Public Forum paradigm

A few remarks:

1. If it's important to my RFD, it needs to be in both summary and final focus, especially if it's offense. A few exceptions to this rule:
1. Rebuttal responses are "sticky". If there's a rebuttal response that was unaddressed, even if it wasn't in your opponents' summary or FF, I will still consider it against you.
2. If a central idea is seemingly conceded by both teams, it is true in the round. For example, if most of the debate is on the warrant level, and the impacts are conceded, I will extend the impacts for you even if you don't explicitly, because this allows you time to more adequately analyze the clash of the debate.
2. Especially on framework, you have to do the work for me. I won't evaluate arguments under a framework, even if you win the framework; you have to do the evaluation/weighing.
3. Warrants are extremely important; you don't get access to your evidence unless you give me warrants.
4. If you are non-responsive, I am fine with your opponents "extending through ink" -- in order to get defense, you need to be responsive.
5. Feel free to make whatever arguments you want.

I can be interventionist when it comes to evidence; I will call for it in three scenarios:

1. You read evidence that I have also read, and I think you misrepresented the evidence.
2. Your evidence is called into question/indicted.
3. You read evidence that sounds really sketchy.

Speaker Points

What matters, in rough order of importance:

• Ethical treatment of evidence, both yours and your opponents'. (I have given 20s to teams misusing evidence in the past, and I'll gladly do so again--don't tempt me.)
• The presence of weighing/narrative.
• Nuanced, well-warranted analytical argumentation.
• Well-organized speeches. (Road maps optional; Signposting non-optional)
• Appealing rhetorical style.
• In-round courtesy and professionalism.

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!

I am an old school traditional judge.

In Congress - If you ask for an in house recess to pad a speech or to address the chamber because no one is speaking - DO SO AT YOUR OWN RISK! Nothing annoys congress judges more than 15 minutes of caucusing and getting splits, only for no one to be ready. The PO should be running the round and is perfectly capable of admonishing those who are not ready to speak. Otherwise, I like a good intro with a 2 pt preview and good, creative arguments that show critical thinking. Be active in the round and ask good questions.

PF - Keep it simple. If you run a plan, a K, or theory, you are unlikely to get my ballot. Treat me like I have no idea what this topic is and explain EVERYTHING. Weigh impacts to get my ballot. Don't complicate a pro/con debate.

LD - For UIL, stick to a traditional format with Value/Criteria and Contentions. Weigh and give voters. For TFA, just know that I loathe rapid delivery and love explanations. If you are going to run a counterplan in absence of an affirmative plan, I will not vote on it. LD is not 1 person policy. Uphold your value throughout the round.

Remember, debate is impossible without effective communication.

FLASHING IS PREP TIME! If you are not speaking, you are prepping. My prep time clock is the official prep time clock.

I am a parent judge and this is my second year of judging. Here are my preferences:

1) Keep it simple. Please make sure you tell me why I should vote for you.

2) I prefer medium pace. Please be clear in your delivery.

3) No Kritiks or Theory, please.

4) I consider argument and style to be both important, with argument having a slight edge over style. Meaningful and relevant statistics that support your argument will be appreciated.

5) Please treat your opponents with respect and be civil during cross. Also, please do not bring up new arguments during cross.

jorman.antigua@gmail.com

school affiliation: acorn community high school (Brooklyn NY), NYUDL (new york urban debate league), stuyversant high school (New york, NY)
years debating: 4 years of high school, starting college debate

in a debate round i have done everything from cp and politics to performance

my first highschool topic was aid to south Africa, last one was reduce military (if that matters)

I will vote on whatever arguments win, this means I may vote on anything, it could come down to Counterplan-Disad, Procedurals, Kritiks, Affs with no plan text, to even performance. tell me what your argument is and what the ballot signifies (if it has a meaning)...i.e. policy maker etc...(...)

speaker points: be persuasive and make it interesting thin line between funny and ass hole at times may it be in cross-x or your speech you decide *background music* ...analysis/argumentation (don't lie about reading a hole card if u didn't,don't just read cards and tag~line extend ~_~ ) i will call for evidence if needed and i will hit you wit the world famous "cum on son" lol

specifics...

impact your arguments (duhh)

Topicality: i like a good t debate, their fun and at times educational, make sure you impact it, and give a correct abuse story...

counter plans: have a good net benefit prove how they solve the case

dis ads: you can run them i vote for anything and am familiar with most scenarios

k: i was a k db8er for the better half of my db8 career so i'm pretty familiar with most k~lit u will read unless its like some deep
nietzsche, zizek, lacan type ish but i get it...and if you explain it give a good story and show alternative solvency i will vote for it...it is also fine if you kick the alt and go for it as a case turn just debate it out...

preformance: i did this too...explain what the round comes down to...i.e. role of the judge/ballot/db8ers...and if their is a form of spill over what this is and means in real world and debate world... block framework lol...and show me why your/this performance is key...may it be a movement or just you expressing your self...i like methodology db8s so if it comes down to the aff and neg being both performance teams be clear on the framework for the round and how your methodology is better and how the other may recreate these forms of oppression you may be speaking about...may it be the deletion of identity or whiteness etc...same things apply if your running a counter~advocacy against a performance team...(*whispers* solvency)...k vs performance rounds same as methodology prove the link and as for the alt prove the solvency... framework vs performance rounds i had a lot of these, boring but fun to see the way they play out depending on interp, vio, impacts and stuff...

framework: any kind is fine...same justification as Topicality...depending on how your spinning framework within a round... *yells* education =)

theory: sure

short & sweet

#swag...have fun...do you...debate =)

1. DO NOT SPREAD: Spreading (or reading at a pace that is unclear, difficult to understand, or too fast-paced for comfort) will dock your speaking points and make you less likely to win the round because it is rhetorically ineffective and very hard to follow.

2. Have clearly defined impacts that are well-warranted, well-evidenced, and well-argued that are rational and reasonable. The more you meet these criteria the more you are likely to win.

3. Please do not verbally insult your opponents, only attack their arguments, and any rudeness and disrespectful behavior will dock your speaking points.

4. Truth>Tech. Common sense is an underlying principle.

5. I'd prefer if you didn't take any off time road maps, it is generally a waste of time, just use your speech time to briefly explain what the contentions are.

I am looking for argumentative and persuasive skills of participants. I don't bring my own views.

Junior econ + political science double major @ UChicago. Used to debate in HS/coached a successful team for 2 years but likely pretty detached from the topic/literature now, so just keep that in mind.

Email: saydinyan@uchicago.edu

---

Read content warnings for arguments that contain discussion of violence, whether it's gender-, race-, class-, or anything else-based. You should also send out an OPT-IN form before the round if you intend to read these arguments, and not read them if everyone does not consent to it.

---

TL;DR: I'm a normal tech judge. I like judging fast, techy rounds, but not when you sacrifice warranting and explanation for the sake of strategy. Please debate to your strengths and not my preferences. Winning on the flow is winning on the flow even if you do it differently than I'd prefer.

I am okay with most arguments except for ones that are offensive or exclusionary. Kind of a no-brainer.

I don't like intervention, and I think as a debater, it's in your best interest to close all doors to it. You should be resolving all clash that you want me to evaluate. This means you should be weighing and giving me specific reasons as to why I prefer your warranting/evidence/whatever over your opponents'. Obviously, if you make me intervene to resolve something I will try to be reasonable, but if you're leaving that door open, you also lose your right to complain about which direction the intervention goes.

Extend properly. I have pretty high standards for this, so to be clear, you should be extending the uniqueness, warrant, internal link, and impact on your offense, for theory you need to explicitly extend your interp, etc, etc.

I love hearing creative and/or smart strategies (baiting some type of response you can dump turns on, reading an impact turn on yourself to kick out of link turns or vice versa, smart overviews, etc.) Obviously not required but I'll have way more fun.

Progressive args: Just FYI I went to a small school and never ran/formally learned progressive arguments, but I've coached teams that read them and I'm fine with you reading them. In general, theory should be okay. IRL I think disclosure is good and paraphrasing is bad, but I'm not a hack for anything and you can convince me to vote either way on these. I definitely have some implicit bias towards theory when used to check abuse, and I do generally prefer good substance debates over theory debates. I'm not super familiar with K literature but have judged Ks before, and if you can explain it well and articulate how things function in the context of the round then you will not have an issue. However, as I said above, it's always in your best interest to close doors to intervention and tell me exactly how you want me to evaluate parts of your argument.

---

Remember that you're allowed to have fun and insert humor into the round. Please be nice to each other. It's a good real-world skill.

Finally, you can feel free to postround me. If a judge can't defend their decision it probably wasn't a good one. As long as you stay polite I'm happy to explain my thinking.

I'm a lay judge. Go slow and no theory or I will drop you.

conflicts: groves high school (class of 2019), wayne state university (class of 2023, secondary ed major w/ minors in public health & gender, sexuality, and women's studies), detroit country day high school

always put me on the email chain! Literally always! if you ask i will assume you haven't read this! legit always put me on the email chain! lukebagdondebate@gmail.com

pronouns: they/them.

the abridged version:

• do you, and do it well

• don't cheat in ways that require me to intervene

• don't misgender me, or your competitors

• do not assume i am going to vote for you because you say my name a lot

some general stuff:

the more and more i do debate the less i care about what's put in front of me. when i first started debating, i cared very deeply about norms, the resolution, all that jazz. now, if you're willing to read it i'm willing to judge it. i'd rather see an in depth debate with a lot of offense and clash than anything else, and i don't care whether you do that on a T flow vs. a k aff or a cap flow vs. a policy aff.

my least favorite word in the english language (of which is not a slur) is the word "basically." i would rather listen to everyone for the rest of time describe everything as "moist" than listen to you say the word "basically." i've hated this word for years, do not use it. make of that what you will.

it should be said i at one point read a parody aff that involved my partner and i roleplaying as doctor/patient during the 1ac. i care exceedingly little what you want to do with your 8 minute constructive, 3 minute cx, and 5 minute rebuttals - but those speech times are non-negotiable (unless the tournament says otherwise). play a game, eat a salad, ask me about my cat(s), color a picture, read some evidence; but do it within the constraint of a timer.

(this "time fetish" is less of a "respect my time" thing and more of a "i need to know when i can tell tab who i voted for" thing. i take a lot of pride in getting my decision in before repko, and i wish to continue that streak.)

stuff about me as a judge:

i do not follow along in the speech doc. i try not to look at cards. be clear, be concise, be cool. debate is first and foremost a communicative activity. i will only read y'alls ev if there is serious contention, or you tell me to. i HATE DOING THIS, and this very often does not go how people think it will.

if you say "insert re-highlighting" instead of reading the re-highlighting i WILL consider that argument uncarded

bolded for emphasis: people are also saying they can 'insert a caselist' for T flows. this is not a thing. and i will not consider them part of the debate if this occurs.

i do not play poker both because i am terrible at math and because i have a hard time concealing my emotions. i do have pretty bad rbf, but i still think you should look at me to tell what i'm thinking of your speeches/cx.

speaker points:

Misgendering is bad and a voting issue (at the very least I will give you exceptionally low speaks). due to my gender identity i am hyper aware of gender (im)balances in debate. stop being sexist/transphobic jerks, y'all. it's not that hard. additionally, don't be racist. don't be sexist. don't be ableist. don't be a bad person.

Assigning speaker points comes down to: are you memorable? are you funny? are you a bad person? Did you keep my flow neat? How did you use cross?

I usually give in the 28.2-29.9 range, for reference.

ethics violations:

i consider ethics violations clipping, evidence fabrication/omission of paragraphs between the beginning and end of the card, and violence (e.g. calling Black people the n word as a non-Black person, refusing to use correct pronouns).

for clipping: a recording must be presented if a debater brings forth the challenge. if i notice it but no one brings it up, your speaker points will suffer greatly.

for evidence miscutting (this is NOT power tagging): after a debater brings it forward the round will stop. if the evidence is miscut, the team who miscut the evidence will lose with lowest speaker points possible. if the evidence is not miscut, the team who brought forth the violation will lose with the lowest speaker points possible. i will not entertain a debate on the undebatable.

for violence: i will stop the debate and the offender will receive the lowest speaker points possible and will lose. the person who is on the receiving end of the violence is not expected to give input. if you misgender me i will not stop the debate, but your speaker points will suffer.

one of these, because i love getting caught in the hype

brad hombres ------------------------------------X--banana nut brad

generic disad w/ well developed links/uq------X------------------------------------ thing you cut 30 mins before the round that you claim is a disad

read a plan--------------------X---------------------don't read a plan

case turns--X----------------------------------------generic defense

t not fw--------------X-------------------------------fw not t

"basically"-------------------------------------------X-just explaining the argument

truth over tech------------------X--------------------tech over truth

being nice-X------------------------------------------being not nice

piper meloche--------------------X--------------------brad meloche

'can i take prep'----------------------------------------X-just taking prep

explaining the alt------X--------------------------------assuming i know what buzzwords mean

process cps are cheating--------------------------X-------sometimes cheating is good

fairness--------------------------------X----------------literally any other fw impact besides iteration

impact turn-X--------------------------------------------non impact turn

fw as an impact turn------X--------------------------------fw as a procedural

green highlighting-X----------------------------------------any other color

rep---------------------------X----------------i don't know who you are and frankly i don't care to find out

asking if everyone is ready -X-----------------------------------asking if anyone isn't ready

jeff miller --------------------------------------X--- abby schirmer

PUBLIC FORUM SPECIFIC THINGS:

i find myself judging this a lot more than any other activity, and therefore have a LOT of opinions.

• time yourself. this includes prep. i'm not your mom, and i don't plan on doing it for you. the term "running prep" is becoming very popular, and i don't know what that means. just take prep.
• don't call me judge. "what should we refer to you as?" nothing! i don't know who is teaching y'all to catch judges' attentions by referring to us directly, but it's horrible, doesn't work, annoys all of us, and wastes precious time. you should be grabbing my attention in other ways: tone, argumentation, flowability, humor, sarcasm, lighting something on fire (please do not actually do this). call me by my first name (luke) if you have to, but know if you overuse it, it has the exact same affect as calling me "judge."
• PLEASE don't assume i know community norms, and saying things like "this is a community norm" doesn't automatically give you that dub. i entered PF during covid, and have a very strong policy background. this influences how i view things like disclosure or paraphrase theory.
• even more so than in policy, "post-rounding" me after a decision is incredibly common. you're allowed to fight with me all you want. just know it doesn't change my ballot, and certainly won't change it the next time around.
• i will never understand this asking for evidence after speeches. why aren't we just sending speech docs? judges are on a very strict schedule, and watching y'all spend five minutes sending evidence is both annoying and time consuming - bolding, because i continue to not get and, honestly? actively hate it when everyone spend 5-10 minutes after each speech exchanging evidence. just sent the whole speech. i don't get why this isn't the norm
• i'm fine with speed and 'unconventional arguments.' in fact, i'm probably better for them because i've found PF aff/neg contentions to be vague and poorly cut.
• PFers have a tendency to call things that aren't turns "turns." it's very odd to me. please don't do it.
• i'm not going to delay the round so you can preflow. idk who told y'all you can do that but they're wrong
• if you are using ev sending time to argue, i will interrupt you and make you start and/or i will tank your speaks. stop doing this.
• i'm very split on the idea of trigger warnings. i don't think they're necessary for non-in-depth/graphic discussions of a topic (Thing Exists and Is Bad, for example, is not an in-depth discussion in my eyes). i'm fine with trigger warning theory as an argument as long as you understand it's not an automatic W.
• flex prep is at best annoying and at worst cheating. if you start flex prepping i will yell at you and doc your speaker points.
• PLEASE READ THIS IF YOU WANT TO READ THEORY:I hear some kind of theory (mostly disclosure) at least once a tournament. I usually end up voting for theory not because the theory is done well, but because the other team does not answer it properly. I do like theory an unfortunate amount, but I would prefer to watch a good "substance" debate than a poor theory debate

LINCOLN DOUGLAS SPECIFIC THINGS:

• please read my policy and pf paradigms. they have important information about me and my judging

• of all the speech activities, i know about lincoln douglas the least. this can either be to your advantage or your detriment

• apparently theory matters to a lot of y'all a lot more in this activity than in policy. i got a high threshold for voting on any sort of theory that isn't condo, and even then you're in for the uphill battle of the century. i like theory debates generally, but watching LDers run theory like RVIs has killed my confidence in LD theory debate.

• 'i'm gonna take X minutes of prep' isn't needed. just say you're taking prep and take prep. i'll never understand LD or PF judges who act as if they are parents and y'all are 5 year olds asking for cookies after dinner; if you can figure out how tabroom works and how to unmute yourself, i'm pretty sure you can time your own prep.

• going fast does not mean you are good at debate, please don't rely on speed for ethos

• i hate disclosure theory and will prob vote neg 99.9% of the time (the .001% is for new affs or particularly bad answers). just put your stuff on the wiki, i genuinely don't understand why this is a debate to be had. just disclose. what year are you people living in.

things i don't care about:

- whether you keep your camera on or off (if you wanna lose free speaker points, that's up to you)

• speed. however, you should never be prioritizing speed over clarity.

hidden at the bottom: if you read the kato k and call it the "oppenheimer k" in the roadmap for the whole round i will give you a 30

neda-specific:

please use all your time. my bar for civility is much lower than most neda judges, so make of that what you will. please also use evidence.

For email chains: danbagwell@gmail.com

I was a Policy debater at Samford / GTA at Wake Forest, now an assistant coach at Mountain Brook. I’ve increasingly moved into judging PF and LD, which I enjoy the most when they don’t imitate Policy.

I’m open to most arguments in each event - feel free to read your theory, critiques, counterplans, etc., as long as they’re clearly developed and impacted. Debate is up to the debaters; I'm not here to impose my preferences on the round.

All events

• Speed is fine as long as you’re clear. Pay attention to nonverbals; you’ll know if I can’t understand you.

• Bad arguments still need answers, but dropped args are not auto-winners – you still need to extend warrants and explain why they matter.

• If prep time isn’t running, all activity by all debaters should stop.

• Debate should be fun - be nice to each other. Don’t be rude or talk over your partner.

Public Forum

• I’m pretty strongly opposed to paraphrasing evidence - I’d prefer that debaters directly read their cards, which should be readily available for opponents to see. That said, I won’t just go rogue and vote on it - it’s still up to debaters to give convincing reasons why that’s either a voting issue or a reason to reject the paraphrased evidence. Like everything else, it’s up for debate.

• Please exchange your speech docs, either through an email chain or flash drive. Efficiency matters, and I’d rather not sit through endless prep timeouts for viewing cards.

• Extend warrants, not just taglines. It’s better to collapse down to 1-2 well-developed arguments than to breeze through 10 blippy ones.

• Anything in the Final Focus should be in the Summary – stay focused on your key args.

• Too few teams debate about evidence/qualifications – that’s a good way to boost speaks and set your sources apart.

Lincoln-Douglas

• I think LD is too often a rush to imitate Policy, which results in some messy debates. Don’t change your style because of my background – if you’re not comfortable (or well-practiced) spreading 5 off-case args, then that’s not advisable.

• If your value criterion takes 2+ minutes to read, please link the substance of your case back to it. This seems to be the most under-developed part of most LD rounds.

• Theory is fine when clearly explained and consistently extended, but I’m not a fan of debaters throwing out a ton of quick voters in search of a cheap shot. Things like RVIs are tough enough to win in the first place, so you should be prepared to commit sufficient time if you want theory to be an option.

Policy

[Quick note: I've been out of practice in judging Policy for a bit, so don't take for granted my knowledge of topic jargon or ability to catch every arg at top-speed - I've definitely become a curmudgeon about clarity.]

Counterplans/theory:

• I generally think limited condo (2 positions) is okay, but I've become a bit wary on multiple contradictory positions.

• Theory means reject the arg most of the time (besides condo).

• I often find “Perm- do the CP” persuasive against consult, process, or certainty-based CPs. I don’t love CPs that result in the entire aff, but I’ll vote on them if I have to.

• Neg- tell me how I should evaluate the CP and disad. Think judge kick is true? Say it. It’s probably much better for you if I’m not left to decide this on my own.

Kritiks:

• K affs that are at least somewhat linked to the resolutional controversy will fare the best in front of me. That doesn't mean that you always need a plan text, but it does mean that I most enjoy affirmatives that defend something in the direction of the topic.

• For Ks in general: the more specific, the better - nuanced link debates will go much farther than 100 different ways to say "state bad".

• Framework args on the aff are usually just reasons to let the aff weigh their impacts.

Topicality:

• Caselists, plz.

• No preference toward reasonability or competing interps - just go in depth instead of repeating phrases like "race to the bottom" and moving on.

Hi everyone. I competed in PF throughout high school and also judged tournaments during college. Sharing a few key points of my approach to judging below:

· Overall I try to balance argument with style in my consideration; an ideal round will have a good combination of both. From a practical lens, it’s great to focus on delivering in a way that will have applicability outside of PF in other public speaking contexts. Similarly, being able to convey an argument, respond to those of the opposing team, and synthesize the discussion is also an important component.

· Speed of delivery – I’m fine with any speed as long as it’s reasonable/easily understood—Please keep in mind that I can only judge the material that I have sufficient time to process and take notes on.

· Role and format of speeches (e.g., summary speech, final focus) – I don’t have a set preference for these, and am open to any approach that further develops the debate and strengthens your side of the resolution.

· While I will consider all arguments raised, raising an argument for the first time in the grand crossfire or final focus makes it difficult for the opposing team to respond sufficiently, so I will take this into account (per judging rules).

· I will be strict around prep time to help ensure a fair debate for both sides. Please keep an eye on the time so you're not surprised.

· Finally, I expect competitors to display respect for the opposing team, even if you don’t agree with their arguments or approach.

**Online update: if my camera is off, i am not there**

I think debate is a game with educational benefits. I will listen to anything, but there are obviously some arguments that are more persuasive than others. i think this is most of what you're looking for:

1. arguments - For me to vote on an argument it must have a claim, warrant, and impact. A claim is an assertion of truth or opinion. A warrant is an analytical connection between data/grounds/evidence and your claim. An impact is the implication of that claim for how I should evaluate the debate. debate is competitive and adversarial, not cooperative. My bias is that debate strategies should be evidence-centric and, at a minimum, rooted in an academic discipline. My bias is that I do not want to consider anything prior to the reading of the 1AC when making my decision.

2. more on that last sentence - i am uninterested and incapable of resolving debates based on questions of character based on things that occurred outside of the debate that i am judging. if it is an issue that calls into question the safety of yourself or others in the community, you should bring that issue up directly with the tournament director or relevant authorities because that is not a competition question. if you are having an interpersonal dispute, you should try resolving your conflict outside of a competitive space and may want to seek mediation from trained professionals. there are likely exceptions, but there isnt a way to resolve these things in a debate round.

3. framework - arguments need to be impacted out beyond the word 'fairness' or 'education'. affirmatives do not need to read a plan to win in front of me. however, there should be some connection to the topic. fairness *can be* a terminal impact.

4. critiques - they should have links to the plan or have a coherent story in the context of the advantages. i am less inclined to vote neg for broad criticisms that arent contextualized to the affirmative. a link of omission is not a link. similarly, affirmatives lose debates a lot just because their 2ac is similarly generic and they have no defense of the actual assumptions of the affirmative.

5. counterplans - should likely have solvency advocates but its not a dealbreaker. slow down when explaining tricks in the 2nc.

6. theory - more teams should go for theory more often. negatives should be able to do whatever they want, but affirmatives need to be able to go for theory to keep them honest.

7. topicality - its an evidentiary issue that many people impact poorly. predictable limits, not ground, is the controlling internal link for most T-related impacts. saying 'we lose the [insert argument]' isnt really an impact without an explanation of why that argument is good. good debates make comparative claims between aff/neg opportunities to win relative to fairness.

8. clipping - i sometimes read along with speeches if i think that you are clipping. i will prompt you if i think you are clipping and if i think you are still clipping i will vote against you even if the other team doesnt issue an ethics challenge.

9. 2nr/2ar - there are lots of moving parts in debate. if you disagree with how i approach debate or think about debate differently, you should start your speech with judge instruction that provides an order of operations or helps construct that ballot. teams too often speak in absolute certainties and then presume the other team is winning no degree of offense. that is false and you will win more debates if you can account for that in your speech.

10. keep track of your own time.

unapologetically stolen from brendan bankey's judge philosophy as an addendum because there is no reason to rewrite it:

---"Perm do the counterplan" and "perm do the alt" are claims that are often unaccompanied by warrants. I will not vote for these statements unless the aff explains why they are theoretically legitimate BEFORE the 2AR. I am most likely to vote for these arguments when the aff has 1) a clear model of counterplan/alternative competition AND 2) an explanation for where the

I would prefer that debaters engage arguments instead of finesse their way out of links. This is especially awful when it takes place in clash debates. If you assert your opponent's offense does not apply when it does I will lower your speaker points.

In that vein, it is my bias that if an affirmative team chooses not to say "USFG Should" in the 1AC that they are doing it for competitive reasons. It is, definitionally, self-serving. Self-serving does not mean the aff should lose [or that its bad necessarily], just that they should be more realistic about the function of their 1AC in a competitive activity. If the aff does not say "USFG Should" they are deliberately shifting the point of stasis to other issues that they believe should take priority. It is reciprocal, therefore, for the negative to use any portion of the 1AC as it's jumping off point.

I think that limits, not ground, is the controlling internal link for most T-related impacts. Ground is an expression of the division of affirmative and negative strategies on any given topic. It is rarely an independent impact to T. I hate cross-examination questions about ground. I do not fault teams for being unhelpful to opponents that pose questions in cross-examination using the language of ground. People commonly ask questions about ground to demonstrate to the judge that the aff has not really thought out how their approach to the resolution fosters developed debates. A better, more precise question to ask would be: "What are the win conditions for the negative within your model of competition?"

Kempner '20 | Stanford '24

Email: b.10.benitez@gmail.com

or just facebook message me

4 years of PF, qualified to TOC twice

________________________________

23-24 update: I haven't thought about debate in a minute, so the likelihood I know the intricacies of your arguments is low. However, don't hold back, treat me as tech judge, ask any questions beforehand.

- I've thought about it more, read whatever you want to read. However, my standard for technical proficiency rises as the more technical an argument becomes. i.e. if you want to read non-topical arguments, you'd better make sure you're doing a near perfect job in the back half to win because I won't search for a path to the ballot for you unless it's obvious. TLDR: make our lives easier by having good summaries and finals, I won't do the work for you.

- my old paradigm is here. Lots of my thoughts are the same, just ask me.

- if look confused, i probably am

General stuff

• Flex prep is cool and tag team speeches/CX is fine with me

• if ur down to skip grand for 30 seconds more prep (during the time of grand), i'm down

• absent any offense in the round, i'm presuming neg on policy topics and first on "on balance" topics

• Defense you want to concede should be conceded in the speech immediately after it was originally read.

• A concession requires an implication of how the defense interacts with your argument not just "we concede to the delinks"

• discourse links are super sketch (i.e vote for us bc we introduced x issue into the round)

hi! my name is devanshi (she/her), i'm a current junior at mcgill university (it's in montreal) and i debated policy at lexington before that. if you're reading this, i'm probably your judge.

if the round's about to start:

- email: devanshisbhangle@hotmail.com

- be organized - subpoints, good line by line, etc.

- tech > truth - if you win the flow, you win the round.

- p l e a s e be clear. if you don't think you can be clear, slow down a little: you're better off going at 80% speed where i can understand everything you're saying as opposed to 100% where i can understand maybe half. i'm not shy about asking you to be clear but tbh it's not a good experience for any of us so please let it not come to that.

- pf specific: speed is fine. theory is fine, progressive args are fine, identity args are fine: i'll vote based on what's on the flow; simply reading any of these arguments doesn't guarantee a ballot for or against you.

- my topic knowledge is p limited - i study microbiology + immunology, so i get epidemiology / pandemics / public health, but outside of that, assume my understanding is what you'd expect for ur average college kid

- please don't make arguments or engage in behavior that threatens the safety and wellbeing of the people in the room or marginalized folks writ large. this includes, but is not limited to: making racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic comments, deadnaming / (intentionally) using incorrect pronouns, saying slurs, etc. i will not tolerate it, and doing so will result in an automatic loss, laughably low speaker points, and a word with your coaches.

- if your opponents are making you feel uncomfortable or unsafe, please let me know! i believe every video conferencing system has a function where you can privately send people messages. you can also email me. similarly, if there's anything i can do to make your experiences better (including using correct pronouns, avoiding certain topics, etc.) please let me know in whatever way is comfortable for you.

- disclosure = good - show me you disclose, and i'll give you + your partner +0.2 points

- speaks are fluid and arbitrary, but i do my best to default to higher speaker points :')

- for pf specifically: i have 0 idea what defense being "sticky" is ??

other stuff / if you have more time:

- an aff has to do two things: 1) create change; 2) be tied to the resolution in some way. beyond that, i don't really care whether it's a k aff or not. either ways, you should be able to defend your model of debate.

- i won't meticulously comb through your evidence for you. if there's a specific card that's really good for you or damning for your opponents, point it out to me in round.

- kritiks --> i'm minimally familiar with antiblackness, cap, and feminist literature, but beyond that, assume i have a very basic understanding (except for pomo, in which case, i know literally nothing). either ways, i find jargon confusing + unnecessary - in my experiences, the best k debaters have also been the ones who could most clearly explain what their theories are and how they link to the aff

- i do my best to consciously distance my decisionmaking from any preconceived biases. that being said, here are the ones i won't budge on: death is bad, racism/sexism/homophobia/genocide/bigotry is bad, climate change is bad, cancer/disease is bad.

- impact calc <3

- i like when counterplans have a solvency advocate that's specific to what the text mandates.

- not a huge fan of dodgy politics disads; make sure they're extended well and supported by your evidence.

- try not to be aggressive?? especially to novices / younger debaters / people with obviously less power in the situation than you. if you need to make someone feel small to look better, you're probably not a good debater lol

- recommend me a book/show: if i've read/seen it, +0.1 points; if i haven't, +0.2 points; if it's one of my favs, +0.3 points.

- tell me how to vote in the 2nr/ar!

good luck, be nice, have fun! <3

I am an Educationist Entrepreneur, involved in forensic judging for last couple years as a parent Judge. I favor a more traditional style of argumentation but am not bias towards any particular style.

I am not a big fan of speeding up during your speech delivery. As a debater it is your primary goal to convince me as to why your form of debate is best or better than your opponent and why you are right. Having said that, I would like to see a clear demonstration of the validity of your position through impacts. If you fail to make sense in your debate and choose to opt to confuse yourself and others by going back and forth on AFF and NEG flows; you are showing your lack of understanding and lack of control over your debate topic, which is certainly not a winning debate.

I will not tolerate discriminatory or abusive language of any kind. I like crystallization. At the end of the debate, I like to hear a list of things that I should vote for you and why you should be win the round and not your opponent!

I have been judging PF debate tournaments since 2014, so I do have some experience in judging local and national level debates.

I prefer reasonable speed - extremely fast speed makes it hard to understand the entire argument.

I default to an "on balance" metric for evaluating and comparing impacts. I will not consider unwarranted frameworks, especially if they are simply one or two lines asserting the framework without even attempting to justify it.

I will evaluate topicality arguments, though only with the impact "ignore the argument", never "drop the team".

I am a parent judge, who has some experience judging public forum rounds. I like a few things in a speaker.

For the First Speaker:

When presenting your case to me, I would like you to speak clearly and slowly. If you start speaking too fast, I'll stop flowing. Make sure that you're emphasizing what contention you're on and organize your case by subpoints, making it easier for me to flow your case.

For the Second Speaker:

When you are rebutting your opponent's case, make sure that you tell me what on their case you are responding to, and I would prefer you to go down the flow. If you do something else, tell me in an off time roadmap. Also, clash is very important in a round so I would like to see a lot of it from you.

During your final focus, I would like to hear Impact calc and why you win the round. Your impacts should be resolutional. Also tell me the reasons why you should win.

Cross Ex:

I want you to be respectful to your opponent. I don't care about where you're facing, either me or your opponent. During Grand CX, teams can either stand up or sit down.

I'm a lay judge.

I prefer you to make your speeches slow and to the point

I look for these things;

1) Logical Argumentation

2) Strong Presentation

3) Ethical Debaters

Make sure you have fun and let me know if you need anything in the round.

NAME: William Bryant

SCHOOL AFFILIATION: Muhlenberg County High School

NUMBER OF YEARS JUDGING PUBLIC FORUM: 1

NUMBER OF YEARS COMPETING IN PUBLIC FORUM: 1

NUMBER OF YEARS JUDGING OTHER FORENSIC ACTIVITIES: 0

NUMBER OF YEARS COMPETING IN OTHER FORENSIC ACTIVITIES: 0

IF YOU ARE A COACH, WHAT EVENTS DO YOU COACH? Public Forum

WHAT IS YOUR CURRENT OCCUPATION? Teacher for Muhlenberg County High School

In response to the sharing opinions and beliefs about how the criteria listed fits into a debate round, I am currently still getting my feet wet in the field of debate. When judging, the speed of delivery is only important to the extent that the debaters have prepared their arguments well and have much to say about the subject of the debate. Knowledge of the proposition and the ability to answer the arguments of the opponents are a top priority for me. I would value argument over style and be looking for good responses to the opposing teams arguments. So, my answer would be yes to the question: "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?"

From the beginning to the end of the debate, I try to listen to the arguments and rebuttals and award the win to the team who has argued their point well. From watching the two young debaters from my high school who are entering the competition, they put in hours and hours of preparation. If the team has put in the work, it becomes apparent in how they argue. I am not an experienced debater - nor have I been judging long enough to become a seasoned judge. I will do my absolute best to judge a competition fairly on the basis of merit and not arbitrarily.

Jared Burke

Bakersfield High School class of 2017

Cal State Fullerton Class of 2021

2x NDT Qualifier

NDT Quarterfinalist - 2021

CEDA Semifinalist - 2021

Cal State Fullerton Assistant Debate Coach Fall 2021-Present

Peninsula Assistant Coach Fall 2023-Present

Previously Coached by: Lee Thach, LaToya Green, Shanara Reid-Brinkley, Max Bugrov, Anthony Joseph, Parker Coon, Joel Salcedo, John Gillespie and Travis Cochran

Other people who have influenced the way I have thought about debate: Vontrez White and Jonathan Meza

If there is an email chain I would like to be on it:
College: jaredburkey99@gmail.com debatecsuf@gmail.com

HS: jaredburkey99@gmail.com

If you have any questions feel free to email me

Dont call me judge I feel weird about it, feel free to call me Jared

I did four years of policy debate in high school mostly debating on a regional circuit and did not compete nationally till my junior and senior year, debated at Cal State Fullerton (2017-2021)

New for 2023-2024:

Fiscal Redistribution: 11

Nukes : 13

LD Total: 89

NDT Update: I have been more involved in coaching Cal State Fullerton toward the second half of the year, this is not to say that I will know every intricacy of every aff, but from research I have done, I think I have a decent grasp on the topic.
If you are a senior,-and this is your last debate, congrats on an amazing career, but if you don't want to hear the RFD please feel free to leave.

Ramblings:
Gotten increasingly frustrated with the lack of explanatory power in K debates where there is not a sufficient link argument. I wouldn't say that I have a high threshold for the link debate but I genuinely think that this is the one part of the K that you cannot screw up. If you do well you will probably lose. If the 2NR is the fiat K I am not the judge for you.

If your 2AC/1AR strategy when you are reading a K aff is to say that only this debate matters then you shouldn't pref me. This is not to say i don't enjoy critical affirmatives but I think that the aff needs to provide a model of debate (Counter interpretation), a role of the negative, and an impact turn to the negatives standards, absent those things in the 1AR/2AR strategy it becomes difficult for the affirmative to win.

Cliff Notes:

1. Clash of Civs are my favorite type of debates.

2. Counterplan should not have conditional planks -theory debates are good when people are not just reading blocks

3. Who controls uniqueness - that come 1st

4. on T most times default to reasonability

5. Clash of Civs - (K vs FW) - I think this is most of the debates I have judged and it's probably my favorite type of debates to be in both as a debater and as a judge. I would like to implore policy teams to invest in substantive strategies this is not to say that T is not an option in these debates, but most of these critical affs defend some things that I know there is a disad to and most times 2AC just is flat-footed on the disad. Frame subtraction bad, one PIC good, 2As fail to answer PICs most times. 2ACs overinvestment on T happens a bunch and the 2NR ends up being T when it should have been the disad or the PIC. All of this is to say that T as your first option in the 2NR is probably the right one, but capitalize on 2AC mistakes. Other T things - fairness is an impact and an internal link - role of the negative has been one of the most persuasive framings to me when comparing aff vs neg model of debate - only this debate matters is not a good argument, these debates should be a question about models of debate - carded TVAs are better than non-carded TVAs - TVA are sure-fire ways to win these debates for the negative.

6. No plan no perm is not an argument

7. Speaker Points: I try to stay in the 28-29.9 range, better debate obviously better speaker points.

8. Theory debates are boring --- neg condo probably good --- I've been increasingly suspect of counterplans with conditional planks just because of how egregious they are

Ideal 2NR strategies

1. Topic K Generic

2. Politics Process CP

3. Impact Trun all advantages

4. PIC w/ internal net beneift

5. Topic T argument

Specifics

K: Love the K, this is where i spent more of the time in my debate and now coaching career, I think I have an understanding of generally every K, in college, I mostly read Afro-Pessimism/Gillespie, but other areas of literature I am familiar with cap, cybernetics, baudrillard, psychoanalysis, Moten/Afro-Optimism, Afro-Futurism, arguments in queer and gender studies, whatever the K is I should have somewhat a basic understanding of it. I think that to sufficiently win the K, I often think that it is won and lost on the link debate, because smart 2Ns that rehighlight 1AC cards and use their link to impact turn of internal link turn the aff will 9/10 win my ballot. Most def uping your speaker points if you rehighlight the other teams cards.

T-USFG:I think the stuff that I have said on the clash of civs section applies a lot here - fairness is an impact and is an internal link - role of the negative as a frame for your impacts/TVA etc has been pretty persuasive to me - 2ACs that go for only this debate matters doesn't make sense to me

DA:I think in these debates (also almost every debate) I just come through cards --- which is also why my RFDs take forever because I sift through a bunch of cards --- impact turns good --- absurd internal link chains should be questioned

CP: Process CPs good, judge kick is a logical extension of conditionality, multi-plank conditional counterplans I am somewhat suspect of just because they are sometimes are egregious --- permutations are tests of competition not new advocacies

LD Specific:

I expect to be judging LD a lot more this year with working most of the stuff applies above, but quick pref check.

1 - Larp/K

2. K affs

3. Theory

4-5. I do not like tricks or Phil

If you make a joke about Vontrez White +.1 speaker point.

Tabroom

Instagram

YouTube

Experience: Roughly a decade of debating and coaching.

I don't need an off-time road map beyond you telling me which side you're going to start on.

Truth or tech: Truth and Tech :)

Spreading is fine, and paraphrasing is fine, but paraspreading (please credit me when you use this fantastic neologism/portmanteau) is a bad decision.

Aff gets some reasonable amount of durable fiat, but they will need to justify any other fiat not explicitly made clear in the wording of the resolution.

The first round of card calling happens after 2nd constructive, not after the 1st constructive. Please feel free to tell the other team my paradigm says this.

I don't want to hear the vast majority of theory/progressive arguments in PF. I understand their value, and I read them in college. That said:

(a) there are already 2 other categories where you can easily make these arguments. There's zero good reason to bring it to the world of PF.

(b) at least 50% of the time I hear such arguments they are used as bludgeoning tools to beat an opponent who simply doesn't know much about this side of the debate world. As much as I enjoying "playing the game," I find this to be one of the more depressing aspects of the current state of our debate community.

(c) there are still ample ways to be progressive or read theory in a PF style. Example: Reading a blanket (topical) contention about US regime change as a way of critiquing whether or not we should withdraw our military presence in the middle east. Example: Reading an observation for why a certain interpretation of the resolution is the most fair in round, while appealing to the norms and standards of PF.

Kritiks are of course not ok, nor are new arguments in the Final Focus, etc.

I don't think that the 2nd speaking team has a requirement to frontline in the rebuttal, nor do I think every last drop of an argument has to be perfectly extended through every speech for it to be evaluated in the Final Focus. However, I think the 1st Final Focus is allowed to make responses to the 2nd summary, and they should have had extra time to weigh in the prior speeches anyway, meaning that their Final Focus is not particularly hurt. Further, if (and only if) no frontlining is done in the 2nd rebuttal, 1st speaking team's defense is sticky so long as it's extended in the 1st Final Focus following the 2nd summary's frontlines. All of this being said, I still advise the 2nd speaking team to pursue some frontlining earlier, as I will take into consideration the ability for a team to respond to an argument in time when weighing the link strength and probability of an argument.

I will vote down teams for egregious evidence violations. This is probably the most "hands-on" aspect of my judging paradigm; my standard is lower than the NSDA's rulebook. I don't need to think you're lying for me to consider it an evidence violation. Here's my test:

(a) Does your evidence clearly say something different from what you claimed?

(b) Is that difference significant, or minor? (Example of minor: You read a card that says Arms Races increase the chance of war three-fold, but the evidence [Rider '11 for anyone interested] is more specific to mature state rivalries that begin an arms race. Example of major: you claim the Rider '11 card says that giving aid to Ukraine increases the chance of nuclear escalation by 300%).

(c) Is it integral to my RFD on the flow? If no, I'll probably just chuck the argument. If yes to all of the above, there's a good chance I'll look for any way I possibly can to vote for your opponent. All of this said, I'm not going to go out of my way to find evidence violations. If I did that, I'd be awarding a lot of double losses :P

Please free to tell me to call for cards, including your own in the event of a dispute. I will read them.

Experience: Purdue University, 1 year of debating NFA-LD (essentially, progressive college one-person policy following nearly the same NSDA-LD format), 1 year of coaching NFA-LD, a few years of judging traditional LD and HS policy (some circuit, some trad).

Flowing everything includes flowing arguments about how one debater excluded the other. If there's a component of my judging that is not tabs, then it's definitely this. About 50% of the time I hear fringe K's or disclosure theory, it feels like they are used as bludgeoning tools to beat an opponent who simply doesn't know much about this side of the debate world or you found a cheap shot to take advantage of. As much as I enjoying "playing the game," I find this to be one of the more depressing aspects of the current state of our debate community. This doesn't mean I'm going to try to intervene, but...we all have biases. If you go for it, make sure you win it convincingly.

Similarly, I have recently become more "solidified", so to speak, in my opinions regarding the value of the style of intentionally technical, intentionally obtuse, and intentionally performative debate. To put that bluntly: I find most of the current K and games debate to be highly dubious in its educational value. AS a point of reference, if you watched the NDT 2023 Final Round, I found it to be a joke and an embarrassment to debate. I would be genuinely ashamed to show somebody not in debate that round. All of that said, and as hard as it may be to believe, don't construe this as me as a judge aiming to intervene or punish you for the choices you make in the debate. The only thing I dislike more than a totally gamified, pretend-philosophy 1NC is a judge who thinks their job is to be a debater. I will try very hard to avoid that. Put simply: I'll probably still vote for whatever the performative non-topical K is that you're winning, I'll just complain about it to myself later.

I have a BA in philosophy, so if you talk about a cool philosopher I'll be happy and can hopefully follow along pretty well.

Truth or tech: Truth and Tech :)

Spreading is fine, and paraphrasing is fine, but paraspreading (please credit me when you use this fantastic neologism/portmanteau) is a bad decision.

Truth over Tech - but you have to be prepared to debate. I have strong preferences against nonsense, but you must be skilled enough to meet a minimum threshold for responsiveness.

😤 WEIGH YOUR ARGUMENTS 😤

Hello! I'm a judge for Oakton High School. I'm a parent of a debater, and since I've traveled with him to many local and national tournaments, I have decent experience judging this event.

I like clear, well-explained arguments, backed up with valid and convincing evidence. Explain your arguments clearly, why I should vote on them, and why they're more important than your opponent's, and you'll be rewarded.

If your argument is remotely false I will drop you.

Yes: Weighing (not just impact comparison). Warranting. Comparing evidence and analysis. Implicating all arguments to the ballot (offensive and defensive). Arguments that make sense. Smart collapsing. Direction of link analysis. Signposting.

YES! Starting good weighing in rebuttal. Summary-final focus parallelism. Ballot-directive language. Productive use of crossfire. Creating a cohesive narrative in the round, supported by each argument you make in the round. Weighing your weighing.

No: Weak, blippy evidence. Cards without warrants. Independent offensive overviews in either rebuttal, especially 2nd. Rudeness. Ghost extensions. Not frontlining in 2nd rebuttal. Squirrely arguments that are unclear or confusing for the sole purpose of throwing your opponent off.

NO! Misconstrued cards. Extending through ink. New arguments in 2nd final focus. Saying something's dropped when it's not. Dropping weighing. Being unclear in speaking. Being actively mean, degrading, racist/sexist/homophobic.

Other

I kind of flow but not really, I take notes.

No defense in 1st summary unless if it's not frontlined in 2nd rebuttal (you should do this). All offense must be in every summary and final focus. I presume for the 1st speaking team.

If you say the words "do you have any preferences" without a specific question, I'll assume you didn't read this.

TLDR: I like smart narrative tech debates. But you do you!

Hi! I'm Zara (she/her) and my email is zarachapple (at) gmail.com. I debated PF for Dalton (C)Y from 2017-2020, ran Beyond Resolved, coached for PFA, and now I study Public Policy and Sociology.

Don't be bigoted, don't be mean, respect pronouns + use content warnings. If I make this round/tournament safer or more accessible, please reach out, and I'll do what I can!

.·:*¨༺ ༻¨*:·.

Debate is a game and that game is Jenga. Collapse!

Procedure: Preflow, track your prep, and don't skip cross. I'll disclose decisions/speaks/comments as the tournament allows and give feedback, but don't post-round me.

Getting Good Speaks: Signpost everything, especially weighing/off case args. Implicate weighing/responses to your opponent's case. Crossfire shows how well you know your own arguments. I strongly prefer analytical responses that go after the structure of your opponent's arguments to prep-outs and card dumps.

Speed: Check with all teams/judges. My limit is ~220 WPM and I won't flow arguments I didn't hear.

Evidence: Your evidence probably isn't as good as you make it, but I won't evaluate issues with things I'm not asked to look for. Good analytics >>> unwarranted evidence. I'm chill with paraphrasing when it explains something more efficiently.

Theory: I am familiar with and will evaluate theory. I have high standards for reasonability, and argumentation still matters. Please don't make me intervene on vibes because your theory arguments aren't extended, warranted, and/or implicated. Theory isn't an RVI unless you make args otherwise.

Ks/Progressive Arguments: I really believe most policymaking approaches are problematic, so I welcome these arguments, and I'm familiar with most authors read in PF. That said, I have more experience judging LARP rounds, and I see their educational value too. PF's structure isn't conducive to Ks so I understand if you just explain the role of your argument, but I would encourage you to focus on strong links and alternatives.

Misc: I'm a Cancer Sun, Scorpio Moon, Pisces Rising. I judge nothing like Ben.

Good luck, and have fun!

Try not to spread, otherwise have fun!

I am a parent judge. For the past few tournaments that I attended, I immensely enjoyed the experience, particularly for the well prepared cases, arguments with well supported evidences from solid research. Students with the patience of letting the others finish their points impress me the most. A lot times, it is not just about what you argue, but equally important is how you argue. Because of the age and the passion, students sometimes spread, which in my opinion shows that you started to lose focus. Listening sometimes is more important, which is the basis of 2 way communication as supposed to just stressing your point of view.

Nonetheless, debating skills are highly regarded and critical in schools and work places. The tournaments provided an excellent forum for you to develop those skills. I wish that I had that when I was attending high school in China.

I am a parent judge for Dublin High School. I expect the debaters to self-govern and adherence to time limits.

Speaking Requirements

- Speak very clearly (enunciation) and slowly. Do not speak too fast and emphasize important words, use pauses effectively.

- Speak confidently. If something is important, make sure you make that very clear. Refer to me as judge if you want my attention especially during your speech.

- Give eye contact during every speech.

- I take your body language into consideration.

- Be polite and respectful to me, your opponents and your partner

Content Requirements

- Stay on the topic. I will not vote for you if you go off topic.

- Make your arguments very clear to follow and understand, especially if you are advancing them. If your opponents do not respond, make sure to mention that in your next speech.

- Don't be disorganized. In rebuttal or summary, tell me if you're addressing their case or their refutations in crossfire. Also, give me an off time brief roadmap before the rebuttal, summary, and final focus speeches.

- In final focus, tell me the voter issues (main arguments in today's debate), why you won, why they lost, and why your impact outweighs theirs. The easier you make it for me to know why you won, the more likely you will win.

Speaking:

- Clear speech

- Moderate pace

Responses and Argumentation:

- Organized signposting is best

- Don't use too much debate vocabulary

Voting:

- I am a lay judge with some experience

- I will take notes on important points, pros and cons of each side

- I also judge off of speaking points and flow of information

- Please be respectful to me but also your opponents

I expect u to time yourselves -- be a good person and don't go over your time pls.

Please don't run Theory, K's, or anything too technical that doesn't represent true PF debate

I will take notes, but please please please don't spread or speak too fast.

I don't flow cross-ex unless it's super important and mentioned in the following speech.

Please don't make me weigh for you. Treat me like a lay judge and tell me exactly why you win the round.

Extend through Summary and Final Focus. Weigh extremely clearly because that's exactly how I'm going to vote and it's what I'm going to be writing in my feedback.

Speaks: I'm nice with the speaks so don't worry.

General Background:

I did S&D for four years in High School. I did PF, Congress, Extemp, Impromptu, and Duet. I competed on the national circuit in Congress my junior and senior years. I am the three-time Arizona Division II State Champion in PF 2016, 2017, 2018. I have coached PF, LD, Parli, and Congress. This paradigm goes in the order of PF, LD, Speaks, Congress. I went to Fordham University for my bachelor's in philosophy. I am now a 1L at the University of Nebraska College of Law.

This paradigm has been updated 11/20/20 to consolidate my preferences (so that LDers aren't looking at the PF section for some things -- they are consolidated to the general section) and present them more clearly. Speaks section added on 12/1/20. Change-log: 3/18/21 edited truth skep section for clarity and emphasis. 1/22/21 added minor tweaks to the LD and speaks section for emphasis and clarity, nothing fundamentally changed in evaluation. Updated 12/12/20 to reflect points I want to emphasize after Stanford. Updated 2/16/22, PF section for minor clarity in advance of Harvard. Update 2/19/22 PF section to emphasize points about impacts half-way through Harvard.

Updated 1/4/23 to reflect updated biographical data; new note on RFD/Ballot construction with arguments on presumption; clarification and organization in LD section.

Debate in general:

-I hesitate to say flat out "debate is a game" but I believe that at its core debate is an intellectual activity. Whether or not education is part of that is something to be established in round. Debate is like chess.

-Include content warnings where appropriate to make debate a safe and accessible space. Avoid sexism and other harms that have cropped up in the debate scene. I will vote off theory on this if its ran.

-I've previously had in this paradigm to try to say a full citation instead of the author's last name and year. This isn't necessary. What I want to stress is that I have a hard time writing down names quickly. The rate at which you say Kowalczyk should be slower than your normal rate (dare I say, 1/2 of your normal rate) so I can figure out how to bastardize the spelling when writing it on my flow. Some teams still are having a hard time doing this - If you need an example of what I expect let me know. I will handle any speed, spreading with a doc (add me to the chain: jcohen83@fordham.edu), I will give a verbal 'clear' if needed.

-I am not timing in the debate round. You cross-time. It is 100% up to the competitors for flex-prep and/or timed-evidence.

-I will give an oral RFD and disclose at the end of the round.

-OTRMs: If you are running something progressive that will require me to get another flow out, please let me know in a roadmap about the off. Otherwise, OTRMs waste time if its "going down one side then back to the other".

-I will not pay attention to crossfire/crossex. Anything that happens needs to be brought up in a speech.

-If you want me to read a piece of evidence, tell me to call for it in a speech. Anytime I ask for evidence I will want to see the cut card first, asking specifically for the full pdf if needed.

PF:

-Bringing LD into PF? Go for it; I like progressive argumentation. Just make sure it actually is justified/be prepared to argue the merits of the progressive debate should it come up.

-Don't extend through ink, and make extensions actually an extension. Extensions should have something new, or at least re-explain what was before. Don't give me "Extend the Worstall card" or "Extend the entirety of our C1" and leave it at that because that isn't extending. If your gonna do that the bare bones is to explain what the cards say. You should use the card names while extending because it helps me flow - but don't only leave it at the card name.

-If you are extending an argument in summary you need to include warrant, link, and impact level extensions where applicable. I can't buy the impact calc if the warrant & impacts aren't extended - even varsity teams have trouble with this.

-every argument has to pass a believability threshold. Even if it’s not refuted, if I am not convinced or I don’t ‘buy’ the argument, I don’t weigh it (See Truth>Tech). I get a lot of questions on this: Basically - you need a warrant. I'm a reactive/visible judge most of the time, you can use this to your advantage to see what arguments I'm nodding towards.

-Don't violate the nsda handbook.

-I most likely won't flow final focus. I never did as a competitor so I don't like to as a judge. I was a first speaker. What I am doing during FF is looking around my existing flow and circling/drawing lines/checking things off, etc. The reason for this is that nothing new should be in FF. Anything you are talking about in your final focus should already be extended through summary (this includes briefly mentioning the impacts while extending the case). Like if something is dropped by both teams I'm not just gonna pick it up in the FF. Most importantly with this, summary speakers needs to extend the defense. Defense is non-sticky.

-I prefer Voter Summaries over two world or line by line (with the rule change to 3 minute summaries this is less important but still helpful for my flow, just make sure to signpost well).

-I will truth>tech in PF, my truth is skep. I will not blindly flow anything you say. If you say the sky is green don't expect me to count it on my flow without any warranting. Similarly, if you don't tell me why an impact matters, i.e. terminalized, then I'm not going to be able to use it for the construction of my ballot. I start from a position where I don't know if war is good or bad and if you don't tell me and say "decrease risk of war" as an impact I'm not going to know how to construct a ballot around that. I'm not Tabula Rasa, I default to dropping every argument in the round. If you drop the warrant or don't terminalize, I drop the argument.

Want to be safe? Every impact chain causes death.

-If I end up dropping every argument in the round, my ballot and RFD will get flukey. Flukey as in I technically don't have any material anymore to construct a decision. This can go one of two ways and I've alternated between both of these approaches depending on how the round goes.

1) I relax a little bit on the flow and take non-terminalized arguments and "risk of advocacy" to make a ballot as in "this team was closer to making my ballot so they get the win"; or

2) Presumption, in which I generally will defer to SQUO unless told otherwise although this is not a guarantee or promise.

Therefore: teams, if you want me to do something specific within my ballot construction, argue for it. If you think (1) is better for you, then say I should do that and tell me why. If you think (2) is better, then give me a presumption argument telling me which way to presume.

LD:

If you're traditional, read the PF paradigm and:

If you are traditional please do not misrepresent philosophies. This is an area I am not tab. at all. If you say Kantian ethics justifies murder I will not weigh it. More progressive philosophies are less subject to this as I haven't studied critical theories as much as I have the basics of moral frameworks. I am very receptive to hearing post-structuralism and post-colonial arguments like if you want to run Baudrillard, CyberFem, Afropess, or something -- I will be more tech on those.

If you are progressive:

I am competent with progressive debate but you should keep in mind adaptation to a PF judge. I would rather have a progressive debate than a bad traditional one (read: please don't let the round have me concluding that PF is a more intellectual form of debate than LD).

I have no predisposition towards PICs. If you want me to drop because PICs are "abusive", you must argue that in round.

If you are running something super LD-y you should be watching my reactions to make sure I understand and explain more if needed, e.g. trix/tricks.

Some things, e.g. performance/performative args/Ks, you will need to clearly explain the path to my ballot and what the role of the ballot in relation to the advocacy is in the round. This includes a hesitancy to vote on theory - you will need to have it be explained as clearly as possible for me to vote on it - if it gets muddied where I don't understand why the theory is being ran I'm liable to not vote on it...

In general with Progressive LD is something where "I will get it and be able to follow along until I suddenly reach a point where I don't". In most rounds I've seen that go progressive I don't have any issues.

I wish I could give you like those rankings of what arguments I prefer like other LD judges, but in my experience, I don't really care as long as its argued well so that I can understand it.

Speaker Points:

I assign speaks in what I assume is a non-traditional (and harsh) way. I will not evaluate speaks based on your speaking ability or performance. Speaks for me are purely reflective of how I assess your technicality in debating relative to a varsity debater championing a tournament. Because of this, I will almost never assign a low point win; if you are technically better on the flow you most likely won the round (unless its a "good at everything but impact calc" vs "average enough to be able to win on strong calc" thing). I do not adjust speaks based on tier of debate I am judging. I do not refrain from giving lower speaks in fear of 4-2 screws. I view 30-25 as an A-F scale. I start from a position that 27 is an average debater who is making various errors in terms of addressing arguments and who is missing a lot of what I think could have been argued. Here is how I think the breakdown goes:

PF: 25-25.9 wow you really did some egregiously bad in the round or have missed so much of the fundamentals of debate that if I were teaching a class I would flunk you. 26-26.9 you missed a lot, you could have done something that was on the flow the opposite of what you should have done. You most likely are missing a lot of components of winning the ballot based on the flow. This is a 'D', my way of saying you aren't at the level of debate you are competing in. 27-27.9 is most likely the most common place for me to put speaks. You did things right enough to consider this an okay debate but I still desired a lot more to come out of it. 28-28.9 is the best I can give to a debater that neither stuns me nor shows something beyond normal technicality. In LD: I will almost never give above a 29/29.5 to someone who isn't running progressive arguments. In PF: above 29.5 means I think you are destined to reach far into elims and should be a contender to win the tournament. If your opponent is a 26.0 and you perform at a 28.5 because you couldn't express the technicality for a 29< due to a lack of substance to wrestle with that is a tough break (and perhaps the biggest flaw with my speaks standards -- but I would rather assign speaks this way [as that scenario is mitigated by power matching] to be as unbiased as possible -- away from any unconscious affects towards things you can't control regarding how you actually speak and sound to me).

Good way to get good speaks with me? Surprise me by doing something on the flow I wouldn't think of or don't see coming. Here is an example of something from a round that blew my socks off: A team got up for their rebuttal (2nd speaking) and read delinks/dewarrants to their own case, then full sent a bunch of turns on the opposing case. On the flow it made perfect sense and was a level of technicality I hadn't seen performed before. They even responded to theory challenging the abusiveness of the tactic. This was a team that was in deep eliminations at a national circuit tournament. It is the kind of of debate on the flow that affords above a 30.

Congress:

This is congressional debate, not mock congress or congressional speaking. Clash is the most important thing to this; without clash, congress isn't debate.

Know where you are in the round. On the topic of clash, nothing is more boring than a rehashed point on the 7th cycle of debate on a bill. Yes I get you want to speak but please follow the life-cycle of debate on a bill. If we're past the first two cycles, I want refutation, if we're getting late into the cycles I want to hear some crystallization.

By all means please caucus and plan motions together for efficiency, but don't exclude people from this activity because a select number of you have clout from the national circuit or camps.

Questions show if you are truly in tune with the debate or not. Asking questions isn't just more speaking time or to show your activity for the ballot. It's about leadership and continuing the clash. Questions are truly an extension of your speech and they will count toward your placement on the top 6 ranking.

For POs: Be quick and efficient. Your job is to get the most debate done in the fixed time we have. If you are fuddling around because you can't remember the process for an amendment that is a problem. Your charisma and leadership of the chamber are important to your efficiency. Don't expect a top 4 ranking just for POing. You earn that top 6 by virtue of how well you do as a PO.

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.

