Hey debater, my name is Allison Brual. If you are looking at my paradigm, then congrats I will be the one deciding your fate in a round.

I am currently am a policy debater in high school.

I have debated policy for 3 years.

I have debated congressional for 2 years.

pronouns: she/her

Pet Peeves:

-Having your mic on when your not speaking

-Debating during prep time

-Stealing prep time

-Really stupid things

#1 rule- be a smart debater

Policy:

- I love good debating, so no cheap shots (abuse<- example)

-Cross ex is not part of my voting unless brought up in a speech.

-To get good speaks, then do not bore me. I love theatrical debates and I want to see that you are having a good time. Also being rude to one another can sway my vote if severe.

-Personally, I do not like T, but if you run it, I won't count against it

-I love theory so just putting it out there.

-K's are ok, but make sure you fully understand it.

Lincoln Douglas

-Kinda familiar with it, but I don’t debate LD

- Judged a couple rounds before

-Voters = help winning( please have voters or I’m taking the aff’s position on who does the aff’s plan better)

- I love k’s (I debate that in policy)

-Cross ex is not part of my voting unless brought up in a speech.

-To get good speaks, then do not bore me. I love theatrical debates and I want to see that you are having a good time. Also being rude to one another can sway my vote if severe.

- I love jokes(hint,hint) ( Make me laugh= higher speaks)

-If you have any evidence, email it to me!!!

-Spread is good, I can understand it, but make it clear.

I am an economist and a policymaker, so I am most swayed by evidence that the arguments or plans proposed will do the greatest good to achieve the aims you propose. I am not tabula rasa. I base my evaluation of your arguments on whether they are factual as well as how well your logic is tied to your conclusions. One thing I have seen from a lot of students is a propensity to make as many arguments as possible to win on weight. In general, I have found that most debates I have judged tend to come down to a few major arguments rather than the sum of the two arguments. Often, if your most important effects really matter, I don't care about minor ones. Still include them because they may help win a close debate but know that a small increase in the price of oil will not beat nuclear war in a head to head comparison.

Most importantly, have fun!

I am a college student studying philosophy. I debated 3 years for Midtown High School in Atlanta, Georgia. Any pronouns are fine. Make the round fun. You can contact me for any questions. (peterchaynes03@gmail.com)

I've been hearing that nuclear war is going to happen since 1982. Just because something is said in a round does not make it true. Valid, reasonable positions and evidence are key. The impacts of arguments need to be sound and connected. I am not tabula rasa. If I'm not convinced, I'm not voting for it.

I do NOT want to be on the email chain. Debate is a speaking activity, not an essay-writing contest. If I don't hear it, the argument is not being flowed. Spreading is a no. I will only call for evidence if indicts are made.

I like trad debate, but if you are doing it make sure that you have a clear value and value criterion WITH JUSTIFICATIONS. Explain to me why your contention level impacts matter under your own framework and why your framework is preferable to your opponent's.

I do not like utilitarianism. I find it is often misused and boring to judge. It is not a value, and I will be very likely to vote against it if there are little to no warrants and your opponent is running a different framework well. Run at your own risk. That being said, I will evaluate it fairly if it is genuinely run well, and I maintain equally high standards for other frameworks.

Signposting and roadmaps are appreciated. Answer CX questions in good faith please. Be respectful of your opponent.

Prog stuff:

Trix, friv theory, spikes are all bad. 1 NIB is okay.

K is lovely as long as it is clear and understandable. Links are a must and develop your alt. Really make it as clear as possible because I probably don't know about your pre-fiat heidegger k aff.

To steal from a good friend:

I am very unlikely to vote on a K if:

1. You cannot explain your alt well.

2. You clearly do not understand your literature and are just reading from blocks.

3. You have not impacted out why the K means you win the debate - It means nothing to me if you just tell me the 'aff is securitising' in the 2nr.

Theory is fine as long as there is actual abuse. I do not vote on disclosure theory, and I only use a reasonability standard.

