For debate: Please don't spread and read your contentions nice and clearly. I am looking for a line-by-line rebuttal and up-to-date evidence with appropriate statistics.

I did debate for all four years at Stephen F. Austin High School in PF and LD and was the PF team captain for my junior and senior years. I had some experience in state competitions so I like to think I am pretty well versed in both these worlds of debate and I know what I am doing :)

Extensions: I will not flow anything that is new after the second speakers first speech but sticky defense is fine. Extend arguments that you want to survive throughout the round, if you don't bring them up again I'm going to assume that was on purpose. I rather you extend arguments that directly connect with your impact or framework than just screaming out extensions to say you defended it. Intelligent debating and using things that fit the topic is going to work for you better than just saying words to say them.

Speaking: Spreading is completely fine, if you are slurring your words to much I will say "clear". I don't mind if you finish a sentence or two after time has finished and if you are the other team please don't tell them that time is up. If y'all are going way over I will do something to signal you need to stop. When doing cross ex please speak at me and not at your opponent. Be kind to your opponent, if you are being rude or overbearing I will tell you after the round to be more courteous (please don't take this as a diss on you, it won't destoy your speaks unless you are awful. I understand people often don't know they are being rude but often the judge can tell if you are being too much and it is something to take seriously) I wanna make it clear debate is not a place for sexist, homophobic, racist, xenophobic language or rhetoric. Our country has trouble with those things and we should want to encourage anyone who wants to be apart of this activity to participate and feel comfortable. If you have any contentions or comments that are offensive comments leave them at the door, it won't be tolerated.

Argumentation: I honestly value long term impacts more than I value short term impacts. I would like you to tell me how it affects the grand scheme of things in the world, not what it will do for the next five years. That doesn't mean you can't win off of short term impacts but honestly it will be harder. Also, if you give me a framework you should either connect it to the argument as a whole or you should tell me you are dropping it. There is no shame in saying you are dropping your framework and accepting your opponents but if you say your framework is "US hegemony" and than you don't talk about it once I'm usually gonna vote for the team that reinforced there impacts better. I will also often favor arguments that have numbers and statistics but you still need to support those well. If I look and realize your numbers just aren't true I probably won't vote for you.

Lastly if you have a question about anything please ask me. I will take the time to answer as many questions as I can and the only stupid question is a question you do not ask. I prefer a more casual debate setting (no I'm not gonna give you all the highest speaks always) but if you need to take off your jacket or you aren't feeling well you don't need to ask me if you can. I want you to be comfortable because it will in turn make your arguments better. I am going to be completely honest with you because it will make you better debators but I would hope you aren't doing this just because you value winning. I won a lot of stuff and lost a lot of stuff in debate but the great thing is that it is a marketplace of ideas. I will always disclose if I can (some tourneys are weird!) and give advice if I can but don't take my advice as an ultimatem. I like to think I know what I am doing but the art of debate is constantly changing and you may think something works that I don't and that is the beauty of this. Thank you all for reading and I am excited to be judging.

About Me:

Jack C. Hays High School CO'2019

UT Austin CO'2023

Add me to the email chain: jackcoffey@utexas.edu

Events I have experience from actually doing in High school: Extemp (FX/DX/UIL Extemps), Congress, PF, LD, World Schools

I have experience judging other speech events too: Info/OO/DI/HI/Duo/etc.

My primary events overall were extemp & congress and I have experience on the local, state, and national level after having competed all throughout high school.

PF/LD Debate:

For PF, I generally always vote based on impact calculation. So pretty much tell me why your side does more for whoever or why the other side doesn't do enough for me to vote for them. Weighing on what side is more important and which has more to gain is really how I prefer to do my ballots. Always tell me what side is winning and why I should vote for them and how the debate has progressed to preferring their side. For framework, I won't vote based on it unless you make a point out of it on why I should. Really framework doesn't make or break a ballot from me unless a team explains why it's relevant and why it essentially causes one side to win over another. Overall, the easiest way to get a ballot from me is through impact calculation on which side brings more to the table or why the other side does not do enough. My biggest evaluation for a ballot is always impacts. Please avoid spreading and watch the speed. I am a more traditional judge so speaking so fast to the point I can barely understand you is not always going to be the best option for you. Please avoid speed, especially when explaining things. Being a bit faster on reading cards is okay I guess, but I prefer having less speed overall.

For some niche things, if you do not mention an argument from either side or touch debate it in any way, I am just going to assumed it has been dropped. While I can keep time if you want, it is not preferred, so please time yourselves.

In regards to presentation, since it is PF debate and meant to be easily accessible to the public, please don't spread especially in the later speeches. More speed will make me less likely to understand what is being said and gives me little reason to vote for your team. Pretty much consider me more of a lay judge than anything. For speaking, just be clear and concise really. Also I really don't like rude or spiteful speeches no matter how the debate has ran.

More LD Specific Stuff:

I am not a totally progressive judge when it comes to some arguments so if I do not mention them below, just assume I have no experience in those types of arguments and avoid running them at your own discretion unless you think you're just that amazing to introduce me to a new argument and compelling enough to get me to vote on it:

Plans/Counterplans (CP) - Completely cool with me, just be sure to explain what it does and how it causes your side to win the debate. Plans/CPs are acceptable in PF for me.

Topicality (T) - Topicality is cool as long as you explain why the other side violates topicality in regards to the debate.

Kritiks (K) - I am very new to this kind of debate, but I am generally okay with it as long as you don't have a ton of speed whilst explaining. Additionally, you need to explain what harms/impacts are brought on when you assert your opponent violates the K argument. For example, if you run capitalism K, explain to me why capitalism is bad. So many people have just said that I should vote for them because capitalism is bad without explaining much how or why it is bad. I know this is super basic but you have to explain why other teams violating the K argument is a bad thing (whether it be capitalism, settler colonialism, states, etc.). Tell me why capitalism is bad and why I should vote for you!!

For speaker points, I generally give higher speaks to people who are more clear, articulate, and organized. The lowest I usually give to people is ~27 unless they have done something so bad such as being rude or very disorganized throughout the whole round to warrant something lower. Speed plays a part in speaks in that I do not prefer spreading and speed is not my forte in a round. Overall, as long as you are organized and well articulated and respectful throughout the debate I will give you decent speaks.

Extemp/Speech:

I did both FX & DX in high school so I have experience in these events and know what an appropriate speaker looks like. For your speeches, you should obviously be well-spoken and organized in throughout your round. In particular for content, good extemp speakers are able to articulate information from a wide array of sources and convey it in a manner that is articulate and entertaining. Specifically, I prefer speakers who are informative and/are entertaining by incorporating humor, emotional content, pertinent information and a wide array of relevant sources. Being funny when relevant and doing it well will always gain good points with me! Additionally, always be sure to EXPLAIN EXPLAIN EXPLAIN. Many people often just give me some facts and expect the audience to make something of it. Explain what information is important and why! Tell me what it means and how it pertains to the question of your speech. For the beginning of your speech, it should be a well done introduction that at least initially catches my attention through a thought provoking or funny statement, provides some background to your topic, tells me the question verbatim, provides me your answer and a preview of your points. For your actual points, you should aim to provide at least 2 sources of relevant information and have some structure within each point to have some flow and organization. Within each point you should again always explain the information you present to give some good insight into the importance of each point and why the audience should essentially care.

In regards to performance and presentation, I prefer speakers who speak clearly with adequate speed since a lot of people get nervous and tend to speed through their speech and use up their time. As a speaker, you should aim to be relaxed and be able to balance the time you are given throughout your speech to make the most of your presentation. Moreover, having a good physical presentation is preferred such as a good usage of hand gestures, appropriate movement (such as a slight walk when transitioning between points), and maintaining eye contact with your audience.

For cross-examination, I don't put too much emphasis on this as it is not something I would consider making or breaking your speech. Really, I just look for speakers who are kind and respectful and are able to defend their points and know their own topic well. Pretty much just don't be rude or sarcastic and you'll be fine with me.

Congress:

Pretty much refer to my extemp/speech paradigms. I have tons of experience of doing Congress from high school so I know what to look for and how good speakers are supposed to look. For your speeches, aside from the first or second affs/negs of the bill, all speeches should include some sort of clash or argumentation of the other speakers' arguments. This is congressional DEBATE, not congressional speech giving.

Presiding Officers should aim to be quick, effective, organized, and knowledgeable on parliamentary procedure. Just maintain precedence for speakers and be transparent about what is being done so the whole chamber understands what is going on. Making mistakes is okay as long as it is not a pattern so I know you really know what you're doing. Also it's cool with me if you time with your phone as the P.O., just make sure it does not become a problem through using it for communication or if you have tons of notifications that can be distracting.

World Schools Debate:

Just refer to the Speech and LD/PF portion of my paradigms as that is how I generally judge speakers and how I view a round is supposed to look. I do have experience in Worlds so I am pretty aware on how the event runs. Just be well organized, clear, and articulate. As a side note: avoid using more progressive arguments (theory, topicality, k's, etc.) as they are not to exist in worlds in my opinion. Overall, just provide clear impacts and weighing throughout the round and you'll be fine.

CX Debate:

I have no experience in this event and should not be judging it unless you like relatively traditional PF judges.

My pronouns are they/them/theirs. Please do not call me ma’am. I know it's a southern respect thing but it's icky to me. If you need a title for me, I unironically like being called judge, Judge Contreras is fine, just Contreras works too. My students call me Coach, and that's also fine. Teens, please don't call me El (that's one southernism I stand by!)

Affiliations:

Head Coach and social studies teacher at L.C. Anderson High School in Austin, TX since 2022.

San Marcos High School- I competed all four years in high school, I did extemp, congress, and UIL Policy.

Speech people!!!!

I will not rank a triggering performance first. I just won’t do that. There’s no need for you to vividly reenact violence and suffering at 8 a.m. on a Saturday morning (or like, ever). Triggering performances without trigger warnings will have their rank reflect the performance. Use your talent to tell a story, not to exploit pain. Also, normalize giving content and trigger warnings before your performance!! Give people a chance to take care of themselves. If I'm judging your round and another competitor triggers you, you are welcome to quietly get up and walk out during their performance. I will not dock or punish you for this, your mental health is the most important. Please take care of yourself and each other!! I'm in a "you should do a different piece" mindset on this issue and if you can't reenact that narrative without exploiting suffering, something is wrong.

Debate comments (PF, LD, CX, World Schools)

Just disclose. I know LD's norm is sending 30 minutes before round, I think that's a great norm.

In PF, send case docs. Don't be secretive with your cards. Your opponents should not have to disclose a disability in order to get you to send docs. I also think sending a speech doc for rebuttal and summary is a good norm. This is not (necessarily) something I'll down you for but it could be, if you're intentionally being harmful.

