How I Judge

I am receptive to most kinds of arguments, but this post captures my judging philosophy well: http://trolleyproblem.blogspot.in/2012/11/what-does-good-judge-believe.html. tl;dr: I like hearing novel and interesting arguments, but I have "a defeasible presumption in favour of a moderate liberal position on most ethical issues... By "defeasible", I mean that the presumption could in principle be overcome by a persuasive argument, [and if so, I will listen to such] arguments with an open mind." I love weighing, and I don't think your argument being dropped (however coldly so) constitutes a winning weight.

My speaks reflect the quality of warranting and impacting-weighing. But, just saying "scope, clarity, and probability" isn't enough. Spend time on weighing and do interesting weighing on actor or scope or principle or whatever else. I don't care for rhetoric or style.

I also hold the belief that human extinction is unlikely.

Warranting vs Evidence

I always prefer better-explained mechanisms and logical warrants over evidence. I care about evidence only when a claim isn't intuitive to believe just based on warrants. Do use evidence to make counter-intuitive warrants/claims stronger but don't use it when it doesn't contribute to the believability or power of your logic.

Choose your evidence well: suss sources are just that—suss.

Engagement

Line-by-line is good but so is contention by contention; I'm quite friendly to broader responses as long as they're good responses. I don't mind if you're not too exact on the flow, will assemble clashes myself if I have to, and am happy to cross-apply warrants/weights.

Theory

I do not look favourably on most Ks. I will listen to theory but I'll only care if it was relevant to the round itself and the framing/conceptualization of it.

Speed

Don't spread but speed is alright.

+1 Speaks

If you pronounce my full name (Hemanth Bharatha Chakravarthy) right in the first try, I'll bump you up by 1 point. Alternatively, if you cite evidence about something that happened in the Tamil community in India, I'll give you +1.

Hello there! I’m Ishan. I am excited to hear what y’all have to say!! For what it’s worth, I haven’t been involved in a couple of years, so please explain jargon and debate a little slower than you would otherwise.

Email for LD: ishanbhatt42@gmail.com. Could you make the subject line something like: “ Tournament -- Year -- Aff vs Neg”?

Updated for Harvard 2024

Form Preferences:

1. Read what you want if it is well-warranted and well-explained. This is theoretically a content-neutral preference, but I may be worse for very short arguments with very extreme implications. The size of an argument’s implication and its length should be inversely correlated.

2. Please be sure that every word you say is understandable. I’ll say clear. If I do, please go back, and say your argument again. I don’t open speech docs until after the round, so I do want to hear all the words of the card.

3. If an argument is dropped, you get the warrant, not the tag. The implication of a dropped argument can still be contested.

4. I’m more persuaded by specific arguments. It’s hard to win no progress if you drop aff solvency, threat inflation if you concede the China war scenario, “fairness always first” without some debating about the internal link, etc.

5. Please be transparent about your argument. Don't be coy about the function or content of the argument, or else I may not understand it either! And please don’t refuse to answer questions at all.

6. The 1NC must fully develop the argument. My sense of the meta is only based on judging twice in the last two years, but I thought many off-case positions I saw weren’t complete arguments and the 1AR could’ve briefly dismissed them.

Content Preferences:

Plans/CPs/DAs:

• I really don’t need everything to lead to extinction.
• For most “cheating” counterplans, a clear theory of “what should be competitive” is most compelling.
• A perm needs explanation in the speech in which it is introduced.

Theory:

• Predictably defining the words in the topic matters the most for topicality. Once you’ve defined a word, proving a good vision for the topic regarding research, ground, limits, etc. is great.
• I basically won’t vote on bad theory arguments, especially really contrived interpretations (e.g., “may not do exactly what you did”). A solid “this is arbitrary + reasonability + don’t drop the debater” push should do the trick for me.
• Reasonability, to me, makes most sense as “voting on theory means we lose out on a substantive debate, therefore defense is sufficient.” I’m often confused by reasonability “bright line” arguments.
• Please don’t claim that a debate practice (like a new case or conditionality) makes debate “unsafe.” I feel like safety is meaningful thing and is probably outside the realm of technical debating.

