of the evidence. Analytical arguments are great, and I will vote there, but when disagreement is happening about what may or may not be true about the topic, I would like to hear evidence. This should also connect back to your weighing mechanism.

I also like to hear evidence in the rebuttal. If you are responding with an analytical argument to an argument that has evidence, I need you to do the work of explaining to me why your analytical argument is sufficient to off-set the argument with evidence. You can do this by telling me that sense the argument doesn't make sense/has a fallacy, then it doesn't stand even with evidence. Or you can make an analytical argument about the evidence itself. Otherwise, I am likely going to still prefer the argument with evidence.

Please call for evidence in a timely manner. Please use an email chain or the evidence sharing that Tabroom provides. I want to be included on the email chain.

If there is conflict about evidence, I need you to do the work of telling me why I prefer your evidence over your opponent's evidence. Just telling me, "It post dates," is not sufficient. What has changed since that date? Why is your source more reliable? Otherwise, I will just get frustrated.

If your opponent asks for evidence, per the NSDA rules, you need to provide them with the cut card and the full article in a way that allows everyone to see and read the evidence. I expect to be included in any email chain, so I can also see the card that was called for. I also expect this exchange of evidence to happen promptly (less than 30 seconds) when asked.

If there are questions about the validity of the evidence or the way evidence is being used, you are likely to lose my ballot.

On a related note, I do not believe that everything needs to be quantified. Just because numbers cannot or are not put to an impact, does not mean that it cannot be weighed. This is ESPECIALLY true when it comes to impacts to human beings. I do not find the argument, "we don't know how many people will be impacted," persuasive.

Prep Time: I expect competitors to keep track of their own time. I will also be keeping track of prep time. This will be official time used. If you use all of your prep time before the end of the round, I expect you to start speaking promptly. That means you should take no more than 10 seconds to begin your next speech.

Background: I am a math teacher, so if you are going to throw around math terms and mathematics, you need to be certain that you know what you are talking about and are correct. As an example, there is a difference between exponential, linear, and geometric growth, so make sure you say the right one.

I have debated PF 4 years in high school, 4 years of college PF, 4 years of NPDA/parli in college.

I am not a LD debater, so I have minimal understanding of the theory and technical arguments that exist within LD. You can absolutely still make those arguments, but you need to make sure that you are explaining those terms, otherwise I will be lost and frustrated.

I am happy to give you feedback after the round, if you find me. :)

I am a lay judge with a kid in debate. I do flow, but at a conversational speed (no cases over 750 words preferably and definitely no spreading). Overall, the faster you go, the less content I'll be able to understand.

For crossfire, please be civil. Let someone talk, but once you've been talking for 30 seconds straight on a question, I think you should try to let the other person talk.

I prefer easily understandable cases, calm rebuttals, and pay attention to crossfire. I won't evaluate new arguments made in the final focus unless the first final focus responds to a new argument in the second summary.

Hi, I did Public Forum debate for four years at Lake Mary Prep in Orlando, Florida.

Some things I like:

Warrants and lines of logic over evidence that is unwarranted

Weighing, the earlier the better

Front-lining in Second Rebuttal. You don't have to do this but I think it is a good idea

Narratives

Collapsing ***** 3 min summary does not mean go for more, just COLLAPSE BETTER *****

My coach always used to say "50% fewer arguments and 100% more analysis"

Some things I don't like:

Miscut Evidence. I am fine with paraphrasing but please make sure its an accurate representation of the evidence (I reserve the right to drop you if it is seriously misrepresented)

Blippy Arguments that are not weighed, warranted, or implicated

Spreading

Theory / Ks unless there is a serious issue or abuse in the topic or the round. I am also really bad at understanding these, so you should probably strike me if this is your thing.

Any bigoted argument I will immediately drop you no questions asked.

To Summarize, In the poetic words of Ozan Ergrunor:

weigh

i begged you

but

you didn’t

and you

lost

Public Forum:

I am a former policy debater and have a year of experience judging public forum. I stick to the flow and will not evaluate new arguments in the final focus that I cannot trace back to earlier speeches. Do your thing and I will evaluate the debate accordingly. Feel free to ask questions

If you think it matters, my poliicy paradigm is below

7/31/2017

email - marguliesmorgan@gmail.com

tl;dr - Two important things:

1. Tech over truth

2. An argument is a claim+warrant+impact, do your thing and I'll evaluate the debate accordingly

Who?

I debated for four years at Nevada Union High School in California and qualified to the TOC with two bids my senior year. I liked to think that I was fairly flexible but I went for the kritik pretty often. With that being said, I will vote on any argument, as long as you do the better debating.

Args

T – I will default to competing interpretations unless I am told otherwise. The violation must be clearly explained , if it is not very clear by the end of the debate I will default aff. The most important part of the standards debate is the impact (duh). Limits and ground are NOT impacts, you must tell me why they are important.

Kritiks – This is the argument I read the most often. You do you. You must explain the link in the context of the aff and I really don’t like links of omissions. Make sure the alternative solves the impacts of the kritik. Don’t assume that anyone in the round knows what you are talking about until you have explained your arguments.

Disads – Okay lets be real, the disads are garbage on this topic, but!! if you do it well, you will win the debate. I think evidence comparison and evidence quality is very important in these debates so make sure your ev says what you are saying it says(?). The 2nr/2ar must do impact calculus please please.

Counterplans – I go for the states counter plan a lot and I think it is one of the most over powered arguments in debate. Write your cp text smart so you don't link to solvency deficits and cheat as much as you can. Make sure there is an explanation of how the net benefit works / how it spikes out of the disad and you will be all good. (Also 2NC counterplans are always justified and you should make as many as you can to solve 2ac offense sorry not sorry)

Theory – You gotta do what you gotta do, make sure you impact out the standards. I will evaluate the debate neutrally but with that being said: "No neg fiat" is the worst argument in debate and I think the neg gets as many conditional advocacies as they want.

K affs – Non-traditional affirmatives I think can be very creative and educational. Be passionate and if you understand what you are talking about, you should be good. Make sure you have warrants for your structural claims and do your thaang. These affs should be at least tangentially related to the topic.

Framework - K affs are really cool and all but so is framework. I go for framework in a more limits/skills/procedural fairness way go for whatever. This position when combined with nuanced case arguments is definitely the move. Defend the house.

Be kind, respect your opponent, and have fun!

If you have any questions you can ask me before the round or email me!

I debated 4 years of PF at Newton South High School and im in college now.

Make sure to have your cut cards readily available. Don't paraphrase evidence please because you can make anything sound like anything.

I judge by the flow. I usually prefer arguments with stronger links but weaker impacts than arguments with weaker links but stronger impacts.

I can handle spreading but its pretty annoying. If you have to do it, Id like you to send a speech doc to: maxmarrinan227@gmail.com

Im going to disclose the decision at the end of the round

Nothing will lose my favor or interest faster than a debate on the rules of debate. I appreciate well-researched cases and strong link chains, but I find spreading to be borderline intolerable. I want to see unfavorable points negated with elegant use of evidence and logic. Attempting to dominate a round with jargon and technicalities overshadows the sharing of ideas and the ability to learn from one another, which in my opinion, flies directly in the face of and casts a shadow on this art form. That being said, don’t be afraid to bring attention to outright abusive argumentation - just be prepared to back up what you’re saying in a way that is just and truthful. I like your personalities to shine through and for your communication styles to have an individual essence. Please don’t make me have to judge rounds based on who is the fastest or trickiest robot. It truly breaks my heart.

Manage your own time so that I can pay attention to what you’re saying. You may a timer that I’ll be able to hear (or not), but if it goes off, complete your thought as quickly and neatly as possible without just dropping it. Any new points introduced after time will count against you. I’m a fidgety sitter and prefer to flow by hand so I’ll usually turn off my camera while people are speaking, so as not to cause a distraction as I flip pages and scribble away. Please let me know if you’d prefer I didn’t do so. Also, no off time roadmaps - you should be writing/speaking well enough to inform me throughout your speech of where you are and the points you're making!

I am a former HS debater (2002-2006, Morristown West in Tennessee), and I had the most success in Public Forum - although I also enjoyed Congress & LD (I don't think Parli was available on a HS level yet or I probably would have tried it, too). I didn’t get really serious about PFD until about halfway through my high school speech career, and by my senior year, it was my main event. That year, my partner and I won both our NSDA (formerly NFL) National Qualifying tournament, and our state’s local organization’s championship. These accomplishments remain the highlights of my time in high school - not just because of the affirmation and recognition of my effort, but because of all the time spent and memories made with my teammates and closest friends along the way. I had tremendous passion for and gratitude toward Forensics, and I tried to embed that into my approach. I always prided myself on my relaxed, easy going, evidence and logic based, and respectful but fun speaking style. Remember that most of your judges are not former debaters and that you have an enormous opportunity to educate adults and maybe even change their minds about some things when you communicate effectively and in an accessible manner - consider the Ancient Greek foundational communication philosophies of logos, ethos, and pathos.

My favorite thing about judging is getting a glimpse at the future leaders of our nation’s government and workplaces, and you all give me a tremendous amount of hope. Thank you for your participation and congratulations to all of you, always, for your hard work and boldness in showing up for yourselves and your teammates today!

I am the president of the Williams College Debating Union. This is my 9th year of competitive debate. (3 years APDA, 4 years PF, 3 years Worlds) I was a captain at the Trinity school in NYC and attended TOC twice.

I can handle speed, but for the sake of everyone's sanity, CLEARER is better than faster.

I am not tech over truth, but I can only evaluate what is brought up in round. So, while I am more likely to vote for what is true, you must convince me what the truth is or tech can absolutely win.

Don't misquote your cards. I won't call for them unless there is extreme disagreement over their content (which I would prefer not to happen), but I will if necessary.

Comparative weighing please. I will only vote off of what has been comparatively weighed, preferably earlier than FF.

Extend both evidence AND warrants for your contentions. Preference for warrants is cut for time. Not just the tagline. Same goes for responses.

Defense is sticky.

Please be friendly to each other, and if not friendly then at least civil. I will be very hesitant to vote for you if you are obnoxious. Debate is supposed to be fun and that is difficult when people aren't nice to one another. If not, I will drop your speaks.

If you make a hand motion at any point during the round that I have never seen before, I will increase your speaks by 1 point. (This only works once per round; I will not infinitely increase your speaks if you spend all of cross doing the macarena).

No theory.

Yay debate!

Please ask specific questions should you have them. Prefer substantive debates. And, fully support teams who take the initiative to stop rounds when concerned re: evidence ethics (the instructions are fully detailed in the NSDA High School Event Manual, pp. 30-33). On Theory and other such arguments in Public Forum Debate:

https://www.vbriefly.com/2021/04/15/equity-in-public-forum-debate-a-critique-of-theory/

hi (:

remi (she/ her) I'm a sophomore at gw studying IA and environmental studies. I did pf in hs but consider me flay

also tell me your pronouns and names before the round starts!

EXTEND your warrants and impacts (quantified preferably) plz -- if you want it voted on, it has to be said in summary AND final focus

basic jargon is fine (DL, turn, extend, time frame) but don't go crazy

I don't write down card names, stats or warrants yes but not names sources or years so if you mention a card name and don't explain it ill be confused

I don't evaluate cross fire, if something happens, tell me in a speech

time yourselves

read content warnings

if you wanna wear sweats or a hoodie that's fine, come in a hat for all I care!

I dont know how to evaluate theory and K's but if you wanna try you can lol

dont be rude and have fun!

I am a former high school policy debater, and a practicing lawyer. I judge public forum debate periodically as a parent. I can handle some speed, but prefer to hear debaters respectfully clash with the opposing team's arguments and explain why their arguments are more persuasive.

cale@victorybriefs.com or SpeechDrop work

hi! i'm Cale. i've been coaching and judging pf & ld for 8 years. i debated in Texas before that.

general:

- read whatever you like: judging debaters who enjoy what they read is fun. however, keep in mind the coherence of my rfd will scale with your clarity- slow for analytics and tags, send well-organized docs, signpost, and number answers when you can. you'll be much happier with my decision.

- speaks reflect how strategic i found your debating to be. i'll evaluate any style, but admittedly prefer quick, clear debaters that read interesting arguments. (no 30 speaks spike or tko, please)

- i will not 'gut check' or strike an argument just because you've deemed it unwarranted or silly. instead, i encourage you to make an active response- it should be quick to do so if the argument is as underdeveloped as you say.

- extend your arguments. it doesn't have to be exhaustive, but something more than the tag is necessary, even if you think it's conceded.

- keep the round a safe and pleasant place for everyone. i will work hard to give you a thorough decision so long as we can all access the debate and speak about it afterwards without hostility.

- i am not going to use my ballot to make an out-of-round character judgement. if you are concerned your opponent is engaging in genuinely unsafe or violent behavior, a debate decision is not the appropriate means of redress- i will bring it to tab or the relevant party.

ld:

overall- i am best for policy debates, good for theory, worse for phil, and alright for Ks and tricks with some caveats (see below). ultimately, i'd like to judge your preferred strategy, but you will need to be more clear if it's something i'm typically not preffed into the back of. i am only human.

policy- i'll judge kick the counterplan. i lean neg on cp theory claims, and wish the aff would engage in a competition debate rather than read a blippy theory argument, particularly when the 1n is only like 3 off. i am good for your process/consult/intl fiat/etc cp, and, again, wish 1ars would just engage- if you are convinced there is not a discernable net benefit, the argument should be easier to answer. 3 word perms aren't arguments- explain the world of the perm. zero risk exists, and while it is difficult to achieve, it is entirely possible to make an argument's implication so marginal that its functional weight in the round is zero. i really appreciate well-executed impact turn debates, some of my favorite rounds to judge.

theory- no defaults, read w/e you want. always send interps and slow for anything you extemp. far too often in these debates there's no weighing or line by line done on paradigm issues: the 1n reads their theory hedge and vaguely crossapplies it to the 1ac underview, and then all of these arguments just float around in the 1ar and 2n without resolution- please lbl to make judging this tolerable. when going for T, keep in mind i do not actively cut LD prep or mine the wiki, so i don't have a reference point for your caselist or prep-based limits standard- add some explanation.

K- i frequently judge cap arguments, and often judge setcol. external to that, i'm much less experienced- happy to judge it, but i need instruction. please lbl clearly: i find myself most lost in k 2n/2ars when the overview is jargon-heavy and crossapplied everywhere. it is probably useful to know i can count on one hand the number of K v K debates i've been in the back of.

tricks- i often judge truth testing and skep and their associated tricks, but i don't have a deep enough understanding of the argument form to say i'm 10/10 comfortable if you read a nailbomb aff or a bunch of indexicals. in general, delineate in the doc and cross, be super clear abt the collapse strat, and i can vote for these.

phil- i have next to no experience with phil argumentation save for Kant tricks and some pomo (mostly just Baudrillard). need you to slow down and give me extra judge instruction if you're reading anything dense, but happy to learn.

pf:

extend defense the speech after it's answered and be comparative when you're weighing or going for a fw argument. otherwise, read what you think is fun- this includes theory, critical arguments, and other forms less common to PF. two things to add here: 1. don't read an argument just for the sake of it, read it well and 2. i am not amenable to the PF-style 'this argument form is holistically bad' response if we are in the varsity division- engage with substantive responses.

come to round ready to debate (pre-flowed, have docs ready if you're sending them, etc). the only way to frustrate me beyond being rude is to drag out the round by individually calling for a lot of evidence and taking forever to send it.

many PFers spend copious amounts of time impact weighing with multiple mechanisms. more often than not, you are better served reading one simple piece of weighing and investing that time elsewhere- either in more clearly frontlining and extending your case argument, or better implicating a piece of defense or turn on your opponents' case.

Hello! I did PF for four years on the local Minnesota and national circuit. I'm not a coach, so I am not familiar with topic-specific terminology.

My email is mckin513@umn.edu. Feel free to reach out if there's anything I can do to make the round better for you or if you have questions. Also, please add me to your email chains :)

tldr: I am a traditional flow judge. I highly value accessibility and expect all debaters to make sure their opponents are not excluded from the debate.

General

- Philosophy: Debate is an art. Judge adaptation is a skill, but judges should also allow students room for self-expression and adapt to differing styles. All styles of debate are equally valid.

- Be nice and respectful! Please refrain from laughing at your opponents, yelling in cross, and slamming tables. You and your opponents are people first and debaters second.

- If your case contains triggering material: read a content warning and have an alternate case ready. Failure to do so will cap your speaks at 27. I realize this is harsh, but accessibility and safety are essential. If I feel you are making the round unsafe for your opponents, I will end the round and award your opponents the win.

- Please don't be offensive. If you do, I will vote you down, give you low speaks, and contact your coach.

- Warrants are everything! Please don't forget to explain the why of your arguments (especially in the second half of the round!!)

Speed

- I'm really not a fan of spreading because I find it exclusionary. I won't outright vote you down if you spread but I will be sympathetic if your opponents can't get to everything.

- With that being said, I do not have a problem with speed. I actually prefer faster-paced debates so as long as you don't have to send a speech doc, we're good.

- If your opponents are going too fast, loudly say "clear." If your opponents say clear, slow down!

Evidence Ethics

- I'm also not a fan of paraphrasing. I won't drop you because of it, but again, I'll be more sympathetic to your opponents if they can't address every card you read.

- I rarely call for evidence so its on you to check your opponent's ethics.

- If your evidence is called and you're paraphrasing, you need to present a cut card and the paraphrased snippet you read.

- If I find out you're misrepresenting evidence I'll more than likely vote you down on that alone.

Lincoln-Douglas

- Please make sure to signpost!

- Extend the warrants (cause/why the impact happens) along with your impacts

- Numbering your responses will boost your speaks

- Weigh! Specifically, you should explain why the framework means we have to prefer your case and why we shouldn't prefer your opponent's

Progressive Debate

- I am generally of the opinion that progressive arguments are good for debate when they make sense and serve a purpose. I'll give an example. If you're running a K to increase awareness about LGBTQ+ issues, great! If you're running a counterplan to confuse your opponents, not so great. Basically, care about the issues you're debating and don't exclude people.

- I don't know the specific terms/language associated with progressive debate.

- If your opponents are running progressive arguments and you're not familiar with progressive debate, don't worry! Just try to respond to it the same way you would any other argument: use your logic and don't worry about using the right terms. I'll be sympathetic if you're in this position.

- If your opponents are abusive in round and you don't know how to respond with a shell/other form of progressive argumentation, please still call the abuse out however you like (just no easter eggs). I'll still vote on it!

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

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

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

Main PF Paradigm:

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

"Progressive" PF:

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

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

Questions? Ask before the round.

I am a parent judge and have been actively judging since 2019 in multiple national tournaments. I have completed the NSDA judge training and Cultural Competency course. As a global business professional, I travel extensively and am fairly familiar with most topics debated in NSDA PF.

Speak at a reasonable pace – clarity is your responsibility. If you make an argument, you should explain and weigh the argument. Warranting is important. Clearly signpost throughout the round. Extending an impact, without explaining its warrant won’t win you the impact. Paraphrasing is fine – but needs to be accurate. Explain clear voting issues in the final focus. I like to hear why you should win.

Cards: Exchange of cards is mandatory when requested. If you cannot produce a card in 2 minutes, I will ignore it.

Timing: Time yourself (rounds and prep)

Audience: This is public forum – public (especially parents) are welcome.

I debated PF for Poly Prep (Graduated in 2021) and was relatively successful on the national circuit. Was a pretty typical tech debater (back in like...2020) and am a pretty typical tech/tab judge. If you extend each part of an argument through every speech, warrant throughout the round, and prove to me that you outweigh your opponent, you will win. Please add me to the email chain: abigail@reichmeyer.com

*NOVICES: Extensions are absolutely paramount to me. If you are going to do anything at all in summary and final focus, extend and warrant every part of the argument you are going for.

Some preferences:

1. Please collapse, preferably on one link and one impact. Write my ballot for me in final focus. Start weighing early and spend time on it.
2. You must frontline at least the argument you are going for in second rebuttal; no new responses in second summary to arguments made in first rebuttal. Not worth it to try going new in the two because I will know and not flow it
3. You should cut cards and not paraphrase in case. I’m unlikely to look at/call for evidence unless I am told to, but I am going to scrutinize your evidence more if you paraphrase. Really low threshold for misrepresenting evidence at this point
4. I don’t mind an intense round, but please don’t be a jerk we will all be uncomfortable
5. I have a lot of thoughts about progressive argumentation in PF but TLDR is I am comfortable evaluating in a technical sense but you should 1) really know what you are doing and 2) it often puts me in a position where I have to intervene, because I don’t think it is ethical to give you a W for making arguments that are not the norm in PF in a round where your opponents are out of their depth. Thus, I have to decide my threshold for responses in a way I don’t in typical case debates which is necessarily interventionist
6. I will do absolutely everything short of intervening to avoid presuming, but I presume whatever side is the squo (usually neg)
7. I will probably not write a super detailed RFD but I will give you a comprehensive oral one, so feel free to record that.

Cliche, but have fun. My biggest regret after debate went online my junior year was not savoring the time I had at in person tournaments. Remember that this is supposed to be enjoyable!

I am the parent of a former Varsity Public Forum debater at Bronx Science, an intellectual property attorney, and former university professor of sociology and education. I hold degrees in biology, sociology, and the law. You should consider me a flay judge. I have judged over 80 rounds of PF debate and 8 rounds of speech competition, including at the Tournament of Champions (x2), Harvard (x2), Big Bronx (x2), Yale, Princeton, the Barkley Forum, Glenbrooks, and Apple Valley, among others.

