Hello! My name is Elle and I am a 21 year old former collegiate debater from Indiana. I have 3 years of experience debating at a collegiate level. During my time as a debater I competed in NEDA Crossfire, Traditional Policy, IPDA, NPDA, and British Parliamentary debate. In 2018 I won the IFS State parliamentary debate tournament, as well as the NEDA National Championship in Crossfire.

As far as judging experience goes, I have been judging for 3 years, I have judged multiple high school debate tournaments, two middle school tournaments, and 3 BSU collegiate debate class end-of-semester debate tournaments.

In parliamentary debate, I am a tabula rasa judge, I believe it is up to the debaters to show why issues should be voted on in a round. I avoid using personal beliefs to make RFDs, and information that is not brought up in round is excluded from my RFD. If an argument is not made by either team in-round, then it doesn't bear weight in deciding the round. I give a lot of weight to impacts, so make sure to flesh those out properly when prepping. I also like clear and concise voters. Please, tell me clearly what issues you are winning on! Make sure I know exactly why I should be voting you up using clear statements of fact that explain how you beat your opponents case. I am comfortable with T arguments, K arguments, inherency arguments, etc.

In policy debate I prefer to vote on stock issues, and burden fulfillment is something I vote heavily on.

In general I am not a huge fan of voting on procedural issues; I prefer to vote on the merits and argumentation before weighing procedural items depending on the nature of the violation. If the issue effects the opposite team in a way that harms the educational value of the round or harms the opposite team in a demonstrable way, then it will weigh much more heavily on my ballot. All that being said, unless a procedural violation is very obvious and egregious, it is up to you to call it out and provide analysis on why I need to consider it when weighing the round. Obvious and egregious violations will be weighed regardless of in-round argumentation.

I am comfortable with speed, but I prefer a more measured speaking pace. I am not likely to weigh quantity of argumentation/evidence over quality of argumentation/evidence. Quality is much more important to me, just make sure you're clashing with your opponents.

Hello! I am a current sophomore at Washington state university. Double business major marketing and finance. I am looking forward to judging to hear the ideas and thoughts of everyone participating in the competition. I hope to learn from the participants and am excited to judge, good luck everyone.

Stanford 2023 Update

Paradigm below is still accurate for parli, but I’m judging CA LD. Feel free to skim/read the whole paradigm below to get a sense of my general views on debate if you want to. Not opposed to speed or a more circuit style of debate, but will roll with whatever you feel good doing (which will probably be what’s most persuasive). I have literally no topic exposure. Please send the speech doc if you have one.

=====

About this Paradigm

• Elements of this paradigm are inspired by the (what I found to be very helpful) paradigms of Khamani Griffin, Meera Keskar, and Jon Telebrico among others.

• The highlights are at the top (the rest is under specifics). The 2 minute version of the whole paradigm is bolded.

• This paradigm is written with parli as its primary focus. I outline some specifics for other events at the bottom.

• Last updated 04/27/2021.

About Me

Pronouns: He/Him/His

Dougherty Valley ‘20

• 4 years of debate (3.5 years in open).

• Primarily parli with a little bit of extemp, impromptu, and world schools.

  • Parli was a mix of circuit/lay. I personally preferred circuit debate, but I did well with both.

UCLA ‘24

• BP and NPDA

Lay Presentation/Clothing/Standing/Etc.

None of this will affect my ballot in any way whatsoever as long as it doesn’t make the debate space exclusionary for others.

General Judging Philosophy

I want to judge rounds where the debaters control the round and do their best debate. As a judge, I see my primary role as finding the path of least resistance to the ballot. These statements lead me to the two main rules of my paradigm:

• I will avoid intervening as much as possible.

  • This pretty obviously leads to me being tech > truth.

• The preferences I list below are defaults - designed to minimize intervention in the absence of explicit argumentation - that are highly malleable.

A few qualifiers on those statements:

• I reserve the right to drop debaters that choose to use morally abhorrent advocacies, arguments, and/or verbiage (keep in mind that morally abhorrent is a pretty high bar: if you need to ask yourself if your advocacy/argument/verbiage choice is morally abhorrent then please just don’t run it).

• I will not vote on out-of-round issues (that’s an issue that is far better handled by coaches, tab staff, equity officers, etc.), but I will gladly be a conduit for bringing them to the appropriate tournament officials / coaches if you want me to be.

• I protect the flow.

  • Sorry, winning off of arguments snuck into a rebuttal ruins the integrity of debate as either a game or as an educational experience.

• I have preferences, and I am obviously biased towards them. I do my best to minimize this bias when presented with argumentation, but I’m only human.

• I will not actively fact check UNLESS:

  • I am specifically asked to on a specific fact AND

  • Fact-checking that fact is the path of least intervention to the ballot.

  • Just use CHSSA evidence challenges please. That makes life a lot easier for all of us, and it's the technically correct way to do things.

Specifics

Questions/Clarification

In the interest of transparency and making flow debate more inclusive, feel free to ask me any questions about my paradigm (especially if my paradigm doesn’t address your question) and/or about rounds that I have judged you in (please include your name, team name, the tournament, the round number, and the round flight). I am down to answer questions face to face at in-person tournaments, or you can email me at mrfinn (finish the last name) @gmail.com .