Ks:

• You need to explain a structural claim, not just say the claim.
• I likely won’t vote on an argument about personal stuff.
• I really don’t understand most arguments over fiat. “Fiat” makes most sense to me as shorthand for the “is-ought” fallacy.
• I might be stricter than the median judge for neg DA links – if you “destroy the system of capitalism,” the neg is probably right about the link to the econ DA.

See also: Andrew Garber's paradigm.

Worlds Schools Debate:

1. Build on your previous speakers' analysis.

2. Make any clarifications or definition challenges at the beginning of your speech.

3. Mechanise all arguments and your stance appropriately, if Mechanisation isn't provided, practical arguments aren't as strong as they would be with mech.

4. Debate is an art, don't give up on style in hopes of pushing forth more matter

5. Always integrate evidence into your arguments, and show how they are justified on your side of the house.

6. Signposting is very important as it provides a clear structure for your speech.

7. Explicitly weigh all the harms and impacts to show why your side is better.

8. Respect your opponents, do not make personal attacks, and be equitable.

Hi! I'm Shreyoshi (for pronunciation it's like Shrey, then Yoshi from Mario Kart = Shreyoshi). I'm a junior at Penn with a business background, and I currently debate for Penn's parliamentary debate team. I debated for 4 years for Flower Mound High School on the Dallas circuit and debated for Team USA my senior year of high school. Relevant experiences are: 3 years of VLD on local and some nat circuit tournaments, 1 year of PF, 4 years of Extemp, 3 years of World Schools Debate.

TLDR; I'm a flow judge. I'm fine with any arg as long as it's not racist/sexist/homophobic/etc. In terms of speed on a scale of 1-10, where 10 is like TOC level, I'm probably a 6-7 but I'll yell clear if I need you to adjust. I'll be annoyed if I have to do it over and over again though. I don't care about the format/structure of the args, but just signpost if the arg isn't set up in a conventional way/is confusing. I'm also not that great at evaluating theory to be honest so proceed at your own risk if you want to run it. Overall, just be chill :) More details below:

Speaks: I start at a 28 and go up or down from there. I take strategy, quality of argumentation, and how much of a jerk/nice person you are in round into account when giving speaker points. I actually value how you treat your opponent probably slightly more than the average college student judge because I remember high school debate being very toxic at times and one contributing factor was debaters being rude/overly aggressive towards their opponents as an intimidation tactic. I care a lot about preventing that kind of stuff, so please don't be that person because I WILL call you out.

Weighing: Please do it! I don't care what type of weighing you do as long as it's reasonable. You'd be surprised by how few people actually weigh :(

Misc: Slow down when you really want me to get something down (especially card names!) because to be honest I probably can't flow as fast as some of you, so I might miss some details.

LD Specific:

Types of arguments: Anything but T/theory lol. Like I said before, I won't hate you or anything if you run theory if there's actual abuse but I'm just bad at evaluating it so you really need to make it clear what I'm voting on if you want to win off the shell. Friv theory will make me annoyed, as will blippy 3 minutes of theory spikes at the end of the AC. Ks, disads, counterplans, etc. are all fine with me. I was mainly a framework and LARP debater in high school, so I understand those args best. I'm not as familiar with dense critical literature, so just make sure you take the time to explain that material if you run it (i.e. please don't spread through 7 minutes of Baudrillard and expect me to understand everything).

PF Specific:

Framework: If you don't give me a specific framework to evaluate the round under, I'll default cost benefit analysis. BUT, I will be more happy if you offer a more unique/nuanced framework because I personally think that makes for a more interesting debate. However, if you're not comfortable doing that or it doesn't fit your case, don't do it just because you think I'll like it. If you do it really poorly, I probably won't.

Types of Arguments: Feel free to run progressive style arguments like Ks, disads, counterplans, etc. in PF if you want. I used to run that stuff all the time when I competed, so I'm not picky. In terms of evidence, I prefer actual analysis/warranting your cards much more than just listening to you read off 7 cards in a row. Like even a sentence or two after a set of cards explaining what the actual implication of that evidence is for the round is better than nothing. This also means I'm moderately lenient if people don't have super specific evidence to respond to a niche argument - I think giving compelling, logical reasons for why someone's claim isn't true despite what their evidence says is much more impressive than reading a mediocre 1-2 line card that only kinda sorta responds to it.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask! I want to make sure everyone feels comfortable and as relaxed as possible in these rounds. Also, please ask if you want more detailed feedback after the round because I'm happy to give it. Have fun and good luck! :)

If both teams agree, i am willing to turn prep into 4 extra minutes of GCX.

