My paradigm is based mainly on impact. I want to see what the Competors pull through at the end of the round, and most importantly that they apply good analysis of the topic in general. All that means that you need to clash with your opponent’s arguments and show me why yours are more important or relevant to the debate, and why they matter.

Debate isn’t about burying your opponents in contentions, it’s about good use of arguments and rhetoric. Of course, I also believe decorum is important, and that the competitors are respectful to each other.

Strath Haven '23, PF 4 years

Add me to email chain: justinbi2004@gmail.com

Standard flow judge

• Real extensions, not just "extend ____ card"
• Compare evidence
• Collapse
• Weigh please
• Cross is binding
• Limited familiarity with prog
• If you're going fast, send a doc
• Don’t steal prep, I’ll keep track
• Preflow before round if possible

Ask questions if you have any, and have fun!

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.

CONGRESSIONAL DEBATE

As a Congressional debate judge, I am listening for fervor, passion, and rhetorical integrity. Students who begin or lapse into reading their speeches will not receive high marks from me - extemporaneous speaking is key here with ideas presented in flavorful tones without the monotone elements that derive from reading a series of sentences. The proficient asking and answering of questions is key to receiving a high score from me. I listewnt to your words and expect clear pronunciation, medium pace, and enlivened debater from you and your peers. Once the session has ended, please accept my 'virtual high five' as a response to your gestures of 'thank you for judging' mantra.

DEBATE

I am primarily a tabula rasa judge, adjudicating arguments as presented in the round. Theoretical arguments are fine as long as they contain the necessary standards and voting issue components. I am not a huge fan of the kritik in PF and tend to reside in that camp that believes such discussions violate the legitimacy of tournament competitions; that being said, I will entertain the argument as well as theoretical counter arguments that speak to its legitimacy, but be forewarned that shifting the discussion to another topic and away from the tournament-listed resolution presents serious questions in my mind as to the respect owed to teams that have done the resolutional research deemed appropriate by the NSDA.

I am adept at flowing but cannot keep up with exceptionally fast-paced speaking and see this practice as minimizing the value of authentic communication. I will do my best but may not render everything on the flow to its fullest potential. Please remember that debate is both an exercise in argumentation as well as a communication enterprise. Recognizing the rationale behind the creation of public forum debate by the NSDA underscores this statement. As a result, I am an advocate for debate as an event that involves the cogent, persuasive communication of ideas. Debaters who can balance argumentation with persuasive appeal will earn high marks from me. Signposting, numbering of arguments, crystallization, and synthesis of important issues are critical practices toward winning my ballot, as are diction, clarity, and succinct argumentation. The rationale that supports an argument or a clear link chain will factor into my decision making paradigm.

RFD is usually based on a weighing calculus - I will look at a priori arguments first before considering other relevant voters in the round. On a side note: I am not fond of debaters engaging with me as I explain a decision; that being said, I am happy to entertain further discussion via email, should a situation warrant. Also, Standing for speeches is my preference.

I'm Anna (she/her). I’m a sophmore at Brown University. I coach PF for Durham where I debated from 2018-2021.

Add me to the chain: anna.brent-levenstein@da.org

TLDR:

At the end of the day, I’ll vote off the flow. Read whatever arguments, weighing, framework etc. you want. That being said, I don’t like blippy debate. Don’t skimp on warranting. If your argument doesn’t have a warrant the first time it’s read, I won’t vote off of it. I am especially persuaded by teams that have a strong narrative in the back half or a clear offensive strategy.

Specifics:

1. I always look to weighing first when I make a decision. If you are winning weighing on an argument and offense off of it, you have my ballot. That said, it must be actual comparative, well-warranted weighing not just a collection of buzzwords(e.g. we outweigh on probability because our argument is more probable is not weighing). Prereqs, link ins, short circuits etc. are the best pieces of weighing you can read.

2. Collapse and extend. I'm not voting off of a 5 sec extension of a half fleshed out turn. It will better serve you to spend your time in the back half extending, front-lining, and weighing one or two arguments well than 5 arguments poorly.

3. Implicate defense, especially in the back half. If it is terminal, tell me that. If it mitigates offense so much that their impacts aren't weighable, tell me that. Otherwise, I'm going to be more likely to vote on risk of offense arguments. Impact out and weigh turns.

4. I will evaluate theory/Ks/progressive args. When reading Ks, please make my role as a judge/the ROB as explicit as possible. Additionally, please know the literature well and explain your authors' positions as thoroughly and accessibly as possible. I see theory as a way to check back against serious abuse and/or protect safety in rounds. I will evaluate paraphrase and disclosure theory but find that the debates are generally boring so I won't be thrilled watching them.

I won't tolerate discriminatory behavior of any kind. Read content warnings with anonymous opt outs. Respect your opponents and their pronouns.

Finally, I really appreciate humor and wit. Making me laugh or smile will give you a really good chance at high speaker points.

If you have any questions feel free to ask me before round. I will disclose and give feedback after the round.

Policy Debate Paradigm:

Overview:

The things you are probably looking for:

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

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

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

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

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

Specifics:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Email: dhbroussard1763@gmail.com

I am an Americorps service member with less formal debate training.

My ballot is awarded to the team with the best speaking skills, articulation of their arguments throughout the whole round, proper refutation of all their opponent's points, usage of evidence, and comparative argumentation.

Speed and jargon are a no. Please don't immediately presume I know the intricacies of deep research on the resolution. The point of a public forum debate is that you should be able to break down the debate on the resolution for anyone and convince them why your side is right. Finding a way to make me care about your side by bringing out your emotions is a plus. Being mean or a bully does the opposite.

Be sure to time your own speeches and keep track of prep time. I'll also be keeping time, but there is a speaker point reduction for those who don't do it.

I am a parent judge who, a long time ago in high school, was a policy debater. I also competed in Speech events. I am a big fan of speech and debate. I have one year of judging experience of both Public Forum and Speech events.

Public Forum Debate: I enjoy hearing vigorous debates about a topic and encourage clear arguments and civil engagement. If you speak too fast or are uncivil you will loose me. In this virtual environment, some times technical issues may arise and I encourage everyone to have patience and keep your cool. I expect clear arguments and thoughtful questions cross-examination questions.

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.

I am an English teacher and a Speech and Debate teacher at Myers Park High School. I'm also the Speech team coach at MPHS. I am new to judging.

I would like to see competitors:

Speak clearly and slowly enough to be understood. Please, no spreading.

Signpost! Label your contentions and subpoints.

Be respectful.

Be assertive.

I look forward to judging regularly this year!

Hi I am Malcolm. I went to college at Swarthmore. I am an assistant debate coach with Nueva. I have previously been affiliated with Newton South, Strath Haven, Hunter College HS, and Edgemont. I have been judging pretty actively since 2017. I very much enjoy debates, and I love a good joke!

I think debates should be fun and I enjoy when debaters engage their opponents arguments in good faith. I can flow things very fast and would like to be on the email chain if you make one! malcolmcdavis@gmail.com

In general I flow (on paper) (if you find me flowing on my laptop, know that I am sad and desire paper) primarily by listening rather than following along on the doc, but do not let me slow you down. DO let your opponents slow you down respect clears from them more than from me. I believe I have a baseline obligation as an educator to ensure the round is safe for all participants. I also have an obligation to the tournament to make sure we have the round in a timely fashion. I shan't be convinced to act against these obligations.

if you aren't ready to send the evidence in your speech to the email chain, you are not done preparing for your speech, please take prep time to prepare docs. (Prep time ends when you click send on the email, not before).

---

pref shortcuts:

Phil / High Theory 1

K 1/2

LARP/policy/T 1/2

Tricks/Theory strike

-----

PF Paradigm (updated for toc 2024):

I will do my best to evaluate the debate based only what is explained in the round during speech time (this is what ends up on my flow). Clear analysis of the way arguments interact is important. I really enjoy creative argumentation, do what makes you happy in debate.

email chains are good, but DO send your evidence BEFORE the speech. I am EXTREMELY easily frustrated by time wasted off-clock calling for evidence you probably don't need to see. This is super-charged in PF where there is scarcely prep time anyways, and I know you are stealing prep. I am a rather jovial fellow, but when things start to drag I become quite a grouch.

I am happy to evaluate the k. In general I think more of these arguments are a good thing. LD paradigm has more thoughts here. The more important an argument purports to be, the more robust its explanation ought to be

Theory debates sometimes set good norms. That said, I am increasingly uninterested in theory. I am no crusader for disclosure. I will vote on any convincingly won position. Please give reasons why these arguments should be round winning. Every argument I have heard called an "IVI" would be better as a theory shell or a link into a critical position.

I think debates are best when debaters focus on fewer arguments in order to delve more deeply into those arguments. It is always more strategic to make fewer arguments with more reasoning. This is super-charged in PF where there is scarcely time to fully develop even a single argument. Make strategic choices, and explain them fully!

--

LD: updated for PFI 24.

philosophy debate is good and I really like evaluating well developed framework debates in LD. That said, I don't mind a 'policy' style util debate, they are often good debates; and I do really love judging a k. The more well developed your link and framing arguments, the more I will like your critical position.

I studied philosophy and history in college, and love evaluating arguments that engage things from that angle. Specific passions/familiarities in Hegel's PdG (Kojeve, Pinkard, Hyppolite, and Taylor's readings are most familiar in that order), Bataille, Descartes, Kristeva, Braudel, Lacan, and scholars writing about them. Know, however, that I encountered these thinkers in different contexts than debaters often approach them in. In short, Yes PoMo, yes german philosophy, yes politics of the body and pre-linguistic communication, yes to Atlantic History grounded criticisms, yes to the sea as subject and object.

Good judge for your exciting new frameworks, and I'd definitely enjoy a more plausible util warrant than 'pleasure good because of science'. 'robust neuroscience' certainly does not prove the AC framework, I regret to say.
If your approach to philosophy debate is closer to what we might call 'tricks' , I am less enthusiastic.

Every argument I have heard called an "IVI" would be better if it were a theory shell, or a link into a critical position.

I really don't like judging theory debates, although I do see their value when in round abuse is demonstrable. probably a bad judge for disclosure or other somewhat trivial interps.

Put me on the email chain.

Happy to answer questions !

--

---

Parli Paradigm updated for 2023 NPDL TOC

Hi! I am new-ish to judging high school parli, but have lots and lots of college (apda) judging and competing experience. Open to all kinds of arguments, but unlikely to understand format norms / arguments based thereupon. Err on the side of overexplaining your arguments and the way they interact with things in the debate

Be creative ! Feel free to ask any questions before the round.

------

Policy Paradigm

I really enjoy judging policy. I have an originally PF background but started judging and helping out with this event some years ago now. My LD paradigm is somewhat more current and likely covers similar things.

The policy team I have worked most closely with was primarily a policy / politics DA sort of team, but I do enjoy judging K rounds a lot.

Do add me to the email chain: malcolmcdavis@gmail.com

I studied philosophy and history in college, and love evaluating arguments that engage things from that angle.

I aim for tab rasa. I often fall short, and am happy to answer more specific questions.

If you have more specific questions, ask me before the round or shoot me an email.

---

---

Speech is cool, I am new to judging this, I will do my best to follow tournament guidelines. I enjoy humor a lot, and unless the event is called "dramatic ______" or something that seems to explicitly exclude humor, it will only help you in front of me.

--

michaeldepasquale21@gmail.com

Public Forum

Short version: collapse onto one contention in summary, weigh weigh weigh, extra speaker point for each team if you start an email chain before each round and send evidence that way. Include me on the email chain.

I did policy debate for 3 years and now am coaching public forum. With that being said, i am okay with some spreading but i need to be able to understand what your saying. Ill vote on anything, however, if your going to go for something it needs to be rebutted throughout the entire speech. You should try and write my ballot for me at the end of the round by giving me 2-3 of your best arguments and going for them. If I look confused its because I am confused, so try to not do that. I pay attention to cross x, but i dont flow it. If I feel like theres an important point being made ill for sure write it down. Cross x is the most entertaining part of the debate, so make it entertaining. Be confident but don't be rude, theres a big big difference. I prefer that you have more offensive (your flow) than defensive arguments (your opponents flow) but you need to have both in order to win the round.

If you have any specific questions let me know and Ill be sure to answer them before the round.

