Please speak at a slow, respectable speed, make your points clearly, provide solid evidence that is clear and concise, be respectful to other speakers. Have fun!

Hi there!

My name is Isabel, a senior at St. Ignatius College Preparatory in San Francisco and I use she/her pronouns. I did Lincoln Douglas for 3 consecutive years but decided to take a break my final year of high school. I look forward to judging and seeing the new generation of debaters transition back into in-person!

That being said, now that students will be physically in rooms together, I will be looking for how each debater presents their argument and asserts themselves. Through necessary volume and speed, I am counting on each student to present their contentions in a clear and persuasive way instead of speeding through all their cards for times sake. Speeding is not debating, so I look forward to hear very concise and clear points.

In addition to this, students must know that they are trying to convince the judge of their side, not their opponent. Therefore, either side ought to refer to the other as "my opponent claimed...", "my opponent's claim to....", "following my opponent's accusation...", etc.

This is my first time participating as a judge and not a competitor, so please be patient with me as I learn how to navigate the platform. I will try to give each student comments ASAP as well. Good luck to all debaters and have fun!

Debated for six years, qualled to TOC three times

*****General*****

Yes I will disclose give me like a minute. I also default to oral rfds, so let me know if you want me to type it out. Also add me on the chain at anika.bastin@gmail.com

I am massively tech > truth. HOWEVER this does not mean that I will weigh your one unspecific muddled link at 100% probability because there was no ink on the flow over someone’s well warranted argument which has some responses which were well weighed

Bad evidence ethics are probably one of the biggest icks for me. Contextualize and warrant your arguments. I don’t want a random card. I want an explanation as to why it’s going to happen. Please just cut good evidence so you don’t hear my rant on how bad ev ethics are ruining debate :(

If you’re second rebuttal frontline turns from first rebuttal.

Please have good case extensions in summary. Like good warrant extensions, otherwise you have no case offense going into final. If it's not in summary, it's not in final focus.

If I look confused, it's cause I am. It means clarify. I’m also fine with p much any level of speed, so it’s probably not that (but if you’re going to spread fr, just save time and send the doc. I’ll yell clear three times before I stop flowing).

WEIGH. Thanks. (By weighing I don’t mean yelling WE OUTWEIGH ON SCOPE MAGNITUDE TIMEFRAME AND PROBABILITY. Tell me why) Metaweigh and i will be so happy :))))

I'm fine with aggression just don’t be crazy rude. Any kind of discriminatory behavior will get you dropped w 25.

I presume neg if aff has no offense, presume 1st speaking team if both teams are equal.

I probably won't listen to crossfire. If something important comes up in crossfire, bring it up in speech

*****PROG*****

I did debate prog and have run theory and k’s before, so I’m pretty familiar with the arguments and the lit surrounding it in general.

Ok look. I get that Theory and K’s are seen as the whole new thing sweeping the circuit, but they were created for specific reasons, and I think that’s really important to understand. Please don’t run them to commodify the ballot. If you don’t understand the lit and you’re reading it for the sake of winning, it won’t go great.

I would consider it a fair prog round if your opponent is familiar with prog or you’re in a high bracket/elims at a circuit tournament. If they have not, I will have a lower threshold for how they answer. If it’s not fair for everyone, it’s not educational no matter how much you argue. HOWEVER if you’re running the prog for a specific purpose (e.g. a well established K or a clear in round abuse), I’ll go looser on this.

1. Theory

1. I believe that paraphrasing is good and disclosure is bad. Wild takes on the circuit ig but I can explain my norms if y’all actually want to hear why in round.

2. All in all though, I’m flow so I’ll evaluate what you say. It’s just if you’re reading wild things (like bracket theory or something) I will be very sad and the threshold for answer will be super low.

2. K’s

1. Ok look so this is another rant I can give y’all in round if you want, but please be careful with how you read K’s. They were created to do something specific, and reading them for the sake of winning is just not going to fly with me,

2. DO NOT READ IDENTITY K’S IF YOU/YOUR PARTNER IS NOT OF THAT IDENTITY. That will be an instant drop from me, I don’t care how valid your take is. It’s not your place to comment for that community. If you’re curious whether I qualify something as an identity K, please just ask before reading it. I will drop without hesitation, so better safe than sorry.

3. Tricks

1. Tricks are not for kids :(

*****Speaks*****

I default btw 28-29 and go up and down depending. No one's going to get super low speaks (like 27's) unless you were rude or offensive.

Ways to boost speaks

1. Weigh and Extend, signpost and offtime roadmaps. Basically just do your job.

2. just say everyone ready, don't go jUDge ReADy, oPpOnenTS ReaDY, ParTnER REadY, oKaY!

3. Strategic drops and kicks. I love seeing a perfectly timed kick.

4. Boba (passion fruit green tea is so good fr)

Ways to drop your speaks

1. problematic rhetoric

2. Making the round inaccessible/toxic

~~haha you say "they dropped all of our arguments"(when they didn't) and i drop your speaks big time.~~

Hi! I'm Claire. I was decent at PF in high school (College Prep BB, if you want to stalk me). I still coach (Palo Alto High School) and debate (BP and APDA at Stanford).

How I judge PF:

Tech > Truth, I'll vote off of anything on the flow as long as it's 1) warranted and extended and 2) not offensive/discriminatory in any way.

Evidence still needs warrants. Please have good evidence ethics and send evidence quickly. I will call for evidence if it's contested, and it should be a proper cut card that actually says what you say it does.

Frontline in second rebuttal and collapse well in the back half, it'll make the round much nicer for everyone involved.

Extend your arguments fully, don't just extend taglines and author names. If you want me to vote for an argument it needs to be warranted and weighed in both summary and final focus.

Weighing should be comparative. Don't just read made up jargon, give me actual reasons why your impacts are more important and tell me how to evaluate the round.

I'm fine with speed. Send speech docs (cbeamer@stanford.edu) if you're planning to go fast (or even if you're not), but I won't flow off of the doc; if you're going too fast or are unclear, I'll let you know, but after that it's on you if I miss anything.

I'd prefer you debate the topic, but I'm fine with progressive arguments and will evaluate them just like any thing else. For theory debates, I default to competing interps and no RVIs but you can change that pretty easily.

I don't care about your "brief off time road map." Just tell me what flow to start on and signpost during your speech.

Feel free to ask me any questions before round! And, if you have any questions, feel free to reach out (email or messenger).

How I give speaker points:

1. Auto 30s to everyone in the round if you collectively agree to have a paper only round with no evidence and treat it like it's British Parliamentary.

2. Otherwise, they will be based on cross. I promise I have good reasons for this; I will not elaborate.

How I judge anything else:

Do whatever you want; I probably won't know the rules of your event so you can make new ones up for all I care. Although, being persuasive, reasonable and clear will probably be in your best interest.

Please pre-flow before rounds!!!

Hey everyone, I’m Elliot. I debated with my sister Claire as part of College Prep BB. I'm a sophomore at Duke University and I coach for Durham Academy.

Add me to the chain: eb393@duke.edu

Remember to collapse well, extend your argument fully, and weigh! Good weighing fully compares the impact you are going for with your opponents impact, and tells me through what lens I should make my decision.

I prefer a substance debate with good clash. I am open to evaluating any kind of argument — however I reserve the right to intervene if debaters are reading arguments in an inaccessible manner. Don’t be mean or problematic please, it won’t go well for you.

Feel free to go fast if you want but you should definitely send a speech doc! I can listen to and understand speed but I much prefer to have a doc to make sure I don't miss anything when I flow. If your opponents call for evidence and you have a doc with all of your evidence, just send the whole doc, and send it as a Word doc or in the text of an email. Stop sending a google doc and deleting it after the round...Have all your evidence ready please. If you take a while to send evidence - you’ll lose speaker points and you are also giving your opponents a chance to steal prep.

I think that almost all structural violence framing needs to be in rebuttal or constructive. I wont evaluate a blip read in summary thats like "don't evaluate any other impacts bla bla bla." You can read new weighing in summary but if it's not in summary it shouldn't be in final, unless you are just tweaking implications of the same piece of weighing or making a backline to a new response from first final or second summary.

Returning to in person debate norms:

• You can sit down or stand when speaking, whatever makes you feel most comfortable
• Please at least try to make some eye contact during your speeches and during crossfire
• During prep time, don't talk so loudly that everyone can hear what you are saying

Some of my favorite judges when I debated: Eli Glickman, Will Sjostrom, Sanjita Pamidimukkala, Gabe Rusk

Tech judge

Put me on the email chain pls: tbhatnagar@thecollegepreparatoryschool.org and collegeprepdocs@gmail.com

Quick summary,

Impact weighing is good, link weighing is better

Defense is sticky.

Theory and prog args: I think paraphrasing is good, disclosure is bad, etc, but I will evaluate all shells fairly whether or not they fit with my personal beliefs.

K's are fine, I'm not super experienced with it, but know what you are doing, and please have solvency

If you say Among Us or make a Jojo Reference in any speech I will give you 30 speaks(real)

If you want a long version, look below(totally not stolen from William Pirone)

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

* * * * *

If you have any questions about my paradigm, please feel free to ask me before the round! My paradigm has recently become egregiously long so just skim through the underlined text if you want the TL;DR.

General:

Tech >>> Truth. You can read any type of argument you want in front of me, as long as it contains warrants. I’ve read everything from politics DAs, tricks, round reports theory, riders, and consult Japan to “warming opens the Northwest Passage which prevents Hormuz miscalc”—do what you’re comfortable with.

Also,go as fast as you want as long as you're clear. I won’t flow strictly off a doc but will take one in case I miss something/want to check for new arguments/implications. Please don’t confuse words per minute with arguments per minute – clear spreading is orders of magnitude easier to flow than a slightly less speedy blip-storm of arguments.

~ ~ ~ ~ Substance ~ ~ ~ ~

This is by far the most fun to judge. Below are some of my preferences/rules when it comes to tech substance debate, listed from the debate norms most specific to me to the least.

Part I - General Substance:

If parts of your argument are uncontested,you do not have to extend warrants for conceded internal linksin summary and final focus. Definitely extend uniqueness, links, and impacts though.

I like impact turns. A lot. Read them.

You also don't have to extend your opponent's link if you're going for impact turns, but you can if you want to.

Stolen from Nathaniel Yoon’s paradigm:I will disregard and penalize "no warrant/context" responses on their own. Pair this with any positive content (your own reasoning, weighing, example, connection to another point, etc), and you're fine, just don't point out the lack of something and move on.

I really value word efficiency– do this well, and you will be rewarded.

"Who what when where why" is not a responseand if your opponents point it out they get auto 30s.

Part II - Evidence:

Smart analytics are great—but please add empirics/warrants to them. Do not dump blippy analytics, ever.

Pleasepleasepleasepleasepleasepleasepleaseread taglines if you are going fast. I beg of you. In case, rebuttal, everything. No, “thus” and “specifically” don’t count.

Also, please don’t put analytical warrants in tags unless your evidence backs it up. If you pull up with something along the lines of “because a revoked Article 9 would cause a Chinese state collapse and the re-emergence of the bubonic plague, Shale-13 of Brookings concludes: revising the constitution would be unwise,” I will laugh but also be very sad.

Please label email chains adequately. Ex. “TOC R1 – College Prep HP (Aff 1st) vs. LC Anderson BC (Neg 2nd)”

Whether or not the tournament is onlineI will require an email chain for every round, evidence exchange is faster and more efficient. If you are spreading or reading any progressive argument you must send a doc before you begin; otherwise, sending a doc will not be required. Don’t send Google Docs and then delete them after the round, send either a word doc or paste the text into the body of the email.

Part III - Weighing

Weighing = great. Do it.

You still need to win sufficient offense on your weighed argument though—please don’t try to kick out of terminal defense through things like try-or-die weighing, I’m more than happy just voting on one team’s argument having the higher risk than the other team’s argument, especially if both terminalize to extinction.

—Weighing §1—

Impact weighing is good, link weighing is best.

Don't use "probability weighing" as a chance to read new defense. Probability = strength of link in my view, if you win an argument and warrant it then it is probable. General reasons why your argument is a better link, i.e. actor analysis and historical precedent are fantastic, just don’t use this to insert 27 new responses.

Clarity/contextualization/strength of link are not weighing mechanisms – just explain why your argument is more important than your opponents’ assuming that both sides have won their offense.

—Weighing §2—

In almost all circumstances, link weighing is way more important than impact weighing. Don’t just say extinction outweighs and move on—do comparative analysis on why your link is better(larger, faster, more probable, etc).