Jay Garg has a really good paradigm (esp the part about Jackie's paradigm). Can we just pretend I copy and pasted it here? Jeremy Lee also has a good paradigm. If you are confused / unsure about how I evaluate anything or just want to shoot the breeze, please ask before the round to clarify.

I competed in World Schools Debate and Public Forum for 3 years with Kingwood High School and competed for the USA Debate team my junior and senior years. I coached British Parliamentary debate at Pepperdine University while I was a student there.

Name: Klaudia Maciejewska

School Affiliation: N/A

Number of Years Judging Public Forum: -

Number of Years Competing in Public Forum: -

Number of Years Judging Other Forensic Activities: 6

Number of Years Competing in Other Forensic Activities: 7

If you are a coach, what events do you coach? BP Debates, WSDC, AP

What is your current occupation? Competitive coach

Please share your opinions or beliefs about how the following play into a debate round:

Speed of Delivery: writing down important points, trying to type as much as possible fo being able to deliver RFD

Format of Summary Speeches (line by line? big picture?) Comparison of both sides, depends on speaker if prefer clashes or other structure, should provide crucial points for the debate

Role of the Final Focus: unclear what final means

Extension of Arguments into later speeches: Allowed but unstrategic - left little time for rebuilding and responding to rebuttal

Topicality: important, arguments should be linked to the particular context

Plans: structure and strategy are helpful

Kritiks: depends on the format

Flowing/note-taking: im writing most of speeches, marking my comments to be sure after the round what i add

Do you value argument over style? Style over argument? Argument and style equally? Argument over style

If a team plans to win the debate on an argument, in your opinion does that argument have to be extended in the rebuttal or summary speeches? Ideally rebuttal, conclude outcome of rebuttal in summary speech

Hello I'm Ritabrata a second year student, currently persuing an LLB degree. I have been involved in debating for the past three years extensively judging and speaking at British Parliamentary, American Parliamentary, Asian Parliamentary and Policy Debates.

Some of my Top Judging Achievements include:

1) Harvard College World Schools Invitational 2022 Open Semis Panel

2) University of Pennsylvania World Schools 2021Open Grand Finals Panel

3) Oxford WSDC 2021 Open Octofinals Panel

As a speaker I have won the Yale IV Fall 2021 ( ESL ) and have spoken at outrounds at various tournaments across Asia North America and Europe

Few things to note:

1) I don't have a problem with people speaking at any speed but ideally upto 1.5x to 2x speed is convenient to track and follow

2) State the relevance, analyze and then subsequently weigh and impact arguments and not only assert them to maximize the full potential you can derive out of an argument

3) I'm open to theory arguments but they must be explained well with context and relevance

4) I'm a bit skeptical to kritiks but I'm open to your presentation and will evaluate it like all other arguments based of the analysis presented

5) I'm open to arguments across a spectrum of complexity and actively encourage new ideas

I competed in World Schools Debate in Mexico City for 3 years, currently I coach BP for my university Instituto Autónomo de México (ITAM) and I am co-coach of Team Mexico for WSDC 2021, alongside Ilhui Bravo Rosas.

School affiliation/s:

I am currently not affiliated with any schools or institutions outside of Mexico.

I am a hired judge for this tournament. I graduated in 2017 from The Churchill College in Mexico City. Currently I am enrolled at the Instituto Autónomo de México in Mexico City, I study economics :)

College debate experience:

I participate mostly in the spanish language BP circuit, events competed in include:

• TMD 2018 Open Broke 9th (Quarterfinals)

• Libre Open 208 Open Broke 3rd (Finalist)

• 5th Best Speaker

• Copa UNAM 2019 Open Broke 3rd (Finalist)

• 7th Best Speaker

• Relámpago 2019 Open Broke to Final

• Panam UDC 2019 Open Broke 9th (Semifinalist)

• 7th Best Speaker

• CLD 2019 Open Broke 7th (Finalist)

