I look for Impacts, Framework, Flow

Also, how you present: Are you confident, prepared, good at convincing me and defending your case?

Clarity of communication and Professionalism.

I love debate. Do it well :)

Hullo! I'm excited to meet you and hope you're feeling okay as you come into round.

My paradigm is pretty simplistic - I am looking for good communication, strong cases, and for you to have fun! Depending on the format, my feedback will be a little more specific. I have experience either competing or judging all of the formats here.

HELLO!!! My name is Neelam (She/Her) if we haven't met before :) Here's my email if you have any questions after the round or whatever gurungneelam133@gmail.com. Also, during rounds I prefer using speech drop when dropping cases and evidence, please and thank you ;) cause it's snazzy and I LOVE IT!✌

SNAZZY Info: I have debated all four years of high school, primarily focusing on policy debate. While I did participate in a few tournaments in high school for PF and LD, my familiarity with these events is at a basic level. Currently, I'm a first-year student at George Mason University majoring in government and international politics. I am also a member of their forensics team, competing in speech events. Anywho, I would love a clean flow of what's going on. I LOVE SNAZZY PIECES OF EVIDENCE, SO HAVE A CLEAR LINK AND WARRANT AND IMPACT! As a judge, I value debaters who make my job easier by explicitly stating why I should vote for them. Provide a compelling reason that simplifies the decision-making process for me and allows me to determine the winner of the round more efficiently. SO GIVE CLEAR VOTERS!!! REMEMBER TO GIVE ROADMAPS AND SIGNPOST!!! Have good speaking skills because this can help me clearly flow your arguments through. Also, please please be respectful and kind to your opponents! If not then your speaking points aren't going to look too great. If your opponents tells you not to spread then DONT!!! REMEMBER DEBATE SHOULD BE ACCESSIBLE TO EVERYONE ;) When I was in high school I was often told that debate is a game you play with your friends, so HAVE FUN and make this a safe place for EVERYONE to enjoy debate!!!

LD:

When it comes to LD I am pretty traditional. I prefer to steer away from counterplans or theories and focus more on a traditional format. I believe LD debates should center around a clear clash of values and criterions. When presenting your case, please ensure it revolves around a well-defined value and criterion. It's crucial for me as a judge to understand the foundation of your argumentation. I've found that concise and accessible explanations are most effective. If there's any confusion in the definitions, I encourage debaters to provide clear explanations and offer resolutions to any potential disputes. In essence, make sure your value and criterion are articulated and directly linked to the resolution. This will not only enhance the quality of the debate but also make it easier for me to evaluate and assess your arguments.

PF:

I'm also traditional with PF. I find it challenging to follow arguments when spread in PF so a clear and steady pace is appreciated. As a flow judge, my priority is to follow your arguments coherently. Make sure to articulate your points clearly and provide a logical flow throughout the round. I place a strong emphasis on impact calc. When making your case, give me a comprehensive overview of the positive aspects of your side and why they outweigh your opponent's world. Impact calc is crucial for me to make an informed decision. Remember, dropping your opponent's arguments can impact my decision. Also, provide a framework in the round as well because it gives me an idea of what we're prioritizing in rounds. Framework debates are pretty cool. If a point is conceded, it will be taken into account when determining the outcome of the round for me. Tag teaming is okay as long as the partner isn't carrying their partner the entire cross. Each debater must contribute substantively during crossfire. I want to see how much you know about your case and how confident you are in presenting and defending your arguments. Also, PFers have forgotten to do this before but please give VOTERS!!! I love voters so make me vote for you!!!

Policy:

I LOVE POLICY DEBATE!!!! ❤️ Spreading is fine, if your opponents are cool with it. I am likely looking for clarity and explanation of the argument and an impact. Also, I will be flowing on paper of oncase and off case arguments on separate sheets of paper, so please give me time to change pages and switch pens. SLOW DOWN ON TAGLINES, AUTHORS, AND DATES! Tag teaming is okay here, but don't carry the partner too much because that just makes you look bad girly.

