I have 5 years of experience in public forum debate and 3 years of experience in policy debate, so spreading is fine as long as I can understand you. I'll evaluate the round through whatever framework you give me, as long as it's reasonable and you explain why I should prefer it over your opponent's framework.

I prefer policy-based arguments (CP/DA/Case) over K's.

Elkins '20 | UT '24

Email: nibhanakbar@gmail.com

I did pf for 2 years

messenger is preferred

UPDATE:

For UT, please send all case docs to nibhanakbar@gmail.com, thanks

3 Ways to get the easiest 30, these speaker point bumps are going to be individual ie. first speaker does the james harden reference only he/she would get the 30 so you would have to each do a reference if you choose that route.

1. Any POSITIVE James Harden Reference

2. Skittles - either sour or normal

3. a coke - don't do this one anymore thanks I already have 3 of them thanks

Overall

straight up, I will NOT evaluate any form of progressive argumentation. I don't know how to evaluate it, and if you fail to meet this requirement, I simply won't flow. I'm open to any other substantive argument, but this is the one hard rule I have.

I like link debate it makes my job easy, and impacts don't matter unless both teams win their respective link thanks in advance

I flow on my laptop so I can handle top limits of pf speed, but if you double breathe or don't go faster properly, that's unfortunate. In all honesty if you keep it a medium leaning fast pf speed i would prefer that

If you run an offensive overview in second rebuttal it will make me really sad :(

I mess with paraphrasing

General

- I consider myself tech > truth I'm going to vote for the team with the least mitigated link chain into the best-weighed impact

- Defense you want to concede should be conceded in the speech immediately after it was originally read

- a concession requires an implication of how the defense interacts with your argument not just "we concede to the delinks"

Rebuttal

- Any turns not frontlined in second rebuttal have a 100% probability

- If you are going for something in the latter half of the round, collapse in second rebuttal and frontline the entire thing

- Defense do be sticky till frontlined

- Don't extend in second rebuttal it makes zero sense

Summary Overall

- Extensions - Author and Warrant thanks

- You have to extend uniqueness - link - impact for me to vote on something

- For turns - if you want to collapse on a turn in FF the extension has to have the argument/impact that you are turning in the first place

First summary

- New evidence for frontlining is cool

- Extend some defense ig

Second summary

- Extend defense

- Y'all should weigh if you don't that's kinda chalked

Final focus

- Extend uniqueness link and impact

- Extend weighing pls

Cross

- Don't be rude but if you are sarcastic that's cool but there is a pretty thin line between being rude and sarcastic

- If y'all skip gc that would make me very happy which in turn leads to a bump in speaks for everyone

Evidence

- I'll only call for evidence if it sounds fire or someone tells me to

Post Round

- I'll try to disclose every round

- Post-rounding is cool with me, you can do it after rfd or on messenger after the round.

- I presume neg if there is no offense in the round

Donts

- Be toxic

- Spread on novices, if its clear that you are winning just show them respect and give them a chance to learn ie: explain the implications in cross in an understanding way

• Say something that’s blatantly racist/sexist/misogynistic/ xenophobic and all those lists

Extras

Also if you made it to the end, I've noticed the quality of extensions has exponentially decreased since I have been judging. I honestly just want you to extend case and then frontline or the inverse, or if you are the goat frontline and extend thanks.

Please do not feel obligated to get the extra speaker points they are there for two reasons 1) So I can enjoy a debate round a little more 2) So I don't get hangry.

Danae Barkocy - She/her - dbarkocy@trinity.edu

GENERAL:

• Howdy! :) I’m a current college senior who debated for Leander for three years. My two main events were LD and Extemp, but I’ve also dabbled in CX and UIL congress and have done a fair amount of interp. I’m a tab judge as far as argument choice, but as always you need to explain links/solvency/etc very well and tell me the main issues you want me to vote on.
• If there’s anything you would like me to call you (name/pronouns, etc) that hasn’t been shared on Tabroom, just let me know
• I’m okay with speed as long as the case has been shared with me. Please slow down for important taglines
• I will give verbal critiques and answer questions unless the tournament rules say otherwise. Just ask

SPEAKS:

• I assign speaks based on speech organization (roadmap, signposting, etc), and clarity (can I hear what you’re saying? If you’re spreading, can I make out the taglines?). Other than that, just be a decent person - I’ll dock speaks if you’re rude/condescending in cross.

CASE:

• I’m a tech over truth judge in that I evaluate rounds based on who’s winning the flow, not which argument I think is actually ‘correct’. I insert my own opinion as little as possible, so tell me exactly what parts of the flow I’m voting on.
• In a situation that pits evidence against analytic argument, I’ll vote on whoever has the most plausible evidence. If both sides read evidence and neither side is gaining a lot of ground, I’ll vote on well-warranted analytical argumentation that provides good clash and creates a voting issue.

K/FRAMEWORK:

• I really love a good framework debate and find myself voting there often. I don’t default to a particular framing (util, etc), so I’ll let whoever is debating the round frame how it should be judged/decided and go from there (in other words, it’s very important if you make it important)

THEORY/TOPICALITY:

• I’m not opposed to voting on T, but know that I didn’t do a ton of T debate in high school so you’ll have to explain the voting issues very well (e.g., don’t talk about reverse RVIs for two minutes - just explain in Lehman’s terms why the theory creates education/fairness/equity, whatever your standard is)

ETC:

- I'm a simple woman, tell me your favorite Taylor Swift song for +0.3 speaks

Hello I am a new parent judge. I am very sorry but I'm still learning the basics of only judging. I have some experience but please be clear and slow.

I've been judging various forms of speech and debate events on local, state and national levels since 2013. Head coach of St. John's School since 2020.

I have no event specific expectations on what should happen, I prefer everything to be spelled out in round. I do not like intervening.

Speaker points are a tie-breaker, so I am a bit more conservative with them, but that doesn't mean I'll tank your points unless you're unclear, have frequent speech errors, go over time, or if you're rude. Expect an average 27.5-29.5 range in PF/LD/CX and a range of 68-72 in Worlds and a 3-5 range in Congress. Perfect speaks reserved for those who truly exemplify great public speaking skills. Rudeness can also be a cause for a team losing.

Don't assume I know anything, explain as if you were talking to someone non-specialized in whatever subject matter you're speaking on.

Ask before round any further questions you might have.

(she/they)

Who am I?
I am a social studies teacher the assistant debate coach. I mainly judge public forum and believe it is a positive space for open and healthy rhetoric. I hope you agree with my view that public forum is an event for the common person.

I am hard of hearing

I will be using a transcription aid on my phone to follow the round. It is not recording the speech and the transcript is deleted after 24 hours. Please, speak loudly and clearly for me and the transcription.

How I evaluate debate.

Treat me like a lay person who can flow. Use email chains, cut cards rather than paraphrasing, and avoid the use of debate jargon. I want to see clear defense, impacts, and links. I am a social studies teacher, so focus on your ability to use evidence and real-world understanding. I will vote on understanding of the issue, evidence, and explanation.