On a similar note, make sure to resolve clashing link-ins/prereqs—otherwise, I will be very confused and probably have to intervene. This also means that 1FF can read new link weighing mechanisms to resolve clashing prerequisite arguments, as long as they weren’t conceded in first summary.

Part IV - Defense:

Frontline in second rebuttal—everything you want to go for needs to be in this speech. 4 minutes is 4 minutes, read whatever offense you want in both constructives/rebuttals.

Defense isn't sticky. That said, I am very lenient towards blippy defense extensions in first summary if second rebuttal doesn't frontline something at all, just make sure it's there.

Pleasemake frontlining substantive. What I mean by that is actually reading warrants/evidence when frontlining instead of saying “no internal link/warrant/context” and arguments along those lines. Technical responses are fine when paired with substantive responses, but don't read 2 minutes of "1.) no warrant 2.) no impact 3.) no context 4.) the evidence is miscut 5.) we postdate…"

~ ~ ~ ~ Progressive ~ ~ ~ ~

All arguments in this section are fair game, I’ve read basically everything you can think of at some point.

Theory:

Theory is ok, I read it a lot my junior year. We usually read disclosure/paraphrase/round reports, but I'm good with anything as long as it's warranted. I also won’t be biased when judging theory, so feel free to respond in any way you wish—meta-theory, interp flaws, impact turns, etc, are all fine with me.

I prefer techy substance rounds thoughso speaks might take a slight dip if you do this in prelims.

—Theory §1—

Yes, I think paraphrasing is bad and disclosure is good.(Tanishq here: This is objectively wrong). No, I will not hack for either of these shells.

If you've never run theory before, and feel inclined to do so, I’m happy to give comments and help as much as I can.

Unless I am evaluating the theory debate on reasonability you must read a counter interp... if you do not all of your responses are inherently defensive because your opponents are the only team providing me with a 'good' model of debate.

Theory should be read immediately after the violation. Eg. if you’re speaking first disclosure must be in your constructive for me to evaluate it. However, I am willing to vote off of paraphrasing theory read after rebuttal if your interpretation is that people shouldn't paraphrase in rebuttal. You MUST extend your own shell in rebuttal if it was read in 1st constructive; you must frontline your opponent's shell in the speech after it was read (unless there is a theoretical justification for not doing this).

Substance crowd-out is most definitely an impact, andreasonability can be very persuasive– just read this off of your CI or as a turn on their interpretation. Please still read a counterinterp.

—Theory §2—

I default to spirit > text,CI > R,No RVIs,Yes OCIs*,DTA.

If there are multiple shells introduced, make sure todo weighing between them.

If you read disclosure theory, you must have good disclosure norms—I will probably check.

I will never vote on an out-of-round violation other than disclosure/round reports and the like.

Don’t read blippy IVI sand then blow up on them — make it into a shell format.

Theory unaccessible is not a fantastic argument—there are tons of resources out there and if you need more help/advice feel free to email me. It is just like responding to anything else.

Theory cards, in most cases, are overrated and are often just written by former debaters and will be evaluated on the same level as any other standard/argument. This is different from topicality interpretations and impact weighing/cards against Ks.

*OCIs good is the one thing in my paradigm that you cannot alter with warrants. If you win that your shell is better under a model of competing interpretations, or win turns to your opponents’ interp, you win.

K:

I will evaluate kritiks but no promises I'm good at doing so. I'm most familiar with security/cap/Baudrillard. For anything else please slow down and warrant things out.

No paraphrased Ks—this is non-negotiable.

If you read the mythical Bayesianism kritik, I will give you 30 speaks, especially if you can point to specific links from their case.

If you are reading substance + pre-fiat framing (or a topical link to a kritik in any way)you must still win your topical links to access the pre-fiat layer. I am never going to vote for a “we started the discourse” link or arguments about how your opponents cannot link in.

Rejection alts/ROTBs are sus, read an actual one.

Also, theory almost always uplayers the K.You should be reading off of cut cards and open-source disclosing when reading these arguments.

Perms are OP if you use them effectively. I like when people shotgun them.

CPs:

I will begrudgingly evaluate a plan/counterplan debate. This obviously differs based on the resolution (“on balance” phrasing is weird), but for fiated topics i.e., “Japan should revise Article 9 of its constitution,” they’re probably fair game.

Also, totally open to theory against these– just make the arguments.

FW:

Read whatever you want here, I won't be biased one way or another. Extinction reps, Kant,anything goes.

Util is most likely truetil, but I can be convinced otherwise.

Tricks:

If you must, just make sure the other team is cool with them first. Theory against these is smart too.

Make tricks fun, arguments like a prioris or “eval after the 1ac” are meh butparadoxes, skep, etc are great.

Head to the presumption sectionsince it’ll probably be necessary for these rounds.

~ ~ ~ ~ Extra ~ ~ ~ ~

Presumption:

Absent warrants otherwise,I default to the first speaking team. Independent of presumption, I understand that going first in tech rounds puts you at a significant disadvantage, so I will defend 1FF with my life.

Make sure you read actual presumption warrants.I won't evaluate anything in FF, so make sure to make these warrants in summary, or else I will just default to whoever spoke first.

Preferences:

LARP - 1

Theory/T - 2

Kritik - 3

Tricks - 4

Phil - 4

Non-T Kritik - 5

Performance - 5

Postrounding:

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

Speaks:

I usually give pretty good speaks, and assign them based on clarity and in-round strategy, with bonus points forword efficiency and humor. In general, I’m also a speedy person and like to do things quickly, so the sooner the round ends and the less prep you steal, the higher your speaks will be!

If you want a boost:

+0.2 speaks if you're disclosed and you tell me and it’s OS

+0.2 speaks if you don’t paraphrase (+0.2 for rebuttal too)

+0.2 speaks if you read the Keck/Dowd combo

+0.1 speaks if your cards are Times New Roman with green highlighting

+0.1 speaks if you have round reports

I will give you a 30 if you readALL defense/turns in second constructive(first rebuttal must frontline if this happens).

If it’s a prelim and both teams agree before the round, we can switch the resolution to a different one– it can be a previous topic or something new entirely.

about me:

• first year out
• did pf for six years/competed under St Francis BC
• I now do APDA at Stanford, but I'm very much a beginner at parli so please bear with me if I'm your judge for it.

email chain: alexchas@stanford.edu

**General**

Tech > Truth, but my barrier for overlooking your evidence that says that the moon is made of cheese is low if you don’t support it with well substantiated warranting when faced with a response or evidence challenge.

My view of a good strategy/performance is simple:

1. Warranting is your friend: whether you’re reading a turn, weighing, extending, or reading framework, warrant warrant warrant. Teams that read concise, well intentioned, and well substantiated warranting have never in my eyes been hurt by it.

But Alex if I warrant that aggressively I can’t read my blippy contentions, turns, and weighing anymore :(

Haha so true bestie, that’s the point

1. Towards the back half of the round, I want to see both teams collapse and weigh to make it clear to me what your narrative is, why I should vote for your case/link/turn specifically, and how it interacts with the round as a whole.

2. #1 also implies that speeches between partners will share a common vision and strategy, which definitely ain’t happening if your FF doesn’t mirror your Summary.

3. This is a preference but I prefer cohesive and nuanced cases over spamming multiple contentions with subpoints, because in my experience, #1 and #2 of my views of a good strategy don’t often happen with the latter.

4. This doesn’t happen in all rounds, but doing things like kicking case for turns (when done well) are quite impressive for me and fall under what I would deem “good performance”

5. If you plan on reading a framework, actually understand the literature behind each of your framework’s warrants and use that to your advantage to weigh against other arguments.

What I mean by good weighing:

Good weighing is not me voting for you because your number is bigger than theirs. It’s giving me an understanding why I should turn to your arguments first. That also implies that you will be comparing weighing mechanisms as well. Because telling me you win on one metric while the other team wins on another brings me back to square one, where I’m back to being forced to pick and choose based on what I personally think.

I’ll always look at weighing first, then any offense connected to that weighing, then all other offense (if there is no other weighing, which would make me sad)

Speed:

1. Speed is fine with me, and I’ll yell clear if I need to. But, note that as the months go by I’ll be less in tune with high school forensics, so it might be to your advantage to not go too crazy. (Crazy means speech doc levels)
   
   

2. Slow down for tags
   
   

3. I don’t like flowing off docs
   
   

Tiny rant about extinction framing:

This is not an excuse to avoid any meaningful weighing by simply reading your 100 trillion deaths card over and over again. Still weigh. Also actually read the lit behind your links because some cards I’ve seen have been so outrageous and not in the good way.

**Random Things**

Cross is binding. I won’t be flowing, but I’ll be paying attention so don’t pull anything morally ambiguous.

If you want me to read evidence, tell me to call for it. With that said, if it's irrelevant to the bigger picture of the debate, I won’t be reading it, and I’ll explain why in relation to the round in my rfd.

Postrounding is ok, I make mistakes. But note that my decision was also impacted by what has happened in the round, so ideally we could avoid this situation. If there was a game changing piece of weighing or delink that should’ve given you the win, you should’ve been making it clear in the backhalf.

**Prog**

Theory: I’ve run and debated against theory a decent number of times, and I’ve got to say it isn’t my favorite. Most rounds turn into the same thing over and over again with similar-ish standards that just end up going in favor of the team that has the most experience with theory to begin with. It’s also frankly quite clear that a majority of teams that run theory don’t do it for the sake of “spreading norms” or “prioritizing education,” rather they see it as a way to pick up rounds, so forgive me if my eyes roll to the back of my skull.

In addition, the notion that theory checks back against ad hominem, in-round abuse is absurd. If someone says something problematic and offensive about me in a round, the last thing I’m thinking about is how to format their violation into a shell and taking prep time to prepare an off for my next speech.

With that said, if you feel uncomfortable in the round, don’t hesitate to email me with my email above, and I will stop the round.

No Friv theory

Kritiks: I only ran two kritiks (neo-colonialism/intersectional queer futurity) in my time debating, and although they were quite fun to learn about and read, I will be the first to acknowledge that I barely knew what I was doing. I know about kritiks in concept and understand their function and format, but in practice, the lines become blurred for me. With that said, I find that critical literature raises a lot of interesting questions, especially if they discuss a cause you are particularly passionate about, so be my guest if you want to run it, I’d love to engage with you on the subject matter, just note that I might not evaluate the round as formally as someone proficient on the matter.

This is my 2nd time doing public forum debate judge. I prefer the debate display solid logic, lucid reasoning, and depth of analysis; utilize evidence without being driven by it; present a clash of ideas by countering/refuting arguments of the opposing team; communicate ideas with clarity, organization, eloquence, and professional decorum. The critera I evaluate the rounds is the quality of arguments made including logical reasoning, maturity of thought, and effectiveness of communication.

I am Justin, I am a mostly Parli debater so I am not very well versed in the rules and technicalities of PF, so CLEAR SPEECHES, roadmaps, signposts, and slower speaking is preferable(English is my second language so please be patient with me).

I usually don’t like Kritiks and Theories, but a good K or theory is always interesting to see, just don’t be abusive with your Ks and Theories.

I like warranted arguments with impacts, please explain any nuanced arguments and provide actual warrants to your arguments.

Weighing is the most important thing to me, if you properly explain to me how your impacts outweighs your opponent’s, you are likely to win.

I don’t really like aggressive debating, but it is fine with me as long you are not using ad hominems or using any inflammatory insults, any racism, ableism and sexism etc. will result in a loss.

In general how to boost your speaks:

-Be nice and careful, give proper thought to your arguments and your opponent’s.

-Weigh and impact, be specific in how you outweigh.

-Clear speaking and clear roadmaps, signposts.

Please don’t say they’ve dropped all(or most) of our arguments, I see this a lot in parli and it irritates me so please tell me specifically which arguments they’ve dropped.

Summarize properly and include all your arguments.

Confident speaking goes a long way with me and being methodical with the structure of your speaks is great too.

Just be nice and enjoy the round.

Graduated from CK McClatchy High School in 2020. Currently debate for UC Berkeley. Conflicts: CK McClatchy, West Campus, Harker.

he/him

yes email chain please -- nick.fleming39@gmail.com

I flow straight down on my laptop.

These things suck. Everybody lies and says they are agnostic but in my experience nobody but maybe 10 people really mean it. I am not going to pretend like I don't have preferences and won't internally eye-roll and react negatively to certain arguments, but I will try my absolute hardest to stick to my flow (with the exception of the arguments clearly identified in this paradigm as non-starters).

