Judging Experience

Judged live debate for zero years and fewer then twenty ld rounds this season so far. These tournament rounds will be first ever.

Attitude toward typical LD practices

I have judged LD debate for ___ years. M. How many LD rounds have you judged this season? (select one)

Typical conversational speed of 4.

Rate of delivery does weigh heavily in my decision as I want to be able fully understand each debater argument.

Will vote against student for exceeding your preferred speed.

Rebuttals and Crystallization

Final rebuttals should include line-by-line.

Voting issues should be given as the student moves down the flow.

How the winner is decided?

I decide who is the person who persuaded me more of his/her position overall.

The use of jargon or technical language ("extend,". "cross-apply," "turn," etc.) during rebuttals should be kept to a minimum.

Q1) How important is the criterion in making your decision?

It may be a factor depending on its use in the round.

Q2) Do you feel that a value and criterion are required elements of a case?

No

I am currently competing in Extemp and Congress on the Varsity level, so if you're reading this, most likely you're doing some sort of speech event (although I also judge debate). I know it is unusual for speech judges to have a paradigm, but I think it's always helpful to know what's on the judges' minds. If you ever have any questions about my ballots please email me at tgercken@college-prep.org!

Extemp:

I am sure you all are smart cookies, so I am not going to do the usual speech paradigm of telling you that good evidence, confidence, and delivery are critical; obviously if those are lacking you will be marked down. However, I think it is a far better use of your time to tell you that I will judge the round very technically.

This means that I am using a stopwatch in round to make sure you start and end points on time. I am very attached to the 1:30 - 1:30 (x3) - 1:00 structure of Extemp. If your points are ~15 seconds off in either direction, expect a comment. Hitting the times almost precisely is an excellent way to signal to me that you are a high-level competitor, and I should not stand in the way of you breaking.

In addition, there is a tendency in high-level Extemp to talk faster and use your hands every few seconds. If you are talking more than a bit faster than conversation speed, expect a comment. If your hands are not mostly by your side, expect a comment. Also, staying still is impressive to me. Swaying back and forth undermines presentation.

I will be noting substructure and similar substructure for all three points is a great way to get good ranks with me. If all three points work differently, it feels un-unified, and you should expect a comment. The substructure for the intro, points, and conclusion should be fairly traditional. It would take a lot to convince me that your way is better than the regular way. That means your intro should have an AGD and background and impact, and your conclusion should contain more than just your question and answer. If I cannot instinctively feel the flow from my competition in Extemp because it is so predictable, expect a comment.

I think having to memorize the question word for word is kind of weird, given that in college, you can just read it off the slip. I will flat out let you read it off the slip or keep the chat up in zoom. Note that it may impact your presentation but there's a way to do it cleanly. Also, if you state the question and it's basically the same with a little bit of different wording, I do not care and honestly will not notice 99% of the time. So if you spend a minute or two in prep memorizing the question, do not, practice the intro again or something.

In cross-examination, you should be having a conversation, trying to discover more about their argument. I do not view cross-examination as a way to poke holes in each other's arguments; I view it as a furthering of the fundamental goal of Extemp, which is education. If you come off as aggressive, argumentative, or as trying to undermine your fellow competitor (not opponent), expect a comment. Cross-x has never made me more likely to rank you highly, only less.

This may give you the impression that I am expecting a complicated speech full of theory. That could not be further from the truth. I appreciate speakers who take it slow, make simple arguments, and have great signposting. The Extemp community is terrific, we love to talk about issues on a really detailed level, but ultimately we will be presenting to non Extempers. Just because I can understand a fast and complicated argument does not mean I will appreciate it. If it is not simple enough for even the parent judge that provokes the most complaining on the bus ride home, expect a comment.

For online competition, please position your camera so you face it head on, stay reasonably close to the camera, move around, and above all else, please time yourself. It helps you (having more exact time), and it helps me (concentrating more on the speech and giving better ranks/comments).