I am always willing to give an RFD and be post-rounded, time permitting. If possible, I will try to do this immediately after the round, but, depending on specific circumstances, this might have to take place after breaks / elim results are announced.

Framework

• Trichotomy

  • I am extremely flexible on trichotomy issues as long as both sides are ok with it.

  • Value Debate

    • Please provide a specific value and value criterion and actually link back to / use them for weighing.

• Skewed framework doesn’t make me want to give you more speaks.

Weighing

• I WILL NOT WEIGH / CONSIDER ARGUMENTS OR PARTS OF ARGUMENTS THAT DO NOT HAVE LOGICALLY-CONNECTED CLAIMS, WARRANTS, AND IMPACTS.

  • This is bolded in all caps because I want teams to understand that I avoid intervening by not doing work for teams that don’t make coherent arguments. If your opponents’ argument doesn’t make sense as presented, then I’m going to do my best to avoid finishing it for them; the same holds true for you. This is one of the most common things that leads teams to think there was judge intervention when there really wasn’t.

• My default weighing is: Probability > Magnitude > Timeframe > Reversibility

  • This ordering is not absolute (e.g. I will probably consider nuclear war with 95% probability to be more important than an ant dying with 100% probability).

  • Please weigh your impacts for me. This is the single best way for you to minimize my intervention.

Layering

• I default to weighing all arguments on the same layer. I’m not going to up-layer for you.

  • For transparency’s sake, if I had a default layering it would be the following: Meta Theory > Theory/T > K > Case.

• I am very skeptical of “voting issues” being up-layered with little to no justification. If you do this, then please spend time justifying it.

Case

• Please break arguments down into Uniqueness/Inherency, Links, Internal Links, and Impacts.

  • Please signpost these.

• Please terminalize your impacts.

Plantexts

• These need to exist if there is a plan/counterplan.

  • Please don’t use any variant of “do the resolution.”

• Nebel is sketchy.

Counterplans

• I’m fine with all kinds of PICs.

  • I have a higher bar than most judges for the various PIC-bad procedurals. If you are going to run one of these, then it’s in your best interest to prove abuse.

• I default to not judge kicking per community norms. If you want me to judge kick, then ask me to and provide a basic explanation of what judge kicking is for your opponents (in case they don’t know).

  • Judge kicking is when the judge can choose to vote for the squo in the case in which they think the plan beats the counterplan but not the squo.

Perm

• The perm is a test of competition, not an advocacy.

• It’s in the NEG’s best interest to read some sort of perm defense (competition) in the 1NC so that it’s not all new 2NC argumentation that the 1AR can golden turn.

  • Should be explicitly articulated as mutual exclusivity and/or net benefits.

  • Competition by stealing funding generally doesn’t work. Perm do plan and all of counterplan except stealing funding wrecks this.

• I default to viewing any perm that contains all of the plan and at least part of the counterplan as theoretically legitimate. I default to viewing severance and intrinsic perms as theoretically illegitimate.

  • Severance perms are almost certainly cheating. Intrinsic perms are probably cheating.

K

If you plan on K-hacking without actually knowing your literature and K, then I’m not the judge for you. This does not mean that I won’t vote for the K, but it does mean a couple of things:

• I will be more favorable to a K that is well-linked and clearly relevant but lacking in structure much more than a well-structured but questionably-linked and tangentially-relevant K.

• I might not be familiar with your lit base, but even if I am I won’t fill in the blanks for you.

  • Lit bases I have some familiarity with (listed from most to least familiar):

    • Cap, Biopower, SetCol, Anti Blackness, Fem IR, Anthro, Securitization, Ableism.

• I probably don’t know every framing trick you’ve hidden.

  • You can definitely hide them from your opponent, but you might also wind up hiding them from me.

    • If it doesn’t wind up on my flow after you spread through it in the middle of three bullets that you half finished in the impacts before realizing you were low on time and it doesn’t wind up on my flow, then sorry not sorry.

  • Please give me and your opponents a text if at all possible (especially with zoom debate - please make it a little more fun for everyone).

• I will vote for K’s with incredibly generic links if forced to, but your speaks will suffer. Please don’t commodify the K solely as a tool to get the ballot.

• I think that K Aff’s that don’t affirm the resolution as written are probably cheating.

  • Feel free to try to change my mind on this one. I’m honestly curious about how the NEG is supposed to participate in these rounds / have a viable path to the ballot.

• I personally think that most K’s, as read at the high school level, have alts that lack real solvency and/or competition with the plan.

Theory/T

• Overall, I have a lower bar for theory than most judges on the circuit.

• I default to competing interpretations.

• I default to drop the argument.

• I don’t care about the following (i.e. they won’t impact my decision / ballot) unless they are raised as issues:

  • Proven vs. Hypothetical Abuse

  • Frivolity of Theory

• Please read Theory/T in shell format.

• I will vote on the RVI if read. I probably have a slightly lower bar for this than most judges.

  • A justification for RVIs is NOT the same thing as reading an RVI. If you want me to vote on an RVI, then explicitly read one.

Speed

• Unless you’re coming from circuit LD or policy I can handle full speed.

  • The issue with most parli spreading is clarity rather than speed.

