Hi!! I did pf for 4 years.

Just do comparative weighing and you’ll win my ballot. I don’t really like theory/Ks. Have fun and be nice! :))

Hi, I'm Sreyas. I'm currently a freshman at Columbia—in high school, I debated PF for Ardrey Kell/NCSSM.

Consider me a flow judge with a strong preference for fleshed-out warrants and clear, effective weighing. Ultimately, I want each team to give me a consistent, compelling narrative throughout the round, to engage meaningfully with the other side of the flow, and to walk me through how I should frame my decision. There's no point in reading responses if you don't tell me why I should accept your response over your opponents argument; if I don't get any comparative analysis or weighing, I'll have to decide on my own whose claim I buy more—don't make me do that.

To summarize all that in two words: Pleeeeeeeeeeeease weigh. It makes the round far more fun to judge and far less frustrating to compete in.

And above all, enjoy yourselves! (Jokes in round are always appreciated.)

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

Some more stuff:

- Zero tolerance for any behavior in round that is disrespectful or offensive: being rude to your opponents, running offensive arguments, etc. Be respectful in round!

- For an argument to feature significantly in my RFD—whether it's offense or defense—it should be mentioned consistently throughout the round. This is to get you to give me narratives instead of trying to win off of some blippy response in second rebuttal. That being said, I understand that sometimes teams need to pivot halfway through the round: just make sure to extend/develop important arguments across multiple speeches.

- I'm fine with a bit of speed but know that beyond a point, the faster you choose to speak, the less I'll be able to get on my flow.

I have 9 years experience in coaching and judging various forms of debate and very much enjoy the opportunity to judge.

For Policy and Public Forum, I judge as a policy maker and not truly on a line by line (but will evaluate all arguments in the context of a policy making decision). Please analyze the opponents case/points and prove why their opponent's case is either without foundation or weak and the policy position should not be adopted.

Speed is an issue if the speaker is unintelligible. Speaker points will reflect that problem, additionally, if I don't understand, I can't flow, and if it is not on my flow, I cannot evaluate. Clarity is of utmost importance. Teams should properly provide clear "taglines" for their arguments in order for me to follow (I will not accept flash drives).

Debater professionalism and courtesy are appreciated.

Hello! I'm Stuart Beal.

First, a bit on my debate background. I did four years of pretty traditional traditional high school policy debate (competed almost exclusively on the UIL circuit in Texas). Now, I compete in American Parliamentary Debate and British Parliamentary Debate for Columbia University in New York City. (Most of the following information is related to policy debate, but I feel that my judging philosophy is better communicated through a more specific discussion of policy debate issues than it would be if I tried to generalize my philosophy to styles of debate I'm less familiar with.)

I've judged more kritiks than I've ever encountered myself in round, so when it comes to those types of arguments, I am slightly unfamiliar, but not in the slightest opposed to hearing them. Honestly, at times I think the fact that I have less exposure to k debate makes a lot of k arguments more convincing to me. Other than that, I will also say that I have less experience with super technical CP debate. If things get intense technique wise, the team that's able to more effectively explain to me what's going on is probably going to be the team that will win the argument.

Past all that, I have a very open judging philosophy in that I will value the arguments that you tell me to value. Even widely held assumptions like T/framework taking first priority because they're procedural arguments need to be communicated to me. If aff turns T and explains why topical AFFs are bad and neg doesn't respond, T will become an aff advantage. I will never make a team win because of some sort of base assumption about how policy debate works that I personally hold.

I make decisions based on world comparison, based on which world, aff or neg, is a better one. I'll do this comparison with the impacts and weighing communicated to me by both teams and I will only intervene to weigh arguments myself if there is absolutely no other way for me to evaluate the round.

In terms of the argument preferences I do hold, I like fun T arguments and sometimes get annoyed by CPs.

No onto speaking points. I will flow every speech in the round and would like to be able to flow without having to check the speech doc for tags and authors. Highest speaker points will be given to the speaker that forces me to check the speech doc the least amount of times. So, signposting really well and speaking clearly on tags and authors is the easiest way to receive high speaks from me. Additionally, passionate speaking and intentional/convincing delivery will be rewarded.

I will dock speaker points for unwarranted attitude. I'm totally fine with things getting a little petty and heated, but there's a line and crossing it will result in docked speaks. Also, in addition to being too prickly to the other team, if I catch any disparaging comments being made from one partner to the other, speaks will be docked.

Additionally, and this should be obvious, any explicitly harmful language used whether it be sexist, racist, ableist, queerphobic etc. will result in speaks being docked and tournament officials being contacted.

Pronouns: he/him/his

History:

- Policy @ Montgomery Bell Academy: 2018-2020

- APDA @ Columbia University: 2021-Present

Email:

bcbozza@gmail.com

- Always (always) add me to the email chain!

General:

- I'm cool with spreading if you're debating in a format that spreads. I've debated policy. I reserve the right to say "clear" if I can't understand what you're saying, though—and to dock speaks if I have to do it more than once.

- Have fun with the debate! Debate is a game—an educational game, but a game nonetheless. I'm not going to decide rounds on "fun" (as some K debaters would have me do), but do remember that this is something that's meant to be enjoyable for all of us.

- Signpost during speeches. Throw in an "and" between cards. If you're moving on to a new topic, make it known. Messy flows mean I'll probably end up overlooking something you don't want me to overlook.

- Framework is everything. Your job is to give me something through which I should evaluate the round. In the absence of any really compelling argumentation (absolutely the worst case scenario) I'm going to fall back on framework.

- In any format, I'm cool with most args. Explain it well enough and I'll weigh it.

- BUT I'm iffy on tech > truth. If an argument just doesn't make sense—even if you have cards—it's getting weighed after everything else.

- (If you're in a format that uses cards): use your cards! Refer back to them, cite specific lines later, etc.; the more you engage with and explain your evidence, the more convincing it's going to be.

Theory:

- I really do not enjoy theory debates. Unless your opponent(s) engaged in some absolutely egregious violation of debate conduct, there's a very low chance I vote on your theory args.

- I'm not going to "automatically err Neg/Opp on theory" just because you say "automatically err Neg/Opp on theory." You have to give me a substantive reason to prefer your argument.

- If you read disclosure theory, and your opponent pulls up screenshots of the disclosure, I'm voting you down. Yes, this has happened.

Parliamentary Debate

As a student at Friends Seminary, I debated with our nascent parliamentary debate team for three years. Finding both community and stimulation in our school's team, I was proud to represent them at tournaments around New York City in the NYPDL. I began judging as my senior year came to a close and have continued to judge virtually for the past year.

I'm always happy to answer questions before and after rounds, and I take feedback very seriously. In terms of argumentation, I appreciate creativity, historical accuracy, and ties to current events.

I find parliamentary debate rounds that get overly caught up on definitions to be discouraging: please don't let that monopolize the entire clash.

When it comes to Points of Information, I do not have a strong preference on how they are conducted, as long as everyone debating is in agreement. Before each round starts, I like to standardize how they will be conducted (whether that simply be unmuting or raising a hand). I understand that different people have different relationships with and access to technology, and won't hold any technological mishaps against the debater. Another note about POIs: please don't go back and forth.

I don't have strict rules about off-time roadmaps, but I do feel that they are overwhelmingly unnecessary. If you feel the need to present one, you may, but definitely don't feel pressured to do so. Finally, I always time speeches but prefer not to interrupt speakers for going overtime. Please be mindful of your time so the tournament can run smoothly.

I did debate for 4 years.

I believe in weighing.

Email me your cards: ethandigi@gmail.com

General Preferences:

- POIs are fine, but calling them excessively to throw off your opponent will lose you speaker points.

- Weigh impacts clearly in rebuttal speeches. I won't weigh your case for you, so even if you have stronger impacts on my flow after constructive speeches, you won't win unless you take the time to tell me why.

- For policy rounds: If your case needs to be disclosed because you are going to spread please give it to me, but be warned that I do flow, and will only be judging you off of what I can HEAR.

- For parli rounds: Speak clearly and concisely. It is your responsibility to ensure you're speaking at an adequate speed for me to flow down all your points. If you speak too quickly, I won't be able to flow all your points, which will only hurt your case.

- Please don't be mean to your fellow debaters. I know debate can get competitive, but I do not support debates where people try and win by tearing down their opponents themselves.

- The number one voter in every round is impact calculus, and how you prove to me the effects and true weight of your impact on the world, and/or the negative impact of your opponent.

- Evidence is great, but until you can link it to your case and show me WHY its relevant to your contention, it won't matter. Evidence is there to support your claims. Don't give me an entire speech spouting statistics without showing me their relevance. Without showing me their impacts.

- In your conclusion speeches I need to hear why you win each point of clash. Don't just go over the one point you think you won and hope it outweighs everything else, if you want to win I need an in depth analysis of every point of clash that you think mattered. After each round I evaluate my flow to see which points of clash were rebutted successfully, their weight in impacts, how important each point is, etc.

Good luck to all competitors!

Content and courtesy are the most important factors to me. I like to be presented with both the forest and the trees by the end of a debate. Focusing on details of your case, on individual points of clash and supporting your case is very important, as is not getting lost in the weeds and remembering by the end to tie everything up to a big picture view.

