I am a parent PF judge, and a practicing attorney with more than 25 years of experience.

I believe a sound debate is about a fair, intelligible and intelligent dialogue. Speed reading off a computer screen or spreading is incompatible with such a process. Fast speakers assume the risk that I could miss some arguments/points/evidence. Additionally, if in my view you've spoken at a fast clip, I will not view unfavorably your opponent failing to respond to an argument that you have advanced.

Do not resort to speech docs. Make your case orally.

I flow arguments and strictly rely on my flowsheet. While I do not take note of points made/unmade in crossfire, I pay careful attention to astute questions and answers. Please bring up crossfire points that you would like me to flow in a subsequent speech. I am persuaded by well-structured, logical and linked arguments that are honestly supported by key pieces of evidence.

In addition to making your case, you must meaningfully engage with your opponents' case. The team advancing a contention must rejoin the issue and tell me why the opposing team's rebuttal/counter/block does not work.

In crossfire, please avoid questions with long preambles.

While, for the most part, I don't get into the weeds with cards and evidence, I may on occasion call for a piece. Teams should feel free to assail each other's evidence during the debate.

Please do not use debate jargon.

I do not like theory and K's. Hew to the topic of the day.

Keep the discourse civil. Incivility in any form will hurt your cause.

Enthusiasm for, intensity, and passion regarding the proposition you are espousing is welcome. Discourtesy or aggression against your opponents is not.

Tactical and strategic thinking in arguing, rebutting, and in crossfire is always delightful.

I appreciate clear analysis of why your contention should win the day in the summary and final focus. Further, the final focus should have all that you would like me to vote on (akin to writing my RFD for me - pros of your case and cons of your opponent's.) Lastly, all arguments and evidence that are in the final focus must have been in the summary and no new arguments in the summary speech - it is a matter of fairness.

Happy debating!

Forensics is a speaking competition in which the art of rhetoric is utilized - speaking effectively to persuade or influence [the judge].

I take Socrates's remarks in Plato's Apology as the basis of my judging: "...when I do not know, neither do I think I know...I am likely to be wiser than he to this small extent, that I do not think I know when I do not know" (Ap. 21d-e).

My paradigm of any round is derived from: CLARITY!!!

All things said in the round need to be clear! Whatever it is you want me to comprehend, vote on, and so forth, needs to be clearly articulated, while one is speaking. This stipulation should not be interpreted as: I am ignorant about debate - I am simply placing the burden on the debater to debate; it is his or her responsibility to explain all the arguments presented. Furthermore, any argument has the same criteria; therefore, clash, at the substantive level, is a must!

First and foremost, I follow each debate league's constitution, per the tournament.

Secondly, general information, for all debate forms, is as follows:

1) Speed: As long as I can understand you well enough to flow the round, since I vote per the flow!, then you can speak as slow or fast as you deem necessary. I do not yell clear, for we are not in practice round, and that's judge interference. Also, unless there is "clear abuse," I do not call for cards, for then I am debating. One does not have to spread - especially in PF.

2) Case: I am a tab judge; I will vote the way in which you explain to me to do so; thus I do not have a preference, or any predispositions, to the arguments you run. It should be noted that in a PF round, non-traditional/abstract arguments should be expressed in terms of why they are being used, and how it relates to the round.

Set a metric in the round, then tell me why you/y'all have won your metric, while your opponent(s) has lost their metric and/or you/y'all have absorbed their metric.

The job of any debater is to persuade the judge, by way of logical reasoning, to vote in his or her favor, while maintaining one's position, and discrediting his or her opponent's position. So long as the round is such, I say good luck to all!

Ask any other clarification questions before the round!

I debated in PF for 4 years (2016-2020) in MN, I'm now an assistant coach for Blake. Please put me on the email chain before round and send full speech docs + cut cards before case and rebuttal: lillianalbrecht20@gmail.com and blakedocs@googlegroups.com

For TFA 2024: please add sevenlakespf@googlegroups.com to the chain and make sure your documents are able to be viewed after the round (ideally a PDF or Word document). Please arrive to rounds early and be preflowed, especially for flight 2.

Evidence ethics and exchanges in PF are terrible, please don’t make it worse. Start an email chain before rounds and make exchanges as fast as possible. Sending speech docs to everyone before you read case and rebuttal (including your evidence) makes exchanges faster and lets you check back for your opponent's evidence. I find myself evaluating evidence a lot more now, so please make sure you're reading cut cards.

I tend to vote on the path of least resistance, meaning I’ll vote for clean turns over messy case args. I'm kind of a lazy judge that way, but the less I have to think about where to vote the better. But if a turn/disad isn’t implicated or doesn’t have a link, I’m not gonna buy it. Most teams don't actually impact out or weigh their turns, so doing that is an easy way to win my ballot.

You need to frontline in second rebuttal. Turns/new offense is a must, but the more you cover the better.

Everything you want to go for has to be in summary and FF. This includes offense and defense--defense is not sticky for 1st summary. If you don't extend your links and impacts in summary/FF I can't vote for you.

I’m generally good with speed, but I value quality over quantity. I typically flow on paper and will not flow off the doc, so slowing down on tags + analytics is appreciated. I will clear you if I cannot understand you, typically for unclear speaking rather than the speed itself.

Please signpost, for both of our sakes. Clear signposting makes it easier to understand your arguments and easier to vote for you. Line by line is preferred, but whatever you do, just tell me where to write it down.

The more weighing you do the better. Weigh every piece of offense you want to win for best results.

The more you collapse in the second half of the round, the easier it is for me to vote for you.

Speaker points are kinda dumb, but I usually average 28. Good strat + jokes will boost your speaks, being offensive/rude + slow to find evidence will drop them.

I'm fine with theory if there's real abuse. I won't vote on frivolous theory and I'll be really annoyed judging a round on the hyper-specifics of a debate norm (ie, open-source v. full-text disclosure). Good is good enough. Generally, I think that paraphrasing is bad and disclosure is good, but I'll evaluate whatever args you read in front of me. That being said, I really do not want to judge theory debates, so please avoid running them.

I don't mind K debate theoretically, but I have a really high threshold for what K debate should be in PF. I have some experience running and judging Ks, but I'm not very familiar with the current lit + hyperspecific terminology. I'm also really opposed to the current trend of Ks in PF. If your alt doesn't actually do anything with my ballot you don't have any offense that I can vote for you on. If you want to read a K in front of me, you need to go at 75% of your max speed. Far too often teams read a bunch of blippy arguments and forget to actually warrant them. Going slower and walking me through the warranting will be the way to win my ballot--this includes responses to the K as well. However, similar to theory, I really do not want to judge a K round, so run at your own risk.

Feel free to email me with any questions you have about the round!

Hi,

I am an interested parent helping out, with little experience judging.

Please don't speak too fast, moderate speed will be appreciated. Speak clearly. Please be respectful and mindful in the crossfire round, allowing for fluent exchange of questions & responses. Don't speak over each other. Signposting is welcome.

I won't be giving oral feedback. I will be submitting feedback through the judge ballot a few minutes after the debate.

I will be looking for the following

• Clear articulation of assertions & contentions
• Well-developed logic & reasoning in all assertions & responses
• Well articulated, compelling impact and well framed arguments
• Supporting facts, authorities & appeal to emotions
• Logical flow across sections
• Merit & precision of questioning and clarity of defense in cross-fire
• Speaker style (confidence, clarity, modulation, wit, etc.)

Good luck!

I am Hyma (MBA, Realtor, Shrewsbury Public schools),

I am an enthusiastic parent of a charming debater with little to no debate Public Forum judging experience.

I like debate and questions that entice me to think. I am familiar with online judging as I do volunteering for many other online organizations. I want this journey to be exciting and educating. I would appreciate it if you follow all the online competition expectations such as looking into your camera with your shoulder up, face visible. Rest flows in.

Debating and group discussions are a huge part of growing up, As I am still trying to learn debate. But I surely have seen few people who can excellently prove their point across.

“A good rule for debate is to use hard facts and a soft voice”.

I will be judging on all the debate on the following Rubrics of course timing included.

• Organization & Clarity (Clear articulation)

• Use of Argument Compelling impact and well framed arguments, Supporting facts, Appeal to emotions, and Logical flow across sections.

• Use of cross-examination and rebuttal

• Presentation Style, Speaker style. (Confidence, clarity, Modulation, wit, etc.)

Good luck!

Affiliations:

I am currently coaching 3 teams at lamdl (POLAHS, BRAVO, LAKE BALBOA) and have picked up an ld student or 2. I am pretty familiar with the fiscal redistribution and WANA topics.

I do have a hearing problem in my right ear. If I've never heard you b4 or it's the first round of the day. PLEASE go about 80% of your normal spread for about 20 seconds so I can get acclimated to your voice. If you don't, I'm going to miss a good chunk of your first minute or so. I know people pref partly through speaker points. My default starts at 28.5 and goes up from there. If i think you get to an elim round, you'll prob get 29.0+

Evid sharing: use speechdrop or something of that nature. If you prefer to use the email chain and need my email, please ask me before the round.

What will I vote for? I'm mostly down for whatever you all wanna run. That being said no person is perfect and we all have our inherent biases. What are mine?

I think teams should be centered around the resolution. While I'll vote on completely non T aff's it's a much easier time for a neg to go for a middle of the road T/framework argument to get my ballot. I lean slightly neg on t/fw debates and that's it's mostly due to having to judge LD recently and the annoying 1ar time skew that makes it difficult to beat out a good t/fw shell. The more I judge debates the less I am convinced that procedural fairness is anything but people whining about why the way they play the game is okay even if there are effects on the people involved within said activity. I'm more inclined to vote for affs and negs that tell me things that debate fairness and education (including access) does for people in the long term and why it's important. Yes, debate is a game. But who, why, and how said game is played is also an important thing to consider.

As for K's you do you. the main one I have difficulty conceptualizing in round are pomo k vs pomo k. No one unpacks these rounds for me so all I usually have at the end of the round is word gibberish from both sides and me totally and utterly confused. If I can't give a team an rfd centered around a literature base I can process, I will likely not vote for it. update: I'm noticing a lack of plan action centric links to critiques. I'm going to be honest, if I can't find a link to the plan and the link is to the general idea of the resolution, I'm probably going to err on the side of the perm especially if the aff has specific method arguments why doing the aff would be able to challenge notions of whatever it is they want to spill over into.

I lean neg on condo. Counterplans are fun. Disads are fun. Perms are fun. clear net benefit story is great.

If you're in LD, don't worry about 1ar theory and no rvis in your 1ac. That is a given for me. If it's in your 1ac, that tops your speaks at 29.2 because it means you didn't read my paradigm.

Now are there any arguments I won't vote for? Sure. I think saying ethically questionable statements that make the debate space unsafe is grounds for me to end a round. I don't see many of these but it has happened and I want students and their coaches to know that the safety of the individuals in my rounds will always be paramount to anything else that goes on. I also won't vote for spark, trix, wipeout, nebel t, and death good stuff. ^_^ good luck and have fun debating

Please speak clear and not too fast. No arguments, enjoy debate where ideas/opinions are shared by each team.

I am very specific about time management. Lastly, I look at the individual and team knowledge on debate topic. How well you communicate, summarize the topic & persuasive.

Obligatory flex about where I went to high school, how well I did at debate, where I'm going to college, how many years I've been coaching, how well my students have done, what I do professionally, etc. etc. etc. (for realz tho, I debated mostly pf for 4 years, some parli, some worlds, some congress)

email - caleb.brobst78@gmail.com

I'm an econ and political science major so while I'll go by the flow, you'll def hear about it post-round if u bs basic economics

there's a tl;dr at the bottom that tells you pretty much everything you need to know, but I just feel like longer paradigms that detail things are better than shorter paradigms, also I kinda just keep adding to this so there's definitely some repeat things(those are probably important) and some ramblings as I literally edit this whenever I think about debate
General housekeeping

- include me in the email chain plz, it makes it easier for me to look at cards cause the one's you'll contest are likely to be the ones you called

- if online, idc what you wear, if ur camera is on or not, try not to abuse prep time

- I also don't care what u wear if we're in person

- U can prep while the other side gets their cards, this promotes having ur evidence readily available, which u should so I don't get annoyed - leads to drop in speaks

- I don't care what side you sit on, I'd prefer if you faced me during your speeches

- Have cards/pdf ready, if you give the cut card of a study without the methodology and the other team wants the methodology you better google the card and get the methodology

- I'll time prep/speeches, after time for speeches is done, finish your sentence quickly, anything new I'll stop flowing and dock speaks

- Be nice, Ik debate is inherently aggressive so I understand things get heated, but attack arguments, not people, if you do attack people, I'll drop you, give you the lowest speaks tab will let me, and give the other team double 30s

- keep your computers/cards ready for me to read after the round, I will only call for them if the other team compares evidence/you guys disagree on what the card says. That is the only time I will intervene in a round. See later on evidence.

- During Cross I normally write out comments, but concessions in cross are def important so if they concede a warrant talk about it in speeches

- Don't say ur opponents dropped something when they didn't or that they didn't read something if they did. Idk if people think judges won't notice but I'm flowing, I will, and it will def tank ur speaks like nothing else and if its a close round might end up being part of my decision. Its not a good strat, its lazy debating

Here are some things about the round - General

- If you say that your opponents dropped something when they didn't, I won't drop you but your speaks will be significantly docked

- I won't flow any cards or new arguments brought up in final

- Please weigh, idc if it is at the top, the bottom, or in between but weigh with clear taglines, I don't think buzzwords (i.e. scope, risk, timeframe,) can be used instead of warrants, but I think they make weighing clearer for everyone in the round

- In terms of things that I like weighing wise, love uniqueness, I think probability is still offense, I'd make some sort of warrant why I should prefer it but in general I view it as common sense/how many alt causes is there for ur impact

- tell me why you're weighing mech matters, this decides a lot of close rounds and makes everything easier

- I know the norm is prefer warranting of evidence, but if your evidence sucks, (too old, not specific, wrong methodology) I won't buy it as long as the other team is smart enough to call for the card and tell me it sucks, (hint, hint, call for cards)

- I can handle some speed but if I don't know what you're saying, it doesn't go on the flow, and it doesn't get voted off of, (you'll be able to tell I don't know what it is, I'll stop flowing)

- Paraphrasing is good, you still have to have the cut card or be able to highlight the source where you find it from but in research, you almost never cite actual cut cards and instead paraphrase it, also makes ur read ur sources, and people who are going to paraphrase badly are also going to miscut cards

- Theories that I will for sure vote for: Social Distancing theory, mask wearing theory if we're in person

- Theories that you'll have to work hard to convince me of: Paraphrase, disclosure if reading it against small-school teams, if ya'll are from big schools or are super successful on the circuit you should probably be disclosing cause then you can access ur impact of norm-setting cause debaters look at what u do if no one knows who u r then idk how you're changing norms but if you have a warrant I'll buy it

- In really messy debates I find myself voting on a narrative, a lot of times this happens when teams don't collapse on a single thing in summary/1Rs

- That being said I'll def vote on turns if they're dropped so ya know, but if you're going to extend a turn and you read a de-link on it you'll need to tell me why you're de-link no longer matters

- I.E. the best way to read turns if you're going to go for them in front of me is read uniqueness and then read a turn, weigh the turn preferably when you read it or in the speech after it, or make the de-links not compatible with the turn

- I think rounds tend to come down to either me voting for the team that has offense because one team didn’t frontline sufficiently enough or both teams getting some access to their offense and me voting for whatever team wins the weighing battle, the second one is a lot more common

PF Specific

- Please only extend one case argument in summary, that doesn't mean I won't vote off of the other if you extend more than one, but unless the other team didn't give a rebuttal, extend one

- extend the best piece of defense/offense on the other team's case, please don't card dump at any time

- the first rebuttal can extend defense to first final focus only, but you have to frontline any response the other team gave it

- 2nd rebuttal has the obligation to frontline any offense first rebuttal reads, preferably collapse or start collapsing in the second rebuttal

- No new cards after rebuttals unless they directly respond to an argument the other team ran, I'm more lenient on this for the first summary, less for second

- Don't run theory, K's, or CPs unless the other team is ok with it and have agreed before hand

Parli/WSD

- Empirics are generally good

- Have warrants to back them up

- The negs job is to disprove the aff meaning that aff has the burden 51-49

- that doesn't mean I won't vote on off case neg args, aff u need to respond to them otherwise if they're comparatively weighed vs urs then u lose

- Don't bring up new args in the second speech if you have 4 speeches, its stupid, more lenient on this for aff cause they go first, less on neg (if u bring it up and don't go for it I won't drop u but I'll def give u a low-point win, esp if its a well-developed argument)

- Please weigh, esp in these events, and weigh links because often times it comes down to clashing warrants so give me a way to evaluate them

LD/Policy

- I probably shouldn't be judging this event unless its a local, but I know how to flow so if u put it on the flow and give me a way to evaluate it then I'll vote on it

- I have no conceptions about whether or not substance or theory or whatever comes first so please warrant this out if you're going for something like this otherwise you'll probably be mad when I vote on substance rather than ur high tech super cool theory shell

- If ur spreading u have to send a doc, I don't mind spreading or speed but if I can't hear you I can't flow it and then I can't vote on it, with that being said I'm not super well versed in flowing from doc as a judge

- Theory, K's, CPs, and other stuff here are all the norms so that's fine

- Frameworks are just weighing at the top

- Potlical DA's are normally kinda stupid, there was one that a lot of teams ran about how Trump passing Medicare for all would cause him to get re-elected and I thought that was pretty stupid, I mean they're cool in theory but trying to reduce all of American politics down to one link is probably not a smart idea but if you can do it and the other team doesn't respond to it then hats off to u

Congress

- each speech should respond in some way to the speech before it

- Congress is the time for well warranted, well researched nuanced stock arguments, I don't want to hear anything squirrely, no way out there stuff

- funding arguments are generally not the move unless there's a very specific alt that you can prove the money is being pulled from, just saying hey this money could do something instead isn't enough

- I love a good intro, wack a mole is pretty good, anything that ties into the topic is also nice

- Don't fake evidence, its easy to get away with but its annoying

- If you weigh, do any type of link comparison, impact comparison, or higher-level analysis I'll be very pleased

- Questioning probably doesn't play a huge role in my ballot, I probably use questioning to compare people with similar speeches, you won't win with better questioning over someone if you had worse speeches than them

- Don't be afraid to do straight rebuttals, as long as you attack the idea its ok, call people out by name cause its easier to take notes that way

- this is probably the only event I'm truth over tech, only cause there's not really a flow so

- Idk what to do if ur POing, expect somewhere in the 2-5 spot depending on how well you do, if you really suck I won't be afraid to rank u last

General Judging Philosophy

tech > truth, if you say the sky is purple and the other team doesn't respond to it, the sky is purple, this also means for extinction first, econ growth bad, etc. type args, I will buy them if explained well

Give me that sweet sweet uniqueness meta weighing

Idk if this will apply, but I've seen a lot of political DAs, I'll buy them if well warranted, but trying to reduce all of American politics down to one issue and then ignoring the fact that politics constantly changes by the day, maybe not the move

the above statement does not include racism good, single parents bad, etc. those will 100% of the time be voted down by me

I vote off the flow and the cleanest path to the ballot which should be given to me in weighing

tl;dr tech> truth, have good evidence, weigh, and second speaking has a higher burden in responding to stuff, don't say ur opponents dropped something when they didn't

Also Idk If I said this earlier, but in super messy rounds I tend to lean more towards the side of a cleaner narrative, not saying that the other side won't win, but just something that in general helps a team in a messy round

If you don't know what something means feel free to ask, happy to help

I think rounds tend to come down to either me voting for the team that has offense because one team didn’t frontline sufficiently enough or both teams getting some access to their offense and me voting for whatever team wins the weighing battle, the second one is a lot more common

Policy Debate Paradigm:

Overview:

The things you are probably looking for:

Speed: I’m fine with whatever you are comfortable with--no need to try to impress me.

Performance: I do not mind a performance but make sure the performance is tied directly to the case and purpose of the debate. I am NOT some old fart, but I am a bit old school with a blend of progressive ideology.

Pre-dispositions: Please do not make arguments that you do not understand/cannot explain in order to fill the time or to confuse the opponent—I will definitely take notice and probably will not vote for you. Keep things well researched and logical and everything should be fine.

Sportsmanship: Please always be respectful of your opponents. Mean-spiritedness is not a way to show me you’re winning. Even though I will always vote for the better arguments, if you display signs of cruelty towards your opponent, your speaker points will suffer.

****Make sure you have great links…nothing worse than sitting through a round where no one understands how any of the arguments relate to the topic*********

Specifics:

Disadvantages: Unless if your strategy is extremely sophisticated/well thought out/well-rehearsed (I have encountered quite a few when I competed), I think you should always run at least 1 DA.

· The Counterplan: If done well, and the strategy around them is logical and thought-out, these are generally winners. If done poorly and you just inserted one to fill the time, I will be sad and bored.

· Procedurals/Topicality: I love a good meta-debate, and I am open to these if you guys have a solid strategy around these arguments (for example: if your opponents are illogical/made mistakes, point that out to me). However, I usually see T’s used as generic fillers, and I will not vote for a generic filler.

· The Kritik: Love Ks if done well and showcases your knowledge of the topic and argument. However, if I can sense that you don’t know what you’re talking about, running a K might hurt you.

Overall, have fun ( I understand how stressful this event can be), show me you're prepared, and always try to learn something.

Lincoln-Douglas, Big Questions Debate, and Public Forum Debate Paradigm:

My job as a judge is to be a blank slate; your job as a debater is to tell me how and why to vote and decide what the resolution/debate means to you. This includes not just topic analysis but also types of arguments and the rules of debate if you would like. If you do not provide me with voters and impacts I will use my own reasoning. I'm open all arguments but they need to be well explained.

My preference is for debates with a warranted, clearly explained analysis. I do not think tagline extensions or simply reading a card is an argument that will win you the debate. In the last speech, make it easy for me to vote for you by giving and clearly weighing voting issues- these are summaries of the debate, not simply repeating your contentions! You will have the most impact with me if you discuss magnitude, scope, etc. and also tell me why I look to your voting issues before your opponents. In terms of case debate, please consider how your two cases interact with each other to create more class; I find turns especially effective. I do listen closely during cross (even if I don't flow), so that is a place to make attacks, but if you want them to be fully considered please include them during your speeches.

Email: dhbroussard1763@gmail.com

Coach at Heights High School (TX)
Separately conflicted with: Archbishop Mitty SM, Carnegie Vanguard KF, Cypress Ranch KH, Langham Creek SB, Woodlands SP
Judging at TOC for: Heights EP, Heritage WT

Set up the email chain before the round starts and add me. The 1AC should be sent before the scheduled start time, and the 1AC should be ready to start their speech by the start time.

If I'm judging you in Policy: heightsdocs.policy@gmail.com
If I'm judging you in LD: heightsdocs.ld@gmail.com

I debated for Timothy Christian School in New Jersey for four years. I graduated from Rice University, am currently a teacher at Heights, and predominately coach policy and LD: my program competes through the Houston Urban Debate League and the Texas Forensic Association.

Pref Shortcuts

• Policy: 1
• T/Theory: 1-2
• Phil: 2
• Kritik (identity): 2
• Kritik (pomo): 3
• Tricks: Strike; I can and will cap your speaks at a 27, and if I'm on a panel I will be looking for a way to vote against you.

General

• Absent tricks or arguments that are morally objectionable, you should do what you are best at rather than over-adapting to my paradigm.
• Tech > Truth
• I will try to be tab and dislike intervening so please weigh arguments and compare evidence. It is in your advantage to write my ballot for me by explaining which layers come first and why you win those layers.
• I won't vote on anything that's not on my flow. I also won't vote on any arguments that I can't explain back to your opponent in the oral.
• Not the judge for cowardice. That includes but is not limited to questionable disclosure practices, taking prep to delete analytics, dodgy CX answers, and strategies rooted in argument avoidance.
• It is unlikely that I will vote on a blip in the 2NR/2AR, even if it is conceded. If you want an argument to be instrumental to my ballot, you should commit to it. Split 2NR/2ARs are generally bad. Although, hot take, in the right circumstances a 2NR split between 1:00 of case and the rest on T can be strategic.
• I presume neg; in the absence of offense in either direction, I am compelled by the Change Disad to the plan. However, presumption flips if the 2NR goes for a counter-advocacy that is a greater change from the status quo than the aff. It is unlikely, however, that I will try to justify a ballot in this way; I almost always err towards voting on risk of offense rather than presumption in the absence of presumption arguments made by debaters.
• If you want to ask your opponent what was or was not read, you need to take prep or CX time for it.
• I'm colorblind so speech docs that are highlighted in light blue/gray are difficult for me to read; yellow would be ideal because it's easiest for me to see. Also, if you're re-highlighting your opponent's evidence and the two colors are in the same area of the color wheel, I probably won't be able to differentiate between them. Don't read a shell on your opponent if they don't follow these instructions though - it's not that serious.
• You don't get to insert rehighlighting (or anything else, really); if you want me to evaluate it, you have to read it. Obviously doesn't apply to inserts of case cards that were already read in the 1AC for context on an off-case flow.
• Not fond of embedded clash; it's a recipe for judge intervention. I'll flow overviews and you should read them when you're extending a position, but long (0:30+) overviews that trade-off against substantive line-by-line work increase the probability that I'll either forget about an argument or misunderstand its implication.

Policy

• Given that I predominately coach policy debate, I am probably most comfortable adjudicating these rounds, but this is your space so you should make the arguments that you want to make in the style that you prefer.
• You should be cutting updates and the more specific the counterplan and the links on the disad the happier I'll be. The size/probability of the impact is a function of the strength/specificity of the link.
• Terminal defense is possible and more common than people seem to think.
• I think impact turns (dedev, cap good/bad, heg good/bad, wipeout, etc.) are underutilized and can make for interesting strategies.
• If a conditional advocacy makes it into the 2NR and you want me to kick it, you have to tell me. Also, I will not judge kick unless the negative wins an argument for why I should, and it will not be difficult for the affirmative to convince me otherwise.

Theory

• I default to competing interpretations.
• I default to no RVIs.
• You need to give me an impact/ballot story when you read a procedural, and the blippier/less-developed the argument is, the higher my threshold is for fleshing this out. Labeling something an "independent voter" or "is a voting issue" is rarely sufficient. These arguments generally implicate into an unjustified, background framework and don't operate at a higher layer absent an explicit warrant explaining why. You still have to answer these arguments if your opponent reads them - it's just that my threshold for voting for underdeveloped independent voters is higher.
• Because I am not a particularly good flower, theory rounds in my experience are challenging to follow because of the quantity of blippy analytical arguments. Please slow down for these debates, clearly label the shell, and number the arguments.
• Disclosure is good. I am largely unimpressed with counterinterpretations positing that some subset of debaters does not have to disclose, with the exception of novices or someone who is genuinely unaware of the wiki.
• "If you read theory against someone who is obviously a novice or a traditional debater who doesn't know how to answer it, I will not evaluate it under competing interps."
• I will not evaluate the debate after any speech that is not the 2AR.