Policy

Like i mentioned in my PF paradigm, i did policy debate for 3 years and am now coaching Public Forum. I am good with anything you do. That being said, I don't know a lot about this topic. I'm cool with speed, but you have to be clear. Bottom line, ill vote for anything, as long as you give me a clear reason to vote for you at the end of the round. I consider a dropped argument a true argument.

Im not okay with shadow extending. If something gets conceded, you need to explain to me the argument, and why its important to the round. If your going to do an email chain, which id prefer, id like to be on that. My email is at the top of the paradigm.

Topicality: love T debates, i need a clear limits story. I am more willing to vote for you if theres in round abuse, but you do not have to prove an abuse story to win.

Ks: I will listen to them, but i am not great with Ks. I am not up to speed with all the k jargon. I need a clear link and alt. If you can prove at the end of the round why you won, and i think its convincing, ill vote for you. I recommend slowing down in the 2nr, especially if your going for the K.

Das: I do not buy generic links. If your going to read a politics da, you need to give me case specific links. Ill also be more than likely to vote for you if you can provide me with good and comparative impact calc.

Case Negs: I love case specific debates. Ill vote on presumption, and honestly any type of solvency takeout. I give analytical case arguments, especially if they are good, a lot of weight. Love impact turns.

Affirmative: I tend to swing aff when it comes debating against ptix disads with a bad link story. Same goes for cp solvency, and k links.

If you have any specific questions let me know and Ill be sure to answer them before the round.

The team that is able to support their contentions with strong logic and good evidence while effectively refuting their opponents' case will win the round. I am okay with some speed. You will see me flowing during most of the round, so I am less concerned with eye contact/hand gestures/facial expressions than some lay judges may favor. Although I won't decide a round based on a single dropped argument, I will consider that as part of my decision. The best rebuttals are those who can systematically go down the flow and address most arguments. I don't require frontlines in the 2nd Rebuttal, although it is probably a good idea to do so. I am okay with frontline arguments in 2nd Summary if there were no frontlines in 2nd rebuttal. Strong contentions will include well-linked impacts. A good final focus will include impact weighing and voters.

Yes, include me on an email chain when sharing evidence. When requesting evidence, I will consider prep time to begin once the evidence is received. Please announce when that happens and that you are taking prep.

Qualification:

I've debated for around 5 years. I've competed in PF, CNDF, Lincoln, and Public Speaking.

Paradigm:

1. Make sure to have a framework in your first speech for your side so that I know what you are following throughout the round and what you need to prove on your side.

2. Make all your points (contentions; crossfire; rebuttals; summaries; final focus) clear and straightforward for me.

3. Use valid cards to prove your points but you have to tell me the impacts, don’t throw cards that have no warrants at me. (Those will be dropped)

4. Weigh the points that have been mentioned by you and your opponents, tell me why yours overweigh theirs. I will drop any arguments that you do not carry further through your speeches.

5. I do flow speeches but only things that stand out to me so make sure to extend important points throughout the entire round. I do not flow crossfires so if you want to mention anything that happened in a crossfire, make that clear to me.

6. I look for proper timing in each speech so make sure that you fill in but don't go over the time limit.

7. Speed is alright for me as long as everything can be properly heard and makes sense.

8. I will vote on what is said and what happens in this round of debate without adding my own opinions about the topic.

9. Being polite and respectful to everyone and never be sexist, racist, ableist, etc.

My daughter, a high school freshman, just joined the debate team as a novice. She is not competing in the Duke Invitational tournament. Since joining the team and learning more about the debate formats, she has decided to switch from Public Forum to Lincoln Douglas.

Duke will be my first tournament as a Public Forum judge. I have no prior debate experience as a judge or a former student. The only debates I have observed are vice-presidential and presidential debates, and one congressional debate. Upperclassmen presented a mock Public Forum debate for parents; that is my only experience of viewing high school students in a debate scenario.

I'm hoping to see:

- confident & well-paced speaking but not overly emotional or overly expressive speaking

- respect for teammates and competitors

I am a parent who has judged five to six tournaments, PF and LD

I do not like spreading and prefer a moderate rate of speaking

Traditional arguments are preferred and will be judged for LD based on value criterion but final decision will be based on the entirety of the debate. Each opponents arguments should be countered as best as possible. Politeness is required.

I value clear communication, speed at a moderate & measured pace & professionalism at all times. Road maps not necessary.

UPDATE: Been off the circuit for a year now, take my paradigm with a grain of salt and have fun!!!! <3

Third-year medical student at the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, studying medicine. Seasonally coaching for BC Academy in Canada. Debated PF since Gr. 9.

WHO AM I?

• I disclose and give oral feedback
• I appreciate trigger warnings
• I am a flow judge
• I will be your typical tabula rasa judge and will buy any argument that is clearly warranted with logical links, stats, and impacts. This is because I have no real knowledge regarding the crux of econ, poli, etc. This is only an exception for med-related topics (just keep it realistic for pharm-based topics)
• I do not like straight up card dumps that have little to no warrants
• Content > style

SPEAKER POINTS (skip unless you REALLY want a speaker award because this part isn't as important)

I will start at 27 and dock points off or add points on based on how you presented your speech based on the following factors:

1. STYLE: Because I have been off the circuit for a while, I cannot keep up with speed but will try my best if you have a long argument (clarity > speed)
2. CONTENT: Based on how well your analysis and warranting is, I will add on additional points. I won't dock on content because I think that forces me to evaluate whether a response was sufficient or not, which means I have to input my thoughts into the round and I don't want to intervene. I'll dock you if your constructive is a card dump though.
3. MANNERS: This has never been a problem for me but any sexism, racism, ableism, etc. will be serious
4. TIME: If you go really overtime (like one minute longer) then it would be a problem

WHAT THIS ROUND SHOULD LOOK LIKE

• Road map after second rebuttal
• Please do not read theory or kritiks; I have never learned them and won't make a good decision nor evaluate it properly. But if you have any cool theories send it to my email helenh2001@gmail.com so I can have a funny dinner table conversation with my SO.
• Tech > truth (Except in med/pharm topics; I accept any well warranted and linked argument)
• I pay attention to crossfire but any real concession should be mentioned in speech
• Second rebuttal should frontline offense; at minimum you should respond to turns
• Offence is conceded if dropped in proceeding speech
• If second rebuttal misses frontlining your defence, extend from first ref to first final
• Answer turns in second rebuttal or first summary. Otherwise, you're making it unfair for the opponents to engage in it.
• Focus on collapsing. 90% of the time, it won't be a clean win if the summary goes for every voter issue. Just point out that you've dropped because neither side can win on it.
• Summary and final focus should mirror each other; I will not buy a point that was brought up in final focus but not discussed in summary; I will not extend arguments for you, so tell me what to extend.
• Final focus is not for additional refutation; any new arguments read will be disregarded

HOW DO I VOTE?

• 90% of the time I will vote on pre-reqs, warranted weighing mech, offense, and impact calc. I find as a judge it makes it easier for me to evaluate.
• Directly compare your impacts and warrants with your opponents. Explain why your impact holds more significance and why your links are clearer and stronger than your opponent's. Warranted impacts > Evidential impacts.
• Weigh based off LINKS, TURNS, LOGIC, or ANALYSIS. Evidence is important, but THAT SHOULD NOT BE THE ONLY REASON WHY YOUR IMPACT HOLDS MORE SIGNIFICANCE. If you've extended your evidence to support your links and analysis, I will look extremely favourable on that.
• Extend key issues/warrants from summary for it to be in final focus! You should focus on painting a narrative, so don't put too much on your plate to flow across everything.

MISC.

• Since I'm a college student, feel free to ask me any questions related to medical school
• I'm always down for a good banter
• Connect with me to chat more about academic-related questions: https://www.linkedin.com/in/helen-huang-635321146/

Hi there! I work as a journalist and a writer, and this influences the way that I think about judging. My job, if I do it right, is to learn and tell a complicated story in a way that people can understand it after hearing it just one time. In interviews, my job is to ask questions that point to holes or contradictions in someone's story.

As a PF judge, I'll be asking basic questions. Did you give a clear and logical presentation that's persuasive? Did you find and expose flaws in the opposing case? My knowledge of the finer points of debate scoring is probably less than yours.

You'll help me follow your case through good pacing. Take your time speaking; be willing to pause for emphasis, or to check your notes. Just talk. Pacing is more than just the speed at which you talk. It's also the way you develop your ideas. Organize your thoughts in a way that they flow logically so that I can follow them.

If a good pace makes your speech too long, edit. Choose your most persuasive points. Express them in a tight logical progression. Sometimes a speech is not in the best order, and finding the right order makes it both better and shorter.

If reading your case aloud takes exactly four minutes, it might be a bit long. Consider allowing some time to improvise.

In crossfire, think of short, simple questions that challenge your opponent to defend or explain something they have not.

A sense of humor is welcome and appreciated.

Debaters are most persuasive when they are civil. Sarcasm or scorn draws my attention to the person expressing it, rather than the flaws they see in their opponent's case. You should stick up for yourself and your case--graciously.

Finally, be creative and think for yourself. Other than the part about civility, disregard my suggestions if you or your coach know a better way to make your case. You may teach me something. I'll be listening. Have fun!

***Put the public back in public forum.***

Hello, I am Shreyas. I did PF and LD at Charlotte Latin. Please keep in mind this is a PF paradigm, if I'm judging something else, some of the stuff might not be applicable (see: progressive debate or LD paradigm below).

General Stuff

First and foremost, please be respectful in-round, make the debate space a better place, be a good person.

- I don't flow/pay attention to content in cross, but i will pay attention to the way you treat each other. I absolutely dislike disrespectful cross engagement. It makes me sad :(

- I reserve the right to intervene and stop a round if one team/individual is being clearly hurt/picked on/discriminated against. Zero tolerance for that.

WIth that outta the way:

Treat me as a standard flay/flow judge. I'll make my decision on which arguments are winning on the flow, but if I don't understand the way you explain your argument, then I cannot vote for you. Please explain the argument well.

- I presume neg by default if no offense in round, but all it takes is one warrant to change that. Please give me offense tho.

I can comprehend pretty fast speaking, but send a doc if ur zoomin.

Collapsing in second rebuttal is cool :) please please please collapse in general!

I like to hear an explicit extension of the claim, links (with warrants), and impact; frontlining is insufficient to "extending" the argument.

Extend defense in all (backhalf) speeches, I'm not a fan of "sticky" defense.

Impact weighing is very good, but links >>. That being said, without any weighing, it's very hard for me as a judge to evaluate the round so please weight.

If you wish to create an email chain, I'll give you my email right before round.

- Please make sure you have evidence available upon it being called. Cut card preferably, but sending a link and telling them where to Cmd-F is acceptable.

Speaks are determined more on a scale of "did you strategically set your team up to win in your speeches?" rather than flowery *presentation* skills, but the two could go hand-in-hand

- I'm not giving you speaker point bumps for doing anything *quirky* but being respectfully funny in round never hurts (plus it probably makes me subconsciously enjoy your performance more).

If you'd like more comments on performance/decision post-round, I'll be happy to share how I broke it down. Use my email, or just stick around in the room.

For progressive debate read below:

I am not voting off theory like disclosure and paraphrase. I will not get another sheet of paper and might throw away my flow. I will stare at you blankly as you monotonously tell me "it'll be one-off then case"

That's interventionist? Okay lol.

- Disclosure on the wiki hurts education because teams go Ctrl+C, Ctrl+V.

- Paraphrasing is an academically recognized practice. It is good, educational, and allows debaters to synthesize well-worded arguments. Obviously, if you misconstrue evidence, it will be thrown out and you might be punished, but paraphrasing as an activity is not bad; I'd argue it's probably good.

I will still evaluate real violations. I don't think that theory has any place in Public Forum, but there are some cases in which I'll accept theoretical arguments. Read theory however you like; I think that being forced to read theory in a specific format (ie. shell) is exclusionary. I will welcome any warranted analytical claims about how debate ought to be no matter how it is presented in the round.

Ks are fine as long as you tell me how to vote for u, explain the links clearly, and give me some implication/impact for the round (pre-fiat or not), and at least interact with your opponent's offense.

