I like theories, just make them basic because i'm dumb. Memes will ALWAYS give you more speaker points. I am ok with everything as long as you ARE NOT MEAN to your opponents. Speak loud and fast because its good. Spreading is pogchamp please spread.

General Notes

Don't be a bigot. This includes misgendering competitors. You will lose the ballot.

I generally give relatively high speaks due to the subjective nature of speaker points and the issues therein.

Remember to time yourselves and your opponents.

At invitationals, add me to the email chain using crystal.debate.speech@gmail.com .

In all forms of debate, I value logical argumentation and strong analytics supported by credible evidence. Speed, if clear, is fine, as long as it remains at a level that works for all debaters in the round. Out-spreading an opponent kills education.

Policy (and Policy-Style Parli)

I am open to theory arguments and will rarely vote on T , but you need to explain them clearly and thoroughly in the round. I studied critical theory as applied to literature in both undergraduate and graduate school, so I have a strong background in feminist, Marxist, deconstructionist, queer, and psychoanalytic theory. I enjoy a well-executed K, but only run kritiks you know well -- not something you grabbed off the wiki/open ev.

I strive to evaluate the round using the framework agreed upon by the debaters and do not have a particular preference regarding stock issues, policy maker, etc.

LD

Support and bring everything back to your V/VC -- even if you're running a plan (for non-CA LD). Evidence certainly matters but evidence without analytics will do very little for you.

PF

I'll accept theory arguments when necessary to address in-round abuse, but please proceed with caution. I still value Public Forum as a form of debate that can be understood by lay judges, so please don't spread or run a K, and keep the jargon to a minimum.

Speech

In extemp, I want to see your introduction connect clearly with the topic and the rest of the speech (bring it back briefly at the end). Please clearly sign-post your main points and cite your evidence (ideally with more than just "According to the New York Times this year..."). Don't be afraid to use humor -- even if it's a little dark. Most of all, be authentic, engaging, and keep things flowing.

I will give time signals in extemp and impromptu.

In original oratory, original advocacy, & informative speaking, I look for well-crafted speeches delivered with fluency and appropriately varied tones.

If you're competing in an interp event, your intro should make me care about the topic at hand and should, of course, be your original words. Also, if you're competing in oratorical interpretation and the original speech includes cursing, please say the actual words or select a different speech (e.g., AOC's 2020 address to Rep. Yoho in which she quotes his profanity).

Hey everyone! I'm Arik (he/him), a debater from Dreyfoos School of the Arts in Florida.

I've competed in numerous speech & debate events (Congress, WSD, PF, XDB, BQ, Parli, OO, IMP, EXT, etc.) over the past five years of my experience in the activity, finaling and semifinaling the likes of NSDA, Harvard, Stanford, Emory, Blue Key, Sunvite, GMU, and more. In short, I'm very well-versed with the dynamics and flow of each event, especially Congress & World Schools Debate (my main events).

OVERARCHING THOUGHTS ABOUT STYLISTIC PREFERENCES & EQUITY

No debate round or ballot should be contingent on extremely narrow preferences for what judges like stylistically/what they're biased toward. Trust me, I've seen it win (and lose) rounds on my side; I will always prioritize your content & strategy for a debate round and will NEVER weigh what someone sounds like or what they look like in a ballot*. The stylistic preferences I include in the event-specific sections of this paradigm is optional & certainly not one that is mandatory.

