Traditional judge that likes to see contentions well developed or negated through strong, sound, and logical arguments.

Please enunciate clearly. While spreading can be advantageous in your rebuttals, please do not forsake the quality of your arguments for speed, especially during your construct.

I value respect so please be mannerly in your conduct toward judge and fellow opponent.

I have judged at local and national tournaments.

Please try to be in Video - I will not tell you to turn on your camera in round but your speaks will reflect on your presentation.

I would like some humor during arguments

Please.

Talk slow and argument your arguments like really explain at the end of the round as to why you should win the round. If you need any accommodations in the round, please let me know before the round. No spreading, only trad debate. No k's no long techy args. Counter plans are fine but its my first tournamant so you really need to explain your cp text and make it prominent that your going for it. Dont condo a cp please. I have no idea what that means. Im a pretty chill dude so as long as nobodys offensive ill give you good speaks. Be supportive of eachother and help eachother out. I.e if your opponent isnt comfy reading something, dont read it. Thanks. Link everything into framework and your contention because thats important. WEIGH AND TELL ME WHAT THE ROUND COMES DOWN TO AND WHY YOU SHOULD WIN. If I have no idea what your saying by the end of the debate I will default to your opponent. Bye! Look forward to seeing you in round.

UPDATE 10/14/22

TL:DR

I have not updated by paradigm in well over a decade but much of what I wrote then continues to be true. I've been coaching/judging various styles and forms of debate for over 12 years. I am most comfortable judging debates in Policy, Lincoln-Douglass, and Public Forum. I flow and listen to all arguments, so please debate in whichever way you are most comfortable and I will attempt to evaluate it to the best of my ability. That being said, if you have a position that is complicated or difficult to follow, the onus is on the debaters to ensure that their arguments are well explained. I will not vote on arguments that I do not understand or are blatantly offensive/discriminatory. Otherwise, try  to have fun!

My email for chains is: carlito2692@gmail.com

Old Paradigm:

 

I competed in LD at University High School in Newark New Jersey, I was nationally competitive for three years.. I also compete in policy debate for Rutgers University.

Presumption: I typically presume neg unless the affirmative advances arguments for why presumption should flow aff (i.e the negative team introduces a counterplan/kritik alt/etc.

Speed: I don't generally have an issue with speed, however I do have a problem with monotone speed, unclear speed. I will yell clear if I can't understand you, but it will only be maybe once or twice, if you don't become clear by then, my ability to properly evaluate the arguments may possibly become impaired. Also, your speaks probably won't be awesome if I have to keep yelling clear.

-I would like you to significantly slow down when reading tags/card names so I can have a properly structured flow, but while reading the card you are welcome to go at top CLEAR speed(a few caveats to be explained later)

-When making analytical arguments, please be clear, because it's difficult for me to follow analytics when they are weirdly phrased and also being spread.

-I don't like speed for the sake of being fast, I prefer when speed is used as a catalyst for an awesome case or a multilayered rebuttal with really nuanced responses on case.

Evidence: Despite what happened in the round, I may call for the cites for cards read in round, I'll specify which specific cites I would like to see. I do this for two reasons: to ensure that there was no miscutting of evidence, and because I believe in disclosure and am from the school of thought that everybody in the round should have access to all evidence read in the round. I don't appreciate a denial to share citations, if citations are not readily available, I may choose to disregard all evidence with missing citations(especially evidence which was contested in the debate).

Cross Examination: I don't know how much I can stress it...CROSS EX IS BINDING! I don't care if you present arguments for why it shouldn't be binding or why lying in CX is ok, or any arguments with the implication which allows dishonesty in CX, there is NO theory to be ran to change my mind. Nevertheless, I don't flow CX, so its up to the debaters to refresh my memory of any inconsistencies between speeches and CX answers. On the other hand, CX can be the BEST or the WORST part of a debate, depending on how it plays out. A funny yet not disrespectful CX will score big when I'm deciding on how to assign speaks, while a rude and boring CX will negatively influence how I assign speaks. Clarification questions during prep is fine, but I'm not cool with trying to tear down an argument during prep, if it was that important, it should have been in the formal CX, rather than during prep. Don't be afraid to refuse to answer a non-clarification question during your opponents prep time.

Critical/Weird Arguments: I love well explained critical positions. With the caveat that these critical arguments are logically explained and aren't insanely convoluted. I have no issue voting for the argument. But if I can't understand it, I won't vote on it. Also, I am a fan of interesting debate, so if you have a neat performance to run in front of me, I would love to hear it!

Theory: I don't presume to competing interpretations or reasonability. The justification for either one needs to be made in round. I don't like greedy theory debates, which means that I generally view theory as a reason to reject the argument rather than the debater. YES, this means you must provide reasons in or after the implications section of your shell, for why this specific violation is a reason for me to use my ballot against the other debater. I'm not persuaded by generic 12 point blocks for why fairness isn't a voter, I prefer nuanced argumentation for why fairness may not be a voter. RVIs have to be justified but I'm willing to vote on them if the situation presents itself, but its up to you to prove why you defensively beating theory is enough for me to vote for you.

Prestandard: I don't like having preconceived beliefs before judging a round, but this is just one of those things that I need to reinforce. I WILL NOT vote on multiple apriori blips, and winning a single apriori is an uphill battle, a serious commitment to advocacy is necessary(you devote a serious amount of time to the apriori position.)

Speaks: I average about a 27, I doubt I'll go lower than 25(unless you do something which merits lower than a 25) because I personally know how disappointing the 4-2/5-2 screw can be, nevertheless I am more than willing to go up or down, depending on the performance in that particular round. The reason I average around a 27 is not because I generally don't give nice speaks, its because the majority of tournaments, I'll judge only a few rounds that deserve more than a 28. It's not difficult at all to get good speaks from me. I reserve 30's for debaters who successfully execute the following: speak really well, good word economy, good coverage/time allocation, takes risks when it comes to strategy, weighs really well, provides AWESOME evidence comparison, and adapts well to the things happening in the round. I really enjoy seeing new strategies, or risky strategies, I.E. I am a fan of the straight refutation 1N, attempting something risky like this and pulling it off, gives you a higher chance of getting a 30. Another way to get high speaks is to be a smart debater as well as funny without being mean or making any kind of jokes at the expense of your opponent(this will lose you speaks)

Delivery: I need evidence comparison! It makes me really happy when debaters do great evidence comparison. Also, I would appreciate for you to give status updates as the rebuttals progress, as well as giving me implications for each extension. When extending arguments which rely on cards, in order for it to be a fully structured extension it must contain: The claim/tag of the card, author/card name, warrant from the card, and the implications of that extension (what does it do for you in the round).

Miscellaneous: You are more than welcome to sit or stand, I don't mind people reading from laptops or being paperless as long as it doesn't delay the round. Also, I don't care if you are formally dressed, jeans and a tshirt will get you the same speaks that a shirt and a tie will. :) I also believe its impossible for me to divorce my judging from my beliefs, but I'll do my best to attempt to fairly adjudicate the debate.

P.S. I don't like performative contradictions...(just felt like I should throw that out there)

Hey Guys! My name is Siddharth Ayyagari and I did PF in high school PF: First things first I will down you for offensive, racist, or homophobic arguments. No spreading but speed is okay as long as I can understand it. I evaluate tech over truth and will be flowing the round. If I suspect that evidence or a card has been misconstrued I will ask to see it. Speaker points will not be a big issue unless you are rude, aggressive, not clear etc. Please roadmap before each speech and weighing is heavily appreciative. No new arguments after second summary. Final focus should only be about weighing please don't make it something else.

About Me

I attended and debated for Rutgers University-Newark (c/o 2021). I’ve ran both policy and K affs.

Coach @ Ridge HS in Basking Ridge, NJ.

Influences In Debate

David Asafu – Adjaye (he actually got me interested in college policy, but don’t tell him this), and of course, the debate coaching staff @ RU-N: Willie Johnson, Carlos Astacio, Devane Murphy, Christopher Kozak and Elijah Smith.

The Basics

Yes, I wish to be on the email chain!

saied.beckford@rutgers.edu

COLLEGE POLICY: I skimmed through the topic paper and ADA/ Wake will be my first time judging this season. Do with this information what you wish.

GENERAL: If you are spreading and it’s not clear, I will yell clear. If I have to do that too many times in a round, it sucks to be you buddy because I will just stop flowing and evaluate the debate based on what I can remember. Zoom through your cards, but when doing analytics and line by line, take it back a bit. After all, I can only evaluate what I catch on my flow. UPDATE FOR ONLINE DEBATES: GO ABOUT 70% OF YOUR NORMAL SPEED. IF YOU ARE NOT CLEAR EVEN AT 70%, DON'T SPREAD.

In general, I like K’s (particularly those surrounding Afro-Pess and Queer Theory). However, I like to see them executed in at least a decent manner. Therefore, if you know these are not your forte, do not read them just because I am judging. One recent pet peeve of mine is people just asserting links without having them contextualized to the aff and well explained. Please don't be that person. You will see me looking at both you and my flow with a confused face trying to figure out what's happening. Additionally, do not tell me that perms cannot happen in a method v. method debate without a warrant.

I live for performance debates.

I like to be entertained, and I like to laugh. Hence, if you can do either, it will be reflected in your speaker points. However, if you can’t do this, fear not. You obviously will get the running average provided you do the work for the running average. While I am a flow centric judge, be it known that debate is just as much about delivery as it is about content.

The bare minimum for a link chain for a DA is insufficient 99% of the time for me. I need a story with a good scenario for how the link causes the impact. Describe to me how everything happens. Please extrapolate! Give your arguments depth! It would behoove you to employ some impact calculus and comparison here.