When presented with multiple pre-fiat positions in the round, please tell me which I evaluate first! Otherwise, I will be hella confused.

pls no tricks, i beg.

For LD, I'm a standard traditional judge. I'm not "lay;" I can understand technical debate and follow the flow, but I am very much a beginner on progressive/pre-fiat argumentation, and feel much more comfortable evaluating a standard Value/VC debate. Remember to weigh under the framing and include voters/comparatively weigh in the 2N or 2AR.

I am a parent/lay judge. I cannot judge fast rounds when I don't understand or comprehend what you are saying. PF jargon will only confuse me so keep it clear and simple. Keep the volume up and the speed low. Do not be rude to your opponent as it will cause me to take off speaker points. Enjoy the occasion and don't be afraid to repeat things to me.

This is my third year judging PF.

I am a practicing physician and can always appreciate a good debate.

I value organization and the use of credible evidence to support your arguments.

Speak clearly at an understandable pace and above all please be respectful of your opponents.

The email you can use to share evidence: rkap02@yahoo.com

Hi! My name is Charles Karcher. He/him pronouns. My email is ckarcher at chapin dot edu.

I am affiliated with The Chapin School, where I am a history teacher and coach Public Forum.

This is my 10th year involved in debate overall and my 6th year coaching.

Previous affiliations: Fulbright Taiwan, Lake Highland, West Des Moines Valley, Interlake, Durham Academy, Charlotte Latin, Altamont, and Oak Hall.

Conflicts: Chapin, Lake Highland

-----------TOC 24 UPDATES-----------

Not well-read on the topic.

In PF, you should either paraphrase all your cards OR present a policy-esque case with taglines that precede cut cards. I do not want cards that are tagged with "and, [author name]" or, worse, not tagged at all. This formatting is not conducive to good debating and I will not tolerate it. Your speaks will suffer.

All speech materials should be sent as a downloadable file (Word or PDF), not as a Google Doc, Sharepoint, or email text. I will not look at they are in the latter formats.

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

Mid-season updates to be integrated into my paradigm proper soon: 1. (PF) I'm not a fan of teams actively sharing if they are kicking an argument before they kick it. For example, if your opponent asks you about contention n in questioning and you respond "we're kicking that argument." Not a fan of it. 2. (LD) I have found that I am increasingly sympathetic to judge kicking counterplans (even though I was previously dogmatically anti-judge kick), but it should still be argued and justified in the round by the negative team; I do not judge kick by default. 3. Do not steal prep or be rude to your opponents - I have a high bar for these two things and hope that the community collectively raises its bars this season. Your speaks will suffer if you do these things.

-----------

Debate is what you make it, whether that is a game or an educational activity. Ultimately, it is a space for students to grow intellectually and politically. Critical debate is what I spend the most time thinking about. I’m familiar with most authors, but assume that I know nothing. I want to hear about the alt. I have a particular interest in the Frankfurt School and 20th century French authors + the modern theoretical work that has derived from both of these traditions. I have prepped and coached pretty much the full spectrum of K debate authors/literature bases. Policy-style debate is fun. I like good analytics more than bad cards, especially when those cards are from authors that are clearly personally/institutionally biased. Inserted graphs/charts need to be explained and are their own claim, warrant, and impact. Taglines should be detailed and accurately descriptive of the arguments in the card. 2 or 3 conditional positions are acceptable. I am not thrilled with the idea of judge kicking. Theory and tricks debate is the farthest from my interests. Being from Florida, I've been exposed to a good amount of it, but it never stuck with or interested me. Debaters who tend to read these types of arguments should not pref me.

Other important things:

1] If you find yourself debating with me as the judge on a panel with a parent/lay/traditional judge (or judges), please just engage in a traditional round and don't try to get my tech ballot. It is incredibly rude to disregard a parent's ballot and spread in front of them if they are apprehensive about it.

2] Speaks are capped at 27 if you include something in the doc that you assume will be inputted into the round without you reading/describing it. You cannot "insert" something into the debate scot-free. Examples include charts, graphs, images, screenshots, spec details, and solvency mechanisms/details. This is a terrible norm which literally asks me to evaluate a piece of evidence that you didn't read. It's also a question of accessibility.

3] When it comes to speech docs, I conceptualize the debate space as an academic conference at which you are sharing ideas with colleagues (me) and panelists (your opponents). Just as you would not present an unfinished PowerPoint at a conference, please do not present to me a poorly formatted speech doc. I don't care what your preferences of font, spacing, etc. are, but they should be consistent, navigable, and readable. I do ask that you use the Verbatim UniHighlight feature to standardize your doc to yellow highlighting before sending it to me.

-----------

Misc. notes:

• My defaults: ROJ > ROB; ROJ ≠ ROB; ROTB > theory; presume neg; comparative worlds; reps/pre-fiat impacts > everything else; yes RVI; DTD; yes condo; I will categorically never evaluate the round earlier than the end of the 2AR (with the exception of round-stopping issues like evidence evidence allegations or inclusivity concerns).
• I do not, and will not, disclose speaker points.
• Put your analytics in the speech doc!
• Trigger warnings are important
• CX ends when the timer beeps! Time yourself.
• Tell me about inclusivity/accessibility concerns, I will do whatever is in my power to accommodate!

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!

I am a parent judge, and I appreciate well thought out, intelligent arguments & logic. I will vote for the team who presents the stronger arguments supported by clear logic. I would request you to not use too many technical debate terms or speak too fast, I will be able to follow a medium-speed. I am a good listener, and I am eager to judge your debates!

Carmen Kohn’s Paradigm

I have been judging speech and debate events since 2016. I am also currently the Director and Head Coach for Charlotte Catholic HS in NC.

Lincoln-Douglas and Public Forum:

I enjoy both the ethical component of the discussions in LD and the current topicality of most PF topics. I appreciate the informative nature of these debates, especially in the current political climate.

I am a classic flow judge for both events and am looking for good clash between opponents. In LD, I place more emphasis on contentions rather than value, however, that evidence must clearly link back to the VC. I am also more interested in the impacts. A dropped contention is not automatic grounds for a win. It depends on the relevance of the argument. When rebutting, don't just extend the author's card. I am not writing down all of the authors. Please remind me of the evidence that was presented. I prefer the well-thought out, well-paced arguments. While debates are won based on evidence presented, I do find a direct correlation between technical speaking abilities and evidence offered. I also make a note of how professionally debaters present themselves and behave towards myself and each other.

I would classify myself as a advanced traditional lay judge. I am not a progressive judge. Do not run theory shells or any other "progressive" argument with me. While I do appreciate the occasional non-traditional argument, especially towards the end of the topic time frame, all cases should be realistic and applicable in the current environment in which we find ourselves. Please debate the current resolution.

Absolutely No Spreading!!! I cannot follow it, especially with online tournaments. You will lose the round. This is probably my biggest pet peeve. I feel there is no educational value to that in a competitive environment. You run the risk that I will not have caught all of your arguments and may miss a main point in my flow. Please keep technical jargon to a minimum also. Throwing around debate jargon and just cards identified by author gets too confusing to follow. And if you ask a question during cross-ex, please let your opponent answer and finish their sentences. It’s unprofessional to cut someone off. Signposts and taglines are always appreciated. I generally do not disclose or give oral RFD. I want time to review my notes. Debates where opponents respect each other and are having fun, arguing solid contentions, are the best ones to watch.

Congress:

I've just started judging Congress. My "comments" are usually summaries of your speeches. Occasional commentary on the delivery and/or content. Please interact with previously given speeches (by Rep name also) and don't just rehash a "first speech". If you can bring a new point to the discussion 6 speeches in, that is awesome.

I will give points to POs. I appreciate what is involved in POing. During nomination speeches, it can be assumed that a PO will run a "fast and efficient" chamber. No need to state the obvious. However, if that actually doesn't take place, a lower rank will result.

Good luck to all!!

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.

Intro/Affiliations

Email: zachlim804@gmail.com

- Former student at New Trier HS (2015-2019) and the University of Pittsburgh (2019-2022).

- Experience: 6 years as a policy debater, no TOC bids, & NDT doubles (NDT '21) in college. I have been coaching for 2 years and judging for 4 years, albeit the past year and a half has been PF heavy.

**PF Stuff at the bottom

Online Debate

Cameras on preferably, slow down, and I don't know why this happens but wait until you know 100% that I am present before you give an order or start your speech. A black screen with my name means I am not there/ready unless I say otherwise.

Important/Relevant Thoughts

- For this specific topic, I am not familiar with the trends and arguments being made on the circuit, specifically the subsets, but I am knowledgeable on NATO as an organization from a previous college topic.

- My experience is policy-heavy, but in college, I strayed away from strict policy debating to more critical debating on both sides, mostly reading iterations of racial security and racial capitalism kritiks and critical affs with a plan. I am most comfortable adjudicating DA v. case, CP/DA v. case, and K v. case; it ultimately isn't my choice what I hear, but point is I think I've seen, heard, and debated a wide variety of arguments that will help aid in judging so do what you know best.

- I find debate enjoyable and I truly appreciated judges who gave a full effort in paying attention and offering an understandable RFD so I will attempt to emulate that in every round that I judge. With that, the best thing you can do for yourself is, up to you how you go about this, to orient your debating around "making my job easy". Whether you lean critical or policy, be more reliant on explanation and spin rather than being solely reliant on what your evidence says. Show me the big picture and within that picture, point out any fine details that are important for me to evaluate. Be explicit, get straight to the point, and avoid unnecessary speak/fillers. Judge instruction is key.

- A judge is never going to be unbiased when listening to different types of arguments. However, pre-conceptions are malleable and good debating (lbl, explanation, etc.) can supersede argument bias, but given my varying degrees of knowledge/expertise in different arguments, adaptation will matter in how "good debating" is performed in round.

- Continuity in argumentation and explanation will be scrutinized. Having been on both sides as a 2N and 2A, I believe many final rebuttals get away with a lot of new spin/explanation, so as I have throughout judging debates, I will hold a higher standard for extensions and such.

- Absolutely do not read morally reprehensible arguments such as death good, racism good, homophobia good, etc. There is no room for that in debates, and it is not courteous to your judge or opponents. You will be dropped and receive a zero.

- The link below will take you to a doc that I wrote many years ago, containing specific thoughts I have about specific types of arguments. I honestly do not think it's as relevant as it was when I was a first year out, but if you aren't familiar with what I think of certain arguments, then feel free to check it out to gain some more clarity. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1d5pO-KRsf90F5Y-9Hfc1RlzRxsu21KCSxV9aVZFcRH0/edit?usp=sharing

- Don't hesitate to ask me any questions about my college debate experience as well as my time at Pitt. Feel free to email me or ask after the round!

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

Public Forum

I am a flow-centric judge on the condition your arguments are backed with evidence and are logical. My background is in policy debate, but regardless of style, and especially important in PF, I think it's necessary to craft a broad story that connects what the issue is, what your solution is, and why you think you should win the debate.

I like evidence qualification comparisons and "if this, then that" statements when tied together with logical assumptions that can be made. Demonstrating ethos, confidence, and good command of your and your opponent's arguments is also very important in getting my ballot.

I will like listening to you more if you read smart, innovative arguments. Don't be rude, cocky, and/or overly aggressive especially if your debating and arguments can't back up that "talk". Not a good look.

Give an order before your speech

Policy

larrylin57@gmail.com : y'all should add this

past Lexington policy debater and 2N by heart

Be sure to time yourselves, kinda have a bad record of recording every bit of prep and whatever.

I hate theory. I also vaguely dislike process CPs because BORING. Politics DAs can be quite cool. Federalism is a meh. States is a meh. Interesting well explained Ks and K affs are cool. Agamben and cap do not fulfill such requirements. T can be cool.

Anyhow,

things I've run:

- federalism

- t classrooms

- families aff

- Zong

- Trickster Hermeneutics

- IRS DA

- Shutdown DA

- Baudrillard

- Baudrillard K affs

- Framework

- FARM BILL

- Parole CP

- States CP

- T LPR

- Presumption against K affs

- Midterms

- 2020

- Infrastructure

- Citizenship CP

- Cap

- psycho set col

- land based set col

- psycho

- storytelling

- turtle island CP

- 3 tier

- Schlag

- Time

- ASPEC

- T enact

Applies to all:

Debate is pretty cool. It has some characteristics that make it unique. It's a competitive game, it's like a sport in that respect. It's a speech game, it's where two teams of two perform in front of each other and in front of the judge. It's not just speech either, it's an interactive experience between two teams where one teams performance uniquely changes the performance and content of the next team's speech. Debate is also the ground to advocate for what YOU care about, or perhaps explore some arguments on the other side of the library you haven't debated before.

