Experience: I am a senior at the University of Iowa where I study political science, international affairs, and philosophy. I was a competitor in public forum for 6 years and was the collegiate national champion in 2018. I have experience and working knowledge with all speech and debate events. I have previously coached in Des Moines, Iowa, and for NSDA China. I am currently unaffiliated with any team, school, or individual competitors.

PF: I value accessibility. Public forum ought to be an event that is able to be understood by any member of the public. Clear, concise communication at a reasonable speed is expected ie conversational. I WILL DROP YOU IF YOU TRY TO SPREAD. Each team will be given one warning on speed in the form of a dropped pen or calling out “Speed.” If spreading/speed persists after the warning I will immediately drop the team with the most violations. (If both teams accumulate one violation in their respective constructive, the next team to violate will be dropped.) I will flow cross-examination if you make important points. I value complex arguments and respectful clash. Being rude in my rounds is a great way to lose speaker points and a round.

Important things:

- If at all possible, I would like to start rounds early. I understand that's not always possible or teams need to prep, so I'm just appreciative if we do start early. No problem if you need to take your time though.

- While in evidence exchange, I expect all students to have their hands on screen and mics unmuted to ensure that time is not used for prep.

- Summaries should SUMMARIZE the round.

- FF should Crystalize not line by line, give me impact calculus and weighing. Impact calc within every speech is most persuasive.

- Summaries and FF should have voters not line by line.

TL;DR, Be respectful, conversational, bring solid evidence and analysis to my rounds and you’ll do fine.

LD/CX: Pretty much anything goes. I absolutely prefer arguments that are directly resolutional (ie not a fan of certain Ks, love me some T and theory though) but if the debate goes a certain way, it is not my place to wrangle it. LARP is chill. On the rare occasion, I may ask you to slow down a little bit or clear you, but that will not be weighed against you. I'm almost always good with speed. I prefer competitors disclose to ensure flow clarity. I will flow cross-examination if you make important points.

Hey! I'm Kristen East, I debated Policy in high school, judged on-and-off while in college, and have been working as an assistant coach for Gig Harbor High School for the past 5 years. My email is eastkristen@gmail.com

I often use quiet fidgets during speeches and may color during crossfire; these are strategies that I've found help me to pay attention and keep my mind from wandering during rounds. If I'm distracting you at any point, then please politely ask and I'll switch to a different strategy.

Public Forum: I technically did public forum in middle school, so I guess that's relevant? I've also watched a lot of public forum rounds and judged it on and off over the years. I tend to be less formal than some public forum judges. I care more about competitors being considerate of others and having fun than I do about pleasantries and formalities. Please don't be "fake nice" to each other. That being said, I mean don't be offensive (i.e. making arguments based on racial or cultural stereotypes, or making personal ad hominem attacks).

-The biggest thing to know is that I am a "flow judge." I will be flowing/taking notes for each speech, will be writing down rebuttals next to the argument they are addressing, and will draw arrows for argument extensions. What this means for you is that you should be clear about which contention you are talking about, and also that I will be looking for consistency between partners' speeches. There should be continuity of arguments throughout the round. That does NOT mean your last speech needs to have the same arguments as your first speech, but all arguments in your last speech should have been introduced in one of your team's 4-minute speeches. I also will not consider brand-new arguments in any of the 2-minute speeches.

-I like rounds with clash, where each team explains how their arguments interact with the other team's arguments. If you're citing evidence, make sure to mention the warrant (the author's reasoning or statistics that support your claim). Please make it clear during your speeches when you are about to directly quote a source (i.e. saying "in 2019 Santa Claus wrote for the North Pole Times that...") and when you stop quoting them. You don't need evidence to make an argument, and well-reasoned analytics (arguments without an external source) can be just as powerful.

- I will decide the round based on impacts. Please compare your impacts to your opponent's (timeframe, probability, magnitude, etc.). If no one tells me otherwise, I'll probably default util when evaluating impacts. Be specific about how your impact is connected to the resolution, and who/what the impact will affect. Tell me the story of the impact (i.e. If we stop sanctions on Venezuela, then their economy will recover and then xyz people's lives will be saved because they won't die of starvation).

Parli: I've never judged or watched a parli round before. I've heard it has some similarities to policy, which I do have a background in, so feel free to read my policy paradigm to see if that's relevant. I'm excited to judge parli! From what I've heard, it should be fun!

Policy and LD paradigms are below.

Debate Style: I'm good with speed, just start out slow so I can get used to your voice. If you aren't clear, I'll yell at you to be clear. Start out a little slower on tags, especially for Ks and theory. Please don't mumble the text. If the text is completely unintelligible, I'll yell clear, and if you don't clear it up, then I'll count it as an analytic rather than a card. It's a pet peeve of mine when people cut cards repeatedly (i.e. cut the card here, cut the card here). PLEASE, please put theory arguments as a new off (i.e. Framework on a K, Condo bad, etc.). I don't care about tag-teaming in CX, but it might influence speaker points (i.e. if one partner is being rude, or one never answers a question). Be nice to each other. I will vote you down if you're a complete jerk (threaten physical violence, harass someone, etc.). I am somewhat sensitive to how mental health, rape and disabilities are discussed.