I will evaluate anything as long as it's warranted and extended. I won't make arguments for you, tell me why and how you're winning. I'll vote tech over truth unless the truth overwhelms the tech. Sticky defense is so fake, extend your arguments if you want to win them. Unextended = dropped. Proper extensions, tag and cite, claim, warrant, impact!!

Both partners need to participate in grand cross. PF is a partner event! No, you can't skip grand cross. I'm listening to cross and waiting to hear the questions from cross brought into round.

Please do a www.speechdrop.net room, it is a fantastic site, and I will definitely pop in and read cards and cases if you have the speechdrop room set up. Always send case, always send speech docs. I am #notsponsored, just a fan! My email is down below.

Spell out all the abbreviations you use in round. Don’t assume I know what you’re talking about. People know what the UN is, the EU, etc, people may not know BRI, any random trade agreement, etc.

speed: You don't have to go at a conversational pace but nobody should be full-on-spreading in PF. When you're off the doc, you have to go slower. I try not to flow off the doc but I will use it as support if you're faster than I can follow. I'm not in a debate round to read off your case doc, I'm in round to hear YOU. Slow down on taglines, analytics, authors- basically anything you think is vital to my decision.

PF-specific comments:

• I'll vote on anything, not a huge fan of theory, not the best judge to evaluate theory
• i love frameworks! they should be well-developed. blippy frameworks don't win framework debates
• extensions are not just saying "Extend my contention 2", you must extend the card tag/cite and the claim, warrant, and impact! Let me hear the link chain again!!
• speaker points- these national tournaments keep giving me a rubric to use and I'm trying to apply that to all the realms I judge in. Points start at 28 and I adjust from there. Points will only be below a 27 if you did something harmful or rules/norms were horribly broken.
• PFers, please read cards with actual taglines. "furthermore", "and", are not taglines. A tag is the thesis of the card, it is the summary of the content. I've been seeing a lot of that lately- it's lazy and bad practice.

LD-specific:

• I don't judge LD often, not as comfortable with LD speeds but I'll use the doc
• I will evaluate k's, as long as they're well-developed and defended. i know theory is normative in LD and I'll do my best to evaluate it fairly and wisely. probably not the best judge for your theory debates
• consider me pretty lay, generally pretty trad. Read me a standard, read me a value, slow it down!!
• I know this event is generally more technical but again, don't assume I know what you're talking about!! spell out all your abbreviations, provide definitions (especially if you're reading a K), do your best to make the round and the space more accessible!
• pref me slightly better than a lay judge
• I come from pf so arguments such as kritiks and theory will make less sense to me butI’lltry my best to evaluate them

email- theedebatecoach@gmail.com

and

docs.anderson@gmail.com

please <3

This message is specifically for competitors in debate events; I value respect in the round. Please don’t be rude in front of me. It doesn’t make me laugh, it reminds me of uncomfortable/unpleasant rounds where my competitors were rude to me or my partner. That has no business in a debate space, please don’t bring that energy into a round. This goes double for people in privileged positions who make women and gender/racial minorities uncomfortable or unsafe in the debate space. Not only will I chew you out and tank your speaks, but I will also let your coach know about the harmful practices. it's on all of us to make the debate space inclusive and equitable.

TLDR- be nice, be kind, and be self-aware.

Congress comments:

I did congressional debate all four years I competed in high school, I really enjoyed it and love watching a good Congress round. I have a lot of respect for a strong PO and usually reward that with a higher ranking. POs that struggle with precedence, maintaining decorum, and Robert's rules of order will have that reflected in their rank.

Clash, clash, clash! Put the debate into congressional debate.

There's a line between sassy and rude. Tread it carefully.

General comments:

something that I genuinely appreciate in every event is a trigger warning before potentially triggering performances and speeches. controversially, I care about all of your experiences in a round and would like to give everyone an opportunity to opt out. If you’re a spectator or a competitor in a speech room, you deserve the opportunity to step out. If you’re competing in a debate round, you have every right to ask your competitors to read a version of their case that excludes the triggering material. As a judge, I reserve the right to step out/turn off my camera for a moment before you give your performance.

In a debate round, I’d appreciate that triggering material cut out. I don’t think intense/graphic depictions of human suffering add much to your overall case anyway, I’d rather you extend cards in that time or frontline or do anything besides exploit human suffering.

If I correct your pronunciation of a word in my ballot, it’s genuinely to educate you. It’s hard to know how to pronounce a word you’ve never heard aloud, just read (looking at you, Reuters!)

I have a degree in history, with a focus on Latin American history. Keep that in mind when discussing issues focused on Latin America. Feel free to ask me for a reading list to better understand conflicts, revolutions, and government suppression (including US intervention) in Guatemala, Argentina, Honduras, El Salvador, and more.

If you are spectating an event and are fully texting in front of me or attempting to talk to/distract a competitor, I’m going to ask you to leave. I will not warn you once, I have a zero-tolerance policy for disrespecting competitors or interfering with competition in that way.

Experience with LD and PF

-Good with Speed & spreading

-Looking for opponents who give me full expanded thoughts and examples; excellent POI’s and cross exams

-for me, debates are won during the crosses

-ask thoughtful questions and find holes in opponents arguments

-flay judge: competed in high school (07-09) and have been judging lots of online tournaments since the pandemic. Can flow fairly well, but some of the jargon has gone out the window in the past few years, so laymen's terms are preferred when it comes to technically things. I have a college education, but some speech specific language, I don't remember.

Any pronouns, they/she listed - it's complicated, referring to me using feminine descriptors is fine, though any are accepted. I have no strong feelings about my gender.

***Apparently to search my paradigm, you need to type "Sophia Dal" instead of "Sophia Dal Pra" - just a heads up***

Background: Wooster HS '20, Kentucky ex-pat, Now debate at West Georgia, Class of '25

Conflicts: Wooster High School, Reagan High School,

Put me on the email chain - sophiavansickle477@gmail.com

---Updates---

2/1/24 - This is not the high school level of "We'll take the rest as prep" debate. This is the high school level of cross examination debate. Use your time. CX is important to me and your speaks.

1/18/24 - Sending the plan in the email chain is scuffed. Put it in the speech doc.

10/14/23 - My personal style of debate has become a lot more critical. I coach policy teams pretty much exclusively, but I'm way more familiar with the engagement between lit bases in K v. K debates. As always, I love organized, technical debates, but I have no strong preclusions whether I'm in the back of a policy throwdown or a method debate.

2/22/23 - Some things in debate that others may view as non-negotiables (i.e. flowing, speech-times, etc.) are things I lean towards as being so, but I can be persuaded by framing arguments that these are things I should disregard.

---Top Level---

I think that debate is amazing and unique because of the diversity of positions and stances that we can take, from typical substance debate to debates about the rules to debates about debate. I think that debate is a competition at its foundation and that the educational benefits we gain are shaped from its research benefits. I also think that debate as an activity or as an institution is not shielded from critique.

Feel free to ask me about anything below or any thoughts you have in the pre-round!

My RFDs - are scripted as best I can to organize my thoughts. I have pretty bad ADHD and I tend to have a lot of external thoughts about arguments in any given debate, so I do this to stay organized. It's also how I verify that my decision can be delivered in a sensical manner. My decision on any given debate is usually made at a relatively normal pace, but writing out the decision, (and sometime a separate decision for the other team/over another argument in close debates) usually takes me to d-time in elim debates. I will sometimes read them to myself aloud as well for good measure. I would want my judges to care about the decisions in my debates, so this is my way of returning the favor.

General Argument Preferences - I prefer well-crafted strategies over all else. I do have a soft spot for specificity, but I understand when that is not an option because of new affs, team resources, or miscellaneous reasons. Linearly, the more thought you have put into the strategy, the more I will probably like it.

I have found that I am increasingly annoyed by debates that do not have a substantial portion of them dedicated to answering the aff in some way. This does not have to be with a specific strategy; it can be with making the most with what you have. This can be through generic impact defense, deconstructing a poorly-constructed aff, citing 1AC lines when explaining how the K links, creative counterplanning, etc. Policy debate is plan-focused, and your strategy should be to address it, not to empty your box in the least appealing way possible.

This does not mean that I have apprehensions about the amount of offcase that you read. I think that thought can go into a 12-off strategy as much as a no off/only case turns strategy.

Evidence - Evidence comparison is a great way to get me to like you. Recency isn't everything when it comes to ev comparison. Give me author indicts, prodicts, think-tank biases, etc. The best skill that debaters take from debate is the ability to critically process large amounts of information, and it is becoming increasingly apparent that the analysis of the evidences' sources is important to that processing in our day-to-day lives. If you would be embarassed to read the qualifications of an author aloud during a debate, don't include that piece of evidence and find a better one.

Another point of contestation that should make its way into more debates is the way that authors make their arguments, or the way that debaters have highlighted these claims. Is the author making this claim based on one case study or based on a peer-reviewed, time-series cross sectional statistical analysis? Does the card itself not provide any warrants? Is the highlighting of the edvidence not able to lend itself to a claim and a warrant, or even a complete sentence? Point these issues out during your debating.

I believe the highlighting of your evidence should be coherent enough to read as a public speech, and not phrased like Rupi Kaur's new poetry anthology.

You can "insert the re-highlighting" if you need to discuss the quality of your opponents evidence. I think that having debaters re-read bad evidence means that there is a disincentive to do this type of evidence comparison because of the time it takes out of a speech.

I love evidence-based debates and will want a card doc at the end of the debate. My evaluation of these card docs will be in a way in which I feel I have done the least amount of intervention. To me, this means that cards/arguments that are referenced heavily by the debaters in the final rebuttals, even if they aren't by name, will be read and I'll adjust my thoughts on them accordingly. I will assign the meaning to the evidence that the debaters give it, so, for example, if the 1NC has a highlighted link argument within a card on the kritik, and the 2NR doesn't go for that link argument but goes for another claim in the card, I will not evaluate the extraneous link argument as meaning anything. The evidence you read does not give your argument more weight than you gave it. If you read stellar evidence but can't interpret it for me or move your analysis beyond tagline extensions, then I will not rely on the fact that that card is better than your opponent's.

CX is binding, but that doesn't mean you can read evidence in CX or finish cards in CX. There is a reason that CX is denoted as separate from speech time, and I still hold folks to the threshold of bringing those arguments into speeches, which means that you will just be wasting a lot of time.

Even if someone else cut the evidence you are reading, you are responsible for any issues of academic integrity that arise when you read that evidence, even if you weren't aware of the issue beforehand.

This is not to say I will not vote for teams that don't read evidence. I vote for teams that win debates.

Flowing - I only flow what I catch you saying. Please try to recognize communication break-downs and adjust. I will be following along in the speech document as you read, but I want to be able to understand you.

One of the biggest negative impacts of online debate along with a drop in participation is the increasing card-doc-ification of debates. I am not a fan. Make arguments, do line-by-line, know what evidence they read, FLOW THE DEBATE YOURSELF!