Save the friv theory, bring on those spicy framework and T debates. Please be well structured on the flow if you are going this route. Additionally, be warned, fairness is not a voter 98% of the times in my book. It is an internal link to something. Note however, though I am all for T and framework debates, I also like to see aff engagement. Obviously these are all on a case by case basis. T USFG is not spicy. I will vote on it, but it is not spicy.

For CPs, if they're abusive, they are. As long as they are competitive and have net benefits, we're good.

On theory, at a certain point in the debate, I get tired of hearing you read your coach's coach's block extensions. Could we please replace that with some impact weighing?

Do not assume I know anything when judging you. I am literally in the room to take notes and tell who I think is the winner based on who gives the better articulation as to why their option is better. Therefore, if you assume I know something, and I don’t … kinda sucks to be you buddy.

I’m all for new things! Debating is all about contesting competing ideas and strategies.

I feel as though it should be needless to say, but: do not run any bigoted arguments. However, I’m well aware that I can’t stop you. Just please be prepared to pick up a zero in your speaking points, and depending on how egregious your bigotry is, I just might drop you. Literally!

Another thing: please do not run anthropocentrism in front of me. It’s something I hated as a debater, and it is definitely something I hate as a judge. Should you choose to be risky, please be prepared for the consequences. (Update: voted on it once - purely a flow decision)

For My LD'ers

It is often times difficult to evaluate between esoteric philosophies. I often find that people don't do enough work to establish any metric of evaluation for these kinds of debates. Consequently, I am weary for pulling the trigger for one side as opposed to the other. If you think you can, then by all means, read it!

Yale Update: Tricks are for kids.You might be one, but I am not.

I'm gonna have to pass on the RVIs too. I've never seen a more annoying line of argumentation.

In general, give me judge instructions.

On average, tech > truth --- however, I throw this principle out when people start doing or saying bigoted things.

Compete in APDA and BP for Princeton.

3 years WSDC experience and 5 British Parliamentary.

First-time judging LD but familiar with style. Don't spread. I need to flow to be able to credit.

Hi! I am a parent judge for LD, but I have been judging tournaments for a while. I heavily prefer traditional cases (no theory, K's, etc.); counterplans are fine. No spreading, do not be condescending, racist, homophobic, sexist, or anything that attacks a debater's personal beliefs or identification, else I will drop you. I flow crossx, as it is binding. I do not appreciate post rounding, unless you are truly confused and want to understand the outcome better.

Tech>Truth

Good luck and have fun!

General Stuff:

Experience: I debated for three years in Policy Debate for Neenah High School (WI) and I have been judging LD, PF, and Policy since I graduated.

Paradigm: Tabs, unless there's no F/W in which case I default to Util. I will vote for anything well run in a debate round. Tech/Truth.

Timing: I will be timing prep, cross and rounds, but I expect you to time yourself. I will let you know when you are going over.

Pacing: I am very comfortable with speed but speaking fast should not make you incomprehensible. Both myself and your opponent should be able to hear tags, warrants, and analytical arguments.

General:

- Make sure to stay organized — clear roadmaps and signposting is really helpful with making a clear and concise argument.

PF

Extensions: Please extend arguments, not just authors. Anything not extended in summary won't factor into my decision at end of round except defense extended from first rebuttal to first final focus

Rebuttal: Turns that aren't answered in second rebuttal are de facto dropped. Second rebuttal doesn't need to answer weighting that's in the first rebuttal, it can wait until second summary.

Weighing: Weighing is good, it is the first thing I will vote on. Scope means nothing without magnitude.

Cross: Statements made in cross are not inherently binding.

Policy/LD:

Non-Traditional Affirmatives: I will vote for anything well-run. You need a clear ROB so I know what I’m voting for at the end of the round. Come into the round prepared for T and arguments that the K is not compelling within the debate framework.

CPs: I have no problem with a CP, but they require a clear net benefit over the affirmative plan and there should be a good defense on a permutation if one is argued by the affirmative.

T: Topicality can be a voter, but it requires standards and voters as well as a clear violation of in round abuse.

Ks: Kritiks are good when they have a proper link chain, impact and alt. Make sure that if you choose to run a Kritik, you understand what the alt is and can explain how the alt solves.

Theory: I am comfortable with high level theory debates. If you choose to make theory arguments, make sure you focus on arguing how your interpretation is better than your opponent and argue comparative offense calculus.

If you have any questions about my paradigm, my ballot, or want to include me in email chains (please do), my email is willclark813@outlook.com

Dartmouth '24

amadeazdatel@gmail.com for the email chain

I debated in college policy for three years at both Columbia and Dartmouth, winning a few regionals and clearing at majors. In high school, I debated primarily local LD with some national circuit experience my senior year. I'm currently an Assistant Coach at Apple Valley and coach a few independent LDes, and am the former Director of LD at VBI.

General thoughts

Online debate: I flow on my computer so I won't be looking at the Zoom and don't care whether your camera is on or not. You should locally record all your speeches in case your WiFi cuts out in the middle.

Tech > truth. My goal is to intervene as little as possible - only exception is that I won't vote on args about out-of-round practices, including any personal disputes/callouts (except for disclosure theory with screenshots). I probably come across as more opinionated in this paradigm than I am when evaluating rounds since non-intervention supersedes all my other beliefs about debate. However, I still find it helpful to list them so you can get a better idea of how I think about debate (and knowing that it's impossible to be 100% tech > truth, so ideological leanings might influence close rounds).

Case/DA

Debates over evidence quality are great and re-highlighted ev is always a plus.

Evidence matters but spin > evidence - don’t want to evaluate debates on whose coaches cut better cards.

Extra-topical planks and intrinsicness tests are theoretically legit and an underutilized aff tool vs both DAs and process CPs.

I don't think a risk of extinction auto-outweighs under util and err towards placing more weight on the link level debate than on generic framing args unless instructed otherwise - this also means I place less weight on impact turns case args because they beg the question of whether the aff/neg is accessing that impact to begin with.

Soft left affs have a higher chance of winning when they challenge conventional risk assessment under util rather than util itself.

Zero risk exists but it's uncommon e.g. if the neg reads a politics DA about a bill that already passed.

Case debate is underrated - some aff scenarios are so bad they should lose to analytics.

Impact turns like warming good, spark, wipeout, etc. are fine - I'm unsympathetic to moralizing in place of actual argument engagement (also applies to many K practices).

CP

Smart, analytic advantage counterplans based on 1AC evidence/internal links are underrated.

Immediacy and certainty are probably not legitimate grounds for competition, but debate it out.

Textual competition is irrelevant (any counterplan can be made textually competitive) and devolves to functional competition.

I'll judge kick unless the aff wins that I shouldn't (this arg can't be new in the 2AR though).

T

I like good T debates - lean towards overlimiting > underlimiting (hard for a topic to be too small) and competing interps > reasonability (no idea what reasonability is even supposed to mean) but everything is up for debate.

Generally think precision/semantics are a prior question to any pragmatic concerns - teams should invest more time in the definition debate than abstract limits/ground arguments that don't matter if they're unpredictable.

Plantext in a vacuum seems obviously true - this does not mean that the aff gets to redefine vague plantexts in the 2AC/1AR but rather that both sides should have a debate over the meaning of the words in the plan and their implications.

Theory

I care a lot about logic (and by extension predictability/arbitrariness impacts) - this means that competition should determine counterplan legitimacy and arguments that are not rooted in the resolutional wording or create post hoc exceptions for particular practices (like “new affs justify condo” or “process CPs are good if they have solvency advocates”) are unpersuasive to me. That said, I err against intervention - I dislike how judges tend to inject their ideological biases into T/theory debates more than substance debates.

I default to theory being a reason to reject the arg not the team, except for condo.

I don't see how condo can be anything but reject the team - sticking the neg with the CPs is functionally the same since they conceded perms when they kicked them. Infinite condo is the best neg interp and X condo should lose to arbitrariness on both sides - either condo is good or it’s not. I personally think infinite condo is good but don’t mind judging condo debates.

K

I think competition drives participation in debate and procedural fairness is a presupposition of the game - the strongest opinion in this paradigm.

While I’ve voted for Ks, I don’t think they negate - the best 2AR vs the K is 3 minutes on FW-neg must rejoin the plan with a robust defense of fairness preceding all neg impacts. Affs lose when they over-allocate on link defense and adopt a middle-of-the-road approach that makes too many concessions/is logically inconsistent.

Line by line >> long overviews for both sides.

Ks that become PIKs in the 2NR are new args that warrant new 2AR responses.

K Affs

See above - while I think T-FW is just true, I'll vote for K affs/against FW if you out-tech the other team.

For the neg, turns case arguments are helpful in preventing these debates from becoming two ships passing in the night. TVAs are the equivalent of a CP (in that they're not offense) and you don't always need them to win. SSD shouldn't solve because most K affs do not negate the resolution.

For the aff, impact turning everything seems more strategic than defending a counter interp - it’s hard to win that C/Is solve the neg’s predictability offense and they probably link to your own offense.

Topic DAs vs K affs that are in the direction of the topic can also be good 2NRs, especially when turned into uniqueness CPs to hedge back against no link args.

K v K debates are a big question mark for me.

LD Specific

Tricks, phil, and frivolous theory are all fine, with the caveat that I have more policy than LD experience so err on the side of over-explanation. Phil that doesn't devolve into tricks is great. Some substantive tricks can be interesting but many are unwarranted, and I might apply a higher threshold for warrants than the average LD judge.

I’m a good judge for Nebel T - see the T section above.

1AR theory is overpowered but 1AR theory hedges are unpersuasive - 2NRs are better off with a robust defense of non-resolutional theory bad, RTA, etc. that take out most shells. RTA in particular is underutilized in LD theory debates.