### Speeches

If you don't talk about it in summary, I'm not evaluating it in final focus.

### Cross

Don't use crossfire as an opportunity to bicker. I don’t pay attention to cross. In my opinion, cross is meant to examine your opponent’s case and clarify any questions. Seeing people using cross just to dunk on the opponent is not useful.

### Spreading

I am new to debate and English is not my first language so I cannot judge spreading - nor do I believe it has a place in *public* forum. I need to understand your argument and your ability to adapt to your audience will be judged.

### Theory

If your opponent does any of the Big Oofs and you read theory about it, I'm inclined to think you're in the right.

I don't want to listen to K debate - I will be honest and admit I do not know enough about debate to evaluate them fairly (except for the aforementioned exception)

Big Oofs

These are things that will make a W or high speaks an uphill battle. If you read theory against any of these (when applicable), I’m inclined to side with you. Avoid at all costs.

1. Misuse Evidence. Know the evidence and cut rather than paraphrase. Use evidence that is relevant, timely, trustworthy, and accurate. Use SpeechDoc or an email chain to keep each other accountable and save time.
2. Be late to round. Especially for Flight 2. I understand the first round of the day, but please try your best to be in your room on time. Punctuality is a skill and impressions are important.
3. Taking too long to ‘get ready’ or holding up the round. Have cards cut, flows setup, and laptops ready to go before the round. Especially if you’re going to be late.
4. Not timing yourself. Self-explanatory.
5. Not using trigger warnings. Debate is better when it’s accessible. Introducing any possibly triggering topics or references without consent is inaccessible.
6. Doing any of the 2023 no-no’s. Homophobia, misogyny, transphobia, racism, ableism, etc. is a one-way free ticket to a 25 speak and an L for the round.

The Respect Amendment

This section was added for minor offensives that rub me the wrong way. No, I will not vote on these. I might dock speaks for not following these - depending on severity.

I want to forward a respectful, fair, and accessible environment for debate. The Big Oofs are a good place to start. But I hope that every debater would…

1. **Respect their partner.** Trust that they know what they’re doing.
2. **Respect their opponent.** Don’t belittle them or talk down to them. Aim to understand and give critiques on their argument, not to one-up them on something small.
3. **Respect the judge.** All judges make mistakes and lousy calls - especially me. We can respectfully disagree, and that’s okay. However, not a single judge has changed their mind because you were a bad sportsperson.

Hi--thanks for looking me up!

I'm a debate parent, a career English and Ethnic Studies professor, and a former member of the USC Debate Squad. My events were duo interp. and the "After Dinner Speech" (i.e., precursor to TED talk with goals to entertain and instruct). This is my 4th year judging (2nd kid on the team), and I have voted with the majority in 85% of debate elim rounds.

Debate: I will flow your case and vote on the strength of it as a whole (no petty line-by-line here). My academic background is in rhetoric, so I like good evidence and precise word choice; it follows that I see overstatement as intellectually sloppy, annoying, and sometimes a critical error (looking at you, extinction-level arguments!). The best debaters will use superb sources and be vigilant about their opponents' blocks for the same. Cross is a strategic opportunity to open holes or create a path for your own case, so "repeat this" questions that primarily offer your opponent more airtime reflect poorly on you. Tone matters, so cross can be aggressive but not demeaning or bullying. Logical links should be made often and with crystal clarity. Real-world examples that are not cliche and offer you an opportunity to "make real" your framework and showcase the depth and adeptness of your thinking are always impressive.

Don'ts: I am totally unimpressed and dispirited by teams that share or use common cases. In my field we call it plagiarism and consider it illegal. Therefore, duplicate cases will be judged with great disadvantage. (Opponents are advised to drill down and demand logical links and sophisticated explanations from different points of view that folks who copy cases often cannot provide.)

Spreading: I am not (yet) convinced that spreading works. I see it as a flashy (and cheap) excuse for not doing the harder intellectual work of analysis and concision that debate, at its best, demands. Please don't waste my time and yours by subscribing to this rhetorical game that undermines the essential and transferable skills at the heart of this amazing program.

Furthermore, I am offended by the practice of sending written cases since I believe it compromises the careful listening and oral argument abilities that debate is designed to cultivate in real time. Please don't ask me if I'd like to be sent your case--you will be revealing that you haven't read my paradigm.

IEs: I believe in genre categories, so a Dec should sound like a speech and not a DI. HI should be LOL funny instead of weird/odd. Interp speeches should be cut to highlight a clear plot arc with tension, depth, and a satisfying conclusion. Sources matter and should be clearly and respectfully credited. Platform speeches should sound professional and resist drama creep.

I don't profess to be "right," but I believe that earnest feedback is a gift; I will do my best to be diligent and offer you what I can. I am grateful to learn something from you in nearly every round I have the pleasure of hearing (thank you!).

Most importantly, I celebrate you! I'm impressed that you've made the choice to participate in Speech and Debate, and I believe that your hard work here will benefit every aspect of your future. Many of you are already more advanced than my freshmen and sophomores in the CSU. It's such a pleasure to listen to you and to watch you grow over the seasons! :) Let's go!

Prof. Cassel

Email chain please: columbus.debate.team@gmail.com

PF:

PLEASE DO NOT PARAPHRASE YOUR CASE OR MISCUT EVIDENCE

PF/LD

1. CLARITY IS KEY!! That applies to speech, organization, signposting, etc.

2. Please warrant your claims and evidence once brought up, not later in the round or next speech (see point 1)

3. Speed is fine, I only judge what I can flow however, so I cannot say I am going to get everything down if you are spreading. I definitely prefer slower more traditional rounds. With that said, if you want to spread make sure your opponent is okay with it. You shouldn't spread/speed in PF, it's in the rules and norms of the event. It is called PUBLIC forum for a reason.

4. I studied philosophy during my time in university. Please do not throw out theory or K's without having done the necessary background research to really know what you are talking about. The round will be messy because of it, which takes us back to point 1 on clarity.

WORLD SCHOOLS:

1. Slow down, this isn't policy. You not only need to argue effectively, you need to persuade.

2. Principled arguments >>> specific examples and evidence. Not to say you shouldn't have specific evidence, but often the more philosophical grounds of reasoning get left out in favor of, basically, carded evidence.

3. New arguments in the back half of the debate are unadvisable and don't allow the other side enough time to have a developed response.

4. Keep your eye aware for POI's, if you see one but are choosing to ignore it, indicate verbally or with a hand motion. If you're asking POIs, you

Greetings, by way of introduction, my name is Eric Emerson. eric.emerson@kinkaid.org (for speech docs).

I coach debate (policy, LD, World's, congress, oratory and public forum) at the Kinkaid school. I have actively served on the Board of the Houston Urban Debate League since 2008, the year of its inception, and have also directed the UTNIF.