Congress:

Congress is such an interesting event because it is structured so differently than the speech and debate categories. But critically, while it is different, I consider it a debate event and expect it to not feel like a many person version of lay PF. For a more extensive judging philosophy, you should read the Public Forum section of this document.

Engagement is amazing; ask questions, give rebuttals. If you are clearly just reading speeches that you wrote at home before the round, you will not get a super high score, and you should expect a comment. Congress is the one speech event with lots of involvement between participants, and it should be a significant part of the round.

Impromptu:

Impromptu is a very limited prep event, but it still should feel like any other speech. Well thought out, with clearly delineated points, just in a shorter time frame. First, you need to have an introduction. Just saying the topic and jumping into arguments are not enough (also never start with the topic, and AGD needs to be somewhere). However, depending on the topic, you can cut some things. Obviously, background will not be needed if the prompt is "a day at the pool." Use your best judgment but make sure it is robust. Clearly signposting what your points are and then making sure they have a followable substructure is critical and is the number one thing I will mark you down for. If you just have a train of consciousness, it will not be very convincing or informative. However, it is a shorter time period so try to keep your points simple. A reasonably common criticism I have is that things are assumed that the judge gets but not described. Try not to do that. Finally, your conclusion should have a tie-up and a return to your AGD. Just ending your speech after your second point or after a brief tie-up is not going to work. The third paragraph of the Extemp section has some notes on the presentation you may want to look at.

Oratory/Advocacy:

I have never done Oratory or Advocacy, so you should consider me a lay judge. I want you to connect with me and convince me, I want a nice and clear structure with lots of signposting, and I want in-depth analysis that makes sense to me. I don't know how technical anyone really gets in Oratory/Advocacy but regardless I won't be considering that. Some of my notes in the Extemp section are likely to apply as well, so I would recommend you reference it.

Interp:

Make me laugh, make me cry, make me believe whatever it is you are trying to be. I will be the first to admit; I know 0 about the Interp events, so please treat me precisely as you would a lay judge. I'm sorry if this disappoints you, but I just can't have a judging philosophy on events I don't do. That being said, I am always really excited to see interps, so I will be happy to watch and listen.

Public Forum:

Public Forum debate is not Policy, and in judging, I am looking for a very different experience. I want to see a friendly well-reasoned debate between four smart high schoolers/middle schoolers about the actual topic. Clearly delineated arguments, links, and impacts, in a thoughtful and convincing manner is critical. Do not spread. I will not read a speech doc (except to look for cards) and even if I can understand it, if you are speaking faster than a lay person could understand and flow, I will disregard everything you say. Please, no weird arguments that don't seem to pertain to the resolution, and, while significant impacts are necessary, if arguments start to be linked to stuff like extinction or nuclear war with a tenuous connection, I'm not going to vote on it (the impacts should be big but they have to be real). Truth > tech not because I don't understand but because that shouldn't be encouraged and if that's what you're looking for go to Policy. If you use a theory that does not quote the rulebook, or spread or run a k, I will sign the ballot immediately and give both competitors 26 speaker points max (if another team does any of these, please do not respond. They have already lost the round, but I would like discussion to continue for the educational value). Explain to me why you are right but if you attempt some sort of theoretical explanation of the event it will not land well with me. I will nod along with you, understand, and vote you down. One part of the case that I am especially interested in is the framework. I view framing the debate at the top as critical to accessing impacts and if I don't have framework I will default to a very restrictive view of what is topical which will likely hurt your case. If only one team gives me framework (and it is somewhat reasonable), I will default to theirs. If both teams give framework to me, winning (or at least tieing) that clash is essential to me letting you access your impacts.

Policy/LD:

I have never done Policy/LD, and I am not used to spreading. Please make sure I can understand, obviously if I can't, there is no way I can base my vote on whatever you are saying. I know that Policy/LD has a tendency to focus some arguments on things that don't relate to the resolution, and that is fine; I'm judging a Policy/LD round, and I will try my best to abide by the events conventions. But, please make sure it's clear why I should vote on something not pertaining to the resolution. In cases where other judges might just get it, make sure it's clear to me.