That in mind, here is my general approach to judging and some preferences:

I was largely a k debater in high school but I am exclusively a policy debater in college. I feel comfortable judging both sides of the spectrum. Regardless of the issue at hand, evidence quality matters a lot to me, and I will read every card mentioned by name in the final rebuttals before making my decision.

I think I care more than other judges about judge instruction. Telling me how to read/understand cards, how to frame warrants, etc. will be taken very seriously when the debate comes to an end. Smart, strategic judge instruction and framing will quickly earn speaker points.

I believe being affirmative is fundamentally easy. Having the case and talking last is a near-insurmountable barrier between evenly matched opponents (on most topics). On those grounds, I err neg on basically all theory. This is significantly more true for policy than LD, but my instinct to resolve theory in favor of the neg will remain strong.

Most of my paradigm is about k debate because I have far less feelings about policy rounds. That is not to say I am not a good judge for them. My favorite debates to judge are big, in-depth policy rounds that are vertically oriented and have lots of good evidence. That being said, I have far less instruction to offer you because those rounds are more straight-forward to evaluate. I will reward smart turns case arguments and clever analytics above a wall of cards in these debates.

Planless affs ---

I generally think that debates are better, more interesting, and more educational when the aff defends a topical plan based on the resolution.

I have been in many of these debates, both answering and going for topicality. My time as a k debater raised my threshold for the aff a bit because I have first hand experience with how easy it can be to beat framework with args that suck. If you are going for an impact turn to T without a counter-interpretation, you should probably win offense against model v model debates.

I like impact turns a lot. I am a good judge for heg/cap good, and a bad judge for affs that don't want to defend anything. In my opinion, if you have taken a radically leftist position and forwarded a structural kritik but are unwilling to debate the most surface level right-wing propaganda, you are both bastardizing the literature and being cowards. I will not be convinced that your indictment of settler colonialism/some other superstructure is conviently okay with whatever the neg has impact turned. Inversely, if you are a k team that is ready to throw down on these questions, I will consider you strong-willed, brave, and smart.

Skills/clash solve the case with a big external, a TVA, and a robust presumption push on case is the quickest way to my heart.

Similarly, presumption pushes against affs that are just built to impact turn T are very persuasive.

I am increasingly persuaded by the fairness paradox.

I am unpersuaded by the trend of affs being topic-adjacent and answering framework with "you could have read x DA." I believe this reflects a fundamental, novice-level misunderstanding of what topicality is.

I don't like offense that hinges on the subject position of your opponent or me as a judge. I also very strongly prefer not to be in charge of your mental health, livelihood, or identity. EDIT 11/21: have received questions about this and would like to clarify -- args about value to life, ressentiment, etc. are totally fine. I don't want be in charge of you as an individual -- meaning your role in the community, your mental health, or your sense of self.

Kritiks -

Neg - I consider myself fairly sufficient in most kritik literature and have researched extensively, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't explain your theory. I don't think its fair of me to just fill in gaps for you (for example, deciding in my own head what it means if you "win the ontology debate.") The best way to win in front of me is to have a unique link that turns the case and beats the aff without framework. If your argument is about you and contains no theory, I am a decidedly bad judge for you.

Aff - Impact turn things. Weigh the aff against the alt for more than just fairness -- see my framework thoughts for the neg above. If you are going soft left against the k that is also fine, but sounding nice and in the direction of whatever your opponents say doesn't tell me why the link doesn't turn the case.

Theory -

I am not very good at judging T debates against policy affs. I like reasonability and precision, and my record is pretty decisively aff, despite not having strong feelings about T. At least an outside chance this means I am simply not doing a very good job evaluating the debates.

Usually theory debates are pretty bad to judge because people just spread through their blocks and don't do line by line. I tend to be lenient with all neg shenanigans.

I largely think if cps compete, they are legit. I can sometimes be convinced otherwise, but if your theory argument is just "this counterplan is bad," I am going to be convinced by neg arbitrariness arguments,

All of that being said, I also think most cheat-ey cps don't compete! So if you're aff, you're not tanked -- you are just better off going for the perm than theory.

Please do not go for condo in front of me. I have no idea why the neg thinking they can kick a counterplan or an alternative is a voting issue -- simply saying conditionality is bad is not sufficient for me to nuke the other team from the debate. I have never participated in or seen a debate between competent opponents in which even the most egregious abuses of conditionality effected the decision. If the neg drops it twice, I guess you have to go for it. I can think of very few circumstances where it is a good idea otherwise. Slightly more sympathetic for LD because of 1AR time pressures, but still will lean heavily neg and will cap speaks at 29 for the aff (assuming perfect debating otherwise --- if you go for condo, you should expect your points to be in the 28-28.5 range.)

Online Debate

If my camera is not on, please assume I am not ready for you to begin speaking.

I would very much appreciate if you could record your speeches in case there are internet issues while you are talking.

Even the clearest debaters tend to be tougher to flow in an online format. I understand that this comes with some strategic cost, but I will reward you with speaks if you go a little slower than usual and make sure to be extra clear.

LD:

Edit 2/11/23

If you do not ask for a marked document in your debate, I will add .1 to your speaker points. Unless your opponent legitimately marked cards, your speaker points will be capped at 29 if you ask for one. Flow better. Asking about what was and wasn't read is CX time. Every time you ask "did you read x" that's minus .1 speaker points.

EDIT 4/10/22: adding this after judging ~120 LD debates:

1. There seem to be issues with clarity plaguing this activity. To try and discourage this, I will do the following things: a.) I will never open your documents during the debate. I will read cards after if you tell me too. b.) I will say clear 5 times, after that, I'm not flowing c.) If, on the other hand, you are clear, I will give way too high of speaks. Some of the best teams in this activity sound great -- its clearly possible to win without being unflowable.

As my record indicates, I overwhelmingly vote neg in LD debates. Usually, this is because the 1AR runs out of time and drops something important, and I feel like my hands are tied on new 2AR args. That in mind -- 1ARs that set up big framing issues, start doing impact calc, and cut out superfluous arguments in favor of barebones substance will be rewarded with speaker points and usually the ballot. Aff teams, the entire activity seems to be stacked against you -- so debate accordingly, and don't waste time on useless stuff like condo.

I am gettable on Nebel/whole rez, but don't usually find it particularly persuasive. Seems counter-intuitive.

Please go easy on the theory -- I get that its a big part of the activity, but if your plan going into the debate is to go for a theory arg, you shouldn't pref me. I am usually going to vote neg.

I am not 100% familiar with all of the LD nomenclature so I may need a little explanation of things like "upward entailment test" and other LD-specific vocab

No RVI's ever under any circumstances

running list of arguments that are simply too bad to be evaluated:

new affs bad

no neg fiat

plan focus allows you to say the n word in debates

my opponent did something outside the round that they should lose for

RVI's

Misc.

- Consider me dead inside -- moralizing and tugging on my heart strings will only earn you negative speaks - debate is not about individual feelings, and I will not consider yours when deciding your round.

- I strongly believe that you should be allowed to insert rehighlightings of evidence that has already been read in the debate if you think it goes the other way/want to add context to an argument. Please do not abuse this by inserting a million rehighlightings, but I will be hard to convince that it is not okay to do so in moderation (especially in the 1AR.)

- Please do not ask me for high speaks -- you lose half a point every time you bring it up

- I will only flow the person who's speech it is (edit: Feel less strongly about this during the 1AC/1NC)

- It is a damning indictment of our community that I even have to say this, but the debate will end immediately if it gets even remotely physical at any point. This includes touching other debaters' property. If this is any way surprising, confusing, or offensive to you, strike me.

- There is nothing more off-putting to me than debaters who take themselves too seriously. Please stop acting like this is anything other than a silly game we all want to win at.

• In that same vein, being rude does not make you cool, funny, or brave. Snarky CX comments, saying mean stuff in speeches, etc. will make me dislike you and actively hope that you lose the debate. If I think you are too rude, I will say something after the round and take pleasure in giving you bad speaks. If it gets to the point where I am saying something to you, you should assume I bombed your speaks. If you are a team that can't make your arguments without being mean to other debaters, strike me.

Public Forum (copied from Greg Achten)

Pretty much everything in the above paradigm is applicable here but there are two key additions. First, I strongly oppose the practice of paraphrasing evidence. If I am your judge I would strongly suggest reading only direct quotations in your speeches. My above stated opposition to the insertion of brackets is also relevant here. Words should never be inserted into or deleted from evidence.

Second, there is far too much untimed evidence exchange happening in debates. I will want all teams to set up an email chain to exchange cases in their entirety to forego the lost time of asking for specific pieces of evidence. You can add me to the email chain as well and that way after the debate I will not need to ask for evidence. This is not negotiable if I'm your judge - you should not fear your opponents having your evidence. Under no circumstances will there be untimed exchange of evidence during the debate. Any exchange of evidence that is not part of the email chain will come out of the prep time of the team asking for the evidence. The only exception to this is if one team chooses not to participate in the email thread and the other team does then all time used for evidence exchanges will be taken from the prep time of the team who does NOT email their cases.

I am currently competing in Extemp and Congress on the Varsity level, so if you're reading this, most likely you're doing some sort of speech event (although I also judge debate). I know it is unusual for speech judges to have a paradigm, but I think it's always helpful to know what's on the judges' minds. If you ever have any questions about my ballots please email me at tgercken@college-prep.org!

Extemp:

I am sure you all are smart cookies, so I am not going to do the usual speech paradigm of telling you that good evidence, confidence, and delivery are critical; obviously if those are lacking you will be marked down. However, I think it is a far better use of your time to tell you that I will judge the round very technically.

This means that I am using a stopwatch in round to make sure you start and end points on time. I am very attached to the 1:30 - 1:30 (x3) - 1:00 structure of Extemp. If your points are ~15 seconds off in either direction, expect a comment. Hitting the times almost precisely is an excellent way to signal to me that you are a high-level competitor, and I should not stand in the way of you breaking.

In addition, there is a tendency in high-level Extemp to talk faster and use your hands every few seconds. If you are talking more than a bit faster than conversation speed, expect a comment. If your hands are not mostly by your side, expect a comment. Also, staying still is impressive to me. Swaying back and forth undermines presentation.

I will be noting substructure and similar substructure for all three points is a great way to get good ranks with me. If all three points work differently, it feels un-unified, and you should expect a comment. The substructure for the intro, points, and conclusion should be fairly traditional. It would take a lot to convince me that your way is better than the regular way. That means your intro should have an AGD and background and impact, and your conclusion should contain more than just your question and answer. If I cannot instinctively feel the flow from my competition in Extemp because it is so predictable, expect a comment.

I think having to memorize the question word for word is kind of weird, given that in college, you can just read it off the slip. I will flat out let you read it off the slip or keep the chat up in zoom. Note that it may impact your presentation but there's a way to do it cleanly. Also, if you state the question and it's basically the same with a little bit of different wording, I do not care and honestly will not notice 99% of the time. So if you spend a minute or two in prep memorizing the question, do not, practice the intro again or something.

In cross-examination, you should be having a conversation, trying to discover more about their argument. I do not view cross-examination as a way to poke holes in each other's arguments; I view it as a furthering of the fundamental goal of Extemp, which is education. If you come off as aggressive, argumentative, or as trying to undermine your fellow competitor (not opponent), expect a comment. Cross-x has never made me more likely to rank you highly, only less.

This may give you the impression that I am expecting a complicated speech full of theory. That could not be further from the truth. I appreciate speakers who take it slow, make simple arguments, and have great signposting. The Extemp community is terrific, we love to talk about issues on a really detailed level, but ultimately we will be presenting to non Extempers. Just because I can understand a fast and complicated argument does not mean I will appreciate it. If it is not simple enough for even the parent judge that provokes the most complaining on the bus ride home, expect a comment.

For online competition, please position your camera so you face it head on, stay reasonably close to the camera, move around, and above all else, please time yourself. It helps you (having more exact time), and it helps me (concentrating more on the speech and giving better ranks/comments).

Congress:

Congress is such an interesting event because it is structured so differently than the speech and debate categories. But critically, while it is different, I consider it a debate event and expect it to not feel like a many person version of lay PF. For a more extensive judging philosophy, you should read the Public Forum section of this document.