Debate's what you make of it.

GLHF, lmk if you have questions.

also lol im in pacific time so morning rounds are real rough.

PF:

1) have an email chain or otherwise send evidence in some manner, my email is : larrylin57@gmail.com

2) speak with confidence but not arrogance, I'm sentient, not stupid (probably)

3) do clear line by line so it's easy for me to track arguments throughout the debate

4) be respectful of people, no isms here. also be polite and not rude

5) summary and FF, tell me a story. have some flair, have some fun, and have a coherent story.

6) keep weird math and fudging evidence to a minimum. I guess if I don't catch you it's fine? But if I do I won't be pleased.

7) some of these tournaments and topics can get very . . . stale. if you can intrigue me with your arguments while still debating well, I will be very happy.

8) glhf! lmk if you have any questions. I'd be happy to answer them!

9) I've found on several occasions that teams don't really have much offense in their FFs. This seems odd. Have offense in your FF and probably frontload it.

my email: klil.loeb@gmail.com

I did debate all four years of high school for Lexington. I debated LD for 3 years and PF for 1, so I'm pretty familiar with any type of argument. That being said, I do have some preferences that'll be helpful for me and you in terms of evaluating a round.

SCROLL DOWN FOR LD PARADIGM

PF Paradigm:

- Weigh. Clash is SO important and is too often avoided. All your arguments should be connected and should flow in a way that I can directly compare one to another. If both teams are talking about separate topics that don't interact, that's a pretty unsuccessful round, and I won't know where to vote.

- Extend. If something is dropped in any speech, I won't evaluate it, even if it's brought up again later. Make sure anything you want to factor into the decision is mentioned in every speech, and is especially emphasized in final focus. If its not brought all the way into your last speech, I'll consider it conceded, and won't vote on it.

- Sign post. If I don't know what you're talking about, I won't factor it into my decision.

- Be polite to your opponents. If you're rude, definitely expect me to lower speaks. It doesn't help you in any way to ruin what should otherwise be a good round with a bad attitude. Have fun and be nice and you'll have no problems.

- Most importantly - and what I'll be paying most attention to - use your last two speeches (especially final focus) to CLEARLY tell me why you should win the round over your opponent. The clearer you are, the easier it will be for me to make my decision, and the happier you'll be with the outcome. I vote off both offense and defense so make sure to maximize your voters.

Some little things:

- I'm fine w speed

- Time your own speeches and prep

- I don't flow/vote off cross. Anything you want me to remember should be brought up during speeches

- I love unconventional arguments

- DON'T have a loud conversation while I'm filling out my ballot omg i cannot express how much this irritates me

- Also feel free to make the round fun in any way - whatever that means to you, I love when people make me laugh (when its appropriate)

The debate is about you so have fun! I'm chill with anything as long as you do everything listed above:)

Feel free to ask any other questions before the round!

.

LD Paradigm:

I’d prefer if you didn’t read Israel-Palestine specific colonialism / genocide in front of me.

- do what you want for the most part i don't care if you just tell me why i should vote for you

- Tech > Truth

- I love plans/counterplans/disads etc.

- I like K's. I ran K's.

- I'm not super into phil but I'll vote on it if it's explained well. Make sure you actually understand what you're saying otherwise how am I supposed to figure it out from you.

- I like theory

- WEIGH AND WARRANT. If there's no clash, I won't know where to vote. The easier your arguments are to understand, the easier it is for me to vote

- FOR ONLINE DEBATES: slow down! It's almost impossible to understand when either my or your computer's slow. I'm fine with speed otherwise though if you're CLEAR!! If i can't understand you though, I'll dock your speaks.

Good luck:)

I'm currently a university student studying computer science at the University of Toronto. In high school I debated for 4 years, in PF, CNDF, BP, and Worlds style, and I am currently a coach. I have been judging for almost 4 years now.

On evidence/logic: I will buy logic over evidence in certain cases, and I'm very sympathetic towards logical analysis due to my background in BP/Worlds. If a logical argument is more substantive and is able to explain why a piece of evidence is reasonably flawed/untrue, I will take the logical analysis. When challenged on statistics, teams should be able to defend their numbers by explaining exactly how those numbers were found or what study produced the numbers. For example, if an increase in the capital gains tax leads to a decrease in the size of an economy by 10%, then a team should know exactly how that 10% was measured, and under what conditions it was measured (if challenged).

On argumentation/structure: I'm very standard on structure. Do all the general things: extend arguments and refutations in summary, and weigh in final focus. I strongly value engagement with arguments: directly respond to arguments and responses, and shift the debate to a scope that better reflects the clashes in the debate. Note that I have zero tolerance for bringing up new material in final focus and I will immediately drop teams that do this. I give lots of credit to teams that can weigh effectively, and paint me a clear picture of exactly what their world would look like vs the world of the other team, and characterize the harms on either side. I strongly believe that a team doesn't have to win every single argument in the debate in order to win the round.

Crossfire: I don't flow crossfire, but I will try to remember what was said. If you want me to flow something that transpired in crossfire please mention it during the speech. Example: "during crossfire, our opponent conceded that... "

In general: Treat me as a standard flow judge, but one that accepts logical argumentation and considers it strongly. I am generally non-interventionist in rounds, so I don't have exact speed preferences as I believe that there are times for both fast speaking and slow speaking. Please adjust to your discretion and what you deem to be most effective.

I'm a parent judge with the observation of three years of CNDF debate training, 40 hours of BP training, and 54 hours of PF training, and 26 hours of World School training classes. This will be my fifth time to judge PF debate.

I'll be appreciated your clarity, get to the points and logical analysis. Please don't spread, so I can follow your points.

In most cases, I don't have any background knowledge of your motion, so I judge based on what you are saying in the rounds, not my own pre-set opinions. I won't give you detailed comments like your coach, but I will go with the flow and decide my votes by which side are more persuasive.

I'm a former high school debater from Thales Academy Apex and thoroughly enjoy the skill and sportsmanship that is present during a debate. I believe the ability to entertain and determine its value without bias is a sign of great skill.

I want solid arguments backed up by air tight evidence. Debaters should be courteous when defending their argument but show determination. Dropping arguments and spreading are things that I do not appreciate.

Above all else face your opponent's argument clearly and directly. Do not play around it and endlessly clash over definitions as this does a disservice to the art of debate.

Hi! I’m Kaitlyn, I’m currently a freshman at Duke University, and I competed on the national circuit for 4 years in high school. My experience is primarily in Congress (3rd at TOC, 1st at Harvard RR, 1st at Bronx, 2nd at Princeton, etc.), Worlds (USA National & Development Team member), and Extemp Debate (1st at NSDA 2021), although I also have dabbled in Public Forum and Extemp.

Congress:

- A little speed is fine as long as it doesn’t distract from your delivery

- Humanize your impacts! Make it clear who is affected and why I should care

- Ask questions, but quality > quantity

- Every single speech should have refutation — if you’re giving the Auth/Spons, you should still preemptively refute

- Debate the legislation! It’s not enough to debate the general issue—please scrutinize the actual bill/res and incorporate it into your speech!

- Making motions, showing leadership, & being active in the chamber goes a long way

- With timing, remember less is more: it’s better for you to omit material than spread haphazardly through the last 15 seconds of your speech to beat the grace period.

- I know with online tournaments it is SUPER easy to just read speeches off a screen—but as an avid pad user myself even in the Zoom world, please don’t. Not only will you have to totally untrain yourself once you’re back in-person, but it’s also more obvious than you think when you’re reading. I’d rather have a less fluid speech that is authentically delivered from some notes than one that has been written out word for word.

PF:

- A little speed is okay as long as I can understand you clearly

- Please signpost & provide clear organization, especially in summary & FF

- If you're going to provide a framework, circle back to it in FF to show me why your side has upheld it

- Things brought up in cross are not automatically on the flow--if there is an important takeaway, please bring it up in your speech

- I'll typically only vote on what's said in the round, unless what you're arguing is flat out incorrect or highly unsubstantiated

- I really appreciate a team that weighs their impacts against their opponent's BEST case scenario -- don't just engage with the worst possible interpretation of their case; show me why even if I buy their advocacy you STILL win

More generally, I know Zoom debate can be especially demanding but remember this activity is about so much more than ballots or ranks—it’s truly a community. So please be kind, look out for each other, and remember to drink lots of water! :)

Email: kaitlynmaher@gmail.com

(Please reach out with any questions/for advice! Always happy to talk with y’all <3)

Strath Haven '23

Georgetown '28

LD (14 career bids; TOC quarters 2x; won a few tournaments + RRs), dabbled in CX

PFI (2/2024) Update - Topic: I'm relatively out of debate/not cutting prep. While I have (some) general knowledge about the Middle East and follow the news pretty closely, I don't know the topic meta, which means . . . I need clear case lists for T debates (which you should already do! see the T section) and you should explain non-intuitive acronyms (yes, I know what ISIS stands for).

PFI (2/2024) Update - Paradigmatic: This paradigm got quite long, you don't need to read through everything. I like policy debates, I can adjudicate K/T debates, and loathe trix/friv theory. I'll always vote on the flow, even if that means voting for an argument I don't like, so please don't make me do that. (Caveat: argument = claim warrant impact, which means "condo is a voting issue for strat skew" = 0 weight the same way "zeno's paradox means we can never reach an end point so vote for me" = 0 weight)

https://ld.circuitdebater.org/w/index.php/Library

Yes, I want to be on the email chain! amanaker17@gmail.com

Speechdrop heg, but email is fine too.

Absent an email chain, don't be a sad panda, use an SDI flash drive!

I probably hold similar views to Jeffrey Kahn, Gabe Morbeck, Ben Morbeck, and Eli Manaker. I share a brain with Iris Chen and there is a 99% chance we vote the same way in every round. I am a marginally more fascist Elmer Yang, less-dead inside Tej Gedela, the antithesis of my family members (Sophia Tian/Shrey Raju), and strive to judge like Sam McLoughlin.

I read almost exclusively policy until the end of my senior year, so my ideal 2NR is probably DA+CP or impact turns, but I went for the K a decent amount (shoutout to the clown AFF), so I'm comfortable in most non-pomo kritik debates.

Tech > truth

You do you, debate is a game, let's all have fun and make this a nice, non-offensive, non-toxic place, etc.

I do not flow author names.

I'm very expressive, but smiles tend to indicate amusement rather than agreement with your argument.

Concessions do not need temperature! Arguments are not "cold conceded" or "hot dropped."

I'm probably less dogmatic than this paradigm makes me seem. Except for tricks. Grow up and read a real argument.

LD:

Tl;dr: pref me for policy, meh for K, strike for anything else.

***Most of this paradigm is geared towards circuit debate, if you're a novice, don't worry about it.

I don't flow author names. Yes, you can insert re-highlightings. I care more about evidence than most judges and do not think reading evidence is intervention -- arguments have as much weight as the warranting they get, which means that reading the words you said from a piece of evidence determines whether you have made an argument, or just written a tag-line.

Policy:

Impact turns are fun! If the 1NC is 7 minutes of impact turns (not spark/wipeout), you will enjoy your speaks.

I am a card carrying, Kool-aid drinking member of the "politics is sick bro" club. I love international relations and anything related to foreign policy. This means I am a fantastic judge for voting on "case/DA has as close to zero risk of impact as is possible in debate" (zero-risk =/= a thing) because most arguments in debate are so mind-bogglingly stupid they should lose to CX + smart analytics.

Cheaty counterplans are fun, but I'll be sympathetic to cheaty perms. I adore counterplan competition debates. Like, ADORE. (2/2024 Note: probably adore them less now cuz I haven't seriously thought about how to write perm texts in almost a year.)

Turns case is not offense, it is comparative impact calc and/or complicates AFF solvency.

"I think I care about evidence quantity much more than most judges. Reading 5 cards on something in the 1AR is much more likely to get you back into the debate than explaining why you think its wrong." -- Gabe Morbeck.