• I will call slow or clear if I need to.

  • If you make me do this more than twice, then your speaks will suffer.

• Please be respectful of the speed that your opponents are comfortable with.

  • Your speaks will definitely suffer if you don’t.

  • I am willing to listen to speed theory, but I think that it’s often a weak / difficult argument.

Points of Information / Order

• Please take at least two POIs per constructive speech.

  • This won’t impact my decision, but it will definitely impact your speaks, especially if the debate becomes sidetracked by an issue that a POI could have easily resolved.

• I don’t flow POIs as responses on the flow, but I do consider responses to POIs to be binding (i.e. if a team clarifies in a POI that a counterplan is unconditional then I expect it to remain that way throughout the round).

• Please don’t abuse POIs as “gotchas.” That’s what your speech is for.

• Call the POO, please. I will protect the flow, but I can’t guarantee that I will catch everything or that I am conceptualizing an argument’s place in the round the same as you are.

Speaker Points

The speaker points system is inherently problematic and should be replaced. However, until it is, I believe that participating in it is the best way to advance equity as a flow judge. I award speaker points solely on the basis of effective strategy and argumentation.

A general scale for speaker points (see above for specific things that might impact speaks).

• <= 25 = Something Problematic / Arguments that just don’t make sense.

• 25-26 = Serious errors that probably lost you the round.

• 27.5 = Average, no significant mishaps or particularly good choices.

• 28.5 = Good strategic choices (likely to be around even).

• 29 = Great strategic choices (likely to break).

• 30 = Visionary strategic choices (likely to do very well in elims).

Other Events

World Schools

• Models are very useful to clarify broad resolutions.

  • This doesn’t exempt the proposition from it’s burden to affirm the whole resolution.

• Humor is very much appreciated if pulled off well.

• Please take points of information.

• I will score speeches individually, but I expect to see coherence between speeches down the bench (a lack of coherence will definitely affect strategy scores).

Policy / Circuit LD

• Please put me on the email chain if there is one: mrfinn (finish the last name) @ gmail.com).

• I understand the core elements of the formats, but I’m not super familiar with their specific implementation (e.g. I know what theory is and how it functions but I’m not 100% caught up with LD’s or Policy’s norms for it).

• I can probably handle about 70% of full speed without a speech doc.

  • I’ll call slow or clear as needed.

  • Please slow down on key parts of cards for me. It is highly unlikely that I know the topic well.

• LD Specific:

  • I’m most familiar with evaluating LARP debates.

  • I’m down to evaluate kritikal debates, but keep in mind that I’m coming from a parli background.

    • I’m probably not familiar with your lit if it’s something more niche (see above for my general familiarity).

    • Parli kritks tend to be much more framework heavy, so make sure that you explain how you want me to evaluate the kritik.

  • As far as tricks/phil go, not my favorite but I will evaluate. Keep in mind, especially with phil, that my background here is fairly limited.

Parli

- Don't generally like counterplans, unless there are serious advantages to them. Timeframe counterplans, for example, must be seriously warranted to overcome the diminishment of educational value.

- Do not run multiple advocacies - such as disadvantage to plan WITH a counterplan (unless the CP solves the disad, in which case it's an advantage to CP).

- In case you didn't gather, I am not a fan of policy-style debate conventions in the parliamentary format. I will always pref solid case args over theory or "game-y" debate strat.

- Debate the resolution, clash via argumentation and POIs. POIs very important so that clash points can be explored.

- If you abusively POO, I will down you on poor sportsmanship and diminishment of educational value.

- 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.

LD - I don't currently coach LD, but did so in the traditional style some years back. Framework is important and the criterion needs to function as a criterion to the value. Like, a measurable, functioning criterion. - My heart sinks when competitors turn LD into a policy round and run net benefits or some other non-value; net benefits, for example, is just an ill-defined placeholder for any number of values within a pragmatic/consequentialist framework. - P.S. Morality is not a value. I see it run all the time to my consternation. Morality denotes no actual value... it rather describes a system of principles to describe right and wrong - it is up to you to actually define those principles. There are many types of morality as it is relative to cultural context: Christian morality, prison morality, etc. etc. etc.

- I don't know much about circuit LD but will always pref traditional debating styles (resolutional analysis, evidence, analysis, clash, weighing) over esoteric theory. I will vote on Ks and theory ONLY if it is in response to serious abuse. If you have any other questions feel free to ask me before the round.

Congress

Not much new here: I look for incisive, insightful analysis of relevant issues. Quality of research matters.

In general, less is more: I'd rather a competitor focus in a single issue and really zero in on the implications/weighing of that rather than superficial coverage of multiple issues.

Stand straight, polished appearance, good projection and vocal nuance. These things are still relevant in a rhetorically-driven debate style such as Congressional Debate.

PF

I'm a traditional-style judge that will vote on the flow (aka "flay judge") - flow leaning. Truth over tech (generally). When saying an author's name and year - slow down ever so slightly and separate it from the rest of the text. Years are important - be sure to include them as PF is intensely time sensitive. Don't spread - I won't flow it.