For Spring Break Special:

1. I have not judged in a while. I will most likely be able to keep up, but I may clear you.

2. I am apathetic what type of arguments you read, but I still deeply care about how you read the arguments you present. That means you can still read warming good, the Psychoanalysis K, three T shells etc, but you must explain and weigh those arguments.

bencortez92@gmail.com

Full judging record available here (Speaks + RFD)

Bio: Parli at UChicago. LD at Loyola '21. TOC (x2)

Top level: Tech > Truth. Strategic decision making > Pandering to me. Good tech will override any preference I have below. I'll only intervene if there are arguments of equal strength without weighing claims to resolve them. In these situations, I look to evidence first, then truth.

Misc: Sometimes emotive; always flowing (but not off the doc). Not a fan of one-line cheap shots. You have my consent to record, but ask others. I don't keep time. 100% fine with post-rounding (time permitting). Will only evaluate warrants highlighted.

Banned arguments: Death good, oppression good, and out of round things (besides disclosure)

Argument history: Affs defended a plan and mostly big impacts. Negs were almost strictly policy: sometimes 6+ off, sometimes 6 minutes of impact turns, but usually something in between. K when policy ground was scarce. Sometimes read wacky things like Trump good, consult UN, and riders.

DA: Terminal impact calc >> strength of link barring instruction. Topic disads are good. Politics and riders are fine, but I understand intrinsicness (Read This). Uniqueness puts the straight turn in a much better place. Zero risk on ridiculousness like 2014 midterms. I like it better when turns case is earlier. New 2AR and 2NR weighing always.

CP: Fine for anything with a net benefit. Competition and solvency are neg burdens. Lean neg on most theory. Lean aff on most competition (Read This). Judge kick requires instruction.

Case: Case debate, impact turns, presumption, analytics, and/or re-highlighting are appreciated. Read re-highlight for offense. Insert for defense. No preference between soft left and big stick.

T: Slightly lean against bare plural arguments for clash/predictability reasons. One aff a topic is a terrible model. Model/vision of the topic is more persuasive than "9 factorial affs" in a vacuum. A staunch believer that the neg needs definitions otherwise we get infinite T debates.

Theory: Save for literal double turns or technical drops from shells, not good for the condo 2AR. Easier to convince me the abuse is unreasonable rather than to use competing interpretations.

K: Better for teams that utilize K tricks than those that wax poetically about society. Read cap, security, complexity, abolition, and anti/post-humanism during my career. Roughly familiar with other meta lit and their answers. Imo neg needs either solves/turns case, framework, unsustainability/inevitability, or a robust external extinction impact to win. I'll probably vote aff on case o/w otherwise.

K affs: Skeptical about framework's ability to cause either genocide or grassroots movements. Affirmatives need a counter interpretation/model of debate. Negatives need to answer case. Affs gets perms.

LD specifics

Phil: Will evaluate fairly, but more experienced with the util side. Epistemic modesty makes sense.

Other Things: K Framework needs to be in the 1NC. Paragraph theory with education and fairness assumed is fine. Unqualified to judge (but will begrudgingly evaluate) tricks and frivolous theory.

Speaker points: Will not punish for humor, sarcasm, or minor cursing. Will disclose points if you ask. 28.8-7 breaking. Current [28.75] average.

Jenny Crouch

School: Brentwood High School

I AM DEFINITELY A LAY JUDGE.

I have never participated in, or judged, any Forensic activities other than PF debate.

When judging tournaments, I am most generally following the earliest guidance I received, which is to think in terms of which team is most persuasive with their aff/neg argument. Crucial to this is whether I can effectively understand the speaker. Many students are so focused on time & getting in maximum words, that they are very difficult to understand & they undermine their own research. Do they back up statements with factual references? Do they immediately offer cards with resources cited? Do they respond to the opposing team's arguments with thoughtful, relevant data, or do they revert to an unrelated item in their own "script"? Do they stay focused on the resolution, or follow tangential topics that muddy the question at hand?

I do take notes as I am listening to each round. These are often truncated due to the speed of the speaker. I include as much information as possible in my ballot comments.

Hello!

I am a lay judge with a bit of experience judging.

Please do not spread and speak overly fast or else I will not catch what you are saying.

Please signpost during your speech and offtime roadmaps are great!

I am not familiar with kritiks, theory and other techy content, if you do choose to run any of the above, please relate them to the motion.

Explain your arguments, don’t just throw evidence at me.

-- I care the most about your logic, so explain your arguments as clearly as possible.

Most importantly, have fun!

I've done nats circuit public forum for 2 years. I have 0 topic knowledge on this topic.

Tech>Truth

- Add me to the email chain Runzhec@uchicago.edu

In-round:

-Frontline in 2nd rebuttal

-No new arguments in 2nd summary or final

-Anything in final focus must be in summary(extend ur link chain), defense isn't sticky, except new weighing is fine in 1st final

-I do not flow cross fire, if you want something from cross say it in a speech

-Please signpost

- Please collapse and do COMPARATIVE weighing!!!

-Evidence ethics: I will only evaluate quality of evidence if I am told to

-Speed: If you go over 250wpm I will need a speech doc

-Theory: If you run theory please follow your own interp in your other rounds too. No frivolous theory please(ask beforehand)

-Ks: I haven't evaluated K debate that much, please don't run it

Speaker points(you can still get 30s even if you do none of these):

I will increase your speaks if...

-If you read cut cards(tell me if you do)

-Give brief off time road map

-Camera is angled so I can see your full face

Lose speaks if...

-Ur discriminatory in any way

-Talk over your opponents in cx

-Bad evidence ethics

-Say an arg goes conceded when it wasn't

-Takes over a min to find evidence

Glhf :)

Put me in email chains or feel free to email me questions: JamieSuzDavenport@Gmail.com

I probably need to do an overhaul of my paradigm; it will likely not happen until I'm out of grad school. Seriously just AMA if it will help you going into the round.

Experience:

MPA-MSES @ IU Dec ’23, hoo hoo hoo Hoosiers. GA since '21. Please note this is an environmental science degree. I have a very low tolerance for climate denial or global warming good and would recommend not going for those args.

BA: IR, Fr, Arabic @ Samford, May ’20, ruff ‘em, CX and novice coaching

HS: LD in GA, ‘16

Misc

A note: I won't read cards unless instructed or seeking clarity (and if this is the case, I will be grumpy). All comments will be typed in the ballot and am open to questions immediately following the round and via email afterward. I do my best not to intervene or let personal biases cloud my judgment. I do have a deep appreciation for friendly competition and will generally be happier while giving out speaks or making decisions if I think the people in the round embodied that spirit. Conversely, am not afraid to have a come-to-Jesus meeting for unnecessary antagonism.

For eTournaments: I'll need a little more time than normal to adjust to your style of speaking/spreading because online anything gets tricky. Try to keep that in mind for your speeches so my ears can adjust. I'll default to having my camera on.

Zoom debate: PLEASE double-check your mic settings so that background noise suppression is not on. Zoom decides that spreading is background noise and it messes with the audio.

Overall:

Do what you want. I'm pretty go-with-the-flow and will try to adapt to what the round is versus making you adapt to me. The main thing to consider with me is my personal debate experience and potential knowledge gaps because of it. I'm not a great judge for high theory because I simply don't get it and it takes more explaining for me to understand and take it seriously (@ Baudrillard, semio-cap, etc.). There's some k lit that I'm not fully versed in but I try to keep current on major issues. Otherwise go nuts but make good choices.

2AR/NR: I more and more find myself telling debaters to tell me a story so I think I should put it in here. Whether you're going for a K, FW, DAs, extinction - whatever - start the speech telling me what your scenario is and why it's preferable to the other team. This is especially true if going for a perm or in a KvK debate, having a nuanced explanation clearly at the top of the speech frames the rest of the lbl and interactions you go for.

This was formerly organized by each event that I judge but that was getting unmanageable and ugly. If you have specific questions about anything event-specific or otherwise, just email or ask before the round starts.

Theory

Topicality/FW - I'll default that fairness is k2 education – if you want a different standard to be my primary metric, just tell me to do the thing. Might need more explanation of how I can apply the standard but that’s mostly for the atypical ones. Err on the side of over-explaining everything. Please please please explain your (counter)interp and what standards I should apply to favor yours - if there are a bunch of standards, which one do I evaluate first? Why? To reiterate: err on the side of over-explaining everything.

Fiat - I'll imagine it's real for policy v policy debates but more than willing to be sus of it, just tell me why.

Condo – dispo is an archaic interp and I think you can get better offense from other brightlines (2, what they did minus 1, etc.). I’ll vote on dispo but it’ll take more for you to win it than you need to do. Generally, think condo gets to its extremes when in the 3-4+ area, but new affs could change that yadda yadda, do what you want.

Other theory – whatever, just make the interp/counter-interp clear and tell me what to do with it.

RVI’s – please strike me or pref me real real low if this is your thing. I just don’t like it. This is one of if not the only hard-line I draw on content. They’re a time suck to play weird chess instead of engaging in the substance of the debate. Also, the majority of the time, horribly explained/extended.

Content

No huge preferences here

Cross-ex - I don’t flow cx unless something spicy grabs my attention and it’s usually obvious when that happens based on my reaction. Bring it up in a speech to remind me. Open cross, flex prep, is fine – I for real check out for flex prep.

Card clipping – you’ll lose. Might report it to tab/your coach if I’m feeling zesty that day.

Silliness

Love a good joke, wordplay, or reference. I currently am trying to incorporate “slay”, “yeehaw”, “gaslight gatekeep girlboss” and more into my regular debate vernacular. Feel free to also use these and I’ll at least laugh, maybe boost speaks, who knows – depends on how much of a silly goofy mood I’m in.

Former PF debater in high school. Strongly prefer you avoid theory or Ks.

Small note--I do my best to record source/author names, but it helps me if you can mention an extremely brief description of the card along with the name if you bring it up in later speeches. (e.g. if you cite a card from Jones in your constructive, then the first time you bring it up in a later speech, try to say something like the "Jones card on insurance coverage rates" or something like that.

Name: Liz Dela Cruz Contact Info: lizdelacruz@me.com PF Paradigm (Updated 021621)

Expirence: I debated and coached Policy (Cross-ex) debate for a number of years. If you want to know what I did, scroll down, I have my Cross-Ex (Policy) Paradigm below.

Note:

I am a flow judge! I will provide a Google Doc Link to use. I prefer this to an email chain because I there is a delay in getting emails sometimes. I also don't like putting the evidence in the chat function. It is easier for me to go back and review the evidence.

I also usually always pop up a couple of minutes before the round to take questions about my Paradigm. If you have clarity questions, please feel free to ask.

General:

1. Debate is about having a good time and learning, please be respectful to everyone. Just remember that this is just a round and there will be another. Do your best and have fun.

2. Due to my policy background, I like Signposting. Please let me know where to go on the flow. Think of my flow as a blank slate. You tell me what to write and where. Moving contentions or switching from Pro flow to Con flow? Tell me.

3. I will vote for FW, independent Voting issues, and Pre-req arguments. But there needs to be enough substance for me to do so. If you decided to go for any of these, make sure to extend the case evidence that is needed to back it up. If not, it tends to be hard for me to vote on it.

4. I debated both theory and K in debate. If you want to do it, I am fine with it, but make sure to elaborate on how it correlates to the topic and your corresponding side.

5. If there is something said in Cross and you would like to use it in the round I am fine with it. But you need to make sure that you bring it in the speech to make it binding.

6. Just saying cross-apply case doesn’t mean anything. Or extend …. Card from case- give me substance and warrants for why you are extending it for me to consider it.

Summary/FF:

1. Make sure to extend the arguments and evidence from the Case to the summary and from the Summary to the Final Focus. It is key make sure to extend and explain.

2. You can only use what you extend in the Summary in the Final Focus.

3. I am a big fan of weighing! Magnitude, scope, impact analysis, substance love it all. Makes my job easier.

4. Break it down! Give me voting issues!

Speed:

1. I did policy, speed is not an issue. Please don’t ask me if you were to fast. I can hear you.

2. Do not sacrifice clarity for speed. If you are concerned about me not flowing your speech, then slow down and enunciate!

3. I will not tell you clear or slow, those things are for you to work on as a debater. If you are worried about it, then do speaking drills before the round and speak slower.

Policy (Cross-Ex) Paradigm (Updated 041715)

Affiliation: SouthWestern College, Weber State University

Paperless Ish: Flashing is Preferred: Prep time ends when you hit "save on the USB". Flashing is not considered part of prep time. If you take more than two minutes to save on the USB and get files flashed over, I will ask that you "run prep time". If you are going to do an email chain and would like to put me on it feel free. My email is listed above. If teams have spandies and tubs and USE 60% or more paper in a debate, will get some sort of candy or asian yummyness!

Experience: I was a policy debater for SouthWestern College. We run socialism and sometimes not socialism but more often than not it’ll be socialism. Did I mention we run socialism?

Voting Style: Do what you want but make sure it’s on my flow. Be clear and concise and tell me how I should interpret the round. Don’t make the assumption that I’ll randomly agree with your arguments. Spell it out for me so that there is 100% chance I get it. Spend time on the overview or underview. Make it very clear where I should be voting and why. This is something that makes my life easy and the life of all judges easy. Paint me a picture using your arguments. Give me reasons why I should prefer your position over theirs. The clearer the debate is the easier it will be to vote for you. Heck clear up the debate if it gets messy you’ll get nice speaker points. See how I’m telling you all to do the work? That’s because the debaters not the judge should be deciding how the judge should judge. I’m an open canvas. Paint me a nice picture. Just no nemo.

Speed and flowing: There’s fast and then there’s fast. As much as I’d like to admit I can keep up with a giant card dump in the neg block with a billion arguments, it’s just not going to happen. I can keep up with most speed reading. It’ll be easier for me to get your arguments down on my flow if you slow down during the tag/citation so I can actually hear it super well. If you spread your tags and I’m not keeping up, that’s on you as a debater. Arguing when you lose because I didn’t have that card or arg flowed when you made it a blippy mess isn’t going to do anything so don’t even try. That being said, I keep a very concise flow. And what you say in the 2nr and 2ar will be what I vote on. Policy

Argument Issues: Case: I feel like sometimes case debates get overlooked a lot. If you’re aff, don’t be afraid to use your case as giant offense if the other team is only to go 1 or so off. Good cases can swill outweigh da’s and K impacts if done well.

Non-Traditional Affs I evaluate Non-traditional Affs the same as traditional ones. However, there are things I like clearly defined and explained: 1. Explanation of advocacy 2. Role of the Ballot 3. Role of the Judge 4. Why is your message/mission/goal important.

Topicality I don't really care to much for T, but I will vote on it. I haven't voted yet on T being a reverse voting issue, but I do believe that T is a voting issue. I also tend to lean towards competing interpretations versus reasonability. Although, if the argument and work is there for reasonability, I will vote on it. Especially if the other team does not do the work that is needed on Topicality.

Theory Just saying things like "reject the team" or "vote Aff/Neg" typically doesn't do it for me. I would much rather hear, "reject their argument because it … blah blah blah." On the other side, saying "reject the argument not the team" is not enough for me to not consider it. I need solid reasons to reject the team like abuse. Actual abuse in round based on what was run is very convincing.

Performance I like watching performances. Since I judge by my flow, it allows me to separate myself from how I evaluate the round. Please note: Just because I am expressive during the debate does not always mean that I am leaning to your side. I am a very expressive person and thus why I judge strictly by my flow. So if there are points that you want me to highlight, pull them out in the later speeches. It will help with clarification and clash.

Kritiks I like kritiks. That being said a lot of mumbo jumbo gets thrown around a K debate. If you want me to pull the trigger on the K I need to know how it functions. Explain the rhetoric of your K to me in the block. Don’t assume I know what your alt is and what it will do in conjunction to the aff. That’s your job to make sure I know. Explain what your alt is and how it solves not only the impacts you read but also the aff’s or why the aff’s impacts don’t matter. Don’t assume that I’ll vote for “reject the ***” alts. Spend time in the block and in the 2nr how your K works in the round. Give me a picture of what the world of the K looks like and what the world of the aff looks like.

DA Not all disads are created equal. The Aff should attack all parts of the DA. Impact calculus is a must.

CP I believe that CPs should compete with the 1AC. Not only does this give better clash, but it also allow the 2A to defend their Aff.

Hey all. I am Abhijit Dey, a judge from Dougherty Valley High School who judges PF and Extemporaneous Speech. So far I have been judging for 1.5 years at DV.

I will award speaker points to the most eloquent speakers and the ones with the most knowledge on the topic, as well as the ability to explain themselves smoothly. Speaker points are also based on your attitude- be nice to everyone in the round.

I like to see clear drawn out arguments and impacts in the final speech with comparison to opponents arguments. Please spend a lot of time explaining your argument to me throughout the rounds, if not, I may be lost if you go fast.

I will be taking notes but not fully flowing.

Use evidence how you would like but do not lie about it. If your opponents ask to see it send it to them immediately and continue the round.

I evaluate cross examination greatly. As someone with a congressional law degree, I believe that your arguments are made and set up in cross examination and you must be good with your questions.

The truth is extremely important but your arguments do not need to be 100% truthful if you are winning off of skill. However, if the round is close, I might not want to vote for you because your arguments are mistruth as I may be biased.

CONGRESS PARADIGM IS BELOW THIS PF Paradigm

PF:

ALMOST EVERY ROUND I HAVE JUDGED IN THE LAST 8 YEARS WOULD HAVE BENEFITTED FROM 50% FEWER ARGUMENTS, AND 100% MORE ANALYSIS OF THOSE 50% FEWER ARGUMENTS. A Narrative, a Story carries so much more persuasively through a round than the summary speaker saying "we are going for Contention 2".

I am NOT a fan of speed, nor speed/spread. Please don't make me think I'm in a Policy Round!

I don't need "Off-time roadmaps", I just want to know where you are starting.

Claim/warrant/evidence/impact is NOT a debate cliche; It is an Argumentative necessity! A label and a blip card is not a developed argument!

Unless NUCLEAR WINTER OR NUCLEAR EXTINCTION HAS ALREADY OCCURED, DON'T BOTHER TO IMPACT OUT TO IT.

SAVE K'S FOR POLICY ROUNDS; RUN THEORY AT YOUR OWN RISK- I start from ma place that it is fake and abusive in PF and you are just trying for a cheap win against an unprepared team. I come to judge debates about the topic of the moment.

YOU MIGHT be able to convince me of your sincerity if you can show me that you run it in every round and are President of the local "Advocacy for that Cause" Club.

Don't just tell me that you win an argument, show me WHY you win it and what significance that has in the round.

Please NARROW the debate and WEIGH arguments in Summary and Final Focus. If you want the argument in Final Focus, be sure it was in the summary.

There is a difference between "passionate advocacy" and anger. Audio tape some of your rounds and decide if you are doing one or the other when someone says you are "aggressive".

NSDA evidence rules require authors' last name and THE DATE (minimum) so you must AT LEAST do that if you want me to accept the evidence as "legally presented". If one team notes that the other has not supplied dates, it will then become an actual issue in the round. Speaker points are at stake.

In close rounds I want to be persuaded and I may just LISTEN to both Final Focus speeches, checking off things that are extended on my flow.

I am NOT impressed by smugness, smiling sympathetically at the "stupidity" of your opponent's argument, vigorous head shaking in support of your partner's argument or opposition to your opponents'. Speaker points are DEFINITELY in play here!

CONGRESSIONAL DEBATE:

1: The first thing I am looking for in every speech is ORGANIZATION AND CLARITY. 2. The second thing I am looking for is CLASH; references to other speakers & their arguments

3. The third thing I am looking for is ADVOCACY, supported by EVIDENCE

IMPORTANT NOTE: THIS IS A SPEAKING EVENT, NOT A READING EVENT! I WILL NOT GIVE EVEN A "BRILLIANT" SPEECH A "6" IF IT IS READ OFF A PREPARED SHEET/TUCKED INTO THE PAD OR WRITTEN ON THE PAD ITSELF; AND, FOR CERTAIN IF IT IS READ OFF OF A COMPUTER OR TABLET.

I value a good story and humor, but Clarity and Clash are most important.

Questioning and answering factors into overall placement in the Session.

Yes, I will evaluate and include the PO, but it is NOT an automatic advancement to the next level; that has gotten a bit silly.

I like to see clear introductions, summaries and conclusions. Please show me that you understand the topic and then clearly develop your case and impact work. Link your arguments and be specific. Make sure your rebuttals do their job, but make sure your own case is developed as well as your criticism of your opponents. Solid research is usually necessary to win positions. Feel free to ask any questions before the round if there is anything you would like to know about. Good luck and have fun!

Kendelle Durkson

Judging PF: 8 years

Competing in PF: 4 years

Current Occupation: Graduate Student (M.D.)

My advice to debaters is to take your time delivering nuanced and developed arguments instead of speaking at a superhuman speed to cover all of the contentions. I prefer big-picture arguments that are anchored in current data while also supported by an appreciation of the historical account/data. Specifically, highlight the historical trends + current consequences in your arguments and the data that supports said conclusions.

The role of the final focus is to recap the main arguments presented and reinforce why your evidence is the most relevant in comparison to your opponent's contentions. I prefer if debaters focus on the overall logic/fact sequence of the debate and how their own contentions are factually supported. Not spending too much time nitpicking a particular data point or opponents' card (unless particularly topical to the overall debate).

As for extensions of arguments into later speeches, I support the practice if the argument prevails due to superior evidence and presentation of that evidence. It is wise for debaters to not overload at the beginning of speeches because you can use later speeches to refine the initial contentions provided. As for topicality, the arguments definitely should be on focus and directly addressing the resolution. Additionally, I do not look favorably upon contentions that rely on hypothetical proposals to address/remedy/provide an alternative to the resolution.

Lastly, as for kritiks, I urge debaters to be cautious with overpopulating their contentions with perspectives from Critical Theory. Although I recognize the importance of systemic critique (and even encourage your arguments to be framed with systemic inequalities in mind), I do not want the arguments to become nontopical and overly lofty. As for flowing, I will hand flow all of the arguments and then follow through the debate with several bullet points of significant subpoints/counterarguments/etc.

As a judge, I prefer the argument over style. Granted, I insist that debaters respect each other while speaking, the rules, and the forum while presenting or cross-examining. However, the evidence and logical conclusions drawn in the arguments are what are most persuasive to me. I will not dash points for speaking slowly or any speech impediments-- I will dash points for incessantly interrupting opponents, being rude, or not participating.

In my opinion, if a team plans to win a debate on an argument, then that argument has to be extended in the summary speeches. I prefer if teams use the cross-examination/rebuttal to highlight fallacies and inaccuracies in the opposing team's arguments while using the summary to reinforce the evidence + logic of the supposed winning argument.

If a team is second speaking, I do not require that the team cover the opponents' case or answer to its opponents' rebuttal in the rebuttal speech. I think debaters should have flexibility in how they want to frame their speeches. However, I urge debaters to know I will remember significant arguments presented by the opposing team. So if something needs to be critically addressed or answered in either the summaries or rebuttals, I urge that team to use the time to adequately address the issues.

I vote for arguments that are raised during the grand crossfire because I believe each team should have adequate time to decide if they want to address those arguments. New arguments raised during the final focus is given much less weight because they are not addressed with as much scrutiny.

Pet Peeve: Poorly extended arguments. Please extend your arguments well. There is a sweet spot between brevity and depth that you should try to hit, but don't extend your case in 5 seconds please. This is a hill I will die on, and so will my ballot.

Feel free to email for questions, feedback, or flows: zdyar07@gmail.com .Please add Greenwavedebate@delbarton.org to the email chain

TLDR: I'm a typical flow judge. I value quality of argumentation over quantity. Please collapse, extend warrants and impacts, frontline, and weigh your arguments. I'm fairly tech (see my notes at the bottom and make your own assessment).

Background: Was a mediocre PF debater for 4 years in Minnesota at both traditional and nat circuit tournaments. Coached and judged since 2020. I'm also an Econ/Poli Sci major so I have a pretty solid BS meter.

Basic Judging Philosophy I vote off of what is warranted, I prefer what is weighed. Give me reasons to prefer your warranting over their warrants and do weighing that COMPARES your impact to their impact by telling me why yours is more important and WHY. Don't just say a buzzwords like "scope" or "de-link" and move on.

After the round: I will give you an oral RFD if possible once I submit my ballot, and feel free to question/post-round me because it makes me a better judge. I will also call for cards (see evidence section).

Speed

- I can handle around 250 words per minute BUT only if you SLOW DOWN ON TAGLINES. Send a speech doc if you are above 225 wpm or have bad clarity.

- Reading fast is not an excuse to be blippy. Speed should allow you to have better warranting and more depth, not less. Speed + 6 contention cases are not the move

- Just because you CAN read fast with me, doesn't mean you SHOULD. Read at whatever pace you debate best at, don't try and rush just because I'm techy.

Evidence

- You may paraphrase, BUT I expect you to send a cut card with a citation. DO NOT send me a full PDF and tell me what to control+F. I doc speaks for bad behavior in this department.

- After the round I will call for some key cards from case/rebuttal, even if they weren't relevant to my decision. This is my way of checking power tagging/bad cuts. If a card sounds too good to be true, I will call it. Even if the card isn't relevant to the round, I will drop your speaks if it is miscut.

Rebuttal

- Number your responses so it's easy for me to flow.

- Collapse in 2nd rebuttal (it's strategic in winning my ballot). you MUST frontline offense in 2nd rebuttal, and I strongly strongly strongly prefer you frontline every arg you are going for fully.

- Disads are fine in rebuttal. If a DA is read in second rebuttal, I'm more lenient on frontlines/responses in 1st summary. Try and link-in if you read a DA.

Summary & Final Focus

- I have a VERY high threshold for case extensions (lots of warrants plz). Don't underextend or you will probably lose.

- I prefer defense to be in summary (defense isn't sticky). I will maybe evaluate defense that is extended from 1st rebuttal to 1st Final Focus ONLY IF it is cold dropped, but there is a low chance I will evaluate 2nd rebuttal to Final Focus defense. I will never evaluate defense that isn't extended in Final Focus. Your best chance of winning defense is to extend it in both summary and final focus.

- Offense needs to be in both summary and FF.

- If you don't collapse, frontline, and weigh in summary, you probably won't win my ballot.

Theory

- I will vote on theory, but I prefer it to be read in the first speech possible (i.e., don't read a shell in 2nd rebuttal if it can be read in 2nd constructive). Disclosure, paraphrasing, content warning, misgendering theory, etc. are all fair game.

- Very pro-content warning shells, but ONLY when they aren't friv (i.e., I think reading one on a poverty impact is too much, but reading like a gendered violence content warning shell is definitely not friv). However, I'm non-interventionist so I'll vote on anything. I do believe that content warnings aren't a race to the bottom and that there is some reasonable threshold for me to buy them, but also this is one of the places I kind of default to a reasonability stance-- I think there is some gray area I want people to hash out in rounds though.

- If you use theory to exclude your opponents and you have structural advantages in the debate community I will you drop the shell faster than you can read your interp. But, if it's two rich private schools bashing each other over the head with theory, go ahead.

- Don't extend your shell in rebuttal (you shouldn't extend case in rebuttal either).

Ks

- I've voted on Ks several times before, but I'm not well-versed in the lit so slow down on tags and key warrants.

- You need to at least have minimalist extensions of the link, impacts, and all other important parts of your arg (framing/ROB) in summary AND Final. Don't try and read the whole thing verbatim.

Progressive weighing

- Progressive weighing is cool-- I like well-warranted metaweighing (though I've seen it done well only a handful of times), link weighing, and SV/Extinction framing.

- Saying the words "strength/clarity of link/impact" is not weighing :(

Assorted things

- If both teams want to skip cross/grand cross and use it as flex prep, I'm cool with that. Negotiate that yourselves though.

- Read content warnings on graphic args, though I'm more open to no content warnings non-graphic but potentially triggering args like human trafficking (will evaluate CW theory though). Google forms are ideal, but give adequate time for opt-out no matter how you do it.

Speaks

-Speaks are inherently biased towards privileged groups-- I will try and evaluate speaks strictly based on the quality of args given in your speech.

-There are 4 ways your speaks get dropped: 1) Arriving late to round, 2) Being slow to produce evidence or calling for excessive amounts of cards, 3) Stealing prep time, 4) Saying or doing anything that is excessively rude or problematic.

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

How tech am I? Here are some arguments and how I'd evaluate them.

- Climate change fake/good: While obviously untrue, I would vote on it as turn/defense. However, my threshold for frontlines would be low, so it likely isn't a super strategic choice.

- Election Args/[politician] bad: Would 100% vote on it-- run whatever so long as it isn't offensive

- Racism/sexism/homophobia good: Nope.

- Economic Growth Bad (DeDev): Would 100% vote on this.

- Tricks: Nope.

- Impacts to animal/plants: I would love the chance to vote on this with a framework.

Fourth year out from Hawken and did pretty well at ToC my senior year (he/him). My email: zelkaissi@uchicago.edu

General:

I would strongly prefer if you don't read theory or kritiks (but I'll try my best to evaluate them)

Warrant everything!

I don't care too much about cards. Warrants are more important to me than whether or not its carded. The only time I care about cards is if there's disagreement on a descriptive claim about the world, or some expertise/authority on a topic is needed.

If there is a disagreement on a fact, I will be very happy if you cite academic papers and describe why their methodology is better than some evidence the other team is citing

I like it when teams think creatively instead of mindlessly reading cards (including during rebuttal!). So make sure to implicate the evidence you read well, and don't be afraid to give analytical responses

I like strong and consistent narratives in round

To win my ballot you'll have to drop some arguments and focus on warranting, weighing, and winning the important ones.

Case/Rebuttal:

Slower cases are good, especially if its a hard to follow argument. I do really like creative and off-meta arguments though!

Signposting rebuttal well is very impressive and appreciated, so I'll reflect that in your speaker points

Summary/FF:

I won't vote for your argument unless I understand it, so please be clear!

Be very specific about what link/impact you're going for and how the defense you extend is terminal/not mitigatory so its easy to flow and I don't make a mistake.

Please weigh link-ins vs the link they read from case when you read turns

For cross, just give concise, direct answers, and don't be afraid to concede things. I don't like lots of fluff or evasiveness, and I'll reflect that in your speaker points.

After round, if you think you won but I drop you, please advocate for yourself at the end of the round/post round. I won't change my decision, but l still want to give you as much useful feedback as possible so please let me know if you disagree with anything I say in my decision

Random details (ask before round if you have any specific questions):

Speed in general is fine so long as both teams can understand everything

2nd rebuttal should respond to all offense-things in 1st rebuttal (including weighing)

Defense is sticky from first rebuttal to first final

First final can make new weighing, but second final can respond if its new in first final

Second case never has to respond to first case

Background:

Tawfique Elahi is currently pursuing MSc Information Systems at Lund University, Sweden. He got his bachelor's degree in computer science from NSU. He is an early-career researcher in Human-Computer Interaction.

He served as a debate coach at BL Debate Academy, Vancouver; and Debate Spaces Academy, Boston. In terms of leadership experience, he is currently serving as the Head of the Lund University Debating Society, and Chairperson at the United Asian Debating Council. Previously, he was the Secretary of the World Universities Debating Council (WUDC) and the Asian BP Debating Council. He brings a wealth of debate experience to the table. He has judged elimination rounds at ~100 debate championships on five continents (Asia, Africa, Australia, Europe, and North America), served on ~25 Chief Adjudication Panels, 3 Equity Panels, ~40 Grand Finals, and chaired ~20 elimination rounds. Among his major successes are serving as Chief Adjudicator at the McMaster High School Tournament and judging final series rounds at the World Championship of Debating (Korea WUDC), Hart House IV, and Canadian BP Championships. He is experienced with the WSDC, IPDA, CNDF, BP, CP, PF, LD, Policy, Asians, Australs, and Easters formats.

Certifications:

• NFHS Protecting Students from Abuse

• NFHS Cultural Competence Course

General Notes for speakers:

• I really admire teams that are well-structured and can clearly express the implications of evidence and properly tie back the evidence to their position.
• While you’re going to use evidence, it's preferable that you also explain the underlying trend/core issue associated with it.
• Engagement is important. Direct comparison and weighing make the lives of judges easier. It's preferable that you also illustrate how the advantages on your side outweigh theirs, and how their disadvantages outweigh their advantages.
• If you argue a comparative advantage, be prepared to justify it with proof that explicitly links to that piece of proof that your opposition used.
• If you’re presenting counter-plans, be prepared to analyze why your counter-plan is a better approach, for example, you reach the resolution faster/easier and take fewer resources.
• Please don’t present any point that will not be understandable to an average intelligent voter. If you do so, that piece of material will be discounted.
• Please don't use any offensive language that leads to equity violations.
• Roadmaps are appreciated.
• Speaking fast is fine, but please use clarity.
• Any kind of Style is fine with me as long as you're fairly understandable. I acknowledge that different debaters come from different backgrounds, and thus have different styles.
• I reasonably flow during speeches. During the crossfire, I take notes for the most important questions raised and how they're answered.

For the rounds I am judging, I will be looking for appropriate mechanisation of the arguments presented, proper analysis of their full impact and clear cohesion and structure in the way they are presented. I will also be paying special attention to how you explicate the magnitude and time frame of the arguments that you believe best sum your case and help your side and stance. A crucial part of that is that you strategically collapse on your strongest argument and zoom in on their magnitude.

In terms of style, the most important thing for me is that you are first and foremost respectful of one another. There is nothing wrong with having a strong assertive style, and even a strongly critical when questioning the other team, but you should never attack another's debate person or offend them in any way while doing that. Beyond this, I appreciate clarity and being able to follow your flow from one argument to the next - in other words, slow down!

Finally, I want to be able to see clear evidence of collaboration between you and your teammate in terms of how your arguments build on top of one another without duplication and how you refer to the points made by your teammate in your speech to enhance your analysis.

P.S: my face does weird things some times when I am engrossed in notetaking or deep thought, I can promise you it is no reflection of how you're doing so don't be intimidated and have fun!

Blake '21, UChicago '25

Did PF on the nat circuit for 3 years and I am currently an Assistant Coach for Blake.

Tl;dr:

- Pls run paraphrasing theory: Paraphrasing is awful, evidence is VERY important to me and I am happy to use the ballot to punish bad ethics in round.

- Send speech docs, its better for everyone.

- Strike me if you don't read cut cards/if you paraphrase or don't think evidence is important, you will be happy that you did.

- I flow.

- Tech>truth.

- All kinds of speed are fine, spreading too as long as you are not paraphrasing.

- 2nd rebuttal must frontline, defense isn't sticky, and if I'm something is going to be mentioned on my ballot, it must be in both back half speeches.

- Please weigh.

- I will let your opponents take prep for as long as it takes for you to send your doc or cards without it counting towards their 3 minutes, so send docs pls and send them fast.

- The following people have shaped how I view debate: Ale Perri (hi Ale), Christian Vasquez, Bryce Piotrowski, Darren Chang, and Shane Stafford.

jenebo21@gmail.com AND blakedocs@googlegroups.com -- Put BOTH on the email chain, and feel free to contact me after the round (on Facebook preferably, or email if you must) if you have questions or need anything from me. I am always happy to do what I can after the round to help you out.

General Paradigm:

- I will enforce speech times, prep time, etc with a timer and the ballot (if its like absolutely egregious, taking multiple minutes longer than you are allowed, etc)

- In most PF rounds, roadmaps aren't necessary, just tell me where you are starting and signpost. If there are 8 sheets, then yes, please give a roadmap.

- The Split: 2nd rebuttal must frontline; turns and defense.

- The Back Half: If I am going to vote on it, or if it is going to be apart of my RFD (all offense or defense in the round), it needs to be both in the summary and the final focus. None of this sticky defense nonsense. Weighing needs to start in summary, and final focus should be writing my ballot for me.

- Speed: I can handle all speeds in PF. More often than not, clarity matters more than WPM. I know debaters who speak super fast, and I can understand every word, and I know debaters who don't speak fast but are still super unclear, and vice versa. I will say clear if I cant follow. You can spread IF you are doing it like it is done in policy (spreading long cards, not a bunch of paraphrased garbage, slow down on tags/authors, sending out a speech doc is a must). IF you spread AND paraphrase, however, your chances of winning points of clash immediately plummet.

- Pls send speech docs with cut cards, I will probably ask for them so then I can read cards without having to call for a million different ones, and it shortens the amount of time taken for ev exchange by a million, so just pls send them.

- Weighing: You need to weigh on both the link and impact level, very often the team that weighs will pick up my ballot. I don't hate buzzwords as much as other PF judges, but I do need an explanation. Please start weighing as early as possible, in the rebuttals if you can. Early weighing helps you make strategic decisions and makes my life easier since weighing is what guides my ballot. I will always prefer weighing done earlier and dropped, over late weighing so weigh early and often. The evaluation of the round on my ballot starts and ends with weighing and it controls where I look to vote. I don't need a story or a super clear narrative, but write my ballot for me and make it easy. In line with this, I would highly encourage you to go for less and weigh more.

- Collapse: PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE collapse, preferably starting in second rebuttal. This makes all of our lives easier because you don't want to have to spam buzzwords blippily in response to some poorly extended argument, and I don't want to sift through a flow with tons of tags and zero warrants or weighing. Pick an argument to go for, and weigh that argument. That is the easiest way to pick up my ballot. Debate isn't a scoreboard, winning 3 arguments doesn't mean you get my ballot if your opponent only wins 1 argument.

- I cannot believe I have to make this a part of my paradigm, it should be exceedingly obvious, but no delinks or non-uniques on yourself (specifically that delinks the link you read in case or something which makes the opposite argument that you made initially) to get out of turn offense. It makes being first impossible and its just so stupid. I won't evaluate those arguments and your opponents are free to extend those turns. Obviously, you can concede your opponents defense, but you cant read it on yourself, new in second rebuttal.

- If the 1st constructive introduces framework, the 2nd constructive probably should respond to it (or at least make arguments as to why they can respond later). I don't know where i stand on this technically yet, but this is where i am leaning now, arguments can be made either way on this issue in round and i will evaluate them normally, but if the 1st constructive introduces framework and the 2nd constructive drops it, i think its ok for the first rebuttal to call it conceded unless otherwise argued.

- On advocacies/T: This is something that should be resolved in the round and I will eval the flow if this argument is made but my personal thoughts are as follows. Because the neg doesn't get a CP in PF, the aff's advocacy does not block the neg out of ground (basically neither side gets to control the others ground). The aff does the whole aff, the neg can garner DAs off of the aff's advocacy or any interpretation of what the aff could look like, not just what that aff was in that round. An example would be the neg could still read a Russia provocation negative on the NATO topic (Septober 2021) even if the aff does not read a troop deployment advocacy for their advantages. Alternatively, if the neg can get a CP then I suppose the aff can get an advocacy. Either way works - the point being that PF should consider some sort of method to adjudicate this in round.

- Be nice and respectful, but keep it light and casual if you can! Debate is fun, so lets treat it as such.

- I will be quick to drop debaters and arguments that are any -ism, and I won't listen to arguments like racism, sexism, death, patriarchy (etc) good. The space first and foremost needs to be safe to participate in.

- I don't care what you what you wear, where you sit, if you swear (sometimes a few F-bombs can make an exceedingly boring debate just a little less so!), if you do the flip or enter the room before im there, etc.

Evidence:

I like cut cards and quality evidence, I hate paraphrasing. Disclaimer: this is going to seem cranky, but I don't mind well-warranted analytics. I just hate paraphrasing. Ev is always better than an analytic, but if you introduce an arg as an analytic, I won't mind and will evaluate it as such. But if your opponents have evidence, you will likely lose that clash point. Here a few main points on evidence issues:

- Evidence is the backbone of the activity, otherwise it devolves into some really garbage nonsense (I do not value debate as a lying competition). As a result, debates about evidence are very easy ways to pick me up. Arguments about evidence preference are very good in front of me, and I will probably call for cards at the end of the round because most debate evidence is horrifically miscut or paraphrased. Evidence quality is very very important, and I have NO PROBLEM intervening against awful evidence especially in close rounds. Good evidence is important for education and quality of debate, so if you have bad evidence, I am happy to drop you for it to improve the activity and hopefully teach you a lesson. This applies to both if you cut cards or paraphrase, because cutting cards doesn't make you immune to lying about it, so generally cut good cards, and read good evidence.

- Paraphrasing: The single worst wide-spread practice in PF debate today is paraphrasing. Its just so obviously silly. Its bad for the quality of debate, its bad for all of its educational benefits, and its unfair. I hate it so so much. So please cut cards, its not difficult and it makes everyone's lives better. That said, I know that it happens regardless so here are a few things important for the in round if you do paraphrase:

a. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE have a cut card or at least a paragraph, you absolutely need to be able to have this, its a rule now. Your opponents do not need to take prep to sort through your PDFs, and if you cant quickly produce the evidence and where you paraphrased it from, I'm crossing the argument off my flow. I have very little tolerance for long, paraphrased evidence exchanges where you claim to have correctly paraphrased 100 page PDFs and expect your opponents to be able to check against your bad evidence with the allotted prep time.

b. If you paraphrase, you MUST be reading full arguments. 40 authors in 1st rebuttal by spreading tag blips and paraphrasing authors to make it faster is not acceptable and your speaks will tank. Claim, warrant, ev is all required if I am going to vote on it or even flow it.

c. If you misrepresent a card while paraphrasing, not only is that bad in a vacuum, but I will give you the L25. If you realize its badly represented OR you cant find it when asked and you make the arg "just evaluate as an analytic" I will also give an L25 and be in a really bad mood. Its a terrible, terrible argument, so please dont make it. If you introduce the evidence, you have to be able to defend it.

d. Dont be mad at me if you get bad speaks. There is no longer world in which someone who paraphrases, even if they give the perfect speech gets above a 29 in front of me. I used to be more forgiving on this, but no longer.

- Evidence exchange: if the header "paraphrasing" meant you skipped over that part of my paradigm, I will reiterate something that is important regardless of how you introduce the evidence; if you cant produce a card upon being asked for it within a minute or two, at best you get lowest speaks I can give and probably the L too.

- Even if its not theory, arguments that I should prefer cut cards over paraphrased cards at the clash points are going to work in front of me. Please make those arguments, I think they are very true.

- Another thing im shocked i have to put in my paradigm, but you need to cite the author you are reading even if you paraphrase from them, for it to be counted as evidence and not an analytic. if you read something without citing an author, I will flow it as an analytic and if your opponents call for that piece of ev, and you hand it to them without citing it in the round, I am dropping you. Its plagiarism and extremely unethical. This is an educational activity, come on ppl.

Progressive paradigm:

DISLCAIMER: Deep in my bones, I believe that debate is good. It may presently be flawed, but I believe the activity has value and can be transformative. Arguments that say debate is bad, and should be destroyed entirely (often times this is the conclusion of non-topical pess arguments, killjoy, the like) will be evaluated but my biases towards the activity being good WILL impact the decision. Doesn't mean they are unwinnable, but it is probably wildly unstrategic to run them.

I'm receptive to all args, including progressive ones in the debate space, but they have been getting REALLY low quality recently. I worry about the long term impact about some of these really bad versions on the activity. Please, think about the model you are advocating for, think about if its sincerely going to make the space better for the people growing up in it.

- While there are obvious upsides to progressive arguments, I don't appreciate frivolous theory (see below). This does include spikes and tricks, I don't like them, pls don't run them. If the theory is frivolous, and I reserve the right to determine that, I won't vote on it no matter the breakdown of the round.

- I won't vote for auto-30 speaker point arguments

Theory:

- I probably default to competing interps unless told otherwise, but that doesn't really mean much if you read the rest of this paradigm. I am going to evaluate the flow, so if you read theory arguments that I won't intervene against, I am going to evaluate it normally.

- I generally think no-RVIs. The exception to this might be an RVI on IVIs.

- IVIs are really bad for debate. If they are a rules claim, make it a theory shell. Most of the time, they are vague whines that are spammed off in the span of 4 seconds without any explanation. This proliferation is nearly existential for the activity, and it needs to stop.

- I have no problem intervening against frivolous theory (i.e. shoe theory), so if you run theory in front of me, please believe that its actually educational for the activity. Even theory like social distancing or contact info are ones where its hard to win in front of me, and in some contexts I probably won't vote on it. Resolved theory and other nonsense will barely warrant getting flowed for me, I won't vote on them.

- Theory needs to be read in the speech following the violation. Out of round violations should be read in constructive.

- Paraphrasing is bad: I will vote on paraphrasing bad most of the time, as long as theres some offense on the shell. I personally think its good for the debate space and am very predisposed to voting for it. I will NEVER vote on paraphrasing good, I don't care how mad that may make you to hear, I just won't do it. If you introduce cut cards bad or paraphrasing good as a new off (like before a para bad shell) I will instantly drop you. That said, you can win enough defense on a paraphrasing shell to make it not a voter. Paraphrasing theory is the exception to the disclaimers outlined above, I think paraphrasing should be punished in round and am happy to vote on it.

- Disclosure is good: I am less excited to hear it because typically, disclosure rounds are really bad and messy. Open source is good too, I have come around on it, so you can basically run whatever disclosure interp you want. Run it if you think you can win it, but dont be fearful to hear it ran against you in front of me. Respond to it, and I will vote as I would a normal flow.

- Trigger warnings: This theory has been read a lot more recently, I will eval it like a normal shell, but for the record, I think trigger warnings in PF are usually bad, and usually run on arguments that dont need to be trigger warned which just suppresses voices and arguments in the activity. You can go for the theory, but my threshold for responses will be in accordance with that belief typically.

Kritiks/Arguments that people in PF are calling "Kritiks" even when they are not:

- I am all good with kritiks, although im not as experienced with them as I am with other args, but that isnt a reason not to run a K in front of me. I will be able to flow it and vote on it as long as you explain it well.

- Blake 2021 made me think about this a lot, and I think the activity is just going through growing pains that are necessary, but some of these debates were really bad. So please think through all of the arguments you read, so that you can articulate exactly what my ballot does or what specifically I am supposed to be doing. This means implicating responses or arguments onto the FW debate, or the ROTB.

- Also, no one thinks fiat is real (pre/post-fiat is just an inaccurate and irrelevant label), so lets be more specific about how we label arguments or discourse. Make comparisons as to why your discourse or type of education is more important than theirs, this is not done by slapping the label "pre-fiat" onto an argument because NO ONE THINKS ITS REAL. Just get past that label and explain why.

- You also need to do a pretty good amount of work explaining why or how discourse shapes reality, just asserting it does isn't much of a warrant and this debate is always underdeveloped in rounds I am in.

Speaks:

I will probably give around a 27-28 in most rounds. I guess I give lower speaks than most PF judges, so I’ll clarify. 27-28 is middling to me with various degrees within that. 26-27 is bad, not always for ethical reasons. Below a 26 is an ethical issue. If you get above a 29 from me you should be very happy bc I never give speaks that high almost ever.

Heyoo and Howdy, Its Jomi,

I have been Competing, Coaching, and Judging for going on 8 years now and I'm 21 so that says a lot about my wild amount of commitment I have towards this activity.

Mainly competed and coached extemp and congress so that is where my best critiques would come from since those are the events that I know the most about, however, I am proficient in knowing PF and LD since I have judged tons of elimination rounds for those events and have friends in the events so they teach me the game.

I would say no matter the event it always comes down to three solid principles for me

Logic without evidence

Quality of evidence

Speaking and execution of rhetoric

Logic without evidence meaning how solid on a logic understands deductive or inductive reasoning is the argument, to the point that at the least from a basic philosophical level can I consider that argument valid but not being true because that would require evidence.

Quality of evidence is what sets an argument to being a good argument because if your evidence is timely, relevant, and flows within the speech or case then that sets you apart from the round. Good evidence balances arguments, Bad Evidence breaks arguments

Speaking and execution of Rhetoric meaning simply how well are you conveying your speech and case in your delivery, even in Policy debate, if you want the judge to hear something import and round defining then you slow down and say it with conviction. How well do your voice and your inflections convey your narrative especially on the impact analysis which to me is the most important parts of arguments especially;y on a human level is to be important

Most of all, be respectful and courteous to your judges and especially to your opponents because if you are rude, condescending, sexist, racist, you know the deal if it's bad and I catch it, expect the worst result from me and expect for me to back it up. So just be a respectful person and we will be all good.

I have debated in Lincoln-Douglas Debate for 4 years in Science park high school. I recently graduated and I am now on the Rutgers Newark debate team. I've qualified to the TOC in both Lincoln-Douglas and Policy debate my senior Year.

I give high speaks if you are clear and really good in the big picture debate. I like a good story.

Here are the things that I value most in a debate tournament:

1) Be respectful!

2) Be clear on your reasoning!

3) I am particularly interested in how you can elaborate the impacts.

I'm a lay judge please adapt.

Darby FitzSimmons

North Broward

I competed in public forum for four years. I’m a big proponent of a more traditional style of public forum, however if you do plan on reading progressive argumentation, I’m very open to it - just make sure it is clear and easy to flow. Please do not spread, if you’re far over 200 words a minute, I will have to stop flowing.

I don’t vote off arguments that were made after grand cross. Please give me clear voting issues in final focus. Explicitly extend all arguments you want me to vote on.

Racist/sexist/homophobic arguments will result in a loss.

if you have any specific questions, email me at dadfitzs@iu.edu

I've judged a handful of tournaments starting in 2021, but no prior first-hand debate experience. So explain things very clearly if possible, and assume I do not know anything about the topic.

Sreenivas Gannavaram

School affiliation: Montgomery Blair High School

I have been judging PF debates for 3 years. I am a scientist by profession. I am comfortable with a moderate speed of delivery as long as it is clear and on point. Summary speeches should lay out the big picture and emphasize strong links and responses. I look for full and complete response to the relevant arguments that remain standing. Extend arguments and evidence you deem necessary to win the round. I do not evaluate any kind of progressive debate. I flow extensively throughout the round. For me. argument takes precedence over style. To win an argument in the round, debaters should extend their arguments clearly in summary and final focus. The side with clear weighing will win the round. I do not vote for arguments newly raised after second summary.

Name: Chris Gao School Affiliation: thomas jefferson High School of science and technology. Number of Years Judging Public Forum: 4. Number of Years Competing in Public Forum: 0 Number of Years Judging Other Forensic Activities: 0 Number of Years Competing in Other Forensic Activities: 0 If you are a coach, what events do you coach? What is your current occupation? GIS Specialist I am a trained geographer/computer scientist and I value accurate evidence, clear argument, well-structured cases, and explicit weighing. I also believe that basic courtesy is important even in a very tense debate environment. And I don't believe dodging opponents' questions are a good strategy to win the debate. Please come in prepared!

Updated February 25, 2022

Ukraine note: I am normally pure tech over truth, but denying or willfully ignoring the invasion will result in a drop. Thanks.

Debate is an educational activity first and foremost. I will drop speaks, or at the most extreme drop the debater, for conduct which infringes upon the accessibility of the debate space. Namely, no racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, classism, ableism, or other discriminatory behaviors will be tolerated.

Background

Most recently, varsity Parli coach at The Nueva School, CA. Not currently employed as a full-time coach.

Former coach at Menlo School, CA and Mountain View-Los Altos, CA. While in school, I was a TOC-level PF debater; I typically debated as part of Los Altos GV.

Short Form Paradigm: I flow and vote off the flow. I am tabula rasa and non-interventionist. I care about evidence and weighing. When I vote, I look to the last speeches first, so you need to extend both your warrants and impacts to those speeches. If you can't tell me why you deserve to win, you don't deserve to win. Give me an easy path to the ballot.

COVID-19 Notice: This is a really weird time, and a really weird way, to be doing debate. Accordingly, for any round conducted virtually:

-I will be very forgiving with technical and related issues. Please speak up or message me in chat if you have literally any problems. Debate is an educational activity first and foremost and that needs to be preserved.

-This pandemic affects all of us in some way, and some of us very personally. Please conduct yourselves with the appropriate respect.

-I will not be minutely assessing speaker points in any round conducted virtually. Speakers on the winning team will receive 30s (or 30 and 29.9 if necessary) and the losing team will receive 29.9s (or 29.8 and 29.7, if necessary). I reserve the right to drop speaks for uncivil and/or discriminatory conduct, ref. my note at the top of the paradigm.

Definitions:

Disclose: to inform the debaters who won the round.

Dropping: to vote against

Fiat power: the government's ability to declare that their plan will pass through appropriate channels into law, and be executed by the appropriate authorities. Fiat power does not absolve the government of the potential downsides of this process.

Flow: my notes of the round. I capture the essence of, or paraphrase, all content.

Framework: an argument about how the judge should assess the various content in the round. A common example is a net benefits or cost-benefit analysis framework, which adheres to the principle of the greatest good for the greatest number of people.

K: short for "Kritik," a category of arguments which seek "to redirect the focus of debate to whether or not to reject ideas which support or uphold undesirable ideology, language, institutions, or world views" (Bennett).

Line-by-line: a way of organizing rebuttal and later speeches that addresses arguments and evidence in the order they were originally stated, rather than grouping them together in a condensed format, thematically or otherwise.

Non-interventionist: I do not insert myself in the decision of the round; I judge based on who provided the better arguments as recorded on my flow.

Plan: an organized description of the government's proposal for addressing the resolution. It must include a description of the timeframe, funding, and actor.

RFD: Reason for decision. This is provided in written form on the ballot, and frequently verbally immediately after the round as well.

Signposting: when a debater indicates which argument they are addressing, before addressing it.

Spread: a very fast style of speaking, frequently eclipsing 300 words per minute.

Theory (sometimes 'T'): a category of arguments about how the rules of the debate and how it is conducted, rather than arguments about the content of the resolution. "Friv" T, short for frivolous, is that which is only tangentially related, if at all.

Tabula rasa: lit. "Blank slate," meaning I come into the round without bias (as much as possible).

Tag teaming: a parli debate practice when in the middle of partner X's speech, they confer with partner Y, either in a hushed tone or with an audible statement by partner Y that is then repeated by partner X. Statements are not flowed unless they are said aloud by the partner whose designated speech it is. [My own opinion of this practice is quite negative, in the context of in-person debate. Virtual debate sometimes makes it necessary, and that's ok.]

General Paradigm

1. I flow and vote off the flow.

Speed is fine, but if I can't understand you I can't give you credit for the argument. If you spread, I won't drop you automatically, I just won't be able to understand you and so I'll probably end up dropping you. I'll only say "Slow" a few times to try to tell you to slow down.

Signposting is key. I will write everything down, but if you're disorganized, my flow will be too, and that makes my job a lot harder.

I like to give oral RFDs and disclose if possible, but if I need extra time in order to examine my flow, that takes precedence over giving you a decision in the room. I will tell you you're not getting an oral RFD as soon as I realize I'll need the extra time.

2. I am tabula rasa and non-interventionist. I will not complete the argument for you.

I am open to anything as long as it's within the rules of the event. For example, if you're running a plan in PF I'm perfectly open to that, just don't call it a plan (hint: use "advocacy"), and remember the neg doesn't have fiat power in PF.

3. Don't play around with evidence.

If you're acting strange or dodging basic questions, I will likely call for the evidence (more so in PF than Parli).

I will look at any evidence you call for me to look at, if you do so within the round (all events included).

Empirics are king, but they are not the be-all end-all. Smart analytics can beat dumb cards, as Cayman Giordano says.

PF: Within the round you should cite, at minimum, author and date.

4. Weigh your arguments and tell me why you're winning the round. Explain why your voters are preferable. If you have a short-circuit voter or IVI that I should look at first, you need to tell me that clearly AND warrant why I should be considering it first.

5. Be civil, especially in crossfire. If you're questioning whether you should be sassy or not, don't be. I will detract speaks for rude behavior; this is an educational activity.

6. Off time road maps are fine if they're useful and brief. I do particularly like road maps before the Opp block and PMR speeches in Parli, but they're not necessary per se.

It is fine to ask if everyone's ready before you start speaking. It is fine to not ask as well.

PF

1. I like to see high level warrant debate that doesn't get bogged down in "we have bigger numbers" impact debate. Talk about why your side makes more sense and why you have better proof than the other side does.

2. The second rebuttal should ideally address some of the content of the first rebuttal, even if it's only to weigh against it. If you've got a perfect 4 minute long attack on your opponent's case, that's fine, just be aware of the challenges you're going to face later in the round for doing that.

3. If you're going to go line-by-line in summary, tell me off time that you're going to be doing that. I don't care either way, but I prefer to be prepared for that.

4. Framework is not a voter. It is a way to evaluate voters.

5. Give me voters in final focus.

I will not extend arguments for you from the summary: if you want me to vote on it, you must say it in the final focus.

The second speaking team's final focus should address points, most preferably voters, from the first final focus. Extend your warrants and impacts.

6. I don't flow crossfire, but I do pay attention. Crossfire is first for clarifying questions, second for offensive/attacking questions, and third for defensive questions. It is not a time for ranting. It is not a time for restating your case. Having one debater drone on and on reflects poorly on both teams.

7. Speaker Points: Each speech is worth about 4 points and each crossfire one, roughly. Two speeches + two crossfires = 10 points (on the 20-30 scale). A 30 is reserved for practical perfection, and after my decade plus in debate, I can count on one hand the number of speeches I've seen that have deserved a 30. If you get below a 25, you've done something wrong, not just spoken poorly, ref. my note at the top of the paradigm.

8. I'm tabula rasa, so I'm willing to hear theory and kritik arguments in Public Forum. That said, it's really not in the spirit of the format, so please don't do it if it's not justified. I'm also used to arguments of these sorts in high-level parli, meaning that they're well structured, warranted, impacted, etc., so I'd expect the same in PF. Unfortunately, most theory arguments I've seen in PF recently are undeveloped and poorly argued, so please be considerate.

Parli

I am tabula rasa and will vote on anything. Extend both your links and impacts.

That said, coming from a PF background, I prefer case debate. I also like evidence - most tournaments these days have internet prep; you should use it, but be careful with your sources. Full disclosure of topical bias: I'm trained as a political historian and evaluate cases on the flow as a historian would examine documents (I reiterate: be careful with your sources!). I have a regional speciality in Europe, in particular the EU, Germany, and former Warsaw Pact states (esp. CZ, SK, PL, HU), and topical specialties on populism, minority participation in politics, and transitional democracies. Also, if you're going to impact out to nuclear war, your warranting needs to be pretty darn solid, and you're probably going to need to make a case for why I should prefer your end of the probability/magnitude weighing game.

I will vote on all sorts of T, theory, etc, but please signpost and explain each part of the shell. In this case, as in others, theory is no good if there is no praxis to uphold those values, e.g. claiming education as a voter but failing to educate the other participants in the round about the supposed issue. This criterion includes stock components like education and fairness, and is especially true for non-stock. I like listening to bizarre and friv T for entertainment value, but the flow is a sheet of notes incapable of being entertained, and I vote off the flow.

I don't have a background in Ks, but I'll vote on them. I generally find them engaging, so don't shy away, but know that I do not have a high level of theoretical/technical knowledge about the kritik format, nor am I up to date in the latest developments in K debate on any circuit. If it's important enough for you to center the debate around, please consider it important enough to fully contextualize as well. Please do not run an identity K based on an assumption you make about your opponents' identities, which could lead to outing. Many identities are not visible.

Speaker points (if in person): I treat 27.5 as my average, scoring roughly on a flattened bell curve. Typically, the highest speaks I give on a regular basis at an invitational/flow tournament is a 29.2. The highest level tournaments may see a 29.5. I have yet to see a parli speaker deserving of a 30.

Tag teaming is absurd for high level debaters, and I'll deduct your speaks if you do it. Exceptions to this standard of deductions are granted for COVID and for teams of mixed experience (e.g. 8th and 12th graders together for a learning experience).

POIs are a courtesy. It is nice, but not necessary, for the speaker to take them. POIs need to be a question. If you don't ask a question, I will deduct your speaks.

POOs: I will comment on them in the moment, saying that the POO is either a) valid/sustained, i.e. the argument is new, b) invalid/overruled, i.e. that the argument is not new, or c) that I'll need to examine my flow more closely.

I'm a parent of an experienced debater. I've judged mostly congress for 6 years and some PF as well at fairly high levels.