Look, honestly, if you have me in the back for something that's not a policy round, I'm going to want to vote for whoever was making policy arguments. I'll always vote on the flow (provided you're making complete arguments, so not trix), so as long as you don't drop a bunch of things, and you give me a way to justify a policy ballot, I'll probably vote on it.

Kritiks:

I'm not a "no plan, no ballot" person, but I'm also not not a "no plan, no ballot" person. Fairness is an impact. Impact turns vs K AFFs = <333333.

K vs policy AFF: neutral ideologically + good for both sides

topical K AFF: neutral ideologically + good for both sides

non-topical K AFF: will vote on the flow, but persuaded by T

K vs phil: how did you get me in the back . . . I will be confused . . .

AFFs should probably get to weigh case versus the K. Links are often more important than arbitrary, impact-justified frameworks. Unless your opponent has specified it makes them uncomfortable, I don't think a debater's identity influences argument choice. Pomo is nonsense, albeit fashionable. Condo probably justifies perf cons (e.g. security K + ME War DA), but the more egregious (multiple Ks) the abuse, the more likely I am to vote on condo.

I am quite comfortable not voting on arguments I didn't get or don't understand (especially when it comes to dense phil/pomo, it doesn't matter if the argument is dropped if I can't understand it). If I can't explain your argument back to the other team, I'm not voting for it.

Theory:

Slow on theory and analytics, please. I cannot stress enough that I would prefer slow + efficient >>>> speed, because I just won't be able to flow a million blips.

"Independent voting issues" are rarely voting issues. Infinite condo is good, but I am willing to listen to a condo 2AR (I will just be pre-disposed against it). RVIs make me sad. The 1AR gets theory, but reasonability and/or RANT are most likely sufficient to answer it. The only kind of spec I like is "spec your favorite multi-purpose fighter jet" (answer: F-35).

You should disclose open source. Period. I'll still evaluate the flow, but will err heavily towards os theory. Disclosure interps beyond that (cites, round reports, etc.) are significantly less appealing (e.g. if you're reading tournament name theory, the chance I vote on it is minimal).

Topicality:

I would prefer a DA+CP strategy, but I actually really like topicality vs policy AFFs (actual topicality, e.g. T-Appropriation on the JF22 LD topic). Please give case lists at the top. I'm typically unpersuaded by LD silliness that says semantics is completely divorced from pragmatics -- you need a definition to win a T debate, but you also need offense and reasons why that definition should be preferred.

Extremely unlikely to vote on Nebel-T/plans bad; chances are they violated another T shell --- read that! (Side note: please call it T-[topic word] instead of T-Nebel . . . what is this, T-Tassof again?) Far less likely to vote on the "grammar DA"/Niemi, and it is absolutely not an RVI.

Trix:

Here is what will happen if you read trix: I will sleep/do some homework and then vote for whoever tried to have an actual debate.

Phil:

I actually really enjoy pure philosophy (e.g. Sophia-style phil (Prospect ST)), but you should not be preffing me for it if you read trix-y phil/super complicated stuff because I won't make a good decision. If you end up with me in the back, explain your theory the way Oscar explains what a surplus is to Michael (for uncultured people who haven't seen The Office: explain like I'm 5).

Examples --> Ava understands --> W + good speaks.

Epistemic modesty makes exactly zero sense --- how do you combine weighing deontic and consequentialist impacts? Collapsing to calc indicts will make my eyebrows go like this: v

Trad/What If I Hit a Novice And Don't Want to Make Them Sad But Also Want to Win???:

You can be circuit, but be nice and make the round educational (e.g. don't read 10-off, spread at 40% speed). I won't dock your speaks if you sit down early.

Note for PFI: I did lay-debate in high school, and while I personally enjoyed circuit LD more, I'm comfortable evaluating these rounds. I will always judge by the flow, but that doesn't mean you need to change your strategy for me.

PF:

I'll probably be able to evaluate rounds fine, but don't know event specific norms. Please read actual evidence(why do PFers not cut cards properly??? Your cards should be cut! They should be disclosed on the PF wiki (https://hspf.debatecoaches.org/)! They should be sent out in a speech doc!). The faster you go and more evidence you read the happier I'll be, but do not do "progressive" PF. There is an event for that. It is called policy. Stop ruining PF.

Speaks:

CXes where you are knowledgeable and funny = higher speaks.

***I WILL NOT BE ADDING SPEAKS FOR ANY OF THE NOTES BELOW -- the only reason I'm not deleting them is because I am sentimental and they bring me happiness; plus, I remember being a smol freshman who read paradigms in her free time cuz she wanted to learn everything about debate, so for anyone else who needed to get a life as much as I did, here are some funnies:

-.1 per each time you say "LARP" instead of policy. In the wise words of my wife: "LARP??? we're not at a FURRY convention???" --- Sophia Tian

-.1 per every 10 seconds spent reading an underview

-.1 every time you add temperature to concessions. It's annoying and inefficient.

+.5 if you answer Peters 04 with Byman 10

+.1 if you say "heehoo" correctly

+.5 if you say "heehoo" in front of Elmer (recordings of reaction, please!)

+.1 for a good SNL reference or HS impact quote. (I have an embarrassingly encyclopedic knowledge of both). Remind me before RfD or I'll forget.

+.1 if you're "free to be me." I will laugh hysterically. Please ensure I have not passed out from lack of oxygen. Let me know before RfD.

+.1 if you use Jeff Winger's explanation for Lacan. Flag it before the RfD.

+.1 if you guess who wrote the joke paradigm.

---- OLD (JOKE) PARADIGM ----

Introduction

Hi! I’m Ava Manaker (aah-vaah man-acre). Call me Mrs. Wikipedia or "The Cub" else I give you an L0. No, I do not want to be on the email chain but if you really want me to be and lose a speak, here is my email: amanaker17[at]gmail[dot]com.

Overview

I am a debater at Strath Haven High School, but I secretly wish I went to Mission San Jose High. As a debater, I primarily read Kant+trix, but I’m very tab. Here is my preference of argumentation to judge (in terms of comfortability and desire):

1--Trix/Friv Theory

2--Phil/High Theory Ks

3--Legit T/Theory/IdPol Ks

Strike--Larp

PS: If you tell me your favorite song by Troye Sivan or Why Don't We, I'll give you an extra speak.

Larp

I hate it! I hate it with all my heart! The only larp argument I like is spark, I won’t vote on anything. Is this intervention? Yes. Do I care? No. Oh also, weighing is overrated!

Kritiks

I only like high theory. If you read identity politics, I will vote for the other side on presumption. Weighing case and perms are not persuasive--when responding to Ks, people should only make link or impact turns.

Phil

Love it! I am most versed in Kant and virtue ethics. Not persuaded by util. Please explain the syllogism clearly.

Theory

I love friv shells - it makes debate entertaining. A good 2nr/2ar on a frivolous shell gets you a W30. I’m willing to vote on actual shells, but they’re soooo boring like c'mon people get creative. Default drop the debater, no rvi, competing interps. Don’t make me default stuff or you’re forcing me to intervene, and that’s on you.

Tricks

YASSSS!! My favorites are logcon and external world skep, but I’m just as willing to vote on the resolved a priori and evaluate the debate after the 1ac. Just remember, I don’t flow off the doc, but for tricks I’ll make the exception so I can follow along.

Speaks

Unlike many judges, my range is a 0-30. You start at a 25. If you’re good, I go up by increments of 1. If you’re bad, you get an L0.

If you guess who wrote this paradigm (correctly), I'll give you plus .1.

I'm a parent judge from a school that practices traditional styles of debate. I'm am an attorney. Please don't spread. Please keep your own time.

I am a parent judge with two school years experience as a lay judge.

-Please speak at a conversational pace.

-Speak clearly.

-I will flow all the round except for the cross examinations. So, the better organized your speech, the better I can flow.

-Please obey your time.

-Be respectful and professional at all times.

-I look for clear, organized and logical argumentation and valid, unbiased evidence.

Good luck and have fun.

I am a parent judge, although I did compete in forensics competitions in high school.

My Speaking Style Preferences are as follows:

I appreciate assertiveness when presenting arguments and debating, but only when that assertiveness does not get in the way of a civil and professional demeanor.

Make sure to speak clearly and at an understandable pace. I will not be able to judge you on arguments that I can’t understand when they’re presented.

Also make sure you stick to your time limits, and please don’t go too far over since that puts the opponents at a disadvantage.

As for argumentation:

The team that is able to support their contentions with strong logic and good evidence while effectively refuting their opponents' case will win the round.

If you want me to vote on an argument, make sure to carry it through your speeches so that I can follow it through the debate, I cannot judge you on arguments I cannot follow.

Your arguments should be topical, I will not vote on arguments which are not connected to the topic.

As a final note,

I know that all debaters have prepared themselves extensively, which I very much appreciate. Make sure to remember that the goal of debate is to learn and grow as well as have fun. Good luck!

Hi I’m Shaaz-- I debated in both PF and LD on the circuit (shaazn03@gmail.com). Have fun and don't take it too seriously.

LD

If you're cramming prefs:

1- Trad, advantages, disadvantages, plans, counterplans

2- LARP

3- Theory

4- Popular K's (biopower, fem, cap, afropess, etc.)

5- Phil, Less intuitive K's (I don't keep up with K lit at all)

Strike- Tricks, blippy arguments, etc.

1. Tech over truth (to a degree): If your opponent doesn't contest it, it flows through as though it's true, but I'm a LOT less likely to vote on an argument that is blatantly false.
2. Speed is fine, but if you're spreading I need the speech doc.
3. I think disclosure is more up in the air than a lot of judges seem to. I don't care whether or not you do it, but if you do, do it fairly. Open to theory on it.
4. Help me do as little work as possible. Tell me why you won the round. Voting issues are key for my ballot.

PF

1. Crystallize. Tell me what you won, your weighing mechanisms, and why I should vote for them. You could be dominating the entire round but it'll almost always boil down to weighing.
2. I'm looking way more at the flow than the flowery stuff but obviously better speaking will boost your speaker points. I think I'm pretty generous with speaks in general.
3. I probably won't be paying attention in cross. Also won't be keeping track of time--trusting you for speech time and prep.

Ashley (she/her)

nguyeng@umd.edu

Hello! I'm a PhD student in 20th Century US history. I used to do PF in high school. Feel free to email if you have questions about your round.

General:

I will always do my best to minimize intervention within the round — this is your time to be creative with your arguments and to have fun with developing your own style of debate.

I am generally open to any arguments, but especially love to see how far left you can go with each argument.

If you treat novices/obviously less-experienced debaters with anything but the same respect you'd want in a round, you will not pick up my ballot. Debate is an educational activity. I really value debaters who try their best to interpret the debate in the most humane and just way possible. I will not tolerate homophobic, sexist, racist, etc. arguments in debate.

LD:

Please refer to Charles Karcher's paradigm!

Speaking:

I don't encourage you to speak quickly if it's a virtual tournament - hardly anyone speaks clearly enough for it to translate well over a Zoom/Jitsi call. However, speaking quickly is different than spreading. If you spread (which if fine with me), send over the doc first or else I won't be able to flow.

Framework:

If you don't contextualize the argument, I will do it myself and you don't want that. also please engage with the framework debate as soon as it's brought up in round.

PF:

YOU CANNOT AND WILL NOT WIN EVERY ARGUMENT. Collapse, collapse, collapse.

The earlier you start weighing, the better the round will be for you. I won't weigh anything in FF if it's not in summary (please condense and weigh impacts in these two speeches rather than going line-by-line.)

Please answer defense.

If you bring theory/spreading into a PF round, I will automatically drop you and your speaks will be a 25.

Been judging debate (PF and LD only) for almost 20 years. Coached PF at Cary Academy last year. While I try to stay up on the "technical stuff," to me, this misses the point of debate as an educational or, for that matter, a persuasive activity. So, while I can probably follow whatever case you want to run, put me in the truth (vs tech) camp. Running a well executed rhetorically sound argument will be the best way to win my ballot.

As for style, clear communications will win the day. Can probably flow at whatever speed you choose to run, but I don't value quantity over quality, whereas I do value clarity over vagary.