Politics:

I hate the trend in speech and debate where competitors look up their judges to find out what their politics are. However, it is sadly necessary for a variety of reasons. I have had my fair share of judges that voted me up or down based on opinion. So, I'll tell you upfront that I'm a libertarian. You can find my twitter here if you really want to check it out. But I promise that I will try not to judge you based on my political opinion.

fyi I'm really not experienced as a debater. I am a rising junior but I think I could still be considered as a novice debater. You shouldn't need to adapt but I would definitely keep it in mind.

Zero tolerance for anything that qualifies as racism/sexism/etc. and anything toxic.

Tech>truth

Warranting is really important as always. Tell me why x is true.

No new responses when not appropriate, you should know when. Will not evaluate them.

Abusing time and abusing cross will be terrible for your speaker points, otherwise I'll probably give you good speaker points.

If you make me laugh with a pun/joke and don't do anything warranting less speaker points, you'll probably get the max speaker points even if you lose the round. If you can't think of anything funny then appropriately incorporate "astronaut in the ocean" somehow in the debate and that's an automatic max speaker points.

I won't be flowing or evaluating cross whatsoever, and you need to directly quote/paraphrase what your opponent says in cross if you want to use something in cross in round.

I won't evaluate whatever is not extended properly either.

Prog: I have a very low level understanding of progressive argumentation. I'll evaluate it as fairly as possible though regardless, but full disclaimer that it might not work out well for you.

Spreading: I would prefer you not to. I'll still evaluate fairly though if you disclose. Even if you don't spread, don't talk too fast either because if I can't get it on my flow I won't be able to evaluate it. Thus I will let you know if you are going too fast.

Speaking of flowing, signpost so I can flow the round as well as possible which is of course very important.

Frameworks: If neither person has one then I can only evaluate weighing/voting issues so there should be some in that case. If only one person has one I'll evaluate everything under that fw. I'm not very experienced with frameworks either (go figure) but if there turns out to be a framework debate then I'll probably evaluate the whole debate under whichever fw is won.

Feel free to ask me questions in round just about whenever about anything you might need to ask me about.

XDB specific:

Everything above should apply.

Shouldn't need much evidence unless you make some claim that needs a lot of warrants that just aren't given.

Warranting is even more important in this event, with often very little evidence, so do it well.

I don't think there will be any reason to run prog so just don't unless there's a very very good reason.

No new responses in that third speech. Will not evaluate.

Make sure to extend in that third speech otherwise I'll have no offense to evaluate for you (probably resulting in your loss).

I know making cases in short times with sometimes sketch resolutions with sometimes zero relevant knowledge can be tough but no matter how wack your argument is, if it's well warranted and you frontline and stuff it can be better than you think.

EXT specific:

This event is really interesting to me but I have even less knowledge of this one not gonna lie.

Make sure your analytics are solid.

But also don't just have analytics. Keep me engaged. Partly because of my lacking attention span (I will pay attention regardless though so dw.)

Figurative language and stuff like that is great to incorporate.

Humor and jokes are also great when appropriate, but don't go from something like terrorism to a pun please.

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.

Hey y'all. I am a college senior competing at Rice University in NPDA/NPTE debate. I have 8 years of debate experience, 4 of HS policy and 4 of NPDA/NPTE. While I am an experienced debater, I am still a new judge. In my attempt to limit judge intervention, below are beliefs that I have about debate from the perspective of a debater.

I believe that debate is a game that allows for all sorts of players to create, share, and debate advocacy. While debate may be more of a technical logic puzzle rather than a truth-seeking activity, this does not allow for the denial of subjective experiential truth that each person comes into the round with.

