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

Hello! I’m a 1st year out from Chanhassen HS (Minnesota) and attending the University of Florida.

If you care about my experience: I joined debate in my sophomore year in High School, competing in PF all 3 years (and did congress once). I found success at locals and national circuit tournaments. I'm a 2x National Qualifier, breaking at nationals both my junior (top 65) and senior (top 45) years. I also broke at a few nat circ tournaments my junior/senior years.

Note for TOC: I have not judged since the Bronx tournament, and I am in the middle of finals week so please keep that in mind!

If you have any questions or would like to add me to the email chain: ellasfurman@gmail.com

Super short version: Standard Flay Leaning Tech judge, I will usually vote off the flow but recognize I am human and am subjected to my own biases depending on presentation. If you want to go tech, I would appreciate it if it didn't sound like a monotone mess and don't spread on me.

If you skip over everything else in my paradigm, at least read this. If you spread, you are guaranteeing you get below 27 speaks and if it's incomprehensible to the point that anyone must shout "clear" multiple times, you're likely going to lose. I have Juvenile Rheumatoid Arthritis and due to this, I cannot flow super fast arguments, that's not saying I will give up - but don't expect me to put myself through physical pain to catch everything. If you plan on spreading: strike me or emphasize the things you need me to catch. That being said, I do prefer conversationally quick debate and can flow 850-900 word (PLEASE stay below 1,000 words) rebuttals/case as long as your annunciation is good.

Here are my in round preferences:

Content/Trigger Warnings: YOU MUST READ ONE. If you have an issue with an argument presented in the round - you don't need a warrant for why something triggers you, just a general warrant for why it would be triggering in general and you don't need to disclose if you are triggered either. Run a shell, even informal and I will most likely vote on it

I will end the round if I deem it necessary for the safety of any competitor, and give the team responsible for the lack of safety a loss.

Stylistically: I am willing to adapt to teams, but keep in mind that I do have a preference towards techier debate but don't spread "uniqueness controls the direction of the link" and if you do you will get a "cool" on my flow. Again, don't spread (seriously, don't). Don't flow through ink, I vote off of any offense at the end of the round.

On Presumption: I honestly believe that the ones about speaking order or the "status quo" are a waste of time, if there is a SYSTEMIC disadvantage (i.e sexism, racism, etc) that you say I should presume you on - I would absolutely be down for that.

On Theory/Ks/Progressive debates: I will listen to any progressive arguments and am willing to vote off of it, I’ve ran theory myself and also have some experience with Kritiks (having run the majority world K, and an ableism rage K) but don't read like high-level kritiks without explaining it to me and how I should evaluate it. Also, I don't think that there really can be an Alt in PF debate since usually, that would be a counterplan... which is illegal...

Friv: Disclosure theory (if you're reading this against a small school), shoes theory, or any shells of the sort. I will most likely not vote on it, especially if you're running it against novices because I think friv theory, in general, is really bad for debate.

I default to competing interpretations for most shells unless you can tell me why I should intervene with reasonability.

Furthermore, as a female-presenting former debater, I am well aware of the microaggressions that exist within this community.

Male PFers: Your voices are naturally louder and deeper than womxn debaters. Do NOT speak down or over womxn opponents. I don’t want ANY questions regarding your opponents' knowledge on the topic, or anything of that sort. It’s degrading and inappropriate. If you do I will either drop you or at least tank your speaks because of this. (I have had personal experience with it, and it's why there is such a gender gap in PF)

Finally, I will not tolerate any racism, homophobia, xenophobia, antisemitism, ableism, or anything of the sort. This will not only result in the lowest possible speaks but also a drop.

Speaks:

I think speaks are meaningless and are extraordinarily subjective. I'll start with a 30 for everyone, and lower it if you're problematic or disregard my paradigm.

julianvgagnon@gmail.com please add me to email chains

from planet debate-

this is difficult for me b/c i'm not sure i have A judging philosophy but I do have many different ideas about and for debate...some inconsistent. that being said i don't want what i think about debate to totally dictate what debaters decide to do in rounds.

topicality- generally don't like it. I find no abuse args to be really persuasive. Since I like critical arguments so much I think you can usually find ground in any debate. i don't like the competing interpretations framework very much. i find the "that limits out any aff" arg to be persuasive. but i will vote on that framework and topicality if left unchallenged. in a good topicality debate on competeing interp vs an ok no abuse arg i'll USUALLY vote aff.