LARP is not ok. You are not policy makers. Please don't. Discussion of policy implications is necessary for some topics, but if your case is 15 seconds of "util is truetil" and 5:45 of a hyperspecific plan with a chain of 5 vague links ending in two different extinction impacts, I'm not going to be a fan. Realistically speaking, your links are speculative, your impacts won't happen, and despite debaters telling me that extinction is inevitable for 15+ years, it still hasn't happened. Please debate the topic rather than making up your own (unless you warrant why you can do that). If there is no action in the resolution, you can't run a plan. If there is no actor, don't a-spec. If you want to debate policy, do policy debate.

IF YOU POWER TAG YOUR CARDS I WILL VOTE YOU DOWN.

I will give +0.1 speaker points if you make a Big Lebowski or Top Gun reference in round.

Shortened paradigm

Will hear Traditional, LARP, Counter-Plans, Plans, and warranted Neg Ks. Theory/T arguments lose my attention (if you have nothing to disprove their evidence, default to turns. argumentative creativity =/= abuse) but I will vote on them if I buy abuse took place. Besides T arguments, I judge on the flow using the framing mechanism that won the round. Don't read Aff Ks. Don't browbeat less experienced debaters; you should aim to win off of argumentation skill against less experienced opponents, not smoke screens or pure esoterism. 7 off against a first-year may get you the win, but it kills the educational and ethical debate space you should strive for.

Defaults

[1] Competing interps > Reasonability

[2] Tech vs Truth- See below

[3] Aff gets presumption, Neg gets permissibility

[4] RVIs are fine

[5] More than 2 Condos is excessive and errs Aff

Longer paradigm.

Speed and Email Chains- I'm very comfortable flowing <320 wpms. Above that, I will only flow args that were intelligible to me. If you plan on spreading, an email chain is expected to both me and your opponent. Your opponent is not obligated to send their case if they elect to read at clear speeds. My flow determines the round, not yours or your opponent's.

ID Pol- No ad hominem arguments will be flowed if addressed by your opponent. You may not use your opponent's race, gender, orientation, or other traits as a link into your case. I expect your identity politics to be directed towards processes occurring outside of the debate space in return for me ensuring no extremely problematic processes occur within ours.

Clash- the reason for debate. Every point your opponent makes should be either contested or mitigated. Extensions on dropped points are deadly, it is your job to cover your bases.

Tech or Truth- Don't make me choose. I will side with the flow over my intuition, but will side with fact over the flow. If you read carded analysis saying gummy bears were a root cause of WWII, that makes it on the flow. If you read a card that says MLK did not exist, that does not make it on the flow. Having cards does not alter history, but it is still the job of the debater to state that the card is false. I will call for cards; you should too.

CX- Both sides get speeches immediately after their questioning period. No excuse not to extend effective CX into them. CX is as binding as main speeches, but it is your job to address contradictions.

No new offensive args after the 1AR- The affirmative gets 4 minutes to answer a 7 minute speech. If you need to bring new arguments into your 6 minute rebuttal, you were the worse debater.

Turns- Effective turns win close rounds. Win back your turned arguments on the flow by proving that the NEG can't access the thesis or that the NEG's impact turn is bad under the framework.

I do not care about standing or sitting during speeches.

Decision- I decide winning framework before I decide who won the round. In your last speeches, make weighing arguments under the winning framework for me. I use the flow to determine who won the weighing arguments. If no weighing arguments are presented, we are defaulting to my intuition (this is bad, so make the args yourself).

RFD- I try to be as educational as possible, maybe providing suggestions on how to have better won different arguments. In addition to regular commentary, I'll try to share my flow with both debaters so you can see how an admittedly layish judge. I'll attempt to answer questions after round but if you or your coach have unaddressed concerns, email me at elijah.herring@gmail.com and I'll hope to meaningfully resolve any issues.