Arguments: There are a few arguments I just dislike (for rational and irrational reasons) so just don't run them in front of me. If you don't know what these args are, you're probably fine. Basically, don't run anything offensive. No racism good, no death good (including Spark DA or Malthus/overpopulation arguments). I also hate Nietzsche, or nihilism in general. Also, arguments that seem stupid like time cube, or the gregorian time K, or reptiles are running the earth or some crap like that is prolly not gonna fly. I'm not gonna take nitpicky plan flaw arguments like "USfg not USFG" seriously. I will not vote for disclosure theory unless someone flat out lies about disclosure. Like they tell you they will run a case and then don't run it. Arguments I'll evaluate but don't love/am probably biased against but will evaluate include: PICs, Delay CPs, ASPEC Topicality, kritical-based RVIs on T, Performance Affs.

Defaults: I'm a default policymaker but am open to other frameworks. I do consider Framework to be theory, which means 1) put it on it's own flow and 2) arguments about like, fairness and ground and other standards are legit responses. I prefer frameworks that have a clear weighing mechanism for both sides. I default competing interpretations on T. I was a little bit of a T/theory hack as a debater, so I have a lower threshold on theory than a lot of judges. What that means is that I'll vote on potential abuse, or small/wanky theory (like severance perm theory) IF it's argued well. Theory needs real voters, standards and analysis and warrants just like any other argument. If you're going for theory, go all out in your last speech. It should be 4 minutes of your 2NR, or all of your 2AR.

Note on Performance Ks: I have a high threshold on performance arguments. If you're doing a performance, you have to actually be good at performing, keep up the performance throughout the round, and have a way for the other team to compete/participate in the performance. I prefer for performance Ks to be specific to the current resolution, or in some cases, based on language or something that happened in this round.

Constructive speeches: Clash is awesome. Signposting will help me flow better. Label args by topic not by author because I'm prolly not gonna catch every author.

Rebuttals: In my opinion, the point of rebuttals is to narrow the debate down to fewer arguments and add analysis to those arguments. This applies to aff and neg. Both sides should be choosing strategic arguments and focusing on "live" arguments (Don't waste your time on args the other team dropped in their last speech, unless it's like an RVI or something). Both sides should watch being "spread out" in the 2nr and 2ar.

Note about LD: Being a policy judge doesn’t mean I love policy arguments in debate. In LD, you don’t really have the time to develop a “plan” properly and I probably lean towards the “no plans” mindset. I expect a DA to have all the requisite parts (uniqueness, link, impact). I’m okay with Ks, and theory. To help me flow, please number and/or label arguments and contentions, and signal when you are done reading a piece of evidence (either with a change of voice tone or by saying “next” or a brief pause. That being said, speed is not a problem for me. If you follow the above suggestions, and maybe slow a little on theory and framework, you can go as fast as you’re comfortable with. If I’m having trouble flowing you I’ll say “clear.” No flex prep. Sitting during CX is fine. I love a good framework debate, but make sure you explain why framework wins you the round, or else, what's the point? If framework isn't going to win you the round or change how I evaluate impacts in the round, then don't put it in rebuttals.

I like judging. This is what I do for fun. You know, do a good job. Learn, live, laugh, love.

Hey I'm Luca

Remster HS '19

Currently at UH Manoa

Add me to the email chain for all rounds: vitaminwater2220@gmail.com

Top Level:

Do what you love or are good at. I love a case-specific counterplan/DA strategy almost as much as I love nuanced K on K debates about how we as activists and scholars and people should respond to our fucked up world. I enjoy daring, ambitious, and nuanced strategies and will reward debaters who put in the work to execute them.

Arguments > evidence. Use the evidence you have read already before you read 10 more cards. If you write strategic 1ACs/1NCs, you shouldn't need much evidence to answer the other team after that -- and, by extension, every card you read should have strategic importance. Recutting evidence is appreciated.

Saying or doing racist/transphobic/ableist/etc. things will not go over well and will be responded to with anything from an autoloss to zero speaks to a 27 depending on the severity of the issue.

Clash debates:

1. Fairness is not not an impact. If your version of fairness is a tautological defense of old school debate that barely acknowledges the history of this activity or of framework as a set of arguments, I would probably recommend developing a different reason why we should invest in your model of competition.

That said, while "intrinsic goods" probably don't exist but procedural impacts probably do. Make warrants for fairness as an impact and do impact calculus about why it outweighs. Saying "it comes first" will rarely get my ballot however given a similarly tagline aff response.