I would appreciate your speaking at a reasonable pace to better enable me to understand your contentions and rebuttals. I value logical, well-warranted reasoning and analysis presented with clarity and precision. Signposting at the beginning of your speeches is also advised, especially during Summary and Final Focus. This will help me follow where you are going. Tell me clearly and precisely why I should vote for your side.

Finally, respect your opponents. Allow them to speak without constant interruption during Crossfire. I appreciate spirited advocacy but expect civility and decorum during the debate. Have fun!

Currently Head Coach at Campbell Hall (CA)

Formerly Head Coach of Fairmont Prep (CA), Ransom Everglades (FL) & Pembroke Hill (MO), and Assistant Coach for Washburn Rural (KS), and Lake Highland (FL).

Coached for 20 years – Have coached all events. Have coached both national circuit policy & PF. Also I have a J.D., so if you are going to try to play junior Supreme Court Justice, please be reasonably accurate in your legal interpretations.

Address for the email chain: millerdo@campbellhall.org

Scroll down for Policy or Parli Paradigm

Public Forum Paradigm

Short Version

1. If you want me to evaluate anything in the final focus you MUST extend it in every speech, beginning with the 2nd Rebuttal. That includes defensive case attacks, as well as unanswered link chains and impacts that you want to extend from your own case. Just frontlining without extending the link and impact stories from constructives means you have dropped those links and impacts.
2. Absent any other framing arguments, I will default to a utilitarian offense/defense paradigm.
3. Send speech docs in a timely fashion BEFORE you give any speech in which you introduce new evidence. If you don't, I will be sad, any time you take finding ev will be free prep for your opponents, and the max speaks you will be able to earn from me will be 28. If you do send docs I will be happy and the lowest speaks you will earn will be 28. This only applies to varsity teams.
4. Narrow the 2nd half of the round down to one key contention-level impact story and 1-2 key answers on your opponents’ case. This should start in the 2nd Rebuttal.
5. No new cards in 2nd Summary. No new cards in 1st Summary unless directly in response to new 2nd Rebuttal arguments.
6. I'm OK w/ theory - IF IT IS DONE WELL. Read below for specific types of arguments.

Long Version

1. Summary extension

If you want me to evaluate anything in the final focus you MUST extend it in the summary. Yes, that includes defense & turns from the rebuttal. Yes, that includes unanswered link chains and impacts. And that doesn't just mean "extend my links and impacts." That doesn't do it. You need to explicitly extend each of the cards/args you will need to make a cohesive narrative at the end of the round. If you want to go for it in the FF, make sure your partner knows to extend it. Even if it is the best argument I’ve ever heard, failure to at least mention it in the summary will result in me giving the argument zero weight in my decision. Basically, too many 2nd speakers just ignore their partner’s summary speech. Attempting to extend things that were clearly dropped in the Summary will result in a lowering of speaker points for the 2nd speaker. This is # 1 on my list for a reason. It plays a major factor in more than half of my decisions. Ignore this advice at your own peril.

1A. 2nd Rebuttal Rebuild

Everything I just said about Summary also goes for 2nd Rebuttal. Anything you want me to evaluate at any later point in the round needs to be mentioned/extended in 2nd Rebuttal. That includes extending / rebuilding the portions of your case you want me to weigh at the end, even those that were not addressed by your opponents in the first Rebuttal. For example: 1st Rebuttal just answers your links on C1. You not only need to rebuild whatever C1 links you want me to evaluate at the end of the round, but you also need to explicitly extend your impacts you are claiming those links link to in at least a minimum of detail. Just saying" extend my impacts" will be unlikely to cut it. At least try to reference both the argument and the card you want me to extend. And, yes, I know this means you won't be able to cover as much in 2nd Rebuttal. Make choices. That's what this event is all about.

2. Offense defense

Absent any other framing arguments, I will default to a utilitarian offense/defense paradigm. Just going for defensive response to the the opposing case in FF won’t be persuasive in front of me. Additionally, I am open to non-traditional framing arguments (e.g. rights, ontology, etc), but you will need to have some pretty clear warrants as to why I should disregard a traditional net offensive advantage for the other team when making my decision.

3. Send Speech Docs with the cut cards your are about to read before your speech

This is the expected norm in both Policy and LD, and it is time for PF to grow up as well. I am tired of wasting 15+ min per round while kids look for cards that they should have ready as part of their blocks and/or cases to share, and just paraphrasing stuff without the cut card readily available. To combat these bad practices, I choose to adopt two incentives in varsity rounds to have debaters use speech docs like every other legitimate form of debate.

First, if you do not send a speech doc w/ all the cards you are about to read in that next speech to the email chain in a timely fashion (less than a minute or two) before you begin any speech in which you read cards, I will cap your speaker points at 28, with a starting point for average speaks at 27. If you do send a speech doc with the cut cards you are about to read in order, I will guarantee that the lowest speaks you receive will be a 28, with a starting point for average speaks at 29. If you don't have this ready before the round, or can't get it ready in a minute or so before each speech, don't waste time trying. It defeats the part of the purpose aimed to speed up rounds and prevent tournaments from running behind because kids can't find their evidence. Just accept that your speaks will be capped, learn from it, and put together your cases and blocks more ethically for next time. Two caveats to this general rule: 1) the obvious allowance for accidentally missing the occasional card due to honest error, 2) if you engage in offensive behavior/language/etc that would otherwise justify something lower than a 25, providing a speech doc will not exempt you from such a score.

Second, I will utilize the approach that has been used in the past at the TOC, where teams are free to prep while the other team is searching for the evidence that they have been requested to share and should already have available, and that time will NOT count against the requesting team's 3:00 of prep. If you read this and can figure out how to use it to your advantage, more power to you.

Basically, I won't require you to provide speech docs, but I will use these two measures to incentivize their use in the strongest possible way I feel I reasonably can. This hopefully will both speed up rounds and simultaneously encourage more transparency and better overall evidence quality. If you don't like this, strike me.

4. Narrow the round

It would be in your best interest to narrow the 2nd half of the round down to one key contention-level impact story and 1-2 key turns on your opponents’ case, and then spend most of your time doing impact comparisons on those issues. Going for all 3 contentions and every turn you read in rebuttal is a great way to lose my ballot. If you just extend everything, you leave it up to me to evaluate the relative important of each of your arguments. This opens the door for judge intervention, and you may not like how I evaluate those impacts. I would much rather you do that thought process for me. I routinely find myself voting for the team that goes all in on EFFECTIVE impact framing on the issue or two they are winning over the team that tries to extend all of their offensive arguments (even if they are winning most of them) at the expense of doing effective impact framing. Strategic choices matter. Not making any choices is a choice in itself, and is usually a bad one.

5. No new cards in Summary, unless they are in direct response to a new argument brought up in the immediately prior speech.

1st Summary: If you need to read cards to answer arguments first introduced in opponents case, those needed to be read in 1st Rebuttal, not 1st Summary. Only if 2nd Rebuttal introduces new arguments—for example a new impact turn on your case—will I evaluate new cards in the 1st Sum, and only to specifically answer that new 2nd Rebuttal turn. Just please flag that your are reading a new card, and ID exactly what new 2nd Rebuttal argument you are using it to answer.

2nd Summary: Very rarely, 2nd summary will need to address something that was brought up new in 1st summary. For example, as mentioned above, 2nd Rebuttal puts offense on case. 1st Summary might choose to address that 2nd Rebuttal offense with a new carded link turn. Only in a case like that will I evaluate new evidence introduced into 2nd Summary. If you need to take this route, as above in 1st Summary, please flag exactly what argument you say was new in the 1st Summary you are attempting to answer before reading the new card.

In either case, unless the prior speech opened the door for you, I will treat any new cards in Summary just like extending things straight into FF & ignoring the summary—I won’t evaluate them and your speaker points will take a hit. However, new cross-applications of cards previously introduced into the round ARE still OK at this point.

5A. No new cross-applications or big-picture weighing in Final Focus.

Put the pieces together before GCF - at least a little bit. This includes weighing analysis. The additional time allotted to teams in Summary makes it easier to make these connections and big-picture comparisons earlier in the round. Basically, the other team should at least have the opportunity to ask you about it in a CF of some type. You don't have to do the most complete job of cross-applying or weighing before FF, but I should at least be able to trace its seed back to some earlier point in the round.

6. Theory

I will, and am often eager to, vote on debate theory arguments. But proceed with caution. Debaters in PF rarely, if ever, know how to debate theory well enough to justify voting on it. But I have seen one or two rounds recently that give me some hope for the future.

Regarding practices, there is a strategic utility for reading theory even if you are not going for it. I get that part of the game of debate, and am here for it. But if you think you want me to actually vote on it, and it isn't just a time suck, I would strongly encourage that you collapse down to just theory in the 2nd Rebuttal/1st Summary in a similar fashion that I would think advisable in choosing which of your substance-based impact scenarios to go for. Theory isn't the most intuitive argument, and is done poorly when it is blippy. If it is a bad practice that truly justifies my disregarding substantive arguments, then treat it like one. Pick a standard and an impact story and really develop it in both speeches AND IN GCF in the similar way you should develop a link story and impact from your substantive contention. Failing to collapse down will more than likely leave you without sufficient time to explain your abuse story and voter analysis in such a way that it is compelling enough for me to pull the trigger. If you are going to do it (and I'm good with it if you do), do it well. Otherwise, just stick to the substance.

My leanings on specific types of theory arguments:

Fiat – For policy resolutions, until the “no plans” rule is changed, PF is essentially a whole-resolution debate, no matter how much teams would like for it to be policy. That means the resolution is is the plan text. Thus, if teams want to exclusively advocate a specific subset(s) of the resolution, they need to provide some warrants as to why their specific subset(s) of the resolution is the MOST LIKELY form the resolution would take if it were adopted. Trying to specify and only defend a hyper-specific example(s) of the resolution that is unlikely to occur without your fiat is ridiculously abusive without reading a plan text, and makes you a moving target – especially when you clarify your position later in the round to spike out of answers. Plan texts are necessary to fiat something that is unlikely to happen in the status quo in order to create a stable advocacy. Basically, in my mind, “no plans” = “no fiat of subsets of the resolution.” Also, please don't try to fiat things in a fact-based resolution (hint, it's probably not a policy resolution if it doesn't look like "Actor X should do Thing Y").

Multiple conditional advocacies – Improbable fiated advocacies are bad enough, but when teams read multiple such advocacies and then decide “we’re not going for that one” when the opposing team puts offense on it is the zenith of in-round abuse. Teams debating in front of me should continue to go for their unanswered offensive turns against these “kicked” arguments – I will weigh them in the round, and am somewhat inclined to view such practices as a voter if substantial abuse is demonstrated by the offended team. If you start out with a 3-prong fiated advocacy, then you darn well better end with it. Severance is bad. If teams are going to choose to kick out of part of their advocacy mid-round, they need to effectively answer any offense on the "to-be-kicked" parts first.

Paraphrasing - I tend to come down strongly on the side of having cut cards available. This doesn't mean I will automatically vote for paraphrasing theory, as I think there is room for a conceivably viable counter-interp of having the cards attached to blocks/cases or something similar. But blatant, unethical, and lazy paraphrasing has, at times, really threatened the integrity of this activity, and it needs to stop. This is the way to do that.

Trigger Warning - I am not your guy for this. I'm not saying I won't vote on it, but it would be an uphill battle.

Disclosure - Disclosure is good. My teams do it, and I think you should too. It makes for better debates, and the Wiki is an invaluable tool for small squads with limited resources and coaching. I speak from experience, having coached those types of small squads in policy against many of the juggernaut programs with armies of assistants cutting cards. Arguments about how it is somehow unfair to small teams make little sense to me. That being said, I don't think the lack of disclosure is as serious of a threat to the integrity of PF as the bad paraphrasing that at one point was rampant in the activity. Disclosure is more of a strongly suggested improvement, as opposed to an ethical necessity. But if the theory arg is run WELL, I will certainly vote on it.

7. Crossfire

If you want me to evaluate an argument or card, it needs to be in a speech. Just mentioning it in CF is not sufficient. You can refer to what was said in CF in the next speech, and that will be far more efficient, but it doesn’t exist in my mind until I hear it in a speech. Honestly, I'm probably writing comments during CF anyway, and am only halfway listening. That being said, I am NOT here for just not doing cross (usually GCF) and instead taking prep. Until the powers that be get rid of it, we are still doing GCF. Instead of just not wanting to do it, get better at it. Make it something that I should listen to.

8. Evidence citations

You should probably read the citations according to whatever the NSDA says, but I’m not likely to vote on any irregularities (e.g. no date of access) unless the abuses are proven to be especially egregious and substantive in the round.

9. Speaker points

See my policy on Speech Docs. If I were not making the choice to institute that policy, the following reflects my normal approach to speaks, and will still apply to how I evaluate within the 25-28 non-speech doc range, and within the 28-30 speech doc range. My normal reference point for “average” is 27.5. That’s where most everyone starts. My default is to evaluate on a scale with steps of 0.1, as opposed to steps of 0.5. Below a 25 means you did something offensive. A true 30.0 in HS debate (on a 0.1 scale) doesn’t exist. It is literally perfect. I can only think of 3 times I have ever given out a 29.6 or higher, and each of them were because of this next thing. My points are almost exclusively based on what you say, not how you say it. I strongly value making good, strategic choices, and those few exceptional scores I’ve given were all because of knowing what was important and going for it / impact framing it, and dumping the unnecessary stuff in the last half of the round.

10. Ask for additional thoughts on the topic

Even if you’ve read this whole thing, still ask me beforehand. I may have some specific thoughts relating to the topic at hand that could be useful.

11. Speed

Notice how I didn't say anything about that above, even though it's the first questions like half of kids ask? Basically, yes, I can handle your blazing speed. But it would still probably be a good idea to slow it down a little, Speed Racer. Quality > quantity. However, if you try to go fast and don't give a speech doc with cut cards before you start speaking, I will be very, VERY unhappy. The reason why policy teams can go as fast as they do is that they read a tag, which we as the audience can mentally process and flow, and then while they are reading the cite/text of the card, we have time to finish flowing the tag and listen for key warrants. The body of the card gives us a beat or two to collect ourself before we have to figure out what to write next. Just blitzing through blippily paraphrased cards without a tag (e.g. "Smith '22 warrants...") doesn't give us that tag to process first, and thus we have to actively search for what to flow. By the time we get it down, we have likely already missed your next "card." So, if you are going to try to go faster than a broadly acceptable PF pace, please have tags, non-paraphrased cards, and speech docs. And if you try to speed through a bunch of blippy paraphrased "cards" without a doc, don't be surprised when we miss several of your turns. Basically, there is a way to do it right. Please do it that way, if you are going to try to go fast.

________________________

Policy Paradigm

________________________

I debated for 4 years in high school (super old-school, talk-pretty policy), didn't debate in college, and have coached at the HS level for 20 years. I am currently the Head Coach at Campbell Hall in Los Angeles, and previously was an Assistant Coach at Washburn Rural in KS, and head coach at Fairmont Prep in Anaheim, CA, Ransom Everglades School, in Miami, and The Pembroke Hill School in KCMO. However, I don't judge too many policy rounds these days, so take that into account.

Overview:

Generally, do what you do, as long as you do it well, and I'll be happy. I prefer big-picture impact framing where you do the comparative work for me. In general, I will tend to default to such analysis, because I want you to do the thinking in the round, not me. My better policy teams in the past where I was Head Coach read a great deal of ontology-based Ks (cap, Heidegger, etc), and they often make some level of sense to me, but I'm far from steeped in the literature. I'm happy to evaluate most of the normal disads & cps, but the three general classes of arguments that I usually find less persuasive are identity-based strategies that eschew the topic, politics disads, and to a lesser degree, performance-based arguments. But if any of those are your thing, I would in general prefer you do your thing well than try and do something else that you just aren't comfortable with. I'll go with the quality argument, even if it isn't my personal favorite. I'm not a fan of over-reliance on embedded clash, especially in overviews. I'd rather you put it on the line-by-line. I'm more likely to get it down on my flow and know how to apply it that way, and that's the type of debating I'll reward with higher speaks. Please be sure to be clear on your tags, cites, and theory/analytic blocks. Hard numbering/”And’s” are appreciated, and if you need to, go a little slower on those tags, cites, and theory/analytic blocks to be sure they are clear, distinct, and I get them. Again, effort to do so will be rewarded with higher speaks.

Topicality:

I generally think affs should have to defend the topic, and actually have some sort of plan text / identifiable statement of advocacy. There are very few "rules" of debate, thus allowing tons of leeway for debaters to choose arguments. But debating the topic is usually a pretty good idea in my mind, as most issues, even those relating to the practices and nature of our activity and inclusion therein, can usually still be discussed in the context of the topic. I rather strongly default to competing interpretations. I like to see T debates come down to specific abuse stories, how expanding or contracting limits functionally impacts competitive equity, and exactly what types of ground/args are lost/gained by competing interps (case lists are good for this in front of me). I usually buy the most important impact to T as fairness. T is an a priori issue for me, and K-ing T is a less than ideal strategy with me as your judge.

Theory:

If you are going to go for it, go for it. I am unlikely to vote either way on theory via a blippy cheap-shot, unless the entire argument was conceded. But sometimes, for example, condo bad is the right strategic move for the 2AR. If it's done well, I won't hesitate to decide a round on it. Not a fan of multiple conditional worlds. With the notable exception of usually giving epistemology / ontology-based affs some flexibility on framework needing to come before particulars of implementation, I will vote Neg on reasonable SPEC arguments against policy affs. Affs should be able to articulate what their plan does, and how it works. (Read that you probably ought to have a plan into that prior statement, even if you are a K team.) For that reason, I also give Neg a fair amount of theoretical ground when it comes to process CPs against those affs. Severance is generally bad in my mind. Intrinsicness, less so.

CPs:

Personally, I think a lot of the standard CPs are, in any type of real world sense, ridiculous. The 50 states have never worked together in the way envisioned by the CP. A constitutional convention to increase funding for whatever is laughable. An XO to create a major policy change is just silly (although over the last two administrations, that has become less so). All that being said, these are all legit arguments in the debate world, and I evaluate and vote on them all the time. I guess I just wish Affs were smart enough to realize how dumb and unlikely these args actually are, and would make more legit arguments based on pointing that out. However, I do like PICs, and enjoy a well thought out and deployed advantage CP.

Disads:

Most topic-related disads are fine with me. Pretty standard on that. Just be sure to not leave gaping holes / assumptions in your link chains, and I'm OK. However, I generally don't like the politics disad. I would much rather hear a good senator specific politics scenario instead of the standard “President needs pol cap, plan’s unpopular” stuff, but even then, I'm not a fan. I'll still vote for it if that's what is winning the round, but I may not enjoy doing so. Just as a hint, it would be very easy to convince me that fiat solves for most politics link stories (and, yes, I understand this places me in the very small minority of judges), and I don't see nearly as much quality ground lost from the intrinsic perm against politics as most. Elections disads, though, don't have those same fiat-related issues, and are totally OK by me.

Criticisms:

I don’t read the lit much, but in spite of that, I really kind of like most of the more "traditional" ontological Ks (cap, security, Heidegger, etc). To me, Ks are about the idea behind the argument, as opposed to pure technical proficiency & card dumping. Thus, the big picture explanation of why the K is "true," even if that is at the expense of reading a few more cards, would be valuable. Bringing through traditional line-by-line case attacks in the 2NR to directly mitigate some of the Aff advantages is probably pretty smart. I think Negs set an artificially high burden for themselves when they completely drop case and only go for the K in the 2NR, as this means that they have to win 100% access to their “Alt solves the case” or framework args in order for the K to outweigh some super-sketchy and ridiculous, but functionally conceded, extinction scenario from the 1AC. K's based in a framework strategy tend to be more compelling in front of me than K's that rely on the alt to actually solve something (because, let's be honest here - they rarely do). Identity-related arguments are usually not the most compelling in front of me, and I tend to buy strategic attacks against them from the left as more persuasive than attacks from the right.

Random:

I understand that some teams are unbalanced in terms of skill/experience, and that's just the way it goes sometimes. I've coached many teams like that. But I do like to see if both debaters actually know what they are talking about. Thus, your speaks will probably go down if your partner is answering all of your cross-ex questions for you. It won’t impact my decision (I just want to know the answers), but it will impact speaks. Same goes for oral prompting. That being said, I am inclined to give a moderate boost to the person doing the heavy lifting in those cases, as long as they do it respectfully.

________________________

Parli Paradigm

________________________

Parli is not my primary debate background, so I likely have an atypical paradigm for a parli judge that is influenced by my experiences coaching policy and circuit PF. Please adapt accordingly if you want to win my ballot.

First, I honestly don't care how you sound. I care about the arguments you make. Please, don't read that as an immediate excuse to engage in policy-style spreading (that level of speed doesn't translate super well to an event that is entirely analytics and doesn't have cards), but I will likely be more accustomed to and be able to handle debates that are faster than most of the HS parli rounds I have seen to date.

Two general things that I find annoying and unnecessary: 1) Introducing yourself at the top of each speech. I know who you are. Your name is on the ballot. That's all I need. This just seems to be an unnecessary practice designed to turn an 8 minute speech into a 7:30 speech. Forget the formalities, and just give me the content, please. 2) I don't need a countdown for when you start. We aren't launching a rocket into space or playing Mario Kart. Just start. I am a sentient enough of a being to figure out to hit the button on my timer when you begin talking.

I'll go speech by speech.

1st Gov: Spending the first minute or so explaining the background of the topic might be time well spent, just to ensure that everyone is on the same page. Please, if you have a contention-level argument, make sure it has some kind of terminal impact. If it isn't something that I can weigh at the end of the round, then why are you making the argument?