Kritiks

• I have a solid conceptual understanding of kritks, given that I teach the structure and introductory literature to novices every year, but don't presume that I'll recognize the vocabulary from your specific literature base. I am not especially well-read in kritikal literature.
• Pretty good for policy v k debates, or phil v k. Less good for k v k debates.
• I appreciate kritikal debates which are heavy on case-specific link analysis paired with a comprehensive explanation of the alternative.
• I don't judge a terribly large number of k-aff v fw debates, but I've also coached both non-T performative and pure policy teams and so do not have strong ideological leanings here. Pretty middle of the road and could go either way depending on technical execution.

Philosphical Frameworks

• I believe that impacts are relevant insofar as they implicate to a framework, preferably one which is syllogistically warranted. My typical decision calculus, then, goes through the steps of a. determining which layer is the highest/most significant, b. identifying the framework through which offense is funneled through on that layer, and c. adjudicating the pieces of legitimate offense to that framework.
• You should assume if you're reading a philosophically dense position that I do not have a deep familiarity with your literature base; as such, you should probably moderate your speed and over-explain rather than under.
• I default to epistemic confidence.
• Better than many policy judges for phil strategies; I have no especial attachment to consequentialism, given that you are doing technical work on the line-by-line.

Speed

• Speed is generally fine, so long as its clear. I'd place my threshold for speed at a 9 out of 10 where a 10 is the fastest debater on the circuit, although that varies (+/- 1) depending on the type of argument being read.
• Slow down for and enunciate short analytics, taglines, and card authors; it would be especially helpful if you say "and" or "next" as you switch from one card to the next. I am not a particularly good flower so take that into account if you're reading a lot of analytical arguments. If you're reading at top-speed through a dump of blippy uncarded arguments I'll likely miss some. I won't backflow for you, so spread through blips on different flows without pausing at your own risk.
• If you push me after the RFD with "but how did you evaluate THIS analytic embedded in my 10-point dump?" I have no problem telling you that I a. forgot about it, b. missed it, or c. didn't have enough of an implication flowed/understood to draw lines to other flows for you.

Speaker Points

• A 28.5 or above means I think you're good enough to clear. I generally won't give below a 27; lower means I think you did something offensive, although depending on my general level of annoyance, it's possible I'll go under if the round is so bad it makes me want to go home.
• I award speaks based on quality of argumentation and strategic decision-making.
• I don't disclose speaks.
• I give out approximately one 30 a season, so it's probably not going to be you. If you're looking for a speaks fairy, pref someone else. Here are a few ways to get higher speaks in front of me, however:
• I routinely make mental predictions during prep time about what the optimal 2NR/2AR is. Give a different version of the speech than my prediction and convince me that my original projection was strategically inferior. Or, seamlessly execute on my prediction.
• Read a case-specific CP/Disad/PIC that I haven't seen before.
• Teach me something new that doesn't make me want to go home.
• Be kind to an opponent that you are more experienced than.
• If you have a speech impediment, please feel free to tell me. I debated with a lisp and am very sympathetic to debaters who have challenges with clarity. In this context, I will do my best to avoid awarding speaks on the basis of clarity.
• As a teacher and coach, I am committed to the value of debate as an educational activity. Please don't be rude, particularly if you're clearly better than your opponent. I won't hack against you if you go 5-off against someone you're substantively better than, but I don't have any objections to tanking your speaks if you intentionally exclude your opponent in this way.

PERSONAL BACKGROUND

I was a Lincoln-Douglas debate for two years in high school a LONG time ago. Today, I’m both a lawyer and a policymaker where I witness the value of debating public policy issues almost every single day. I’m also the father of a Public Forum debater.

SCORING RANGE

I will use the full scoring range allowed by the tournament but expect a score anywhere within the 25 to 30 point range.

WHAT I LOOK FOR AS A JUDGE

Given my lack of judging a lot of debaters, I would describe myself as a lay judge with real world experience. In other words, I’m interested in your ability to persuade me with supportive evidence and impact.

WHAT I’M LOOKING FOR AS A JUDGE

* Use Roadmap and Signposts: Given the sheer amount of information and arguments for each topic, it’s absolutely critical that you signpost each of your arguments. Also, please roadmap your speeches. In other words, tell me what you will be talking about in your speech. Without roadmaps and signposts, it will be hard for me to flow and know where you are in the speec

* Be Persuasive and Employment Evidence: I’m interested in your ability to persuade me about your case with the proper warrants, evidence, and impacts.

* Don't Go Over Your Allocated Time:: I will time your speeches but feel free to time your speech too. I will stop flowing 10 seconds after the timer goes off.

* Be Courteous and Fun: I’m a firm believer that debate should be civil and courteous just like politics. Also, I know how stressful and nerve-wracking debate can be but try to have fun! I know everyone has put a lot of work into this. Remember, debate is more about developing analytical and persuasive skills and less about winning.

* Please Weigh: Tell me why your evidence and impacts matter more than your opponents. Also, comparative weighing is always better than just saying we outweigh on magnitude or scope

* Speak at a Somewhat Understandable Speed: I would rather have a debater speak very slowly and have every line of analysis mean something rather than someone who speaks at 180 words per minute and does not add much value to the round.

As a "Flay" judge, I'm looking for overall perceptual dominance.

Because this is Novice PF, honestly just make sure that you:

- dont make crazy claims

- understand the arguments that you present to me

- can speak clearly and in all speeches

- can clearly show to me why you should win

- use your prep time well

- seem prepared throughout the debate

- are respectful to both the judge and your opponents

- please use all your time in your speeches!

- I will not flow crossfire, so if anything important happens, please PLEASE bring it up!

- I will extend any arguments through mostly my own background knowledge, as long as it isn't based off of evidence

- EXTENDING IS VERY VERY IMPORTANT!! make sure that you try to bring up all things that you want to debate throughout the round, try not to drop anything (important)

For novice, my speaker point average should be ~28. anything heavily above or below this will be explained. I don't normallt have low point wins.

Add me to any E-mail chain, my email is ericchen869@gmail.com

Instagram: @_gen.eric

Lastly, if you wanna Uber Eats me bubble tea for +2 speaker points, my address is here < Hyperlink,

my order is oolong milk tea with boba, less ice & 75% sugar PLEASE DON'T SEND ON THE 23RD

Parent judge - please speak slowly and absolutely no spreading. I prefer to see cases with a value and value criterion and make your contentions very clear. I don't know much about this topic so please make your cases simple and easy to understand. Have fun!

pronouns: she/her/hers

email: madelyncook23@gmail.com & lakevilledocs@googlegroups.com (please add both to the email chain) -- if both teams are there before I am, feel free to start the email chain without me so we can get started when I get there

PLEASE title the email chain in a way that includes the round, flight (if applicable), both team codes, sides, and speaking order

Experience:

• PF Coach for Lakeville South & Lakeville North in Minnesota, 2019-Present
• Speech Coach for Lakeville South in Minnesota, 2022-Present
• Instructor for Potomac Debate Academy, 2021-Present
• University of Minnesota NPDA, 2019-2022
• Lakeville South High School (PF with a bit of speech and Congress), 2015-2019

I will generally vote for anything if there is a warrant, an impact, and solid comparative weighing, and as long as your evidence isn't horribly cut/fake. Every argument you want on my ballot needs to be in summary and final focus, and I will walk you through exactly how I made my decision after the round is over. I’ve noticed that while I can/will keep up with speed and evaluate technical debates, my favorite rounds are usually those that slow down a bit and go into detail about a couple of important issues. Well warranted arguments with clear impact scenarios extended using a strategic collapse are a lot better than blippy extensions. The best rounds in my opinion are the ones where summary extends one case argument with comparative weighing and whatever defense/offense on the opponent’s case is necessary.

General:

• I am generally happy to judge the debate you want to have.
• The only time you need a content warning is when the content in your case is objectively triggering and graphic. I think the way PF is moving toward requiring opt-out forms for things like “mentions of the war on drugs” or "feminism" is super unnecessary and trivializes the other issues that actually do require content warnings while silencing voices that are trying to discuss important issues.
• I will drop you with a 20 (or lowest speaks allowed by the tournament) for bigotry or being blatantly rude to your opponents. There’s no excuse for this. This applies to you no matter how “good at technical debate” you are.
• Speed is probably okay as long as you explain your arguments instead of just rattling off claims. For online rounds, slow down more than you would in person. Please do not sacrifice clarity for speed. Sending a doc is not an excuse to go fast beyond comprehension - I do not look at speech docs until after the round and only if absolutely necessary to check
• Silliness and cowardice are voting issues.

Evidence Issues:

• Evidence ethics in PF are atrocious. Cut cards are the only way to present evidence in my opinion. At the very least, read direct quotes.
• Evidence exchanges take way too long. Send full speech docs in the email chain before the speech begins. I want everyone sending everything in this email chain so that everyone can check the quality of evidence, and so that you don’t waste time requesting individual cards.
• Evidence should be sent in the form of a Word Doc/PDF/uneditable document with all the evidence you read in the debate.
• The only evidence that counts in the round is evidence you cite in your speech using the author’s last name and date. You cannot read an analytic in a speech then provide evidence for it later.
• Evidence comparison is super underutilized - I'd love to hear more of it.
• My threshold for voting on arguments that rely on paraphrased/power-tagged evidence is very high. I will always prefer to vote for teams with well cut, quality evidence.
• I don't know what this "sending rhetoric without the cards" nonsense is - the only reason you need to exchange evidence is to check the evidence. Your "rhetoric" should be exactly what's in the evidence anyway, but if it's not, I have no idea what the point is of sending the paraphrased "rhetoric" without the cards. Just send full docs with cut cards.
• You have to take prep time to "compile the doc" lol you don't just get to take a bunch of extra prep time to put together the rebuttal doc you're going to send.

Speech Preferences:

• Frontline in second rebuttal. Dropped arguments in second rebuttal are conceded in the round. You should cover everything on the argument(s) you plan on going for, including defense.
• Defense isn't sticky. Anything you want to matter in the round needs to be in summary and final focus.
• Collapse in summary. It is not a strategy to go for tons of blippy arguments hoping something will stick just to blow up one or two of those things in final focus. The purpose of the summary is to pick out the most important issues, and you must collapse to do that well.
• Weigh as soon as possible. Comparative weighing is essential for preventing judge intervention, and meta-weighing is cool too. I want to vote for teams that write my ballot for me in final focus, so try to do that the best you can.
• Speech organization is key. I literally want you to say what argument I should vote on and why.
• The way I give speaker points fluctuates depending on the division and the difficulty of the tournament, but I average about a 28 and rarely go below a 27 or above a 29. If you get a 30, it means you debated probably the best I saw that tournament if not for the past couple tournaments. I give speaker points based on strategic decisions rather than presentation.
• I generally enjoy and will vote on extinction impacts, but I'm not going to vote on an argument that doesn't have an internal link just because the impact is scary - I'm very much not a fan of war scenarios read by teams that are unable to defend a specific scenario/actor/conflict spiral.

Theory:

I’ve judged a lot of terrible theory debates, and I do not want to judge more theory debates. I generally find theory debates very boring. But if you decide to ignore that and do it anyway, please at least read this:

• Frivolous theory is bad. I generally believe that the only theory debates worth having are disclosure and paraphrasing, and even then, I really do not want to listen to a debate about what specific type of disclosure is best.
• I probably should tell you that I believe disclosure is good and paraphrasing is bad, but I will listen to answers to these shells and evaluate the round to the best of my ability. My threshold for paraphrasing good is VERY high.
• Even if you don’t know the "technical" way to answer theory, do your best to respond. I don't really care if you use theory jargon - just do your best.
• "Theory is bad" or "theory doesn't belong in PF" are not arguments I'm very sympathetic to.
• I will say that despite all the above preferences/thoughts on theory, I really dislike when teams read theory as an easy path to ballot to basically "gotcha" teams that have probably never heard of disclosure or had a theory debate before. I honestly think it's the laziest strategy to use in those rounds, and your speaker points will reflect that. I have given and will continue to give low point wins for this if it is obvious to me that this is what you're trying to do.

Kritiks:

I have a high threshold for critical arguments in PF because I just don’t think the speech times are long enough for them to be good, but there are a few things that will make me feel better about voting on these arguments.

• I often find myself feeling a little out of my depth in K rounds, partly because I am not super well versed on most K lit but also because many teams seem to assume judges understand a lot more about their argument than they actually do. The issue I run into with many of these debates is when debaters extend tags rather than warrants which leaves the round feeling messy and difficult to evaluate. If you want to read a kritik in front of me, go ahead, but I'd do it at your own risk. If you do, definitely err on the side of over-explaining your arguments. I like to fully understand what the world of the kritik looks like before I vote for it.
• Any argument is going to be more compelling if you write it yourself. Probably don't just take something from the policy wiki without recutting any of the evidence or actually taking the time to fully understand the arguments.
• I think theory is the most boring way to answer a kritik. I'll always prefer for teams to engage with the kritik on some level.
• I will listen to anything, but I have a much better understanding and ability to evaluate a round that is topical.

Pet Peeves:

• Paraphrasing.
• I hate long evidence exchanges. I already ranted about this at the top of my paradigm because it is by far my biggest pet peeve, but here’s another reminder that it should not take you more than 30 seconds to send a piece of evidence. There’s also no reason to not just send full speech docs to prevent these evidence exchanges, so just do that.
• I don’t flow anything over time, and I’ll be annoyed and potentially drop speaker points if your speeches go more than 5 or so seconds over.
• Pre-flow before you get to the room. The round start time is the time the round starts – if you don’t have your pre-flow done by then, I do not care, and the debate will proceed without it.
• The phrase "small schools" is maybe my least favorite phrase commonly used in debate. I have judged so many debates where teams get stuck arguing about whether they're a small school, and it never has a point.
• The sentence "we'll weigh if time allows" - no you won't. You will weigh if you save yourself time to do it, because if you don't, you will probably lose.
• If you're going to ask clarification questions about the arguments made in speech, you need to either use cross or prep time for that.

Congress:

I competed in Congress a few times in high school, and I've judged/coached it a little since then. I dislike judging it because no one is really using it for its fullest potential, and almost every Congress round I've ever seen is just a bunch of constructive speeches in a row. But here are a few things that will make me happy in a Congress round:

• I'll rank you higher if you add something to the debate. I love rebuttal speeches, crystallization speeches, etc. You will not rank well if you are the fourth/fifth/sixth etc. speaker on a bill and still reading new substantive arguments without contextualizing anything else that has already happened. It's obviously fine to read new evidence/data, but that should only happen if it's for the purpose of refuting something that's been said by another speaker or answering an attack the opposition made against your side.
• I care much more about the content and strategy of your speeches than I do about your delivery.
• If you don't have a way to advance the debate beyond a new constructive speech that doesn't synthesize anything, I'd rather just move on to a new bill. It is much less important to me that you speak on every bill than it is that when you do speak you alter the debate on that bill.

If you have additional questions, ask before or after the round or you can email me at madelyncook23@gmail.com.

About me:

Email: mcopeland2017@gmail.com

Background: Currently, I am a coach for Liberty University, where I also debated for four years, NDT Octofinalist and CEDA Octofinalist; I started by doing policy args, moved to Kritical/performance things with most of my arguments starting with black women and moving outward such as Cap, AB, Set Col, and so on). As a novice, I started debate in college and worked my way to varsity, so I have a pretty good understanding of each division.

Judging wise (general things)

How I view debate: Debate is, first and foremost, a game, but it's full of real people and real consequences, so we should keep that in mind as we play, even though it's a game with real-life implications for many of us.

Facial Expressions: I often make facial expressions during the debate, and yes, they are about the debt, so I would pay attention to it; my face will usually let you know when I am vibing and when I'm confused

Speaker points: --- subjective these days. I try to start at 28.7 and then go up and down based on a person's performance in a debate. Do you want to earn higher speaks? Don't risk clarity over speed. I'm not straining my ear to understand what you are saying. And a 2NR and 2AR that have judge instruction and tell me what I am voting on are chefs ki.ss

K AFFs --Tend to think these should be in the direction of the room. You should be prepared to answer these questions if you read these affs. What is the point of reading the 1AC in debate? What is your beef with the debate or the resolution? I think you need to have a reason why people should have to engage with your model of debate and why the education you produce is good.

K's --- What's the link? Links need to be contextualized to the aff; generally, don't be generic or links of omission unless they are entirely dropped—the more specific the aff, the better. Leveraging the framework in your favor is an underrated strategy, but I enjoy those debates. At the end of the debate, some explanation of the alternative that solves the links needs to be explained. Less is more condensed than the K in the 2NR, and you can sit and contextualize the args you go for to the 1AC and what is happening in the debate. In general, I understand most K's. Still, you should assume that I don't explain your literature base/theory or power, especially if you read psychoanalysis, Baudrillard, or anything like that in front of me.

(Putting the K on the case page makes my flow so messy, and I like pretty flows....lol)

Policy AFFs -- I always think less is more; the more advantages and scenarios, the less likely those internal link scenarios make sense.

Framework -- Framework makes the game work. The most important thing with the framework is getting OFF your blocks and answering the specific offense. I don't think TVA has to solve all of the AFF, but I do think they need to be TOPICAL, and I think you need to prove that they can access the same scholarship under the TVA.

DAs and CPs -- These are fine; CPs need to be competitive and solve the aff or significant portions of the aff with a net benefit. DAs are okay links that should be specific to the aff, and impact weighing in the 2NR is key.

Theory: Theory is fine, but just reading blocks back and forth at one another is not --- to win theory, a significant portion of the 2NR and 2AR need to be dedicated to them to win this in front of me -- and disclosure is something I would say I have a higher threshold on really need to prove in round abuse to win

Hi i'm jared

Lane Tech 2016

GSU'2021

- i help coached at wheeler hs in georgia alittle this year and rufus king here and there this year so topic knowledge is there. As I have judged the water topic a bit more here is some more articulated opnions:

Framework: You need to prove to me why an aff is not debatable, things like the industry da's, or the interstate compacts cp's seems like what the core neg ground is looking like whats its more the be. I need somewhat of a conversation of why an Aff makes it impossible. One off framework is probably not the best in front of me. Y'all need to probs look into like ivory tower args at least, how would the group of people you advocate for understand the args you are goin for, and how thats probs academic elitism and resinscribes the impacts you talk about .

K aff's : I need to understand what your aff does, and how it solves what it says you solve by the end of the debate. I ran these mostly while I debated, but I need to understand some relation to the topic, or why I should not care about the topic. But if it is the should not care about the topic route, you probs need to give give a ground list on the framework debate.

Theory: Alot of CP's are prolly cheating , once you hit 3+ condo that has some perf-con thats prolly bad.

to win my ballot beat the other persons arguments.

Quick Metaview to better understand how I view things.

1. K's/K aff's: Was my own bread and butter while I debated, will understand most literature basis but do not expect me to the work for you.

2. T's/Impact Turns': Underappreciated in debate , and I think are enjoyable debates if done well.

3. Politics DA : They are the intresting toxic thing that could go either way.

4. Policy Affs : If your aff relies on more intricate knowledge such as like a random court case more explanation the better.

5. Process CP's are probably cheating, but im more inclined to reject the arg than the team.

larger meta-framing issues :

a. dont be racist

b. aff prove why the status quo is bad - neg says its good or run your k or cp

c. ill dig a cp and impact turn strat with your 8 off strat or one off performance - ill listen to your arguements and look at it.

d. anything is probably could be voted on if not racist

f.I am probably truth is higher value than tech ,I'm not the most familiar with more techy policy args where slow down more of my knowledge is the K I'll try buy if im confused and look lost that means you are going over my head

g. theory : please just for the love of god do not read more than 5 or 6 condo, at this point its a question of yes reasonability but at the same time I need to be able to figure out what your warrants are. More often that not if CP's are specfic they'll avoid most of the theory questions.

h. With topicality it'll always be an interesting debate that with good framing its good.

i. In a round where I have to be answering questions It probably goes more towards the K, and how I think the Ontology Debate works out.

Non-Policy Debate Section:

You do you, and I look at flows. alot of my views on arguements in debate are summed up below, but I am open to any non-traditional forms of any of the other types of debate as long as you are not racist. I tend to vote purely off the flow as long as something is not just a straight up lie(i.e "Trump was Good"). On theory issues i tend to default to whatever means the least amount of judge intervention.

umich '27, debated 4 years for thomas s. wootton '23 on nat circuit, 2x toc

tldr:

speed ok, theory eh (see below if planning on running), tech > truth

start an email chain before round starts & add me: ruthdai077@gmail.com

please label said chain "tournament name, year, round, flight, team 1 code vs team 2 code"

in round:

preflow before round

no offtime roadmaps needed, just tell me where you're starting & signpost

i heavily prefer fw be extended in every speech but i won't hold it against u if you dont

spend more time explaining wonky args

if u spread: send speech docs (put in chain--don't put a locked doc). however, even w/ a doc u need to be clear for me to flow--i wont flow off the doc and/or double-check my flow with the doc for you

if u plan to go ultra fast(but not spreading) just give me a warning right before u start

anything not frontlined in 2nd rebuttal is conceded

turns must be impacted out and implicated in rebuttal to be voted for. id also strongly strongly strongly prefer them to be weighed when introduced

i have a pretty low threshold for what i consider turns--but 10 word blips labeled as one wont be voted on

if you aren't using your opponents uniqueness for your turn, you have to introduce your own

defense is not sticky and must be implicated in every speech--i wont do it for you

*do not try to blow something up in the next speech when it wasn't implicated in the prior one--i will not evaluate it

i don't believe in uniqueness + probability + clarity of link/impact weighing but if its the only weighing i get ill evaluate it (the only time probability weighing exists is on the link level when the link chain is conceded. otherwise, it exclusively operates as defense)

comparative + meta weighing makes me happy

i default util framing in general & the squo in policy topics, otherwise, i default first (i am open to any alt presumption if this becomes a debate)

on that note, i will try my very hardest to never default; so, the less offense i see on both sides, the lower my standards for winning an argument will be (this applies exclusively to non varsity divisions)

flex prep is fine

cross:

cross goes to the flow if brought up in next speech

chill w skipping grand for a min of prep

open cross is fine

evidence:

carded warranted ev > uncarded warranted analysis > unwarranted carded ev

only will call if: you give me a reason + tell me to, for educational purposes, or just cause

i don't accept cards that aren't cut

miscut ev gets speaks dropped and is knocked off the flow

speaks:

based off strategy & speaking

start off every cross with a good knock-knock joke (bad jokes get bad speaks)

humor & a chill attitude will get u far

bring me a dunkin chai latte + hashbrowns and u will have my firstborn child

give me a 1 page mla format letter of rec for you from any of my old partners for 30 speaks

evidence challenges:

evidence challenges must be called once the card is introduced/called for

i believe ev challenges always incorporate a level of judge intervention so i prefer not adjudicating them but if it really is that egregious of a violation--you shouldn't have to worry about not picking up my ballot

prog:

in all honesty i started off on the traditional circuit and never fully adapted to new tech and am not great at evaluating progressive. that being said, its the judges obligation to adapt so read (so long as it is inclusive) what you want, just know my best attempt at an rfd will probably not make you super happy.

theory:

if i believe there's an actual violation that endangers people in the round, the shell doesn't matter to me atp, ill just down the team

all shells need to be read in the speech directly following the violation

if you read graphic material, you MUST read a trigger warning + google form opt-out option

on that note: i don’t require tws for non graphic material but that doesn’t mean i don’t evaluate tw theory for such args

running theory just because you know your opponents don't know how to respond is pretty trashy

don't read paraphrasing overviews, just run theory atp

things i wont evaluate:

- tricks

- tko's

- 30 speaks theory

- an identity k that does not apply to u but applies to ur opponents

out of round:

i will always disclose rfd (regardless of tourney rules) and im happy to disclose speaks, just ask

postrounding and being a sore loser are not mutually exclusive, im fine with the former not the latter

if you have any questions prior to the round or after feel free to email me(preferably ask me in the room, im a very lazy typer)

*side note: debate should be fun--run whatever makes you laugh (so long as your opponents are also okay with that type of round)

I regularly read policy pieces from trusted sources, so I do have good general background knowledge for Public Forum debate topics. Trained as a scientist, I will evaluate the round based on whether you have strong and relevant factual evidence, whether you use sound logic, and whether you clearly communicate your case. Sharp and on-point rebuttal and crossfire are plus. I expect everyone to be respectful no matter how tense the debate becomes. I strongly discourage the debaters from being over-aggressive in tone/language or asking questions unrelated to the debate topic.

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

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

Basics

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

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

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

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

PF Basics

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

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

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

PF Rebuttal

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

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

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

PF Summary/Final Focus

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

2. Extend and weigh any argument you go for
   
   

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

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

Theory

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

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

Other non-standard arguments in PF

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

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

Evidence

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

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

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

Post-Round Info

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

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

Clements '20 | SLU '24

Email chain/Gdoc: yesh.dhruva@slu.edu

PF

Hi! I debated Public Forum for four years at Clements HS in Houston TX (didn't compete on the nat circuit much). I'm the average 'flow judge' and would also describe my (previous) debate style as an average 'flay' debater. For background, I qualified to TFA State twice and NSDA Nats. In short, I would suggest you focus on persuasion and quality of arguments, rather than quantity and jargon.

Read this above all: "I will not evaluate any Ks, theory (particularly disclosure theory), or other forms of technical argumentation from Policy/LD that are not common in PF. Not only am I uncomfortable with my ability to seriously evaluate these, I don't think they should exist in an event designed with as low of a barrier of entry as possible. If your opponent is racist, sexist, ableist, etc. I will intervene as necessary." -Jacqueline Wei

1. Exercise PF style judgment. Collapse, full frontline in second rebuttal, and extend defense in summary. DO tell me explicitly to call for evidence and signpost clearly. DON'T tag team speeches, flex prep, or spread. Speaker points are based on the above mentioned strategy but also decorum.

2. Present a cohesive narrative. Speeches throughout the round should mirror each other and have a strong central idea. As such, developed arguments and smart analytics always trump blips. I find myself not voting for arguments with little work done on them when they don't fit a story. By the end of the round, each argument should have extended evidence with a claim, warrant, and impact.

3. Weighing decides rounds. Weighing and meta-weighing should be done early and throughout the round, but with quality over quantity. This means implicating your weighing to engage with your opponent's arguments. I encourage you to create a lens to view the round by weighing turns, evidence, and case arguments in novel ways.

**As mentioned above, Please watch for speed when competing online, if you would like to go fast I will expect a speech doc so I can make sure I get everything**

Couple of last ideas I don't really want to type out:

-Please skip GCX if you can, we both want to get out of the round asap and I don't think it really does much for the round anyways

- Please make sure evidence is legit, if I notice it's not what you say it is, I won't buy the argument

- Save my soul and don't waste time sending evidence

LD/CX

- treat me as a lay, I flow as much as I can. I will try to make the best decision possible, but I honestly have no idea what I'm doing in this event.

- if you spread kiss the ballot goodbye. I did PF so don't go all out on me.

- If it helps, look at my PF paradigm (above), if you want some idea of how I judge PF.

Congress

- I have no idea what I'm doing.

- I can tell who's doing good and who's doing bad.

- Be nice.

---

Ask any questions to me if necessary (contact me at yesh.dhruva@slu.edu or tbh just message me on FB - I respond here fastest), and remember to enjoy each round!

Hello teams,

Iam looking for clarity and constructive arguments.

Be nice to opponent team and let us have fun.