2. Critical affs should probably have a model of debate -- a 2AR that is impact turns alone without a vision for what we are doing in this activity or in a debate will be much harder for me to vote for than a warranted vision for debate that provides at least some defense/link turns to their standards. I find questions of stasis to be clear packages for this -- i.e. what controversial question do we center as a point of clash? Is it a question of praxis? Is it axiological? If you can provide a clear vision for how we construct affs and produce clash then all your impact turns will be a lot more persuasive to me.

If you chose to ground a model of debate outside interpretations of the resolutional language, good for you! Defend why that is a good method!

3. Examples/history matter to how I evaluate competing theories of power -- whether it is techy IR debate or a high theory discussion of psychoanalytic black feminism, I think that theories draw their explanatory power from material realities of the world and I tend to be be more easily convinced by debaters and scholars who tie their theory to that world. This doesn't mean I need you to be empiricists or defend a materialist conception of history, just that having a knowledge of how your theory is related to the world around you will make it far more persuasive to me than floating buzzwords.

This applies to FW too -- this activity has a long and thoroughly discussed history of how it has approached each resolution, practices like fiat, models of competition, etc. Use it!

4. TVAs and SSD -- you should explain to me what about the aff's offense is solved by them. I don't care if the aff could have used the same five McGowan Cards to advocate for a plan, the purpose of a TVA/SSD is to resolve or no link out of some point of offense against your interpretation. They are examples that prove that your interp doesn't cause bad subject formation, exclude critcisms of X, etc. Using them against the disads to your interp or the net benefits to theirs rather than against the 1AC in a vacuum will be more persuasive.

5. Critical affs should have a relationship to the topic that is inherent and significant. I will be far more persuaded by framework against affs that don't do anything or say anything about CJR after the first card than I will be against teams that spent the time to write an affirmative that answers a core question of the topic.

6. Critiques against policy affs -- the good ol' framework tricks like fiat bad are nice and works far too often (ehem affs) but I will enjoy in-depth link and alt work more. The affirmative tends to lose these debates when it doesn't leverage the case beyond "we have a big impact" -- timeframe args, comparative arguments about alt solvency, etc. are all very helpful when adjudicating these debates and the negative should prepare for them beyond simply the frame out.

K v K debates:

I love these -- they tend to be some of the most creative and meaningful debates I get to judge. Make arguments and care about what the other team has to say and I will probably be very happy to be in the back.

Competition -- affs have the burden of proof, and I begin with an assumption that the negative has the burden of rejoinder. This is debatable and some of the best strategies I've listened to have critiqued this assumption, so it is more of a default approach than a set in stone rule.

Perms -- I can be persuaded that critical affs should not get them. Teams have to justify why opportunity cost/competition/forced choices should or should not apply to the arguments forwarded. The more that an aff's method defends, the less likely I am to deny them a perm. If an aff defends nothing but a theory of power or an individual, in-round survival strategy then I am more likely to think that they shouldn't get a perm.

CPs

Advantage counterplans with impact turns as the net benefit are underutilized in the debates I judge.

I get annoyed when teams let counterplans absolve them of the need for good case debate. Solvency deficits to the aff matter as much as the aff's solvency deficits to the counterplan.

I am a good judge to go for theory in front of when it comes to process counterplans. I think cheaty counterplans are cheaty (that's why I read them so much when I did policy).

PICs and PIKs (and PIPs) -- I love them but they are also definitely cheating. The more substantive the PIC's relationship to the aff, the less I will be persuaded by theory. The more contrived the PIK, the more persuaded I will be by theory.

2NC Uniquness counterplans are fiesty and I love them -- affs should be prepared for them. Theory is always an option for me

DAs

I prefer to watch topic or case specific DAs more than agenda/midterms DAs. I can be persuaded by intrinsicness theory.

That said, Politics/Midterms DAs -- these can actually be great. I love a midterms DA that is specific to which states are key and why the aff flips them enough to swing congress or a Politics DA that pulls out specific votes that will flip. Nuance on the LINK LEVEL is what is always missing from these debates in highschool, however, which is why I find them boring a lot.

The relative magnitude of the uniquness/links determine what the direction of things are. Be comparative.

2ACs/1ARs that impact turn disads strategically often come out ahead for me.

Topicality

I am p familiar with the water topic so do your thing but just know the wording in the res will probs have me lean aff with certain plans however i am easily convinced other wise.

But I enjoy T debates themselves. Creating distinctions between the kinds of ground/affs that are allowed or denied is the sort of comparative work that makes decisions easier.

Functional limits exist and are persuasive to me but you should be clear about why and how.

Evidence is either extremely important or largely irrelevant depending on how it is framed. You should control this framing. I tend to vote for evidentiary T args more often than normative ones in policy debates, and the opposite in K debates and I attribute that to the depth and quality of framing in each.

Hello all, I am a new parent judge and am the most lay of the lay.

What I hate:

I hate spreading. I cannot tolerate it at all. I will give you 20 speaks if you spread. Not just spreading, talking fast, even if you enunciate, and will not be able to keep up

I hate Trix, LARP, and anything more complex then FW. Don't use it.