Speech Requirements:

- 2nd rebuttal does not need to frontline (although it is strategic)

- anything extended in FF also needs to be in summary (no "sticky")

- WEIGH and tell me the story of the round in Final Focus

Things that are important for me:

- Signposting

- Clarity

- evidence integrity - I will check cards if they seem suspect and will vote accordingly (even if other team doesn't call it out)

I do not want you to:

- Spread - I will not flow it nor will I read a document

- read barely-there links to nuke war/extinction

- be rude/condescending/curt in CX

I will vote on Ks and theory ONLY if it is in response to serious abuse. If you have any other questions feel free to ask me before the round.

Hi I am an experienced parent judge. I have a pretty good understanding of the world and economic systems. I value probability over magnitude for the most part but can be convinced otherwise. I do not want every debate to be about mass extinction or how one economic policy leads to nuclear war. I can understand theory but am not likely to vote on it unless clear abuse in round. No Ks. No speaking fast. I prefer logic over straight facts. Repeating your point does not mean that you responded to their point. Do not say that a team conceded an argument when they clearly did not. POIs are fine but do not ask more than 2 and do not be obnoxious while doing it will drop your speaks. It is fine if you choose to decline a POI but between the two partners, you have to accept at least one. CPs are fine even PICs but if you are running CP you have to prove that your CP solves better. I do buy mutually exclusive arguments through net benefits but you have a harder job to me proving that the aff does not just do the same by perming the CP. If you want to perm do it as a test of advocacy as that is easier to understand as a judge. All advocacy/rhetoric is binding do not try to kick anything. Try not to run new contentions in the second speech. I do not protect the flow. Try to use less jargon while actually debating. I can understand some of it but not all. Have fun.

Hello! My name is Kayla (she/her/hers),

Having competed in team debate on the HS level, parli and LD in college, and having judged for LD/parli/IEs/IPDA for middle school, high school, and college tournaments, I will enjoy most arguments you want to raise, so long as they are respectful. I believe that ethical communication happens when teams respect each other and don’t use their arguments to degrade each other. I am open to all types of argumentation but will drop teams for problematic rhetoric.

For HS:

I will vote on procedurals (including condo) and topicality. I prefer to see proven abuse, or at least a clear instance of potential abuse, for most theory arguments. Policy debate, or a K on the Aff or Neg is welcome. I am comfortable with speed, but am willing to vote on speed theory if the debate becomes inaccessible.

For College:

I would self-describe my style of judging as somewhere in between a "flow judge" and a "truth judge." While, in most instances, I will vote on the flow, if one team goes line-by-line and fails to address the thesis-level of the debate, I might break this norm. If the debate involves multiple conditional positions, I find cohesion in the round (slightly) less important: this makes the thesis of the debate less important than the line-by-line.

Theory is always an a priori issue to any other positions in the round. If you go for theory, collapse to theory.

I enjoy K debates and will be happy to hear them on either the Aff or Neg. I am also interested in your advantage/disadvantage debate, it’s whatever you think fits the round best or whatever you’re most comfortable with. I am less familiar (although somewhat familiar) with Lacan and Freud-based Ks, but I enjoy most other critical arguments and have a particular penchant for Foucault.

For speaker points, I will evaluate your content over the style in which it is presented. Speed is fine, but I could be persuaded to vote on a speed argument. Using language that is violent or degrades your opponents could also result in a reduction of speaker points.

Ask any questions in-round if you have more!

My judging paradigm is based off of Aristotle's modes of persuasion. In order to win, students must incorporate ethos, pathos, and logos into their speeches. If opponents make their opposition not look credible, it will be heavily considered. If a speaker does not show emotion in their speech, it hurts the decision in their favor. If you don't care about the speech, I won't care about it. Finally if a speaker has ridiculous claims or statistics with no support in how the conclusion occurs, it again will hurt them. Other preferences is clash. If there is no clash then there is no argumentation going on in the round. For technical approaches like topicality, please perform all steps since if you are trying to win by logistics, please get your logistics correct or it won't be considered. I do not enjoy judging rounds where the debaters are speaking way too fast. I will track arguments to a point. If I deem the speaker is speaking too fast, I will not write down the arguments as you are no longer communicating with the judge. Any other questions a debater has will be answered prior to the round.

UC BERKELEY '24 | Junshik Ham (just call me Jun).

Email me @junh124@berkeley.edu if you have any concerns or questions that are not on this paradigm.

Background:

I debated primarily parli and public forum in high school, and I do have some understanding of policy and LD as well. In parli, I debated in both traditional and tech style, depending on whether it was local or circuit. Currently, I am a psychology and political science double major at UC Berkeley, and I am part of the ASUC. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, I did not join the Berkeley debate team; however, I do look forward to joining once the pandemic curves.

Philosophy:

Debate, to me, is an outlet to express intelligence, hard work, and creativity for students. By doing so, you are partaking in education, entrepreneurship, sportsmanship, and advocacy work. This means that you must highlight why you should win my vote, above anything else. Your case, obviously, deserves the highest priority and value; however, your performance also entails speaking ability, manners, and other aspects.

I will try my best to stay as tabula rasa as possible. Obviously, it is nearly impossible to be 100% "clean state", but I do judge solely based on what has been spoken in the round.