All the best

I've debated for four years at Potomac, I'm currently a freshman at Wootton HS. This is my first time judging

1. Theories, counter-plans, kritiks - I'm not good with these, just stay on topic

2. In CX - be respectful, don't interrupt each other and don't waste time

3. I won't flow new arguments made in summary or in CX

4. Explain your weighing mechanisms and why I should choose yours

5. extend arguments you want to win on through all the speeches

6. don't talk too fast, I might miss some stuff you said

Hey I'm Luca

Remster HS '19

Currently at UH Manoa

Add me to the email chain for all rounds: vitaminwater2220@gmail.com

Top Level:

Do what you love or are good at. I love a case-specific counterplan/DA strategy almost as much as I love nuanced K on K debates about how we as activists and scholars and people should respond to our fucked up world. I enjoy daring, ambitious, and nuanced strategies and will reward debaters who put in the work to execute them.

Arguments > evidence. Use the evidence you have read already before you read 10 more cards. If you write strategic 1ACs/1NCs, you shouldn't need much evidence to answer the other team after that -- and, by extension, every card you read should have strategic importance. Recutting evidence is appreciated.

Saying or doing racist/transphobic/ableist/etc. things will not go over well and will be responded to with anything from an autoloss to zero speaks to a 27 depending on the severity of the issue.

Clash debates:

1. Fairness is not not an impact. If your version of fairness is a tautological defense of old school debate that barely acknowledges the history of this activity or of framework as a set of arguments, I would probably recommend developing a different reason why we should invest in your model of competition.

That said, while "intrinsic goods" probably don't exist but procedural impacts probably do. Make warrants for fairness as an impact and do impact calculus about why it outweighs. Saying "it comes first" will rarely get my ballot however given a similarly tagline aff response.

2. Critical affs should probably have a model of debate -- a 2AR that is impact turns alone without a vision for what we are doing in this activity or in a debate will be much harder for me to vote for than a warranted vision for debate that provides at least some defense/link turns to their standards. I find questions of stasis to be clear packages for this -- i.e. what controversial question do we center as a point of clash? Is it a question of praxis? Is it axiological? If you can provide a clear vision for how we construct affs and produce clash then all your impact turns will be a lot more persuasive to me.

If you chose to ground a model of debate outside interpretations of the resolutional language, good for you! Defend why that is a good method!

3. Examples/history matter to how I evaluate competing theories of power -- whether it is techy IR debate or a high theory discussion of psychoanalytic black feminism, I think that theories draw their explanatory power from material realities of the world and I tend to be be more easily convinced by debaters and scholars who tie their theory to that world. This doesn't mean I need you to be empiricists or defend a materialist conception of history, just that having a knowledge of how your theory is related to the world around you will make it far more persuasive to me than floating buzzwords.

This applies to FW too -- this activity has a long and thoroughly discussed history of how it has approached each resolution, practices like fiat, models of competition, etc. Use it!

4. TVAs and SSD -- you should explain to me what about the aff's offense is solved by them. I don't care if the aff could have used the same five McGowan Cards to advocate for a plan, the purpose of a TVA/SSD is to resolve or no link out of some point of offense against your interpretation. They are examples that prove that your interp doesn't cause bad subject formation, exclude critcisms of X, etc. Using them against the disads to your interp or the net benefits to theirs rather than against the 1AC in a vacuum will be more persuasive.

5. Critical affs should have a relationship to the topic that is inherent and significant. I will be far more persuaded by framework against affs that don't do anything or say anything about CJR after the first card than I will be against teams that spent the time to write an affirmative that answers a core question of the topic.

6. Critiques against policy affs -- the good ol' framework tricks like fiat bad are nice and works far too often (ehem affs) but I will enjoy in-depth link and alt work more. The affirmative tends to lose these debates when it doesn't leverage the case beyond "we have a big impact" -- timeframe args, comparative arguments about alt solvency, etc. are all very helpful when adjudicating these debates and the negative should prepare for them beyond simply the frame out.

K v K debates:

I love these -- they tend to be some of the most creative and meaningful debates I get to judge. Make arguments and care about what the other team has to say and I will probably be very happy to be in the back.

Competition -- affs have the burden of proof, and I begin with an assumption that the negative has the burden of rejoinder. This is debatable and some of the best strategies I've listened to have critiqued this assumption, so it is more of a default approach than a set in stone rule.

Perms -- I can be persuaded that critical affs should not get them. Teams have to justify why opportunity cost/competition/forced choices should or should not apply to the arguments forwarded. The more that an aff's method defends, the less likely I am to deny them a perm. If an aff defends nothing but a theory of power or an individual, in-round survival strategy then I am more likely to think that they shouldn't get a perm.

CPs

Advantage counterplans with impact turns as the net benefit are underutilized in the debates I judge.

I get annoyed when teams let counterplans absolve them of the need for good case debate. Solvency deficits to the aff matter as much as the aff's solvency deficits to the counterplan.

I am a good judge to go for theory in front of when it comes to process counterplans. I think cheaty counterplans are cheaty (that's why I read them so much when I did policy).

PICs and PIKs (and PIPs) -- I love them but they are also definitely cheating. The more substantive the PIC's relationship to the aff, the less I will be persuaded by theory. The more contrived the PIK, the more persuaded I will be by theory.

2NC Uniquness counterplans are fiesty and I love them -- affs should be prepared for them. Theory is always an option for me

DAs

I prefer to watch topic or case specific DAs more than agenda/midterms DAs. I can be persuaded by intrinsicness theory.

That said, Politics/Midterms DAs -- these can actually be great. I love a midterms DA that is specific to which states are key and why the aff flips them enough to swing congress or a Politics DA that pulls out specific votes that will flip. Nuance on the LINK LEVEL is what is always missing from these debates in highschool, however, which is why I find them boring a lot.

The relative magnitude of the uniquness/links determine what the direction of things are. Be comparative.

2ACs/1ARs that impact turn disads strategically often come out ahead for me.

Topicality

I am p familiar with the water topic so do your thing but just know the wording in the res will probs have me lean aff with certain plans however i am easily convinced other wise.

But I enjoy T debates themselves. Creating distinctions between the kinds of ground/affs that are allowed or denied is the sort of comparative work that makes decisions easier.

Functional limits exist and are persuasive to me but you should be clear about why and how.

Evidence is either extremely important or largely irrelevant depending on how it is framed. You should control this framing. I tend to vote for evidentiary T args more often than normative ones in policy debates, and the opposite in K debates and I attribute that to the depth and quality of framing in each.

send the email chain to jonahgentleman@gmail.com

Hi, I'm Jonah (he/him). I regularly competed in both LD and policy at Advanced Technologies Academy and now attend Rutgers University. My guiding philosophy when judging is that I will evaluate any argument, as long as it is properly warranted and does not make the round unsafe for anyone involved.

Policy

These are the rounds I am the most comfortable judging. I like 1NCs that spend a good bit of time on case and really engage with the aff (rehighlightings, smart analytics, things like that). I think impact turns are cool too. I think impact weighing is extremely important, and robust disad turns case explanations make me happy. I enjoy hearing smart advantage CPs. Nebel T is boring but if you read it I think going for limits offense is much smarter than semantics.

Kritiks/K Affs

I am probably the least comfortable judging these debates. I think policy vs. K debates can be cool, but they often feel overly confusing. I get really annoyed by super long 2NR overviews that don't make things any clearer. If I can understand what the K's thesis is, why the aff links, and why that's bad coming out of the debate - that's perfect. But I find that does not happen often. I have the most experience with cap, security, setcol, and queerpess, but anything beyond that might require more explanation than you're used to. For K affs, if I come out of the 2AR clearly understanding what your model of debate is and why that’s good, I will be very inclined to vote for you. Framework is probably the best strategy to go for in front of me, because K vs. K debates get very confusing quick.

Theory/Phil/Tricks

I'm all for it. I only ask for two things: make sure that your arguments are warranted and that you do weighing!! I notice 1AR theory debates become super hard to resolve when standards aren't responded to or weighed. Also it would be great if you go just a bit slower than usual because I am bad at flowing. I recently found out that I think phil debate is pretty cool. Feel free to read any philosopher you are comfortable with as long as you can explain it. I guess I'm fine with whatever tricky arguments you want to read BUT the sillier these args get the lower speaks you will get.

Traditional

I did a lot of traditional debate in high school am fine with judging it. I think that the value criterion is very important and should be very prevalent in every speech when it comes to weighing. Circuit competitors should be inclusive as possible to traditional debaters.

Public Forum

Adding this here because I occasionally judge this. Hopefully knowing that I have a policy background should be enough for you, but the two most important things to consider is that I evaluate rounds very technically and I won't listen to paraphrased evidence. Disclosure is also not really a norm yet in this event so I'm not very persuaded by related arguments.

Update for TOC Digital (12/2-12/4): I don't believe in sticky defense. Extend your arguments in every speech.

Speaker Points

I used to have a somewhat in-depth system here but I realize I really don't follow it. I think most rounds I judge I give speaks from 28.5 to 29. If I think you collapsed well and liked your strategy you'll get 29-29.5. If you are a super duper awesome debater you'll get above that, but it's somewhat rare for me.

Misc.

- Prep time ends when the doc is sent.

- I'll disclose speaks if you ask.

- I really really really don't like evaluating death good arguments.

- Misgendering is obviously very bad and if you do it repeatedly your speaks (and potentially my decision) will reflect that.

- It would be very cool if you slowed down on analytics, because I can't vote on something I didn't hear. This is compounded by my slightly below average flowing skills.

- If you couldn’t already tell, I lean tech over truth.

- If you are annoying in CX I will get annoyed.

- Accessibility is really important to me. Don’t bully novices and don’t be elitist toward traditional debaters.

- Accusations of clipping/violating ev ethics will stop the round. I think evidence is miscut if it is plagiarized, incorrectly cited (author/date), skips paragraphs, or starts or ends in the middle of a paragraph (where the skipped part of the text changes the meaning). I require a recording to verify clipping. If the accuser is correct, the other team loses with minimum speaks. If the accuser is wrong, they lose with minimum speaks.

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

Speaking

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

Evaluating Speeches

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

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

About me: I am an experienced Engineering Manager and work for a global Financial Services firm.

About debate round:

- A roadmap providing an outline of your arguments is preferred.

- Be sure to have clarity in your thought process with clear framework and definitions.

- Try your best to support your arguments through convincing logic.

- Make sure to weigh in on why your argument is more important than your opponent's.

Respect:

- Be nice and respectful to your opponents

- Don't make offensive comments

Good luck for your tournament. Make sure to have fun!!

Email: ashnighthawk033@gmail.com

Discord: so i was going to put this here but it seems i have too many weird fonts so uhh you may have to refer to my instagram

Instagram: @_wolf_hyacinth_

^ feel free to message me for anything at all, I don't ever check my email though so instagram may be your best bet.

Stuff about me!

➳ they/them pronouns

➳ BP debater mainly, but I did PF for three years or so

➳ from Canada!

➳ have next to no experience judging in general, the only judging I've done was occasionally for BP and a few times for school in PF, so yes I have next to no idea what I'm doing, please cut me some slack :)

Things to do and not to do in rounds:

Don't:

➳ talk about something you know nothing about. knowing nothing about the topic is probably not great for a debate, but I understand. however, act like you know what you're doing/talking about.

➳ read any possibly triggering information without a trigger warning. please read a trigger warning at the beginning of any possibly triggering arguments/passages

➳ expect me to catch everything you say in cross. it happens fast, everyone talks fast. if you want to make an important point, make it in speech.

Do:

➳ I don't require you to roadmap/signpost, but it would be helpful

➳ Memes would be great

How to get speaks:

➳ don't talk over your opponent in cross

➳ make references to TUA, MHA, FNAF

➳ +0.5 - tell me your favorite anime (tv show or book if you don't watch anime) before the round, just so I can see if you read this (you can tell me on zoom chat if you like)

➳ +2 - (I will literally do this) somehow fit "it would if you were smarter" in your speech, or cross

hey! long paradigms hurt my eyes so this is gonna be kinda short.

i think i am flow.

tech>truth

i'm a high school debater currently a sophomore but i've been debating for a couple years.

why is this funny to u ruth. stop laughing...

general:

1. i will evaluate any argument brought up by teams, won't do extra work, pretty self-explanatory

2. i am good with speed

3. usually won't call for ev, but if u tell me to i will

4. any sensitive topics pls read a TW

5. don't be sexist, ableist, racist, homophobic or exclusive in any way, i will intervene and most likely drop u. pls never compromise the safety of a debater :)

round:

1. signpost so I know where you are

2. good with roadmaps, just make it quick.

3. collapse. i'll only evaluate comparative weighing

4. second rebuttal pls frontline

5. rebuttalists, go line by line it's easier for both of us.

6. whatever you want me to flow and consider a voter in the round should be in summary and extended into ff. Defense sticky for 1st summary.

theory/prog

if ur case is triggering, PLEASE read a tw AND an opt out option.

i have hit theory but my rfd won't be great.

good speaks

good strat and fluency

make fun of ruth dai and her egg obsession and send video evidence.

use grand cross to roast lindsey wu's silver toc flex on her rfd.

take a series of pictures of abigail hill fixing her hair (it will happen a lot) and send pic evidence.

if u crack an amazing appropriate joke during cross and make me laugh

but i generally give high speaks tho

extra stuff

I'll always disclose

please time yourselves. I usually time but just end up forgetting.

If you have any further questions feel free to email me, angiegu822@gmail.com

post round me if u want to

biggest takeway is to roast ruth and have fun :))

Yo, Junior at Churchill. Not very good, so I apologize in advance for sucky flowing. Email is liamthrowaway0@gmail.com

Pronouns are he/him/his.

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

Voting off the flow, defualt to death bad. bigotry bad. All the bad practices like paraphrasing and such imo are just strategies that I believe are academic abominations but won't intervene on. 

Novice/MS/ES: If you show me a flow after the round ill bump your speaks!

progressive good, theory good, k good, although I don't have much experience on these. If you are going to run k I probably won't understand how the neg creates a new something something something pedagogy or whatever that means, so when extending the argument, try not to just spit jargon from case word for word. I'll evaluate anything idc.

Post-rounding is cool. Always open to getting insight on the round. 

Definetely won't catch everything with speed, but I will do my best and still encourage speed. Go as fast as you like, that's for you to decide and not me. If I feel the need I'll clear you.

If a response or argument made in the previous speech is not responded to, it is conceded. This applies for all speeches except constructives. Everything in ff should be in summary. Case is auto extended through rebuttal so frontline arguments that were "kicked" in second rebuttal if you are first summary. I will vote on them if there is no back half response in first summary and argument is extended in second summary. 

Be nice. I won't vote on your attitude but being mean in cross doesn't help you right?

Can't remember anything else rn, if you need to know smt just ask. If you think something in this paradigm is a bad practice for judges, tell me after the round or whenever is conveinent. I would love to hear your thoughts.

I am very laid back judge, but here are a few things I would love to see:

1. Give me a roadmap; even something as simple as "it's going to be aff then neg" is greatly appreciated. If your speech is going to jump all over flow, be transparent about that at the top and signpost as you go. Overall, please be purposeful about signposting/claims and slow down for those statements. I need to be able to follow on the flow as this is the primary factor in my decision.

2. If anyone is using a framework, do NOT drop it post constructive or rebuttal. Once framework is introduced, how each side weighs into that throughout the round is crucial.

3. Utilize crossfire. Do not use that time to solely ask clarifying questions. Be offensive (even in the first cross), that's what we're here for. It's not going to win you the round, but it'll give the round depth.

4. FOR PF FIRST SPEAKERS SPECIFICALLY: The summary speech is the easiest way to win your round. Do NOT just merely extend every little thing your second speaker said; that's useless. Do NOT spend the entire time simply refuting your opponent's responses to your case. Give me a worlds/comparative analysis & weigh every impact. Defending your case can be integrated into these big picture analyses. This speech needs to only hone in on a handful of essential arguments. Be intentional with those two minutes.

5. Second speaking team, first speakers: if you want to dedicate some time in your constructive to rebuttal, DO IT. Keep the round entertaining.

6. Keep track of your prep time. I will also be keeping track, but you should be keeping track of each other as well.

7. If anyone is using hands off prep to get a piece of evidence, DO NOT PREP. I will down you.

8. Avoid blippy responses. I value the quality of your argument over the quantity.

9. If an argument seems to be a wash between opposing pieces of evidence, be prepared to show me the evidence at the end of the round.

10. I vote based on a combination of who won the flow, who outweighed, and who was the most intentional with their time.

If any of this is confusing, just ask me for clarification before the round! :)

Strake Jesuit Class of 2020

Fordham 2024

Email - hatfieldwyatt@gmail.com

Debate is a game, first and foremost.

I qualified for the TOC Junior and Senior years and came into contact with virtually every type of argument

Summary of my debate style - I just enjoyed the activity while reading all types of arguments with my own spin on them. I think debate is often boring with debaters just reading blocks and not being innovative.

Please note that I have strong opinions on what debate should be, but I will not believe them automatically every round they have to be won just like any other argument. Tech>truth no exceptions.

Triggers - French Revolution and Freemasonry

I am not a fan of identity-based arguments. Please don't run arguments that are only valid based on your or your opponent's identity.

Speaks -

How to get good speaks 29-29.5

• be entertaining either with good music, good jokes etc
• making arguments that I like or agree with; this includes Catholicism and Monarchism.
• Style
• Reference something from Scooby-Doo

How to get 30

• Define the 4 Marian Dogmas
• Explain Unam Sanctam
• Explain who you think the greatest monarch is and why
• Explain who you think the greatest Saint is and why
• Recite the our father or hail mary in latin

How to get low speaks

- Having bad strategy choice

-being really rude or mean

- Swearing or cursing, try to keep it professional and respectful, please

Styles of Debate -

I will vote on all of them if I see your winning them

Tricks - 1

Larp - 2

Phil - 1

K - 3

Theory - 1

K performance - 5

Hello! I'm Jonathan (he/they) and I did four years of PF in high school and currently debate policy for USC. I have my preferences listed below -- but they're just preferences. I'd rather see you debate what you know well than debate something you don't know. Debate how you debate and I'll be happy to accommodate.

- Put me on the email chain: jhayden1127@gmail.com

- Be respectful. Don't run arguments that are racist, sexist, homophobic, ableist, etc. Be accommodating to your opponents.

Policy

- Counterplans. I prefer counterplans with solvency advocates, but are not necessary. Specific enough solvency advocates make most counterplans legitimate, but how specific is specific enough is up for debate. I generally think conditionality is good and am pretty unlikely to vote off it as a hail-mary. I'm far more likely to vote aff on condo in the event of in-round abuse (mutually exclusive advocacies, cross applying arguments from different flows abusively, etc). Won't kick the counterplan for the negative unless told to, and will listen to arguments in the 2ar for no judge-kick.

- Theory. I default to drop the argument (except conditionality). Not the biggest fan of theory debates -- I think that a lot of times they tend to be messy. Make sure to do the comparative impact calc and why the model of debate that your interpretation promotes is better. Default competing interps.

- DA. I enjoy good DA debates. Make sure the links are specific to the aff. Not the biggest fan of ptx, but some weekends are better for politics than others. I'm particularly persuaded by DA turns case arguments or case turns the DA, and they should probably be somewhere in your 2ar/2nr overview.

- T. If you're going for T, make sure to explain why your interpretation results in a better world than your opponents' interpretation.

- Ks. Familiar with most kritiks, but most familiar with biopolitics, cap, security. Make sure to have good explanations of your theory, and the more specific to the aff, the better.

- Critical Affs. There should be a well-thought-out counterinterpretation to framework and should be a significant change from the status quo as well as a clear articulation of what voting affirmative does. If the 1ac does something untraditional, it should be brought up in later speeches. I generally think that affs should be in the direction of the topic.

- Case. Smart case debating is great. Affirmatives should remember to utilize their case in later speeches and negative teams shouldn't be afraid of using the 1ac's cards against them.

Public Forum

- How I evaluate rounds. I'll do my best to be as tabula rasa as possible. I also will do my best to vote in the least interventionary way possible. To do that, I'll either look to who accesses the most important impact in the round as argued through weighing (impact weighing), or who best accesses the impact if both teams are linking in to the same impact (link weighing).

- CX. It's binding, but has to be brought up in a speech for me to evaluate it. I really appreciate smart and strategic crossfires - especially if they can pidgeon-hole your opponents into a specific position or tricking them into conceding something.

- 2nd Rebuttal. 2nd rebuttal has to respond to all offense in the round, including opponents' case and turns. I don't require that teams answer all defense in 2nd rebuttal, but do believe it's strategic and makes the round clearer.

- Weighing. Good weighing is the biggest thing you can do to win my ballot. The earlier weighing starts the better. Make sure that weighing is comparative (comparing your opponents' argument to yours instead of just stating that yours is very important). Go beyond just buzzwords - your weighing analysis itself is more important than whatever buzzword you use to tag it. I believe that probability weighing exists. Even if you win 100% of your link, that means I buy that you solve 100% of your impact scenario, not that your impact is 100% guaranteed to happen (e.g. many impact cards talk about a chance of something happening, rather than asserting that they 100% will). Weighing turns in rebuttal is great and will get you higher speaker points. Link weigh and impact weigh.

- Evidence. If you tell me to read a piece of evidence I'll read it. Lying about evidence will severely hurt your speaker points and if the violation is egregious I'll drop the team. I might call for a card if it's crucial to my decision. I appreciate reading cut cards, but I won't punish you for paraphrasing as I get that that's the norm.

- Presumption. If neither team has offense at the end of the round, I'll default to the first speaking team as I believe that the second speaking team has a strong advantage that isn't as present in other debate formats. But if one team makes a default neg argument, I'll listen to it.

- Speed. I'm fine with speed. Just remember that clarity is always going to be more important. Also consider that with online debate it's even more important to be clear and that might mean going slower. If you're going to speak fast, make sure you're not excluding your opponents and send a speech doc.

- Theory/Ks. I'll vote on either if debated well, but I think it's incredibly hard to do so in PF and generally makes the round messier than it needs to be. My threshold for explaining these arguments is probably substantially higher than most judges. Don't run these arguments against an obviously inexperienced team for a cheap win.

- Speaker Points/Things I Like. I'll give speaks mostly based on strategy. Good warranting, weighing, good evidence ethics, interesting strategies (going all in on a turn), smart cx, signposting, good and unique cases are all examples of things that will boost your speaker points.

- Post-round. Please ask me questions after round. I don't want you to walk away from a round not understanding why you won/lost or how you could do better. I won't (and can't) change my decision, but I want to make sure I fully explain my decision if you don't understand. Debate is an educational activity and I believe that engaging with the judge and the decision is a part of that.

Lincoln Douglas

- If debating traditional LD, all of the PF stuff above about weighing/evidence/how I evaluate rounds applies. Collapsing down to the most important issues in the round in the 2ar/nr, listing voters, and connecting them to the value/value criterion all make it more likely to win my ballot.

- If debating circuit LD, the closer to policy the better. Not very good for evaluating tricks, skep, nebel t, or other LD-specific phenomenon. However, if this is your go-to strategy I will do my best to fairly evaluate them the best I can.

email: colter.heirigs@gmail.com

POLICY PARADIGM:

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

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

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

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

Important things to note:

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

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

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

-High-theory will be an uphill battle.

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

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

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

-Swearing is probably word inefficient

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

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

-I think debate is a competition.

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

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

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

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

-Consult CPs

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

-warrant and evidence comparison is made

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

-the aff advocates a topical plan

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

-the negative has a well-researched neg strategy

-I am not expected to sort through high-theory

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

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

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

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

-There is no 3NR

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

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

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

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

Unimportant things to note:

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

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

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

-I enjoy GOOD topicality debates

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

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

Specific Arguments

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

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

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

LD Paradigm

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

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

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

I come into the round presuming:

-the aff should be defending the resolution

-the aff is defending the entirety of the resolution

-my ballot answers the resolutional question

-debate is a game

These presumptions can likely be changed.

Stylistically agnostic, but probably not your best judge for:

-dense phil that you’re spreading through

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

-process CPs that result in the aff

-more than 2 condo

-friv theory - I ❤️ substance

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

-theory interps that require me to ignore other speeches

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

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

Public Forum Paradigm:

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

File Share > e-mail chain.

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

Director of Forensics @ Athens HS (2023 - Present)

DoD at Austin LBJ ECHS (2022 - 2023)

Texas Tech Debate 2019-2021 (Graduated)

Athens HS (TX) 2015-2019

whonea@athensisd.net

Please have specific questions about my paradigm if curious. Just asking, "what is your paradigm" is too broad of a question and we don't have time before a round to run down every little detail about how I feel about debate.

Speed - I think there is a place for spreading, I have judged and debated against some of the fastest debaters in the country. In a UIL setting, I would prefer you not to spread. I think this allows us to maintain the accessible nature of the circuit. For TFA, NSDA, or TOC debates, go for it. I think in any type of debate slow down for tag lines and key analytical arguments, especially voters in the rebuttals.

TFA STATE 2024 UPDATE: I feel like at this point in the season, judges should outline specific preferences that align with the topic, given they've judged a considerable amount thus far. I have developed a few of those preferences. First, because this is an economy centric topic, I need you to isolate a market indicator that should frame the direction of the economy. Whether is the CPI, Stock Market Projections, BizCon surveys, etc. Absent this specification, it makes it hard to judge econ uniqueness in debates. Second, the central T debate is Taxes v Deficit Spending. A lot more time needs to be allocated to the predictability standard when going for "you must tax". There are tons of taxes the aff could choose, only one way to deficit spend. Finally, is evidence recency. Though I believe dates on cards matter less than the warrants themselves, when debating the ever-changing economy, the most recent analysis is more likely to sway me. The same can be said for politics scenarios. We are deep into an election cycle, Super Tuesday is 2 days before tfa state. Please update your evidence.

TLDR: My overall judging philosophy can be boiled down to, I am going to take the path to the ballot that takes the least amount of judge intervention. I don't want to do any work for you, that means any warrants analysis/extensions. You do what you do best, I am pretty familiar with just about any argument you want to read. I will make my decision based on a metric established by the debaters in the round.

Policy -

MPX - I have no preference for types of impacts. Make sure your internal links make sense. Impact Calculus is must in debates. Also impact framing is necessary when debating systemic vs. existential impacts.

Affs - Read one..... Advantages need to materialize into impacts. Saying "This collapses the economy" cannot be the end all to you advantage. Explain why that matters. Whether its war, structural violence, etc.

K Affs - The K aff needs a point. Don't just read one to try and throw your opponent off their game. I like K affs and have read them a lot in HS/College. The aff should always have some FW/Roll of the Ballot for me to evaluate the round on. Also, if your kritiking the World, Debate Space, Topic, etc. explain the utility in doing so rather than taking the traditional route of reading a policy aff with a state actor.

Performance - The performance needs purpose. Don't just read you poem, play you song, or do a performance at the beginning and then forget about it for the rest of the round. Tell me why you doing what you did has significance in this debate and how it should shape my decision making calculus.

T- I default that the aff is topical. The neg has the burden to prove otherwise. I default to competing interps weighing offense in the standards level debate. I often find that competing interps and reasonability require essentially the same amount of judge intervention. Competing interps relies on a judges individual metric for "how much offense" is needed to win an interp, this is mirrored by "how much of a we meet" is needed to throw out T.