1st Opp: Same as above re: terminal impacts in case. Any refutations to the Aff case you would like me to evaluate at the end of the round need to be in this speech, or at least be able to be traced back to something in this speech. That means you probably shouldn't get to the Aff case with only a minute or two left in the speech. If your partner attempts to make new refutations to the Aff case in the 2nd Opp, I won't evaluate them.

2nd Gov: Similar to the 1st Opp, any parts of your case that you want me to consider when making my decisions need to be explicitly extended in this speech. That includes all essential parts of an argument - link, internal link, and impact. Just saying "extend my Contention 2" is insufficient to accomplish this task. You will actually need to spend at least a modicum of time on each, in order for me to flow it through, in addition to answering any refutations that Opp has made on it in the prior speech. Considering that you will also need to spend some time refuting the Neg's newly introduced case, this means that you will likely NOT have time to extend all of your contentions. That's fine. Make a choice. Not all contentions are equally good. If you try to go for everything, you will likely not do anything well enough to make a compelling argument. Instead, pick your best one (or maybe two) and extend, rebuild, and impact it. Prioritizing arguments and making choices is an essential analytical skill this activity should teach. Making decisions in this fashion will be rewarded in both my decision-making at the end of the round, as well as in speaker points.

Opp Block: If you want me to evaluate any arguments in the these speeches, I need to be able to trace the responses/arguments back to the 1st Opp, except if they are new answers to case responses that could only have been made in the the 2nd Gov. For example, 2nd Gov makes refutations to the Opp's case. New responses to these arguments will be evaluated. However, to reiterate, I will absolutely NOT evaluate new refutations to Gov case in these speeches. Just as with the 2nd Gov, I also strongly advocate collapsing down to one contention-level impact story from your case and making it the crux of your narrative about how the debate should be decided. Trying to go for all three contentions you read in the 1st Gov is a great way to not develop any of those arguments well, and to leave me to pick whatever I happen to like best. I don't like judge intervention, which is why I want you to make those decisions for me by identifying the most important impact/argument on your side and focusing your time at the end of the round on it. Do my thinking for me. If you let me think, you may not like my decision.

Both Rebuttals: Listing a bunch of voters is a terrible way to debate. You are literally just giving me a menu of things I could vote on and hoping that I pick the one you want. You would be much better served in these speeches to focus in on one key impact story, and do extensive weighing analysis - either how it outweighs any/all of the other side's impacts, or if it is a value round, how it best meets the value framing of the debate. As I stated in the Opp Block section, please, do my thinking for me. Show that you can evaluate the relative worth of different arguments and make a decision based upon that evaluation. Refusing to do so tells me you have no idea which of your arguments is superior to the others, and thus you do not have a firm grasp on what is really happening in the round. Be brave. Make a choice. You will likely be rewarded for it. Also, there is very little reason to POO in these speeches. I keep a good enough flow to know when someone is introducing new arguments. If it is new, I won't evaluate it. I don't need you to call it out. I largely find it annoying.

I am an Engineer with several tournaments experience at Varsity PF judging. I like a narrative approach where you lay out the framework of your case even if it comes down to a technical RFD. I rely heavily upon evidence-based arguments and impacts. Don't argue that 100's of millions will die by nuclear war if it is a non-unique argument or you have not even presented a good probability we are headed in that direction.

If you have not won me over by the start of Final Focus, you better layout all the reasons why I should vote for AFF or NEG. Lead me to a decision.

The narrative isn't the only thing I consider, but try to be cohesive... i.e. connect the dots.

A few notes:

- You will never lose the round for being a JERK in cross, but I will give you low speaker points. Rudeness or excessive sarcasm is not rewarded here. Equity in all forms is expected.

- Weigh! Weigh! Weigh! I'm not going to catch everything so I need you to give some sort of weighing mechanisms and have valid probabilities for your impacts.

- I can take speed but do not spread. I will say "clear" or "Speed" twice and then I stop flowing altogether.

- If you go slightly over time that's OK, but keep it under 10-secs.

- 2nd rebuttal must front line.

- Speak up a little, I can't hear well (no, I am not kidding). I will miss most of what you say if you speak to me from behind your laptop. Beware of over-sized lecterns if you need a stand for your laptop.

- Time yourselves, please. Don't steal prep time just because we are ONLINE.

PS: Don't get too comfortable entering the room. After the coin toss, I prefer PRO on my left. Yes, I realize this does not apply in an ONLINE environment.

A little bit about me: I competed in speech and debate for three years during high school, specifically in PF, Congress, limited prep, and interp events. I even dabbled a little in LD and World Schools. Now, I stay involved with the speech and debate community by coaching PF at Phoenix Country Day School in AZ.

As far as paradigms go, I'm open to pretty much any argument you can warrant properly and impact out. I will vote off the flow, but that means your arguments need to be made clear to me. I can keep up with speed, but if I put my pen down, you've lost me. At the end of the round, I am looking for offense, which includes both the impact and the link into that impact, that has been extended cleanly through the debate. Then, it comes down to the weighing that you have done for me on that offense. Don't make me do that work for you because it probably won't turn out the way you want it to!

General things to note:

• Please stand for your speeches unless there is a legitimate reason you are unable to. It helps your public speaking, your persuasiveness, your confidence, you name it.
• For the love of all things holy, SIGNPOST, SIGNPOST, SIGNPOST!!!! I want clear taglines and numbered responses. The more organized you are in your responses, the more likely I will follow every piece of your argument, meaning the more likely I am to vote for you.
• I like off-time roadmaps. That means something short like, "I'm going aff then neg," or, "The order will be overview, their case, our case." It shouldn't be anything more than telling me where I will be flowing.
• I will not call for a card unless you specifically ask me to during one of your speeches.
• If something important happens during CX, bring it up during a speech.
• Don't be rude to your opponents. I love a little sass and sarcasm because debate definitely calls for that sometimes, but don't blatantly disrespect one another.

Technical things to note:

• Second rebuttal should frontline (quickly) anything that will be extended in summary.
• Extend important defense. Defense is sticky, but it strengthens your position if you hang onto important defense throughout the round.
• Counterplans: These don't belong in PF. They are a clear violation of rules. Counter advocacies with the necessary probability weighing are fine, but no plan text or specific implementation plan.
• Kritiks: I find Ks really interesting, and I am all for their entrance into PF when you have a tech judge/panel. I want you to read your K to me as if I have not read the literature surrounding the issue though. Just because you say a buzz word, does not mean I understand the argument. Make sure it is well formulated if you want my ballot.
• Theory: If there is a clear violation of PF rules, don't run a shell. Just tell me about the violation during a speech, and that will suffice. If there is a violation of norms that you feel is genuinely worthy of bringing up (i.e. no frivolous theory), I am willing to hear it out. That being said, I am not super well-versed in theory debate, so you just need to make sure you explain to me what the impact of your argument is on the round and why I should care about it. In all honesty, if a team runs theory, you are probably more likely to get my ballot without running a counterinterp and just responding to it the way you would any other argument. All the jargon starts to get lost on me.

I started this technical section based on questions I am frequently asked in round. It is nowhere near exhaustive, so if you have any additional questions or concerns, feel free to ask me when both teams are present before the round!

Also, please include me in the email chain: mittelstedt.taylor@gmail.com

Current Debate Coach at Bentonville High School. Forensics competitor in high school 2008-2012. Debate (mostly IPDA) competitor in college 2014-2016.

Debating should be fun! We should always seek to be respectful and friendly.

Especially for LD, I heavily weigh rounds on value/framework- do not drop this. If your opponent has a different framework than you do, I expect to see clash on this.

Impact calculus is critical. I expect to hear this throughout the round- not just last speeches

Spreading is fine! I expect to have your case shared with me so I can follow.

Overall ability to persuade/obviously being the stronger debater will 80% of the time win you the round. If I am more convinced, I simply have to vote for you. There are endless tools to be able to do this- effective & dominate speaking ability, emotion, stronger clash, Ks, etc. It is difficult to be convinced by a team that is obviously not as strong in persuasion, but of course that can happen and I will write my explanation on ballots. Definition debates are my least favorite thing ever! Clash with the content of your cases!

I judge primarily as tech over truth. If you say something that is outright NOT true, I cannot overlook that, but I leave my bias/knowledge at the door as much as is appropriate & will judge simply on what happens in-round.

Don't be afraid to make me laugh!! Bachelorette/Survivor references are always appreciated.

I am an LAY judge.

I like ethical debaters, as well as knowledgeable and confident presentations.

I will be taking notes. Please speak slowly and explain things clearly.

Be accountable for your own time.

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

I'm a lay judge with little experience judging.

Don't speak too quickly, and speak well.

Greetings!

I am a parent judge. I am aware of a tremendous time and effort you put in for preparation. I would like to be fair in judging and would suggest following:

1. Prefer slower speaking so that I can flow.

2. Please do not bring up new arguments in Summary and Final Focus.

3. Respect your opponent, do not personally attack or use offensive language towards your opponent.

4. Stick to the time limits.

Enjoy the debate and have fun!

Have more than one year experience in debate judge. As a senior leader in my current organization, I host and present several meetings globally. My goal is deliver right contents to the audience, demonstrate appropriate body language, keep the audience interested by not repeating the contents, have a constant eye contact, modulation of voice, using the right speed and pronunciations to deliver the contents effectively.

During the judging process, I take notes and compare the notes for providing points, my rationale and feedback. I look for passion from the students on the topics they debate. This will show their hard work and how involved in the topics.

For the chain - henrynomeland@gmail.com

Debated PF for Lakeville. I study Statistics at Wisconsin. Did some summer instructing/coaching after High School.

I’ll do my best to make the correct technical decision in every round.

Logistics

Read content warnings. Do not use expletives without a content warning.

I flow extensions and actually care about them being good.

I really appreciate if you have cards. I don't enjoy sifting through articles trying to figure out if you're genuinely representing your authors.

PF Preferences

Warrants need to exist.

Frontline in second rebuttal.

Speed is fine. However, reading very quickly from paraphrased docs will tank your speaks and annoy me, if you intend on going fast the least you can do is read from cut cards.

Collapse to as few arguments as possible. Please do not go for multiple contentions in summary.

Voting where debaters tell me to vote >>> Voting where I personally think you messed up

I prefer debaters who call out their opponent’s mistakes.

If everyone is making mistakes, I generally try to give each side some risk of offense and attempt to vote off of clash/defense/weighing. If there's no clash and no weighing I will be sad.

How I resolve weighing

Absent comparisons by debaters themselves:

I value well-warranted prereq, short circuit, and link-in arguments most.

For obvious reasons I prefer conceded, warranted, and comparative weighing.

I generally prefer weighing introduced earlier in the round.

Other Formats

I vote off the flow but it’s likely I don’t know the nuances of your specific category so break stuff down for me.

Prog Stuff

I would seriously prefer to judge a substance round. This being said:

I will vote for any argument you win and weigh. I debated theory a lot more than Ks when I was in debate. Frivolous theory and tricks are usually bad and my threshold for responses is pretty low.

In general I think that disclosure is usually good, and paraphrasing is usually bad. In high school I read from cut cards in rebuttal, and open sourced disclosed. This doesn’t mean I will hack for these arguments.

Other Stuff

These people taught me debate:

Maddie Cook

Bryce Piotrowski

Gus Gerlach

I reserve the right to drop you for making the space unsafe.

I also reserve the right to drop you for blatantly violating NSDA or tournament rules (there are probably rules that are bad, I promise I won't arbitrarily enforce bad rules or trivial technicalities). Fabricating or egregiously misrepresenting evidence is basically always an instant loss.

2024 Note:::: I broke my wrist and im not 100% yet so i CANNOT type consistently for 4 minutes straight. GO SLOWER for me so i can get everything

I did 4 years of PF at Cypress Bay in Weston, Florida (2016-2020). I'm currently a senior at duke.

My paradigm is just random notes and bullets because I'm a pretty boring and receptive judge. Generally flow, emphasis on weighing, implicating, offense. I'll evaluate anything, just explain it. Feel free to ask me anything before the round.

-Extend offense pls, I wont do it for you

-Weigh like the W depends on it, because it does. Respond to your opps weighing if you're cool.

-Cross is for you, does not impact I evaluate a round (unless it comes up in speech ofc)

-Don't read responses you won't implicate/explain/understand, makes the whole debate better

-please don’t shake my hand. I'm sick rn

-3 min summary is cool and all but collapse

-Weigh, weigh, weigh, weigh, weigh. Which weigh? Dat weigh.

-Please have fun. Like actual fun and not like fun in pursuit of a W.

-I normally vote for the best singular piece of offense in the round. (collapse please)

-not paradigmatically/morally against them at all, but reading a K (or theory) in front of me is probably not the best idea unless you REALLY take the time to explain everything. I’m out of practice and never totally learned it all to begin with

• If you have any other questions feel free to email me matthewnorman2002@gmail.com or ask me before the round. Hated my decision? send all complaints to sepul.fabiola@gmail.com

At the end of the day, debate is up to the debaters. Do what you enjoy/are best at and I'll do my best to be receptive and evaluate it all fairly.

TLDR:

Wired: Collapse, weigh, signpost, tom brady slander, being nice, talking slow

Tired: being mean, friv theory, partial quads (i dont know what partial quads are), tom brady, being mean.

******If both sides agree to settle the debate with a mutually agreed upon test/competition of strategy or skill, I will not intervene. Only valid if both teams are definitely breaking or definitely not.

I'm pretty new to debate - this is my third year judging

- Please talk in a way I can understand (not too fast, not too much debate jargon, etc.)

- As I'm new to debate, just saying things like "nonunique" or "link-turn" mean absolutely nothing to me, EXPLAIN WHAT YOU ARE SAYING PLEASE

- Despite the fact that I'm a parent judge, I will be judging how you debate not what you say, so do with that what you will

- I might call for evidence if something is fishy (so don't be fishy)

- Above all else, be respectful, nice, and cordial to your fellow debaters. Let's all have a good time with this!

Debate Experience:

High School Policy - 3 Years

College Policy (City University of New York)- 4 Years

Cumulative Judging/Coaching (CUNY, NYU, NYCUDL, Bronx Science, Rutgers University) - ~ 5 years

GSU 2017 Edition

I'm coming out from a 2 year debate hiatus and an intensive video production/broadcasting program. I haven't been up to date with the latest literature on the debate circuit so don't assume I know your Jackson evidence is hot fire without any warrants. I also may not be your top pick for your fast and clever Consult CP debate because my hands are not fast enough to send that message to my brain. This might change with more judging throughout the season but I'll let you know.

On to the general stuff...

I evaluate the debate based on who did the best debating. That's usually done through my flow unless you create a framework for me to do otherwise. Run what argument fits your style and do it to the best of your ability. Args of the meme variety are on the table but you would have to do a lot, and I mean a lot of work, for me to vote on them. Please also note that I won't be down for your oppression good, rights Malthus type of args.

Make sure you can jump / e-mail chain files in less than 5 minutes (not for me but for the tournament staff).I will do my best to keep my rhetoric gender neutral. As a generalrule, I tend to stick to gender-neutral pronouns however I will do my due diligence to be familiar with your preferred pronouns and you have every right to correct me on the spot if I fail to do so.

Case Debate

Solid. I'm not the best public policy analyst on the circuit to know some of the nuances of your args so this would require some explanation of what these abbreviations mean and what do they look like in the context of the debate.

Politics/Disads

I'll listen/flow them. I vote on them every now and then.

CPs

As I mentioned above I'm not the best when it comes to CP theory. My general opinions on CPs, in general, is neutral so if you need someone with a firm stance on whether a consult CP is legit or not then you should defer to a different critic.

The K

They're ok.

Framework/T

Debatable.

My name is Sapna Palla. I am a lay/parent judge and not a seasoned debater or debate judge - so not a great judge for spreading strategies. I encourage you to speak slowly, loudly and logically so that I may follow your arguments and properly account for them. To me, good reasoning supported by solid evidence is what wins. I believe that talking over your opponents or treating them in a disrespectful fashion detracts from your argument and from the high level of discourse we all seek.

I am a parent judge! That being said I have judged countless rounds on the Nat circuit and local circuit for 5+ years.

A few things I prefer:

Keep speed and clarity in mind when debating.

For any complicated economic argument please provide actual warranting when you are extending it.

Collapse and do weighing on the argument you want me to vote on, I won't do it for you.

Debate is about having fun so don't let the round get too heated.

Signpost, Signpost, Signpost

I usually won't question your evidence myself, so if you find bad evidence on your opponents side bring it up in round and in a speech as a response.

Defense is not sticky; make sure to extend it in summary if you are going for it

Frontline in second rebuttal, second summary is way to late in the round for your first time frontlining.

Comparative weighing wins rounds

UPDATED FOR THE THE GLENBROOKS 2023

uclabdb8@gmail.com

***history***
- Director of Programs, Chicago Debates 2023-current
- Head Coach, Policy - University of Chicago Laboratory Schools 2015-2023
- Assistant Coach, PF - Fremd HS 2015-2022
- Tournament of Champions 2022, 2021, 2018, 2016
- Harvard Debate Council Summer Workshop - guest lecturer, lab leader
- UIowa 2002-2006
- Maine East (Wayne Tang gharana) 1999-2002

***brief***
- i view the speech act as an act and an art. debate is foremost a communicative activity. i want to be compelled.
- i go back and forth on kritik/performance affs versus framework which is supported by my voting record
- i enjoy k v k or policy v k debates. however i end up with more judging experience in policy v policy rounds because we're in the north shore
- academic creativity & originality will be rewarded
- clarity matters. pen time on overviews matters. i flow by ear and on paper, including your cards' warrants and cites. people have told me my flows are beautiful
- tag team cx is okay as long as its not dominating
- don't vape in my round, it makes me feel like an enabler
- i have acute hearing and want to keep it that way. kindly be considerate of your music volume. i will ask you to turn it down if it's painful or prevents me from hearing debate dialogue

**background**
identify as subaltern, he/they pronouns are fine. my academic background is medicine. i now spend my time developing programming for Chicago's urban debate league. you may be counseled on tobacco cessation.

**how to win my ballot**
*entertain me.* connect with me. teach me something. be creative. its impossible for me to be completely objective, but i try to be fair in the way i adjudicate the round.

**approach**
as tim 'the man' alderete said, "all judges lie." with that in mind...
i get bored- which is why i reward creativity in research and argumentation. if you cut something clever, you want me in the back of the room. i appreciate the speech as an act and an art. i prefer debates with good clash than 2 disparate topics. while i personally believe in debate pedagogy, i'll let you convince me it's elitist, marginalizing, broken, or racist. in determining why i should value debate (intrinsically or extrinsically) i will enter the room tabula rasa. if you put me in a box, i'll stay there. i wish i could adhere to a paradigmatic mantra like 'tech over truth.' but i've noticed that i lean towards truth in debates where both teams are reading lit from same branch of theory or where the opponent has won an overarching claim on the nature of the debate (framing, framework, theory, etc). my speaker point range is 27-30. Above 28.3-4 being what i think is 'satisfactory' for your division (3-3), 28.7 & above means I think you belong in elims. Do not abuse the 2nr.

**virtual debate**
if you do not see me on camera then assume i am not there. please go a touch slower on analytics if you expect me to flow them well. if anyone's connection is shaky, please include analytics in what you send if possible.

**novices**
Congrats! you're slowly sinking into a strange yet fascinating vortex called policy debate. it will change your life, hopefully for the better. focus on the line by line and impact analysis. if you're confused, ask instead of apologize. this year is about exploring. i'm here to judge and help :)

***ARGUMENT SPECIFIC***

**topicality/framework**
this topic has a wealth of amazing definitions and i'm always up for a scrappy limits debate. debaters should be able to defend why their departure from (Classic mode) Policy is preferable. while i don't enter the round presuming plan texts are necessary for a topical discussion, i do enjoy being swayed one way or the other on what's needed for a topical discussion (or if one is valuable at all). overall, its an interesting direction students have taken Policy. the best form of framework debate is one where both teams rise to the meta-level concerns behind our values in fairness, prepared clash, education, revolutionary potential/impotence, etc. as a debater (in the bronze age) i used to be a HUGE T & spec hack, so much love for the arg. nowadays though, the these debates tend to get messy. flow organization will be rewarded: number your args, sign post through the line-by-line, slow down to give me a little pen time. i tend to vote on analysis with specificity and ingenuity.

**kritiks, etc.**
i enjoy performance, original poetry & spoken word, musical, moments of sovereignty, etc. i find most "high theory," identity politics, and other social theory debates enjoyable. i dont mind how you choose to organize k speeches/overviews so long as there is some way you organize thoughts on my flow. 'long k overviews' can be (though seldom are) beautiful. i appreciate a developed analysis. more specific the better, examples and analogies go a long way in you accelerating my understanding. i default to empiricism/historical analysis as competitive warranting unless you frame the debate otherwise. i understand that the time constraint of debate can prevent debaters from fully unpacking a kritik. if i am unfamiliar with the argument you are making, i will prioritize your explanation. i may also read your evidence and google-educate myself. this is a good thing and a bad thing, and i think its important you know that asterisk. i try to live in the world of your kritik/ k aff. absent a discussion of conditional advocacy, i will get very confused if you make arguments elsewhere in the debate that contradict the principles of your criticism (eg if you are arguing a deleuzian critique of static identity and also read a misgendering/misidentifying voter).