I hate rudeness. Both of y'all are high schoolers, you don't get anything from being rude.

What I love:

Extending Impacts: Tell me what you opponent dropped and why that matters.

Voters: idc if you are losing badly, if you do a well thought voters I will vote for you.

Talking slowly: I am not 100% fluent in English so this works out fine.

What you need to do as a debator (mandatory)!!:

time yourself: im not gonna time, you need to hold you and your opponent accountable.

Show up to round on time: I'm very strict about tardiness

Be Ready: I'm always going to be ready, no need to ask me.

Other Notes:

I will be having my camera off and muted.

--------

I look forward to a good round and I do not disclose.

All the best,

Bharti Gautam

EXPERIENCE

I competed in Policy (among other events) from 2006 to 2010 and in British Parliamentary at the college level from 2010 to 2014. I've been judging since then, and am now running the debate programs at a number of schools. Please read the applicable paradigm categorized by format below:

POLICY

I'm a Stock Issues judge! If stock Issues are fulfilled, I default to Policymaker. My belief is that we're here to debate a policy option, not discuss external advocacy.

Generally not in favor of the K. If a team chooses to run one with me, provide a clear weighing mechanism as to why I should prefer the K over the policy issue we're actually here to debate.

I do not look upon Performance cases favorably. If you want to pull that stunt and expect to win, go do Oratory.

I'm able to understand speed just fine, but prefer clear articulation. Pitching your voice up while continuing to read at the same speed is not spreading.

I highly value clash and a weighing mechanism in the round, and strongly encourage analysis on arguments made. I work to avoid judge intervention if at all possible, unless there is clear abuse of the debate format or both teams have failed to provide effective weighing mechanisms. Don't just give me arguments and expect me to do the math; prove to me that you've won the argument, and then demonstrate how that means you've won the round.

I have a deep hatred of disclosure theory. I expect teams that I judge to be able to respond and adapt to new arguments in-round instead of whining about how they didn't know the aff before the round. If you want to run this, I have an exceedingly high threshold for proving abuse.

LINCOLN-DOUGLAS

I am a firm believer in traditional LD debate. LD was designed around Value-Criterion debate of the philosophical implications of a resolution, and I'm very happy to see debates of this nature. If you want to run a Plan, CP, or any variation thereof, I would like to suggest 3 options for you: Go do Policy, have your coach strike me, or hope for a different judge.

I am not a fan of Kritiks, but haven't been shy about voting for them in the past when they're well-impacted and developed with a competitive alt. You're going to have to do some serious work if you want to try and get me to prefer the K, but it's certainly possible. A K without an alternative is just whining.

No speed. A conversational speaking rate is more than adequate if you've done your homework and refined your case.

Performance/meme cases will result in swift and appalling reprisals in your speaker points, even in the unlikely event that you win the round. A low-point win is virtually inevitable in that case, and likely indicates that your opponent has somehow become incapacitated during the round and was unable to gurgle a response.

Adaptation to your audience is one of the most basic and essential factors in debate, and public speaking in general. Please keep that in mind when formulating your strategy for the round.

PUBLIC FORUM

I strongly prefer traditional public forum debate. If you treat this like Policy Lite, I will take out my frustration on your speaker points, and if it gets bad enough, on the rest of the ballot as well. PF was intended to be accessible to the layperson, and I take that seriously. Go do Policy if you want to use jargon, run plans, or spread.

In order to earn the ballot from me, focus on making clear, well-articulated arguments that have appropriate supporting evidence. Remember to tell me why I should prefer your evidence/points over your opponent's. Make sure your advocacy is continually supported through the round, and give me a good summary at the end to show why you've won the round.

WORLDS DEBATE

Traditional Worlds adjudication; please remember which format you're competing in. Do not spread.

General things that are always applicable

1. I am disabled. I have a disability that affects writing, fine-motor skills, and information processing. I do not flow speed, blippy arguments, or breathlessness well. If you choose to run these kinds of arguments anyway, be mindful that I will most likely miss key taglines, authors and warrants. That's not to say I'll close excel and stop flowing on principle, but If I have to choose between processing your argument and flowing then I probably will stop flowing at points. If I miss something because it's inaccessible, then it isn't a voting issue for me. Do not try to figure out my threshold for speed, it's insulting.
2. I only vote on clash, or offense that is both uncontested AND impacted. If the uncontested offense is dropped by your opponent, and you fail to show me why it matters, then it will not be a voting issue. I will not vote on an empirical impact calculus that fails to intersect with your opponent’s advocacy - this is a debate, not an essay writing contest. I do not care how good your cards are, or how qualified your authors are if you do not do the work of using them to make your own arguments. If you respond to a tagline without substantively engaging with the argument’s content, then I do not consider that clash.
3. I want to be on the e-mail chain: dakota-hiltzman@hotmail.com. Unless there is a reason for me to do so, I probably won't read anything you send me. That said, I want access to cards in the event that I fail to process an argument, or if there is an ethics question concerning the viability of the card.
4. Decorum is a voting issue. If you are nasty, needlessly aggressive, or rude then I have no problems voting against you for creating a hostile debate space. Your opponent does not need to tell me to vote you down for this reason, I will intercede and do so.