In my belief that debate is a technical game, I try to give full reign to the debaters in the round to choose the strategy that they believe is the best to win the round; I will then try to evaluate the round using all arguments that are given by the debaters. Because this is the case, I ask that y'all make my job easy and tell me how to vote instead of making claims that are impossible to evaluate in the vacuum of the round. That being said, I am not perfect and have my own presuppositions toward debate elements. Below are my thoughts on common topics. If you have any questions feel free to email me. maximusrenteria@gmail.com

Affirmative Case

I do not have a preference between topical and kritikal affs, but I do believe that there are right and wrong ways of running these arguments in the 1AC. So run what you want to run and run what you are comfortable running.

Topicality

Paraphrasing one of the best debaters and smartest people I know, topicality is the truest argument you will meet in the game of debate. Because of this, absent weighing I defer to topicality as the highest layer in the debate. Furthermore, I defer to Competing Interpretations over Reasonability. While I do defer to no RVI, a great teammate had almost convinced me that RVIs are a very special argument not to be overlooked. I also have not viewed OCIs to be a useful argument in the game of debate.

Kritiks

I believe there are 4 parts to a kritik. Framework, Link, Impact, Alternative. I personally believe that kritiks are research methods to be performed to evaluate the desirability of the 1AC but do not defer to this. I believe that Alternatives do provide Uniqueness for the Kritik Impacts, but Link Impacts can be independent of the alternative and kritik itself. Because I am not versed in the most critical literature, I believe it is useful for everyone to spend time to explain important parts of the arguments (this goes for all arguments in which I am not an expert). I do not have a preference between material and immaterial alternatives. I prefer DAs to the perm over link recontextualizations.

For reference, I have run Edelman, Spanos, Colonial Epistemology (revolving works by Achille Mbembe), Baudrillard, Althusser, SetCol, Lacan, Derrida and Cap (I do have a dislike for cap but do understand the strategic value so I do not defer against it).

CPs

I am not as well-versed in CP theory as I should be but I understand the value for and against specific CPs. I will listen to these theoretical objections or just arguments on the CP but please impact them out.

Of course, be competitive however you want to argue it.

Perm theory - I am down to listen to perm theory but again impact it out.

THEORY

I am aware that every circuit in every format of debate has their own sets of norms. However, I believe it is important that a debater is able to convince someone that there is value to these norms, geez I'm getting old (not really I just don't know all of the circuit norms anymore). I, too, have read many frivolous theoretical violations in my time.

I am down for spec. I am down for condo (although I have a deference toward the allowance of being condo in most cases). I am down for any theory interpretation you may have, but convince me.

EASIEST PATH TO THE BALLOT

impact out voting issues... give me a reason to put your name on the ballot if you read T read voters, if you read link turns read the impacts, if you read a CP explain the NB whether its external (DA or K) or internal (if it's internal this needs extra articulation), if something is dropped tell me why that matters

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

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

For Louisiana tournaments/traditional rounds:

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

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

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

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

Housekeeping:

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

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

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

LD/Policy

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

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

1- policy, traditional, stock Ks

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

a] Don't be a dick.

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

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

PF

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

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

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

3] PF rants and side quests:

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

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

Email: annesmith@lclark.edu.

Experience: Currently, I'm a third year competitor in NFA-LD at Lewis & Clark College. In high school, I did congress, parli and extemp in Southern California.

TL/DR: I like disads, case arguments, probable impacts, and smart analytics. I tend to be less willing to vote on frivolous theory or T and have a higher threshold for K solvency than most judges. I don't like progressive arguments in PF, extemp debate, and big questions. I'm okay with spreading in policy and prog LD.

General: I tend to lean in the direction of tech over truth, but if an argument is super blippy and blatantly factually untrue (eg a one sentence analytic about the sky being green) or I feel that at the end of the round I don't understand it well enough to explain it to another person, I'm not voting for it even if it was conceded. I vote for the winner of key arguments in the round and lean in the direction of preferring the quality of arguments over quantity of arguments.