There are too many buzzwords in LD theory that don’t mean anything absent explanation - like normsetting/norming (which debaters generally use to refer to predictability without explaining why their interp is more predictable), jurisdiction (which devolves to fairness because it begs the question of why judges don’t have the jurisdiction to vote for non-topical affs), resolvability (which applies to all arguments but never actually seems to make debates impossible to adjudicate), etc.

Presumption and permissibility are not the same and people should not be grouping them together. I default to permissibility negating and to presumption going to the side that advocates for the least change.

Conceding a phil FW and straight turning their (often underdeveloped) offense is strategic.

Speaks - these typically reflect a combination of technical skills and strategy, and depend on the tournament - a 29 at TOC is different than a 29 at a local novice tournament.

I debate for Dartmouth in Policy. I have been both 2A and 2N in college.

I debated 4 years in LD and 3 years in Parli for Brentwood. In LD, I was the runner up at the 2018 NSDA National Championship and had 4 TOC bids my senior year. I also coach LD and Policy at Durham.

Conflicts: Brentwood School and Durham Academy.

Please add cavsdebate@gmail.com to chains.

*2021-2022 Update* I have come to the conclusion that speaker points are arbitrary and probably negatively influenced by individual judge's implicit biases. To mitigate this, I have decided that in Policy I will give the winning team a 30 and 29.9 and the losing team a 29.8 and a 29.7 (higher points to the last rebuttal). In LD, the winner will get a 30 and the loser a 29.9. If you think this model will skew seeding, you are probably right. A quick fix would be tournaments using opponent wins to decide seeding instead.

For online tournaments, please record your speeches. I will ask you to send recordings if there is an issue that leads to my missing parts of speeches.

I will say clear if I cannot understand you. I do not flow docs and I will not flow what I cannot hear so it is in your best interest to be clear.

It is your burden to explain arguments. I will not vote for positions if I do not understand your explanation of them.

You should extend your arguments, specifically their warrants. I will not evaluate arguments that are not in your team's final speech.

Do not cheat. If the opposing team or I catch you, I will vote for the opposing team. If you accuse the opposing team of cheating and I determine that they did not cheat, I will vote for the opposing team.

My judging vision is very similar to that of my Dartmouth coaches and teammates. Specifically, you may want to look at the paradigms of John Turner or Raam Tambe.

I am a parent judge who has judged LD before at local tournaments. I will try my best to evaluate circuit-style arguments, just make sure you explain everything clearly and give me reasons to vote for you. No spreading or debate jargon please.

I am a traditional judge who likes contentions and a strong framework. I do not like progressive debate or spreading. I am an attorney and a parent/judge. Looking forward to hearing your arguments.

What’s important to me:

Use your voice well. On a written text, I see periods, commas, colons, capital letters, paragraph breaks, headings, underlined material, and so on. In a debate, what replaces all this is your voice. For example, a written text with no punctuation and no spacing is largely unintelligible; an oral argument with no pauses between clauses, sentences, or paragraphs is equally meaningless—regardless of all the points that you think you are making or all of your opponent’s points that you think you are refuting.

Use good transitional expressions. You may know where you are going, but your listener does not. Say where you plan to go, and then on your journey regularly tell your listeners when you are going to turn right or left. The alternative, which is to present a torrent of impressive sounding facts and figures that are hard to follow, tilts this judge against you.

Avoid bossiness. I regularly spend time in courtrooms, and I notice that attorneys who instruct judges and juries about what to do end up hurting their own cases. Also, argue the merits of your position, and be careful with theory debating. Sometimes I consider it smoke and mirrors, and it may work against you—unless, of course, you can use your voice well, use good transitional expressions, and convince me of the reasonableness of your position. A jury wants reasonableness. So do I.

University of Central Florida Alumnus

Four years of LD for Fort Lauderdale HS and former policy debater for UCF.
Pronouns: he/him/his

Email: delondoespolicy@gmail.com

***Avoid graphic explanations of gratuitous anti-black violence and refrain from reading radical Black positions if you are not Black.***

If you're rushing to do prefs here's a rough cheat sheet:

1- K and performance debates
2- framework debates, general topical debates
3- LARP debates and util debates
4- Theory/ Tricks debates

I will evaluate any argument so long as they are not morally repugnant, actively violent, or deeply rooted in foolishness. I can handle speed but due to the online setting, please go slower than you usually do. Also, be sure to properly extend and implicate your arguments in the debate as well, saying "extend X" and moving on doesn't really do much. In short, tell me why your arguments matter and why I should vote on/evaluate them. At the end of the day do what you do best—unless it's tricks and/or frivolous interps— and have fun doing it.

A little bit about me: I debated at the Bronx High School of Science for 4 years, where I was one of the captains of the PF team and broke at Gold TOC in my junior year. I am now a junior at Princeton University on their debate team as well. I consider myself a relatively flow debater, and so I will also be judging on the flow.

TL; DR

I am a pretty standard flow judge; if you debate well, both in terms of the technical aspect and persuasion aspect, that will make me happy. To take from my partner Tenzin Dadak's paradigm, the only equation you need to know is: Warrant + Weigh = Win

For the email chain and any questions, my email is gangulya@bxscience.edu

Novices, scroll down towards the end, unless you're curious. Here's the long version.

Extended:

The way I evaluate every round is pretty simple- I look to weighing/framing first, and whoever I think is winning the weighing, I look to their arguments first. Then, if I think that there is a plausible risk of offense on that argument, I vote for that team- I don't even look at the other side of the flow. It's that simple, so it should inform you on what to prioritize in the round to get my ballot.

More things to do to secure my ballot:

1. Collapse. Too many times teams spread themselves too thin by trying to argue that they are winning every argument in the round, which makes it even more difficult to just win one; towards the later speeches, please whittle the round down to one or two major pieces of offense/voters for me.

2. Extend offense and frontline in summary and final focus. Pretty simple- if you don't tell me why I should vote for you and why your argument still holds true even after their rebuttal, the likelihood is that I will not vote on it.

3. WARRANT YOUR ARGUMENTS AND EVIDENCE. Warranting, for me, is the most interesting part of debate because that is where your logical reasoning and understanding of the world comes into play- just asserting a statement to be true or just reading a statistic is nowhere near enough to make me believe your arguments. Please explain the reasoning behind each step of the argument- even though there are massive time constraints in final focus, please still include it in a condensed form.

4. WEIGH. This is probably one of the most under-appreciated aspects of debate, and to become a great debater, you need to be able to compare your arguments to your opponents and explain why yours are more important to consider in the round. Just saying "We outweigh on scope because we affect more people" is not fully fleshed out weighing; you need to give more reasoning and also compare the clashing weighing mechanisms in the round. Weighing makes my job easier, and will probably lead to you being more content with my decision.

Miscellaneous:

1. PROGRESSIVE ARGUMENTATION: Personally, I believe that a lot of progressive argumentation does not have a place in PF, and will always prefer topical arguments over Ks and theory UNLESS there is clear abuse. As for my position on some norms, I lean very strongly paraphrasing good, slightly lean towards disclosure not necessary, lean RVIs good, and default reasonability. I do not know much about this type of debate, so please slow down and explain it thoroughly if you do choose to run it in front of me, and I will treat it as any other argument. Trigger warnings are a necessity, and if I feel as though you are running this just to win an easy ballot against a team that obviously does not know how to respond, I will drop you- progressive argumentation is supposed to correct the flaws that are in this activity, NOT to be weaponized.

2. I base speaker points on your speaking skills and presentation AND on how technically sound you debate. Because of this, if the tournament allows me to, I will give a low-points win. I will start at 28.

3. Please don't be overly aggressive or mean in round; light-hearted humor is wonderful, but be wary of the line where it crosses over from being funny to disrespectful. Oh and also, please don't be racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. That will automatically make me drop you- I have no tolerance for people who make the round an unsafe space to debate.

4. I am tech>truth, but not entirely. I will vote on any argument if it is well-warranted and well-executed in round, but as the argument becomes more outlandish, my threshold for a good response goes down and I am more likely to believe simple logical responses.

5. Please don't be egregiously poor with evidence- that just leads to really mucky debates and that would make me sad.

6. Please signpost- tell me which argument you are talking about, where in the argument you are, etc. This just makes it easier for me to flow the round.

7. Speed is fine, but don't go excessively fast (this means no spreading!!!)- if I need you to slow down then I will say "clear".

8. About crossfires- I fall in the category of people who really enjoy listening to cross, but anything important that comes out of cross that you think is necessary for me to take note of has to be put into a speech, else it will not affect my decision.

9. Please make the round enjoyable; then we can all have fun and that would make it a great time. This activity is meant to be both fun and competitive- please try to make it so.

10. ABOUT TURNS: Since everyone is turning to the idea of dumping turns on all arguments without any proper warranting, this section is now warranted. I despise blippy turns, so unless you spend >10 seconds on one turn AND extend an impact on that turn in that same speech OR weigh your turn in that very same speech that you read the turn in, I will think of it as blippy and I will be very sympathetic to the other team's responses. Other team, please point out that they are blowing up a blip. THIS IS ESPECIALLY TRUE FOR SECOND REBUTTAL TURNS. Tread lightly.

FOR NOVICES:

I do not expect too much from y'all; I remember when I was a novice myself I certainly would not oblige to what I have mentioned above. That being said, here is some of the clear stuff that would make the round better and make me happy:

1. Signpost in every speech- this is a good practice generally, and allows you to stay organized and me to understand what you're saying.

2. Give voters in the back half of the round- it is not enough to tell me why the opponents should not win; you need to explain why you win and why I should vote for you.