ADAPTATION: I have an auditory processing disorder that makes it especially difficult to flow unclear, online speeches. I can flow top speeds and follow along, but you do not understand how big of a difference clarity makes.

I have recently been attempting to learn how to type with more than my pointer fingers, and am a good flow on my computer but still, please don't let that be a substitute for your own communication.

When flowing debates, I will attempt to line up arguments next to each other, and I would appreciate it if line-by-line is clear as to facilitate this. If I can't do this, I will flow straight down and match arguments and their responses together at a later point, though, this may extend my already egregious use of time post-debate to deliberate.

Absent a defense of splitting up speaking times, the partner that is supposed to be speaking in that speech based on their speaker position is the one I will flow. I will not flow arguments that are being fed to another debater by their partner.

Tech and Truth - I am a "tech" judge. The arguments from the debate that make it on my flow and their implications will be compared based on the connections and the argument resolution that debaters have made.

Above all, when technically evaluating arguments, I value the way that debaters have characterized specific arguments rather than relying solely on evidence to make those comparisons or connecting the dots for them. Cross-applications still need explanation as to how they apply to the new argument. Debates are won and lost through small link distinctions, and especially in buzzword-heavy theory debates, this nuance is lost and leaves me in no way ready to vote on them without explanation.

I have a low threshold for "out-teching" stupid arguments. Stupid arguments can have just as stupid responses. However, if an argument is factually incorrect or incomplete, I'll disregard it. This includes, but is not limited to, voting issues without warranted standards and anything that I can easily google.

(Former) Argument Non-Starters

While rewriting my paradigm, I critically thought about my previous argument inhibitions and realized that they were just based on what I thought were accepted community norms, left over from when I created my paradigm when I was first introduced to national circuit debate. That was stupid of me, and I think that I should be able to defend to myself why I completely exclude an argument from evaluation. Other than, obviously, arguments that are on-face violent, I am fair game for any position.

My previous nonstarters that are now on the table include

- Death Good

- Objectivism

- "No perms in a method debate"

There are two arguments that are difficult for me as a judge:

1. A very pessimistically-read "Debate Bad" argument. Without a way to resolve the offense, I am left wondering why this doesn't link to every debater participating in the debate.

2. This is more of a brand of argument than a specific argument, but any personal arguments that I cannot verify within the current debate. This includes previous debates against this team or incidents between the teams. Debate competition is not the best accountability method for interpersonal violence, you should take these issues to tab, coaches, or relevant authorities to resolve it, not me.

All of my dispositions can be overcame through outdebating the other team. There is always the chance that you could be the debater who makes me enjoy judging issues that I once disliked.

---Misc---

If your strategy involve humiliating the other debaters in the round you should strike me. I am fine with passion about arguments and the way that people communicate them, I do not want harm to come in personal attacks against debaters and their unique positionality in debate.

Online Debate - PLEASE BE MORE CLEAR. I cannot stress this enough. In some of the rounds I have judged, I was very close to losing the argumentation to mumbling or a lack of clarity of speech. Start off slower please. I can flow at fast speeds, but high schooler's laptops are usually not the best, so please be as clear as possible.

The timer stops for medical issues and tech issues.

Lay Debate/Non-Circuit Styles - I debated on a semi-lay circuit for my high-school career, so if your debate style is more stock issues, traditional, or slow, go for it! I will not penalize you for sticking with a local style that you have no control over, just know that I am still a "flow" judge. I'm not a lay judge or blind to circuit norms by any means, I just think that it is not a team's fault where they begin debating, and will not penalize a different style that does not match progressive debate norms.

Speaker Points - are based on skill, respectfulness to the judge and your opponents, clarity, roadmapping, and how you execute your strategy. I do not give you higher speaks based on you telling me to. If you ask for speaker points, I will give you the tournament minimum.

Procedural issues always come before substance.

---Topicality---

I like T debates. I especially enjoy T debates where a substantial amount of evidence is read, epecially evidence about caselists and interpretations with intent to define and exclude. Please explain to me your visions of the topic and why that should frame my decision. Impacting out these debates is important. T is always a voting issue. Some things that I think you should focus on:

1. What is the distinction between the interpretation and the counter-interpretation? I find that debaters oftentimes lose the forest for the trees and dive into the violation debates without solidifying what makes each team's views of what should be included in the topic distinct. A great way to do this for me is with caselists, from both teams, prodicting their interpretations and indicting the opposing interpretation.

2. In what way does the aff violate the interpretation? This seems like a basic portion of T debate, but I see so many high school shells being whitled down so much so that the violation doesn't make it in. If the violation is poorly written or non-existent, point that out to me. I have judged way too many T debates where the violation hinges on an assertion from the negative that the aff is not a thing, when they probably are that thing. I give affirmatives the benefit of the doubt when explaining intriciacies of their plan. This is an area where neg T evidence can really help.

---Theory---

I default to rejecting the argument on theory except for conditionality. If you want me to reject the team on anything else, impact out why. I think that you shouldn't rely heavily on blocks in these debates, or at least make those blocks responsive. Impacts to theory should be clear and articulate; the less buzzwords, the better. The offense of your interpretation or your counter-interpretation should be intrinsic to the interpretation/counter-interpretation.

My leanings on conditionality are that it's good, but I'm not opposed to pulling the trigger on condo bad by any means. I think going for conditionality when mishandled by the negative is perfectly viable and more aff teams should do it. I don't necessarily have a lower limit if you want to pull the trigger. As long as your standards are intrinsic to your interpretation, I'm fine with it. I find that the general practice of conditionality can be argued against and potential-abuse based arguments that come along with it are pretty compelling in these debates.

---Case Debate---

Please do more of this, as per my rant above. I seriously love a good case debate. Have good 1NC answers to the advantages and good explanations and clash on the aff, and we'll have a good day. I think that advantages can be beaten by zero risk arguments. I will vote on presumption if the aff has a ridiculous, completely misconstrued scenario with 0% risk of any of it being a thing.

I think that I can vote negative on presumption if a CP has no net benefit but the neg team proves that presumption lies with them.

I prefer framing pages that are specific to the aff. Debate tends to be extremely reductive of ethics and moral philosophy. Conflating consequentialism and utilitarianism, conflating deontology and structural violence, etc. Pointing out discrepancies in a team's framing and the way they view arguments in the debate is very convincing to me, i.e. a team advocating deontology making a consequential claim, etc.

---Impact Turns---

I love impact turn debates. Please be nuanced with the uniqueness question - I need a very good unsustainability argument to weigh against their impact, otherwise I will still give their impact risk.

---Disadvantages---

Please read a full shell in the 1NC. The link is the most important part of the DA, please explain it well. I think the Aff team can beat a DA with zero risk arguments. Please have a reason why it turns the advantages.

---Counterplans---

Neg must prove competition and that the CP is net-beneficial to the aff. I think process CPs are fine, more so if they are topic-relevant. CP and Perm texts should be specific. "Do Both" or others mean nothing unless the aff explains how the perm functions.

Multi-plank CPs should be broken down for me; please explain how each plank functions and solves the advantages. If planks can be kicked, and the CP is egregiously long, then each plank functions as a conditional advocacy

I think that judge kick needs to be flagged in the debate. This can be through saying "judge kick" explicitly or "The status quo is always a logical option", which I take as meaning "judge kick + conditional".

CPs - Novice and JV Debate: Please y'all, you need a net benefit to your CP. I will not vote on a CP that "just solves better". This has happened in almost all of the JV/Novice debates I have judged this year. Please be a stand-out and don't do this.

---Kritiks on the Negative---

Disclaimer: Though the common theme of this section is that you should explain your thing, this is because I am a perfectionist when it comes to how literature is represented, not because I think teams that read kritiks need to break down their stuff more than policy teams. I recognize that teams that read "policy" style arguments get away with the most blippy characterizations of their arguments too often, and this is a practice that I would like to stop in any style of debate I judge. Both teams will be held to the same standard of explanation of any argument. I despise 5-word theory arguments, framework standards, etc. All arguments have to have a claim and a warrant. Explain the link and the impact of the K in the context of the advocacy you are criticizing.

High theory is fine and welcomed, as long as you show you know what you are talking about.

I need a lot of alternative explanation. What is it and how is it distinct from the aff? Does it capture the aff? Why is it mutually exclusive to the aff? Most importantly, how doe the alternative resolve the links to the K? I think a very convincing way the aff can beat the alt is a defense of your method and DAs to the way the alternative explains the case, if at all. Alts should have a consistent text throughout the debate.

I think Ks should have an alternative or something external that resolves the offense (framework, CP with the K as a net benefit, etc.) I don't like evaluating linear DAs based on K impacts and links if the status quo does not resolve the offense.

In K v. K debates, I need the debaters to explain to me the distinction between the methods. What impacts do each of the methods access? What does the perm look like OR Why does the perm ruin the alt? How does the aff's method resolve the K's links?

Debaters should decide for me whether there are perms in a method debate, but I tend to lean neg on this question. See below.

---Framework/T-USFG v. K Affs---

After the first semester on the water topic, I maintain an exactly 50/50 voting record for for or against framework.

I think that the way that most people evaluate fairness impacts writ large is based on personal preconceptions and biases about what it good. I want to make mine as clear as possible here, while also emphasizing that any framework impact to me is fair game. However, the most convincing genre of impacts for me in framework debates are clash, argument refinement, and iterative testing in relation to how they affect advocacy skills.

I like affs that have creative counter-interpretations that include your method and creative impact turns. If you articulate to me why the aff should be included in the topic better than the neg does, you win. This is best done for me through an indict of the neg's interpretation and the research it creates, not by reading a linear DA against debate norms as a whole.

My only caveat is that I believe that there should be limits on the topic of debate, and I think that the aff will always have a more expansive view of the topic (unless only the aff is topical/some explanations I have yet to find convincing). However, placing at least some defined limits on the aff's interpretation mitigates the offense the neg gets and puts me in a good spot to weigh your impacts against however-better limits the neg's interpretation provides.

I don't think that the reading of framework constitutes violence. Arguments that are loose metaphorizations of debate norms to real-world violence are difficult to win in front of me, and I would be keen to vote on arguments from the negative that that metaphorization is bad. However, more nuanced versions of the "policing/exlusion" DA that involve connections to the aff's lit base and academia as a whole and have an impact that is focused more around your research and education are more convincing.

---K Affs (General/K v. K)---

I'm fine with K affs as long as you have both (A) some sort of advocacy statement and (B) a reason why you shouldn't defend this year's topic. This seems intuitive, but in some K debates I have judged, the affirmative is focused more on the community as a whole rather than

I'm not a great judge for K affs that don't have a robust method defense in the 1AC. I think there is a common trend for these types of affs to defend as little as possible in the 1AC and then shift their explanations to defend whatever suits their fancy in the 2AC and beyond after the neg lays down their core offense.