In addition to advancing rhetorically sound arguments, I expect debaters to find the clash in the round and give me a standard with which to weigh it. Don't expect me to do that work for you. You don't want me imposing my sensibilities by picking some arbitrary standard for the round. Moreover, between two sound cases, I will prefer any reasonable standard to no standard at all (even for an otherwise compelling/sound cases). Word of caution, though, don't let the round devolve into a pure weighing debate. At the end of the day, I will vote for the side that presents the most compelling case for affirming or negating the resolution.

I have judged debate since 2001. From 2014-2021 I coached Public Forum and Speech events. I retired after 8 years as the Co-Director of Speech and Debate at Cary Academy in North Carolina in 2021.

DEBATE: In debate (LD/PF) I look for clear claims, evidence and links to logical, clear impacts showing contextual analysis. I flow each round and look for you to bring your arguments through the round, tell me the clash and how I should weigh.

I judge as if this activity is preparing you for the real world. I won't flow what I have to work too hard to follow or translate (read speed). Asking for evidence for common sense issues won't count either. You can use flow jargon, but tell me why. You want me to flow across the round? cross apply? for instance, tell me why. Don't exaggerate your evidence. Finally - I'm not here to show you how smart or clever I am by pretending to understand some sesquipedalian or sophomoric arguments (see what I did there?)- that means. 1.) do a kritik and you are going to lose because you failed to acknowledge that ideas can conflict and are worthy of discussion; 2.) "the tech over truthers" and other silly judging paradigms don't make you a more articulate conveyor of ideas once you have to "adult". I will know the topic, but judge like a lay judge. Convince me. Have fun and enjoy the activity!

CONGRESS: Well researched unique takes on a resolution are important. Simple stock arguments and analysis is easy. I look for you to look deeper into the consequences/outcome of passage. Don't rehash, not only is it boring but it suggests you needed to listen more closely. Refutation of previous speeches shows careful analysis in the moment and it shows you have more than the case you wrote the night before (even if you did :)). Presentation is also important. I don't like BS for the sake of being a good presenter but a balance of solid research, thoughtful analysis, ambitious and relevant refutation from a persuasive speaker will get high marks!

I will be happy to judge for a third season. English is my second language therefore my preferred rate on delivery is typical conversational speed with the intent to communicate arguments effectively. The decision on the winner of the round is based on the strengths of the key arguments put forward, the ability to listen and respond to the other team arguments, on persuasiveness of the overall position. I highly value the use of well documented analytical and empirical evidences coming from various credible sources. During the round, I keep a detailed flow and underline the key arguments of each debater's case. Overall, I value a cordial debate atmosphere. Finally, I have great admiration for every single debater's enthusiasm in discussing challenging concepts.

• 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

I am a parent judge. I value the following:

- Clear articulation of points (if you talk too fast for me to understand it will not help you)

- Well-structured cases and arguments (going point by point and explaining how your point relates to your opponent’s arguments will help)

- Appropriate use of statistics (numbers are important but the statistics should actually prove the point you are making

- Presentation (debaters that shout or don’t modulate their voices will not be scored as highly)

Good luck.

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.

Did PF for four years in high school. Was previously the Tournament Chair for the Florida Blue Key Speech and Debate Tournament. Don't speak so fast you sacrifice clarity and make sure to weigh.

Please try to focus on the effeciency of your outputs,pay attention to the following aspects.

A.Specificity.Judges cannot always fully understand your points,so try to balance your output and specificity.Making judge fully understand your strongest statements is the most important.

B.Emphasis.Judges cannot always flow or remember all you mentioned,appropriate emphasis on winning issues like key rebuttals,evidence,statistics etc. will help a lot.

C.Stress.It is easy to get lost or miss the important information if your voice is monotonous.

Please pay attention to emphasize the importance and give explicit weighings

A.Emphasis on importance.Proving something true isnt the end,instead,only telling judges the importance of the matters ,can we realize how important it is,and how urgent it is,which help to fully realize these points.

B.Weighing.Without explict weighings,especially in arguments about opportunity cost.it is easy to waver if debaters dont tell judge why A outweighs B.Please pay attention to making sure that you win in weighing.

If you speak too fast or uncivil,you will lose me,

If you have great engagement ,focus on logic and are passionate,it will help you stand out!

So,overally,I vote by

A.how many clashes you win.

B.whether you can use fewer clashes to successfully weigh other team's clashes.

I am a school coach, and I primarily work with competitors in speech events. This is my fifth year judging. When I judge a round, I look for the following:

1. I value signposting and explicitly stating the number of the contention that you are addressing throughout the debate.

2. If you don't clearly connect your evidence to your overall argument, I will not be convinced.

3. Do not spread--I value quality over quantity. I also need to be able to easily follow your logic, which is harder if a competitor spreads.

4. I value strong cross examination skills--being able to think on your feet and attack an opponent's case will help you win the round.

5. Be confident but courteous in the round.

I am Parent judge, I am new at this. I work as an Office Manager, I have an MBA.

Here is what I like for Debate:

Clarity, organization / signposts and flow are critical - remember that I have not heard your particular construction of support for your position before so in order to follow along it needs to be woven together tightly.

PF Debate implies . . . debate - your ability to continuously support your position by really listening to, processing, analyzing and responding (professionally) to your opponents' arguments while demonstrating a very deep and nuanced understanding of the issues will be a key differentiator.

Please be professional to each other., and respect boundaries.

Please speak at a normal pace. If you are fast I will not be able to understand you and flow properly.

TLDR: Focus on value and criterion in LD, don't misuse evidence in PF, and speak extemporaneously in Congress. Always warrant your arguments. Thou shalt not commit logical fallacies. Thou shalt not go off-topic by using abusive "progressive debate" tactics such as kritiks, counterplans, or meta-analysis of debate. I am a traditional judge who flows and is tech over truth. If you think this is contradictory, you might spend too much time online.

In a debate round, most of all I'm looking for a clear, concise, and robust exchange of ideas. Some ways to work on this are to make sure you're signposting in all of your speeches, planning ahead to ensure that you're fitting the most important contentions and objections into the allotted time, and responding directly to the arguments and objections your opponents put forth in their own speeches. Do all of this without strawmanning your opponents (or committing any other major logical fallacies).

Most importantly, warrant: Don't take it for granted that your judges can see why your opponents are wrong, or that your contentions speak for themselves in response to challenges. Even if I do see these things, I can't score you well unless you are doing this work yourselves in the debate. Don't let any of your opponents' objections make it through the flow uncontested. Always warrant your claims. Cross-apply your contentions liberally in rebuttals so that I don't think you've dropped any of your own arguments.

I'm not a fan of most forms of "progressive debate," as I want you to make accessible arguments relevant to the resolution, not signal your position on whatever is currently in vogue. For example, if the resolution is about whether the United States should raise taxes on the wealthy, and you're arguing in favor of doing so, it is 100% okay (and probably a great idea) to give arguments about how capitalism can leave certain groups behind and how trickle-down economics only exacerbates wealth inequality and thus eliminates equality of opportunity. It is not germane to the resolution, however, to make all of your arguments about how capitalism is nothing but a tool of oppression and we need to abolish it, as this is not what is at question in the resolution. Similarly, I find meta-analysis of debate as an activity in-round to be grating. I will always favor the person/team using their speaking time to discuss the issue at hand in the resolution.

I'm also not a fan of counterplans because they shift the burden of proof in the round to the NEG/CON. The burden of proof belongs on the AFF/PRO. If you don't want to defend the status quo, I think you need to ask yourself why you're spending your free time doing this activity. As a coach and an instructor, the greatest value I see in debate is that it teaches students to charitably look at and adopt perspectives that are fundamentally different from their own. Using abusive "progressive debate" tactics to get around doing this robs you of the greatest benefit of doing debate, and robs your opponent of the opportunity to engage in a robust exchange of ideas about the actual topic of the round. Here I'll provide the analogy of papers: if a student handed me a paper that was well-written, but never actually addressed the topic they were supposed to write about (or worse, questioned the process of writing the paper in the first place), they would fail because they did not actually complete the assignment. The same is true in a debate round.

A note on speed: I don't mind spreading and can keep up with it as long as you don't talk like you have marbles in your mouth. But before you spread, consider that you will have many lay judges in this circuit who are unfamiliar with this speed or even hostile to it. Proceed at your own peril. Additionally, I often see debaters spread to try and overwhelm their opponents with cards to respond to without ever substantially developing or warranting their arguments. When I read student philosophy papers, I look for two things before anything else: clarity and concision. The lesson from this is that sometimes less is more because it forces you to focus on what really matters in the round, and as such you develop your arguments around key voting issues far more than you would if you were just hammering your opponent with as much evidence as possible.

A couple of notes on questioning: I'm not a fan of debaters interrupting or steamrolling their opponents. Be courteous and give the other team/person a chance to respond and to ask their own questions during grand cross while still using your own speaking time well. Being the loudest person in the room is not synonymous with being the best debater. I do not flow questioning, either. If you want something that came up in questioning to factor into my decision, you need to bring it back up in one of your speeches.

A final note on my ballots: I try to write pretty detailed ballots because I know how frustrating it is to lose a round and then not understand why, or to be told something vague or even get a blank ballot. I try to make up for this all-too-pervasive problem with debate judging by providing you with detailed feedback. However, I want you to understand that only the comments in my RFD directly factored into my decision. I'm writing comments throughout the round to you individually to try and provide feedback on your cases (especially because I know some of you may not have coaches), as well as your argumentation and speaking styles. Sometimes I will write things in the individual comments section that are my personal opinion on what makes a good case, or whether something is a convincing argument. As a tabula rasa judge, this kind of thing does not factor into my decision unless the other debater(s) call(s) you on anything I mention in one of their speeches. I provide this individual feedback not to explain my decision, but to potentially help you grow as a debater. The RFD is the true explanation of my decision.

For Lincoln-Douglas: If you're using a moral or political theory from analytic philosophy (i.e. utilitarianism/consequentialism, deontology/rights-based, virtue ethics, Rawlsian distributive justice/justice as fairness, any kind of social contract theory, principles from medical ethics, etc.) please make sure you know what you're talking about. I have way too many rounds where a utilitarian or consequentialist framework devolves into deontology or rights-based theory, and vice versa. Or worse, where a debater uses a contradictory value and criterion, such as pairing autonomy with consequentialism. And these are the simplest moral theories; the bar will be even higher if you choose Rawls or something more obscure. I'm not against you using these theories (in fact, as a philosophy teacher I want you to do so), I just want you to use them well and appropriately. I highly recommend that all LD debaters read the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy extensively in order to better prepare for using and coming up against philosophical concepts in rounds. Theories from continental philosophy will be a tougher sell for me in general because they're even more difficult to use appropriately.

No matter what value and criterion you choose, make sure you're linking all of your impacts back to your framework throughout the round. A brief mention at the top of each speech is not nearly enough attention to framework in LD. Also, please don't make your value "morality." That's redundant. All of these resolutions have the word "ought" in them; morality is implicitly valued in the round. Saying your value is morality is like telling me you want to do something without specifying what you want. You're not actually giving me any real information here about how you're using a theory of value to evaluate the resolution at hand.

For Public Forum: Evidence matters here even more than in the other debate events. Make sure you're reading all of your sources in their entirety before cutting cards. I'm always paying attention, and so are most of the other debaters: if you're using something out of context, you will get called on it eventually by one of your opponents or judges. I will call for evidence in close rounds, so be prepared to hand over your cards. Making empirical assertions without providing empirical evidence will make it very hard for me to vote for you, and misusing evidence will make it nearly impossible.

For Congress: It is to the whole chamber's disservice to get stuck on one bill or one series of bills. Even if your favorite bill is being discussed and you haven't gotten a chance to speak yet, it's in your best interest not to extend a tired debate. I would rather see fresh debate on a bill that is less familiar to you than continue to see the same arguments recycled over and over again. Congress is meant to be an extemporaneous event. I don't want your speeches to be pretty and polished like a speech event, or even like a constructive speech in PF or LD. I want you to show me that you have a range of knowledge and interest in an even wider range of topics in current events, and can speak extemporaneously on these topics in the chamber. There's little I dislike more in debate than for a Congress chamber to take a recess so everyone can "write their speeches." This fundamentally misunderstands the purpose of Congress. The best advice I can give Congress debaters for prep isn't to write polished speeches, but to regularly read (not watch) reputable news sources like The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Atlantic, and The Economist. If you must watch your news, go with the PBS News Hour or something international (i.e. the BBC), not partisan entertainment-oriented channels like CNN, FOX, or MSNBC. Podcasts are fun, but not a substitute for reputable news organizations with full-time fact checkers.