Please do argue forcefully and passionately - on both sides of the motion at hand. I find it very off-putting when teams try to win on the margins rather than engage with the substance of the motion/topic. So I really do not like overly narrow definitions and overly aggressive points of order where it's obvious you're just trying to throw the other team off and/or win on technicalities.

So with me you'll do well if you engage in detail and big picture with the actual substance of the motion and thoughtfully and respectfully clash with your opponents. This to me best shows engagement with and consideration to your opponents, me and the contest of debate in general.

Hello! I did Pacific Northwest Debate (similar format to Policy) last year.

I like impact weighing, ads, and disads, but I'm also open to theory arguments and take them into account.

I'm new to this league, so please speak slowly. Please make it clear which claims you are arguing against so I can accurately flow. And please be respectful of each other at all times.

Going more or less chronologically in regards to occurrence within the round

. I dislike fluff at the beginning of speeches and off-time roadmaps. A brief outline is fine, but the best thing you can do is to sign post clearly and regularly during your speech.

. Don't spread, it is your responsibility to speak at a pace at which it can be reasonably expected that a judge will be able to write down what you say

. Use POCs, they should be asked at the beginning of the PMC.

. Impact and weigh throughout

. Aim to make me as redundant as possible-- evaluate the merits of arguments in the round, weigh them against each other, crystalize the round, and taking into account all that was said state simply what made your sign win the round or the other side lose the round

hello!! please speak slowly and avoid unnecessary theory or jargon, and you will win my ballot!! :)

About me:He/him pronouns. Current junior at Columbia University. Competed in parli for all 4 years of high school for Menlo-Atherton High School + some time in middle school. Last time I competed/judged was in 2021 so I'm a bit rusty, but I still remember most of everything and at the very least will be able to follow whatever tech or jargon you throw at me. If you can run it, I am willing to vote for it. Just don't speak too quickly (good rule of thumb is if you're doing clutch breaths I probably will miss some things). Feel free to spread though so long as you're okay with me missing a bit in the line by line.

TLDR: Tech > truth, standard flow judge (I'd like to think), but don't spread too quickly. Will vote on anything so long as it can be argued. I ran a bunch of wacky arguments when I competed, so feel free to try something unorthodox, especially if you think you can defend it. I have some defaults (perms are tests, CPs are advocacies, etc.), but will happily change my stance if you say otherwise. This is just in case you/your opponent don't clarify in your speeches how to evaluate these arguments, so make sure you are explicit in how you want me to evaluate everything. If you have any questions, feel free to ask.

Longer answer

General voting procedure

I first evaluate ordering arguments (e.g. theory is a priori, K over theory or vice versa, etc.). I then work down the line-by-line to see who won each argument. For arguments on the same voting level, I then turn to impact weighing (e.g. disads vs ads, theory vs theory). I won't do any weighing for you, so especially for things like theory or Ks make sure you articulate an impact. I generally allow shadow extensions for things that went without response, but if you think it's egregious or excessive feel free to POO shadow extensions.

Case

I love classic case as much as theory/Ks, so feel free to run either. No real preference for how this is done. Don't feel like making it a policy round is necessary (I acknowledge the existence of value and fact rounds). Make sure you weigh impacts. I'm fine with impacts being introduced in the rebuttal speeches, but don't push it. If it's a logical extension of the argument, I'll allow it, otherwise it's getting dropped. I won't protect the flow -- it's up to you to POO if you think they're being abusive, unless it's getting excessive (after 2 valid POOs I'll start to protect).

Tech vs Truth

I am tech > truth, but I have a pretty low threshold for counters very radical/untrue claims (e.g. it won't take a lot of work to flip my vote on the argument). That being said, they still need to be responded to, whether as a quick aside or as a substantive rebuttal in the line-by-line.

Counterplans

Love them, go for them, but will still vote for theory arguing CPs aren't allowed if it's argued well. I generally treat CPs as being an advocacy, unconditional, and lean towards PICs bad, so if you want to run a conditional CP, CP as an opportunity cost, or a PIC, just make sure you come prepared with some arguments in your favor. But again, will still vote for any of these, and if you win the line-by-line or it goes without response then feel free to run it. For value/fact round I am hesitant to allow Counterplans, but if you can make an argument as to why it should be allowed then go for it. For Gov teams -- if you turn an obviously policy round into a fact/value round, I am very open to arguments from the Opp saying counterplans should be allowed.

I default to Perm is a test. Unless you specifically say it's an advocacy, or the Opp specifically argues it should be an advocacy, I will assume you saying "we perm the CP" is a test of exclusivity. Feel free to argue otherwise, more than happy to vote either way on this.

Theory

I loved theory when I competed. I give much more credence to in-round abuse theory as opposed to frivolous or more abstract theory, but I'll vote on any theory regardless. Huge preference for shells over unstructured theory, but will vote on either (unstructured may be called for depending on who else is in the room or if you've never run it as a shell before, so no worries if it's not a shell). I will vote on RVIs as well if they're sufficiently argued, and again much more open to RVI arguments for frivolous theory than for in-round abuse. Also very open to arguments against theory being a priori, dropping team/argument, competing interps vs. reasonability etc. Just tell me what to vote for and why.

To clarify, I have no defaults. If you want to run theory, it's up to you to clarify it comes before case and all that.

Topicality

I always ran topicality as theory, so just refer to what I wrote above. Always welcomed, but I have a preference for topicality on actual abuse rather than frivolous args. However, I will still vote for either.

Ks

I probably have the least experience with Ks, but I still ran a couple and will still vote on them. All I ask is you actually be ready to explain your argument/defend it and take some POIs (particularly on the thesis). Counter Ks, theory responses, case over K, no solvency args etc. are all valid and welcome, just be ready to defend them.

I particularly enjoy anthro Ks and biopower, but will vote on any K so long as it's well argued.

Same as theory, no defaults on ordering. Tell me K comes before case and why.

Stephen Fitzpatrick

Director of Debate, Hackley School

I am primarily a Parli debate coach - that said, over the years I have coached and judged virtually every debate format.

As a former trial attorney, I am looking for clear, persuasive, and intelligible speakers - speed-reading from your computer screen will not impress me. If I can't understand what you are saying, either because of the speed with which you are saying it or due to a lack of explanation, reliance on jargon, and no explicit connection to the resolution, it will be far less likely to impact the round. Beware of reading cases you either did not prepare or do not understand. In Public forum, that will be especially evident during cross-fire. I will flow, but only to the extent I can follow what you are saying. Same goes for any Points of Information or other forms of interrupted speech in other types of format. Be polite, be direct, and be persuasive.

As for evidence, spitting cards at me without tying them explicitly to your arguments and the overall resolution will also have a limited effect. I pay close attention to cross-fire - ask good questions, be generous, listen to your opponent's responses, and respond accordingly. I reward debaters who have a solid understanding of the factual underpinnings of the case as well as basic knowledge of current events, historical precedents, and specific details directly related to your arguments. If one of your contentions requires specialized scientific, legal, or economic principles, make sure you can explain them to clear up misunderstandings and clarify factual disputes.

In a Parli round based predominantly on argumentation rather than concrete factual evidence, make sure you explain your logical connections clearly. None prepped rounds does not mean NO evidence - good examples from history, general summaries of common knowledge, and comparisons ore references to basic factual information all have a place in debate. Tethering your arguments to some sense of how the world actually works is preferably to entirely theoretical arguments that have little grounding in reality.

I will be open to persuasive, integrated cases, and critical impacts. In Public Forum rounds, make sure to summarize the round during final focus. I am not an overly technical judge, so I will take every speech into consideration and even consider arguments in cross-fire to be part the round when making my decision. Speaker scores will range based on a variety of factors, but speaking style, demeanor, and argumentation will all factor in.

Overall, I would be considered a FLAY judge - I abhor the phrase "tech over truth" - debaters who like to earn wins on technical conventions not actually in the rules or use arcane jargon that no one outside the debate world understands will be disappointed with my rulings if their arguments aren't clear and easy to follow.

Hi I did PF for 6 years! Don't use too specific parli terminology. Thanks!

I am a judge with experience judging multiple debate tournaments throughout the entirety of 2021. I've mainly done LD and PF, but I also have judged some Parliamentary, Congress, and individual events as well.

I believe it is important for things such a debate to be accessible to anyone, so clarity in communicating ideas and speaking at a clear, easy to understand speed will be important to me, as well as clearly articulating tag-lines of arguments, and I would prefer refraining from jargon when possible.

I will mainly try to judge Tabula Rasa, as I believe it is fair and important for the debaters to have control over what the rules of the debate are, and if those rules are mutually agreed upon, then it sets everyone up for the highest level of success. I won't be bringing preconceived notions into the debate, as I would prefer to judge to debaters on the merits of what they bring to each round.

In the last speeches of the round, I want you to tell me which argument you think I should vote on and WHY, and how it compares to the other team's argument.

Please speak at a normal pace. I prefer substance over style but enjoy good rhetoric. No ks. Theory will not be appreciated as a tool to win - only use it to point out actual abuse. Warranting should be supported with evidence. Weighing is important. Signposting is greatly appreciated.