Ask for my congress paradigm verbally before the round starts. It's pretty simple, I trust that most of you know what to do.

PF:

I am a lay judge. I want to see clearly established links and easy to follow arguments. I do not want to get lost in my flow trying to make sense of your argument. I will still evaluate an argument if I have to make some leaps of logic but I'm less likely to evaluate it to the strength that you intend. As for responses, I want both refutation and weighing. Just because a response exists, doesn't mean it is good enough to take out the argument. I need to buy that your response does what you say. I always want to see weighing, debate is a comparative activity. The side that wins is the side that is better, not the side that is right. For frontlines, I don't want a repetition of your argument, I've heard it already. I want to hear, very clearly, what your response to the refutation is, there's multiple speeches for a reason.

As for speaking, I'm not a huge fan of speed. I'd prefer if you slowed it down a little. Slightly faster conversational is what I prefer. I want fluid speaking for high speaker scores. A little variation always helps me follow a long. If you have any massive fluency meltdowns, unintentional pauses, or just get obviously stumped at any points during your speech I'll deduct speaker points heavily, and depending on how bad it is, it can cost you the round.

Lastly, I highly value adaptability in debate. If your opponent says something that has you completely lost, it's not a good look and it can cost you the round.

I am new to judging and have judged one virtual

debate so far. I value concise arguments/contentions back up by data that is sourced and plausible. I also value rebuttals that show that the responding team has truly listened to the arguments made by the opposing team.

Contact:

Email Cayman1@gmail.com if you have questions. If the questions are about a specific flow, please mention the round/flight/tournament.  Please don't try to reach me via any social media you find me on; I'm not likely to check them in a time-sensitive situation at a tournament.

Online Judging:

Unless tournament rules say otherwise or both teams are sending actual speech docs over SpeechDrop, everyone needs to be on the Email chain. I'll still read evidence sparingly unless asked to, but it's important that everyone is on the chain to verify what evidence gets sent when (and that it was sent to all participants instead of accidentally choosing 'reply' vs 'reply all'.) Because these rules and norms are relatively new and still in flux, I'm inclined by default to drop the card and not the team if one side can't fully/correctly comply with an evidence request.

I probably won't be looking at Campus/Cloud/Zoom very much during speeches. My ballot/comments, timer, flow, and any relevant evidence are already competing for screen space.

Since automated flips are time-sensitive and inflexible, if you have any questions for me that may influence how you flip, I'll try to get into the virtual competition room early with time to spare. If you're in the room and don't see me there, Email me. Normally, I try to avoid answering questions about specific hypotheticals where one team can hear me and the other can't, but I'll make an exception under this ruleset if one team needs to know before their coin flip timer expires and then I'll make an effort to fill the other team in as similarly as I can before the round starts. Also before the round starts, I'll verbally confirm who won the flip and which choice each side made, in case it becomes relevant to mid-round arguments.

However fast y'all think you can go without sacrificing clarity is modified by both your microphone and your opponents' speakers. I'll let you know if you're unclear to me; if your opponents are unclear to you, either clarify in cross or err on the side of asking for more evidence from the last speech.

If you're waiting for a card to start prep, please don't mute yourselves until prep starts. Prep starts when the requested cards (if any) arrive in the Email chain (or when debaters are obviously prepping) and stops when someone from the prepping team un-mutes and says to stop prep. If your opponents gave you the wrong card, I'll reset prep to where it was when you started, but if you just want to ask for more cards, please do so all at once rather than constantly trying to pause and un-pause prep.

Should you feel compelled to run a theory argument, please make sure that the interpretation and standards take the current online format into account.

If y'all want to ask your opponents clarifying questions during your own prep time, you're welcome to do so, but it's up to them whether to answer.

Cross can get especially messy when feedback and dueling microphones are involved. Please be mindful of the technical issues that talking over each other can cause and interrupt sparingly.

Background:

• Policy and LD since 1998
• Parli and PF since 2002
• WSDC and WUDC since 2009
• Big Questions since it became a non-meme event*
• Coach for Howard County, MD teams (Atholton, Centennial, Marriotts Ridge, Mt Hebron, Oakland Mills, River Hill, etc.) 2007-2020
• Capitol Debate camps & travel team from 2008-2013
• James Logan Forensics Institute from 2012-2013
• SNFI Public Forum 2010-2019
• Bethesda Chevy Chase 2019-2022

J-V, NCFLs, NJFL, Round Robins, etc.:

• If I'm judging you in a format where you don't get prefs or strikes and judge assignments are random, it's more my job to adapt to you than your job to adapt to me. Issues with stylistic choices or execution are more likely to find their way into the ballot comments than into the speaker points.
• Do what you do best; don't second-guess yourselves and do what you think I want to hear if it's not what you're good at.
• Don't take your norms for granted. If you and your opponent have different ideas of what debate should be or how it should be evaluated, tell me why the way that you do it is superior, the same way you would with any other argument.
• If you have a panel, do what you have to do to win the panel. If the easiest way to win is to pick up the two lay parent-judges sitting on either side of me and doodling on their ballots while trying to look attentive, so be it. I won't hold panel adaptation against teams. Making me feel engaged and useful is not why you're here.
• Some leagues ban disclosure. Some leagues ban verbal feedback. Those rules are bad for education and bad for debate. If you have questions about your round, find me after the round and we'll talk about what happened.

Evidence:

• I don't like calling for cards. If I do, it's either because of a factual/ethical dispute between teams about what the author actually says, because the round had a total absence of weighing outside of the quoted impact cards, or for educational reasons that aren't going to affect my RFD. How teams spin the cards matters, as does how well teams seem to know their cards.
• I assume ignorance over malfeasance. If you think the other team is being unethical, be able to prove it. Otherwise, correct/educate them by going after the evidence or citation instead of the people.
• Smart analytics beat un-smart cards every time.
• If you haven't read the article or chapter or study that your evidence is quoting, you probably shouldn't be using that evidence yet. When I'm evaluating impacts, it does you no favors to add a second sub-level of probability where I have to wonder "But do they know that the evidence actually says that? If so, did they make X argument on purpose?"
• Saying the word "Extend" is not extending evidence. You're extending arguments, not authors, which means there should be some explanation and some development. Repetition is not argumentation.
• If you're using digital evidence, it's your responsibility to be able to show the other team. It is not your opponents' responsibility to own laptops or to bring you a flash drive. I'm fine with teams using Email to share evidence - with the notable caveat that if I catch you using internet access to do anything outside tournament rules, your coach and the tab room are both going to hear about it. "Can I Email this so I don't risk getting viruses on my USB?" is a reasonable question most of the time. "Can I get on Messenger so my assistant coaches can type up theory extensions for me?" is NOT an acceptable interpretation of that question.
• Prep stops when you stop working with the evidence: either when the flash drive leaves the computer or when you send the Email and stop typing or when you stand up with the evidence in hand.

Speed:

• I care more about clarity than speed. If I can't understand you, I'll let you know.
• If you can't understand your opponents, let them know in CX/CF/Prep. Deliberately maintaining an incomprehensible speed to stop your opponents from refuting arguments they can't comprehend is probably not a winning strategy especially in Parli and PF, where speech documents and wikis don't check.
• Quality > quantity. "Spreading" isn't some arbitrary brightline of WPM; it's when you're talking faster than you can think. Doesn't matter which event. Don't get discouraged just because your opponents are faster than you.

Event-specific stuff:

• CX:
• Check the judge philosophies Wiki.
• If your strategy relies on preffing only judges like me and then telling other teams they can't read their arguments in front of the judges that you've preffed, then please rethink your strategy.
• I've coached and run a wide variety of arguments. One of the easiest ways to lose my ballot is to be dogmatic and assume that because I've coached it, I like it, or that I think it's intrinsically true. If you have guessed an argument that I actually enjoy running and/or believe in, that still doesn't mean you'll be held to a lower standard on it.
• With the (hopefully obvious) exception of status theory, I'd prefer to be able to reject the argument instead of the team. You probably want to hedge your bets by telling me how the round changes if the argument is(n't) rejected.
• Kick your own arguments; don't leave it up to me to decide what should or shouldn't be kicked unless you're actually ok with either option.
• L-D:
• The majority of L-D I've judged in recent years has been fairly traditional/local; it's probably the event I judge least at bid tournaments on the national circuit, so it's probably best to treat me as a recovering policy judge.
• I try not to intervene on theory. If you're winning it, I'll vote for it, even if doing so makes me feel dirty, as long as it's warranted/impacted/developed like any other winnable argument. That said, my theory norms have been largely calibrated by the arguments' CX analogues., so if you think there's something L-D specific I should be aware of (no 2NC's role in disclosure, the absence of a second CX when determining whether answers are binding/whether clarifications are sufficient, the difference between neg block and NR in creating side bias, etc.) be explicit about it.
• In-round discourse probably comes before theory, T/FW probably come before other theory.
• I'm not convinced there's such a thing as a "pre-standard" argument. An argument might operate on a higher level of standards than anything else currently in the round, or on a mutually conceded standard, but it still needs to be fully developed.
• PF:
• I strongly prefer for the second-speaking team to adapt their definitions/burdens in their initial speech and frontline in 2RB to create clash. I won't auto-drop you for using the 2RB the same as you would have the 1RB, but you're not doing your partner's 2SM any favors.
• Deliberate concessions early in the round can get you a long way. Just know and explain where and why they're strategic.
• Cite authors when possible. The university your author went to / was published by / taught at / is not your author. The way to get around a dearth of source diversity is to find more sources, not to find as many different ways as possible to cite the same source.
• Teams that start weighing in RB typically have an easier time getting my ballot than teams that just spit out a bunch of constructive arguments and wait for reductive speeches to weigh anything.
• CF should be focused on asking actual questions, not repeating speeches or fitting in arguments you didn't have time for. "Do you agree", "Isn't it true that", "How would you respond to", and "Are you aware" are rarely ingredients of genuine questions. Good CFs will clarify and focus the round by finding where common ground exists and where clash matters.  If you think something in CF matters, mention it in your team's next speech.  If you or your partner have no intention of referencing something in your next speech, 
• SM cannot go line-by-line in most rounds. There's literally not enough time. There are more and less technical ways of looking at the big picture, but you do need to look at the big picture.  My standards for SM coverage (especially 2SM) have increased since the speech length increased 50%, so spending the extra time on comparing warrants and weighing is probably better than re-ligitating the rebuttal
• GCF is a hard place to win the round but an easy place to lose the round. Make sure that you and your partner are presenting a unified front; make sure that you're investing time in places that deserve it, make sure that if you're trying to introduce something new-ish here that you tie it into what's already happened this round.
• FF shouldn't be a notable departure from SM. Offense matters, especially if you're speaking first.
• Parliamentary:
• Naming arguments is not the same as making arguments. I can't easily vote on something that you haven't demonstrated intellectual ownership of.
• My threshold for beating arguments is inversely proportional to the silliness of the argument.
• "but [authority figure] says X" is not an argument. Especially in an event where you can't directly quote said person. I don't want to know whether Paul Krugman says the economy is recovering. I don't want to know whether Nietzsche says suffering is valuable. I want to know why they are right. Your warrants are your own responsibility.
• Intelligently asking and taking POIs is a big factor in speaker points.
• Most rounds come down to how well the PMR answers the Opp block. If the Opp block was much better done than the MG, there might be no PMR that could answer well enough, but that's rare. Parli seems to have much more potential for teams that are behind to come back than most other events.
• I'm generally tech > truth. In Parli, however, depending on how common knowledge the topic is and whether internet prep is allowed, a little more truth can beat a lot more tech. Don't be afraid to stake the round on a question of fact if you're sure it's actually a question of fact.
• I should not have to say this, but given the current state of HS Parli, if I am confident a team is lying and I already intend to drop them for it, I may double-check the relevant fact online just to make 100% sure. This is not me "accessing the internet on behalf of" the team I'm voting for; this is me going the extra mile for the team that I was already intending to vote against anyway. Suggesting that the losing team should be given a win because I gave them a second chance before I signed my ballot is asinine.
• If you have a collection of 2 or 3 Ks that you read against every opponent, I don't think that aligns with the intention of the format, but I can certainly be convinced that fidelity to that intent is overrated. That said, you should make an extra effort to engage with your opponents and show how your criticism creates clash rather than sidesteps clash.
• Limited-Prep
• Extemp - Source diversity matters. I will look ev up online if it sounds sketchy. I do care that you give a direct answer to the actual question you drew, but not every question is written in a way that deserves a definite yes or no answer: if you don't, your speech should still contain elements of nuance and advocacy beyond "...well, yes and no" and should show me why all the simple answers would have been wrong.
• Impromptu - I don't have a strong preference for one structure over another, but some prompts lend themselves more to certain structures. Not everything needs to be forced into a 3x1 or a 2x2 if it doesn't fit the procrustean bill. Recycled anecdotes and tropes are somewhat inevitable, but canned speeches defeat the purpose of the event.
• Interp/Platforms/Congress
• How did you end up with me as a judge? I'm so sorry. You're probably sorry too. Someone probably desperately needed a judge to stop the tournament from running grossly overtime, and all the other potential volunteers either ran faster or hid better than I did. We'll both make it through this somehow. It'll be a learning experience.

Updated for virtual debate in 2021-22.

Add me to the email chain: azgphoto@hotmail.com.

If providing / exchanging speech docs: Please email the text of your speech to me. I prefer this to a link to your doc in the cloud. If you also want to send a link, that is fine.

Time: Speeches and cross: Please state something like "my time starts now" or "time starts on my first word." Prep time: Say "starting prep now," "time starts when I get my partner's call," or hold your timer so that everyone can see it when you start prep. Also say "stopping prep, we used X" or "x remaining." This helps me and everyone in the round keep track.

Virtual evidence exchange: Teams must be able to pull up evidence and provide it promptly. Teams asking for evidence must keep both microphones on until the evidence is received in order to keep your prep time from starting. Any team asked for evidence that cannot provide it within 1 minute may lose prep time.

----

Experience: I am a former Bronx High School of Science policy debater where I debated all four years and competed regularly at national tournaments. This was a while back. Abraham Lincoln was the President. (Obviously joking.) This is my fifth year judging PF debate for what is now my son's former high school. See my judging record below.

Please read my full paradigm below.

Signposting. Please signpost all of your positions/arguments. This includes your warrants, impacts, links, as well as when you weigh the issues in each speech. Numbering with signposting is often helpful for me to make clear what you consider to be independent arguments. Without good signposting, I (like any judge) may miss part of an argument or not vote on what you believe is key to the round.

Speed is okay but you must be clear. I flow debates. If I can't understand you or feel like I am missing what you are saying, you will be able to tell by the look on my face in the round. Online debate adds another level of difficulty to this so if I can't understand enough of what you are saying, I will say "clear."

Warrant your arguments and weigh them (where it makes sense to do so). I do not want to do any analysis for you that you do not present in the round. Intelligent and thoughtful analysis can beat warrantless evidence.

Evidence. Know your sources and tell me precisely what your evidence says. The NSDA allows paraphrasing but I don't think it is worth the potential trouble that can result. Context is often very important. If a team is paraphrasing and the evidence is critical to the round, I encourage you to call for it and look for weaknesses in your opponents's characterizations. Also, consider the persuasiveness of the author. I won't necessarily know who the author of your evidence is. Consider telling me enough so that I can evaluate how persuasive the evidence is as well as explaining why your opponent's sources may be biased or untrustworthy. I may ask for evidence that becomes important in the round. All evidence must say what you claim that it does. If paraphrased text doesn’t say what you claim that it said, I will weigh that against you. I don't like to call for cards but if you think that someone's evidence doesn't say what is claimed in the round, ask me to call for it. (Don't tell me to call for evidence that is not at issue in the round and don't bother to ask me if I want to see evidence after the round. I will tell you if I want to see something.)

Cross: I may make notes during cross but if you want to make an argument or respond to one, it must be made during a speech in the round. You can refer back to an argument made in cross but make sure I understand how you are using it in the round.

Frameworks: If your opponent seeks to establish a voting framework for the entire round, address that framework directly. Tell me why I should reject it or why I should adopt an alternate framework. If you do not respond to your opponents framework directly, I will treat that as though you have accepted it.

By the end of your summary speeches, I should have a clear idea of exactly what you want me to vote on and why. (“We win the round on x is nowhere near as helpful as “We win the round on x because ...” Please address your opponents’ voting arguments head on.

Extend your key arguments into Final Focus. Extending an argument is not the same as repeating an argument. Know the difference. If you want me to vote on it, it must be there.

On a related note, don't drop your opponents’ voting arguments. If an argument is truly dropped and this is pointed out in the final focus, I will give the dropped argument to the team that made the argument. They may not win as a result but it could be easier to do so. DO NOT, however, claim that your opponents dropped one of your arguments when, in fact, they merely responded generally to it.

Timing. When time runs out, please stop speaking. If time runs and you are in mid sentence, you may complete the sentence but only if you can do so in no more than a few seconds. Arguments made or responses given after time is up are NOT "in the round."

I will disclose my decision after a round along with my RFD if the rules of a tournament allow me to do so.

Progressive arguments: I am not very familiar with progressive arguments / Ks, so run them at your own risk. That being said, I will evaluate any argument presented on the merits of the argument.

I am a third year at UC Berkeley and an assistant debate coach for College Prep. I debated for Bethesda-Chevy Chase HS in high school and won the Glenbrooks, the Strake Round Robin, Blake, Durham, the Barkley Forum, Stanford, Harvard, the King Round Robin, and NDCAs.

Please add eli.glickman@berkeley.edu to the email chain, and label the chain clearly; for example, “TOC R1F1 Email Chain Bethesda-Chevy Chase GT v. AandM Consolidated DS.”

TL;DR

I am tech over truth. You can read any argument in front of me, provided it’s warranted. Extensions are key; card names, warrants, links, and internal links are all necessary in the back half. Good comparative analysis and creative weighing are the best ways to win my ballot.

———PART I: SPEECHES———

Signposting:

Teams that do not signpost will not do well in front of me. If I cannot follow your arguments, I will not flow them properly.

Cross:

I might listen but I won't vote off or remember anything said here unless it's in a speech. Rudeness and hostility are unpleasant, and I will ding your speaks if you do not behave professionally in cross. Teams may skip GCX, if they want. If you agree to skip GCX, both teams get 1 additional minute of prep.

Rebuttal:

Read as much offense as you want, but you should implicate all offense well on the line-by-line. Second rebuttal must frontline defense and turns, but blippy defense from the first rebuttal doesn’t all need to be answered in this speech.

Summary:

Defense is not sticky, and it should be extended in summary. I will only evaluate new turns or defense in summary if they are made in response to new implications from the other team.

Final Focus:

First final can do new weighing but no new implications of turns, nor can the first final make new implications for anything else, unless responding to new implications or turns from the second summary. Second final cannot do new weighing or make new implications. Final focus is a really good time to slow down and talk big picture.

———PART II: TECHNICAL THINGS———

Voting:

I default to util. If there's no offense, I presume to the first speaking team. I will always disclose after the round.

Evidence:

Paraphrasing is fine if it is done ethically. Smart analytics help debaters grow as critical thinkers, which is the purpose of this activity. Well-warranted arguments trump poorly warranted cards. There are, however, two evidence rules you must follow. First, you must have cut cards, and you must send cut cards in the email chain promptly after your opponent requests them. Second, I will not tolerate misconstruction of evidence. If you misconstrue evidence, I will give you very low speaks, and I reserve the right to drop you, depending on the severity of the misconstruction.

Email Chains:

I require an email chain for every round, so evidence exchange is faster and more efficient. If you are spreading or reading any progressive arguments, you must send a doc before you begin. You should not have any third-party email trackers activated; if you do, I will tank your speaks.

Prep Time:

Don't steal prep or I will steal your speaks. Feel free to take prep whenever, and flex prep is fine too.

Speech Times:

These are non-negotiable. I stop flowing after the time ends, and I reserve the right to scream "TIME" if you begin to go over. Cross ends at 3 minutes sharp. If you’re in the middle of a sentence, finish it quickly.

Speed:

I can follow speed (300wpm+), but be clear. If I can't understand what you're saying that means I can't flow it. Speed is good in the first half and bad in the second half, collapse strategically, and don't go for everything. If I miss something in summary or final focus because you're going too fast and I drop you, it's your fault. I repeat, slow down, don't go for everything, and be efficient.

Speaks:

Clarity and strategy determine your speaks. I disclose speaks as well, just ask.

Postrounding:

Postround as hard as you want, as I think it's educational.

Trigger Warnings:

I do not require trigger warnings. I will not reward including them, nor will I penalize excluding them. This is informed by my personal views on trigger warnings (see Jonathan Haidt and Greg Lukianoff, The Coddling of the American Mind). I will never opt out of an argument. I will not hack for trigger warning good theory, and I am open to trigger warning bad arguments (though I will not hack for these either).

———PART III: PROGRESSIVE DEBATE———

You do not need to ask your opponent if they are comfortable with theory. “I don't know how to respond” is not a sufficient response. Don’t debate in varsity if you can’t handle varsity arguments.

Preferences:

Theory/T - 1

LARP - 1

Kritik - 3

Tricks - 3

High Theory - 4

Non-T Kritik - 5 (Strike)

Performance - 5 (Strike)

Theory:

I think frivolous theory is bad. I'll evaluate it, but I have a lower threshold for responses the more frivolous the shell. Poorly executed theory will result in low speaks. If you've never run theory before, and feel inclined to do so, I'm happy to give comments and help as much as I can.I default to competing interps and yes RVIs. I believe that winning no RVIs applies to the entire theory layer unless your warrants are specific to a shell, C/I, etc. Unless I am evaluating the theory debate on reasonability you must read a counterinterp; if you do not all of your responses are inherently defensive because your opponents are the only team providing me with a 'good' model of debate.

Theory must be read immediately after the violation. You must extend your shells in rebuttal, and you must frontline your opponent’s shell(s) immediately after they read it.

Kritiks:

I ran Ks a few times, however, I am not a great judge for these rounds. I'm fairly comfortable with biopower, security, cap, and imperialism.

Tricks:

These are pretty stupid but go for them if you want to.

Everything Else:

Framework, soft-left Ks, CPs, and DAs are fine.

TKO:

If your opponent has no path to the ballot, such as conceded theory shell or your opponents reading a counterinterp that they do not meet themselves, you may call a TKO. If your TKO is valid, you win with 30 speaks, however, if your opponents did have a path to the ballot you will lose with very low speaks.

I'm a lay judge who doesn't know flow or will not be flowing throughout the debate.

I judge crossfire as well since I do not flow throughout the debate.

I do not require an off-time roadmap, but if you feel the need to do one do it.

Try your best to use facts, not speculation but I understand that there are many situations where speculation has to be used.

Your job is to convince me how your points outweigh their points clearly and in order so that I can tell who won the debate.

Refrain from using debate slang as best as you can since I am not that experienced.

Lastly, Don't be disrespectful to the other team. If I feel that one team is being very disrespectful to the other, then that will impact my final decision.

I did 4 years of congress and a little bit of extemp at Hawken and debated a lot nationally. I am a 2018 grad. I was pretty meh(made TOC and nats senior year and some out rounds at circuit tournaments). I'm a Senior econ major with math and public policy minors at Carleton College. I was very tech for a congress debater and I judge whatever debate event Hawken needs judges for so I got some experience in everything (Including Middle School Big Questions, it was epic) but policy.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE TOPIC IS BUT I PROBABLY KNOW SOMETHING ABOUT IT BECAUSE I CASUALLY READ NYT AND RANDOM ECON PAPERS.

Email: griffina2@carleton.edu

PF:

TLDR: I was not bad at national circuit debate. I'm a lay judge who tries to vote off the flow. PLEASE WEIGH AND SIGNPOST. Have fun. Risk-taking will be rewarded. Good nuanced argumentation. Got any questions please ask before the round starts

If you have had any Hawken judges before who are either coaches or ex-competitors I probably have a pretty similar paradigm and will vote similarly. Some of these I have taken straight from them.

1. I'm not that great at flowing. Sorry, I didn't do PF and I have slow handwriting. That being said I do flow to the best of my ability and I vote based on the flow I have created throughout the round. I am fine with speed but please NO SPREADING. I can understand and follow it but my slow handwriting might mean that it might not be super detailed on my flow. You can go just as fast as you want but just understand that when I look back at flows in the end I might miss some of the intricacies. So slower is probably better and I tend to believe that quality is better than quantity. .Because of this, I don't really flow card names (sorry I think your analysis is more important) so if I ask what a name is a reference too after a speech this me just trying to clarify and make sure the round stays fair. Calling the card by the stat/number/analysis is just a little easier for me to follow but not as efficient for yall.

2. In crossfire, if you say something that seems important or tell me that you will mention it in a later speech I will flow it. Otherwise, I will just sit and listen.

3. The best way to convince me to vote for you is by telling the most convincing arguments. I think the best tech arguments are the ones that are also true. I really enjoy unique and nuanced arguments and would encourage teams to run things that are not just stock. However, do not be ridiculous with what you run. It must be based in reality, this is not a policy where everything leads to nuke war. I would encourage arguments that bitcoin ruins the environment, we should fear the rocketship lobby because they will weaken regulation or other arguments that are kinda funky, out there, and super cool. Long link chains are fine but just keep it real.

4. Please Weigh. if you didn't you probably lost and I thought what the other team said was more important.

5. Theory and Ks are fine but I think disclosure theory is a bit silly so I probably won't vote for it. I did congress so beware that I have little experience with theory so explain it to me like you would a novice and tell me how to weigh it. Ultimately it is up to you to decide what arguments to run and not my job as a judge to decide if you can run it. That being said I don't have a lot of experience with progressive debate and I think we are here to debate the resolution, not the rules of debate, so I would prefer normal debate.

6. Humor, wit, puns, making me laugh, banter, and pop culture references are encouraged and will earn you extra speaks. Debate is for a bunch of nerds but let's not be super uptight and have a good time as you do it. Have some flair

7. Please Signpost because it really helps me flow. Tell me where on my flow the response should go like on the second warrant, or the link to the impact, or this piece of evidence, ETC. Also, number your responses or tell me how many you are going to make in a particular spot, I think it helps everyone keep track of where you are. In late speeches tell me where to vote, how to vote, and why to vote there and I will follow you. Makes my decision super easy. Literally say "you vote here on____ for ____ because" or " do not vote here on ___ for ___ because".

8. Logic > evidence. I am under the belief that you can find a card for almost anything so the important part is the warranting and analysis. Anyone can just read cards. The challenge of debate is building a narrative and effectively communicating why the matter and why I should believe them. Tell me why cards are true. If you just card dump I probably won't vote you up. I will call for cards if you tell me to or if I find them important to my decision(I really should not have to do this, if I do the round is probably a mess). Since I should be on the email chain, I will try to read anything that gets sent through there.

9. Y'all know the topic better than I do so it's up to you what your frontline second rebuttal is. You know what the best responses are so frontline those first. I think turns tend to be pretty powerful so just generally frontlining those is a good idea, but if they are then spend your time somewhere else.

10. Anything in the final should be summary and most stuff from summary should be in rebuttal. No new response in final focus, that's pretty squirrely, especially in the second final. Adding new stuff in summary is fine if you didn't get to it in rebuttal or are frontlining responses in the second rebuttal but for the most part, it should be clarifying the round and weighing.

Congress:

TLDR: I was not bad at national circuit debate. Have fun. Risk-taking will be rewarded. Good nuanced argumentation. Got any questions please ask before the round starts

I did 4 years of congress at Hawken and debate a lot nationally. I was pretty meh. I'm a sophomore econ major with math and public policy minors at Carleton College.

1. Have fun and be yourself. Enjoy yourself I feel like oftentimes people take this event too seriously and its 20 miserable people sitting in a room. We all know what's that like and none of us want that to happen. At the end of the day when I am doing ranks, the people that are the most memorable will probably be towards the top. The best way to do that is to have some witty banter and make me laugh.

2. Argumentation > presentation. I don't care if you give the most eloquent speech of all time, if you don't add anything new, say anything relevant, or you don't make sense, then I will be bored and cranky. No one wants that. explain everything thoroughly, weigh, refute, no glaring holes, and make sure as a judge I am not asking myself a ton of questions when you finish speaking.

3. PLEASE WEIGH EVEN IF ITS A FIRST AFF. As an aspiring economist, I have learned the job of research is just to spit out the numbers. it is your job to tell me why they matter and what they mean.

4. Be risky and not stock. I hate rehash tell me something I don't know, please. My favorite argument of all time is bitcoin killing the environment. Spicy stuff like that will make you memorable but don't overdo it. Policyesque arguments about everything creating nuke is ridiculous. Be bold but believable.

Parent judge with 4 years of experience, I do flow the entire round.

If possible, please make it easy for me, collapse or go for a very well explained turn.

I am not a a pro and wont necessarily understand all the jargon and nuance.

My prefs:

1. yes - signpost; off-time roadmaps, extending from SUM to FF;

2. warrants > blips = I will have a hard time voting for poorly explained arguments;

3. no - spreading, anything new in 2nd SUM or FF;

4. Happy to skip grand-X if you are...

5. If K and Theory is read, I will do my best, but no promises that I will do a good job of it.. so swim at your own risk.

you can add me to email chains and case - viettagrinberg@gmail.com

I consider myself a lay judge. I will follow the flow of the debate and make notes accordingly, though I may or may not follow everything in the round if the speed of the debate is too fast. I also value quality speaking in conjunction with good argumentation, but not in place of.

I flow rounds. Alerting me to clear contentions and off time road maps assists me in completing my flows. I am absolutely not capable of flowing if you SPREAD, in fact, if you choose to SPREAD, I will stop flowing and listen. I prefer to hear you present your arguments verses reading your prepared material. The documents will provide me the name of your source when I review before making a final decision. I favor up to date resources as changes happen daily, when presenting your argument I focus on the year of the evidence to include in my flow. Cross fires should be civil. I generally look to typical speech characteristics when determining speaker points, such as speaking with clarity and articulation. I also consider the general characteristics of giving a speech such as how you present yourself through your demeanor both individually and as a team, as well as with your opponents.

I AM A LAY PARENT JUDGE. Treat me as such in the round. I can understand complex arguments, but make sure it makes sense. Clarity is super important. I do not understand/evaluate Kritiks, Tricks, Spreading, Theory (I won’t understand theory unless it is something really abusive. Run at your own risk). Please weigh, extend, defend your case, and signpost. While generally cross examination doesn't effect my decision, key concessions are important to bring up in speeches.

Random stuff:

• I flow
• Everything said in Final Focus must be mentioned in summary.
• For framework you can read it but don’t spend time on it unless it is very different from your opponent’s.
• You can give me an off time roadmap
• I WILL NOT EVALUATE DISCLOSURE THEORY
• Be cool about evidence. Don’t misrepresent it.
• Have your evidence organized and find it quickly if someone calls for it.

Note about outrounds: I get that I am lay and if I am on a panel with two tech judges I might just get dropped/ignored, try not to do this though, PF is designed for the general public to understand (ie lay judges) so try to keep it that way.

Benjamin Hagwood, Director at Vancouver Debate Academy

About me - former college policy debater, flow-centric, like all arguments but the politics DA (Elections gets a pass)

Debate is a game that can be played in a multitude of ways. It is the responsibility of the students to determine the parameters of the games and to call "foul" if they think someone has done something abusive. I will judge the round as it happens. Here are a few things about me that you might find useful when preparing for a round:

1. Flowing - I do my best to have as accurate a flow as possible while trying to capture but the context and citation of your arguments. Dropping arguments could be detrimental if your opponents extend and weight those arguments properly.
2. Observer not a Participant - I won't do work for you or insert myself into your debate. You will win OR lose based on the arguments in the round not my person opinion.
3. Style over Speed - swag is subjective - bring yours.
4. Petty but not Disrespectful - don't be unnecessarily rude to your opponent - but I must admit being petty is strategic.
5. Challenges - if you challenge someone and lose the challenge you lose the debate (this could also apply on theory debates depending on the debate - but not RVI's)

Universal Speaker Point Adjustments: all students are evaluated on their level. A 29 in novice is not the same as a 29 in open. 28 is my base for completing all your speeches and using all your speech time.

1. Wear a bowtie (+.5 point)
2. Be entertaining (tell jokes...if I laugh...you get points...if I don't you won't be punished) (+.5 point)
3. Be rude (-.5 point)
4. Don't use all your time (-.5 point)
5. Steal prep (-.5 point)

If you have any questions feel free to reach out to me and ask. Students may request my flow and written feedback at the end of the debate if they want. I will only share it with the students in the round unless they consent to the flow being shared with other opponents.

Name: Andrew Halverson

School: Currently, I am not actively coaching, but in recent years I was the Assistant Director of Speech & Debate at Kapaun Mount Carmel High School & Wichita East High School (Wichita, KS). I have moved to work in the real world full-time, but I still keep involved with debate as a Board Member of a local non-profit that promotes debate in the Wichita area - Ad Astra Debate.

Experience: 20+ years. As a competitor, 4 years in high school and 3 years in college @ Fort Hays and Wichita State in the mid-late 90's and early 2000's.

Up to March, I have judged 88 rounds this season - mostly LD and Policy. I only have judged PF at the UK Opener.

**ONLINE DEBATING ADDENDUM - updated 3/4/2022**

In my experience, most tournaments are more than gracious with their prep and tech time leading up the start of a round. Please make sure that all of your tech stuff is sorted before beginning AND that you use pre-round prep for disclosure as well. I'm pretty chill about most things, but these two things are my biggest online debating pet peeves.

ALL Online tournament have pre-round tech time built in. Please be in the room for it. It doesn't take long. If it's something that's no fault of your own that is preventing you from tech time, fair. However, if one of the members of your team isn't in the room during pre-round tech time, it's a 0.5-1 speaker point deduction.

Public Forum Section - Updated as of 3/1/2022

As an FYI, I've coached PFD, but by and large, I'm a Policy and Congress coach. If there is anything that isn't answered in this short section, I advise that you take a look the Policy section of my paradigm or ask questions.

I'm going to assume that I don't know the in and outs of your current topic. Please make sure that you explain concepts that I might not know. I've coached a lot of different debate topics over the years. I know a lot, but I don't know everything.

The typical PF norms for evidence/speech docs sharing are terrible. You must put your evidence/speech docs in the Speech Drop, email chain, or whatever BEFORE your speech starts. Don't do it after your speech or in the chat. Also, don't just put a cite in the chat and tell someone to CTRL+F what they are looking for. This is non-negotiable. Other PFD norms, I'm honestly unfamiliar with. I assume there is disclosure and other things, but I don't know for sure.

I'm probably going to evaluate most debates like I would a Policy debate - without all of the mumbo-jumbo that is usually associated with that activity. In brief, that will probably be an offense/defense paradigm with a heavy dose of policymaking sprinkled in. I like good, smart arguments. Make them and clash with your opponents and you will be at a good place at the end of the day.

Policy/LD Debate Section - Changed as of 6/30/2022

++Since most LD has a policy tilt nowadays, this is a pretty accurate representation on how I would view an LD round. Actual value debate and my thoughts on RVI's, you probably should ask me.

++I do want to add something about the penchant to go for RVI's and other random theory cheap shots in front of me in LD. Just saying something is an RVI or that you get one isn't an argument - it's just describing a thing that you might get access to as an argument. There has to be a reason behind your theory gripe or whatever it is. FYI, usually I have a high threshold for voting on these arguments - unless it's a complete drop (which it won't be the case all of the time). Refer to where I talk about blippy theory debates down below if you want any other insight.

This is the first time in a long time that I have engaged in rewriting my judging paradigm. I thought it was warranted – given that debates and performances will be all done virtually in the immediate future. My last iteration of one of these might have been too long, so I will attempt to be as brief as possible.

Some non-negotiables:

**If you send a PDF as a speech doc, I instantly start docking speaker points. Send a Google doc or nearly anything else but no PDFs.

**I want to be on the email chain (halverson.andrew [at] gmail.com). Don’t send your speech doc after your speech. Do it before (unless there are extra cards read, etc.). There are a few reasons I would like this to happen: a) I'm checking as you are going along if you are clipping; b) since I am reading along, I'm making note of what is said in your evidence to see if it becomes an issue in the debate OR a part of my decision – most tournaments put a heavy premium on quick decisions, so having that to look at before just makes the trains run on-time and that makes the powers that be happy; c) because I'm checking your scholarship, it allows for me to make more specific comments about your evidence and how you are deploying it within a particular debate. If you refuse to email or flash before your speech for me, there will probably be consequences in terms of speaker points and anything else I determine to be relevant - since I'm the ultimate arbiter of my ballot in the debate which I'm judging.

**Send your analytics as much as possible. This platform for debate can sometimes be problematic with technical issues that can or can’t be controlled. I’ve judged some debate where the 2nc is in the middle of giving their speech and then their feed becomes frozen. Of course, we pause the debate until we can resolve the technical issues, but it’s helpful for everyone involved to have a doc to know where the debate stopped so we can pick up at that point once we resume.

**Don’t go super-duper, mega, ultra full speed (unless you are crystal bell clear). Slowing down a bit in this format is more beneficial to you and everyone else involved.

**For all of those Kansas traditional teams, yes to a off-time road map. Don’t make it harder than it needs to be.

**Be nice & have fun. If you don’t be nice, then you probably won’t like how I remedy if you aren’t nice. Racist and sexist language/behavior will not be tolerated. Debate is supposed to be a space where we get to get to test ideas in a safe environment.

**Stealing prep time. Don’t do it. After you send out the doc, you should have an idea of a speech order and be getting set to speak. Don't be super unorganized and take another 2-3 minutes to just stand up there getting stuff together. I don't mind taking a bit to get yourself together, but I find that debaters are abusing that now. When I judge by myself, I'm usually laid back about using the restroom, but I strongly suggest that you consider the other people in a paneled debate - not doing things like stopping prep and then going to the bathroom before you start to speak. I get emergencies, but this practice is really shady. Bottom-line: if you're stealing prep, I'll call you on it out loud and start the timer.

**Disclosure is something I can't stand when it's done wrong. If proper disclosure doesn't happen before a round, I'm way more likely to vote on a disclosure argument in this setting. If you have questions about my views on disclosure, please ask them before the debate occurs - so you know where you stand. Otherwise, I can easily vote on a disclosure argument. This whole “gotcha” thing with arguments that you have already read is so dumb.

**New in the 2nc is bad. What I mean by that is whole new DA's read - old school style - in the 2nc does not foster good debate OR only read off-case in the 1nc and then decide to read all new case arguments in the 2nc. I'm willing to listen to theory arguments on the matter (and have probably become way more AFF leaning on the theory justification of why new in the 2nc is bad), BUT they have to be impacted out. However, that's not the best answer to a NEG attempting this strategy. The best answer is for the 1ar to quickly straight turn whatever that argument is and then move on. Debaters that straight turn will be rewarded. Debaters that do new in the 2nc will either lose because of a theory argument or have their speaks tanked by me.

Now that’s out of the way, here are some insights on how I evaluate debates:

**What kind of argument and general preferences do I have? I will listen to everything and anything from either side of the debate. You can be a critical team or a straight-up team. It doesn’t matter to me. An argument is an argument. Answering arguments with good arguments is probably a good idea, if the competitive aspect of policy debate is important to you at all. If you need some examples: Wipeout? Sure, did it myself. Affirmatives without a plan? Did that too. Spark? You bet. Specific links are great, obviously. Of course, I prefer offense over defense too. I don’t believe that tabula rasa exists, but I do try to not have preconceived notions about arguments. Yet we all know this isn’t possible. If I ultimately have to do so, I will default to policymaker to make my decision easier for me.

**Don't debate off a script. Yes, blocks are nice. I like when debaters have blocks. They make answering arguments easier. HOWEVER, if you just read off your script going for whatever argument, I'm not going to be happy. Typically, this style of debate involves some clash and large portions of just being unresponsive to the other team's claims. More than likely, you are reading some prepared oration at a million miles per hour and expect me to write down every word. Guess what? I can't. In fact, there is not a judge in the world that can accomplish that feat. So use blocks, but be responsive to what's going on in the debate.

**Blippy theory debates really irk me. To paraphrase Mike Harris: if you are going as fast as possible on a theory debate at the end of a page and then start the next page with more theory, I'm going to inevitably miss some of it. Whether I flow on paper or on my computer, it takes a second for me to switch pages and get to the place you want me to be on the flow. Slow down a little bit when you want to go for theory - especially if you think it can be a round-winner. I promise you it'll be worth it for you in the end.

**I’m a decent flow, but I wouldn’t go completely crazy. That being said, I’m one of those critics (and I was the same way as a debater) that will attempt to write down almost everything you say as long as you make a valiant attempt to be clear. Super long overviews that aren't flowable make no sense to me. In other words, make what you say translate into what you want me to write down. I will not say or yell if you aren’t clear. You probably can figure it out – from my non-verbals – if you aren’t clear and if I’m not getting it. I will not say/yell "clear" and the debate will most definitely be impacted adversely for you. If I don’t “get it,” it’s probably your job to articulate/explain it to me.

**I want to make this abundantly clear. I won't do work for you unless the debate is completely messed up and I have to do some things to clean up the debate and write a ballot. So, if you drop a Perm, but have answers elsewhere that would answer it, unless you have made that cross-application I won't apply that for you. The debater answering said Perm needs to make the cross-application/answer(s) on their own.

Contact me if you have any questions. Hope this finds you well and healthy - have a great season!!

-Debated 4 years LD, graduating in 2013; qualified to TOC twice and reached Quarterfinals my senior year.

-Have coached for 10 years; am currently the Head Debate Coach at Lynbrook High School.

There was a misunderstanding about my paradigm, so am rewriting to be especially explicit:

The one argument I won't ever vote for is disclosure theory. I don't think anyone has to say anything to their opponent before the competition begins -- the concept of having to tell your opponent what your strategy is in advance is prima facie absurd in my opinion. I recognize that disclosure is a norm now, but it wasn't when I competed, and I think it's a bad addition.

I am truly horrible at adjudicating policy style debate. You should really only pref me for Phil and sometimes for theory.

I am a former high school policy/LD debater. I also competed in many individual events. Now, I am a trial lawyer. I seek to reward the speaking that connects most directly with the professional and personal activities that high school debaters will be performing in just a few short years.

For policy debaters: Debate is a game. And, in my opinion, policy is a place where (almost) anything goes. You can spread, you can run K, you can read a poem. If you've signed up for policy, you know the world you have signed up for. But, note the following: If I can't understand you or write/type/think fast enough, I might miss your brilliant argument. The stranger or more counterintuitive your argument is, the more proof I will need for it. Style and persuasion still mean something to me in policy debate, so if you can spread while being persuasive (yelling is not persuasive), you will have an advantage. Those who abandon speed altogether AND who make a good argument for why they should win even if they can't cover everything -- those people might very well win. As I say, debate is a game.

Public forum: If (almost) anything goes in policy debate, then public forum is its more constrained, conversational, and accessible cousin. My understanding is that it was created as an alternative to what policy has become, and therefore I am less receptive to spreading and absurdist styles in PF. As a result, I will not necessarily vote on dropped arguments. Two minutes is simply not enough time to cover everything in a debate, so it is entirely possible to pick an argument to the exclusion of others and win -- just tell me if that is what you're doing, and tell me why that argument is the winner. Please consider whether your tone, your speed, and your use of jargon are at all applicable to: a class presentation, a conversation with a professor, an informal discussion with friends or colleagues, a courtroom, a pitch to a boss, etc. These are the places in which your debate skills will be applicable.

For all debaters: If you are rude in any way (prematurely cutting opponents off in crossfire, ad homs in speeches, gesturing from your chair while others speak), you will lose speaker points, and possibly the round. Aggressiveness is fine, but I can't abide jerks.

2016-2018 Los Angeles Metropolitan Debate League

2018- present CSU Fullerton

email chain- javierh319@gmail.com

Frame the ballot by the 2AR/2NR and don't leave me shooting darts please.

Overviews really help me/you out unless they're longer than the debate proper-be concise.

Prep- Prep ends when doc is sent out or the equivalent of that. Let me know if there are any technical difficulties.

Spreading- speed is fine-go at it if thats ur thing. this shouldn't be exchanged for clarity/emphasis, and ultimately, persuasion. My face tends to be pretty expressive so use that to ur advantage.

Cross Ex- Humor is much appreciated so long as it doesn't offend ur opponent. Attack the argument not the debater.

I generally err on the side of tech over truth. However, too many buzzwords are kinda annoying and don't mean anything if you dont impact/flesh them out. I won't evaluate concessions for you unless you do it first.

Policy Affs- Spent most of hs reading these- read them at will. Internal link work and framing is crucial.

Performance/K Affs- Have a clear explanation of what the advocacy does and why it should precede a traditional endorsement of the resolution (vs framework). Presumption arguments are some of my favorite arguments. Being untopical for the sake of being untopical is sooooo not the move. Even if i think that ur aff is the most interesting/entertaining thing in the world, I can resolve that with speaker points. Offense. Offense. Offense.

Framework- Go for it. Slow down just a tad. Procedural fairness and education are impacts, I'm usually more persuaded by education but fairness is fine too.While I'm usually more persuaded by fairness as an internal link to something else, enough impact comparison can resolve that if ur not down with the former.

Theory/Procedurals- Go for it. I'm not one to love hearing theory debates but will vote on it if you do the work. These can get really petty. Usually not in a good way. Condo is probably good PICs probably aren't. Don't let that dissuade you from saying otherwise because I also love hearing pics and multiple advocacies. I'm a 2N if that is relevant for you.

DAs- Make sure to flesh out the internal links. Winning uniqueness wins direction of link debate. I prefer hearing isolated impact scenario(s) rather than a generic nuclear war/extinction claim although u can totally claim that as ur terminal one. The more specific the link the less spinning the aff can do, the less intervention I have to do, the higher ur chances of winning are. I find it hard to believe that there can ever be 100% risk probability but if the CP solves 100% of the aff you're in a much better spot.

CPs-Resolve questions like how does this solve the case and is this theoretically legitimate if it becomes about that. If you wanna be noncompetitive, you do you but be ready to justify that.

Ks- Tbh I would much rather judge a robust debate about the intricacies/consequences of a traditionally political action vs a less-than fleshed out k debate. Links to the status quo and not the aff are awkward. Generally speaking, im probably down for ur thing. Regardless of me being familiar with ur authors or not-do the work. Framing is super important. Does the alt solve the aff? let me know. You don't need to go for the alt to win

Random/Misc

-a claim with no warrant is a pen with no ink

-know where u are losing but make it fashion

-dont be a jerk

Debate History: I debated for Towson University & Binghamton University (4 years college).

First and foremost, I will not tell you how to engage in the debate. Whether it be policy or K affirmatives I'm open to debaters showcasing their research in any format they choose. However, I do prefer if debaters orient their affirmative construction towards the resolution. 

When evaluating a debate I tend to weigh the impacts of the affirmative to any disadvantage or impact the negative goes for in the 2NR. Therefore, if the affirmative does not extend case in the 2AR it becomes more difficult for me to evaluate the debate unless you tell me the specific argument I should be voting on otherwise. 

Next, is framework. I evaluate this before anything else in the debate. If you run framework in front of me go for decision making, policy research good, learning about X (insert topic related policy discussion i.e. warming, tech, economy, education, etc.) is good, clash or ground. I do not want to feel as though your framework is exclusionary to alternative debate formats but instead debate about its inherent benefits. 

I also really enjoy case debate. If you are on the negative please have case turns and case specific evidence so that the debate for me is a bit more specific and engaging. 

CP's and DA's are also arguments I evaluate but I need to have a good link for both or it will make it difficult for me to vote for them. 

Please focus more on explanation of evidence and not on the amount of evidence introduced in the debate. 

I tend to keep up on politics and critical literature so don't be afraid of running an argument in front of me. I will always ask for preferred pronouns and do not tolerate racism, white supremacy, anti-blackness, sexism, patriarchy, transphobia and xenophobia. 

I am a "Lay" judge, who puts emphasis on clear and concise speaking, clear contentions, and most importantly your performance in the Cross Fires.

I have been a parent judge for about 6 years now (2 students) and look to see if your contentions can be clearly articulated and defended. The team who performs best in the Cross Fires will usually earn the "win" from me.

I appreciate a calm and clear speaking style.

I am a Lay Judge. Please speak slowly and clearly during the round. My speaker point range is from 27.5-30. Be respectful in the round and have fun.

Hello, I did pubic forum debate for 4 years at Lincoln Sudbury High School. I am now a fourth year student at NYU who has judged a little here in there in college. I have a very standard circuit pf paradigm (if you don't know what that means, ask). I don't mind some speed as long as it is clear. Please ask me any other questions before the round. Please have a fun and relaxed round, thank you!

The most important thing to me is that a warrant gets extending through final focus. Otherwise I WILL NOT VOTE FOR YOU!

I usually won't know the topic well so make sure to explain anything topic specific but I would like to think I have a pretty decent understanding of international politics and basic, debate relevant, economics.

Keep track of your own prep time and if you care, your opponents prep time, because I will not be timing either.

If you are gonna run theory or Ks, ask your opponent before the round if they are ok with it. I don't really like those argument styles but I'll vote for them if they are cleanly won.

:)

My email is bsh298@nyu.edu if there is any questions after a round or anything else (hopefully no death threats).

I prefer teams email me their speech document to amyhu881@gmail.com before the round starts. Please do so asap as it takes a while for the email to arrive and sometimes the first email fail to reach me. It is Ok that you don't send me your speech doc but it will help me to understand your round.

Please time yourself. I wont keep track of the crossfires. Tell me what is the priority to weight and why your impact is bigger.

Keeping your arguments simple and logical. I can easily get lost if you talk too fast or provide me tons of information.

Please be calm and polite. When you getting hostile to your opponent, I will think you lose control because you know you fail the round.

I am a parent judge with limited previous judging experience.

My preferred rate of delivery is a 2-3 out of 5. If you are unclear, I will not flow your arguments even if they are true. This helps me understand your arguments and better allow me to evaluate the round.

Substance debate and contention level debate under the resolution is most important. Framework is important as well, but you should make the best argument as I will vote for the most persuasive speaker.

It is very important to have strong evidence to back up your claims. If you make assertions without good authors/sources/credentials to support your position, that is not a strong case.

It is recommended that you include voting issues at the end of the round that crystallize your position and your speech so that I, as the judge, know what to vote on and who to vote for.

I am a parent judge with several years of judging experiences.

Please focus on these areas if you want to win a round:

· State your framework clearly

· Substantiate your contention with impact

· A combination of logical reasoning with data/evidence

· During cross-fire and rebuttals, I want to hear the teams trying to challenge and effectively defend.

· Final Focus should be relevant to what happened during the debate

Hi! To give some background, I'm a college student with previous HS debate experience. During High School, I competed in Varsity PF and qualified for TFA State. I will be flowing and am comfortable with debate terminology (turns, extensions, etc).

Conflicts: San Marino

Experience: HS/Circuit- LD 2 years, PF 3 years, CX 1 year (2016-2020)

As of 3/13/2024: I have not been involved in debate since 2020. Most of my knowledge of debate has atrophied; if you plan on running technical arguments be prepared to explain them thoroughly.

Send me speech docs: j4ng.debate@gmail.com

discord: j4ng#0099

If the panel includes other lay judges - I am a lay judge. Please adapt to the other judges.

Speed is OK but don't exceed 350 WPM. I can't vote for a team if I cannot understand what they are saying. Spreading is not accessible and I prefer that everyone in the room can actively participate in the round :)

I ran generic, stock, LARP, and Ks in HS. If you are running anything else, I will do my best to evaluate them.

This is the paradigm that I wrote in 2021. It is wordy and extends into debate lore that I barely remember today. You can use it as general guidance. here

Feel free to ask any questions. I do not consider myself the most impartial judge, but I promise everyone that I will do my best to facilitate a fair and educational round.

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!

Email: annatjaoudi@gmail.com

Hey! My name is Anna Jaoudi. As a practicing attorney and former debater (2011-2015), I am excited to judge your round.

When assessing your debate:

Argumentation and Refutation

• I judge based on the logic of your arguments and the quality of your refutation. The debates I find most persuasive include clear organization and strong factual support.
• My ability to understand your arguments also includes productive cross-examination.

Delivery

• You don't need to change your speaking style for me, but it should be easy to follow and not too fast.

Ethos

• I will weigh courtesy of debaters.
• I will penalize debaters who are sarcastic, demeaning of opponents, or biased in terms of gender, race, religion, or sexual orientation.

Good luck!

Name: Jillian Jarrett

School Affiliation: Sidwell Friends School

Number of Years Judging Public Forum: 2 years

What is your current occupation? Journalist

Speed of Delivery: I prefer clear, concise answers. If you speak so fast that I can't comprehend, how can I understand your point?

Format of Summary Speeches: I appreciate big picture ideas. Front line your arguments. What are the most important arguments in the round? How did you prove your point?

Role of the Final Focus: Your final focus should use ballot-directed language. (ex. You vote for us because....) What are the main points you want to get across? Which of your own contentions did you win? Which of your opponents contentions did you take out? Weigh your arguments against theirs.

Flowing/note-taking: I don't do off-time roadmaps. Note-taking should be done during prep time.

Do you value argument over style? Style over argument? Argument and style equally? I value both argument and style equally. One must be passionate and show enthusiasm when expressing their points, but the points must also have substance and be factual. You must be respectful. I deduct points for overly aggressive or disrespectful behavior.

I am a judge in PF for Dougherty Valley High School.

Basic Preferences:

- Please do not speak fast, and try to be as clear as possible when you speak.

- You should be telling me how I should be weighing the round.

- Be polite to your opponent and be respectful.

Good luck!

I am a relatively new judge to debate, and as such wouldn't count on a technical debate strategy benefitting you (jargon such as front lining, terminal impact, bright line, etc.) unless you are able to explain what it means. That being said, I will not disqualify a Tech>Truth argument so long as it is not absolutely ridiculous to the point of comical or insulting. THIS ALSO MEANS SPREADING. If I can't understand it, I can't and won't flow it. I don't mind defense in the summary, so long as you tell me what I am going to be weighing in the final focus.

As I am new, I am not hyperaware of the implicit meaning of "dropping cards" or such. YOU HAVE TO TELL ME WHY THESE THINGS MATTER IN-ROUND IN REAL-WORLD TERMS.

Please be clear, well-paced, and moderate in your speaking, logical, thorough, and respectful in your case and in argument, and I shouldn't be a hard judge to sway.

I am a flay judge. I usually vote off of logical arguments with solid evidence and weighing.

I am a linguist by training so your language of debate matters to me. I like clear and comprehensible speeches, meaning you might have to slow down a bit (I'll give extra speaker points to those speakers)

I also care about being courteous and professional during your debate, meaning I would never vote for those who are too aggressive and rude.

Parent judge-

Email- JKaminskii34@gmail.com

TLDR (updated 11/4/22)

1. Speed is fine, you won't go too fast
2. Win the flow=win the round
3. Presumption =neg
4. Theory is cool, run it well (Interp, violation, standards and voters. RVI's have higher burden)
5. K debate is even better
6. Defense needs to be extended
7. I default to magnitude/strength of link weighing
8. You can run any and all args you want, but they cannot be problematic/discriminatory/ attack your opponents. This will be an auto 20 speaks and L.

My debate experience:

Current assistant PF coach at Trinity Prep

3 Years of NFA-LD Debate

4 Years of Public Forum debate

Paradigm-

It should be pretty easy to win my ballot. In my opinion, debate is a game, and you should play to win. Here are the specific things most debaters would want to know.

PF

- I am cool with speed, so long as you don't use it to push your opponents out of a round. I will call clear if you become hard to understand, so keep that in mind.

- I will evaluate all types of arguments equally unless told otherwise.

- I am willing to listen to things like K's and theory arguments, so long as they are impacted out in the round.

- I really enjoy framework debates as well. I think these can be particularly beneficial for limiting the ground your opponents have in the round.

- I am tech over truth, which means so long as it is on my flow, I will evaluate the argument regardless of my own feelings on it. I will also not flow arguments through ink on the flow, so be sure to engage with your opponents answers in order to win the link level of your argument.

- Summary and FF should be somewhat consistent in terms of the direction they are going. Inconsistencies between these speeches will be harmful, especially when it comes to evaluating the strengths of your links and impacts

- On that same note, I want to see some sort of collapse in the second half of the debate- going for everything is typically a bad strategy, and I want to reward smart strategic choices that you make.

- I default to a net benefits impact calc, unless given a competing way to view the round. I am cool viewing the round through any lens that you give me, so long as you explain why its the best way for me to evaluate the round. If absent, I have to intervene with my own, which is something I hate to do.

- If you want me to call for cards, you need to ask me to do so. In that same regard, I wont intervene unless you leave me no other option.

- I dont flow CX, so if you want me to hold something that was said as binding, you need to bring it up in all of the subsequent speeches.

-Speaker points, in my opinion, are less about your speaking performance and more about your ability to present and explain compelling arguments, interact with the opposition, and provide meaningful analysis as to why you are necessarily more important. Content above style

-On a more personal note, I want the rounds that I judge to be educational and allow debaters to articulate arguments about real world issues, all of which deserve respect regardless of your own personal opinions. I have seen my partners and teammates experience sexism, racism, and other types of discrimination, and I have absolutely zero tolerance for it when I am judging.

-If you have any other questions about my paradigm, please feel free to ask me. I also will give feedback after rounds, you just have to find me and ask.

LD

- All of the above applies here as well. There are a few extra points that may be helpful.

- I will always evaluate framing first, so long as there are competing positions. If values are the same, just collapse and move on. These can be either traditional or more progressive/kritical frameworks.

- For the NR/2AR, don't go for everything- there simply is not enough time and debates are not lost by making strategic decisions to go for one or two arguments instead of extending the entire case.

- I dont need voter issues- just go top down the AC and NC and win your offense/extend defense.

- Impact calc is necessary- PLEASE weigh your impacts. I default to a net benefits impact calc, unless given a competing way to view the round.

G'Day!

My name is Meg Kandarpa, and I am a Cornell ILR student in the Class of '23. I currently debate for Cornell in British Parliamentary/Worlds debate. (It seems counterintuitive to list BP qualifications on a site that is not used for BP but if you truly want to know ask me).

In high school, I primarily partook in APDA/parliamentary debate but also competed in world schools, congress, public forum, and MUN/speech.

Judging Paradigm

My judging paradigm is relatively simple - If the round doesn't say it, then I don't judge in it (this is 100% based off the flow - not my intuition). This includes not pointing out contradictions, missing links, and other case failures. I'm not one who believes in "punishment judging" - eg if a first speech fails to provide a needed definition, I don't take "away" points.

Refutation is also a good practice - direct responses to teams and telling me why you win also does help!

Also - please weigh/impact. I always see myself questioning "so what" at the end of most cases. Don't let that be your case.

If there's any way I can make the round more accessible for you in any way please don't hesitate to let me know before (or even during) the round.

Specificities to Online Debate (Credit to a University of Rochester buddy - Ali Abdullah who wrote this)

Please please slow down a bit; online debate certainly isn't conducive to blazing fast speeds (especially when most of y'all aren't even enunciating properly in person). This doesn't mean you can't speak fast, just be sure to slow down enough that I can make out every word you're saying. I'll try to tell you if I can't comprehend you but chances are by the time I do I've already missed something important.

Please try avoiding speaking over each other during CX; I love heated CX but 2+ people with their microphones on become incomprehensible in an online setting.

On video, you certainly don't have to have it turned on when I'm judging you. There are a multitude of reasons for this from privacy reasons to personal comfort, etc. Basically, you do you. I may also ask you to turn your video off if my internet is being slow, but I'll never ask you to turn it on. I find myself paying infinitely more attention to what you say and the tone/form in which you say it than your facial expressions anyway.

On that note, my video will most likely be on as it makes me stay connected and focused - and for debaters to feel comforted knowing that I am not watching Netflix in round. I never make facial expressions when I'm judging anyway so it wouldn't really be useful to y'all in that sense.