UPDATED 6/1/2022 NSDA Nationals Congress Update

I have been competing and judging in speech and debate for the past 16 years now. I did Parli and Public Forum in High School, and Parli, LD and Speech in College. I have judged all forms of High School Debate. Feel free to ask me more in depth questions in round if you don't understand a part of my philosophy.

Congress

Given that my background is in debate I tend to bring my debate biases into Congress. While I understand that this event is a mix of argumentation and stylistic speaking I don't think pretty speeches are enough to get you a high rank in the round. Overall I tend to judge Congress rounds based off of argument construction, style of delivery, clash with opponents, quality of evidence, and overall participation in the round. I tend to prefer arguments backed by cited sources and that are well reasoned. I do not prefer arguments that are mainly based in emotional appeals, purely rhetoric speeches usually get ranked low and typically earn you a 9. Be mindful of the speech you are giving. I think that sponsorship speeches should help lay the foundation for the round, I should hear your speech and have a full grasp of the bill, what it does, why it's important, and how it will fix the problems that exist in the squo. For clash speeches they should actually clash, show me that you paid attention to the round, and have good responses to your opponents. Crystallizations should be well organized and should be where you draw my conclusions for the round, I shouldn't be left with any doubts or questions.

POs will be ranked in the round based off of their efficiency in running and controlling the round. I expect to POs to be firm and well organized. Don't be afraid of cutting off speakers or being firm on time limits for questioning.

Public Forum

• I know how to flow and will flow.
  • This means I require a road map.
  • I need you to sign post and tell me which contention you are on. Use author/source names.
• I will vote on Ks. But this means that your K needs to have framework and an alt and solvency. If you run a K my threshold for voting on it is going to be high. I don't feel like there is enough time in PF to read a good K but I am more than willing to be open to it and be proven wrong. For anyone who hits a K in front of me 'Ks are cheating' is basically an auto loss in front of me.
• I will vote on theory. But this doesn't mean that I will vote for all theory. Theory in debate is supposed to move this activity forwards. Which means that theory about evidence will need to prove that there is actual abuse occurring in order for me to evaluate it. I think there should be theory in Public Forum because this event is still trying to figure itself out but I do not believe that all theory is good theory. And theory that is playing 'gotcha' is not good theory. Having good faith is arbitrary but I think that the arguments made in round will determine it. Feel free to ask questions.
• Be strategic and make good life choices.
• Impact calc is the best way to my ballot.
• I will vote on case turns.
• I will call for cards if it comes down to it.

Policy Debate

I tend to vote more for truth over tech. That being said, nothing makes me happier than being able to vote on T. I love hearing a good K. Spread fast if you want but at a certain point I will miss something if you are going top speed because I flow on paper, I do know how to flow I'm just not as fast as those on a laptop. Feel free to ask me any questions before round.


LD Debate

Fair warning it has been a few years since I have judged high level LD. Ask me questions if I'm judging you.

Framework
You do not win rounds if you win framework. You win that I judge the round via your framework. When it comes to framework I'm a bit odd and a bit old school. I function under the idea that Aff has the right to define the round. And if Neg wants to me to evaluate the round via their framework then they need to prove some sort of abuse.

Yes, I want to be on the email chain. jmsimsrox@gmail.com

UT '21 update (since I'm judging policy): I judge probably around a dozen policy rounds on the DFW local circuit a year (since about 2011), so I'm not a policy debate expert but I shouldn't be confused by your round. That means that I will probably understand the arguments you're making in a vacuum, but that you should probably err on the side of over-explaining how you think those arguments should interact with each other; don't just expect me to be operating off the exact same policy norms that you/the national circuit do. I am fairly willing to evaluate arguments however you tell me to. I have read a decent bit of identity, setcol, and cap lit. I am less good on pomo lit but I am not unwilling to vote on anything I can understand. Totally down for just a plan v counterplan/disad debate too.

Tl;dr I'm fine with really any argument you want to read as long as it links to and is weighed in relation to some evaluative mechanism. I am pretty convinced that T/theory should always be an issue of reasonability (I obviously think that some debates are better when there is a clear counter-interp that offense is linked back to); if you trust me to compare and weigh offense on substantive issues in the debate, I can't figure out why you wouldn't also trust me to make the same judgments on T/theory debates (unless you're just making frivolous/bad T/theory args). I enjoy any debate that you think you can execute well (yeah this applies to your K/counter-plan/non-T aff; I'll listen to it). I base speaker points on whether or not I think that you are making strategic choices that might lead to me voting for you (extending unnecessary args instead of prioritizing things that contribute to your ballot story, dropping critical arguments that either are necessary for your position or that majorly help your opponent, failing to weigh arguments in relation to each other/the standard would be some general examples of things that would cause you to lose speaker points if I am judging). Beyond those issues, I think that debate should function as a safe space for anyone involved; any effort to undermine the safety (or perceived safety) of others in the activity will upset me greatly and result in anything from a pretty severe loss of speaker points to losing the round depending on the severity of the harm done. So, be nice (or at least respectful) and do you!

My primary coaching event is Congressional Debate. Don't freak out, I prefer the debate portion of the event as my high school background is in PF/LD.

For CD: I’ll always consider a balance of presentation, argumentation, and refutation. If you happen to drop the ball on one of those traits during a speech, it won’t ruin your rank on my ballot. I look for consistency across the board and most importantly: What is your speech doing for the debate? Speaking of which, pay attention to the round. If you're the third speaker in the row on the same side, your speech isn't doing anything for the debate. I definitely reward kids who will switch kids or speak before their ideal time for the sake of the debate, even if it's not the best speech in the world.

For both PF/LD: As long as you're clear/do the work for me, I have no preference for/against what you run/do in the round. I'll vote off of what you give me. With that, I really stress the latter portion of that paradigm, "I'll vote off of what you give me". I refuse to intervene on the flow, so if you're not doing the work for me, I'm gonna end up voting on the tiniest, ickiest place that I should not be voting off of. Please don't make me do that. Respect the flow and its links.

PF specific: I love theory. I don't prefer theory in PF, but again I'll vote off of where the round ends up...it'd be cool if it didn't head in that direction as a good majority of the time you can still engage in/ win the debate without it.

I don't time roadmaps, take a breather and get yourself together.

Speed isn't an issue for me in either event.

Avoid flex prep.

I prefer googledocs to email for evidence sharing (brittanystanchik@gmail.com).

Standard Flow Judge, Ex-PF Debater, a little bit rusty

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.

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.

In Public Forum Debate, I will prioritize the students' capability in creating further analysis in regards to the facts and materials that they deliver during their speeches. Giving away facts is cool but letting people know the step-by-step process as to how the facts are materialized is even cooler. Rebuttals and responses are better to not be one-liner or "they say-we say" debate, a deeper reason to prove why your opponents are wrong will be more credited. I expect a debate where students are able to cite factual and scientific resources such as journals and papers which has gone through scientific methods and researches rather than newspaper or website, although I wouldn't penalize you just because you cite them because they may also provide important facts and information. The team that wins, would be a team that can provide more tangible examples and facts that may be impactful to us in the future.