**spec, ethics challenges, theory**
PLEASE DO NOT HIDE YOUR ASPEC VIOLATIONS. if the argument is important i prefer you invite the clash than evade it.

i have no way to fairly judge arguments that implicate your opponent's behavior before the round, unless i've witnessed it myself or you are able to provide objective evidence (eg screenshots, etc.). debate is a competitive environment so i have to take accusations with a degree of skepticism. i think the trend to turn debate into a kangaroo court, or use the ballot as a tool to ostracize members from the community speaks to the student/coach's tooling of authority at tournaments as well as the necessity for pain in their notion of justice. i do have an obligation to keep the round safe. my starting point (and feel free to convince me otherwise) is that it's not my job to screen entries if they should be able to participate in tournaments - that's up to tab and is a prior question to the round. a really good podcast that speaks to this topic in detail is invisibilia: the callout.

i'm finally hearing more presumption debates, which i really enjoy. i more often find theory compelling when contextualized to why there's a specific reason to object to the argument (e.g. why the way this specific perm operates is abusive/sets a bad precedent). i always prefer the clash to be developed earlier in the debate than vomiting blocks at each other. as someone who used to go for theory, i think there's an elegant way to trap someone. and it same stipulations apply- if you want me to vote for it, make sure i'm able to clearly hear and distinguish your subpoints.

**disads/cps/case**
i always enjoy creative or case specific PICs. if you're going to make a severance perm, i want to know what is being severed and not so late breaking that the negative doesn't have a chance to refute. i like to hear story-weaving in the overview. i do vote on theory - see above. i also enjoy an in depth case clash, case turn debate. i do not have a deep understanding on the procedural intricacies of our legal system or policymaking and i may internet-educate myself on your ev during your round.

**work experience/education you can ask me about**
- medical school, medicine
- clinical research/trials
- biology, physiology, gross anatomy, & pathophysiology are courses i've taught
- nicotine/substance cessation
- chicago
- udl
- coaching debate!

**PoFo - (modified from Tim Freehan's poignant paradigm):**

I have NOT judged the PF national circuit pretty much ever. The good news is that I am not biased against or unwilling to vote on any particular style. Chances are I have heard some version of your meta level of argumentation and know how it interacts with the round. The bad news is if you want to complain about a style of debate in which you are unfamiliar, you had better convince me why with, you know, impacts and stuff. Do not try and cite an unspoken rule about debate in your part of the country.

Because of my background in Policy, I tend to look at debate as competitive research or full-contact social studies. Even though the Pro is not advocating a Plan and the Con is not reading Disadvantages, to me the round comes down to whether the Pro has a greater possible benefit than the potential implications it might cause. Both sides should frame the round in terms impact calculus and or feasibility. Framework, philosophical, moral arguments are great, though I need instruction in how you want me to evaluate that against tangible impacts.

Evidence quality is very important.

I will vote with what's on what is on the flow only. I enter the round tabula rasa, i try to check my personal opinions at the door as best as i can. I may mock you for it, but I won’t vote against you for it. No paraphrasing. Quote the author, date and the exact words. Quals are even better but you don’t have to read them unless pressed. Have the website handy. Research is critical.

Speed? Meh. You cannot possibly go fast enough for me to not be able to follow you. However, that does not mean I want to hear you go fast. You can be quick and very persuasive. You don't need to spread.

Defense is nice but is not enough. You must create offense in order to win. There is no “presumption” on the Con.

I am a fan of “Kritik” arguments in PF! I do think that Philosophical Debates have a place. Using your Framework as a reason to defend your scholarship is a wise move. You can attack your opponents scholarship. Racism, sexism, heterocentrism, will not be tolerated between debaters. I have heard and will tolerate some amount of racism towards me and you can be assured I'll use it as a teaching moment.

I reward debaters who think outside the box.

I do not reward debaters who cry foul when hearing an argument that falls outside traditional parameters of PF Debate. But if its abusive, tell me why instead of just saying “not fair.”

Statistics are nice, to a point. But I feel that judges/debaters overvalue them. Some of the best impacts involve higher values that cannot be quantified. A good example would be something like Structural Violence.

While Truth outweighs, technical concessions on key arguments can and will be evaluated. Dropping offense means the argument gets 100% weight.

The goal of the Con is to disprove the value of the Resolution. If the Pro cannot defend the whole resolution (agent, totality, etc.) then the Con gets some leeway.

I care about substance more than style. It never fails that I give 1-2 low point wins at a tournament. Just because your tie is nice and you sound pretty, doesn’t mean you win. I vote on argument quality and technical debating. The rest is for lay judging.

Relax. Have fun.

I am a lay judge. I prefer if you go slow. Make sure I understand all your arguments and refrain from excessive debate jargon.

The most important thing to adapt to me: please make complete arguments. If you are not explaining things, you will be very frustrated by my decision. In all honesty, I think my bar on this is now well above the average PF tech judge, so adapt accordingly, at least if you'd like high speaks. I reserve the right to think about your arguments.

Background: I graduated in 2021 from Blake. I now compete in APDA and BP for UChicago. For email chain: alperri@uchicago.edu and blakedocs@googlegroups.com

My primary academic interests are related to insurgency, state violence, and terrorism. This does not mean anything except to say that I will be happy if you evince a nuanced understanding of these issues and be disappointed if you don't.

To be upfront: I have not judged PF in a year, nor have I done topic research in quite some time. I am still fine with speed and can evaluate a flow, but it may behoove you to spend just a little extra time on explanation instead of presuming I know the nuances of arguments even if you think they are obvious.

General: tech > truth, I guess. I am really uninterested at this point by arguments that are facially untrue or implausible, but I won't intervene since I know debaters don't like that. I will reward smart debating-- in-depth analysis of actor incentives, clever technical setup, genuine impact comparison, and analytics that point out internal flaws in silly arguments-- with speaker points. I like to see debaters that are knowledgeable about the topic and the world at large. I do not like to see debaters that crow about their opponents missing a "hidden link" or doing weighing to the effect of "prioritize strength of link because it leads to less intervention".

Mechanics: defense isn't sticky, 2nd rebuttal must answer the 1st, any speed fine but I won't flow your doc, you must bite defense in the subsequent speech to which it is read to kick turns, I will not evaluate defense you read on yourself, no offensive arguments, you'll lose if you're rude (seriously) or if you cannot produce evidence. Feel free to post-round as much as you like.

Progressive debating: I'd strongly prefer you do not read atopical arguments. I think the vast majority of critical authors have deeply wrong and ill-advised views and I would like to see more teams make that argument. I have no priors on theory. I do think that cut cards and disclosure are good but I'm well past the point of caring enough to intervene. Fairness bad arguments are illogical. The only arguments I will actively disregard are IVIs or aggressively frivolous theory; these are an abomination, please refrain.

Any questions-- ask. I do actually have opinions on PF, I just don't think they are particularly relevant to how I judge anymore.

Updated 4/11/24 for the Chance National Qualifier - GOOD LUCK TO ALL competitors

PO resources

https://www.uiltexas.org/files/academics/Witt_An_Act_of_Congress_PO.pdf

http://www.bobcatdebate.com/uploads/5/5/6/6/55667975/presiding_officer_guide.pdf

If a paradigm in tab room is not read, does it exist?

Summary LD Expectations

1. Do not spread. Let me repeat do not spread. I know it's in your DNA but do not spread. I always vote for the debater who speaks slower.
2. I am a traditional values judge as this is the foundation for this event. Therefore invest your time and energy on your value. Clarity and defining this value will go a long way to earning my ballot. Investing time in side by side comparison to your opponent's value with a clear and simple explanation for why I should prefer your value will go a long long way to earning my ballot.
3. This is not policy debate therefore there is no requirement for a plan or for implementation.
4. Traditional debate therefore no progressive debate, critique, or counter plans.
5. I reject on their face all extinction impacts.
6. I value analysis and warranting over evidence.
7. In your last 3 minutes of speaking you should collapse to your most important or valid argument, provide me with voters, and weigh the round
8. Quality over quantity, less is more, therefore those debaters who collapse to a single argument and weigh this argument earn my ballot.
9. Simple is preferred to the complex. I am a lay judge and while I have over 20 years experience and have judged over 160 rounds of LD in both face-to-face and online environments I find that the simplest argument tends to earn my ballot over many arguments that are complex.
10. A negative debater who collapses to the Aff framework and definitions and then clearly explains a rationale for why negating the resolution achieves that value is from my point employing a very sound strategy when arguing before a community judge
11. Remember to clearly define all relevant terms in the resolution. The March April 2025 topic has often hinged on definitions. Where there's a difference in approach on a term you'll need to clearly warrant for me why I should prefer your definition.

Don't worry *(be happy) as I will cut and paste this paradigm into my ballot. But alas, that is after the fact. Oy.

You are the teacher, I am the student.

I am appreciative and grateful to have this opportunity. IE and speech I do have comments for you after my "sharing" with debaters. Skip to the end.

As my teacher, you will want to know my learning style.

I am curious and interested in your voice and what you have to say. I am a life long learner and as a student I make every effort to thoughtfully consider your teaching. so . . .

1. I take notes (flow) in order to understand. So, a metric for debaters - think of me on the couch with one of your grandparents, Joe Biden and Morgan Freeman. We are all very interested in what you have to say and we are all taking notes. So, be certain your pace allows us to take notes (flow) with comprehension. If you are doubtful about the pace you are using, YOU ARE SPEAKING TOO FAST and should slow down. Thank you very much.
2. As your grandparents, Joe, Morgan and I sit on the couch we are striving to learn new material from you. You know far more than we do, you are very familiar with how to convey this information and we all think much slower than you so - KEEP IT SIMPLE. I would advise checking all debate jargon at the bus, before you enter the building.
3. Less is more. So, if you have 2 to 5 high level arguments and feel compelled to advance them, go for it. But as the round comes to an end, perhaps focus on ONE and make certain you explain it so that your grandparents, Joe, Morgan and I can understand. I was fortunate earlier this month at STATE to judge an out round of LD on a panel with a young, policy TECH judge and another parent. In a 2-1 decision, I was soooooooooooooooo pleased that, in post round disclosure and RFD this young, policy TECH judge recommended that the two excellent debaters collapse to the ONE argument that they considered most important (ie the argument they were winning). I was overjoyed as I have always indicated one simply and well explained argument will always capture my ballot over the old laundry list. In other words DO NOT RUN THE FLOW in 3rd AFF speech merely explain the ONE argument and weigh the voters. One other outstanding piece of feedback from this young, policy, TECH judge was to look at the judges - he, like I, react to your argumentation - nodding and smiling when we understanding and are convinced and frowning or shaking no when we are not. I noticed he did this in the round and, for those of you who have argued before me before, you know that I light up when you have me and if become despondent when you don't. Useful in round feedback from the judge is GOOD.

Anything else?

1. I see LD as an exploration of value, that is values debate, therefore I am most interested in learning your take on the value your have selected in evaluating the resolution. I am not interested implementation, rather the key is how the value you employ affirms or negates the resolution AND why that value is superior to the one selected by your opponent. It is ok, very ok, to concede value.
2. I am skeptical of Rawls based upon my reading of A Theory of Justice. But, by sharing this prior with you I want you to know as a student I am very interested in learning. So, if based upon your reading of Rawls you provide a rationale for my acceptance, you have it. Of course, the prereq for success here might well be your actual reading of Rawls, although the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy makes a start on introducing this theory to the lay reader.
3. I am very skeptical of Utilitarianism and its various expressions, particularly the rote and familiar rationale that is read on the top of cases that use it. I am very easily persuaded to reject based upon the comparison of impact on the minority.
4. I reject all extinction impacts
5. I reject all progressive debate
6. I reject kritik
7. If you are compelled to provide a counter plan or alternative as NEG, you need to provide clarity as to the link to the resolution and to utilize analysis and material that the AFF would be expected to aware of. (I understand the grammar policy have now OKed ending a sentence with a preposition.
8. CX is important for the ethos of the debaters, clarification, and laying the ground for rebuttal
9. In round tone - I appreciate all debaters, particularly those who are having fun, display good humor and take a collaborative rather than adversarial approach. I know you are all very serious about this activity (which I appreciate) and you need to be yourself. That said, when considering your approach, particularly in CX you might try a thought experiment or fantasy - you are arguing before the Supreme Court. What tone and approach would you take if you were trying to engage either Elena Kagan or Neil Gorsuch, remember of course that your grandparents, Joe, Mitch and I are also up there on the bench.
10. Congressional debater - elite debaters come prepared to argue both sides of all bills, never read a speech, anticipate rebuttal in CX, know the burdens in speaking first, mid and last in the course of legislative debate and accordingly speak at all three points in the Congressional session and are ready, willing and able to PO. I begin each session with the PO ranked first and the bar to surpass an elite PO is Jordanesque or Tarasui esque or Clark esque. So, PO, I praise those who PO and condemn elite debaters who don't.

I commend to you Aristotle - On Rhetoric - specifically his treatment of ethos

"the way we become responsible citizens who can understand each other and share ideas is through rhetoric"

Members of our community who have taught me a great deal:

Excellent overview of Congress expectations.

Yibo Chen

Frederick Changho (I take the approach Truth >Tech)

Zoe Soderquist

Christopher Klugman

Non debaters

IE - I tend to be much more impressed by the performance that reaches deep within to find some sort of reality or authenticity and I tend to be less impressed by the well developed techniques that excellent actors employ.

Extemp - I value analysis within the context of a cohesive narrative over quantity of evidence cited.

Orators - your call to action need be substantial, significant, clearly defined and either achievable, or contextualized in such a manner that the attempt has significant value.

And don't worry, my previous paradigm, saved for posterity due to the scope of Google - here

Was in PF for 3 years and I competed on the local and national circuit. Flow judge.

I will always evaluate the framework first and then look towards who best provides offense under the framework. PLEASE COLLAPSE, going for everything in round takes away from your ability to provide a narrative for your arguments. I will only vote on an argument if it’s present in both summary and final focus. That means extending both the warrant, giving a detailed analysis, and the impacts of the argument. Extending card tags alone is not enough. Most importantly, Weigh. If neither of the teams weigh, I’ll be forced to intervene and determine what I think is more important, which you might not necessarily agree with in the end. On a final note, I'm a stickler with evidence, meaning I appreciate evidence that explicitly says what it is that you are trying to communicate in the round; I appreciate logical analysis as well, but there are some instances where having both may serve to benefit you. Probably didn't cover everything so feel free to ask any specific questions before the round.

I am a lay judge, who has been judging in the New England area for the last three years. I have debated in my high school and college days some 25 years ago, and by no means was that structured the way debates run today. I have picked up some of the PF debating jargon, but am definitely not at expert level yet. So, please do not assume I'm familiar with debating jargon and don't assume that I'm familiar with arguments, just because they've been common on this year's topic.

I'm not logistically challenged, so please feel free to find a comfortable spot that works best for you and makes you feel confident. This is about you not me.

Public Forum (PF) is supposed to appeal to a lay audience. Be very clear with arguments and thorough with your rebuttals. All I require is that I can understand the argument. Clarity is more important than speed for me, so please DO NOT SPREAD. I value quality over quantity. It is extremely difficult to listen, digest and take notes, when the debater speaks too fast! I often say, if you can't reach me, you have already lost the round!

Provide and agree on definitions, so that everyone including your opponents and the judges are the same page. Provide citations and be sure to explain how the cited information supports or refutes a point. I'm not big on statistics for the sake of statistics. Please remember numbers and arguments can be twisted any which way to support or refute a hypothesis. So, analysis and interpretation needs to be logical, reasonable, and believable. Please don't resort to doomsday soothsaying. It doesn't grab my attention, unless you can prove your impacts with the right evidence and logic!

I place a premium on well-supported "real-world" links, but this doesn't mean you throw a bunch of stats/ or jargon at me, you'll definitely lose me. Instead warrant/ impact your arguments logically to their full conclusion, make sure there is ACTUAL CLASH and possible vote. It is best to show me that your evidence presents a coherent story with both warrants and resulting conclusions that support your argument. Consistency with historical precedence/ the world we live in is very important for me. I'm open to hypothetical/ theoretical/ creative argumentation, as long as you can support your argument with logical reasoning, specific evidence/ statistics and/or historical antecedents from around the global. Remember, history doesn't belong only to the United States. Research global historical events and use them to your advantage.

In conclusion, my ballot often depends more on link credibility than on impact magnitude. Outline the case, restate and/or carry your main points into the summaries and final focus. Do not introduce new arguments after the first summary and do not forget to extend your case. Crystallize your case for me. DO NOT make me do the analysis and conclusions for you! I may get it completely wrong and you may not like the result!

Please don't make morally reprehensible arguments. For more detailed feelings about specific arguments, feel free to ask me before the round. During crossX, please be inquisitive, investigative and probing, but not contentious or disrespectful. CAMARADERIE and HUMOR are always a PLUS! Most importantly, have fun debating and learn from each of these amazing experiences. Enjoy!

I am a third year out and I did CX and LD at Austin SFA from 2015-2019.

I would like to be on the email chain - anevayel@gmail.com

General:

I have 0 preference for argumentative style (traditional, “progressive” etc). Yes I’m fine with whatever speed you want to go.

Tech/Truth: I default to tech on arguments I either have personal opinions about or don’t understand but please don’t mistake tech as just having more ink on the flow. I swing more towards truth in matters where whatever is being said is like common knowledge or a fact about current events etc.

I will not disclose your speaker points and I won’t give you a 30.

Speaker points are 60% strategy and quality of argumentation and 40% how clearly you spoke and your in round etiquette. I will give you the lowest points I can if you are nasty. Don’t be.

LD/CX:

Kritiks: Fantastic. Please make sure you understand it and you explain it clearly. I’m probably familiar with whoever you are reading so I wouldn’t downvote you because I don’t know/understand the author but the burden is still on you to explain and win their argument as if I don’t know who they are.

T: Please be mindful I have not judged many rounds on this LD or policy topic so I have 0 preconceived notions of what is T and what is not. You must give me a clear violation->impact story.

Theory: If you’re in LD or PF-I don’t evaluate theory. Ask me for clarifiers if you must. CX- do your thing but please don’t just spread through a bunch of blocks someone else likely wrote

Disads and Counterplans are great! Make your link stories specific! Please, don’t forget to debate about the aff!

PF:

Please be nice to each other. Don’t quote the TFA rules at me. Run whatever arguments you want but you absolutely must tell me a coherent story that is backed by your evidence.

i flow the round but i'm not tech and i can handle some speed (be safe and just go slow). i'm pretty well-read on most topics, especially economic ones, but i'm tech over truth. logic > evidence w/o warranting. if the tournament allows me to i'll disclose w/ a detailed rfd

I am a first year PF coach and new to debate.

I don't believe low point wins or speaker points are enough to deter truly rude and disrespectful behavior. As such, I reserve the right to only flow and evaluate arguments that are made and extended while maintaining the tone of a friendly academic discussion. Passion is encouraged, but ad hominem attacks, eye rolls, derision, and various "isms" are all very much discouraged. If I'm not happy with the tone of the debate, it will likely be pretty clear that I've stopped flowing you. At the end of the round I will then evaluate all arguments made and extended respectfully and I will consider all other arguments dropped. This is a policy that has impacted my judging in rounds before.

Anything you want me to understand in your round, state explicitly. Do not imply links or impacts and expect me to infer them. Please fully explain your warrants and all hows and whys if you expect me to buy an argument. Please do not leave me to my own devices with weighing impacts. Tell me why you believe you won the debate. During the final speeches, the debaters should be explaining how I ought to write the "Reasons For Decision" part of my ballot.

In PF, please clash. PF can be hard to judge because often the clash is underdeveloped. Please meaningfully engage with your opponents' arguments and then weigh your impacts against theirs. If your opponent provides a framework, I expect you to address it or else I consider it dropped and acceded to, just like any other part of debate; if you drop it, you concede it. It's worth repeating, please weigh your impacts against your opponents'. I strongly dislike spreading in PF and would prefer you don't use jargon. They are not appropriate for the format.

LD and PF Debaters are relying too much on "cards" and flow technique in rebuttal speeches. I want to hear arguments, not references to arguments. For example, "Cross-apply the X card" is not an argument.

I'm most persuaded by arguments that reflect a thorough knowledge of the topic and its related literature.

Speaks:

1. I am not a fan of spreading, but if you do, ask your opponents and send a speech doc. If you do this to confuse them and win, I will drop you. I care about the substance to your argument.

2. Warrant because No judge will get everything you say.

3. If you intentionally make any racist, sexist, homophobic, or otherwise discriminatory comments, this will be reflected in your speaks. Assertive and funny debaters are different from rude ones.

Argumentation:

You do not want me to interfere as a judge. Do the work for me and that means to make clean extensions, frontline, and weigh. In detail, here are things that win my ballot:

1. I vote off the flow. I try to interfere as little as possible, which means you NEED TO WEIGH. If you don't, I will have to interfere and use my own weighing mechanism. I will do everything I can to ensure a fair round from my and if I don't flow a one-second extension that isn't flushed out, you may not be pleased with my decision.

2. Frontline!! You can't just extend your arguments through their responses without telling me why they don't matter and/or why your argument still stands. If they extend their warranted response(s) throughout round and you do not respond to it, you are in a bad position.

3. Signposting is extremely helpful and should be done :) I RARELY flow author names so do not just extend "Smith 19" and think that is you extending something. I should hear what Smith 19 said over and over.

4. I will vote tech over truth. If your opponents make an unwarranted assertion, refute it. Don’t rely on me to do the analysis for you.

5. Summaries - Line-by-line, voter, etc. I have no preference on format. Create the narrative, defend, extend, weigh. New weighing in both summaries is fine.

6. NO new arguments in final focus (with the exception of extended weighing analysis in 1st FF).

7. Use cross strategically and for your own benefit. I will not be flowing during cross.

First-Speaking Team:

1. I do not require defensive extensions in first summary if they have not been responded to. However, you must extend overviews/turns if you expect me to be voting off of them.