You will, most likely, know the result of the round before you walk out the door. I believe that disclosing results is a fair way to increase the educational value of the round and it also gives me an opportunity to give you some feedback, along with answering your questions, if there is any.

Judging Preference:

These are simply my preference, so it is not mandatory. It may help you to follow these preferences though (in terms of speaker points and even potentially to win the ballot).

Signpost. Tell me where you are on the flow, to make sure that I have everything under the right position, in case I am confused. Even if you do not signpost, I will write down your arguments, counter-arguments, etc. It just makes my job easier and clearer if the round is messy.

Voter Issues. This applies to the last speeches specifically. Tell me why you won the debate and deserve my vote overall. You can go line by line, however, it is more effective for me, and also easier, if you just tell me verbatim, why you won the round.

Presumption. Depending on the burdens of the resolution (either explicit or implicit), I will default neg if I have nothing to vote on.

Performance. Performance "debate" will result in a loss probably. It is disrespectful to the opponent who legitimately prepared the case, and it is called a debate competition for a reason.

Timing. I will time, but also not strictly. It is up to the debaters to self-time and to monitor the opposition's time.

General Debate Things:

Speed. Generally fine with speed, including spreading to a degree. Since the debate is an educational opportunity, however, if the opponent asks you to slow down, you have to slow down. Not complying may result in loss of speaker points and even loss, depending on the severity. Also, I am not going to say "clear" or tell you that you are not being clear. If I am not typing/writing anything down, there is a good chance that you are not being clear enough though. If there are speech docs, I do not look at them during rounds for fair competition.

Tech > Truth. I will take into account anything you say or argue in the round, as long as they do not clearly violate the ethics/manners of the debate.

Ks. Kritiks are an important card in your pocket to utilize when necessary. I used to run them, so I am familiar with them, and I am also fine with you running them. That being said, I would advise you against simply throwing a K to win the round. Make sure you highlight and explicitly state why the K is educationally beneficial as you run it. It does not need to be lengthy and detailed, and I also don't care where you say it. Just briefly mention it. If you simply tell me that I am "morally obligated" to vote on a K without any content or context, the K is useless. I am not going to buy Speed K (or any speed theory in that manner).

Theory. I will take theories, even though I am not a huge fan of them. Conditionality, paradox, etc are all "theories" in this case.

Card Cutting. Card cutting will immediately result in a loss.

Dropped Arguments. Dropped arguments are "true," but this just means the warrants for them are true. Their implication can still be contested. The exception to this is when an argument and its implication are explicitly conceded by the other team for strategic reasons (like when kicking out of a disad). Then both are "true." Basically, give me the reason why the dropped arguments actually matter rather than just saying it was dropped. It will do you little to no good if you simply state that it was dropped.

Presumption. Although rare, if it falls to a presumption neg win, I will grant NEG a presumption.

Criteria. If you do not specify the criteria, I will default to net benefits.

Ethics/Manner:

It is rather sad that I have to include this. If you are blatantly disrespecting, insulting, or causing any deliberate verbal/physical attacks to the opponents (or even me), there will be consequences. The consequence may vary from loss of speaker points, loss of round, or even pausing the debate to talk to the tab if necessary.

For mainly parli, if you would like to point out a clear evidence distortion by the opponents, bring it up during your speech and give me a rationale. I will take it seriously, but there is no guarantee that I would necessarily take any action. If it is deemed necessary, I will follow the rules of the debate outlined by the tournament first, and talk to the tab if needed.

Hello. My name is Makenzie Hamilton and I'm currently a student at Washington State University studying Elementary Education. I enjoy listening to what you all have to say and seeing how passionate you get about your topics. I don't have personal experience with speech and debate, however I have judged before and felt like I learned a lot about speech and debate and what all goes into it.

I am a Junior at Washington State University majoring in Communications with a focus in Public Relations and a minor in Sports Management. I have judged three prior speech and debate competitions and look forward to judging more. I love to see confidence, as it can make even a weak argument seem plausible. I also want to be able to see everyone having fun and enjoying what they are doing! Good luck!

I enjoy speeches of pace and tone that are clearly audible. Variety and dynamic styles are highly appreciated. I believe the most effective argumentation is nuanced and considers all/most contexts. I would like to see speakers bring their understanding of the strongest speech they can give.

I am a parent judge. Please be clear with your arguments. Read them in a manner that is comprehensible. If you read them too fast I won't be able to flow properly. Try not use to use extremely technical terms. If you do please explain them. Finally, be respectful to your opponents and have fun.

I'm a parent judge with a few years of experience. Please don't speak too fast. Please stay within time limits. I don't usually disclose results immediately after rounds.

Generally, I accept any form of argumentation if presented correctly. I have been involved in this activity for the past 13 years of my life, as both a high school and college competitor, as well as a current middle+high school debate coach. Put simply, you don't need to worry about debate terminology, strategies, or anything else that some judges might not know. If you run it, I'll know about it. That said, please still treat me as a normal person that you're trying to persuade! I know that debate is perceived as a "game," but I think that the "game" is figuring out strategies to make your arguments as persuasive to as many people as possible, which often involves starting at a basic level of understanding and adding additional complexity and nuance as you go.