FW - Policy FW against K affs can be a useful strategy to have. However, i often find debaters constantly reading generic standards like Ground, Predictability without any in depth impacts to those standards. Have specific warrants about why them reading their K aff in that instance specifically is bad. You probably have little risk of winning a collapse of debate impact. K's have been read for decades and yet, here we are. Probably should go for a more proximal, in round education lost scenario.

DA - The more intrinsic the better. I will not evaluate links of omission unless it goes completely dropped. While I like intrinsic/specific disads i also recognize the utility in reading generics and will vote on them.

PTX - Needs to be very specific, we are in an election cycle right now. Generic election projections are unlikely to persuade me. Please make sure your evidence is up to date.

CP - I like counterplan debate. Make sure you pair it with a net benefit AND solvency deficits to the Aff plan. Additionally, spend time explaining how the CP resolves the deficits you say the aff solvency has. The CP needs to AVOID the link to the net benefit, not SOLVE it. If the CP solves the link, the permutation probably does as well.

K’s - Don’t assume I know your author. I have experience reading CAP (Marx & Zizek), Agamben, Foucault, Bataille, Baudrillard, Halberstaam, Butler. I have a preference for identity arguments when i debate but as long as your K provides a logical FW and competes with the aff it should be fine.

Theory - I have voted in and debated some of the wackiest theory positions. As long as you have good warrants as to why your interpretation is better than you should be good. Please do interp comparison between you interp and your opponent's. That being said don't get too out there with you theory positions. I feel like you and/or your coaches should know what is a winning theory position and what is hot garbage.

LD

I have the majority of my experience judging traditional LD with values and criterions. I prefer traditional LD debate and do not typically enjoy policy arguments being brought over into this event.

PF

My Experience is in judging TOC circuit level PF. Provide voters and impact calculus. For online debates PLEASE establish a system for question during Grand Crossfire. There have been too many debates already where everyone is trying to talk at the same time on Zoom and its frustrating.

4 years of PF, UVA '23

Winning my ballot starts with weighing, in fact, weighing is so important I'd prefer if you did it at the begiNning of every speech after first rebuttal. Be cOmparative, I need a reason why I should look to your arguments firsT. Please collapse, don't go for more than one case arg in the second half, its unnecessaRy. I'm a lazy judge the easIest plaCe to vote is where I'll sign my ballot. I'm not going to do more worK than I need to. I will not vote off of one sentence offense, everything needS to be explained clearly, warranted, and weighed for me to evaluate it(turns especially). I try not to presume but if I do, I will presume whoever lost the coin flip.

I will evaluate progressive arguments.

If you are going to give a content warning please do it correctly - this means anonymized content warnings with ample time to respond.

I'm very generous with speaks, speaking style doesn't affect how I evaluate the round and I don't think I'm in a place to objectively evaluate the way you speak. With that being said I will not tolerate rudeness or ANY bm in round. I can handle a decent amount of speed but do not let speed trade off with quality.

Online debate I will be muted the entire round just assume I'm ready before every speech and time yourselves and your own prep. I will disclose if the tournament allows.

Questions: chashuang1@gmail.com

Background:

Any pronouns, ask for my email to put me on the chain. Former LD/PF/IPDA debater / speech competitor, and es/ms/hs/college coach.

General:

Tech versus Truth: I lean towards tech over truth, but I will intervene in cases where a debater and/or their advocacy is in some way harmful, violent or offensive (i.e. racism, transphobia, sexism, etc). I will always respect the wishes of the non-offending debater(s) in the round, but I also believe my role as an educator requires me to step in when no preference is indicated by competitors. All things equal, I will happily vote for an argument I don't believe if it won the round.

Speed: I find that online debate tends to exacerbate issues with speed (ex; lack of clarity, lagging, etc). Be mindful of this.

I'm stealing a quote from my good friendEva Lamberson's paradigm: "Rounds should be accessible to your opponent. This means that you should, of course, use inclusionary language, correct pronouns, content warnings if necessary, etc. but also means that you should not spread complex Ks or tricks or anything otherwise unnecessarily high level against novices, lay debaters, etc. If you do this I will be supremely annoyed and you will be very unhappy with your speaks. What is the point of winning a debate round if your opponent never has a chance to compete?" In general, I am very dissatisfied when debaters intentionally and unnecessarily make debate more exclusive and difficult to engage in.

Use of evidence: I believe debate is, at least partly, an educational activity, and evidence ethics are an academic issue. In the same way you might fail a paper or be academically punished for plagiarism, you will face consequences if you choose to misrepresent or manipulate evidence.

Public Forum

How I Decide Winners:

- The most important thing in picking me up as a judge is offering framing and comparative analysis. Specific judge instructions are key. Tell me what to vote off, why to vote off of it, and how it interacts with your opponent's offense. The more you tell me what to do, the less I have to think, and the more objective my ballot will be.

- My judging philosophy in PF tends to be what I describe as "the path of least resistance" or the "cleanest" way to vote. In other words, I'm more likely to vote for an argument that had very little interaction from your opponent versus trying to resolve a twenty argument long back and forth about who accesses nuke war. In other words, be strategic and don't just focus on the clash.

What I Like To See In PF:

- I am typically very persuaded by link clarity or strength of link arguments. I much prefer well developed link stories over well developed impact scenarios. Most PF debaters tend to lean towards the latter, but, as a judge, I will almost always vote for the argument with a smaller impact but far better explanation for how it is actually accessed. In other words: do more work on the link level.

- I really like impact scenarios that are specific to your link story. Often times, PF debaters will show X policy causes some arbitrary increase in X bad thing, and X bad thing can cause (insert maximum possible damage). But there isn't specificity on the policy/rez itself causing a certain portion or quantity of said impact.

- Extend last name + date on evidence AND actually extend the point of your evidence/arguments. Far too often, I see PF debaters extending "contention one" or "smith evidence" with no explanation of what it actually says/how it impacts the round, beyond the first speech it was introduced in. I have a low threshold for extensions, but I won't tolerate failing to even give me the tag of an argument or piece of evidence.

- Whatever is in final focus, should have been said in summary. I lean believing that defense is sticky, but can be persuaded.

- 2nd speaking team should frontline in rebuttal, always. At the very least, address offense/turns on case.

- Please, please sign post. The #1 problem I see with PF debaters: the lack of structure and organization in speeches. I will get lost, and your arguments poof into oblivion when that happens. The more you tell me what is happening and where on the flow I should be writing, the better my flow is!

What I Do Not Like To See In PF:

- Don't paraphrase. It undercuts debate, and often leads to really, really poor evidence norms. If you paraphrase, I expect you have fully cut cards available. If you are sending docs, you better include fully cut cards. To clarify: fully cut cards = actually highlighting/underlining of the evidence read, not just a blob of text from a source.

- Disrespectful comments, attitudes, or expressions. I see this most frequently in PF debate. Elitism will not win you rounds, at least with me.

- Perhaps one of the hottest takes I have is that I really prefer you don't use jargon much. I find PF debaters over-rely on jargon (half the time without even understanding what it really means). I much prefer you actually explain what you want me to do. This isn't to say I am anti-jargon, but rather, I think less is more.

- PF cases are increasingly more difficult to flow. With the popularity of paraphrasing and every single line being another argument or critical piece of information, it causes me to always feel "behind" in flowing. Pair that with fast speaking in the 1AC/1NC and you'll find a lot of gaps in my flow. If this applies to you: send a doc or speak slower if you don't want me missing your 6 word sentence that is an entire "card".

Progressive / Circuit in Public Forum Debate:

- Public Forum debate is still a relatively new event. It is "finding itself", so to speak. I am, generally, very willing to allow debaters to test those bounds. This means I am fairly okay with progressive concepts in PF, and am fairly competent at evaluating them. However: I do think debate should be accessible to your opponent (see more on that above). So, be mindful of whether the argument you're going to introduce into the round creates barriers for engagement.

K's/theory in PF often lack the level of structure and nuance you see in other events, which is fine! But it means that the way I evaluate these arguments it highly dependent on how they are introduced and debated.

Ultimately, you're the debater and I want you to have fun/enjoy debating. It's not my job to tell you what to do in a debate round, as long as it's moderately respectful. Read stock arguments or four blippy contentions or a k - I'll evaluate it all the same.

Lincoln Douglas

How I Decide Winners:

- The most important thing in picking me up as a judge is offering framing and comparative analysis. Specific judge instructions are key. Tell me what to vote off, why to vote off of it, and how it interacts with your opponent's offense. The more you tell me what to do, the less I have to think, and the more objective my ballot will be.

- My judging philosophy in LD is framework first. I determine who wins framing, to then evaluate which impacts matter or do not matter. Win framework, and win an argument under framework (or win an argument under your opponents) - and weigh. My ballot is that simple. If nobody "wins" framework, I will generally give priority to like-arguments (example: neither side wins framework, but both debaters discuss the economy).

What I Like To See In LD:

- Unique framework debates and well justified frameworks. like learning interesting theories, and hearing different perspectives of a topic. Challenge norms and think outside the box.

- Technical debates, i.e. in-depth flow debates, good weighing, strategize.

- Be entertaining. I judge a lot of rounds at a tournament, and the more interesting you are, the more likely you are to capture my attention. Online debate exacerbates attention-span issues.

- Give content warnings if appropriate.

- Unique arguments - reading stock DAs and generic framing is boring. Do something interesting.

What I Do Not Like To See In LD:

- Pointless values debates. They don't matter.

- If you do circuit with me as your judge, I am unlikely to vote off of tricks. I find them uneducational.

- "They don't achieve their FW" is not a response to framework, and leaves their framework 100% untouched and unrefuted.

- A source isn't sufficient to explain why something happens; articulate to me why they came to that decision/conclusion.

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

Generally, I just want to see engaging and respectful rounds. Otherwise, I am open to you doing whatever it is you want/like! This paradigm is meant to give context to how I think as a judge, but not to limit you. Have fun!

i graduated from the harker school in 2020, where i primarily competed in policy debate. second semester senior year, i qualled to the toc in ld/made late elims at a few tournaments. i'm now a second-year at uchicago and coach/judge for harker.

please put me on the email chain – madisonh@staff.harker.org

tl;dr

i like technical, smart debating, particularly of policy arguments. i like even more when these debates are a robustly developed 1-2 off rather than a proliferation of unexplained arguments.

i have come to the conclusion that i do not enjoy watching, nor do i know how to evaluate, ld phil debates, as well as high theory arguments. i'm also not the best judge for a very technical 2ar on theory, especially if the 1ar is fast and/or blippy.

you will almost surely lose if you read tricks, silly theory arguments, spikes, or weird ld arguments using acronyms (including but not limited to rvi, nib, afc, or any spec argument). i will listen to these, but the sillier/less intuitive the argument, the lower my threshold for responses (and your speaks) will be.

online debate notes

please be extra clear & go about 70% speed! after online camp + judging practice rounds, i would probably prefer if you sent analytics, especially theory, t standards, and permutation texts.

if you do not locally record speeches in the event that you drop off a call, i will flow only what i caught. will not let you regive any part of a speech.

more specific thoughts

from miles gray: i think the purpose of any one debate round is to determine whether the benefits of an example of the resolution outweigh its harms and/or opportunity costs. i will, by default and by preference, adopt this position when considering arguments in a debate, and am very skeptical of reasons to evaluate a debate in any other way.

some things that i like seeing in debates

• big picture framing and judge instruction
• nuanced, fully developed arguments rather than "run and gun" strategies
• well-researched strategies that display content mastery
• good disclosure (this does not mean i am a fan of disclosure theory)

some arguments i am likely to be persuaded by

• appeals to reasonability, especially on theory
• plans good/pragmatics arguments vs. nebel t
• judge kick
• framework versus planless affs
• util good & extinction outweighs

some arguments i am unlikely to be persuaded by

• personal callouts
• framing contentions without substantive answers
• process counterplans (but vastly prefer the aff to make competition arguments rather than theory presses)
• conditionality bad, or that any non-condo theory is a reason to reject the team
• anything in the realm of spark or wipeout or warming impact turns
• asking me to ignore large parts of the debate (evaluate after x speech, must concede fw or contention, indexicals, etc.)
• frivolous theory and tricks (the bar for answering these is on the floor)

random notes

• inserting rehighlighting is fine
• evidence quality is very important to me. if you have very good cards, tell me, and i will read them! conversely, point out that your opponents' cards are bad (i think the state of evidence in LD is abysmal)
• i feel comfortable voting on clipping/egregiously miscut evidence/other ethics problems even if the other team does not point them out (if it is a novice debate, i will likely not vote on clipping to maximize the educational experience for both debaters)
• please be kind and respectful! there is a distinction between being sassy/sarcastic and being rude – if you cross that line, i will be very unhappy

if i am judging you in public forum

...you can probably ignore most of this paradigm. in high school, i did not compete in pf, but i am familiar with the differences between pf and ld/policy and will try to adapt my judging accordingly. regardless, here a few things that might differentiate me from other pf judges:

• i prefer flow/circuit style debate, and i will make my decision based off of technical drops and extensions. how "pretty" your speeches are will not affect how i evaluate your arguments.
• i firmly believe your evidence should be in the form of direct quotations (ideally cards *with full citations available*). in my mind, paraphrasing has the same weight as analytical arguments, and arguments from the opposing team to discount paraphrased evidence will be very persuasive to me.
• arguments need to be extended in every speech for me to evaluate them at the end of the debate. if something is not extended in summary, you will not be allowed to bring it up in ff. consequently, using summary to choose *a few* important offensive and defensive arguments is in your best interest.
• i care little about pf formalities (who asks the first question, sitting/standing during grand crossfire, etc.)
• speed is fine, but please maintain clarity.

Hi, I am a parent judge who has some experience judging. I would classify myself as a lay- judge. I have a vast understanding of this topic and I can understand different view points.

-- I am looking for arguments that have a logical basis

-- Please make sure that you understand your arguments and that you do not make arguments that you can't justify.

-- I feel that debate is about bringing your logic to another level so if your argument is not clear or lacks logic, I will not vote for it.

-- Please do not spread because it will result in you losing speaker points

-- Please do not use debate jargon

--Make sure to extend your arguments and impacts into summary and final focus or else I won't evaluate them.

--Weighing is super important to me so make sure that you do it

--Do not be rude to your opponents and make sure you give them a chance to speak.

If you have any specific questions, please ask me during the round! Good Luck to you all!

I am okay with judging anything in round. I firmly believe that debates should be left up to the debaters and what they want to run. If you want to read policy or a new kritik; I am good with anything y'all as debaters want to run. Do not read anything that is homophobic, racist, ableist, or sexiest in round. Debate should be a safe place for everyone. A little bit about me I was a 1A/2N my senior year. I recently graduated from Sac State with a major in Communications and Women's Studies. I am currently applying to Law school and will be attending a law school in fall of 2024. I am currently a policy coach for the Sacramento Urban Debate League, coaching at CKM and West Campus.

Kritikal Affs: I love identity politics affirmatives. They are one of my favorite things to judge and hear at tournaments. I ran an intersectional k aff my senior year. If you run an identity politics affirmative then I am a great judge for you. For high theory k affs I am willing to listen to them I am just not as well adapted in that literature as identity politics. But on the negative, I did run biopower.

Policy Affirmative: Well duh.... I am good at judging a hard-core policy round or a soft-left affirmative. Once again whatever the debaters want to do I am good with judging anything.

Framework: I feel like the question for framework that debaters are asking here is if I am more of a tech or truth kind of judge. I would say its important for debaters to give me judge instruction on how they want to me to judge the round. If you want me to prefer tech or truth you need to tell me that, and also tell me WHY I should prefer tech or truth. The rest of the debate SSD, TVAs etc need to be flushed out and not 100% blipy. But that's pretty much how I feel like with every argument on every flow.

CP/DA: If you want to read 9 off you can.

Theory: I will be honest; I am not the best at evaluating theory arguments. I know what they are, and you can run them in front of me. But if you go for them, judge instruction is a must, and explaining to me how voting for this theory shell works for the debate space etc.

I like being told what to vote for and why. I am lazy to my core. If I have to look at a speech doc at the end of the round I will default to what happened in the round, not on the doc.

On a side note, go follow the Sacramento Urban Debate League on Twitter, Instagram, and Facebook. Also, I want to be in the email chain. My email is smsj8756@gmail.com thanks!

I have completed the cultural competency credential and I am ready to deploy the skills in debate rounds. Remember, your words have power.

Please uphold positivity in the round. I give speaks from 20-30 but I will almost never give 30 speaks. If you are perfect you deserve a 30 but I have almost never seen anyone deserving of a 30.

I think that the best debaters are those who effectively utilize ethos, pathos, and logos in their speeches.

Good luck!

progressive arguments - read at your own risk

I debated in PF for Dublin Jerome in Ohio for three years. I qualified to NSDAs and Gold TOC. Speed is fine; I will yell "clear" if need be. If you have any questions, then please feel free to ask!

Email: subhash1314@gmail.com

I am a debate coach at Little Rock Central. Please put both on the email chain: jkieklak@gmail.com; lrchdebatedocs@gmail.com

General

You do you. Let it rip. Seriously. A judge does not exist without the debaters, and I view my role as a public servant necessary only to resolve arguments in a round to help empower young people to engage in meaningful discourse. I believe that it is important for me to be honest about the specific things I believe about common debate arguments, but also I find it more important to ensure I am prepared for debaters to persuade me away from those beliefs/biases. Specifically, I believe that my role is to listen, flow, and weigh the arguments offered in the round how I am persuaded to weigh them by each team. I will listen to and evaluate any argument. It is unacceptable to do anything that is: ableist, anti-feminist, anti-queer, racist, or violent.

I think debates have the lowest access to education when the judge must intervene. I can intervene as little as possible if you:

1) Weigh your impacts and your opponents' access to risk/impacts in the debate. One team probably is not most persuasive/ahead of the other team on every single argument. That needs to be viewed as a strength rather than a point of anxiety in the round. Do not be afraid to explain why you don't actually need to win certain arguments/impacts in lieu of "going for" the most persuasive arguments that resolve the most persuasive/riskiest impacts.

2) Actively listen and use your time wisely. Debaters miss each other when distracted/not flowing or listening. This seems to make these teams more prone to missing/mishandling arguments by saying things like, "'x' disad, they dropped it. Extend ____ it means ____;" yet, in reality, the other team actually answered the argument through embedded clash in the overview or answered it in a way that is unorthodox but also still responsive/persuasive.

3) Compare evidence and continuously cite/extend your warrants in your explanations/refutation/overall argumentation. Responses in cross that cite an individual warrant or interrogate their opponents' warrants are good ethos builders and are just in general more persuasive, same in speeches.

Policy Affirmatives

Go for it. Your pathway to solving a significant harm that is inherent to the status quo with some advantageous, topical plan action is entirely up to you. There are persuasive arguments about why it is good to discuss hypothetical plan implementation. I do not have specific preferences about this, but I am specifically not persuaded when a 2a pivot undercovers/drops the framework debate in an attempt to weigh case/extend portions of case that aren't relevant unless the aff wins framework. I have not noticed any specific thresholds about neg strats against policy affs.

Kritikal Affirmatives

Go for it. Your pathway/relationship to the resolution is entirely up to you. I think it’s important for any kritikal affirmative (including embedded critiques of debate) to wins its method and theory of power, and be able to defend that the method and advocacy ameliorates some impactful harm. I think it’s important for kritkal affirmatives (when asked) to be able to articulate how the negative side could engage with them; explain the role of the negative in the debate as it comes up, and, if applicable, win framework or a methods debate. I don't track any specific preferences. Note: Almost all time that I am using to write arguments and coach students is to prepare for heg/policy debates; I understand if you prefer someone in the back of the room that spends a majority of their time either writing kritikal arguments or coaching kritikal debate.

Framework

This is all up to how it develops in round. I figure that this often starts as a question of what is good for debate through considerations of education, fairness, and/or how a method leads to an acquisition/development of portable skills. It doesn't have to start or end in any particular place. The internal link and impact are up to you. If the framework debate becomes a question of fairness, then it's up to you to tell me what kind of fairness I should prioritize and why your method does or does not access it/preserve it/improve it. I vote for and against framework, and I haven't tracked any specific preferences or noticed anything in framework debate that particularly persuades me.

Off

Overall, I think that most neg strats benefit from quality over quantity. I find strategies that are specific to an aff are particularly persuasive (beyond just specific to the overall resolution, but also specific to the affirmative and specific cites/authors/ev). In general, I feel pretty middle of the road when it comes to thresholds. I value organization and utilization of turns, weighing impacts, and answering arguments effectively in overviews/l-b-l.

Other Specifics and Thresholds, Theory

• Perms: Be ready to explain how the perm works (more than repeating "it's perm do 'X'"). Why does the perm resolve the impacts? Why doesn't the perm link to a disad?

• T: Normal threshold if the topicality impacts are about the implications for future debates/in-round standards. High threshold for affs being too specific and being bad for debate because neg doesn't have case debate. If I am in your LD pool and you read Nebel, then you're giving me time to answer my texts, update a list of luxury items I one day hope to acquire, or simply anything to remind myself that your bare plurals argument isn't 'prolific.'

• Case Debate: I am particularly persuaded by effective case debate so far this year on the redistribution topic. Case debate seems underutilized from an "find an easy way to the ballot" perspective.

• Disclosure is generally good, and also it's ok to break a new aff as long as the aff is straight up in doing so. There are right and wrong ways to break new. Debates about this persuade me most when located in questions about education.

• Limited conditionality feels right, but really I am most interested in how these theory arguments develop in round and who wins them based on the fairness/education debate and tech.

• Please do not drop condo or some other well-extended/warranted theory argument on either side of the debate. Also, choosing not to engage and rely on the ethos of extending the aff is not a persuasive way to handle 2NRs all in on theory.

TOC Requested Update for Congress (April 2023)

General

Be your best self. My ranks reflect who I believe did the best debating in the round (and in all prelims when I parli).

The best debaters are the ones that offer a speech that is appropriately contextualized into the debate the body is having about a motion. For sponsors/first negs, this means the introduction of framing and appropriate impacts so that the aff/neg speakers can build/extend specific impact scenarios that outweigh the opposing side's impacts. Speeches 3-10 or 3-12 (depending on the round) should be focused on introducing/weighing impacts (based on where you are in the round and where your side is on impact weighing) and refutations (with use of framing) on a warrant/impact level. I value structured refutations like turns, disadvantages, presumption, PICs (amendments), no solvency/risk, etc. The final two speeches should crystallize the round by offering a clear picture as to why the aff/neg speakers have been most persuasive and why the motion should carry or fail.

The round should feel like a debate in that each speaker shall introduce, refute, and/or weigh the core of the affirmative and negative arguments to persuade all other speakers on how they should vote on a pending motion.

Other TOC Requested Congress Specifics/Randoms

• Arguments are claim, warrant, impact/justification and data when necessary. Speeches with arguments lacking one or more of these will not ever be rewarded highly, no matter how eloquent the speech. It is always almost more persuasive to provide data to support a warrant.

• Impacts should be specific and never implied.

• Presiding officers should ensure as many speeches as possible. The best presiding officers are direct, succinct, courteous, organized, and transparent. Presiding officers shall always be considered for ranks, but ineffective presiding is the quickest way to a rank 9 (or lower).

• More floor debaters are experimenting with parliamentary procedure. Love it, but debaters will be penalized for misapplications of the tournament's bylaws and whichever parliamentary guide is the back up.

• Nothing is worse in floor debate than repetition, which is different than extending/weighing.

• Decorum should reflect effective communication. Effective communication in debate often includes an assertive tone, but read: folx should always treat each other with dignity and respect.

Arkansas Debate

Woo Pig. I am not here to force you to capitulate a paradigm that you find in someway oppressive to what your coach is teaching you to do. I will drop you for clipping/cheating, and I do not reward (and will rank low in congress) bad/no arguments even if they sound as rhetorically smooth as Terry Rose and Gary Klaff singing "Oh, Arkansas."

TOC 23 update: Senior at michigan, competed and coached PF on the nat circuit but haven't done much since 2021. Also have a policy background so I'll try to keep up with the technical stuff, just know I'm rusty.

-standard flow judge: frontline, extend, and weigh

-any speed is fine but ask opponents if you plan to go fast

-1st summary only needs defense if 2nd rebuttal frontlines

-the later an argument is made, the less i'll believe it

-theory/kritikal arguments are fine if made in accessible ways

-dont be a bad person and have fun

Feel free to ask any more specific questions before the round, if you wanna read more I judge similar to this guy.

gordondkrauss@gmail.com

Great for planless affirmatives when the 2NR is not T. If T, not so good.

Good for the K when it's not just framework. If its No Ks vs. the fiat K, I am much better for the aff. If its No Ks vs. we get our links, more neg.

Infinite conditionality is good. Judge kick without being told.

Most theory is bad and a reason to reject the argument.

Former ToC competitor (2009-2012) and Former Coach for The Harker School (2013-16). Been in out rounds and have coached students in outrounds at: Harvard (&RR), Cal Berkeley (&RR), Tournament of Champions, National Tournament, Glenbrooks, Apple Valley, Golden Desert, Stanford, and District Qualifiers in multiple states.

Do whatever you want in the round, it’s your debate. Just make sure everyone is being professional and furthering the round to the best of their ability.

I’m not going to do a whole bunch of work for you regarding linking and impact calculus so make sure to clearly articulate your KVIs towards the end.

There’s a good chance I will call for some cards so please make sure to have everything available! (NSDA Nats 23, I’ve seen a lot of teams just create an email thread and send evidence that way. As long as I can still see the evidence either way is fine! My email is Titanpride4949@gmail.com)

tjhsst '24 he/him (some parts of my paradigm are stolen from alec boulton)

Add me to the email chain dli447890@gmail.com (feel free to email after with questions!)

tech = truth (a dropped argument is true, unless it's just plain wrong. The more goofy an argument, the lower my threshold for responses is)

grand cross is a grand waste of time. if you skip it +0.5 speaks, and no, you don't get any extra prep time if you skip it. In terms of the other crossfires, I don't pay attention to them, so tell me if something important happens.

Speed trades off with clarity, the faster you go, the less likely I am to be able to flow everything you say. If it's not on my flow, it doesn't exist, and I don't flow off docs. So basically, don't spread.

-Traditional-

Give me real extensions. "Extend our argument" is not an extension. "Extend Cortez" isn't one either. I also don't care for the card name. I need warrants.

Dump if you want, but at least be responsive. I don't care for your other contentions or "DAs," get good at debate and use your brain. All your responses should be warranted and implicated. Turns or link-ins need to be weighed.

Second rebuttal needs to frontline. It may be strategic to collapse.

Defense isn't sticky. If it wasn't in summary, it no longer exists.

Weigh. "We outweigh on probability because [insert a response you forgot to read]" is not weighing. If an argument is won, the probability is 100%, unless their evidence specifically says "there is an x% chance this happens". Scrap weighing categories like "time frame" and "magnitude," just tell me why your offense is more important.

Terminalize your impacts. "20% GDP" isn't an impact. What does 20% GDP lead to?

-Progressive-

don't lol

Paraphrase and don't disclose if you want. An absurd amount of judges are incredibly biased and basically auto-drop teams that don't paraphrase or disclose as long as any half-written interp is read because they think they're doing something good. It's disappointing.