Engagement is amazing; ask questions, give rebuttals. If you are clearly just reading speeches that you wrote at home before the round, you will not get a super high score, and you should expect a comment. Congress is the one speech event with lots of involvement between participants, and it should be a significant part of the round.

Impromptu:

Impromptu is a very limited prep event, but it still should feel like any other speech. Well thought out, with clearly delineated points, just in a shorter time frame. First, you need to have an introduction. Just saying the topic and jumping into arguments are not enough (also never start with the topic, and AGD needs to be somewhere). However, depending on the topic, you can cut some things. Obviously, background will not be needed if the prompt is "a day at the pool." Use your best judgment but make sure it is robust. Clearly signposting what your points are and then making sure they have a followable substructure is critical and is the number one thing I will mark you down for. If you just have a train of consciousness, it will not be very convincing or informative. However, it is a shorter time period so try to keep your points simple. A reasonably common criticism I have is that things are assumed that the judge gets but not described. Try not to do that. Finally, your conclusion should have a tie-up and a return to your AGD. Just ending your speech after your second point or after a brief tie-up is not going to work. The third paragraph of the Extemp section has some notes on the presentation you may want to look at.

Oratory/Advocacy:

I have never done Oratory or Advocacy, so you should consider me a lay judge. I want you to connect with me and convince me, I want a nice and clear structure with lots of signposting, and I want in-depth analysis that makes sense to me. I don't know how technical anyone really gets in Oratory/Advocacy but regardless I won't be considering that. Some of my notes in the Extemp section are likely to apply as well, so I would recommend you reference it.

Interp:

Make me laugh, make me cry, make me believe whatever it is you are trying to be. I will be the first to admit; I know 0 about the Interp events, so please treat me precisely as you would a lay judge. I'm sorry if this disappoints you, but I just can't have a judging philosophy on events I don't do. That being said, I am always really excited to see interps, so I will be happy to watch and listen.

Public Forum:

Public Forum debate is not Policy, and in judging, I am looking for a very different experience. I want to see a friendly well-reasoned debate between four smart high schoolers/middle schoolers about the actual topic. Clearly delineated arguments, links, and impacts, in a thoughtful and convincing manner is critical. Do not spread. I will not read a speech doc (except to look for cards) and even if I can understand it, if you are speaking faster than a lay person could understand and flow, I will disregard everything you say. Please, no weird arguments that don't seem to pertain to the resolution, and, while significant impacts are necessary, if arguments start to be linked to stuff like extinction or nuclear war with a tenuous connection, I'm not going to vote on it (the impacts should be big but they have to be real). Truth > tech not because I don't understand but because that shouldn't be encouraged and if that's what you're looking for go to Policy. If you use a theory that does not quote the rulebook, or spread or run a k, I will sign the ballot immediately and give both competitors 26 speaker points max (if another team does any of these, please do not respond. They have already lost the round, but I would like discussion to continue for the educational value). Explain to me why you are right but if you attempt some sort of theoretical explanation of the event it will not land well with me. I will nod along with you, understand, and vote you down. One part of the case that I am especially interested in is the framework. I view framing the debate at the top as critical to accessing impacts and if I don't have framework I will default to a very restrictive view of what is topical which will likely hurt your case. If only one team gives me framework (and it is somewhat reasonable), I will default to theirs. If both teams give framework to me, winning (or at least tieing) that clash is essential to me letting you access your impacts.

Policy/LD:

I have never done Policy/LD, and I am not used to spreading. Please make sure I can understand, obviously if I can't, there is no way I can base my vote on whatever you are saying. I know that Policy/LD has a tendency to focus some arguments on things that don't relate to the resolution, and that is fine; I'm judging a Policy/LD round, and I will try my best to abide by the events conventions. But, please make sure it's clear why I should vote on something not pertaining to the resolution. In cases where other judges might just get it, make sure it's clear to me.

Politics:

I hate the trend in speech and debate where competitors look up their judges to find out what their politics are. However, it is sadly necessary for a variety of reasons. I have had my fair share of judges that voted me up or down based on opinion. So, I'll tell you upfront that I'm a libertarian. You can find my twitter here if you really want to check it out. But I promise that I will try not to judge you based on my political opinion.

4th year on the Circuit

Add me to the email chain: adityavir01@gmail.com

Straight from Amrit Sharma's Paradigm:

Tech > Truth (You can win an argument saying that the 1 + 1 = 3 if your opponent does not respond to it, I believe doing anything otherwise is judge intervention)

I require speech docs to be sent before constructive and rebuttal speeches

Frontline all offense in second rebuttal and defense on the arg ur going for (by all means frontline everything I think its a good strat)

Summary should extend defense

When you are extending responses on your opponents case please interact with their frontlines otherwise you're just wasting time.

No new weighing in second FF, very minimal new weighing allowed in First FF

IMPACT CALCULUS: this is what wins you debates. If you clearly explain to me and give warrants as to why your impacts matter more than your opponents, you're much more likely to win if they don't. Some common mechanisms include Probability, Magnitude etc.

Speaks:

+1 if you read cut cards in case

Auto 30 if you read straight from cut cards in both rebuttal and case

Progressive:

Shells: Familiar with most (Paraphrasing, Disclosure, TW), I can't judge a full-fledged theory debate nearly as well as others so run at your own risk

Kritiques: Not familiar at all, but will try my best

Other:

If you have any questions feel free to email me.

Be respectful and have fun!

Email me at soccerlado@gmail.com if you have any questions. Before the round starts, I will give you some time to ask me any questions.

My experience: I have competed in 3 years of Varsity Public forum and 4 years of Varsity Congress.

What I am looking for:

-I will be flowing, so please respond to all your opponent's arguments. I would prefer that by the end of the debate, all arguments have been touched.

- I will be fact checking, do not lie

-Quality over quantity

-During Cross Ex, I expect respect from both speakers. I want argumentative questions. Keep your questions and answers relatively short. Please do not read off your case while answering a question.

-Please make your arguments very clear. Make it easy for me to flow.

- Show impacts!

Speaking preferences: Your speaking will influence my decision.

- You can speak as fast as you want, as long as you enunciate each word. Please speak loudly and clearly!

- I want to see confidence!

- I will allow a 10 second grace period, if you consistently go over this grace period, this will impact your speaker points.

- Do not prep during dead time!

Look forward to a good debate.

Hi, I'm Kenzo(He/Him). I'm a high school senior and have been debating pf since freshman year. A couple of things to note. I don't care what speed you go, but if you are talking really fast send a doc, or I might miss something. Also if you are talking fast and have a lot of extra time ie more than 15-20 seconds I will probably knock your speaker points a little bit. If you are not talking super fast though and you have a lot of time left over, don't worry about ending your speech early. I am a tech > truth judge, but if a piece of evidence is hotly contested in the round, and you think you are right, you are welcome to have me take a look and I will resolve it at the end of a round so the debate does not devolve into just arguing for your interpretation of the evidence. I won't vote off crossfire so if they something you think is important bring it up during a speech. Try to signpost, and go down the flow in an organized manner if you can (though I know I forgot to do this a lot in JV/Novice). Try not to flip back and forth between your arguments and their arguments too many times, it makes my flow pretty messy, and I might end up missing something.

Speech by speech:

Constructives are pretty straightforward:

The first rebuttal only needs to talk about your opponent's case, try not to talk too fast and leave a lot of leftover time. There is no need to restate your points, I will have gotten them all down in constructive.

Second rebuttal: please respond to your opponent's responses to your case in addition to responding to your opponent's case.

Summary: I strongly advise that you start to collapse on a couple of arguments as you will not have. Please start weighing.

Final Focus: Please weigh your arguments. Explain to me exactly why I should care more about your impacts than theirs, and explain your explanations to me. Don't just say why your nuclear war has a greater magnitude than their genocide. Explain to me why that size difference is most important.

Remember to respond to turns and if you have any questions or problems with my ruling don't go tell your friends that you got screwed(what I normally do after rounds), ask me about what you don't understand and I will happily explain.

Add me to your email chain (: Khannah@thecollegepreparatoryschool.org

add me to the email chain: arnavj214@gmail.com

FOR PF

tech > truth

Everything in ff must be in summary

weigh

turns must be responded to in second rebuttal

all offense not responded to in rebuttal is conceded

cross won't affect my decision so bring up anything important that happens in cross in a speech

collapse plssss

--

“If you know the enemy and know yourself you need not fear the results of a hundred battles.” - Sun Tzu, The Art of War

--

Please be as rude as possible.

Please bring me snacks; you will get 30 on speaks if you bring adequate food.

Stand while prepping; sit while speaking; crossfire should be performed in a handstand.

I expect both teams to warm-up before the round with a mile jog around campus and 100 push-ups and sit-ups.

I don't believe in prep time.

Eating pungent food (such as fish) during the round is encouraged.

Upon entering the room you will be given a miscellaneous question from the 1999 AP Calculus BC Exam. If you get the question right you are awarded a TKO on the other team.

DISCLAIMER*** EVERYTHING ABOVE IS A JOKE. (except snacks... FR)

I've debated PF for 4 years; my favorite part of debate is the intellectual warranting behind the cards that comes out within round. Warrant well if you want me to evaluate arguments, it's not enough to say an argument is true because the card says so, you need to explain the underlying reasons.

I can handle speed just don't spread. If you spread I'll start scribbling on my flow to make it look like I'm paying attention, but I won't be able to follow you.

In my four years of PF I've ran into a K once and the round was unpleasant for every team involved, including the team running the K. I don't evaluate them.

Theory is fine if you explain it well and it doesn't overshadow the topic or diminish the intellectual nature of debate.

Briefly extend defense through summary if you want it to stick. Impact and weigh well; it's the only way I can properly evaluate a round.

Hello, I am a parent judge. Please make sure to always be polite to your opponents and try not to speak super fast. I hope to judge a great round!

lay/parent judge

Email: 22vedantk@students.harker.org (Email me if you have any questions about your round).

Some things to consider:

- I've been doing public forum debate for four years for The Harker School.

- I'm fine if you want to speak fast but if you are fast and unclear I may not be able to flow what you are saying which is to your own disadvantage.

- I'm comfortable with most types of arguments but I'd prefer that you avoid Kritiks.

- I give speaker points based on your skill and confidence.

I am a lay judge and have been judging speech and debate for about 6 years. I believe that debate should include a clear presentation of your arguments and evidence. I also believe your speeches should be well organized. In the end, I will value argument over style, but the way you present your arguments is important to my understanding of those arguments. If you call for evidence, please have a legitimate reason for it. I don't like spending a lot of prep time on it. I expect you to time yourselves, but I will be timing too. I like clear, organized flows with clear voters at the end. I weigh heavily on impacts so compare your impacts and convince me that yours are stronger. Please be civil and respectful to your partner and competitors.

My background is in theatre and speech. I love judging speech events and will typically vote for the presenter who has the strongest emotional connection to their piece and the audience. There must be an effective balance of design, style, and presentation. The pieces that showcase who you are as a performer as well as communicating something new and fresh are welcome.

cl4319@columbia.edu

Debate should always be fun, educational, and safe - please ask questions before/after the round if anything is unclear. I'll always disclose and feel free to ask or say something if you disagree with my decision.

Everything needs to be warranted

Summary is the most important speech in the round - collapse, extend links and impacts, frontline, and weigh. Any offense and defense needs to be in summary and FF (because summary is now three mins, defense is not sticky). Basically I should be able to listen to only summary and FF and make the correct decision.

I think spreading, Ks, theory, and other prog args are overdone in PF and defeat the purpose of the event. I will evaluate them but I'm generally predisposed to not vote for them; I also never ran them as a debater so I'm not the most familiar at judging them.

Have fun!

MSPDP

Debatewise: Please provide evidence and a source for all of your points. Don't forget to weigh at the end! If you don't weigh, I can't evaluate the debate properly.

Speakerwise: Make sure to POI at least once: first-speakers, I'm talking to you!

Public forum

If you're seeing this, you're probably at JV/Novs 2022! If this isn't that tournament, that means I forgot to change my paradigm! Whoops!

A bit of background...

Hi! I'm Kayla. I use she/her pronouns. I've debated public forum for 4 years on N, and am a senior at College Prep! I've probably seen most arguments you can throw at me, so feel free to get more technical! However, this is a JV/Novice tournament, so I'd rather see substance over theory or Ks.

Tech > Truth! However, DO NOT make any discriminatory, offensive, or disrespectful remarks.

On flowing, I can flow at most speeds, so don't worry about it! If you think your speech will be closer to spreading, feel free to send speech docs!