As a judge, I evaluate arguments (claim, warrant, data and impact). I prefer arguments grounded in literature rather than regressive debate theory (take note LD). My preferences are flexible and can be overcome by persuasive, smart debaters.

I take notes, sometimes quite quickly. If I think you unclear, I will let you know in my facial expressions and on the occasion, hopefully rare, when I yell 'clear'.

If I find you/your arguments, unpleasant then your speaker points will reflect that. I disagree with judges who give out high speaker points to everyone. You gotta earn my points.

I am easily distracted and I prefer debaters to be both engaging and entertaining. If I appear distracted, it may be your fault.

Debate is a powerful educational tool that should be accessible to everyone. I try to approach all of my interactions with empathy and concern for others. I find unpleasant debates to be just that, unpleasant. I would ask that you avoid being unpleasant to your opponents, spectators, and me. Unpleasantness that threatens debate, to me, should be avoided.

Background: I retired from Coppell High School a few years ago where I taught Public Forum, Policy, and Lincoln Douglas. I am assisting Coppell at the present time.

Judging Philosophy: While I don't think anyone can be truly tabula rasa, I try to ignore my bias as much as possible. I will listen to any argument you want to make as long as you have good evidence, and qualified sources. I expect weighing of impacts and any other reason why your argument is better than your opponents. Your strategy is your own business but if you expect me to vote for you I have to have strong impacts and comparisons to your opponents arguments that make sense.

Style: I have to hear you to flow your arguments. Because of this virtual world we are forced to live in you have to be clear and make sure you are being heard. I will say "clear" once. I prefer moderate to a little faster speed. Again, remember you are debating via computer.

I have judged Public Forum a lot this year.

f

Updated August 8, 2024

Debate is an educational activity first and foremost. I will drop speaks, or at the most extreme drop the debater, for conduct which infringes upon the accessibility of the debate space. Namely, no racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, classism, ableism, or other discriminatory behaviors will be tolerated.

Background

Most recently, varsity Parli coach at The Nueva School, CA. Not currently employed as a full-time coach.

Former coach at Menlo School, CA and Mountain View-Los Altos, CA. While in school, I was a TOC-level PF debater; I typically debated as part of Los Altos GV.

Short Form Paradigm: I flow and vote off the flow. I am tabula rasa and non-interventionist. I care about evidence and weighing. When I vote, I look to the last speeches first, so you need to extend both your warrants and impacts to those speeches. If you can't tell me why you deserve to win, you don't deserve to win. Give me an easy path to the ballot.

COVID-19 Notice: This is a really weird time, and a really weird way, to be doing debate. Accordingly, for any round conducted virtually:

-I will be very forgiving with technical and related issues. Please speak up or message me in chat if you have literally any problems. Debate is an educational activity first and foremost and that needs to be preserved.

-This pandemic affects all of us in some way, and some of us very personally. Please conduct yourselves with the appropriate respect.

-I will not be minutely assessing speaker points in any round conducted virtually. Speakers on the winning team will receive 30s (or 30 and 29.9 if necessary) and the losing team will receive 29.9s (or 29.8 and 29.7, if necessary). I reserve the right to drop speaks for uncivil and/or discriminatory conduct, ref. my note at the top of the paradigm.

Definitions:

Disclose: to inform the debaters who won the round.

Dropping: to vote against

Fiat power: the government's ability to declare that their plan will pass through appropriate channels into law, and be executed by the appropriate authorities. Fiat power does not absolve the government of the potential downsides of this process.

Flow: my notes of the round. I capture the essence of, or paraphrase, all content.

Framework: an argument about how the judge should assess the various content in the round. A common example is a net benefits or cost-benefit analysis framework, which adheres to the principle of the greatest good for the greatest number of people.

K: short for "Kritik," a category of arguments which seek "to redirect the focus of debate to whether or not to reject ideas which support or uphold undesirable ideology, language, institutions, or world views" (Bennett).

Line-by-line: a way of organizing rebuttal and later speeches that addresses arguments and evidence in the order they were originally stated, rather than grouping them together in a condensed format, thematically or otherwise.

Non-interventionist: I do not insert myself in the decision of the round; I judge based on who provided the better arguments as recorded on my flow.

Plan: an organized description of the government's proposal for addressing the resolution. It must include a description of the timeframe, funding, and actor. All three.

RFD: Reason for decision. This is provided in written form on the ballot and, frequently, verbally immediately after the round as well.

Signposting: when a debater indicates which argument they are addressing, before addressing it.

Spread: a very fast style of speaking, frequently eclipsing 300 words per minute.

Theory (sometimes 'T'): a category of arguments about how the rules of the debate and how it is conducted, rather than arguments about the content of the resolution. "Friv" T, short for frivolous, is that which is only tangentially related, if at all.

Tabula rasa: lit. "Blank slate," meaning I come into the round without bias (as much as possible).

Tag teaming: a parli debate practice when in the middle of partner X's speech, they confer with partner Y, either in a hushed tone or with an audible statement by partner Y that is then repeated by partner X. Statements are not flowed unless they are said aloud by the partner whose designated speech it is. [My own opinion of this practice is quite negative, in the context of in-person debate. Virtual debate sometimes makes it necessary, and that's ok.]

General Paradigm

1. I flow and vote off the flow.

Speed is fine, but if I can't understand you I can't give you credit for the argument. If you spread, I won't drop you automatically, I just won't be able to understand you and so I'll probably end up dropping you. I'll only say "Slow" a few times to try to tell you to slow down.

Signposting is key. I will write everything down, but if you're disorganized, my flow will be too, and that makes my job a lot harder.

I like to give oral RFDs and disclose if possible, but if I need extra time in order to examine my flow, that takes precedence over giving you a decision in the room. I will tell you you're not getting an oral RFD as soon as I realize I'll need the extra time.

2. I am tabula rasa and non-interventionist. I will not complete the argument for you.

I am open to anything as long as it's within the rules of the event. For example, if you're running a plan in PF I'm perfectly open to that, just don't call it a plan (hint: use "advocacy"), and remember the neg doesn't have fiat power in PF.

3. Don't play around with evidence.

If you're acting strange or dodging basic questions, I will likely call for the evidence (more so in PF than Parli).

I will look at any evidence you call for me to look at, if you do so within the round (all events included).

Empirics are king, but they are not the be-all end-all. Smart analytics can beat dumb cards, as Cayman Giordano says.

PF: Within the round you should cite, at minimum, author and date.

4. Weigh your arguments and tell me why you're winning the round. Explain why your voters are preferable. If you have a short-circuit voter or IVI that I should look at first, you need to tell me that clearly AND warrant why I should be considering it first.

5. Be civil, especially in crossfire. If you're questioning whether you should be sassy or not, don't be. I will detract speaks for rude behavior; this is an educational activity.

6. Off time road maps are fine if they're useful and brief. I do particularly like road maps before the Opp block and PMR speeches in Parli, but they're not necessary per se.

It is fine to ask if everyone's ready before you start speaking. It is fine to not ask as well.