Topicality:

Love topicality. I think T debates are best when the violation arguments are specific to the aff! I tend to default to competing interps, but that can be changed in rounds. Your interpretations and counter-interpretations should be topic-specific rather than generic! I will say don't do 8 minutes of T, that's just annoying low key.

DA:

I LOVE DAs!!! SO YOU DO YOU! When running DAs I would love clear uniqueness, link, internal link, and impact. I will say I tend to look for a clear link first and then evaluate the impact, but that's just me. So that means I would love to see a good impact calc debate. However, avoid running nuke war or extinction impacts, it's stupid. Don't give me a contextless card dump, the more specific with how the DA interacts with the aff the better. I appreciate detailed and nuanced arguments that showcase a deep understanding of the topic and the specific dynamics at play.

CPs:

CPs are FUN!!! Case-specific counter plans are better than generics, so I want to see that.

Ks:

I have an alright knowledge of Ks and I have run them before in high school, so it's fine by me if you ran it in round. Only run Ks if you GENUINELY understand how to run them, know that your opponents are comfortable with it, and have a deep comprehension of the K argument from start to finish. I prefer a well-executed K debate over a messy one where both sides seem lost. Please know the literature base well, explain it simply rather than using jargon as a crutch. When running a K you will have to do a lot of work to explain it to me, so literally treat me as if I'm a mom judge when it comes to Ks - break it down and make it accessible. When reading a K remember to frame the ballot. I want you to give me an idea on how your side is viewing the world. And don't forget framework too. I would like examples because this does give me an idea what your kritik argument is trying to come across in round. Alternative should have something solves or starts to solve the impacts from the link. You should tell me what they something is and how it solves.SO PLEASE WHEN RUNNING A K DO IT RIGHT AND KNOW IT!

Theory:

I feel iffy about them, but if you want to run it go ahead!! YOU DO YOU! Run the theory in the correct format though because many debaters don't.

Feel free to ask me any specific questions about the paradigm before round :)

General: I have about nine years of speech and debate experience. In all forms of debate, your points must be clear and impactful.

Public Forum: My primary debate experience is in PF. I did it for three years in high school and one in college. The format is intended to be delivered as if to the general public, so communication is very important. In PF, your goal should be to pick out the most important arguments in the debate, and provide supporting evidence for them. I don't care about dropped arguments (but be careful, if you drop an important point and your opponent wins that point and shows its importance, it could cost you the round). I love seeing a clean, strategic debate, where everyone is courteous to one another. Use all of your time -- use it effectively -- and we will all have a good time.

Lincoln Douglas: I have the least experience with LD. I can generally understand the jargon, but at the end of the day, debaters in LD probably understand what's going on better than I do. Make it very clear why I should be voting for you; each point should have a substantive claim, warrant, and impact for it to have any effect on my opinion.

Policy: I have participated in and watched lots of policy. I have enjoyed most rounds thoroughly, so long as there is some substance to the debate. I'm okay with Kritiks, CPs, and anything crazy you want to do, so long as I can follow what's going on. Don't do anything sketchy with your evidence -- just give it to your opponents, highlight the proper section, give it a professional name, and keep it bookmarked just in case I want to see it. I will notice power-tagging or any other kind of evidence manipulation, especially if it is called out. One final note: I probably will not like your topicality. If you have ANYTHING prepared for the debate, topicality is a waste of your time. If you run topicality anyway, despite reading this, and you decide to kick it later in the debate, I will be irritated at you for wasting our time. If there is a legit debate on it, and you actually thing the debate is unfair, that's an exception. Otherwise, do whatever you want as long as it's clear and professional.

Congress: I have never judged congress, but I enjoy seeing people engage in thoughtful discussions of the bills. I don't have much to say here, so just keep it professional and work slowly for me so that I can catch on.

Big Questions: Possibly my favorite debate type, I love the new and unique arguments this form can bring to the table. Stay on topic, address counter arguements, and we'll all have fun.