Email: caitlynajones1@gmail.com

Pronouns: (she/her)

Berkeley:

I have done no topic research. Assume I know nothing

I debated PF for 4 years

• If you want me to vote on it, it needs to be in the summary and the final focus

• Please don’t just yell cards at me. Some analysis please

• If there’s an evidence misconduct problem, I’d rather you point out the issues with your opponent’s interpretation of evidence during your speeches, but I’ll call for a card if you tell me to.

• Any concessions in cross need to be in a speech for me to flow it

• Don't Spread at me. If I need a case doc to follow you, it's too fast.

• I'm not flowing anything after the 10-second grace period

(TL;DR, I am a tech judge. PF is about persuasion, so don't frivolous/nonsensical arguments)

Hello! I am Kieran Kelly; I have done PF, LD, and Extemp at Carrollton High School for four years. I am currently in my first year at Georgia Tech. I won some national tournaments, qualified for TOC, and won six state championships(PF & Extemp). I am pretty familiar with most norms and arguments. As a judge, I will do my best to give you a fair, equitable decision based on the flow. I love forensics and firmly believe that winning or losing a round is a truly educational, fun experience.

For questions and evidence chains, email kierankelly678@icloud.com. I want you to send me your speech doc.

**** Theory and K's truth>tech. I WILL EVALUATE THEM, THOUGH!!!

DISCLOSURE: I like it at TOC bid tournaments. You will be dropped if you run this on the Georgia Circuit.

TRICKS: No way, pal. This is super lazy.

LARP: Probably preferred.

EVIDENCE: I look at it post-round and will not vote for sketchy evidence. I'll give you ~3 minutes to find your evidence, but it should pretty much be on hand. The longer you take to find evidence, the more your speaks drop.

DELIVERY: I'm cool with speed, but I don't necessarily like it. I prefer that you deliver the speech in a way that makes me feel like you believe and are passionate about what you are talking about(even if you aren't).

WEIGHING ARGUMENTS: Run basically any FW with me, and I'll evaluate it. I will calculate the impact by considering magnitude in light of probability. However, if you prove any probability of an infinite result, I will vote on that. (extinction is not infinite unless you give me a reason to believe it is)

ORGANIZATION: I greatly appreciate good organization because it makes it significantly easier to flow. Off-time road maps are greatly encouraged, and I want a speech doc for constructive.

EXTRA STUFF: Be respectful, but don't be afraid to be passionate about what you are talking about.

I am a senior in high school and I have debated since freshman year. I can do any type of case, but here are some preferences:

1. No progressive or spreading in Novice pool. Lay only.

2. If you’re gonna spread send me and your opponent your case.

3. Use off time road maps, give clear transitions, do not go over time.

4. Any time you make me laugh +2 speaks.

5. Don’t be annoying.

RAP Paradigm:

Clash. Most importantly, I value clash rather than distracters or debate "theory." For all forms of debate, clash is essential; beyond initial presentation of cases, "canned" or pre-prepared speeches are unhelpful.

Evidence. I prioritize proof. Therefore, I value evidence over unsubstantiated opinion or theory, and I especially value evidence from quality sources. Be sure that (i) your evidence is from a quality source, (ii) your evidence actually says what you claim it does, and (iii) you are not omitting conditions, limitations, or contrary conclusions within your evidence.

Delivery. I debated back in the day when delivery mattered. Persuasion is still key, so if you are monotone, turn your back, or never bother with eye contact, your speaker points will likely suffer accordingly. You may speak quickly, but you must be clear, particularly with contentions. Eye contact and a well-organized, well-documented case are much appreciated. Always bear in mind that you’re trying to persuade the judge(s), not your opponent(s) or your computer, and focus accordingly.

Weighing arguments. I don’t weigh all arguments equally. You can spread if you want, but the decision will go to the team that carries the majority of the most-substantive issues with greater impacts. I appreciate policy arguments (vs. theory), especially if they relate to law (e.g., the Constitution), economics, international trade (e.g., the WTO), international relations (e.g., the UN or international law), or government policy.

Organization. This is essential. Off-time roadmaps are okay. I try to flow carefully. Please structure your case with numbered/lettered points and sub-points. When refuting arguments, please cross-refer to your opponent(s) case structure (preferably by number/letter) and be very organized for me to keep track.