On warranting, all evidence should also have warrants! Do not just repeat the card, because while I still might know what you are talking about, it won't carry as much weight without the actual reasoning to back it up.

Please make sure to have your arguments interact with each other, instead of just repeating the same warrants over and over!

Frontline in second rebuttal! By summary, you should have already chosen the arguments you want to collapse on, so don't extend everything in FF.

Weigh. Please do some form of comparative weighing, preferably introduced in your summary. Also, specify the type of weighing. Should I be prioritizing magnitude? Timeframe? Something else? Why?

If there is a contested card, I will ask for it. Evidence ethics is important, and nothing should be misrepresented.

My email is klong@college-prep.org, and definitely let me know if you have any questions or start and evidence doc/email chain!

I'll probably also loosely follow any guidelines in any of the other College Prep judge paradigms, so feel free to check those out!

Hi all! Think of me as a flow judge but leaning towards flay. A few things to note:

-If you read a turn in rebuttal, tell me what the impact is or else I’ll only count it as defense. If you’re the second speaking team, address both sides of the flow during rebuttal (aka frontline). Also respond to any turns in rebuttal or it's conceded

-An unaddressed argument is essentially conceded, but any concessions made in crossfire must be brought up in a later speech. Explain the implications of the concession (why them agreeing to your point matters in the round)

-I was a 1st speaker when I did PF so I rly value summary speeches

--When extending an argument, u need to explain all 3: claim-warrant-impact (frontlined when necessary) for it to count. A tag or an author's name doesn't mean anything if the evidence or impact is unwarranted. On the flip side, saying your opponents "extended by ink" isn't a valid rebuttal.

--No new offense after the 1st summary, but anything I vote off of in your final focus must be here

-I try to be tech>truth but if I hear a repeated card that sounds too good to be true, I’ll call for evidence at the end of the round. If it’s misconstrued, it won’t affect my decision unless your opponents brought it up during the round. However, your speaks won't do great so please don’t lie :/

-I have 0 experience with progressive arguments (plans, kritiks, theory, etc.)

-I can't handle too much speed. If you're spreading (please try not to), signpost clearly

-Don’t paraphrase evidence

-If your opponents call for cards and they don't receive it within 2 minutes, it may affect your speaker points and I'll allow your opponents to prep

Feel free to ask any questions before the round! You can also add me to any email chain: 22melodyl@alumni.harker.org. Looking forward to a fun round :)

TLDR; I debated parli in high school for 3 years and have been coaching PF, LD, and Parli for the last 9 years since then with state and national champions. I try do be as tabula rasa as possible. Refer to specifics below

Follow the NSDA debate rules for properly formatting your evidence for PF and LD.

If paraphrasing is used in a debate, the debater will be held to the same standard of citation and accuracy as if the entire text of the evidence were read for the purpose of distinguishing between which parts of each piece of evidence are and are not read in a particular round. In all debate events, The written text must be marked to clearly indicate the portions read or paraphrased in the debate. If a student paraphrases from a book, study, or any other source, the specific lines or section from which the paraphrase is taken must be highlighted or otherwise formatted for identification in the round

IMPORTANT REMINDER FOR PF: Burden of proof is on the side which proposes a change. I presume the side of the status quo. The minimum threshold needed for me to evaluate an argument is

1) A terminalized and quantifiable impact
2) A measurable or direct cause and effect from the internal link
3) A topical external link
4) Uniqueness

If you do not have all of these things, you have an incomplete and unproven argument. Voting on incomplete or unproven arguments demands judge intervention. If you don't know what these things mean ask.

Philosophy of Debate:

Debate is an activity to show off the intelligence, hard work, and creativity of students with the ultimate goal of promoting education, sportsmanship, and personal advocacy. Each side in the round must demonstrate why they are the better debater, and thus, why they should receive my vote. This entails all aspects of debate including speaking ability, case rhetoric, in-and-out-of round decorum, and most importantly the overall argumentation of each speaker. Also, remember to have fun too.

I am practically a Tabula Rasa judge. “Tab” judges claim to begin the debate with no assumptions on what is proper to vote on. "Tab" judges expect teams to show why arguments should be voted on, instead of assuming a certain paradigm. Although I will default all theory to upholding education unless otherwise told

Judge preferences: When reading a constructive case or rebutting on the flow, debaters should signpost every argument and every response. You should have voter issues in your last speech. Make my job as a judge easier by telling me verbatim, why I should vote for you.

Depending on the burdens implied within the resolution, I will default neg if I have nothing to vote on. (presumption)

Kritiks. I believe a “K” is an important tool that debater’s should have within their power to use when it is deemed necessary. That being said, I would strongly suggest that you not throw a “K” in a round simply because you think it’s the best way to win the round. It should be used with meaning and genuinity to fight actually oppressive, misogynistic, dehumanizing, and explicitly exploitative arguments made by your opponents. When reading a "K" it will be more beneficial for you to slow down and explain its content rather than read faster to get more lines off. It's pretty crucial that I actually understand what I'm voting on if It's something you're telling me "I'm morally obligated to do." I am open to hearing K's but it has been a year since I judged one so I would be a little rusty.

Most Ks I vote on do a really good job of explaining how their solvency actually changes things outside of the debate space. At the point where you can’t or don't explain how voting on the K makes a tangible difference in the world, there really isn't a difference between pre and post fiat impacts. I implore you to take note of this when running or defending against a K.

Theory is fine. It should have a proper shell and is read intelligibly. Even if no shell is present I may still vote on it.

Speed is generally fine. I am not great with spreading though. If your opponents say “slow down” you probably should. If I can’t understand you I will raise my hands and not attempt to flow.

I will only agree to 30 speaker point theory if it’s warranted with a reason for norms of abuse that is applicable to the debaters in the round. I will not extend it automatically to everyone just because you all agree to it.

Parli specifics:

I give almost no credence on whether or not your warrants or arguments are backed by “cited” evidence. Since this is parliamentary debate, I will most certainly will not be fact-checking in or after round. Do not argue that your opponents do not have evidence, or any argument in this nature because it would be impossible for them to prove anything in this debate.

Due to the nature of parli, to me the judge has an implicit role in the engagement of truth testing in the debate round. Because each side’s warrants are not backed by a hard cited piece of evidence, the realism or actual truth in those arguments must be not only weighed and investigated by the debaters but also the judge. The goal, however, is to reduce the amount of truth testing the judge must do on each side's arguments. The more terminalization, explanation, and warranting each side does, the less intervention the judge might need to do. For example if the negative says our argument is true because the moon is made of cheese and the affirmative says no it's made of space dust and it makes our argument right. I obviously will truth test this argument and not accept the warrant that the moon is made of cheese.

Tag teaming is ok but the person speaking must say the words themself if I am going to flow it. It also hurts speaker points.

Public Forum specifics:

I have no requirement for a 2-2 split. Take whatever rebuttal strategy you think will maximize your chance of winning. However note that offense generated from contentions in your case must be extended in second rebuttal or they are considered dropped. Same goes for first summary.

I will not accept any K in Public Forum. Theory may still be run. Critical impacts and meta weighing is fine. No pre-fiat impacts.

Your offense must be extended through each speech in the debate round for me to vote on it in your final focus. If you forget to extend offense in second rebuttal or in summary, then I will also not allow it in final focus. This means you must ALWAYS extend your own impact cards in second rebuttal and first summary if you want to go for them.

Having voter issues in final focus is one of the easiest ways you can win the round. Tell me verbatim why winning the arguments on the flow means you win the round. Relate it back to the standard.

Lincoln Douglass and Policy:

I am an experienced circuit parliamentary debate coach and am very tabula rasa so basically almost any argument you want to go for is fine. Please note the rest of my paradigm for specifics. If you are going to spread you must flash me everything going to be read.

Email is Markmabie20@gmail.com

For starters, I am a parent judge who has judged before a public forum for High School. I am excited to be here amongst you excellent debaters, and Spar format judging will be new to me.

Please note the following -

1. I don't want too much speed. I can follow a reasonable pace but please don't "spread".

2. I want to be persuaded. It won't mean much if you read lots of responses but don't tell me why it's important, or why it wins you the round.

3. I will vote on logical arguments that are explained and weighed well. I'm new to judging, but that doesn't mean that there doesn't need to be warranting for your claims. I will try my best not to intervene, but please don't make outlandish claims/arguments without a. evidence b. warranting to support it.

4- I don't like opponents interrupting each other during cross, let your opponent finish his thoughts/dialogue. If he/she is taking more time its okay to show timer on screen, however I also keep track of time taken, and it will go against them if they take more time than allocated.

nymahdavi@gmail.com for questions and chain

email chain: ayangnath@gmail.com

TLDR: I primarily debated Public-Forum in high school, so I am familiar with debate, but I am not a good judge for topicality/tricks/kritiks. If these arguments are read, I need extensive judge instruction and explanation. I will only vote for arguments I understand and can explain back to you!

Policy Arguments: I understand these and am comfortable judging these debates. Impact turn and DA vs Case debates are debates I enjoy very much. Counterplan debates I understand, but complex process counterplans (e.g. Consult, Delay, etc) I don't understand so please do not read them.

Kritiks: I am familiar with simple identity kritiks (e.g. Afropessimism, Settler Colonialism), but it's been a while since I've debated them. Explaining your theory of the world concisely and clearly is important for me voting for you. Please do impact calculus, root cause, and framing debate to win reasons for why the kritik outweighs or comes before the case.

Topicality/Theory: I'm not good at judging these debates and do not handle theory debates very well. That being said, I'm familiar with common theory arguments (e.g. conditionality, PICs, RVIs). Disclosure and paraphrase theory are fine.

Last but not least, remember to have fun!

I am currently a sophomore at Emory university. I debated public forum at the quarry lane school for four years.

tech > truth

please add me to the email chain - snellian@student.quarrylane.org. Send speech docs before each speech !

I'm fine with speed, but make sure you're clear. Frontline in 2nd rebuttal. Any offense you're going for in final focus should be extended completely (uniqueness, links, impacts) in summary. Cross is binding but doesn't matter unless it's in speech. Please collapse !

Start weighing as early as possible and definitely focus on comparative weighing (both link and impact level if possible), when I'm looking at the arguments, I'll start with the one with the strongest weighing.

Always be respectful towards your opponents. I won't evaluate arguments that are sexist, racist, homophobic, ableist, etc. Lastly, debate can be stressful but make sure to have fun :)

Regarding prog arguments, I have little to no experience with Ks (I’ve debated a K maybe once or twice). If you want to read a K, I think it’s super interesting but I probably won’t be able to evaluate it well and am not a great judge for that. I’ve debated/read theory before, and have more experience with it than Ks, but I’m not extremely experienced with it either.

Good luck and feel free to email me before or after the round if you have any questions.

Hi! My name is Sachi (she/her) and I did Public Forum at Quarry Lane for 4 years on the national circuit. I am now a freshman in college and coach for Quarry Lane. Add me to the email chain: spatel0275@gmail.com

-- UPDATE FOR JV POLICY, GBX/BERK --

I'm familiar with policy but don't have a super extensive background in it. I recommend using my PF paradigm below to understand my judging preferences -- the main principles are the same (weigh well, extend properly, send evidence promptly/adhere to prep time, etc.). For specifics, see the first half of this paradigm.

-- Public Forum --

**Send speech docs with cut cards for case and rebuttal BEFORE the speech. I have more tolerance for less experienced debaters, but if you're in JV/varsity and aren't doing this, your speaks will most likely be getting docked.

Tech > Truth

Good with speed as long as it's clear, if you’re going >250 wpm just send a doc. And please SIGNPOST.

Frontline in second rebuttal → If you don’t frontline defense on an argument you’re going for and your opponents extend that defense, I will evaluate it as conceded.

WEIGH!! very very very important. Make it comparative + the earlier the better, I look to the weighing debate first when evaluating rounds. Hearing smart, well-warranted weighing (clever link-ins, prereqs, short circuits, etc.) makes me happy.

Collapse if it is strategic (most of the time it is). This means collapsing on your own contentions/case args but also collapsing on responses on your opponent's case (Quality > Quantity). Note** I am fine with you dropping case and going for turns on their case. It's fun if you can pull it off well (please weigh).

GOOD EXTENSIONS MATTER. Fully extend case args w/ uniqueness, links, impacts, etc. and responses should be well implicated. This can be as simple as pre-writing case extensions and reading them in the back-half, but for some reason it is still poorly done, which is sad :(

Any offense you’re going for in final focus must be in summary. Defense is not sticky.