Because of this, I feel as if, in direct opposition to my previous opinions, I am leaning neg on "no perms in a method debate". It is easy for me to buy that the ability for the aff to permute the K incentivizes writing affirmatives with vague theses to eliminate competition, which hurts kritikal clash, education, advocacy, etc. I think that the negative can do a better job convincing me of this when they read literature-specific offense. Aff, you should have a hearty defense of your method. A specific perm text or hearty explanation, coupled with answers to "no perms" should be enough for you to argue and win that "this perm is good and we should get it". Cards for perms are especially helpful when deciding whether you get a perm or not.

Reflected in the the update above, I find myself spending more and more time reading K literature in my free time. I am familiar with the basics of many areas and their key authors, and I have done some assistant coaching for teams that primarily read kritkal positions, but am not an expert on the latest stuff. Therefore, while I would love to judge more of these debates, I understand that I may not be the best for you in terms of pre-existing knowledge.

Performance - Fine with it as long as it's educationally appropriate.

---Lincoln Douglas---

Judging LD is something I don't commonly do, but you can translate a lot of the above here.

ATTN: My standard for what is a complete argument is high for current norms in LD. Claim, Warrant, Implication. Make less arguments and use that time to make better quality arguments.

I am best for policy debates, quality T/Theory debates, and Policy v. K debates.

I am fine for K v. K debates, and my reading and debate style has put me in way more of these than in the past.

I am less ok for dense phil. I need a lot of explanation and impacting.

I am not good for frivolous theory or tricks.

---Public Forum---

I don't normally judge PF but I have done it off-and-on and coached the event as well. Overall I hate "PF-isms" like "we tell you", etc. and I don't think that PF gets a pass from engaging in good extension and rebuttal norms, i.e. nothing is "sticky".

If you are collapsing onto something/kicking something, you need to say so.

Paraphrasing is bad.

Send me all cards read in the debate or else your speaks are capped at a 25.

The only time something is extended for you is the First Constructive in the First Rebuttal. Other than that, you need to do the extensions yourself.

"Delink" is a pet peeve phrase of mine. It's a "no link" argument.

---Bottom Level---

Behavior - Being rude/obnoxious gets speaks taken away.

Please be humble and considerate if you win and patient if you lose. As long as I'm in the room, no comments should be made about the skill of your opponents or their knowledge on certain subjects. Post-rounding is welcomed until it crosses the line from picking my brain to being angry at me for not seeing that you are so obviously right. If you have a habit of post-rounding aggressively, break it. I have PTSD and will not spare a second going to tab if you react in a way that may trigger an anxiety attack.

I will intervene and stop a round if I think that there is violence, physical or verbal, that endangers those participating in that round. Those who perpetuate the violence will receive an instant loss, 0 speaks, and coaches will be contacted. I will fight tab to give you 0 speaks or have you ejected.

Evidence Ethics Violations - Clipping, Paraphrasing without reading the evidence, and cutting evidence out of context is what I define as academic dishonesty. Academic dishonesty mean an instant loss and I will award you the lowest amount of speaks that the tournament allows.

I understand the novelty of the activity for novices, but I hold JV and Varsity debaters to the standard of being able to properly read a card.

To quote Ryan McFarland, “Clipping is cheating no matter the intent."

Extemp:

General: I'm more in content and specifically substructure. When you explain any argument to me it has to be organized. Also lets avoid being racist/homophobic

Presentation: I won't be picky about fluency breaks. Don't force a joke if humor isn't isn't your thing. Don't over due hand gestures I will get distracted.

Sources: I will check if I remember to but also please give me a date when you deliver a source. Also avoid using the NYT/WashPost/other dailies for all 8 sources. There are better sources out there.

Time: You can go 7:30 if you really need to but try hitting normal speech times for things like intro and the first point. Like I won't kill you for 1:15 intro but it will be a tiny bit concerning if it is like 2:10.

Extra Stuff: Ask me if you want any time other time signals other than 5 down, 30, 15, and fist at grace. And if you any other questions you can ask me before your speech or email me at sanjudubey0517@gmail.com

General stuff

i competed for 4 years in pf

i did some stuff

i'm down for whatever in round

postround me if you think i'm wrong

i will almost always prefer good warranted analytics over bad unwarranted evidence

put me on the chain jeffpfree@gmail.com

if its not on my paradigm I don't encounter it often or haven't formulated an opinion on it yet; just ask before round

LD:

Pref Shortcut

1 - T/Theory, Policy

2 - Tricks

3 - Phil, K

4 - High Theory K, everything else

note for k debate

since i did bad event in hs I am not very read on majority of k lit, especially more obscure stuff

that being said read whatever you want -- it just might take me a little bit to fully understand it

Defaults

T/Theory>K

Edu>Fairness

No RVIs, competing interps, DTD

PF:

event is kind of not good and rounds are usually boring - i am definitely biased towards whoever has more entertaining round strat

disclosure is probably good and paraphrasing is probably bad

i am not very sympathetic towards trigger warning shells that preclude discourse and kill arguments - i'll evaluate but my threshold to DTD is much higher than with any other theory argument

evidence standards are very low atm, i lean heavily towards any bracketing/misrep/etc. shell

I debated for Strake Jesuit from 2017 to 2021. Cleared at TFA State twice, got a silver bid, went 5-2 at Glenbrooks once, etc, but overall I'm no Roy Tiefer.

You are extremely encouraged to read theory or a k. When I judged LD, people actually took my paradigm seriously and read crazy arguments, so I hope you'll do that here. I also don't know this topic very well. Specifics on progressive debate are near the bottom of my paradigm. Auto 29.7 speaks (or higher) if you actually do read something unconventional. Here's some other ways to get good speaks:

Reading "cut card" theory (something along the lines of "debaters must not read cut cards"): Auto 30

Calling your opponents out for not extending impacts

Making any joke

Turning 360 degrees when reading a turn

Paraphrasing Case

Skipping GCX

Conceding a delink/nonunique to kick out of turns

Kicking case

Finding a way to mention Palau (Auto 29.3 or higher)

How to LOSE speaks:

Offtime roadmaps that are too complicated for no reason

Not extending impacts

Laughing too much during round when nothing funny is being said (don't be rude to your opponents!)

Saying “we outweigh on ___________” with zero explanation

Calling for more than 4 pieces of evidence

Asking your opponents "have you sent the card yet?" more than once: No more than 27.5

AFTER ROUND: I'm happy to disclose and give critiques, but only if y'all don't aggressively postround me. I used to think postrounding was totally fine but I'm new to judging so I won't be perfect. Please remember that I am literally not allowed to change my decision

bh9831a@american.edu for any inquiries.

Regular paradigm:

Debate is a game. Strategy is what makes the round fun. I don't really care what arguments you read, as long as you win the argument on the flow. I'm not going to be one of those judges who says "ohhh yeah i'm tech over truth but if your argument is dumb my threshold for responses goes down haha" because if they say that then they're really truth over tech and kind of a lay judge.

Specifics:

SIGNPOST!!!!! Also number your responses/arguments, helps me know where to flow which means I'm more likely to make the right decision

First Rebuttal - No rules. Read a new contention, who cares. I love a ton of DAs or turns, but they NEED warrants and analysis. I always got super annoyed when teams read a ton of 5-second turns and won off of them simply because the opponents weren't even given a warrant to respond to. Also paraphrasing is highly encouraged.

Second rebuttal - This speech needs to address to everything from first rebuttal. If something goes unmentioned in second rebuttal, it's conceded. Also if you're gonna collapse you have to do it here, don't leave your opponents in the dark before first summary

Weighing in rebuttal is fine, but don’t do it too much because it means you don’t have enough real responses. I love weighing overviews and stuff like “if we win our case we win the round” but spending too much time on weighing in rebuttal will show me that you don’t actually know how to respond to your opponent’s arguments. There are exceptions to this, like if there's framework involved, but that's my general thoughts.

Summary - First summary must extend everything that could be in final focus, even defense.

Most importantly, extend impacts. I’m pretty tough about this because I lost a bunch of rounds during my sophomore year over winning the flow but failing to extend an impact. If your opponent doesn’t extend an impact in first summary, you could stand up and just extend your case and an impact, frontline your case, and say “they don’t extend an impact,” and you'll win. No impacts = no offense. If neither side extends impacts, I presume first speaking team.

Grand Cross - Skipping this is extremely encouraged.

Final focus - yeah same thing as summary

Weighing - I guess on this issue I am different than most "tech" judges. I think weighing is overrated. Every judge says they loooooooove weighing then they don't vote on it. The reason why is you can have flawless weighing on every level of the round but if you drop one piece of terminal defense, you lost your case so your weighing becomes useless. I had just 4 rounds in high school where the judge voted off weighing. It's not that important most of the time. The reason why is because in almost every single round, both sides don't win equal access to their offense, so weighing isn't needed for a decision because one side always has a better link chain. So focus on the path to the impact, not comparing them.

Most impact weighing is redundant, unless both sides win their links into their impacts, in which case it can make the difference of the round.

Link weighing is defense. Also, if your opponent drops something, it becomes 100% true in the round, so therefore it has 100% probability. I am inclined to vote on probability weighing that says something along the lines of "they dropped it so it's 100% true, but their case has defense on it so it can never be 100% true."

Most of all, I love prerequisites and short circuits. These are easily my favorite arguments in debate and I made them a lot in HS. The great RJ Shah taught me to look at all the arguments in the round and see if you could connect any of them to garner more offense, and doing that always seemed to surprise judges and win more rounds. Going beyond surface level offense and defense is quite impressive.

Other unconventional debate positions

I love watching frivolous theory/k debates. You can run (almost) any type of these arguments. Just win it like any other argument. Similar story with impacts goes here - if a k doesn’t have a role of the ballot, it’s not a k. If theory doesn’t have “drop the debater” I can’t vote for you off of it.

- I won’t listen to “drop the argument” shells, make it fun and read drop the debater. It's like winner takes all!!!

- I will listen to paraphrasing theory, but I'll also listen to "cut card" theory. I believe paraphrasing is a good norm in debate and reading cut cards is a waste of time. So if you'd like to read a shell that says debaters should paraphrase, do it. Even if you lose, I will give you double 30 speaks just for being bold enough to read the argument.

- I won't evaluate identity k's

- You don't need to wear a mask. A lot of people have told me they're just wearing it so that they don't get a shell read on them. Don't worry because I will drop any team that reads something along those lines with the lowest speaks I'm allowed to give. Nobody should ever be penalized in a debate round for their decision on whether to wear a mask, and feel free to do so if you'd be more comfortable.