Resolutions. Please debate the resolutions. Thought has gone into these and their specific wording. Regardless of the form of debate, I prefer that students debate the resolution, and I am not a fan of “Kritiks,” “Alts,” or the like. Whatever the rubric or euphemism, if they relate specifically to the topic, okay, but if they are generic or primarily distractive, I may disregard them. In any event, they are no excuse for failing to deal with the current resolution, for failing to clash with the other side’s specific arguments, or for failing to organize your own points with a clear structure.

Ridiculous rulemaking. Please spare me any “observation” or “framework” that attempts to narrow the resolution or to impose all of the burden on your opponent(s) (e.g., “Unless the other side carries every issue, I win the debate”).

Other pet peeves. These include: not standing during speeches, answering for your partner, claiming that you proved something without reading evidence, claiming evidence says something it doesn’t, rudeness, speaking faster than you can organize thoughts, failing to clash, forgetting that debate is ultimately about persuasion, debating during prep time, etc. Avoid hyperbole: not every issue leads to “global thermonuclear war”.

Feedback. Some students find my feedback very helpful. Even if you don’t, it’s not a time for arguing against the decision or for being disrespectful, which is counterproductive with me.

My background. I was a Policy debater who also competed in Congress, Extemp, and OO. I’ve coached PF. I am an international business attorney and former law school professor, with a background in Economics and experience working on Capitol Hill. I also teach and tutor ELA, History, and SAT (Reading/Writing); words matter.

The above thoughts apply to all forms of debate. I judge a fair amount, primarily PF and L-D. Below are some thoughts specific to those types of debate:

PF—

--I prefer line-by-line refutation. I am not a fan of dropping or conceding arguments. I do not appreciate attempts to reduce the debate to “voters,” ignoring other arguments. This is particularly inappropriate when done during your side’s first two-minute speech.

--No “scripted” speeches after the initial presentations of cases. Clash is key.

--Framework is optional, not essential. It may not be used to narrow the resolution.

--Even though you are not required to present a plan, that can’t be used as a knee-jerk response to all arguments or questions concerning Solvency or Topicality.

--Remember that “There is no presumption or burden of proof in Public Forum Debate”.

L-D—

--I am not a fan of abstract philosophy. Any philosophical presentation must be tied specifically to the resolution and not presented in a generic vacuum.

--I don’t necessarily weigh framework over contentions.

--Your value and criterion should work with your contentions. Ideally, in discussing the relative merits of each side’s framework, explain specifically why your choice is more relevant rather than relying on a circular “chicken and egg” analysis (e.g., “My value comes before her value”).

General: Hey, I'm Lauren (she/her) and I look forward to judging your round today! :)

I'm a freshman at UGA studying philosophy and political science.

I debated in VLD for 3 years and was state champ in VLD and Congress.

I like debates that are clear and interesting. Include me in the email chain (Laurenjolie03@gmail.com)

Please signpost/roadmap - Since I'm a flow judge, I really hate when it is unclear where you are and I get bounced around the flow. ***If you don't tell me where you are, I can’t flow. Be sure to crystallize, please!

Speed: Don't sacrifice clarity. If I can't understand it, I can’t flow. Slow down on the tags and authors, please. I strongly dislike messy spreading.

CP's: CP's must have an articulated net benefit. I honestly think PICs aren't very fair so I am very easily swayed by aff theory args.

Disads: Impact calc is key and if you don’t clearly extend I won’t weigh! Also, I need to see an internal link. I can't/won't weigh your impacts w/o links.

K's: I am well-versed in K lit but I still expect clear articulation of link and impacts.

T: I feel like people often waste time with topicality, so I suggest you only run it if it is blatantly untopical. That said, I do believe T is a voter. I am very very much NOT a fan of disclosure theory so run it at your own risk.

I expect to hear voters in the 2AR and 2NR.