I don't really listen to cross, won't evaluate anything from cross unless it's brought up in a speech.

Feel free to postround me -- I think it's educational and am more than happy to elaborate on any part of my decision.

Progressive Args:

I will try my best! Generally lean towards disclosure good, paraphrasing bad but I won’t hack for either. I can probably evaluate a decent theory debate … anything outside of that realm run at your own risk.

Speaks:

Strategic round decisions = good speaks !

Not sending speech docs, stealing prep, being disrespectful = bad speaks :(

Finally, this goes without saying but don’t read arguments that are racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. because they WILL NOT be evaluated and you will most likely get terrible speaks/get dropped.

Have fun!!!

tech>truth

email: apeng@thecollegepreparatoryschool.org

tl;dr

run anything you want as long as it does not exclude anyone from the round by exploiting any disparity between teams (anything racist, xenophobic, abelist, etc)

i'll evaluate based off my flow but warranted analytics>blippy cards

second rebuttal must frontline all offense and/or collapse; pls collapse in summary & nothing new in ff

theory & prog: theory's fine please don't run friv; K's are fine, but I'm not super experienced with it, but know what you are doing, and please have solvency

long version, look below (borrowed from tq)

You can read any type of argument you want in front of me, as long as it contains warrants. Go as fast as you want as long as you're clear. I won’t flow strictly off a doc but will take one in case I miss something/want to check for new arguments/implications. Please don’t confuse words per minute with arguments per minute – clear spreading is orders of magnitude easier to flow than a slightly less speedy blip-storm of arguments.

You also don't have to extend your opponent's link if you're going for impact turns, but you can if you want to.

Smart analytics are great—but please add empirics/warrants to them. Do not dump blippy analytics, ever.

Pleasepleasepleasepleasepleasepleasepleaseread taglines if you are going fast. I beg of you. In case, rebuttal, everything. No, “thus” and “specifically” don’t count.

Also, please don’t put analytical warrants in tags unless your evidence backs it up. If you pull up with something along the lines of “because a revoked Article 9 would cause a Chinese state collapse and the re-emergence of the bubonic plague, Shale-13 of Brookings concludes: revising the constitution would be unwise,” I will laugh but also be very sad.

Whether or not the tournament is online I will require an email chain for every round, evidence exchange is faster and more efficient. If you are spreading or reading any progressive argument you must send a doc before you begin; otherwise, sending a doc will not be required. Don’t send Google Docs and then delete them after the round, send either a word doc or paste the text into the body of the email.

Weighing

Weighing = great. Do it.

You still need to win sufficient offense on your weighed argument though—please don’t try to kick out of terminal defense through things like try-or-die weighing, I’m more than happy just voting on one team’s argument having the higher risk than the other team’s argument, especially if both terminalize to extinction.

Impact weighing is good, link weighing is best.

Don't use "probability weighing" as a chance to read new defense. Probability = strength of link in my view, if you win an argument and warrant it then it is probable. General reasons why your argument is a better link, i.e. actor analysis and historical precedent are fantastic, just don’t use this to insert 27 new responses.

Clarity/contextualization/strength of link are not weighing mechanisms – just explain why your argument is more important than your opponents’ assuming that both sides have won their offense.

In almost all circumstances, link weighing is way more important than impact weighing. Don’t just say extinction outweighs and move on—do comparative analysis on why your link is better(larger, faster, more probable, etc).

On a similar note, make sure to resolve clashing link-ins/prereqs—otherwise, I will be very confused and probably have to intervene. This also means that 1FF can read new link weighing mechanisms to resolve clashing prerequisite arguments, as long as they weren’t conceded in first summary.

Defense:

Frontline in second rebuttal—everything you want to go for needs to be in this speech.

Defense isn't sticky. That said, I am very lenient towards blippy defense extensions in first summary if second rebuttal doesn't frontline something at all, just make sure it's there.

Please make frontlining substantive. What I mean by that is actually reading warrants/evidence when frontlining instead of saying “no internal link/warrant/context” and arguments along those lines. Technical responses are fine when paired with substantive responses, but don't read 2 minutes of "1.) no warrant 2.) no impact 3.) no context 4.) the evidence is miscut 5.) we postdate…"

Progressive

All arguments in this section are fair game, I’ve read basically everything you can think of at some point.

Theory:

Unless I am evaluating the theory debate on reasonability you must read a counter interp... if you do not all of your responses are inherently defensive because your opponents are the only team providing me with a 'good' model of debate.

Theory should be read immediately after the violation. Eg. if you’re speaking first disclosure must be in your constructive for me to evaluate it. However, I am willing to vote off of paraphrasing theory read after rebuttal if your interpretation is that people shouldn't paraphrase in rebuttal. You MUST extend your own shell in rebuttal if it was read in 1st constructive; you must frontline your opponent's shell in the speech after it was read (unless there is a theoretical justification for not doing this).

Substance crowd-out is most definitely an impact, and reasonability can be very persuasive– just read this off of your CI or as a turn on their interpretation. Please still read a counterinterp.

If you read disclosure theory, you must have good disclosure norms—I will probably check.

I will never vote on an out-of-round violation other than disclosure/round reports and the like.

Don’t read blippy IVI sand then blow up on them — make it into a shell format.

Theory unaccessible is not a fantastic argument—there are tons of resources out there and if you need more help/advice feel free to email me. It is just like responding to anything else.

Theory cards, in most cases, are overrated and are often just written by former debaters and will be evaluated on the same level as any other standard/argument. This is different from topicality interpretations and impact weighing/cards against Ks.

K:

I will evaluate kritiks but no promises I'm good at doing so.

Also, theory almost always uplayers the K. You should be reading off of cut cards and open-source disclosing when reading these arguments.

FW:

Read whatever you want here, I won't be biased one way or another. Util is most likely truetil, but I can be convinced otherwise.

Extra

Postrounding:

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

Speaks:

I usually give pretty good speaks, and assign them based on clarity and in-round strategy, with bonus points for word efficiency and humor. In general, I’m also a speedy person and like to do things quickly, so the sooner the round ends and the less prep you steal, the higher your speaks will be!

LES PHILLIPS NUEVA PF PARADIGM

I have judged all kinds of debate for decades, beginning with a long career as a circuit policy and LD coach. Speed is fine. I judge on the flow. Dropped arguments carry full weight. At various times I have voted (admittedly, in policy) for smoking tobacco good, Ayn Rand Is Our Savior, Scientology Good, dancing and drumming trumps topicality, and Reagan-leads-to-Communism-and-Communism-is-good. (I disliked all of these positions.)

If an argument is in final focus, it should be in summary; if it's in summary, it should be in rebuttal,. I am very stingy regarding new responses in final focus. Saying something for the first time in grand cross does not legitimize its presence in final focus.

NSDA standards demand dates out loud on all evidence. That is a good standard; you must do that. I am giving up on getting people to indicate qualifications out loud, but I am very concerned about evidence standards in PF (improving, but still not good). I will bristle and register distress if I hear "according to Princeton" as a citation. Know who your authors are; know what their articles say; know their warrants.

Please please terminalize impacts. Do this especially when you are talking about a nebulosity called "The Economy." Economic growth is not intrinsically good; it depends on where the growth goes and who is helped. Sometimes economic growth is very bad. "Increases tensions" is not a terminal impact; what happens after the tensions increase? When I consider which makes the world a better place, I will be looking for prevention of unnecessary death and/or disease, who lifts people out of poverty, who lessens the risk of war, who prevents gross human rights violations. I'm also receptive to well-developed framework arguments that may direct me to some different decision calculus.

Teams don't get to decide that they want to skip grand cross (or any other part of the round).

I am happy to vote on well warranted theory arguments (or well warranted responses). Redundant, blippy theory goo is irritating. I have a fairly high threshold for deciding that an argument is abusive. I am receptive to Kritikal arguments in PF. I will default to NSDA rules re: no plans/counterplans, absent a very compelling reason why I should break those rules.

LES PHILLIPS NUEVA PARLI PARADIGM

I have judged all kinds of debate for decades, beginning with a long career as a circuit policy and LD coach. I have judged parli less than other formats, but my parli judging includes several NPDA tournaments, including two NPDA national tournaments, and most recent NPDI tournaments. Speed is fine, as are all sorts of theoretical, Kritikal, and playfully counterintuitive arguments. I judge on the flow. Dropped arguments carry full weight. I do not default to competing interpretations, though if you win that standard I will go there. Redundant, blippy theory goo is irritating. I have a fairly high threshold for deciding that an argument is abusive. Once upon a time people though I was a topicality hack, and I am still more willing to pull the trigger on that argument than on other theoretical considerations. The texts of advocacies are binding; slow down for these, as necessary.

I will obey tournament/league rules, where applicable. That said, I very much dislike rules that discourage or prohibit reference to evidence.

I was trained in formats where the judge can be counted on to ignore new arguments in late speeches, so I am sometimes annoyed by POOs, especially when they resemble psychological warfare.

Please please terminalize impacts. Do this especially when you are talking about The Economy. "Helps The Economy" is not an impact. Economic growth is not intrinsically good; it depends on where the growth goes and who is helped. Sometimes economic growth is very bad. "Increases tensions" is not a terminal impact; what happens after the tensions increase?

When I operate inside a world of fiat, I consider which team makes the world a better place. I will be looking for prevention of unnecessary death and/or disease, who lifts people out of poverty, who lessens the risk of war, who prevents gross human rights violations. "Fiat is an illusion" is not exactly breaking news; you definitely don't have to debate in that world. I'm receptive to "the role of the ballot is intellectual endorsement of xxx" and other pre/not-fiat world considerations.

LES PHILLIPS NUEVA LD PARADIGM

For years I coached and judged fast circuit LD, but I have not judged LD since 2013, and I have not coached on the current topic at all. Top speed, even if you're clear, may challenge me; lack of clarity will be very unfortunate. I try to be a blank slate (like all judges, I will fail to meet this goal entirely). I like the K, though I get frustrated when I don't know what the alternative is (REJECT is an OK alternative, if that's what you want to do). I have a very high bar for rejecting a debater rather than an argument, and I do not default to competing interpretations; I would like to hear a clear abuse story. I am generally permissive in re counterplan competitiveness and perm legitimacy. RVIs are OK if the abuse is clear, but if you would do just as well to simply tell me why the opponent's argument is garbage, that would be appreciated.

TOC:

Let’s move quickly, TOC rules say your prep starts during evidence exchange

Go like 85% of normal tech speed haven’t judged in a minute

* * * * *

I debated for three years on the national circuit for College Prep. I now privately coach.

Add me to the email chain: wpirone@stanford.edu.

If you have any questions about my paradigm, please feel free to ask me before the round! My paradigm has become egregiously long over the years so just skim through the underlined text if you want the TL;DR.

General:

Tech >>> Truth. You can argue anything you want in front of me. I’ve read everything from politics DAs, tricks, round reports theory, riders, and consult Japan to “warming opens the Northwest Passage which prevents Hormuz miscalc”—do what you’re comfortable with. I enjoy voting on creative, fun arguments I haven't heard before.

Go as fast as you want as long as you're clear. I won’t flow directly off a doc but will take one in case I miss something/want to check for new arguments/implications. That said, please don’t confuse words per minute with arguments per minute – clear spreading is orders of magnitude easier to flow than a slightly less speedy blip-storm of arguments. If I miss something in summary or final focus because you're going too fast and I drop you it's your fault; slow down, don't go for everything, and be efficient.

I tend to be very facially expressive when judging—it can help you know which args to collapse on and which to kick. If I'm vibing with something you're saying, I'll nod along with it during your speech. Argument selection is critical to my ballot—identify the best possible collapse strategy, go for the right argument, and do solid comparison on it.

Please label email chains adequately. Ex. “TOC R1 – College Prep HP (Aff 1st) vs. LC Anderson BC (Neg 2nd)”

If you disagree with any part of my paradigm, just make a warrant why I should evaluate the round differently. I'm open to almost everything.

Substance:

If parts of your argument are uncontested, you do not have to extend warrants for conceded internal links in summary and final focus. Definitely extend uniqueness, links, and impacts though. This also applies to impact turns—if your opponents' link is conceded by both sides, you don't have to extend it.

Stolen from Nathaniel Yoon’s paradigm: I will disregard and penalize "no warrant/context" responses on their own. Pair this with any positive content (your own reasoning, weighing, example, connection to another point, etc), and you're fine, just don't point out the lack of something and move on. This also applies to responses such as "they don't prove xyz" or "they don't explain who what when where why"—make actual arguments instead.