2. By final focus, you should know what your opponents are going for. Defensive extensions must be in final focus if you want them to factor into my decision. Defense not responded to by the second-speaking team by second-summary is dropped defense - bring it up!

Second-Speaking Team:

1. The rebuttal should respond to any overviews/turns/disads. The only other time second- speaking team has time to respond is second summary, and that is extremely abusive. You do not have to respond to terminal defense until summary, although it may be strategic to do so on the arguments you’re going for later in the round. To clarify - if the rebuttal does not have to answer all terminal defense, the summary obviously must, or I will consider it dropped.

2. No new weighing in second final focus. It’s unfair and gives your opponents no chance to respond. Also, this is not your chance just to extend through ink because no one will be able to call you out on it.

Evidence:

1. Every card you read within a debate should be cited and available almost immediately (30 seconds is reasonable time) within context for your opponent to read. I will drop your speaks if you are unable to find or provide your evidence to your opponents or me.

2. Any evidence misrepresentations will factor into my decision. If you are blatantly lying about your cards, I will most likely drop you and your speaks.

3. I like logical responses just as much as I like carded responses. But just like a carded response, logic should make sense and be warranted.

This is a wonderful opportunity, do your best, grow and have fun!

As a public forum coach and judge I enjoy seeing a lively round with lots of purposeful clash and respectful exchange. I have been coaching debate for 8 years. Any disrespectful behavior including abusive frameworks may work against your partnership. SPEED READING will not be flowed, and I will put my pen down. It is important for me to hear your contentions, links, evidence and impacts. I value accurate use of evidence and weighing in the round. Intentionally muddling a round is manipulative, please do not try to confuse the round with irrelevant information or worse misuse of evidence. I want you to tell me why you are actually winning by proving how you outweigh and pulling your arguments through the round. Line by line is preferable, but a logical narrative can win around if well supported by timely evidence and historical depth of knowledge. In the end I vote for the team that tends to understand the topic and the research, presents with calm and clarity, and crystalizes the debate in the summary while providing voter issues. Additionally, I vote for truth over tech! Happy debating!

Vita Roth

El Camino Real Charter High School

English Department Chair

Speech and Debate Coach

v.roth@ecrchs.net

I currently teach Honors British Literature and AP Language and have taught almost every English course possible at the high school level, including AP Language. I have over 8 years experience teaching English at El Camino Real.

Please share your opinions or beliefs about how the following play into a debate round:

Although speech delivery is very important for students, learning how to support their argument with facts and passion is just as important, if not more important. With the time constraints imposed on students they often speak very quickly so it is important to emphasize their supporting information very clearly and concisely. What generally helps me is if the student begins with the big picture so I can tell where they are heading, and following that up with line by line details, allowing some time for me to absorb the information and take notes. They should also be prepared for their opposition by stating any known contradictions and addressing them head on. Their final focus should repeat their strongest arguments and why I should vote for their side. Also, remember to repeat these strongest arguments whenever they speak again.

I find that sometimes students try to bring in too many arguments. Then they spend too much time defending these lesser arguments and lose focus on the big picture. Remember, the opposition will try to undermine your support so the fewer you have the easier it will be to stay focused on the facts you have to support your argument.

As far as style, first and foremost, be yourself. Be enthusiastic about your topic. Be confident in your argument, don't let the opposition distract you by hammering on one of your arguments, restate your facts and then reinforce your other arguments. If the other team or person does something you feel is against the rules, don't argue with them during your time. Wait for Cross and then mention it but don't let yourself be drawn into an argument at that time. State your concern and let the judge take it into consideration. I have seen a lot of time wasted as students argue the point during the speech process. Also, a few moments of silence is OK. You don't have to fill the time with "ummm" or something similar. You are allowed to take a moment to think out your answer or your next argument.

Finally, remember, you don't have to prove the opposition is wrong, only that your argument will lead to the best outcome. This should be the focus throughout. Yes, it is a good idea to point out flaws in their argument, but it is more important to reiterate your argument and why your point is the best outcome for the issue at hand.

King Round Robin/NDCAs: you do you but probs would prefer topical debates seeing how far we all came for the tourney and TOC practice. Topical K’s fine I guess but still prefer substance.

Gabe Rusk

☮️

Background

Debate Experience: TOC Champion PF 2010, 4th at British Parli University National Championships 2014, Oxford Debate Union competitive debater 2015-2016 (won best floor speech), LGBTQIA+ Officer at the Oxford Debate Union.

Wanna come hang with me this summer? Sign up for the Summer Speech & Debate Think Tank at Stanford University.

NSDA PF Topic Committee Member: If you have any ideas, topic areas, or resolutions in mind for next season please send them to my email below.

Coaching Experience: Director of Debate at Fairmont Prep 2018-Current, Senior Instructor and PF Curriculum Director at the Institute for Speech and Debate, La Altamont Lane 2018 TOC, GW 2010-2015. British Parli coach and lecturer for universities including DU, Oxford, and others.

Education: Masters from Oxford University '16 - Dissertation on the history of the First Amendment. Religion and Philosophy BA at DU '14. Other research areas include Buddhism, comparative religion, conlaw, First Amendment law, free speech, freedom of expression, art law, media law, & legal history. AP Macroeconomics Teacher too so don't make econ args up.

2023 Winter Data Update: Importing my Tabroom data I've judged 651 rounds since 2014 with a 53% Pro and 47% Con vote balance. There may be a slight subconscious Aff bias it seems. My guess is that I may subconsciously give more weight to changing the status quo as that's the core motivator of debate but no statistically meaningful issues are present.

Email: gabriel.rusk@gmail.com

Website: I love reading non-fiction, especially features. Check out my free website Rusk Reads for good article recs.

PF Paradigm

Judge Philosophy

I consider myself tech>truth but constantly lament the poor state of evidence ethics, power tagging, clipping, and more. Further, I know stakes can be high in a bubble, bid, or important round but let's still come out of the debate feeling as if it was a positive experience. Life is too short for needless suffering. Please be kind, compassionate, and cordial.

Big Things

• What I want to see: I'm empathetic to major technical errors in my ballots. In a perfect world I vote for the team who does best on tech and secondarily on truth. I tend to resolve clash most easily when you give explicit reasons why either a) your evidence is comparatively better but also when you tell me why b) your warranting is comparatively better. Obviously doing both compounds your chances at winning my ballot. I have recently become more sensitive to poor extensions in the back half. Please have UQ where necessary, links, internal links, and impacts. Weighing introduced earlier the better. Weighing is your means to minimize intervention.

• Weighing Unlike Things: I need to know how to weigh two comparatively unlike things. If you are weighing some economic impact against a non-economic impact like democracy how do I defer to one over the other? Scope, magnitude, probability etc. I strongly prefer impact debates on the probability/reasonability of impacts over their magnitude and scope. Obviously try to frame impacts using all available tools. I am very amicable to non-trad framing of impacts but you need to extend the warrants and evidence.

• Weighing Like Things: Please have warrants and engage comparatively between yourself and your opponent. Obviously methodological and evidentiary comparison is nice too as I mentioned earlier. I love crossfires or speech time where we discuss the warrants behind our cards and why that's another reason to prefer your arg over your opponent.

• Don't be a DocBot: I love that you're prepared and have enumerated overviews, blocks, and frontlines. I love heavy evidence and dense debates with a lot of moving parts. But if it sounds like you're just reading a doc without specific or explicit implications to your opponent's contentions you are not contributing anything meaningful to the round. Tell me why your responses interact. If they are reading an arg about the environment and just read an A2 Environment Non-Unique without explaining why your evidence or warranting is better then this debate will suffer.

• I'm comfortable if you want to take the debate down kritical, theoretical, and/or pre-fiat based roads. I think framework debates be them pre or post fiat are awesome. Voted on many K's before too. Here be dragons. I will say though, over time I've become increasingly tired of opportunistic, poor quality, and unfleshed out theory in PF. But in the coup of the century, I have been converted to the position that disclosure theory and para theory is a viable path to the ballot if you win your interp. I do have questions I am ruminating on after the summer doxxing of judges and debaters whether certain interps of disc are viable and am interested to see how that can be explored in a theory round. I would highly discourage running trigger warning theory in front of me. See thoughts below on that. All variables being equal I would prefer post-fiat stock topic-specific rounds but in principle remain as tabula rasa as I can on disc and paraphrasing theory.

Little Things

• (New Note for 2024: Speech docs have never intended to serve as an alternative to flowing a speech. They are for exchanging evidence faster and to better scrutinize evidence. Otherwise, you could send a 3000 word case and the speech itself could be as unintelligible as you would like without a harm. As a result there is an infinite regress of words you could send. Thus I will not look at a speech doc during your speech to aid with flowing and will clear you if needed. I will look at docs only when there is evidence comparison, flags, indicts etc but prefer to have it on hand. My speed threshold is very high but please be a bit louder than usual the faster you go. I know there is a trade off with loudness and speed but what can we do).

• What needs to be frontlined in second rebuttal? Turns. Not defense unless you have time. If you want offense in the final focus then extend it through the summary.

• Defense is not sticky between rebuttal and final focus. Aka if defense is not in summary you can't extend it in final focus. I've flipped on this recently. I've found the debate is hurt by the removal of the defense debate in summary and second final focus can extend whatever random defense it wants or whatever random frontlines to defense. This gives the second speaking teams a disproportionate advantage and makes the debate needlessly more messy.

• I will pull cards on two conditions. First, if it becomes a key card in the round and the other team questions the validity of the cut, paraphrasing, or explanation of the card in the round. Second, if the other team never discusses the merits of their opponents card the only time I will ever intervene and call for that evidence is if a reasonable person would know it's facially a lie.

• Calling for your opponent's cards. It should not take more than 1 minute to find case cards. Do preflows before the round. Smh y'all.

• If you spread that's fine. Just be prepared to adjust if I need to clear or provide speech docs to your opponents to allow for accessibility and accommodation.

• My favorite question in cx is: Why? For example, "No I get that's what your evidence says but why?"

• Germs are scary. I don't like to shake hands. It's not you! It's me! [Before covid times this was prophetic].

• I don't like to time because it slows my flow in fast rounds but please flag overtime responses in speechs and raise your phone. Don't interrupt or use loud timers.

Ramblings on Trigger Warning Theory

Let me explain why I am writing this. This isn't because I'm right and you're wrong. I'm not trying to convince you. Nor should you cite this formally in round to win said round. Rather, a lot of you care so much about debate and theory in particular gets pretty personal fairly quickly that I want to explain why my hesitancy isn't personal to you either. I am not opposing theory as someone who is opposed to change in Public Forum.

- First, I would highly discourage running trigger warning theory in front of me. My grad school research and longstanding work outside of debate has tracked how queer, civil rights advocates, religious minorities, and political dissidents have been extensively censored over time through structural means. The suppression and elimination of critical race theory and BLM from schools and universities is an extension of this. I have found it very difficult to be tabula rasa on this issue. TW/anonymous opt outs are welcome if you so wish to include them, that is your prerogative, but like I said the lack of one is not a debate I can be fair on. Let me be clear. I do not dismiss that "triggers" are real. I do not deny your lived experience on face nor claim all of you are, or even a a significant number of you, are acting in bad faith. This is always about balancing tests. My entire academic research for over 8 years was about how structural oppressors abuse these frameworks of "sin," "harm," "other," to squash dissidents, silence suffragettes, hose civil rights marchers, and imprison queer people because of the "present danger they presented in their conduct or speech." I also understand that some folks in the literature circles claim there is a double bind. You are opting out of trigger warning debates but you aren't letting me opt out of debates I don't want to have either. First, I will never not listen to or engage in this debate. My discouragement above is rooted in my deep fear that I will let you down because I can't be as fair as I would be on another issue. I tell students all the time tabula rasa is a myth. I still think that. It's a goal we strive for to minimize intervention because we will never eliminate it. Second, I welcome teams to still offer tw and will not penalize you for doing so. Third, discussions on SV, intersectionality, and civil rights are always about trade offs. Maybe times will change but historically more oppression, suppression, and suffering has come from the abuse of the your "speech does me harm" principle than it benefits good faith social justice champions who want to create a safe space and a better place. If you want to discuss this empirical question (because dang there are so many sources and this is an appeal to my authority) I would love to chat about it.

Next, let me explain some specific reasons why I am resistant to TW theory in debate using terms we use in the literature. There is a longstanding historical, philosophical, and queer/critical theory concern on gatekeeper shift. If we begin drawing more and more abstract lines in terms of what content causes enough or certain "harm" that power can and will be co-opted and abused by the equally more powerful. Imagine if you had control over what speech was permitted versus your polar opposite actor in values. Now imagine they, via structural means, could begin to control that power for themselves only. In the last 250 years of the US alone I can prove more instances than not where this gatekeeping power was abused by government and powerful actors alike. I am told since this has changed in the last twenty years with societal movements so should we. I don't think we have changed that significantly. Just this year MAUS, a comic about the Holocaust, was banned in a municipality in Jan 22. Toni Morrison was banned from more than a dozen school districts in 2021 alone. PEN, which is a free press and speech org, tracked more than 125 bills, policies, or resolutions alone this year that banned queer, black, feminist, material be them books, films, or even topics in classrooms, libraries, and universities. Even in some of the bills passed and proposed the language being used is under the guise of causing "discomfort." "Sexuality" and discussions of certain civil rights topics is stricken from lesson plans all together under these frameworks. These trends now and then are alarming.

I also understand this could be minimizing the trauma you relive when a specific topic or graphic description is read in round. I again do not deny your experience on face ever. I just cannot comfortably see that framework co-opted and abused to suppress the mechanisms or values of equality and equity. So are you, Gabe, saying because the other actors steal a tool and abuse that tool it shouldn't be used for our shared common goals? Yes, if the powerful abuse that tool and it does more harm to the arc of history as it bends towards justice than I am going to oppose it. This can be a Heckler's Veto, Assassin's Veto, Poisoning The Well, whatever you want to call it. Even in debate I have seen screenshots of actual men discussing how they would always pick the opt out because they don't want to "debate girls on women issues in front of a girl judge." This is of course likely an incredibly small group but I am tired of seeing queer, feminist, or critical race theory based arguments being punted because of common terms or non-graphic descriptions. Those debates can be so enriching to the community and their absence means we are structurally disadvantaged with real world consequences that I think outweigh the impacts usually levied against this arg. I will defend this line for the powerless and will do so until I die.

All of these above claims are neither syllogisms or encyclopedias of events. I am fallible and so are those arguments. Hence let us debate this but just know my thoughts.

Like in my disclaimer on the other theory shell none of these arguments are truisms just my inner and honest thoughts to help you make strategic decisions in the round.

Good with speed up to a point, if you go blazing and I miss it, I can't weigh it.

I need each team to tell me why they think they won the round, so I don't have to figure it out on my own.

I have no strict rules about what has to be said in summary, but I expect consistent argumentation. Something from the first four speeches should not just pop up in the final focus as a voter.

It is important that your evidence says what you say it says. If the debaters make a card(s) important to the round, I may call for evidence.

I was a policy debateron the national circuit in the 1980's, before the internet and before Public Forum Debate. Four years of competitive policy debate has shaped my approach to the ballot, however I like the changes and variety that come with public forum. Evidence is like ammunition in a battle. You have to undertsand it and know how to use it, else it could backfire and create unintednded injury to yourself instead of your opponent. In the end, rhetorical flourish is not important as a demonstrated understanding of the topic, a solid ability to listen to your opponenet, undertand the premise of your case, and explain why your case and the supporting evidence justify a decsision in your favor.

**Please add me to the email threads/email chains so I can follow along with the evidence presented: patrick.sammon@aquinas-sta.org

DEBATE:

**Remember that Public Forum Debate is the format of debate that most of the general public can follow and understand.**

I'm a citizen judge who will decide the round on clear, concise arguments from both sides based on the evidence presented. I follow the clock and Regs fully.

Avoid running Kritiks and T. The meat and potatoes of this format of debate is to reach the masses.

Decorum and Behavior: Everyone in the round needs to be respectful and act accordingly. Anything out of acceptable and energetic debate (attacks or backhanded comments on gender, race, etc.), I will throw the round to the other team, end the round, tank your speaks and notify your Coaches.

Spreading: I do not like spreading in PF (or LD). Having the ability to speak at 200 (OR MORE...MANY more) words per minute is a fantastic skill to have, but it doesn't belong in this arena. You are not the famous fast talker John Moschitta, Jr.. You have your Constructive speeches and adequate time to lay out your cases. People (opponents and judges, as well as any spectators in the gallery) need to understand everything you say and the evidence that you reference in order to follow.

During the rounds, please be sure to speak clearly. Be respectful to everyone in the round/on the 'call.' Even though this is a competitive event, we are still in the educational orbit. Use these tournaments as learning experiences and opportunities to further work at your craft.

Last but not least, please have fun and enjoy this experience! GOOD LUCK!

If my judging strategy doesn't match what your team is looking for, please feel free to STRIKE ME. I won't take it personally. Everyone has their tastes and are entitled to them - especially in tournaments where you have say in your judge panels. Take advantage of the benefit! :)

SPEECH:

Remember to relax, have fun and enjoy the experience!

Mr. P. J. Samorian
Mr. Samorian is the Communications Department Chair at American Heritage Schools Palm Beach Campus. His teams compete in Lincoln Douglas, Public Forum, Congressional Debate and Individual Speech Events, Worlds School Debate with possible Policy Debate addition. AH Achievements: LD State Champion, Declamation State Champion, Sunvite PF Champion, Emory PF Champion, NSDA/NCFL Finalists in IE and Congress, Grapevine PF Champions, Bronx Congress RR Champion, Blue Key PF and LD Champions, GMU Congress Champion, Blue Key 3rd Place Sweepstakes, NSDA district champions. He is the former Director of Forensics at New Trier High School in Winnetka, Illinois. He was the Director of Forensics at Loyola Academy in Wilmette, Illinois for 18 years and before that was an Assistant IE Coach at Glenbrook South High School in Glenview, Illinois under the direction of William (Mark) Ferguson. He coached the NFL Poetry Reading National Champion (1993), NFL Congress(Senate) Runner-Up (2000), ICDA State Congress Champions (2000), IHSA State Congressional Debate Runner-Up (2008), and his team won one of five NCFL Eleanor E. Wright Debate Awards (2009). He has coached finalists and champions at Wake Forest, Grapevine, The Glenbrooks, Blue Key, The Barkley Forum, U.C.Berkeley, Sunvite and Harvard. Mr. Samorian is an NSDA Triple Diamond coach. He holds a B.A. from Northern Illinois University and a M.Ed. from Loyola University Chicago. He attended Glenbrook North High School in Northbrook, Illinois where he was involved with drama and music. He was involved with hosting five NCFL National Tournaments in Chicago, and was the President of the Chicago Catholic Forensic League and has served on both the Northern Illinois NFL District Committee as well as the IHSA State Debate Committee. He was the director of public forum for Millennial Speech and Debate (Georgetown and Boston College) and was the Co-Director for Public Forum Debate at the Harvard Summer Workshop. He has hosted NSDA webinars on different aspects of congressional debate. He has been the director of public forum at Georgetown as well as teaching and directing programs in Business, Stem, and Debate for Capitol Debate at Notre Dame Baltimore, American University Washington DC, Yale University, Babson College, Dartmouth College, The Hun School. He is currently the PBMSFL Treasurer and serves on the congress TOC advisory committee.

FOR ALL DEBATE EVENTS, the flow is so important. You have to listen and make note of what your opponents are saying. I am flowing, so you should be as well. Then it is important that you DO something with that information.

I am open to any argument you may make and then ask that you support that idea.

If you are going to spread, please sign post and accent key terms you want me to get down on my flow.

I work hard to not let any of my personal opinions have any place in the round.

I prefer that debaters be strong in their conviction but not be abusive in their treatment of others.
I also require you to be truthful. Present accurate evidence. I have been witness to false information and it really bothers me that you would just present it as though it is true and keep going until someone questions it.

Persuade me that you are right and your opponents are not.

I DO NOT SHAKE HANDS AT THE END OF A ROUND (Obviously in person debate) This was posted BEFORE Covid and still applies now.

LINCOLN DOUGLAS
I prefer that contestants stick to the philosophical arguments in the round. It bothers me when LD turns to a plan of action. (With exception of a topic that requires a plan...) While topics are sometimes hard, I am looking for the theory that is supporting what you are saying. To this end, you may consider me "old school" when it comes to LD. Yes, I do think that Locke, Hobbes, Rousseau and others should provide foundation for the direction you are going. That doesn't mean I am not open to other theories and philosophies, however if you do run theory or other arguments, know why you are running them. Please don't run them because you do that at every tournament so you don't have to prep each topic!!! An entire round of arguments not related to the topic will not win my ballot. Ignoring a judge who says "clear" when you are spreading, will not win my ballot. Clear, persuasive arguments will win my ballot. Arguments that are constructed and carried through the debate will win my ballot. Weighing at the end or your final rebuttal could win my ballot. I do not shake hands at the end of a round.

PUBLIC FORUM
I like the original intention of this event that it should be a debate that would take place in a public setting and would have ideas and delivery that any person off the street could understand. To this end, I don't want you to be a policy debater. While I do want structure to what you are saying and evidence to support your ideas, it is the PUBLIC approach that I prefer. Are you clear? Do your points make logical sense? Are you able to persuade me that your side is the side that is best for our current population? I have been extremely bothered in the past few years with students who are falsifying evidence. I judged a semi-final where one team built an entire case around one key piece of evidence. Their opponents called for the evidence during the round, but it was never produced. The judge next to me called for the evidence after the round and sure enough, they were blatantly misquoting the evidence. I have also researched evidence that simply does not exist. Have some integrity. Do the work needed to prepare yourself for the topic. I do not shake hands at the end of a round.