Debate Etiquette

I make it effort when doing introductions to offer a space for pronoun preferences. This is by no means required, but helpful if needed. If someone discloses pronouns or doesn't - always best to defer to the speaking position over assumptions.

I'm all for heated debates, but behavior that can frankly be determined as just jerkish is not something I stand for. This includes aggressively cutting debaters off, excessive facial expressions (if it's that ludicrous, 99% sure I caught it as well) and any generalizations/insinuations towards an entire group of people.

Again - generalizations of groups of people - bad and unpersuasive. That goes for debate, and just life advice while we are at it.

Cheers, and thanks to all who have read this far (good luck if I'm judging you!)

Meg Kandarpa

I was a PF debater in high school (I graduated in 2020). I'm a flow judge, tech > truth. If there is 0 offense left in the round, I will presume for the team that was more polite in crossfire. If both teams were pretty polite, I'll presume neg. However, if you want to convince me that I should presume first, I am happy to listen to your argument.

I did PF at Mission San Jose for 4 years 2019-2023; email is msjselinakao@gmail.com.

1. weigh & warrant arguments. warrants>evidence, showing me the logic behind why something happens is more valuable than a number. give me a story to convince me that i should be voting for you. weighing should always start as early in the round as possible.
2. go slow. i am fine with speed if you choose to do so, but there's really no need to go so fast. be efficient and choose a couple arguments, flush them out, & convince me why you're winning them. i'll always prefer those strategies as opposed to a million blippy turns.
3. 2nd rebuttal should frontline defense and turns. summary & FF must extend all arguments that you want me to vote off on

I am a parent judge and I have judged a few tournaments. I won’t be familiar with the topic so please be clear and provide definitions. I do not flow, but will take notes. Please convince me why you should win and make sure to WEIGH. Please time yourselves. I most likely won’t understand Theory or Ks but if you explain well I will keep that in mind. In terms of speaking, make sure your words are coherent. In order to win, you need to draw me a clear path of why your arguments and impacts outweigh your opponents.

my email for evidence and etc: esther.kardos@gmail.com

general rule of thumb.... i am now officially 4/5 years removed from pf debating and the format has changed a lot. i am super receptive to this change so if you're doing something especially out of the box it's totally fine with me, i just need a heads-up and you might have to do some extra legwork to teach an old pf-er new tricks.

spreading - yeah, probably. if you can't get through your speech without it, then i can follow until about 230 wpm. after that, maybe send over a copy of your speech to make sure i don't miss anything. i would encourage you to slow down toward the back end of your speeches, but up to you.

theory & beyond - i didn't have to deal with this a ton back when i did pf (pf used to be the "one format without theory" lmao not anymore!), but i've had enough exposure to T/K/plans/counters from judging that i can probably pick up what you're putting down. as a caution, i REALLY need to get persuaded by theory to vote on it, and if it's too complicated for me to understand i'll just default to your opponent.

flowing - make flowing easy for me! start each of your big points with something flashy like "my first contention is..." or "my second independent point is..." or even just "one... two... three...", and then clearly indicate to me the different branches of argumentation under that big point. you don't need to be as obvious as shouting "THIS IS MY WARRANT, THIS IS MY IMPACT", but be able to clearly explain why/how something is true and what's going to result from it, and especially why it matters more than whatever your opponent is saying. i listen to cross-ex but i don't flow it, so if you/your opponent say something important during cross, make sure you remind me during your next speech so it 100% makes it on the flow.

evidence/cards - evidence is only as good as the warranting, weighing, and impacting that goes behind it. i will never base my rfd on how well you were able to gather bits of evidence from the depths of debate's dark web, or if one really good point you were making had a link that couldn't load. instead, if the argument you're creating makes sense to me (with some informational evidence to back it up) because of the warranting, weighing, and impacting you put behind it, then i'll always be more willing to pick that up rather than just buy what the other team is saying because of some guardian article from 2004.

misc - i don't mind "offtime roadmaps" or whatever the kids are calling it these days, just let me know beforehand and plzzz keep them brief. if you're a novice (or even a varsity!!!) and you have questions during the round, please don't be afraid to ask me, i'll never look down on you for wanting to learn! i'm happy to give any timing cues, you just gotta let me know beforehand. be nice to each other, debate is temporary but building a habit of being a jerk follows you forever. and in case I haven't beaten this to death already, WARRANT AND IMPACT AND WEIGH.

if you have any more questions, let me know. i'm so excited to see what arguments you come up with!

***ALL cards read during ANY speech need to be sent in the email chain PRIOR to the speech. If you are not comfortable adapting to this standard, please strike me

North Broward '20 Wake Forest '24

Quartered @ TOC and have minimal college policy experience

Head Public Forum Coach @ Quarry Lane

Email: katzto20@wfu.edu

tech>truth

I would prefer both teams talk about the topic. I have given up on judging bad PF theory / K debates.

debate is a game and the team that plays the best will win.

A little about me: I debated in Public Forum for Mira Loma high school for 4 years. I mostly went to a few local inviationals Northern California, but also competed at NSDA and TOC.

Ok here are some of my preferences while judging in no particular order.

I'm fairly flow but not at a policy debate level - I'm probably not fast enough to catch every card and each of its implications on the first listen. If you're going to spread, share a speech doc please.

Argumentation can give you a path to the ballot, but weighing wins the round.

I won't time prep or speeches.

I don't listen to crossfire - its for debater clarification. If anything important happens mention it in your speech.

Find each card within 30 seconds or you start eating into prep time.

I'm open to pretty much any kind of argument as long as it isn't blatantly offensive. Prog is fine.

If its not in FF AND Summary, I don't vote on it.

Yes, add me to the email chain (I'll send you my contact info in chat).

Background – Debater for over 6 years and an experienced judge in multiple formats.

General Notes for speakers:

· I)I appreciate organized speeches which are clear to follow. The manner, style, vocabulary and pace of the speech doesn’t matter insofar as the speech is able to communicate the depth and meaning of the argument and case.

· II)Healthy environment must be maintained during speeches i.e. AVOID: - a) condescending behavior to opponents, b) passing rude and stereotypical statements about particular community which might be offensive to majority of rational individuals, c)Racist, sexist and homophobic prejudicial behavior, d)Generally abusive and unfair tone.

· III)Use material which would be understandable by an average reasonable voter.

· IV)Customization, innovation and uniformity in arguments is always cherished

· V)Feel free to reach out to me via mail for any queries or assistance.

Arguments and Cases:

· I) I do not have any preference in terms of which Type of arguments matter more, however I sit with an open mind for the speakers to convince or sell argument want me to buy through their Persuasiveness. (you should be able to sell a comb to a bald person)

· II) Analysis to the arguments- simply stating a fact isn’t enough until and unless you prove :-a)why a particular fact matters more than others, b) how it is relevant, c)Implication of the argument, d) evidence to support the facts, e) Analysis to core issues and trends to support the consistency and applicability of an argument.

· III) Give taglines to flag out your arguments – i.e. while giving a speech which includes *why pollution is bad* - the taglines can be a) Pollution is bad because it has health hazards to humans , b) Pollution is bad because it impacts climate change and c) Pollution impacts economy. These headlines can further be analyzed.

· IV) Counter proposals/ plans – if you wish to introduce counter proposals, try to analyze and extend the comparative of the benefits of your opponent’s plan and your counter plan. For eg. You can compare it by means of feasibility, efficiency, cost benefit analysis, time saving etc.

· V) Comparative – be comparative and weigh as to why your impacts have stronger stance than your opponents. Make the specific links of “where your side is comparatively better and how?”

· VI) Uniformity – it is important to establish a clear stance of the team and becomes easier to follow. Any inconsistency in form of contradiction, doubts or hesitation shows non uniformity of the bench which reduces the integrity of the case. Insofar as the contradiction isn’t huge enough which might change the entire meaning and impacts of your case, it doesn’t impact you much with respect to speaker score, otherwise you might attract certain penalties based on the degree of contradiction.

VII) Engagement - Rebuttals and clashing is very valuable to judge the closest teams in a round. Simply reading prewritten cards aren’t enough to win a debate, you need to modify and adapt in order to outweigh your opponents. Prove why you are right and disprove your opponents. Weight your benefits with theirs, compare your harms with theirs and tell why your world is still better than your opponents.

Speaker scores

The ballots reflected will be based on following criteria

· 1) Overall performance in terms of arguments, analysis and engagement.

· 2) Quality of speeches irrespective of whether you win or lose.

· 3) Any form of racism, sexism, ableism and homophobia seen in your speeches will tank your scores.

Hi, I am a parent judge. I understand that since I am parent, I am not as qualified a professional judge, so feel free to strike me. With that said, I do have quite a bit of experience judging have judged several national circuit debates and late elimination rounds at nationals.

Overall, I really appreciate if you go slow and really explain your arguments. For me, while sounding pretty is good, I will look at who is winning the merit of the argument and throughout the round who most consistently rebuts and actually analyses the arguments better on a technical sense.

Crossfire is also important as well as other regular lay norms.

Dr. Sheetal Khedkar

Number of Years Judging Public Forum: 1

Current Occupation: Pharmaceutical-Executive, Clinical Research

I have been judging debate since high school, and have judged outrounds at a number of tournaments. I favour substance over style as I believe that rewarding style disadvantages ESL competitors, and I encourage all debaters to engage with other teams. I judge hollistically and tend not to be too picky about the organization of speeches, provided that they are clear and logical. I encourage debaters to structure their speeches in the way that they feel will best present their arguments.

About me:

I have been coaching and judging PF for eleven years. I judge on local circuit tournaments and have also judged many national circuit tournaments, including the TOC. I am familiar with the topic, but that does not mean that you should not explain your arguments. As a coach I am very aware of all the nuances of Public Forum debate.

Put me on the email chain: nkroepel@district100.com and belviderenorthpf@gmail.com

Round specifics:

Tech>truth (I always try to be tabula rasa and not interject my knowledge into your round). I will vote on just about anything besides abusive, offensive arguments. I will take arguments as true, unless otherwise argued by your opponent for the scope of the round.

I can flow speed, but I prefer not to. I do not want you to use it as a way to exclude your opponents. In the end, Debate is about intelligible conversation, if you are going too fast, and don't do it well, it can get in the way of clarity of expression, which upsets me.

I do not flow cross-fire, but I do pay attention to it. However, if you make an excellent point in cross-fire, you will have to bring that information up in a subsequent speech. Also, DO NOT be rude, I will reduce your speaker points for it. It is inappropriate for teams to make their opponent's feel inferior or humiliate them in the round.

If you are speaking second, please address your opponent's responses to your case, especially turns. It does not have to be an even split, but make sure it is something that you do. Defense is not sticky, you need to extend it.

I expect that summary and final focus are cohesive to each other. First summary needs extend defense. Second summary needs to address responses on your case, especially in areas you are going to collapse on, and it should also respond to turns. I do expect that you collapse and not go for everything on the flow in summary. I WILL NOT vote on an issue if it is not brought up in summary. Please weigh in your final two speeches and clash your arguments to those provided by your opponent.

As I expect the summary and final focus to be consistent, that also means that the story/narrative coming from your partnership also be consistent. I may not give you a loss because of it, but it is harder to establish ethos. Defend a consistent worldview using your warrants and impacts.

Make it easy for me to fill out my ballot. Tell me where I should be voting and why. Be sure to be clear and sign-post throughout.

Extensions need to be clean and not just done through ink. In order for you to cleanly extend, you need to respond to responses, and develop your warrant(s). You cannot win an impact without warranting. In rebuttal, please make sure you are explaining implications of responses, not just card dumping. Explain how those responses interact with your opponents' case and what their place in the round means. DO NOT just extend card names in subsequent speeches.

The flow rules in my round for the most part, unless the weighing is non-existent. I will not call for evidence unless it is a huge deal, because I view it as interventionist.

DO NOT make blippy arguments-warranting matters!

DO NOT make the round a card battle, PLEASE. Explain the cards, explain why they outweigh. A card battle with no explanation or weighing gets you nowhere except to show me why I shouldn't vote on it.

And finally progressive debate-I'd strongly prefer you do not read atopical arguments. I think most kritikal positions are exceptionally unpersuasive on a truth level, but this should not explicitly influence how I evaluate them, except to say that I'm probably more willing than most to evaluate intelligent analytical defense to Ks even if your opponents have "cards" to make their claims. I am still learning when it comes to judging/evaluating theory. I need a slower debate with clear warranting-neither K or T are a big part of my judging experience either. You CAN run it in front of me but combining it with speed makes me even more confused. I can't promise that I will always make the right decision.

ADL
UMich 25

email chain - debatekkjk@gmail.com

Tell me 5 reasons why we should debate - bonus points

haven't read too much into the topic - be sure to explain your warrants and argument

CX

Don’t copy paste evidence in the email body, send it in a separate doc

Disadvantages:

Hardly went for any DAs throughout my high school but I do like debating/learning/ judging them, so you do you. Tell me why your impact outweigh, if not why it turns their case. Do have links (multiple links are awesome)

Counterplan:

Explain the mechanism of your counterplan and why that is better than the 1AC. Tell me how you solve case, throwing out the terms CP solve case doesn’t mean anything. Have a net benefit so that your CP solves more and I’ll probably vote for the CP. I’m not the biggest fan of theory arguments. I would be willing to vote for them but you will have to do an insanely good job at explaining why it is bad and the impact of violation. Line by line still applies to theory arguments, so do that.

Kritik:

I'm probably an average judge for kritiks. I went for cap with a destituency alt most of my neg rounds in high school. If you are going for a kritiks please do explain them. So explain exactly what is the aff doing that you are criticizing. I prioritize analytics over reading a bunch of cards for kritiks. Yes, literature is important, so still have evidence to pry our advocacy but it shouldn’t be all just cards. Framework on K: tell me what the role of judge should be and how I should utilize my ballot.

Topicaility:

The neg team should have an impact and tell me exactly why the aff team not being topical does influence the debate. Tell me the violation, how and why they violate your definition.

I am a traditional style judge. Debates that are too "progressive" in nature undermine the entire tournament and are unfair to other competitors participating.

PFD: The most important thing to do prior to actually participating in PFD is preparation. One should know not only the current facts of the issue but also the continuity of the issue of time and its possibly complex history. This way, you can weave this history into your arguments by using EXAMPLES related to the historical ramification of the issue to strengthen your own argument while at the same time refuting the opponent.

LD: What I look for in LD is the hard drive of facts fueled by the passion of the debater. Passion does not equal emotion and while debaters tend to conflate the two LD is based in facts and most times statistical data.

Policy: What I look for in an effective Policy debate is fluidity of facts and a clear concise argument that does not get lost in spreading.

Congress: Parliamentarian: I look for proper etiquette when introducing motions. KNOW YOUR MOTIONS!!!! THERE ARE A PLETHORA OF MOTIONS THAT ARE NOT USED!!! I also look for the passion behind one's speeches. If someone is telling the story of George Floyd for example, the story should be told with pathos and passion rather than reading from a script. Know your speeches like the back of your hand in order to present yourself as a powerhouse on the congress floor.

The Presiding Officer: KNOW YOUR MOTIONS!!!! THERE ARE A PLETHORA OF MOTIONS THAT ARE NOT USED!!! The PO should have an in depth understanding of the common and uncommon types of motions in order to guide the session through both turbulence and lulls to preferably keep neither from happening. If one does not know this, refer here: https://www.speechanddebate.org/wp-content/uploads/Congressional-Debate-Frequently-Used-Motions.pdf

Important Note: If you find yourself tripping over words when spreading, try slowing down. When faced with these obstacles, slowing down will equate to the same amount of facts in the same amount of time had you continued with speed but stumbling.

I did 3 years of public forum at Poly Prep (2015-2018) and I'm a senior at uchicago. Email chain: sophialam@polyprep.org

- here's how i make my decision: i look at who wins the weighing/framework. I evaluate that argument. If you win the weighing/framework and the offense with a terminalized impact, you'll probably win. If no one weighs then I'm gonna go with scope or the argument with the least ink.

- I don't like frivolous theory. If you read it you better go for it. Ks are cool, but I reserve the right to intervene if I feel like you're running it in a problematic/game-y way.

- I like warrants. If they provide a warrant and your only response is "they don't have evidence for this" but it logically makes sense, I'm likely to give them some ground. I prefer your counter warrant/ev as a response rather than just their lack of supporting evidence.

- speed is fine as long as you aren't speaking unclearly.

- First summary doesn't have to extend defense from rebuttal unless second rebuttal frontlines. Turns/Offense you want me to vote on need to be in both summary and final focus.

- I don't flow crossfire. If it's important, say it in a speech

- I don't time, if your opponents are telling me time is up I'll stop flowing but give them at least 5 seconds. Don't hold up your timer .5 seconds after the speech time is over

- i default neg if there's no offense

Eric Lanning

I've been involved in policy debate for 15+ years as a debater and coach on the national circuit, including at the highest levels at the Tournament of Champions and National Debate Tournament.

I do my best to evaluate arguments based off what's said in the debate, but like anyone else I bring some preconceived notions about the activity and world that create "default" positions. I'll do my best to detail these below. I am very expressive and communicative and often provide "instant" feedback in the form of non-verbal expressions.

In general you should feel free to make whatever arguments you'd like! Debate is for the debaters and I will do my best to adapt to you.

I think the best debates are between two well researched opponents, and that predictable limits on the topic are important for in depth debate. I don't think that means the affirmative must necessarily defend "implementation by the federal government". I often find framework debates stale and difficult to resolve.

I am often quite skeptical of negative strategies that focus on multiple conditional counterplans or process counterplans that are not textually and functionally competitive . I wish more affirmatives would object to the proliferation of 2-3 conditional advocacies and strongly believe that "rejecting the team, not the argument" is the appropriate remedy.

Impact framing is essential for all arguments, regardless of content/form. I almost always vote for the team who better frames "what is important" and explains how it interacts with other arguments. The magic words are "even if..." and "they say ... but". Winning 2NRs and 2ARs use these phrases to 'frame' the big picture of the debate.

While I will often ask to see a card document - I tend to default to the explanation/spin of debaters in the round. IE its very important for you to explain and compare evidence!

A lay judge who's been judging for a few years now, I'm not a big fan of frameworks and I absolutely do not do Theory.

Crawford Leavoy, Director of Speech & Debate at Durham Academy - Durham, NC

Email Chain: cleavoy@me.com

BACKGROUND
I am a former LD debater from Vestavia Hills HS. I coached LD all through college and have been coaching since graduation. I have coached programs at New Orleans Jesuit (LA) and Christ Episcopal School (LA). I am currently teaching and coaching at Durham Academy in Durham, NC. I have been judging since I graduated high school (2003).

CLIFF NOTES

- Speed is relatively fine. I'll say clear, and look at you like I'm very lost. Send me a doc, and I'll feel better about all of this.

- Run whatever you want, but the burden is on you to explain how the argument works in the round. You still have to weigh and have a ballot story. Arguments for the sake of arguments without implications don't exist.

- Theory - proceed with caution; I have a high threshold, and gut-check a lot

- Spikes that try to become 2N or 2A extensions for triggering the ballot is a poor strategy in front of me

- I don't care where you sit, or if you sit or stand; I do care that you are respectful to me and your opponent.

- If you cannot explain it in a 45 minute round, how am I supposed to understand it enough to vote on it.

- My tolerance for just reading prep in a round that you didn't write, and you don't know how it works is really low. I get cranky easily and if it isn't shown with my ballot, it will be shown with my speaker points.

SOME THOUGHTS ON PF

- The world of warranting in PF is pretty horrific. You must read warrants. There should be tags. I should be able to flow them. They must be part of extensions. If there are no warrants, they aren't tagged or they aren't extended - then that isn't an argument anymore. It's a floating claim.

- You can paraphrase. You can read cards. If there is a concern about paraphrasing, then there is an entire evidence procedure that you can use to resolve it. But arguments that "paraphrasing is bad" seems a bit of a perf con when most of what you are reading in cut cards is...paraphrasing.

- Notes on disclosure: Sure. Disclosure can be good. It can also be bad. However, telling someone else that they should disclose means that your disclosure practices should bevery good. There is definitely a world where I am open to counter arguments about the cases you've deleted from the wiki, your terrible round reports, and your disclosure of first and last only.

- Everyone should be participating in round. Nothing makes me more concerned than the partner that just sits there and converts oxygen to carbon dioxide during prep and grand cross. You can avert that moment of mental crisis for me by being participatory.

- Tech or Truth? This is a false dichotomy. You can still be a technical debater, but lose because you are running arguments that are in no way true. You can still be reading true arguments that aren't executed well on the flow and still win. It's a question of implication and narrative. Is an argument not true? Tell me that. Want to overwhelm the flow? Signpost and actually do the work to link responses to arguments.

- Speaks? I'm a fundamental believer that this activity is about education, translatable skills, and public speaking. I'm fine with you doing what you do best and being you. However, I don't do well at tolerating attitude, disrespect, grandiosity, "swag," intimidation, general ridiculousness, games, etc. A thing I would tell my own debaters before walking into the room if I were judging them is: "Go. Do your job. Be nice about it. Win convincingly. " That's all you have to do.

OTHER THINGS

- I'll give comments after every round, and if the tournament allows it, I'll disclose the decision. I don't disclose points.

- My expectation is that you keep your items out prior to the critique, and you take notes. Debaters who pack up, and refuse to use critiques as a learning experience of something they can grow from risk their speaker points. I'm happy to change points after a round based on a students willingness to listen, or unwillingness to take constructive feedback.

- Sure. Let's post round. Couple of things to remember 1) the decision is made, and 2) it won't/can't/shan't change. This activity is dead the moment we allow the 3AR/3NR or the Final Final Focus to occur. Let's talk. Let's understand. Let's educate. But let's not try to have a throwdown after round where we think a result is going to change.

Hi! I'm Anita (she/her), a freshman at Northwestern University. I recently graduated from National Cathedral School in Washington D.C., where I debated Public Forum for four years. I'm definitely not a lay judge but i'm also not super comfortable with speed/prog. If you have any questions, feel free to let me know! My email is anitali2002@yahoo.com.

Please keep track of prep! Also I don't flow card names so if you say "extend Bob," i'm not gonna know what you're referring to.

Some things I like:

· Second Rebuttal has to frontline everything you're collapsing on and address all turns your opponents put on your case or concede to the delink.

· Weighing is super important! Weighing needs to be comparative (don’t just tell me why your impacts are important, tell me why your impacts are more important than your opponent’s impacts). Please start weighing in summary. No new weighing in Second FF.

· Please signpost + give off time road maps! Tell me what you're responding to.

· Please explain your arguments! Don’t just read statistics and then expect that to stand on itself, explain to me why that statistic is true. (warrants are important!)

· If you want me to evaluate something, it needs to be in speech and extended across all speeches

· In second half, tell me what you're winning off of, whyyou’re winning, and tell me why I should be voting for you!

. 1st summary is the last speech where I will accept new arguments. New weighing and cross-apps are still okay after tho. New implications? I'll think about it.

. PLEASE make sure impacts are terminalized and quantified!

Theories/Ks

· I don’t really understand Ks and Theories well so if you do run one please explain it well and in a manageable speed.

· If I feel like you’re running theory/ a weird overview/underview just to get a easy win, the chance of me voting for it is pretty low, especially if your opponents point out that it's abusive and explain why. But if you’re running theory because your opponents are actually being abusive, I can vote for it.

Behavior

· There’s a difference between being assertive and being aggressive. If I see you being overly aggressive, especially during cross, I’ll take off speaks and I’ll comment on it in my RFD. Also it can decrease your chances of winning.

· If you’re speaking quickly and make sure you ask your opponents if that's okay. I will try to flow to the best of my ability but I will most likely end up missing stuff. Having a speech doc is not an excuse to speak as fast as you want. I will only look at your speech doc for the duration of the speech.

.I'll only look at a card if you tell me to look at it.

. If you incorporate a tiktok dance or kpop choreo into a speech, I will increase your speaks up to 3 points.

. If you can guess my BTS bias or Blackpink bias, I will boost your speaks (prob only like 0.5 max lol)

I am a junior at the University of Michigan-Ann Arbor, majoring in Statistics and Asian studies. I have four years of Public Forum debate experience and participated in major university tournaments every single year in high school. I have judged over 13 tournaments in the past two years. All in all, I am a flow judge, and speed is okay with me. Some suggestions are listed below:

1. Do not bring up new points in the final focus... I will not give you any credit as it will not appear on my flow sheet.

2. Please please please weigh your impact!!!!!!!

3. If your opponent drops a point/impact/link that you think is important, you better call it out.

4. Make sure to extend your argument throughout the debate to get full credit.

5. If I think a card is too good to be true, I might ask for it at the end of the debate.

6. I am okay with speed, BUT please make your words clear. Also, DON'T SPREAD!

7. Please do not interrupt your opponents during cross-fire...give him/her a chance to finish the response before inserting another question or response.

8. Please reconstruct your argument in the rebuttal.

9. I wouldn't flow crossfire. Therefore, if anything happens in the crossfire that you think is important, such as your opponent making a concession, you need to bring it up in your next immediate speech.

10. If you want me to vote for you, you need to have clear voters and link stories!

11. You have to reconstruct in rebuttal to extend your own argument. Or else I consider that to be dropping your argument.

At the end of the debate, there are three things that I will for sure do: disclosure, round analysis, and personal feedback. Please give me a few minutes at the end of the debate to allow me to choose the winning side. During these two minutes, I will also call for cards if the round is too close; just want to be careful :)

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Name: Lucy Li

School Affiliation: Ravenwood High School

Number of Years Judging Public Forum: 0-1 years

Since the purpose of a debate is to deliver a point that can convince people, the message must be very clear.

If a team plans to win the debate on an argument, I believe that argument has to be extended in the summary and Final Focus speeches. Everything in Final Focus must be in Summary.

If a team is speaking second, the team should answer to its opponents’ rebuttal in the rebuttal speech. DO NOT read massive overviews or disads in rebuttal.

Strong warrants and logical analysis > unwarranted evidence without explanation.

I'm a parent judge - go slow, no theory/kritiks. These will not be comprehended and will be dropped. I will not vote on arguments I cannot understand. Collapse and extend. Signpost. Implicate your responses.

Be nice and have fun! Don't postround.

if you have any questions, talk to me before the round.

I have been a debate judge since this year. I don't have any preferences on debate.

paradigm written by daughter:

I am a parent judge. I barely have experience judging, but I can take effective notes. PLEASE speak slow, and make sure what you are saying is explicitly clear and easy to follow. Make sure to address all of your opponent's arguments. If your opponent doesn't address all of your arguments, bring it to my attention and I will notice what was dropped. A clear narrative should be extended throughout the round. Please be respectful and kind during cross, and do not be offensive.

I'm writing this paradigm for my dad

He's a parent judge but has judges multiple times before and I have ranted to him about rounds before so he knows some things.

Don't go too fast. Your speed doesn't matter as much as quality, quality > quantity.

Be respectful of your opponents, don't be too loud and don't insult anyone. No racism/sexism/homophobia/etc

Your arguments don't matter, no preconceptions in this round, you can read anything you want with a warrant. Explain more complicated arguments slowly and make it make sense, because my dad won't have any biases.

He sort of flows, but it's more of a note talking, so don't focus too much on the line by line.

Just treat him like a lay in terms of speed and jargon and explanation, but you can run whatever non-discriminative arguments with him that you want to(including things like spark, I confirmed this myself, you just really need to warrant it out and always articulate reasons clearly). Don't forget to weight, slowly and clearly, like you would on a normal lay.

I am a lay judge, and this is my second tournament judging.

I do not understand progressive arguments such as theory, K, counterplans, etc. Similarly, please do not spread—I will not understand. However, I will do my best to follow along and take notes.

Please give big picture overviews that explain how the arguments in the round interact, and clash with your opponent’s arguments.

I am a lay judge. Please speaker slower and clearly.

I’m a parent judge and I just started judging public forum debate in 2021.

I mostly evaluate on three things:

First of all, the clarity of the speech. I will only vote for you if I can understand your arguments. Do not speed!

Second, the logic behind the contentions and the explanations for them. I prefer well structured case.

Finally, the source of the evidence. Not every evidence is equal, so choose your evidence wisely and defend its relevance to the topic.

Have fun debating!

tldr do what you do best; i'll only vote for complete arguments that make sense; weighing & judge instruction tip the scales in your favor; disclosure is good; i care about argument engagement and i value flexibility; stay hydrated & be a good person.

--

About me:

she/her

policy coach @ damien: spring 2022 - present

ld coach @ loyola: fall 2023 - present

--

My strongest belief about argumentation is that argument engagement is good - I don't have a strong preference as to what styles of arguments teams read in front of me, but I'd prefer if both teams engaged with their opponents' arguments; I don't enjoy teams who avoid clash (regardless of the style of argument they are reading). I value ideological flexibility in judges and actively try not to be someone who will exclusively vote on only "policy" or only "k" arguments.

I am comfortable evaluating arguments that are commonplace in policy (cx) debate; less comfortable evaluating nonsense trick-blip-phil-paradox-skep-word-soup quirks of lincoln douglas. This means that any CX team that debates in a coherent and well-researched manner (whether policy or k) should be fine in front of me. LD teams that read real arguments should be fine in front of me. LD teams that read "eval after 1ar" should strike me before they strike a parent judge.

General note about reading my paradigm - most things are phrased in terms of policy debate structure & norms (2nr/2ar being 5 minutes, "team" instead of "debater," "planless aff" = "non-t k aff," etc). If I'm judging you in LD and you have questions about how something translates to LD, feel free to ask!

--

email chains:

ld email chains: loyoladebate47@gmail.com and nethmindebate@gmail.com

policy email chains: damiendebate47@gmail.com and nethmindebate@gmail.com

if you need to contact me directly about rfd questions, accessibility requests, or anything else, please email nethmindebate@gmail.com (please don't email the teamail for these types of requests)!

--

flowing: it is good and teams should do it

stolen from alderete - if you show me a decent flow, you can get up to 1 extra speaker point. this can only help you - i won't deduct points for an atrocious flow. this is to encourage teams to actually flow. i recently witnessed a 2ac that answered a whole k that was not read in the 1nc. it nuked my value to life. this is my attempt at remedying it:)

--

All of my deal-breakers/hard and fast rules/moments of "I won't vote on this" are dependent on four things:

1 - protecting the safety of the participants in the round (no harrassment, no physical violence, etc).

2 - voting for things that meet the minimum standard to be considered an argument (it needs to have warrants & make some amount of logical sense).

3 - rules set forth by the tournament (speech times, one team wins and one team loses, I have to enter my own ballot, etc).

4 - i will only evaluate the debate after the end of the 2ar. this is 0% negotiable. i did not think i would have to say this, but i guess i do.

--

My voting record is roughly 50-50 on most major debate controversies (yes, even planless affs vs framework). As long as your argument doesn't violate the above four criteria, go for it!

I think that warrants are hard to come by in many debate rounds these days, even ones with “good” teams. Err on the side of a little too much explanation, because if your arg is warrantless, you will be ballotless. Extensions need to include warrants, not just taglines.

Independent voters need warrants and an articulation of why they should be evaluated before everything else. These debates could generally benefit from more judge instruction and weighing. Simply calling something an independent voter doesn’t mean I vote for you if you extend it.

Disclose or lose. Non-new affs should be on the wiki & should be disclosed to the neg team a minimum of 30 min before round. Neg offcase positions that have been read before should be on the wiki. Past 2nrs should be disclosed to the aff team a minimum of 30 min before round. New affs don't need to be disclosed pre-round. I am 1000000% done with teams that don't disclose. I have zero belief that there is any good reason for non-disclosure. If your opponent engages in any disclosure nonsense, read theory and there's a 95+% chance I vote for you, regardless of how good they are at the theory debate. Don't like disclosing? Pref someone who is willing to tolerate your nonsense (not me).

note: i am far more lenient on disclosure with novices/debaters who haven't debated at national-circuit tournaments before. the grumpiness of the above section is directed at people who know how to disclose and purposefully avoid it. you know who you are:)

--

Some general notes

Accessibility & content warnings: Email me if there is an accessibility request that I can help facilitate - I always want to do my part to make debates more accessible. I prefer not to judge debates that involve procedurals about accessibility and/or content warnings. I think it is more productive to have a pre-round discussion where both teams request any accommodation(s) necessary for them to engage in an equitable debate. I feel increasingly uncomfortable evaluating debates that come down to accessibility/cw procedurals, especially when the issue could have easily been resolved pre-round.

Speed/clarity – I will say clear up to two times per speech before just doing my best to flow you. I can handle a decent amount of speed. Going slower on analytics is a good idea. You should account for pen time/scroll time.

Online debate -- 1] please record your speeches, if there are tech issues, I'll listen to a recording of the speech, but not a re-do. 2] debate's still about communication - please watch for nonverbals, listen for people saying "clear," etc.

I am not comfortable evaluating out-of-round events. The only exception to this is disclosure. I will vote on reasonable and good faith disclosure theory (yeah you should probably disclose on opencaselist, no you probably shouldn't lose for forgetting one round report). I will not vote on arguments about random out-of-round events, things that happened in another round, things that happened on a team's pref sheet, or any other arguments of this nature.

--

Speaker points:

Speaker points are dependent on strategy, execution, clarity, and overall engagement in the round and are scaled to adapt to the quality/difficulty/prestige of the tournament.

I try to give points as follows:

30: you're a strong contender to win the tournament & this round was genuinely impressive

29.5+: late elims, many moments of good decisionmaking & argumentative understanding, adapted well to in-round pivots

29+: you'll clear for sure, generally good strat & round vision, a few things could've been more refined

28.5+: likely to clear but not guaranteed, there are some key errors that you should fix

28+: even record, probably losing in the 3-2 round

27.5+: winning less than 50% of your rounds, key technical/strategic errors

27+: winning less than 50% of your rounds, multiple notable technical/strategic errors

26+: errors that indicated a fundamental lack of preparation for the rigor/style of this tournament

25-: you did something really bad/offensive/unsafe.

Extra speaks for flowing, being clear, kindness, adaptation, and good disclosure practices.

Minus speaks for discrimination of any sort, bad-faith disclosure practices, rudeness/unkindness, and attempts to avoid engagement/clash.

--

Opinions on Specific Positions (ctrl+f section):

Case:

I think that negatives that don't engage with the 1ac are putting themselves in a bad position. This is true for both K debates and policy debates.

Extensions should involve warrants, not just tagline extensions - I'm willing to give some amount of leeway for the 1ar/2ar extrapolating a warrant that wasn't the focal point of the 2ac, but I should be able to tell from your extensions what the scenario is, what the internal links are, and why you solve.

Planless affs:

I've been on both sides of the planless aff debate, and my strongest opinion about planless affs is that you need to be able to explain what your aff does/why it's good.

I tend to dislike planless affs where the strategy is to make the aff seem like a word salad until after 2ac cx and then give the aff a bunch of new (and not super well-warranted) implications in the 1ar. I tend to be better for planless aff teams when they have a meaningful relationship to the topic, they are straight-up about what they do/don't defend, they use their aff strategically, engage with neg arguments, and make smart 1ar & 2ar decisions with good ballot analysis.

T/framework vs planless affs:

I'm roughly 50-50 in these debates. I don't have a strong preference for how framework teams engage in these debates other than that you should be respectful when discussing sensitive material.

I think that TVAs can be more helpful than teams realize. While having a TVA isn't always necessary, winning a TVA provides substantial defense on many of the aff's exclusion arguments.

I don't have a preference on whether your chosen 2nr is skills or fairness (or something else). I think that both options have strategic value based on the round you're in. Framework teams almost always get better points in front of me when they are able to contextualize their arguments to their opponents' strategy.

I also don't have a preference between the aff going for impact turns or going for a counterinterp. The strategic value of this is dependent on how topical/non-topical your aff is, in my opinion.

Theory:

The less frivolous your theory argument, the better I am for it.

Please weigh! It's not nearly as intuitive to make a decision in theory debates - I can fill in the gaps for why extinction is more impactful than localized war more easily than I can fill in the gaps for why neg flex matters more/less than research burdens.

default to no rvis <3 medium uphill to change my mind on this one

Topicality (not framework):

I like T debates that have robust and contextualized definitions of the relevant words/phrases/entities in the resolution. Have a clear explanation of what your interpretation is/isn't; examples/caselists are your friend.

Grammar-based topicality arguments: I don't find most of the grammar arguments being made these days to be very intuitive. You should explain/warrant them more than you would in front of a judge who loves those arguments.

Tricks (this is mostly an LD thing):

I used to say that I would never vote on tricks. I've decided it's bad to exclude a style of argumentation just because I don't enjoy it. Here are some things to know if you're reading tricks in front of me:

1 - I won't flow off the doc (I never flow off the doc, but I won't be checking the doc to see if I missed any of your tricks/spikes)

2 - The argument has to have a warrant in the speech it is presented

3 - The reason I've been so opposed to voting on tricks in the past is that I've never heard a trick that met the minimum threshold to be considered an argument

Kritiks (neg):

I tend to like K teams that engage with the aff and have a clear analysis of what's wrong with the aff's model/framing/epistemology/etc. I tend to be a bit annoyed when judging K teams that read word-salad or author-salad Ks, refuse to engage with arguments, expect me to fill in massive gaps for them, don't do adequate weighing/ballot analysis/judge instruction, or are actively hostile toward their opponents. The more of the aforementioned things you do, the more annoyed I'll be. The inverse is also true - the more you actively work to ensure that you don't do these things, the happier I'll be!

Disads:

Zero risk probably doesn't exist, but very-close-to-zero risk probably does. Teams that answer their opponents' warrants instead of reading generic defense tend to fare better in close rounds. Good evidence tends to matter more in these debates - I'd rather judge a round with 2 great cards + debaters explaining their cards than a round with 10 horrible cards + debaters asking me to interpret their dumpster-quality cards for them.

Counterplans:

I don't have strong ideological biases about how many condo advocacies the neg gets or what kinds of counterplans are/aren't cheating. More egregious abuse = easier to persuade me on theory; the issue I usually see in theory debates is a lack of warranting for why the neg's model was uniquely abusive - specific analysis > generic args + no explanation.

Judge kick - you've gotta tell me to do it. I'm not opposed to it, but I won't assume that you want me to unless the 2nr tells me to. No strong opinions for/against judge kick.

currently no strong opinions on things like normal means or counterplan competition on the fiscal redistribution topic. this means you can probably get away with more in front of me as long as you warrant it/read good evidence.

--

Arguments I will NEVER vote for:

-arguments that are actively discriminatory or make the round unsafe ("misgendering good," "let's make the debate about a minor's personal life," other stuff of that nature).

-any argument that attempts to police what a debater wears or how they present (this includes shoes theory/formal clothes theory).

-any argument that denies the existence/badness of oppression (i don't mean i won't vote for "extinction outweighs." i mean i won't vote for "genocide good.")

--

if there's anything i didn't mention or you have any questions, feel free to email me! if there's anything i can do to make debate more accessible for you, let me know! i really love debate and i coach because i want to make debate/the community a better place; please don't hesitate to reach out if there's anything you need.

Tech savvy truth telling/testing debaters who crystallize with clarity, purpose persuasion & pathos will generally win my ballot.

My email: wesleyloofbourrow@gmail.com

For CHSSA: Flow judge, please weigh impacts in rebuttals, please win line by line, please make arguments quickly and effectively, and make the largest quantity & quality of arguments that you can. Thanks.

Updated Paradigm for NDCA & TOC

My intent in doing this update is to simplify my paradigm to assist Public Forum debaters competing at the major competitions at the end of this season. COVID remote debating has had some silver linings, and this year I have uniquely had the opportunity to judge a prolific number of prestigious tournaments, so I am "in a groove" judging elite PF debates this season, having sat on at least half a dozen PF TOC bid rounds this year, and numerous Semis/Finals of tournaments like Glenbrooks, Apple Valley, Berkeley, among many others.

I am "progressive", "circuit style", "tabula rosa", "non-interventionist", completely comfortable with policy jargon and spreading, open to Kritiks/Theory/Topicality, and actively encourage Framework debates in PF. You can figure out what I mean by FW with a cursory reading of the basic wikipedia entry "policy debate: framework" -- I am encouraging, where applicable and appropriate, discussions of what types of arguments and debate positions support claims to a superior model of Public Forum debate, both in the particular round at hand and future debates. I think that PF is currently grappling as a community with a lot of Framework questions, and inherently believe that my ballot actually does have potential for some degree of Solvency in molding PF norms. Some examples of FW arguments I have heard this year include Disclosure Theory, positions that demand the first constructive speech of the team speaking second provide direct clash (rejecting the prevalent two ships passing in the night norm for the initial constructive speeches), and Evidence theory positions.

To be clear, this does not mean at all that teams who run FW in front of me automatically get my ballot. I vote all the time on basic stock issues, and in fact the vast majority of my PF decisions have been based on offense/defense within a role-playing policy-maker framework. Just like any debate position, I am completely open to anything (short of bullying, racism, blatant sexism, truly morally repugnant positions, but I like to believe that no debaters are coming into these elite rounds intending to argue stuff like this). I am open to a policy-making basic Net benefits standard, willing to accept Fiat of a policy action as necessary and justifiable, just as much as I am willing to question Fiat -- the onus is on the debaters to provide warrants justifying whatever position or its opposite they wish to defend.

I will provide further guidance and clarifications on my judging philosophy below, but I want to stress that what I have just stated should really be all you need to decide whether to pref/strike me -- if you are seeking to run Kritiks or Framework positions that you have typically found some resistance to from more traditional judges, then you want to pref me; if you want rounds that assume the only impacts that should be considered are the effects of a theoretical policy action, I am still a fine judge to have for that, but you will have to be prepared to justify those underlying assumptions, and if you don't want to have to do that, then you should probably strike me. If you have found yourself in high profile rounds a bit frustrated because your opponent ran positions that didn't "follow the rules of PF debate", I'm probably not the judge you want. If you have been frustrated because you lost high profile rounds because you "didn't follow the rules of PF debate", you probably want me as your judge.

So there is my most recent update, best of luck to all competitors as we move to the portion of the season with the highest stakes.

Here is what I previously provided as my paradigm:

Speed: Short answer = Go as fast as you want, you won't spread me out.

I view speed as merely a tool, a way to get more arguments out in less time which CAN lead to better debates (though obviously that does not bear out in every instance). My recommendations for speed: 1) Reading a Card -- light-speed + speech doc; 2) Constructives: uber-fast + slow sign posting please; 3) Rebuttals: I prefer the slow spread with powerfully efficient word economy myself, but you do you; 4) Voters: this is truly the point in a debate where I feel speed outlives its usefulness as a tool, and is actually much more likely to be a detriment (that being said, I have judged marvelous, blinding-fast 2ARs that were a thing of beauty)...err on the side of caution when you are instructing me on how to vote.

Policy -- AFFs advocating topical ethical policies with high probability to impact real people suffering right now are best in front of me. I expect K AFFs to offer solid ground and prove a highly compelling advocacy. I love Kritiks, I vote for them all the time, but the most common problem I see repeatedly is an unclear and/or ineffective Alt (If you don't know what it is and what it is supposed to be doing, then I can't know either). Give me clash: prove you can engage a policy framework as well as any other competing frameworks simultaneously, while also giving me compelling reasons to prefer your FW. Anytime you are able to demonstrate valuable portable skills or a superior model of debate you should tell me why that is a reason to vote for you. Every assumption is open for review in front of me -- I don't walk into a debate round believing anything in particular about what it means for me to cast my ballot for someone. On the one hand, that gives teams extraordinary liberty to run any position they wish; on the other, the onus is on the competitors to justify with warranted reasoning why I need to apply their interpretations. Accordingly, if you are not making ROB and ROJ arguments, you are missing ways to get wins from me.

I must admit that I do have a slight bias on Topicality -- I have noticed that I tend to do a tie goes to the runner thing, and if it ends up close on the T debate, then I will probably call it reasonably topical and proceed to hear the Aff out. it isn't fair, it isn't right, and I'm working on it, but it is what it is. I mention this because I have found it persuasive when debaters quote this exact part of my paradigm back to me during 2NRs and tell me that I need to ignore my reasonability biases and vote Neg on T because the Neg straight up won the round on T. This is a functional mechanism for checking a known bias of mine.

Oh yea -- remember that YOU PLAY TO WIN THE GAME.

Public Forum -- At this point, after judging a dozen PF TOC bid rounds in 2021-2022, I think it will be most helpful for me to just outright encourage everybody to run Framework when I am your judge (3 judge panels is your call, don't blame me!). I think this event as a whole desperately needs good quality FW arguments that will mold desirable norms, I might very well have an inherent bias towards the belief that any solvency reasonably expected to come from a ballot of mine will most likely implicate FW, and thus I am resolved to actively encourage PF teams to run FW in front of me. If you are not comfortable running FW, then don't -- I always want debaters to argue what matters to them. But if you think you can win a round on FW, or if you have had an itch to try it out, you should. Even if you label a position as Framework when it really isn't, I will still consider the substantive merits behind your arguments, its not like you get penalized for doing FW wrong, and you can absolutely mislabel a position but still make a fantastic argument deserving of my vote.

Other than "run FW", I need to stress one other particular -- I do not walk into a PF round placing any limitations whatsoever on what a Public Forum debate is supposed to be. People will say that I am not "traditional or lay", and am in fact "progressive", but I only consider myself a blank slate (tabula rasa). Every logical proposition and its diametric opposite is on the table in front of me, just prove your points to be true. It is never persuasive for a team to say something like "but that is a Counterplan, and that isn't allowed in PF". I don't know how to evaluate a claim like that. You are free to argue that CPs in PF are not a good model for PF debates (and lo and behold, welcome to running a FW position), or that giving students a choice between multiple styles of debate events is critical for education and so I should protect the "rules" and the "spirit" of PF as an alternative to LD and Policy -- but notice how those examples rely on WARRANTS, not mere assertions that something is "against the rules." Bottom line, if the "rules" are so great, then they probably had warrants that justified their existence, which is how they became the rules in the first place, so go make those underlying arguments and you will be fine. If the topic is supposed to be drug policy, and instead a team beats a drum for 4 minutes, ya'll should be able to articulate the underlying reasons why this is nonsense without resorting to grievances based on the alleged rules of PF.

College Parli -- Because there is a new topic every round, the threshold for depth of research is considerably lower, and debaters should be able to advocate extemporaneously; this shifts my view of the burdens associated with typical Topicality positions. Arguments that heavily weigh on the core ground intended by the topic will therefore tend to strike me as more persuasive. Additionally, Parli has a unique procedural element -- the ability to ask a question during opponent's speech time. A poignant question in the middle of an opponent's speech can single handedly manufacture clash, and create a full conversational turn that increases the educational quality of the debate; conversely, an excellent speaker can respond to the substance of a POI by adapting their speech on the spot, which also has the effect of creating a new conversational turn.

lysis. While this event has evolved considerably, I am still a firm believer that Value/Criterion is the straightest path to victory, as a strong V/C FW will either contextualize impacts to a policy/plan advocacy, or explain and justify an ethical position or moral statement functioning as that necessary advocacy. Also, V/C allows a debater to jump in and out of different worlds, advocating for their position while also demonstrating the portable skill of entering into an alternate FW and clashing with their opponent on their merits. An appropriate V/C will offer fair, reasonable, predictable, equitable, and functional Ground to both sides. I will entertain any and all theory, kritiks, T, FW. procedure, resolution-rejection/alteration, etc. -- but fair warning, positions that do not directly relate to the resolutional topic area will require a Highly Compelling warrant(s) for why. At all times, please INSTRUCT me on how I am supposed to think about the round.

So...that is my paradigm proper, intentionally left very short. I've tried the more is more approach, and I have become fond of the less is more. Below are random things I have written, usually for tournament-specific commentary.

Worlds @ Coppell:

I have taken care to educate myself on the particulars of this event, reviewing relevant official literature as well as reaching out to debate colleagues who have had more experience. My obligation as a fair, reasonable, unbiased and qualified critic requires me to adapt my normal paradigm, which I promise to do to the best of my abilities. However, this does not excuse competitive debaters from their obligation to adapt to their assigned judge. I adapt, you adapt, Fair.

To learn how I think in general about how I should go about judging debates, please review my standard Judge Paradigm posted below. Written short and sweet intentionally, for your purposes as Worlds debaters who wish to gain my ballot, look for ways to cater your strengths as debaters to the things I mention that I find generally persuasive. You will note that my standard paradigm is much shorter than this unique, particularized paradigm I drafted specifically for Worlds @ Coppell.

Wesley's Worlds Paradigm:

I am looking for which competitors perform the "better debating." As line by line and dropping of arguments are discounted in this event, those competitors who do the "better debating" will be "on balance more persuasive" than their opponents.

Style: I would liken Style to "speaker points" in other debate events. Delivery, passion, rhetoric, emotional appeal. Invariably, the power of excellent public speaking will always be anchored to the substantive arguments and authenticity of advocacy for the position the debater must affirm or negate. While I will make every effort to separate and appropriately quantify Style and Content, be warned that in my view there is an inevitable and unbreakable bond between the two, and will likely result in some spillover in my final tallies.

Content: If I have a bias, it would be in favor of overly weighting Content. I except that competitors will argue for a clear advocacy, a reason that I should feel compelled to vote for you, whether that is a plan, a value proposition, or other meaningful concept.

PAY ATTENTION HERE: Because of the rules of this event that tell me to consider the debate as a whole, to ignore extreme examples, to allow for a "reasonable majority" standard to affirm and a "significant minority" standard to negate, and particularly bearing in mind the rules regarding "reasonability" when it comes to definitions, I will expect the following:

A) Affirmatives will provide an advocacy that is clearly and obviously within the intended core ground proffered by the topic (the heart of hearts, if you will);

B) Negatives will provide an advocacy of their own that clashes directly with the AFF (while this is not completely necessary, it is difficult for me to envision myself reaching a "better debating" and "persuasion" standard from a straight refutation NEG, so consider this fair warning); what the Policy folk call a PIC (Plan-Inclusive Counterplan) will NOT be acceptable, so do not attempt on the NEG to offer a better affirmative plan that just affirms the resolution -- I expect an advocacy that fundamentally NEGATES

C) Any attempt by either side to define their opponent's position out of the round must be EXTRAORDINARILY compelling, and do so without reliance on any debate theory or framework; possibilities would include extremely superior benefits to defining a word in a certain way, or that the opponent has so missed the mark on the topic that they should be rejected. It would be best to assume that I will ultimately evaluate any merits that have a chance of reasonably fitting within the topic area. Even if a team elects to make such an argument, I still expect them to CLASH with the substance of the opponent's case, regardless of whether or not your view is that the substance is off-topic. Engage it anyways out of respect.

D) Claim-Warrant-Impact-Weighing formula still applies, as that is necessary to prove an "implication on effects in the real world". Warrants can rely on "common knowledge", "general logic", or "internal logic", as this event does not emphasize scholarly evidence, but I expect Warrants nonetheless, as you must tell me why I am supposed to believe the claim.

Strategy: While there may be a blending of Content & Style on the margins in front of me as a judge, Strategy is the element that I believe will be easy for me to keep separate and quantify unto itself. Please help me and by proxy yourselves -- MENTION in your speeches what strategies you have used, and why they were good. Debaters who explicitly state the methods they have used, and why those methods have aided them to be "on balance more persuasive" and do the "better debating" will likely impress me.

POIs: The use of Questions during opponent's speech time is a tool that involves all three elements, Content/Style/Strategy. It will be unlikely for me to vote for a team that fails to ask a question, or fails to ask any good questions. In a perfect world, I would like speakers to yield to as many questions as they are able, especially if their opponent's are asking piercing questions that advance the debate forward. You WANT to be answering tough questions, because it makes you look better for doing so. I expect the asking and answering of questions to be reciprocal -- if you ask a lot of questions, then be ready and willing to take a lot of questions in return. Please review my section on Parli debate below for final thoughts on the use of POI.

If you want to win my vote, take everything I have written above to heart, because that will be the vast majority of the standards for judging I will implement during this tournament. As always, feel free to ask me any further questions directly before the round begins. Best of luck!

Although I have no debate experience myself, I will flow arguments through.

For speeches, please:

1. Speak clearly and at a moderate pace. If you start spreading there is a chance that I won't catch it or flow it.

2. Signpost clearly and I would prefer it if you started weighing earlier in second rebuttal or first summary.

3. Do off-time roadmaps, especially in the second half of the debate.

4. Before starting, please send case documents to me at wm10000@yahoo.com.

For crossfires, I will not be flowing but I will still be listening. Please:

1. Speak politely. Don't interrupt. I will be deducting speaker points for those who are rude in cross.

2. Time yourself, but I will also be timing in speeches and crossfires.

I look forward to listening to your arguments and cases!

Contact me at: wm10000@yahoo.com

I am a parent judge with two daughters who do debate.

1) Please speak slowly and clearly so that I can understand you.

2) Give me the entire narrative of your argument (explain your argument on all levels).

3) I would prefer if you strayed from using any debate jargon as it makes it harder for me to follow the round.

4) I will usually choose the path with the least resistance to the ballot, so make sure to make any responses you extend very clear to me.

5) Convince me why your impact is more important than your opponent's, otherwise I will have to make that decision myself.

6) I trust that both teams will have good evidence ethics, but if there is an issue, you should tell me about it.

7) Be polite and respectful.

Have fun!

TLDR; I debated parli in high school for 3 years and have been coaching PF, LD, and Parli for the last 9 years since then with state and national champions. I try do be as tabula rasa as possible. Refer to specifics below

Follow the NSDA debate rules for properly formatting your evidence for PF and LD.

If paraphrasing is used in a debate, the debater will be held to the same standard of citation and accuracy as if the entire text of the evidence were read for the purpose of distinguishing between which parts of each piece of evidence are and are not read in a particular round. In all debate events, The written text must be marked to clearly indicate the portions read or paraphrased in the debate. If a student paraphrases from a book, study, or any other source, the specific lines or section from which the paraphrase is taken must be highlighted or otherwise formatted for identification in the round

IMPORTANT REMINDER FOR PF: Burden of proof is on the side which proposes a change. I presume the side of the status quo. The minimum threshold needed for me to evaluate an argument is

1) A terminalized and quantifiable impact
2) A measurable or direct cause and effect from the internal link
3) A topical external link
4) Uniqueness

If you do not have all of these things, you have an incomplete and unproven argument. Voting on incomplete or unproven arguments demands judge intervention. If you don't know what these things mean ask.

Philosophy of Debate:

Debate is an activity to show off the intelligence, hard work, and creativity of students with the ultimate goal of promoting education, sportsmanship, and personal advocacy. Each side in the round must demonstrate why they are the better debater, and thus, why they should receive my vote. This entails all aspects of debate including speaking ability, case rhetoric, in-and-out-of round decorum, and most importantly the overall argumentation of each speaker. Also, remember to have fun too.

I am practically a Tabula Rasa judge. “Tab” judges claim to begin the debate with no assumptions on what is proper to vote on. "Tab" judges expect teams to show why arguments should be voted on, instead of assuming a certain paradigm. Although I will default all theory to upholding education unless otherwise told

Judge preferences: When reading a constructive case or rebutting on the flow, debaters should signpost every argument and every response. You should have voter issues in your last speech. Make my job as a judge easier by telling me verbatim, why I should vote for you.

Depending on the burdens implied within the resolution, I will default neg if I have nothing to vote on. (presumption)

Kritiks. I believe a “K” is an important tool that debater’s should have within their power to use when it is deemed necessary. That being said, I would strongly suggest that you not throw a “K” in a round simply because you think it’s the best way to win the round. It should be used with meaning and genuinity to fight actually oppressive, misogynistic, dehumanizing, and explicitly exploitative arguments made by your opponents. When reading a "K" it will be more beneficial for you to slow down and explain its content rather than read faster to get more lines off. It's pretty crucial that I actually understand what I'm voting on if It's something you're telling me "I'm morally obligated to do." I am open to hearing K's but it has been a year since I judged one so I would be a little rusty.

Most Ks I vote on do a really good job of explaining how their solvency actually changes things outside of the debate space. At the point where you can’t or don't explain how voting on the K makes a tangible difference in the world, there really isn't a difference between pre and post fiat impacts. I implore you to take note of this when running or defending against a K.

Theory is fine. It should have a proper shell and is read intelligibly. Even if no shell is present I may still vote on it.

Speed is generally fine. I am not great with spreading though. If your opponents say “slow down” you probably should. If I can’t understand you I will raise my hands and not attempt to flow.

I will only agree to 30 speaker point theory if it’s warranted with a reason for norms of abuse that is applicable to the debaters in the round. I will not extend it automatically to everyone just because you all agree to it.

Parli specifics:

I give almost no credence on whether or not your warrants or arguments are backed by “cited” evidence. Since this is parliamentary debate, I will most certainly will not be fact-checking in or after round. Do not argue that your opponents do not have evidence, or any argument in this nature because it would be impossible for them to prove anything in this debate.

Due to the nature of parli, to me the judge has an implicit role in the engagement of truth testing in the debate round. Because each side’s warrants are not backed by a hard cited piece of evidence, the realism or actual truth in those arguments must be not only weighed and investigated by the debaters but also the judge. The goal, however, is to reduce the amount of truth testing the judge must do on each side's arguments. The more terminalization, explanation, and warranting each side does, the less intervention the judge might need to do. For example if the negative says our argument is true because the moon is made of cheese and the affirmative says no it's made of space dust and it makes our argument right. I obviously will truth test this argument and not accept the warrant that the moon is made of cheese.

Tag teaming is ok but the person speaking must say the words themself if I am going to flow it. It also hurts speaker points.

Public Forum specifics:

I have no requirement for a 2-2 split. Take whatever rebuttal strategy you think will maximize your chance of winning. However note that offense generated from contentions in your case must be extended in second rebuttal or they are considered dropped. Same goes for first summary.

I will not accept any K in Public Forum. Theory may still be run. Critical impacts and meta weighing is fine. No pre-fiat impacts.

Your offense must be extended through each speech in the debate round for me to vote on it in your final focus. If you forget to extend offense in second rebuttal or in summary, then I will also not allow it in final focus. This means you must ALWAYS extend your own impact cards in second rebuttal and first summary if you want to go for them.

Having voter issues in final focus is one of the easiest ways you can win the round. Tell me verbatim why winning the arguments on the flow means you win the round. Relate it back to the standard.

Lincoln Douglass and Policy:

I am an experienced circuit parliamentary debate coach and am very tabula rasa so basically almost any argument you want to go for is fine. Please note the rest of my paradigm for specifics. If you are going to spread you must flash me everything going to be read.

Email is Markmabie20@gmail.com

Name: Elena MacGurn

School Affiliation:

Ravenwood High School

Number of Years Judging Public Forum:

Second year

What is your current occupation?

Group Vice President at a Digital Marketing Agency

Please share your debate opinions or beliefs:

As a lay judge, I value the following delivery aspects of a debate round:

· Clearly communicated impact

· Respectful delivery of all arguments and rebuttal responses

· Delivery speed is successful if the message is communicated with no negative effect on comprehension, and impact-weighted emphasis is achieved

· Clean and logical organization of arguments tied directly to the premise

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

Pronouns: She/her/hers

Pre-req: I will not vote on any case arguments addressing sexual violence, rape, or suicide/suicidal ideations that were not preceded by a pre-round trigger warning. If, upon hearing this trigger warning, the opponent requests the argument not be made and that request is denied, I'll be very receptive to theory arguments about why I ought to vote against you based on the introduction of that issue.

I believe that problematic arguments are problematic whether the opposing team points them out or not. I believe that this is not a space where any argument can be made. Problematic arguments at minimum impact the people in the round and can impact discourse outside of the round. I want the opposing team to point out problematic arguments and abuse. However, arguments that promote sexism, racism, or other forms of hate will not be persuasive for me and are likely to result in a down ballot.

Style: I am one of those judges who responds very negatively to rudeness, disrespect, and offensive language

Speed: I don't like speed. Learning how to talk fast has no post-debate benefit, so I do not support it as a strategy in an educational debate round. I can follow fast talking, but if you are spreading, then I will put down my pen and stop flowing. If I stop flowing, it probably means I am confused; either because you are going too fast, or I don't understand what you are saying.