Well-warranted analytics are great, blippy analytics are a headache.

In almost all circumstances, link weighing is preferable to impact weighing. Don’t just say extinction outweighs and move on—do comparative analysis on why your link is better (larger, faster, more probable, etc). On a similar note, make sure to resolve clashing link-ins/prereqs—otherwise, I will be very confused and probably have to intervene. This also means that 1FF can read new link weighing mechanisms to resolve clashing prerequisite arguments, as long as they weren’t conceded in first summary.

Defense isn't sticky. That said, I am very lenient towards blippy defense extensions in first summary if second rebuttal doesn't frontline something at all, just make sure it's there.

Theory:

I'll tolerate theory. I'm chill with any shell as long as it's warranted. I also won’t be biased when judging theory, so feel free to respond in any way you wish—meta-theory, interp flaws, impact turns, etc, are all fine with me. Friv is fine, just make it funny (dinosaur/shoe/no evidence theory is interesting, disclose rebuttal evidence is boring).

I default to spirit > text, CI > R, No RVIs, Yes OCIs*, DTA.

If you do choose to disclose, do it right. Genuinely think disclosure bad is a more persuasive argument than full texting > OS.

*OCIs good is the one thing in my paradigm that you cannot alter with warrants. If you win that your shell is better under a model of competing interpretations, or win turns to your opponents’ interp, you win. The definition of what constitutes an "RVI" is irrelevant.

K:

I will evaluate topical kritiks. I'm relatively comfortable with Baudrillard, biopolitics, cap, imperialism, and security—anything else is a stretch so please slow down and warrant things out.

No paraphrased Ks—this is non-negotiable.

If you read a Bayesianism kritik, I will give you 30 speaks (especially if you indict the methodology of specific studies from their case).

If you are reading substance + pre-fiat framing (or a topical link to a kritik in any way) you must still win your topical links to access the pre-fiat layer. I am never going to vote for a “we started the discourse” link or arguments about how your opponents cannot link in.

Your opponents conceding the text of your ROTB is not a TKO. You still need to win the clash on your argument. Similarly, rejection alts/ROTBs are sus, read an actual one.

CPs:

I will begrudgingly evaluate a plan/counterplan debate. This obviously differs based on the resolution (“on balance” phrasing is weird), but for fiated topics i.e., “Japan should revise Article 9 of its constitution,” they’re probably fair game.

Totally open to theory against these though – just make the arguments.

FW:

Read whatever you want here, I won't be biased one way or another. Extinction reps, Kant, anything goes.

Util is most likely truetil, but I can be convinced otherwise.

Tricks:

These are fun, but never voting for unwarranted blips like ROTO or “eval after the 1ac.” Paradoxes, skep, etc are ok.

GOATs:

I aspire to judge similarly to Ilan Ben-Avi, Ishan Dubey, and Ryan Jiang.

Presumption:

Absent warrants otherwise, I always default to the first speaking team.

Speaks:

I award speaks based on fluency and in-round strategy. Humor also helps.

Most importantly, have fun! Let me know before/after the round if you have any questions or want extra feedback.

—WP

Hi I'm Rohan. I debated PF at Harker in high school. If you have an email chain please add me (rohan.v.rashingkar@vanderbilt.edu) but I won't look at evidence unless you tell me to.

--

If you have 10 minutes, I highly recommend watching this video on learning how to give summary speeches. I'd also recommend the rest of the videos on their channel for learning other PF skills.

--

Here's how I judge a round

1. I see who's winning the weighing debate
2. If that team is also winning their case, they win the round
3. If they aren't winning their case, I evaluate the other team's case. If the other team wins their case, they win the round.
4. If neither team clearly wins their case, I have to personally intervene to choose a winner (This will probably not go your way)

--

Things I like to see

• Weighing (Tell me why your arguments are more important than your opponent's arguments)
• Signposting (Tell me where on the flow you are; numbering your responses; ex: "We have 3 responses to our opponent's 2nd contention. First, ...")
• Extending your arguments in summary, making sure to not only focus on your own argument but also to address your opponent's responses to that argument (frontlining)
• Frontlining in second rebuttal (This isn't necessary, but it would be to your advantage especially if there were turns read on your case in first rebuttal)
• Not stealing prep (Don't prep outside of prep time like when your opponents are pulling up evidence)
• Not running Kritiks, theory, or other progressive arguments unless it's absolutely necessary
• Speaking at a conversational pace or slightly faster but nothing more than that, otherwise I may not be able to flow your arguments.
• Extra: I'll listen to cross but it's mostly for speaker points and won't affect my decision unless you bring up concessions in a speech.

--

“Victory comes from finding opportunities in problems” - Sun Tzu, Art of War

Hello there,

I'm a religious studies teacher at St. Ignatius College Prep in San Francisco, CA. Thank you for taking the time to look at my paradigm.

When I judge Lincoln-Douglas debates, I look for a number of things, especially:

-Value and Criterion. I prize a competitor's ability to connect their arguments back to a sound value and criterion. I seek logical consistency. An opponent would do well to highlight inconsistencies in the construction and application of the value(s) and criterion. Framework is key to any good debate.

-Civility. I look to see if you are treating your opponent with civility and respect. I most certainly welcome lively and passionate debate as long as it stays clear from rudeness, haranguing, or mean-spiritedness. You are debating a real human person and they should be treated with dignity and respect.

-Attentive listening. Demonstrate to me that you have listened to your opponent's arguments and are willing to engage in thoughtful dialogue with them. Avoiding their arguments indicates to me that you may not have listened attentively to your opponent. Respond to your opponent and demonstrate how your argument is better.

-Measured speech (no spreading). This often comes across as a disingenuous tactic that inhibits your opponents from being able to actually address the merits of your case. I should not have to have a copy of your case in front of me to help me decipher what you are trying to say. Your public presentation skills are important to me as your judge.

When I judge Public Forum Debates debates, I look for the civility, attentive listening, and measured speech mentioned above as well as:

-Solid constructions. Set the foundation for the rest of your debate with strong contentions that have a clear connection to the rest of your debate. Framework is important for me as a judge.

-Appeals to ethics or values. As a religious studies teacher, I greatly appreciate seeing a common philosophical throughline in argumentation. Similar to the above point, values, frameworks, and ethics set a solid foundation for the rest of the debate.

-No frivolous asks for cards. If you do not plan on directly referencing something in your opponents' cards or raising a legitimate concern with me as the judge, please do not waste time asking for them. This often appears to be a sly way of taking off-time prep.

Email: 22DhruvS@students.harker.org (add me to the email chain/google doc)

Judging:

- Tech > Truth

- Please signpost (Tell me where on the flow you are)

- Please number responses.

- Please focus on warranting your arguments. Quality of args > quantity.

- Please weigh (Tell me why your arguments are more important than your opponent's arguments)

- I'll listen to cross but it won't affect my decision unless you bring it up in later speeches (it will affect speaks).

Speaks/Other:

- Be confident and assertive but not rude during cross

- Don't steal prep time (Don't prep while your opponents are sending you evidence)

- Don't lie about evidence (If you do, your speaker points will drop)

Please ask me before the round starts if you have any questions about my judging philosophy.

Co-Director: Milpitas High Speech and Debate
PHYSICS TEACHER
History
Myers Park, Charlotte N.C.
(85-88) 3 years Policy, LD and Congress. Double Ruby (back when it was harder to get) and TOC competitor in LD.
2 Diamond Coach (pretentious, I know)

Email Chain so I know when to start prep: mrschletz@gmail.com

Summer 87: American U Institute. 2 weeks LD and congress under Dale Mccall and Harold Keller, and 2 more weeks in a mid level Policy lab.

St. Johns Xavierian, Shrewsbury, Mass
88~93 consultant, judge and chaperone

Summer 89 American U Coaches institute (Debate)

Milpitas High, Milpitas CA
09-present co-coach

Side note/pet peeve: It is pronounced NUUUUUU-CLEEEEEEE-ERRRRRRRRR (sorry this annoys the heck outta me, like nails on the blackboard)

ALL EVENTS EXCEPT PARLI NEED TO KNOW NSDA RULES OF EVIDENCE (or CHSSA RULES OF EVIDENCE) OR DO NOT EXPECT ME TO COUNT IT(NSDA MINIMUM IS "NAME" AND "DATE" ****READ IN ROUND****) Anything else is just rhetoric/logic and 99% of the time, rhetoric vs card mans card wins. ALSO: SENDING ME A SPEECH DOC does NOT equal "READ IN ROUND". If I yell clear, and you don't adapt, this is your fault.

If you put conditions on your opponent getting access to your evidence I will put conditions on counting it in my RFD. Evidence should be provided any time asked between speeches, or asked for during cx and provided between speeches. Failure to produce the card in context may result in having no access to that card on my flow/decision.

Part of what you should know about any of the events
Events Guide
https://www.nflonline.org/uploads/AboutNFL/Competition_Events_Guide.pdf
13-14 NSDA tournament Operations manual
http://www.speechanddebate.org/aspx/content.aspx?id=1206
http://www.speechanddebate.org/DownloadHandler.ashx?File=/userdocs/documents/PF_2014-15_Competition_Events_At_A_Glance.pdf

All events, It is a mark of the competitors skill to adapt to the judge, not demand that they should adapt to you. Do not get into a definitional fight without being armed with a definition..... TAG TEAM CX? *NOT A FAN* if you want to give me the impression your partner doesn't know what they are talking about, sure, go ahead, Diss your partner. Presentation skills: Stand in SPEECHES AND CX (where applicable) and in all events with only exception in PF grand.

ALL EVENTS EXCEPT PARLI NEED TO KNOW NSDA RULES OF EVIDENCE (or CHSSA RULES OF EVIDENCE) OR DO NOT EXPECT ME TO COUNT IT(NSDA MINIMUM IS "NAME" AND "DATE"****READ IN ROUND****) Anything else is just rhetoric/logic and 99% of the time, rhetoric vs card means card wins.

PUBLIC FORUM:

P.S.: there is no official grace period in PF. If you start a card or an analytic before time, then finish it. No arguments STARTED after time will be on my flow.

While I was not able to compete in public forum (It did not exist yet), the squad I coach does primarily POFO. Its unlikely that any resolution will call for a real plan as POFO tends to be propositions of fact instead of value or policy.
I am UNLIKELY to vote for a K, and I don't even vote for K in policy. Moderate speed is fine, but to my knowledge, this format was meant to be more persuasive. USE EVIDENCE and make sure you have Tags and Cites. I want a neat flow (it will never happen, but I still want it)

I WANT FRAMEWORK or I will adjudicate the round, since you didn't (Framework NOT introduced in the 1st 4 speeches will NOT be entertained, as it is a new argument. I FLOW LIKE POLICY with respect to DROPPED ARGUMENTS (if a speech goes by I will likely consider the arg dropped... this means YES I believe the 4th speaker in the round SHOULD cover both flows..)

Also: If you are framing the round in the 4th speech, I am likely to give more leeway in the response to FW or new topical definitions in 1st Summ as long as they don't drop it.

Remember, Pofo was there to counteract speed in Circuit LD, and LD was created to counter speed, so fast is ok, but tier 3 policy spread is probably not.

ALL EVENTS EXCEPT PARLI NEED TO KNOW NSDA RULES OF EVIDENCE (or CHSSA RULES OF EVIDENCE) OR DO NOT EXPECT ME TO COUNT IT(NSDA MINIMUM IS "NAME" AND "DATE" READ IN ROUND ) Anything else is just rhetoric/logic and 99% of the time, rhetoric vs card mans card wins.

PLANS IN PF
If you have one advocacy, and you claim solvency on one advocacy, and only if it is implemented, then yeah that is a plan. I will NOT weigh offense from the plan, this is a drop the argument issue for me. Keep the resolution as broad as possible. EXCEPTION, if the resolution is (rarely) EXPLICIT, or the definitions in the round imply the affirmative side is a course of action, then that is just the resolution. EXAMPLE
September 2012 - Resolved: Congress should renew the Federal Assault Weapons Ban
the aff is the resolution, not a plan and more latitude is obviously given.

If one describes several different ways for the resolution to be implemented, or to be countered, you are not committing to one advocacy, and are defending/attacking a broad swath of the resolution, and this I do NOT consider a plan.