Other: Do not be cruel or rude to your opponent. I will not tolerate racism, sexism, homophobia, or any sort of bigotry in round, and I will dock speaks/contact your coach if neccesary.

Extra speaks for humor or a good taylor swift reference.

DO NOT POWER TAG.

If you have any questions feel free to email me!

Let's have a great round and a great tournament!!

I graduated from Columbus High School and did 3 years of LD debate.

Speaks: I speak somewhat fast in debate, so I can handle speed when flowing but do not spread. If you decide/must speak fast or spread, create a speech doc and add me to the email chain @ hsigili01@gmail.com

If you are making an important point, you need to slow down to make sure I catch everything I need to.

Argumentation:

1. I am more of a traditional debater. However, I am open to progressive styles of LD, but honestly I don't like/know Theory, K, etc. I am more comfortable with CPs and DAs though. So, keep in mind that I am not too familiar with it so if you're gonna do it, do it well.

2. I vote off the flow. You need to be responding to every argument that's brought up in the round, including their responses to your arguments. Please sign post because it makes my life so much easier. That being said, I don't really flow card names (i.e. Doe 19) so if you're gonna address or extend it in a later speech, use the tagline otherwise I don't know what to do on my flow.

3. The framework debate is the most important thing at the end of the round. If the framework debate is lost or no one wins, then I look towards the contention level.

4. If anything important happens in cross x, make sure you bring it up in speech because I do not flow in cross.

5. Voters in your last speech are very helpful for me to make my decision.

PF Debate:

1. I have not debated PF but I have judged plenty of rounds and am very familiar with this style. However, I won't be open to Theory, Ks, etc. So if you must, explain it as if you were talking to someone much younger. As mentioned above, I vote off the flow, so extend any arguments made.

2. If you do present a framework and the other team doesn't, I will weigh all arguments in regards to that framework so keep that in mind.

3. Everything else is the same as above.

Otherwise, if you have any other questions, please feel free to ask or email me at hsigili01@gmail.com !! :)

Hi, I’m Aran Sonnad-Joshi. I use he/him pronouns. I’d say at least read the first part of my paradigm.

Midtown '23

Harvard '27

Email: a.sonnadjoshi@gmail.com

General Stuff

I’m fine with both progressive and traditional LD. I've competed on both the national and local Georgia circuits. I'll listen to almost anything, just warrant it.

Tech over truth but sketchy arguments have a lower threshold for response

Give a roadmap before your speech. Signpost if you deviate from that, but you should signpost anyway

Speed: I’m good with spreading but send the doc. My email is a.sonnadjoshi@gmail.com but I prefer SpeechDrop if possible.

Prog vs. Trad: I prefer trad, but I'm comfortable with prog. Generally, I would say don't change your style too much for your opponent but also don't beat up on trad debaters with jargon and norms. I think a good trad debater should be able to effectively counter progressive argumentation without compromising their style.

CX: CX is binding, but you have to bring it up in round if you want it on the flow. Also, being somewhat slippery is fine, but answer the question.

Pref sheet

Trad - 1

K - 2

Larp - 2/3

T/Theory, Phil - 3/4

Tricks, Frivolous theory - 5/Strike

Specific arguments:

Framework: Framework is how you weigh the round. Explain how your arguments fall under your framework. If you want to use your opponent’s framework, that’s fine but you have to show how your arguments flow under it.

Plans: I’m ok with plan affs but make sure you can explain how they’re topical.

DAs: Impact calc is key for me to weigh your DA. Sketchy link chains have a lower threshold for response. Make sure you have links, I’m not going to do it for you.

CPs: Counterplans are valid. Weigh the net benefits of the cp against the aff.

Ks: Ks are great. I’m most familiar with standard Ks and some postmodern stuff. My favorites are postcolonialism (but no one runs it), biopower (very underrated), Virilio (no one runs this either), and Baudrillard. Deleuze still confuses me. Pre-fiat impacts are cool if you do them properly.

K Affs: K affs are fine, just warrant them. I've run them before.