School affiliations - none

Hired - yes (work with the USA debate program)

Graduated from Mira Loma High School in California recently.

Currently enrolled in college -- Columbia University

Have competed in APDA in college.

This is my first year of judging/coaching. I have one year of experience judging.

I occasionally judge WS Debate.

I have not judged any other format this year.

I have not chaired a WS round before but I understand it involves calling up the speakers, running the round logistically, and delivering an OA (if within the majority).

I would describe WS Debate as a parliamentary format of debate that is very focused on logical warranting.

I usually flow on my computer while judging.

I don't go into any round presuming the principle or practical is more important. It's up to the debaters to do the weigh up.

I evaluate strategy by looking at how arguments are developed down the bench, how consistent each team is with their argumentation, and the narrative each team is able to advance throughout the round.

I'm generally ok with speed but if the speaker is going fast enough that it's no longer accessible to their opponents, I will doc style.

Competing claims will be evaluated off of warranting and weighing. Walk me through the logical links and weigh between claims if you think I am not convinced.

Prop gets to set model as long as it's reasonable. If there's a model quibble, I don't want it to encompass the entire debate, but I will evaluate based off of what the debaters tell me and what I believe is aligned with the spirit of the motion.

Countermodels should be mutually exclusive or else they're a waste of time -- I'm open to reminders at the top of the 1 though ie. remember we can still utilize current welfare infrastructure or something along those lines.

Contact info -- email me at jh4338@columbia.edu

Hi! I did a lot of Congress and Worlds for over 4 years and compete in college APDA now. Basically, be super clear, do A LOT of weighing, and tell me exactly why I should vote for you. I'm not super big on theory and I need to see cards/evidence for your arguments.

Don't be rude! Have fun in the round!

Hey guys! I'm Sebastian Javadpoor, and I competed on the circuit for 4 years in Public Forum, Congressional Debate, Duet Acting, Duo Interp, Extemporaneous Speaking, and Impromptu Speaking. As for qualifications so you don't try to trick me (O_O), I've won state championships in three different events, was nationally ranked in four, and qualified to nationals in four (Extemp TOC, NIETOC, and NSDA). Currently, I am a Public Forum debate coach in NYC while studying Political Science/Psychology at Columbia, so I am still keeping up to date with what is going on in the PF scene.

PF Paradigms:

1. Do. Not. Spread. Please. I've done debate for a while, and it's still annoying, and it doesn't really help the debate space. You can speak quickly, but once I say clear, do not go back to that speed.

2. S I G N P O S T ! It's a really ez way to make the judges luv u!

3. I won't time checking cards for the first 30 seconds, after that it comes out of prep. Also please reference the name of the card in your case so I can flow it more easily. And if you want me to check an opponent's card personally, lemme know and I will do so while forming my decision.

4. I don't flow cross fire but if it gets a bit too heated I will probably give ya a dirty look and may drop your speaks a bit. Please be nice. Being a meanie but winning on your args still will result in a drop.

5. I am pretty strict on the flow, and I want to see some good clash and weighing. What isn't extended throughout the round to the end will not be used as a reason for my decision. So please coordinate and flow through what you want to collapse on!

6. Time yourselves please.

7. Debater math is insta-dropped. Have evidence for your calculations!

8. If you spot misrepresenting in an opponent's card, call it out and I will specifically ask for it. If I find that you are right in contesting the card, it is dropped. Don't clip, powertag, splice, make up your own news source, etc. It also would make me drop your speaks.

9. I really really really don't like theory in PF (especially disclosure theory in local tournaments). However, if you argue it well, I won't let my bias prevent you from winning off of it.

10. Speaks start off at a baseline of 26. 30s are rare but I will be favorable to those that incorporate rhyme into their speeches.

11. If you ask if I favor tech>truth, the answer is a "mostly yes"

Policy Paradigms!

Not much policy experience but I'm a flow judge so it'll be fineeeee.

BQ Paradigms!

I also do not have much experience in BQ, but considering its similarity to PF in terms of structure, most of those points still apply. Again, I'm flow, so take that into consideration when forming arguments.

also - email for speech docs (if necessary) - sebastianjavadpooracp@gmail.com

Hi y'all! I debated for Valley High School for seven years and graduated in 2020, qualifying to both NSDA Nationals and TOC.

Bronx 2022 Update: I haven't judged (or thought about) debate in a while, so just keep that in mind. Go a little bit slower please, but everything below still applies. 

Email: animeshjoshi9@gmail.com

I don't flow off the doc, just a heads up.

General:

Tech > Truth.

Do what you want to do.

Here are just some miscellaneous guidelines.

1. Explanation usually matters more than argument content. As long as I can get a coherent warrant for an argument, and it's not blatantly offensive, I'm willing to vote on it.

2. I'm good with any type of debate and will evaluate every argument to the best of my ability. I read a lot of analytic philosophy as a debater, so I'm probably most comfortable with that style and would likely enjoy it when executed correctly. That being said, don't read something you're bad at just because I read it--it leads to bad debates that will make me sad. Watching debaters do what they're good at is super cool, and I think I'm comfortable adjudicating any style of debate. The one exception is probably LARP v LARP; I'm not very well versed in that. Disclosure theory is fine, but I don't like it at all, especially super tiny violations, i.e. round reports, open-source in cite box, etc.

EDIT: Also, not the biggest fan of osource being read against full text disclosure, but you do you. Also pt2, reading some sort of framing mechanism, i.e. ANY framework, is probably in your best interest.

3. Despite being from Valley, I'm not the biggest fan of tricks. Watching a bad tricks debate makes my head hurt, and they often seem like cheap shots (the way they're currently used in debate, they aren't always bad arguments). However, I do understand their strategic value and, when executed correctly, can be really enjoyable to watch. Cool and nuanced topical tricks > resolved. I'd prefer to not hear a 2AR on a garbage a priori when there's a clear substantive route to the ballot--that's all.

4. Even if things are conceded, please extend them. I have a low threshold for extensions, but there still needs to be ink on my flow with something resembling a warrant. That is, a 2AR going for defense to a 2NR on theory STILL needs to say "extend aff offense, it was conceded."

5. Independent voters need to be warranted. Tossing out a claim without any reasoning attached to it is not a coherent argument.

6. Weigh between arguments, please. Every type of debate gets messy whether it be theory, framework, or clash of civs. Weighing really helps me resolve these rounds.

7. I dislike people prescripting every speech. It seems to be happening more and more--it irks me. I will reward debaters who actually generate arguments and think of responses on their feet.

8. Have fun! Debate is super stressful and rough. Try to lighten up and enjoy some of the experience! But don't be exclusionary to somebody who isn't versed in circuit norms, is a novice, etc. Let's try to keep the space inclusive :)

If you have any other questions, let me know before round!

One year of LD debating experience. Three years of New England Schools Association Parliamentary Debate experience.

I am currently a student at Columbia University in the City of New York.

Notes:

-Came from a small debating school in NJ—little experience with theory, but I shouldn't have trouble evaluating a round based off it if your warranting is clear

-I will dock speaks for making arguments that are insensitive/problematic in the context of cultural/gender/racial/ethnic identity—a good rule of thumb is to think about whether you are making a generalization, and what/who that generalization might disregard

-Sign-posting helps

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!

Please speak clearly and do not rely on buzzwords to justify your arguments. Other than that I have no preferences. Good luck:)

Every argument is not worth one 'point'. Understand which arguments are most important and have the most weight, and help me as judge to see them. Convince me that your argument valuable, and choose high value examples and arguments such as those that advance humans towards a sane future or promote the highest values of justice, peace and opportunity. Defend the practicalities, but when the details are ambiguous, principles will lead me make a decision. That said, no hyperbole. Debate as though the stakes are high. But do not tell me the issue is a matter of life and death, unless you can convince me that it is.

The principles you are arguing from should presented with complete clarity by the first speaker, defended by the second, and made undeniable by the third. Refutation should be complete, but efficient. To me, good debaters refute the opposing team succinctly by seeing through to the underlying misconceptions. Demonstrate your ability to listen and respond not only to the individuals in the room, but to the wider audience who may be affected by the decision. Therefore, be passionate, insightful, and aware of the stakes.

Evenly weighing specific points, and how much rebuttals shut them down

I am an experienced parent judge. I'm also a practicing lawyer, so feel very much at home distinguishing good arguments from bad ones.

I value truth over tech. When it comes to contentions, I value quality over quantity - in other words I weigh arguments, and don't just count them. Make sure to warrant all of your arguments and explain impacts. Be persuasive. Add a little rhetorical flourish. Don't be boring.

Debate, IE & Related Experience – Policy debate and extemp in high school. Policy debate during first two years of college, and then IE (extemp, impromptu, persuasive, informative) during last two years of college. Taught public speaking classes to undergraduates while attending law school. Civil litigation attorney having done numerous depositions and trials as well as many pre-trial, trial and appellate arguments.

Judging Experience – In the last several years, I have judged at numerous debate (mostly parliamentary) and IE tournaments throughout the country. I judged at a few IE tournaments prior to then.