-Evidence-

I'll call for evidence that I think is important or if I am told to call for it. If you have terrible evidence ethics, I'll call you out, drop the evidence from the flow, and take speaks off or give you the L depending on how bad it is. If you don't give the warrant in the round, I don't care how good the evidence is.

You don't need evidence for everything (I require evidence in constructive though). The "arguments start with research and evidence" coach/judge mentality strangles creativity and free thought. If you have a logical claim, back it up with logic. Be careful with what you may think is "logical," you might not see the hole in your chain, and that's part of what we are doing debate for. If something requires evidence (pointing out quantifiable changes for example), then evidence is needed. If one side has evidence and the other has bad logic, then the evidence will be weighed heavily. Use your brain, it's a good one. Evidence is very nice, and research is important, but don't let it be the cage of your mind.

good evidence = good analysis > bad evidence > bad logic

-Speaks-

I will go from 27-30, 28 average (unless you're racist or something). Speaks decided based on crossfire, rhetoric, & strategy. Being funny or entertaining will probably boost your speaks.

W30 if you rap every speech

+0.5 speaks for a good forehead joke

+0.5 speaks if you roast your partner in speech/cross (it must be a good roast, and must be tied to the debate in some way)

Hi, my name is Joanne Li and I've debated novice, JV, and varsity on the PF NYS circuit.

add me to the email chain: 2013joanneli@gmail.com
--

If you want to speak quickly, please speak clearly! I would highly recommend that you do not spread if I'm judging your round.

I'm only conceptually familiar with theory and the main K's (cap, security, etc.) so if you still want to go ahead with these, please go slow and do overexplain

I'm only solidly familiar with util so again, please go slow and overexplain philosophical arguments. If it makes sense, it works for me.

Comparative worlds? Definitely.

I will evaluate topicality if you impact only to the argument that you are refuting, not the entire round.

I'll judge counterplans, but your speaks will suffer slightly :)

I won't call for cards unless a debater makes it an issue in-round.

Frameworks and impact analyses are important to me. Judging decisions are much clearer when impacts are weighed! I will evaluate unwarranted frameworks as long as they are reasonable.

I understand that things may get heated during cross. However, personal/team insults will lead to me nuking your speaks and likely tossing the round to the other team. Remain civil!

--

Be persuasive! As long as you can convince me to believe you, I will vote for you.

I'll update my speaks scale as needed for each tournament, but I'll usually vote on a 28-29 scale if you're decent/very good.

Have fun!!

when they say you need to judge

hi! i debated for plano west. i use they/them pronouns. add me to the email chain: rhl53@georgetown.edu

tl;dr

• my priority #1 is a safe debate space. read trigger/content warnings with proper opt-outs when applicable, respect people’s pronouns, and generally don't act exclusionary/___ist or you will be given an L and 20s

• watching people debate off speech docs makes me sad.

• extend the entire argument (uniqueness through impact) and collapse please. otherwise, your speaks will be a bit concerning

• warrants > evidence; i won't call for cards unless you tell me to, or if a lack of warrant comparison requires me to

the rest

• email chain ≥ google doc >>> zoom/nsda campus chat. pf evidence ethics...

• "new warrants are new arguments and will be treated as such" —aj yi

• unanswered defense is sticky in first summary; the only frontlining i require in second rebuttal is turns/offense

• i like progressive arguments, as long as they are run in a way that's accessible to everyone in the round. if you read tricks or friv when your opponents didn't agree to a tricks/friv round, you are cringe and my threshold for what counts as a good response will be very very low

• i don't mind speed, but if i have to flow off a speech doc, you're going too fast. (if i have to clear you more than 2-3 times, i'm deducting speaks) that being said, send your speech docs anyway

• random specific icks: dumping/doc botting and then either looking confused mid-speech when reading through some of the responses on your doc or using completely irrelevant responses, calling for a gajillion cards and then not making them relevant in any speech, probability weighing, impact weighing the same impact scenario read on both sides, being called judge (just call me renee)

• i don't have a presumption preference. if the round goes off the rails, tell me why i presume for you or else i may or may not flip a coin

• click here to boost your speaks; click here and here for instant serotonin

feel free to ask questions! i’m fine with postrounding

if you ever need someone to talk to or have anything else you want to ask, my facebook messenger and instagram (@reneelix) dms are always open

glhf!

have fun!

I will evaluate the debate based on how well you explain and support your reasoning with evidence, the quality of your questions and responses in the cross-fires, and how well your summary speech and final focus weigh and make a compelling case for your team. Clear organization, strong evidence, and good articulation make a winning team. It also helps to stay calm and composed and avoid being overly aggressive. 

- I hate progressive arguments. I expect to judge a debate on the Resolved, not the ethics of your opponents paraphrasing cards. If you're really passionate about fighting a social injustice or believe something in the debate world must change, feel free to advocate to the NSDA Board. My insignificant ballot won't do jack.

- Weigh, give me a weighing mechanism (magnitude, scope, urgency, probability, etc.), explain why your impacts are better than your opponents.

- Try not to ignore arguments. If you don't address an argument, it flows clean through the round. If you want me to listen to an argument, don't drop it in Rebuttal and Summary and bring it up in FF. If you don't have enough time, collapse.

Speaks will be based off:

- Fluency and Clarity: Don't bloviate, use statistics and evidence and tell me what that means, get to the point.

- Warranting: Don't misconstrue cards (I may call for cards). Explain what the statistic means and how it is relevant to your argument.

- Attitude: Be polite and respectful

I competed in Lincoln Douglas and Public Forum for 3 years in high school and have judged a handful of tournaments before.

I am comfortable with whatever arguments/speaking pace you would like to use, I only ask that if you are going to read or do something unusual make sure your opponent can understand well enough to argue back.

I usually give out speaker points generously unless you are rude or abusive in which case I will lower speaker points accordingly.

hi (:

remi (she/ her) I'm a sophomore at gw studying IA and environmental studies. I did pf in hs but consider me flay

also tell me your pronouns and names before the round starts!

EXTEND your warrants and impacts (quantified preferably) plz -- if you want it voted on, it has to be said in summary AND final focus

basic jargon is fine (DL, turn, extend, time frame) but don't go crazy

I don't write down card names, stats or warrants yes but not names sources or years so if you mention a card name and don't explain it ill be confused

I don't evaluate cross fire, if something happens, tell me in a speech

time yourselves

read content warnings

if you wanna wear sweats or a hoodie that's fine, come in a hat for all I care!

I dont know how to evaluate theory and K's but if you wanna try you can lol

dont be rude and have fun!

I'll be looking for well-organized arguments that demonstrate the impact and significance of your points. I'll also be looking for direct responses to your opposing team's points. Good luck!

put me on the email chain laurenmcblain28@gmail.com

Lincoln Park (CDL) 2016-2020

University of Kentucky 2020-present

don't call me "judge," lauren is fine.

Accessibility

preferrable to reduce speed by about 15%

analytics in the doc are appreciated and will result in a .2 speaker point bump

Policy

No experience on the current topic so don't overrely on acronyms or buzz words

Read whatever you want to read - i'll do my best to evaluate all arguments without bias. I have done all kinds of debate.

Tech > truth (mostly) - I have a lower threshold for silly arguments and think a smart analytic can beat a bad card.

T is good, theory is good, disads are good, counterplans are good, abusive counterplans are good, saying abusive counterplans are bad is good, Ks are good, K affs are good, framework is good. Everything that is not racist/sexist/ableist/and/or homophobic is probably good.except for judge kick - do you want me to tell you what to go for too? no thanks. However, if the block says judge kick and the 1AR does not say no judge kick, i will begrudgingly judge kick. if the first i hear of judge kick is the 2nr - the 2ar just has to say 'no' and i will not judge kick.

my voting record on framework is split 50/50.

im biased towards the aff on fairness - i have a hard time believing the aff makes debates procedurally unfair as long as there is a strong connection to the topic. that being said, i'll still vote for it even if i think it's a little silly. best aff strat --- nuanced counter interp that solves limits and ground or just straight impact turns. best neg strat --- tva + switch side.

K v K debates are cool and you should probably still make a framework argument about how to evaluate the round. i do not care if perms exist or not in a methods debate. convince me.

LD

I AM A VERY BAD JUDGE FOR TRICKS --- READ AT YOUR OWN RISK

PF

get your opponents emails and send your case to them before your speech. if you do not do this, i will make you take prep time for anything that exceeds cross time to send evidence back and forth to each other.

Novice

do line by line, respond to all arguments, and extend all parts of your arguments, split the block on the neg, and narrow down what you go for in the final speeches and you will be golden.

Evidence

Sometimes I follow along, sometimes I don't. I tend to only read the evidence when the debate is close or convoluted. Other than that, I think the debating should be left to the debaters in the room, not authors or coaches who cut the cards.

If you read a great piece of evidence but can't explain the warrants and your opponent reads a mediocre piece of evidence and can, I'm more likely to side with your opponent.

I debated policy and then switched to LD on the national circuit as part of GBN's team and have since coached policy at various high schools across the country. I can handle any speed, as long as its clear and you slow down tags. I have a philosophy degree focusing on language, ethics, and political philosophy. This means that I have likely read most of your authors and that if you want to run moralistic based arguments or K's in front of me, make sure to do them well. In my opinion the most important thing in an argument is its warrants. Thus, if you fail to mention the "why" when extending, I'm going to have a hard time evaluating your argument. As long as you do this, I don't care whether you run personal narratives, bring a painting into the room for your K, etc.

If there is a place where it's easy to vote off of, that's where I'll look to. So if one part of the flow has been cleanly extended the entire time while another part has ink from both sides, I will more than likely vote off of the first part.

I am a parent judge with my two girls enrolled in debates.

- No spreading, speak loud and clear at a reasonable pace. If you speak too quickly, I may not get all of your arguments down and understand what you are saying. Quality of arguments/evidence over quantity.

- Respectful to each other and present yourself well. Do not talk over your opponent. Discourtesy will result in deducted speaker points.

- Always have a framework or prove that your case supports the opponent's framework better.

- Use credible evidence and logic to back up your claims and attack an opponent's case. Explain why your impacts matter more than your opponent's. Your rationale should be clear so that your opponent can adequately address your points. Don't just attack, you need to defend.

- Signpost your arguments/rebuttals

- Your summaries should be to clean up anything vague or muddled, and final focus to make me vote for you. Everything in the final focus must also be in the summary speech. If something isn't in summary, don't bring it up in the final focus.

- Please track your time. You may finish a thought after time ends, but do not abuse this by adding multiple sentences or thoughts when I call for time should end.

- I value the time and energy you have invested in debate and will make sure to be a thoughtful, attentive judge. Just debate and have fun.

- For the virtual tournaments, my decision is not influenced with the issue of technical difficulties debaters might have during the round. However, please try to resolve technical issues during the tech check before the round. My decision-making and comments are related only to the content and quality of the presentation or speech itself.

NSDA’s Online Tournament Guide

namdhari@umich.edu

Update for TOC 2024:

I haven't debated in a minute but here's my background: Did PF for 1.5 years, switched to LD my senior year and qualified to the TOC. Since college, I haven't actively competed / judged PF occasionally, my overall preferences / views on debate haven't changed significantly but I'd place a significantly higher emphasis on deep research and evidence quality. Additionally, my tolerance for tricks / friv theory / clash evasive strategies is generally a lot lower than it used to be -- that being said I'm probably still more receptive to this than most PF judges and won't hack against it, just might not be as good at judging these rounds and will over-reward high-level strategic round vision in these debates.

With that in mind the below paradigm is largely up to date, and happy to answer any questions in round or prior via email.

Things that might need to have more emphasis given how long it's been since I debated (especially for PF):

1] Clarity -- please signpost clearly and slow down a little on taglines, I don't flow off the doc and won't go back unless you've marked cards.

2] Overviews / Round Vision -- Tell me what you're going to do before you do it, even if this is just 3 seconds of "High risk of a DA outweighs a mitigated case" at the top of the 2NR, it helps me know what's happening strategically, don't feel the need to overdo this compared to other rounds but if you don't do this already, try to do it (I promise other judges will also thank you with speaks boosts!)

3] Packaging / Simplicity -- In and out of debate I've realized that regardless of how complex arguments are going in, the hallmark of competence is being able to explain it simply. I used to be more on the side of thinking I'm stupid in these debates when the 2nr/2ar is unclear and going back through cards, rereading taglines and overviews to try and get an understanding of what was said. Today, I'll err more on the side of punishing you for long jargon-filled overviews, extension blocks that aren't tailored to the round and not being able to explain/contextualize your arguments in a simple way

4] I don't know the topic lol

5] I don't know if evidence ethics / file sharing standards in PF have gotten better over the years but I have absolutely zero tolerance -- send out docs (don't waste time/steal prep asking for cards) and don't miscut/paraphrase.

Paradigm:

I don't think you should worry about reading this too closely, I'll evaluate any argument however you tell me to in round and I will try to be as tab as possible butI do have biases which while I can try to keep them out of debate, some will implicitly be present and I feel like it would be better for me to make you aware of them rather than pretend they don't exist.

TL/DR: These are just my preferences as to what I believe is good for debate I won't default one way or another unless there is absolutely no pushback from either side.

Regardless, a ranking of how familiar I am with things:

Policy/K/T - 1

T-FW/K Affs - 1

Theory - 2

Phil - 2

Dense Phil/ Pomo read as an NC - 3/4

Tricks - 4/5

K vs K debates -- 4/5 (I like them but I'm a coinflip heavily weighted towards the perm)

K Affs vs FW

- Been on both sides and these are my favorite debates to judge however I probably do lean slightly neg.

- CI's are good to resolve some offense and provide uqs for an impact turn but it's not necessary.

- 2N's need to do a better job winning the terminal impact to FW, don't overinvest into reading long blocks that explain why the aff is unfair/decks clash because let's be honest, they aren't gonna contest that most of the time, focus on implicating why that is important both in the context of debate and in the context of the affirmative.

- Framework 2nr's I've thought were excellent often use the same verbiage as the aff instead of using long o/v blocks.

- TVA/SSD to resolve some offense is good, even if it doesn't

- 7 minute 2nr's entirely on the case page often get confusing for me when they lack good judge instruction -- try and be clear as to what you are doing on teh case page before you get into the lbl

K

- good for larp v k

- bad for k v k (biased towards the perm + often get confused a lot); if I do end up unfortunately judging one of these, judge instruction is paramount. I will evaluate these debates generally knowing that theories of power are largely compatible. So, my ballot will be a reflection of differences between the aff and the alternative and the impact to those differences. If the difference between the two indicates the alt is worse than the aff, I vote aff. If the difference between the two indicates the alt is better than the aff, I vote neg.

- lbl > long o/v's

- Framework CI = you don't need an alt unless the aff says you do and winning links is sufficient if you've won framework

- Alts that result in the aff are fine absent a 1ar warrant why they aren't (being shady in cx is kinda annoying tho)

- Only understand cap, Moten/Harney, Warren (never read this in round), and a little bit of Baudrillard -- explanation is good.

- All the interactions that people consider "k tricks" should be implicated in the 1nc or else 2ar answers are justified (saying lines in the card make the claim most often doesn't really count)

LARP

- Like this a lot

- UQS prolly controls link direction

- all cp theory can be dtd granted a warrant

- hate reading cards and I will stay away from it as much as possible but end up having to read ev in most rounds.

- defense is underrated and can def be terminal if implicated as such (i.e: bill alr passed prolly is terminal)

- solves case explanation can be new in the 2nr as long as it was in 1nc evidence

- perm shields the link/cp links to nb -- explain these args to me! I'm not v smart/takes me time esp since I don't know the topic lit most likely

Phil

- Haven't read anything besides util/Kant and a little prag -- think it's hella interesting doe if that counts for anything

- Weighing is important, spend more time explaining your syllogism and why that excludes theirs.

- TJF's prolly o/w and are the move if I'm in the back

- weird complex ev mandates not-weird not-complex explanation

Theory

- Like this

- Weigh between standards

- low threshold to vote on rvis -- still need to justify them and w/e

- reasonability should be explained and is v strategic at times -- I will not vote on an RVI if you are going for reasonability obviously

Tricks

- will vote on these as long they are implicated fully in the speech they are read

- I can't flow for my life so like try and slow down a Lil bit

Evidence Ethics

- did pf for 2 years, cut cards weren't a thing, people paraphrased, the average card was shorter than T definitions, and evidence was sent via url's + ctrl F -- I really don't care at all about ev ethics until it's mentioned but i'm p sure my standards for ev ethics are very stringent so if you do call it out/stake the round on it in PF you will probably win 90% of the time

- if staking the round, that should happen the moment the violation is called out. -- don't read a shell and debate it out until the 2ar and then decide you wanna stake the round instead

(i.e: Miscut 1AC ev means you should stake the round immediately after you see it BUT at the very latest after 1nc cross)

Misc:

- I'm cool with post rounding -- not cool w/aggressive or toxic post rounding

- Clear judge instruction is really helpful

- Hate it when people steal prep

- hate unclear signposting

- Record your speeches in case audio cuts out

- time yourself and stop at the timer. (pls)

Hey there! I debated PF all four years in HS on the texas and national circuit, graduated from Plano West '21. Put me on the email chain: alynie@wharton.upenn.edu

• An extension is a (brief) explanation of what the argument is, what the link from the resolution is, and what the impact is. You must do all three for me in both summary + ff to evaluate this argument at the end of the round. You don't have to frontline in 2nd rebuttal.
• Speaking of offense, here's how I vote: After the rounds over, I look for remaining, withstanding offense for both sides (this means any offense extended in both summary & final focus with no terminal defense on it). Offense needs to be compatible (ie. i don't buy two arguments simultaneously if they fundamentally contradict; I'll resolve it otherwise). If both sides have offense, I'll then vote based on whatever weighing/framing you have done; otherwise, if there is no comparative weighing, I'll make my own judgment. If neither side has offense, I'll vote on the closest thing to offense I can find. I'm pretty receptive to whatever weird strategy in the back half you go for (dropping case for turns, etc)!
• I'll disclose if I can. You can ask for feedback, and post-rounding is totally fine. I think it's my responsibility to articulate an RFD everyone understands, and I'll drop you with 30s if you can reasonably convince me I was wrong (ofc, given it's a productive discussion).
• I care about making the round a positive experience for everyone! Just don't be a terrible person and you should be okay in this regard.

henrynomeland@gmail.com

I look at the chain to check evidence. I won't be flowing off of a doc.

Debated circuit PF for Lakeville. I study Statistics at UW-Madison. Briefly did instructing/coaching after High School.

UPDATED FOR TOC 2024

I haven't thought a lot about debate since around 2021 so keep that in mind.

PLEASE be chill and nice to everyone in crossfire and during speeches.

I flow extensions and care about them being good.

Have cards. Avoid going for multiple case arguments in summary. Have your evidence ready to be sent I'm fed up with ridiculously long evidence exchanges.

My favorite arguments are relatively niche, relatively small impact scenarios concerning interest groups that get less attention in most debates.

I evaluate arguments and not the labels of arguments. Pointing out that your opponent's responses don't use the jargon and preconceived frameworks that you're anticipating them to use isn't going to win my ballot.

Voting where debaters tell me to vote >>> Voting where I personally think you messed up

I prefer debaters who call out their opponent’s mistakes.

If everyone is making mistakes, I generally try to give each side some risk of offense and attempt to vote off of clash/defense/weighing. If there's no clash and no weighing I will be sad.

Prog Stuff

I would seriously prefer to judge a substance round. I don't understand postmodernism, philosophy, and the state of debate discourse over the past three years nearly well enough to judge these issues as accurately as many other judges. This being said,I will vote for reasonable arguments that you win and weigh. I debated theory a lot more than Ks when I was in debate. Frivolous theory, truth testing, and tricks are bad and my threshold for responses is low. In particularly egregious cases I will simply not vote for arguments along these lines, even if they survive to final focus.

Other Stuff

These people taught me debate:

Maddie Cook

Bryce Piotrowski

Gus Gerlach

I reserve the right to drop you for making the space unsafe.

I also reserve the right to drop you for blatantly violating NSDA or tournament rules (there are probably rules that are bad, I promise I won't arbitrarily enforce bad rules or trivial technicalities). Fabricating or egregiously misrepresenting evidence is basically always an instant loss.

Any online tournament: nfromuspf@gmail.com

Hey! I debated two years on the circuit for University School under the code University MN (you can tab stalk if you want). I am a standard tech judge.

PS:

1) Defense is not sticky

2) I really care about extension of arguments

3) turns need to be weighed if you want me to vote on them

Add me to the chain - Aidin123@berkeley.edu

ASU LD: Do what you do best. Though within progressive-based arguments, I have a better understanding of some arguments over others; below is a quick look for prefs:

1 - Policy/Traditional

2 - Theory, Common K's (Cap, Set-col, etc..)

3 - Phil, Whacky K's (Need more explanation for me to evaluate fairly)

5/Strike - Non-T K Aff's, Tricks, Friv Theory (I do not have the background that I think I need to have to evaluate all arguments fairly and to the quality that you deserve, and friv theory is just an incredibly annoying nuisance)

- Scroll to the bottom for some additional specifics about things

- I haven't judged fast debate in like a year so please please start slow and build into it I need to adjust back.

LD at the bottom:

Just call me Aidin

UC Berkeley Chemistry 23' GO BEARS! BOO PINE TREES!

LD Coach Park City (2020 - Present)

TLDR;

I'm a very expressive person if my face says I hate it. It means I hate it. If I nod or smile, I like what you're saying. Follow the faces

I hate extinction level impacts! I think they create lazy debating where there is a convoluted link chain that will never remotely happen, BUT UTIL!!! So you can run extinction, but to your opponents say MAD.

Impact turns anything that isn't morally repugnant -- corruption, terrorism, oil prices -- because there are two sides to every story

I will say clear three times before I stop flowing altogether. Whatever is not on the flow is not going to be evaluated. PLEASE SIGNPOST!

Weigh, weigh, weigh, weigh a little more, and then after weighing, weigh again for good measure

Write the ballot for me in the last speech; the easier it is for me to vote for, the more likely you are to win

Utah Circuit: I debated a lot on the local circuit and now judge a lot. Have impacts and weigh.

- One rule: An extension is not an extension without an explanation and warranting behind it. I will not flow "Extend Contention 3," and that's it.

PF:

Follow my dearest friend Gavin Serr's paradigms for a more comprehensive look at how I would judge PF.

BIGGEST THINGS

- Don't steal prep - It's not hard to start and stop a timer.

- I default Neg. If there is no offense from either side, I'll stick with the status quo

- It's not an argument without a warrant

- A dropped argument is true, but that doesn't mean it matters. I need reasons why the extension matters. I'm not voting on something that I don't know the implications of it.

- Reading a card is part of the prep, without a doubt.

- If you want me to read a card indite, it's not my job as a judge to win you the round.

- If you will talk about marginalized people, framing and overviews are your friends.

- Please have link extensions in both the summary and FF

- Weighing requires a comparison and why the way you compare is better. Which is better, magnitude or timeframe? IDK, you tell me.

LD:

LARP

Solvency

DAs need to have solid internal links

Offense on the DA needs to be responded to even if kicked

Perms need to be contextualized

K's

A flushed-out link story is fabulous; do this every time you run a K.

line by line analysis is of the utmost importance

explanation and quality is better than quantity; I do not vote on things I do not understand, so take the safe route and spend a little more time explaining 5 arguments than dumping 15 that are all blippy

Use a framework and weighing case as your friend.

AFF - please extend and weigh case

Theory

I love the theory. Few caveats, however.

1) I hate frivolous theory. If you run condo bad on 1 or 2 off, I will likely drop your speaks because you're annoying. That being said, please respond to it, but the more frivolous it is, the lower my threshold for responses to it.

2) Disclosure is a MUST. Don't run disclosure theory if your opponent doesn't know what the wiki is. You don't need to disclose new aff's. 30 is enough time to prep.

3) Please WEIGH as much as possible I don't know the difference between an opponent winning time screw and another winning on the ground.

4) Competing interps - The less I intervene, the better for y'all, especially on the highest layer of debate where the round is won or lost. So I try to limit "gut checks" and reasonability unless otherwise told to in the round.

5) No RVI's default but can be changed with hearty effort

6) Please slow down on theory; it's hard to flow everything at top speed, especially if it's not carded and has 5 sub-points.

How I write my RFD's: “Sometimes I’ll start a sentence and I don’t even know where it’s going. I just hope I find it along the way.” - Michael Scott

How I give my RFDs: “I talk a lot, so I’ve learned to tune myself out.” - Kelly Kapoor

How I feel judging: “If I don’t have some cake soon, I might die.” - Stanley Hudson

What I want to do instead of judging: “I just want to lie on the beach and eat hot dogs. That’s all I’ve ever wanted.” - Kevin Malone

What happens when no one weighs: “And I knew exactly what to do. But in a much more real sense, I had no idea what to do.” - Michael Scott

Have questions about chemistry or Berkeley? Ask away

Debate is something to be proud of, win or lose, and have a smile on your face.

andrew.w.pan@gmail.com

collapse

extend

weigh

run ks, theory, trix, whatever. i default to competing interps.

Updated 4/11/23* Email: yungprk23@gmail.com

Me - I debated for Clovis North from 2012-2016. I debated for Cal from 2016-2018. Prior coach for Clovis North and BAUDL. Current coach for Leland High School.

Debate: Debate is a game, maybe it's more than just a game. I find myself adjudicating lots of these debates, and I find these discussions very interesting. Tell me what I should prefer. Some personal thoughts of mine for sake of transparency: I would like to believe that while we are all here to win, debate does have value to influence beliefs, inspire others, serve a platform for performances, and offer community for some. However, it is almost indisputable that competition, maybe for the sake of gamesmanship or maybe not, sustains the activity because it enables debaters to do what they need to do to win. Other side notes: I am indifferent to either a 9 off or 1 off strat, but what you decide to do might demonstrate some validity for conditionality arguments. Teams that treat their speeches as a story rather than a speech doc tend to be more engaging.

Topicality: The more you articulate your impacts or what the neg ground looks like in the world of the affirmative the better. If you want to run more than 3 T arguments, be my guest. Though when teams do this, explanations naturally tend to become repetitive. I will let the debaters choose if I will be weighing competing interpretations over reasonability or vice versa as long as you give a reason why one is better than the other.

Disads: Impact framing such as time frame and case turns are very persuasive arguments to me. External impacts also help me weigh the disad easily.

Counterplans: Do read solvency cards, or at least have a clear articulation of how the CP solves the aff. I don't necessarily need a specific solvency card if exploiting a plan flaw or reading a PIC. Net benefits to the CP vs external add-ons against the CP are often where I hang my decisions. Affirmatives should use their advantages as disads to the CP and pick out solvency deficits from the counterplan text.

Theory: It's a strategic procedural argument. I don't necessarily have strong feelings toward any theoretical positions. I am okay with teams reading 10 off or PICs that do the aff and spend 1 less dollar. However, this gives the other team more credibility if they read theory, but you could care less if you feel confident defending your position. I judge theory the same as I judge any other argument on the flow ie: impact calculus.