3. Warrant and Weigh- Give me the reasoning behind your evidence and why your arguments logically are sound, and then compare their importance to those of the opponents.

If y'all got through all of that, then y'all are some real ones. If you want any speaker point boosts, call the pro's contentions as PROtentions (+0.5 speaker points). Thank you for reading this- if you have any specific questions just ask me before the round starts, and I will be happy to answer them. If you want to reach me, my email is gangulya@bxscience.edu

I am parent judge and I have limited experience especially at the VPF level.

Please speak clearly and while I do expect you to speak somewhat quickly, please be mindful of going too fast. I want to make sure I hear and understand and take note of all of your contentions. Also, I am a note taker, so please do not think I am ignoring you if I am writing.

On jargon & acronyms...please be cognizant that I am not a seasoned pro. Please explain what you are referencing at least once.

I prefer no spreading, don't worry if you just talk quickly but anything extremely fast is definitely not preferred since that will make it harder for me to flow and that does not help you win my ballot

Please don't use a large amount of technical jargon as that only makes the debate harder to follow and therefore harder to judge.

I do not prefer Kritiks and I will probably drop them, i might consider them if they are very clearly explained and you are not doing something that makes no sense(like saying that nuclear weapons are not bad using Nietzsche K or something) but don't bet on it

Cards should be clearly cited and it should be easy to follow it through the flow, any exchange of cards should be done in under 2 min otherwise i will penalize you for being disorganized.

You live and die by your value; if you do not link your arguments to the value, it does not matter in the flow. Also a response to an argument that is not sufficient to turn, negate, or refute its impacts is not enough for me to drop the original argument, even if the opponent drops it in the next speech.

At the end of every speech i want impacts/weighing, I should be able to clearly understand why you believe you are winning the debate and why the other team is losing. I vote off of flow and impacts and unless you win both I will prioritize impact over flow unless the difference in flow is dramatic. Essentially I want you to convince me that your argument is stronger than your opponents and the impact that you are proving is more substantial as well.

***Include me in your email chain.*** callieham479@gmail.com

It would be beset for everyone if you kept your own time.

Public Forum

To be a true PF judge, I shouldn't have one of these...right? But see below...

Lincoln Douglas

LD debate should remain distinct from policy debate. While the passage of new policy may be deemed essential for AFF ground with some resolutions (i.e. Sept/Oct 2018), value debate should remain central to the round. I don't mind speed or progressive/policy-style arguments in an LD round as long as you provide analysis of those arguments and link them back to the value debate.

Policy - I haven't coached or judged CX since 2016...but just in case...

As a judge, I am open to all arguments and styles of policy debate. Your job as a debater is to convince me that what you have to say matters and should be preferred to your opponent. The way you go about that is entirely your choice (within reason…professionalism and decorum are key). If you have questions pre-round, please ask. Having said that, here are some specific likes/dislikes as a judge which you can choose to follow or completely ignore (because I will objectively evaluate whatever lands on my flow whether I really like it or not):

Case: I do love case debate. I find it hard to vote NEG when case goes relatively untouched and hard to vote AFF when rebuttals focus on off-case arguments. Rounds where case is essentially dropped by both sides are my worst nightmare.

K: Not my favorite, but I will evaluate K. I’m not really well-versed in kritikal literature, so if you choose to run kritikal arguments (AFF or NEG), please provide thorough explanation and analysis. Don’t expect me to know the ideals that Whoever promoted because, unless you tell me, I probably don’t.

T: I tend to be pretty lenient on the affirmative as far as T goes. In order to win on T, the negative must completely prove that the affirmative has totally harmed the fairness and education of the round.

CP/DA: Sure? Run them? Why not?

Theory/Framework: Don't love it, but sure. Whatevs. Just tell me how/where to flow it and why it matters in this round.

The Flow: Tell me how to flow the round. Roadmap. Sign post. Please slow down for clarity on tags and citations. If you insist on spreading tags and cites, please provide me with a copy of your speech. If your arguments don’t make it on my flow, they cannot be evaluated on my ballot. I also do very little (feel free to read that as “no”) evidence analysis following the round. It is your job as a debater to clearly articulate the argument/evidence/analysis during your allotted time.

Have fun! Be nice! (or at least reasonable)

email: colter.heirigs@gmail.com

POLICY PARADIGM:

I have been coaching Policy Debate full time since 2014. Arms sales is my 7th year of coaching.

I view my primary objective in evaluating the round to be coming to a decision that requires the least “judge intervention.”

If debaters do not give me instructions on how to evaluate the debate, and/or leave portions of the debate unresolved, they should not expect to get my ballot. My decision will end up being arbitrary, and (while I will likely still try to make my arbitrary decision less arbitrary than not) I will not feel bad.

In the final rebuttals, debaters should be giving me a “big picture” assessment of what’s going on in the debate to give them the best chance to get my ballot. Extending 25 arguments in the rebuttals doesn’t do much for me if you’re not explaining how they interact with the other team’s arguments and/or why they mean you win the round. In my ideal debate round, both 2NR and 2AR have given me at least a 45 second overview explaining why they’ve won the debate where they dictate the first paragraph of my ballot for me.

Important things to note:

-I don’t ever think Topicality is an RVI (*this is distinct from kritiks of the neg’s interp/use of topicality*)

-If you don’t signpost AND slow down for tags, assume that I am missing at least 50% of your tags. This means saying a number or a letter or “AND” or “NEXT” prior to the tag of your card, and preferably telling me which of your opponents arguments I should flow it next to. Speech docs are not substitutes for clarity and signposting.

-I'm probably a 7 on speed, but please see above ^^^^

-High-theory will be an uphill battle.

-I would prefer not to call for cards, I believe it’s the debaters job to clearly communicate their arguments; if you tell me they’re misrepresenting their cards – I will probably call for them. But if I call for it and they’re not misrepresenting their evidence you’ll lose a lot of credibility with me and my cognitive biases will likely run amuck. Don’t let this deter you from calling out bad evidence.

-You can win the line-by-line debate in the 2AR but still lose the debate if you fail to explain what any of it means and especially how it interacts with the 2NR's args.

-Don’t assume I have any familiarity with your Acronyms, Aff, or K literature

-Swearing is probably word inefficient

-You’re in a bad spot if you’re reading new cards in the final rebuttals, very low propensity for me to evaluate them

-CPs that result in the aff are typically going to be a very hard sell, so are most other artificially competitive CPs. Perms are cool, so are time tradeoffs for the aff when this happens. If you really think you've got a sick techy CP make sure to go out of your way to win questions of competition/superior solvency / a specific link to the aff plan alone for your NB

-I think debate is a competition.

-the best “framework” arguments are probably “Topicality” arguments and almost probably don’t rely on cards from debate coaches and definitely don’t rely on me reading them after the round

-Impact everything out... Offense and Defense... I want to hear you telling me why your argument is more pressing and important than the other team's. I hate having to intervene... "Magnitude," "Probability," and "Timeframe" are not obscenities, please use them.

Arguments you shouldn’t waste your time on with me:

-Topicality = RVI (*this is distinct from kritiks of the neg’s interp/use of topicality*)

-Consult CPs

I am going to have the easiest time evaluating rounds where:

-warrant and evidence comparison is made

-weighing mechanisms and impact calculus guiding how I evaluate micro & macro level args are utilized

-the aff advocates a topical plan

-the DA turns and Outweighs the Case, or the CP solves most of the case and there's a clear net benefit that the perm doesn't solve for

-the negative has a well-researched neg strategy

-I am not expected to sort through high-theory

-the 2NR/2AR doesn't go for everything and makes strategic argument selection

Presumptions I bring into the round that probably cannot be changed:

-I’m voting Neg on presumption until the aff reads the 1AC

-Topicality is never an RVI (*this is distinct from kritiks of the neg’s interp/use of topicality*)

-There is no 3NR

-Oppression of humans = bad (note: I do not know how this compares to the end of the planet/human race, debaters are going to have to provide weighing mechanisms for me.)

-Earth existing = good (note: I do not know how this compares to other impacts like oppression of humans, debaters are going to have to provide some weighing mechanisms for me.)

-I will have a very difficult time bringing myself to vote for any sort of Consult CP if the aff even mumbles some type of “PERM”

-Once the 2AC perms, presumption goes to the neg to prove the perm unworkable or undesirable if the CP/Alt is not textually/functionally competitive

Unimportant things to note:

-Plz read your plan before you read solvency – I will be annoyed and lost if you don’t

-I really enjoy author indicts if/when they’re specific – it shows a team has worked hard and done their research

-I really enjoy case specific strategies – I enjoy it when a team can demonstrate that they've worked hard to prepare a case specific strategy

-I enjoy GOOD topicality debates

-I’ve been involved in policy debate in some capacity for 11 years now – Education is my 5th topic coaching.

-I put my heart and soul into policy debate for four years on high school. I worked tirelessly to put out specific strategies for specific affirmatives and I like to see debaters who I can tell have done the same and are having fun. So, show me you know your case better than anyone else if you're affirmative, or on the neg, show me specific links and answers to the affirmative... I tend to reward this in speaker points. ...That being said, generics are fun, fine, and essential for the negative team. Feel free to run them, you will not be penalized in any way.

Specific Arguments

I'm good for just about anything that is well debated: T, Theory, DAs, CPs, Ks... I can even be persuaded to vote solely on inherency if it is well debated - if the plan has literally already happened, for the love of god please punish the aff.

That being said, I enjoy seeing a strategy in argument selection, and appreciate when arguments don't blatantly contradict each other (i.e. the DA linking to the CP, or Cap Bad and an Econ Impact on politics). Especially in the 2NR.