Evidence

Please stop calling for so much evidence. Trying to be perceptually dominant by calling for 7 pieces of evidence after your opponent's constructive and then asking them every 30 seconds "did you send the evidence yet?" when they clearly haven't won't work on me. This is a very rude and condescending strategy. It might work on lay judges, but I'm gonna dock your speaks if a) you call for more than 2 pieces of evidence after any speech or b) you ask "did you send it yet?" more than one time. If you can't find the evidence, that's alright (most of the time), just make a logical analysis that says the same thing. As I said, debate is a game, and you are just as much a part of it as some random author from the Washington Post.

I will not call for cards. It's interventionist. For example, if a team says "omggggg their evidence is bad pls call for it" and the opponents don't contest that claim, I am not calling for it, because you won that evidence contest on the flow just like how every other argument works. If you do call them out for bad evidence ethics and they push back and say "no the ev is good pls call for it," I'm still not calling for it. If you're making an indict, tell me what specifically makes the evidence so bad. If you're contesting a team's indict of your evidence, then tell me what specifically makes your evidence good, or why your argument still stands without it. Evidence weighing should be more common in debate and I'll go with the team that best defends their claim rather than calling for the evidence to decide for myself.

Hi! My name is Sam, my pronouns are he/him, and I'm a student at Wesleyan University!

Before I get started, I don't think I have to say this but just in case: I won't tolerate or rank highly any piece or competitor who utilizes offensive, insensitive, or harmful language or actions in their performance. No performance in any event should need to involve that, so keep it out of the space.

With that, let's get to the fun!

General Paradigms

I was co-captain of my school's speech team, so I know how challenging it can be sometimes to get the right piece cut or written the right way with the right blocking and the right emotional emphasis behind it all. The specific notes I have below are almost all about cutting or writing a piece because I make a point not to make paradigms about too many performance/acting aspects. Each competitor has a different, unique style, and I can't wait to see it! As long as you do what you're supposed to do (whether it's convince me of something, tell me a story, make me laugh, or make me think), it's very hard to go wrong!

Also, most importantly, I'm FAR FROM AN EXPERT!!!! I just graduated a year ago, I'm not some highly trained acting or speaking coach, and even if I was I'd never be able to make objective judgements about your piece or your acting. Take every note, paradigm, or ballot I write with this in mind, and if you want to follow up on anything, my email is shilton@wesleyan.edu, I'm happy to talk!

EXTEMP

With Extemp, I am going to be looking for a somewhat classic structure. Does this mean you need to have three main points? No! Have only one point but ample information and analysis about it? If you can make it work, it works! Have five points that together build to the answer to your question? Go for it! At the end of the day, I only need an intro, a conclusion, an answer to the question, and, above all, to be convinced that you're right. Whatever it takes for you to do that, go ahead!

DI

DI is an amazing and interesting event that can be so much more than just a sob story! Use both your cutting and your amazing acting skills to make me hooked, to get me to not just feel but also think! I'll be looking for coherent, complete story arcs in the cutting, immersive characterization, and above all something that makes me care about the story and/or its characters.

HI

HI has a special place in my heart. It's such a fun event to do and to watch, so keep me entertained! I'll be looking for distinct characters (!!!! this is incredibly important), good humor, and a solid resolution to a problem presented in the piece. If there is no distinct story arc (conflict, climax, conclusion), I'll blame the cutting. Make me laugh! Give your character a problem that needs to be solved! HI is my favorite event, so I always love judging it the most.

DUET

Duet, like HI, is an event I hold dear. It has so much potential, especially because it is not as genre-confined as DI or HI and not as action-confined as Duo. With that in mind, make that count!!!! You have two people and the ability to see, touch, and interact in ways you can't in any other event, use that well. In addition to a solid plot foundation that keeps me entertained, I need to see you and your partner taking advantage of the freedoms you have by developing clear and meaningful relationships in the piece (or, perhaps, lack thereof). Make me care about the interactions between your character(s) and your partner(s)', not just what's happening in the plot.

DUO

The other kind of the Duet coin, in Duo I really look for what you and your partner can do with the restrictions on the interaction you have. Use the lack of touch or eye contact to make a point of some kind, use it to punctuate plot points or motifs in your piece. Don't just treat it like a Duet where you can do less, the beauty of Duo is in these constraints!

POI

The most important thing in a POI for me is COHESION! I've seen many POIs with otherwise wonderful concepts fall into confusion because a piece or pieces felt out of place or took me out of the illusion. If your pieces can't reflect perfect cohesion, it's your job as a performer to make them flow through your words, actions, and general expression of the piece. I'm going to be looking for some kind of progression, whether narrative or conceptual, from beginning to end of the piece, as well as some kind of personal connection to the works.

OO

The bottom line for OO (and all IEs, to be honest) is make me care. You could have all the sources and anecdotes in the world for what needs to be done about your issue and for what your issue is, but if you don't convince me that it's important, what's the point? So, when I'm looking for the key parts of an OO (what's the issue, why is it an issue, why should i care, what can be done), I especially want to know why it should matter. Convince me!

INFO

Info is one of the events where I'm looking for the most structure. This does not mean that I don't want you to keep your personality and context with the issue in mind—on the contrary, it should be at the forefront. I will also, however, be looking primarily for the classic intro, three points, and conclusion. Info is about making an informative and analytical point, it's not an OO, so don't make it into one. Keep it structured and, within that structure, flesh out the points to your heart's content.

POETRY/PROSE

With Poetry and Prose, I'm looking for similar things as in POI. Keep your piece choice(s) cohesive, keep a common concept throughout, and have some kind of progression from beginning to end—both in your cutting and in your performance. I also look for some kind of connection to the work here, though it is not as important in my eyes as it is in POI.

I'm a junior at Colleyville and did pf for 2 years. My email is hannahnlr@icloud.com

How to win my ballot: consistent weighing in every speech, good case/ impact extensions in back-half speeches, and well-warranted arguments.

Consider me a flay judge, tech = truth. I'll bump up speaker points for teams that disclose case/ speech docs. Also, if you paraphrase expect low speaker points.

Tech savvy truth telling/testing debaters who crystallize with clarity, purpose persuasion & pathos will generally win my ballot.

My email: wesleyloofbourrow@gmail.com

For CHSSA: Flow judge, please weigh impacts in rebuttals, please win line by line, please make arguments quickly and effectively, and make the largest quantity & quality of arguments that you can. Thanks.

Updated Paradigm for NDCA & TOC

My intent in doing this update is to simplify my paradigm to assist Public Forum debaters competing at the major competitions at the end of this season. COVID remote debating has had some silver linings, and this year I have uniquely had the opportunity to judge a prolific number of prestigious tournaments, so I am "in a groove" judging elite PF debates this season, having sat on at least half a dozen PF TOC bid rounds this year, and numerous Semis/Finals of tournaments like Glenbrooks, Apple Valley, Berkeley, among many others.

I am "progressive", "circuit style", "tabula rosa", "non-interventionist", completely comfortable with policy jargon and spreading, open to Kritiks/Theory/Topicality, and actively encourage Framework debates in PF. You can figure out what I mean by FW with a cursory reading of the basic wikipedia entry "policy debate: framework" -- I am encouraging, where applicable and appropriate, discussions of what types of arguments and debate positions support claims to a superior model of Public Forum debate, both in the particular round at hand and future debates. I think that PF is currently grappling as a community with a lot of Framework questions, and inherently believe that my ballot actually does have potential for some degree of Solvency in molding PF norms. Some examples of FW arguments I have heard this year include Disclosure Theory, positions that demand the first constructive speech of the team speaking second provide direct clash (rejecting the prevalent two ships passing in the night norm for the initial constructive speeches), and Evidence theory positions.

To be clear, this does not mean at all that teams who run FW in front of me automatically get my ballot. I vote all the time on basic stock issues, and in fact the vast majority of my PF decisions have been based on offense/defense within a role-playing policy-maker framework. Just like any debate position, I am completely open to anything (short of bullying, racism, blatant sexism, truly morally repugnant positions, but I like to believe that no debaters are coming into these elite rounds intending to argue stuff like this). I am open to a policy-making basic Net benefits standard, willing to accept Fiat of a policy action as necessary and justifiable, just as much as I am willing to question Fiat -- the onus is on the debaters to provide warrants justifying whatever position or its opposite they wish to defend.

I will provide further guidance and clarifications on my judging philosophy below, but I want to stress that what I have just stated should really be all you need to decide whether to pref/strike me -- if you are seeking to run Kritiks or Framework positions that you have typically found some resistance to from more traditional judges, then you want to pref me; if you want rounds that assume the only impacts that should be considered are the effects of a theoretical policy action, I am still a fine judge to have for that, but you will have to be prepared to justify those underlying assumptions, and if you don't want to have to do that, then you should probably strike me. If you have found yourself in high profile rounds a bit frustrated because your opponent ran positions that didn't "follow the rules of PF debate", I'm probably not the judge you want. If you have been frustrated because you lost high profile rounds because you "didn't follow the rules of PF debate", you probably want me as your judge.

So there is my most recent update, best of luck to all competitors as we move to the portion of the season with the highest stakes.

Here is what I previously provided as my paradigm:

Speed: Short answer = Go as fast as you want, you won't spread me out.

I view speed as merely a tool, a way to get more arguments out in less time which CAN lead to better debates (though obviously that does not bear out in every instance). My recommendations for speed: 1) Reading a Card -- light-speed + speech doc; 2) Constructives: uber-fast + slow sign posting please; 3) Rebuttals: I prefer the slow spread with powerfully efficient word economy myself, but you do you; 4) Voters: this is truly the point in a debate where I feel speed outlives its usefulness as a tool, and is actually much more likely to be a detriment (that being said, I have judged marvelous, blinding-fast 2ARs that were a thing of beauty)...err on the side of caution when you are instructing me on how to vote.

Policy -- AFFs advocating topical ethical policies with high probability to impact real people suffering right now are best in front of me. I expect K AFFs to offer solid ground and prove a highly compelling advocacy. I love Kritiks, I vote for them all the time, but the most common problem I see repeatedly is an unclear and/or ineffective Alt (If you don't know what it is and what it is supposed to be doing, then I can't know either). Give me clash: prove you can engage a policy framework as well as any other competing frameworks simultaneously, while also giving me compelling reasons to prefer your FW. Anytime you are able to demonstrate valuable portable skills or a superior model of debate you should tell me why that is a reason to vote for you. Every assumption is open for review in front of me -- I don't walk into a debate round believing anything in particular about what it means for me to cast my ballot for someone. On the one hand, that gives teams extraordinary liberty to run any position they wish; on the other, the onus is on the competitors to justify with warranted reasoning why I need to apply their interpretations. Accordingly, if you are not making ROB and ROJ arguments, you are missing ways to get wins from me.

I must admit that I do have a slight bias on Topicality -- I have noticed that I tend to do a tie goes to the runner thing, and if it ends up close on the T debate, then I will probably call it reasonably topical and proceed to hear the Aff out. it isn't fair, it isn't right, and I'm working on it, but it is what it is. I mention this because I have found it persuasive when debaters quote this exact part of my paradigm back to me during 2NRs and tell me that I need to ignore my reasonability biases and vote Neg on T because the Neg straight up won the round on T. This is a functional mechanism for checking a known bias of mine.