PF

1. I like to see high level warrant debate that doesn't get bogged down in "we have bigger numbers" impact debate. Talk about why your side makes more sense and why you have better proof than the other side does.

2. The second rebuttal should ideally address some of the content of the first rebuttal, even if it's only to weigh against it. If you've got a perfect 4-minute-long attack on your opponent's case, that's fine, just be aware of the challenges you're going to face later in the round for doing that.

3. If you're going to go line-by-line in summary, please tell me off time that you're going to be doing that. I don't care either way, but I prefer to be prepared for that.

4. Framework is not a voter. It is a way to evaluate voters.

5. Give me voters in final focus.

I will not extend arguments for you from the summary: if you want me to vote on it, you must say it in the final focus.

The second speaking team's final focus should address points, most preferably voters, from the first final focus. Extend your warrants and impacts.

6. I don't flow crossfire, but I do pay attention. Crossfire is first for clarifying questions, second for offensive/attacking questions, and third for defensive questions. It is not a time for ranting. It is not a time for restating your case. Having one debater drone on and on reflects poorly on both teams.

7. Speaker Points: Each speech is worth about 4 points and each crossfire one, roughly. Two speeches + two crossfires = 10 points (on the 20-30 scale). A 30 is reserved for practical perfection, and after my many years in debate, I can count on one hand the number of speeches I've seen that have deserved a 30. If you get below a 25, you've done something wrong, not just spoken poorly, ref. my note at the top of the paradigm.

8. I'm tabula rasa, so I'm willing to hear theory and kritik arguments in Public Forum. That said, it's really not in the spirit of the format, so please don't do it if it's not justified. I'm also used to arguments of these sorts in high-level parli, meaning that they're well structured, warranted, impacted, etc., so I'd expect the same in PF. Unfortunately, most theory arguments I've seen in PF recently are undeveloped and poorly argued, so please be considerate.

Parli

I am tabula rasa and will vote on anything. Extend both your links and impacts.

That said, coming from a PF background, I prefer case debate. I also like evidence - most tournaments these days have internet prep; you should use it, but be careful with your sources. Full disclosure of topical bias: I'm trained as a political historian and evaluate cases on the flow as a historian would examine documents (I reiterate: be careful with your sources!). I have a regional speciality in Europe, in particular the EU, Germany, and former Warsaw Pact states (esp. CZ, SK, PL, HU), and topical specialties on populism, minority participation in politics, and transitional democracies. Also, if you're going to impact out to nuclear war, your warranting needs to be pretty darn solid, and you're probably going to need to make a case for why I should prefer your end of the probability/magnitude weighing game.

I will vote on all sorts of T, theory, etc, but please signpost and explain each part of the shell. In this case, as in others, theory is no good if there is no praxis to uphold those values, e.g. claiming education as a voter but failing to educate the other participants in the round about the supposed issue. This criterion includes stock components like education and fairness, and is especially true for non-stock. I like listening to bizarre and friv T for entertainment value, but the flow is a sheet of notes incapable of being entertained, and I vote off the flow.

I don't have a background in Ks, but I'll vote on them. I generally find them engaging, so don't shy away, but know that I do not have a high level of theoretical/technical knowledge about the kritik format, nor am I up to date in the latest developments in K debate on any circuit. If it's important enough for you to center the debate around, please consider it important enough to fully contextualize as well. Please do not run an identity K based on an assumption you make about your opponents' identities, which could lead to outing. Many identities are not visible.

Speaker points (if in person): I treat 27.5 as my average, scoring roughly on a flattened bell curve. Typically, the highest speaks I give on a regular basis at an invitational/flow tournament is a 29.2. The highest level tournaments may see a 29.5. I have yet to see a parli speaker deserving of a 30.

Tag teaming is absurd for high level debaters, and I'll deduct your speaks if you do it. Exceptions to this standard of deductions are granted for COVID and for teams of mixed experience (e.g. 8th and 12th graders together for a learning experience).

POIs are a courtesy. It is nice, but not necessary, for the speaker to take them. POIs need to be a question. If you don't ask a question, I will deduct your speaks.

POOs: I will comment on them in the moment, saying that the POO is either a) valid/sustained, i.e. the argument is new, b) invalid/overruled, i.e. that the argument is not new, or c) that I'll need to examine my flow more closely.

He/Him/His

gerlachgus11@gmail.com

Debated PF at Lakeville South for 5 years. Now a junior at Washington University in St. Louis.

General:

Warranting/weighing determines the result of most rounds.

I flow fast. I won't flow off a doc and will clear you if I can't understand.

Flex prep, open cross, etc. is ok with me if it’s ok with both teams.

Evidence:

I feel completely comfortable dropping teams for bad evidence ethics – even if it’s not a voting issue in round.

Email chains > google docs/any other method of sending evidence. Please don't make me dig through a google doc.

Produce cut cards quickly upon request.

Rounds with lots of time between speeches due to long evidence exchanges are annoying. Sending full speech docs remedies this and makes it easier to check back on bad evidence. To that end, rounds where full speech docs are sent by both teams will be rewarded with substantially higher speaker points.

PF paradigm:

I’m a tech judge.

I will vote for the team with the best link into the best-weighed impact.

Frontline in second rebuttal. Any argument not responded to in second rebuttal is considered dropped.

Defense isn’t sticky. If you want to talk about it in final focus, it should be in summary.

Collapse to one uniqueness argument, one link, and one impact. There are exceptions to this rule but generally going for fewer arguments while warranting them out more is a better strategy.

Similarly, choose 1-2 best arguments on their side to collapse on. Warrant the argument, respond to frontlines, and explain why it means you win the argument.

Comparative weighing is super important. If you win the weighing and have a risk of offense, I’ll almost certainly vote for you. Meta-weighing is necessary if you and your opponent are using two different weighing mechanisms.

Progressive Arguments:

I'm comfortable in my ability to effectively adjudicate progressive debate in PF.

A few considerations:

1) Theory should be used to check abuse. The bar to respond to frivolous theory is low. I generally support disclosure and the reading of cut cards (these are the shells I have experience reading), although this doesn't mean I'm a hack for disclosure/para shells. I would rather not watch you read theory against a local circuit team or a team you are clearly technically superior to.

2) I don't think public forum is the ideal format for Kritiks because speech times are too short. I'll still do my best to evaluate them.

3) Maddie Cook has a more comprehensive section on progressive arguments. I agree with her.

Hi! I debated in high school for 3 years, I have competed in all events but was most proficient in Parli and Policy. I am familiar with progressive-debate but my league was lay. Currently coaching for BVHS.
My pronouns are He/Him/They/Them; feel free to share yours if comfortable.

I need to be able to understand you verbally to judge you, your doc means nothing to me or my flow.

If any of this paradigm is relevant to the round, please point it out. “Judge your paradigm states that…”

TL;DR - Be nice to each other, winning means having a meaningful debate.

Check the end for thoughts on specific issues/strategies.