********************************************************

LD Paradigm

I am pretty tab when it comes to LD. My goal is to reach a decision that requires the least amount of judge intervention.

Signpost and slow down on tags. Slow down even more for theory args. Spreading through tags and theory interps is absolutely not the move if you want me to be flowing your speech. I will not be flowing from the doc.

Slow down. No, you don’t have to be slow and you should certainly feel free to read the body of your cards at whatever max speed you are comprehensible at. If you’ve used signposting, slowed down on tags and pre-written analytics, you’re golden. It's inexcusable and unforgivable to not have signposting in the 1ac.

I come into the round presuming:

-the aff should be defending the resolution

-the aff is defending the entirety of the resolution

-my ballot answers the resolutional question

-debate is a game

These presumptions can likely be changed.

Stylistically agnostic, but probably not your best judge for:

-dense phil that you’re spreading through

-undisclosed affs that don’t defend the entirety of the resolution

-process CPs that result in the aff

-more than 2 condo

-friv theory - I ❤️ substance

-Probably not interested in hearing condo if it’s just 2 condo positions

-theory interps that require me to ignore other speeches

I think that I have a low propensity to vote for most arguments regarding things that happen outside of the round or prior to the 1ac. I am not interested in adjudicating arguments that rely on screenshots of chats, wikis, or discord servers.

Questions, or interested in my thoughts on particular subjects not covered in my LD paradigm? Check out my POLICY PARADIGM above!

Public Forum Paradigm:

First speakers get to ask the first question in crossfire. If you ask about the status of this in round, expect to get one less speakerpoint than you would have otherwise.

File Share > e-mail chain.

Depth > Breadth. You only have four minutes to construct your position, would far prefer to hear 2 well-developed contentions rather than 3-4 blippy ones unless they are incredibly straight-forward. Much less interested in adjudicating “argument checkers” than most.

Please send cases to weronika.janczuk@gmail.com, unless drop-share is available; will flow against cases as/when/if they are provided.

________

Greetings!

I debated LD for three years (2006-2009) then PF for one (2009-2010) at Eagan High School (EHS) in MN, of ISD196, semi-involved on the national circuit. I also competed in Speech (great speeches, extemporaneous speaking), and was a nationals' qualifier in Student Congress. I then studied the philosophy of the human person at New York University (NYU) from 2010 to December 2013, graduating a semester early, and am generally fluent in most philosophical categories—able/eager to keep up, where due, always delighted to hear something new.

I've been judging on and off since the fall of 2019, primarily LD:

+ Post-impositionByOfResolutionDebates, it's the debaters' role to set the terms of the debate, and I will hold both the affirmative and the negative to the challenge of their respective positions, including framework establishment and maintenance.

The more niche and nuanced a debater's engagement with the resolution, into structure, the better (usually).

+ Sign-post clearly.

+ All wins depend on my comprehension, so I need to comprehend your speech, your argument, your sign-posting, your cross-examination, and otherwise; I will not flow warrants, impacts, or cards that I cannot understand, but will always—unless contracted out—ask to read the case itself, as one who is a visual learner.

+ I can do semi- to great-speed, so long as speed is clear. You'll want to go at 75-90% circuit maximum for me to keep up. I'll ask for "slower" once, where need be, then flow what I can understand.

+ Be super explicit about differentiation in values, criterions, warrants, impacts, and links to value-criterion standards. I prefer debates deeply substantiated and theoretically clear—there being a clear link between the framework proposed (and I am open to alternative frameworks) and the argument extended. A huge domain to this capacity in the debater's life is supremely clean coaching in cognitive scaffolding and cognitive forms and frameworks, and I listen for your own inner-outer cognitive modulary habit in determining clarity.

+ Do intense work to avoid dropped arguments.

+ Solvency arguments only go so far. I think that there are few resolutions that are either so [(a) generally] or [(b) deeply and intricately] crafted that they demand that the scaffold of the debate shift into a sub-theoretical-practical domain regarding the potential of a position to solve for a problematic status quo designed from within the structure of the resolution itself.

+ Topicality arguments are fine, so long as there is a super clear and boundaries-explicit analysis of what the structure and burden of the resolution requires, intimately tied to a framework already existing on the page—I hate topicality arguments that are thrown in for good measure, just because they respond to some content on the page. Most topicality arguments I find unsubstantiated.

+ Win frameworks. I prefer a meta-level to detail debate in terms of priority—I prefer to have a clear evaluation matrix, with regards to scope and type of impact, and then the warrant-impact debate. It's hard to weigh arguments systematically and without some degree of judge preference and arbitrariness when there isn't a clear framework within which to grasp warrant-impact work.

As a brief observation herein, in terms of case innovations, a framework can be as simple as a small table-esque matrix per each case contention developed in conjunction with meta-cognitive case frameworks, to establish a modulary authority over the content read and subsumed, then manifested in concrete case engagement.

+ Speech points typically range 23-30. I look for clarity and substantive engagement with the flow as primary categories here; 28-30 is going to be supremely exceptional in terms of clarity and capacity to engage the content, with 23-27 being median/average/typical ratings, pending the dimensions of the round, including interpersonal relativities during CX, meta-cognition over responses, and otherwise.

A huge dimension of what affects speaker points, also, is the radically important differentiation between a debater who actually knows what they're talking about, manifesting evidence of mass complex research completed, understood, parsed, and engaged, versus someone who sounds like they know what they're talking about. (Debate taught me more high theory and research scaffolds than any other activity or course, university included, so I urge you to use your time well.)

As a quick side note: Time has evolved me into a massively metaphysically- and praxis-based thinker, so this mind and heart will be always glad to hear the highest form of a structural philosophy that engages and manifests real things, alongside evidentiary bases of a mature, impactful, and compelling kind.

If you really want to win a brownie point, check out Karol Wojtyla's The Acting Person and Edith Stein's On The Problem of Empathy (as an extension academic to Edmund Husserl's work in developing phenomenology as an academic sub-discipline), then cite a good lesson learned on the nature of empathy, conscience, consciousness, or the ontological tendency toward the divine. 

All questions—happy to answer. Email as need be.

P.S.: Resolved: It is better to be a mystic than to not be one. #JSTOR.BFFs.

P.S.: Resolved: The time spent in prayer is better spent than time spent in life modulary.

Both self-evident to me, and thus I partake in debates different in my free time. Always happy to debate and dine.

Weronika (/Vɛ.rɔˈɲi.ka/) (Veronica) Janczuk*

*This name is of Polish language [of the nation-state Poland, in Eastern Europe] origin, and thus the Polish form for the name Veronica.

_________

Last updated 07.24.2022. 5.05pm EDT.

Experienced judge; I have judged at local and national tournaments in the past.

Speed.

I prefer an average speed so that your arguments are easier to understand and evaluate. Clarity > speed. Make sure I can understand you. I can’t score you appropriately if I can’t understand what you are saying.

Prep time

Use your prep time. Use it wisely, but use it.

Arguments

Make sure you address every issue raised by your opponent. I prefer evidence over pragmatics. Be sure to provide strong links between the different pieces of your argument and I will notice if you do not respond to an argument put forth by your opponent. I’m comfortable with jargon. Remember to signpost - I am not going to vote for good positions, I am going to vote for good arguments. Remember to be respectful while attacking your opponents position. Show the same courtesy you wish to receive.

I will not intervene unless asked OR in the event of outlandish statements, lies or any types of hate speech.

I am a parent judge and this is the first year that I will be judging at all (and LD in particular).

I am a lawyer by profession, which means I understand situations where you are required to take positions on behalf of your client (or here, in debate) in which you do not personally believe. I do not bring personal opinions to judging. I will vote for the debater who is more persuasive overall. Focus on stating a clear position, back it up with cogent reasoning, and demonstrate how it is superior to your opponent's position.

That said:

You can speak fast to make sure you can fit in all of your arguments, but please be mindful of speaking *too* fast - I want to make sure that I take note of each of your contentions and that I understand them clearly.

Please do not use jargon or acronyms without explaining what it is shorthand for at least once, possibly twice.

Presentation will not hurt you, but it can help you. I will not take off points if you do not make eye contact (virtually or otherwise) and/or look at your notes often to the extent that your argument is clear, persuasive, and effectively responds to the other side. However, the more comfortable you are with making eye contact (or in a virtual setting, looking into the camera rather than having your eyes down) and being animated with your hands and your person, naturally, the more engaged I can be in your argument.

Send Speech Docs!!

Email: kodumuru@umich.edu

Hello I'm Arun Kodumuru, I'm a Sophomore at the University of Michigan and I debated for 4 years in LD at Lexington Highschool

General Things --

1) If you are unclear and as a result I miss arguments it is your fault. I will yell clear 4 times before I hop on Tetris.

2) tech > truth

3) Don't be bigoted -- I forget which paradigm I got this from but: "don't use words, phrases or slurs outside of your social location," period. You can run arguments that may be on the edgy side but just make sure your opponent is comfortable.

4) I'm good with any speed just maybe go 90% of your normal speed if it's early in the morning.

5) Use good ev ethics -- I agree with Tej Gedela's stances on this

6) More time spent on weighing + explanation is always in your best interest

7) If you're circuit going against a trad debater to get high speaks you can still read your usual circuit strat, but just don't spread.