LD paradigm: I am generally a flow judge; however, I use the value/criterion debate as a weighting mechanism for my flow. that means I want to see clash on the value and criterion, convince me why your value and criterion are better for the round than your opponent. I know it isn't always possible, so if you find yourself against an opponent running the same value or criterion turning is fine. When it comes to progressive LD I am not super familiar with it so you'll have to walk me through a lot of it if you want to run a progressive case. speed isn't going to blow me away so keep your speed to at most, above average. make sure that your opponent can keep up and there won't be any problems. Finally in your rebuttals I want to see you linking back to cards, and your case if you don't then I will drop your arguments from my flow.

PF paradigm: I am not super familiar with PF so try to keep it traditional for the time being. I will primarily be a communications judge, but I will also be flowing for the sake of keeping up with your arguments. This means I want clear arguments, with sign posting when you are attacking and defending. Watch your speed. I prefer quality to quantity, but if your opponents can keep up there won't be any problems. One last thing is I want to see framework clash if there is any, I will use the framework when looking back on my flow.

CX: I have very little experience in policy debate, in fact it's hard to follow sometimes. that being said I am a communications judge, that means no spreading, no excessive speed, and being clear when you are attacking. you'll have to explain your attacks thoroughly, and ultimately whoever is best at convincing me they are right will win.

hey y’all :) (capitalized letters bother me, idk why) my pronouns are she/her, if you have preferred pronouns, please let me know<3

I did debate throughout high school for all 4 years, PF and LD. I’m much more of a flow judge than i am a communications judge. if you lose on my flow, you will lose the round. that being said though, i am fine with speed as long as i can keep up with you on the flow. i love progressive LD but im not going to sit their & read your case and trying to flow it as you spew gibberish. it makes debate lose educational value for everyone :(

Big things to keep in mind:

- if i call for a piece of ev and it is cherry picked or power tagged, i will drop it from the round entirely. it’s bad for education and bad for debate.

- please sign post so i know where to flow what you are saying.

- i weigh dropped args and turned args very heavily

- impact calc is extremely important to earn my ballot

- i don’t time evidence transfers & i encourage you to time yourself and your opponents as my adhd brain sucks at keeping time but i’ll try my best

- LD- Ks, plans and cps are good with me! if it is not your cx to ask the qs, don’t ask them- opponent please cut them off. do not forget about the framing of the debate whether you’re using a val/cri or not. PF- varsity, i hate tag teaming. Novice, i discourage it, but will allow it.

- please give me TW before the round begins about suicide, self-harm, sexual assault or anything related to sort. depending on the depth, i may not be able to fairly judge the round.

Generally, theory or T is fine, just make sure you tell me so i can flow it as such.

Policy-

-All args are good in my book. I think topicality is really annoying unless ur opponent is being super abusive

-i vote off the flow here too

-spreading is fine- just send me your case/ speech doc before hand

-please do impact calc for me & signpost - especially with new ev/ arg

-you can kick out of whatever u want

-ins & outs are fine . just make u you tell me please .

If you ever have any questions about my ballots or see me after round and have any questions, please just come up to me :) i’m more than willing to talk with you. other than that, just have fun & be respectful of one another.

I am an experienced LD debater and judge. I'm also most of the way through my philosophy and economics majors, so odds are I will understand the majority of arguments you are trying to run. I dislike progressive debate (mostly its speed and exclusionary language), largely for its impacts on debate and its accessibility, and will almost always prefer traditional debate on the ballot (especially in LD). I encourage you to ask for my paradigm in round if you have more questions or need clarifications.

Background I am the head coach at Century High School in Idaho. I competed in high school for 4 years focusing on policy debate, though I competed in all the other formats. I also have 4 years of collegiate debate experience in IPDA, PF, and BP, with a national title under my belt, and several other national awards.

Ultimately this is your round, so you can run whatever you want. I'm primarily tech over truth.

Debate is a game that should be accessible to everyone. That includes creating a safe place to have an educational debate. Being racist, sexist, violent, etc. in a way that is immediately and obviously hazardous to someone in the debate results in a loss and lowest speaker points. My role as educator > my role as any form of disciplinarian, so I will err on the side of letting stuff play out (i.e. if someone used gendered language/incorrect pronouns and that gets brought up I will probably let the round happen and correct any ignorance after the fact). This ends when it begins to threaten the safety of round participants. Where that line is at is entirely up to me. As such, make sure you give this a wide berth and don't do anything that even makes me consider this. Out debate your opponents without being a problem in the round and you'll easily get my ballot.