---------

I believe everyone in a round is your peer first, competitor second. Do not be overly aggressive, adversary, or otherwise rude to others in the round. It does not make you "dominant" and WILL reflect poorly on your speaker points. When addressing your peers, respect any pronouns they have asked you to use.

I believe judges aspiring for pure Tabula-Rasa undermine the virtue of debate. If the end-goal is just a flow-based formula then this activity becomes pointless beyond some light practice of soft-skills. Every judge is a different person and they should be encouraged to judge differently.

I believe my job as a judge is to passively facilitate a good debate, I will reward those whose argumentation is educational and fair, I will penalize those who try to "win" by being dishonest and uninclusive in the round.

Basically, this means I will: Not weigh an argument if you demonstrably lied about your opponent's position, especially if you do it in the final speech of the round. Value analysis and prima-facie arguments, potentially above a statistic if it lacks analysis. Not allow certain debate-styles if one side states they cannot follow meaningfully. It is your responsibility to adapt to your peers who have barriers of any kind, not the other way around (Yes, this includes spreading).

So long as both sides can meaningfully participate, I can probably catch anything you run, even if you talk fast. That said if I - for literally whatever reason - cannot catch what you are saying it will not be considered, spreaders beware. I will always defend the accessibility of everyone to debate over anything else. I welcome discussions on this.

I will adapt my judging to meet the needs of the debaters in the round. As always, the goal is good debate, not producing a Boolean result based on some arbitrary algorithm.

-----------

Novices can ignore:

Please make your own extensions, I will only extend if both sides fail to extend.

WRITE YOUR OWN CASES. I have been lenient on this because of how hard to is to prove in round that the case being run was not written by the debater speaking. I will no longer be lenient. If I happen to notice you run the same case - near verbatim - as another round I have judged; YOU WILL LOSE. No tolerance. You cannot convince me on this point. Allowing a case to be run by multiple debaters encourages prep to be done in a way that will always inherently disadvantage smaller schools with less coaching resources and will always be harmful to the education of the students involved.

In Parli only: I am much more accommodating for Ks and Kritikal AFFs, I know how hard good topical cases can be with some of the resolutions.

-----------

MISC Preferences:

Here is some admittable bias I have when it comes to some common occurrences. This does not mean you cannot run/do these, just know in close debates these could make the difference.

-Unless you tell me otherwise, I will prioritize: scope > magnitude > probability > reversibility > time frame.

-I like kritiks but find they are rarely used well. This includes a obsession with overly-complicated Ks. If I cannot understand your thesis then I will not vote for it. Be thorough in your explanation.

-I judge alternatives very hard, I value spill-over a lot. No, "Reject the AFF and Vote NEG" is NOT a good alternative.

-I will typically listen to RVIs but will rarely vote on them. This paradigm includes some notable exceptions.

-I like seeing properly fleshed out Theory but will take any theoretical argument said in the round as Theory to the best of my ability.

-Power-Tagging is my biggest pet-peeve in debate, you WILL lose the argument if ANY of it is power-tagged and this is pointed out by your opponent (drop-the-debater Theory is also easy to run on me, so watch out).

-I HATE frivolous extinction impacts. Unless the topic is literally nuclear war, odds are I will think it is frivolous (I could easily vote on an RVI for this).

-I dislike when people run economic impacts without contextualizing to people, GDP means nothing to me unless you prove what it does in this debate.

-I do not care about where you/your opponent get your funding in policy, deficit spending exists. You still need to say "we will pay this with deficit spending" but I am not strict on fund-DAs in general.

-Political-Capital DAs will never be considered. They are infinitely applicable and defeat the entire purpose of CX debate. You will have VERY hard time convincing me otherwise.

-I am VERY easy to convince when it comes to dropping a PIC or Plan-Plus CP (similar strategies like delay also apply). Also could vote on an RVI easily. This includes actor pivots.

-Util means nothing to me in LD, if your opponent read a different VC, I will probably use that instead (can be convinced to use util).

-I dislike conditional CPs, you will likely do better by only running one of your plans and ending the speech early.

-I do not believe disclosure is an expectation or a prerequisite to fairness. This shell will be hard to win on me. Related, disclosing does not allow you to skirt topicality, you are not allowed to harm-offset an unfair interp.

-Your opponents are free to reject flashing/email-chains for whatever reason, this is NOT them waiving their right to understand your case, you MUST communicate to their accessibility level regardless.

-Pointing out a logical fallacy is often enough for me to drop an argument, "Arguing in Ignorance" is VERY common !!!!!!

-Identity Ks are very risky, if run well I will guaranteed vote for it, but I will always be even more strict on the Alt than usual. If you are not of that identity yourself, be careful.

-I like plans in LD, if the tournament allows it, go wild (I will judge it just as a Policy Plan).

-Bigotted arguments will not be weighed at all, your opponent does not have to point this out for me to throw out any bigotry. ACAB. BLM.

-

Feel free to ask me anything else before the round. Have fun!

HEYY MY NAMES TAZ

JUST A BIT BOUT ME I DID WORLD SCHOOL AND A PF DEABTE IN HIGHSCHOOL IM CURRENTLY DOING POLICY.

I might seem like a lay judge but on god I have ever single point that you have made memorized.
write my ballot for me tell me a story “I’ll be going over point blank than point blank than point blank at last I’ll be doing this blah blah blah”. Give me a road map so it’s easier for me to write for ballot.

make impact arguments those stick with me more explain why your world is better than there world and why if we don’t implement your plan the world will crumble apart.

one last thing I have the worst spelling ever (and handwriting) my email is tazhaque123@gmail.com let know if you have any questions

AT LAST JUST HAVE FUN. IF YOU CANT BEAT THEM CONFUSE THEM HOORAYY

Email for email chains: ryleyhartwig@gmail.com

I competed in public forum at American Heritage in high school (2014-2016) and policy at FSU (2016-2018). Any questions you have specifically about my paradigm can be asked before the round.

Paradigm

- Do anything you want to do in terms of argumentation. It is not my job as a judge in a debate community to exclude certain forms of argumentation. I probably have not read your specific K lit if you go that route, make sure you explain it. If your theory is frivolous its a lot less likely to win, but go for it if you are confident in winning it. If you are reading a "role of the ballot" and it is different in every speech, I probably will not evaluate it. If you are reading a "role of the ballot", you should be able to recite it from memory without changing the phrases multiple times in the debate. Do not read a "role of the ballot" if you do not plan on keeping it consistent, it will result in worse speaker points.IF you're reading a K or other critical argument, explain your authors warranting, don't just assert an extension without explaining and characterizing your authors warranting to the specific debate.

- If neither team has any risk of offense at the end of the debate, I will default neg on presumption. I ALWAYS prefer to vote off a risk of offense over presumption, your probability analysis could win you the round. Provide a contextualization for your impact, and attempt to maintain a narrative throughout the later half of the debate. You will be a lot more convincing.