• 9th Best Speaker

• CND 2019 Open Broke 17th (Semifinalist)

• 9th Best Speaker

• CMUDE 2019 Open Broke 7th (Octos)

• 5th best Speaker

• Libre Open 2019 Open Broke 2nd (Finalist)

• Best Speaker

• TIID 2019 Open Broke as a judge (Quarters)

• ADMM 2020 Open Broke 8th (Semifinalist)

• 4th Best Speaker

• Round Robin 2020 -

• Torneo INE 2020 Open Broke 1st (Finalist)

• 2nd Best Speaker

• UNED 2020 Open Broke 16th

• Torre 2020 Open Broke 4th (Finalist)

• TMD 2020 Open Broke 3rd (Quarterfinals)

• Best Speaker

• E-CND Open Broke 1st (Finalist)

• Best Speaker

Tournaments as Adj Team in BP tournaments:

• Torneo INE Categoría menor 2020

• CMUDE trailer 2020

• CNDI Perú 2021

World Schools debate coaching experience:

- Team Mexico WSDC 2021 co-coach.

- Team Mexico’s Development Team Coach 2020

- Mexican Debate Summer Camp from 2017-2019

I have judged World Schools debate for 4 years now. TFA state will be the first World Schools tournament of 2021 that I judge. I judge regularly for the Mexican World Schools circuit, since 2020 I have judged on two occasions on USA tournaments and at the Winter Holiday Open tournament as a hired judge.

I have NO experience in the following formats:

__x__ Congress

__x__ PF

__x__ LD

__x__ Policy

__x__ Extemp/OO/Info

__x__ DI/HI/Duo/POI

- I have chaired a WS round before. Chairing a WS round involves calling on speakers to present their speeches, considering each and every speaker's remark, judging based on what happened during the round , not what could've happened, or what I personally would have liked to hear, pondering each argument made by each speaker, and making sure the panelists fill their ballot and send them on time.

A WS debate is made up of two teams, proposition and opposition, proposition is for the motion of the debate, opposition is against. Both teams are made up of three speakers that participate in a particular role, 1st, 2nd, 3rd and the reply speeches. The first three speeches are sustantive speeches, the last speech is the reply speech, which will be delivered by the first speaker or the second speaker of the round. This means a single speaker from both teams will do two speeches. Sustantive speeches are 8 minutes long, reply speeches are 4 minutes long. Points of information are allowed between the first and the seventh minute of the sustantive speeches, POI's may not be given during the reply speech.

I take thorough notes with many colour pens and markers :) every speaker's speech is noted, along with POI's and each speaker's response,

I believe practical and principled are equally valuable in a round, I don't prefer one over another. I evaluate the analysis delivered in order for the argument to be proven true, I evaluate the impact of each argument and the construction and justification for the given impact. I also refer back to the metrics or burden of proof presented at the beginning of the debate to evaluate the arguments.

I evaluate strategy through the POI's given in a round, through the congruency of a team (for example if there is a clear contradiction between speakers, that tells me there's a lack of strategy), and sometimes time management of a speaker in their speech (if the second argument in a 1st speech is given past 7 minutes, for example, that's a lack of strategy).

if a speaker is going too fast I would deduct points from the style section of their speech. I do want to clarify, I speak English fluently and there is no need to speak extra slowly for me, please speak as you would normally.

Evidence isn't necessary in order for an argument to be true, an argument without evidence should be sustained through analysis and mechanization of that argument. Models can be criticized, however, proposition can claim fiat in carrying out what the motion is asking them to do. Models and countermodels should respond to; who is going to carry out the model (what institution for example), how are they going to carry it out? When... etc.

**Updated October 2022**

Hi, I'm Ellie (she/her)! I have experience competing and judging in PF and WS. For four years I competed mostly in APDA for Yale. I coached for Blake after my high school graduation. I have judged many rounds over time, but not recently, so be aware of that. 

Feel free to message me for feedback (if I forget you can nudge me), if you have questions about APDA, for moral support, or anything else. I'm happy to help!

Please put debate.ellie@gmail.com and blakedocs@googlegroups.com on the email chain if you make one!

This paradigm is for PF, though some things apply across events (eg: the decorum section).

The Split

Everyone frontlines now. That's nice.