Behavior – Competitors should treat each other fairly and with courtesy and respect at all times.

Speed – While I do have experience participating in and flowing “spread” debate, my preference is for -- at most -- a relatively quick but still conversational pace. Anything faster seriously risks detracting from persuasion and comprehension.

Arguments -- One strong and well-developed argument may outweigh multiple other arguments = generally favor quality over quantity. Using metaphors and other imagery (and even sometimes a bit of well-placed humor) may strengthen your arguments. Effective weighing in the rebuttal speeches may often affect the decision.

Roadmaps And Signposting – Pre-speech roadmaps tend to be heavy on jargon and of limited use. In-speech signposting, however, can significantly facilitate the effective presentation and transition of arguments.

Points Of Information – While I value the potential impact that POIs may have, I do not have any minimum number of POIs which need to be asked or answered. I would prefer though that at least the first 1-2 reasonable POIs -- if asked -- be responded to briefly at or relatively near to the time of asking, as opposed to refusing to take any POIs or vaguely promising to respond later “if there is time.”

Points Of Order – A POO is necessary if you want me to consider whether a new argument has been made in a rebuttal speech. After the POO pro/con argument has occurred, please plan to continue the rebuttal speech since it is unlikely that I would rule on the POO before the end of the speech.

I'm a coach with experience in public forum debate, parliamentary debate, and extemporaneous debates. Some general notes:

ALL STYLES

- Arguments only matter if they extend across the flow. If you raise a contention in the first speech, then drop it for the bulk of the round, I won't count it.

- I'm generally quite literal with frameworks. You tell me something is important, it will show up on your ballot as part of your reason for decision. An extra speaker point to both debaters on any team who successfully uses frameworks OTHER than utilitarianism or net benefits.

- Impacting your contentions matter, but your links (i.e. how you connect steps of your contention together) matter more. Don't foresake one for the other.

- I'm not impressed by use of hyper-specific debate jargon. Use of jargon that I don't understand OR replacing actual refutation with jargon will result in deduction of speaker points. Assuming I'm a lay judge will serve you well.

- I do not find roadmaps useful. If you need to do it to keep yourself organized, that's fine, but I will probably disregard them.

- Definitional debaters are normally not useful or compelling unless they have a high impact outside of the debate itself. I have almost never awarded a round on the argument that a definition is "tight" or unfair to one side, but have rewarded rounds based on substantial definition debates that have practical or philosophical impacts. (E.g. debates over the nature of justice.)

- I rarely vote in favor of kritiks. I find it's rare that the issues raised in kritiks are impactful enough that they justify derailing the debate as traditionally presented. Their impacts often require judge intervention into the round that is independent of actual arguments being made, which I do not feel comfortable with. If you wish to make a kritik, you should make it with the assumption that you're likely to lose the round and that that is worth it for you.

- There are no silver bullets in debate. These are general guidelines, but following these will not guarantee you a win and should not be treated as such.

FOR PUBLIC FORUM

- Quoting cards will not win you debates; how you explain your cards matters.

- I'm more impressed by speakers who speak using their own words and paraphrasing of evidence rather than quoting from pre-written cases.

PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE

- POIs strongly encouraged. Debaters who refuse to take any POIs (especially if multiple are offered) will find their speaker points severely docked.

- It's hard to win on the OPP block. GOV teams who start weighing arguments in the MG and lay out a clear framework for why they're winning the round are more likely to win. In addition, GOV teams who call dropped args by their opponents will go far.

EXTEMPORANEOUS DEBATE

- BEWARE THE HALF AFF! A lot of CDA teams spend their round encouraging me that they are actually just like their opponents only without the bad stuff. This won't win you rounds with me. The debate has given you a side; stick to it!

No spreading, I won't flow it. I enjoy a good CX. I do not enjoy theory/K. Camera on preferable for online tournaments.

Hi, I'm Alan! I'm a parli debater at Columbia University, and debated for NCSSM and Ardrey Kell in high school. I had 3 years of LD experience and a little bit of PF. I'm from a fairly lay circuit, so im definitely on the lay end of the LD spectrum. Feel free to ask me specifics on what I'm comfortable evaluating.

***For lay tournaments: tips for a more enjoyable round

I do not time speeches or prep. Time yourself and your opponent.

Good analytics > poorly explained evidence

Explicit extensions of contentions in 1AR/2NR

Defense is sticky

Impact to framework in (basically) every speech: make the framework matter

2NR should include explicit voters. 2AR should be almost all voters and weighing.

Please signpost. Make it very clear which argument you are responding to, and under which contention it falls.

DO NOT make me listen to a value debate. There is no meaningful difference between morality and justice, and 90% of the values ran. Just agree on value and debate the value criterion

***

If you're spreading add me to the email chain: alanmrsa@gmail.com

I like lay debate.

I like LARP and theory/T, and feel comfortable judging those debates. Cx checks please.

I don't like trix but I can judge them. Pretty low threshold for responses.

If you're a K debater please overexplain everything. I'm familiar with some of the common K's but for your safety you should probably assume I know nothing about what you're running. If you're looking at who to strike I'm probably up there.

Don't be rude or act obnoxiously.

If I end up judging PF you can basically run and do whatever you want. I do not flow cross and do not listen to grand. I'm a fan of disclosure. I find that a lot of PF teams don't weigh and impact as much as I would like. Explain to me why I should vote for you, write my ballot for me. Tell me what is important in the round and why it's important.

Besides that, feel free to debate in the way you prefer. If you have any questions, you're welcome to email me at alanmrsa@gmail.com or ask me at the beginning of the round.

Hey everyone! I've done high school debate for a few years, so I generally know what's going on. That being said, some things I appreciate from debaters are as follows:

Please explain your points clearly - this extends through the overview, the impacts, and more importantly, the warranting - tell me why something matters, but also why something is true.

Signpost and address arguments directly - it makes it easier for everyone.

Weigh - weigh.

Be respectful - we're all hear to learn, so a good display of sportsmanship is always nice to see.

Good luck in your rounds!

Harker '21 - debated for 7 years in LD and Policy

email chain - 21akshaym@students.harker.org

Policy args > Ks >> Phil / Tricks

Policy args:

Vast majority of args I read in my career - i feel very comfortable evaluating these debates, go for it. love to see creative and well-researched strategies, which will be reflected in speaks

impact turns are some of my favorite debates - co2 ag, dedev, etc are all on the table, and good execution will be rewarded with high points.

politics probably a thing, but also probably can lose to smart analytics especially if your cards are bad. that said i'm a sucker for a good politics disad

i lean very heavily towards judge kick -- probably a really hard uphill battle for the aff to persuade me against that.

i'd be very hard pressed to vote on zero risk.

Theory

good for more stock theory args (mostly CP theory) than frivolous theory -- i am more receptive to reasonability and arbitrariness args against spec, new affs bad, etc. good for regular disclosure but not niche args like "round reports", etc

i prefer paragraph theory on the offending page (eg condo on a CP) then as a "new off"

i lean neg on most counterplan theory except for international fiat.

i find competition arguments against cheating counterplans more persuasive than theory arguments

default drop the arg (unless it's condo), competing interps, no rvis

i'll flow by ear for these debates so slow down

have warrants for your arguments beyond "vote aff for deterrence" or similar stuff

Ks:

better for these debates than you might think based on the arguments I read as a debater. I read through most literature bases during my time as a debater, and I feel comfortable evaluating these debates. 2nr link contextualization (e.g., drawing lines from 1ac/1ar evidence) factors heavily into my decision calculus.

Negs will do best by saliently dealing with the case -- either with robust link turns the case, alt solves the case, and unsustainability arguments, or with a *heavy* push on framework. the case page should make the 2nr. I find critiques of extinction impacts more persuasive than "structural violence outweighs". that said, i think most critiques have more compelling extinction impacts than a good deal of policy affs. i find aff ballots most persuasive when the negative underexplains the reasons behind their structural claims (especially regarding ontology arguments). equally debated, i think the aff generally gets access to the case, but specific framework evidence goes a long way for the negative (especially regarding epistemology claims). ROJ/ROB are silly/contrived mechanisms.

For the aff, I find 2ars on case outweighs or impact turns most compelling. impact turns are often underutilized. please explain perms -- "perm do both perm do the alt perm double bind" in one breath can be answered by a thumbs down from the neg. weighing is most important for me when judging this genre of debates.

between debaters of equal caliber, i think soft left affs would consistently lose to the critique. hard left/topical K affs (that assert a theory of power) seem extremely strategic to me *if* well-researched and germane to the topic.

line by line >>>> big overview

floating piks should be identified in the 1nc.

K affs:

Prefer affs that are within the parameters of the resolution. better for k affs that have a spin on the topic rather than impact turning every element of limits/debate. if you're negating, i mostly prefer arguments about skills or clash over fairness on framework. K affs probably get perms. the 2nr should cover the case. I think K v K debates can be incredibly interesting (and what I normally went for in these debates), but specific link and alt work by the negative is crucial.