CONGRESSIONAL DEBATE
Yes, I was around when the event was called Student Congress and it has been an honor to have been a part of the evolution of the activity. I think there are many roles that congressional debaters play. To that end, there are many styles of speeches that I enjoy when judging a congress round. The authorship should explain the legislation and set the tone and standard for the round. The first con should be equally as strong. Both should have strong supportive evidence and equally strong explanations. Every speech after that should further debate with new evidence and should also extend or refute previous speakers. For me, politics are a waste of time. That being said, I also don't like it to be a speech competition. It should be a series of debate speeches on both sides so that at the end of debate on each piece of legislation, I have a better idea of the issues and in a sense; I have been persuaded to one side or the other. If you are speaking near the end of the debate, then a top-notch crystallization is in order and very much enjoyed when done well. If you are a presiding officer, I want it to run so smoothly and fairly that I never have to step in. A good PO brings energy to the room and fosters an atmosphere of healthy debate. I enjoy students who have their own unique style and don't just copy what everyone else is doing and saying. Play to your strengths. Recent developments in more complicated scenarios have been interesting as has the development of 30 second questioning periods (direct questioning). Traditional questioning is one question one person, it should not be called indirect questioning.... Congressional Debate is still evolving and I think we should enjoy the growth. Some styles work better than others, but I am not convinced there is just one way to speak or preside. I enjoy some of the regional and league differences. I serve on the TOC Congressional Debate Advisory Committee. I do not shake hands at the end of a round. Can we please put an end to frowning chairs? Congress does not have an equal number of speeches for or against a piece of legislation so why should we. It is natural that one side will have more than the other. So stop frowning. If you cannot extend, refute, or produce new arguments, then don't rehash, vote to move on to the next legislation and speak early on that. EVERYONE SHOULD BE PREPARED ON BOTH SIDES. Then strategically you should choose which side will benefit you the best and speak on that side.

INDIVIDUAL EVENTS
I don't think anyone checks the wiki for IE philosophy. LOL I mean, its not like you could change your cutting of speech because I am in the back of the room. IE was my first love and passion. Do well in performance. Be honest and true and you will win me every round. I often write an IE ballot as though I am coaching you. So, if I give you ideas and then see you a month later and have to just write the same exact ballot again, what did you learn and do my notes even matter at that point. IE students often try to read the judge. You can't really read me. I may be writing feverishly to give you as many suggestions for improvement as possible, I may be writing how much I am enjoying every moment, or a may stop writing because I don't have much to say because you are so amazing. I also rank as I go so there is no advantage or disadvantage to your speaking order.

ONLINE SPEECH AND DEBATE - At first, I had enjoyed moving to online speech and debate. I was involved in rules development, ideas for communicating online and framing ideas. I worked all summer with online speech and debate and so understand glitching etc but you also need to make sure no other devices in your home are on and that your framing doesn't include anything moving, like a ceiling fan, as they will detract from the strength of your signal. FOR DEBATE EVENTS, I prefer that you present your speech seated. I think in person standing is fine, but when you stand online we often lose facial expression, gestures are hard to see, walking off camera isn't good, and your voice may drop off. FOR SPEECH EVENTS-For many, ok, most, events you must stand and that is perfectly fine. Have fun and enjoy that we are still able to keep our activity vibrant and growing. 2022 Update - I am tired of being online and I am crossing fingers we will soon return to in person speech and debate. I AM IN FAVOR of students who are finding creative ways to perform online and I am not in favor or adults making new online rules that limit creativity. (Ex: Moving toward or away from the camera for emphasis)

I am a parent judge with 3 years of experience judging in PF. A few notes about my preferences:

- Please try to speak slowly, if I cannot understand what you are saying, I will not be able to evaluate it in my decision

- Act civil during crossfire, I will drop your speaker points if you are rude to your opponents

- Don't run arguments that use lots of complex technical argumentation and jargon (K's, theory, etc.)

- I evaluate the flow to judge the round, but please give me a clear narrative, I enjoy voting for arguments that are cohesive and well-warranted

- Don't misconstrue your evidence and make sure that if you paraphrase, it accurately represents your evidence

- Give me clear link extensions and weighing in the final focus, and don't bring up new offense after first summary

- Time yourselves please

- Make sure to address all responses from first rebuttal in your second rebuttal, otherwise I will consider the responses dropped

- If you send me your disclosed case I will give you +1 speaker points. saokara@yahoo.com

Email: aas363@cornell.edu

do whatever you want

SAFETY NOTE:

Safety comes first. If the round becomes unsafe for you or your partner and you are not comfortable voicing your concerns in the round, please email or FB message me immediately. I want all debaters to know that I am an adult you can trust in this space. I will do as much as I can to protect you and keep this activity safe for you.

third-year out coach for Walt Whitman. debated for Edgemont PF for 5 years.

flow judge, tabula rasa with an exception for accessibility 

1. I don't care what your style of debate is in the first half--> just be non-blippy and non-messy in the back half, and you will make me happy.

2. Feel free to go wild with args and collapses. Win the round, and you win my ballot but do it with style and you'll win my heart (and a 30).

3. If both teams agree, I'll judge based on a different paradigm so long as I have the ability to. Literally, go wild.

4. my speaks are based on how strategically good your speech was.

5. speed is good if ur clear, and not blippy. 

6. most things are up for debate--> I drop speaks, not the ballot for things I consider bad debate... eg: 2nd rebuttal disads w/out an implication, or clarity of impact weighing without warrants

7. I have a low threshold for extensions, so make an argument that I should drop unwarranted extensions (e.g. your opponents extend a claim but not the warrant). 

8. theory/kritiks- be accessible, I like shell theory over paragraph theory, I'll evaluate anything. I'll drop speaks if I can tell you are purposefully not being accessible 

9. don't be discriminatory, read content warnings for sensitive topics, and respect pronouns provided by tab. 

10. The only rule for fairness besides accessibility that I default is no new in 2nd ff. Otherwise, warrant out WHY certain rules in debate are unfair (not frontlining in 2nd rebuttal, new responses in 1st summary, etc) and what I should do with it (drop it). 

Please just have a nice little case debate :(

Signpost or it didn't happen;

Arguments have to be in summary and final focus;

Consider slowing down a little for my tired old ears;

Err silly and down to earth over perceptually dominant;

Weighing is very important and shouldbe evidence-based;

It's okay to answer a theory shell then go for substance. Encouraged, even;

And meet NSDA rules for evidence or strike me. You have to have a cut card at a minimum.

Put me on the email chain and title it something logical: gavinslittledebatesidehustle@gmail.com.

pasdebate@gmail.com

Subject the email chain - Tournament Name Round # - Aff Team AFF vs Neg Team NEG

Debated at Maine East (2016-2020, TOC Circuit) and the University of Pittsburgh (2020-2023, NDT Qual)

I will boost speaker points if you follow @careerparth on tiktok, bring (vegetarian) food/snacks, and end the debate as fast as possible.

I took most of this paradigm from Reed Van Schenck:

Career wise, my arguments of preference were more critical (Afropessimism, Settler Colonialism, Capitalism, and the likes). I enjoy judging clash debates, policy vs critical. Traditional policy debaters should take note of my lack of experience in policy v policy debates and rank me very low on their judging preferences.

The one thing you should know if you want my ballot is this: If you say something, defend it. I mean this in the fullest sense: Do not disavow arguments that you or your partner make in binding speeches and cross-examination periods, but rather defend them passionately and holistically. If you endorse any strategy, you should not just acknowledge but maintain its implications in all relevant realms of the debate. The quickest way to lose in front of me is to be apprehensive about your own claims.

When in doubt, referring to the judging philosophies of the following folks will do you well: Micah Weese, Reed Van Schenck, Calum Matheson, Alex Holguin, & Alex Reznik

Everything below this line is a proclivity of mine that can be negotiated through debate:

I think that debate is a game with pedagogical and political implications. As such, I see my role as a judge as primarily to determine who won the debate but also to facilitate the debaters' learning. Everything can be an impact if you find a way to weigh it against other impacts, this includes procedural fairness. When my ballot is decided on the impact debate, I tend to vote for whoever better explains the material consequence of their impact. Use examples. Examples can help to elucidate (the lack of) solvency, establish link stories, make comparative arguments, and so many more useful things. They are also helpful for establishing your expertise on the topic. All thing said, at the end of the day, I will adapt to your argument style.

I dislike judges who exclude debaters because of what they decide to read in a debate round, I will NOT do that as long as you don't say anything racist, sexist, etc.

Speaker points are arbitrary. I tend to give higher speaker points to debaters who show a thorough understanding of the arguments they present. I am especially impressed by debaters who efficiently collapse in the final rebuttals. I will boost speaker points if rebuttals are given successfully with prep time remaining and/or off the flow!

Public Forum Debate

The faster you end the debate, the higher your speaks.

I am a flow-centric judge on the condition your arguments are backed with evidence and are logical. My background is in policy debate, but regardless of style, and especially important in PF, I think it's necessary to craft a broad story that connects what the issue is, what your solution is, and why you think you should win the debate.

I like evidence qualification comparisons and "if this, then that" statements when tied together with logical assumptions that can be made. Demonstrating ethos, confidence, and good command of your and your opponent's arguments is also very important in getting my ballot.

I will like listening to you more if you read smart, innovative arguments. Don't be rude, cocky, and/or overly aggressive especially if your debating and arguments can't back up that "talk." Not a good look.

Give an order before your speech

Here are some of the criteria I would use to judge (some of these are chosen based on what works best for judging in Virtual/online events)

(1) Though I look at both evidence and pragmatic analysis, Pragmatic analysis works better for me in Online debate.

(2) I read rules handbook for a specific event carefully and try to apply that knowledge / theory every time consciously.

(3) I will pay more more weights on analytics to validate reasonability

(4) I would listen to full Affirmative and Neg and before making decision

(5) I prefer normal speed of communication, than fast.

Important Stuff is Bolded

My name is Andrew Shea (he/him). You can call me Judge Shea, Andrew, Fire Lord O’Shea, whatever floats your boat.

I am pursuing a major in history and a minor in international relations at the University of Iowa. I am working towards a phd in transnational labor history and relations.

I have a cat named Haywood after Harry Haywood. He is amazing and cool. Ask and I am happy to show pictures.

My email for contact is: ajhamilton112601@gmail.com

I competed at John F Kennedy High School in CR IA. I was coached by Jesse Meyer who remains a large influence on me today.

I judge mainly LD and PF. I was mostly a K debater and did okay throughout my career. I generally understand most arguments. My paradigm breaks down into prefs/speech paradigm, in-round debate behavior, and in-depth LD/PF prefs. Please ask questions if you have any. I am always looking to improve.

LD Cheat Sheet

1 K

2 Phil

3 Trad* or Policy/LARP

4 Theory/Strike**

5 Tricks/Strike (don’t know enough to competently judge)

*I think trad is a good debate format and can be competitive/clash with circuit debate. I put it higher up to tell trad debaters they can pref me without concern.

**I won’t vote you down because you run theory. I just have a lower threshold for response to theory. For example I don’t think you need to run a counter interp or RVIs to respond but if you do, you should do it well.

Two things of note:

1. I am ok with spreading but ask your opponent beforehand preferably in front of me. If you did not ask (or ignore attempts to find accommodation) and your opponent runs theory/disability arg on why spreading is bad I am more liable (not guaranteed) to drop you. However I'll note I have no "bad" WPM. I think if you have an issue saying "clear" or "speed" is the responsibility of the debater. If you have a problem with their overall speed mention something to your opponent after the speech. TLDR If you both agree to spread great, if you have an issue with spreading: advocate for yourself and work with each other under the best of intentions. All that said I am also less liable to vote for a 2ar spreading theory shell if no objections were raised prior.
2. I am pro Flex Prep but you have to ask before round. I prefer this to avoid someone being denied the opportunity to use it in round. In elims I go with the majority judge view on flex prep.

PF Cheat Sheet

1 Trad PF

2 Critical Args

3Theory/Strike

I am basically fine with anything in PF but theory annoys me. I really prefer normal PF but I won’t mentally check out if you don’t.

See above LD prefs for spreading/flex prep

Speech Judging

I am by no means an experienced speech judge but I have coached the very basics and I did exempt and spontaneous in high school. I like to see confidence, good use of the space in a room, rehearsed body movements (don’t just keep your hands in one position unless that is your character's thing for something such as a HI), and just do your best.

Unless explicitly prohibited by tournament rules let me know if you want to give hand signals for time. I would be happy to do them.

Debater Behavior

Ask and Advocate: Debate should be a friendly and welcoming space. To that end, ask and advocate for yourself. If you have an issue or a question please ask. If you feel harmed in some way or see something that bothers you, advocate for yourself. I am happy to facilitate in any way I can to make debate a better space for all. In no way should gender, disability, or class make you feel unsafe in this space.

Assertive and Polite: It is ok to be determined and assertive in a debate round but never belittle your opponent or be snarky to them. Everyone here is a person first and foremost along with being a student. Debate is a pedagogical game and I find it vastly more useful to educate rather than to belittle someone for not understanding or for making a "bad argument" that said, you should absolutely seek to control a round and narrative. Raised and passionate voices are ok but avoid yelling or taking a dismissive, arrogant tone. Be very cognizant of that difference when debating women/non men debaters, sexism is all too prevalent and unacceptable in the debate space and such dynamics do influence my judging particularly in the way I give speaks.

On Spreading: I am not anti-spreading. While I don't think it is a good norm for debate I do understand that it is the default and if everyone is ok with it I will be too. I prefer that people ask before round because I have met several debaters who have had disabilities that prevented them from spreading. I would like debate to realize spreading should be moved away from but because I don't run a camp or have money I at least want to make the space more accessible to different debaters in lieu of some larger change.

Judge Behavior

As a judge I will: provide you with in-depth feedback and always explain to you why I interpreted something the way I did. I will not always be right and make mistakes but I will do my best to explain my reasoning.

Do everything I can to answer questions or redirect you towards resources who can do it better

Provide a safe environment for debaters as someone in the community who cares and who will listen.

LD Prefs in-depth

Since I mainly judge LD here is more in depth thoughts for those who care to read them:

K debate: I love K debate. My political beliefs lead me to love hearing Parenti, Gramsci, Lenin, Mao, Marx, Losurdo, Fanon, and many others along the communist and decolonial based lines. As such I will be happy when I hear cap bad, china isn’t the devil, palestine will be free, etc. That said I familiar with many other authors and I am generally friendly towards hearing any new arguments and I am happy to learn about anything new.

Phil: I know some but not alot. I would love to learn more and therefore feel free to run anything just explain it well.

Trad: I think it can and should endeavor to be more competitive with circuit debate.

Policy/Larp: I don’t necessarily have a problem with it, sometimes I just find it boring. Honestly I have grown to like it more because I actually do enjoy hearing about the resolution.

Theory: I won’t vote someone down because they run theory but I firmly believe that theory is often used in a way that makes debate poor and ruins the quality of argumentation. I think it harms accessibility and as a result my threshold for response is lower. While I feel like I have a decent grasp on theory debate there is a greater risk of me not fully comprehending your argument as I haven't attempted to immerse myself in the mechanics due to my dislike.

What I look for in a good LD round

Overview: Like a real overview which represents the interactions that happened in the round with a narrative. Challenge yourself to have it be more than a summary of what your case is.

Weighing: Like actual weighing. Extending your impact is great but you need to explain why your impact should be valued more compared to your opponents

1nr Card Drop: I see people spread as fast as possible through their speech and then just extend whatever their opponent did not respond too and think they won the round. I need some weight and explanation of the warrant from arguments to vote on them. When there isn't, my threshold for responding or weighing them is lower than the arguments you developed. Developing arguments is good and makes me value them more than your 17th apriori which has “big” implications in the round because your opponent conceded it.

Truth vs Tech: I'm more tech. Basically that's it.

Tabula Rasa: I'm not. I will not tolerate racist, sexist, ableist, classist behavior. I also have strongly held beliefs of what debate should be to get better. That said if I think such behavior has occured I am more likely to stop the round and refer the issue to tab. What I won't do is vote someone down because your K says they are literally the devil for not being topical. I am more receptive to the argument that the argument is some "-ism" not the person. We are learners here and should educate and build people up.

Judge Intervention: This is a very tricky topic for me. So because in the debate space we generally agree that a judgeshould intervene if some racism, sexism, issue occurs yet however we don't think this when it comes to things like reproducing imperialist talking points. We don't typically weigh the reproduction of these dominant idealogical norms as bad whereas only over racism and sexism is despite the fact that systems like imperialism harm far more people than an indvidual sexist or racist comment. So I think when people say "no judge intervention" that doesn't make alot of sense because we have decided as a community that we won't tolerate some things. So therefore I think a good take to approach this (not the best) is that judge intervention should be approached when the debaters says it is necessary as a top shelf/layer argument and then for the oppenent to argue why it shouldn't be perhaps by arguing their idea of what they want the judge to do is not good. This for example should take place in the debate over the role of the ballot. In terms of judge intervention regarding "why did you weigh x argument y way" generally if I think its close it may simply come down to persuviness, the narrative, or may best guess.

Teach me something: Honestly this goes for debaters, coaches, and other judges. I want to learn and improve and be a positive force in the debate space. I love learning about new theories and concepts. As such it may be helpful to take the time to explain the mechanics of an argument without the internal jargon to maximize education.

PF in-depth prefs

Trad pf vs Circuit pf: It's weird that there is now a difference between trad and circuit/prog PF debate and I am not exactly a fan that its come to this. That said I prefer normal PF rounds over critical arguments as I don't think the format lends itself to progressive.

Theory: See LD prefs for opinions on theory.

Evidence: My evidence standards are a bit higher in PF due to frequent bad paraphrasing. I will likely review cards which are deemed critical in round during prep time. If I find that the card itself is misconstrued I will be annoyed and have a lower threshold for response to the arguments that rely on the card. That said I think there is a difference in making an argument which misconstrues the card rather than the card itself being misconstrued. That's just debate.

That's all folks.

I have experience judging PF, LD, and Speech at national-level tournaments. For PF: I am open to a wide variety of approaches to a topic and try not to intervene in a round unless absolutely necessary. Generally, I encourage debaters to consider quality over quantity, making links between evidence, contentions, and impacts as clear as possible, and to avoid speaking at super-human speed. It is also helpful when debaters consider framework and make a case for what voting issues should be in a round and how the arguments should be weighed. Please be mindful of not speaking over one another during CF.

Debated at Purdue for 4 years in college. Debated at College Prep for 4 years in high school.

email chain: imaansidhu3@gmail.com

subject line: "Tournament - Round # - Aff Team vs Neg Team"

Short:

Fine with K affs + whatever, just do what you do well. I’m not a blank slate, but truth won’t come before tech/ I'm going to vote off the flow so there will be as little intervention as possible. My own debating was more kritical but I don't have a preference on what you do. Speed should never come at the expense of clarity. Don't be a jerk, have fun.

Long:
Overall - The last rebuttals should write my RFD for me, tell me what I'm voting on and why. The team that has explained what it means to win will most likely be the team that wins. I don't make a big deal about speaks unless you're rude. On the aff, whether plan or K, know what you're talking about and have a clear mechanism that you maintain. On the neg make strategic decisions. Don't insult your opponents and don't speak over them aggressively. I like debate; don’t make me not like it.

DA - Impact calc is important on both sides. Aff has a good chance of outweighing the impact if they win a high risk of case and I like a good straight turn. Saying the words "turns case" in the your speech means nothing to me without an explanation.

CP - Run whatever cheaty counterplan you want, just be ready to defend the model of debate you justify. Solvency advocates are a good way to legitimize your counterplan in my eyes. Assume that I've never heard whatever agency you're talking about. Perm do the aff is not an argument.

K - Framework is an important part on both sides, it's where we all start the decision in these rounds. I know a little about a lot of Ks but that doesn't mean I'll do work for you. Keep the overviews reasonable and know your lit.

K affs - don't be super shifty and don't get too wild with contradicting yourself or your lit base. Slow down in your overviews and explain to me how my ballot helps solve or is needed for your aff.

T- I need a thorough explanation of why your interpretation leads to a better model of debate and good impact work. Explain how the aff leads to 'tangible' impacts within debate like in-round abuse.

Framework – The aff should explain what solvency they lose under the neg interp and should at least be related to the topic. Whatever the strategy on the aff is, impact turns or a w/m, they're all viable when well executed.

The neg has to prove the aff is bad by some metric and a good case debate and TVA are helpful. Impact work should be thorough, not just 'fairness good because it's fair'. I don’t think procedural fairness is always an intrinsic good, even if debate is a game. But that doesn’t mean that procedural fairness doesn’t matter.

People don’t get into the internal link debate enough in F/W rounds. If the aff solves an impact and the neg model excludes them (fully or to whatever threshold is explained) I’ll vote aff. If the neg proves that their model of debate is better and can resolve or outweigh the aff, I vote neg.

Theory - I think theory is strategic and a good way to check back against abuse, I just find these debates shallow and late-breaking. Usually the 1AR will spend 10 seconds on it and then the 2AR will make up things for 5 mins that I can't evaluate because it's all new. So either write better blocks or deal with all cheaty counterplans. My threshold for voting on theory is scale, i.e., voting on 1 condo bad is requires more than voting on PICs bad.

Misc -

I probably don't hate you, I'm just not very expressive.

If you're uncomfortable with what is happening during a round, let me know and I'll do what I can.

Here's a list of people that have taught/coached me and shaped the way I look at debate: James Mollison, John Hines, Elliot Kovnick, Sara Beth Brooks, Michael Wimsatt, Ian Beier, and Lexy Green.