Speed

I can flow speed, but proceed at your own risk. You can "clear" your opponents but do this sparingly. I don't use speech docs to fill in things I could not catch/understand.

Types of arguments

You are the debater and I want you to enjoy debating things that interest you. There are few things I refuse to hear.

Progressive arguments are important. I'll do my best to evaluate them fairly. I am not super well versed in K lit so while I will try and understand whatever you read, there's a risk I just miss something.

I really don't like when teams run squirrelly arguments just to throw off their opponents. Your points may suffer even if I vote for you and my threshold for responses will be lower.

If you're on a topic where people tend to run "advocacies" please prove there's a probability of your advocacy occurring.

I am not amenable to speaks theory.

The only other args I refuse to listen to are linguistic and moral skep – I have yet to hear them in PF, but don't even try lol

Dates

read them lol

Evidence

I very strongly prefer cards > paraphrasing, but it isn't a hard rule. I will punish you for misrepresenting evidence or knowingly reading authors that are fraudulent or very clearly unreliable.

Know where your evidence is. If you can't find it, it's getting kicked. Do not cut cards in round.

Bracketing is bad. No debater math pls.

Summary and Final Focus

Extend defense. Don't go for everything. Args needs to be in summary to be counted in FF. Also, weigh.

~~Decorum~~

Being funny or witty is fine as long as it isn't mean. I am not afraid to tank your speaks if you are rude.

Prep

keep track of it i won't

Misc

sIgNpOsT!!!!!!!!

don't delink your own case to escape turns just frontline them

You can enter the room and flip before I get there (when we're back in person that is).

If you want to take off your jacket/change your shoes/wear pajamas, go ahead!

If you're trying to get perfect speaks, strike me. A lot of my speaks end up in the 27.5-29 range.

I'm currently a senior at Harvard debating with a decent amount of APDA and British Parliamentary experience. I did not do PF in high school – keep that in mind when you use technical jargon / speak faster.

Judging Philosophy: I flow. I'm tab, but I think that no judge is truly tabula rasa. Though not written for American HS formats, this article is very insightful and very close to how I think about judging.

I — and most judges, I hope — have an innate disposition towards liberal principles (not like Democratic, but like free speech, democracy, equal rights, alleviate unnecessary suffering, etc). This doesn't mean that I will always vote this way, but the more extreme your position is from this starting point, the harder it is (and the more work you must do) to convince me.

Some of my other thoughts are listed below:

TLDR, in image form:

TLDR, in written form: PF is an event designed for the public — please don't make me think too hard. Focus on weighing and warranting. Frontline in 2R. Don't be a dick. Debate, don't argue.

Paradigm:

1) Warrants: I like warrants. I weigh well-explained mechs much more heavily than evidence. Cards capture a specific instance of a phenomenon — tell me why that phenomenon has happened beyond pure luck. I don't find card disputes very persuasive; instead, debate on the warrant level. Make your internal links as detailed as possible.

2) Weighing: I like weighing.Do it more. I will always pick up a weighed argument over an unweighed argument, even if its warranting is not fully fleshed out. If neither side weighs, I will evaluate the arguments based on my own intuitions. My intuitions are bad. Don't let my intuition cost you the round. Barring any other explicit weighing, I evaluate strength of warrant as implicit probabilistic weighing.

3) Evidence: I don't really care about evidence. I will probably never call for a card unless I think someone has dramatically lied / misquoted / badly paraphrased it. See point 1. Add me to the chain if you must: azwang@college.harvard.edu.

4) Impacts: I have a significant presumption against high-magnitude, low-probability impacts (extinction, nuclear war, etc). I will listen to them, but I generally believe that you are better off spending time on plausible and interesting arguments.

5) Speed: Don't spread. If you're double breathing, I'm not fully flowing.

6) Theory: I don't know how to evaluate theory. I'm willing to evaluate it, but your burden of explanation is much higher in order to combat my strong bias of arguments about the topic. Err on the side of over-over-over-explanation.

7) General Vibes: Don't be a dick. Don't be any of the -ists. I will probably drop you if you affect anyone's ability to participate in this educational activity.

Thanks for reading this far. Here's a haiku to remember my paradigm:

mechs mechs mechs mechs mechs

weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh

weigh your arguments.