LD Specific things

1. If your value is morality because of the word ought in the resolution, and you don't do anything else to establish it, then I would rather you just skip your value entirely. It just feels so nebulous to me, and I'm sick to death of it. This is not me saying that I don't want a value/criterion framework, I would much rather you just value something else. Also, if your opponent is running value and you clash with literally any other value, I'll probably prefer the different value.
2. I don’t mind policy approaches to advocacy, but will never demand solvency, funding etc. This is not policy debate, as such the debaters are not responsible for the same burdens they would be in a policy round. I will always flow policy approaches to LD as an endorsement or indictment of value. This also applies to the Neg, if you run two disads then say aff doesn’t solve, I will not vote for you. I expect all Policy Affs to defend the whole resolution every time, policy can spec an aff because the topics are written broadly, LD topics are not written this way.
3. I love K debate, but please do not assume I know anything about your authors. Do the work, explain the theory, and impact your Alt. If you do not do these things, I will not evaluate the theory the way you want me to.

PF Specific things

1. In my ideal world the first set of speeches would be strictly constructives, the second set strictly attacks against your opponent's case, the third set strictly case defenses, and the final focus speeches would be voters. If your teams adapt this way, it will make me very happy, and keep my flow much cleaner.
2. Crossfire is not binding to case debate, if you want to garner offense for anything from anything said in crossfire, it needs to be made as a substantive argument in the following speech. I am not flowing crossfire, I usually use that time to make comments on the ballot. That said, I'm not ignoring you, and please don't be rude or needlessly aggressive.
3. (For virtual debate) It’s helpful for me if you can start each prelim speech with your first name and whether you’re Pro or Con. Since pro and con aren't set as first and second speaker, it can be confusing since we're virtual, I’m not looking at you during speeches because I flow in Excel.

Policy Specific Things

1. If you want me to judge the round like a policy judge, then consider me somewhere Stock issues and Tab. I will default to stock issues, but am open to interpreting the debate through alternative frameworks if both debaters consent or if arguments for utilizing an alternative framework are sufficiently justified. If you take an offense/defense approach, or your advocacy is mostly K or theory based, then I will approach the round like an LD judge - this is especially true for the negative, and I will not grant presumption for K or theory Negs.
2. I love good K debate (so long as the K isn't conditional or squirrelly), BUT, if you are going to go for the K then I need you to commit to it.
3. HATE everything-and-the-kitchen-sink negatives that read anything remotely applicable to the Aff and then kick out of all but one approach. All negative arguments (including counter-plans) should be unconditional. If you do kick it I still expect you to answer aff's offense on it, otherwise I may just go ahead and give to aff as offense.
4. Please extend warrants rather than authors. See point one under general, I cannot flow quickly enough to get your authors.

Virtual Debate Things

1. I live in a semi-rural area and do not have good internet access. When it is particularly bad, I may ask you and your opponent(s) to turn off your camera in order to preserve bandwidth for audio quality.
2. Per point 1, I'm not going to turn my camera on unless someone from tab directly tells me to do so. As long as I have no reason not to trust you, I'm okay if your camera is off as well. The only exception is in speaking events such, in which case I usually sit closer to the wifi router.
3. It is exhausting mentally, emotionally, and physically to be on camera all day in a way that it isn't to be in person. I do not want to penalize you for turning your camera off, afford me the ability to do grant you this grace.

Expirience: 2 years of policy debate, 14 years of coaching debate.

email chain: jholguin57310@hotmail.com

Delivery: I am fine with speed but Tags and analysis needs to be slower than warrants of carded evidence.

Flashing counted as prep until either email is sent or flash drive leaves computer. PUFO if you need cards call for them during CX otherwise asking to not start prep until the card is sent is stealing prep.

CX Paradigm

Topicality: T wise I have a very high threshold. I will generally not vote down an Aff on potential abuse. The Aff does have to put effort into the T debate as a whole though. If you don't, I will vote on T because this is a position that an Aff should be ready to face every round. Stale voters like fairness and education are not compelling to me at all. I also hate when you run multiple T violations it proves you are trying to cheap shot win on T. If you believe someone is untopical more real if you just go in depth on one violation.

Framework: I need the debaters to be the ones who give me the reasons to accept or reject a FW. Debaters also need to explain to me how the FW instructs me to evaluate the round, otherwise I have to ask for the FW after round just to know how to evaluate the round which I don't like doing or I have to intervene with my own interpretation of FW. If it becomes a wash I just evaluate based on impact calc.