I am a lawyer, but a lay judge. I don't want to struggle to understand, so please do not spread. I expect the teams to behave respectfully toward each other. Derision is not persuasion. I will listen carefully to your arguments and your responses, as well as your sourcing. I am truth over tech, so keep that in mind. Ridiculous arguments will be rejected out of hand. Arguments must be related to the topic and well sourced. Likewise, no theory. I will not vote for a baseless claim.

speak clearly

Email: joshbutdebate@gmail.com

College: UT Tyler 21-Present

High School: Lindale 17-21

General philosophy: Feel free to read whatever you feel most comfortable with. I went for critical arguments almost every debate my senior year, but the previous three years I spent reading exclusively policy arguments and I read a mix of the two in college. You know what is and is not appropriate to say within rounds and if you don't adhere to that, your points and ballot will reflect it. If you have any questions about your argument and whether or not I'd be receptive to it, it's better to ask than be bothered by my ballot.

Comments:

If you say the words "for a brief off time roadmap," I am going to be sad.

Tech>truth. A dropped argument isn't assumed true without an extended and weighable warrant.

Depth>breadth. I'm not the best judge for more than 6 or 7 off, but if you feel like you need 13 pages to win a debate, I'll just be sad.

I prefer you to not read 30 cards in a speech. Evidence quality is really important and if you throw that out of the window just to throw the other team off, your speaks will reflect it. Comparing evidence quality is a great way to turn the tide in your favor in debates in front of me, as I will do my absolute best to evaluate only what was said in the round.

If it gives you better context, the most influential people to how I view debate are Cody Gustafson, Quaram Robinson, Yao Yao Chen and Nico Juarez.

Disads

-Uniqueness controls the direction of the link, this goes for both sides. If you want to win a link turn, you must win that the disad is non-unique and if you want to win the link you must win that it is.

-Zero risk is possible

Counterplans

-Much more persuasive if they have a solvency advocate, just reading a line in the 1NC just to dump 6 minutes on it in the block means that I give the aff leniency in rebuttals to catch up, but that isn't an excuse for sloppy 2ACs

-This is one place I am very up for a theory debate, whack counterplans that wipe out much of the aff lit base are probably bad for everyone, but the amount of times I've gone for counterplans that definitely cheat on some level puts me in the middle here.

-Doesn't really bother me if they're specific or not, but even if you don't have specific cards you should be able to explain why the counterplan solves the specific harms of the aff with a risk of a net benefit

-Generally for judge-kick, you just need to actually say it. This doesn't mean I can't be dissuaded by the other team in the final speech though.

Kritiks

-Feel free to read them on affirmative or negative, but don't get lazy with them and engage with the arguments the other team is making. Just reading the blocks you wrote at the beginning of the season and not referencing specific authors, lines of evidence from either side and engaging with arguments without specificity is a good way to get really behind in these debates.

-Framework isn't as important to win on negative in a lot of these debates, but if winning a research method through framework is what your critique is all about, of course you must win it.

-Most familiar with critiques of capitalism, settler colonialism and various areas of literature involving anti-blackness. Have read a bit of PoMo, but it is probably the argument you will need to spend the most time explaining. Regardless of my familiarity with your argument, you should be doing the work as if I've never heard your argument before.

-Specific links and explanations of links to either the topic or the affirmative are really important. Even if your link is generic and fits into every shell, that doesn't mean your 2NC or 2AC should sound the same every round. Great link explanation and application is a great way to get better speaks. The inverse is true as well.

-Impact and alt debates are often very muddy. Explaining your impact in a way that it can result from the links and be resolved by the alternative is something that is important. Alt explanation doesn't have to be hard, you just need to do it. History is your greatest resource in these debates, don't forget about it. Examples and explanations are great ways not just to get better speaks, but to win my ballot.

Framework

-Do your thing here and go for the impacts you are most comfortable going for. These debates often get lost in the internal links and fall short in the impact debate, be very careful there.

-Topical versions are important, but you need to make inroads outside of them to implicate why they're important within the debate. Don't just shallowly extend it or acknowledge it and move on, these can shred most of your offense on either side, but are very important to win when aff.

-Impact turns and impact defense are important here, but fleshing these arguments out is something a lot of teams don't do.

Topicality

-I have a higher threshold for voting for this against policy affs, some of these T interps are getting out of hand. That being said, T and advantage counterplans were my favorite arguments to go for, so feel free to read it if you think you can win it. Sometimes you might need to take these debates a little more slowly, it will benefit my comprehension given there are generally fewer pieces of evidence in these debates.

-Having good definitions (that define words in the resolution) is important.

-Please don't refer to a sheet by the authors name, instead refer to it by the word/phrase that the author intends to define.

Theory

-Please no tricks, they're bad for everyone

-Reasons to reject require warrants and weighable impacts

-Counterplan theory is probably a good idea, look above.

-IVIs/RVIs are cool, but not every sheet is an IVI. For example, if the negative reads a topicality shell in the 1NC and then choose not to go for it, that isn't a reason to vote affirmative.

I debated in policy for The Blake School for four years (2009-2013) and then I debated for Rutgers University-Newark in college (2013-2017). I ran mostly policy based arguments in high school and mostly critical arguments in college. I was an assistant coach (policy and public forum) with the Blake School until 2019 and then coached policy and congress at Success Academy from 2019-2023. I currently coach LD and policy at the Delores Taylor Arthur School for Young Men in New Orleans.

Email - hannah.s.stafford@gmail.com - if its and LD round please also add: DTA.lddocs@gmail.com

--

Feel free to run any arguments you want whether it be critical or policy based. The only thing that will never win my ballot is any argument about why racism, sexism, etc. is good. Other than that do you. I really am open to any style or form of argumentation.

I do not have many specific preferences other than I hate long overviews - just make the arguments on the line-by-line.

I am not going to read your evidence unless there is a disagreement over a specific card or if you tell me to read a specific card. I am not going to just sit and do the work for you and read a speech doc.

Note on clash of civ debates - I tend to mostly only judge clash of civ debates - In these debates I find it more persuasive if you engage the aff rather than just read framework. But that being said I have voted on framework in the past.

PF - Please please please read real cards. If its not in the summary I won't evaluate it in the final focus. Do impact calculus. Stop calling for cards if you aren't going to do the evidence comparison. I will increase your speaker points if you do an email chain with your cards prior to your speech.

I judge based on the flow. Make sure you speak clearly and address all contentions and subpoints when defending and attacking cases. Treat everyone with respect and be kind and courteous during the round.

I was a competitive PF debater all throughout high school and am currently a junior at the University of Pennsylvania.

Things I want to See:

-Please tell me where you are on the flow (sign posting). Nothing is worse than when kids are spewing and you don't know where to write it

-WEIGHING! Believe it or not, both teams will be winning some sort of offense at the end of the round. The only way you can convince me to vote for you is to tell me why your offense is more important than you opponent's offense.

-clash!!

-The best debates are ones where both teams have a central narrative that they are extending and expanding on throughout the round. While you can win by merely extending one turn that was dropped, I will be a lot happier voting for a team that has a strong narrative and story that convinces me not only on paper (flow), but also perceptually and emotionally (I know that is cheesy, but it's true)

Things I don't want to see:

-If you spread, I will not flow. The easiest way to ensure that I'm flowing is to look at me while you are speaking. If I am flowing, then your speed is fine. If not, then you are going waaaay too fast and need to slow down.

-You should be able to pull up all of your evidence within 30 seconds max. If not, I will get really annoyed and ask you why it is taking so long.

-Cross Fires are a chance to ask strategic questions that help set up your partner for their next speech or help to drive and frame the narrative that you are going for. However, if you use this time to just yell over your opponents, I will be annoyed and drop your speaker points.

-While I debated with summaries being two minutes long, I still expect your summaries to have the same purpose: to summarize the debate. A summary is not where you extend every piece of offense and spread in order to do so. It should be a structured speech that defends one of your important arguments and extends offense on your opponents arguments. If you go all over the flow trying to cover everything, you will certainly not get 30 speaker points from me and my flow will look messy which will be harder for me to make a decision at the end of the round.

Speaker Points:

Speak well, make concise and compelling arguments, use rhetoric that will convince me to vote for me and you are well on your way to a 29 or 30.

If you have any questions about my paradigm, don't hesitate to ask me before round. Also, if my RFD didn't make sense, please find me after round and ask so that I can explain myself better. Sometimes I just rush through so that the tournament can run smoothly.

My history is such that I have participated in Lincoln-Douglas, Policy, Public Forum, and Congressional debate. The vast majority of it was spent in a very traditional district in Lincoln-Douglas. That being said, I do believe that my varied background does allow for an understanding of progression in each format of debate. I am not entirely shut off to hearing anything, I might not wear a smile on my face about it... but I have voted on things like topicality and theory stuff. Now, if we want to get down to the specifics.

LD: First and foremost, Lincoln Douglas is evaluative debate. It doesn't always necessarily call for specific action, sometimes (most of the time) it just calls for justifying an action or state. I don't buy that there always has to be a plan. Additionally, I'm of the mindset that there is framework and substance. I tend to favor substance debate a lot more, that being said, if there can be a good amount of discussion on both sides of that, even better. I like to hear about the resolution, policy started to degenerate in my area to a series of Kritiks and bad topicality argumentation. I walk in expecting the resolution... I'd like to talk about things pertaining to the resolution if at all possible. The role of the ballot begins at the beginning as who was the better debater, if you want to change that let me know, but I tend to like it there. Finally, in terms of evidence, I hate calling for cards, but if it is so central and the round leaves everything riding on that piece of evidence I'll call for it. (Also if it's that key, and I for some reason miss it in my flow... Judges are human too.)

PF (UPDATED): Having judged and coached for a few years, I've learned to let a lot of the round play out. I HIGHLY value topical debate. It is possible to have critical stances while maintaining some relationship to the resolution. Additionally, I think PF is designed in such a way that there is not enough time to really argue K or T stances in a truly meaningful way. Take advantage of the back half of the round and CLARIFY the debate, what is important, why is it important and why are you winning? Tell me what I'm voting for in the final focus, make my job easier, and there's a good chance I'll make your tournament better.

One last note, please don't be mean spirited in the round, don't say that something "literally makes no sense." Don't tell me there is a flaw, show me the flaw.

In summation, run whatever you are happiest with, I might not be, but it's your show, not mine. Be great, be respectful, have fun. And if you have any other questions, feel free to ask! I'm not a mean judge (Unless I am decaffeinated, or someone is being disrespectful).

Go slow. Be clear. Be nice.

If you would like more, I have written detailed paradigms for each style I judge:

PF paradigm

Parli paradigm

Middle school paradigm

I am a lay judge. Please speak clearly and make logical arguments. I generally vote off of the arguments that make most sense to me, and have been clearly won in the round.

Hi! I am Selma Tabakovic (she/her pronouns) and I debated Public Forum in high school. I went to American University. Now I'm going to Brooklyn Law School. I am an external PF coach for American Heritage Palm Beach/Boca.

Generally: Debate in a way that will make you feel most comfortable and confident within the round! I will be able to adapt to you and your style. My paradigm below is just some specifics about my preferences, but you should feel free to compete in your own style.

I definitely look at the flow to decide who wins the round, but if I think that something is not handled effectively on the flow (ex: really under-covered argumentation in response to major points in the round), I will likely vote on the truth of an argument.

What I like to see in the round:

Comparative weighing in FF is key! Tell me why an argument matters more than another. Comparing worlds to each other will make the round more wholistic. If I have to decide which argument matters more than another, it is technically intervening and I would prefer if I didn't have to do that.

If you want me to vote for an argument it has to be extended from Summary to FF. Please extend the warrants for your arguments from case that you want to go for. Please frontline in second rebuttal and collapse on the argument you want to win on!

I love hearing unique arguments in PF! Feel free to run any argument about imperialism/colonialism/etc within the PF topic. I think engaging with these types of arguments within a round makes debate more educational, impactful, and interesting.

What isn't necessary in the round:

Please do not give me an off-time roadmap unless you are running theory. I will be able to follow your train of thought if you sign post!

Please do not ask "I am first speaker, so can I have first question?" Please just assume that first speaker in the round has first question.

Please do not spread! I would prefer if the round is slower so that I can fully understand the warranting of your contentions. I prefer slow, well warranted debates over fast, blippy debates.

Evidence Exchanges:

Please share me on the evidence exchanges -- selma.tabakovic@ahschool.com.

I do not like paraphrased evidence and would much rather prefer you read cut cards.

Progressive Debate Rounds:

I am happy to adjudicate progressive rounds, but I strongly prefer adjudicating rounds that engage on substance within the resolution. I will adjudicate progressive rounds purely off of the flow, so all responses must be on the flow. If you run theory please clearly explain your link. For Ks, please clearly explain how the alternative is worse and how voting pro solves.

TLDR on my paradigm:

I debated my junior and senior year of high school in the West LA/OCSL circuits and graduated in '20; qualified to nats and STOC my senior year & coached for ~3 years after that. I am now pursuing a bachelors in Politics & Public Affairs & coaching the debate team @ Denison U.

email: tan_s1@denison.edu

Important Things for the skimmers:

-I am about 75% tech 25% truth.

-Spread and I will drop you.

-I default to Cost-Benefit Analysis w/ a value of human life if no other framework is read and first speaking if there is no offense on the flow.

-I require weighing and extensions if you want to win the debate. Both defense and offense are not sticky (more on this below). I should hear extensions from the 1SS onward.

-I flow on paper, so keep it somewhat slow.

It has been quiteeeee a while since I've last judged, so please be gentle with my feeble mind.

If you are running theory or Ks, both sides must OK it for me to evaluate the arg. I never debated and have hardly judged pre-fiat so don't expect me to be anywhere close to my post-fiat judging abilities.

I have voted aff 69 times and neg 87 times (give or take), meaning an almost 56% neg bias. Yikes. I would guess the bias is from defaulting neg; I have since shifted to voting for first speaking in the interest of fairness.

Parli:

Debated parli mainly my junior year, I am versed in the event.

POIs need to be short. I will not flow them. Bring it up in a speech if it's important.

I'll tell you if I accept your Point of Order.

I am versed in topicality shells. I am receptive to prefiat args in this event, but you'll still need to slow them down and dumb them down a bit.

I prefer that Ks link in to the res, but non res Ks are fine, I'm just more receptive to res level.

I know that quantified impacts are hard to come by in parli. If you don’t have a quantifiable impact, I expect some sort of framing that replaces terminalization. If you don’t have terminalization or a framing level thing going for your impact, I find it difficult to vote for it.

LD:

I tend to evaluate the round on framing and VC above all else. Treat me like a flay judge (quick reminder that I have the least amount of experience judging this event). Pre-fiat args are ok (and encouraged), but no guarantee I can evaluate them well.

PF:

What I like to see in round:

Extensions: My threshold for extensions is fairly low. I expect you to extend every link in the arg you're going for; they can be paraphrased. I expect your impact scenario to be extended.

Signposting: I hate guessing where I should be flowing. Be explicit where you are going on the flow both before your speech and during it. If you think you're being obvious, be a little more obvious. Seriously, this is one of my biggest problems in-round. Signpost.

Two worlds analysis: I like to see this both on the weighing, warrant, and evidentiary level. Why should I prefer your weighing over your opponent's? Compare them. Why should I prefer your warrant over your opponent's? Compare them. Why should I prefer your evidence over your opponent's? Compare them.

Weighing: Weighing is a must if you want to win the round. If you don't weigh and your opponent does, they win. Irrespective of the quality and integrity of your link chain and impact, I will always vote for the side with the winning weighing. If you both weigh, you'll also need to metaweigh to get my ballot.

Evidence analysis: I like it when you call for evidence. Evidence standards in pf suck and have been getting worse. You're likely to find some great responses if you call out crappy evidence. It also makes me happy to hear people call out a crappy card.

What I don't like to see in round:

Sloppy crossfires: Crossfire can be a great way to clear up confusion and communicate critiques of the other side. They can also be horrible screaming fits where nothing gets done and you both end up angry. Make sure you are having constructive conversation or I will drop speaks.

Disorganization: If your speech is not organized and super jumpy, regardless of signposting, I will likely get lost. Please have a strategy when you deliver.

Ad hominem: If you're racist/rude/homophobic you get L20'd & tournament management will be notified.

My quirks:

Defense is not sticky: Lack of defensive extensions, even if dropped, makes for a messy backend debate. You will win the defense if it is dropped, no need to spend too much time on it.

Post-rounding: I encourage post-rounding in order to better myself as a judge. Judges that drop you and say, "everyone did great!" made me extremely angry when I debated. If I missed something, bring it up. However, it will not change my ballot. If I missed it, I missed it.

The "truth" part of my paradigm: If the round gets really messy or your evidence sounds far too absurd then I will intervene. It pains me to say this, but the standard for evidence is already rock bottom and I am trying to make a minuscule difference. If you don't have messy rounds and read good evidence then this shouldn't worry you.

Remember that I am a human and debate is a game. I will sometimes make mistakes, please do not hate me for it.

Send case to email chain before your speech & I might ask for extra cards if I’m curious: joytaw@gmail.com

My wifi sucks, it'll make it a lot easier for everyone to have at least speech docs prepared for your speeches - lowkey required for rebuttal, others optional but preferred.

I debated in HS but it's been a while (class of 2020) -- I can understand tech but prefer to be treated like a flay. Semi-ok with speed in the first half of the debate if there are speech docs (still pref not going super fast) + No spreading in second half of the round pls. If you do, I guess I'll still evaluate it but it will only be what I can catch + your speaks will be dropped.

Lay ----- Flay --X--Tech

Public Forum:

General update/preference on framework: I don't like oppression olympics. I don't like talking about why we should prefer one group over another group so if both teams have framing impacting out to marginalized communities, I prefer the debate to just be on the link level unless you are undeniably winning on the warrant level. Also I don't like the "link-ins bad" arg as much either, I just don't like the round being over before it starts.

Theory - pls no theory unless it's about the other team not reading a content warning. I mean if u do read theory i guess i'll judge it but i prefer substance so my threshold for responding to theory is prob a lot lower than u would like. I also don't care for disclosure theory.

Evidence - I care about evidence ethics so don't egregiously miscut cards but if you are going to run ev ethics on someone, implicate why it's more important than substance debate or why it should control my ballot. Also, I think paraphrasing is fine in PF so don't run that on me lmao.

- keep track of your own times pls

- pls stop asking if it's okay to take prep just announce to the room so we're not waiting around and time yourselves

- Be clear. I never get enough sleep so if I don't catch it, it won't be on my flow.

- Frontline if you're second rebuttal

- I don't flow crossfire. If it's interesting I'll listen, but if it's important - bring it up in speech.

- Don't be rude to the other team or I’ll drop your speaks. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzpndHtdl9A)

- YOU CAN’T EXTEND ARGUMENTS WITHOUT EXTENDING WARRANTS!!!! (e.g. Don't just tell me ending arms sales causes war - give me reasons WHY that's true and extend the impact of WHY it's important) Every time you extend an argument you should extend the link chain + impact. No blippy extensions.

- Terminal defense is not sticky (translation: Rebuttals will not be directly flowed across so bring it up in summary if you want it in final focus)

- Collapse

- Pls don’t make me intervene (write my ballot for me with weighing)

warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants (warrants =/= evidence)

weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh but make it comparative

in summary and final focus

pls thank u

Policy update:

I'm familiar with policy debate, as in I've judged it before, but I never competed in it. I competed in public forum so keep that in mind when you're debating. Aka:

- don't go too fast, if you are gonna spread - send me a doc

- If you're running theories or Kritiks that are not intuitive -- please EXPLAIN THEM FULLY or it will not go your way. Also if it involves smth sensitive - please include a content warning.

- Time yourselves - I might do it on the side too but I want you guys to keep track of it yourselves. Especially prep or opponent's prep.

Here is my paradigm!

I coached Public Forum starting from its beginning in 2002 until I retired from teaching in 2011. I have continued on as an active judge: judging at the local, state, and national levels. Nearly all of my judging in recent years has been Policy but with Lincoln Douglas and some Public Forum in the mix.

PF:

In the traditional spirit of Public Forum, the debate is best presented in a clear, understandable manner.

PF is a relatively short, quick-paced form of debate. Complexity is fine but be judicious. Stay focused and relatively succinct. Communicate well. I judge Policy, but spreading has no place in PF - at least for me. If I can’t follow what you are saying, well…

Base your contentions on reliable evidence. Draw conclusions using sound reasoning. Clash (of ideas) is great. Obnoxious, aggressive behavior, if it gets ugly, may cost a round.

Limited tag-teaming during crossfire is OK.

A strong final focus can often win a close round.

LD:

Questions worth considering are: What is good (or at least the greater good), and what form should it take in the real world? Philosophers have had a lot to say about this. But so does common sense. Consider me the man on the street who sometimes digs philosophers when they also have their feet on the ground. Using a good strategy can be a winner. Getting beyond philosophy and reason, within limits, emotional appeals can be persuasive.

Moral, ethical and philosophical considerations should be a foundation for your case.

Policy:

I characterize myself as a "Policy Maker Judge." I can handle a modest amount of spreading but don't overdo it. It's more effective to rely on the quality of arguments and evidence than on quantity. Substance counts and so does style. Limited tag-teaming is OK. It is a real art to be confrontational while also being genuinely respectful of your opponent.

While Kritiks are a worthy part of Policy debate, I have never found them to be a decisive, or sometimes even a relevant, factor in my decisions. For some judges they are significant so when there is a panel, feel free to use them. Just be sure to present a strong arguments that support or negate the Affirmative case.

Learn from your experience.

Do what you do best.

Enjoy the competition!