Framework/K Affs: - I've been on both sides of the argument, and I tend to judge these debates the majority of the time. For framework, offensive reasons why your interpretation matters in the debate and what the aff does to affect the general principles of the game. I am persuaded by arguments that list what specific affs under their counter-interp explode the limits of the topic. TVA's gain a large advantage over your opponents for strategic reasons. Both theoretical and substantive framework are great so long as you demonstrate your impacts whether that be fairness, movements, etc. Fairness can be a terminal impact. However, fairness can also not be an impact. Tell me what I should think of fairness and persuade me. Otherwise, movements/policy education are also great impacts. For K affirmatives, have some relationship to the topic whether that be negative or positive. Explain why you chose not to go through with traditional policy affirmatives and/or what model of debate you envision to be better. Impact turning framework or having internal link turns with residual offense are absolutely fine arguments.

Kritiks: Most of my experience lies here, but that doesn't mean i'll favor or give you leverage on your arguments in any way, it just means I know the literature enough to give better feedback and etc. High theory is strategic and fine but do be careful about buzzwords that aren't explained and assumed to be made true. Kritiks must be context specific to the aff. Just some of the authors I have knowledge of that might be useful: Marx, Wilderson, Lacan, Deleuze, Baudrillard, Moten, Kroker, Puar, etc.

Performance: Can be very strategic and enjoyable. However, you must have reasons why your performance was good and necessary. I will not allow speech times to be broken or interrupted, mid-round coach interventions, or anything silly of that sort - debate is an argumentative competition, just beat them at it.

Case: Probably one of the most underrated arguments people go for nowadays. I think case-turns, impact defense and solvency deficits are perfect. They lower the threshold of any risk to vote aff as well as give me reasons to weigh your other off-case positions more. I am willing to vote neg on presumption.

LD/Public Forum/Parli: I will likely view the debate from a policy perspective. This does not mean you have to change your style of debate. For example, this does not mean LD debaters need to change their value-value criterion structure and the same applies for public forum and parli. After all, you should do what you do best. However, because of my policy background, technicality and quality of evidence is super important to me. You may also decide to spread and/or read a plan, counterplans, disads, kritiks, and performative arguments. I will vote on these arguments even if unconventional in the practice. However, the other side may assert a theoretical argument that spreading has no place in a non-policy context. They could also assert a framework argument that policy and critical debates are bad alternative models of debate. If you do lean into a policy/K debate, then please feel free to read the rest of my paradigm above. In short, I am fair game and will evaluate such arguments as long as it is justified.

General Notes:

- Ask permission to record

- Don't clip cards

- Have fun! I recognize debate is competitive, but life is much more than debate. There is a clear line between passion and aggression. Give the proper respect to the other team and if for some reason this becomes a problem, it will be reflected in your speaker points.

utd 26'

email: rahulpenumetcha10@gmail.com

NDT x2

Top Level -

The debate should be up to the debaters and I will not intervene - any of my opinions discussed below will not affect my decision-making process if any argument in the debate is made over them.

A lot of this philosophy (and my beliefs in debate) will echo austin kiihnl, kevin hirn, and julian habermann's philosophies'.

There is almost always a risk of any argument, its a question of how the debaters do calc as to which risk matters more

I will vote on any argument that I disagree with or is not true if the argument is won at a technical level (doesn't apply to non-negotiables)

"Evidence quality influences technical debating and I value good evidence highly"

"I have a fairly strong preference for organized, technical debating, and not debating in this way will probably make it a lot harder than you'd like for me to adjudicate the debate." (From Austin)

Notes:

-Analytics need to be used more (esp vs less truthful args)

-I won't judge kick unless told to

-I don't lean a certain way on cp theory but 2ac blippiness means the neg block has a low threshold to meet. I'm better than most for theory to make it into the 1AR but still, every cp theory other than condo is probably a reason to reject the arg

-We meet on T is a yes/no question - generally T debates are my favorite when done well.

-“I will weigh the aff unless convinced otherwise. I enjoy alt debating far, far more than FW. Aff-specific link explanation will be rewarded highly. I am most likely to vote for a K if it uses its critical theory and explanatory power to directly diminish aff solvency rather than try to access a larger impact. If debated like a critical CP, DA, and case push, you will be rewarded.” (From Julian)

-I've spent a decent amount of time reading critical literature with the most time spent on Calvin Warren, Frank Wilderson, Christina Shrape, Arthur Kroker, and Douglas Kellner in that order. This means my threshold for your explanation might inevitably be higher, however aff specific contextualization and the explanation of the theory of power on the line by line should overcome any gap in understanding.

-I have a sweet spot for impact turn debates.

-My evaluation of K affs vs FW is best for the aff when there is either a firm impact turn strategy with some metric to evaluate aff case offense or a counter interp that focuses on establishing an inroads to 2nr offense while solving external impacts. I'm better for the negative when the strategy is either hard right fairness and providing a metric to view aff offense through or a strategy that revolves around clash/fairness and establishing ways FW can solve aff offense via a TVA/SSD. If it matters I've been on the neg side of these debates slightly more than the aff.

Non-negotiables

Do not be racist, sexist, homophobic, or misgender.

CX is binding

I will not vote on anything that did not happen in the round because that is not what a judge ought to do.

If the debate can be made safer, accessible etc. Please let me know.

2024 update: I haven't judged in a while so just keep that in mind, most of the below isn't too relevant to pf but if you have any questions just let me know

Torrey Pines '19

Pronouns: he/him

Email: williamphong10@gmail.com

General

- I’ll vote for almost anything as long as it isn’t morally abhorrent

- go a bit slower bc of online debate, thanks :)

- Read whatever you want as long as you can explain it

- If you have any questions just ask before round or you can msg me on fb/email me

Defaults (can be changed if you make the args)

- Neg on presumption

- Drop the debater, competing interps, no rvi

CP - Should solve the case or part of it, have a solvency advocate, and be competitive with the aff. PIC’s are fine, 1-2 condo is fine, also open to aff theory against them.

DA – Disads are great, higher quality disads > higher quantity of disads.

Kritiks – My knowledge is mostly towards more basic k’s like cap, security, setcol, etc. It’s your job to articulate the k to make sure I understand - I'm not well read on a lot of lit bases and I might not know the jargon you use. Contextualize the k/links to the aff. High theory – really interesting but the extent of my knowledge is a 30 min lecture from Ronak and a bit of source reading so probably not a good idea.

K Affs – I like them and read them, but I don’t favor either side of the debate more than the other. Make sure you explain what the aff actually does.

Topicality – Convince me that your model/interp of debate is better than theirs.

T/FW - TVA arguments and case lists help me visualize the interpretation.

Theory – Good theory for me includes things like 50 state fiat bad, floating piks bad, disclosure, etc. Friv theory - I’ll still vote on it but the threshold for responding lowers the more friv it is.

Phil – I find philosophy interesting but I only have base level understanding of anything not util.

Tricks – 0 experience

kplunkett@stmdhs.org for cases/cards

Traditional judge, I prefer no spreading or Ks. I won't take off for them, but I encourage you not to!

• The easiest way to earn speaks is to clarify the voting issues and prove how and why you outweigh. I'll weigh the round based on the criteria you give me, so be sure to give me a metaphorical rubric!
• I'm a tabula rasa, so I'll vote exactly how you tell me. Hit your framework/V/VCs early and often.
• I like to see claim-warrant-impact. I flow what you say, not what I think you mean.
• Spreading will not affect your speaks, but I prefer conversational speed and good delivery. Quality, not quantity, for arguments.
• Cards should be clearly cited and available for review should there be a conflict over source validity or context. Clipping will not be tolerated.
• Signpost - reference the contention # or subpoint in speeches and CX.
• CX is for questions, not rebuttals.

this is my most up to date paradigm:

https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=123673

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

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

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

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

Philosophy:

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

Do not

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

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

I do not like

1. Paraphrasing

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

3. No speech Docs.

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

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

This part is stolen from THE beach

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

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

I like these

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

Why do I care so much about good ev?

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

Strike me if you

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

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

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

Arguments:

1-5. 5 means I love

LARP: 5

Go crazy, idc. I mostly LARPed in HS

Framework: 4.5

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

T/Theory: 5

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

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

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

K : 4

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

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

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

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

Plans/CP : 5

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

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

DA: 5

- All good,weigh them!

Trix: 3

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

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

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

Speed: 4

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

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

Performance/Non T AFFs : 4

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

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

Presumption:

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

TKOS: 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am the head debate coach at James Madison Memorial HS (2002 - present)
I am the head debate coach at Madison West HS (2014 - present)
I was formerly an assistant at Appleton East (1999-2002)
I competed for 3 years (2 in LD) at Appleton East (1993-1996)

I am a plaintiff's employment/civil rights lawyer in real life. I coach (or coached, depending on the year) every event in both debate and IE, with most of my recent focus on PF, Congress, and Extemp. Politically I'm pretty close to what you'd presume about someone from Madison, WI.

Congress at the bottom.

PF

(For online touraments) Send me case/speech docs at the start please (timscheff@aol.com) email or sharing a google doc is fine, I don't much care if I don't have access to it after the round if you delink me or if you ask me to delete it from my inbox. I have a little trouble picking up finer details in rounds where connections are fuzzy and would rather not have to ask mid round to finish my flow.
(WDCA if a team is uncomfortable sharing up front that's fine, but any called evidence should then be shared).

If your ev is misleading as cut/paraphrased or is cited contrary to the body of the evidence, I get unhappy. If I notice a problem independently there is a chance I will intervene and ignore the ev, even without an argument by your opponent. My first role has to be an educator maintaining academic honesty standards. You could still pick up if there is a path to a ballot elsewhere. If your opponents call it out and it's meaningful I will entertain voting for a theory type argument that justifies a ballot.

I prefer a team that continues to tell a consistent story/advocacy through the round. I do not believe a first speaking team's rebuttal needs to do more than refute the opposition's case and deal with framework issues. The second speaking team ideally should start to rebuild in the rebuttal; I don't hold it to be mandatory but I find it much harder to vote for a team that doesn't absent an incredible summary. What is near mandatory is that if you are going to go for it in the Final Focus, it should probably be extended in the Summary. I will give cross-x enough weight that if your opponents open the door to bringing the argument back in the grand cross, I'll still consider it.

Rate wise going quick is fine but there should be discernible variations in rate and/or tone to still emphasize the important things. If you plan on referring to arguments by author be very sure the citations are clear and articulated well enough for me to get it on my flow.

I'm a fairly staunch proponent of paraphrasing. It's an academically more realistic exercise. It also means you need to have put in the work to understand the source (hopefully) and have to be organized enough to pull it up on demand and show what you've analyzed (or else). A really good quotation used in full (or close to it) is still a great device to use. In my experience as a coach I've run into more evidence ethics, by far, with carded evidence, especially when teams only have a card, or they've done horrible Frankenstein chop-jobs on the evidence, forcing it into the quotation a team wants rather than what the author said. Carded evidence also seems to encourage increases in speed of delivery to get around the fact that an author with no page limit's argument is trying to be crammed into 4 min of speech time. Unless its an accommodation for a debater, if you need to share speech docs before a speech, something's probably gone a bit wrong with the world.
On this vein, I've developed a fairly keen annoyance with judges who outright say "no paraphrasing." It's simply not something any team can reasonably adapt to in the context of a tournament. I'm not sure how much the teams of the judges or coaches taking this position would be pleased with me saying I don't listen to cards or I won't listen to a card unless it's read 100% in full (If you line down anything, I call it invalid). It's the #1 thing where I'm getting tempted to pull the trigger on a reciprocity paradigm.

Exchange of evidence is not optional if it is asked for. I will follow the direction of a tournament on the exchange timing, however, absent knowledge of a specific rule, I will not run prep for either side when a reasonable number of sources are requested. Debaters can prep during this time as you should be able to produce sources in a reasonable amount of time and "not prepping" is a bit of a fiction and/or breaks up the flow of the round.

Citations should include a date when presented if that date will be important to the framing of the issue/solution, though it's not a bad practice to include them anyhow. More important, sources should be by author name if they are academic, or publication if journalistic (with the exception of columnists hired for their expertise). This means "Harvard says" is probably incorrect because it's doubtful the institution has an official position on the policy, similarly an academic journal/law review publishes the work of academics who own their advocacy, not the journal. I will usually ask for sources if during the course of the round the claims appear to be presented inconsistently to me or something doesn't sound right, regardless of a challenge, and if the evidence is not presented accurately, act on it.

Speaker points. Factors lending to increased points: Speaking with inflection to emphasize important things, clear organization, c-x used to create ground and/or focus the clash in the round, and telling a very clear story (or under/over view) that adapts to the actual arguments made. Factors leading to decreased points: unclear speaking, prep time theft (if you say end prep, that doesn't mean end prep and do another 10 seconds), making statements/answering answers in c-x, straw-man-ing opponents arguments, claiming opponent drops when answers were made, and, the fastest way for points to plummet, incivility during c-x. Because speaker points are meaningless in out rounds, the only way I can think of addressing incivility is to simply stop flowing the offending team(s) for the rest of the round.

Finally, I flow as completely as I can, generally in enough detail that I could debate with it. However, I'm continually temped to follow a "judge a team as they are judging yours" versus a "judge a team as you would want yours judged" rule. Particularly at high-stakes tournaments, including the TOC, I've had my teams judged by a judge who makes little or no effort to flow. I can't imagine any team at one of those tournaments happy with that type of experience yet those judges still represent them. I think lay-sourced judges and the adaptation required is a good skill and check on the event, but a minimum training and expectation of norms should be communicated to them with an attempt to comply with them. To a certain degree this problem creates a competitive inequity - other teams face the extreme randomness imposed by a judge who does not track arguments as they are made and answered - yet that judge's team avoids it. I've yet to hit the right confluence of events where I'd actually adopt "untrained lay" as a paradigm, but it may happen sometime. [UPDATE: I've gotten to do a few no-real-flow lay judging rounds this year thanks to the increase in lay judges at online tournaments]. Bottom line, if you are bringing judges that are lay, you should probably be debating as if they are your audience.

CONGRESS
The later in the cycle you speak, the more rebuttal your speech should include. Repeating the same points as a prior speaker is probably not your best use of time.

If you speak on a side, vote on that side if there wasn't an amendment. If you abstain, I should understand why you are abstaining (like a subsequent amendment contrary to your position).

I'm not opposed to hearing friendly questions in c-x as a way to advance your side's position if they are done smartly. If your compatriot handles it well, points to you both. If they fumble it, no harm to you and negative for them. C-x doesn't usually factor heavily into my rankings, often just being a tie breaker for people I see as roughly equal in their performance.

For the love of God, if it's not a scenario/morning hour/etc. where full participation on a single issue is expected, call to question already. With expanded questioning now standard, you don't need to speak on everything to stay on my mind. Late cycle speeches rarely offer something new and it's far more likely you will harm yourself with a late speech than help. If you are speaking on the same side in succession it's almost certain you will harm yourself, and opposing a motion to call to question to allow successive speeches on only one side will also reflect as a non-positive.

A good sponsorship speech, particularly one that clarifies vagueness and lays out solvency vs. vaguely talking about the general issue (because, yeah, we know climate change is bad, what about this bill helps fix it), is the easiest speech for me to score well. You have the power to frame the debate because you are establishing the legislative intent of the bill, sometimes in ways that actually move the debate away from people's initially prepped positions.

In a chamber where no one has wanted to sponsor or first negate a bill, especially given you all were able to set a docket, few things make me want to give a total round loss, than getting no speakers and someone moving for a prep-time recess. This happened in the TOC finals two years ago, on every bill. My top ranks went to the people who accepted the responsibility to the debate and their side to give those early speeches.

Hello, welcome to my paradigm! I debated for 4 years in high school and I was also involved in a lot of speech events (e.g. impromptu, poetry and oratory). While I was a teacher, I also served as a coach for middle school speech and debate for 2 years.

Things I appreciate:

(1) Solid, current evidence coupled with logical analysis. I find it frustrating when debaters try to squeeze massive impacts out of lukewarm evidence. I wish debaters would go for higher probability, lower magnitude impacts. It’s okay if you claim global war as an impact, I am just inclined to find it a steep hill to conquer.

(2) I really appreciate good manners in debate.

(3) If this is an online tournament, please turn your camera on and try to look as presentable as possible. I think it devalues the experience if we can't see each other. I promise I'll also turn my camera on, too!

Things I don't appreciate

(1) Protracted arguments about a studies' methodology or an author's credibility. If there is a critical issue with a key piece of evidence, please just make the issue clear in a speech or cross. I’ll be sure to call the evidence and do my best to read it thoroughly.

(2) Rudeness/shadiness: Please be professional and courteous to one another. Please promptly provide evidence to your opponents if requested and do not attempt to verbally contextualize evidence as you are handing it over.

To tell you the truth, I'm not sure that reading a paradigm ever gave me tactical insight as a debater, but I hope you find this useful. I love debate and I love that you are invested enough in the proactively to read paradigms. Good luck!

(Scroll down for my PF paradigm)

Defaults

Comparative Worlds

Theory/T -> K -> Case

Reasonability

Drop the arg

No RVI

Fairness

Ethical Certainty

Presume Neg

Quals:

I do LD. I've qualled to the toc and reached deep elims in a few tournaments.

Disclaimer: I haven't done anything debate-related for two years, so I will be rusty with getting back into it.

LD:

Framework: I enjoy framework debates. Although I am a progressive debater, I do understand and can vote off of framework if sufficient enough for me. Just remember to extend reasons as to why your framework should take precedence in this round. Also, don't confuse your case with the framework and cross-apply your case arguments to justify your framework. They are two very different layers of debate.

Kritiks: Kritiks are my favorite part of debate. If you are planning to run a K, please make sure you understand how to debate a K and know sufficiently about the K to debate it.

Theory: When there is real in-round abuse, I think theory is a good check to it. However, when you run theory just for the sake of winning, it's annoying. I will vote off frivolous theory and a priori arguments but with very great displeasure (expect a drop of speaker points). Disclosure is probably good.

Topicality: Topicality arguments are great.

P/CP: Case arguments that pertain to the topic are great. I like clever plans and counter-plans. PiCs are great as well. I'll take whatever you got but remember to extend.

Contentions: If you aren't a progressive debater, this may seem more familiar to you. I am completely fine with lay and traditional arguments, and don't let the previous stuff scare you into thinking that.

Extend: If you don't extend your case in the rebuttal speeches, I'm not going to flow it through the round.

Impact Calculus: I, as the judge, can't attach a value as to how I'm going to judge an argument if you don't tell me how to assign that value. Please remember to weigh your arguments and be explicit.

Add me to the email chain if you are spreading: jungwoo.seo@emory.edu

Please don't spread if your opponents can't either; it's abusive and doesn't promote educational practices that way.

PF:

If you're going to be fast, don't read paraphrased evidence. I will not flow it.

Framework: Although I know that PF is more of a contention level debate, I have seen interesting frameworks being used, so I'm open to new and interesting frameworks that work on proving your point. I default to CBA if no framework is mentioned.

Contentions: You are free to use whatever arguments that you think may help you and if I think you won that, I'll vote for it.

Crossfire: I think crossfire is my favorite part of PF debate. Please keep it civil but don't be afraid to make some sassy comments or ask good questions.

Extend: If you don't extend your case in the summary speech, I'm not going to flow it through the round.

Impact Calculus: This is critical, especially in public forum. I, as the judge, can't attach a value as to how I'm going to judge an argument if you don't tell me how to assign that value. Please remember to weigh your arguments.

Defense: Defense is not "sticky." You need to cleanly extend the defense you want me to evaluate in the summary and ff if you want me to evaluate it.

Theory: I will evaluate theory just as how it is evaluated in LD and CX. You do not need to ask your opponent if you can run theory or not; that's silly.

Please don't shake my hand, thanks.

Hi!

I'm a senior PF debater for Churchill. My pronouns are she/her.

- Tech > Truth

- I vote off the flow

How to win:

- Make sure to weigh and make it comparative. Please don't make me do this for you!

- Warrant and implicate your arguments. Tell me why something happens and why that matters

- Frontline in second rebuttal

- Extend & collapse!

Other things to keep in mind:

- Speed: I'm okay with speed, just don't spread. I would prefer that you go slower though.

- Online debate: CUT YOUR CARDS PLEASE!! Don't paste a link into the chat and say Ctrl F for x. Please start a card exchange doc/email chain at the beginning of round if the tournament allows.

- Please time your own prep and speeches

- Theory & Ks: I have limited experience with both so run at your own risk

- Read a content warning/send out an anonymous form if you're reading something on a sensitive topic

- Don't be racist, sexist, xenophobic, homophobic, etc. (I will drop you)

- I will disclose my decision at the end of the round if the tournament allows

- Feel free to ask questions about my preferences before round!

Have fun and good luck! :)

My methodology envisages a three pronged approach

Depth of research that the participants have undertaken in order to build up their arguments

Clarity of thoughts and synchronization of various cues to support the position

Presentation of position and thoughts in an erudite manner.

While clarity of presentation is highly marked sometimes participants manifests it as being argumentation or aggression which indeed are treated as negative scores in my paradigm.

I have 3 years of public forum debate in high school and I've competed in multiple national tournaments. In order for your team to win, be clear in your weighing. Although I can handle speed reading, try to be clear and make sure I can understand every word. Be respectful to each other and have fun!

Hi, I'm Devon Shewell, and my pronouns are he/him/his.

I debated for four years in Missouri (Near Kanas City), and my main focus was on Congress and LD, but I am also quite experienced in PF and Extemp. I go to Vanderbilt now and study Philosophy and Communication Studies.

Some general stuff - regardless of the type of event, use good evidence if it's needed, use organization in your speeches, and don't be a bad person. Please don't waste my time, your time, or your opponent's time. I high-key like voting issues (in congress make them to your colleagues, in LD/PF/Policy make them to me).

Adding this cause it hasn't happened much - please give me weighing mechanisms and tell me how to evaluate the round.

PF

Give me weighing mechanisms/framework. Focus on strong internal structure within your speeches and give me lots of signposting. I look for each speech to serve a purpose towards the round, and for teams to be strategic in how they choose to extend arguments and which arguments slip out of the debate. Don't feel like you need to hit every single point in the round during every speech, some stuff won't be relevant and that's okay - just don't bring something up in the constructive and then never talk about it again until the FF. I will be flowing the rounds, and if you want something to be in the last row of my flow (FF), it needs to be extended. Please give me some voting issues and try to "write my ballot" for me towards the end of the round.

LD

In LD, I am open to just about anything. That being said, I come from a relatively traditional LD Debate Background. I try to come to every round as an entirely blank slate that will mold to the round. I will judge you off the flow, but I am not opposed to people stepping out of the line-by-line norm. The round, although judging from the flow, is like a story. If you can tell the story better, I am inclined to vote for you. Of course, be sure that your evidence is good - if you are paraphrasing evidence, summarizing evidence, or doing the "reading bolded sections thing," you should make that clear, especially when sharing evidence. If you send me a card that is two pages long but only selectively reads two sentences, I'm going to think that's pretty suspect. Other than that, I am open to watching debates as they unfold - ask questions if you have them before the round.

If you are going to read Philosophy style frameworks it better make sense. Just cause you say Util is the framework doesn't mean I will accept it (unless your opp does too). You need to explain why frameworks are optimal, not just that you have one.

If you are wondering what my LD Style/Background is like, I come from the Heart of America District where I was a national qualifier - check out either of the wonderful debaters from the 2017 NSDA National Championship (shoutout Natalie and Nathan) or the 2019 NSDA Championship (shoutout Grace) to see what that debate looks like.

Virtually - Please include me on the email chain if necessary.

Please don't go crazy with speed. I can flow it, but if I can't understand or comprehend the argument in time, I don't think it helps you.

I really enjoy a good theoretical argument.

Good structure within speeches, both for the speech itself and within arguments, is great.

Speaker points will be high if you are clear, nice, insightful/witty, and signpost well. I also really appreciate it if you are not reading off blocks and prewritten responses to the entire debate. If you are funny, it's a plus, but not everyone can be funny (sorry), so if you aren't funny, don't worry about it. Generally, everyone gets pretty good speaker points. You can swear if you want to, I don't care - don't be mean though.

Give me good evidence - I love academia

Don't be a bad person (Racism, homophobia, hateful, etc.)

Congress

Things I Really Don't Like (I'll probably drop you).

- In House recess to prep speeches - it's your obligation to prep before a tournament; if you are the PO, I think you should rule the motion dilatory. Don't waste everyone's time.

- Asking about the "split." Debate on the side of the legislation you believe in. Flipping sides and making arguments you don't care about is quite potentially the silliest thing I have ever seen.

- Not using evidence and not knowing what your evidence actually says.

- Not being willing to solve problems/address the issues.

- Reading Speeches

- Going overtime - you have 3 minutes.

- Having Stale Debate (It's okay to not speak on every bill. You have lots of legislation, if stuff is boring, move on)

- Being a bad person

My first and primary focus is on quality argumentation - it's a debate. I want quality evidence; however, there is no need for you to read card after card after card - give me analysis from the evidence. If you are giving a later speech, clash is expected. Please try to contextualize your arguments and humanize your impacts. Debate in what you believe in - debate the issues for the sake of debating the issues (not to have an "even split"). I won't mark down any particular arguments, but I have a bias towards arguments that makes the lives of human beings better (particularly on economic and foreign policy.)

Delivery and style do matter, but you don't win from it! If you can't persuasively explain your argument, it's hard for me to buy it. I'm not a big fan of the quirky congress rhetoric; I would much prefer you simply explain your argument. Structure your speeches clearly and signpost within them. Don't be afraid to give an early speech. I think a good constructive explains what the legislation does (references legislation) and doesn't get caught up in nuances. Make sure you know what type of speech you are giving. i.e.) if it is six speeches deep on a topic, don't give a constructive speech. I have no preference for when you speak. However, if it is a longer round, and you have the chance to speak multiple times, it would benefit you to showcase different skills by giving different types of speeches.

I have a lot of respect for people who make arguments which they believe in. If you debate what you believe in, it should reward you. I also really respect people who give a speech when the chamber needs a speech; the most frustrating thing to me is taking a recess to prep a speech. If you give a totally extemporaneous speech because nobody else in the chamber is willing to speak, you will be looked at favorably.

Presiding Officer - I will hold you to a very high standard. Maintain order and keep track of everything (I will as well). Enforce time limits on speeches and questioning. Tell me about your procedures before the round starts. I also understand that in the virtual setting, some things are exceptionally difficult; if you prioritize fairness, you should be good. I am more than happy to give the PO a 1.

If you are a real nerd, you can see what I like as a PO (cause it's what I did) by finding my time as PO in the Nats final from 2018.

Other Notes on Ballots - High speech scores on your ballot do not directly lead to the best rankings. Everything will be put in the context of the round. I will try my best to give comments that actually help you improve. For so many of these rounds, everyone is very talented, ballots in those round may come across as critical of very small things, but that's how the decisions are made when everyone is good.