Kritiks: As far as Kritiks go, I also have a high threshold. I will not assume anything about Ks. You must do the work on the link and alt level. Don’t just tell me to reject the 1AC and that that somehow solves for the impacts of the K. I need to get how that exactly works coming from the neg. This does not mean I think the Kritikal debate is bad I just think that competitors are used to judges already knowing the literature and not requiring them to do any of the articulation of the Kritik in the round itself, which in turn leads to no one learning anything about the Kritik or the lit.

Counterplans: If you show how the CP is competitive and is a better policy option than the Aff, I will vote for it. That being said if it is a Topical CP it is affirming the resolution which is not ever the point of the CP.

Theory: No matter what they theory argument is, I have a high threshold on it for being an independent reason to vote down a team. More often so long as argumentation for it is good, I will reject the arg not the team. Only time I would vote on disclosure theory is if you lied about what you would read. I beat two teams with TOC bids and guess what they didn't disclose to me what they read, I am not fast or more talented and only did policy for two years so do not tell me you cannot debate due to not knowing the case before round. I do believe Topical CPs are in fact just an affirmation and not a negation.

For both teams I will say this, a well thought out Impact Calc goes a long way to getting my ballot signed in your favor. Be clear and explain why your impacts outweigh. Don’t make me connect the dots for you. If you need clarification feel free to ask me before round.

LD Paradigm:
I think LD should have a value and criterion and have reasons to vote one way or another upholding that value or criterion. I cannot stress this enough I HATE SEEING CX/POLICY debate arguments in LD debates I FIRMLY believe that no LDer can run a PLAN, DA, K, CP in LD because they don't know how it operates or if they do they most of the time have no link, solvency or they feel they don't have to have warrants for that. AVOID running those in front of me I will just be frustrated. Example: Cards in these "DAs" are powertagged by all from least skilled to the TOC bidders they are not fully finished, in policy these disads would be not factoring into decisions for not having warrants that Warming leads to extinction, or the uniqueness being non existant, or the links being for frankness hot piles of garbage or not there. If you are used to judges doing the work for you to get ballots, like impacting out the contentions without you saying most of it I am not the judge for you and pref me lower if you want. In novice am I easier on you sure, but in open particularly bid rounds I expect not to see incomplete contentions, and powertagged cards.

PuFo Paradigm:

Look easiest way is be clear, do not read new cards or impacts after 2nd speaker on pro/con. I hate sandbagging in the final focus, I flow so I will be able to tell when you do it. Biggest pet peave is asking in crossfire do you have a card for that? Call for the warrants not the card, or the link to the article. I will not allow stealing of prep by demanding cards be given before next speech it just overextends rounds beyond policy rounds I would know I used to coach it all the time. Cite cards properly, ie full cites for each card of evidence you cite. IE: I see the word blog in the link, I already think the evidence isn't credible. Don't confuse defensive arguments for offensive arguments. Saying the pro cannot solve for a sub point of their case is defense, the pro triggers this negative impact is offense. Defense does not win championships in this sport, that's usually how the Pro overcomes the Con fairly easy. BTW calling for cards outside of cross fire and not wanting to have prep start is stealing prep you want full disclosure of cases do Policy where its required. Cross is also not the place to make a speech.

Tabula rasa.

Hello,

This is my second year debating, first year in varsity.

If you speak at a reasonable speed, I will flow your arguments. If you choose to go a million words per minute, I will be unable to keep up. Stick to your values and contentions... i.e. no ad hominem.

Make sure to pay attention in round and use your cards to refute your opponent. Do not resort to saying "that's false" without evidence.

Have fun, do your best, and GO METS!

I am a parent judge, and former high school Lincoln Debate State Champion. I have judged many Public Forum and Lincoln Douglas debates at middle school and high school tournaments. Arguments that focus on societal impact with direct linkages to clear data/facts carry weight. And- stay on topic.

Do not spread, and slow down on justifications in your last speech. I will not consider Kritiks and topicality. If you have any questions, please ask me before the start of the round. Be kind, respectful and courteous to your opponent- or you will lose points. I'm looking forward to an engaging, and fun debate!

Hi, I'm Shai Markwardt! I competed in PF and LD debate in high school, and am currently a senior at Northern Arizona University.

I am comfortable with speed but do prefer more classic LD style debate - I, generally, dislike kritiks, shells, etc.

I love a good philosophical framework debate and the use of burdens, when applicable.

Case/evidence email: k3n.nichols@gmail.com

Lincoln Douglas

Background: I've been judging high school Lincoln Douglas for over 6 years and work in the tech industry.

Speed: I'm a native English speaker, so faster than conversational delivery is fine, but debaters should attempt to be persuasive and not speak just to fill time. (I do appreciate good argumentation and have noticed that faster speakers tend to rush past important points without fully exploring their significance, so keep that in mind.)

Criteria: I consider myself to be a "traditional" LD judge. I value logical debate, with analysis and supporting evidence... co-opting opponents' value & criterion and showing how your case wins is completely fair and certainly a winning strategy. I do weigh delivery and decorum to some degree, but generally it isn't a factor... in the event of a tie, Neg wins. Neg owns the status quo, so the burden is on Aff to show why changes must be made.