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

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

most important thing:

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

other less important stuff:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

progressive arguments:

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

no friv theory, no tricks

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

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

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

Prounouns: she/her

Triggers: n/a

Paradigm: I'm a "Flay" judge, but I've been judging PF since 2014, and I've judged at major tournaments like Harvard, Georgetown, and UK. Don't spread - I flow the entire round (including crossfires) and I want to be able to not only understand your arguments, but note when you are or are not addressing your opponents' arguments. I prefer clear logic, solid evidence, and confident rhetoric. I don't believe that the entirety of a debate is evidence versus evidence, so frameworks, weighing, and actually speaking persuasively are a major plus. While I fully understand debate jargon, don't rely on it as you would with more technical judges. Make me care more about your world than your opponents'.

I prefer PF rounds are NOT theory or K arguments. However, I will always judge based on how you handle your case, and how your opponent handles it.

If the tournament allows spectators, those spectators should not be leaving and coming back repeatedly during the round. It's incredibly distracting for me and may hinder competitors as well.

FOR DIGITAL TOURNAMENTS: Please speak slowly enough that the internet connection can keep up with you. Even with a solid connection, going too quickly results in a blur of noise that makes it difficult to listen for judges and opponents alike.

Additionally: During a digital tournament, please speak up if you cannot hear your opponent. Don't wait until the end of their speech to note that, for you, they were cutting out. It is better to handle the issue with tech time and have the speech given normally than having an off-time recap.

First, a little about me. I have been judging public forum debate for about 10 years (does that seem possible). I am pretty straightforward in terms of what I look for in judging a pf round. Do you clearly state what your contentions are? Are the contentions directly related to the question that is being debated (this sounds elemental but I can remember a number of times that teams tried to bring up arguments with no direct link to the resolution.) I am judging public forum (not policy) so you don't have to try and impress me with how fast you can talk. As a matter of fact, excessive speed will work against you on my ballot.

Do you provide good blocks to your opponent's contentions or did you ignore or drop them? Do you make good use of the time you have available or do you leave time "sitting on the table." I do not do the elaborate flows that some judges do. My theory is that the more time you spend writing the less time you spend listening.

All contentions must be backed by evidence. You should always be able to produce your evidence for your opponent or me if it is requested in a reasonable amount of time. Inability to locate evidence will lower your chance of winning the round. Falsifying or misstating evidence will lose you the round.

I listen VERY closely to cross fire rounds. This is really the only unscripted part of the debate and I have seen many a close debate that was won - or lost - due to crossfire.

Finally, be professional in how you handle your round and treat your opponent. Facial expressions while your opponent is debating, rolling of the eyes, arrogance, being condescending etc. do not sit well with me.

Hello!

I am a lay judge that looks at the team that speaks the most clearly. Speak slower as I value clarity over speed. As long as you explain your arguments in an understandable way, I will be able to take note of it. Teams that present themselves in a more confident and concise way will end up getting my vote.

Selam, I'm Nahom

** i will auto down any black trauma centered cases (if ur not black) reading stru viol arguments is fine and implicating racism as an impact is great but dont spell out trauma for shock value**

I debated at Hendrickson for my last 2 yrs of highschool

tech>truth (but pls dont abuse this)

Frontline offense in 2nd rebuttal if u wanna go for it (U DONT NEEDA EXTEND IN REBUTTAL)

Defense is sticky

2nd summary frontlining threshold is high, if ur partner doesn't frontline defense in rebuttal that's fine, but that means ur frontlining must be INSANE, 99% of the time I wont accept it.

Preferences: pls dont read trix imma be so lost, theory is fine if theirs a real abuse, disclosure hurts small schools, paraphrase at ur own discretion, but if its abusive then im down to vote of the T

not super familiar with K's but if it makes sense ill be down to vote off it

speeds fine for me, dont ignore judges paradigms that say not too fast. If your opponents ask for a speech doc, give it to them idc how fast ur going, they may need it for personal reasons.

Clash is cool but I have a soft place in my heart for unique args (not squirrely, theirs a difference) also pls weigh like crazy, and implicate everything

Summary is the most important speech in the round, FF is just for show, unless yall messed up in this round, I shud have my decision by summary, provided both sides weigh/frame the round, otherwise one of yall will think im judge screwing

sum other tips

1. be nice in rounds, rip em a new one all u want, but make sure they're giving u the same energy or u just look dum, I like a nice aggressive crossfire, but walk the line between destroying someone's args and destroying their sense of self carefully, bc (from experience) its a dangerous tightrope that you may not want to walk

2. EXTEND WARRANTS, frontlines are not extensions

3. Weighing/Framing OV in rebuttals r super strategic. weigh bc it'll make me happy, and tbh even if ur barely accessing an arg, if u win weighing that says its the most important, U WIN... for the most part (be careful bc this is diff from other PF debaters that prefer cleaner extensions over weighing strats and link ins)

4. Concede the small things to win the narrative, stats don't matter if ur narrative is bomb, evidence debates are boring, which means if u make it an ev debate I will make the standard for good ev rlly rlly high, and if neither of you have offense speaks will tank and I will default to whatever team i want to

4. Pls be funny, humor is ur greatest tool, joking around in cross and making ur opponents look dum is v enjoyable esp when ur opponents r being rlly aggressive.

5. Any isms (sexism, racism, homophobia, etc) = u lose + i tank ur speaks + i tattle to ur coach

6. Don't be buttholes with theory, ill know if ur just tryna win a round rather then effectively create change, and ill hate u for it. Also dont be hypocritical with theory, idc what ur shell says if u didnt disclose at every round ever on the wiki u better not read disclosure later that year (*cough cough* reading disclosure at the TOC for the first time ever), no shot im buying it.

7. Do NOT, and I'll repeat this to make sure this is super clear, DO NOT read structural violence-based arguments without a clear, nuanced and thoughtful understanding of the oppression that exists. I will never accept a poor understanding of sensitive issues or shallow thinking when it comes to this, logic-based warranting is key; for your own sake do not assume my political views/skin color will make me any more attracted to these types of arguments, in fact, I would very much rather prefer you have no understanding of the issues and not read this argument than have a shallow understanding and read these types of arguments. If I sense BS you better believe I will call you out on it.

8. Take risks, ill reward it (collapsing on a turn)

9. Have fuuunsies, debate is a game, winning and losing r aspects of the game, dont take it to seriously, just enjoy urself in the moment and be respectful of one another

if u wanna talk/postround/add me to the chain my email is: tulu.nahom@gmail.com

TOC twice competing for Hawken in Congress. Now at Cornell. against offtime roadmaps. feel free to postround

I am a parent judge. I am relatively new to judging varsity debate, so please talk slowly and try your best to be clear. I appreciate thoughtful commentary and response to the other team's position more than a quick statement of facts.

Please keep the debate professional and friendly. I really appreciate punctuality, so please be present on time so that we can have a smooth online debating experience.

I will try my best to give detailed feedback to help you improve. Please take the time to read my feedback notes.

Educational Background:

Georgia State University (2004-2007) - English Major in Literary Studies; Speech Minor

Augusta University (2010-2011) - Masters in Arts in Teaching

Georgia State University (2015-2016) - Postbaccalaureate work in Philosophy

Revelant Career Experience:

English Teacher/Debate Coach (2011-2015) Grovetown High School

LD Debate Coach (2015-2018) Marist School

English Teacher/Debate Coach (2018-2022) Northview High School

English Teacher/Debate Coach (2022-present) Lassiter High School

Public Forum

Argue well. Don’t be rude. I’ll flow your debate, so make the arguments you need to make.

Policy

I haven't judged a lot of policy debates. I'm more comfortable with a little slower speed since I don't hear a lot of debates on the topic. I'm ok with most any time of argumentation, but I'm less likely to vote on theory arguments than K or Case arguments. Add me to your email chains.

Lincoln Douglas

I appreciate well warranted and strong arguments. Keep those fallacies out of my rounds.

If the negative fails to give me a warranted reason to weigh her value/value criterion above the one offered by the affirmative in the first negative speech, I will adopt the affirmative's FW. Likewise, if the negative offers a warranted reason that goes unaddressed in the AR1, I will adopt the negative FW.

I appreciate when debaters provide voters during the final speeches.

Debaters would probably describe me as leaning "traditional", but I am working to be more comfortable with progressive arguments. However, I'll vote, and have voted, on many types of arguments (Plans, Counterplans, Ks, Aff Ks, and theory if there is legitimate abuse). However, the more progressive the argument and the further away from the topic, the more in depth and slower your explanation needs to be. Don't make any assumptions about what I'm supposed to know.

Debates that don't do any weighing are hard to judge. Be clear about what you think should be on my ballot if you're winning the round.

Speed

If you feel it absolutely necessary to spread, I will do my best to keep up with the caveat that you are responsible for what I miss. I appreciate folks that value delivery. Take that as you will. If you're going to go fast, you can email me your case.

Disclosure

I try to disclose and answer questions if at all possible.

Cross Examination/Crossfire

I'm not a fan of "gotcha" debate. The goal in crossfire shouldn't get your opponent to agree to some tricky idea and then make that the reason that you are winning debates. Crossfire isn't binding. Debaters have the right to clean-up a misstatement made in crossfire/cross ex in their speeches.

Virtual Debate

The expectation is that your cameras remain on for the entirety of the time you are speaking in the debate round. My camera will be on as well. Please add me to the chain.

Axioms

“That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.” — Christopher Hitchens

”There are three ways to ultimate success: The first way is to be kind. The second way is to be kind. The third way to be kind.” — Mr. Rogers

Contact: jonwaters7@gmail.com

PF:

four turns equals a square and I have the power of god and anime on my side

TLDR: tech judge, defense is sticky for 1summ, if you don't extend case in both speeches, im capping your speaks at a 27, will vote on K's and theory. safety first, for any specific questions about this pls read my paradigm.

i will be very unhappy if you do not show up to the round at the check in time, if you do not show up preflowed, and if you cannot quickly produce clearly cut cards on demand.

add me to the email chain alex.watson@potomacdebate.com

For any other questions, read my extremely long paradigm.

LD and Policy:

Please send speech docs with fully typed analyts and full tags. Also these are not my home events so sorry if I make a bad call. Feel free to post round me.

Add me to the email chain bwright@colgate.edu

About Me:

4 years of Varsity PF at Poly Prep Country Day School 2017-2021

British Debate at Colgate University 2021-Present

Currently majoring in political science and psychology

General Preferences:

I like to think I’m pretty fair with speaks, average is a 28.5 and go up or down depending on how you do.

I’m tabula rasa so I only vote off of what is in the round. Cross is non-binding, if an important concession or something happens in cross bring it up in speech. Defense is sticky with me so second speaking rebuttal has to frontline. Everything that you want in the back half has to be in summary, nothing new in final focus, pretty basic. Please weigh.

I’m fine with speed but in online debates audio can get kind of wonky so I recommend 200-250wpm online, 250-300wpm irl is where I top out.

Progressive Args

Ks: I exclusively ran Ks my senior year (Afro-pess mostly, with some Anti-colonialism and Fem-Ir lit thrown in there) so I know how to evaluate them. I’m most familiar with the stuff I ran but I’m down to hear any kind of K and I think these are the most fun and interesting debates to listen to.

Theory: I’m less familiar with theory than I am with Ks so it’s probably in your best interest to slow down a bit. If there’s a legitimate violation I’m down to hear it bc safety for competitors is the most important thing for me in a round.

Tricks: Don’t run these

Things I like

Entertaining crosses. I obviously don’t vote off of cross but I think it’s incredibly under utilized. Ask strategic questions, get some concessions, and have fun with it. I was known for being a bit sarcastic in cross but there’s a fine line between being sarcastic and being demeaning, learn where it is.

Strategy: Aside from the general not dropping case and extending, if you make some really cool strategic decisions even if I don’t pick you up I’ll probably give good speaks.

If you include a Marvel reference in your speech in a way that isn't cringy I'll bump your speaks by half a point because it shows that you actually read my paradigm and I'm a huge nerd.

Things I don’t like

IF YOU DO OR SAY ANYTHING RACIST, SEXIST, HOMOPHOBIC, TRANSPHOBIC, ETC. I WILL NUKE YOUR SPEAKS AND DROP YOU.

Being mean to novices. Don’t do it. A lot of people debate a division up to learn, it’s how I learned how to debate as a freshman, just be civil and let it be a learning experience.

Prep stealing: This is something that’s become more of an issue in online debate. I can tell when you’re doing it, just stop. Especially if you prep steal and give a bad speech now you’re just embarrassing yourself.

Taking a long time to find evidence: if you’re relying on a card to win the round and conveniently can’t find it when it’s called, I’m going to drop the arg. This is annoying

Bad faith theory reading: if you read theory on a team because you don’t want to interact with a progressive argument they’re reading, you are probably going to lose. There are some legit theory v. K/theory v. SV debates, but the overwhelming majority of the time you’re just trying to get out of it.

Debate is fun (though I don't have debate experience). I enjoy judging. Most of my judging experiences are PF followed by LD. I also judged limited rounds of parli, policy and congress. Except for PF, don't assume that I am familiar with the current topic. I usually disclose and give my RFD if it's allowed and time permits.

Add me to the email chain: cecilia.xi@gmail.com

I value clear warrants, explicit weighing and credible evidence. In general tech > truth, but not overly tech > truth (which means that I have to think about the truth part if you read something ridiculous) if you read substance.

- Speed: talking fast is not a problem, but DON'T spread (less than 240 words per minute works). Otherwise, I can only listen but not keep up flowing. If I missed anything, it's on you. If it's the first round early morning or the last round late night, slow down a little (maybe 200 words per minute).

- Warrants: the most important thing is clear links to convince me with supporting evidence (no hypothesis or fake evidence - I will check your evidence links). Use cut card. Don't paraphrase. If you drop your warrants, I will drop you.

- Flow: I flow everything except for CX. Clear signposts help me flow.

- Rebuttals: I like quick thinking when attacking your opponents' arguments. Turns are even better. Frontlines are expected in second rebuttal.

- CX: don't spend too much time calling cards (yes, a few cards are fine) or sticking on something trivial.

- Weighing: it can be any weighing mechanisms, but needs to be comparative. Bring up what you want me to vote on in both summary and FF, and extend well.

- Timing: I don't typically time your speeches unless you ask me to do so (but if I do, the grace period is about 10 sec to finish your sentence but not to introduce new points), but I often time your prep and CX.

Non-substance:

Ts: limited judging experience. Explain well to me why your impact values more and focus on meaningful violations. Don't assume an easy win by default reading Ts, if you sacrifice educational value for the sake of winning.

Ks: no judging experience. Only spectated a few rounds. Hard to understand those big hollow words unless you have enough warrants to your ROB. If you really want to do Ks (which means you are at risks that I won't be able to understand well), do stock Ks.

Tricks: I personally don't like it - not aligned with the educational purpose of debate.

Finally, be respectful and enjoy your round!

Hi I am a parent, and I do not have much experience. Here’s some advice from my daughter.

1. She’s your generic parent/lay judge, so keep the speed low and don’t use debate jargon.

2. My mom is a very logical person, so explain all claims and numbers because otherwise they’re just random statements that she has no reason to believe.

3. Be polite to each other (including your partner) even if you think they’re outrageously wrong. Yelling at them will not get you anywhere and it makes her dislike you more.

Please just be respectful and appreciative in general, she really tries her best to fairly judge the round!

*seating: Pro on her left side, Con on the right and please have the first speaker of each team seated closer to her, this will help in organization and to ensure you get the correct comments.

hey everyone! I'm Sanjitha Yedavalli and I did speech & debate (PF and extemp) all 4 years of high school. I had a decently successful career qualifying to nats and the TOC. That being said, I do flow. Here's a couple of specific things.

1. 2nd rebuttal has to frontline

2. PLEASE signpost.

3. Collapse during summaries to make the round cleaner for me. I don't want to hear some really badly extended arguments all the way in final focus.

4. I won't vote off of an argument if the link/warranting isn't cleanly extended through final focus.

5. I try to flow all the card names but I usually just end up flowing the argument only. That being said, don't extend by saying "extend the Smith card", you will need to repeat the actual argument.

6. I'm fine with speed. if you think it's going to be rlly fast, just send me your speech doc before just so we avoid any issues

Speaker points: I generally give pretty high speaks in the 28-30 range. The only reasons I would go any lower is if you are being rude, racist, sexist, homophobic, ableist, or any other offensive ism. Also, I will dock speaks if you aggressively post round.

Theory: I will probably never vote off of it because I do not understand it well enough.

Kritiks: I'm not accustomed to the lit. If you read a K, make sure you slow down and simplify it so that I understand it. Clearly explain why this matters and why I should be voting off of it. Also highly unlikely that I will vote off of it.

Structural Violence Frameworks/Args: Don't read structural violence arguments without a clear understanding of the oppression that exists. I do not accept a poor understanding of sensitive issues or shallow thinking when it comes to this. Warranting is key. Do not assume my political views because of my looks. Don't use the oppression of others as a tactic to win a debate round. I will call you out if I sense any bs.

I appreciate humor. Use it to your advantage.

Please make crossfire bearable. I don't want to be falling asleep so use humor or be aggressive (but not too aggressive to the point where you're just being a dick)

If you have any specific questions, feel free to ask me before the round begins.

If for some reason you need to contact me or want to ask me any additional questions after round, feel free to email me at sanjitha.y@gmail.com

TL;DR 1) track prep verbally and don't mute otherwise, 2) I flow all crossfires, 3) don't waste time saying what you "don't know" about an argument, 4) in-depth extensions often aren't necessary

Oakton '20 (PF, some LD/policy/congress), JHU '24 (APDA, BP). Contact yoondebate@gmail.com for chains, Facebook or nyoon2@jh.edu otherwise. You can ask about decisions, speaks, individual feedback, or anything else - I'm always open to help anyone.

1. If nobody's prep is running, stay unmuted. Your prep starts and stops when you say "start prep" and "stop prep" out loud. Keep track of time - if you go decently over, I'll verbally interrupt your team going forward. I'll verbally notify you when prep ends.
2. Be equitable and respect others, don't use gendered pronouns unless they're explicitly denoted.
3. Don't skip or ask to skip anything. I won't flow over time. Don't hold up your timer/phone/fist when you think someone's time is up.
4. I flow cross. I don't flow off docs. I don't mind "off-time roadmaps" but I won't pay attention, say what your speech will do/is doing (signpost) on-time.
5. If presuming (very rare), I flip a coin, and I don't evaluate arguments saying to presume in other ways.
6. I'll disclose and will disclose speaks on request, average in-division 28, 29.5+ impressed me. No speaks theory.

1. 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, anything! - just don't point out the lack of something and move on. This includes claims about what I "don't know," e.g. "you don't know when/where/how much this happens," please do not say this. This part is routinely ignored!
2. Arguments are dropped if the next opposing speech doesn't interact, excluding the first two speeches. (This applies to stuff like explicitly conceding something to make a point, or reading a new theory violation, no waiting around.) I ignore "strength of link weighing" saying to prioritize dropped points because they're dropped.
3. Contested (opponent directly addressed that specific claim) or weighed (you applied/compared to another argument) arguments must be extended in summary and final focus to be considered. Others don't have to be (e.g. an impact when the debate's been about links so far, "drop the debater" when both teams go for theory).

TL;DR 1) track prep verbally and don't mute otherwise, 2) I flow all crossfires, 3) don't waste time saying what you "don't know" about an argument, 4) in-depth extensions often aren't necessary

Oakton '20 (PF, some LD/policy/congress), JHU '24 (APDA, BP). Contact yoondebate@gmail.com for chains, Facebook or nyoon2@jh.edu otherwise. You can ask about decisions, speaks, individual feedback, or anything else - I'm always open to help anyone.

1. If nobody's prep is running, stay unmuted. Your prep starts and stops when you say "start prep" and "stop prep" out loud. Keep track of time - if you go decently over, I'll verbally interrupt your team going forward. I'll verbally notify you when prep ends.
2. Be equitable and respect others, don't use gendered pronouns unless they're explicitly denoted.
3. Don't skip or ask to skip anything. I won't flow over time. Don't hold up your timer/phone/fist when you think someone's time is up.
4. I flow cross. I don't flow off docs. I don't mind "off-time roadmaps" but I won't pay attention, say what your speech will do/is doing (signpost) on-time.
5. If presuming (very rare), I flip a coin, and I don't evaluate arguments saying to presume in other ways.
6. I'll disclose and will disclose speaks on request, average in-division 28, 29.5+ impressed me. No speaks theory.

1. 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, anything! - just don't point out the lack of something and move on. This includes claims about what I "don't know," e.g. "you don't know when/where/how much this happens," please do not say this. This part is routinely ignored!
2. Arguments are dropped if the next opposing speech doesn't interact, excluding the first two speeches. (This applies to stuff like explicitly conceding something to make a point, or reading a new theory violation, no waiting around.) I ignore "strength of link weighing" saying to prioritize dropped points because they're dropped.
3. Contested (opponent directly addressed that specific claim) or weighed (you applied/compared to another argument) arguments must be extended in summary and final focus to be considered. Others don't have to be (e.g. an impact when the debate's been about links so far, "drop the debater" when both teams go for theory).

Hello everyone, I am a citizen judge (with a younger sibling who competed in congressional debate). This is my second year judging public forum. I personally have never participated in any sort of debate tournaments as a competitor (or as a coach, etc.), only as a citizen judge. I have really enjoyed judging these tournaments and I always learn something new each and every time. I value content over delivery (but please speak clearly and don't speak so fast that it is difficult to hear or follow what you're saying). I will evaluate each round based on the logic and clarity of your argument, and especially how you are able or not able to refute the opposing argument through your speeches, rebuttals, questioning in crossfire, etc.