Speed: I do a fast format. I'm okay with spreading in formats where it is standard practice (Policy and prog LD). I'll call "clear" or "slow" if you are being unclear or I can't keep up, which doesn't happen too often. If you spread, I appreciate it if you make it clear when one card ends and a new one begins (eg saying NEXT or AND between each card, going slower on tags, etc). I'm very willing to vote on speed theory if there is a genuine accessibility need (a novice in a collapsed division, disability impacting ability to understand fast speech, etc) or it's a format like PF; otherwise I tend to find "get good" to be a valid response.

In formats were spreading isn't standard practice, I don't have a problem people who talk faster than they would in a normal conversation, as long as a lay person could understand your rate of delivery.

Impact stuff: Like most judges, I love it when the debaters in all formats do impact calculus and explain why their impacts matter more under their framework. When this doesn't happen, I default to weighing probability over magnitude and scoop and using reversibility and timeframe as tiebreakers. I’m open to voting on impact turns (eg. democracy bad, CO2 emissions good), as long as you aren't say, impact turing racism.

Evidence: I care about the quality and relevance of evidence over the quantity. I'm more willing to vote on analytics in evidentiary debate than most judges and I honestly would prefer a good analytic link to a DA or K over a bad generic carded one. I'm willing to vote your opponets down if you call them on egregious powertagging.

Plans and case debate: In formats with plans, I love a good case debate. I will vote on presumption, but like all judges I prefer having some offense to vote on. I'm more willing to buy aff durable fiat arguments (for example, SCOTUS not overturning is part of durable fiat) than most judges. Unless a debater argues otherwise, presumption flips to whoever's advocacy changes the squo the least.

CPs: If you want to read multiple CPs, I prefer quality over quantity. I consider the perm to be a test of competition, rather than an advocacy. I’m more willing than most judges to vote on CP theory (for example, multi-plank CPs bad, PICs bad, no non-topical CPs, etc).

Kritiks: I'm willing to vote on Ks in policy, prog LD, and parli, but I think I'm less inclined to than most. I like it when kritiks have specific links and strong, at least somewhat feasible alternatives. I'm not super familiar with K lit outside of cap, neolib, and SetCol; hence, I appreciate clear and thorough explanations. I'm more willing to vote on no solves, perms, and no links than most judges. I think I’m more likely to vote for anti-K theory (utopian fiat bad, alt vagueness, etc) and perms more than most judges.

I'm not dogmatically opposed to voting on K affs, but I tend to find the standard theory arguments read against them persuasive. If you do read a K aff, I like specific links to the topic and a clear, at least somewhat specific advocacy.

Theory and T: Unless one of the debaters argues otherwise, I default to reasonability, rejecting the team, and voting on potential or proven abuse when evaluating theory and T. I do tend find arguments in favor of only voting on proven abuse convincing. I don’t like voting on most spec, and topicality based on wording technicalities, but sometimes it happens. Trying to win a frivolous theory sheet (for example, if we win our coach will let us go to the beach, e-spec when your opponent specified in cross, etc) in front of me is an uphill battle. I’ll vote on RVIs in very rare circumstances, as long as you explain why the sheet’s unfairness was particularly egregious. I'm less willing to vote on disclosure theory than most, but I'm very willing to consider "this case wasn't disclosed, therefore you should give analytics extra weight" type arguments.

Format specific stuff:

High school LD: I'm okay with plans, CP, spreading, theory, and Ks in LD if both participants in the round are or if you're in a specific prog LD division. In prog LD, I tend to error aff on 1AR theory because of the time trade off. One condo CP is probably fine, anything more than that and I'll find condo bad pretty persuasive.

Talking about philosophy in trad LD is great; just make sure you explain the basics behind the theories you are using (I’m not a philosophy major for a reason). In trad LD, I think it's fine (and strategic) to agree with your opponent's framework if it was basically what you were going to use as framework anyway.