Note: I don't care for "progressive" arguments... most of the time they're just a cheap ploy to ambush unsuspecting opponents instead of expanding our understanding of the problem and the philosophical underpinnings guiding our decision. (If you'd rather be doing policy, there's a whole other event for you to enter.)

Public Forum

Public Forum is based on T.V. and is intended for lay viewers. As a result, there's no paradigm, but some of the things that help are to be convincing, explain what the clash is between your opponents position and yours, and then show why your position is the logical conclusion to choose.

I competed in for 5 years in LD during middle/high school, and I'm now a college student.

I'm ok with most styles of debate.

Some caveats:

Ks are cool, but I'm less familiar with their literature -- please fully explain their logic if you want me to vote on them.

I don't understand T, so I'm probably not going to vote on it.

I think debate in general should be very inclusive -- if your opponent doesn't want you to spread please don't spread :)

I'm ok with speed, but would really appreciate you slowing down on tag lines and definitions (I'm probably not going to be familiar with the topic's literature).

I really love innovative trad arguments -- I may be more inclined to vote for you in this case if you defend your position well.

Feel free to be sassy, but please don't be mean.

I will give an extra speaker point if you include at least 1 Disney reference that I catch.

I'm looking forward to judging good debate rounds!!

I like debate and have been coaching and judging debate for 40 years. I competed in high school policy debate and college NDT and CEDA debate. For most of my career, I coached all events at Okoboji High School in Iowa. I worked for Summit Debate at NDF Boston in Public Forum for 15 years and judged numerous PF LD practice and tournament rounds. I have been the LD coach for Puyallup High School for the past four years. I'm working with the LD, Congress and PF at Puyallup.

The past six years, I've judge LD rounds from novice through circuit tournaments. I judge policy rarely, but I do enjoy it. Paradigms for each follow.

PF This is a debate that should be interesting for all Americans. It should not be overly fast or technical. I will take a detailed flow, and I don't mind terms like link and impact. Evidence should be read, and I expect refutation of important issues, especially the offense presented in the round. Follow the debate rules, and I should be good. The final focus should spend at least some time going over weighing. Be nice to each other, and Grand Cross should not be a yelling match. The summary speaker must extend any arguments to be used in Final Focus. I expect the second speaking team to engage in the arguments presented in the rebuttal. I do not like disclosure theory, and it would be difficult for me to vote for it.

LD - I have judged a lot of circuit rounds over the years but not as many over the past four years. Washington state has a slower speed preference than the national circuit, so I'm not as practiced at that type of speed. My age means I don't flow or hear as well as I use to, so make sure I'm flowing. I like speed, but at rare times I have difficult time keeping up. If this happens, I will let you know. I expect a standard/criterion debate in the round. If you do something else, you must explain to me why it is legitimate. If you run policy positions, you must develop them enough for me to understand them. I do not like micropol positions. I will not drop them on face. I don't mind theory, but again, it must be developed. Bad advocacy is bad debating. Lying in the round or during cx will be dealt with severely. CX is binding. I expect clean extensions of arguments, and will give weight to arguments dropped by debaters. I want to be a blank slate in the back of the room. Please tell me why I should vote for you. Finally, I will not vote for disclosure theory unless something weird happens.

Policy died in our circuit, and we were the only team still trying to do it. I haven't coached a policy team for a season since 2010; however, I've had teams go to tournaments in policy for fun and to try it. I've also judged policy debate at district tournaments to fulfill the clean judge rule.

Watch me for speed. I will try to keep up, but I'm old. It's a lack of hearing that may cause me to fall behind. I will yell "clear," and that probably means slow down. I'll do my best. I like all kinds of policy arguments, and I'm ok with kritiks. You may want to explain them to me a bit better because it may have been awhile since I heard the argument. Besides that, I'm a policy maker unless you tell me to be something else. Theory is ok, but it should be developed. Abuse must be proven in the round. Rebuttals should kick unimportant arguments and settle on a few to delineate. The final speeches should weigh the arguments.

Lincoln Douglas Paradigm

Offer a value with more than just a common dictionary definition. Support the value with a workable criterion through which you can link your contentions. If you accept your opponent's framework, be clear about how your case works better within that framework.

Spread at your own risk. National champions don't do it and spreading often is an attempt to hide weak cases. If you must spread, make sure I flow your tag lines and any critical information you deem essential to winning the debate. You will be able to tell when I am confused or miss something. Respond accordingly.

I should not have to read your evidence to understand your case. Consequently, the only time I ask for evidence is if your opponent believes your evidence does not support or misrepresents your case.

Indulge in collegiate pyrotechnics at your own risk. If you go off-case, offer very clear definitions and impeccable logic.

Finally - be civil. If you are rude or disrespectful, you will lose my vote no matter how strong your case is. See the last paragraph under my PF paradigm.