THAT BEING SAID, I will not hesitate to drop you or bring an equity concern for individuals who display any trace of sexist, homophobic, Islamophobic, etc. behavior or action. That's my one non-negotiable. My priority as a judge is to make a round as safe and inclusive as possible before casting a ballot: the conclusion of this section is just to be respectful to the maximal extent :)

WORLD SCHOOLS

In Worlds, I adjudicate on content, strategy, and style (in that order). Content and strategy is what wins you rounds, style is what determines speaks. I believe that doing well in all three categories is what makes good debaters great persuasively and substantively. A couple of notes from the top of this paradigm for Worlds:

- Make & take POIs! It's the best (and only) form of direct engagement with the other side, make use of it! I'm cool with 1-2 POIs being taken in a speech.
- Stylistically*, I think conversational tone/pace speeches are the most enjoyable to listen to as long as you cover what you need to!
- Have clear signposting & flag sections of your speech + its strategic importance in the round to make it easier on me to understand what we're getting into/why it's important.
- In First, cover all of the important things in framing (i.e. a counterfactual if THR, model if THW, etc.) & prove that you analyzed the motion well! I always love a bit of pre-emption & give me clearly structured and understandable substantives with robust mechanisms and accessible illustrations!
- In Second, open and delete paths to victory for your side- what are you winning on? How do you deal with the other side's material (refute) and how do you expand and maintain your side's arguments (rebuild)?
- In Third, tell me the clashes to consolidate & organize this debate: why is the clash important, what did they say (and how did you respond), what did you say (and how did it hold throughout the round), and how you explicitly win on the material & in the round. Weigh up your arguments against theirs and show me how your side has won the debate!
- In Reply, provide the voter issues/areas of the debate you won & give me a biased OA/RFD for ways your side won and how the debate developed from First.

CONGRESS

My perspective: Congress is a combination of speech AND debate, not just one or the other. Your approach to how you attempt to win a round may differ from person to person, so I don't mind how you go about it; I encourage you to play to your strengths. A key factor that plays into my decisions as to who gets ranked where is round adaptation- a speech that is well-placed in a round (be it early, middle, or late) that effectively contributes to the debate speaks to your ability to adapt to the needs of the round. In my eyes, that's what the best legislator in the room looks like.

What I look for in a debater: I'm a fan of extremely clear arguments that are easy to understand and is distinguished from other speeches preceding you. Refutation is an absolute must in every speech following the first affirmative. Outstanding delivery is a prerequisite for evaluating your arguments; it's far more beneficial to have a distinctive style and use of rhetoric because it's what differentiates Debater A and Debater B (who may have similar argumentative/analytical skills). Additionally, I like speeches that break out of the two-point structure and take on a fluid form that is intended to cover other necessary content in the round (but a great two-constructive speech gets the job done as well). Be active in the round & make sure to stay engaged! As always, no rehash.

Round adaptation/POs/final thoughts: For speeches- don't be afraid to flip! It reflects well on you to do a service to a chamber, so I won't mind if your speech is a little lower in quality than the speech you intended on giving because you adapted to the round; if anything, you'll get rewarded for taking up the task (as I've had to for countless debate rounds). For POs- avoid making mistakes and make sure the round flows as smoothly as possible. As a PO for high-level rounds at Harvard, NSDA, Yale, Sunvite, Blue Key, etc., I understand the value of a good PO for the round; that said, I rank POs in the middle-to-high end at the beginning (and it moves up or down according to your performance). Stay true to yourself, have some self-confidence, and bring some humor to the presidency! You got this.

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

PF/Parli Paradigm for NYCUDL

Email: selenateng24@gmail.com

Hey, I'm Selena. I competed in LD debate for Millburn High School (NJ). Some miscellaneous things to take into consideration:

- I evaluate only the arguments you make in round without using my own knowledge and opinions.
- Weigh/compare between arguments! This is where a large portion of rounds come down to.
- Signpost your responses; it makes them easier to flow.
- I will be very happy if you run a framework and execute it correctly.
- A team once called me "your honor." Please don't do this or anything similar. "Selena" or "judge" is fine.
- If you have any questions before or after the round, ask or email me! I'll be happy to provide information and feedback.

Circuit LD Paradigm

Email: selenateng24@gmail.com

Tl;dr I look for the path of least intervention to the ballot. Good for phil/theory, fine for clash debates, bad for K v K and larp v larp. I'm less tricky as a judge than I was as a debater; you need to have fully fleshed-out warrants. I AM BAD AT FLOWING FAST SPREADING.