Phil (actual phil, not just phil tricks) : I'm familiar with a decent amount of phil. I should be able to evaluate almost any phil argument if it's explained well.

Theory: Theory should have a proper abuse story. I don’t like frivolous theory and it has a much lower threshold for response. I default to reasonability, drop the argument, and no RVIs (but RVIs can definitely be good). Fairness and Education are not default voters. I'm not a fan of disclosure theory, especially against small schools.

T: I prefer whole-res debates in trad LD but I can go both ways on Nebel.

Tricks: I don’t like them. I'll vote if I have to but please don’t make me vote off of them.

More specific stuff

I like a really good trad debate as much if not more than a good prog debate.

I think more than two condo offs becomes hard to justify.

I don't like disclosure theory, especially against small schools.

Debate is a game but rhetoric and conversations are important too

Nonnegotiable

I'll evaluate anything that's not in this section if I really must. These are things you have to do.

Use trigger warnings if you're discussing sensitive stuff (on this, I'll evaluate arguments like neg util/death good and I've run them before but make sure to do it appropriately)

Don't violate accommodations

Don't be exclusionary/ad hominem/discriminatory (no sexism, racism, homophobia, etc.; I'll give you the lowest speaks, drop you, and if necessary let your coach and/or the tournament know)

Speaks

I don't listen to requests for speaks generally. If it's a good reason I might be persuaded.

I try and average a 28.5 with a scale of 27 to 30 for most normal rounds. I adjust my speaks based on the pool. Things that I'll give high speaks for:

• Well executed trad debate, especially against prog.
• If you run unique arguments and explain them well

Background:

Hey, I'm Kelly. Currently a senior in high school and I've done LD for three years. I use she/her pronouns and I prefer debates that are clear, concise, and make sure that you and your opponent learn from the round. Try not to give bad vibes, remember debate is supposed to fun. My email is kellymichelletran@gmail.com. If you have any questions feel free to email me. :)

FW: I love good framework rounds, but if you're not a framework person don't worry about this. I can still vote off your argument. Just know it gives me a good idea how to weight impacts and just generally makes everything more interesting. But don't feel pressured by it.

But also for util... I generally don't like util that isn't fully justified. I'll vote on it if your opponent doesn't say anything, but make sure to JUSTIFY your value and value criterion. I need good reasons to vote for your framework.

Speed: Don't sacrifice clarity for speed. If I can't understand your argument, I won't be able to flow and that's not good for either of us. Try and slow down at tags and authors, so I can make sure I have everything. If you aren't good at spreading, I'm not the judge to try it on. Make sure to be clear.

CP's: CP's must have an articulated net benefit. I honestly think PICs aren't very fair so I am very easily swayed by aff theory args.

Disads: Impact calc is key and if you don’t clearly extend I won’t weigh. Also, I need to see an internal link. I can't/won't weigh your impacts w/o links. Make sure your link chains are good. If you want to link to extinction ok cool, just make sure those links are good.

K's: I am NOT versed on K lit but if you want to take your chances, I expect clear articulation of link, impacts, and an alt that solves for the entirety of the aff, and simplify the argument for me.

CX: I don't flow CX, so if something important happens make sure to bring it up in your rebuttals.

Please signpost/roadmap - I don't enjoy when it is unclear where you are and I get bounced around the flow. ***If you don't tell me where you are, I can’t flow. Be sure to crystallize, please! Sign post and do road maps so I can track your arguments throughout the round.

I expect to hear voters in the 2AR and 2NR. Weigh your impacts, connect back to framework, and make it clear why I should vote for you.

Other: Do not be annoying or rude to your opponent. I will not tolerate racism, sexism, homophobia, or any sort of bigotry in round, and I will dock speaks/contact your coach if it gets to that point.

Hey I'm John! I'm a senior debater at Carrollton High in Georgia

In regard to who I'll vote for, it'll be the side that does the best job of convincing me, since that really is the essence of debate.

Speak at a reasonable pace, please.

Please be respectful. It's perfectly ok to be aggressive, but don't let it reach the point of rudeness.