Style: I need to have a weighing mechanism in PF debate. I need to know how to decide who won the round, otherwise I will get very frustrated. I do not want to decide using my own metrics, I want YOU to tell me how to judge the round. I will be using this weighing mechanism as I look at my flow to decide who won the round.

I tend to be a flow a judge. By that I mean that I flow and will be following the flow to see who has the strongest arguments at the end of the round.

Evidence This is also very important to me. By that I mean that I need evidence that is clearly cited and explained. Actually READ me your evidence, don't just give me your summary of the evidence. Analytical arguments are great, and I will vote there, but when disagreement is happening about what may or may not be true about the topic, I would like to hear evidence. This should also connect back to your weighing mechanism.

I also like to hear evidence in the rebuttal. If you are responding with an analytical argument to an argument that has evidence, I need you to do the work of explaining to me why your analytical argument is sufficient to off-set the argument with evidence. You can do this by telling me that sense the argument doesn't make sense/has a fallacy, then it doesn't stand even with evidence. Or you can make an analytical argument about the evidence itself. Otherwise, I am likely going to still prefer the argument with evidence.

Please call for evidence in a timely manner. Please use an email chain or the evidence sharing that Tabroom provides. I want to be included on the email chain.

If there is conflict about evidence, I need you to do the work of telling me why I prefer your evidence over your opponent's evidence. Just telling me, "It post dates," is not sufficient. What has changed since that date? Why is your source more reliable? Otherwise, I will just get frustrated.

If your opponent asks for evidence, per the NSDA rules, you need to provide them with the cut card and the full article in a way that allows everyone to see and read the evidence. I expect to be included in any email chain, so I can also see the card that was called for. I also expect this exchange of evidence to happen promptly (less than 30 seconds) when asked.

If there are questions about the validity of the evidence or the way evidence is being used, you are likely to lose my ballot.

On a related note, I do not believe that everything needs to be quantified. Just because numbers cannot or are not put to an impact, does not mean that it cannot be weighed. This is ESPECIALLY true when it comes to impacts to human beings. I do not find the argument, "we don't know how many people will be impacted," persuasive.

Prep Time: I expect competitors to keep track of their own time. I will also be keeping track of prep time. This will be official time used. If you use all of your prep time before the end of the round, I expect you to start speaking promptly. That means you should take no more than 10 seconds to begin your next speech.

Background: I am a math teacher, so if you are going to throw around math terms and mathematics, you need to be certain that you know what you are talking about and are correct. As an example, there is a difference between exponential, linear, and geometric growth, so make sure you say the right one.

I have debated PF 4 years in high school, 4 years of college PF, 4 years of NPDA/parli in college.

I am not a LD debater, so I have minimal understanding of the theory and technical arguments that exist within LD. You can absolutely still make those arguments, but you need to make sure that you are explaining those terms, otherwise I will be lost and frustrated.

I am happy to give you feedback after the round, if you find me. :)

I am an experienced coach and judge in all events, debate and speech, on our local and state circuits as well as on the national circuit. I have traveled nationally and coached at summer camps in the past in both Congress and PF. I am a full flow judge in all debate events, and yes Congress is a debate event! I will judge based off the flow, but, imo, for PF/LD/CX, quantity is not king. The best debaters demonstrate strong analytical skills and know how to collapse, weigh, and justify effectively in favor of their side of the flow.

I'll deal with Congressional Debate first because it's a little shorter. I've extensively coached on local, state, and national levels and have had finalists and top 6 placers at all levels, including co-coaching a national champion. I tend to prefer circuit style Congressional Debate. I want to see good debate and will reward that much more heavily than any deductions for a few speaking blips. Good word choice and smooth speaking are important, just relatively slightly less important than really debating. If you have to choose a slight tradeoff between delivery and debating, my preference is to prioritize debate. I prefer a rapid delivery pace, but not definitely not policy speed. I do have a sense of humor and definitely enjoy tastefully humorous styles, as long as they maintain the decorum and respect of the chamber and subjects of the debate. I understand and appreciate various types of speeches within a round, including the fact that you may want to give an authorship/sponsorship for various reasons. However, my expectation is that if you hope for a higher rank from me you will demonstrate how well you are able to speak late in the round (i.e. refutations and crystallizations). I likely can't rank you if you give the first or second speech on every bill repeatedly, no matter how beautifully you may speak. I am a fan of POs. Many of my best Congressional debaters have been excellent POs. I say this with the understanding that anyone who runs to PO can preside very EFFECTIVELY and EFFICIENTLY. If you are presiding, dispense with anything that wastes speaking time and get right down to it, recognizing speakers and questioners as quickly as possible without mistakes or extra language. This may sound strange, but the less I hear or see you as PO, while the chamber is running quickly through speeches, the higher I will want to rank you. Finally, please don't rehash or waste the chamber's time with unnecessary parli games. If the debate is getting repetitive, please PQ the bill and move on, I will not think you're rude for calling the question, even if speakers are on the floor when the debate quality is poor.

OK - ON TO PF/LD - I am very flexible when it comes to rate of speaking. You can speak as fast as your mouth can move while maintaining solid enunciation and intelligible speech. I can follow and flow national circuit style policy when I am coaching and judging policy, but PF and LD are not policy. Also, imo, many debaters believe they can speak much faster than they actually can/should/need to. Think carefully about the tradeoff between saying more words and choosing persuasive and effective words when you are considering your rate choices in the round. Often, the strongest debaters/teams are able to edge off extreme speed because of their analytical skills.

I prefer to see debates where there is some kind of clear framework for decision making presented at some point (hopefully the beginning/early on), and where weighing on that framework occurs effectively WITH reasoning behind why the mechanism and the flow on your side is appropriate/superior.

In my mind, ultimately, the quality of evidence is more important than the quantity and logic is more important than raw facts/evidence. PLEASE, PLEASE, do not simply keep repeating "my __ card" or rely on "my card says so" in round. You MUST be able to explain the logic of your evidence and understand how your source has arrived at whatever conclusion you are presenting as your cut card. Without the logic, cards have pretty much zero value in round (unless your opponent has the same problem in their debating and then I guess I get to decide which cards I like better?). Also, while I value quality of evidence over sheer quantity, my expectation at circuit tournament debates is that every team who seeks to win rounds will also have a high quantity of evidence and demonstrate the logical basis and connection to that quantity of evidence.

Please make sure to present your version of how the debate is going by the end of the round. I do want to hear, iyo, what the key voters are, why they are the keys, and why you have presented superior arguments/evidence/analysis/etc. to advance your offensive attacks over theirs.

For crossfires, I really detest debaters/teams that (1) seek to speak every moment and try to prevent others from speaking (if you ask a question you MUST give them a chance to answer without cutting them off every two seconds) (2) provide the longest, most tangential, or most evasive answers possible to "kill time" (please get to the point) (3) can't stand up to reasonable questioning and crossfire strategies that seek to point out inconsistencies or lack of information. Please allow for time sharing within the crossfire period, maintain dignity, and, if you ask a question, you must let your opponent answer the question without immediately cutting them off (unless they're being obtuse or obstructive).

I absolutely detest debaters who do the thing where they shake or nod heads, or make gestures or movements or eye rolling, etc. while the opponent or partner is speaking to try to reinforce or negate what is being said at that moment. It's really distracting and annoying. You're not helping yourself by drawing attention to yourself in this negative way.

I am not opposed to answering any other questions prior to the round, as it is likely I've forgotten to address some issue you may have in mind.

Yes, I may call for your evidence at the end of a round if it is hotly contested, vital to the round, or suspect in some way.

Parent judge

I debated for four years at Walt Whitman High School (MD), where I now serve as a PF coach. This is my fourth year judging/coaching PF. The best thing you can do for yourself to cleanly win my ballot is to weigh. At the end of the round, you will probably have some offense but so will your opponent. Tell me why your offense is more important and really explain it—otherwise I’ll have to intervene and use my own weighing, which you don’t want.

Other preferences:

- If second rebuttal frontlines their case, first summary must extend defense. However, if second rebuttal just responds to the opposing case, first summary is not required to extend defense. Regardless, first summary needs to extend turns if you want me to vote on them.

- Second summary needs defense and should start the weighing part of the debate (if it hasn't happened already).

-I will only accept new weighing in the second final focus if there has been literally no other weighing at any other part of the debate.

- I don't need second rebuttal to frontline case, but I do require that you frontline any turns. Leaving frontlining delinks for summary is fine with me.

-I highly suggest collapsing on 1-2 arguments; I definitely prefer quality of arguments over quantity.

- I love warrants/warrant comparisons. For any evidence you read you should explain why that conclusion was reached (ie explain the warrant behind it). Obviously in some instances you need cards for certain things, but in general I will buy logic if it is well explained over a card that is read but has absolutely no warrant that's been said. I also really hate when people just respond to something by saying "they don't have a card for this, therefore it's false" so don't do that.

- Speed is okay but spreading is not.

- Don’t just list weighing mechanisms, explain how your weighing functions in the round and be comparative. Simply saying "their argument is vague/we outweigh on strength of link/we have tangible evidence and they do not" is not weighing.

- Not big on Ks and theory is only fine if there is a real and obvious violation going on. Don’t just run theory to scare your opponent or make the round more confusing. With this in mind, please trigger warn your cases. Trigger warning theory is probably the only theory shell I will ever vote on, but I really really don't want to because I hate voting on theory. PLEASE TRIGGER WARN YOUR CASES AND/OR ASK YOUR OPPONENTS IF THEY READ SENSITIVE MATERIAL PRIOR TO THE ROUND BEGINNING TO AVOID TRIGGERING PEOPLE AND THEN RE-LITIGATING THE TRAUMA FOR THE ENTIRE DEBATE. If you care about protecting survivors, you will ask before the round if a case has sensitive material. Also, I hate disclosure theory. Just ask your opponent to share their case if it is a big deal to you.

- I highly encourage you not to run arguments in front of me about people on welfare having disincentives to work, or any other type of argument like that which shows a clear lack of understanding/empathy about poverty and the lived experiences of low-income people.

- I like off-time roadmaps, but BE BRIEF.

The only time I’ll intervene (besides if you don’t weigh and I have to choose what to weigh), is if you are being sexist, racist, homophobic, ableist, etc. or are blatantly misrepresenting evidence. I’ll drop you and tank your speaks.

Also, I know debate is often stressful so try to have fun! Let me know if you have any other questions before the round or if there is anything I can do to accommodate you.

cale@victorybriefs.com or SpeechDrop work

hi! i'm Cale. i've been coaching and judging pf & ld for 8 years. i debated in Texas before that.

general:

- read whatever you like: judging debaters who enjoy what they read is fun. however, keep in mind the coherence of my rfd will scale with your clarity- slow for analytics and tags, send well-organized docs, signpost, and number answers when you can. you'll be much happier with my decision.

- speaks reflect how strategic i found your debating to be. i'll evaluate any style, but admittedly prefer quick, clear debaters that read interesting arguments. (no 30 speaks spike or tko, please)

- i will not 'gut check' or strike an argument just because you've deemed it unwarranted or silly. instead, i encourage you to make an active response- it should be quick to do so if the argument is as underdeveloped as you say.

- extend your arguments. it doesn't have to be exhaustive, but something more than the tag is necessary, even if you think it's conceded.

- keep the round a safe and pleasant place for everyone. i will work hard to give you a thorough decision so long as we can all access the debate and speak about it afterwards without hostility.

- i am not going to use my ballot to make an out-of-round character judgement. if you are concerned your opponent is engaging in genuinely unsafe or violent behavior, a debate decision is not the appropriate means of redress- i will bring it to tab or the relevant party.

ld:

overall- i am best for policy debates, good for theory, worse for phil, and alright for Ks and tricks with some caveats (see below). ultimately, i'd like to judge your preferred strategy, but you will need to be more clear if it's something i'm typically not preffed into the back of. i am only human.

policy- i'll judge kick the counterplan. i lean neg on cp theory claims, and wish the aff would engage in a competition debate rather than read a blippy theory argument, particularly when the 1n is only like 3 off. i am good for your process/consult/intl fiat/etc cp, and, again, wish 1ars would just engage- if you are convinced there is not a discernable net benefit, the argument should be easier to answer. 3 word perms aren't arguments- explain the world of the perm. zero risk exists, and while it is difficult to achieve, it is entirely possible to make an argument's implication so marginal that its functional weight in the round is zero. i really appreciate well-executed impact turn debates, some of my favorite rounds to judge.

theory- no defaults, read w/e you want. always send interps and slow for anything you extemp. far too often in these debates there's no weighing or line by line done on paradigm issues: the 1n reads their theory hedge and vaguely crossapplies it to the 1ac underview, and then all of these arguments just float around in the 1ar and 2n without resolution- please lbl to make judging this tolerable. when going for T, keep in mind i do not actively cut LD prep or mine the wiki, so i don't have a reference point for your caselist or prep-based limits standard- add some explanation.

K- i frequently judge cap arguments, and often judge setcol. external to that, i'm much less experienced- happy to judge it, but i need instruction. please lbl clearly: i find myself most lost in k 2n/2ars when the overview is jargon-heavy and crossapplied everywhere. it is probably useful to know i can count on one hand the number of K v K debates i've been in the back of.

tricks- i often judge truth testing and skep and their associated tricks, but i don't have a deep enough understanding of the argument form to say i'm 10/10 comfortable if you read a nailbomb aff or a bunch of indexicals. in general, delineate in the doc and cross, be super clear abt the collapse strat, and i can vote for these.

phil- i have next to no experience with phil argumentation save for Kant tricks and some pomo (mostly just Baudrillard). need you to slow down and give me extra judge instruction if you're reading anything dense, but happy to learn.

pf:

extend defense the speech after it's answered and be comparative when you're weighing or going for a fw argument. otherwise, read what you think is fun- this includes theory, critical arguments, and other forms less common to PF. two things to add here: 1. don't read an argument just for the sake of it, read it well and 2. i am not amenable to the PF-style 'this argument form is holistically bad' response if we are in the varsity division- engage with substantive responses.

come to round ready to debate (pre-flowed, have docs ready if you're sending them, etc). the only way to frustrate me beyond being rude is to drag out the round by individually calling for a lot of evidence and taking forever to send it.

many PFers spend copious amounts of time impact weighing with multiple mechanisms. more often than not, you are better served reading one simple piece of weighing and investing that time elsewhere- either in more clearly frontlining and extending your case argument, or better implicating a piece of defense or turn on your opponents' case.

Chad Meadows (he/him)

chadwickmeadows@gmail.com

If you have interest in college debate, and would be interested in hearing about very expansive scholarship opportunities please contact me. Our program competes in two policy formats and travels to at least 4 tournaments a semester. Most of our nationally competitive students have close to zero cost of attendance because of debate specific financial support.

Debate Experience

College: I’ve been the head argument coach and/or Director of Debate for Western Kentucky University for a little over a decade. WKU primarily competes in NFA-LD, a shorter policy format. This season (2023) we are adding CEDA/NDT tournaments to our schedule.

High School: I’ve been an Assistant Coach, and primarily judge, for the Marist School in Atlanta, Georgia for several years. In this capacity I’ve judged at high school tournaments in both Policy Debate and Public Forum.

Argument Experience/Preferences

I feel comfortable evaluating the range of debates in modern policy debate (no plan affirmatives, policy, and kritik) though I am the most confident in policy rounds. My research interests tend toward more political science/international affairs/economics, though I’ve become well read in some critical areas in tandem with my students’ interests (anti-blackness/afropessimism in particular) in addition I have some cursory knowledge of the standard kritik arguments in debate, but no one would mistake me for a philosophy enthusiast. On the nuclear weapons topic, almost all of my research has been on the policy side.

I have few preferences with regard to content, but view some argumentative trends with skepticism: Counterplans that result in the plan (consult and many process counterplans), Agent counterplans, voting negative any procedural concern that isn’t topicality, reject the team counterplan theory that isn’t conditionality, some versions of politics DAs that rely on defining the process of fiat, arguments that rely on voting against the representations of the affirmative without voting against the result of the plan.

I feel very uncomfortable evaluating events that have happened outside of the debate round, especially in the CEDA/NDT community where I have limited knowledge of the context regarding community trends.

I have little experience evaluating debates with some strategies that would only be acceptable in a 2-person policy debate context - 2ac add-ons, 2nc counterplanning, 2ac intrinsicness tests on DA, etc. I’m not opposed to these strategies, and understand their strategic purpose, but I have limited exposure.

Decision Process

I tend to read more cards following the debate than most. That’s both because I’m curious, and I tend to find that debaters are informing their discussion given the evidence cited in the round, and I understand their arguments better having read the cards myself.

I give less credibility to arguments that appear unsupported by academic literature, even if the in round execution on those arguments is solid. I certainly support creativity and am open to a wide variety of arguments, but my natural disposition sides with excellent debate on arguments that are well represented in the topic literature.

To decide challenging debates I generally use two strategies: 1) write a decision for both sides and determine which reflects the in-round debating as opposed to my own intuition, and 2) list the relevant meta-issues in the round (realism vs liberal internationalism, debate is a game vs. debate should spill out, etc.) and list the supporting arguments each side highlighted for each argument and attempt to make sense of who debated the best on the issues that appear to matter most for resolving the decision.

I try to explain why I sided with the winner on each important issue, and go through each argument extended in the final rebuttal for the losing team and explain why I wasn’t persuaded by that argument.

Public Forum

Baseline expectations: introduce evidence using directly quoted sections of articles not paraphrasing, disclose arguments you plan to read in debates.

Argument preferences: no hard and fast rules, but I prefer debates that most closely resemble the academic and professional controversy posed by the topic. Debate about debate, while important in many contexts, is not the argument I'm most interested in adjudicating.

Style preferences: Argumentation not speaking style will make up the bulk of my decision making and feedback, my reflections on debate are informed by detailed note taking of the speeches, speeches should focus their time on clashing with their opponents' arguments.

Elise Meintanis (Harmening)

About me:

I have over 20 (yikes!) years of experience with debate and was the IHSA State Champion in Public Forum my senior year. Now I own my own law firm and work as an Adjunct Professor at UIC Law. I also work with Homewood-Flossmoor and attended Carl Sandburg.

About the round:

I am strict about timing in the round - if the timer goes off I do not want you to finish your sentence. I know it seems harsh but it helps me keep everything fair throughout the round! If I cut you off, I'm not mad, just keeping everything consistent :)

Tell me who wins at the end--I care about voting issues. Understand what the round comes down to and tell me why you won. I really mean it when I say I care about voting issues too - number them, line them up for me, make it super easy!

I also care about civility. That really hasn't been a big issue lately (which is amazing) but just keep that in mind too.

Background:I am a second-year law student at NYU and work with Delbarton (NJ). He/Him/His pronouns.

Email Chains: Teams should start an email chain immediately with the following email subject: Tournament Name - Rd # - School Team Code (side/order) v. School Team Code (side/order). Please add greenwavedebate@delbarton.org to the email chain. Teams should send case evidence (and rhetoric if you paraphrase) by the end of constructive. I cannot accept locked Google Docs; please copy and paste all text into the email and send it in the email chain. It would be ideal to send all new evidence read in rebuttal, but up to debaters.

Evidence: Reading Cut card > Paraphrasing. Even if you paraphrase, I require cut cards. These are properly cut cards. No cut card = your evidence won't be evaluated in the round.

Main PF Paradigm:

• Offense>Defense. Ultimately, offense wins debates and requires proper arg extensions, frontlining, and weighing. It will be hard to win with just terminal defense. But please still extend good defense.
• Speed. I will try my best to handle your pace, but also know if you aren't clear, it will be harder for me to flow.
• Speech specifics: Second Rebuttal -- needs to frontline first rebuttal responses. Anything in Final Focus should be in Summary (weighing is a bit more flexible if no one is weighing). Backhalf extensions, frontlining, and "backlining" matter.
• Please weigh. Make sure it's comparative weighing and uses either timeframe, magnitude, and/or probability. Strength of link, clarity of impact, cyclicality, and solvency are not weighing mechanisms.
• I'll evaluate (almost) anything. Expect that I'll have already done research on a topic, but I'll evaluate anything on my flow (tech over truth). I will interfere (and most likely vote you down) if you argue anything racist, sexist, homophobic, or fabricated (i.e., evidence issues).
• I will always allow accommodations for debaters. Just ask before the round.

"Progressive" PF:

• Ks - I'm okay with the most common K's PFers try to run (i.e. Fem/Fem IR, Capitalism, Securitization, Killjoy, etc.), but I am not familiar with high theory lit (i.e. Baudrillard, Bataille, Nietzsche). But please don't overcomplicate the backhalf.
• Theory - Debate is a game, so do what you have to do. If you're in the varsity/open division, please don't complain that you can't handle varsity-level arguments. *** Evidence of abuse is needed for theory (especially disclosure-related shells). I will (usually) default competing interps. I generally think disclosure is good, open source is not usually necessary (unless your wiki upload is just a block of text), and paraphrasing is bad, but I won't intervene if you win the flow.
• Trigger warnings with opt-outs are necessary when there are graphic depictions in the arg, but are not when there are non-graphic depictions about oppression (general content warning before constructive would still be good). Still, use your best judgment here.
• ***Note -- if you read an excessive number of off positions that appear frivolous, I will be very receptive to reasonability and have a high threshold for your arguments. So it probably won't work to your advantage to read them in front of me. Regardless of beliefs on prog PF, these types of debate are, without a doubt, awful and annoying to judge. I'll still evaluate it, but run at your own risk.

Misc: Please pre flow before the round; I don't think crossfire clarifications are super important to my ballot, so if something significant happens, you should make it in ink and bring it up in the next speech; I'm okay if you speak fast (my ability to handle it is diminishing now though lol), but please give me a doc; speaker points usually range from 28-30.

Questions? Ask before the round.

Novice flow judge.

-Presentation and delivery are important to me.

-Speeches should be as concise as possible and relatively easy to understand.

-More words does not always equal more value.

-If I can't understand your argument due to delivery, I may not be able to side with your case.

-Cross and Final Focus are where the majority of my decision making happens

-I am looking for teams that can answer questions effectively and back answers with facts.

-If a question is answered with facts, I want to be shown why the facts do not add up in the summary or focus.

-If an argument made in cross is not defended in the summary or focus, that may indicate your team agrees with the opposing team and may reduce the credibility of your case.

My top 3 "rules":

-Have fun!

-Be courteous to other teams (any personal attacks unrelated to the case or subject matter will not be tolerated)

-No foul language (curse words, slurs, or innuendos will not be tolerated)

cosby '21 fsu '24

put me on the email chain jackmerkel57@gmail.com

3 years pf (Qualled to TOC, States, Broke at many Nat Circuit Tourneys), 2 year NFA-LD (Qualled to NFA Nats 2x - Octos 2024)

important stuff

let me know if you want to see my flow of your round after it's over - i'm uncomfortable sending flows to debaters that weren't in the round though because i think that unfairly helps debaters w more clout

feel free to postround me respectfully, i recognize that i'm capable of making wrong decisions or understanding arguments incorrectly - i'm here to learn and improve just as much as both teams are

i will drop you for misgendering someone, apologies don't solve and i'm not at all open to hearing arguments that claim otherwise.

please read an opt-in cw for any argument that may contain sensitive content, if you don't and a team reads cw theory I honestly don't see myself ever not voting for it. when in doubt err on the side of reading one.

NFA-LD

Case-Yes topical plan affs. I am probably the best at judging this style, with that being said non-t/k affs are fine, just a higher threshold to win my ballot.

T-Came from PF so never debated T before NFA, as a result not as good of a T judge compared to more established LD/Policy judges. Prob lean aff in most cases on T but will obv vote on it if the neg provides good warranting and definitions as to why its not T. Overall tho found T pretty boring and probably went for it less than 10% of the time so take that as you will.

DA-Yes please, I love a good disad that is creative in its link from the aff and has good weighing against the aff scenarios. Probably the most fun kind of debate to judge.

CP-Never really read or went for these, that being said I love a good/strategic cp that can solve the aff and has unique net benefits. Just explain how the cp solves the aff and why its competitive.

K-Read a lot more of these my last year debating, mainly read security but have experience running Cap and Psycho (Lacan/Matheson). I struggle a bit on higher phil like Baudy but I can prob still evaluate it. In addition performance/identity Ks are fine, obv dont have much experience running these but can still evaluate them. Idc if your alt isn't a material action, just describe what the alt world looks like whether its a mindset shift, rejection ect. On framing prove why your rotb matters and why I shouldn't weigh the aff, interact with your opponents fairness/education/predictability claims and prove why I should prefer your interpretations, weigh pre vs post fiat implications ect. "Perm do both" isn't a response, explain why the aff and alt are not mutually exclusive and explain how the aff and alt can function together and why that solves better.

Theory-I honestly like theory, obv as stated above didn't come from a LD/Policy background so don't have as much experience debating/evaluating procedural theory but have debated theory enough that its still fine to run. I love disclosure theory and just think its prob a true argument on both aff and neg so feel free to run this.

Misc- Speed is fine, I personally never really spread but I can evaluate it. Speaks are stupid and I think judging speaking ability is the most pointless thing in the activity, read 30 speaks theory and Ill give both debaters highest speaks allowed, regardless you will both prob get high speaks.

PF Stuff

how do i decide who i vote for?

first - i go through every piece of offense in each final focus and determine if every important piece of the argument is extended (all too many rounds i vote based off a team failing to extend a link, warrant, or impact)

next - i look at the defense on each of these - if no weighing is done, i default to whichever argument is the path of least resistance - if both teams have no offense left, i presume the first speaking team - this is also when i call any cards i'm told to or that i think are bad

then - assuming there is weighing, i vote based on whichever weighing mechanism is best justified - if none are justified, i default magnitude first, probability second, and timeframe third - i think lots of other mechanisms used in pf fall into one of these (for example, severity is a type of magnitude, strength of link is probability) i also look to framing at this step if there is any and apply that as well. also on weighing, the most convincing and best weighing is link-ins and prereq weighing, this prob comes before any other generic mechanisms

evidence

paraphrasing is fine, just please have a cut card for whatever ur paraphrasing. if someone calls for ev and u send an 80 page pdf and tell me to control f something and read around it im not evaluating your ev. its really not that hard to just copy and paste that paragraph and highlight what your reading.

prog stuff

see NFA-LD section, tldr open to most prog stuff except trix which im just never voting for. if you have more specific questions just ask before the round

most importantly i want to make debate an inclusive space where everyone can have a fun and educational time so please let me know if there is anything i can do to make the space more accessible

Experience

Umich'25 :D

PF & a fair amount of policy -- currently coach a few PF teams, some of whom have done well at the TOC.

Note: guys I was telling everyone for, like, MONTHS that they were gonna learn how to debate fwk and ontology vs. planless affs for the PF TOC and nobody believed me!!!!! But I was right!!!!!

Email chain: MCDPrepDocs@gmail.com & Meskouri@umich.edu

General/TLDR

Top: fairly experienced tech -- have evaluated basically everything. Adam, not "judge."

Yes K (both pre & post), yes theory, no excessive speed (usually good for like ~250 wpm with docs I think but anything further and I'll be cooked). Swearing is fine, just don't be egregious w/it.

PF judging is in a rough spot right now -- I frequently see bad judges get away with hilariously terrible decisions, even in elims and bid rounds (many of my 2-1s are blatant parent screws lol). I will do everything in my power to ensure that this does not happen to you.

I thus encourage debaters to use my rounds to do/practice things that they can't do in front of other judges -- this means you should consider me open to any style of debate including substance, debates about debate, debates about debating about debate, etc. Do whatever you want, just be clear -- be flayish in presentation (err on the side of urgent > speedy) and I'll 100% catch everything. To clarify, this means that I am willing to evaluate any and all types of arguments (dedev, spark, prefiat/postfiat K, theory etc etc) so long as you aren't spreading (>250 wpm) through them. My camera will usually be off as it helps me flow better.

This paradigm is purposefully blippy as I recognize that, more often than not, paradigms aren't read in full prior to round. If you have any burning questions, ask!

Make a Garfield or Babytron reference for +0.5 speaks!

Specs

• Email me the 1AC and 1NC (non-negotiable) & preferably rebuttal docs with all ev and (only if you can) analytics-- I will cap speaks if constructive docs are not sent and will raise speaks if rebuttal docs are. To be clear, constructive docs are non-negotiable.

• I really like good rounds and really hate bad rounds. Generally, “good” teams will be diligent about the LBL, give good OVs, signpost extremely well, and extend the right pieces of big picture offense/defense -- write my ballot for me. I tend to reward debaters for tricky responses, but that is not to say that you should be blipping out 15 incoherent analytics per minute. Remember to extend your warrants as a way of resolving clash!

• K is chill, but only if you’re good at it – I haven’t been convinced that PFers can debate K like they can theory or substance quite yet. I can follow most reps Ks and many prefiat/performance ones. Similarly, I feel comfortable evaluating the responses to Ks (T-FW, TVA, SSD, ballot pik, perm etc). I can't follow phil.

• DISCLAIMER: apparently I borderline hack for perfcons. I think they usually outweigh the ivi/shell/K and it is tough to convince me otherwise unless you're reading unfairness good.

• Theory is cool! I like to think I’m a decent judge for it who has seen or evaluated most shells. Feel free to pref me if you read stuff like disclo, paraphrasing, speed, or any wacky non-friv (tbh, you can read friv, j be willing to commit to it). Don't spread through your shell. Going for 1-2 standards is usually better than blipping out 5 in final. The only part of theory that bores me is the bottom half (CI, RVI, etc). Obv, disclo is good and para is bad. But, I've voted for disclo bad and para good. Writing "contact info is term defense" on your wiki is silly and almost always unpersuasive and wrong.

• T is a voter. Debated equally vs. a Kaff, it'll probably win. I'm pretty receptive to TVA and SSD on a truth level -- not sure how I feel about the ballot PIK. My views on debating vs. alts are the same as my views on debating vs. impacts: both of them deserve more analysis and defense/offense. Procedural fairness probably o/w most impacts absent a great explanation of how the performance does something tangible and why that round specifically is k2 something important. I'll vote on fairness impact turns.

• Egregious speed is bad -- assume I can follow 65-70% of your top pace. The back half should be slower than the front half. Not sure how I feel about new ev in second sum.

• Cheating is bad. I will do my best to ensure that the 2FF doesn't get away with murder. Have cut cards ready to send ASAP -- I won't accept hyperlinks. You have to frontline in 2nd rebuttal. DAs in rebuttal are obviously fine. (and probably underutilized if you can explain why the DA o/w their link).

• A lot of "turns" in PF are just DAs. If your turn isn't responsive to the actual link and instead says that the aff/neg does something tangential which makes their impact worse, you need to spend way more time weighing the turn against their link. If the turn IS responsive, you need to do a little less of that.

• Defense is kinda sticky because the time constraints of PF make extending everything hard, BUT that does not mean you don’t have to say “extend the mining NL” for me to flow it.

• A quick tip: if you're spending 30s/speech on it while they're spending 2m/speech, they're probably winning it.

• Debate in a way that allows fun for everyone.
  
  

I debated in Public Forum debate (2013-2017) at Western Highschool in Florida.

I have a Bachelor's degree in Political Science from the University of Florida and a Master's degree in Liberal Studies from Georgetown University. Attending Northeastern University Law School in the fall.

a couple of things:

-Y'all should be timing the debate. I am the judge, not a babysitter. I like when teams hold each other accountable.

- don't read a new contention in rebuttal. that's not going on my flow

- The first summary should extend defense if the second rebuttal frontlines the argument. I think it is strategic for the second rebuttal to respond to turns and overviews.

- My attention to crossfire will probably depend on the time of day and my current mood. Please use it strategically if not I'll probably switch to watching youtube videos. - do not just read evidence explain the evidence in your own words. Tell me why the evidence matters to me at the end of the day.

- the summary is cool and all but don't go for everything on the flow, condense the round and give me a narrative. Quality of voters> Quantity of voters.

- Weigh, weigh, weigh, weigh, weigh.

-any other questions ask me before the round

SPEAKER POINT BREAKDOWNS

"30: Excellent job, you demonstrate stand-out organizational skills and speaking abilities. Ability to use creative analytical skills and humor to simplify and clarify the round.

29: Very strong ability. Good eloquence, analysis, and organization. A couple minor stumbles or drops.

28: Above average. Good speaking ability. May have made a larger drop or flaw in argumentation but speaking skills compensate. Or, very strong analysis but weaker speaking skills.

27: About average. Ability to function well in the round, however analysis may be lacking. Some errors made.

26: Is struggling to function efficiently within the round. Either lacking speaking skills or analytical skills. May have made a more important error.

25: Having difficulties following the round. May have a hard time filling the time for speeches. Large error.

Below: Extreme difficulty functioning. Very large difficulty filling time or offensive or rude behavior."

***Speaker Points break down borrowed from Mollie Clark.***

if you want to learn more about debate and get better under my guidance.

Click on the link below and sign up now!!!!

https://vancouverdebate.ca/intrinsic-debate-institute-summer-camp-2022/

Jeffrey Miller

Current Coach -- Marist School (2011-present)
Lab Leader -- National Debate Forum (2015-present), Emory University (2016), Dartmouth College (2014-2015), University of Georgia (2012-2015)
Former Coach -- Fayette County (2006-2011), Wheeler (2008-2009)
Former Debater -- Fayette County (2002-2006)

jmill126@gmail.com and maristpublicforum@gmail.com for email chains, please (no google doc sharing and no locked google docs)

Last Updated -- 2/12/2012 for the 2022 Postseason (no major updates, just being more specific on items)

I am a high school teacher who believes in the power that speech and debate provides students. There is not another activity that provides the benefits that this activity does. I am involved in topic wording with the NSDA and argument development and strategy discussion with Marist, so you can expect I am coming into the room as an informed participant about the topic. As your judge, it is my job to give you the best experience possible in that round. I will work as hard in giving you that experience as I expect you are working to win the debate. I think online debate is amazing and would not be bothered if we never returned to in-person competitions again. For online debate to work, everyone should have their cameras on and be cordial with other understanding that there can be technical issues in a round.

What does a good debate look like?

In my opinion, a good debate features two well-researched teams who clash around a central thesis of the topic. Teams can demonstrate this through a variety of ways in a debate such as the use of evidence, smart questioning in cross examination and strategical thinking through the use of casing and rebuttals. In good debates, each speech answers the one that precedes it (with the second constructive being the exception in public forum). Good debates are fun for all those involved including the judge(s).

The best debates are typically smaller in nature as they can resolve key parts of the debate. The proliferation of large constructives have hindered many second halves as they decrease the amount of time students can interact with specific parts of arguments and even worse leaving judges to sort things out themselves and increasing intervention.

What role does theory play in good debates?

I've always said I prefer substance over theory. That being said, I do know theory has its place in debate rounds and I do have strong opinions on many violations. I will do my best to evaluate theory as pragmatically as possible by weighing the offense under each interpretation. For a crash course in my beliefs of theory - disclosure is good, open source is an unnecessary standard for high school public forum teams until a minimum standard of disclosure is established, paraphrasing is bad, round reports is frivolous, content warnings for graphic representations is required, content warnings over non-graphic representations is debatable.

All of this being said, I don't view myself as an autostrike for teams that don't disclose or paraphrase. However, I've judged enough this year to tell you if you are one of those teams and happen to debate someone with thoughts similar to mine, you should be prepared with answers.

How do "progressive" arguments work in good debates?

Like I said above, arguments work best when they are in the context of the critical thesis of the topic. Thus, if you are reading the same cards in your framing contention from the Septober topic that have zero connections to the current topic, I think you are starting a up-hill battle for yourselves. I have not been entirely persuaded with the "pre-fiat" implications I have seen this year - if those pre-fiat implications were contextualized with topic literature, that would be different.

My major gripe with progressive debates this year has been a lack of clash. Saying "structural violence comes first" doesn't automatically mean it does or that you win. These are debatable arguments, please debate them. I am also finding that sometimes the lack of clash isn't a problem of unprepared debaters, but rather there isn't enough time to resolve major issues in the literature. At a minimum, your evidence that is making progressive type claims in the debate should never be paraphrased and should be well warranted. I have found myself struggling to flow framing contentions that include four completely different arguments that should take 1.5 minutes to read that PF debaters are reading in 20-30 seconds (Read: your crisis politics cards should be more than one line).

How should evidence exchange work?

Evidence exchange in public forum is broken. At the beginning of COVID, I found myself thinking cases sent after the speech in order to protect flowing. However, my view on this has shifted. A lot of debates I found myself judging last season had evidence delays after case. At this point, constructives should be sent immediately prior to speeches. (If you paraphrase, you should send your narrative version with the cut cards in order). At this stage in the game, I don't think rebuttal evidence should be emailed before but I imagine that view will shift with time as well. When you send evidence to the email chain, I prefer a cut card with a proper citation and highlighting to indicate what was read. Cards with no formatting or just links are as a good as analytics.

For what its worth, whenever I return to in-person tournaments, I do expect email chains to continue.

What effects speaker points?

I am trying to increase my baseline for points as I've found I'm typically below average. Instead of starting at a 28, I will try to start at a 28.5 for debaters and move accordingly. Argument selection, strategy choices and smart crossfires are the best way to earn more points with me. You're probably not going to get a 30 but have a good debate with smart strategy choices, and you should get a 29+.

This only applies to tournaments that use a 0.1 metric -- tournaments that are using half points are bad.

I am an Engineer with several tournaments experience at Varsity PF judging. I like a narrative approach where you lay out the framework of your case even if it comes down to a technical RFD. I rely heavily upon evidence-based arguments and impacts. Don't argue that 100's of millions will die by nuclear war if it is a non-unique argument or you have not even presented a good probability we are headed in that direction.

If you have not won me over by the start of Final Focus, you better layout all the reasons why I should vote for AFF or NEG. Lead me to a decision.

The narrative isn't the only thing I consider, but try to be cohesive... i.e. connect the dots.

A few notes:

- You will never lose the round for being a JERK in cross, but I will give you low speaker points. Rudeness or excessive sarcasm is not rewarded here. Equity in all forms is expected.

- Weigh! Weigh! Weigh! I'm not going to catch everything so I need you to give some sort of weighing mechanisms and have valid probabilities for your impacts.

- I can take speed but do not spread. I will say "clear" or "Speed" twice and then I stop flowing altogether.

- If you go slightly over time that's OK, but keep it under 10-secs.

- 2nd rebuttal must front line.

- Speak up a little, I can't hear well (no, I am not kidding). I will miss most of what you say if you speak to me from behind your laptop. Beware of over-sized lecterns if you need a stand for your laptop.

- Time yourselves, please. Don't steal prep time just because we are ONLINE.

PS: Don't get too comfortable entering the room. After the coin toss, I prefer PRO on my left. Yes, I realize this does not apply in an ONLINE environment.

Qualifications: I competed in speech and debate tournaments for five consecutive years throughout all of high school. Most of my debate experience comes from public forum and I have extensive judging experience as well.

Paradigm:

- I am fine with speed, but please talk clearly. If I cannot understand you, what you say will not appear on my flow.

- Organization is important. If you are organized, I will be able to connect your speeches throughout my flow better and (hopefully) end up voting for your team. Be especially clear with taglines.

- Weigh the impacts and clearly tell me why you win. If you don't, I will end up having to put my input into the vote.

- Impacts are important. Even if you have a clear claim and warrant, nothing will count unless you have an impact as a result of that. I will most likely vote based on your impacts and voters, so make sure they are clear and strong.

- Warrants are important. If you have an impact but no clear warrant or link to the resolution, I will not vote for it.

- Be sure your arguments are backed up by evidence. The better your arguments are backed up, the stronger it will be.

- I do not flow during crossfire. If anything important comes up during crossfire, be sure to mention that within your speeches if you want that to go on my flow.

Any clarifying questions about my paradigm can be asked before the round starts or to anstlgus02@gmail.com.

Parent judge and have been judging public forum for a year. Affiliated to Chelmsford High School , MA

Go slow and use lots of warranting

Ex-PF Debater at Hawken School. Johns Hopkins BME '25.

Flow? Weigh.

I am an LAY judge.

I like ethical debaters, as well as knowledgeable and confident presentations.

I will be taking notes. Please speak slowly and explain things clearly.

Be accountable for your own time.

Hello everyone! I am a university student studying Criminology at Simon Fraser University.

I am currently a PF coach, but my main focus of teaching is younger students in PRO-CON debate.

Tips on receiving higher points and winning the round:

1. I personally like off-time road map for easier flow.

2. Please have your camera on AND time yourself. It is important for you to get in the habit of timing yourself and being able to adjust to the timer.

3. I am HEAVY on frontlining (reconstruction) during second rebuttal AND summary. If I don't hear a frontlining in the second rebuttal, I will be disappointed.

4. I like clear weighing mechanism and USE the weighing mechanism terms in your speech. (ex. we outweigh on ____).

5. If your case is a sole contention, make sure to emphasize the subtopics AND impact and terminal impact.

6. Make sure your contention title is related to your argument and what you are talking about.

7. I highly favour quantifiable evidence over ANYTHING ELSE. So, use numbers!

Not Do's :

Any type of racism, sexism, discrimination, rude comments and negative behaviour will give you very low speaker points. So please be polite to one another :)

Do not talk over people OR cut people off during crossfire. I care a lot about mannerism and etiquette during the rounds. It is important to get your idea addressed, but please let others talk.

Lastly, Have Fun:)

Parent and never have done debate. Please talk very slowly and explain everything clearly. Dont be rude in crossfire. Dont use any complex debate words. Please provide definitions for words or terms that a normal person wouldn't know as well.

They/them ( Ask for other ppls in rounds pls!!)

You can call me whatever. Razeen, Judge, ご主人様.

email chain: razeennasar1@gmail.com

As a judge I critique y'all with feedback. However, I feel judges can't be told about their competency. Especially with the position of authority. Please don't see me as an all-knowing authority figure. I am a student just like y'all. I sleep, go to school sometimes, and am a disappointment to my parents. I'm human not a debate robot. You can use this form to criticize my judging without having your name attached. Or say I'm not lame and I did well.

Note: everything cut down word wise so it takes less time. Hence bare bone wording. Pls ask for elaboration irl :) Based on average reading speed TLDR will take 1 minute, whole thing 6.5 minutes of reading. Immensely cut down from initially 20 min(egregiously long).

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSeRkloyjH8sARng_HNNNPtHhlMFaIrPK0jekgp7bspJ9jppeg/viewform?usp=sf_link

Speaks:

If you look at my speaking points history I'm generally pretty generous. If you do 4 things for me I will give you 30 speaks for free!

1. Ask your opponents for pronouns or just have some exchange related to that in round
2. Email me your case so I can read along while you read your case (if I miss anything I can reference back or re-read during cross). Don't make excuses about why you can't. If you don't want to then just don't do it. The only exception I will make is if you show me the TOURNAMENT doesn't allow me.
3. Finish your speech coherently and use like 95% of your time with legitimate substance.
4. Send evidence efficiently and don't waste time in between speeches or waste time in general.

For every one missed I'll doc 1.25 speaks. If you are just mean or rude to your opponents then I'll just give an auto L with 25 even if you win on the "flow".I have no tolerance for being mean :) I will try my best to find reasons to vote against people who are borderline mean through the flow too. A respectful environment is a prerequisite to people feeling comfortable to debate! All these asks for me are EXPECTATIONS, not preferences!

SHORT I DONT WANT TO READ AN ENTIRE THING OF NONSENSE BUT I WANT TO KNOW THE JIST:

Did HS PF debate+ college parli. was okay in HS pretty good in college now.

Mostly, Tech>Truth. However, don't use tech to bully. Still subconsciously influenced by bias. Uncontrollable. Some arguments I inherently understand more.

IF IM MAKING EYE CONTACT THAT MEANS I AM CONFUSED AND DON'T KNOW WHERE TO FLOW NOT THAT I AM LISTENING INTENTLY!!! IF YOU TAKE ANYTHING AWAY TAKE THIS!!! At one point I get self-conscious if I look too much in confusion when I don't know what to flow and look down. >~<

Pf 2nd rebuttal frontlines. No New Offense FF not in summary. Policy/LD don't know extension norms thus gonna be forgiving w/ extensions.

Generally against tech being topicality, Theory, and Ks Would consider non-disingenuously for real abuse/problematic rhetoric.

Spreading can't flow fast so it's bad. Don't sound like you are drowning.

Extinction big no no. Unless topic calls for it. No daylight savings causes extinction(real round)

Make sure not same impact scenario. Don't weigh Nuke war w/ Russia against Nuke war w/ Russia on magnitude. Compare links. Talk about uniqueness.

I prefer warranted low magnitude high probability vs high magnitude low probability. Even if an argument outweighs, if it isn't extended well and I can't explain it I won't vote off it. Argument understandability is a prereq to voting on any argument for me. I have ALOT of rounds where I vote for an impact cuz it's the only one explained.

Jargon pls no. I barely know prog debate.

Don't expect me to understand afro-anthropessimism pre-post modern feminist neo liberal hauntology @400WPM.I barely understand my college lecturers at 1/4th that speed. even at normal pace without accessible wording I won't get it. 100% have not read your arg lit before. Need slow good explanation for new concepts to me aka most of arguments.

Don't assume I remember what each author said. I don't remember 1/2 of UCSD debaters in a quarter. You think I'm gonna remember aiusdbh 13 from the 1NC 45 minutes ago.

PF DEBATE

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

Pls email me your cases before the start of the round.

Pls frontline in 2nd rebuttal rather than 2nd summary

I will vote off turns if not blippily read and make sense.

Pls use voters in the final focus and COLLAPSE. I'm serious about collapsing.

I... am lazy and use single-use paper plates cuz I don't like doing dishes, but also my romantic partner is in marine biology and roasts me for single use plastic... aka I can see both sides :)

POLICY DEBATE

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

Don't understand "new sheets" and flowing is hard. Though i try my best. Most decision focused on 1/2 AR/NR. Better to be honest it's hard for me than lie. Sorry! I will try to be as informed as possible by the round. Pls bear with my stupidity. Know I'm trying my hardest to give a good decision.

PARLI DEBATE

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

I compete in college parli. I have no clue what the norms are in HS parli. College parli is basically policy without the cards. So that is how I see parli. Pls don't try to spread it's already painful to hear in college. If it's the norm I'm fine with topicality and Counterplans. Please don't read an aff K, and if that isn't a norm yet thank god. I am open to K arguments if it isn't used to shut out opponent and outspread them with complicated jargon.

I have won 4 college parli tournaments this past year so like I feel like I know what's up with parli.

I love debates that are on topic and have relevant and easy to understand arguments that have nuance!

Longer preferences

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

I am an idiot

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

I'm stupid, not a humble statement. Don't let the absurd length fool you. It's a sign of insecurity, not knowledge. This is at the top for a reason. I make wrong decisions when forced to think myself. Verbally make a speech that I can nearly mimic in my RFD.

I'm not competing so don't assume I know topic-specific acronyms/words are. Common sense ideas to you aren't common sense to most people. I can't figure out push or pull doors don't think I can figure out your argument.

Debate jargon for prog is a no no. Just take the couple of extra seconds to explain. Don't assume arguments. Explain things like "fairness/education voter" and "reasonability means judge intervention" even though seems common sense explain why these are good/bad.

Fully explain all your args. The reasons why an argument is logically true beyond evidence.

Don't say extend from past speech. I already forgot that last speech bro. I have the short-term memory of a goldfish. Think of it this way, in your classes if your teacher says expanding on what was said 15 minutes ago, and doesn't somewhat reexplain there is simply confusion.

Access

--------

Don't use tech debate as a way to bully new debaters. Tech is meant to make debate fairer, and challenge knowledge. Instead, it's become a tool used by the privileged to win silly arguments with coach-made responses that less-resourced schools can't beat. Don't contribute to bad debate norms I will be sad.

Experience:

HS PF+ College Parli. was mid in HS (4-3 STOC). College I got better & have won tournaments. College parli is budget policy w/out cards. However, I'm mostly a topical debater. Vaguely understand/use CPs/T/Ks/Theory.

General debate

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

In short, I will try to find the quickest way and clearest way to vote. If an argument is messy I'll likely vote off something way smaller that may not even outweigh. I want your last speeches to be what you want me to say in my RFD.

Tech Truth?

I am generally tech over truth with a couple of exceptions

1. When tech is used as a means to exclude
2. Dump low-quality args hoping for drops.
3. Arguments are clipped
4. Borderline false args e.g Nuke war good(low threshold for response)

Case

Please send case. Allows me to flow. Flowing helps me keep track. More likely to vote for yall. Also just good practice.

Rebuttals

Please try to signpost. By that I mean if you directly say, which response with things like " on x argument, their yth response about z we have x amount of responses. or if it's 1 response give the response.

Also, please don't say "no evidence, no warrant, no explanation" rather explain why the lack of a warrant means their argument is false and what it actually is like. Also, I am down for logical arguments. Not everything needs to be carded if it's analytical. If something is analytical like "no one wants to be nuked" and you say nO eViDenCe then there is no way I'm voting on the response.

Final speeches:

Please voters. Frame independent reasons to vote rather than line by line. go reasons why you win, and cover defense/turns on their offense.

Line by line = Line w/out the ine.

While I try to exclusively flow. Directing me on the flow can make me interpret the flow in a better way for y'all. Will focus on what I'm told to. So focus on best args.

Pls collapse. 1 good arg>3 bad arguments. Either you collapse or my mental health collapses.

Don't say "extend (author)" or "extend my response on x argument." extend what the author says or the argument itself. If you don't explain your arguments and just assume I know them I won't vote for them!

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

Weighing

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

I.Will.Do.Anything.I.Can.To.Not.Vote.On.Bad.Extinction.Scenarios.Within.my.Power.as.a.Judge.

Exceptions are topics that kinda rely on those ideas. Like Conflict for NATO/ great power conflict. Or climate change for PRC econ or enviro. Heavily prefer against it.

Probability weighing:

Fleshed-out arguments are rewarded. Don't go for the "risk of offense infinite magnitude extension multiply infinity." not gonna vote on that. arg of "risk of offense" means you aren't good enough to defend case. a low chance of your case to me is a 0 chance. However, the opponent needs to win probability claims.

Same/similiar impact weighing:

Make sure you aren't having exact same or similar impact to the opponent then OW on "magnitude"

Many topics have different sides same impact. Rather than weigh impacts you compare links or compare uniqueness. Uniqueness is the better route for me. 2 possible ways to deal w/ clash IMO.

1.Mostly look to Uniqueness 70% of time. Is SQUO going good or nah. If going well why fix something that isn't broken. Inversely, if things going wrong we need to take action to fix.

2. Distinguish impacts. Explain why your scenario uniquely links more. Maybe it's more specific. It affects more countries. It has bigger actors. Your link bigger than theirs. Whatever way to show e.x how your link into nuke war is better than theirs.

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

Progressive Debate

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

Structural Violence: Only prog argument I vibe with. Main it center of your narrative. Don't make it secondary defeats the purpose of prioritizing underprivileged if you deprioritize them by dropping arg on it.

Spreading: I can't follow it at all. I'll try to follow doc. Tell me what you cut from it. Heavily prefer not. Don't use as a way to shut out opponents. Will insta L.

Topicality:Don't read to add an extra layer. I will be sad. Don't make bad debate norms. Abusing new teams w/out resources to learn about debate in the meta sense is shameful. Only read if legit non-topical. If actually hurts ability to debate use it. Don't say "fairness/education voter" explains why. Default reasonability.

Kritik:I PROMISE I don't know your lit. I am stupid. keep it simple. Don't use area-specific lingo. If you have to have heard it before to know it don't read it. If you can't be simple w/ it that means you don't know it. Kinda troll nowadays become cancelling your opponent for "insert ism"

I have, lately, been more sympathetic to them in certain instances. I am fine with Kritiks on nuke war impacts, western construction of "terrorists," Orientalism on China impacts, Democracy promotion bad/ causes othering, AI deserving rights, Speed bad K, and tech debate bad K. Ultimately, I won't want to vote on a K that can be linked to anything and any topic. I feel that anything that is legit misunderstood and really messed up to the point where it shouldn't be "seen from both sides" is a place I would legit evaluate a Kritik.

K aff: No lol. screams "I'm not good enough to defend the topic, and I'm lazy." If you feel passionate anyway read it.

Theory:Frivolous theory will lead to AUTO L 25. Won't deal with it. Default RVIs. Minimal experience judging theory. The threshold for abuse is high. Must prove in-round abuse, not potential abuse.

MISC

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

If you made it down here Idk why you wasted time reading this far lol

Disclose decision:

Yes, if tourney allows. Will try to be quick. Will try to be constructive as possible. If not being constructive lmk. Want to talk about strengths, improvement areas, the round itself, if you loss potential paths to the ballot. For winning team how to make more clear. A lot of apologizing. Pls if you have an issue bring it up w/ me directly rather than say stuff outside of round. I want to clarify and not "judge screw" as I had that as a debater I felt and ik the frustration. If you found RFD good bad you can give feedback on form.

If flight 1 goes quickly I will give feedback. If y'all troll with timing I'll just type my feedback. I assume y'all prefer to hear, just start the round ASAP.

NDCA wiki:

If you disclose that's cool and awesome! However, I'm not receptive to disclosure theory in PF. In other events, if used to bully new debaters that won't be tolerated.

Decorum:

The presentation has a subconscious effect on everyone. Will try to prevent that.

No tolerance for rude debaters. Will drop if bad enough rudeness. Don't be overly rule stigent/ talk over people/ be snarky/make too many faces. Also, will lower speaks. Be nice! Isn't hard. Will give high speaks otherwise.

IRL politics:

Pure tab judge is impossible and fake. IRL knowledge sphere is Marxism. not the "government does stuff" leftism though. Fine with being critical of America and the economy.

Have more than one year experience in debate judge. As a senior leader in my current organization, I host and present several meetings globally. My goal is deliver right contents to the audience, demonstrate appropriate body language, keep the audience interested by not repeating the contents, have a constant eye contact, modulation of voice, using the right speed and pronunciations to deliver the contents effectively.

During the judging process, I take notes and compare the notes for providing points, my rationale and feedback. I look for passion from the students on the topics they debate. This will show their hard work and how involved in the topics.

Email: oddoye.sean@gmail.com

Experience: Speech (Varsity DI and Extemp.); 2 years, HS LD (NJFL); 2 years, College parli (APDA and BP); 2 years.

1. I competed in circuit LD in high school, however that was a few years ago, so I am a bit rusty, however, I do keep a good flow.

2. Again, since I am a bit out of practice, I'd prefer if you don't spread if it's not necessary (if you are going to spread, just slow down on the tags, if I'm having trouble keeping up I'll raise my hand or say "clear"). Additionally, I value narration and explanations over quick technical blips -- make sure I know what I'm voting for.

3. Please weigh comparatively and clash with each other, win your warrants and explain why your evidence or standards are better.

4. I'm more used to traditional debates, I can count the number of times I've read a theory shell/ks on one hand, as such, I'm most comfortable judging traditional value/value criterion/contention or plan/counterplan debates. The same thing goes for tricks, LARPing, etc-- absent some sort of detailed and comprehensive explanation, I probably won't know what's going on or how to adjudicate lol.

6. If I've missed something, or if you have any other questions, just ask me.

Have fun, and pref/adjust accordingly : )

I am a parent judge. I will try to vote on the flow (tech>truth).

I know how bad it is to be judge-screwed. Please help me make the right decision:

* Explicitly state what contentions you were able to extend, turn, front-line, etc. and how your opponent failed to do the same

* Please signpost (tell me where you are on the flow)

* Please limit technical jargon unless you have the time to explain what it means

* I am unlikely to follow any progressive argumentation: theory, Ks, tricks (not that I know what it means), etc.

* You don't have to use your lay cases as long as you speak clearly.

* Assume I don't know the rules well, but don't be afraid of subtlety and sophistication.

* Be explicit with comparatively weighing your impacts and those of your opponent's

* If you believe the rules forbid something like modifying the status quo, introducing new evidence in FF, etc. declare it in order to help me invalidate your opponent's contention

* Speak slower than cattle auctioneers, but if you cannot help yourself, send me a speech doc.

* Logic and historical parallels are sometimes better than a questionable/unwarranted card.

* Feel free to post-round me. I will not get offended by any questions or criticism.

* Add me to email chains vladislav.onik@gmail.com

Good Luck!

hi! I did PF in high school. Here's some things about my judging.

1. Do whatever you want. I suggest you frontline in second rebuttal, but I don't really care. Just don't be racist, sexist, or otherwise problematic.

2. I want to make the debate as accessible and fun as possible. If there's anything you want to try or that you've seen in other rounds or in other people's paradigms that seems fun, we can try it as long as your opponents are okay with it.

3. My knowledge of K lit is very limited. I'm down to judge a K round but act like I don't know anything.

4. Debate is meant to be a communication activity. While I will judge any style of debating, I will give speaker points based on your communication skills. I will only vote for an argument if it’s warrant is clearly extended. It’s your job to make sure I catch everything you want me to flow throughout the round.

5. If you think I made a bad decision or just have questions, please feel free to ask me after the round (just don't be too aggressive). I'd rather have a discussion than have you walking away feeling unsatisfied.

Also please weigh. Please. Feel free to ask me any other questions!

I am a first time parent judge, please do not use any jargon and go slow so i can understand you. And do not read any progressive arguments or very technical ones because i will not understand them. Thank You and Have Fun!

Lay judge but fluent in english. Experience judging several tournaments.

Over warranting everything and explaining overexplaining arguments clearly will win you the round. I like true arguments that are tied to real world scenarios.

Please be careful to go slow enough that I can understand you. You will absolutely get a higher score from me by providing less content at a speed I can understand than providing more content too quickly, even if the content is excellent. Similarly, I would rather hear fewer well organized, clear and concise arguments than a greater number of arguments that are not as well put together. In short, less can definitely be more.

• Competed in PF and Public Speaking in HS
• jasminejw.park@mail.utoronto.ca
• Send me an email before/after rounds if you have questions; feel free to use this email for an email chain
• Minimal spreading is fine but if I can't understand you, it won't end up on my flow
• Clear taglines are helpful
• Tech > Truth
• Weigh in FF with voters!
• I don't flow crossfire; mention it in rebuttal/summary/FF if you want it to go on my flow
• If it takes you more than 5 minutes to find a card, you don't have it
• If you're asking for every single evidence and I don't see why you needed it, it won't benefit you
• Be respectful during the debate

Public Form was originally designed with the framework that any reasonably educated lay person could follow an argument, weigh the evidence, and judge which side had greater merit. This is the precise premise from which I, as a former high school history teacher, will listen to your round and judge.

I will base my decision on the following 3 criteria:

1) Speech: Speaking slowly and clearly is critical. If you speak much too rapidly or in monotone, it’s hard to understand what you are saying, so it will not matter in the end how good your arguments are. Strive to enunciate, be articulate, and modulate your voice. Keep me engaged and listening.

2) Evidence: Your arguments should be easy to follow, logical, and practical. You should organize your evidence so that similar arguments are grouped together. It helps if you enumerate the arguments.

3) Decorum and Civility: Show respect to your opponent. Disagreements should never be disrespectful nor personal. Maintain a courteous, calm, and professional attitude and demeanor.

Remember that you are addressing and making a pitch to an informed and engaged citizen, not a professional speech and debate judge.

I place a lot emphasis on eye contact and facial expression. Use your hand motions to express your self! Please talk to your audience, not to the computer screen or to your notes. Please don’t hold a computer in your hands- Instead, keep your hands free so that you can use them to express yourself. Please don’t keep looking at your computer screen and read straight off the screen with a monotone voice. You should know your facts well enough that you can make eye contact and only look once in a while at your notes. Please be courteous and kind to your opponent, and show good manners. Be honest in your facts and your sources. Present a well organized and convincing argument. Most of all, enjoy the debate !!!! I look forward to judging! Good work!!!

The most important thing to adapt to me: please make complete arguments. If you are not explaining things, you will be very frustrated by my decision. In all honesty, I think my bar on this is now well above the average PF tech judge, so adapt accordingly, at least if you'd like high speaks. I reserve the right to think about your arguments.