Beyond that, I tend to align more with "traditional" debate arguments (your classic claim, warrant, evidence, impact) structure with solid clash against your opponent's (hopefully) similarly structured arguments. The worst thing that can happen for me as a judge is a round where the teams are two ships passing in the night, because then it becomes my job to intervene and figure out how those two things actually interact with one another (and I think we can all agree that judge intervention is not good). Finally, while I am OPEN to technical debate (K's, Theory, etc.) the bar is higher for these things since you have essentially infinite time to prep them. You need to do work to explain to me how they clearly link back to THIS specific round and how they outweigh your opponent's SPECIFIC arguments. Please, please don't just treat them as a catch-all.

Otherwise, good luck! You got this!

If you'd like feedback from me regarding a verbal or written RFD I gave you, please feel free to reach out at hmalek@windwardschool.org and I'd be more than happy to help.

General: Debate is a game that is played to be won but it is also a game that can involve very personal components. So in round be respectful and inclusive. Tell me what weighing mechanism to use when evaluating who should win, debate which weighing mechanism is better, and tell me why you win within that weighing mechanism. Also, more structure and signposting is ALWAYS better. I default to evaluating the round through the technical components of the flow unless told to do otherwise.

Policy Debate: Run anything you want (politics, PICs, business confidence, anything). I prefer the contemporary debate structure (Advantages and Disadvantages) to the classical stock issues style. Solid impact weighing/framing can easily win you an otherwise close round.

Theory: I am good with anything. I prefer it when its used to actually check back for abuse in round and not just as a time suck but I am willing to vote on it regardless. I do not have a preference of the standards vs voters debate.

Speed / Speaker Points: I have no problem with speed, but be clear and maintain solid word economy. Don’t exclude other teams from the debate with your speed, it will cost you speaker points and I am open to theory/kritikal arguments against it. Otherwise, go as fast as you want. Speaker points are awarded by the quality and competitiveness of arguments made rather than persuasiveness.

Hi!! My name is Elly McIalwain. I am an Elementary Education student at the University of Washington. I never competed in debate or speech team, but grew up watching my friends and younger brother practice and compete. I will be intrigued by any topic as long as you show confidence and look like you enjoy what you’re doing! I can’t wait to see what everyone has in store for us this year and I hope to see you all shine!

Background

My name is Rishabh Meswani, a former high school debater, and a UC Berkeley alum.

*Generally prefer less theory type debate*

Kritks: I am most likely not going to vote on Kritiks. I understand how they work, and you are free to run one, but I would much prefer a debate focused on the topic, using evidence, and reasoning. You would have to be extremely convincing to win on a Kritik.

Speaking: Speed is fine, but be reasonable. It is in your best interest if I am able to understand and write down all your arguments properly.

Other than that, off-time roadmaps are great, focus on terminalizing impacts, have clear and powerful voter issues, utilize evidence, and be respectful to your opponents.

Looking forward to some great debates :)

Let me know if you have any questions - you can reach me at rishabh@fremontdebateacademy.org.

I'm also the CEO & Co-Founder of a non-profit called Fremont Debate Academy, and have been running it with my team for the past 7 years.
Here is a quick description of the non-profit:

Fremont Debate Academy (FDA) is an international 501(c)(3) non-profit organization with a mission to create a debate & civics program in every school and every district across the world. Over the past ~7 years, our team of over 200+ has impacted ~5000 students, has programs scheduled in 19 states & 8 countries for this fall, and is training teachers from Teach For America and Broward County (Florida)! Our volunteer team has aggregated 20,000+ volunteer hours, and FDA is a certifying organization for the Presidential Volunteer Service Award (PVSA).

If you're interested in a leadership opportunity as a high schooler or college student, please reach out! Would love to discuss more or answer any questions.

If you want more clarification on your ballot or need to contact me, my email is neupaneanusha@icloud.com

I judge LD, PF, Parli, and Congress.

For LD, PF, and Parli:

I'm okay with whatever speed you are reading at, but I have found that the best debates aren't won because of speed, but rather because of the clarity of your logic.

Make sure you explain why your argument is valid rather than just stating your argument repeatedly.

I do love a good cross-examination, and if you do bring up an argument in cross-ex and you want me to count it, make sure you bring it up later.

For LD: I also do love a good value debate, but I'm fine with more evidence and contention-focused debates.

A note on cards: "He did not refute this one card out of my thirty cards and for that reason I should win" will not convince me to vote for you. I vote based on the arguments you make using logic and/or your evidence, not purely on evidence. That means that if your opponent rebutted the point that a specific card supported, the card also falls. If you think a piece of evidence is key to your argument, then explain that.

For your last speech, tell me why I should vote for you. Be as clear as you can. Remember that you do not have to win every single argument, but rather the quality arguments that make a difference in the round.

Be respectful to your opponent and remember that this is an opportunity for you to learn and grow as a debater.

For Congress:

Be as clear as you can with your speech. Delivery and content both matter. On a point scale from 1 - 5, 3 means ok but not great, 4 means either excellent content or excellent delivery, and 5 means excellent content and delivery.

Current Washington State University senior studying political science and sociology. Have judged three debate competitions this past year. My biggest advice is to be confident and make sure to take a deep breath and don’t be afraid to take a second if needed. No matter how it turns out each one of you should be proud and know you have all done a great job.