cp- like em. with a critical nb even better. i think i'm a fair judge for these debates. aff theory args generally not persuasive unless unchallenged. very similar to topicality in this regards.

das- great. a lot of people are now struggling with the we control the uniqueness = a risk vs. we got d/risk of turn. i don't think the aff has to have offense to win a da but i do find in a lot of debates that with only defense it hurts the aff a bunch. especially when the neg has a cp. but i tend to weight the da first in terms of probability and then magnitude.

critical args- love em. these are the debates i find the most interesting. i'm willing to listen to virtually any way the neg wants to present them. method. alternative. text no text. don't care. case turn. obviously it's the neg's burden to provide some way to evaluate their "framework" but in terms of theory i think they are all pretty much legit. args are args and it's the other teams responsibility to answer them.

others- i like to see people be nice to each other in debate rounds. some people may say i intervene sometimes. it's true but let me provide context. if you go for you mis-spelled (jk) a word in your plan and you should lose and your winning the arg but the other team says this is stupid...we'll i'm persuaded. you just wasted a bunch of peoples time. another thing. DON'T RUN MALTHUS IN FRONT OF ME- DOESN'T MATTER IF IT RIGHTS OR NOT. i won't flow it. i think that while debate is a game we still have a responsibility to "speak truth to power". discourse is very important. definately co-constitutes with reality. this may be why i'm starting/have been hating the politics debate for the last year and a half. but hey, like i said before, i'm full of inconsistancies b/c sometimes you just don't have another arg in the box to go for. i'm sympathetic to this. especially in high school debate. i still research it for the hs topic and coach my kids to go for it.


from debateresults...

Debate is a game- i have a lot of ideas about how the game should be played but in the absence of teams making those arguments i won't default to them. i think debate should make the rules of the game and provide a framework for how i should evaulte the debate. i'm not a big fan of some arguments...like malthus in particular...but also theory arguments in general. these debates generally happen faster then my mind and pen can handle. ive judged a lot although i haven't much this year on the china topic. some people may think i have a bias towards critical arguments, and while this is true to some degree (i generally find them more intersting than other debates), it also means i have higher standards when it comes to these debates. yeah imagine that, me with high standards.

Mike Girouard

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As far as my judging philosophy goes, I do not have particular preferences. I believe that debate is a place for discussion and discovery. Respect and politeness is a very important part of a good debate. Below is a briefing of how I look at each speech/area of the game, for both Public Forum and Policy (shorter for Policy as you should know what you need to do).

Public Forum

Cross-fire – Be polite, be persuasive, and don't beat around the bush. This is not the time for quarrel or to read off new arguments, but it's for answering your opponents' answer directly. I will not flow cross-fire, so if your opponents conceded to an argument or you think you made a great analytic, you need to mention it specifically in your speech so that I can take note of it. Ask good questions! Closed ended ones are always better than open-ended or clarification questions.

First speeches – There is no need to have a Framework, but it will definitely work for you if you utilize it throughout the debate. Often, people read framework just for the sake of reading it, and fail to develop it beyond their first speech. In short, it is a very powerful tool that debaters should definitely consider using and if you're not using it, don't bother reading it in the first place. As far as case goes, any type of arguments work for me – unless it's illogical or very offensive. But I expect that close to half of the arguments you read in the first speech would be extended into the debate, or else reading that one card is just a waste of time if you don't take advantage of it later in the debate.

Second speeches – The most important roles of the second speaker is to attack the opponents' case, defend their own side, and potentially build upon their case by reading add-ons or additional arguments. The order you put these burdens in really depends on how you are taught, but generally it is most effective to put your rebuttals first and case last, with more time spent on your case. Anyhow, I'm not picky about the order, it just have to be strategic in the debate. And again, if you have a framework you should definitely extend it right in the beginning of your speech.

Summary speeches – This is the time when debaters must funnel down the arguments of the debate for the judge. If you do not list out the most important arguments, it becomes time consuming for me to look through the notes and I might miss an argument that you believe you have won on. Don't feel obligated to extend every answer or argument, just explain to me which are the most important arguments and/or clash in the debate. What's even more strategic and effective is to start your impact calculus here, so that there's less work for the Final Focus. A final note is that I shouldn't see any new arguments in terms of contentions (new answers to the opponents are okay). Also, if you shadow extend any cards (meaning you only read it in the first speech not the second speech), I may or may not vote on that card. But if the opponents never addressed that inconsistency, then I will just let it through.