Oh yea -- remember that YOU PLAY TO WIN THE GAME.

Public Forum -- At this point, after judging a dozen PF TOC bid rounds in 2021-2022, I think it will be most helpful for me to just outright encourage everybody to run Framework when I am your judge (3 judge panels is your call, don't blame me!). I think this event as a whole desperately needs good quality FW arguments that will mold desirable norms, I might very well have an inherent bias towards the belief that any solvency reasonably expected to come from a ballot of mine will most likely implicate FW, and thus I am resolved to actively encourage PF teams to run FW in front of me. If you are not comfortable running FW, then don't -- I always want debaters to argue what matters to them. But if you think you can win a round on FW, or if you have had an itch to try it out, you should. Even if you label a position as Framework when it really isn't, I will still consider the substantive merits behind your arguments, its not like you get penalized for doing FW wrong, and you can absolutely mislabel a position but still make a fantastic argument deserving of my vote.

Other than "run FW", I need to stress one other particular -- I do not walk into a PF round placing any limitations whatsoever on what a Public Forum debate is supposed to be. People will say that I am not "traditional or lay", and am in fact "progressive", but I only consider myself a blank slate (tabula rasa). Every logical proposition and its diametric opposite is on the table in front of me, just prove your points to be true. It is never persuasive for a team to say something like "but that is a Counterplan, and that isn't allowed in PF". I don't know how to evaluate a claim like that. You are free to argue that CPs in PF are not a good model for PF debates (and lo and behold, welcome to running a FW position), or that giving students a choice between multiple styles of debate events is critical for education and so I should protect the "rules" and the "spirit" of PF as an alternative to LD and Policy -- but notice how those examples rely on WARRANTS, not mere assertions that something is "against the rules." Bottom line, if the "rules" are so great, then they probably had warrants that justified their existence, which is how they became the rules in the first place, so go make those underlying arguments and you will be fine. If the topic is supposed to be drug policy, and instead a team beats a drum for 4 minutes, ya'll should be able to articulate the underlying reasons why this is nonsense without resorting to grievances based on the alleged rules of PF.

College Parli -- Because there is a new topic every round, the threshold for depth of research is considerably lower, and debaters should be able to advocate extemporaneously; this shifts my view of the burdens associated with typical Topicality positions. Arguments that heavily weigh on the core ground intended by the topic will therefore tend to strike me as more persuasive. Additionally, Parli has a unique procedural element -- the ability to ask a question during opponent's speech time. A poignant question in the middle of an opponent's speech can single handedly manufacture clash, and create a full conversational turn that increases the educational quality of the debate; conversely, an excellent speaker can respond to the substance of a POI by adapting their speech on the spot, which also has the effect of creating a new conversational turn.

lysis. While this event has evolved considerably, I am still a firm believer that Value/Criterion is the straightest path to victory, as a strong V/C FW will either contextualize impacts to a policy/plan advocacy, or explain and justify an ethical position or moral statement functioning as that necessary advocacy. Also, V/C allows a debater to jump in and out of different worlds, advocating for their position while also demonstrating the portable skill of entering into an alternate FW and clashing with their opponent on their merits. An appropriate V/C will offer fair, reasonable, predictable, equitable, and functional Ground to both sides. I will entertain any and all theory, kritiks, T, FW. procedure, resolution-rejection/alteration, etc. -- but fair warning, positions that do not directly relate to the resolutional topic area will require a Highly Compelling warrant(s) for why. At all times, please INSTRUCT me on how I am supposed to think about the round.

So...that is my paradigm proper, intentionally left very short. I've tried the more is more approach, and I have become fond of the less is more. Below are random things I have written, usually for tournament-specific commentary.

Worlds @ Coppell:

I have taken care to educate myself on the particulars of this event, reviewing relevant official literature as well as reaching out to debate colleagues who have had more experience. My obligation as a fair, reasonable, unbiased and qualified critic requires me to adapt my normal paradigm, which I promise to do to the best of my abilities. However, this does not excuse competitive debaters from their obligation to adapt to their assigned judge. I adapt, you adapt, Fair.

To learn how I think in general about how I should go about judging debates, please review my standard Judge Paradigm posted below. Written short and sweet intentionally, for your purposes as Worlds debaters who wish to gain my ballot, look for ways to cater your strengths as debaters to the things I mention that I find generally persuasive. You will note that my standard paradigm is much shorter than this unique, particularized paradigm I drafted specifically for Worlds @ Coppell.

Wesley's Worlds Paradigm:

I am looking for which competitors perform the "better debating." As line by line and dropping of arguments are discounted in this event, those competitors who do the "better debating" will be "on balance more persuasive" than their opponents.

Style: I would liken Style to "speaker points" in other debate events. Delivery, passion, rhetoric, emotional appeal. Invariably, the power of excellent public speaking will always be anchored to the substantive arguments and authenticity of advocacy for the position the debater must affirm or negate. While I will make every effort to separate and appropriately quantify Style and Content, be warned that in my view there is an inevitable and unbreakable bond between the two, and will likely result in some spillover in my final tallies.

Content: If I have a bias, it would be in favor of overly weighting Content. I except that competitors will argue for a clear advocacy, a reason that I should feel compelled to vote for you, whether that is a plan, a value proposition, or other meaningful concept.

PAY ATTENTION HERE: Because of the rules of this event that tell me to consider the debate as a whole, to ignore extreme examples, to allow for a "reasonable majority" standard to affirm and a "significant minority" standard to negate, and particularly bearing in mind the rules regarding "reasonability" when it comes to definitions, I will expect the following:

A) Affirmatives will provide an advocacy that is clearly and obviously within the intended core ground proffered by the topic (the heart of hearts, if you will);

B) Negatives will provide an advocacy of their own that clashes directly with the AFF (while this is not completely necessary, it is difficult for me to envision myself reaching a "better debating" and "persuasion" standard from a straight refutation NEG, so consider this fair warning); what the Policy folk call a PIC (Plan-Inclusive Counterplan) will NOT be acceptable, so do not attempt on the NEG to offer a better affirmative plan that just affirms the resolution -- I expect an advocacy that fundamentally NEGATES

C) Any attempt by either side to define their opponent's position out of the round must be EXTRAORDINARILY compelling, and do so without reliance on any debate theory or framework; possibilities would include extremely superior benefits to defining a word in a certain way, or that the opponent has so missed the mark on the topic that they should be rejected. It would be best to assume that I will ultimately evaluate any merits that have a chance of reasonably fitting within the topic area. Even if a team elects to make such an argument, I still expect them to CLASH with the substance of the opponent's case, regardless of whether or not your view is that the substance is off-topic. Engage it anyways out of respect.

D) Claim-Warrant-Impact-Weighing formula still applies, as that is necessary to prove an "implication on effects in the real world". Warrants can rely on "common knowledge", "general logic", or "internal logic", as this event does not emphasize scholarly evidence, but I expect Warrants nonetheless, as you must tell me why I am supposed to believe the claim.

Strategy: While there may be a blending of Content & Style on the margins in front of me as a judge, Strategy is the element that I believe will be easy for me to keep separate and quantify unto itself. Please help me and by proxy yourselves -- MENTION in your speeches what strategies you have used, and why they were good. Debaters who explicitly state the methods they have used, and why those methods have aided them to be "on balance more persuasive" and do the "better debating" will likely impress me.

POIs: The use of Questions during opponent's speech time is a tool that involves all three elements, Content/Style/Strategy. It will be unlikely for me to vote for a team that fails to ask a question, or fails to ask any good questions. In a perfect world, I would like speakers to yield to as many questions as they are able, especially if their opponent's are asking piercing questions that advance the debate forward. You WANT to be answering tough questions, because it makes you look better for doing so. I expect the asking and answering of questions to be reciprocal -- if you ask a lot of questions, then be ready and willing to take a lot of questions in return. Please review my section on Parli debate below for final thoughts on the use of POI.

If you want to win my vote, take everything I have written above to heart, because that will be the vast majority of the standards for judging I will implement during this tournament. As always, feel free to ask me any further questions directly before the round begins. Best of luck!

PF:

Go as fast as you want IF your opponents are ok with speed. I will have no issue about clearing you if it is unclear/too fast and I will not vote on arguments that I didn't get on my flow.

Please have cut cards ready. Two minutes to find evidence, then it's dropped.

The quality of your debate will be judged on presenting the topic as the topic (Topicality). Throwing in racism as an argument for something that doesn't even relate just because you like to argue about that thing, doesn't bode well for your technique.

Weighing tells me what the most important argument is. I will look first to whichever argument is weighed the best. At that point, I look to who links into it. Terminal defense takes out the link - even if you win weighing, you still need to win your link. Weighing is not the end all be all of debate. If one team wins weighing but concedes defense, and the other team loses weighing but actually wins their link, I will vote for the second team, as that's the only team with offense on the flow. Have Fun :)

cale@victorybriefs.com or SpeechDrop work

hi! i'm Cale. i've been coaching and judging pf & ld for 8 years. i debated in Texas before that.

general:

- read whatever you like: judging debaters who enjoy what they read is fun. however, keep in mind the coherence of my rfd will scale with your clarity- slow for analytics and tags, send well-organized docs, signpost, and number answers when you can. you'll be much happier with my decision.

- speaks reflect how strategic i found your debating to be. i'll evaluate any style, but admittedly prefer quick, clear debaters that read interesting arguments. (no 30 speaks spike or tko, please)

- i will not 'gut check' or strike an argument just because you've deemed it unwarranted or silly. instead, i encourage you to make an active response- it should be quick to do so if the argument is as underdeveloped as you say.

- extend your arguments. it doesn't have to be exhaustive, but something more than the tag is necessary, even if you think it's conceded.

- keep the round a safe and pleasant place for everyone. i will work hard to give you a thorough decision so long as we can all access the debate and speak about it afterwards without hostility.

- i am not going to use my ballot to make an out-of-round character judgement. if you are concerned your opponent is engaging in genuinely unsafe or violent behavior, a debate decision is not the appropriate means of redress- i will bring it to tab or the relevant party.

ld:

overall- i am best for policy debates, good for theory, worse for phil, and alright for Ks and tricks with some caveats (see below). ultimately, i'd like to judge your preferred strategy, but you will need to be more clear if it's something i'm typically not preffed into the back of. i am only human.

policy- i'll judge kick the counterplan. i lean neg on cp theory claims, and wish the aff would engage in a competition debate rather than read a blippy theory argument, particularly when the 1n is only like 3 off. i am good for your process/consult/intl fiat/etc cp, and, again, wish 1ars would just engage- if you are convinced there is not a discernable net benefit, the argument should be easier to answer. 3 word perms aren't arguments- explain the world of the perm. zero risk exists, and while it is difficult to achieve, it is entirely possible to make an argument's implication so marginal that its functional weight in the round is zero. i really appreciate well-executed impact turn debates, some of my favorite rounds to judge.

theory- no defaults, read w/e you want. always send interps and slow for anything you extemp. far too often in these debates there's no weighing or line by line done on paradigm issues: the 1n reads their theory hedge and vaguely crossapplies it to the 1ac underview, and then all of these arguments just float around in the 1ar and 2n without resolution- please lbl to make judging this tolerable. when going for T, keep in mind i do not actively cut LD prep or mine the wiki, so i don't have a reference point for your caselist or prep-based limits standard- add some explanation.