- Generally have been tech over truth. In PF there are significant time constraints to explain intricate link chains to arguments that may maintain more "tech" than "truth" in their nature--try to stray away from these. My threshold for responses to arguments that are more "tech" than "truth" is pretty low. If there is a large difference in strategy that allows for one of the "tech" over "truth" arguments to win on the flow, that is where I will vote. (eg. Team A reads a nuclear war scenario, Team B only responds with vague variants of "MAD", as long as Team A responds and extends warrants, this is still a tech over truth win)

- Sound logic is better than crappy cards. I think the main determinant of good quality evidence is not where it comes from, but the warranting the author uses to justify either their research or logic-based conclusions. The "why" in evidence is more important than where it is from unless a debater can prove that where the source is from be grounds for the warranting to be undermined.

- Cx is binding.

- If you disagree with my RFD, feel free to postround respectfully, I will be glad to answer any questions or give my thought process when deciding as long as the discussion remains civil.4

I was a high school debater back in the 1970s. I have been judging debate for approximately 5 years. I am a math and physics graduate from the University of Illinois and a EECS graduate from UC Berkeley.

Hi! My name is Aleena Joseph and I am a sophomore at Texas A&M University. In high school, I was an avid speech and debate competitor, particularly in Original Oratory, Informative Speaking, Public Forum, Dramatic Interpretation, and Humorous Interpretation. I was strongest in Original Oratory and Informative Speaking as a 2-time state qualifier for both, and a national tournament qualifier and attendee for Oratory. I competed heavily in Public Forum in my sophomore year and judged novice rounds in my senior year. My experience levels would match a flay judge, so I highly recommend articulating your arguments thoroughly. The easier it is for me to understand your arguments, the better your speaker points will likely be. I also critique your speaking heavily, so try your best to speak clearly with articulation and tone.

Basic Things I Appreciate In a Round (Debate)

- Good articulation and overall outstanding speaking

- Simple Termed Arguments

- Overall respect for each other. I do NOT tolerate mansplaining or any other disrespect in the round.

- WEIGHING IS SO IMPORTANT. I need to be convinced that your argument is the best for society as a whole.

- Have fun! I love when I see competitors having fun and enjoying their rounds.

- I likely will not disclose, but you can ask.

How I Judge Speech --

• Strong arguments with creative examples to follow
• Expressions and inflection get you major points with me!

Good luck! I’m super excited to judge your round!

If you have questions after the round, feel free to email me at aleenajoseph597@tamu.edu! Thanks!

I want to be on the email chain.

Email: humairakh01@gmail.com

A few things before I dive into specifics:

You can sit or stand. I don't care or have a preference, whatever is most convenient for you.

1. If you are offended by anything said in a debate, tell me! Also, please be friendly and considerate.

2. If you spread and I cannot understand you, it will be very difficult for me to flow, and therefore very difficult for you to win. Coherency > speed. Additionally, I value expressive speaking a lot, because it adds quality to a debate. If you are expressive and passionate, you'll get more speaker points from me. I will say clear if I can't understand you.

2. If you're cutting cards, make sure to tell me. Please don't skip around.

3. Signposting is an amazing skill. Please use that skill.

A large part of debate is being able to take your cards and turn them into a story. If you can explain your story to me, and why you should win, using not only your cards, but also analytics, logic, etc., you can win me over. You shouldn't be spreading your way through your explanations.

Framework is really important to me. You must be able to explain to me how I should evaluate the round. I heavily consider impact calc as well, and it is often times the main voting factor for me.

I love K debates, but you must be able to give me thorough explanations and not just read out generic cards.

I love CP/DA debates, but you must be able to explain how your plan o/w that of the aff. You can even say "Our plan o/w the aff in xyz ways". The more blunt and clear you are, the better.

I like T debates, but I find that it's very easy to get confused if you're not clear and concise while doing T debates.

In terms of theory: I don't like theory debates.

Other than that, just remember to have fun, and don't be afraid to reach out and ask questions via my email.

For Interp ppl:

Be expressive and concise, and you'll get a higher rank from me.

Pronouns: she/her | Email: rdle3@uh.edu

Hello! I am a novice policy debater at the University of Houston ('25), so I am not well-versed in other debate formats. The "General" section will still apply though.

General:

-I have zero tolerance for racism, xenophobia, homophobia, sexism, ableism, etc. Be sure to use people's preferred pronouns, and overall, be respectful. Debate should be a safe space, so if you have any concerns, please contact me.

-Outside of rounds, feel free to contact me with any questions you have!

-Online Debate: Before you start your speech, ask whether I am ready, and wait for a verbal indication from me. Also, I will not keep track of prep time for you. When you are done with prep, put the time left in the chat.

-Signpost. Please.

-With spreading, err towards the slower side. Clarity > speed.

-To get my ballot, make sure your arguments are organized and your explanations are explicit. Refrain from using technical terms or acronyms. I prefer direct clash. By the last speeches, make sure to compare your arguments with the other team's and to do clear impact weighing.

-Speech/Interp: Do as you see fit.

-Remember my decision is not a reflection of your overall debate/speech skills. It is an indication of your skills at a certain time in a certain environment with me as a judge in just one round. Don't feel disparaged if you lose the round, and be kind to yourself! :)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CX:

-I flow cross-ex.

-I appreciate when debaters deliberately use and refer back to cards instead of trying to cram as many as possible.

-Case Debate: I like case debate. Don't neglect the internal links which are often pretty weak. I also like when neg points out contradictions/ambiguities in the aff's cards.

-Topicality/FW: I appreciate a well-executed T argument. That means not only lining out the violation, but also why I should prefer your interp.

-Disads: Refer to "Case Debate."

-Counterplans: Be sure to directly compare it to aff's plan.

-Kritiks: I like K debate, but I am not familiar with the literature, so spell it out for me. A strong link can be enough to win the round, regardless of the alt, but it should be specific to the aff's plan. With the alt, again, make it specific. If you want me to vote on alt, focus on the ROB and/or impact weighing.

-Theory: I am hesitant to vote on it. I generally don't think condo bad.

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

My email: wesleyloofbourrow@gmail.com

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

Updated Paradigm for NDCA & TOC

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

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

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

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

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

Here is what I previously provided as my paradigm:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Worlds @ Coppell:

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

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

Wesley's Worlds Paradigm:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Email: diegoalopez83@gmail.com

Hey Howdy Hey! I’m Diego and I’m a policy debater at the University of Houston (Go Coogs!). This is my first year in debate and I’m super excited to be judging.

Some specifics when it comes to the round itself:

You can spread if you’d like, just keep in mind that for me clarity is more important than speed. If I can’t understand what you’re saying it’s obviously harder for me to flow the round.

Honestly, just write my ballot for me by telling me a coherent story (I’m a huge fan of organized and well-structured arguments). Totally give me a through explanation of your own arguments. However, don’t solely rely on your own evidence! I like judging debates with a lot of clash so be sure to interact with and respond to what the other team has said in the round.