Final Focus – Here is where you want to limit down the debate to that one or two arguments you think you have won on. There are many ways to do this, but no matter what, it should be clear, concise, straightforward, and easy for me to follow. In the end, the more work you do for the judge means the more likely the judge will vote for you. Impact calculus is also very effective here. In short, no new evidence, elaborate your arguments (including your framework if you extended it throughout the debate), persuasion, and a story to sum things up if possible.

Speed – spreading is okay but hopefully you're not doing it in PF. Clarity > speed, always.

Policy Debate

Framework – like Public Forum, framework should be included in your speech unless you have a good reason not to do so. Develop it, use it to your advantage, and extend it across your speeches so that I will take this into consideration when deciding the ballot.

Topicality – if you do not extend it across the your speeches, I will disregard it as an argument, and be sure to include all of the necessary components. Again, this is a tool that can win you a debate.

Theory – must be explained clearly, efficiently, and logically if you're going to mention it.

Kritiks – only run them if you know how to explain them from the inside out. Have a strong link and don't rely on prewritten blocks. You can always tell when a debater doesn't understand a kritik they're running.

DAs – be strategic when running them, especially when paired with a CP

CPs – always have a net benefit to the CP, answer each permutations separately, and be strategic.

Prep – email/flashing is not considered prep, but if it takes an unreasonable amount of time, then down goes your speaker point.

Include me in your email chain: benson_lin@brown.edu

(work in progress)

Above are more like the logistics of the debate. As far as skill, persuasion, and speaker points go, just do your best and learn from your mistakes because it's not something that can improve in a day, but as you have more and more experience.

Good luck and have fun!

Debate:

I have participated in debate for more than 6 years, including public forum, LD, and Policy Debate. I am open to all kinds of arguments and speed.

Clarity outweighs speed. Quality outweighs quantity.

Just a reminder, the purpose of debate is not only to present your arguments but to engage with your opponents.

Speech:

I have experience doing speech as a kid and experience of being a speech judge.

Keep mind of the time management, clarity, and volume.

Competition is never about only about winning and losing, its more about what you've learned.

I am a proud great-grandparent of 27 children. The only argument I'll vote for is extinction good.

Edit: After a long and hefty decision, I have also decided to not abide by any rules in debate. Now, all debates will be a fight to the death. No talking is allowed.

Introduction

Name: Rishit Pradhan

Email: pradhanrishit@gmail.com

School: Stockdale '23

Top Level Thoughts (Read this if u want to win)

I think in terms of adaptation the stylistic preference of the judge comes prior to the stylistic preference of the event. So I’ll buy most args that aren’t problematic.

I debated for 4 years at Pittsburgh Allderdice HS. I'm now a first-year at Northwestern University studying Math and Jewish Studies. I use he/him pronouns.

email for chains: jonahrosenberg2004@gmail.com

TLDR

Flow judge but not techy. Weighing is important and I like fun weighing too. Second rebuttal should frontline about half the time and then respond to opps. Rebuttal defense is sticky. ALSO, This should really go without saying but any sort of language that is misogynistic, racist, homophobic, etc. will get you an instant L20 and I will report you to the people running the tournament.

Signposting

I like it. It's useful for my flows. If you don't do it I'll probably lose a bunch of what you say because I'll spend longer than I should have to going down my flow (which is usually pretty extensive when I judge) looking for what you're responding to.

Cross

This is a fun time to get good speaks if I like what you do. Obviously I don't vote on it but I do feel I value it more than other judges. If your opp says something stupid, you should bring it up in a speech and make fun of them for it. Just kidding, don't do that, but cross is important. GCX can be skipped but sometimes it's fun to see who can get the most aggressive on a screen.

Rebuttal

First rebuttal should just go straight down the case and then weigh if you want. Also if you have really good framework that goes really counter to what your opps have, bring that up. Me and my partner liked framework and so I judge good framework very generously. People now really hate card dumping, and while I don't think it's very fun, I acknowledge it can sometimes be effective, so I'm not going to doc you anything because of it. I already said this, but second rebuttal should be about 50/50 on your case and then your opps. Rebuttal defense is sticky! You can backline NUs and DLs into FF, but Turns and any offensive comp weighing needs to be brought up in summary otherwise don't bother in FF.