Topicality

update: *not a good judge for nebel t - i very often vote affirmative in this debates*

probably lean towards competing interps. i'd prefer a substance debate to topicality but good T debates are enjoyable to watch and get good speaks.

i prefer topicality to be well developed in the 1nc, and I find many 2nrs to be almost completely new in explaining their standards. i dislike how prescripted these debates tend to be, especially with regards to nebel T -- I’ll lean against pre scripted nebel 2nrs and underdeveloped 1nc t arguments when pointed out by the aff.

Phil

i appreciate philosophical literature but find these debates to usually be exceedingly blippy or underwarranted -- not the judge for you if that's your style. i prefer ACs & NCs with evidence justifying the framework. slow down on dense or niche framework explanations. I did not read these arguments in high school but debated them a number of times.

Tricks

just read a disad please

"underview" of more than a minute caps your speaks at a 27. please debate the topic.

presumption always flips neg, unless the 2nr includes an advocacy.

Other things --

fine with inserting rehighlightings

i will definitely read your evidence. i'll reward good ev with good speaks, and punish bad ev with bad speaks. evidence quality caps your truth claims, even if they're dropped -- please reference ev quality in your speeches in general (this shouldn't substitute for explanation though). good topic knowledge is also good for speaks

smart analytics can beat bad cards

"independent voters" are usually not independent voters -- i am unlikely to vote for args flagged as such without a theoretical justification for doing so

dropped arguments are still influenced by how true they are -- e.g., dropping no neg arguments is not an issue. i won't be too interventionist/this is more aimed at tricks but dont prioritize lots of terrible blippy offcase or arguments in favor of a smaller more substantive strategy

good humor/sarcasm is very good for speaks

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.

My name is Walker Montgomery.

I debated for four years and went too nationals twice in Public Forum. I broke too round 12 in my senior year and round 10 my junior year. I went to camp each summer.

So I understand and can follow fast speaking and flowing. I understand how PF works so don't try to pull anything crazy.

Other than that I don't follow any specific paradigm. Each round is different and I will judge based on who has the better case and arguments.

Good Luck!

Have judged a few rounds, but not much experience. Stay organized and have good impacts.

Hi I'm Ananya! I debated LD in high school, so I understand the nuances and norms of the structure. Don't expect me to be an excellent judge for a highly nuanced technical debate. However, I will try my very best to evaluate any type of debate you'd like to have.

theory, Ks, etc are fine, just explain them very thoroughly. Spreading is fine and I'll call clear/slow if needed.

if u have further questions abt my judging preferences, feel free to ask before round or email me (ananyanatchukuri@gmail.com)

Hey Everyone! My Name is Ijeoma, I've debated for Bangor High School for 4 years and graduated in 2020. I have qualified for NSDA and NCFL Nats.

Email: ijeomaobi7@gmail.com

General:Here's an overall guide to how I look at judging my rounds

• Warranting and impacts are imperative. The content of your argument should have a justification (warrant) and this is to help with not just the flow, but to help (me) after the round to weigh what both sides have presented to decide the winner of the debate.

• Do not be afraid to set up framework in your debate, I'm a big fan of framework. A guide as to how you plan to view the round is to your favor. Sidenote, I will allow roadmapping, but do not take this extra time to start laying down arguments, simply say how you'll use your time and go for it.

• Back in high school I was very centered on traditional debate, with a core on philosophical arguments. With that being said, at this time I don't have a preference for either style, and I'm pretty much comfortable with anything as long as it is 1) Coherent, 2) done well, and 3) builds your arguments. It's fine to use theory, just be sure you're confident that you're okay with running it.

• I am not a fan of tricks in args. I find them to be abusive, and it seems most sides have a difficult time responding to them.
• I need reasoning for your voter points. It's a must, else it's the equivalent of saying a statement. It will be flowed, but it will have no impact without an explanation.
• Prescripting arguments: This is somewhat okay, but I wish to see debaters at their best, thinking of arguments on the fly.
• I am not a fan of spreading. If you have a long argument, I understand, but if you're speaking at a million words per minute, I promise you that your opp. and I will not understand you one bit.

Any concerns or questions? Tell me before we start the round! I'm wishing you all the best!

Rational arguments superior to emotional appeals.

I have a lot of experience competing in debate as a high school and college student (30 years), so you can expect me to be passionate about the issues you are speaking for and against but I will not bring personal preferences into debate like some other judges. I judge various events so here is a general outline of what I am looking for in a speech:

1. Passion - no matter what I want to see that you care about what you are speaking about. If this is lacking you can expect a poor ballot.

2. Good Arguments - when I have a tie between two capable and passionate debaters, this is where I go to break the tie. If you repeat arguments expect a poor ballot. Also note for formats like WSD and LD, I will try my best to flow the round, but you need to tell me arguments are dropped. I look for sound reasoning and logic flow in all of the debates and in LD, PF and other evidence based debates I will be asking you to read all of your cards.

3. Inflection and Voice - If I lose interest during your speech you are doing something wrong. Keep me engaged throughout. If you lose me when you are describing an argument you will not be on my flow and I will drop that argument completely.

4. Any type of rudeness and any chance at cutting other competitors speaking time (especially for POs in congress) will result in the lowest rank possible. RESPECT PRONOUNS and POI choices.

Hi everyone!

I have a decent amount of experience with debate, having competed for four years in high school. I did Public Forum, Lincoln Douglas, and Congress. A few things you should know:

Please do not spread! One of my biggest dislikes in debate. I am fine with speed, so long as it is fair for both your opponent and judge to keep up.

I prefer clear arguments for quality of round's sake.

Signposting is fine.

Make sure to address opponent's flow top to bottom in first rebuttal!

Uniqueness of argument is always appreciated.

Don't be rude to your opponent(s), try to enjoy the round as much as possible.

Super excited to see you debate :)

I am a librarian and in my 7th year as a Public Forum and Parlimentary debate judge. I believe a well-presented argument relies on speaking clearly and thoughtfully, rather than rushing to present every piece of information. State your contentions clearly and use this to create a reliable, well-structured argument.

A bit of background on me, if that matters to you:

I am currently a parli debater at Columbia University. I am originally from Saint Louis, MO where I competed in high school speech and debate in a traditional district for 4 years. My main events were LD and IX but I also dabbled in duo, POI, OO, and extemporaneous debate. At NSDA nats I was top 23 in LD in 2019, placed 2nd nationally in extemp debate in 2020, and placed top 60 in IX in 2021. In 2021 I was also the Missouri state champion in IX and a state semifinalist in LD.

Ok, onto my actual paradigm/thoughts about debate:

The only thing I am NOT OPEN TO is spreading. Quite honestly, I came from a traditional district where spreading is discouraged, so I never really learned how to "understand" spreading. Most of the time if I was in a round where someone was spreading I was just forced to read their speech on a doc. However, I kinda hated that, and I don't really think spreading meets the purpose of a public speaking activity. Thus, I would really appreciate if spreading were avoided. I can tolerate a faster-than-casual-conversation speed, but if you're speaking fast to the point where you need to take deep breaths in between sentences, I unfortunately just won't listen to your arguments.

Beyond spreading, I'm honestly open to anything! For ex, I think theory arguments are important to keeping the debate space equitable and fair so I'm open to them. Yeah. I don't really think there is anything else to add here; I genuinely am open to anything so long as it is literally not spreading.

Friendly reminder to weigh, please <3. If you don't explain to me why your arguments are more important/more significant than your opponent's, I at some point have to perform judge intervention. And I don't want to do that! So please weigh. Make it easy for me. Thanks :)

Hi, I'm Eden and I currently debate APDA at Columbia. I'm Class of 2024 and before college, I debated policy for four years in the Atlanta Urban Debate League circuit. I've judged quite a bit for Columbia's tournaments and debated regularly my freshman year, but I remain embarrassingly clueless about debate theory and may end up rusty on my jargon, so sorry in advance.

I have attention issues but flowing is so focus-intensive that it's hard to get distracted, so I don't foresee that being a problem. I am a bit slow at deciding rounds and giving RFDs because I have to make sure I haven't missed anything (due to said attention issues). I've been working on this and am improving as I judge more! For this same reason I prefer slower speaking. Sensory stimuli, especially sound, can be overwhelming to me sometimes. I know rounds can get heated and that's part of everyone's fun. As long as you are not screaming, it shouldn't be a problem!

❗One more thing: We all get informed of the importance of trigger warnings at the beginning and throughout every tournament, but I would like to reiterate and urge you to really take it seriously. The difference they make flies over the heads of far too many people and they get taken for granted. Please be thorough in your trigger warnings. If you think any parts of your case, especially major arguments, are potentially triggering or involve systemic harms against any group, please please trigger warn.

If you have any questions don't hesitate to ask (unless it's questions I can't answer because of tournament rules, etc etc)!

Everett Rutan

Judging Paradigm

I’m primarily parli these days, but the principles would apply to any form of debate I might judge.

I check all the boxes: successful, national circuit high school debater (policy/cross-ex); debate coach for over 25 years; tab director for over 20 years; debate league director for over 15 years; taught at a respected parliamentary debate summer workshop for 10 years. However, my career was in business, not education or the law, which does affect my point of view.

None of that is “actionable”, in that it is of no help to you if I’m sitting in the back of the room with my flow and stopwatch waiting for you to begin. The following may be more useful.