If you have any questions, my email is devonshewell@me.com

Lynbrook '21 qualled to TOC, captain my senior year.

run crazy stuffffffff i like squirrely arguments (theory, Ks, nuke war good) - debates boring

note: if im judging u in the morning im probably extremely tired. pls adjust accordingly :))

namansinghal101@gmail.com

im not that well versed in the topic yet for palm classic: have not heard a single round on the topic

Conflicts: Potomac, Lynbrook

tech > truth

prog

go for it

ask questions in round if ur unsure

speaks

make smart, strategic choices and youll get good speaks

if u buy me coffee auto 30

note: try not to be aggro (i don't care about cross anyways)

skip gcx if u please, but im only willing to make it 1 min of prep (not 3)

I keep meeting fellow folks in the debate community with my same conditions (migraines, nausea, fatigue, vertigo, chronic spinal pain, neurodivergent and on). I created this doc with stuff that's helped https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vYS4o8JEqE0N1BO-HsaDUEzNz_Ck-gFt4P5jK2WzPT4/edit

& a podcast for my fellow migraineur/chronic pain/chronic illness debaters https://open.spotify.com/episode/3Tk0Pr7MM61JNWFH7RTVtZ?si=DoOOrI8FQr2nrTh3JHW9Sw

BEFORE ROUND PLEASE READ:

Please email me the speech docs before your first speech & any evidence read after each rebuttal (-.5 speaker points if not). If you’re Aff do this before the round so we can start on time & if you're Neg you can do this before your speech but please have speech docs ready so this doesn't take long thanks! Copy & paste this email nickysmithphd@gmail.comif you sent it we’re good, no need to ask a bunch if I got it (internets slow at tourneys but it eventually works:)

I’m always ready, no need to check in with me before each speech (I sit down to flow & have a standing desk so then I don't have to sit and stand over and over messing up my flow :). Ironically, I also get up here & there to stretch (I do this during prep time) as I have Scheuermann's. Time each other including each other’s prep time & CX

Please don't have your timer super close to your mic (the high pitch beep isn't fun for vertigo/migraines thanks :).

Flex &/or running prep is fine. If we’re at a zoom tournament and video is making your audio choppy/etc then it’s fine to emphasize the audio as that’s the key:). Ps Tournaments Please if possible don’t start zoom rounds ridiculously early with the different time zones so debaters can do their best as well:)

PF: Please share the evidence you’re reading with your opponent before the round so half of the round isn’t “can I have this specific card” (it ruins the flow/pace of the round) thanks! Feel free to run disclosure theory every round I judge (aka drop my opponent for not disclosing their cases on the wiki, disclosure makes debate more accessible/educational) when your opponent doesn’t have their case on the wiki https://hspf.debatecoaches.org/ It makes debate more fair & outweighs if someone runs your case against you/your school as you should know how to block it anyway:).

Pronouns: they/them/theirs; genderqueer, no need for judge and please no mister, that’s my cat Mr Lambs. Nicky is fine:). If you insist on last name formalities, students have called me Dr Smith

Your oral RFD can be done as Gollum, John Mulaney or Elmo if you so choose.

I have coached Lincoln–Douglas debate as well as other forms of debate and speech since 2005.

I participated in debate throughout high school, won state twice, and was competitive on the national circuit (advanced far at Nationals and other prominent tournaments like Harvard, Valley, etc) so I understand the many different styles of debate that exist and the juggling you as debaters have to do in terms of judge paradigms. My goal is for you to learn/grow through this activity so feel free to ask any questions.

Big Picture:

I studied philosophy at Northwestern, my PhD was in sociology (intersectional social movements/criminal injustice system) at Berkeley/San Diego & have taught many courses in debate/theory at the graduate & secondary level so I love hearing unique arguments especially critical theory/strong advocacies/anything creative. When I judge debate, I flow throughout the round. I appreciate debaters who take time to crystallize, weigh arguments/clearly emphasize impacts (when appropriate), and who are inclusive in their debate style and argumentation. By this I mean debaters who respect pronouns, respect their opponents, and who work to make debate more accessible (as someone who has been disabled/queer since the time I competed, there is a lot more that needs to be done, but it starts with each of us and beyond the activity).

PRACTICES I LIKE:

- Taking risks to advance debate (such as using theory and arguments that are often ignored in debate both in high school and beyond, ie not the same several social contract theorists/arguments for every debate topic/round). Advocating, being creative, showing your passion for something, researching different perspectives, and bettering/supporting your fellow debaters and our community as a whole and beyond are some of the best skills that can come out of this.

-Sharing cases/evidence with your opponent/the judge before your speeches/rebuttals; there should be no conditions on your opponent having access to your evidence.

- Enunciating clearly throughout the round (I can handle speed, but I need to be able to hear/understand you versus gibberish).

-Having explicit voters. Substance is key. Signpost throughout.

- To reiterate, I am open to a range of theory and frameworks and diverse argumentation (really anything not bigoted), but be clear on why it matters. With kritiks and any “non-traditional” case, avoid relying solely on buzz words in lieu of clearly explaining your arguments or linking where needed (and not, for example, jumping to exaggerated impacts like extinction).

- And again, delivery matters and being monotone gets tiring after judging rounds throughout the day so practice, practice.

PRACTICES I DISLIKE:

- Any form of discrimination, including bigoted language and ableist actions (such as using pace as a way to exclude opponents who are new to circuit).

- Also ad homs against your opponent such as insulting their clothing or practices, and attacks against an opponent's team or school. Don't yell. Be kind.

- I have noticed lately more and more debaters trailing off in volume as they go; ideally I don't like to have to motion the "I can't hear you or slow down" sign throughout the round.

- Non-verbal reactions when your opponent is speaking (e.g., making faces, throwing up your hands, rapid "no" shaking).

Speaker points:

Be as clear as you can. Uniqueness/making the round not like every other round is nice! Be funny if possible or make the round interesting :)

Accommodations:

If there's anything I can do in terms of accommodations please let me know and feel free to contact me after the round with any post-round questions/clarifications (I can give my information or we can speak at the tournament) as my goal is for all of you to improve through this. I see debaters improving who take advantage of this! Good luck!

Hello,

I have been judging and coaching since 2016, before that I was a competitor in high school. My day job is a compliance director and pre-kindergarten teacher . My paradigms are pretty simple. In debate I vote by flow, show me the link chain, connections, and how your evidence or case is stronger than your opponent. If you provide a frame work, carry it through the round. I do not like spreading and super fast speaking, slow down and annunciation your words. Debate is still a speaking event, show off your public speaking skills . My pet peeve is interrupting opponents and rude manners, such as mumbling rude comments, if you ask a question, wait for a reply before moving on. Keep your comments to the case not other students. In IE events, I am looking for annunciation, smooth pace of speaking, use of gestures and showing a varied range of emotions. Best of luck in your rounds, feel free to ask any questions.

I am a parent volunteer and new to debate judging. I will look for clarity throughout with convincing and persuasive arguments.

I have competed in debates and public speaking in my high school and graduate program.In a debate, there is truly no right or wrong answer. Every topic is subjective and can be strongly validated by data, facts and figures. I will look for confidence and conviction in the way you speak and present your arguments. In the end, I want to see you enjoy the whole tournament process, gain confidence in yourself and have fun.

Senior at Churchill.

add me to the email chain: benjaminstang@gmail.com

tech > truth

General:

1. DEBATE IS A GAME

2. I don't call for evidence unless someone tells me to

3. If it might be triggering or you're not sure, just read a TW...

4. Signpost.

5. Should frontline in second rebuttal cause defense is sticky

6. Extend anything you want me to evaluate through summary and final focus

7. Speed is key

8. You get one minute to pull up evidence. After that, I will not consider it unless you have a legitimate reason (ie. wifi is slow, they called for a lot of cards, etc.)

Progressive:

Only have a little experience running it myself but am fairly confident I can evaluate it properly.

Random stuff/tips

1. final focus should parallel summary

2. comparative weighing is always better than just saying "we outweigh on magnitude."

3. Cards must be cut.

I debated PF in high school and graduated in 2020. Contact through a.y.taylor@wustl.edu or facebook messenger.

Feel free to ask questions before or after round :D

~ Important notes ~

· I have extremely minimal experience with progressive arguments and would VERY STRONGLY prefer you do not read them. If you do, consider me a lay judge on those arguments and there's no guarantee that I will buy/be willing to vote on them. I also strongly recommend you speak slowly and explain everything very clearly. I don't like paraphrase theory, just tell me to prefer your evidence.

· It’s probably safest to assume I don’t have any prior topic knowledge

~ Essentials ~

· Stay in speech times, won’t flow anything overtime

· Don't steal prep, speaks drop fast. Same applies to roadmaps, say where you're starting and signpost

· Anything I vote on needs explicit extensions and warrants in summary and final focus (I need a clear narrative throughout the round)

·Be comparative – show me you understand and consider their points, why yours are stronger, why they can be right but you still win. Don’t just tell me how you outweigh on scope, magnitude, etc.

· Turns need the full argument extended if your opponent goes for another

· Content warnings AND anonymous opt outs are important for inclusivity, please use them when necessary and execute them properly

~ Preferences ~

· Collapse! I prefer you only go for one argument (quality >> quantity)

· Address your opponent’s framework in your next speech

· Any offense read after constructive must be implicated by either 2nd rebuttal or 1st summary at the very latest if you want me to treat it as offense

· Appreciate slower speaking (not required), erring on more explanation. If something doesn't end up/isn't clear on my flow, I won't evaluate it. I won't clear you unless you ask me to before the round starts. I WILL NOT flow off your speech doc for speed.

· Flip a coin to presume (please no)

· Time yourselves and hold your opponents accountable. If that’s not possible, just let me know BEFORE round and I’ll time for you

· Nothing in cross will be evaluated unless you explicitly bring it up in a subsequent speech.

· I won't look at any evidence unless you ask me to, but include me in the email chain for formalities

~ Speaks ~

· Average 28 (within division). Lose speaks by going significantly overtime (more than finishing your last sentence), being rude/offensive, saying you don't have any questions in cross, or poor judge adaptation

TABROOM PARADIGM

As a judge, I am committed to addressing barriers to accessibility in debate.

EXPERIENCE:

I did high school Lincoln Douglas for 4 years, and JV Policy at the collegiate level (Trinity University) for 2 years until 2018 or so. I have experience judging policy, LD, PF, and some speech events. I judged tournaments in the Houston, Austin, and San Antonio areas from around 2015-2018, took a break, and have been regularly judging online tournaments since 2020. At this point in my judging career, I'd say I'm still very knowledgeable with the basics, but I'm less comfortable now with high-jargon arguments in policy and LD (see, theory in LD, K literature). Having good and clear voters is important to me - I'd say the best 2NRs/2ARs are the ones that write my ballot for me. Tell me why I should vote for you!

SPEAKER POINTS:

I judge speaker points based on how clearly you navigate the flow (sign post, please!) and how clearly you articulate your voters in the final speeches. No speaker points will be deducted for stuttering - so long as you sign post (tell me where you are on the flow), have good organization on the flow, and tell me what arguments I should vote on, you will get above a 29. You will get low speaks if your speech is disorganized, and lower speaks if you are rude to your opponent.

My scale is usually (but not always):

30-29.5: excellent sign posting, clearly outlined voters, very good round. 30s will write a well warranted ballot for me

29.4-29: mostly good sign posting, at times a bit unclear, but you did a generally good job.

28.9-: not enough sign posting, your speech was somewhat disorganized.

LD/POLICY:

SPREADING:

For policy: I will permit spreading evidence if all debaters in the round are okay with it – if you wish to spread (evidence only), please ask beforehand in front of all participating members. If you or your opponents do not want to spread, no reason is necessary, and I will not flow any arguments that are spread if your opponent and I have explicitly asked you not to spread before the round (these requests to/ not to should be made before the round - I will not drop debaters for spreading, but I always welcome spreading kritiks). Spreading can be an accessibility issue, and it is important to make our rounds respectful. Good debaters do not need to spread to win!

If all debaters agree to spreading, then you HAVE to slow down for tag lines – if it’s important and you want it on my flow, then you HAVE to slow down and provide emphasis. It's been awhile since I did debate, so I'm not fast to flow anymore - ESPECIALLY for final speeches, do not spread analytics if you want your arguments on my flow/ ballots. I cannot give you a good RFD if I cannot flow your arguments

For LD: Please do not spread (and if you do talk quickly, just do so with cards, not tags or analytics). These rounds are too short, and at this point in my judging career I miss too much in LD rounds with spreading - treat me like a traditional judge, and give me quality arguments, and you will win against opponents with blippy speedy arguments

EXTENSIONS:

When extending an argument, you must extend the warrant as well. A dropped argument is a conceded argument.

And - weigh your arguments!! If you are losing an argument, but you are winning another and tell me why that’s more important, I will be more likely vote for you. Weigh, weigh, and weigh some more!

FRAMEWORK:

I enjoy framework debates, but they usually aren't enough to win a round alone. Clearly weigh your winning offense through the winning framework - whether that’s yours or your opponent’s - and you will win

I evaluate the round by: 1 looking at the winning framework (ROB, standard, etc), 2 relevant voting issues/ offense, and lastly (and arguably most importantly) 3 weighing (tell me why your offense matters more)

KRITIKS:

Ks are okay, but make sure your arguments are clear. Especially if you're reading denser philosophy, be sure to explain it clearly - I'm good on stock Ks, but if it's high level/ complex, explain it to me like I'm a lay judge (and I generally recommend erring away from these in front of me)

PLANS/CPs/DAs:

Love them, and I especially enjoy a good comparative worlds debate. I am able to write the best RFDs for these debates

TOPICALITY/THEORY:

IN CX: Topicality is fine, I will vote for it if there is a clear violation and it's articulated well. I am not the biggest fan of Theory.

IN LD: TLDR: Treat me like a lay judge if you're running theory, please do not spread your theory debates - I will not be able to follow. It is best not to run theory in front of me

My longer response: I think that theory in LD is very different than theory in policy. I was never really into the technical aspects of theory, and my skills in being able to judge it have eroded over the years. If you want a good and coherent RFD from me stay away from theory, and probably stay away from T as well (though I am more willing to hear this). If you are running theory/T in LD, you cannot spread if you want it on my flow/ ballot - I will not be able to keep up. If you choose to run theory and spread in front of me, I will do my best to judge this, but I would encourage you to run any other arguments in front of me. Judge adaptation is an important skill to have!

PF:

Everything above applies! Some additional notes:

• If you plan on speaking quickly/ spreading, then please make sure your opponents are comfortable with that before the round - I generally prefer it if PF rounds stay at a conversational pace, but if both teams want to speed up the speeches, that's okay.
• PF is not policy/LD. Remember - one strong argument with good weighing is better than multiple poorly warranted ones - know how much time you and your partner have to commit to addressing all arguments in play. I am okay if you want to run more policy-like arguments.
• In my experience, rebuttals should address all arguments, summaries whittle them down to the key arguments, and final focuses look at the voting issues. Again, I think the best final speeches are the ones that write my ballots for me!

MISC:

- Open cross is fine.

- I don't count flashing in prep, but keep this within reason.

- You are responsible for timing your own prep - I prefer to not have to keep time myself. Same with timing speeches - you are responsible for keeping track of your own time.

- If time is up, you can finish your sentence, but do not go significantly over. I do usually time speeches and will stop flowing when your time is up - if you're going towards 30 seconds over, this will reduce your speaker points.

- I will not vote on any morally repulsive arguments.

- Do not be rude. Debate is a competition, but we should respect one another and do our part to make this a welcoming educational environment.

- Weigh your arguments!! Generally speaking, you're not going to win every single argument in a round. That's okay. Win the most important argument, and tell me why it's the most important argument/ more important than the argument(s) your opponent is winning

COVID/ VIRTUAL DEBATING UPDATES:

- Please try to show up on time to rounds - that includes showing up to whatever "report time" or "check time" the tournament outlines. That being said - technical difficulties happen, and this will not factor into my RFD.

- If you think you'll be asking for evidence, collect emails/ create a Google Doc BEFORE speeches begin. No prep time is needed to share evidence, but try to be as quick as possible so that we can have an efficient round. Please get my email in round so I can be on the email chain. I think Google docs are the easiest and best way to share evidence

If you have any specific questions about my paradigm, feel free to ask me before the round begins! I am more than happy to clarify, and always appreciate when debaters read paradigms before rounds. Best of luck y'all, and have a great round!

Please make sense of your arguments and ask for a ballot. I want to do the least work possible as a judge to determine an rfd.

10+ years as a judge. Debate is a game among other things. At this point, I'm pretty soulless and I don't know what more to say than that. The rounds that I enjoy the most are well organized and the debaters attempt to inform clear decisions on how the game should be won.

Fine with all kinds of debate and arguments

Post-Emory thoughts:

Honestly, I think debate is in a relatively good space overall. It's usually this time of year that I find myself pessimistic on a few different tracks, but this year I'm incredibly optimistic. But still, a few thoughts as we're moving into championship season:

1. Concepts of fiat need a revisiting in PF. No one believes it to be real, and the call back for it to be illusory as an answer to offensive arguments is not adequate. The distinguishment between "pre" and "post" fiat is relatively unneeded and undeveloped, most of this is being mistaken for a debate about topicality really. In fact, the pre/post debate is rooted in a weird space that policy resolved or at least moved past in the 90s. If non topical offense is your game, why not explore some wikis of prominent college teams that are making these arguments?
2. I cannot stress this enough, the space of post modern argumentation is confusing for me. I can more easily dissect these arguments when constructives are longer than four minutes, but in PF I especially do not have the ability to ascertain as to what the specific advocacy is or why it's good in a competitive setting. I am an idiot and the most I can really talk about my college metaphysics course is a dumb rhyme about Spinoza and Descartes(literally if you are well read on your subject, this should be ample warning as to what I can work through). That being said, criticisms focused on structures of power or the state specifically I can understand and don't need hand holding. Just not anything to do with the French(French speakers like Fanon do not count).
3. Deep below any feelings I have about specific schools of thought or even behavior in round, I do know that debate as an activity is good. That does not mean I am full force just deciding ballots on ceding the political, but rather I need to hear why alternative methods to approaching the competitive event have distinct advantages. There is a huge gulf between somehow creating a more inclusive space and burning that same space to the ground that no team in PF has even begun to explain how to cross or even conceptually begun to explain why it can be overcome.
4. RVIs != offense on a theory shell. No RVIs being unanswered does not mean the opponent cannot go for turns or a comparative debate on the interp vs the counter interp
5. A competing interpretation does not conceptually create another shell.
6. Teams need to signpost better, I will not read from docs and I truly believe that the practice is making everyone worse at line-by-line debate.

For WKU -

The last policy rounds I was in was around 2015 for context. I do err neg on most theory positions though agent counterplans do phase me. Other than that, the big division when it comes to other arguments I don't really have much of a stance on.

Affs at the end of the day I do believe need to show some semblance of change/beneficial action

Debate is good as a whole

Individual actions I don't think I have jurisdiction to act as judge over.

Who am I?

Assistant Director of Debate, The Blake School MN - 2014 to present

Co-Director, Public Forum Boot Camp(Check our website here) MN - 2021 to present

Assistant Debate Coach, Blaine High School - 2013 to 2014

This year marks my 14th in the activity, which is wild. I end up spending a lot of my time these days thinking not just about how arguments work, but also considering what I want the activity to look like. Personally, I believe that circuit Public Forum is in a transition period much the same that other events have experienced and the position that both judges and coaches play is more important than ever. That being said, I do think both groups need to remember that their years in high school are over now and that their role in the activity, both in and out of round, is as an educator first. If this is anyway controversial to you, I’d kindly ask you to re-examine why you are here.

Yes, this activity is a game, but your behavior and the way in which you participate in it have effects that will outlast your time in it. You should not only treat the people in this activity with the same levels of respect that you would want for yourself, but you should also consider the ways through which you’ve chosen in-round strategies, articulation of those strategies, and how the ways in which you conduct yourself out of round can be thought of as positive or negative. Just because something is easy and might result in competitive success does not make it right.

Prior to the round

Please add my personal email christian.vasquez212@gmail.com and blakedocs@googlegroups.com to the chain. The second one is for organizational purposes and allows me to be able to conduct redos with students and talk about rounds after they happen.

The start time listed on ballots/schedules is when a round should begin, not that everyone should arrive there. I will do my best to arrive prior to that, and I assume competitors will too. Even if I am not there for it, you should feel free to complete the flip and send out an email chain.

The first speaking team should initiate the chain, with the subject line reading some version of “Tournament Name, Round Number - 1st Speaking Team(Aff or Neg) vs 2nd Speaking Team(Aff or neg)” I do not care what you wear(as long as it’s appropriate for school) or if you stand or sit. I have zero qualms about music being played, poetry being read, or non-typical arguments being made.

Non-negotiables

I will be personally timing rounds since plenty of varsity level debaters no longer know how clocks work. There is no grace period, there are no concluding thoughts. When the timer goes off, your speech or question/answer is over. Beyond that, there are a few things I will no longer budge on:

1. You must read from cut cards the first time evidence is introduced into a round. The experiment with paraphrasing in a debate event was an interesting one, but the activity has shown itself to be unable to self-police what is and what is not academically dishonest representations of evidence. Comparisons to the work researchers and professors do in their professional life I think is laughable. Some of the shoddy evidence work I’ve seen be passed off in this activity would have you fired in those contexts, whereas here it will probably get you in late elimination rounds.

2. The inability to produce a piece of evidence when asked for it will end the round immediately. Taking more than thirty seconds to produce the evidence is unacceptable as that shows me you didn’t read from it to begin with.

3. Arguments that are racist, sexist, transphobic, etc. will end the round immediately in an L and as few speaker points as Tab allows me to give out.

4. Questions about what was and wasn’t read in round that are not claims of clipping are signs of a skill issue and won’t hold up rounds. If you want to ask questions outside of cross, run your own prep. A team saying “cut card here” or whatever to mark the docs they’ve sent you is your sign to do so. If you feel personally slighted by the idea that you should flow better and waste less time in the round, please reconsider your approach to preparing for competitions that require you to do so.

5. Defense is not “sticky.” If you want something to count in the round, it needs to be included in your team’s prior speech. The idea that a first speaking team can go “Ah, hah! You forgot about our trap card” in the final focus after not extending it in summary is ridiculous and makes a joke out of the event.

Negotiables

These are not set in stone, and have changed over time. Running contrary to me on these positions isn’t a big issue and I can be persuaded in the context of the round.

Tech vs truth

To me, the activity has weirdly defined what “technical” debate is in a way that I believe undermines the value of the activity. Arguments being true if dropped is only as valid as the original construction of the argument. Am I opposed to big stick impacts? Absolutely not, I think they’re worth engaging in and worth making policy decisions around. But, for example, if you cannot answer questions regarding what is the motivation for conflict, who would originally engage in the escalation ladder, or how the decision to launch a nuclear weapon is conducted, your argument was not valid to begin with. Asking me to close my eyes and just check the box after essentially saying “yadda yadda, nuclear winter” is as ridiculous as doing the opposite after hearing “MAD checks” with no explanation.

Teams I think are being rewarded far too often for reading too many contentions in the constructive that are missing internal links. I am more than just sympathetic to the idea that calling this out amounts to terminal defense at this point. If they haven’t formed a coherent argument to begin with, teams shouldn’t be able to masquerade like they have one.

There isn’t a magical number of contentions that is either good or bad to determine whether this is an issue or not. The benefit of being a faster team is the ability to actually get more full arguments out in the round, but that isn’t an advantage if you’re essentially reading two sentences of a card and calling it good.

Theory

In PF debate only, I default to a position of reasonability. I think the theory debates in this activity, as they’ve been happening, are terribly uninteresting and are mostly binary choices.

Is disclosure good? Yes

Is paraphrasing bad? Yes

Distinctions beyond these I don’t think are particularly valuable. Going for cheapshots on specifics I think is an okay starting position for me to say this is a waste of time and not worth voting for. That being said, I feel like a lot of teams do mis-disclose in PF by just throwing up huge unedited blocks of texts in their open source section. Proper disclosure includes the tags that are in case and at least the first and last three words of a card that you’ve read. To say you open source disclose requires highlighting of the words you have actually read in round.

That being said, answers that amount to whining aren’t great. Teams that have PF theory read against them frequently respond in ways that mostly sound like they’re confused/aghast that someone would question their integrity as debaters and at the end of the day that’s not an argument. Teams should do more to articulate what specific calls to do x y or z actually do for the activity, rather than worrying about what they’re feeling. If your coach requires you to do policy “x” then they should give you reasons to defend policy “x.” If you’re consistently losing to arguments about what norms in the activity should look like, that’s a talk you should have with your coach/program advisor about accepting them or creating better answers.

IVIs

These are hands down the worst thing that PF debate has come up with. If something in round arises to the issue of student safety, then I hope(and maybe this is misplaced) that a judge would intervene prior to a debater saying “do something.” If something is just a dumb argument, or a dumb way to have an argument be developed, then it’s either a theory issue or a competitor needs to get better at making an argument against it.

The idea that these one-off sentences somehow protect students or make the activity more aware of issues is insane. Most things I’ve heard called an IVI are misconstruing what a student has said, are a rules violation that need to be determined by tab, or are just an incomplete argument.

Kritiks

Overall, I’m sympathetic to these arguments made in any event, but I think that the PF version of them so far has left me underwhelmed. I am much better for things like cap, security, fem IR, afro-pess and the like than I am for anything coming from a pomo tradition/understanding. Survival strategies focused on identity issues that require voting one way or the other depending on a student’s identification/orientation I think are bad for debate as a competitive activity.

Kritiks should require some sort of link to either the resolution(since PF doesn’t have plans really), or something the aff has done argumentatively or with their rhetoric. The nonexistence of a link means a team has decided to rant for their speech time, and not included a reason why I should care.

Rejection alternatives are okay(Zizek and others were common when I was in debate for context) but teams reliant on “discourse” and other vague notions should probably strike me. If I do not know what voting for a team does, I am uncomfortable to do so and will actively seek out ways to avoid it.

I am a new Judge. I look for you to be respectable and professional with your component.

Liberty University

Justicewdebate@gmail.com

Tech over truth. My goal is to judge debates with the least intervention possible. My paradigm is short because I have very few ideological predispositions about debate and decide debates accordingly. Debate is best when debaters respect their opponents, develop well researched arguments, and respond to arguments in the order that they are presented. Given this, debaters who view ethics challenges, Ad hominem, screenshots, etc as case negs should strike me. Debate is hard and I appreciate the time and effort debaters put into the activity. I hope to put similar effort into judging debates.

Background

I am a flow judge. I am currently a junior at Richard Montgomery. I have debated PF debate for a little over two year. I have topic experience/background knowledge. I am aggressively tech over truth. I will not flow cross, unless summoned (hocus pocus judge please flow this). I will always buy solid and clear warranting over a card. I will disclose and give an rfd.

Contact Information

Email: alexander.y.wang@hotmail.com

Instagram and Snap: alexw1_jw

Discord: alexw1_jw#7692

Do:

• Use trigger warnings for triggering content

• Be kind and respectful. You will be dropped for being racist, sexist, homphobic etc. Cursing is ok in moderation.

• Speak at a reasonable pace. If you spread I need to see the speechdocs.

• Weigh. I will not weigh for you, and will default to your opponents mechanism, or to utilitarianism.

• Extend through summary AND final focus. Defense is sticky, but please extend at least a tagline in both speeches.

• Signpost

• Collapse in summary of ff. It makes things so much easier for me.

• Tell jokes, unless you’re not funny

• Offtime roadmaps. They are super helpful especially in summary.

• Have fun!

Don’t:

• Run theory or a K, unless there is a serious violation. Even then there is a good chance I will be voting off of substance. I do not like engaging in meta-debate

• Use words that are too big. My vocabulary is not the greatest

• Spread. Mainly for the sake of your opponents

• Frontline during 2nd summary. It’s just straight up abusive and will not be flowed

• Bring up new arguments in FF

• Abusively paraphrase. Please use good evidence ethics

• Run extremely squirrely arguments. The link chain has to make sense. Meme cases are ok though.