Hi there, My name is Sophie!

I'm currently a senior at Washington State University studying Apparel Merchandising and Design with a minor in Graphic Design. I'm excited to listen to your debate and feel free to go at any pace that works for you. I want to see you all enthusiastic about your topics, learn some new things and a laugh or two is always encouraged. Good luck and I hope you feel amazing about your debate no matter the outcome you all put in so much work you should feel proud of it!

Currently a student at Washington State University. I was apart of sports medicine in high school and enjoy being involved with different types of events. I have judged debates in the past and enjoy hearing the different viewpoints people have.

I'm a parent judge who has been judging for around 3 years, but here are some of my preferences for the debate round.

- Please speak slowly and try to be as clear as possible so I can better comprehend what you are trying to say during your speech.

- Refrain from using acronyms and abbreviations during your speech

- Avoid running Ks

- Theory is fine but heads up I am not very familiar with it, so in the scenario, you run it makes sure you tell me why it is important in the round to avoid using the tech terms in the process for me to understand.

I will most likely give the vote to whichever side efficiently presents its case with logical arguments.

Hello,

I am a fairly new judge to parliamentary debate. Please go slow and clearly. Thanks

I am a parent judge and this is my first year judging.

Few things that influence my judging :

1) Provide reasoning for your claims and support them with evidence.

2) I like to see how effectively the team was able to present the arguments and tackle each point presented by the opposing team.

3) Most IMPORTANT, Speak clearly and slowly, if you are too fast, no matter how good your arguments are, if I cannot follow, I cannot award points.

Above all else, I am interested in you showing me that you have listened to the opponent’s argument and shown me why your team has the superior plan, be it how we should orient ourselves in terms of our values, or how a government agency should carry out a specific proposal. I will be listening especially closely to the moments of clash. I will flow your arguments to the best of my ability and quickly summarize who I think won the debate and why. I will be weighing logos over pathos, but I want to hear a bit of both.

Secondly, I want to hear appropriate modulation in tone, pacing, and volume. I am interested in clarity. As an English teacher, I am probably more interested in these elements of rhetoric and style then the average judge.

I want to hear a clear moral philosophy guiding your value debates and all arguments, be they based on value, policy, or history.

Across Policy, Lincoln-Douglas, Parliamentary, and Public Forum, I want to hear credible sources, compelling warrants, and impacts that appeal to actual governing bodies and issues in the real world.

I will be listening closely to the clash. A winner will be the person who shows mastery over all the arguments in the topic’s orbit, and who puts that mastery to work by either developing a compelling and unique case or showing why the status quo and your counter-plan offer a better path forward.

Don’t be a jerk. I will be docking points if you are unnecessarily rude to the opposition. I have little tolerance for bigotry of any kind. Let’s make debate an activity that welcomes everyone, no matter their gender, socio-economic standing, race, or sexual orientation.

Some notes on specific events.

• Policy & Public Forum - While I understand it is the norm to “spread,” I am more interested in hearing quality evidence and arguments rather than quantity. If you are speaking too quickly for me to understand, I won’t consider the contention.

• Lincoln-Douglas - I’m aware that some like to steer the argument always toward their philosophical area of expertise. If you are interested in K-debate, please be prepared to explain your positions in plain English.

• Parliamentary - Be respectful; I’m not really interested in hearing any heckling. If it seems you are using POIs to disrupt, I will dock points. I care mostly that you are able to listen closely and counter the opponent’s argument than your ability to summarize research.

• Speech Events - I will place a higher value on style. I like a bit of humor, but be careful to not be offensive.

Above all else, I am interested in you showing me that you have listened to the opponent’s argument and shown me why your team has the superior plan, be it how we should orient ourselves in terms of our values, or how a government agency should carry out a specific proposal. I will be listening especially closely to the moments of clash. I will flow your arguments to the best of my ability and quickly summarize who I think won the debate and why. I will be weighing logos over pathos, but I want to hear a bit of both.

Secondly, I want to hear appropriate modulation in tone, pacing, and volume. I am interested in clarity. As an English teacher, I am probably more interested in these elements of rhetoric and style then the average judge.

I want to hear a clear moral philosophy guiding your value debates and all arguments, be they based on value, policy, or history.

Across Policy, Lincoln-Douglas, Parliamentary, and Public Forum, I want to hear credible sources, compelling warrants, and impacts that appeal to actual governing bodies and issues in the real world.

I will be listening closely to the clash. A winner will be the person who shows mastery over all the arguments in the topic’s orbit, and who puts that mastery to work by either developing a compelling and unique case or showing why the status quo and your counter-plan offer a better path forward.

Don’t be a jerk. I will be docking points if you are unnecessarily rude to the opposition. I have little tolerance for bigotry of any kind. Let’s make debate an activity that welcomes everyone, no matter their gender, socio-economic standing, race, or sexual orientation.

Some notes on specific events.

• Policy & Public Forum - While I understand it is the norm to “spread,” I am more interested in hearing quality evidence and arguments rather than quantity. If you are speaking too quickly for me to understand, I won’t consider the contention.

• Lincoln-Douglas - I’m aware that some like to steer the argument always toward their philosophical area of expertise. If you are interested in K-debate, please be prepared to explain your positions in plain English.