Evidence Sharing: Add me to the email chain: tylerjo@sd25.us or use speechdrop please

Framework FW is essential to me as a judge. Tell me how I should evaluate the round and that's how I'll vote. If no framework is provided, I'll default to an offense/defense paradigm.

Theory I love theory debate, make sure to extend impacts and abuse. If you want me to vote for you, clearly explain what the abuse in the round is.

Condo I tend to err condo bad at a certain point. I would rather see high-quality argumentation that continues throughout the round than a massive number of terrible arguments that get kicked for the purpose of a time skew. 6 total off-case positions for neg is where I'm pretty happy with conditional arguments. As the number of off-case positions increases from here, the easier it becomes for aff to win a condo bad debate, as I become skeptical of the quality of the round I'm watching. That said, I'll listen to condo good theory when neg reads more than 6, and I can even vote for it too. Just be aware that you will need to thoroughly win the condo argument to avoid me voting on abuse.

Topicality T debate is fine. If neg wants to go 8 minutes of T, I'll listen and have a good time as long as it's done well

Counterplans CP's are fun, I find myself leaning aff on process counterplans, but I'll still vote neg on them. Other than that, have fun with them.

DA This is debate. Who's gonna tell you not to run a da?

K's Absolutely love K debate. The alternative needs to be clear. K Aff's are fine, though they are not in my realm of expertise. Narratives and performance are fine but do note that I come from a traditional circuit where this is less prevalent. So long as you justify it in round, I'm happy to listen and have no problems in picking you up. I haven't gotten to judge as much policy as I would like this year, so I'm not up to date on the lit. Make sure that's explained to me.

Speed Speed is fine, I can keep up with it all. 4 notes on it, however.

1) Debate is a game and it should be accessible to everyone. If there are people you are debating with, or you have panelists who would prefer you to slow down, then I don't think you should exclude them from the round by speaking quickly.

2) Slow down on tags and authors so I can write them down. If you don't do this, I may miss important arguments, which you definitely don't want.

3) Slow down on theory and analytical arguments so I can write them down.

4) Enunciate every word. Speed and spewing are not the same. If I cannot understand you, I am not persuaded to vote for you. It is the burden of debaters to communicate clearly to their audience. As such, you will never hear me say 'clear'. I will simply ignore you without remorse. Obviously, if some external factor is causing this and it isn't your fault, (intercom, loud AC, natural disaster, etc.) I'll let you know.

In the context of a virtual tournament, going fast is fine as long as everyone has access to the files or can hear everything. If internet connection is poor, I will encourage slower debate.

Courtesy Be nice to each other. Debate is a game you play with your friends, so don't be mean. If you are demeaning, rude, or just a jerk in the round to your opponents/partner I will drop you. Any form of harassment or discrimination to your opponents or partner will result in the lowest possible speaker points and a loss in the round. So play nice :)

Also, be nice to novices/inexperienced debaters. We would like them to keep with the activity and continue to grow the debate community. So, if you make them feel bad about the round, I'll make you feel bad about your speaker points.

Tag Teaming I hate this. Please don't do that. Cross should be closed

Speaker Points These are entirely subjective, and I won't give you 30 just because you asked. However, I will give verifiable birthday points and last senior tournament bumps at invitationals ONLY

LD All the same information above is valid for me in LD. Run CPs, K's, and DAs to your heart's content. My threshold for conditionality in LD is much stricter due to structural problems with LD as a format. If you go beyond 3 off-case positions as neg, then aff will have an easy time winning the round on condo bad.

PF Please give me some sort of framework for the round. If you don't, I default to cost-benefit (And that's boring as heck. So please give me something better). Everything in your final focus has to have been extended throughout the round. If you give me a voter your partner didn't make analysis on in the summary, then I will not evaluate it. Be strategic about what you go for and communicate. Kritiks are cool in pf. Just do them well, not just to say "I read a K in pf."

Feel free to ask me any specific questions before the round begins