Background: I graduated in 2021 from Blake. I now compete in APDA and BP for UChicago. For email chain: alperri@uchicago.edu and blakedocs@googlegroups.com

My primary academic interests are related to insurgency, state violence, and terrorism. This does not mean anything except to say that I will be happy if you evince a nuanced understanding of these issues and be disappointed if you don't.

To be upfront: I have not judged PF in a year, nor have I done topic research in quite some time. I am still fine with speed and can evaluate a flow, but it may behoove you to spend just a little extra time on explanation instead of presuming I know the nuances of arguments even if you think they are obvious.

General: tech > truth, I guess. I am really uninterested at this point by arguments that are facially untrue or implausible, but I won't intervene since I know debaters don't like that. I will reward smart debating-- in-depth analysis of actor incentives, clever technical setup, genuine impact comparison, and analytics that point out internal flaws in silly arguments-- with speaker points. I like to see debaters that are knowledgeable about the topic and the world at large. I do not like to see debaters that crow about their opponents missing a "hidden link" or doing weighing to the effect of "prioritize strength of link because it leads to less intervention".

Mechanics: defense isn't sticky, 2nd rebuttal must answer the 1st, any speed fine but I won't flow your doc, you must bite defense in the subsequent speech to which it is read to kick turns, I will not evaluate defense you read on yourself, no offensive arguments, you'll lose if you're rude (seriously) or if you cannot produce evidence. Feel free to post-round as much as you like.

Progressive debating: I'd strongly prefer you do not read atopical arguments. I think the vast majority of critical authors have deeply wrong and ill-advised views and I would like to see more teams make that argument. I have no priors on theory. I do think that cut cards and disclosure are good but I'm well past the point of caring enough to intervene. Fairness bad arguments are illogical. The only arguments I will actively disregard are IVIs or aggressively frivolous theory; these are an abomination, please refrain.

Any questions-- ask. I do actually have opinions on PF, I just don't think they are particularly relevant to how I judge anymore.

Put me on the email chain: drewpeterson2002@gmail.com

For some background, I have previously competed for 3 years on the national circuit, been coaching / judging for 4 years nationally and also served as the the Tournament Chair for the Florida Blue Key Speech & Debate Tournament.

I strongly prefer hearing smart arguments over a large quantity of them.

My threshold for warranting and explanation is likely much higher than you think. Warrant is severely lacking in PF. In order for me to vote on argument, all parts must be clearly extended and explained in the later speeches.

Do not just do impact calc just for the sake of doing it. Impact calc is not nearly as relevant / important to most of the decisions I make as it can be. Make your analysis truly comparative.

However, all of my rules and preferences are negotiable. Debate is up to the debaters. Go for whatever type of argument you want, but stick to what you do best. That includes theory and kritiks.

LES PHILLIPS NUEVA PF PARADIGM

I have judged all kinds of debate for decades, beginning with a long career as a circuit policy and LD coach. Speed is fine. I judge on the flow. Dropped arguments carry full weight. At various times I have voted (admittedly, in policy) for smoking tobacco good, Ayn Rand Is Our Savior, Scientology Good, dancing and drumming trumps topicality, and Reagan-leads-to-Communism-and-Communism-is-good. (I disliked all of these positions.)

If an argument is in final focus, it should be in summary; if it's in summary, it should be in rebuttal,. I am very stingy regarding new responses in final focus. Saying something for the first time in grand cross does not legitimize its presence in final focus.

NSDA standards demand dates out loud on all evidence. That is a good standard; you must do that. I am giving up on getting people to indicate qualifications out loud, but I am very concerned about evidence standards in PF (improving, but still not good). I will bristle and register distress if I hear "according to Princeton" as a citation. Know who your authors are; know what their articles say; know their warrants.

Please please terminalize impacts. Do this especially when you are talking about a nebulosity called "The Economy." Economic growth is not intrinsically good; it depends on where the growth goes and who is helped. Sometimes economic growth is very bad. "Increases tensions" is not a terminal impact; what happens after the tensions increase? When I consider which makes the world a better place, I will be looking for prevention of unnecessary death and/or disease, who lifts people out of poverty, who lessens the risk of war, who prevents gross human rights violations. I'm also receptive to well-developed framework arguments that may direct me to some different decision calculus.

Teams don't get to decide that they want to skip grand cross (or any other part of the round).

I am happy to vote on well warranted theory arguments (or well warranted responses). Redundant, blippy theory goo is irritating. I have a fairly high threshold for deciding that an argument is abusive. I am receptive to Kritikal arguments in PF. I will default to NSDA rules re: no plans/counterplans, absent a very compelling reason why I should break those rules.

LES PHILLIPS NUEVA PARLI PARADIGM

I have judged all kinds of debate for decades, beginning with a long career as a circuit policy and LD coach. I have judged parli less than other formats, but my parli judging includes several NPDA tournaments, including two NPDA national tournaments, and most recent NPDI tournaments. Speed is fine, as are all sorts of theoretical, Kritikal, and playfully counterintuitive arguments. I judge on the flow. Dropped arguments carry full weight. I do not default to competing interpretations, though if you win that standard I will go there. Redundant, blippy theory goo is irritating. I have a fairly high threshold for deciding that an argument is abusive. Once upon a time people though I was a topicality hack, and I am still more willing to pull the trigger on that argument than on other theoretical considerations. The texts of advocacies are binding; slow down for these, as necessary.

I will obey tournament/league rules, where applicable. That said, I very much dislike rules that discourage or prohibit reference to evidence.

I was trained in formats where the judge can be counted on to ignore new arguments in late speeches, so I am sometimes annoyed by POOs, especially when they resemble psychological warfare.

Please please terminalize impacts. Do this especially when you are talking about The Economy. "Helps The Economy" is not an impact. Economic growth is not intrinsically good; it depends on where the growth goes and who is helped. Sometimes economic growth is very bad. "Increases tensions" is not a terminal impact; what happens after the tensions increase?

When I operate inside a world of fiat, I consider which team makes the world a better place. I will be looking for prevention of unnecessary death and/or disease, who lifts people out of poverty, who lessens the risk of war, who prevents gross human rights violations. "Fiat is an illusion" is not exactly breaking news; you definitely don't have to debate in that world. I'm receptive to "the role of the ballot is intellectual endorsement of xxx" and other pre/not-fiat world considerations.

LES PHILLIPS NUEVA LD PARADIGM

For years I coached and judged fast circuit LD, but I have not judged LD since 2013, and I have not coached on the current topic at all. Top speed, even if you're clear, may challenge me; lack of clarity will be very unfortunate. I try to be a blank slate (like all judges, I will fail to meet this goal entirely). I like the K, though I get frustrated when I don't know what the alternative is (REJECT is an OK alternative, if that's what you want to do). I have a very high bar for rejecting a debater rather than an argument, and I do not default to competing interpretations; I would like to hear a clear abuse story. I am generally permissive in re counterplan competitiveness and perm legitimacy. RVIs are OK if the abuse is clear, but if you would do just as well to simply tell me why the opponent's argument is garbage, that would be appreciated.

Hello All,

Background

I work in the Technology Sector in the Bay Area. I judge for Dougherty Valley, and though I am quite novice at judging, I have watched a lot of rounds and have a good understanding of the format and logistics.

As a heads-up, I plan to take notes during the debate, but it is better if you treat me as a "lay" judge.

I have a good amount of general knowledge on the topics provided for these events, but may not know the specifics of your topic.

Preferences

a) Speak loudly and clearly. Please no "spreading". I will not be able to understand what you are saying, so speaking slower will allow me to process your arguments more clearly.

b) Be polite and fair to your opponent. If you are outright rude (ie. yelling, mocking, laughing, cutting opponents off) you will not get good speaks. Also, please note that team work is key and I find that the best debaters can work together efficiently.

c) Explain arguments thoroughly. Remember I do have some background in topics but not in debate so terms such as "uniqueness" should be more elaborated upon. Another important aspect is organization so try to state clearly what you will be talking about. (ie. Next, lets talk about the first contention.)

Decisions

I will try to be as fair as possible and explain my decision in the best way I can using the above criterion as well as the debate itself. I will not carry personal biases into the round.

I will vote for the team that explains their warrants and why their impacts matter to me.

If your arguments are too complicated to be understood by the average person, then I will probably be less likely to vote for you.

Additionally, presentation will probably also influence my decision. Be confident, if you make it seem like you are losing then I will think that.

Other

I expect teams to time their speeches themselves. But, if you want me to time, I can do that as well.

If you think that I should look at your/your opponent's evidence, please let me know.

Good luck!

Background

I debated Public Forum for 5 years. I debated for 2 years at Lambert High School nationally. I've judged Parli and Public Forum previously. I'm currently an incoming freshman at the University of Pennsylvania.

Preferences

- I'm tech>truth. I care more about warranting. However, if I see you say something faulty, and your opponent doesn't refute it, I won't mark you down for it. I will just tell you after round.

- Please sign-post! Especially through the second half of the round.

- Front lining in the second rebuttal is encouraged but not required.

- Give me voting issues with warrant and impact in the Summary and Final Focus. With the 3 minute summaries, I expect defense to be extended in first summary. I also expect you to weigh, especially in the final focus.

- I am not as familiar with the theory, but I am open to it as long as it's not abusive.

- I'm good with speed, as long as you are not doing policy-level spreading.

- I'm ok with paraphrasing as long it's not way off the mark. I won't usually call for cards unless you ask me to or if I am going to base my decision off of it.

Contact

Let me know if there is any way I can accommodate you in the round. Feel free to ask me any questions. You can also email me at s.k.pinnamareddy@gmail.com

Nikhil Pisolkar

UHS '21

Purdue '25

email - npisolkar03@gmail.com --- add me to the chain pls

Last updated Sept 2022

About me - debated policy as a 1A/2N all 4 yrs in high school on the nat circuit. mostly policy stuff for the first 2 years, the second two years started running increasingly critical/procedural stuff on the neg. I went to camp and such. My favorite arguments to run were setcol, T, and FW against K affs.

Generally -- I'll try to do as little work as I can to explain my ballot. I'll use just about any framework to evaluate who deserved the ballot if you make it make sense. Extensions require warrants in every speech. If an argument is dropped, it still needs to be extended, but if it is extended I'll assume it's true even if it's a bad argument. T before Theory before K. I value your time, so I'll keep this brief.

I'm not familiar with the NATO topic, so don't assume I know what acronyms stand for. Haven't debated in a while. Do with that what you will.

Speed - I flow on paper, and obviously if we are online don't go as fast as you can possibly go. If I didn't hear it clearly, there is little chance it ended up on my flow. I'll have trouble lining up arguments if you go out of order, so please don't.

Topicality -- I went for T-substantial probably half of my 2nrs my junior year. I like T, and I think a well-structured, clean 2nr on Topicality with substantial impacts is hard to beat. I like fairness and education impacts. Weighing might be the most important component of these debates, so please don't skimp out. Examples of affs that are/aren't abusive are helpful from both sides, especially considering I'm not familiar with the topic. Please explain what affs both the interp and the counter-interp implicate and why that's a bad/good thing.

Kritiks -- I consider myself flex. I like critical debates. IMHO, a world where debate doesn't include critical arguments is bad, but I'm willing to be convinced otherwise. That being said, there are probably some bad critical arguments, and there are probably some good critical arguments that are debated badly. I've read setcol(Tuck and Yang, King), some Bataille, some afro-pessimist literature, and I think capitalism is bad. I probably won't have an in-depth understanding of your argument if it required loads of prerequisite knowledge of Lacan, Nietzsche, or somebody else like that, although I love hearing those arguments debated well, and doing so can earn you high speaks because I like those debates. However, please don't regurgitate theory blocks filled with jargon that I wouldn't know. Feel free to ask me about my familiarity with authors before the round.

DAs -- love them, ran them probably every round against policy affs. Clear impacts, weighing, meta-weighing. Dropped arguments I'll generally evaluate as true. Line-by-line is especially important here, and I will reward clean, clear, organized debating on the line-by-line. I'm fine with politics; I ran politics relatively often.

CPs -- ran them often. Clear net benefits are nice. I was never a fan of process CPs personally, both theoretically and practically, but I'm open to one being well-explained with clear reasoning that it's better than the aff. CP, DA, case is a really nice 2nr for me.

Affs -- I ran extinction affs, structural violence affs, and K affs. Anything flies if you can defend it.

K-affs -- Will vote for or against them. I like these debates. I think they are interesting and fun to judge. Please explain clearly why you are reading what you are reading and not what neg expected you to read. Impact turns are fun. I like FW against these affs personally, but a well-articulated KvK debate is also cool; however, I never really had these debates in HS, so I'm not familiar with their intricacies. Meta-weighing is very important in these debates. Impacts, impacts, impacts.

Theory - I like it. I think debaters should set their own rules. I think how many condo is abusive depends on the round, but there is definitely a limit. I'm open for you to theoretically challenge anything the other team is doing, but running 7 BS theoretical violations that will all be dropped will frustrate me(waste of paper). I'll probably begrudgingly vote for anything if it's extended better than it was refuted, but truly stupid args require less work to debunk.

glhf!

pittmanphoenixdeb8@gmail.com

Described by Isaac Chao as a "Gamesman" and apparently "very underestimated" by Eric Schwerdtfeger at Strake

My Judge Stats from Nelson Okunlola's script in like 2022: "Out of 202 rounds, you voted AFF 48.02% of the time and NEG 51.98% of the time. Out of being on 48 panels, you sat 6.25% of the time (3 total) (solid imo)"

Lindale '21 U of Houston '25

Tech > Truth to the fullest extent ethically possible

he/him/his

Quick Prefs:

Phil - 1/2

Theory - 2/3

Policy - 1

Tricks - Please just read policy, I'll evaluate it I guess but please don't make me ;(

K - 3

Paradigm Summary: I'm a third year out who's taught at TDC a couple of times, coached every type of student under the sun from a security K fiend to an extinction good lover to a policy head to a hyper technical theory gamesman to nerdy phil debaters and have judged more rounds than I can count. I can judge all styles of debate but fair warning I haven't judged actively in about a year so I am rusty.

History:

I am a junior at UH - I coached for DebateUS! in my freshmen year of college and taught at DebateDrills, TDC, and HUDL in the summer between freshmen and sophomore year of college. During sophomore year I slowly phased out of debate and I judged less often only coaching McNeil at a few tournaments. My only connection to debate now is helping out TDC in backend work.

I evaluate the debate through the easiest ballot route and absolutely adore judge instruction - please make your strategy crystal clear and write my RFD for me. The easiest way to get a 30 in front of me is to have the best strategy and make the round as clear as possible.

Phil

- Probably comfortable with whatever author you read

- Syllogism > Spammed independent reasons to prefer

- Dense framework debates should have good weighing and overviews to make them resolvable

- General Principle means nothing, just answer the counterplans

- default epistemic confidence

Kritiks

- I can evaluate K debates but I'm probably a mediocre judge for it - there are better judges than me at this and there are worse

- Specificity is always better - please don't read generic state/fiat/util/etc links

- Please stop being rude as part of your performance (e.g not answering questions for queer opacity or acting strange as part of baudrillard)

- Do not read nonblack afropess in front of me. I am not afraid to give you an L0 after the 1NC.

- Flex your knowledge! Pull out those historical examples, K debaters are at their best when they can really prove they've done their homework.

Policy Debate/"LARP"

- I've really grown to love policy debate and I think it's probably close to my favorite style. I've judged the best policy debaters in the last few years and really, really appreciate very in-depth topic knowledge.

- Weighing, weighing and more weighing

- Will evaluate your wacky impact turns

- Please do more case debate. I repeat, please do more case debate. No such thing as too much time on case - I mean that. The best 1NC, 99% of the time, is 0 off case.

- Perms are tests of competition not advocacies

T/Theory

- Don't think voters are needed (every standard can be impacted out independently and probably connects to both fairness and education)

- I think RVIs get a bad wrap - they can be very useful to deter bad theory (e.g an RVI against shoe theory)

- Will evaluate all theory but my bar for responses to non-argument related theory (e.g must wear a santa hat theory) is much, much lower than my bar for responses to argument related frivolous theory (spec status, afc, etc)

- Default on drop the debater, competing interps, yes rvis

T-Framework v K Affs

- Debate bad affs that don't offer some microcosm or "solution" are silly

- 1AR probably needs a counter interp/what debate looks like in the aff's world

- TVAs are overrated and usually don't solve the 1AR offense (unless specific to the aff, then maybe but still probably not)

- It's not enough to just say "SSD solves" you should explain why and how that's specific to the aff

- the 1AR should still do LBL and the 2NR should not be 3 minutes of an overview that can be summarized in "I think clash is cool"

Tricks

- If you don't have too, please don't.

Speaks

Good strategy -if you have a perfect strategy, you'll get perfect speaks.

Make me laugh- I've probably been judging a thousand rounds that day and could use entertaining rounds just have fun with it and don't take debate too seriously

I try to keep a 28.5 average but my friends make fun of me for being a speaks fairy or being too volatile with speaks

Just have a good time - we all do debate because we think it's fun so have fun with it and make sure your opponent is having a good time as well. If you're being kind to your opponent and we're all having a good time, it will be shown on the ballot.

You work hard to debate, and I promise I will work hard to judge you and give a decision that respects the worth of that.

My favorite debates that I've judged so far:

JWen v Max Perin @ Emory Quarters 2022

Daniel Xu v Miller Roberts @ TFA Prelims 2022 (Only ever double 30)

JWen v Anshul Reddy @ King RR 2022

I have recently completed my undergraduate degree in political science where I participated in various governmental simulations (i.e. Model United Nations and Canadian Parliament Simulations). I have also been a member of Toastmasters since 2019, which is an international nonprofit educational organization that operates clubs worldwide for the purpose of promoting communication, public speaking and leadership. I have been an adjudicator mainly for Public Forum, British Parliament, and Canadian National Debate styles. For the most part, I tend to approach debates with a very pedestrian perspective since I am still relatively new to the world of debate. Regardless, these are a few things I like to see throughout a PF debate:

1. Speed is okay with me as long as I can clearly hear your words.

2. If possible, I also appreciate clearly seeing the speakers fully on the screen. I really appreciate it when speakers have "stage" (or rather, "zoom") presence (a.k.a, great use of ethos), but I understand if there are technical difficulties that would get in the way of this. Above all, I would never let this have an impact on the final outcome.

3. Arguments should be perfectly clear with a detailed and original analysis.

4. Arguments should be soundly and irreparably clashed.

5. Speech structure should be clearly laid out at the beginning and followed to the letter, ensuring that speeches finish exactly as the timer expires with no second rushed or wasted.

6. I really love when the speech is fluent and it's an added bonus if the speaker shows a wide range of vocabulary and idioms. Furthermore, the speaker can also use wit, tone, and volume to appropriately emphasize arguments.

7. Overall, clarity is key. I like to remind debaters to remember the public in Public Forum. Imagine that you're trying to convince the general public.

8. I encourage debaters not to feel intimidated by me because it's quite honestly the opposite!

Name: Pallob Poddar

School Affiliation: North South University

Number of Years Judging Public Forum: less than 1

Number of Years Competing in Public Forum: less than 1

Number of Years Judging Other Forensic Activities: less than 1

Number of Years Competing in Other Forensic Activities: less than 1

If you are a coach, what events do you coach? I'm not a coach

What is your current occupation? Student

My opinions or beliefs about how the following play into a debate round:

Speed of Delivery: Not too fast cause greater persuasion won't be achieved if you talk too fast.

Format of Summary Speeches (line by line? big picture?): Big picture but don't generalize opposition's case. You still need to engage with their each and every arguments.

Role of the Final Focus: Persuading the judge why your team wins.

Extension of Arguments into later speeches: Will be counted until the final focus.

Topicality: The most important thing.

Plans: Specific plans or models are not required.

Kritiks: Try to engage with the opposition's best case.

Flowing/note-taking: Hugely important so that you don't miss out important things.

I value argument more but I also notice the style.

If a team plans to win the debate on an argument, in my opinion that argument has to be extended in the rebuttal because summary speeches should focus on the summary of the debate.

If a team is second speaking, the team should answer to it's opponent's rebuttal first in the rebuttal speech. If they have enough time after that, they can cover the opponent's case as well.

I vote for arguments that are first raised in the grand crossfire.

I would judge the debate as it was. So, try to engage with the opposition's case more and make the debate easier to judge.

I used to debate so more could be expected from me than a parent judge. Speed is ok; however, make sure to prioritize clarity in the second half to make the voting less difficult.

Cohesion is important and can win the round, especially when people move onto meta-weighing instead of circling around established arguments. I do like non-traditional cases with critical theory, social justice, and framework, but such argumentation and framing must be established within the first speech and still evaluate the apposing framework. Teams that use such cases shouldn't just use these cases to earn ballots and be extra sensitive and knowledgeable. Ultimately, I prefer arguments grounded in the real world and palatable scenarios. I expect link chain arguments and extinction scenario cases to be fleshed out and allow for actual argumentation to occur.

Evidence is important and I will check it if need be, but evidence comparison should not be used to avoid argumentation. Do not abuse evidence.

Welcome back and I'm glad to be back for another year.  Here is my updated paradigm.  This has general information and then items specific to LD

PERSONAL:

I have been a coach for 22 years and I have judged all forms of speech and debate.  This means I am pretty open to any time of argument. I will go with what I hear in the round and will not input myself into the debate.  I am a judge, not a competitor so I will not inject myself into the debate.  You don't need to send me your case.  I only want to judge what I hear, not what I can read.  So while I am okay with speed and I can handle spreading, only use spreading in Policy.

DEBATE:

Don't be condescending in your cross ex. Acting like you don't care about the answer the other person gave or interrupting them before they get the answer out is not okay. If you wanted a shorter answer then ask a more succinct question. All debates need to clash. I don't want to only hear prepared speeches on both sides. Show me that you are listening to what the other person/team is saying and advance the debate.

LD

I am definitely more traditional than progressive but I will listen to progressive arguments IF they still fall under the philosophical ideas of LD. I do not want to hear a plan or use the motion as the plan text. That doesn't do anything for me. Don't use a K to avoid debating. That's not what debate is about.  I WILL NOT vote on disclosure theory so don't take the time to run it.  That is not debating the topic but finding a way to not have to debate.  Otherwise, I will listen to Ks, Ts, Disads, etc if they are relevant to the debate. If you don't have a V and a VC, you won't get the win from me!  

Also, I am creating this paradigm for you so don't ask me about other items before the round. Everything else is fair game as long as it is done well! Address the resolution and give me reasons for your claims. I don't need to be on your email chain. Also, I do not disclose unless required to and it will be brief. As a coach, I want the coaching to come from me and not the judges.  As I said earlier, I am not here to relive my competitive days so I won't explain all that I am thinking.  

Good luck!

Updated 4/11/24 for the Chance National Qualifier - GOOD LUCK TO ALL competitors

I admire and appreciate your skill, ability and preparation. As Adam Smith articulated in The Theory of Moral Sentiments, I work from the assumption that you are all praiseworthy. And, like Aristotle, I view our time together in this activity as a journey toward the good.*

Summary LD Expectations

1. Do not spread. Let me repeat do not spread. I know it's in your DNA but do not spread. I always vote for the debater who speaks slower. Always.
2. I am a traditional values judge as this is the foundation for this event. Therefore invest your time and energy on your value. Clarity and defining this value will go a long way to earning my ballot. Investing time in side by side comparison to your opponent's value with a clear and simple explanation for why I should prefer your value will go a long long way to earning my ballot.
3. This is not policy debate therefore there is no requirement for a plan or for implementation. Invest your limited time in value analysis, resolutional analysis and rebuttal, not on implementation.
4. Traditional debate therefore no progressive debate, critique, or counter plans.
5. I reject on their face all extinction impacts.
6. I value analysis and warranting over evidence. The best way to lose my ballot is to read a list of cards, indicate your opponent has no cards and unleash some debate math - ie "Judge my view of resolution will reduce recidivism by 150.3% resulting in a reduction of poverty world wide of 173,345,321 and leading to growth in Georgia of 13.49% which will increase the standard of living in Athens by 22.32% and reduce polarization by 74.55% which will ensure that representative democracy will . . . . blah, blah, blah. BTW, when I am exposed to debater math you should know what I hear is blah, blah, blah. So . . . invest your time in simple, clear (hopefully logical) warranting - no need for cards or debater math. You know, I know, your parents know that statistics/empirics prove nothing. PS, if Nobel winning social scientists have the humility to acknowledge that is is virtually impossible to determine causality, you should too, so avoid the correlation/causality offense or defense.
7. In your last 3 minutes of speaking you should collapse to your most important or valid argument, provide me with voters, and weigh the round
8. Quality over quantity, less is more, therefore those debaters who collapse to a single argument and weigh this argument earn my ballot. In fact, those rare (delightful) debaters who provide a logical narrative based upon a clear value and throughout the round, focus on a single, clear, simple argument make for a breath of fresh air, meaningful 45 minutes of debate and a lasting learning experience. These types of rounds are as rare as a lunar eclipse and I value and treasure these rounds and debater(s) - less than a dozen over my years of adjudication.
9. Simple is preferred to the complex. I am a lay judge and while I have over 20 years experience and have judged over 160 rounds of LD in both face-to-face and online environments I find that the simplest argument tends to earn my ballot over many arguments that are complex.
10. A negative debater who collapses to the Aff framework and definitions and then clearly explains a rationale for why negating the resolution achieves that value is from my point employing a very sound strategy when arguing before a community judge and overcomes the initial time disadvantage, The AFF debater who uses the 3rd AFF to only review the SINGLE most important argument, weigh clearly and simply and end with valid votes makes the most efficient and strategic use of speaking last.
11. Remember to clearly define all relevant terms in the resolution. The March/April 2025 topic has often hinged on definitions. Where there's a difference in approach on a term you'll need to clearly warrant for me why I should prefer your definition. PLEASE not cards or debater math.

Don't worry *(be happy) as I will cut and paste this paradigm into my ballot. But alas, that is after the fact. Oy.

I am appreciative and grateful to have this opportunity. IE and speech I do have comments for you after my "sharing" with debaters. Skip to the end.

You are the teacher, I am the student. As my teacher, you will want to know my learning style.

I am curious and interested in your voice and what you have to say. I am a life long learner and as a student I make every effort to thoughtfully consider your teaching. so . . .

1. I take notes (flow) in order to understand. So, a metric for debaters - think of me on the couch with one of your grandparents, Joe Biden and Morgan Freeman. We are all very interested in what you have to say and we are all taking notes. So, be certain your pace allows us to take notes (flow) with comprehension. If you are doubtful about the pace you are using, YOU ARE SPEAKING TOO FAST and should slow down. Thank you very much.
2. As your grandparents, Joe, Morgan and I sit on the couch we are striving to learn new material from you. You know far more than we do, you are very familiar with how to convey this information and we all think much slower than you so - KEEP IT SIMPLE. I would advise checking all debate jargon at the bus, before you enter the building.
3. Less is more. So, if you have 2 to 5 high level arguments and feel compelled to advance them, go for it. But as the round comes to an end, focus on ONE and make certain you explain it so that your grandparents, Joe, Morgan and I can understand. I was fortunate earlier this year at the 2024 ARIZONA STATE TOURNAMENT to judge an out round of LD on a panel with a young, policy TECH judge and another parent. In a 2-1 decision, I was soooooooooooooooo pleased that, in post round disclosure and RFD this young, policy TECH judge recommended that the two excellent debaters collapse to the ONE argument that they considered most important (ie the argument they were winning). I was overjoyed as I have always indicated one simply and well explained argument will always capture my ballot over the old laundry list. In other words DO NOT RUN THE FLOW in 3rd AFF speech merely explain the ONE argument and weigh the voters. One other outstanding piece of feedback from this young, policy, TECH judge was to look at the judges - he, like I, react to your argumentation - nodding and smiling when we understanding and are convinced and frowning or shaking no when we are not. I noticed he did this in the round and, for those of you who have argued before me before, you know that I light up when you have me and if become despondent when you don't. Useful in round feedback from the judge is GOOD. I know you all have strategy based upon some interpretation of game theory when arguing before a panel. Remember you will most likely have 1, 2 or even 3 parent, lay judges on the panel. WE DO NOT UNDERSTAND DEBATE THEORY, CANNOT PROCESS ARGUMENTS DELIVERED AT A RAPID PACE AND NEED SIMPLE, SIMPLE SLOWLY PRESENTED SIDE BY SIDE ANALYSIS.

Anything else?

1. I see LD as an exploration of value, that is values debate, therefore I am most interested in learning your take on the value your have selected in evaluating the resolution. I am not interested implementation, rather the key is how the value you employ affirms or negates the resolution AND why that value is superior to the one selected by your opponent. It is ok, very ok, to concede value. It goes without saying, but I will anyway, that you should understand your value and provide a simple clear definition. Soooooooooo there is Justice, Social Justice, Restorative Justice, Distributive Justice, Procedural Justice, Retributive Justice, Environmental (???) Justice, Economic Justice, Global . . . . well you get the point. Which one are you arguing for? If you don't specify then your opponent may, to your disadvantage, If you opponent doesn't then . . . . well the nightmare of all LDers, your parent, lay judge (ME) will. I don't think you want that. But, for those who read this paradigm, you would not be surprised to find that I am deeply influenced by the value analysis of Aristotle and Adam Smith sooooooooo if you have not read Nicomachean Ethic and/or The Theory of Moral Sentiments you will want to clarify you value as these are the defaults I will use if you don't clearly, slowly and simply explicate yours.
2. I am skeptical of Rawls based upon my reading of A Theory of Justice. But, by sharing this prior with you I want you to know as a student I am very interested in learning. So, if based upon your reading of Rawls you provide a rationale for my acceptance, you have it. Of course, the prereq for success here might well be your actual reading of Rawls, although the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy makes a start on introducing this theory to the lay reader.
3. I am very skeptical of Utilitarianism and its various expressions, particularly the rote and familiar rationale that is read on the top of cases that use it. I am very easily persuaded to reject based upon the comparison of impact on the minority.
4. I reject all extinction impacts
5. I reject all progressive debate
6. I reject kritik
7. If you are compelled to provide a counter plan or alternative as NEG, you need to provide clarity as to the link to the resolution and to utilize analysis and material that the AFF would be expected to aware of. (I understand the grammar policy have now OKed ending a sentence with a preposition.
8. CX is important for the ethos of the debaters, clarification, and laying the ground for rebuttal.
9. In round tone - I appreciate all debaters, particularly those who are having fun, display good humor and take a collaborative rather than adversarial approach. I know you are all very serious about this activity (which I appreciate) and you need to be yourself. That said, when considering your approach, particularly in CX you might try a thought experiment or fantasy - you are arguing before the Supreme Court. What tone and approach would you take if you were trying to engage either Elena Kagan or Neil Gorsuch, remember of course that your grandparents, Joe, Morgan and I are also up there on the bench.

Congress

1. Congressional debater - elite debaters come prepared to argue both sides of all bills, never read a speech, anticipate rebuttal in CX, know the burdens in speaking first, mid and last in the course of legislative debate and accordingly speak at all three points in the Congressional session and are ready, willing and able to PO. I begin each session with the PO ranked first and the bar to surpass an elite PO is Jordanesque or Tarasui esque or Clark esque. So, PO, I praise those who PO and condemn elite debaters who don't.
2. I commend to you Aristotle - On Rhetoric - specifically his treatment of ethos"the way we become responsible citizens who can understand each other and share ideas is through rhetoric"
3. Excellent overview of Congress expectations.

4. PO resources - all potential PO candidates are encouraged to review:

   https://www.uiltexas.org/files/academics/Witt_An_Act_of_Congress_PO.pdf

   http://www.bobcatdebate.com/uploads/5/5/6/6/55667975/presiding_officer_guide.pdf

5. Members of our community who have taught me a great deal:

Yibo Chen

Frederick Changho (I take the approach Truth >Tech)

Zoe Soderquist

Christopher Klugman

Non debaters

IE - I tend to be much more impressed by the performance that reaches deep within to find some sort of reality or authenticity and I tend to be less impressed by the well developed techniques that excellent actors employ.

Extemp - I value analysis within the context of a cohesive narrative over quantity of evidence cited.

Orators - your call to action need be substantial, significant, clearly defined and either achievable, or contextualized in such a manner that the attempt has significant value.

And don't worry, my previous paradigm, saved for posterity due to the scope of Google - here

*Taking this approach, Aristotle proposes that the highest good for humans iseudaimonia, a Greek word often translated as "flourishing" or sometimes "happiness". Aristotle argues that eudaimoniais a way of taking action (energeia) that is appropriate to the human "soul" (psuchē) at its most "excellent" orvirtuous (aretē). Eudaimoniais the most "complete" aim that people can have, because they choose it for its own sake. An excellent human is one who is good at living life, who does so well and beautifully (kalos). Aristotle says such a person would also be a serious (spoudaios) human being. He also asserts that virtue for a human must involvereason in thought and speech (logos), as this is a task (ergon) of human living.

Email: tynews2001@gmail.com

I participated in four years of policy debate in high school and I debated four years at Western Kentucky University.

I am open to anything and I try to be as tab as possible. Just use warrants in your argumentation, even if it is theory. If an argument has absolutely no warrant and is just a claim, there is a chance I still won't vote on it even if it is 100% conceded. That is to say, if you just say conditionality is bad because of fairness and education, that is a series of claims without warrants, and thus is unpersuasive even if the other team doesn't address it. However, if a poorly warranted claim goes conceded, then I will not necessarily adjudicate the strength of the warrant as it is the other team's obligation to defeat this warrant, and as such I will take the warrant as true unless it is unintelligible or utterly absurd. I will default as a policymaker if you don't put me in a competing paradigm.

When adjudicating competing claims, it is my hope that debaters will engage in evidence comparison. However, if two contradictory claims are made, and no one weighs the strength of the internal warrants of the evidence, then I will likely call for the evidence to adjudicate which claim is more strongly warranted (assuming the argument may be part of my reason for decision). Same goes with topicality. I am 50/50 in voting for topicality, and I default competing interpretations.

If you are running critical/performance arguments, please be familiar with the argument and able to intellectually defend it. My personal preference when I debate is usually policy-oriented discussions and my personal bias is that switch-side policy debate is good, but I don't let this inform my decision in the round. At the same time, I think that non-traditional forms of debate are an important component of the community and have an important message to broadcast, and as such, I have voted for performance affs in the past.

The following is a preference and not a requirement. It is common for me to judge teams running non-traditional forms of arguments and personally be unfamiliar with the literature base. Thus, it is probably in your interest to ask if I'm familiar with a non-traditional argument prior to the round unless you plan to explain it extensively in the round. An argument is inherently less persuasive when the messenger also does not fully understand it, and the debate is probably less educational for everyone involved as a result. In general, I think you should be familiar with any argument you read before you deploy it in-round, but I've found this is more frequently an issue when high school debaters deploy the critical literature base. If I don't think you are familiar with your argument, I won't hold it against you in my RFD (although it will inform my speaker points), but it will probably influence whether you are able to effectively deploy the argument on the flow, where I will vote.

Finally, you should tell me explicitly how the RFD should be written if you win so I can understand your vision of the round. If you do not have ballot directing language, I will use my own judgment to write the RFD, so it is in your interest to write the RFD for me.

I am your typical "lay" judge. I take the "Public Forum" concept literally, meaning your target audience is a member of the general public with a certain amount of knowledge and bias on the topic. I will try my best to consider only the evidence/arguments presented in the round. I believe truth matters, I vote mainly on the amount of knowledge you show on the topic and how convincing your arguments are.

Speaking:

- Speak clearly and slowly

- Be courteous to everyone in the round

- Humor and jokes will be rewarded

- Avoid too much debate lingo

Content:

- Signpost

- Weigh and weigh clearly, tell me why your argument is better

- A card can say whatever it says, but I don’t care unless you can logically warrant it

- If you have a problem with a piece of evidence, say it in one of your speeches.

- If you want to refer to something you said earlier, don’t just use the card name, explain the evidence again

- You are welcome to run non-conventional arguments, I will try my best to keep an open mind. However I am biased against them, see the first paragraph.

- Misc

Keep track of your own time, and your opponent's if you can.

I am a librarian and in my 7th year as a Public Forum and Parlimentary debate judge. I believe a well-presented argument relies on speaking clearly and thoughtfully, rather than rushing to present every piece of information. State your contentions clearly and use this to create a reliable, well-structured argument.

Background: PF debater for 6 years (7th grade-senior year), but the last two years were during the pandemic, so I mostly judged. Currently a junior in college and have been judging pretty consistently since graduating. Flow-leaning but its been a couple of years since I've actively debated, so treat me like an 85% flow judge 15% lay.

Logistics: You can share evidence however you decide, but if it's an email chain include me: zramirez@bowdoin.edu (I won't actively check evidence sent unless there is a clear dispute/I feel that it is relevant to my decision). Please let me know if you need any accommodations before the round begins. I prioritize debater safety and comfort, so any kind of bigotry/disrespect/discrimination/ad hominem attacks will not be accepted. I use neutral pronouns/will use your name, unless you share your pronouns w/ me before the round begins (which I prefer, but up to your own discretion). I don't mind if you speak fast but keep in mind that speed is difficult sometimes virtually and if you are going too fast I might miss some things on the flow. I also usually dont flow cross so if you want me to write something from cross down mention it in a speech

General things that I find important in a round:

• Weigh (compare)! And giving weighing frameworks earlier in the round
• Extend warrants through all your speeches
• Signposting (you don't need an off-time roadmap just lmk what you're doing as you do it)

Name:

School Affiliation: Queen's University

Number of Years Judging Public Forum: 1 year

Number of Years Competing in Public Forum: 1 year

Number of Years Judging Other Forensic Activities: 0 year

Number of Years Competing in Other Forensic Activities: 0 year

If you are a coach, what events do you coach? N/A

What is your current occupation? N/A

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

Speed of Delivery

- One of the factors that determine clarity of a round

Format of Summary Speeches (line by line? big picture?)

- Summary Speeches should be conducted by themes outlining the big picture, allowing to compare one team to another more easily

Role of the Final Focus

- Brings focus to rounds

Extension of Arguments into later speeches

- extension should connect back to core of earlier speeches given in same team

Topicality

- topic should be clear and should be explicit in connecting back to motion

Flowing/note-taking

- note-taking could be made more clear and to flow more easily when debater is sign-posting

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

- I value argument and style equally because the argument should be delivered clearly and succinctly.

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?

- the argument must be extended in the rebuttal and summary speeches in order to withstand opposing refutation and its relevance to the motion.

If a team is second speaking, do you require that the team cover the opponents’ case as well as answers to its opponents’ rebuttal in the rebuttal speech?

- I require the team to cover he opponents’ case as well as answers to its opponents’ rebuttal in the rebuttal speech.

Do you vote for arguments that are first raised in the grand crossfire or final focus?

- I vote for arguments that are first raised in the grand crossfire

If you have anything else you'd like to add to better inform students of your expectations and/or experience, please do so here.

n/a

I am a former Oklahoma Speech Theater Communications Association State Policy Debate Champion (1998) I also debated in CEDA in college and went on to coach in the Southern Oklahoma Jr. High and High School competitive speech teams.

Stock Issues: Legal Model – Topicality – Significance of Harm – Inherency – Solvency – Advantage Over Disadvantage

Policy Making: Legislative Model – Weigh advantages versus disadvantages

Hypothesis Testing: Social Science Model – Each negative position (some of which may be contradictory) tests the truth of the affirmative; it must stand good against all tests to be true.

Tabula Rasa: Democracy/Anarchy Model – Whatever basis for decision the debaters can agree on will be used as a judging standard.

Game Player: Gaming Model – Debate is a rule-governed game; you play by (and are judged by) the rules.

I am familiar with all of these judging paradigms. If you believe I should follow one then present an argument for it and support it with evidence. Without evidence and analysis, I default to being a stock issues judge.

For additional insight on how I judge individual issues please see the following link: https://www.nfhs.org/media/869102/cx-paradigms.pdf

BLAKE UPDATE: If you are reading this and in LD, full disclosure, it has been a minute since I have judged LD and I have yet to do so online! Just be mindful of speed so that you don't get cut off by the tech

if you're going to not read cards or you paraphrase , you should probably strike me. In addition, it shouldn't take you longer than 30 seconds to find evidence. After 30 seconds, I will begin your prep. If it takes you longer than a minute and 30 seconds, all you can bring up is a 30 page PDF, or you cannot produce the evidence at all, you will lose the round. Please send the email chain to both cricks01@hamline.edu and blakedocs@googlegroups.com

• TL;DR- I was primarily an LD debater in high school, debating for Whitefish Bay HS in Wisconsin. I am now an assistant coach at The Blake School in Minnesota. I have different paradigms for different events, so read for the event that pertains to you and all should be fine!

  LD

  Speed: Typically, I can understand most speeds. However, i have let to judge online LD, so going a bit below your top speed may be beneficial to you. Slow down for tags, CP/Plan Texts, and if you’re reading unusual kritiks or frameworks. I want to make sure I spend more time conceptualizing what you’re talking about as opposed to figuring out what you just said. I will say “clear” or “slow” three times before beginning to dock speaks.

  Plans and Counterplans: Follow your dreams. I find these debates to be very interesting and a great way for debaters to creatively attack the topic. Make sure to make your advocacy very clear though.

  Kritiks: While I do love a good Kritik, make sure you’re running it well. Understand your kritik, don’t just pull one out of your backfiles and hope for the best. Again, make your advocacy clear. If you’re kritik is weird, please explain it well.

  Theory: I will vote on theory, but I do have questions about frivolous theory. That said, use your best judgement within the context of the round.

  Philosophy: Yes please! Explain it well and you should be golden!

  PF

  • I will pretty much listen to, flow, and vote off of anything. Have fun :)

  • I do have a high threshold for extensions. Blippy extensions are not my favorite thing, so extend your warrants as well

  • The inability to produce a piece of evidence that you have introduced into the round ends the round in an L-25 for your team

  • theory is lovely. I genuinely believe disclosure is good and that paraphrasing is bad.
  • Provide impact calc throughout the round
  • I will not vote on arguments that are dropped in summary, even if you bring them up in final focus, be warned. I may consider them if the warranting is a little bit blippy in summary, and better explained in final focus, but it has to 1) have been in rebuttal as well and 2) basically the only clean place to vote
  • CLASH IS KEY

  • Please read cards. Paraphrasing is becoming a problem in debate and often leads to some kind of intellectual dishonesty. Let's just avoid that.

  • Try to avoid Grand Cross becoming Grand Chaos in which there's just yelling. It isn't at all productive.

  • 2nd rebuttal should rebuild!

  • extending over ink makes me very sad :(

• Miscellaneous:

  • Do not be a terrible person. Don’t be sexist/homophobic/racist etc. If I see this, not only will I be sad, but so will your speaker points

  • Please please please weigh your arguments.

  • Also- please please please give voters!! If you don’t tell me what you think is important in round, I’ll have to decide for myself and you may not enjoy that.

  • please please please time yourselves and your opponent. I do however have a 10 second grace period to finish arguments you are already in the process of making, but I won't evaluate entirely new args after the speech time

  • Yes- I want to be on the email chain. My email is cricks01@hamline.edu

I'm a recent PhD from Binghamton University in Political Science (pronouns are she/her). Research focus is in American Politics (identity and pol behavior in particular) but you can safely assume I have at least average substantive knowledge on the topic even if it isn't americanist. I'm currently working for the intelligence wing of a company focusing on the digital economy. I was an extemper, normally judge PF and LD (or parli congress), occasionally judge speech. I'm comfortable with circuit debate, but not super involved anymore.

Update for virtual nat circuit: take the spread from an 8 to a 6.5 , share your case doc, slow on theory. When you aren't sharing a doc, don't spread. If I don't catch it, it won't go on my flow.

Add me to the thread: tara.s.riggs@gmail.com

LD

- I can (and frequently do) hate your arguments but still vote you up on them. You need to have a legitimate warrant and be reasonable, but you need to win the flow and some times that means winning on greyhound racing in space or something absurd. I'm inclined tech>truth but warrants still matter when I weigh rounds.

-I've grown to really appreciate a good K. You need to be really explicit in the argument. I am familiar with the lit on feminism/identity/racism, but I am an empiricist at heart not a political theorist. The more obscure your K is, the more your explanation and depth matters. I won’t vote off of theory that’s not explained. Make it clear what the alt does, whether or not you affirm/negate the resolution, and any stances you take. If you can't explain your K, you shouldn't be reading it. I'm most familiar with identity based K's and set col.

-If we end up together and you are dead set on running a CP, don't make it a PIC. I will not evaluate it. I won't flow it. You just wasted x amount of time. PICs are inherently abusive. This is the one place I will intervene on the ballot.

-I like theory rounds.

-I also like Theory rounds.

PF

- I flow but I am more relaxed on tech>truth. I am more inclined to believe an impactful truth than blippy tech. Don't consider me tech>truth if your plan is to run spark or argue climate change/ extinction/economic collapse good.

- I need to see a strong link level debate. You NEED to materialize your links if you want to access impacts. Don't make me question the links.

- Make your impacts clear. Often times, rounds come down to impacts.

- Plans and CPs in PF are inherently against the event( and against NSDA rules). I will not flow them. You may win them, but I'm not flowing it and will not consider it in round. Strike me if this is your strategy. PF isn't Policy.

- I like K's but stock K's are lazy. Don't run a capitalism K just to run a capitalism K. If you are running K, you need to be able to explain what happens if the alt is true. Weigh whether or not you want to spend the time on the K given how short speeches are in PF.

- First summary should extend defense- but does not need to extend defense UNLESS the second rebuttal frontlined their case. In that scenario, first summary MUST extend defense. Regardless, first summary needs to extend turns if you want me to vote on them.

-I do not flow CX-anything that comes up in cross-examination that you want considered in the round needs to be mentioned in your speeches.Don't be rude in grand cx. That's my one problem with gcx. I have given low point wins because a team was rude in gcx.

Parli

-Be strategic. If GOV frames the resolution in a way that makes it impossible to debate, go for theory. If OPP let's GOV slide on something obviously egregious, run with it. I'm looking for the team that best plays the game here.

** If your strategy is to frame the debate where OPP must defend slavery, sexism, homophobia, invasion, etc. I will drop you. There has to be a reasonable limit. I'm non-interventionist until you make someone defend something truly abhorrent. It doesn't show you are a great debater, it shows you are a scuzzy person.

********Live and let debate BUT if you are openly sexist, racist, abelist,xenophobic, homophobic, or insert discriminatory adjective here you WILL lose the round.********

Put me on the email link chain dinaellis@paulhastings.com
Parent Judge. Please speak clearly, identify your main arguments at the beginning, and make clear transitions. I can't follow people that talk too fast, have too many citations or use debate lingo. I spent most of my career on Capitol Hill working on House Financial Services and Senate Banking Committees. I currently am an attorney at Paul Hastings where I represent fintech, crypto and blockchain companies before Congress and the agencies.

Mark your contentions or I can's follow the arguments.

Nuclear destruction is not something that I think is credible. Your arguments would have to be very good against the other team.

Facts matter but don't bring up brand new arguments at the end.

TOC:

Evidence and Docs: There was a little confusion about evidence exchange and prep time this morning in the Judges Meeting. PF Tab clarified in an email that page 56/57 PF rules still stand and if Team A calls for Team B's evidence they can get free prep until Team B produces that evidence. When Team A gets that evidence in hand then prep time starts. Please let your judges know they got an email with the clarification. But please just send the evidence ASAP.

Let me stress again... I think it is an intervention to look at speech doc during a speech if you cannot understand the speaker. This incentivizes 2,000 word cases. I will not look at the speech doc until after the speech to read evidence only if it is relevant to a discussion in the round. If I clear you twice it probably means I am not going to be able to effectively flow what you want.

Emails: Please put gabriel.rusk@gmail.com on the email chain as well as fairmontprepdebateteam@gmail.com

Uniqueness: If you are running an argument that is based on some fairly recent dynamic or fluid geopolitical scenario you prob should have UQ updates from this week. Postdates aren't automatic evidence triumphs please still implicate why they matter.

Gabe Rusk

☮️

Background

Debate Experience: TOC Champion PF 2010, 4th at British Parli University National Championships 2014, Oxford Debate Union competitive debater 2015-2016 (won best floor speech), LGBTQIA+ Officer at the Oxford Debate Union.

Wanna come hang with me this summer? Sign up for the Summer Speech & Debate Think Tank at Stanford University.

NSDA PF Topic Committee Member: If you have any ideas, topic areas, or resolutions in mind for next season please send them to my email below.

Coaching Experience: Director of Debate at Fairmont Prep 2018-Current, Senior Instructor and PF Curriculum Director at the Institute for Speech and Debate, La Altamont Lane 2018 TOC, GW 2010-2015. British Parli coach and lecturer for universities including DU, Oxford, and others.

Education: Masters from Oxford University '16 - Dissertation on the history of the First Amendment. Religion and Philosophy BA at DU '14. Other research areas include Buddhism, comparative religion, conlaw, First Amendment law, free speech, freedom of expression, art law, media law, & legal history. AP Macroeconomics Teacher too so don't make econ args up.

2023 Winter Data Update: Importing my Tabroom data I've judged 651 rounds since 2014 with a 53% Pro and 47% Con vote balance. There may be a slight subconscious Aff bias it seems. My guess is that I may subconsciously give more weight to changing the status quo as that's the core motivator of debate but no statistically meaningful issues are present.

Email: gabriel.rusk@gmail.com

Website: I love reading non-fiction, especially features. Check out my free website Rusk Reads for good article recs.

PF Paradigm

Judge Philosophy

I consider myself tech>truth but constantly lament the poor state of evidence ethics, power tagging, clipping, and more. Further, I know stakes can be high in a bubble, bid, or important round but let's still come out of the debate feeling as if it was a positive experience. Life is too short for needless suffering. Please be kind, compassionate, and cordial.

Big Things

• What I want to see: I'm empathetic to major technical errors in my ballots. In a perfect world I vote for the team who does best on tech and secondarily on truth. I tend to resolve clash most easily when you give explicit reasons why either a) your evidence is comparatively better but also when you tell me why b) your warranting is comparatively better. Obviously doing both compounds your chances at winning my ballot. I have recently become more sensitive to poor extensions in the back half. Please have UQ where necessary, links, internal links, and impacts. Weighing introduced earlier the better. Weighing is your means to minimize intervention.

• Weighing Unlike Things: I need to know how to weigh two comparatively unlike things. If you are weighing some economic impact against a non-economic impact like democracy how do I defer to one over the other? Scope, magnitude, probability etc. I strongly prefer impact debates on the probability/reasonability of impacts over their magnitude and scope. Obviously try to frame impacts using all available tools. I am very amicable to non-trad framing of impacts but you need to extend the warrants and evidence.

• Weighing Like Things: Please have warrants and engage comparatively between yourself and your opponent. Obviously methodological and evidentiary comparison is nice too as I mentioned earlier. I love crossfires or speech time where we discuss the warrants behind our cards and why that's another reason to prefer your arg over your opponent.

• Don't be a DocBot: I love that you're prepared and have enumerated overviews, blocks, and frontlines. I love heavy evidence and dense debates with a lot of moving parts. But if it sounds like you're just reading a doc without specific or explicit implications to your opponent's contentions you are not contributing anything meaningful to the round. Tell me why your responses interact. If they are reading an arg about the environment and just read an A2 Environment Non-Unique without explaining why your evidence or warranting is better then this debate will suffer.

• I'm comfortable if you want to take the debate down kritical, theoretical, and/or pre-fiat based roads. I think framework debates be them pre or post fiat are awesome. Voted on many K's before too. Here be dragons. I will say though, over time I've become increasingly tired of opportunistic, poor quality, and unfleshed out theory in PF. But in the coup of the century, I have been converted to the position that disclosure theory and para theory is a viable path to the ballot if you win your interp. I do have questions I am ruminating on after the summer doxxing of judges and debaters whether certain interps of disc are viable and am interested to see how that can be explored in a theory round. I would highly discourage running trigger warning theory in front of me. See thoughts below on that. All variables being equal I would prefer post-fiat stock topic-specific rounds but in principle remain as tabula rasa as I can on disc and paraphrasing theory.

Little Things

• (New Note for 2024: Speech docs have never intended to serve as an alternative to flowing a speech. They are for exchanging evidence faster and to better scrutinize evidence. Otherwise, you could send a 3000 word case and the speech itself could be as unintelligible as you would like without a harm. As a result there is an infinite regress of words you could send. Thus I will not look at a speech doc during your speech to aid with flowing and will clear you if needed. I will look at docs only when there is evidence comparison, flags, indicts etc but prefer to have it on hand. My speed threshold is very high but please be a bit louder than usual the faster you go. I know there is a trade off with loudness and speed but what can we do).

• What needs to be frontlined in second rebuttal? Turns. Not defense unless you have time. If you want offense in the final focus then extend it through the summary.

• Defense is not sticky between rebuttal and final focus. Aka if defense is not in summary you can't extend it in final focus. I've flipped on this recently. I've found the debate is hurt by the removal of the defense debate in summary and second final focus can extend whatever random defense it wants or whatever random frontlines to defense. This gives the second speaking teams a disproportionate advantage and makes the debate needlessly more messy.

• I will pull cards on two conditions. First, if it becomes a key card in the round and the other team questions the validity of the cut, paraphrasing, or explanation of the card in the round. Second, if the other team never discusses the merits of their opponents card the only time I will ever intervene and call for that evidence is if a reasonable person would know it's facially a lie.

• Calling for your opponent's cards. It should not take more than 1 minute to find case cards. Do preflows before the round. Smh y'all.

• If you spread that's fine. Just be prepared to adjust if I need to clear or provide speech docs to your opponents to allow for accessibility and accommodation.

• My favorite question in cx is: Why? For example, "No I get that's what your evidence says but why?"

• Germs are scary. I don't like to shake hands. It's not you! It's me! [Before covid times this was prophetic].

• I don't like to time because it slows my flow in fast rounds but please flag overtime responses in speechs and raise your phone. Don't interrupt or use loud timers.

Ramblings on Trigger Warning Theory

Let me explain why I am writing this. This isn't because I'm right and you're wrong. I'm not trying to convince you. Nor should you cite this formally in round to win said round. Rather, a lot of you care so much about debate and theory in particular gets pretty personal fairly quickly that I want to explain why my hesitancy isn't personal to you either. I am not opposing theory as someone who is opposed to change in Public Forum.

- First, I would highly discourage running trigger warning theory in front of me. My grad school research and longstanding work outside of debate has tracked how queer, civil rights advocates, religious minorities, and political dissidents have been extensively censored over time through structural means. The suppression and elimination of critical race theory and BLM from schools and universities is an extension of this. I have found it very difficult to be tabula rasa on this issue. TW/anonymous opt outs are welcome if you so wish to include them, that is your prerogative, but like I said the lack of one is not a debate I can be fair on. Let me be clear. I do not dismiss that "triggers" are real. I do not deny your lived experience on face nor claim all of you are, or even a a significant number of you, are acting in bad faith. This is always about balancing tests. My entire academic research for over 8 years was about how structural oppressors abuse these frameworks of "sin," "harm," "other," to squash dissidents, silence suffragettes, hose civil rights marchers, and imprison queer people because of the "present danger they presented in their conduct or speech." I also understand that some folks in the literature circles claim there is a double bind. You are opting out of trigger warning debates but you aren't letting me opt out of debates I don't want to have either. First, I will never not listen to or engage in this debate. My discouragement above is rooted in my deep fear that I will let you down because I can't be as fair as I would be on another issue. I tell students all the time tabula rasa is a myth. I still think that. It's a goal we strive for to minimize intervention because we will never eliminate it. Second, I welcome teams to still offer tw and will not penalize you for doing so. Third, discussions on SV, intersectionality, and civil rights are always about trade offs. Maybe times will change but historically more oppression, suppression, and suffering has come from the abuse of the your "speech does me harm" principle than it benefits good faith social justice champions who want to create a safe space and a better place. If you want to discuss this empirical question (because dang there are so many sources and this is an appeal to my authority) I would love to chat about it.

Next, let me explain some specific reasons why I am resistant to TW theory in debate using terms we use in the literature. There is a longstanding historical, philosophical, and queer/critical theory concern on gatekeeper shift. If we begin drawing more and more abstract lines in terms of what content causes enough or certain "harm" that power can and will be co-opted and abused by the equally more powerful. Imagine if you had control over what speech was permitted versus your polar opposite actor in values. Now imagine they, via structural means, could begin to control that power for themselves only. In the last 250 years of the US alone I can prove more instances than not where this gatekeeping power was abused by government and powerful actors alike. I am told since this has changed in the last twenty years with societal movements so should we. I don't think we have changed that significantly. Just this year MAUS, a comic about the Holocaust, was banned in a municipality in Jan 22. Toni Morrison was banned from more than a dozen school districts in 2021 alone. PEN, which is a free press and speech org, tracked more than 125 bills, policies, or resolutions alone this year that banned queer, black, feminist, material be them books, films, or even topics in classrooms, libraries, and universities. Even in some of the bills passed and proposed the language being used is under the guise of causing "discomfort." "Sexuality" and discussions of certain civil rights topics is stricken from lesson plans all together under these frameworks. These trends now and then are alarming.

I also understand this could be minimizing the trauma you relive when a specific topic or graphic description is read in round. I again do not deny your experience on face ever. I just cannot comfortably see that framework co-opted and abused to suppress the mechanisms or values of equality and equity. So are you, Gabe, saying because the other actors steal a tool and abuse that tool it shouldn't be used for our shared common goals? Yes, if the powerful abuse that tool and it does more harm to the arc of history as it bends towards justice than I am going to oppose it. This can be a Heckler's Veto, Assassin's Veto, Poisoning The Well, whatever you want to call it. Even in debate I have seen screenshots of actual men discussing how they would always pick the opt out because they don't want to "debate girls on women issues in front of a girl judge." This is of course likely an incredibly small group but I am tired of seeing queer, feminist, or critical race theory based arguments being punted because of common terms or non-graphic descriptions. Those debates can be so enriching to the community and their absence means we are structurally disadvantaged with real world consequences that I think outweigh the impacts usually levied against this arg. I will defend this line for the powerless and will do so until I die.

All of these above claims are neither syllogisms or encyclopedias of events. I am fallible and so are those arguments. Hence let us debate this but just know my thoughts.

Like in my disclaimer on the other theory shell none of these arguments are truisms just my inner and honest thoughts to help you make strategic decisions in the round.

Hello! I’m Morgan Russell and I am the head coach for Norman North High School in OK. We're relatively traditional style debaters, but part of my team does compete on the circuit 8 or so times a year. Before that, I competed in CX and PF in high school, assistant coached through college. So I’ve dabbled in it all.

Overall: My philosophy on debate whoever debates better should win. However, my personal opinion of arguments or strats shouldn't matter, so I default to weighing brought up by debaters whenever possible. I do believe Aff and Neg need to interact with each other's cases.

I’ll judge the round based off what you give me, and won't judge based off what I'd do, but what y'all did.

Add me to the email chain! morgannmrussell@gmail.com

LD: I think framework is important, but it’s not everything. You need evidence and solid analytics to back it up. I prefer we not spread, but I'm fine with some speed, if I can't understand I will say “clear” once or twice. From there, if it doesn’t make my flow, I can’t weigh it. I’m fine with Ks and Plans in LD.

PF: PF was made to be more accessible, so I don’t like when it gets too new wave. It’s not “mini-policy.” You can use debate jargon, but don’t just read cards the whole time. I need impact calc.

CX: It’s all fair game. As far as spreading, I’m okay but with Zoom it’s more difficult to understand. I will say “clear” once or twice if I can’t understand. From there, if it doesn’t make my flow, I can’t weigh it.

Hello everyone,

Background:

I am an electrical engineer in Silicon Valley. I judge for Dougherty Valley, this is my second year judging PF so I have a little experience. I take notes throughout the debate.