My role as a judge is to sort through the debate you and your opponent choose to have and produce a reasoned, persuasive decision. My “case” (RFD) should accurately reflect what was said and be acceptable to each of the debaters as a valid opinion on what occurred, even if they may take issue with that opinion.

This judge-as-debater approach has certain implications:

· My source material is the debate you choose to have. If you don’t agree on what it should be about, then my decision should be based first on your definitional arguments. If you do agree, then my decision should be based on the relative weight of arguments on the issue. If both teams agree—explicitly or tacitly—to have a particular debate, my opinion as to what the motion or debate should have been about is not relevant.

· The more work you do to lay out a path to a decision, the less work I have to do building my own, and the fewer decisions I have to make as the judge. That generally works in your favor.

· Your arguments should be based both on what you present and, perhaps even more so, on what your opponents present, with a fair comparison and weighing.

My business background has certain implications:

· Debate is intended to be educational. I have less sympathy for arguments that no one would make or consider in the real world. Theory arguments should be clearly explained and shown to have a serious impact on the matter at hand. The more distantly related an argument is to a plain reading of the motion, the greater the need to justify that argument.

· Not all arguments are equal. Judging is not simply counting arguments won, lost, or dropped, but comparing the persuasive weight of each side. I expect both sides will win some arguments and lose some arguments and drop some arguments. If you don’t weigh them, I will.

· Explanations count more than facts (at least explanations broadly consistent with the facts). For any arguable topic there will be examples that favor each side. The fact that some people survive horrendous accidents unscathed is not in itself an argument against safety equipment; that many will refuse to use safety equipment that is inconvenient or uncomfortable is, at least against that particular type.

· I don’t have a problem making decisions. I rarely take long or agonize over them. However, I will do my best to provide a detailed written RFD, time permitting.

Finally, debate is about the spoken word. It is your job to persuade me and in your best interest that I clearly understand what you want to say. It is not my job to be persuaded, nor to intuit what you intended to say beyond a reasonable effort on my part to do so. This has the following implications:

· Speak as fast as you think appropriate. I flow well and can tolerate speed. But if I don’t hear it, don’t hear it as intended, or don’t get it on my flow, it won’t help you. It’s not my job to signal you if you are speaking too fast or drifting off into unintelligibility.

· Why wouldn’t you present more arguments than your opponents can handle in the time allowed? Spread is a natural consequence of time limits on speeches. But 13 weak reasons why an argument is true won’t help you even if your opponent drops 12 of them, but wins the one most important to the issue. And debaters with more than one level of subpoints almost always get lost in their own outline. Quality spreads as surely as quantity and has more impact.

· I understand some debaters provide outlines, cards, briefs, etc. I will listen carefully to what you say, but I will not read anything you give me.

I have published a great deal of material of varying quality on the Connecticut Debate Association website, http://ctdebate.org . You will find transcriptions of my flows, various RFDs, topic analysis and general debate commentary reflecting my opinions over the years.

FAQs

Definitions? Definitions are a legitimate area of argument, but don’t ask me to rule on them mid-round. Gov has the right to a reasonable definition of terms. If Opp does not like them, Opp should challenge in a POC, POI or at the top of the LOC. Don’t wait to challenge definitions late in the round. Gov need not explicitly define terms or present a plan: clear usage in the PMC binds Gov and must be accepted or challenged by Opp. In other words, if it is obvious what Gov is talking about, don't try to re-define the terms out from under them. P.S. No one likes definition debates, so avoid them unless Gov is clearly being abusive.

Points of Clarification? Like them. Think it’s a good tactic for Gov to stop and offer Opp a chance to clear up terms. Should occur at the top of the PMC immediately after presenting definitions/plan/framework, etc.

Pre-speech outline or road map? A common local custom not to my taste. Speeches are timed for a reason, and I see this as an attempt to get a bit more speaking time. But, when in Rome… They should be brief and truly an outline, not substance. I will listen politely but I won't flow them.

New contentions in the Member constructives? Perfectly legitimate, though it was considered old-fashioned even when I debated 50 years ago. It also presents certain tactical and strategic issues debaters should understand and have thought through.

Counterplans? If you know what you are doing and it’s appropriate to the motion and the Gov case, a counterplan can be extremely effective. Most debaters don’t know what they are doing, or use them when there are less risky or more effective options available. Many counterplans are more effective as arguments why the status quo solves or as disadvantages.

Written material? I’m aware in some leagues debaters give judges a written outline of their case, or pass notes to the speaker. I accept all local customs and will not interfere or hold these against you. However, debate is by spoken word, and I will not read anything you give me.

New arguments in rebuttal (Point of Order)? You should call them if you see them. But if you see them every five words it begins to look like an attempt to disrupt the rebuttal speaker. Landing one good PO puts me on watch for the rest of the speech; multiple “maybes” will likely annoy me.

Evidence? Even in heavily researched debate like policy, facts are cherry picked. Even in the real world one rarely has all the facts. Explanations generally outweigh simple facts (though explanations that contradict the facts aren't really explanations). Information cited should be generally known or well-explained; “what’s your source” is rarely a useful question or counter-argument. I am not required to accept something I know to be untrue. If you tell me something I don’t know or am not sure of, I will give it some weight in my decision, and I will look it up after the round. That’s how I learn.

Theory? (See “business background” comments above, and "Definitions".) These are arguments like any other. They must be clearly explained and their impact on the round demonstrated. They are not magic words that simply need to be said to have an effect. Like all arguments, best present them as if your audience has never heard them before.

Weird stuff? Everyone in my family has an engineering degree. We’re used to intelligent arguments among competent adults. We know we aren’t as clever as we think we are, and you probably aren’t either. The further you drift from a straightforward interpretation of the motion, the greater your burden to explain and to justify your arguments.

Rules of debate? There are none, or very few. If your opponent does something you think is out of bounds, raise a POI if you can and explain the impact on the arguments or on the debate in your next speech. Most "rules" debaters cite are more like "guidelines". If you understand the reason for the guideline, you can generally turn a weak "that's against the rules" into a much stronger "here is why this is harmful to their case."

ejr, rev July 2023

I am currently a novice on Columbia's Parliamentary Debate team, but I have years of experience in Speech and Debate itself. I competed in Original Oratory, Informative Speaking, and World Schools Debate. Despite my main Speech experience, I am comfortable with judging debate as well. I am not extremely familiar with the timing and order of speeches so I may require some assistance/reminding.

I appreciate clear speaking (in a manner that is not extremely fast), as well as proper etiquette from both teams. I evaluate on based on the logical reasoning of an argument, and the proficiency with which one can both defend it and extend it. Please be respectful in rounds to your opponents (no cutting off etc), and let me know if you have any special circumstances (for instance, would like to be referred to by specific pronouns, tech issues).

I look forward to seeing you all speak!

Am a lay judge. Please make sure to speak clearly and give an off-time road map

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.

I have debated extensively in 3v3 debate and BP debate on the Australian circuit.

I value structured logic, critical engagement with the opposition, and an ability to weigh the relative importance of arguments.

I am familiar and adaptable to many different styles of speaking. I prefer teams to use their manner to enhance their substantive material rather than simply reading from notes.

Go slow. Be clear. Be nice.

If you would like more, I have written detailed paradigms for each style I judge:

PF paradigm

Parli paradigm

Middle school paradigm

I have judged a couple of tournaments and have no debate experience myself. When judging, I look for powerful delivery, insightful analysis and ease of handling questions.

1. Do not spread, or I won't keep up. Do not sacrifice your clarity, otherwise I will miss the main point of argument.
2. Kindly Always be respectful to your opponent.
3. Please Keep a clear and consistent narrative throughout the entire round. All the Best!

Hello, my name is Rafael Tobon.

This is my first time judging and so I urge both teams to keep it simple. However, my son has been debating for two years so I know a thing or two.

speed: don't go fast or I won't understand you

Args: keep to topic at hand, nothing overly complex

collapse: please keep the back half of the rounds simple and concise- I don't want 4 args to extend and vote off of, just 1-2 max

**Don't be overly rude, obnoxious, or offensive in any way

Spkr Pnts: If you speak clearly and eloquently, you'll get better speaks

**a joke or a little sarcasm never hurts

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.

update for hs parli:

I debated nat circuit LD in HS so I'm familiar with progressive arguments, but I never debated HS parli. I've judged a few parli rounds and have an understanding of the general structure, but I probably don't know the intricacies of the event.

updated for Columbia:

I debated for Millburn HS (graduated in 2020) and was pretty involved in high school circuit LD, attending TOC my junior year. However, I haven't judged or coached since January 2021, and I'm particularly not used to online debate, so I don't have a great idea of the norms of the community (and certainly not the topic).

pref wise:

- mostly read policy-style arguments and theory, but I'm open to all arguments that are 1] warranted and 2] not abhorrent, and I'm most impressed by debaters who engage in their opponents' arguments and know their lit base

- that being said, in order of how comfortable I am evaluating debates (not preference judging):

theory > larp = t > phil = tricks > k

she/her

I did 4 years of traditional LD in North Dakota and 2 years of APDA at Columbia. Consider me an expert in traditional debate and philosophy and as having a basic working knowledge of circuit debate.