8) Don't spread if you're going against a traditional debater -- you will get low speaks

9) Debate is tough and if you're feeling down watch this -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGOQfLFzJj8

Quick Pref Sheet --

Theory/T - 1

K (Identity) - 2

Phil - 2/3

Tricks - 3

K (High Theory) - 4/5

Policy - 5

Defaults: (These can be altered and changed very easily based on arguments made in the round)

Truth-Testing > Comparative Worlds

Competing Interps > Reasonability

Drop the debater > Drop the argument

No RVIs > RVIs

Presumption Affirms > Presumption Negates

Permissibility Negates > Permissibility Affirms

Layers from highest to lowest: Theory, T, ROB, ethical fwrk

Novice LD --

I will evaluate the debate based on the arguments made in the debate rather than ethos. However, ethos will determine speaker points. I would prefer that you do not spread if your opponent does not spread or read arguments that your opponent may not understand and cannot engage in (i.e theory or tricks). DO NOT read tricks in a novice debate, I will vote on them but you will get 25 speaks.

DO WEIGHING! Most novice debates come down to who weighs there impacts better so please do weighing. Debates without weighing make me sad and are often irresolvable. Clash with each others arguments as much as possible.

COLLAPSE! Don't go for every argument you read in the debate. If you read 3 contentions choose 1 to extend in the 1AR and 2AR and do lots of weighing for why that 1 contention comes first in the debate. You also don't need to extend every card in the aff - extend a few and compare your evidence to theirs.

How to get high speaks: Be respectful, Collapse, Weigh, Clash with your opponents arguments, Use CX strategically.

Varsity LD --

Tricks -- Sure but here are some caveats -- The warrant for an argument starts at 0 and then goes up, with that being said just make sure there's an actual justification for your tricky arguments. Be truthful during cross and I would appreciate it if you formatted your doc so that I could see each argument. Also the roadmap is super important with these debaters so please walk me through the order for each flow and whether I should flow a certain argument on a separate page.

-- If you have analytics pre-written in a constructive speech send it

T/Theory -- Yeah sure go for it. I every read shell from condo to glizzy theory throughout my career. I'll always be technical, but my threshold for reasonability also decreases with the frivolity of the shell. Structure your shell and make sure I know what I'm voting on. Make sure to do lots of framing and weighing for different impacts in the round so that I can judge the round off the flow.

-- Don't read disclosure against traditional debaters, I'll still vote on it, but your speaks won't be lookin too hot.

K -- K's are dope and I'm always open to them. In debate I primarily ran Mollow and Queerpess as my main K strategies, but I've taken classes on Nietzsche and looked into Berardi. I will say I am a lot more comfortable with the identity side of K debate but I'll evaluate your wacky K's as well. Don't spend five minutes on the overview about your theory, I would much more appreciate if you do the explanation along the line by line. Also framing is a huge part of these debates, just make sure I know what your model's orientation looks like.

-- If you're reading a reps K please proactively explain why I should drop the other debater/whatever your impact is -- "that's a voting issue" isn't a warrant.

K affs -- Read them, go for it, I don't care if you don't implement but explain your model of debate and why it deserves the ballot. That being said I will not evaluate call out arguments or arguments based on out of round violations other than disclosure. Lastly, an explanation for your method is super important -- I need to be able to repeat back to you what it is that the aff does in order for you to get the ballot.

Policy/LARP -- Yeah policy is dope, I just don't have the most experience with this style of debate

-- I live for impact turn debates! -- If you actually understand the turns that you're reading and give me a good explanation of them your speaks will be rewarded handsomely.

Phil -- Philosophy is a very interesting style and I advocate for it because of how specific it is to LD. That being said I understand most of my phil experience in debate was between Util, Kant and Hobbes with a little bit in Virtue Ethics and Hegel. Some of the more abstract philosophies that are read these days are a little harder for me to digest, but with a good explanation of the meta ethic and standard in a round I should be able to understand your argument. I also encourage debaters to cut substantive evidence for the syllogisms of their frameworks -- it just makes the argument a lot stronger.

-- Please enunciate more on your permissibility triggers and provide sufficient explanation for them. I'm not willing to pull the trigger for you for a 1 second trigger you made in the NC.

Round wise

Please speak clearly and at a reasonable pace; if I can not understand it then I have not heard it.

If you spread your speaks will already drop. If you spread in Novice or in JV tournaments without prefacing it by saying that you will be doing such, your chances at winning have gone down significantly. If you want to spread and not be at a disadvantage, clear it with your opponent and with me beforehand.

Respect is very important, you should be cordial and respectful towards your opponent.

Don't fidget; hair should be out of your face and you should try not to move too much (hand motions are acceptable).

Look into the camera or at your opponent/myself.

Full facial profile on the camera please, it helps visually and makes it easier to understand if I need to lip read.

Although I am a parent judge, I have a lot of experience. I'm pretty good at flowing, but if your opponent doesn't extend something or brings up information in their last speech, please point it out. ALL NEW INFORMATION/ARGUMENTS IN THE LAST SPEECH WILL NOT BE FLOWED.

If you make any racist/homophobic/sexist etc comments you'll be dropped. Don't compare prison to slavery, I will never buy it and it makes you look pretty awful.

Case sharing is NOT REQUIRED. Don't let your opponent bully you into doing it if you don't want to. Clarify before round and before sending anything if you are case sharing.

Case wise

You need to explain your framework. I am familiar with util and sw, but things like Locke and Rawls I need to understand to vote on.

Don't advocate for marxism in front of me, it will probably not end well due to my implicit biases so it's better to avoid it.

I'm a traditional judge. Please do not read K's, Theory, Tricks, etc. I most likely won't vote on them.

Crystalize and weigh in the 2NR and the 2AR, tell me why you should win.

I don't mind being referred to as Judge.

Please remember to ask if your opponent and myself are ready before you start your speech/talking. Warnings should be given for any sensitive topic, and though I am not opposed to any arguments myself, still ask and ensure your opponent is okay. An example of a fragile topic is sexual harassment.

Hi, My name is Joshua Lederberger. I am a recent graduate from the University of Florida with a dual degree in Business Administration and Media & Film Production. I have multiple years of experience in theater and performing arts. I have some experience judging a few tournaments but I am still relatively new, so please be sure to speak clearly and slowly.

For speech events, I will be able to evaluate you from an experienced and unbiased perspective focusing on pacing, pathos, and overall oratory ability.

For debate events, you should treat me as a traditional judge. I will be able to follow your arguments from a logical perspective, but I do not understand overly complex technical jargon or spreading.

Please speak clearly and slowly.

Signpost during your speeches. Crystallize in your final speeches. Play nice.

I know absolutely nothing about this resolution. Assume I know nothing and did no research.

I'm a lay judge

Quick personal background on me: I did not compete as an HS student. I have been judging in various speech and debate tournaments (Lincoln Douglas or Public Forum) since 2017. I guess that would make me a moderately experienced judge.

General:

1) I expect competitors to be as self-sufficient as they can within their given levels.

2) Please be kind to your opponents. Whatever flexibility you expect to have should be given to others so that way there is no awkwardness when something that you don't agree with takes place.

3) If time runs out while you are speaking you should only finish the sentence. Do not expect to go on to continue your point. DO NOT MAKE YOUR SENTENCE AN EXTRA LONG ONE SO YOU CAN KEEP TALKING.

Speed: This is obviously dictated by the natural flow of the round. Try not to rush too much otherwise it is likely for me to not catch your full position.

Time: For those who like to keep their own time within a round, I give a 3, 2, 1 count so that way there is no debate.

Prep Time: Use of it is a personal choice. My time is the final say if you decide to have running prep time.

Arguments: Quality is better than quantity in all respects. I listen to both the types of sources you use and how information from each is imparted. I appreciate when a point is as concise as possible and you stick to it as much as possible for the entire round. My decisions tend to go to who can sustain the best argument for the entire round. If you have a good argument that is not defended will, that will impact your score.

I have never judged World Schools before. Ignore everything below

---

Auto 30s if both teams agree to skip all crossfires and prep time. Auto 29s if both teams agree to skip all crossfires, or if you offer + the other team refuses. Otherwise I cap speaks at 28. If you want lots of time to write your speech, do policy.

I have a short attention span. Don't make the round unnecessarily long, or I will be in a bad mood.

---

I debated for hunter college hs ('20) in nyc and broke at toc. I coached bronx science ('20-'21) and do some apda at harvard ('24).

1. All 1st rebuttal to 1ff extensions are fine, including offense. I don't care if you frontline in 2nd rebuttal, or extend turns or defense in 1st summary. No new 2ff weighing. I presume 1st speaking team. I have a high bar for not presuming - if it takes longer than 120 seconds for me to decide the round, I will presume. This includes when both teams are winning offense but neither weighs, even if the weighing is obvious.

2. "If I have the choice between voting for an impact that’s weighed as the biggest in the round but is muddled versus a less important but clean impact, I will resolve the muddled impact every time."

Speed is fine, I will clear you if necessary, send me the doc if going 300+. Don't interrupt women in cx.

---

Theory: Paraphasing is good for debate. In general, I default reasonability. Running theory asks me to intervene, by not evaluating substance, because the in-round abuse supposedly outweighs. You have to make me actually believe that the abuse was significant and outweighs substance, or else I won't intervene. If in doubt, ask before the round.

All online tournaments: If you choose to read any cards, disclosure theory is a TKO. You must send all your case evidence in card form with reasonable context and proper cites to the email chain before you read case.

I care very little about what your evidence says, and I won't read ev unless you tell me to. In fact, I would love a round in which neither team reads any evidence. However, teams seem to be obsessive about evidence-calling, and in this online format, in-round evidence exchange is incredibly clunky and results in a colossal waste of time. Just get it over with before the round. I don't particularly care if you post it on the wiki, and it's fine if you paraphrase your cards in the speech, but the other team needs to be able to read your evidence quickly and readily without wasting everyone else's time while stealing prep time and pretending the email hasn't arrived.

tldr do what you do best; i'll only vote for complete arguments that make sense; weighing & judge instruction tip the scales in your favor; disclosure is good; i care about argument engagement and i value flexibility; stay hydrated & be a good person.