Speaker Points:

I will most likely give you 27-29 if you:

a) Speak loudly and clearly. Please no "spreading". Don't speak too fast if you want me to catch all you're arguments.

b) Are polite and fair to your opponent. If you are outright rude/unfair (ie. yelling, mocking, laughing, cutting opponents off) you will not get good speaks.

c) Explain arguments thoroughly; remember I have no background in debate and don't have super extensive knowledge of the topic. This means if you use debate terminology you should probably explain the terms too.

Decisions:

I will try to be as fair as possible and explain my decision in the best way I can. I will vote for the team that is winning their arguments, while also explaining their warrants and why their impacts matter.

Other:

Clothing/Appearance; this will not influence my decision, however, please do respect the tournament dress code. Use of evidence; this will be weighted heavily in the debate, I want to know that your arguments have evidence to back up your claims. If you think that I should look at your/your opponent's evidence, please let me know. Real world impacts; this will also be weighted heavily. If your impacts do not materialize in the real world, then I will be less likely to vote on it. Cross-examination; this does not matter as much to me, although I will be listening. Debate skill over truthful arguments; I value both skill and arguments highly. I do believe that truthful arguments should be prioritized, however, if you lack the presentation skill or argumentation skills to sell your argument, then truthful arguments may not matter as much if your opponent is able to convince me better of their argument.

Have fun and good luck!

Parent Judge:
Don't spread, make sure to make your arguments clear.

All responses to constructive must be in rebuttal. If an argument is not extended through FF & Summary, then it won't count. Make sure to frontline your defense against the opponents through all speeches as well.

Sign post

ganu.sankar@gmail.com -- add to the email chain

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 did speech and debate in high school, 3 years of LD and 1 year in PF. I'm alright with any kind of argument you want to read (theory, k's, etc) just explain what you're reading well and make sure you can communicate your advocacy. I'm also okay with speed, but if you are planning on speaking really fast, please email me your case. My email address is msavransky01@gmail.com.

I'm a flow judge and prefer tech > truth but your arguments obviously still have to be true for me to vote for them.

How To Win My Ballot

Arguments should be extended in the summary and final focus speeches, if an argument is brought up in the 2nd rebuttal and final focus but not the summary, I won't vote on it.

Weigh your arguments against those of your opponents, that's one of the most important things for me in the round! In your speeches, you should be explaining why voting for your side has a bigger impact than that of your opponents using different criteria like magnitude, scope, timeframe, probability, and reversibility. This is especially important in your final focus and summary speeches.

Your final two speeches should look somewhat like my ballot, explain the main arguments that the round comes down to and why they should be the key voting points. Say why those arguments flow your away and weigh them against the arguments your opponents.

Don't go for too many arguments in the final speeches, you shouldn't be talking about everything discussed in the debate, only the most important things. Otherwise, the debate tends to get messy as there ends up being a lot of extended arguments that have little interaction with each other.

Cards should be explained through out every speech, when you extend a card, you should not only be saying the name of the author but also the warrant of the card and the implication of it. Also, you should be weighing your cards against those read by your opponents i.e say why your evidence is better quality, why there is more of it, and so forth. When two teams have competing cards, this is what helps me decide which one to believe and side with.

All I'm all, just extend your arguments and cards in every speech, weigh the most important arguments against each other in the final speeches and you'll definitely win the round/get great speaks.

Thanks for reading and I look forward to judging you !

About me: I am a parent judge in LD, PF, and Parli. My professional background is in IT.

Basics:

• Tell me why and on what grounds you’re winning -- this matters a lot
• Tell me how I should evaluate the round. Give me the standards
• ALWAYS make comparative claims about the other teams evidence & arguments (in relation to yours). Direct clash is important
• Speed is good, but clarity is far better. Be efficient with your speeches. If you can’t speak quickly without slurring, don’t speak quickly
• LD and Policy Specific -- Favorite strats to least favorite. Respect this order, but avoid if possible.
• Politics/Case
• Impact turning the whole case
• Topic specific T
• Politics/Process CP
• PIC with internal net benefit
• Ks
• Be nice. I will not give good speaks to people who act inappropriately in rounds or to their partners/team. Being offensive is not funny. I refuse to accept abuse in round.

General

Performance/Non-traditional: I default to traditional.

Speaks: 28 is average. I doubt you'll get a 30. Try not to talk into your paper/flows/laptop because I won't say "louder" unless it's really extreme and I might be missing arguments. Speak clearly and persuasively.

Please do not use progressive arguments in PF rounds; speak at an average rate and be nice to each other.

**ALL TOURNAMENTS: I learned of the topic the morning of the tournament. PLEASE assume I know nothing. Except Sunvite 2024, half my masters degree was section 230 so I know a decent bit.***

Background:

Competed in Public Forum @ Cypress Bay HS (2013-2017)

BA in Political Science @ University of Central Florida (2017-2021)

MA in Bioethics, Tech Ethics and Science Policy @ Duke University (2021-2022)

PF (If you have me for another event go lay) Paradigm

- Look, I know NSU is a tech school and all, but they hire me to coach lay debate i havent cut a card in maybe 6 years (but like ive been around the circuit so i sometimes know what's going on) . if you're spreading or speaking too fast i probably wont catch a lot of it and will probably look confused

- if possible, number your responses so i know if I missed anything

- Set up email chains/preflow during tech check. I am a big believer in sending case docs to make it easier for everyone but I won't force yall to do so. You'll get a bump in speaks if you do. sharansawlani@gmail.com and uschoolpf@gmail.com

- Please don’t shake my hand.

- You can ask to look at ev during your partner or opponent's speech/cross. Idk why or when people started considering this as "stealing prep time".

- Quality of voters> Quantity of voters.

- Weigh, weigh, weigh, weigh, weigh. Which weigh? Dat weigh.

- Keep the round lighthearted. I think debaters are way too angry now and some humor would be appreciated. Jokes and puns are highly encouraged.

- Not a fan of super squirrelly arguments or theory (the next 2 bullets might answer your next questions). Idk too much about K's and im not the best at evaluating them, but if that's what you wanna read just make sure you explain it well. If I'm confused at the end of the debate I promise you won't be happy with my decision.

- READ and SEND cut cards. paraphrasing is whack. i wont penalize you for it but if the other team reads theory or tells me to evaluate paraphrased evidence as analytics and not real evidence, and you dont respond, it's going to be a really uphill battle.

- Disclosure in PF is a good thing. Same thing as paraphrasing; If someone discloses and either a) you do not and they read disclosure theory OR b) you LIE about what you've disclosed, I consider this a TKO. This means if disclosure theory is read in the round (reasonably) and it is conceded then it is basically over.

- Your final focus should be telling me what to write on my ballot. If i don’t have to spend time thinking about how im voting after the round, you and i will both be happy (half of you at least).

- Apparently this needs to be clarified now but regardless of speaking order, in the rare situation where there is no offense on either side at the end of the round I will presume neg.

If you have any other questions feel free to email me sharansawlani@gmail.com or ask me before the round provided your opponents are present as well. Hated my decision? send all complaints to sophialam@uchicago.edu and hold nothing back.

TLDR:

Bold: Collapse, weigh, signpost, don’t make me think, galaxy hoodie. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ai3UfW-dFi8&ab_channel=HeXyaCe

Fold: being mean, friv theory, no email chain/disclosure, partial quads lmao.

Marist, Atlanta, GA (2015-2019, 2020-Present)
Pace Academy, Atlanta GA (2019-2020)
Stratford Academy, Macon GA (2008-2015)
Michigan State University (2004-2008)

Pronouns- She/Her

Please use email chains. Please add me- abby.schirmer@gmail.com.

Short version- You need to read and defend a plan in front of me. I value clarity (in both a strategic and vocal sense) and strategy. A good strategic aff or neg strat will always win out over something haphazardly put together. Impact your arguments, impact them against your opponents arguments (This is just as true with a critical strategy as it is with a DA, CP, Case Strategy). I like to read evidence during the debate. I usually make decisions pretty quickly. Typically I can see the nexus question of the debate clearly by the 2nr/2ar and when (if) its resolved, its resolved. Don't take it personally.

Long Version:
Case Debate- I like specific case debate. Shows you put in the hard work it takes to research and defeat the aff. I will reward hard work if there is solid Internal link debating. I think case specific disads are also pretty good if well thought out and executed. I like impact turn debates. Cleanly executed ones will usually result in a neg ballot -- messy debates, however, will not.

Disads- Defense and offense should be present, especially in a link turn/impact turn debate. You will only win an impact turn debate if you first have defense against their original disad impacts. I'm willing to vote on defense (at least assign a relatively low probability to a DA in the presence of compelling aff defense). Defense wins championships. Impact calc is important. I think this is a debate that should start early (2ac) and shouldn't end until the debate is over. I don't think the U necessarily controls the direction of the link, but can be persuaded it does if told and explained why that true.

K's- Im better for the K now than i have been in years past. That being said, Im better for security/international relations/neolib based ks than i am for race, gender, psycho, baudrillard etc . I tend to find specific Ks (ie specific to the aff's mechanism/advantages etc) the most appealing. If you're going for a K-- 1) please don't expect me to know weird or specific ultra critical jargon... b/c i probably wont. 2) Cheat- I vote on K tricks all the time (aff don't make me do this). 3) Make the link debate as specific as possible and pull examples straight from the aff's evidence and the debate in general 4) I totally geek out for well explained historical examples that prove your link/impact args. I think getting to weigh the aff is a god given right. Role of the ballot should be a question that gets debated out. What does the ballot mean with in your framework. These debates should NOT be happening in the 2NR/2AR-- they should start as early as possible. I think debates about competing methods are fine. I think floating pics are also fine (unless told otherwise). I think epistemology debates are interesting. K debates need some discussion of an impact-- i do not know what it means to say..."the ZERO POINT OF THE Holocaust." I think having an external impact is also good - turning the case alone, or making their impacts inevitable isn't enough. There also needs to be some articulation of what the alternative does... voting neg doesn't mean that your links go away. I will vote on the perm if its articulated well and if its a reason why plan plus alt would overcome any of the link questions. Link defense needs to accompany these debates.

K affs are fine- you have to have a plan. You should defend that plan. Affs who don't will prob lose to framework. A alot.... and with that we come to:

NonTraditional Teams-
If not defending a plan is your thing, I'm not your judge. I think topical plans are good. I think the aff needs to read a topical plan and defend the action of that topical plan. I don't think using the USFG is an endorsement of its racist, sexist, homophobic or ableist ways. I think affs who debate this way tend to leave zero ground for the negative to engage which defeats the entire point of the activity. I am persuaded by T/Framework in these scenarios. I also think if you've made the good faith effort to engage, then you should be rewarded. These arguments make a little more sense on the negative but I am not compelled by arguments that claim: "you didn't talk about it, so you should lose."

CPs- Defending the SQ is a bold strat. Multiple conditional (or dispo/uncondish) CPs are also fine. Condo is probably good, but i can be persuaded otherwise. Consult away- its arbitrary to hate them in light of the fact that everything else is fine. I lean neg on CP theory. Aff's make sure you perm the CP (and all its planks). Im willing to judge kick the CP for you. If i determine that the CP is not competitive, or that its a worse option - the CP will go away and you'll be left with whatever is left (NBs or Solvency turns etc). This is only true if the AFF says nothing to the contrary. (ie. The aff has to tell me NOT to kick the CP - and win that issue in the debate). I WILL NOT VOTE ON NO NEG FIAT. That argument makes me mad. Of course the neg gets fiat. Don't be absurd.

T- I default to offense/defense type framework, but can be persuaded otherwise. Impact your reasons why I should vote neg. You need to have unique offense on T. K's of T are stupid. I think the aff has to run a topical aff, and K-ing that logic is ridiculous. T isn't racist. RVIs are never ever compelling.... ever.

Theory- I tend to lean neg on theory. Condo- Good. More than two then the aff might have a case to make as to why its bad - i've voted aff on Condo, I've voted neg on condo. Its a debate to be had. Any other theory argument I think is categorically a reason to reject the argument and not the team. I can't figure out a reason why if the aff wins international fiat is bad that means the neg loses - i just think that means the CP goes away.

Remember!!! All of this is just a guide for how you chose your args in round. I will vote on most args if they are argued well and have some sort of an impact. Evidence comparison is also good in my book-- its not done enough and i think its one of the most valuable ways to create an ethos of control with in the debate. Perception is everything, especially if you control the spin of the debate. I will read evidence if i need to-- don't volunteer it and don't give me more than i ask for. I love fun debates, i like people who are nice, i like people who are funny... i will reward you with good points if you are both. Be nice to your partner and your opponents. No need to be a jerk for no reason

Co-Director: Milpitas High Speech and Debate
PHYSICS TEACHER
History
Myers Park, Charlotte N.C.
(85-88) 3 years Policy, LD and Congress. Double Ruby (back when it was harder to get) and TOC competitor in LD.
2 Diamond Coach (pretentious, I know)

Email Chain so I know when to start prep: mrschletz@gmail.com

Summer 87: American U Institute. 2 weeks LD and congress under Dale Mccall and Harold Keller, and 2 more weeks in a mid level Policy lab.

St. Johns Xavierian, Shrewsbury, Mass
88~93 consultant, judge and chaperone

Summer 89 American U Coaches institute (Debate)

Milpitas High, Milpitas CA
09-present co-coach

Side note/pet peeve: It is pronounced NUUUUUU-CLEEEEEEE-ERRRRRRRRR (sorry this annoys the heck outta me, like nails on the blackboard)

ALL EVENTS EXCEPT PARLI NEED TO KNOW NSDA RULES OF EVIDENCE (or CHSSA RULES OF EVIDENCE) OR DO NOT EXPECT ME TO COUNT IT(NSDA MINIMUM IS "NAME" AND "DATE" ****READ IN ROUND****) Anything else is just rhetoric/logic and 99% of the time, rhetoric vs card mans card wins. ALSO: SENDING ME A SPEECH DOC does NOT equal "READ IN ROUND". If I yell clear, and you don't adapt, this is your fault.

If you put conditions on your opponent getting access to your evidence I will put conditions on counting it in my RFD. Evidence should be provided any time asked between speeches, or asked for during cx and provided between speeches. Failure to produce the card in context may result in having no access to that card on my flow/decision.

Part of what you should know about any of the events
Events Guide
https://www.nflonline.org/uploads/AboutNFL/Competition_Events_Guide.pdf
13-14 NSDA tournament Operations manual
http://www.speechanddebate.org/aspx/content.aspx?id=1206
http://www.speechanddebate.org/DownloadHandler.ashx?File=/userdocs/documents/PF_2014-15_Competition_Events_At_A_Glance.pdf

All events, It is a mark of the competitors skill to adapt to the judge, not demand that they should adapt to you. Do not get into a definitional fight without being armed with a definition..... TAG TEAM CX? *NOT A FAN* if you want to give me the impression your partner doesn't know what they are talking about, sure, go ahead, Diss your partner. Presentation skills: Stand in SPEECHES AND CX (where applicable) and in all events with only exception in PF grand.

ALL EVENTS EXCEPT PARLI NEED TO KNOW NSDA RULES OF EVIDENCE (or CHSSA RULES OF EVIDENCE) OR DO NOT EXPECT ME TO COUNT IT(NSDA MINIMUM IS "NAME" AND "DATE"****READ IN ROUND****) Anything else is just rhetoric/logic and 99% of the time, rhetoric vs card means card wins.

PUBLIC FORUM:

P.S.: there is no official grace period in PF. If you start a card or an analytic before time, then finish it. No arguments STARTED after time will be on my flow.

While I was not able to compete in public forum (It did not exist yet), the squad I coach does primarily POFO. Its unlikely that any resolution will call for a real plan as POFO tends to be propositions of fact instead of value or policy.
I am UNLIKELY to vote for a K, and I don't even vote for K in policy. Moderate speed is fine, but to my knowledge, this format was meant to be more persuasive. USE EVIDENCE and make sure you have Tags and Cites. I want a neat flow (it will never happen, but I still want it)

I WANT FRAMEWORK or I will adjudicate the round, since you didn't (Framework NOT introduced in the 1st 4 speeches will NOT be entertained, as it is a new argument. I FLOW LIKE POLICY with respect to DROPPED ARGUMENTS (if a speech goes by I will likely consider the arg dropped... this means YES I believe the 4th speaker in the round SHOULD cover both flows..)

Also: If you are framing the round in the 4th speech, I am likely to give more leeway in the response to FW or new topical definitions in 1st Summ as long as they don't drop it.

Remember, Pofo was there to counteract speed in Circuit LD, and LD was created to counter speed, so fast is ok, but tier 3 policy spread is probably not.

ALL EVENTS EXCEPT PARLI NEED TO KNOW NSDA RULES OF EVIDENCE (or CHSSA RULES OF EVIDENCE) OR DO NOT EXPECT ME TO COUNT IT(NSDA MINIMUM IS "NAME" AND "DATE" READ IN ROUND ) Anything else is just rhetoric/logic and 99% of the time, rhetoric vs card mans card wins.

PLANS IN PF
If you have one advocacy, and you claim solvency on one advocacy, and only if it is implemented, then yeah that is a plan. I will NOT weigh offense from the plan, this is a drop the argument issue for me. Keep the resolution as broad as possible. EXCEPTION, if the resolution is (rarely) EXPLICIT, or the definitions in the round imply the affirmative side is a course of action, then that is just the resolution. EXAMPLE
September 2012 - Resolved: Congress should renew the Federal Assault Weapons Ban
the aff is the resolution, not a plan and more latitude is obviously given.

If one describes several different ways for the resolution to be implemented, or to be countered, you are not committing to one advocacy, and are defending/attacking a broad swath of the resolution, and this I do NOT consider a plan.

ALL EVENTS EXCEPT PARLI NEED TO KNOW NSDA RULES OF EVIDENCE (or CHSSA RULES OF EVIDENCE) OR DO NOT EXPECT ME TO COUNT IT(NSDA MINIMUM IS "NAME" AND "DATE" ****READ IN ROUND****) Anything else is just rhetoric/logic and 99% of the time, rhetoric vs card mans card wins.

POLICY:

If your plan is super vague, you MIGHT not get to claim your advantages. Saying you "increase" by merely reading the text of the resolution is NOT A PLAN. Claiming what the plan says in cx is NOT reading a plan. Stop being sloppy.

I *TRY* to be Tabula Rasa (and fail a lot of the time especially on theory, Ks and RVI/fairness whines)
I trained when it was stock issues, mandatory funding plan spikes (My god, the amount of times I abused the grace commission in my funding plank), and who won the most nuclear wars in the round.

Presentation skills: Stand in SPEECHES AND CX (where applicable) and in all events with only exception in PF grand.

Please don't diss my event.
I ran
Glassification of toxic/nuclear wastes, and Chloramines on the H2O topic
Legalize pot on the Ag topic
CTBT on the Latin America topic.

In many years I have never voted neg on K (in CX), mainly because I have never seen an impact (even when it was run in POFO as an Aff).(Ironic given my LD background)

I will freely vote on Topicality if it is run properly (but not always XT), and have no problem buying jurisdiction......
I HAVE finally gotten to judge Hypo-testing round (it was fun and hilarious).
One of my students heard from a friend in Texas that they are now doing skits and non topical/personal experiece affs, feel free, BUT DON'T EXPECT ME TO VOTE FOR IT.

I will vote on good perms both ways (see what I said above about XT)

SPREAD: I was a tier B- speed person in the south. I can flow A level spread *IF* you enunciate. slow down momentarily on CITES and TAGS and blow through the card (BUT I WILL RE TAG YOUR SUBPOINTS if your card does not match the tag!!!!!!)
If you have any slurred speech, have a high pitched voice, a deep southern or NY/Jersey drawl, or just are incapable of enunciating, and still insist on going too fast for your voice, I will quit flowing and make stuff up based on what I think I hear.

I do not ask for ev unless there is an evidentiary challenge, so if you claim the card said something and I tagged it differently because YOU slurred too much on the card or mis-tagged it, that's your fault, not mine.

LD

I WILL JUDGE NSDA RULES!!!! I am NOT tabula rasa on some theory, or on plans. Plans are against the rules of the event as I learned it and I tend to be an iconoclast on this point. LD was supposed to be a check on policy spread, and I backlash, if you have to gasp or your voice went up two octaves then see below... Topicality FX-T and XT are cool on both sides but most other theory boils down to WHAAAAAAHHHH I don't want to debate their AFF so I will try to bs some arguments.

-CIRCUIT LD REFER to policy prefs above in relation to non topical and performance affs, I will TRY to sometimes eval a plan, but I wish they would create a new event for circuit LD as it is rarely values debate.

- I LOVE PHILOSOPHY so if you want to confuse your opponent who doesn't know the difference between Kant, Maslow and Rawls, dazzle away :-).
Clear VP and VC (or if you call it framework fine, but it is stupid to tell someone with a framework they don't have a VC and vice versa, its all semantics) are important but MORE IMPORTANT is WHY IS YOURS BETTER *OR* WHY DO YOU MEET THEIRS TOO and better (Permute)

IF YOU TRY TO Tier A policy spread, or solo policy debate, you have probably already lost UNLESS your opponent is a novice. Not because I can't follow you, but because THIS EVENT IS NOT THE PLACE FOR IT!!! However there are several people who can talk CLEARLY and FAST that can easily dominate LD, If you cannot be CLEAR and FAST play it safe and be CLEAR and SLOW. Speaker points are awarded on speaking, not who wins the argument....

Sub-pointing is still a good idea, do not just do broad overviews. plans and counter-plans need not apply as LD is usually revolving around the word OUGHT!!!! Good luck claiming Implementation FIAT on a moral obligation. I might interrupt if you need to be louder, but its YOUR job to occasionally look at the judge to see signals to whether or not they are flowing, so I will be signalling that, by looking at you funny or closing my eyes, or in worst case leaning back in my chair and visibly ignoring you until you stop ignoring the judge and fix the problem. I will just be making up new tags for the cards I missed tags for by actually listening to the cards, and as the average debater mis-tags cards to say what they want them to, this is not advisable.

PLANS IN LD
PLANS
If you have one advocacy, and you claim solvency on one advocacy, and only if it is implemented, then yeah that is a plan. I will NOT weigh offense from the plan, this is a drop the argument issue for me. Keep the resolution as broad as possible.

EXCEPTION, if the resolution is (rarely) EXPLICIT, or the definitions in the round imply the affirmative side is a course of action, then that is just the resolution. EXAMPLE
September 2012 - Resolved: Congress should renew the Federal Assault Weapons Ban
the aff is the resolution, not a plan and more latitude is obviously given.

If one describes several different ways for the resolution to be implemented, or to be countered, you are not committing to one advocacy, and are defending/attacking a broad swath of the resolution, and this I do NOT consider a plan.

I repeat, Speed = Bad in LD, and I will not entertain a counter-plan in LD If you want to argue Counterplans and Plans, get a partner and go to a policy tournament.

GOOD LUCK and dangit, MAKE *ME* HAVE FUN hahahahahah

http://www.vbriefly.com/2012/05/23/201205comments-for-the-circuit-on-the-ncfl-and-nfl-nationals-by-brad-taylor/

I am a lay judge

What that specifically entails:

1. No spreading, no blippy arguments, no theory/K's, etc. Moreover, I put a huge emphasis on presentation skills and the ability to speak well/slow/confidently.

2. I need very very very clear warranting, clear link chains, and clear impact analysis. Assume that I am not super well versed in the topic so explain everything.

3. Absolutely no technical terms as there is a high chance I do not know what they mean. This, once again, emphasizes the need to explain everything.

Please just have a nice little case debate :(

Signpost or it didn't happen;

Arguments have to be in summary and final focus;

Consider slowing down a little for my tired old ears;

Err silly and down to earth over perceptually dominant;

Weighing is very important and shouldbe evidence-based;

It's okay to answer a theory shell then go for substance. Encouraged, even;

And meet NSDA rules for evidence or strike me. You have to have a cut card at a minimum.

Put me on the email chain and title it something logical: gavinslittledebatesidehustle@gmail.com.

hi!

a few key things to know about my judging style:

Respect is key—every and any argument you make needs to be respectful, and you MUST be kind to your opponent and me.

I did high school LD for four years on my local circuit (I also did a bit of Nat circuit debate).

Do your best to be articulate and please don’t spread if it means we won’t be able to understand you well. ie if you feel like you just ran a marathon 2 mins into your speech, slow down:) you'll feel better, I'll be able to hear your arguments, and we'll all have a better time!

finally, debate is an educational opportunity and, to that extent, make your case unique and your own as long as it’s thoughtful and well-researched!

Ask me any other questions before or during the round

I am a lay judge, please go slow

I have experience judging PF, LD, and Speech at national-level tournaments. For PF: I am open to a wide variety of approaches to a topic and try not to intervene in a round unless absolutely necessary. Generally, I encourage debaters to consider quality over quantity, making links between evidence, contentions, and impacts as clear as possible, and to avoid speaking at super-human speed. It is also helpful when debaters consider framework and make a case for what voting issues should be in a round and how the arguments should be weighed. Please be mindful of not speaking over one another during CF.

PF Paradigm: I am an experienced PF judge and PF coach on the national circuit. I judge primarily on impacts. You need to give a clear link story backed up with logic and evidence. Framework is important. Weighing is very important. It is better to acknowledge that your opponent may be winning a certain argument and explain how the impacts you are winning outweigh than it is to ignore that argument made by your opponent. Don't extend through ink. If your opponent attacks your argument you need to respond to that attack and not just repeat your original argument. I don't mind rapid conversational speed - especially while reading evidence, but no spreading. I will keep a good flow and judge primarily off the flow, but let's keep PF as an event where persuasive speaking style, logic, evidence, and refutation are all important. Also let's keep PF distinct from national circuit LD and national circuit policy -although I will listen to any arguments that you present, in public forum, I find arguments that are directly related to the impacts of the resolution to be the most persuasive. Theory arguments as far as arguing about reasonable burdens for upholding or refuting the resolution are fine, but I don't see any reason for formal theory shells in public forum and the debate should be primarily centered around the resolution.

LD Paradigm: I am an experienced LD judge. I do prefer traditional style LD. I am, however, OK with plans and counter-plans and I am OK with theory arguments concerning analysis of burdens. I am not a fan of Kritiks. I will try to be open to evaluate arguments presented in the round, but I do prefer that the debate be largely about the resolution instead of largely centered on theory. I am OK with fast conversational speed and I am OK with evidence being read a little faster than fast conversational as long as tag lines and analysis are not faster than fast conversational. I do believe that V / VC are required, but I don't believe that the V / VC are voting issues in and of themselves. That is, even if you convince me that your V / VC is superior (more important, better linked to the resolution) than your opponent's V / VC that is not enough for me to vote for you. You still need to prove that your case better upholds your V / VC than your opponent's case does. To win, you may do one of three things: (1) Prove that your V / VC is superior to your opponent's AND that your case better upholds that V / VC than your opponent's case does, OR (2) Accept your opponent's V / VC and prove that your case better upholds their V/VC than their case does. OR (3) Win an "even-if" combination of (1) and (2).

CX Paradigm: I am an experienced LD and PF judge (nationally and locally). I have judged policy debate at a number of tournaments over the years - including the final round of the NSDA national tournament in 2015. However, I am more experienced in PF and LD than I am in policy. I can handle speed significantly faster than the final round of NSDA nationals, but not at super-fast speed. (Evidence can be read fast if you slow down for tag lines and for analysis.) Topicality arguments are fine. I am not a fan of kritiks or critical affs.

Current Coach -- Marist School (2020-present)

Former PF Debater -- Marist School (2016-2020)

Current Student at the University of Georgia

Please add maristpublicforum@gmail.com to the email chain

Debate is first and foremost a safe, fun, and educational activity so we should do our best to keep it that way

TL;DR: I am a tech judge and I will vote off my flow. Please do whatever you do best and enjoy the round.

General important stuff:

1) Extend every part of the argument... uniqueness, link, internal link, and impact. A claim without a warrant is not an argument. If you do not extend your argument then I can not vote on it. I really do listen and pay close attention to this so please do. I will vote with no shame against teams that probably would have won if they had just extended their argument fully.

2) I cannot stress enough that fewer well developed arguments will always be better than blips with no argument development or good warrants. I've noticed teams that collapse and more thoroughly explain their arguments tend to win my ballot more often than not against a team that goes for too much.

3) Please weigh your arguments. Explain why your argument is more important than the other teams.

4) My only real pet peeve is wasting time during or before a debate. Please be ready to start the debate on time and don't cause unnecessary delays during it. Preflowing should be done before the debate. When prep time ends you should be ready to start your speech right away. "Pulling up a doc" or something like that for 30 seconds is stealing prep and should be done before you end your prep time.

5) Second rebuttal must answer first rebuttal, defense is not sticky

Other specific stuff:

Argument types:

I don’t care what type of argument you read as long as it is well explained, has warrants, and is weighed (case, k’s, theory... whatever are all fine). You do what you're best at!

Speed:

You can go as fast or slow as you want. I will be good flowing any speed you decide to go. My only caveat if you go fast is to slow a bit down on taglines and still signpost well

Theory:

Any theory arguments need to be real violations that have real impacts. Frivolous theory is unpleasant to judge and will be almost impossible to win in front of me. I believe paraphrasing is bad and disclosure is good. At this point in the activity reading cuts cards and disclosing has become a norm that most teams adhere to which I think makes my threshold for responses to the shell even higher than it has been in the past.

Any theory argument should be read in the speech directly after the violation. For example disclosure theory should be read in constructive, but if a team reads cut cards in case and then paraphrases rebuttal then you read paraphrasing in rebuttal/summary whichever is next.

Speaks:

If you flow on paper and give second half speeches off of that flow a small boost in speaks. I give speaks primarily based on quality of the debating in round. Making good strategic decisions, collapsing, and weighing are all things that can help your speaks. Being nice and not wasting time also help. I do not really care how "good" you sound if you are not making good arguments at the same time. To put this into perspective, when I debated I always felt that winning rounds was more important than sounding good, but with winning generally comes better speaks.

I am a parent judge

Speak slowly

Quality of argument over quantity of points and numbers

Make it easy for me in summary 

Be respectful

Aff on the left of me, Neg on the right

I debated for Charlotte Latin School and qualified to the TOC twice and NSDAs once.

tl;dr: basically do the opposite of Jenebo's paradigm :)

Please pre-flow before the round!

If you incorporate "riddle me this" into a speech, I'll boost your speaks by 0.2

Humor and passion are encouraged! If I think you're funny, I'll boost your speaks by 0.2

I consider myself a flay judge

- Truth vs. tech is not a zero-sum game (credits to Sauren Khosla)

- I like narrative debate

- To win my ballot, have a clean link into an argument and do persuasive, comparative weighing on it

- Probability > magnitude. I’m not a fan of extinction framing

- Card dumping and blowing up the one argument that your opponents don’t respond to is not a good idea. The more squirrely/blippy the argument, the lower my threshold for responses are. I will not evaluate new or different explanation in later speeches if the argument was not clear to begin with

- I buy logical analytics over unwarranted evidence

- If neither team has offense at the end of the round, I default neg

Speeches

- Frontlining and collapsing in second rebuttal are strategic but not required

- No independent contentions in rebuttal, but DAs and advantages are fine

- Summary and final focus must extend the entire argument (claim, warrant, impact). You don’t have to extend card names, but it’s helpful

- Final focus and summary should mirror each other

Speed

- You can speak relatively fast if it improves the quality of the debate. Talking fast to talk fast is not impressive

- The faster you speak, the less I will catch, and I will not call for speech docs

Progressive Args

- I will not evaluate them (Ks, theory, topicality, etc.). Not only do I have little experience evaluating these kind of arguments, but I don't think they should exist in an event uniquely designed to be accessible

- Reading identity-based or K-like framing/weighing (without the ROB) is fine

- Paraphrasing is fine (as long as you can produce the corresponding cards) and disclosure is optional

- I will call for evidence if I think it’s misconstrued or it’s important for my decision. I will drop you if you egregiously misconstrue your ev

Inclusivity

- Please try not to talk over each other in cross (but if your opponents turn cross into a speech, it’s ok to interrupt them)

- I will drop you if you are sexist, racist, homophobic, excessively rude, etc. Please be nice, it’s not that hard

If you have any questions, feel free to ask before the round. Most importantly, have fun!

General:

pronouns: he/him

Yes, I would like to be on the email chain: matthewsaintgermain at gmail.

If you are going to be speed reading analysis, especially in rebuttals, send your speech doc. I'm 47 years old and have been in very loud bands and worked in nightclubs for decades. I hate to admit that I don't have the hearing I once did and it has become prohibitive for me to hear the blender of paragraphs coming out of your mouth at auctioneer speeds that generally isn't tagged nor signposted and is just huge chunks of long, run-on sentences that I in real time have to paraphrase in my head into something discernible as I'm flowing it and hearing you already make new, run-on sentences to subsequently paraphrase. Help me help you. Sending your doc does not hurt you. If you don't send this you get what you get and no amount of post rounding is going to demystify my decision appropriately for you.

REPLY ALL.

Affirmatives should have the email chain up and ready to roll immediately upon getting settled in the round. Please do not wait for everyone to arrive to start this. No "oops, I forgot" 1 minute before the round starts please! Unpack your stuff and get on this immediately, preferably sending a blank test email ASAP to make sure we're not having connection issues right before you stand up for 1AC. Also please only use an email chain and not the file drop and please do not send me a live doc as I flow on my computer (a Mac, so please send pdfs) and working from a file that people are updating live causes issues on my end so create a copy of your doc and send so I can view it without issue. I have multiple screens up optimized to flow the round and fill out the ballot via web browser split screen with a spreadsheet program and having to search for your evidence or view it outside of a browser before your speech messes my whole deal up. Despite all this being clear in my paradigm for some time now people keep ignoring it so it seems as if I have to give you justification for why this is important and it is because doing it any other way causes all my screens to get totally out of order as well can cause system resources to go wild. Having to minimize a screen to open up a word editor to then maximize and place back in my dual screen takes time and then rearranges the order of all my windows meaning in the time I'm trying to accomplish this while muted, debaters often go "I'll start if i don't hear from anyone in 3... 2..." and I'm now scrambling to try and find the window that Mac has decided to randomly change position in my window swipe order meaning where I think it is it isn't, and by the time I find it to unmute myself y'all are already speaking despite me not being ready and struggling to tell you this because of your choices to send me stuff that does not comport with my set up. Please keep things easy for me by running an email chain where you send pdfs, not doing this tells me you haven't read the very top level of my paradigm.

Former Edina High School (MN) policy debater (1991-1995) and captain (1994-1995). Former Wayzata High School (MN) policy coach (2019-2022).

I have judged just about every year since then for various high schools in the Twin Cities metro, including Edina, Wayzata, Minnetonka, and South St. Paul, from 1995 to present, with only two years off, just about 27 years. Please note, however, that this has not meant coaching on those topics up until 2019 through the end of the 2021-2022 season.

I'm versed in plenty of debate theory but I'm still catching up on nuance of newer nomenclature so get wild on the meta jargon at your own peril. Especially on critical theory arguments, you would do well to SLOW WAY DOWN and explain yourself thoroughly as while these things may be crystal clear to you, I'm not reading theory or complex philosophy In my free time so stuff like telling me to look beyond the face and totalizing otherness isn't going to immediately jog my "oh, yeah, that stuff" part of my dusty closet of a brain as you're going a million miles an hour with almost zero audible indication of where tags or analysis begin or end with relation to the evidence you're blazing through. I am 45 years old, I played in bands and have worked in rock clubs for years which has impacted my hearing, and especially over the Internet, speed reading complex philosophy through whatever variable quality mic you have often results in a kind of unintelligible din that is not helping you. You may in fact say it is actively hurting you. SLOW DOWN. This is an issue of accessibility and ability. If you're doing this and not sending the analysis that you're straight up reading from a file but expect me to somehow jot down multi-syllabic, college-level philosophical words while you triple-auctioneer speed over the internet, I mean, you're gonna get what you're gonna get, and no amount of post-rounding questions about things that were so clear to you is going to demystify what I humanly was able to get down. I need to stress this. If you're going philosophical and going even moderately fast, you're probably going to lose. Acting shocked after the round isn't going to change what you could have easily adapted to before the round started.

Unless you're theorizing it on the fly, send me everything you read, not just evidence. There is no material audible difference for the listener between you reading evidence and you reading analysis as fast as humanly possible. Both are just a kind of variable din regardless of the content.

My primary focus has been and continues to be Policy debate on the high school level, and that's where probably about 85% of my judging work has come. But I have ample experience judging circuit-level LD and PF through breaks alongside college debate and am more than comfortable adjudicating these different forms of debate.

This paradigm is a constant work in progress.

Across Policy/PF/LD:

Dear debaters: I want to up front set your mind at ease by saying that debate, as I see it, is a club that by the start of your very first round, you are all a valued member of. The fact that you gathered up all your anxiety and worries and excitement and talent and got up and gave your very first speech, it's totally awesome. To me, you are part of a distinct kind of people, different from all the non-debate people, and as such, I want you to both embrace failure as a growth methodology as well as let go of any worries or judgments or preconceived notions about whether or not you belong here. You absolutely do. Please, not only feel okay making mistakes here but look for opportunities to make them! Take chances, especially in your first two to three years of debate. This debate stuff can honestly be mentally rigorous at times, but it's all about a kind of shedding of your prior self and any of the BS put on you in your lives outside of debate. Here you're on the team so any and all advice given to you is purely about building you up even if it feels like criticism. Only internalize what you need to fix, not that it means anything about you. I've learned over nearly 30 years of judging and coaching that while there are kids whom take to this immediately, that there are also kids who seem like they can't handle this at all and drop terrible rounds in their first year or even two, whom end up becoming TOC and Natty quals debaters that blow you away. I've seen it over and over. Debate (and especially policy debate) is a gauntlet that takes years to develop your skills, and so long as you stick with it, you'll succeed. The fact that you are here means that you're already one leg up on winning arguments in regular meatspace as is, but stick with it and it'll change your life over a myriad of domains.

If you think I'm not paying attention to you, you're wrong. I have probably one of the most detailed flows you're ever going to see, which you won't, but you get my drift. I just try very hard to look almost disinterested so you don't really know what I'm thinking and so it won't mess with you, though there are points where something does trigger a response and you should notice that, but anything else is just me trying to give you nothing visual to go off of. Just never confuse it with anger or indifference or whatever. Like, if you do something egregious, you'll know because I'll tell you. Otherwise, there's no subtext or hidden meaning behind anything I'm relaying to you as I'm extremely direct. I promise you I don't hate you.

Time yourselves, across all levels of debate, including novices. Y'all can handle this and take responsibility for each other by keeping tabs on both your and your opponents time.

Straight up don't go whole hog on disclosure. There was no disclosure when I debated. There wasn't even really "let me see your evidence" my novice year. You went in raw dog and dealt with it. That's not to say that I don't understand the whys here, it's just that I really don't find them compelling versus the debate we still could have with you ripping through open ev quick-like. If your opponent is being intentional here, didn't disclose or did something different than what their wiki said or what they told you, I think you have a path to argue presumption tilting your way but I still really need you to debate the actual debate rather than dumping a ton of time into an argument I would honestly feel dirty voting for. If you want to run disclosure, honestly do not spend more than 30 seconds in a constructive or rebuttal on it. Make your violation, set your standard, show how they violate, move on to actual substantive issues. You're just never going to win a "5 min on disclosure in 2NR" strat with me. Do other stuff.

If your Neg strat involves multiple off and post Aff-response you kick out of a ton of stuff that the Aff responded to and just go for something that was severely undercovered, yes, I'll still maybe vote for this because technically you are winning, but this won't engender good speaks, and the other team really has to mismanage it. I don't believe this is all that educational of a debate (hint: there's an in-round arg here) and I think smart Affirmative teams should challenge this strat within the confines and rules of the round (meaning I think there's an argument you can construct, esp w/in policy, to check against this strat in your 2AC/1AR). To be clear, I am not anti-speed whatsoever, but a straight dump strat and then feasting on the arg that they had at the bottom of the flow with few responses is just like meh. It's honestly poor form. You're telling me you cannot beat this team heads up on the nuts and bolts argumentation. Affs are responsible for handling this, no doubt, but we're walking a fine line here when it comes to previous exposure and experience, and if it's clear this is not a breaks team and your whole strategy is just making debate less educational for them by spreading them out of the round, I'm not going to dole you out rewards beyond the technical win.

Unless the other team insults your character, microaggression/community critiques are an almost auto-loss for me for the team that runs them. If one team is being a bunch of dongs, I may say something in round, but if I don't it's because it has not risen to the level wherein my intervention is necessary. Otherwise, this is something to solely bring up with your coaches and bring to tab; it's not in-round argumentation PERIOD and turning it into offense is well beyond problematic to me. My degree is in psychology and this greatly informs my position on this across a variety of domains, and one of the central reasons is argumentation like this used as offense almost entirely is not followed up with any kind of tournament debrief between tab and the two teams and their coaches. Because no one wants to nor cares about that in these rounds where the offense is beyond subjective. If these are such severe circumstances that you're claiming rises to the level of an ethics violation, there's a process here that involves a lot of parties and time and I've yet to see this happen at all in rounds where the violation is tenuous at best. As one of the judges in both the '22-'23 MN State Final Round in policy between Eagan and Edina and '20-'21 Nat Quals policy round between Rosemount and Edina, I rejected both of these arguments with prejudice. Character assassinating a kid in round will *NEVER* fly for me and if this kid is such a well known problem, then coaches, tab, and the state high school league must be involved before they even sniff the morning bus to the tournament, let alone in the round itself. This has nothing to do with the Role of the Ballot and is extrinsic to why we're here to debate. Again, I will not have rounds I judge turn into character assassinations of individual debaters just because you don't like their personality. If they drop something offensive, like actual name calling, I'll even bring it to tab, but a little friendly sparring does not make the activity unsafe and not liking how someone speaks or their intonation sets a precedent that makes it even harder for neurodiverse kids (and adults) to participate. Make no mistake, this is not a "kids these days are too soft" boomer doomer arg. It's expressly about protecting everyone and not having DEBATE rounds devolve into some inquisition about a teenager's however unsavory-to-you approach. Racist, sexist, ableist, etc. comments are squarely different from this, though I believe teams who make an honest mistake and apologize should not be rejected and we should continue to move on, with the understanding that I'll likely mention something to your coaches to make sure the mistake is noted beyond the confines of the round.

*

*

Policy:

I view the intent of debate to be about education while simultaneously playing an intellectual game. I think that the word education itself is up for debate, but I would tend to view it as both mastery of epistemology and praxis. I am open to a discussion of that truth but I enter the world of debate with a certain set of beliefs about larger issues that should the round conform to that precondition, I am likely to vote there.

I would outwardly suggest that I am a tabula rasa judge who will vote for anything (that isn't reveling in things that make all debaters unsafe and are conscientious of specific situations that tend to be more unique for particular populations), but if you pinned me down on what I tend to think of when I think "policy debate," I would likely default to being a policymaker who attempts to equally weigh critical debate, meaning if the analysis/evidence is good, I can be persuaded to buy "cede the political," but it's not my default position.

Within the realm of policy, I believe a lot is up for grabs. The rules themselves are up for debate, and I think this can be a wonderful debate if you really want to go there. And just because I say I'm a policymaker doesn't mean that I'm against critical arguments; quite the contrary. I will vote on anything so long as the reasoning for it is sound. My preference is to hear about a subject that the affirmative claims to solve and why I should or should not vote for it. If that means that the policy entrenches some problematic assumption, that's 100% game; if it means something beyond the USFG, that's also fine.

Brass tacks, I'm not going to deny it: you give me a solid policy style round, I'm gonna love it. But I'm right there with you if you want to toss all that aside. As a debater, I chose to run arguments (borders K in 94/95) for an entire season that over half of my judging pool rejected on face as a valid form of argumentation with some making a drammatic display of holding their pen in the air while I was speaking and placing it on the table and then folding their arms to let me know just how horrific my choice of argumentation was. So for critical teams know that outside of Donus Roberts in the back of the room, I was a K debater who intentionall ran Ks in front of judges that thought I was ruining the activity and exacted punishments against me throughout my entire senior year basically destroying my experience. These were grown ass adults. While I might hedge towards policy as policy, I was a K debater myself so I am open to anything. I ran what I wanted to run, and I think the debaters of today in policy should run what they want to run, and our job as judges is to fairly adjust to how the activity adapts while connecting the activity to the constructs that best define it. That said, the further you diverge from the resolution on the aff, the more neg presumption is not just fair, but warranted.

I believe debate is also much more about analysis of argumentation than just reading a bunch of evidence. It's awesome you are able to quickly and clearly read long pieces of evidence, but absent your analysis of this evidence and how it impacts the round/clashes with the other team's argumentation, all you've done is, essentially, read a piece of evidence aloud. I need you to place that evidence within the context of the round and the arguments that have been made within it. I don't need you to do that with ALL the evidence, just the pieces that become the most critical as you and your opponents construct the round. Your evidence tells the story of your arguments, and how far they'll go with me.

If you hit truth, I'm there with you, but I can't make the arguments for you (I lean more truth than tech but I just can't make the arguments for you). When rounds devolve into no one telling me how to adjudicate the critical issues, you invite me to intervene with all my preconceived notions as well as my take on what your evidence says. To keep me out of the decision, I need you to tell me why your argument beats their argument based on what happened in the round (evidence, analysis, clash). I need you to weigh for me what you think the decision calculus should come down to, with reasons that have justification within the sketch of the round.

If you're a critical team reading this, know I've voted for K affs, poetry affs, narratives, and the like before. I'd even venture to guess my voting record on topics venturing far from the resolution is probably near 50/50. But I will buy TVA, switch-side and the like if they're reasonably constructed. The further you are from the resolution, the more I need you to justify why the ballot matters at all.

I believe line-by-line argumentation is one of the most important parts of quality debate. Getting up and reading a block against another team's block is not debate. Without any form of engagement on the analysis level, the round is reduced to constructives that act like a play. I want you to weave the evidence you have in your block into the line-by-line argumentation. This means even the 1NC. Yes, you are shelling a number of arguments, but you do have the ability as a thinking brain to interact with parts of the 1AC you think are mistagged, overstated, etc.

2AC and 2NC cause significant in-round problems when they get up and just group everything or give an "overview" of the specific arguments and then attempt line-by-line after I've flowed your 15 arguments on the top of the flow. Don't do this. Weave case extensions within the structure of replying to the 1NC's arguments.

The strongest Negative critical argument to me is "One Off" in the 1NC and then just horizontally eating that team alive the whole round on this one argument. I don't care how good the Aff is, "ONE OFF" uttered as the roadmap in 1NC sends chills down anyone's spine. Honestly, I HATE "6 off" and then feasting on the one arg the Aff fumbles. As I grow older, I'm less and less and less inclined to dole out the win on this strat. I also probably am not the best judge to run condo good against if the way you operationalize stuff is a pump and dump strat.

The following specific speech comments of this paradigm are more focused for novice and junior varsity debaters. At the varsity level, all four debaters should feel free to engage in cross ex, though, if you are clearly covering for a partner who seemingly cannot answer questions in varsity, that's going to impact their speaks and you highlighting it by constantly answering first for them is kinda crappy, kid.

Specific Speech Thoughts:

Cross Examination:

I do not like tag team cross ex for the team that is being questioned. Editing this years on, and I think the way this is phrased is misleading. A digression: some of the best cross-exes I've ever seen involved all four debaters. That said, the time was still dominated by those who were tasked with the primary responsibilities. And I think saying "I do not like tag team cross ex" makes it seem like I would be against the thing I just described as being great. This is only meant regarding scenarios in which it is clear one person is taking over for another for whatever reason. Taking over for your partner without allowing them the opportunity to respond first makes it look like they don't know what they're talking about and that you do not trust them to respond. Further, doing this prevents your partner from being able to expertly respond to questioning, a skill that is necessary for your entire team to succeed. I have little to no qualms about tag team questions, meaning if it's not your c/x and you have a question to ask, you can ask it directly rather than whispering it to your partner to ask. Again, however, I would stress you should still not take over your partner's c/x. Also, I'm generally aware when it's a situation where there is a pull up and the team has to make due. Obviously speaks will be attenuated, but also do think this is some kind of "I'm angry at you," deal. I can generally recognize in these scenarios and don't worry if you're trying to help your pull up.

Further, there is no "preparatory" time between a speech and cross ex. C/x time starts as soon as speech time ends.

Global (all speeches):

• I was an extremely fast, clear, and loud debater. I have no issue with real speed. I have an issue with jumblemouth speed or quiet speed. I especially have an issue with speed on a speech with little to no signposting. Even if you are blindingly fast, you should ALWAYS slow down over tags, citations, and plan (aff or neg). Annunciate explicitly the names of authors. Seriously... "Grzsuksclickh 7" is how these names come out sometimes. Help me help you.

• Need to be signposted in some way. This means, on a base level, that you say the word "NEXT" or give some indication that the three page, heavily-underlined card you just read had an ending and you've begun your next tag. Simply running from the end of a piece of evidence into more words that start your next tag line is poor form. It makes my job harder and hurts your overall persuasion. Numbering your arguments, both in the 1AC and throughout the round, goes a long way with me.

• Optimize your card tags to something a human can write/type out in 3-5 seconds. Your paragraph long tag to a piece of evidence hurts your ability for me to listen to your evidence. No one can type out: "The alternative is to put primary consideration into how biopower functions as an instrument of violence through status quo education norms. Anything short of fundamentally questioning the institution of schooling only reifies violence. The alternative solves because this analysis opens space for discovery and scholarship on schooling that better mitigates the harms of status quo biopolitical control" within about 5 seconds, while you are reading some dense philosophical stuff that we ostensibly are supposed to listen to while trying to mentally figure out how to shorthand the absurdly long tag you just read. And yes, that's a real tag and no, it's not even close to the longest one I've heard, it's just the one I have on hand.

• The ultimate goal is to not be the speech that completely muddles/confuses the structure of the round.

1AC

• It's supposed to be a persuasive speech. It's the one speech that is fully planned out before the round. You should not be stuttering, mumbling, etc. throughout it. You've had it in your hands for an ample amount of time to practice it out. Read it forwards and backwards (seriously... read your 1AC completely backwards as practice, and not just once but until you get smooth with it). It's your baby. You should sound convincing and without much error. If you are constantly stumbling over your words, you need to cut out evidence and slow down. Tags need to be optimized for brevity and you should SLOW DOWN when reading over the TAG and CITATION. And you should be able to answer any question thrown at you in c/x. 2A should rarely, if ever, be answering for you.

1NC

• Operates much like a 1AC, in that you have your shells already fully prepared, and only really need to adjust slightly depending on if the 1AC has changed anything material. If you are just shelling off case, then you are basically giving a 1AC, and you should be clear, concise, and persuasive. As with 1ACs, if you are stumbling over yourself, you need to cut out evidence/arguments. If you are arguing case side, you need to place the arguments appropriately, not just globally across case. Is this an Inherency argument? Solvency? Harms mitigation? Pick out the actual signposted argument on case and apply it there. As with 1A, your 2 should not be answering questions for you in c/x.

2AC

• If the 1NC did not argue case, I do not need you to extend each and every card on case. "Extend case," is pretty much all I need. Further, this is a great opportunity to use any of the 1AC evidence against the off-case arguments made. Did you drop a 50 States Bad pre-empt in the 1AC? Cross-apply it ON THE COUNTERPLAN. I don't need you extending it on case side which literally has zero ink from the 1NC on it. KEEP THE FLOW CLEAN.

• You should be following 1NC structure, and line-by-lining all their arguments. Just getting up and reading a block on an argument is likely going to end up badly for you, because this is shallow-level, novice-style debate, that tends to miss critical argumentation. I need you to *INTERACT* with the 1NC argumentation, and block reading is generally not that.

2NC

• First and foremost, you need to make sure you are creating a crystal clear separation between you and the 1NR in the negative block. Optimally, this means you take WHOLE arguments, not, "I'm gonna take the alt on the K and my partner will take the rest of the K." Ugh. No. Don't do this. Ever. It's awful and it ruins the structure and organization of the round. If there were three major arguments made in 1NC, let's say T, K, and COUNTERWARRANTS, you should be picking two of those three and leaving the third one completely untouched for the 1NR to handle.

• Use original 1NC structure to guide your responses to 2AC argumentation. Like the above, you should not be reading a block to 2AC answers. You need to specifically address each one, and using the original 1NC structure helps keep order to the negative construction of argumentation.

1NR

• Following from the above, you should not be recovering anything the 2NC did, unless something was missed that needs coverage. You should be focused on a separate argument from the 2NC. As above, don't just get up and read a block. Clash! Line-by-line! Make the 1AR's job harder.

1AR

• The hardest speech in the game. This is a coverage speech, not a persuasive speech. By all means, if you can be persuasive while covering, great, but your first job is full coverage. You do not need to give long explanations of points. Yes, you do need to respond to 2NC & 1NR responses to 2AC argumentation, but much of the analysis should have already been made. Here's where you want to go back and extend original 1AC and 2AC argumentation, and you only need to say "Extend original 1AC Turbinson 15, which says that despite policies existing on the books in the SQ, they continue to fail, everything the Negs argued on this point is subsumed by Turbinson, because these are all pre-plan policies." The part you don't need to do here is get into the *why* those plans fail. That's your partner's job to tell the big story. Again, if you are good enough to pull this off in 1AR, that's amazing and incredible, but no one is expecting that out of this speech. All judges are looking for from the 1AR is a connection from original constructive argumentation to the 2AR rebuttal. Rounds are generally NEVER won in 1AR, but they are often lost here. Your job, as it were, is essentially to not lose the round. Great 1ARs, however, begin to combine some of the global, story-telling aspects of 2AR on line-by-line analysis. But one thing none of them do is sacrifice coverage for that. Coverage is your a priori obligation and once you master that, then start telling your 1AR stories.

• Put things like Topicality and the Counterplan on the top of the flow.

2NR & 2AR

• Tell me why you win. Weigh the issues and impacts. Tell me what they are wrong about or analysis/argumentation they dropped. Frame the round.

Specific Argumentation

Topicality

• I tend to believe that any case that is reasonably topical is topical. You have to work hard to prove non-topicality to me, but that does not mean I will not vote for it. 2AC should always have a block which says they meet both the Neg definition and interpretation, as well presents their own definition and interpretation.

Kritik

• And as a bit of history, when I was a debater, the Kritik was an extremely divisive argument, with more than half of the judges my senior year (1994/95) demonstrably putting their pen down when we'd shell it and would refuse to flow or listen to it. We decided that we were not going to adjust for these judges and ran the K as a pretty much full time Negative argument and we were the first team in the State of Minnesota debate to do this. This made sense at the time as the topic was Immigration and a solid 75% of the cases we hit were increased border partrol, or ID cards, or reducing slots, etc. So, I'm quite familiar with the argumentation and I'm sympathetic to it. But I also feel it is overused in a sense when much more direct argumentation can defeat Affs and I would venture to guess many of the authors used in K construction would not advocate its use against Affs which seek redress for disadvantaged groups. I want you to seriously consider the appropriateness of the link scenario before you run a K.

• Negs need to do a lot of work to win these with me. It can't just be the rehashing of tag lines over and over and over. You need to have read the original articles that construct your argumentation so you can explain to me not only what the articles are saying, but are versed on the rather large, college-level words you are throwing around. Further, I find kritiks to be an advocacy outside of the round. I find it morally problematic to get up in the 1NC and argue "here are all these things that impact us outside of the round because fiat is illusory" and then kick out of this in the 2NR.

• I also want you to seriously consider the merit of running these arguments against cases which seek to redress disadvantaged groups. While I get the zeal of shoving it down some puke capitalist's throat, I question whether running said argumentation against a case which seeks, for example, to just provide relevant sex education for disabled or GLBTQ folx as appropriate. You're telling me after all these years of ignoring educational policy which benefits straight, cis, white guys that *now's the time* to fight capitalism or biopower or whatever when the focus on the case is to help those who are extremely disadvantaged in the SQ. This is an argument that proffers out-of-round impacts and I certainly understand the ground that allows this kind of argumentation to be applied, but a K is a different kind of argument, and I think it runs up against some serious issues when it attempts to lay the blame for something like capitalism at the feet of people who are getting screwed over in the SQ.

• I'm going to copy my friend Rachel Baumann's bit on the identity K stuff: "I will also admit to being intrigued with the culture-based positions which question the space we each hold in the world of debate. I have voted both for and against these arguments, but I struggle with which context would be the appropriate context in which to discuss this matter. The more I hear them, the less impressed I am with identity arguments, mostly because, again, I struggle with the context. Also, there is the issue of ground. Saying "vote against them because they are not... X" (which is an actual statement I heard in an actual round by an actual debater this year) seems just as constraining as the position being debated, and does not provide the opposing team any real debatable ground."

Case

• I will vote on IT ALL. Their barrier is existential? Well, that's an old school argument and I will totally vote on an Aff not meeting their prima facie burden, and I will not find it cute or kitsch or whatever. It is a legitimate argument and I am more than happy to vote there, but you have to justify the framework for me.

• Negatives must keep in mind that unless you have some crystal clear, 100% solvency take out, you are generally just mitigating their comparative advantage. Make sure that you aren't overstating what you are doing on case and that you weigh whatever you are doing off case against this.

Theory

• Also into it all and will vote on it. I think Vagueness and Justification and Minor Repairs all are quite relevant today with how shoddily affirmatives are writing their plans. Use any kind of argumentation that is out there, nothing is too archaic or whatever to run. Yes, this means counterwarrants!

*

*

Lincoln Douglas:


Much of the above for Policy crosses over into LD. I often sit in LD rounds where the criterion and value are mentioned at the front end of the debate and then never again. It would seem to me that these help bolster a framework debate and you're asking me to lock into one of these in order to influence how I vote, so then never really mentioning them again, nor using them to shape the direction of the debate always confuses the heck outta lil ol' me. Weigh the issues, write the ballot for me. Not locking argumentation down forces me to go through my flows and insert myself into the debate. Will vote on critical argumentation on either side (check my responses on 'distance from the resolution' up in the policy part, applies here as well) and you can never go too fast for me so don't worry.

*

*

Public Forum:

The requisite "I'm a policy coach, you can do whatever with me in PF" applies. Just tell me how to vote.

Adapted from a fellow coworker:

Likes

- Voters and weighing. I don't want to have to dig back through my flow to figure out what your winning arguments were. If you're sending me back through the flow, you're putting way too much power in my hands.

- Clear sign posting and concise taglines.

- Framework. If you have a weighing mechanism, state it clearly and provide a brief explanation.

- Unique arguments. Debate is an educational activity, so you should be digging deep in your research and finding unique arguments. If you have a unique impact, bring it in. I judge a lot of rounds and I get tired of hearing the same case over and over and over again.

Dislikes

-Just referencing evidence by the card name (author, source, etc.). When I flow, I care more about what the evidence says, not who the specific source was. If you want to reference the evidence later, you gotta tell me what the evidence said, not just who said it.

-SPEED. I'm a policy coach. There is no "too fast" for me in PF. Seriously. There's no way possible and anti-speed args in PF won't move me in the slightest. Beat them heads up.

-Evidence misrepresentation. If there is any question between teams on if evidence has been used incorrectly, I will request to see the original document and the card it was read from to compare the two. If you don't have the original, then I will assume it was cut improperly and judge accordingly.

-Don't monopolize CX time. Answer quickly the question asked with no editorializing.

-"Grandstanding" on CX. CX is for you to ask questions, not give a statement in the form of a question. Ask short, simple questions and give concise answers.

-One person taking over on Grand CX. All four debaters should fully participate. That said, I really don't need any of the PF niceties and meta communication. Just ask away. Seriously. The meta performance of cordiality seems like a waste of time in a format with the least time to speak.

-K cases. I'll vote for em. K arg's same. If you hit a K arg, don't deer-in-headlights it. Think about it rationally. Defend your rhetoric and/or assumptions. Question the K's assumptions. Demand an alternative. Does the team running the K bite the K themselves? What's the role of the ballot under the K? There's plenty of ways to poke a sharp stick at a K. Simply sticking your head in the sand and arguing "we shouldn't be debating this" is not and will never be a compelling argument for me and you basically sign the ballot for me if the other team extends it and goes for the K with only your refusal to engage it as your counter argumentation.