K- i frequently judge cap arguments, and often judge setcol. external to that, i'm much less experienced- happy to judge it, but i need instruction. please lbl clearly: i find myself most lost in k 2n/2ars when the overview is jargon-heavy and crossapplied everywhere. it is probably useful to know i can count on one hand the number of K v K debates i've been in the back of.

tricks- i often judge truth testing and skep and their associated tricks, but i don't have a deep enough understanding of the argument form to say i'm 10/10 comfortable if you read a nailbomb aff or a bunch of indexicals. in general, delineate in the doc and cross, be super clear abt the collapse strat, and i can vote for these.

phil- i have next to no experience with phil argumentation save for Kant tricks and some pomo (mostly just Baudrillard). need you to slow down and give me extra judge instruction if you're reading anything dense, but happy to learn.

pf:

extend defense the speech after it's answered and be comparative when you're weighing or going for a fw argument. otherwise, read what you think is fun- this includes theory, critical arguments, and other forms less common to PF. two things to add here: 1. don't read an argument just for the sake of it, read it well and 2. i am not amenable to the PF-style 'this argument form is holistically bad' response if we are in the varsity division- engage with substantive responses.

come to round ready to debate (pre-flowed, have docs ready if you're sending them, etc). the only way to frustrate me beyond being rude is to drag out the round by individually calling for a lot of evidence and taking forever to send it.

many PFers spend copious amounts of time impact weighing with multiple mechanisms. more often than not, you are better served reading one simple piece of weighing and investing that time elsewhere- either in more clearly frontlining and extending your case argument, or better implicating a piece of defense or turn on your opponents' case.

Public Forum:

I am a tech>truth and flow judge. I am okay with spreading during your speeches however as I am a flow judge I will vote on arguments that I have on my flow sheet, with that being said please be mindful of the clarity of your speech and arguments. Please have your cards ready when asked to present by the team so that there is no unnecessary time wasted. Make sure to not only focus on the argument presented but also the deliverance of your speeches. Give me an off-the-clock roadmap before going into a speech.

I think that public forum is, at its core, the melding of sound argumentation and solid speaking. You should present not only well-structured, rational, strongly warranted arguments, but you should also do so in a way that can be relatable to whomever is in the back of the round.

That being said, I don't mind some speed - but be sure you are articulate and clear, especially with tags and authors. Sacrificing quality for quantity is a poor choice if you cannot handle (or your judge cannot handle) the speed. Make wise choices.

In terms of 'atypical' arguments. I think that it is very hard to run a K argument well in PF. I don't believe that it cannot be done, just that it is very rare. If you are running theory, then you better have extremely solid warrants and you should have it explained to the level of access of understanding fitting to this style of debate. DO NOT just read cards that you got from your Policy friends/teammates and call it a day. ALSO...YOUR ADVOCACY SHOULD MATCH YOUR ACTIONS. Do NOT use theory arguments as a cheap tool to surprise unwitting opponents and get the ballot when you have engaged in no actions that match the advocacy of your theory arguments. If you are running disclosure theory, there better be a history of you disclosing at EVERY round and you engaged in multiple forums, workshops, discussion boards where you are ACTIVELY engaged in increasing disclosure in a way that promotes education and fairness. If you get up and read disclosure in front of me and do not have this, it will be an automatic loss. I am not joking.

I think that framework is a solid strategy - if there is a purpose. Frequently teams have f/w just to have it and then don't touch it for the rest of the round. If it is there, then you should extend.

On the issue of extensions, be sure that your arguments are carried through the debate. Do not read at the beginning and then bring back up in the final focus and expect me to grant them to you.

Finally, there should be a clear advocacy in the round - and a clash between teams. I hate debates that are like ships passing in the night - no clash.

email: vandanpatel202@gmail.com

tldr: I will evaluate every argument and attempt to be as impartial as possible. I am fine with speed, theory, Kritiks(although I haven't read much lit other than antiblackness/afropess), and virtually any other argument. I am a firm believer that debate is a game so if an argument brought by your opponent is morally repugnant you will have to prove why this is the case as I will not intervene.

T: I love good T debates, don't go for blip T args please. If your gonna read T explain why the definitions are important to the context of the round and give me reasons to prefer. I also evaluate T before K but can change if you tell me why.

Util: read a lot of this in high school. am cool with util and LARP args, will default to extinction outweighs unless told otherwise.

Theory: went for this a lot in high school. I will vote on pretty much any theory arg as long as it is well warranted. I am a firm believer in disclosure, but will vote against disclosure theory if provided with reason to do so.

RVIs - default to RVIs

Default to CIs, can do reasonability if convinced otherwise.

Ks - am fine with them, although the only Ks I'm really familiar with are cap and antiblackness/afropess. Please explain what the alt means and how it solves the aff if it does, often times debaters through buzzwords and hope that I know what the alt means. I am fine with alts that require a rejection of the aff as long as there is a pedagogical reason to do so.

Congress:

Speakers:

Overall, I really appreciate charisma and creativity. I like when people fully get into the politician act! Feel free to take creative liberties with AGDS as long as they make some sense. I'd rather you lack a bit in substance and structure but really get into the round than to read straight off the page even with technically perfect content and organization. The roleplay aspect of Congress is what differentiates it from other debate events so it's really fun to see people play with it!!!

I like grounded, people focused impacts. If you can tie back to how individual people will be help/hurt by a bill and why, I'll probably rank you high. Also, use whatever structure you want. I usually like when it's easier to follow, but I'm fine with anything and won't drop you for being creative.

Authors:

I value fluency and delivery the most in authors and sponsors. Also, make sure to contextualize the legislation.

Sponsors:

If you genuinely try to help the round progress by writing a sponsor in round, I'll definitely keep that in mind and be more forgiving of any fluency breaks (but I can probably tell when you already have a speech written and pretend like you don't).

Constructives:

If you're speaking after the author/sponsor, I'd like to see some clash with other speakers/questioners. If it's impact related, that's definitely a bonus. Try not to just name drop every other representative in the chamber and focus on 2-3 specific speeches (or maybe 1 if you're going earlier).

Try not to rehash other people's arguments. If yours get taken, you can try to change the impact, find a new point, or switch your speech to a half-ref/crystal. I usually drop for rehash but I understand that sometimes you end up in a tough spot with bad precedence and no points, so I'll take that into consideration.

Half-refs:

Try to avoid rehashing previous points and make sure to have a pretty unique argument for your constructive point. I don't care if you have your ref point at the beginning or end of your speech, if it's there, you're good. I'd prefer for these to be pretty late in the round, at least the 4th cycle, maybe 3rd in a smaller room.

Crystals:

I like seeing people learning how to crystal through trial and error so especially at locals, I'll give you some credit for trying because learning is good. Try to weigh the impacts of both sides to show who wins, avoid rehash, and have some evidence. These should be the last 2 speeches in the round.

POs:

I consider POs for all ranks including first! I'll let you run the chamber, but if you have any questions, feel free to ask me and we can work things out! I won't drop you if you make some small mistakes then correct yourself! It happens! I don't have a preference for any type of time signals as long as they're consistent and work for the chamber! I'd also appreciate if you could state the name/topic of each piece of legislation before we debate it, not just the number.

I appreciate POs who listen to the chamber and go out of their ways to create a "fast, fair, and efficient chamber" like they promise to in the speeches. I'll give points to POs who try to connect with the chamber!

General Things:

Please be supportive and polite to each other in the chamber!!! I won't drop you for being passive aggressive or intense in speeches or questions (unless you go way overboard), but I'll have a problem if you act that way outside of your time on the floor. Also, I'll probably drop you for steamrolling novices.

I rank based on quality of speeches rather than quantity, but appreciate active participation in round and friendliness/willingness to help others also plays into my rankings.

I usually tend to favor passion and enthusiasm!

I'm totally fine if you turn your cameras off when you're not speaking or questioning so zoom doesn't lag if the tournament is fine with it!

I'm pretty chill and up for whatever so if you want to experiment and try something new, go for it!

Good luck and if you have any questions, feel free to ask me!

Howdy,

I have countless years of experience as a judge/coach for HS debate, and I was a collegiate competitor back in the day ... Not to mention I have been judging on the local, state and national level around the country.

• PLZ treat your opponent the way you would want to be treated, there is no room for rudeness or hate in debate
• if you treat us judges terribly I will spread your name among the community and encourage everyone to blacklist you
• tournaments that use .5 speaks are VERY bad, .1 all THE way
• My philosophy is Teachers teach, Coaches coach and Judges judge ... it is what it is
• Talking fast is ok, spreading is a big NO for me ... also if its not a bid tournament I DONT want to be on the chain / will not look at the doc
  
  IE's: MS and HS level - you do you, be you and give it your all!!

Collegiate (AFA) - you know what to do

(MS , HS , College) - I'm a stickler for binder etiquette

Congress:

if you treat this event like its a form of entertainment or reality TV I WILL DOWN you , you are wasting your time, your competitors time and my time

POs: I'm not gonna lie, I will be judging you the harshest - you run the chamber not me and I expect nothing but the best. Please be fair with everyone , but if I feel the PO is turning a blind eye or giving preferential treatment I will document it

Competitors: Creativity, impacts, structure and fluency are a must for me.

don't just bounce off of a fellow representatives speech, be you and create your own speech - its ok to agree tho

don't lie about sources/evidence... I will fact check

best way to get high ranks is to stay active thru the round

clash can GO a long way in this event

For direct questioning please keep it civil and no steam rolling or anything harsh, much thanks.

gestures are neato, but don't go bananas

witty banter is a plus

I only judge congress in person not online

NEVER wants to Parli a round

PF:

if y'all competitors are early to the round go ahead and do the coin flip and pre flow ... this wastes too much time both online and in person

tech or truth? Most of the time tech, but once in a while truth

I better see clash

if the resolution has loose wording, take advantage of it!!

When did y'all forget that by using definitions you can set the boundaries for the round?? With that being said, I do love me some terms and definitions

I'm all about framework and sometimes turns ... occasionally links

I don't flow during cross x , but if you feel there's something important that the judge should know.. make it clear to the judge in your following speech

I LOVE evidence... but if your doc or chain is a mess I'M going no where near it!!!