• Parliamentary - Be respectful; I’m not really interested in hearing any heckling. If it seems you are using POIs to disrupt, I will dock points. I care mostly that you are able to listen closely and counter the opponent’s argument than your ability to summarize research.

• Speech Events - I will place a higher value on style. I like a bit of humor, but be careful to not be offensive.

TL;DR I have some experience and am a progressive judge, so you can do whatever as long as you make sure you explain things and have warrants. The best way to get my ballot is generating lots of offense and doing good weighing / impact comparison. If you're looking at this right before a round trying to decide on your strategy, run whatever you want.

Experience:

-3 years Parli at Ashland HS (Oregon); broke at TOC my senior year

-4 years NFA LD (basically solo policy) at Lewis & Clark; 2022 National Champion

-3 years as head coach at Catlin Gabel HS

-Current law student, if that matters

-Well over 100 rounds judged; 37-5 on the winning side when judging on elim panels.

Main Judging Philosophy:

Progressive/Flow judge. I vote on the flow and will vote for you if you win. Do that however you want; just make sure you sufficiently explain your arguments so they are actual arguments rather than claims with no warrants.

Please collapse in your final speeches! It makes things so much cleaner, and if you give me a clear path to the ballot instead of trying to messily go for everything, it will only help you. Same for weighing: if you weigh your impacts things will be so much cleaner and easier for me to vote for you.

Ks are fine on the aff or neg. Framework is fine. T is fine. Theory is fine. DAs and CPs are fine. Tricks are fine. It's all fine just make the arguments you want to make.

Speed is fine. I'd like to be on the email chain or file sharing if applicable. For Parli, please slow down on tags and important texts (e.g., plan texts, topicality interps, etc.)

Misc:

Disclaimer: if you say anything blatantly racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic or generally bigoted I will give you zero speaker points and you will lose. Just be nice please.

Note that I do not always flow author names, so when extending cards, please give me the tagline or reference what the card actually says rather than just saying "extend Smith 21." I don't want to have to look for it in the doc.

Happy to answer detailed questions before the round! Just trying to keep this short.

They/them

Quals: Been doing nat circuit coaching and competing since 2019

Theory: I don't feel strongly about things like condo, dispo, or anything as such. Stonger feelings I do have are event specific and listed at the end of the paradigm. I have a list of defaults but I can def be persuaded otherwise.

• Topicality comes before other forms of theory (like spec!)
• 1NC theory comes before 1AR/2AC theory
• Competing interps > reasonability
• Text > Spirit of the interp
• Drop the debater > Drop the argument
• Meeting the interp is terminal defense
• Theory comes before substance
• Fairness and education are voters
• No RVIs

K Debate: Sure! I was mainly a K debater when I competed. I'm pretty tired of hearing post-structuralist nonsense that amounts to inclusive oppression or do nothing. Cap debates are done wrong in many debates for a lot of the same reasons.

• Reject alts are fine but have a pretty low chance of winning my ballot short of conceding alt solvency.
• I think debates can be won on frame outs paired with a risk of solvency.
• Don't care for role of the ballot debates, however, if done right they can still win rounds if you go for it as a question of whether or not the other team textually meets the role of the ballot. Almost like theory!
• I still don't know what no perms in a methods debate means!
• Critical affs dont need links to the topic if theres substantive framing that justifies the aff.
• Links can be disads to the perm but tell me why!

Case:

• Fiat is durable
• Stock issues are not my favorite path to the ballot
• I don't judge kick counter plans unless told to
• kicking planks in a plan or counter plan is cool unless someone wins a theory violation

LD Specific: A couple of quick notes

• You should disclose. I wont auto vote on disclosure but I'll have a high threshold for responses to it
• Either flash analytics or slow down/clear because I'm not going to get the 2 page long overview at 670 WPM
• I evaluate most tricks like theory interps

Parli Specific: I've had these happen enough times back to back that if you do these things its either an auto L and/or 25 speaks

• Reading a K Aff then going for 2AC theory and impact turns to T at the same time when they have the same impact
• Reading a neg perm gets you 25 speaks. Going for it gets you an L.
• Disclosure theory because theres no speech docs or wiki in parli, how do I even verify it!
• Speed bad theory gets you 25 speaks but an auto L if you're an open circuit debater who spreads and read speed bad
• K's bad theory gets you 25 speaks.

MISC: A couple of ground rules!

• Don't read Afropess/social death claims if you're not black
• Not voting on cap good
• Not voting on heg good
• Not voting on racism good
• Terminal defense is hard to win
• Give me pen time

I am a non native English speaker, so I would not prefer very fast speech as it is difficult for me to fully understand the content.

I will make my judgement based on your organization and how clearly you present, how you use the argument, and do cross-examination, and how you present your evidences, not based on the sounds-right or sounds-wrong on the debate topic itself.

So please be well prepared, and well organized, and be calm and clearly present your points.

Good luck.

I evaluate structure and overviews first. I like it when debaters tell me what types of impacts are most important and how I should evaluate impacts. It helps you organize and helps me better understand where you’re going. It also improves your narrative.

I award speaker points based on how you speak in speeches and how you build the context around. Speed is ok if you make clear and sound argument.