General

-Evidence Exchanges. If you are asked for evidence, provide it in context. If they ask for the original, provide the original. I won't time prep until you've provided the evidence, and I ask that neither team begins prepping until the evidence has been provided. If it takes too long to get the original text, I will begin docking prep time for the team searching for the evidence and will likely dock speaker points. It is your job to come to the round prepared, and that includes having all your evidence readily accessible.

-If anything in my paradigm is unclear, ask before the round begins. I'd rather you begin the debate knowing what to expect rather than start your brutal post round grilling off with one-arm tied behind your back. ;)

Weighing

I do bring a policy comparative advantage approach to PF. In the end I believe there are two compelling stories that are butting heads and which one both 1) makes the most sense, and 2) is backed up by argumentation and evidence in round. I am pretty middle of the road on truth vs tech, requiring a lot less when the arg aligns with the truth, but if you are cold dropping stuff there's no amount of reality I can intervene to make up for that. You are each attempting to construct a scenario to weigh against the other and I'm deciding which one makes more sense based on the aforementioned factors. Point out to me how you've answered their main questions and how your evidence subsumes their argumentation. Point out your strongest path to victory and attempt to block their road. Don't just rely on thinking your scenario is better, you must also harm theirs.

No one really gets their full scenario, it's all a bunch of weighing risk and probability and if you can inject doubt into the other teams scenario, it goes a long way towards helping weigh the risk of your scenario against yours. Keep the flow clean and do this work for me and you'll get your ballot.

I debated in policy for The Blake School for four years (2009-2013) and then I debated for Rutgers University-Newark in college (2013-2017). I ran mostly policy based arguments in high school and mostly critical arguments in college. I was an assistant coach (policy and public forum) with the Blake School until 2019 and then coached policy and congress at Success Academy from 2019-2023. I currently coach LD and policy at the Delores Taylor Arthur School for Young Men in New Orleans.

Email - hannah.s.stafford@gmail.com - if its and LD round please also add: DTA.lddocs@gmail.com

--

Feel free to run any arguments you want whether it be critical or policy based. The only thing that will never win my ballot is any argument about why racism, sexism, etc. is good. Other than that do you. I really am open to any style or form of argumentation.

I do not have many specific preferences other than I hate long overviews - just make the arguments on the line-by-line.

I am not going to read your evidence unless there is a disagreement over a specific card or if you tell me to read a specific card. I am not going to just sit and do the work for you and read a speech doc.

Note on clash of civ debates - I tend to mostly only judge clash of civ debates - In these debates I find it more persuasive if you engage the aff rather than just read framework. But that being said I have voted on framework in the past.

PF - Please please please read real cards. If its not in the summary I won't evaluate it in the final focus. Do impact calculus. Stop calling for cards if you aren't going to do the evidence comparison. I will increase your speaker points if you do an email chain with your cards prior to your speech.

For PFD, I am a traditional judge, believing PFD is not Policy or LD, please stick the tenants that established what PFD was and still should be. I am a parent Judge with 3 years of experience in different formats, so your ability to pursuade me with your arguments and counter arguments is more important to me than the technical aspects of debate. Speed is deterred, if you speak too quickly those contentions and cards are dropped , slower pace and stronger arguments win out. Please be respectful and, when asking for cards or evidence please have readily available, if not, the time will be taken from your prep time, especially if the inability to locate and send is abusive. Thank you and looking forward to a great debate.

For LD, I am a traditional judge, believing LD is not Policy, please stick the tenants that established what LD was and still should be. I am a parent Judge with 3 years of experience in different formats, so your ability to pursuade me with your argumehts and counter arguments is more important to me than the technicial aspects of debate. Reasonable speed is okay, but if it sounds like you are choking when speaking, you are speaking too quickly and those contentions and cards are dropped , slower pace and stronger arguments win out. Please be respectful and, when asking for cards or evidence please have readily available, if not, the time will be taken from your prep time, especially if the inability to locate and send is abusive. Thank you and looking forward to a great debate.

Go slow. Be clear. Be nice.

If you would like more, I have written detailed paradigms for each style I judge:

PF paradigm

Parli paradigm

Middle school paradigm

I am a mainly a PF Debater but have some experience in CNDF.

General Things:

1. I am fine with speed but make sure it's articulate, although if you can express your thoughts going conversation speed, it could boost speaker points.

2. I flow and expect teams to extend tags, evidence and warrants. I won't flow dropped arguments in later speeches.

3. Although it is good to be critical and I believe good PF debate should be a relaxed exchange of ideas as opposed to suppressed (or not) rage.

4. Make sure you're asking questions during crossfire rather than give speeches. And I appreciate questions that are asked in a way that is super chill.

5. I appreciate theories. No one expects it and you win because of theory and sometimes you even win on theory.

6. I think Impact turns > Link turns (no risk of a link)

7. I typically vote on what happens in the debate, and not on what I know or think I know.

Online debate: Technical difficulties are bound to happen and all i ask is that you are patient as we work them out! If you're a very fast speaker, i ask that you slow down a bit because computer audio can be bad, and I don't want you to lose because I couldn't hear what you said.

I am a lay judge, but I have watched dozens of rounds of PF before. I will consider arguments if they are made clearly and consistently in the round.

Please make sure your voice is clear.

Refrain from using debate jargon in general... if you want me to understand how your actions play into the round, explain why they matter

Scientific jargon is welcome

Make sure to signpost in every part of your speech

Do not be exclusionary towards your opponents; you will be dropped immediately

Explain why your arguments are more important instead of using weighing jargon

Do not run theory or Ks; I will not know how to evaluate them on my ballot.

Truth over tech unless one side is clearly winning

Gained lots of experience in PF judging over 3 years, have a good idea on how to evaluate arguments and the flow. If you just debate how you normally do, it should be sufficient to win my ballot.

Hello!

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

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

Everything Else is Negotiable, but these aren't:

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

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

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

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

General Preferences

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Importance of Weighing

-Prob>Timeframe

- Timeframe>Pre-req

- Pre-req>mag

---

Specific to September topic.

I'm not very knowledgable about this specific topic.

Good Luck Debaters!

I am a parent lay judge. This is the second tournament I have ever judged and I am quite unfamiliar with the topic so please do not assume that I know what you are talking about--explain things fully. Speak at a conversational speed.

Most importantly, be kind and respectful to everyone in the round--otherwise you will receive lower speaker points or drop the round entirely.

MY PARADIGM, IT DOES RHYME

A reluctant judge who’s a parent,

Better make your speeches coherent!

Don’t run theory or a clever K,

Risky strategies because I’m lay.

Surely, you don’t dare to spread.

Rely on good warranting instead!

Fake a conflict, and I’ll hold a grudge--

Use a proper strike to remove me as your judge.

I’ll do my best to keep a good flow,

Of all the arguments apropos.

Don’t falsely say an argument was dropped,

Or your score will unceremoniously be chopped.

Near impossible to earn 30 speaks--

Lay appeal combined with incredible techniques.

My ballot is truth over tech,

Especially when probability is but a speck.

Terminal impact of nuclear war,

When farfetched, is a claim I abhor.

I end this with typical lay dross—

Have fun and be respectful in cross!

--Parent Paradigm Poet

PS. Add me to the email chain (smsung@post.harvard.edu). I do actually read the cards and cases, if needed for my RFDs

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

April 2024 update...I feel I must step it up for TOC, so I'm adding another version:

PARADIGM TO THE TUNE OF “ANTI-HERO” BY TAYLOR SWIFT

(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1kbLwvqugk)

I try to flow where I get speeches but just never crossfire
Debates become my sacred job
When my confusion shows with nonsense claims
All of the students I've downed will stand there and just sob

I should not be left to my own devices
They come with prices and vices
I end up in crisis (tale as old as time)
I write my ballot from habit
Extend contentions for retention
Left on my flow sheet with intention
(For the last time)

It's me, hi, I'm the lay judge, it's me
I dis-close, everybody will see
I'll vote directly if you weigh but never with no cards cut
I find it annoying always spreading for the useless word glut.

Sometimes I feel like disclo-theory is a sexy case read
And I'm a substance judge for real
Too lay to judge tech, always leaning toward the actual factoids
Truth through and through, to me appeals

Did you read my covert activism--I drop speaks for chauvinism
And same goes for racism? (Tale as old as time)
I write my ballot from habit
Extend contentions for retention
Left on my flow sheet with intention
(For the last time)

It's me, hi, I'm the lay judge, it's me (I'm the lay judge, it's me)
I dis-close, everybody will see
I'll vote directly if you weigh but never with no cards cut
I find it annoying always spreading for the useless word glut.

I have this dream the teams that I judge signpost and speak clearly
Collapsed and covered, showing skill
The impacts weighed well with data and then someone screams out
"She's writing up her RFD!"

It's me, hi, I'm the lay judge, it's me
It's me, hi, I'm the lay judge, it's me
It's me, hi, everybody will see, everybody will see

It's me, hi (hi), I'm the lay judge, it's me (I'm the lay judge, it's me)
I dis (dis) close (close), everybody will see (everybody will see)
I'll vote directly if you weigh but never with no cards cut
I find it annoying always spreading for the useless word glut.

**PLEASE ADD ME TO THE EMAIL CHAIN: SMSUNG@POST.HARVARD.EDU

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

Speed of Delivery- Should be clear and understandable, speeding is not preferred.

Format of Summary Speeches (line by line? big picture?)- Prefer the bigger picture but don't drop responses

Role of the Final Focus- Neatly tie up everything in the round

Extension of Arguments into later speeches- Extensions should be clear and relevant to the debate

Topicality- Truth > tech

Kritiks- Avoid theory, I perfect substance

Flowing/note-taking- I will take notes on every speech

Do you value argument over style? Style over argument? Argument and style equally?- Argument and style should be equally present

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?

Summary

If a team is second speaking, do you require that the team cover the opponents’ case as well as answers to its opponents’ rebuttal in the rebuttal speech?

Yes

Do you vote for arguments that are first raised in the grand crossfire or final focus?

Final Focus

If you have anything else you'd like to add to better inform students of your expectations and/or experience, please do so here.

Nothing else to add

I am a lay/parent judge

EMAIL CHAIN: jsydnor@altamontschool.org -- all rounds should set up email chains before scheduled start time. I would like to be included.

--------

Former policy debater in HS and College. I come into LD from that background, and I love seeing where LD and policy are in communication with one another. While I'm familiar with K's, CP's, PICs, plan-focus debates, planless K Affs, T, Theory... I'm less familiar with some of the other arguments like high phil, a prioris, NIBs, etc. that are more well known in LD.

I am am open to most arguments, but I am unwilling to vote on arguments I don't understand enough to give a coherent RFD. The burden remains with the debater to make a sufficiently clear argument I can grasp and understand as a path to the ballot. I don't feel bad saying "I didn't understand this, so I didn't vote on it."

I don't buy into the argument division between "circuit" and "local" debate and that I should inherently discount arguments or styles because it's Alabama not a "national" tournament. Any kind of exclusion needs to be theoretically justified.

Speed: 7.5/10. Speed is fine but debate is still a communication-based activity and I'm a poorly aging millennial. Sending speech docs is not a substitute for clarity.

--------

-CP: I default sufficiency framing and will judge kick unless told otherwise. Would rather hear args about solvency deficit, perm, and issues with NB than rely on theory to answer.

-K: I think all forms of debate are great, but K's and K Affs offer something unique to the activity that enhances its pedagogical value. However, that doesn't mean I know your specific literature or that I am going to immediately buy what you're selling. I like close readings of the 1AC to generate links as quality critical work.

-K Affs: Go for it. I believe the Aff has to advance some contestable methodology beyond "res is bad, reject the res." I usually believe offense on method is the most interesting site for clash. T-USFG/FW isn't off the table as a true guaranteed generic response and can be a really strong option given the way some K teams write their 1AC.

-Theory: Not my favorite debate but I know it can be important/strategic. Go a little slower on this if you want me to get follow the intricacies of the line-by-line. I have some hesitation with the direction disclosure and wiki theory arguments are going, but I still vote on it.

-T vs Plan Affs --I believe plans have the burden to be topical, and topicality is determined by interpreting words in the resolution. If you read a plan that is not whole res then you should always go into the round proving you definitionally are topical. I generally believe analytic counter-interps (like mainstream theory debates on norms) and reasonability alone are not winning options. Has the Neg read a definition that excludes your plan? If yes, you have a burden to counter-define in a way that is inclusive of your Aff. I am very persuaded that, absent a sufficient "we meet," if the Aff cannot counter-define a word in the resolution that is inclusive of the plan then I should A] not consider the plan reasonable, even if reasonability is good, and B] no sufficient competing interpretation of the topic, which is an auto-win for the Neg. (K Affs can be an exception to most of this because the offense to T and method of establishing limits is different.)

- T vs K Affs -- Willing to vote on it insofar as you win that you've presented a superior model for debate and that voting for you isn't violent/complicit. I generally believe fairness is not an impact. I like strong answers to meta-level questions, such as Aff descriptions of what debate and proceduralism vs debate as a game/site for unique type of education and iterative testing of advocacies.

-Phil: You should assume I know 0 of the things necessary for you to win this debate and that you have to do additional groundwork/translation to make this a viable option. I've only seen a few phil debates and my common issue as a judge is that I need a clear articulation of what the offensive reason for the ballot is or clear link to presumption and thus direction and meaning of presumption.

--------

If you choose to not set up an email chain or a reasonable alternative and then waste a bunch of time during the round with, your speaker points will be capped at a 27.5. Debaters saying "I'm not spreading so we don't need to share" or, even worse, "I don't want your team to have my arguments" are huge pet peeves of mine. This activity is net better when you can look at your opponent's evidence, analyze it, and contest it. Calling for cards is not sufficient nor time conscious. Just send the doc with the evidence you're going to read in that speech before the speech.

Email - chulho.synn@sduhsd.net.

tl;dr - I vote for teams that know the topic, can indict/rehighlight key evidence, frame to their advantage, can weigh impacts in 4 dimensions (mag, scope, probability, sequence/timing or prereq impacts), and are organized and efficient in their arguments and use of prep and speech time. I am TRUTHFUL TECH.

Overview - 1) I judge all debate events; 2) I agree with the way debate has evolved: progressive debate and Ks, diversity and equity, technique; 3) On technique: a) Speed and speech docs > Slow no docs; b) Open CX; c) Spreading is not a voter; 4) OK with reading less than what's in speech doc, but send updated speech doc afterwards; 5) Clipping IS a voter; 6) Evidence is core for debate; 7) Dropped arguments are conceded but I will evaluate link and impact evidence when weighing; 8) Be nice to one another; 9) I time speeches and CX, and I keep prep time; 10) I disclose, give my RFD after round.

Lincoln-Douglas - 1) I flow; 2) Condo is OK, will not drop debater for running conditional arguments; 3) Disads to CPs are sticky; 4) PICs are OK; 5) T is a voter, a priori jurisdictional issue, best definition and impact of definition on AFF/NEG ground wins; 6) Progressive debate OK; 7) ALT must solve to win K; 8) Plan/CP text matters; 9) CPs must be non-topical, compete/provide NB, and solve the AFF or avoid disads to AFF; 10) Speech doc must match speech.

Policy - 1) I flow; 2) Condo is OK, will not drop team for running conditional arguments; 3) Disads to CPs are sticky; 4) T is a voter, a priori jurisdictional issue, best definition wins; 5) Progressive debate OK; 6) ALT must solve to win K; 7) Plan/CP text matters; 8) CPs must be non-topical, compete/provide NB, and solve the AFF or avoid disads to AFF; 9) Speech doc must match speech; 10) Questions by prepping team during prep OK; 11) I've debated in and judged 1000s of Policy rounds.

Public Forum - 1) I flow; 2) T is not a voter, non-topical warrants/impacts are dropped from impact calculus; 3) Minimize paraphrasing of evidence; I prefer quotes from articles to paraphrased conclusions that overstate an author's claims and downplay the author's own caveats; 4) If paraphrased evidence is challenged, link to article and cut card must be provided to the debater challenging the evidence AND me; 5) Paraphrasing that is counter to the article author's overall conclusions is a voter; at a minimum, the argument and evidence will not be included in weighing; 6) Paraphrasing that is intentionally deceptive or entirely fabricated is a voter; the offending team will lose my ballot, receive 0 speaker points, and will be referred to the tournament director for further sanctions; 7) When asking for evidence during the round, refer to the card by author/date and tagline; do not say "could I see your solvency evidence, the impact card, and the warrant card?"; the latter takes too much time and demonstrates that the team asking for the evidence can't/won't flow; 8) Exception: Crossfire 1 when you can challenge evidence or ask naive questions about evidence, e.g., "Your Moses or Moises 18 card...what's the link?"; 9) Weigh in place (challenge warrants and impact where they appear on the flow); 10) Weigh warrants (number of internal links, probability, timeframe) and impacts (magnitude, min/max limits, scope); 11) 2nd Rebuttal should frontline to maximize the advantage of speaking second; 2nd Rebuttal is not required to frontline; if 2nd Rebuttal does not frontline 2nd Summary must cover ALL of 1st Rebuttal on case, 2nd Final Focus can only use 2nd Summary case answers in their FF speech; 12) Weigh w/o using the word "weigh"; use words that reference the method of comparison, e.g., "our impact happens first", "100% probability because impacts happening now", "More people die every year from extreme climate than a theater nuclear detonation"; 13) No plan or fiat in PF, empirics prove/disprove resolution, e.g., if NATO has been substantially increasing its defense commitments to the Baltic states since 2014 and the Russian annexation of Crimea, then the question of why Russia hasn't attacked since 2014 suggest NATO buildup in the Baltics HAS deterred Russia from attacking; 14) No new link or impact arguments in 2nd Summary, answers to 1st Rebuttal in 2nd Summary OK if 2nd Rebuttal does not frontline.

TLDR on my paradigm:

I debated my junior and senior year of high school in the West LA/OCSL circuits and graduated in '20; qualified to nats and STOC my senior year & coached for ~3 years after that. I am now pursuing a bachelors in Politics & Public Affairs & coaching the debate team @ Denison U.

email: tan_s1@denison.edu

Important Things for the skimmers:

-I am about 75% tech 25% truth.

-Spread and I will drop you.

-I default to Cost-Benefit Analysis w/ a value of human life if no other framework is read and first speaking if there is no offense on the flow.

-I require weighing and extensions if you want to win the debate. Both defense and offense are not sticky (more on this below). I should hear extensions from the 1SS onward.

-I flow on paper, so keep it somewhat slow.

It has been quiteeeee a while since I've last judged, so please be gentle with my feeble mind.

If you are running theory or Ks, both sides must OK it for me to evaluate the arg. I never debated and have hardly judged pre-fiat so don't expect me to be anywhere close to my post-fiat judging abilities.

I have voted aff 69 times and neg 87 times (give or take), meaning an almost 56% neg bias. Yikes. I would guess the bias is from defaulting neg; I have since shifted to voting for first speaking in the interest of fairness.

Parli:

Debated parli mainly my junior year, I am versed in the event.

POIs need to be short. I will not flow them. Bring it up in a speech if it's important.

I'll tell you if I accept your Point of Order.

I am versed in topicality shells. I am receptive to prefiat args in this event, but you'll still need to slow them down and dumb them down a bit.

I prefer that Ks link in to the res, but non res Ks are fine, I'm just more receptive to res level.

I know that quantified impacts are hard to come by in parli. If you don’t have a quantifiable impact, I expect some sort of framing that replaces terminalization. If you don’t have terminalization or a framing level thing going for your impact, I find it difficult to vote for it.

LD:

I tend to evaluate the round on framing and VC above all else. Treat me like a flay judge (quick reminder that I have the least amount of experience judging this event). Pre-fiat args are ok (and encouraged), but no guarantee I can evaluate them well.

PF:

What I like to see in round:

Extensions: My threshold for extensions is fairly low. I expect you to extend every link in the arg you're going for; they can be paraphrased. I expect your impact scenario to be extended.

Signposting: I hate guessing where I should be flowing. Be explicit where you are going on the flow both before your speech and during it. If you think you're being obvious, be a little more obvious. Seriously, this is one of my biggest problems in-round. Signpost.

Two worlds analysis: I like to see this both on the weighing, warrant, and evidentiary level. Why should I prefer your weighing over your opponent's? Compare them. Why should I prefer your warrant over your opponent's? Compare them. Why should I prefer your evidence over your opponent's? Compare them.

Weighing: Weighing is a must if you want to win the round. If you don't weigh and your opponent does, they win. Irrespective of the quality and integrity of your link chain and impact, I will always vote for the side with the winning weighing. If you both weigh, you'll also need to metaweigh to get my ballot.

Evidence analysis: I like it when you call for evidence. Evidence standards in pf suck and have been getting worse. You're likely to find some great responses if you call out crappy evidence. It also makes me happy to hear people call out a crappy card.

What I don't like to see in round:

Sloppy crossfires: Crossfire can be a great way to clear up confusion and communicate critiques of the other side. They can also be horrible screaming fits where nothing gets done and you both end up angry. Make sure you are having constructive conversation or I will drop speaks.

Disorganization: If your speech is not organized and super jumpy, regardless of signposting, I will likely get lost. Please have a strategy when you deliver.

Ad hominem: If you're racist/rude/homophobic you get L20'd & tournament management will be notified.

My quirks:

Defense is not sticky: Lack of defensive extensions, even if dropped, makes for a messy backend debate. You will win the defense if it is dropped, no need to spend too much time on it.

Post-rounding: I encourage post-rounding in order to better myself as a judge. Judges that drop you and say, "everyone did great!" made me extremely angry when I debated. If I missed something, bring it up. However, it will not change my ballot. If I missed it, I missed it.

The "truth" part of my paradigm: If the round gets really messy or your evidence sounds far too absurd then I will intervene. It pains me to say this, but the standard for evidence is already rock bottom and I am trying to make a minuscule difference. If you don't have messy rounds and read good evidence then this shouldn't worry you.

Remember that I am a human and debate is a game. I will sometimes make mistakes, please do not hate me for it.

Send case to email chain before your speech & I might ask for extra cards if I’m curious: joytaw@gmail.com

My wifi sucks, it'll make it a lot easier for everyone to have at least speech docs prepared for your speeches - lowkey required for rebuttal, others optional but preferred.

I debated in HS but it's been a while (class of 2020) -- I can understand tech but prefer to be treated like a flay. Semi-ok with speed in the first half of the debate if there are speech docs (still pref not going super fast) + No spreading in second half of the round pls. If you do, I guess I'll still evaluate it but it will only be what I can catch + your speaks will be dropped.

Lay ----- Flay --X--Tech

Public Forum:

General update/preference on framework: I don't like oppression olympics. I don't like talking about why we should prefer one group over another group so if both teams have framing impacting out to marginalized communities, I prefer the debate to just be on the link level unless you are undeniably winning on the warrant level. Also I don't like the "link-ins bad" arg as much either, I just don't like the round being over before it starts.

Theory - pls no theory unless it's about the other team not reading a content warning. I mean if u do read theory i guess i'll judge it but i prefer substance so my threshold for responding to theory is prob a lot lower than u would like. I also don't care for disclosure theory.

Evidence - I care about evidence ethics so don't egregiously miscut cards but if you are going to run ev ethics on someone, implicate why it's more important than substance debate or why it should control my ballot. Also, I think paraphrasing is fine in PF so don't run that on me lmao.

- keep track of your own times pls

- pls stop asking if it's okay to take prep just announce to the room so we're not waiting around and time yourselves

- Be clear. I never get enough sleep so if I don't catch it, it won't be on my flow.

- Frontline if you're second rebuttal

- I don't flow crossfire. If it's interesting I'll listen, but if it's important - bring it up in speech.

- Don't be rude to the other team or I’ll drop your speaks. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzpndHtdl9A)

- YOU CAN’T EXTEND ARGUMENTS WITHOUT EXTENDING WARRANTS!!!! (e.g. Don't just tell me ending arms sales causes war - give me reasons WHY that's true and extend the impact of WHY it's important) Every time you extend an argument you should extend the link chain + impact. No blippy extensions.

- Terminal defense is not sticky (translation: Rebuttals will not be directly flowed across so bring it up in summary if you want it in final focus)

- Collapse

- Pls don’t make me intervene (write my ballot for me with weighing)

warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants (warrants =/= evidence)

weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh but make it comparative

in summary and final focus

pls thank u

Policy update:

I'm familiar with policy debate, as in I've judged it before, but I never competed in it. I competed in public forum so keep that in mind when you're debating. Aka:

- don't go too fast, if you are gonna spread - send me a doc

- If you're running theories or Kritiks that are not intuitive -- please EXPLAIN THEM FULLY or it will not go your way. Also if it involves smth sensitive - please include a content warning.

- Time yourselves - I might do it on the side too but I want you guys to keep track of it yourselves. Especially prep or opponent's prep.

I am a parent judge . This is my fourth year judging PF debates.

Speak clearly and articulate your points well. Please don’t spread.

I pay attention to cross-X sessions and how your are countering the opponent’s cases/arguments with proper evidences.

Please be courteous and respectful to your opponents.

Good luck!

I'm a parent judge. Please speak clear and a bit slower. I want to hear clear logic and good evidence!

Prounouns: she/her

Triggers: n/a

Paradigm: I'm a "Flay" judge, but I've been judging PF since 2014, and I've judged at major tournaments like Harvard, Georgetown, and UK. Don't spread - I flow the entire round (including crossfires) and I want to be able to not only understand your arguments, but note when you are or are not addressing your opponents' arguments. I prefer clear logic, solid evidence, and confident rhetoric. I don't believe that the entirety of a debate is evidence versus evidence, so frameworks, weighing, and actually speaking persuasively are a major plus. While I fully understand debate jargon, don't rely on it as you would with more technical judges. Make me care more about your world than your opponents'.

I prefer PF rounds are NOT theory or K arguments. However, I will always judge based on how you handle your case, and how your opponent handles it.

If the tournament allows spectators, those spectators should not be leaving and coming back repeatedly during the round. It's incredibly distracting for me and may hinder competitors as well.

FOR DIGITAL TOURNAMENTS: Please speak slowly enough that the internet connection can keep up with you. Even with a solid connection, going too quickly results in a blur of noise that makes it difficult to listen for judges and opponents alike.

Additionally: During a digital tournament, please speak up if you cannot hear your opponent. Don't wait until the end of their speech to note that, for you, they were cutting out. It is better to handle the issue with tech time and have the speech given normally than having an off-time recap.

Hello!

I am a lay judge that looks at the team that speaks the most clearly. Speak slower as I value clarity over speed. As long as you explain your arguments in an understandable way, I will be able to take note of it. Teams that present themselves in a more confident and concise way will end up getting my vote.

By profession, I am a Program Manager with Bank of the West and have worked for 2 decades with several diverse teams with different opinions on matters. I enjoy considering conflicting points of view. I am a PF judge and have a reasonable familiarity with the rules.

- Please do not use extremely complicated debate jargon.

- I try to keep my evaluation exclusively to the flow. In-round weighing of arguments combined with strength of link and conceded arguments. I default to arguments with substantive warranted analysis.

-I strongly encourage debaters to cut cards as opposed to hyperlinking a google doc.

- Please collapse

- Defense should be extended in both summary speeches if you want to go for it in the final focus

- Speaker points are used to indicate how good I think debaters are in a particular round

- Be respectful in cross as I play close attention to it.

- Don't speak too fast but if you do please give me the speech doc

- Time yourself and make your opponents accountable for their speech and prep timings

- Weigh your impacts and explain

- Provide an off-time roadmap

- Have Fun!

Please let me know if you have any questions. My email is dhira.vaidya@gmail.com

I debated for Marist.
General Stuff:
Tech > truth to an extent
Please explain your arguments and have warrants that back them up.
Evidence: Honestly everyone is pretty shady in PF with evidence and it gets pretty annoying. You should have all of your evidence cut and preferably not paraphrased. I will almost always prefer an argument with evidence to an analytical argument.
Rebuttal/Second half: Second rebuttal needs to frontline at least turns. Summary and FF need to mirror each other. Defense is needed in first rebuttal. Besides that do whatever you want

Cross: Please be civil during cross. Interrupting your opponent is not an argument and you will get low speaks if you are unnecessarily rude.
Speed: I’m a pretty fast debater for the most part so just do whatever you want.
Theory: Theory is a good way to check back for abusive practices in the community like paraphrasing but do not just run theory to run it and get an easy W. That’s abusive and defeats the point

I have been associated with the speech & debate program since 2016. I have judged a few competitions - Congress and Public Forum. Here are my preferences:

1. I appreciate debaters maintaining the decorum, at all times

2. Make sure to follow the rules, at all times

3. Treat your opponent(s) with respect and dignity, just like how you would like to be treated

4. Understand and practice the difference b/w speaking affirmatively vs speaking loudly

5. To me, good content is one where there is strong evidence to support your arguments

6. I appreciate meaningful, relevant statistics/data points that support the evidence

7. I appreciate a good summary towards the end highlighting key impacts

8. Speak at an acceptable pace. Being clear and concise is important to me that speaking fast

Wish you best!

I've coached Speech & Debate for around a decade now. I do not support any form of progressive debate in PF. Prove you understand the resolution and the content of the topic. Here’s some advice:

- No spreading, I’ll say “clear” if you need to slow down

- Use taglines and signpost to maintain clarity of flow

- I do not flow cross examination so be sure to include ideas in speech

- I am a believer in pragmatism over the ideological

- Clear elaboration and correlation is as important as card use

-Link the arguments, don't make assumptions or just point to a card

-It should not take over a minute to find cards, please be familiar with your evidence

- Keep the round moving, I’ll keep time of speeches and prep

My son considers me a “lay judge”. I like logical arguments, but that doesn't mean it has to be a common argument (in fact, I like a variety of arguments because it spices up the debate).

For your debate, please do not “spread”; speak at a normal pace so I can understand. I listen to cross, but I do not vote what happens in cross unless you can’t defend case. Since I am listening to crossfire, it will play a role on how many speaks I will give you. I will give feedback and explain why I voted for a certain team after the round is finished. If I am judging an online debate tournament, I expect debaters to send me a speech doc for constructive AND rebuttal before you begin speaking to yang_wang1@hotmail.com because it helps me follow arguments easier. (use saved attachments or paste into the email content, NO google docs share please)

Time your opponents’ speeches and feel free to interrupt when time is up. Please stick to the allotted time frames. I prefer off time road maps and please stick to them. Please be respectful to your opponents at all times or I will deduct speaks. I take notes. Good luck.

I am a lay judge :)

Please don't talk too quickly and practice good debate ethics.

Hi friends! My name is Abby (they/she) and I was a Public Forum debater, Extemper, and Congressional debater for just about the entirety of high school! I participated in both local and national circuits, so I will most likely have a decent idea of what you’re talking about. I was a pretty traditional debater from a pretty traditional circuit, but I’ll be able to understand just about any type of argument as long as it’s explained well. I'm also lowkey a flow judge so keep that in mind! In case you care, I’m currently a junior at the University of Minnesota - Twin Cities studying Sociology of Law, Criminology, and Justice as well as Political Science (if you have any questions about college sociology/poli sci programs or the U, I am totally willing to answer them!).

If you only have like 10 seconds before the round, quick notes:

• Be respectful!

• Include me in the email chain/evidence doc (my email is at the bottom). I <3 receiving speech docs, too.

• WEIGH!

• Tech > Truth unless it's something really silly.

• Clearly explain any theory or anything wildly non-traditional.

• Explain more complex arguments/link chains and explain them WELL.

• Evidence fraud is icky. Don't do it.

• Please turn off your ringtones/alarms!

• Spreading has no place in PF. Talking fast is fine, but make sure you're speaking at an understandable, clear pace. If you plan on exceeding 230wpm, I want a speech doc or something of the sort beforehand so I can better follow along. If I can't understand you, I can't flow.

• Treat everyone equally regardless of their identity or skill level.

• I forget to mention this before rounds but I am generally a very expressive person- please ignore my face while you're speaking, sometimes I just can't contain myself. My facial expressions are not an indication of my ballot or your performance.

• If you’re reading something potentially triggering, have a backup case ready and ask everyone in the round if they’re okay with you reading it. Don’t read overly graphic arguments in front of me. I will drop you if you read something that requires a trigger warning but is not given one. Mentioning things like war, genocide, and sexual violence is fine as long as you don't get into the nasty details without a TW.

• If you purposefully misgender or use any offensive language towards me or your opponents, I WILL drop you and give you the lowest speaks possible. Don’t even try to get away with hatred, I’ll catch it and cause problems.

• Have fun!

Long version:

Constructive:

I like framework, but I won’t die if you don’t introduce one. I was usually first speaker when I was a debater, so I get the struggle of fitting everything in within four minutes, but don’t be gasping for breath while screaming 50 different contentions at me. Also, and I can't emphasize this enough, EXPLAIN THEORY, LONG LINK CHAINS, AND ANYTHING SUPER COMPLICATED. It makes things easier for me and for your opponents. Debate isn't fun if nobody understands what's going on.

Rebuttal:

For both first and second rebuttal, address framework if one is presented in the round!! Give me reasons to prefer your framework over theirs. If you don’t, I’ll prefer your opponent’s automatically or I’ll default to a cost-benefit analysis. Use your time wisely. I don't care if the first rebuttal doesn't do any frontlining on their case, but it might be helpful to you.

CX:

Don’t be a jerk. Don’t talk over your opponents if you can help it, and please don’t yell. On the same note, don’t be afraid to be assertive! As a non-male debater, I noticed that my male opponents often overlooked me or didn’t take me seriously- don’t let them do that to you. I’ll probably pay attention to cross, but I won’t flow anything unless you explicitly bring something up in a speech. If you’re being rude or disrespectful to your opponents or partner, it’ll hurt your speaks and possibly even impact my ballot.

Summary:

WEIGH!!! I know everyone says that, but it’s super important! Remember to address everything important and set up voters for your partner’s final focus. When it comes to weighing evidence, don’t just cite the names and dates of the cards- tell me what they say and why I should prefer your card.

Final Focus:

I just want you to give me voters. Sum up the round accurately and touch on everything your partner said in summary, even if it’s just for 5 seconds. Use your time wisely.

Speaker Points:

I generally give really good speaker points as long as I feel you deserve them (I’m talking 28-30). I can handle speed for the most part, but I do believe that spreading has no place in PF. I’ll stop flowing if I cannot understand you, but I’ll let you know before it gets to that point (most likely by flailing my arms around or doing something of the sort). Just remember: I’m not stupid. Don’t treat me like I am, otherwise your speaks will suffer. Also, don’t be a jerk (if you’re really rude, I will drop you)!! Don’t throw around fancy debate language and then not elaborate. Using buzzwords like magnitude, turn, and fiat means NOTHING if you don’t explain yourself.

LD:

I've watched a total of 2 LD rounds in my entire life and only judged 1. I don't know a lot about it. If I'm judging you, I apologize. Most of what I said above applies to you, too. Just speak at a decent pace (not spreading pls) and explain everything well. We'll get through this unfortunate circumstance together.

Miscellaneous:

• I don’t tolerate hate or any bad -isms/-phobias (sexism, racism, xenophobia, etc.).

• I’ll time your speeches, but make sure to time yourself too! If you go over time, I’ll give you until the end of your sentence to finish. When it comes to cross, I'll let you finish answering the question if you go over time.

• Evidence fraud is gross. Don’t do that (I really don't want to deal with it).

• If you’re a varsity/more experienced team, DON’T be mean or condescending to a JV/novice team. They’re learning. Be good role models.

• Please please please turn off any obnoxious ringtones or notifications coming from your phone while you’re debating. They drive me absolutely crazy. That includes those annoying beeping timers.

• I will not count the time it takes to send/receive speech docs or cards as prep unless it's taking an excessively long time. Same goes for resolving tech issues.

• Don’t be afraid to make a joke, be a little bit sassy, and have fun! Debate is supposed to be educational, but that doesn’t mean it has to be boring!

• I will ALWAYS disclose after the round unless I am explicitly told not to or if extreme circumstances arise. I do not want to spend an hour after the round giving oral critiques so I'll keep it short and leave my lengthy RFD for the ballot. I will not give you my flow. They're usually incomprehensible anyways so there's no point in asking me to share it.

If you have any questions or comments, don’t be afraid to email me! I’ll do my best to respond ASAP! Include me in any email chains and/or evidence docs used in round. If you ask in round if I want to be added to the evidence doc/email chain, I’ll probably be very sad because that means you didn’t read my paradigm. :(

email: wichlacz.ab@gmail.com

Put Me on the Email Chain: Cjaswill23@gmail.com

Experience: I debated in College policy debate team (Louisville WY) at the University of Louisville, went to the quarterfinals of the NDT 2018 , coached and judged high school and college highly competitive teams.

Policy Preferences: Debate is a game that is implicated by the people who play it. Just like any other game rules can be negotiated and agreed upon. Soooooo with that being said, I won't tell you how to play, just make sure I can clearly understand you and the rules you've negotiated(I ran spreading inaccessible arguments but am somewhat trained in evaluating debaters that spread) and I also ask that you are not being disrespectful to any parties involved. With that being said, I don't care what kind of arguments you make, just make sure there is a clear impact calculus, clearly telling me what the voters are/how to write my ballot. Im also queer black woman poet, so those strats often excite me, but will not automatically provide you with a ballot. You also are not limited to those args especially if you don't identify with them in any capacity. I advise you to say how I’m evaluating the debate via Role Of the Judge because I will default to the arguments that I have on my flow and how they "objectively" interact with the arguments of your opponent. I like narratives, but I will default to the line by line if there is not effective weighing. Create a story of what the aff world looks like and the same with the neg. I'm not likely to vote for presumption arguments, it makes the game dull. I think debate is a useful tool for learning despite the game-structure. So teach me something and take my ballot.

Other Forms of Debate: cross-apply above preferences

I am a relatively new parent debate judge. I have judged more LD than PF.

I flow the rounds and appreciate careful and reasonably-paced speaking, good evidence and knowledge of your sources.

I am skeptical of statistics unless they are backed by good explanations and sound reasoning. I value well-structured cases, clear arguments, and explicit weighing.

I am Dyspolity@gmail.com on email chains.

NSDA update:

I love judging here. Principally this is because the schools who compete the most robust circuits have to slow down and I get to be a meaningful participant in the debates. I am not fast enough to judge the TOC circuit and even my home circuit, TFA can have me out over my skis trying to follow. But here, my experience has been that the very best schools adapt to the format by slowing their roll and this allows me to viscerally enjoy the beauty and rigor of their advocacy. Do not confuse my pace limitations with cognitive limits.

Who I am:

Policy debater in the 1970's and 80's. I left debate for 15 years then became a coach in 1995. I was a spread debater, but speed then was not what speed is today. I am not the fast judge you want if you like speed. Because you will email me your constructive speeches, I will follow along fine, but in the speeches that win or lose the round I may not be following if you are TOC circuit fast. If that makes me a dinosaur, so be it.

I have coached most of my career in Houston at public schools and currently I coach at Athens in East Texas. I have had strong TOC debaters in LD, but recently any LDers that I have coached were getting their best help from private coaching. Only recently have I had Policy debate good enough to be relevant at TOC tournaments.

I rarely give 30's. High points come from clear speaking, cogent strategic choices, professional attitudes and eloquent rhetoric.

Likes:

Line by line debates. I want to see the clash of ideas.

Policy arguments that are sufficiently developed. A disadvantage is almost never one card. Counterplans, too, must be fully developed. Case specific counterplans are vastly preferable to broad generics. PIC's are fine.

Framework debates that actually clash. I like K debates, but I am more likely to vote on a K that is based on philosophy that is more substantive and less ephemeral. NOTE: I have recently concluded that running a K with me in the back of the room is likely to be a mistake. I like the ideas in critical arguments, but I believe I evaluate policy arguments more cleanly.

Dislikes:

Poor extensions. Adept extensions will include references to evidence, warrants and impacts.

Overclaiming. Did I need to actually include that?

Theory Arguments, including T. I get that sometimes it is necessary, but flowing the standards and other analytical elements of the debate, particularly in rebuttals, is miserable. To be clear, I do vote on both theory and T, but the standards debate will lose me if you are running through it.

Circuit level speed.

I am fine with conditional elements of a negative advocacy. I believe that policy making in the real world is going to evaluate multiple options and may even question assumptions at the same time. But I prefer that the positions be presented cogently.

Rudeness and arrogance. I believe that every time you debate you are functioning as a representative of the activity. When you are debating an opponent whose skill development does not approach your own, I would prefer that you debate in such a way so as to enable them to learn from the beating your are giving them. You can beat them soundly, and not risk losing the ballot, without crushing their hopes and dreams. Don't be a jerk. Here is a test, if you have to ask if a certain behavior is symptomatic of jerkitude, then it is.

One More Concern:

There are terms of art in debate that seem to change rather frequently. My observation is that many of these terms become shorthand for more thoroughly explained arguments, or theoretical positions. You should not assume that I understand the particularly specialized language of this specific iteration of debate.

Policy Debate:

I default negative unless convinced otherwise. Also, I fail to see why the concept of presumption lacks relevance any more.

LD Debate:

Because of the time skew, I try to give the affirmative a lot of leeway. For example, I default aff unless convinced otherwise.

I have a very high threshold to overcome my skepticism on ROTB and ROTJ and Pre-Fiat arguments. I should also include K aff's that do not affirm the resolution and most RVI's in that set of ideas that I am skeptical about on face. I will vote on these arguments but there is a higher threshold of certainty to trigger my ballot. I find theory arguments more persuasive if there is demonstrable in-round abuse.

PF Debate:

I won't drop a team for paraphrasing, yet, but I think it is one of the most odious practices on the landscape of modern debate. Both teams are responsible for extending arguments through the debate and I certainly do not give any consideration for arguments in the final focus speeches that were not properly extended in the middle of the debate.

Congress:

1) This is not an interactive activity. I will not signal you when I am ready. If I am in the back of your Congress session, I am ready. 2) At the best levels of this event, everyone speaks well. Content rules my rankings. 3)I am particularly fond of strong sourcing. 4)If you aren't warranting your claims, you do not warrant a high ranking on my ballot. 5) Your language choices should reflect scholarship. 6) All debate is about the resolution of substantive issues central to some controversy, as such clash is critical.

Hey everyone!

I’m a parent judge and don’t have a lot of experience judging.

For the november/december topic, I would say that I have enough knowledge on the topic to understand most arguments.

Please do not run any squirrely arguments.

I am more of a truth>tech judge rather than a tech>truth judge.

I vote off of what makes the most sense to me. If you want to win my ballot, then you need to explain your argument thoroughly. I would rather you spend all of your speeches explaining your argument rather than spend the whole time talking about your opponents case.

Weighing is important but Case is the most important thing in the round.

Please do not speak fast, a 600 - 700 word case would be preferable.

I do speaks off of how well I can understand you.

Very experienced judge and coach for Saint Francis high school. I will consider pretty much any arguments that are not blatantly sexist, racist or crudely discriminatory (blatant is the key word here, much of this stuff is debatable and I will try not to punish you for my general feelings about your arguments).

It is important to me that debaters be respectful and polite to each other, this puts the spotlight on the arguments themselves and I am not a fan of extra drama.

I try hard to be fair and the following things help me do that:

- I rarely call cards. I like to focus the debate on the analysis given by the debaters (of course I will usually give more weight to analysis that is taken from qualified sources). I do not like to decide debates on random parts of a card that neither debater really focused on. I will call cards if I forget what they said, if there is a conflict about what they say and I can not remember, or if I am personally interested in the card.

- I try to judge on the flow in the sense that I evaluate the debate on the arguments presented, explained and extended into the rebuttals. I will occasionally do the work to weigh impacts or decide framing if the debaters are not doing that for me.

- I will not yell "clear", so mumble and slur at your own risk (I don't yell clear because I don't want a team to find that sweet spot where I can understand them but their opponents can not). I will also not evaluate arguments that I can not hear. I do not read speech documents during the debate rounds, sometimes I will look at them after the round (see calling cards stuff above).

Argument preferences:

I am cool with critiques on the aff and neg.

I am cool with framework (I like the debaters to work this out and I am pretty neutral on this question).

I like clarity (both in speech and arguments). I am not impressed by things that are "too complex" for me to understand but I will do my best to try to make sense of it. I am confident enough to not pretend I know your position and I will not fill in the blanks for you.

I am cool with policy arguments.

I have a wide breadth of knowledge but little depth on certain positions, don't assume I know your literature.

Speaks:

I give high speaks for clarity, efficiency, a pace that I can flow, respectfulness and occasionally speaking style.

I feel like the speaker point range I give is pretty close to average (I am not a reliable source of high speaks for everyone, but I will reward excellent debate with high speaks).

Contact info

mail all speech documents to: headofthewood@gmail.com

anything else (if you want me to read the e-mail or respond): thomaswoodhead@sfhs.com

Please speak slowly so I can clearly understand you. Please focus on / reemphasize your main points and rebut other side’s main arguments instead of flooding me with information about everything. Depth than breadth. Sometimes less is more :)

English is my second language, please speak slower and clear and use simpler english where possible.

Hello!

I am a new parent judge and I would really appreciate if you speak clearly and speak slowly. As a parent judge, it is very likely that I will not know a lot about the topic you are debating so make sure that you explain everything. Also, as a parent judge I will probably not know many debate terms so please try to avoid these, for example use point instead of contention. Please signpost. Make sure to extend all your points and keep bringing up the points you want me to remember. It will help me decide a winner if you directly compare your arguments and impacts to your opponents.

I am looking forward to judging you, thank you so much!

Intro

My name is Charly Ying, I was a PF debater (4 years), This is my third year judging, and I appreciate debate for the art form that it is. Show me you do as well and this becomes an excellent round.

I attend Michigan State University and I study International Relations (IR) with sub-areas in environmental and economic policy.

BE ON TIME! This applies in round, time yourself, yes you can have some grace before you get up there but If I see you daddling I will move you along.

Argumentation Style

Unlike previous years I am more open to theory if you can back why you are using it over the actual topic.

Extend Arguments into later speeches!!! While it's challenging, in my opinion, to extend arguments, it makes debate easier to judge when the dust settles.

Use framework for the entire round if you decide to bring it up. Show me why it is a valid framework, how the clash occurs in round, and why I again should be looking to yours over the opponents.

(Varsity) Omission = Admission

Evidence (Truth > Technical)

This section should not have to be here, but as I read more and more into it, I want debaters to be more conscientious of the evidence used in rounds and promote ethics across the field. The procedural norm for this should be to call out an opponent's evidence and then refute that or use a counterfactual process such as postdating.

It is your job as a debater not to merely be good at performing in PF debate but to make arguments that are the most truthful.

"That does not mean science can and should be used to support any position what-
soever. Scientific evidence places limits on what is empirically plausible, and if we
are to care about evidence, those limits must be respected. (Douglas 2014)"

More examples can be found here "Scientific expertise and political accountability: paradoxes of science in politics" Weingart 1999.

Also, start an email chain or card doc to make sure I get the important information! HAVE CUT CARDS I WILL CALL EVIDENCE IN ROUND it's best we both use our time effectively

Time Management

I will keep your time, but you should also keep your time to synchronize. If you go over time, I'm not flowing it, I will cross my arms and watch.

Crossfires should be utilized accordingly, don't go too far over but also don't have zero questions.

Usually, I'm fine with medium to fast speed but Do Not policy spread, we created PF to break away, not mirror policy.

Outro

Please don't hesitate to ask questions before round!

If you have read all the way through ask me before round what are the only colors for extra points.

I'm the parent of a debater, treat me as a traditional judge. Speak well and be consistent between your speeches. I expect everything to be brought up in the final focus be in the summary. I always prefer a debate with less arguments but more analysis than a debate with more arguments but less analysis. I prefer a fact supported by quantifiable measurement and good reasoning. I value logical arguments that happen in the real world as I am interested in the implication of these topics in the real world. Don't run progressive arguments such as theory, Ks, or tricks as i don't know how to evaluate them. Have fun and be respectful of each other at all times.

I'm currently a university student studying Political Science at University of California - Berkeley. I started doing Public Forum in 7th grade, so I have around 8 years of experience in debate.

What I'm looking for in debate rounds:

I will definitely flow all your arguments, and the arguments I have written down on my flow will be the most important factor when I'm deciding who won the round. But more specifically, I am looking for clear, quantifiable impacts that I can consider when weighing.

If you drop an argument during your summary/final focus, I will not incorporate that into my voting issues. It is your responsibility to extend through all evidence and arguments to the very last speech if you want it to win you the round.

I was also a second speaker during my time as a high school debater, so I am looking for direct clashes to arguments in the refutation speech. I want you to directly attack the links and analysis to an argument when refuting.

In terms of speaking style, I am okay with speed, as long as it is not spreading. If you spread, especially in an online tournament, I will not be able to understand you as it is much harder to understand through a zoom call compared to an actual in-person debate.

Other than that, speak clearly and persuasively, but at the end of the day, if you have better arguments and evidence, speaking style comes second.

As a parent judge, I have far more admiration for, than expertise in, your craft.

I flow but am happy to be carried away by the grace of a thoughtful argument.

In my paradigm:

- clarity trumps speed;

- intelligence trumps arrogance; and

- realistic complexity trumps reductionism.

I believe that the notional precision of speaker scores, particularly at the Varsity level, is overwhelmed by the subjectivity of human judges and the lottery that is Tab.

To state the obvious in this impossible season: on-line debate is a pale, impoverished cousin of the Real Thing, as is true of so much in this pandemic. But your dedication, preparation, and passion can still shine through--just don't let the bandwidth get you down.

My sincere congratulations for participating in Yale's flagship event, and condolences if you draw me as a judge.

Thank you.

I am a parent judge new to the national circuit. I'd like to see debaters debate in a civil and professional manner demonstrating sound logical reasoning while building a strong case. Please pay attention to your warrants, link chains, and questions you may ask during crossfires. Please speak clearly and do not spread or speak too fast, so I can fully understand you. Please do not use too many technical jargon but treat me as someone who had minimal knowledge on the topic, so please explain your logic and convince me fully why I should vote for you. I am looking forward to seeing you in rounds. I wish you all the best!

This is my first year judging debate; I am a parent judge.

In a debate:

1. Speak clearly and slowly. I do not understand spreading.

2. Do impact calculus! Write my ballot for me in the last speeches.

3. It is your job to make sure that I understand your arguments very clearly; I cannot and will not try to evaluate arguments that are ambiguous.

4. Be respectful!

Hi.

I am a parent judge who started the judging debate in 2021. I understand the format of the public forum and the form of a basic flow. I am a lay judge, so please EXPLAIN everything in detail.

To understand your arguments easily, speak with clarity and at an understandable pace - do not talk so fast. Please time your speeches and prep time.

I am looking for in-depth explanations of each argument backed with evidence. If you don't explain things thoroughly, there is a very high chance that I will NOT vote for you.

I want to see a solid comparative weighing of the arguments you choose. I believe impacts matter a lot. If good arguments are not elaborated or restated in other speeches during your debate session, they will not make a lasting impression on me, so I may not vote on them. Also, be polite in the cross and do not interrupt each other in the middle of answers. Relax and enjoy your time debating. Good luck to all teams!

Thanks,

Yufeng Zhang

Hi there! My name is Andy.

I am a lay judge with a bit of experience judging. I've also attended a few debate tournaments in the past.

Please do not speak overly fast or else I will not catch what you are saying. I will be taking notes of all main arguments and rebuttals.

Please signpost during your speech and offtime roadmaps are great!

I am not familiar with kritiks, theory and other techy content, if you do choose to run any of the above, please relate them to the motion.

I find the most value in analysis, and explaining how your evidence relates to your arguments. Please don’t just throw evidence at me.

-- I care the most about your logic, so explain your arguments as clearly as possible.

Most importantly, have fun!

My email: zhaomeng.la@gmail.com

I am a parent judge who enjoys hearing innovative arguments. I have judged about 15 tournaments and more than 50 rounds of TOC/Varsity level of PF competitions. Below is a list of my criteria:

1. I prefer each team to provide a speech document for at least the cases and rebuttals with cards. It makes the evidence exchange professional, efficient, and fair, while allowing the judge to go back to check the evidence for clarification and validity if necessary.

2. Signpost is highly appreciated.

3. Collapsing in the back half is highly encouraged and appreciated. Also, the final focus is important for my decision, anything you want me to evaluate should be in the last speech.

4. I am okay with speed up to 220 words per minute. Speed is usually always fine, if it is well organized with signposts, and clearly delivered.

5. Tech over truth. It’s your burden to disprove your opponents’ absurdity. Comments such as “this is ludicrous” without a warrant will just make me laugh.

6. Theory running is appreciated in the debate. in fact, any argumentation is encouraged if there is a sound explanation/defense. However, make sure you explain what the jargon means when debating theoretical arguments.

7. Personally, I believe the practice of disclosing arguments on the wiki is in the best interest of the debate community’s well-being, and should become a norm, at least in varsity debate competitions.

8. I do not have a preference of paraphrasing, but evidence ethics is an important voting issue for me. For example, misrepresenting evidence in extremely egregious manner should be considered a fatal error and can’t be overlooked. However, minor infractions should not be zealously prosecuted.

9. If you beat your opponents in crossfire, you need to extend it into the speeches to score points in my evaluation.

Hi! I'm a fourth-year university student studying international relations and business admin. I debated for 6 years in CNDF, BP, WSDC, and PF so jargon is mostly fine. If you run theory or K's I'll try my best to follow, but I wasn't a progressive debater so you might want to play it safe by just being traditional.

Public Forum

Content

Tech > Truth

Please don't refer to cards ONLY by author name. I don't write down author names for cards and I'll have no idea what you're referring to. I'm putting this at the top so y'all see it.

Frameworks are cool but if you bring in a framework, you need to tie it into your arguments and explain to me what you gain/opponents lose. PF speeches are too short for you to waste your time on a framework debate if winning it makes no difference on the overall decision.

Warranting/logic behind your evidence is very important. Not being able to explain your cards looks really bad on you.

Saying the word "Extend" is not extending evidence. You're extending arguments, not authors, which means there should be some explanation and some development. I won't vote on anything that's not extended through summary and brought up in final focus. You must extend responses in summary if you don't intend on me dropping the argument. I also expect extending on defense too, or I will assume it to be dropped. (If you're in varsity you can extend authors)

Weigh the round so I don’t have to. You don’t want to be in the position where I'm weighing arguments for you and putting the decision in my hands. I love impact calc :))

Literally run me through how I should vote, this is the easiest way for you to win.

Cross ends as soon as the timer goes off. To pre-emptively address your questions, you may finish your sentence, but don't add another 4 paragraphs to your answer. Please be polite to each other.

The Second Rebuttal MUST frontline. The First Summary MUST frontline. Please frontline. Thank you :))

Please collapse in summary or final focus, makes the debate way cleaner to evaluate and trying to win on everything is going to make everything a wash.

If you go over time I will not cut you off, I will simply stop flowing. Please don't make me intervene.

Style

If you’re going to talk fast you need to be clear and signpost properly. I’ll give extra speaks if you make a joke. This is NOT an invitation to be rude.

Please do not pause for a long time between speeches, if you're taking prep time let me know. If you pause, I will start prep time :))

I'm generally pretty lenient with speaks, so unless you were rude or the debate was extremely messy, I usually won't give lower than a 27.

I will give a 30 if (only have to fulfill one):
- You and your partner each give 3 Taylor Swift references

- You and your partner can guess ONE of my favorite kpop groups + my bias in that group

I'd be happy to talk to you after the round if you want more feedback. Feel free to ask me for my email or other contact info!

About me...

I am a parent judge. I did my Ph.D. work in Linguistics. I lead the Data Science group for a pretty large international corporation, and have worked deeply with data for 2 decades. I'm pretty sure I have a good understanding of fact versus opinion, and statistical argumentation... maybe even better than you? Please do use all sorts of evidence to support your arguments but don't make it up. I'll disregard it and probably not vote for you. Said another way, if you don't have evidence to support something, I believe in you and your ability. Use something like, oh say, logic and explain things in a different way.

On evidence...

If you cite a fact, or statistic, or quote someone and I have a question about it, I will ask to see the evidence. I hope you got that already.

On Argumentation...

I respect all sorts of support for arguments. It doesn't have to be all statistics. I'm very neutral and impartial. If I do believe strongly in one side or the other, you will never know it, and anyway, it doesn't matter. What I respect is a thorough and well constructed argument.

On speaking...

If your technology isn't working I'll always tell you. In general, you may speak in any manner you choose, just know that if I can't understand you, I won't ask you to slow down, or repeat anything. I'll just ignore your argument.

Peter Zopes
Speech and Debate Coach, Chelmsford High School

I participated in Policy Debate and Extemporaneous Speaking in high school (in the late 70s), though mostly Extemp. I teach US History, Speech and Debate, and Government. I’m in my fourteenth year of coaching Speech and Debate. I think formal debate and argumentation has real value; it drives public discourse and helps society progress. I am very interested in what I see going on in the debate community, though not all do I agree. That being said, here is my judging paradigm that outlines my position on debate.

The Resolution. I prefer substantive debate that focuses on the resolution. There is a reason we have a resolution, debate that! Be clear, concise, and clash. Be topical. Debate the contentions, the evidence, the link, warrant, etc. Don’t waste time on frameworks or arguing about debate! I’m not a fan of theory or kritiks. (They smack of deconstructionist word play!) Be professional, speak to the judge (me!) not your paper or laptop, and address your opponent with respect. Stand during the round. Dress professionally. (Yes, imagine that!) I can flow most things that comes my way, however, speed and volume (not loudness, but the amount of information put forth) do not necessarily further the debate.

Case and Evidence. This is key. In LD, debate is value based, you must demonstrate how your case is constructed to achieve the value and value criterion you identified. If not, this will negatively affect my judgment on the round. In PF show strong case development in support of your side of the resolution, with strong claims, evidence, and warrants. Arguments need to be developed and elaborated upon, not just with vague statements, but with supportive evidence (statistics, analogies, statements, data, etc, from philosophical, legal, theological, historic, and news sources). This should be used both in case development and rebuttal (when appropriate). Evidence used should be clearly identified in the reading of the card in terms of both author and source. (Name of author, title of article, and if needed title of publication and date) During rebuttal explain how you or your opponent did or did not support their side of the resolution via claim, evidence or warrant. Specifically identify voting issues raised, defended or dropped.

Speaker Points. Be professional, polite, articulate, strategic, and clear. This is the basis for determining speaker points. DON'T Spread or even try to talk really fast. All words have a clear beginning and end. I need to hear them. IF YOU SPREAD, YOU LOSE. Your case should be presented in a manner that is not over flowing with debate jargon or nomenclature.

Something to keep this in mind: In the original debates, if either Lincoln or Douglas conducted their debates in the manner modern debaters do, neither would have won. The audiences would have walked away. Modern LD and Policy debate may provide you with some great learning experiences, however, constructing and delivering a case in the manner I hear today is not one of them. All you are learning is how to deliver to a narrow, self-selected audience. I hope and will do what I can to prevent PF from proceeding down that path. Further, too often debaters dismiss parent judges for not knowing enough about debate. That is the wrong mindset. It is not the parent judges' job to become an expert in your type of debate or the resolution. Your job is to educate them on the resolution and your case, and convince them your position is correct. You need to adjust your delivery to reach them. The number one consideration for any debater or speaker is reaching their audience. If you lose the audience, you lose the debate. Simple. The supposed "cool" judges who let you do whatever you want are not helping you develop your skills beyond the narrow world of debate. Selecting judges with widely different judging paradigms does! Good luck!

Update. I prefer a narrative presentation of the arguments. Telling me you are "frontlining' this, "extending" that, is overtly technical and undermines the rhetorical nature of the event which we chose to engage. Avoid the nomenclature of debate - identifying the structure various parts of or the process of argument, but explain to me, in clear concise language, what arguments you are advancing in the round and why they have impact compared to your opponents' arguments. Good speaking, like good writing, is precise and concise, avoids jargon and uses common, proscribed vernacular.