In general, don’t do anything harmful, I will tank your speaks and vote you down. For traditional LD debates, the winner’s offense links to the winning criterion and outweighs their opponent’s offense that links. In circuit debates, I still want some sort of framework/weighing that I can use to evaluate impacts, and I will plug those impacts in accordingly. This can be basically anything, as long as it’s not harmful.

As I become less and less involved with debate, I become less interested in the technical side. I will still evaluate the round based purely on the arguments made, and will try not to intervene in any but the most egregious of cases. Nevertheless, I question the notion that we can or should be a tabula rasa in or out of debate.

In terms of speed, I’m comfortable with anything ~<200, more than that and you should send a doc.

If you are interested in my personal biases, know that I'm generally more sympathetic to ideas that fall under the "identity politics" umbrella. In high school, I ran a lot of Kant so I really like to see deontological arguments done well. I will of course do everything possible to remain impartial in spite of these biases, but they are there.

he/him

If you’re sending each other cases, add me to the email chain: winnicksteven_at_gmail

===TL;DR===

Don’t do anything harmful, I will tank your speaks and vote you down.

For traditional LD debates, the winner’s offense that links to the winning criterion, which is the “best” way to achieve the winning value, and outweighs their opponent’s offense that also links.

For national circuit LD/policy debates, feel free to skip to the section on national circuit LD below.

For PF debates, the winner’s offense outweighs their opponent’s offense.

Experience

I did 3 years of local circuit LD in Minnesota for Forest Lake High School (and occasionally competed in PF and Congress) and am currently in my second year of college debate at Columbia. I've also been an instructor at the Minnesota Debate Institute. I really like philosophy and most enjoy philosophy-heavy debates. Because I don't judge every weekend, at any given time, I’m probably not super knowledgeable on the current topic.

===Traditional/Local MN Circuit LD===

How I vote

Using the arguments I see on my flow at the end of the round, I

1. Decide the winning value

2. Decide the winning criterion (whichever is the “best” way to achieve that value)

2a. This can be combined with the value as a standard

3. Decide which evidence makes it to the end of the round

4. Weigh that evidence’s impacts through the winning criterion/standard, whichever side outweighs wins.

Speaker points

I assign speaker points based on strategy. Basically, if I think you’re spending your speaking time on the right things, you’ll get more speaker points. More specifically,

• Signpost. If I can’t tell where on my flow I should be writing something, I probably won’t write it down, and then it won’t factor into my voting.

• Number your responses. If you have multiple responses to a single argument, number them so that I can keep track of each one on my flow. If your opponent has numbered responses, signpost which one you are responding to. This helps keep both my flows (and therefore voting) and the debate as a whole more organized.

• Focus on the most important arguments, don’t waste time on stuff that isn’t important.

• Make strategic extensions

• Group related arguments

• If you’re going to make the exact same response multiple times, just signpost back to the first time you made the response and cross-apply

• Spend more time on arguments that are impactful and require the most amount of time to win

• I like philosophy, and the winning offense has to link through the winning criterion, so make sure you’re spending enough time on framework to win the criterion debate or link your offense to your opponent’s criterion and outweigh

Evidence

I will buy most non-harmful arguments, but I NEED to hear warrants - the reason why something is true, supported by logic or empirical evidence. If your opponent’s cards have bad warrants, that would be something great to ask about during cross-examination and important to focus on in your speeches ;).

Your evidence needs to be accessible to your opponent during the round. If your opponent wants, they should be able to follow along reading your case while you deliver your constructive, and they should be able to read your case during their prep time. Your evidence also needs to be understandable for someone without extensive background knowledge on the topic.

Author last name and year are fine (ex. “Rawls 71”) when naming cards in constructives and referring to them in rebuttals, but when extending please give at least a ½-sentence summary of the card.

Cross-Examination

I view cross-ex as time for the person asking questions to put themselves in a position to respond to their opponent’s arguments as well as possible throughout the remainder of the round. If you’re not the one asking questions, be respectful of your opponent’s time: answer all of the questions that you can, stop talking when they start, and don’t speak over them. If you are the one asking questions, don’t ask trick questions that seem unrelated to the debate round to try to get your opponent to say something they’ll later regret, you’ll lose speaker points and I won’t hold them to anything they said in response to a trick question.

Extensions

Don’t extend through ink: if your opponent responded to an argument you made, you can’t extend that argument until you’ve responded to all of their numbered responses. Once you’ve responded to all of your opponent’s responses to an argument, tell me to extend your argument. If it’s offense, you need to give me a 1-sentence explanation as to how it impacts under the winning criterion.

Crystallization

I don’t really care about voters, since I’ll vote off of whatever offense you successfully extend to the end of the round. However, I do want to see weighing: under one/both criterion/a, how do the impacts of your offense outweigh the impacts of your opponent’s? Metaweighing is great and will help your speaker points (ex. If your impacts outweigh in scope and your opponent’s outweigh in magnitude, why is scope more important than magnitude?)

Other

• Just to reiterate: I will tank your speaks and vote you down if you do something harmful in the round. If you think something might be harmful, don’t do/say it.

• I’ll say “slow” or “clear” twice if I can’t understand what you’re saying

• Please ask me before the round if you have any questions about my paradigm or anything else!

===National Circuit LD===

I’ll try my best to evaluate all arguments as objectively as I can. I’m still fairly new to this style of debate, though, so explain your arguments -- I won’t vote on things I don’t understand (ex. don’t just say things like “vote neg on presumption,” you should explain what presumption is and why it means I should vote neg). Since you should spend more time explaining arguments I’m less familiar with, here’s a ranking of how familiar I am with different types of arguments:

Traditional Case, Philosophy > Plan/CP/DA > Topicality > Theory > Kritiks >>> Tricks

Again, I’m totally cool judging Kritiks and Tricks, just make sure they’re well-explained. I think framing is really important, so please don’t make me default to Util.

Speed: I far prefer debates that happen at a speed where I can follow the warrants of individual cards as they’re being read, but I realize that spreading battles are the norm on the national circuit, so I’m okay judging those. Just make sure you’re really clear about signposting and slow way down for tags so I can flow them, and make sure to send me any cards that you spread. I will vote for the debater whose offense is best impacted and warranted, so if I can't catch and flow your reasoning because it's too fast that'll only hurt you. Speaks are still based on strategy, so if you think spreading is the winning strategy for you and you follow these rules, it won’t negatively impact your speaks.

Debating against traditional debaters at non-national circuit tournaments: Since I went to a high school that only debated on the local circuit, I’m very sympathetic to traditional debaters debating against national circuit debaters. I think that “national circuit style” debate is inaccessible to debaters from schools that don’t have well-funded debate teams, which is often linked to other structural barriers facing students at those schools. That being said, I’m totally fine with you running “national circuit style” arguments against traditional debaters, but only if you structure them in a way that makes them accessible to traditional debaters. That means:

1. Either format some of your arguments into some kind of “case” or start your NC by explicitly stating “I do not have a case and will be getting all of my offense from turns on the affirmative case.” This case should start with “framework” and have at least one “contention” that impacts under the framework

2. Other off-case arguments should be read as “overviews” on your opponent’s case (you can have multiple overviews) or as responses to specific arguments on their case, and you should call anything you want to get offense from a “turn”

3. Slow down. In these rounds, I won’t evaluate arguments that I couldn’t flow warrants for, so don’t spread.

Here’s some other stuff that are relevant to national circuit LD debaters copy-pasted from the traditional LD section

Speaker points

I award speaker points based on strategy. Basically, if I think you’re spending your speaking time on the right things, you’ll get more speaker points. More specifically,

• Signpost. If I can’t tell where on my flow I should be writing something, I probably won’t write it down, and then it won’t factor into my voting.

• Number your responses. If you have multiple responses to a single argument, number them so that I can keep track of each one on my flow. If your opponent has numbered responses, signpost which one you are responding to. This helps keep both my flows (and therefore voting) and the debate as a whole more organized.

• Focus on the most important arguments, don’t waste time on stuff that isn’t important.

• Make strategic extensions

• Group related arguments

• If you’re going to make the exact same response multiple times, just signpost back to the first time you made the response and cross-apply

• Spend more time on arguments that are impactful and require the most amount of time to win

Cross-Examination

I view cross-ex as time for the person asking questions to put themselves in a position to respond to their opponent’s arguments as well as possible throughout the remainder of the round. If you’re not the one asking questions, be respectful of your opponent’s time: answer all of the questions that you can, stop talking when they start, and don’t speak over them. If you are the one asking questions, don’t ask trick questions that seem unrelated to the debate round to try to get your opponent to say something they’ll later regret, you’ll lose speaker points and I won’t hold them to anything they said in response to a trick question.

Crystallization

I don’t really care about voters, since I’ll vote off of whatever offense you successfully extend to the end of the round. However, I do want to see weighing in at least your final speech, and metaweighing is great and will help your speaker points.

Other

• Just to reiterate: I will tank your speaks and vote you down if you do something harmful in the round. If you think something might be harmful, don’t do/say it.