For Public Forum I take the role of an educated citizen. Public Forum was meant to be heard by an educated public not necessarily trained the same way a policy judge would be trained. Consequently, I frown on debate jargon. If competitors use phrases like "framework", "extend the flow", "solvency", etc. without properly defining those terms, they will have trouble winning the debate.

Be clear and actually give speeches, much like you would for Oratory, rather than simply reading off a screen. This is not Policy or Lincoln Douglas. I should not have to work to understand your speech. Again, your audience are laypeople, not debate experts.

Source credibility is becoming a more central issue. Be careful with your sources.

Finally, I place great weight on closing speeches that crystallize the debate. Don't give me a laundry list of reasons why you think you won. Give me key reasons you think you won and why those particular contentions hold more weight than others.

hey yall im linh (she/her) and im a senior, ive done (washington) ld since freshman yr.

just as a heads up, i understand that most debaters see debate as a game which is totally fine but that doesnt mean that you get the right to be misogynistic/racist/homophobic/or even plain mean towards your opponent/others. i will 100% drop you if those things happen. and on the flip side, if you ever feel unsafe during a round, email me (plinhtea@gmail.com) and i'll stop the round.

substance:

• weighing is so so so important and if you don't weigh, i will have to intervene to make a decision and no one wants that (if you don't know what weighing is, please ask!)
• progressive arguments are fine (i love kritiks)
• please don't debate about the values. vc debates are fun, amazing, wonderful! value debates not so much.
• dw abt speed, i can flow it -> but if ur opponent is clearly struggling, maybe give them a hand and slow down?
• give me clear voters/reasons to vote for you and explain why those reasons are better than your opponents
• otherwise do whatever you want. if you want to read a sick-ass performance, go for it. if you want to read util and two contentions, go for it.

i give default 29 speaks. if you want that illustrious 30 speaks, you can do one of a couple of things:

• incorporate three good taylor swift or mitski references in your speeches
• show everyone in the round a goofy picture/video of your pet
• give me an album rec and a song off of that album that i can listen to while you prep

really do try to have fun and take care of yourself. i know its stressful out there <3

My Experience Comes Mainly In LD. - 2 Years as of 2020

Mostly truth over tech, though I will vote both ways

Basic Stuff: Don't Care Where Sit, Either Sit or Stand, whatever is preferred. Timing yourself is highly recommended. I give a few seconds of grace at the end of your speech but after that, I won't flow what you say. I vote primarily off of flow.

Speed is well, I don't really care. If you want to go fast, do so. If you are a slower debater, great go slow. However, if spreading please flash the case, otherwise, I probably won't be fast enough to flow arguments. To let me know you are going fast close your eyes and say "I am speed."

Argument Wise, I am really open to anything, but I do like a typical Value/Criterion debate. K's, DAs, T-shells, Plans, or whatever has to be explained well enough that I can understand. And if they just don't make sense I really will not vote on them. I have a high threshold for T, probably won't vote on it unless large. As for meme cases, run them but probably won't vote for them. I will give extra speaker points if you can prove to me you can juggle.

This is how I pick my Champion:

1. Pick the winning framework/whatever is best.

2. Weigh the impacts through the framework, whichever side has the largest/most impacts under the fw will win the round.

This is how LD rounds should be judged. Sorry if some parent judges don't understand that.

Tl:Dr

No outside bias

Speed doesn't matter

Open to any argument, provided it is explained

Email Chain: benjaminye[dot]email[at]gmail[dot]com

School Affiliations: Eastlake High School ('22), Northwestern University ('26)

Topic Knowledge: 6/10---did some work with Northwestern's camp this past summer so I'm not completely clueless, but please still explain acronyms and slow down a bit on more specific ideas.

Top:

Debate how you debate best.

I used to have a really long paradigm but realized that I'm still trying to sort out my thoughts on what good debate looks like and should be---the rest of this paradigm is just a list of my thoughts and habits so far:

Non-negotiables:
- I will try to flow to the best of my ability. Emphasis, bumper stickers, and pen time are good; full speed analytics and long paragraphs are not
- Only effect of ballot is deciding the winner, one team wins and one team loses
- Speech times
- Yes judge kick

Argument biases:
- T is probably not an RVI
- Conditionality is probably good
- Most theory is probably a reason to reject the argument
- Fairness is probably an impact
- Weighing the plan is probably good but the AFF's assumptions are probably important too

Misc:
- I'm kind of visual with facial expressions
- Please don't be racist or sexist---I'll err on the side of playing things out but will vote you down if it threatens the safety of anyone in the round
- Will call clear twice before just not flowing

Online-specific:
- Camera off = not here and not ready
- If online, go like 95% speed because tech

Hey All, I'm Sachin. I debated at Seattle Academy. I attend Tufts University.

Theory>Phil>K>Larp>Trix

Tech > Truth

I'm open to hearing virtually anything. Go as fast as you want, just send me a doc: sachinzachariah@gmail.com

Feel free to ask my any questions (reach out at 206-353-2751 if you need help)