• Go over time. Please keep track of your own time.

Speaker Points

I default to 28.5, you will have to speak clearly and persuasively to get any higher. Please be respectful and kind to your opponents, especially in crossfire. Making ad hominem attacks will lose you speaker points. If you're funny or do like funny random stuff I'll probably give you more speaker points.

hey! i'm ethan. I do debate sometimes. Retired from nat circuit to become a full time meme debater.

Judging conflicts: Dababy Rizz Academy for the Gifted Talented and Exceptional, Wootton HS, Potomac

add me to the email chain: ethan.wanq@gmail.com

tabula rasa

tech>truth

Will evaluate any and all arguments except ones that promote some form of bigotry (i.e. racism good, xenophobia good, etc).

Theory is fine.

Topicality is optional.

All frontlining must be done in 2nd rebuttal.

IF YOU DO NOT WEIGH YOU WILL LOSE.

Respond to frameworks in rebuttal.

Defense is sticky.

Anything not extended through final focus will not be evaluated.

Roadmaps + signposting... please

speaker points are dumb. 30 speaks if u venmo me a dollar.

i presume first unless you tell me otherwise

Arguments brought up in CROSS WILL BE PUT ON THE FLOW

its online debate... LOOK STUFF UP NO ONE CAN CALL YOU OUT ON IT. Your opponents probably will.

Use chatgpt for analytics if you really can't think of anything. Better than dropping the arg.

Theory specifics:

imo the point of theory is to give debaters a tool to shape the space in their vision

I evaluate "friv"

I default to counter interps

K specifics:

I treat topical Ks and non topical Ks the same

My devices do not use the Gregorian calendar

https://darchai.com/
SEND ME A SPEECH DOC IF UR READING MORE THAN 1000 WORDS
If ur spreading is clear u get extra speaks proportional to how many words u read.

tl;dr; I WILL INTERVENE IN THE ROUND unless you tell me not to

Be respectful, speak clearly, and be rational.

For Omega!

DON'T BE MEAN. HAVE FUN AND BE NICE!!!

PLEASE weigh and implicate why your weighing is helping you win the round. (Ex. Don't just say, "we outweigh on scope". Explain why your team outweighing on scope is the most important thing to consider and what changes in your world whether we affirm or negate the resolution). If you don't weigh, I will not vote for you.

Second rebuttal should be frontlining. I don't think defense is sticky, just extend everything that you need for the upcoming speech.

Summary and Final Focus should be mirrors of each other. Don't extend new arguments in second final (plz :,))

WARRANT AND IMPLICATE your responses in rebuttal, summary, FF, etc.

I'm fine with speed, but that doesn't mean I'm gonna be able to follow everything you say and flow it. Also, I think that it could become inaccessible for your opponents as well. In the case that you need to speak fast, please send speech docs!

Speaks:

(+0.5-1): If you make a Taylor Swift reference. I will evaluate it based on your delivery :)

30 speaks if you make a DJ Khaled reference (specifically his most recent famous Instagram and Tiktok quotes)

If you say something offensive or make the round unsafe, you will get the L and as low as speaks go.

As a judge, I expect the debaters for each round to:

1. Have mutual respect to one another. Do not try to dominate the crossfire.
2. If you present a framework, I'll look for you to warrant your arguments to it.
3. Manage time well - it is an important element and quality that I look for, so use your time well. Please be sure to keep track of your own time.
4. Prepare to give quality evidence and explain them well - once you have stated it, follow through with it. Please be clean: signpost, extend the warrant (not just the card), and weigh impacts and links.
5. Support your claims with warrants - when you throw a claim out without a warrant I will disregard it.
6. I appreciate the creative approach and use of theory or other strategies but be sure you have enough time to follow through with it. Often time I see many great unconventional approaches, but the majority of them failed to deliver the full effect.
7. At the end of the day this is a communication event -- it's your job as the debater in the round to persuade me that the arguments you're winning are important, not just that you're winning the "most" arguments.

Please add me to the email chain if one is being used in the round.

E-mail: purplewenqiying@gmail.com

Debated for Washburn Rural, 2012-2016

Tl;dr: Mostly did policy, but you should debate how you're most comfortable. Speed is fine, but I'm not familiar with this year's topic so you should prob not go your absolute fastest. Prefer few, well-developed, smart args to a high quantity of shallower args. Very pro-topical affs/topicality. Fine for k's that prove the plan is a bad idea, meh for k's that do not. Framing issues are important. Buzzwords are bad. CLAIM WARRANT IMPACT. Dropped/conceded arguments are "true" but are not automatically "relevant." You still have to win an impact.

I believe debate is an incredibly valuable and life-transforming activity. For this reason, I take every round seriously – and I think you should, too. This means respect your opponents and each other. It’s ok to be assertive, but there’s a big difference between being confident and being rude.

I like: Rebuttals that paint a clear picture of what an aff/neg ballot means, Evidence comparison, Debaters who are funny/having fun, Warranted args/smart analytics, Well thought out strategies

Do not like: Reading args you don't really understand, Topicality=genocide, Death good, Ambush-y args like wipeout, General rudeness, Affs with shaky internal link chains (but if neg doesn't poke holes, I'll give aff the benefit of the doubt)

Case/Disads/Counterplans:

I've been a 2N my entire debate career. Most of my 2NRs have been the politics DA, topic DA, topicality, and the occasional kritik. My favorite types of debates are ones where the neg has prepared a specific strategy and is well-versed in the technicalities of the 1AC. I think the best neg teams can go for the squo and question the 1AC’s logic. For example – why does a collapse of one industry in the US mean the entire economy declines? Why does that mean global nuclear war? Deficits in the 1AC’s internal links are often underutilized by the neg on the case in favor of generic impact defense. Make sure to use your DA to turn the case at the impact and internal link level. This means impact calc is essential. Zero (negligible) risk is a thing. Not a fan of politics theory args. If the DA's so bad, beat it on substance, not on "the neg dropped intrisicness". These CPs are usually fine: PICs, Advantage, States. These are susceptible to theory: International fiat, consult/conditions/recommend, Word PICs. I can be convinced either way. Delay CPs are probably cheating. I can easily be convinced conditions and consult CPs are cheating, but having a solvency advocate helps. I'll reward you for specific CPs that are well-researched and prepared.

Kritiks:

I'm not well-versed in K literature. That doesn't mean I won't vote on it, you'll just need more explanation. I'm fine for generic or topic specific K's. I'm not great for complex/high philosophy K's. My biggest problems with K's are usually that the alt doesn't do/solve anything, the links are triggered by the squo, and most importantly they don't say the plan is a bad idea. If you decide to go for the K, make sure to explain your args very clearly to me. This means being explicit in how the alternative functions and how the alt resolves the links to the K and probably portions of the affirmative. Otherwise you will be susceptible to losing on the aff outweighs. I am not familiar with "K-tricks", so don't expect me to recognize your argument and vote on it absent a clear explanation. Weighing the aff is good - it is difficult for me to ever believe a framework which holds the aff to a perfect standard (in terms of epistemology, representations, etc) is one that is fair. Fiat is good - obviously voting aff doesn't usually cause change outside the round, but the notion of fiat allows for intellectually stimulating debates about the costs and benefits of public policy.

Framework/Topicality:

I have a very strong bias towards the need for a stable, predictable advocacy. K affs can gain a lot of leeway with me by being in the direction of the resolution and defending at least some links in the realm of topic literature. I am not a great judge for affs that have no resolutional basis. I usually default to competing interpretations – which is why I think T debates should be framed as two “counterplans” each with respective net-benefits (education, fairness, etc). Saying “depth over breadth” isn’t an argument – one of the hardest parts about going for T (and answering it), is making sure not to only explain the “link” but also implicate this in terms of terminal impacts (What does lack of education mean for debate? Why is that important? What impact outweighs the other, and why?). I think the best impacts to T are competitive equity and process-based education from deliberating with a well-prepared opponent. Both of those impacts are about the existence of a predictable topic as opposed to the merits of any particular topic. Limits are good.

Theory:

Don't particularly like theory debates because it's usually just reading blocks back and forth. I typically default to rejecting the argument and not the team. Conditionality is a potential exception to that rule. Theory should be impacted if you’re going for it – buzzwords aren’t enough for me to vote for your argument unless you explain it.

Good luck, have fun, and debate with heart. Feel free to ask me any clarification questions before the round.

Hi! Current junior pf debater. Good luck!

lindseywu05@gmail.com (email chains/card doc and speech docs)

Nocember:

sorry I have like no crypto knowledge so unless u define crypto-related jargon, use at ur own risk

General:

- tab ras

- signpost!!!!!!!!!!!! & roadmaps (if idk where u r I'm prob not gonna flow correctly sorry)

- COMPARATIVE weighing

- tech>truth

- speed is meh but if spreading (>250 wpm) I need a speech doc before speech

- generally would like cases sent to me so I can make sure I catch the numbers correctly

- idc if u collapse, the strategy is urs but there's a risk of under contextualizing/weaker narrative if u go for a ton of args

- 10 sec grace period

- pls don't be rude, this is debate I know you want to win, so if you do... don't be rude

- pls do not scream, I will dock ur speaks

- I DO NOT TOLERATE sexism/racism/homophobia/anything that compromises someone's safety etc.

- MUST READ A TRIGGER WARNING + GOOGLE FORM OPT-OUT OPTION

Speeches:

- second rebuttal should frontline turns at a minimum

- sticky defense <3 (I still want to hear some of the best pieces of defense tho)

- all offense u want me to evaluate should be in summary (offense should be mirrored in summary to ff)

- no new args/responses/analytics in ff

Theory:

- I evaluate all theory and I pretty much love theory EXCEPT any frivolous theory (i.e. 30 speaks)

Ks:

- uh idrk how to evaluate so yea no thx

How to get 30 speaks:

- if ur RLY good (ofc)

- if ur rly funny

lmk if u have any questions!

I did nat circuit PF from 2018-2022 but I am hard stuck -1 IQ so pls dumb stuff down!

I prefer 1st summary frontlines turns at minimum and 2nd summary address all voting issues

1 other peeve, I rlly prefer u email all the ev u plan to read in a speech before you do it to the other team (+ me if u want), separately "calling evidence" only should be done in a "so where does your evidence say xyz??" kind of clarification. Too much prep skewing going around. Or just disclose but if u disclosed u should have the stuff ready to pull up anyways

If u do the ev stuff + are nice to the other team I'll give u 30s. Thx :)

Not voting on tricks/friv

Other than that debate how you want to

Thanks homies

.

junzhix@upenn.edu

Emory '25

St. Mark's School of Texas '21

Put me on the email chain please dyangerdebater@gmail.com AND smdebatedocs@gmail.com

I HAVE ZERO TOPIC KNOWLEDGE I HAVE ZERO TOPIC KNOWLEDGE I HAVE ZERO TOPIC KNOWLEDGE

tl;dr

You do you—debate should be for the debaters.

Dropped arguments are true, but only as true as the words in the dropped argument.

Don't cheat.

Online Debate things—I would strongly prefer for everyone's cameras to be on although I will not force you to do this unless the tournament rules say so. You will greatly benefit by slowing down 20% from your in-person speed and speaking less than 3 feet away from your microphone. If my camera is off, just assume I am not at my computer.

Apart from that, there are only 2 things that are really important in here:

1. This paradigm is far from perfect; I'm still learning as a judge and debater.

2. Tell me why I should vote for you, and I will try my best to do so.

You should read and employ whatever strategies you feel most comfortable with. No matter your argumentation style, organization, impact calculus, and judge instruction matter the most to me. If an argument is bad, beat it by explaining why it is bad, not just asserting that it is bad. 80% of the things past this point reflect my (constantly shifting) ideological leanings when I'm left to my own devices.

Affirmatives that do not defend hypothetical resolutional action—Adding this section at the top because I get asked a lot about it and it's probably what you're here for anyways. Rest assured, I am far from an auto-ballot for either side. I will flow everything I can from every speech made and determine a winner and a loser based on said flow while removing my personal biases as much as possible. Admittedly, I feel that I have moved more and more into the "fairness outweighs everything else" camp throughout my career. HOWEVER, at the same time, I feel that the more I believe in fairness as an impact, the more I realize that my bar/threshold for voting on an accurate articulation and application of fairness has increased.

To quote Collin Roark: "Lots of different folks do debate for different valuable reasons." I think that it is good to have active discussions and arguments about why this activity is so worthwhile to begin with.

Topicality—I dig deep T debates and think about this argument often. Assume that I have zero topic knowledge; I'm more likely to vote for the side that explains and impacts out their vision of the topic better.

Counterplans—a well-researched, specific counterplan can be a deadly opportunity cost to the affirmative. Too bad they're an endangered species. What happened to theory? I'm probably better than most for conditionality bad (sorry, fellow 2Ns).

Disadvantages—Read a complete shell. Turns case is usually important. Do impact calculus, please.

Kritiks—I have no qualms with these arguments despite my argumentative background. If you want to maximize your chances of winning this argument in front of me, skip the long rebuttal overviews, do some impact calculus, read links about the actual implementation of the plan, and assume I know nothing about your K when explaining things.

Nevermind. There are a few more non-negotiables:

How to L: asking for speaks, death good because life is suffering, racism/sexism/homophobia or anything along those lines. I get to decide when this happens.

Things that make me happy:

Intelligence.

Smart cross-applications/in-round pivots.

Clever plan/counterplan flaw arguments.

Something innovative.

Finally, have fun! So many speeches sound irritated or jaded or irrationally angry about something. Don't run from arguments. Clash. Reinvent. Improve. Learn. If you actively demonstrate your love for this activity, I promise I will work hard to reciprocate it.

Hi Everyone! I'm Elmer, I debated in Policy in High School, coached Debate through College (first 2 in Policy, last 2 in LD) and just recently graduated with a Business degree from UT-Austin. I currently work at a FinTech firm as a Business Analyst and do part-time independent coaching. I coach, judge, and research a decent amount so I can follow-on substantive topic jargon but don't be overly aggressive with acronyms.

TOC Conflicts - Actively coaching Memorial DX, Notre Dame San Jose AG, Westridge TW, San Mateo YR. Conflicted with St Agnes EH, Westlake MR, Strake JW, and Strake NW.

email - elmeryang00@gmail.com

This paradigm has been changed to reflect the most important aspects of my judging. When I was a younger judge/coach in the community, I used to have pretty heavy predispositions and annoyances. Now, I care most about you performing your best regardless of style. Everyone has spent so much time on this activity and it would be a disservice to not see you at your best due to my dispositions. The only true thing that annoys me when judging is avoidance of clash. If you chose to introduce an argument for me to listen to, I expect that you know it and are prepared to rigorously defend it through an attack from multiple angles. If you introduce an argument that is so obviously put with no thought and meant to just be hidden and dropped (yes this is most but not all of modern day Tricks debate, but also reflective of incomplete DA's, T shells w/o cards or offense, and 3 second Condo Shells), I will be sad and annoyed that you did not care enough to produce your best. Whether you are reading a K-Aff about Clowns, the Arrow's Paradox, or the Politics DA, I just want to see that you care and you've put thought into your craft. Debate is so much easier to judge if you as debaters look and feel like you're enjoying it and I will enjoy judging you.

That said, I do have argument styles I'm more familiar with. I work mostly with K v K, Policy v Policy, Topicality, and K v Policy debates. I occasionally work with light Phil (mostly just Kant and Pragmatism) and almost entirely in Phil v K debates. I very rarely work with or encounter Theory and Tricks debate. I have no predispositions towards arguments, but the less experience I have with them, walk me through your claim, warrant, and ballot or else I will mostly likely evaluate the debate in a way that you would not expect or like like.

Things that increase likelihood of high speaks (and also winning):

1] Clarity - I've judged both fast, clear debaters and slow, clear debaters. I have no issue with speed but I do have issue if you're going faster than I can flow or process.

2] Strategy - showcase that you've come prepared OR make tactical moves on the fly in the middle of the round.

3] Innovation - I've been judging for a while so a lot of debates tend to be reduxes of debates I've judged in the past. Introducing new args or making new spin on args I've heard before often impresses me.

4] Vision - demonstrate that you are able to see the round from a multi-layer and dimension perspective. If you can connect the dots between args on different flows and comparatively weigh them, that will go a long way for speaks and the ballot.

5] Packaging - 90% of the time, the thing that distinguishes a winning arg from a good arg is how you frame and phrase it. Explaining complex args simply is an art and being able to explain why it matters is extremely important in any round.

Lastly:

1] Absent a Perm or Theory, my RFD in a Process CP or CP/DA debate will be "does the risk of a solvency deficit outweigh the risk of a net benefit" - resolve that question.

2] Do Impact COMPARISON not Impact Weighing. I can intuitively understand why your Impact is bad, why is it worse than your opponents. In a debate style with so little time, you need to invest a significant chunk of it on resolving arguments.

3] Topicality arguments need cards to compose of real arguments. I would prefer if they defined the words in the resolution but if you give me a master class on grammar principles, I will be impressed.

4] K debates now are super Framework heavy and there's only been once that I've decided the Neg has won Framework but lost the debate. However, I wish they were heavier on the Link. Ontology is a thing but it usually is not a thing that can be resolved by the Alt or worsened by the Aff. The worse your link, the higher burden it puts on the Alt (and the inverse of that is true). Good link debating is the most important part of any K v Policy or K v K debate.

TL;DR: Mostly flow

I've done 3 years of PF and judged 3 tourneys

andy.ying.412@gmail.com Follow me on insta @andyying412 if you haven't and I'll boost speaks

SHORT VERSION:

Don't spread, frontline in 2nd rebuttal, weigh, don't dump blips, mostly tech>truth, no theory/Ks, signpost, don't be a turd during cross.

LONG VERSION:

Don't SPREAD, if I cannot flow it, it is dropped. Send a speech doc if you want to spread.

Tech > Truth, but nothing nutty. Don't make me vote on dedev/death good.

Frontline in 2nd rebuttal. Defense from 1st rebuttal is sticky in 1st summary.

A solid warrant always beats an unimplicated card. Paraphrasing is ok if you have a cut card ready.

I don't like theory. Disclosure is only good for disclosing interps, extremely squirrely args, and progressive stuff. Paraphrasing is good and RVIs are good.

Don't run theory to get a cheap win or kick it to time skew.

I can't evaluate Ks and I don't feel comfortable voting off them. Tricks are L20.

PLEASE WEIGH, EXTEND LINKS and WARRANTS, and IMPLICATE IT

Misc:

I like well warranted squirrely/nuanced args with a solid story and link chain.

Point out concessions and weigh them, which makes it easier for me to evaluate the flow.

Clarity is real. If you don't contextualize an impact by some number, it will be very difficult for me to evaluate it.

I will try to adapt to your style and be understanding but do your best to be audible and coherent.

To prove you've read my paradigm, tell me what pets you have and I will give +.5 speaks.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Don't:

Bring up politics/religion as a key component of your args. Nuke war is dumb(unless it's like NFU or THAAD)

Dump blips.

Use crossfire as a rebuttal(I don't flow cross)

READ BOSTROM: It's lazy and I hate extinction framing.

Run tricks.

________________________________________________________________

Speaks:

I do appreciate good enunciation, delivery, and confidence, but those will only reflect in your speaks.

I start at a 28.5 and go up/down from there.

If u get a 25 or lower: either u pissed me off, you ran Bostrom, your name is Michael Chen, or you were totally unprepared

How to get good speaks:

- Do: Be extremely polite at all times, speak clearly and do good weighing/implication, and analysis

- Don't: curse, extend through ink, cut people off, go over/under time(5 sec grace period, after that I will stop flowing), be a jerk, run tricks

________________________________________________________________

After round: Postround me. It's a good norm. I'll answer any question. Judges should be able to answer any questions asked politely.

I will always disclose and I give all of my comments orally. Write. It. Down. Feel free to contact me after the round whenever.

TL;DR 1) track prep verbally and don't mute otherwise, 2) I flow all crossfires, 3) don't waste time saying what you "don't know" about an argument, 4) in-depth extensions often aren't necessary

Oakton '20 (PF, some LD/policy/congress), JHU '24 (APDA, BP). Contact yoondebate@gmail.com for chains, Facebook or nyoon2@jh.edu otherwise. You can ask about decisions, speaks, individual feedback, or anything else - I'm always open to help anyone.

1. If nobody's prep is running, stay unmuted. Your prep starts and stops when you say "start prep" and "stop prep" out loud. Keep track of time - if you go decently over, I'll verbally interrupt your team going forward. I'll verbally notify you when prep ends.
2. Be equitable and respect others, don't use gendered pronouns unless they're explicitly denoted.
3. Don't skip or ask to skip anything. I won't flow over time. Don't hold up your timer/phone/fist when you think someone's time is up.
4. I flow cross. I don't flow off docs. I don't mind "off-time roadmaps" but I won't pay attention, say what your speech will do/is doing (signpost) on-time.
5. If presuming (very rare), I flip a coin, and I don't evaluate arguments saying to presume in other ways.
6. I'll disclose and will disclose speaks on request, average in-division 28, 29.5+ impressed me. No speaks theory.

1. Don't say "this argument is missing a warrant/reason/contextualization" on its own. Add any positive content - reasoning about why that factor's relevant, weighing, some example, connection to another point, anything! - just don't point out the lack of something and move on. This includes claims about what I "don't know," e.g. "you don't know when/where/how much this happens," please do not say this. This part is routinely ignored!
2. Arguments are dropped if the next opposing speech doesn't interact, excluding the first two speeches. (This applies to stuff like explicitly conceding something to make a point, or reading a new theory violation, no waiting around.) I ignore "strength of link weighing" saying to prioritize dropped points because they're dropped.
3. Contested (opponent directly addressed that specific claim) or weighed (you applied/compared to another argument) arguments must be extended in summary and final focus to be considered. Others don't have to be (e.g. an impact when the debate's been about links so far, "drop the debater" when both teams go for theory).

General Information about me:

I was a former Public Forum Debater and I also have some experience in LD.

I generally take a tabula rasa approach to judging. However, having experience as a former debater, I will not evaluate arguments that are blatantly incorrect or offensive. I will normally disclose. Be ready to get roasted in my RFD. I will not tolerate any rudeness or ANYTHING that would not be said in school. I will not allow either side time before the start of the debate to preflow. This is no different than saying "I need some time to cut more cards for my aff/neg". This is something that should be done before you get to the tournament let alone before the debate is scheduled to start.

If there are ANY Questions, please ask me before the round starts.

Public Forum

Round:

• I need impact calculus with comparative analysis in the final speeches, otherwise I’ll be forced to evaluate your arguments myself which will not go well for you.
• Never extend through ink. Every time you do, I dock half a speak.
• Any Terminal Offense or Defense must be in Summary and Final Focus for me to evaluate it.
• The 2nd Rebuttal must defend against the 1st rebuttal. It is unfair if you do not.
• It is abusive to have Offensive Overviews in the 2nd rebuttal, I will not flow it.
• I want a Road map for every speech after summary. Make sure you plan it out. Don't just say "I will sign post you", that for me is the same as "I don't know what I'm going to say". I expect you to signpost throughout your speech.

Arguments:

• I’m fine with most arguments but if you choose to go progressive do it right. Extend the narrative starting from case across every single speech.
• If you decide to run a Kritiks, do not run non-topical Ks except if it is a Language K.
• Framework is not needed in Public Forum, but if you read framework, that will be the 1st thing I will vote off.
• If you run tricks, see what happens (don't blame me if you drop)

Delivery:

• When it comes to your rate of delivery, I’m fine with whatever but be sure not to sacrifice clarity for speed.
• I do not flow CX, bring it up in your next speech if you want it flowed. I will not tolerate rudeness in Cross Fire. Also, please do not make it a yelling match.
• If you are going to talk at a speed that is not applicable to a Lay Judge, you better disclose.

Lincoln Douglass

Round:

• I need impact calculus with comparative analysis in the final speeches, otherwise I’ll be forced to evaluate your arguments myself which will not go well for you.
• Never extend through ink.
• Road Maps are a must please.
• If you are going to spread please disclose. I am not that used to spreading

Arguments:

I prefer traditional LD, but that said, everyone will go progressive either way so.

• K: I do not prefer Ks and will most likely not vote off it. That being said, if you decide to run a K, please make it relevant in round.
• Topicality: Topicality is great. I want good standards if you want me to vote off a T shell. I don't really like RVI on T. Being topical is very important to debate to me.
• Framework: This is where you want to win for me. This will always be the 1st place I will vote.
• Theory: I think theory is a good way to check abuse, nothing else. If you run theory for something I do not feel is abusive, I will not evaluate it.
• CP: Counterplans are good. If you are winning the CP, don't be afraid to go for it. This is the 2nd place where I could vote for Neg.

Delivery:

• Don't sacrifice speed for clarity.
• Make a distinctive speed difference with Tags and Cards.
• Disclosing to me is the best option, if you are not clear, I will not evaluate the argument and I will lower your speaker points. If you decide to not disclose, the Tags MUST be clear

If you have any further questions email me at zhangallen05@gmail.com

Senior debater at Georgetown Day School

Please add me to the email chain(add both email please): hzhang24@gds.org, georgetowndaydebate@gmail.com

I’m primarily a kritikal debater on both sides, but I’ve run policy affs before and went for cps and das as well.

For HS novice: You should read a plan until you can give a coherent explanation of your alternative model of debate and its implications for the debate community.

In general:

• Tech vs. truth. A dropped argument is not automatically assumed as truth unless extended and explained. I will not vote on arguments that are incoherent, even if it is dropped.

• 2AR and 2NRs need to write the ballot for me. It should paint a picture of the round rather than line by line.

• Credible evidence is important, but it won’t matter unless you flash out the warrant and its implication for the round.

• I find it troublesome that debaters tend to hyper-tag their cards to make claims unsupported by the card itself. If your opponent is doing so, point that out, and it will reward you greatly.

CP: You need to have a NB and extend it in the block. For competition: I’m less familiar with the competition debate. I can keep up with textual and functional, but beyond that, i.e. positional, you need to explain it to me as if I'm new to debate.

DA: Do whatever you want; I can keep up with them. Do impact comparison.

Kritiks: I will likely be familiar with most of your K lit base, so read whatever you want. But do not expect me to do any work for you. You need to explain them thoroughly to me instead of throwing out jargon. I find links that are specific to the plan more compelling than the generic usfg bad ones, but I can be persuaded otherwise. Going for the k doesn’t mean you can neglect case. Dropped case often means the aff gets access to extinction o/w, which is risky for you even when your strategy is going for “you link, you lose.”

Firstly and most importantly, it'll be difficult for me to follow your argument if you speak too fast. Speak slowly.

I prefer weighing in summary and final focus.

Crossfire matters, I flow cross, although it's not as important as the other speeches to me.

I'm not too strict on time, I'll usually give a grace period of a few seconds after you go over time in your speeches, but please try to keep track of your own time.

Extend your arguments, I also expect both teams to frontline their arguments.

I expect you all to keep track of your own prep time.

Another small thing, I don't really care what year both team's cards are from, although it would be great if both teams cross-examined each other's evidence.

I'm a lay judge but I've been judging debates for a while now. I promise I'll be unbiased and work hard as a debate judge.

Thanks.