• I’ll say “slow” or “clear” twice if I can’t understand what you’re saying

• Please ask me before the round if you have any questions about my paradigm or anything else!

---------------Most Recent Update: 3/30/2024 (NPDL TOC) -------------

TOC-Specific

TOC is the biggest opportunity for students to learn about different styles of debate. I expect y'all to try to learn. Refer to Luke DiMartino's section on "Ballot" for what I expect to occur when styles clash. Refer to Sierra Maciorowski's section on "Pedgogy" for my thoughts on technical accessibility. Refer to Sam Timinsky's section on "Lay vs. Flow" for my thoughts on tech v. lay in the debate community as a whole.

This is also the biggest opportunity for you all to connect with one another! For the first time in 5 years TOC will be in person so make friends with your competitors and be kind to each other! Feel free to reach out to me after the round for my thoughts more deeply on issues (or, after the tournament, if you'd like coaching (NYC is expensive :( )). I am a huge debate nerd so I love it when y'all have a good time and enjoy this beautiful activity. Have fun! :D

If you open-source your TOC prep you get automatic 30 speaks. Everyone should do it anyways....

No consistent coaching, but had intermittent mentorship from Trevor Greenan, Cody Peterson, Javin Pombra, Ming Qian, and Sam Timinsky. Philosophically similar to Esha Shah, Sierra Maciorowski, and Riley Shahar. Try not to pref both me and lay judges; splitting ballots at TOC leaves no one happy, and punting one of us will make both of us sad.... :(. I enjoy super techy intricate debates!

My pronouns are on tab now; please use them and your opponents correctly! Will drop speaks for first infraction, will drop teams after that.

Lastly, I've gotten really into Feyerabend. If you are interested in the philosophy of science (especially on topics about science/technocracy/AI/etc.), I highly recommend his work! There's an old Feyerabend K backfile I found that I can send to people who are interested!

Background

I did parliamentary debate for 4 years w/ Cupertino, but I'm pretty familiar with LD and PF. Currently coach parli and PF. Coached extemp for 2 years and policy intermittently. Debated APDA a bit but wasn't my cup of tea. I was a 1N/2A if that gives you any indication of my biases for speeches.

I mostly went for K if I could, but good on T and fast case. For Ks I usually went for Daoism or Asian Conscientization. If anyone wants a rough copy of either of the Ks feel free to message me on FB or email me (xiong.jeffrey314@gmail.com). Tried to get K-DAs off the ground but didn't debate enough rounds for it to stick :( Also if you're from a small school message me or email me for a copy of my Small Schools K.

TL;DR

- be cool, have fun, dont be a jerk

- weigh lots

- clever arguments make me very happy!

- no friv T, don't like tricks (although this I think has fallen out of favor since I've graduated)

- *not* a K hack despite my background. This is because I love Ks to death. If you are a *K debater* please pref me because I love a good K debate, but don't use a K just because you think you can get a cheap win. If you would like to get better at K debate, please pref me because I love teaching better Ks in parli :D

- seriously pleaaaaaaase be nice each other, it makes me sad when debaters get upset and debate should be fun!

Preferences

These are not hard and fast rules but general guidelines for you to see how much work you'll need to put in to win the argument. I have found that the farther I get from being a competitor in high school debate, the fewer real preferences I have and I could not care less about most issues. In other words, if it's not mentioned by name in the list below, I don't have a default and *will* flip a coin absent argumentation. If it was that important to your case, you should have mentioned it!

My number 1 preference is for you to try new things and have fun. My partner always said that if you're not having fun you're not doing it right, which I have always found to be true. Also don't be a jerk (sexist, racist, homophobic, transphobic, etc) or you'll drop instantly.

I evaluate the round systematically.

1) Who is winning framework? How should I evaluate arguments at all?

2) Who is winning the layering/sequencing arguments? According to the debaters, what order should I evaluate the arguments? Absent that, I default to my stated defaults.

3) Who is winning offense on each layer? When I hit a layer where there's a clear winner, I vote for that team

In other words, I look at layers from top to bottom (e.g. K > T > Case, Advantage 1 > DA 2 > etc., etc.) and as soon as one layer isn't a tie I will just vote for whoever is winning that.

Some things that always make me happy

• Clever plans/CPs: this usually means very good specificity that lets the Adv/DA debate get very intricate
• Ks with very specific links and interesting solvency arguments! Choosing fun solvency advocates is good for everyone!
• Theory with unique standards and approaches (e.g. going hard for reasonability or the RVI, standards like "creative thinking" or "framers' intent", etc.). I'm probably the most lenient tech judge on the underview issues in theory.
• Consistent sign-posting throughout the round. If the 2N says something like "go to the warrant on the second internal link on the Econ DA" I'm going to be really happy that you kept that up the whole round
• Collapsing to fun stuff (e.g. on weighing: timeframe, sequencing, etc.)

Defaults

- If it's not in the final speeches I'm not voting on it.

- Default to probability > magnitude. Bonus speaker points if you collapse to timeframe

- Unwarranted arguments will have very little weight in my mind; if I don't know why something is true I don't know why I should buy the argument: source w/ warrant > sourceless warrant > warrantless source > sourceless and warrantless (this last one isn't an argument at all).

- Don't care if there's a source citation in parli

- Signpost! If I don't know where you are, I'm probably not gonna be able flow it!

T

- Real-world education impacts are the way to my heart, default to Education over Fairness

- Default to RVIs valid, but you need to read a particular brightline for the RVI to function

- Default to Reasonability (esp. Content Crowdout, though I don't think people run this anymore (if you do bonus speaker points))

- Don't use "small school" arguments unless you're actually from a small school or can justify how your program is disadvantaged. I'll give leniency on this but please don't be disingenuous -- and being on the circuit for so many years I think I've developed a good intuition.

K

- KNOW THE SOURCE MATERIAL WELL AND HOW IT ENGAGES ESPECIALLY W/ FOREIGN POLICY TOPICS: most K's (especially generics) are written with the US in mind and are *not* applicable to other places, be sure that the K functions elsewhere before you run it

- PLEASE PLEASE have good links that actually connect to the specific articulation of the Aff.

- If it's a funky K, go nuts, but please explain stuff (for the sake of me and especially for the sake of your opponents) or I won't know what you're saying

- K Affs are lit, just make sure there's actual ground for both sides (for all the Negs out there, email me if you want a copy of arguments against K Affs)

- If you read a decent K out of the 2AC you'll get a 29.5 at least.

- If you read theory saying NEG Ks are not legitimate, I will drop you

- Familiar with most Ks except for super pomo stuff. I'm not sure what the place for identity Ks are in the debate space and I have not judged them enough or been engaged with the community enough to be educated but please be cool about them if you do want to read it and make sure there's an actual valid opposite side

- From Riley Shahar's paradigm: "I tend to think that debate is not the best space for arguments which are reliant on the identities of competitors. I am certainly willing to listen to these debates, because I know from experience that they can be necessary survival strategies, but making assumptions about other people’s identities is a very dangerous political move which can force outing and be counterproductive to revolutionary action."

Tricks

Go slow and explain them super clearly (probably defeats the point of running them but hey it's your round).

Speaker Points

Do work on 30 speaks theory, don't just throw it out there for the sake of it. Speaks are entirely assigned based on strategic decisions made in-round (i.e. I don't care how you say it as long as you say it). 25 or lower for problematic speech/behavior.

APDA Specific

- default to beat-the-team on tight calls

- don't be purposefully obtuse in POCs or you're getting tanked (and I'll be more lenient on tight calls and case args)

- pragmatic > principle, but easily swayed

- run a K, run theory, run condo, go nuts, just don't call it that if it's against tournament rules

- please POO shadow extensions: if it's not extended in the MG, I consider it new (even if it's in the PMC)

Non-Parli

- I don't flow cross

- Read full cites or I'm not flowing it (in particular this is @ PF)

- Cards with warrant > cards without warrant = warrant without card > claim without warrant

- Bonus speaker points if you disclosed on the wiki

- PF: If it's in FF it needs to be in summary

- Add me to the email chain (xiong.jeffrey314@gmail.com)

Misc.

- Call "clear" or "slow" if you can't keep up; if you don't slow down enough when the other team calls it several times you're going to get dropped with tanked speaks. I will also call clear/slow as necessary

- If you say something blatantly untrue, I'm giving the other team the argument (the bar for this is very high though so just please don't lie).

- If you tell me to check the argument, I'll do it but I won't treat it as a "lie" unless it's egregious (in which case I can tell either way)

- Go slow on plans/CPs, interps, alts, etc. Have copies prewritten for everyone. For online tournaments, have texts in the chat right after you say them. We're online! It's so much easier to pass texts! (boomer grumblegrumble)

- For Points of Order, tell me explicitly which argument is new and why (if you're calling it) and where it was on the flow in which speech specifically (if you're responding). I will let you know whether or not I think it's new unless it's in outrounds. Trust me when I say that it is too much work (usually) to protect against new arguments.

- Virtual POIs: put them in the chat, please be mindful of the chat if you're the one speaking

- Tag-teaming: go for it, but both speakers must state the argument

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.