Generic
These are all subject to change depending on what is argued in round. I try to default to what both debaters seem to assume, but absent that:
- Tech > truth
- Epistemic confidence > epistemic modesty
- Truth testing ROTB
- Permissibility and presumption are the same thing and both negate
- All pre-fiat impacts (theory, T, K, independent voters) are on the same layer. You need to weigh between them.
- If I don't understand your case after your constructive, I won't expect your opponent to predict your massive rebuttal extrapolation.
- I don't think many things are abhorrent to argue, but I will be biased against args that are legitimately terrible (ex. an entire case that explicitly supports racism, call-out cases).

Larp
- I'm bad at evaluating policy. Please overexplain. And if you're against another larper, I'm praying that one of you uplayers.
- I can, however, evaluate util just fine. In fact, syllogistic util can be quite persuasive against Ks.
- Default to epistemic confidence, yes judge kick, zero risk does exist.
- I have a lower threshold for winning calc indicts than most judges. Util debaters undercover them.

Phil
- Love it. I'm most familiar with Kant, determinism, and skep, and I'm somewhat familiar with most other common FWs, but feel free to run whatever.
- This does not mean you can get away with weak explanations. When I say I like judging phil, it doesn't mean I'll fill in the gaps for you.
- Calc indicts <3

K
- Not the most experienced with Ks, but I'm not opposed to them.
- I view Ks as frameworks. That means when going for a K, you should try to frame it as a phil NC - i.e., heavier on the line-by-line as well as explaining why your offense is relevant and theirs isn't.
- I don't understand why so many K 2Ns have enormous overviews at the top that just explain what the K says and don't explain what implications the arguments have on the round.
- Pathos is not offense.

Theory
- I like theory. I'll vote on almost any shell if it's well-justified. SLOW DOWN ON BLIPS.
- Defaults: drop the argument, competing interps, no RVIs, norm setting > in-round abuse, text > spirit. You should read your own voters, but if both debaters seem to be at an implicit consensus that something is/isn't a voter, I'll default to that.
- Terminal defense on theory, even under a competing interps model, is sufficient for me to ignore a shell. In other words, I don't default to risk-of-offense framing, but you can always argue otherwise.
- It is much harder to get me to vote on independent voters and paragraph theory compared to regular theory shells. A one or two-sentence argument likely doesn't have enough warranting for a full collapse in rebuttal, but I don't have anything against independent voters if you warrant and impact out the initial argument.

Tricks
- I'll vote on them if there's a warrant in the constructive speech. A lot of times there isn't, like "negating denies the antecedent of the resolution, and statements with false antecedents always have true consequents, which affirms" is literally just words. Yeah I know it's condo logic, but I'm not doing that work for you.
- Keep the debate clean pleeease
- If you extemp a random a priori in the middle of the AC, I probably won't catch it. Just put it in the doc.

If there's such thing as novice judge, I am it. With that said, I do debate, so I understand where you're coming from.

email chain: chloewang123ixl@gmail.com

pronouns: she/they

Quick Prefs:

(if you're a trad debater pref me high; my circuit is very lay)

1 - FW, LARP, easy phil (Kant, Ripstein, Rawls)

1/2 - T (it can get messy sometimes. . .please don't make it messy)

2 - theory, idpol & pomo Ks, narrative

4/5 - multiple offs where I'm not told which one should come first (or messy debates in general)

5 - dense phil (if you read dense phil and spread I WILL NOT be able to keep up)

________________________________________________________________________

Defaults:

(soft preferences, easily changed in round; I'm serious, a literal one-line blip will be enough [obvs unless contested, then it becomes like any other arg to be won])