Summary

First summary should probably extend turns, and then frontline what they're going for. Second summary can never bring up new evidence I'll drop it instantly. With that said though, they can make new implications on evidence that has already been given. I know that's a hot take these days with people wanting to consolidate summary more and more, but I don't think it's actually bad for discourse because the other side could have responded to the card to preempt the implication from being made. Second summary does pretty much the same as the first in my opinion, but I think it's fun when summary speeches are creative.

FF

Definitely slow down during FF as you're done bringing in new things and usually reiterating what you've liked throughout the round. Usually at this point I already have a winner, but in close rounds it can definitely be a real deciding factor in the winner.

Voting

I will always disclose after the round as long as the competition lets me. I think debate is educational before everything else and if I can't give you my feedback, then what's really the point?

Speed

Spreading I feel is one of those things that both sides should agree to pre round. I can flow as fast as it gets, but I understand not everyone can. If you plan on spreading, ask everyone before the round and make sure I know that you asked and then we'll do it. If you don't ask I'll probably drop speaks a lot.

Disclosure (as in disclosing on the wiki)

Disclosing is stupid. Debate is educational and the best way to educate yourself is to not know everything your opp is going to say before they say it. If you're not thinking on your feet, what's the point? If you run disclosure theory, you're wasting your time.

Speaks

Speaks are stupid, but also fun. I am pretty generous. If you get below 27ish you probs did something wrong. I think analogies are pretty cool and if you make good ones in like summary or something I'll send you some love in the speaks. I also think really weird link chains are fun too. If you have contentions with like nuclear war impacts or something, run them. You'll make everyone laugh and that's fun.

Postrounding

Not only do I not mind, I highly encourage it. It holds me accountable for my decision and can teach me more as a new judge. I hate it when judges give very little RFD and I also hate typing it up so I'd prefer to give it all right there post round so just fire away all your questions there.

Theory

No

Ks

No

All other progressive args

No

Cameras

Please have them on for online tournaments. There's no option to put a black screen over your face at in person tournaments so why turn them off? I like to see who I'm judging. With that said though, dress as casually as you want, idrc.

Other things

Please please have fun with your rounds. We stress too much about tournaments but don't realize how trivial they truly they are. Follow me on insta @jonahrosenberg_

Have fun guys

Please add me to the email chain at hotdragontea@gmail.com

Experience: CX for 5 years (Grade 6-10), PF for 2 years (Grade 10-11), World Schools (Grade 12)

Furthest I’ve Gone in Tournaments: Taiwan Nationals Winner/Top Speaker 2015 in CX and Quarterfinals in TOC PF Silver in 2016

Judging Style: I am a flow heavy judge. However, I will only write down what you say and will make judgments based on your arguments only. For example, if your opponent double-turns themself but you don't address it, I will not count it against your opponent. I will only use my own judgment and experience if both sides have equal arguments.

Frameworks: If you have a framework, I will judge based on it. If you have a framework and your opponent doesn't bring up a counter-framework, the debate will be judged based on your framework.

Theory/Kritiks: I am okay with theory but will need you to explain it carefully. Do not play the theory game if you are unable to explain all your links. It is NOT my burden to understand all the possible Kritiks out there. IF I DON'T UNDERSTAND IT I WON'T VOTE FOR IT. It is your responsibility as the debater to explain the K if you run it. I do prefer DAs/CPs to Ks. I’m generally good with Marxism Ks, Feminism Ks, Ableism Ks, and Race Ks (I ran Afro-Pessimism and Afro-Nihilism in the past) but anything beyond these I’m going to need clear explanations about the theory. I also need you to have an impact on your K or else I don’t see a point in it.

LD debaters: Please do not expect me to understand every single theory thing that pops up. I'm comfortable with the basic ones used in CX, but please play safe and pretend I don't know much.

Impacts: It is extremely important to me that your case and arguments have a tangible impact. If the argument is part of a link game, that's fine but the link game must end in an impact. Do not leave me thinking so what? If that happens and the opponent makes a decent counterargument, I'll give it to them.

Speed is fine but please be clear.

Add me to the email chain: evanhpdebate@gmail.com

Senior at Highland Park.

Debated policy for three years, did LD on the UIL circuit.

Policy:

I've seen a lot of things, but I myself have run tons of stuff. Went for the cap K a lot, and have seen most generic Kritiks so if its not a more mainstream one pretend as if I have no knowledge on the topic because I probably don't.

I'm not too familiar with this water topic, but I know the basics so if you're gonna be super jargony explain the first time around and I'll get it.

Online Debating:

I prefer if you have your camera on just to make speeches easier to follow, but if you have camera problems it's all good.