Policy: I’m mostly a policymaker judge. On condo, I'm more likely to side with the neg if they read 1 or 2 condo counter advocacies and more likely to side with the aff if they read a bunch or are super contradictory.

PF: I tend not to like Ks in PF; the speech times are too short. PF was designed to be accessible to lay audiences, so I dislike it when debaters use jargon or speed to exclude opponents, but if you both want to debate that way, I won't penalise you.

Parli:I believe that parli is primarily a debate event about making logical arguments and mostly writing your case in prep. As such, I'm very willing to consider analytics and dislike hyper-generic arguments (generic impact statistics and positions that link to multiple things in the topic area are fine, just don't run a case that would apply to most resolutions). I almost never vote for generic Ks in Parli, especially if they are read by the aff. Topic specific Ks that clearly link are okay. While I get a little annoyed by people abuse Point of Order in the rebuttals, please call POO if it is warranted (I don’t protect the flow unless you call them out). Unless there is a rule against it, tag teaming is totally fine, but I only consider arguments given by the person giving that speech.

send speech docs

2x pf toc qual, couple of bids, not very familiar with theory/k's but am willing to evaluate them, will presume 1st if not offense, also did speech & WSD, and ran a few tournaments here and there

I flow

Hello!

I am a parent judge. However, I do have extensive knowledge in the business world. I have also judged over 50 rounds of Public Forum debate. I also do flow the main points of the rounds.

Please add samuelsun99@gmail.com to the email chain. This should be started before the speeches. Please include at least the cases and call the email chain like "Stanford Round 1 - Team AB vs. Team BC."

Everything Else is Negotiable, but these aren't:

~No cheating: that means no card clipping, stealing prep, lying about your disclosure, etc.

~Debate is a safe space: I will not tolerate any blatantly offensive arguments. That means no racism, sexism, homophobia, etc.

If you are running an argument that is potentially a trigger warning, then you MUST ask the opponents if they are fine with it.

Violations of either are grounds for auto-loss and the lowest speaks I can possibly give you

General Preferences

~Please speak at a slower/normal pace. If I don't understand something, then I won't put it in my decision.

~Please don't read any weird arguments (Theory, K's, etc). It will be much less persuasive if you do so. Furthermore, if you run a non-generic case, then please explain it very well or I will have a hard time keeping track of it.

~Please send me your speech doc (cases) for the round. This will help me understand your case better and recall your key details.

~Please be civil in cross. I don't like aggressiveness. If the worst occurs, then I'll dock your speaks

~I view the round from your overall performance in the round. This includes being professional, taking a short time to pull up your evidence, have well-explained reasons and statistics, and consistently bringing up your points.

~I personally value the truth of an argument over an argument that will probably not occur.

~I will judge this round off a clean slate meaning I will try to not use individual bias to affect my decision.

~I also really like weighing so please do a lot of weighing to convince me more.

~I vote my decision mainly off of summary, final focus, and sometimes cross. If you can not respond to your own case in cross, I might count that in my decision if it is cleanly extended.

In all, be independent/responsible through the debate. I will be keeping time, but I also expect you to keep your own speech and prep time. Just let me know when you start/stop prep and don't go over the time limit, etc. I dislike it when debaters try to steal prep. I trust all of you debaters and good luck in your round!

Importance of Weighing

-Prob>Timeframe

- Timeframe>Pre-req

- Pre-req>mag

---

Specific to September topic.

I'm not very knowledgable about this specific topic.

Good Luck Debaters!

I try to be a good judge, but if you run random Ks on me, i might miss the core of the debate.

i would strongly prefer if you called me "Your honor" (on in panel, say panel)

tell me your fav rap song, and I'll give bonus speaks based on that (to make sure that you read this)

Real paradigm below \/\/\/\/\/\/\/

Novice LD paradigm

It's a learning experience guys, I was in your shoes, I sucked too so

Y'all can ask me questions if your stuck at any time and I'll help you out

I emphasize fw a lot, but will vote off of impacts.