Impact arguments are the ones that stand out the most to me. It would be great if you could clearly explain to me why your world is better than the opposing team’s world.

Finally, please be respectful to the other team. At the end of the day, debate is an extracurricular activity and I feel like we should all be having a good time with it. Don’t stress out too much and remember to have fun.

P.S. If you’ve actually taken the time to read this, tell me what your favorite Taylor Swift song/album is before the round starts

Hello!

***Please include me in the email chain: tigerlili2001@gmail.com

Pronouns: She/Her/Hers

Good morning/afternoon,

I am originally from the Greater Los Angeles, California area. I participated in debate in high school, mainly focusing on Lincoln-Douglass Debates.

Almost 3 years ago, though, I moved to Houston in order to pursue higher education. Currently, I am on the University of Houston Debate team. I am extremely fascinated by debate and I keep learning new things daily. I am a Philosophy and Political Science Double Major with an interest in going into law school. After that, I have no idea.

A little about me (besides education): In my free time, I like to read and write. I mainly read philosophy, history, and historical fiction. I love a good philosophical debate. I would consider myself to be good-humored and easygoing, although my sister might say the opposite. I am bilingual, with both of my parents being born and raised in Spain.

Onto my furry family, in my house, we have 3 cats and a dog, who ironically thinks she is a cat. You may see them on the screen. The cats consist of Picobit, a small grey tabby that is the embodiment of social anxiety, Smores a maincoon mix calico who's unsure of everything, and Gigabyte, a shorthaired calico who mainly sleeps. I then have a rescue Australian Shepherd who is also very anxious, yet hyper and acts like a cat. She even tries to climb the cat tree. I understand if you get interrupted by a bit, it's totally fine. I completely understand.

On to debate:

My number one thing is to please be respectful and kind. We are all here to learn and have fun. Especially during these difficult times, please be welcoming.

2. Since, everything is virtual, please ask if everyone is ready before speaking. Also, I am very understanding of technical issues, if you have a technical issue, please just let me know. We can even take a short tech break if needed.

3. I really enjoy link turns, they make me think. Either way, explain them to me. Do not simply state "Link Turn", please elaborate. I will be extremely grateful and probably will make my flow clearer.

4. Counter Plans should specify how doing the CP would be better than just doing the Aff. Also, when perming the CP, please explain how you can perm. It would be a lot stronger than simply saying "Perm do both"

5. I am quite fascinated by Kritiks, they can be extremely fun. Although, remember those link cards! Also, pretend like I have the attention span of a goldfish when it comes to kritiks, so when you continue it in the next speech, please give me an overview, then develop it.

By now, you may have gotten the impression that I like to think. That assumption is correct. I love a good challenge, especially with it developed in a clear, interesting manner.

6. Feel free to ask questions at the end! There are no dumb questions! If you believe there are dumb questions do exist, believe me, I have asked thousands of "dumb" questions, then, so I may be the perfect person to ask!

Good luck, everyone!

For debate:

please speak at a moderate pace and make your arguments understandable. Also weigh your arguments and tell me why you won.

For speech/interpretation:

Please introduce yourself, your code, and the title/topic of the speech before you start! Also let me know if you are double entered.

Speak clearly and passionately.

You will all do great!

With Lincoln-Douglas Debate, I am an "old school" judge. Value / Criteria are paramount in upholding moral, or non-moral, obligations within the topic. I view philosophical ground to be an important part in the round.

I do not vote on solvency. To me, solvency does not belong in L-D. I do not like progressive cases. I do not like speed; debate is effective & persuasive communication. I prefer line by line clash, though I can view a big picture.

So, first thing, I'm new to judging so I don't really have much experience with figuring out how I "judge" per se. That being said, I believe that you guys should run whatever you feel comfortable with, so as long as it's not disrespectful or anything like that.

Feel free to experiment in your approach to new arguments, after all this is a learning experience for us all. With me, spreading is fine, as long as I can understand you okay. If you have to cut a card, please mark where it was cut clearly, or specify afterward.

Most importantly, have fun. It's why we're all here.

About me:

A proudly African woman from Kenya who is obsessed with debate and the culture of sharing knowledge, perspectives, and experiences! Has organized and hosted multiple debate tournaments across continents, and is a debate and judge coach to African debaters in the British Parliamentary debate circuit. Studies computer science as a university degree, and spends her free time debating, judging, listening to music, dancing, eating great food and of course, travelling!

Judging rubric:

In any given debate, there are a few baseline criteria I use to evaluate arguments and speeches:

1. Clarity: tell me what the debate is about and what it should be evaluated on, e.g. helping vulnerable groups, maximizing freedom of choice, etc. These should ALWAYS be followed by mechanization.

2. Mechanization: do not just state claims and rebut them with counter-claims. Mechanization means giving me strong reasons why your claim or counter-claim is true, and why it is not only important in the debate, but the MOST IMPORTANT in the debate. That means you must do good quality weighing along with your mechanization.

3. Weighing: take the best case scenario of the other side, and do a comparative analysis with the average case or worst case scenario on your side. If you can show me that even if your side's best case does not work, your average or worst case is still better than the other side's best case, and give me strong reasons as to why, you've scored a solid win.

4. Engagement: being genuine in addressing the other team's case is key to winning a debate. Do not assume points for the other side, or try to water down their points without giving me proper rebuttal. Listen keenly to what each speaker says, and do your best not to run away from the core of their case, even if it seems hard to engage with. Try your best!

5. Structure: present your speeches in a clear and simple way. Complexity does not win debates, simplicity does. Clear structure and simple but detailed analysis makes it easy for teams to understand your arguments and for me as a judge to do so as well. I value signposting (giving me a brief outline of what you will talk about in your speech), flow (signaling the end of one argument and the beginning of another), and clear comparatives throughout the speech.

6. Team Dynamic: how you and your partner present your case is important. I need to see strong support structures and extensions to strengthen arguments, and see well thought out speeches that do not sound contradictory or confused on one end. Cohesion and synchronicity is key!

7. Respect: let's not be derogatory or discriminatory towards anyone in the debate. Let us not think differently of them because they have different accents or are not from where you are from. Any slander, arguments based on stereotypes, lack of respect for gender identities and general offensive language will result in repercussions, and a report to the tournament organizers. Let's celebrate diversity and culture, and learn from everyone's different perspectives!

Good luck everyone!

I am a parent volunteer who has judged several tournaments over the past 3 1/2 years. I am also a high school teacher who appreciates a respectful, courteous, and assertive (not aggressive) style of communication. I also prefer quality over quantity, so please don’t speak too quickly, and be sure to include strong evidence backed by credible sources. Thank you.

* I am a parent judge

* refer no spreading (just normal speed)

* refer Good Sportsmanship

This is my first year judging PF. This means that you must do your job to adapt to me as a judge, but at the same time I will do my best to follow what you say, take notes and provide feedback. I understrand that you have spent time and effort on it so I take judging very seriously.