ALL EVENTS EXCEPT PARLI NEED TO KNOW NSDA RULES OF EVIDENCE (or CHSSA RULES OF EVIDENCE) OR DO NOT EXPECT ME TO COUNT IT(NSDA MINIMUM IS "NAME" AND "DATE" ****READ IN ROUND****) Anything else is just rhetoric/logic and 99% of the time, rhetoric vs card mans card wins.

POLICY:

If your plan is super vague, you MIGHT not get to claim your advantages. Saying you "increase" by merely reading the text of the resolution is NOT A PLAN. Claiming what the plan says in cx is NOT reading a plan. Stop being sloppy.

I *TRY* to be Tabula Rasa (and fail a lot of the time especially on theory, Ks and RVI/fairness whines)
I trained when it was stock issues, mandatory funding plan spikes (My god, the amount of times I abused the grace commission in my funding plank), and who won the most nuclear wars in the round.

Presentation skills: Stand in SPEECHES AND CX (where applicable) and in all events with only exception in PF grand.

Please don't diss my event.
I ran
Glassification of toxic/nuclear wastes, and Chloramines on the H2O topic
Legalize pot on the Ag topic
CTBT on the Latin America topic.

In many years I have never voted neg on K (in CX), mainly because I have never seen an impact (even when it was run in POFO as an Aff).(Ironic given my LD background)

I will freely vote on Topicality if it is run properly (but not always XT), and have no problem buying jurisdiction......
I HAVE finally gotten to judge Hypo-testing round (it was fun and hilarious).
One of my students heard from a friend in Texas that they are now doing skits and non topical/personal experiece affs, feel free, BUT DON'T EXPECT ME TO VOTE FOR IT.

I will vote on good perms both ways (see what I said above about XT)

SPREAD: I was a tier B- speed person in the south. I can flow A level spread *IF* you enunciate. slow down momentarily on CITES and TAGS and blow through the card (BUT I WILL RE TAG YOUR SUBPOINTS if your card does not match the tag!!!!!!)
If you have any slurred speech, have a high pitched voice, a deep southern or NY/Jersey drawl, or just are incapable of enunciating, and still insist on going too fast for your voice, I will quit flowing and make stuff up based on what I think I hear.

I do not ask for ev unless there is an evidentiary challenge, so if you claim the card said something and I tagged it differently because YOU slurred too much on the card or mis-tagged it, that's your fault, not mine.

LD

I WILL JUDGE NSDA RULES!!!! I am NOT tabula rasa on some theory, or on plans. Plans are against the rules of the event as I learned it and I tend to be an iconoclast on this point. LD was supposed to be a check on policy spread, and I backlash, if you have to gasp or your voice went up two octaves then see below... Topicality FX-T and XT are cool on both sides but most other theory boils down to WHAAAAAAHHHH I don't want to debate their AFF so I will try to bs some arguments.

-CIRCUIT LD REFER to policy prefs above in relation to non topical and performance affs, I will TRY to sometimes eval a plan, but I wish they would create a new event for circuit LD as it is rarely values debate.

- I LOVE PHILOSOPHY so if you want to confuse your opponent who doesn't know the difference between Kant, Maslow and Rawls, dazzle away :-).
Clear VP and VC (or if you call it framework fine, but it is stupid to tell someone with a framework they don't have a VC and vice versa, its all semantics) are important but MORE IMPORTANT is WHY IS YOURS BETTER *OR* WHY DO YOU MEET THEIRS TOO and better (Permute)

IF YOU TRY TO Tier A policy spread, or solo policy debate, you have probably already lost UNLESS your opponent is a novice. Not because I can't follow you, but because THIS EVENT IS NOT THE PLACE FOR IT!!! However there are several people who can talk CLEARLY and FAST that can easily dominate LD, If you cannot be CLEAR and FAST play it safe and be CLEAR and SLOW. Speaker points are awarded on speaking, not who wins the argument....

Sub-pointing is still a good idea, do not just do broad overviews. plans and counter-plans need not apply as LD is usually revolving around the word OUGHT!!!! Good luck claiming Implementation FIAT on a moral obligation. I might interrupt if you need to be louder, but its YOUR job to occasionally look at the judge to see signals to whether or not they are flowing, so I will be signalling that, by looking at you funny or closing my eyes, or in worst case leaning back in my chair and visibly ignoring you until you stop ignoring the judge and fix the problem. I will just be making up new tags for the cards I missed tags for by actually listening to the cards, and as the average debater mis-tags cards to say what they want them to, this is not advisable.

PLANS IN LD
PLANS
If you have one advocacy, and you claim solvency on one advocacy, and only if it is implemented, then yeah that is a plan. I will NOT weigh offense from the plan, this is a drop the argument issue for me. Keep the resolution as broad as possible.

EXCEPTION, if the resolution is (rarely) EXPLICIT, or the definitions in the round imply the affirmative side is a course of action, then that is just the resolution. EXAMPLE
September 2012 - Resolved: Congress should renew the Federal Assault Weapons Ban
the aff is the resolution, not a plan and more latitude is obviously given.

If one describes several different ways for the resolution to be implemented, or to be countered, you are not committing to one advocacy, and are defending/attacking a broad swath of the resolution, and this I do NOT consider a plan.

I repeat, Speed = Bad in LD, and I will not entertain a counter-plan in LD If you want to argue Counterplans and Plans, get a partner and go to a policy tournament.

GOOD LUCK and dangit, MAKE *ME* HAVE FUN hahahahahah

http://www.vbriefly.com/2012/05/23/201205comments-for-the-circuit-on-the-ncfl-and-nfl-nationals-by-brad-taylor/

Hey! I'm Amrit (he/him) and I debated Public Forum for 4 years at the Quarry Lane School and am now a freshman at the University of Washington.

UPDATE FOR BERKELEY JV POLICY

I've never judged or debated policy. I did public forum so I have a basic understanding of debate, but treat me like a lay judge in policy.

Tech > Truth (If you make the argument that 1+1 = 3 and it is extended properly and not responded to, I will vote on it even though 1+1 = 2)

Add me to the email chain: 2005amrit@gmail.com

I expect all cards for both constructive and rebuttal speeches before the speech is given. Teams that don't do this will have their speaks capped at 27.

Things I like to see in round:

• Frontlining in second rebuttal
• Extending defense and arguments in Summary
• interacting with frontlines when extending defense, do not extend "thru ink"
• doing comparative weighing (explain WHY you o/w on magnitude, timeframe, severity, etc.)
• ^^this is what will decide rounds for me
• no new weighing in second FF, very minimal weighing in first FF, most of your weighing should come in summary (even better if it's in rebuttal)

Speaks:

• +0.5 if you read cut cards in case
• +0.5 if you are disclosed on the wiki with highlights and cites
• Automatic 30 if you read solely from cut cards in both rebuttal and constructive

Progressive:

Shells:

Familiar with most (Paraphrasing, Disclosure, TW) , I can't judge a full-fledged theory debate nearly as well as others so run at your own risk

Kritiques:

I know less than nothing about these, please do not run unless I'm the only judge on a panel who doesn't know them.

Debated PF for Harker for 4 years now at UNC studying Health Policy, coaching for Harker

My email is 22vinays@alumni.harker.org. Please add me to the email chain. If you have any questions about this paradigm, please ask before the round starts.

--

Tech > Truth

To win the round, you must weigh and collapse, preferably as early as possible or at least by summary. You do not need to weigh every single one of your arguments make sure you are strategic about what you choose to collapse on. If you condense the round it will make it much easier for me to vote in your favor. Make sure your weighing is substantial - a 10 second mechanism at the end of final focus does not count. Also, make sure your weighing is comparative not just a reiteration of your impacts from case.

Make sure any arguments you want me to vote on are well implicated and extended in BOTH summary and final focus. NO NEW ARGUMENTS AFTER FIRST SUMMARY PLEASE! When you extend, make sure you extend the warrant, link, and impact. I will not count an argument extended if I just get a bunch of cards and author names.

I will not flow cross and any conceded arguments must be brought up in the next speech to be evaluated.

I do not have much experience with Ks, tricks, etc. I would prefer you don't run any progressive arguments. Please read theory ONLY ONLY IF you feel it IS WARRANTED and not just as a way to confuse your opponent! In general: I believe reducing disparities in debate is good so whichever team better links will likely win that argument.

As for speed, as long as you speak clearly I am fine but if you decide to spread make sure everyone is fine with it and also share a speech doc with me and the other team. However, I'd prefer if you didn't spread at all as it makes the round much more accessible.

Make sure you add me to the email chain if it is created. Also, I will only call for evidence if it seems key to my decision. If your opponents call for evidence and they do not receive it within 2 minutes, I may take speaker points and your opponents can use the added prep time. tldr; HAVE EVIDENCE ON HAND.

If the round is fairly clean, I’ll give all speakers a minimum of 28 speaker points. Please don’t be rude and try to make the space as inclusive as possible. If you weigh or collapse early, I will probably boost your speaks.

POST COVID: Please try to look up from your screen/flow whenever possible (especially during crossfire). I do not particularly care whether or not you wear a mask (of course depends on CDC recommendations) but wearing a mask will not influence my decision in any way. Also, I prefer you stand during your speeches just so we all can hear you.

--

Good luck and have fun!

Hello! I am a parent judge. I love to see a good, polite debate. Please do not be rude to your opponents. I’d prefer that you do not speak super fast and utilize complicated language. Simplicity is key. Enunciate your words and speak clearly. A moderate speech with vivid language is definitely better than going rocket speed and spewing as many facts as you can. I will not know acronyms you use (such as THAAD). I’d prefer you say the entire thing or rather summarize it for me in layman’s terms. I like debaters that are able to think on their feet. I hope to judge a great round!

debate should be fun. i want to hear the *most unique* arguments you have.

ive debated PF for 4 years @ The Nueva School (San Mateo, CA). if u wanna treat me like a lay judge, i'd be rly happy bc it means i dont have to flow as fast, but dont be condescending abt it. and if u wanna run theory or k's, just explain everything rly clearly (ie. how to evaluate/vote) bc otherwise i wont get it. i enjoy listening to it bc it makes everything more interesting, but bc i haven't run a lot of tricks, im not gonna be rly rly good at assuming how i should evaluate it. if u seem confused or make it overly complicated, ill probs let yk by grand cross to jus drop it.

-ill give u 30 speaks if u can answer a really obscure question about harry potter

-give me tv show recs (netflix, prime, disney+, hbomax) lol +points if it's fruity, -points if it's riverdale

-dont prep steal or go overtime duh

-dont call me judge, call me mia

-if someone asks for ev and u give a link + what to command F u won't 100% lose, but it will make me like you less

-no new args after first summary. defense isnt sticky. extend thru summary and ff.

-WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH. if by the end of the round i have no way to evaluate whether losing 5 billion dollars or 100 deaths a year is more important, i will be rly unhappy. and then ill be forced to intervene which is gross and horrible and u won't like my final vote bc it will probs prefer obscure impacts. so dont force me to do that. explain how ur impacts are more important under framework. also, i love solid pre-requisites bc ith they are rly fun and require more logic work rather than simply comparing magnitudes from whatever sus ev you found online on an alt-right blog.

email for questions and evidence (pls send me all ev that is exchanged within the round. i will not call for ev that is not called for by a team, so even if the other team has rly sus ev, if you dont call it out or indict it, ill just have to assume it is true. which i dont want to do because some things are objectively false. u should have done enough research on this topic to know when something is just not true and its ur duty as a debator to let me, the judge, know that): miatava@nuevaschool.org

p.s. VERY open to shoe theory.

Harker '22

This is my fourth year debating Varsity PF.

--

PF:

- tech > truth

- please weigh

- i won't evaluate anything in cross if u dont mention it in a speech

- no progressive args (only exception is theory if there's an egregious violation, but don't run it just to confuse your opponents)

- you can go fast but don't spread

- you only need to frontline turns in second rebuttal, and you only need to extend defense in first summary if it was frontlined in second rebuttal

- if there's an email chain, add me: 22andrewv@students.harker.org

- speaker points: i'll give 29s on average, but the lowest i'll give you is a 28 if you're not abusive

--

"fool me once, shame on you, but teach a man to fool me, and i’ll be fooled for the rest of my life"

- sun tzu, the art of war

I am a new parent judge so please remember to speak slowly and clearly. Remember to weigh and clearly state your impacts. It would be appreciated if you do not use too many technical terms. Lastly, Have strong reliable evidence to support your claim. Most importantly, be respectful and have fun.