Do impact calc (probability, timeframe, magnitude)

If you run plan affs, I'll be mad and dock speaks, but go ahead lol

Prefer disclosure with me, do whatever you'd enjoy

If you'll be running anything prog (or what upperclassmen wrote for you, read the whole paradigm please)

LD Paradigm

First, I'm a more progressive judge, so I'm fine with almost anything.

I don't have a preference on disclosure, but if y'all don't disclose, don't spread or run high phil.

Spread all u want, but send me the docs. If you spread badly I'll dock speaks. Nobody likes incomprehensible spreading, T-T

Drown your speech in theory shells for all I care. Please make sure I understand them though cuz theory i don't understand makes me cry T-T

TIP: Sound like your opponent committed a war crime, and I'm more likely to buy it than just reading the shell in a monotone voice.

I do prefer empirical evidence over philosophy unless it's something like Baudrillard where you target the mindset.

It is advantageous to weigh under your opponent’s framing mechanism in addition to telling me why yours is better.

You can be as abusive as you want in arguments and observations. Fair warning, you might hit a few theory shells. I don't like plan affs, and will lower speaks, but you can run it.

No new args in the 2nr/2ar, please (common sense)

I will time, and when the timer goes off I’ll stop flowing so you talking longer than 10 seconds over serves no strategic purpose.

I am tech > truth and am a (mostly) tabula rasa judge

1. Theory

1.5 Trix (Read curry's paradox i love it ngl)

2. Larp and non-identity k

3. standard case

3.5 pomo phil

4. common Phil (kant, rawls, locke)

5. Identity arguments

Arguments I will not vote for (this list might get longer as time goes on)

-ableist/racist/sexist/transphobic/classist/violent arguments. To clarify, if I am judging a round where it comes down to a racist argument and a sexist argument, I will vote on presumption, not one of the two arguments.

If your opponent points out that your case defends or supports one of the above, you need to win that issue, or else I will not vote for that.

Please signpost along the way to make it easier.

Speaks

I think the method of giving speaks based on how far I'll think you'll go in the tourney is pretty dumb - however, higher speaks probably mean you're more likely to get to Elim rounds. Anyway, this is how I view speaks:

27: It was really bad/I couldn't understand you

28: It was ok/could be a lot better

29: It was decent/not bad/a little improvement but not terrible

30: Pretty good/good clash/impact calc

I don't really care enough to give like .1 speaks it will either be a whole number or end in 0.5 - i.e. like 29 or 29.5, but not 29.2 or 28.8. (If the debate was good, but I was triggered, I will give .9 purely to spite)

Ways to get free speaks (not free ballots)

1. Make a video game reference or do something funny and I'll bump your speaks. Or make jokes, idrc. Meme cases might probably not get a ballot from me (it sometimes has though), but depending on the case, probably a 29.5 or 30. If you run a spiritualism meme case, I will give you an automatic 30.

If you want me to clarify something about this paradigm please ask.

Credit to Zachary Li and Graham Johnstone for parts of the paradigm

Good luck, and have fun! (and win)

PF Paradigm

I think Hanming Sun summarizes all of my best points here when he says "i am a lay judge. speak slow."

Just a few things, extend in 3rd, really write my ballot on the 4th for me, and if ur a 2, bonus points if you hit every single part of their case.

Policy Paradigm

Signpost, if you don't know what it is, good luck my dude

Do some weighing, tell me why you win

If you don't know who Phoenix Pittman is and if he didn't get cancelled yet, ballot paint for me (write my ballot)

Honestly, policy sucks so just make the round fun and everyone will get good speaks ig, idrc

Try not to curse out your opponents ig, it's policy and i'd curse too

If you run a callout aff, ill give you max speaks

Spread lol i love spreading

NO MERCY