Signposting - how do I feel about this? Do it, if not I will get lost and you won't like my flow/decision

FRONTLINE in second rebuttal!! (cough, cough)

Best of luck going for a Technical Knock Out ... these are as rare as unicorns

Extend and weigh your arguments, if not.. then you're gonna get a L with your name on it

I'm ok with flex prep/time but if your opponent isn't then its a no in round - if yes don't abuse it ... same goes for open cross

When it comes to PF ... I will evaluate anything (if there's proper warranting and relevance) but if its the epitome of progressive PLZZ give a little more analysis

^ Disclosure Theory: if you have a history of disclosure then do it, if not then you will get a L from me, why? Great question, if you don't have a history of promoting fairness and being active in the debate community you have no right to use this kind of T

I'll be honest I am not a fan of paraphrasing, to me it takes away the fundamentals from impacts/evidence/arguments/debate as a whole - it lowers the value of the round overall

Speaker points - I consider myself to be very generous unless you did something very off putting or disrespectful

Easiest way to get my ballot is by using the Michael Scott rule: K.I.S "Keep It Simple"

LD:

take it easy on speed , maybe send a doc

Tech > Truth (most of the time)

links can make or break you

value/criterion - cool

P/CP - cool

stock issues - cool

K - cool

LARP - can go either way tbh

Trix/Phil/Theory - PLZ noo, automatic strike

never assume I know the literature you're referencing

CX:

I don't judge a lot of CX but I prefer more traditional arguments, but I will evaluate anything

look at LD above

PLZ send a doc

Worlds:

I expect to see clash

no speed, this needs to be conversational

don't paraphrase evidence/sources

STYLE - a simple Claim , Warrant , Impact will do just fine

its ok to have a model/c.m , but don't get policy debate crazy with them - you don't have enough time in round

not taking any POI's makes you look silly , at least take 1

^ don't take on too many - it kills time

don't forget to extend, if you don't it a'int being evaluated

the framework debate can be very abusive or very fair ... abuse it and you will get downed

as a judge I value decorum, take that into consideration

Overall:

Should any debate round be too difficult to evaluate as is.... I will vote off stock issues

I like to consider myself a calm, cool and collected judge. I'm here doing something I'm passionate about and so are y'all - my personal opinions will never affect my judgement in any round and I will always uphold that.
If anyone has any questions feel free to contact me or ask before round - whether online or in person.

May all competitors have a great 2023-2024 season!!

Overview:

Add me to the email chain: sohum.tiwary@gmail.com

Please put analytics in the doc, due to online debate.

Treat me more flay/lay side as a judge. I used to debate LD, Policy, and Parli on the circuit back in high school but that was 2-3 years ago. However, I will be flowing and voting on the quality of your arguments rather than how persuasive you are.

I need to see clear impact calculus throughout the debate for you to gain my ballot.

I would prefer to have a "voters" portion at the end of the last rebuttal going over the reasons why I should vote for you.

If these things are done, you will get high/near-perfect speaker points. Not really picky about speaker points though.

LD/Policy:

Read a plan.

Death is bad, suffering is bad.

Not a huge fan of frivolous theory.

Prep ends when the doc is sent.

Policy > Theory > K > > > Phil>>>> > Pomo >Tricks

Paradigms I agree with for reference :

Savit Bhat

PF:

In my debate career, I primarily competed in Lincoln Douglas and Policy. Treat me as a lay judge for PF. I will definitely be flowing and paying attention to arguments but I don't have much experience in PF as an event itself.

However, I will be voting off of argumentation instead of persuasion. I definitely would love to see impact calculus throughout the debate.

If you can, I would love to see high-magnitude impacts, I am primarily an LD/Policy type judge so it is the easiest for me to resolve.

I am a parent judge.

I have judged few rounds of LD/PF for two years. Please exchange your cards before the round begins, if you must exchange during the round please keep it under 2 minutes. State your resolved clearly before you begin if you are the first speaker. Please time yourselves.

Please do not just rush & read from your notes . I will not be able to consider it if it was not clear to me. Make it in a conversational style giving me a clear roadmap. I don't understand or consider Theory, Kritik. I judge based on how you weigh your arguments, how you address all the offensive arguments from your opponent and undermine your opponents arguments backed by evidences. I really like a strong concise conclusion in your voters.

You can talk in moderate speed. Speaker points are determined by clarity, fluency and the interactions with your peers. Also I will not disclose.

E-mail chain: ovsrijaya@gmail.com

I have been judging LD and PF debate off and on for roughly five years now and have a lot of experience with different styles of debate. In LD I am fine with most non-spreading (because I don’t want to read, not any inherent issue with spreading) levels of speed and can handle technical and progressive arguments so long as the speaker makes sure to clearly state how they expect their argument to be used in my decision making. The essential factor to remember is that LD is not a game where you just try to score points, but a game where you try to set up the rules so that your arguments count more than your opponent's. I believe LD is a fundamentally an abstract moral debate, not an empirical one and I will heavily prefer cases that rely on solid philosophical framework over cases that rely on dubious empirical claims. The skill we ought to be testing are analytical, not evidential. I do believe spoken rhetoric ought to be a component of LD's metagame, although I acknowledge it rarely is in the current moment where competitors prefer a format more similar to an essay contest. I will strongly prefer concise, straight-forward rhetoric over purple prose or intentional mystification.

IM PRETTY SURE I WROTE THESE PARADIGMS MANY YEARS APART AND DONT WANT TO EDIT THEM AGAIN (CHANCE - Jan 2023). TLDR: LD IS A MORAL DEBATE AND IM NOT GONNA READ YOUR CASE IF YOU TALK TOO FAST fr fr.

█░░ █ █▄░█ █▀▀ █▀█ █░░ █▄░█
█▄▄ █ █░▀█ █▄▄ █▄█ █▄▄ █░▀█

█▀▄ █▀█ █░█ █▀▀ █░░ ▄▀█ █▀
█▄▀ █▄█ █▄█ █▄█ █▄▄ █▀█ ▄█

█▀▄ █▀▀ █▄▄ ▄▀█ ▀█▀ █▀▀
█▄▀ ██▄ █▄█ █▀█ ░█░ ██▄

My main votes in LD are relevancy and framework achievement. I believe LD is fundamentally a dialectical competition focused on moral philosophy and political theory, not an empirical slugfest. I want to reward research into philosophy, not weakly sourced current events minutiae. I find technocratic and policy speculation far less persuasive than well thought out theories of moral reasoning and/or political philosophy. I expect debaters to explain their arguments in a comprehensive way that either clashes with their opponent or reinterprets the subject of debate in a creative and compelling manner. I won't ever flow pedantic critiques standing in for substantive engagement with the core internal logic of your opponent's case. Creative cases are always a plus and I find judging the same tired, canned cases incredibly boring, not to mention it reflects poorly on the quality of the debater and their team when they haven’t even take the time to workshop their own arguments. Finally, you have to be having fun. If you want to do something really out there go for it!

I prefer PF rounds that are as clear as possible and competitors should show some attention to rhetoric and good faith debate as is expected of public forum. I also prefer you have fun in PF.

I am a parent judge and I've been judging rounds for two years (PF only).

1. Speaker points will be determined by fluency and clarity.

2. Make sure your arguments are logical, supported by evidence, and related to the topic.

3. Have a concise and effective final focus, any new arguments in final focus will not be considered in decision.

4. Be kind and respectful to me and your opponents, especially during CX.

5. Please time yourselves, any unfinished sentence, but not unanswered question, will be allowed to finish.

I will disclose the results and give comments when asked, but the final formal comments and critiques should be referred to the ballot.

Have fun!

Touching super briefly on who I am, I am a former competitive PF debater with 3 years of experience at SF Austin High and I currently work as a debate consultant. I was a PF captain my junior year and team captain my senior year.

I use the She/Her/Hers series of pronouns and feel free to call me by name if you need to ask me anything. I also want to mention that I have a medical thing going on with my eye so sometimes I wear an eyepatch (please don't ask me about it, its a really long story.)

Specifics

Case: I really don't care what arguments you are running but bear in mind that I am a more trad PF judge and, while I am learning them, I'm still not super well versed in progressive arguments. I will evaluate them to the best of my ability (please don't run tricks with me though, I think they make the debate space inaccessible especially for beginners and I don't like them). If a case appears to me to be abusive I will need to see that articulated on the flow by the opposing team otherwise, I will evaluate it normally. However, I will be paying very close attention to the tech on the flow, so keep that in mind. Simplified, if you think you can explain it thoroughly enough within the time constraints go for it! For LD if yall have an email chain I would like to be on it (elleryyates@gmail.com)

In Round: Starting with speed, if it is a PF round I don't think you should be spreading otherwise, I can flow spreading as long as you are clear. I will say "clear" or "slow" if I cannot understand you (if you have a speech doc and you know you'll be spreading send it my way) but really, spreading in PF is really out of place. The faster you go the better I expect your signposting to be.

On framing, if you have a framework in your case please extend it. I really hate seeing frameworks brought up and then immediately dropped, at that point why do you have it in your case. It won't be a voter point if you do drop your FW after constructive I just personally don't understand it.

In general, I judge "tech over truth" but if your argument makes no sense I'll let you know post-round and I might not vote on tech in these cases. I personally believe that sticky defense is a somewhat outdated practice, so if your opponent fails to respond to something take the few seconds to tell me that they conceded the argument otherwise I won't look at it as a voter. That being said, this does not apply if you tell me you are dropping an argument, so please tell me if you are dropping an argument and why, just take the 5 seconds to literally say "We are dropping this because ____," it will make both of our lives a lot easier.

Extensions are extremely important to the round, in my opinion, you need to be clearly extending your arguments, especially on places of clash in the round. The easiest way to win my ballot is by really clearly weighing in Sum and FF. Give me the rundown of why you win, and why they lose. I don't like seeing tech work done in finals, but I understand it when the round is intense. You should be doing the weighing of arguments in your speeches however if I don't see much weighing I will vote on what makes the most sense to me based on my flow.

I don't flow cross but I am paying attention so please do not be unnecessarily aggressive with your opponents, if it gets too extreme I will doc speaker points. I 100% understand that rounds can get heated and that is totally fine, debate is a competition, but if yall are just yelling at each other or if one team is clearly bullying a less experienced team I will doc you.

Last Notes: I am fairly expressive when it comes to judging, If I look confused It's because I am confused. So do take a moment to check in with my facial expression for your benefit. I do disclose and give oral RFDs as long as time allows. Lastly, just some online-specific things, please don't prep steal. If you or your opponents are asking for a piece of evidence or someone is having technical difficulties I expect that no one is prepping until your actual prep time is running. If I notice you are prep stealing I will doc your speaker points and I will call you out. 

If you have any questions about anything I've talked about here or didn't mention specifically here feel free to ask me before the round starts!