Please introduce yourself with your name and preferred pronouns.

~~~ Rody Visotski Paradigm ~~~

I have a long history of judging intercollegiate debate across many different styles including British Parliamentary, Canadian Parliamentary, and Australian/Asian Parliamentary. I am very comfortable with concepts in social science, and I have an expertise specifically in areas concerning political science, international relations, and public policy – among many other areas. I have lived in both Bulgaria and in Canada, so I have unique specific knowledge on a vast multitude of regions – in addition to my academic knowledge thereof.

When I am judging, I look for efficient uses of time, natural speaking – and most of all, commonsensical strongly analyzed, impacted, and linked argumentation. Meta debating does sometimes work; however I encourage you to engage with the motion, and not with the art of debate in and of itself, unless the motion specifies otherwise. I aim to be as impartial as I possibly can, so please do not try to pander to what you believe may work best – just have strong substantive material! I am also a very fast typist – meaning that most of the things that you say will be written and considered in deliberation, the likelihood that I miss major concepts is miniscule. That being said, I always appreciate a strong roadmap and summary.

Lastly, please make sure that you engage with the best case of the other team, blatant straw-manning is never engaging or appreciated. After rounds, I am more than happy to provide feedback on why I voted in the way that I did, and how I saw the round, though I will stress that trying to badger me to change my vote is not an effective usage of your time. Lastly, I encourage you all to have fun, and I wish you all the very best of luck.

- Rody Visotski

TOC twice competing for Hawken in Congress. Now at Cornell. against offtime roadmaps. feel free to postround

Summary:

tldr: I'll try to be blank slate, be nice, and use common sense. Please add me to the email chain. Tech > truth but explanations are a prerequisite to weighing the argument.

Hi my name is Kenneth. I'm currently a freshman at Arizona State University studying Computer Science.

My email is wangkenken1@gmail.com feel free to email me after the debate for feedback and plz add me to the email chain.

I did policy debate for 4 years at Desert Vista High School. I consider myself an OK debater. I broke a couple times at national tournaments in high school but there are probably a lot of high school debaters better than me.

Don't be discriminatory and don't be rude. I have seen my fair share of toxic behavior in speech and debate which I do not appreciate. Just be nice. That includes being really condescending to an inexperienced team.

I will try to be tabula rasa meaning that I will vote for basically any argument. However, there are a couple things I probably won't change my mind on: don't clip, don't take your own evidence out of context, reading a card in the last couple of speeches isn't an argument that I will weigh very heavily, extend the link, impact, solvency if you want an argument weighed, if you don't extend an argument even once then its dropped, I won't count cards if you never send them, don't use a k if you don't do a k event, quality over quantity, and don't take a "bathroom break" to text people for help (yes I've seen it happen).

Stuff that will earn you speaks: good speaking, epic debate outplays and clash, sending evidence/analytics, not delaying the round though I understand it happens sometimes, signposting, clear indication of prep, and good extensions/overviews.

Stuff that I am ok with but will affect speaks if it gets too extreme: tag teaming, helping out your teammate during a speech, and cutting a card during a round by saying "cut the card there" as long as you press enter at where you stopped so you can send it to your opponents after the speech.

Also wear a mask when you can/need.

Policy:

My main event. I mainly did K debate specifically Death K on neg and Asian Identity on aff. I am big fan of Asian Identity. I don't like identity vs identity debates unless one side did something really bad. I'll still vote for it though.

K - Make sure to explain the K especially in the last 2 speeches. I don't like stupid stuff with K's like ballot taking. I'll still vote for it though. Reading too many cards probably won't be good for you (mainly after the first speech). I personally think that K's are good for small schools that don't have 5 coaches and that debate is a game for some people while debate is a tool for activism for others. However, I am still open to contesting those points.

Policy - I don't know much about the topic please be good with overviews. CP's are OP. Framework VS K is probably productive discussion because its about whether or not K's should be in policy is one argument I like. I really don't like short T shells that apply to every aff on the topic. Always try impact weighing if you have different impacts than the other team. Impacts can have 0 probability/solvency especially when it comes to nuclear war scenarios just make it clear why that's the case.

Don't be too fast and unclear I sometimes have hearing issues. If you go fast, I would appreciate if you gave me a doc with analytics and whatnot. Also, just a personal tip: if you struggle reading fast, focus on clarity even if you think it slows you down because in my experience, it mostly just slows you down by like 5 seconds in an 8 minute speech but gives you a way better presentation for the judge.

Pet peeve: I don't like when people go 500 off especially when there's like 2 T-shells for an obviously topical aff or when the 2NR just goes for 2 bad arguments that were under covered in the 1AR. I'll still vote for it though.

Either way, I'll try to judge as fairly as I can just be sure that you're learning and having fun.

I will give you each .5 extra speaker points if you tell me big chungus before the round because it means you read my paradigm. Good job!

Congress:

I have limited experience in this event.

I will try to value argumentation and speaking evenly though I get that the topic sort of limits your arguments.

Presentation is important for me so pay attention to that.

I will not be happy if you use some bogus argument even if you don't get called out for it.

Public Forum:

I am somewhat familiar with this event as I have helped out with some programs for middle schoolers that use PF. However, that was two years ago and I only sort of remember how speeches and stuff work so please help me out with that.

Please time yourself and don't go overtime if you do I'll probably dock speaks.

Just because I did policy does not mean you should spread or use sources that would be bad for PF but ok in Policy.

I like clash so remember to answer your opponent's arguments because it will help you out. On the flipside, don't leave an argument unanswered because the other team can punish you hard. I understand that this event has short rounds but I would like it if you focused on your key points without bombarding arguments with little explanation so that your opponent has no chance of answering them.

I think PF uses speaker points too so if you tell me big chungus before the round I will give both of you half a speaker point.

Hi, I am parent judge and please speak slowly that i can hear clearly. Thanks

pronouns: she/her/hers

Hey! I'm a third year at Emory University, and I did PF for four years in high school on the national and local NC circuit. I'm now a Policy debater on Emory's team. Debate is absolutely my favorite activity, and it makes me happy. Overall, I hope you enjoy the round/have fun.

Include me in the email chain! mirandawwilson@gmail.com

Policy:

-Ks: I do not think I am very good for the K because most of the literature is unfamiliar to me. Feel free to strike me. However, I will vote for the K if it is well-explained and well argued. I really value a detailed/comprehensive explanation of the alt and why that is better than the plan. If I don't understand what your alt does, I prob won't vote for the K.

Taken from @Emilyn Hazelbrook's paradigm (which I largely agree with in it's entirety):

-K Affs: Your reason for not defending the resolution should be built into your 1ac. You should prioritize line by line over extensive overviews. Impact turns are more persuasive than counter-interp debating, and clash makes a bit more sense as an impact over fairness, although I will vote on either.

-Topicality: I default to competing interps. Make sure to explain what debates would look like under your interp and theirs in rebuttals and read case lists.

-Theory: Condo is good until you read 4+ advocacies. Everything but condo is a reason to reject the argument, and I can’t see myself voting on most procedurals unless they're egregiously mishandled. Please slow down on theory standards—you're only speaking as fast as I can flow.

-Counterplans: I lean neg on most questions of competition (minus consult cps). If you're aff, read solvency deficits specific to your aff’s mechanism and smart perms. I default to judge kick if the neg says the cp is conditional, but I also think that smart 2nrs won't spend 2 minutes extending a losing cp.

-Disadvantages: Actually compare the aff and disad impacts in rebuttals and read turns case arguments. I prefer topic-specific disads, but enjoy politics disads when debated with very specific links.

-Case: Debates where neg teams invest time into picking apart the 1ac are my favorite to judge. Impact turns, circumvention, and analytics pressing the internal links/aff mechanism are much better than generic impact defense.

Public Forum:

-I will vote off the flow, but I have to buy your argument. For example, if you extend something all the way into final but it's not warranted/explained I won't vote off of it. Rather than "tech over truth" or "truth over tech", I'm more of a tech should equal truth (if that makes sense?).

-The flow is important to me but so is narrative. When determining speaks, I will look at how effectively you combined evidence with rhetoric.

-I can handle speed, but do not spread.

-Please frontline in second rebuttal!

-I will not flow disads in second rebuttal. Rebuttal is not the time to add in a third contention or argument, it is a time for defense.

-The same cards/arguments/weighing need to be extended in both summary and final focus. Please give me a clear weighing mechanism and explain it! It will make my job much easier.

-Signpost!!!!!!!!!

-I find historical precedent extremely important and love when it's argued in round. I also love framework debates; I think good framework can be used really effectively (same thing as above though, I have to buy it).

-I love unique arguments!! However, I do not have much experience with theory, and I don't think PF is necessarily the place for it. I'm willing to hear it, but I can't promise you'll be happy with how I evaluate it.

-Please don't misinterpret evidence. I'm begging you. There are so many articles out there. Find a piece of evidence that says what you want it to say instead of misconstruing. Don't be surprised if I call for evidence at the end of a round, especially if it gets indicted.

-To extend evidence you don't necessarily have to extend the citation, just make sure the content of the card stays consistent.

-I hate when arguments get muddled. If you don't have a good response, then just try to outweigh: don't muddle.

-I don't mind if you skip grand cross because it's awkward if no one has any questions. I won't flow first and second cross, but I will consider it for speaks, etc.

Miscellaneous:

-Be respectful. I have dealt with a lot of sexism during my time in debate, and if you are condescending in anyway I will dock your speaks. Any racist, homophobic, or sexist arguments and you will automatically lose.

-If you don't know someone's pronouns in round (they have not explicitly said them), it's probably best to default to they/them. I do appreciate when debaters post their pronouns before round in the chat.

-I will disclose and give an RFD if both teams want/the tournament allows.

-If your opponent didn't drop an argument, then don't say they dropped it. Also, don't extend through ink.

-Feel free to ask any questions after the round!

-Have fun:)

PF, Policy, LD can all be excellent formats when debated excellently. If I am judging you in a non-evidentiary form of debate, I don’t have any preferences for what you should do.

You should record a local copy of all of your speeches. If I or you drop the call, I am not going to ask you to regive a speech. Keep going and send the file so I can listen to it using "tech time". It will be a small audio file so even if you're having connectivity issues the file will send quickly. This is especially true in elims. There are no do-overs in elims.

debate value, policy, and fact rounds appropriately. For example, don't try to argue a fact or value resolution based on net benefits, etc. etc. etc. Fact rounds are "preponderance of evidence" and value rounds must identify a paramount value. I will down you for diminishing educational value of parli by co-opting everything to policy format.

Outside of this, I plan to be pretty reasonable about tech and environmental issues.

My General Thoughts on Debate

The role of the affirmative is to affirm and the role of the negative is to negate the affirmative in an intellectually rigorous manner. However, I would personally like to hear the affirmative say we should do something. I would prefer to hear about an actor outside of the folks reading the 1AC (Nonprofits, governments, the debate community as a whole, etc) do something but that is not a requirement. You can fiat things or you can say we should not fiat things.

PF

The speakers from each team will continue to ask and answer questions. Teams should alternate asking and answering questions rather than allowing one team to dominate so that a balance between teams is achieved. All speakers are encouraged to participate in the Grand Crossfire. Speakers should listen respectfully to opponents’ questions and answers.

If you already know what evidence you are going to read in the debate/speech you have to send a document via email chain or provide the evidence on a google document that is shared with your opponents before the debate. Those cards have to be provided before the speech begins.

You don’t get unlimited prep time to ask for cards before prep time is used. A PF debate can’t take as long as a policy debate. You have 30 seconds to request and there are then 30 seconds to provide the evidence. If you can’t provide it within 30 seconds your prep will run until you do.

The Final Focus should actually be focused. You have to implicate your argument against every other argument in the debate. You can’t do that if you go for 3 or 4 different arguments.

TL;DR 1) track prep verbally and don't mute otherwise, 2) I flow all crossfires, 3) don't waste time saying what you "don't know" about an argument, 4) in-depth extensions often aren't necessary

Oakton '20 (PF, some LD/policy/congress), JHU '24 (APDA, BP). Contact yoondebate@gmail.com for chains, Facebook or nyoon2@jh.edu otherwise. You can ask about decisions, speaks, individual feedback, or anything else - I'm always open to help anyone.

1. If nobody's prep is running, stay unmuted. Your prep starts and stops when you say "start prep" and "stop prep" out loud. Keep track of time - if you go decently over, I'll verbally interrupt your team going forward. I'll verbally notify you when prep ends.
2. Be equitable and respect others, don't use gendered pronouns unless they're explicitly denoted.
3. Don't skip or ask to skip anything. I won't flow over time. Don't hold up your timer/phone/fist when you think someone's time is up.
4. I flow cross. I don't flow off docs. I don't mind "off-time roadmaps" but I won't pay attention, say what your speech will do/is doing (signpost) on-time.
5. If presuming (very rare), I flip a coin, and I don't evaluate arguments saying to presume in other ways.
6. I'll disclose and will disclose speaks on request, average in-division 28, 29.5+ impressed me. No speaks theory.

1. Don't say "this argument is missing a warrant/reason/contextualization" on its own. Add any positive content - reasoning about why that factor's relevant, weighing, some example, connection to another point, anything! - just don't point out the lack of something and move on. This includes claims about what I "don't know," e.g. "you don't know when/where/how much this happens," please do not say this. This part is routinely ignored!
2. Arguments are dropped if the next opposing speech doesn't interact, excluding the first two speeches. (This applies to stuff like explicitly conceding something to make a point, or reading a new theory violation, no waiting around.) I ignore "strength of link weighing" saying to prioritize dropped points because they're dropped.
3. Contested (opponent directly addressed that specific claim) or weighed (you applied/compared to another argument) arguments must be extended in summary and final focus to be considered. Others don't have to be (e.g. an impact when the debate's been about links so far, "drop the debater" when both teams go for theory).

I am a PF parent, a returning judge.
After reading over many other PF judges' paradigms in order to evaluate my own preferences, I'll summarize:

1. Clarity, organization / signposts and flow are critical - remember that I have not heard your particular construction of support for your position before so in order to follow along it needs to be woven together tightly.

2. Evidence and a very sound logical foundation for your case are critical - to me these are table stakes upon which speaking ability and style rest. If big leaps don't make sense, they aren't going to resonate. Sometimes simple and succinct is better than overly complex.

3. PF Debate implies . . . debate - your ability to continuously support your position by really listening to, processing, analyzing and responding (professionally) to your opponents' arguments while demonstrating a very deep and nuanced understanding of the issues will be a key differentiator.

4. "Cute" underdeveloped extensions/arguments wont win with me. To borrow from another judge paradigm "Your win is still determined by your ability to persuade me on the importance of the arguments you are winning not just the sheer number of arguments you are winning. This is a communication event - so do that with some humor and panache.(Bilal Butt)"

SCORING: (also borrowed - thank you Bilal and Mollie Clark)

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

yuharry000@gmail.com

Strath Haven '22, Penn '26

Did policy debate in high school.

I do not debate in college and I do not know much about the topic, so bear with my lack of topic knowledge.

Line by Line preferred.

I will be voting based on the flow.

Big fan of counterplans, disads, impact turns.

I'm not great for the K.

Please have debate etiquette, be respectful.

I am a parent judge, please clearly explain your arguments and time the round yourselves. Thank you.

Hello! I'm your judge! I was a former PF Debater, a current sophmore at Duke who's studying engineering. In my time debating, I did a mix of both lay and tech debate, and also was both first and second speaker at some point, but mainly second. For the current topic, I've haven't looked at it much, so break things down for me.

A couple of notes on preferences, I'm fine with speed, but might drop some things if you go too fast, especially in a virtual setting. When it comes to arguments like theory and kritiks, but I'm not familiar with them, so breaking down the very basics of such arguments it's important. Just make sure whatever abuse you are addressing is clear and important enough for me to drop the other team. Misrepresenting evidence is at least grounds to dock speak, if not drop round.

A couple of things that make me happy:

1. Responsiveness Being a second speaker, clash makes me happy. Make sure that all arguments are responsive. Specifically, rebuttal should tell me explicitly why their defense takes out the argument. I'll be extra happy and boost speaks if you can give me a comparative analysis between links and cards. If your opponent has a card saying that x is true, and you have a card saying x is not true, you need to tell me why your card is better (better warranting, postdating, etc). Or else it just turns into a 50/50 in which card I believe.

2. Cohesion Just make a consistent story or consistent extensions. If you focus on one topic, in summary, don't switch to another in the final focus. That doesn't mean repeat stuff without addressing arguments, just try to stick to the same topics. If something new comes up in summary or final focus by your opponents, just address it in the next speech possible, or call it out if you think it's too late in the round to bring up new points.

3. Signposting My flow tends to be pretty messy because I scribble, but I do try to keep it organized. If you tell me where you are, it will make it really easy for me to follow along.

4. Collapsing Please collapse in your summary and win an argument cleanly, along with the weight to go along with it. For summary, defense is sticky for first summary, but still would like it to be reemphasized. Second rebuttal does not need to frontline, but is strategic.

Have fun!