--

About me:

she/her

policy coach @ damien: spring 2022 - present

ld coach @ loyola: fall 2023 - present

--

My strongest belief about argumentation is that argument engagement is good - I don't have a strong preference as to what styles of arguments teams read in front of me, but I'd prefer if both teams engaged with their opponents' arguments; I don't enjoy teams who avoid clash (regardless of the style of argument they are reading). I value ideological flexibility in judges and actively try not to be someone who will exclusively vote on only "policy" or only "k" arguments.

I am comfortable evaluating arguments that are commonplace in policy (cx) debate; less comfortable evaluating nonsense trick-blip-phil-paradox-skep-word-soup quirks of lincoln douglas. This means that any CX team that debates in a coherent and well-researched manner (whether policy or k) should be fine in front of me. LD teams that read real arguments should be fine in front of me. LD teams that read "eval after 1ar" should strike me before they strike a parent judge.

General note about reading my paradigm - most things are phrased in terms of policy debate structure & norms (2nr/2ar being 5 minutes, "team" instead of "debater," "planless aff" = "non-t k aff," etc). If I'm judging you in LD and you have questions about how something translates to LD, feel free to ask!

--

email chains:

ld email chains: loyoladebate47@gmail.com and nethmindebate@gmail.com

policy email chains: damiendebate47@gmail.com and nethmindebate@gmail.com

if you need to contact me directly about rfd questions, accessibility requests, or anything else, please email nethmindebate@gmail.com (please don't email the teamail for these types of requests)!

--

flowing: it is good and teams should do it

stolen from alderete - if you show me a decent flow, you can get up to 1 extra speaker point. this can only help you - i won't deduct points for an atrocious flow. this is to encourage teams to actually flow. i recently witnessed a 2ac that answered a whole k that was not read in the 1nc. it nuked my value to life. this is my attempt at remedying it:)

--

All of my deal-breakers/hard and fast rules/moments of "I won't vote on this" are dependent on four things:

1 - protecting the safety of the participants in the round (no harrassment, no physical violence, etc).

2 - voting for things that meet the minimum standard to be considered an argument (it needs to have warrants & make some amount of logical sense).

3 - rules set forth by the tournament (speech times, one team wins and one team loses, I have to enter my own ballot, etc).

4 - i will only evaluate the debate after the end of the 2ar. this is 0% negotiable. i did not think i would have to say this, but i guess i do.

--

My voting record is roughly 50-50 on most major debate controversies (yes, even planless affs vs framework). As long as your argument doesn't violate the above four criteria, go for it!

I think that warrants are hard to come by in many debate rounds these days, even ones with “good” teams. Err on the side of a little too much explanation, because if your arg is warrantless, you will be ballotless. Extensions need to include warrants, not just taglines.

Independent voters need warrants and an articulation of why they should be evaluated before everything else. These debates could generally benefit from more judge instruction and weighing. Simply calling something an independent voter doesn’t mean I vote for you if you extend it.

Disclose or lose. Non-new affs should be on the wiki & should be disclosed to the neg team a minimum of 30 min before round. Neg offcase positions that have been read before should be on the wiki. Past 2nrs should be disclosed to the aff team a minimum of 30 min before round. New affs don't need to be disclosed pre-round. I am 1000000% done with teams that don't disclose. I have zero belief that there is any good reason for non-disclosure. If your opponent engages in any disclosure nonsense, read theory and there's a 95+% chance I vote for you, regardless of how good they are at the theory debate. Don't like disclosing? Pref someone who is willing to tolerate your nonsense (not me).

note: i am far more lenient on disclosure with novices/debaters who haven't debated at national-circuit tournaments before. the grumpiness of the above section is directed at people who know how to disclose and purposefully avoid it. you know who you are:)

--

Some general notes

Accessibility & content warnings: Email me if there is an accessibility request that I can help facilitate - I always want to do my part to make debates more accessible. I prefer not to judge debates that involve procedurals about accessibility and/or content warnings. I think it is more productive to have a pre-round discussion where both teams request any accommodation(s) necessary for them to engage in an equitable debate. I feel increasingly uncomfortable evaluating debates that come down to accessibility/cw procedurals, especially when the issue could have easily been resolved pre-round.

Speed/clarity – I will say clear up to two times per speech before just doing my best to flow you. I can handle a decent amount of speed. Going slower on analytics is a good idea. You should account for pen time/scroll time.

Online debate -- 1] please record your speeches, if there are tech issues, I'll listen to a recording of the speech, but not a re-do. 2] debate's still about communication - please watch for nonverbals, listen for people saying "clear," etc.

I am not comfortable evaluating out-of-round events. The only exception to this is disclosure. I will vote on reasonable and good faith disclosure theory (yeah you should probably disclose on opencaselist, no you probably shouldn't lose for forgetting one round report). I will not vote on arguments about random out-of-round events, things that happened in another round, things that happened on a team's pref sheet, or any other arguments of this nature.

--

Speaker points:

Speaker points are dependent on strategy, execution, clarity, and overall engagement in the round and are scaled to adapt to the quality/difficulty/prestige of the tournament.

I try to give points as follows:

30: you're a strong contender to win the tournament & this round was genuinely impressive

29.5+: late elims, many moments of good decisionmaking & argumentative understanding, adapted well to in-round pivots

29+: you'll clear for sure, generally good strat & round vision, a few things could've been more refined

28.5+: likely to clear but not guaranteed, there are some key errors that you should fix

28+: even record, probably losing in the 3-2 round

27.5+: winning less than 50% of your rounds, key technical/strategic errors

27+: winning less than 50% of your rounds, multiple notable technical/strategic errors

26+: errors that indicated a fundamental lack of preparation for the rigor/style of this tournament

25-: you did something really bad/offensive/unsafe.

Extra speaks for flowing, being clear, kindness, adaptation, and good disclosure practices.

Minus speaks for discrimination of any sort, bad-faith disclosure practices, rudeness/unkindness, and attempts to avoid engagement/clash.

--

Opinions on Specific Positions (ctrl+f section):

Case:

I think that negatives that don't engage with the 1ac are putting themselves in a bad position. This is true for both K debates and policy debates.

Extensions should involve warrants, not just tagline extensions - I'm willing to give some amount of leeway for the 1ar/2ar extrapolating a warrant that wasn't the focal point of the 2ac, but I should be able to tell from your extensions what the scenario is, what the internal links are, and why you solve.

Planless affs:

I've been on both sides of the planless aff debate, and my strongest opinion about planless affs is that you need to be able to explain what your aff does/why it's good.

I tend to dislike planless affs where the strategy is to make the aff seem like a word salad until after 2ac cx and then give the aff a bunch of new (and not super well-warranted) implications in the 1ar. I tend to be better for planless aff teams when they have a meaningful relationship to the topic, they are straight-up about what they do/don't defend, they use their aff strategically, engage with neg arguments, and make smart 1ar & 2ar decisions with good ballot analysis.

T/framework vs planless affs:

I'm roughly 50-50 in these debates. I don't have a strong preference for how framework teams engage in these debates other than that you should be respectful when discussing sensitive material.

I think that TVAs can be more helpful than teams realize. While having a TVA isn't always necessary, winning a TVA provides substantial defense on many of the aff's exclusion arguments.

I don't have a preference on whether your chosen 2nr is skills or fairness (or something else). I think that both options have strategic value based on the round you're in. Framework teams almost always get better points in front of me when they are able to contextualize their arguments to their opponents' strategy.

I also don't have a preference between the aff going for impact turns or going for a counterinterp. The strategic value of this is dependent on how topical/non-topical your aff is, in my opinion.

Theory:

The less frivolous your theory argument, the better I am for it.

Please weigh! It's not nearly as intuitive to make a decision in theory debates - I can fill in the gaps for why extinction is more impactful than localized war more easily than I can fill in the gaps for why neg flex matters more/less than research burdens.

default to no rvis <3 medium uphill to change my mind on this one

Topicality (not framework):

I like T debates that have robust and contextualized definitions of the relevant words/phrases/entities in the resolution. Have a clear explanation of what your interpretation is/isn't; examples/caselists are your friend.

Grammar-based topicality arguments: I don't find most of the grammar arguments being made these days to be very intuitive. You should explain/warrant them more than you would in front of a judge who loves those arguments.

Tricks (this is mostly an LD thing):

I used to say that I would never vote on tricks. I've decided it's bad to exclude a style of argumentation just because I don't enjoy it. Here are some things to know if you're reading tricks in front of me:

1 - I won't flow off the doc (I never flow off the doc, but I won't be checking the doc to see if I missed any of your tricks/spikes)

2 - The argument has to have a warrant in the speech it is presented

3 - The reason I've been so opposed to voting on tricks in the past is that I've never heard a trick that met the minimum threshold to be considered an argument

Kritiks (neg):

I tend to like K teams that engage with the aff and have a clear analysis of what's wrong with the aff's model/framing/epistemology/etc. I tend to be a bit annoyed when judging K teams that read word-salad or author-salad Ks, refuse to engage with arguments, expect me to fill in massive gaps for them, don't do adequate weighing/ballot analysis/judge instruction, or are actively hostile toward their opponents. The more of the aforementioned things you do, the more annoyed I'll be. The inverse is also true - the more you actively work to ensure that you don't do these things, the happier I'll be!

Disads:

Zero risk probably doesn't exist, but very-close-to-zero risk probably does. Teams that answer their opponents' warrants instead of reading generic defense tend to fare better in close rounds. Good evidence tends to matter more in these debates - I'd rather judge a round with 2 great cards + debaters explaining their cards than a round with 10 horrible cards + debaters asking me to interpret their dumpster-quality cards for them.