1. Theory

a. yes RVIs

b. DTA for I-Meets/Spec shells, DTD for accessibility

c. fairness doesn't exist

d. inclusion controls internal link to education, education is impact

e. disclosure probs bad; will be hard to convince me it's actively good

2. Topicality

a. generally good

3. Flow

a. comparative worlds (ONLY in the absence of a working FW/ROB/ROJ)

b. embedded clash counts, clash is good

c. (magnitude + scope) x probability = weight

d. won't judge-kick CPs

e. will vote off flow (narrative - will assume not to vote off flow)

4. Misc.

a. flex prep okay

b. PICs abusive

c. trigger warning good

d. CX is binding

The one hard-set rule I do have is that I WILL NOT vote off of stuff that doesn't happen in round/30 min before round. Which means it's not a good idea to run call-out affs. There is a .01% chance you can convince me otherwise, but if it's that egregious I'm probs gonna redirect you to tab and let them sort it out.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Styles:

1. LARP is probably the most understandable to me if only because I ran it. Go for the CP, but too often the DA isn't actually a DA: make sure your opponent can't perm it, otherwise I will be very sad and you probably will be too. Perms are fine, but make sure you explain how you link into offence. Quick note on CPs: if you run multiple conditional CPs I will have a much lower threshold for responses. Consult CPs feel abusive, but I will buy them if opp. doesn't say anything. PICs probs bad; convince me otherwise and I'll buy it. Plan text not necessary so long as I know what your advocacy is.

2. Ks/K-affs were read on me a bunch, so I understand the basic premise. That said, I know absolutely no topic literature on any of them. I do believe there should be some link to the resolution, but if it's not pointed out by either debater I will assume it's not necessary. If it's a shifty K-aff, use CX to pin it down; personally, I feel a flexible aff is a legitimate strategy and not worth intervention. Could be convinced otherwise.

3. Theory, please use only if there is abuse in the round. Or if your opponent is clearly experienced, I guess friv. theory is okay, but my threshold for responses will be very very low.

4. Dense phil is very confusing for me. If you're reading something intuitive, like libertarianism, go for it I guess, but otherwise explain it very very slowly & clearly. I reserve the right to drop/kick anything I don't understand.

5. Tricks are fine if it's a chill round//your opponent is okay w/ it, but it's up to you to make sure. If your opp. reads theory on you for trix, I'm probs gonna buy the theory. I find them very entertaining, but they can be stressful to respond to in round, so if you're on the Neg and you dump a boatload of blippy analytics, I'm probs not gonna buy 'Aff dropped point b under u/v pt 7 haha gg vote Neg'. That said, if they go completely unresponded to I will be very very sad. Blanket responses are okay. I'll vote for you on it if 1) that's the only offence left in round, or 2) it's a very common trix w/ clear numbering and explanation, but neither debater will get high speaks if the round is won off trix.

Miscellaneous:

1. I don't really believe in tech/truth, just give me a reasonable-sounding arg., provide proper warranting/evidence, and if it's sketchy, pray to the stars that your opponent doesn't question it. (i.e. If you go sky is red --> Mars is about to crash into us --> extinction impact, I won't buy it *only because the sky isn't red.* Obvious faulty premises should still be pointed out though. A revised arg. that I would accept could be sky is blue --> Saturn is heading towards us at 5700mph --> will hit us in xx weeks --> should do this stuff now b/c it won't make a difference either to maximise short-term well-being b/c long-term doesn't matter. See the difference? I've a very low threshold for responses to ludicrous args., though. A lotta peeps under-utilise the 'they don't have a warrant so I can just say 'no' w/o a warrant.')

2. You can run progressive args., but always err on the overexplaining side. Assume I know nothing, 'cause I probs know nothing. Burden is on the debater; if I don't understand, I'm out. Same goes for spreading. Online formats don't give me a way to warn you, so err on the 'judge-is-dumb' side. NatCir, please send speech docs.

3. Crystallisation/weighing can only help you! The easier you make my decision, the higher your speaker points. I'm happy, you're happy, let's all be happy!

Good luck, you'll do great!

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