You can speak as fast or as slow as you want, however, explain everything that you are saying very clearly. Do not skip any steps in your logical chains – things that are intuitive to you might not seem that way to me.

I will do my best to judge the round fairly as long as you do your best to convince me why you should win. Please speak in a conversational tone – don’t yell – and be as persuasive as you can. Be respectful!!

For the October Topic, I do have a little topical knowledge on it and I've seen unique arguments for both sides!

My name is Jose Ortuno and I am a political science major at the Univerisity of Houston. I am happy to be a part of UH's debate team and hope to compete in many rounds for them in my final year of undergrad. I am a novice debater who had no prior experience with debate until the fall semester of 2021, but I am looking forward to being able to apply my knowledge to future tournaments as both a judge and a competitor.

My email is j133ortuno5c@gmail.com for e-mail chains, document forwarding, etc.

As previously stated, I have limited experience, but I a fan of organized, well-structured arguments that are able to leave me with a strong impact. Conciseness is key to me. Thank you.

LES PHILLIPS NUEVA PF PARADIGM

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

I would like to be on the email chain [lphillips@nuevaschool.org] but I very seldom look at the doc during the round.

If you are not reading tags on your arguments, you are basically not communicating. If your opponent makes this an issue, I will be very sympathetic to their objections.

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

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

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

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

I am happy to vote on well warranted theory arguments (or well warranted responses). Redundant, blippy theory goo is irritating. I have a fairly high threshold for deciding that an argument is abusive. I am receptive to Kritikal arguments in PF. I will work hard to understand continental philosophers, even if I am not too familiar with the literature. I really really want to know exactly what the role of the ballot is. I will default to NSDA rules re: no plans/counterplans, absent a very compelling reason why I should break those rules.

LES PHILLIPS NUEVA PARLI PARADIGM

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

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

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

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

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

LES PHILLIPS NUEVA LD PARADIGM

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

Hi guys! My name is Sophia Pirani and I've been a part of the Speech and Debate Team for the past four years- I competed in Varsity Public Forum for three years and Original Oratory for one. For debate rounds, I will flow the round and follow along with your arguments but it is important that you articulate and EXPLAIN your argument. I value if you make the round easy for me to judge and lay out your case so I can easily follow along and find a clear path to vote from.

Some things I believe you should do in a round:

- Even though I can follow along, I prefer you do not spread. Spreading makes it difficult to fully explain your arguments and evidence and leaves gaps in my understanding of the topic.

- Make sure you properly articulate and speak clearly and loudly so I can understand what you're saying. I will give you high speaks if you do so.

- No speaking over each other during round. This means in crossfire if a person is asking a question let them finish speaking before you respond. I do not tolerate any disrespect towards your opponents.

- Make sure you give me a CLEAR BALLOT to vote from. If you continue to reiterate your arguments in your speeches and emphasize the information you want me to remember, then I will vote for you.

- Provide me with a roadmap before every speech so I can flow properly.

- Make sure you WEIGH THROUGHOUT THE ROUND. When you weigh your arguments and explain to me why YOU HAVE THE MOST IMPORTANT CASE, then I will vote for you. However, don't just say we outweigh on magnitude or probability and expect me to understand it. Explain why you do and compare it to the opponents argument to tell me why I should prefer your argument.

- Remember to have a good time in round! Please ask me any additional questions if you have any before the round starts and keep your time throughout the round. I will as well but if your opponent goes over time and I do not catch it, indicate it to me so I know when to stop flowing.

- I will provide comments in the comments section to give you feedback on what you can improve. I will also not disclose during round but I will release my results right after.

Thank you and good luck to you all!

UT Austin

Email: misharafiq2020@gmail.com

I did PF for 4 years at Elkins High School

I am not very familiar with progressive arguments so I will not evaluate any theory, tricks, Ks, etc., unless there is a violation in the round that hurts or excludes someone. Even then, I would prefer you point it out to me in paragraph form with a warrant and explanation rather than forcing me to evaluate progressive argumentation. Honestly if you're planning to run these type of arguments, strike me.

Sending me cases prior to the round would be greatly appreciated. If you're gonna spread SEND ME A SPEECH DOC.

If you run an offensive overview in second rebuttal it will make me really sad

General Stuff

-Tech>truth

- MUST signpost and weigh

- don’t just card dump in rebuttal without any analysis

- Frontlining turns in second rebuttal is a must

- Any turns not frontlined in second rebuttal have a 100% probability

-If you’re not extending with author name and warrant then wyd

- If you want me to vote off case offense, you have to extend uniqueness - link - impact

Evidence

- I won’t call for evidence unless the other team tells me to do so. The only time I’ll do it is if that one piece of evidence will win you the round.

- If I end up calling for evidence that you misrepresent/fabricate, you will get L20

Speaks

-As long as you’re not rude, blatantly cocky, or you start yelling for absolutely no reason - then i got you with speaks don’t trip over it.

Any baby keem reference will get you auto 30 speaks

I did parliamentary debate in high school for 3 years. Currently attend U of Illinois.

Tl;dr - Flow judge

Pretty experienced with case debate and theory, not a huge fan of frivolous theory and Ks in parli. Feel free to run theory args, just don't make it frivolous theory because it ends up not having much value in my decisions.

Case debates are preferred. Please give a roadmap before your speech, weigh your arguments, signpost, explain links, explicitly state the impacts, and clash.

Please don't spread in an online tournament unless you absolutely need to. Speaking fast is okay, however, you should know the difference between speaking fast and spreading.

Please take at least 1 question else risk losing speaker points. I like to think to myself that I give pretty high speaker points in general.

I will disclose results after the round, please hang around and don't leave.

Feel free to ask me any questions before the round.

This is my first year judging PF. This means that you must do your job to adapt to me as a judge, but at the same time I will do my best to follow what you say and take notes.

Please speak slowly, and explain everything that you are saying very clearly. Do not skip any steps in your logical chains - things that are intuitive to you might not seem that way to me. If you see me lift up my pen or not write anything for a while, it means you are going too fast for me. Slow down and speak at an understandable pace.

I will do my best to judge the round fairly as long as you do your best to convince me on why you should win. Please speak in a conversational tone - do not yell - and be as persuasive in round as you can. Most importantly, have fun.

I'm a parent judge. I've been judging for 3 years. Be respectful, support your statements with evidence, speak slow.

Hi!!!

If you don't want to read specifics or are in a pinch, scroll down to the end for the general notes. Speechies and novices: just do your best!!

My name is Faith, I'm from Southern California and I am attending UCSB as a freshman. I have done debate all 4 years in high school, and qualified to state (PF + Congress) in the last three, nats (PF) in sophomore and junior year (I did not compete to qual to nats senior year). At nationals, my partner and I made it to round 10 in PF both years. Most of the debate I have done in my life is lay given that I do PF/Congress, but I have also competed in LD/Parli/BQ/World Schools, so I have a decent understanding of just about every event.