Counterplans:

I don't have strong ideological biases about how many condo advocacies the neg gets or what kinds of counterplans are/aren't cheating. More egregious abuse = easier to persuade me on theory; the issue I usually see in theory debates is a lack of warranting for why the neg's model was uniquely abusive - specific analysis > generic args + no explanation.

Judge kick - you've gotta tell me to do it. I'm not opposed to it, but I won't assume that you want me to unless the 2nr tells me to. No strong opinions for/against judge kick.

currently no strong opinions on things like normal means or counterplan competition on the fiscal redistribution topic. this means you can probably get away with more in front of me as long as you warrant it/read good evidence.

--

Arguments I will NEVER vote for:

-arguments that are actively discriminatory or make the round unsafe ("misgendering good," "let's make the debate about a minor's personal life," other stuff of that nature).

-any argument that attempts to police what a debater wears or how they present (this includes shoes theory/formal clothes theory).

-any argument that denies the existence/badness of oppression (i don't mean i won't vote for "extinction outweighs." i mean i won't vote for "genocide good.")

--

if there's anything i didn't mention or you have any questions, feel free to email me! if there's anything i can do to make debate more accessible for you, let me know! i really love debate and i coach because i want to make debate/the community a better place; please don't hesitate to reach out if there's anything you need.

Fourth-year assistant coach at Ridge High School.

I teach AP Government, Politics, & Economics, Global History, and AP Euro there as well. I will be able to follow any content/current event information you include.

I've coached and judged all major debate topics. I work most closely with our Congressional debate team, but also have experience judging PF, LD, and Parli.

PF: I think it's important for you to remember the goal of the event. Anyone should be able to walk into your round and follow the debate. With that said, I do flow and will try to give tech feedback as well as general commentary. I think some speed is ok in PF, but I think spreading absolutely does not belong.

LD: I am not a former debater myself; I really struggle to follow theory debate, K's, and spreading in general. I've learned a little about it over the past few years, but if you are a tech/theory/spreading team you should probably strike me (just being honest!). For all other levels--I will flow both framework and case and have voted on both. Try to be concrete in connecting your evidence to your claims. I've found that LD debaters can sometimes get carried away with "debater math"...and no, not everything can lead to nuke war. I am partial to probability arguments--I'm a realist at heart :)

Congress: As a teacher of Government & Politics, I really enjoy this event. You should always be roleplaying being an actual representative/senator. What would your constituents think about your speech? Why is your advocacy in their interest? I really like constitutionality arguments--we have a federal system, and sometimes bills being debated are directly in violation of those principles. Feel free to cite those Supreme Court cases all day. As you get later into the round, I will be highly critical if you are just repeating points from previous speeches. I want to see crystal/ref speeches later on--as do your fellow competitors, I'd presume.

2023

My name is Emily, and my pronouns are she/her/hers. I do APDA and BP at Princeton University. First thing to note is that I am a lay judge. I did not do LD in high school and have limited knowledge about the current norms.

Email: ep5196@princeton.edu

LARP/phil>Ks>tricks. I am willing to vote on anything you bring into the round as long as you explain why I should vote on it.

Things to note:

1. I judge tabula rasa, but I am generally a reasonable person. If you warrant, impact, and weigh, you are well on your way to winning.

2. Please do not be sexist, racist, homophobic, xenophobic, etc. I will not tolerate anything that endangers a positive environment.

3. I can understand a reasonable amount of speed and will clear if it becomes an issue, but please speak at a reasonable pace. Quality over quantity! If I cannot understand your arguments, I cannot flow them.

4. Signpost as much as you possibly can! It helps me flow your arguments and makes them easier to understand.

5. Explain any theory thoroughly if you plan to run it.

Best of luck, and enjoy your rounds! Feel free to contact me with any questions or feedback requests!

Hello, you may refer to me as Ms. Peng. I am a parent judge that is new to Public Forum, however I have judged for Lincoln Douglas in the past.

Hi, I'm Sanjana! I did LD and Extemp at Ardrey Kell (graduated in 2021), and now go to Dartmouth College. I primarily did traditional LD/some circuit LD during my senior year.

I'm a few years removed from competitive debate, and will probably not have much familiarity with the topic. 

My general preferences are that you spend enough time explaining the links and impacts of your arguments, what the implication of those impacts are for the round (especially through framework in LD), and how that interacts with and weighs against your opponent's arguments. Be as comparative as possible in your last speech.

email: sanjana.raj.25@dartmouth.edu

My email is taj@unitingthecrowns.com

2023 NDT Champion

2023 CEDA Champion

I used to read plans and afropess. I used to do LD in high school.

The Black Chorus Sings

Background:

I am a former student debater with the University of Miami British Parliamentary Debate Team and continue to judge BP at college level, I have also been judging policy (among other formats) high school tournaments for 6 years now.

A Note on PF/World Schools and other lay formats:

Although I am usually a tech judge, when the format dictates a lay judge I will judge as a lay judge. That means that if you spread or run a K in a PF round, you will be dropped. LD I dont consider a lay format, so go all out if you wish.

General Notes:

I judge mostly based on what's on my flow, so good organization is key to winning with me.

Signposting is good, fully flushing out an argument before moving on is good, being all over the place is a sure way to me missing something. Tying several arguments together to a single theme is good and gives your team a strong team line upon which I can judge, but make that connection known, dont expect me to tie your loose ends for you, thats a sure way to an L.

Please make sure to flush out your arguments, if you dont give me a reason that an argument is true (whether by using facts or theory), I wont judge on it.

Misrepresenting your oppositions arguments may be good enough to win you the debate (if they dont call you out on it), but it sure wont win you any speaker points. While we are on the topic of misrepresenting, no card clipping, heavy penalties will apply.

Towards the end of your 2AR/2NR speech, make sure to close off the debate and tell me why you think you should win, tell me what you want me to vote on and why.

Although evidence is expected, dont hide solely behind it, give me reasoning as to why your position is better than your opposition. Debate is about more than just reading cards, its about applying your own critical thinking.

Specifics:

Topicality: Run topicality only if you have a case for it, remember that the burden lies with the negative to show why the affirmative definition is abusive, and it better be a good reason. Show me why the debate is worse off as a result of affirmative's definitions, dont just say that it is. Also be sure to provide your alternative interpretations, the best way to win a T argument is to show what the debate should have been vs what the affirmative made it out to be.

Counter-Plan: CP's are always fun, but remember to show that your plan is either mutually-exclusive or better than CP+ or else affirm gets it. Also make sure to show how your plan is different from the affirmative. Plan must be clear and concise. Conditionality is fine as long as you dont contradict yourself and give room to affirmative to debate it, anything else is abusive. More than 2 conditional args is abusive and will be judged down.

Kritik: Another very fun thing to judge, make sure to explain your K well. Dont just tell me that the paradigm that the affirmative accepted is bad, show me specifically how the plan worsens the outcome as a result of your kritik and its implications. Doing anything less will not win you the argument. Keep in mind that I am generally not a fan of heavy-theory rounds, any theory arguments presented must be grounded in real solvency.

2AR/2NR: NO NEW ARGUMENTATION IN THE LAST TWO SPEECHES. New argumentation wont be judged on and will heavily influence speaker points. The only exception to this is as rebuttal to new argumentation brought up in the previous speech, that said its a fine line, so tread carefully.

Cross-Ex: Open CX is fine, but will impact speaker points accordingly. When asking questions, allow the person to answer, avoid interruptions if possible.

Ethics: Dont clip cards, dont mis-represent evidence, dont use insults, be respectful to opponents/partners/judges/audience. Ethics violations will heavily influence speaker points.

Speaker Points: I will generally limit myself to 25-30 speaker points (although I reserve the right to go below that for serious ethics violations). Generally my points will fall somewhere along a standard distribution curve, so 26-28 on average. In general I will look at the following in no particular order: Technical proficiency, argumentation, clarity, engagement with opposition arguments, jokes/puns (we all like to laugh every once in a while).

Hello!

I am a current student at Dartmouth studying econ and philosophy and I've done LD throughout high school. Some things to note:

1. I will be flowing the entire round. I will know what your opponents did and did not respond to, but if you want to make something clear to me, tell me!

2. Please be respectful to your opponents. Debate is a lot more enjoyable for all of us when crossfires are respectful and no one is yelling over one another.

3. I will keep time but I recommend you keep time for yourself as well. If you go over time, finish your sentence, but I will stop you if you start making completely new points.

4. Please signpost! For new debaters, this means that you should let me know what you're discussing when you're discussing it using the contention tagline or the main point of the argument.

5. (And most important) Have fun! I want to enjoy my rounds and I want you guys to enjoy them too :)

my email is victoria.f.tong@gmail.com

Did PF for 4 years at Unionville, overall I'm a pretty normal flow judge

- spreading/theory: no thanks

- tech: over truth but it's easier for me to buy arguments that are more grounded (the more out there your argument is there more warranting you should have)

- final focus: all offense should've been in summary

- evidence: don't lie about it

- warranting: do it

- collapsing: do it

- weighing: yes please

- be: nice

feel free to ask questions!

I currently participate in American and British Parliamentary in the college circuit and am quite active.

See Uma Menon's paradigm for my preferences. It is also important to note that I never competed in LD, so I do not know how to evaluate theory and dislike tech-based rounds (e.g. spreading).

I'm a parent judge who has judged a couple of LD tournaments. Since I'm a relatively new judge and don't judge often, excessive speed is counterproductive on the debaters' part (AKA I'm a traditional judge and don't recommend running progressive). I follow where the rounds are going, and expect to be led to the big arguments for either side. I value logical coherence and arguments with well-supported data that clearly link to the arguments.

Politeness and respect for your opponent and the judge are required.