email: aa4688@columbia.edu

about me

hi my name is ayaan (pronounced "ah-yawn"). i'm an undergrad at columbia. i debated pf @ brooklyn tech hs for three years. i have very much been out of the competitive debate scene for the past year and a half. i'm like 20 years old, im not a real adult yet, please don't call me judge.

basic norms & round decorum

have your own timer, but my clock supersedes all; avoid massive card shuffling; do not steal prep from your opponents.

if road maps help you deliver speeches, feel free to give them, but i'm neither here nor there to their value.

arrive to the round on time, preferably if you can get here early, please do. starting early means we end early.

please be respectful at all times. this includes avoiding the use of harmful language and ad hominem attacks (avoid logical fallacies in general). practice empathy, communication, and kindness. please feel free to pull me aside if you are feeling uncomfortable for whatever reason.

i might ask for your cards if they're outlandish. the parameters of what outlandish means to me are dependent on the case. just be ready to share them if requested.

if there are any technical/logistical issues, please let me know before the round starts.

round spectators are fine, just be quiet and respectful.

i will disclose if a) required b) both teams request that i do. i will also attach a link to my flow in the rfd.

i'm not heavy on writing essays in the feedback section, if you want details on your performance, you're more than welcome to email me.

speaks allocation is pretty round-dependent, meme cases get 30 speaks (for the meme) but i don't vote for them.

i'm pretty monotone and boring, so i always appreciate a joke or two in speeches to lighten the mood.

core evaluatory philosophy

tech > truth always, and i am not super versed in progressive argumentation, but i have taken a western philosophy seminar, so i think i'll survive.

please cut your cards properly, i cannot stress this enough. poor card cutting destroys the structure of my flow and lessens my opinion of your arguments.

if there is intense evidence clash, your job should be to explain to me why your evidence is better.

the second rebuttal should ideally respond to the first constructive and first rebuttal.

if you do run non-frivolous theory

my ideal shell: interpretation -> violation -> standards -> voters -> implication.

respond to the violation in the speech immediately following it.

the key to winning my vote -> a fantastic summary

the summary is the most important speech in the entire debate (especially the first one). it's also one of the hardest speeches to master, so don't beat yourself up over it if you're struggling. in an ideal round, i should be able to listen to just the summary + ff and make the correct decision.

the core formula for a good summary:

• pick the best offensive and defensive arguments to extend (this also means collapsing on stuff that didn't work for you).
• gain access to the offense that you choose to extend.
• make an argument about why that offense should win you the round (aka weighing).

(more details are in this lecture)

picking arguments to extend

• choose arguments that weren't responded to / poorly responded to by opponent (easy to access).
• choose arguments with large impacts (easy to weigh).
• consider how all of your arguments fit within the context of the round (generic advice, takes practice).

gaining access to offense

• frontline: respond to the responses to your argument, you must do this for *all* active responses to your argument. a common structure for a frontline is the "they say ... we say ..." format.
• extend: now that you've frontlined your argument, restate your cards and explain the jist of the claim again, must extend link + impact.

why you should win (weighing)

• comparativeness is your friend. directly compare your offense with your opponent's offense and explain why yours is better. please have warranting for your impacts (nuke war prereqs the economy is not as solid as you might think).

additional info: how to extend

• the easiest way to extend is to just give a short tag on your card and explain why it supports your claim
• practice practice practice extending your arguments before the round!

final thoughts

• summaries are very hard to master, but they are formulaic and can be executed successfully with enough practice. i believe deeply that most flow/tech judges will be convinced of one side after the summary, and without a good summary, the final focus is bound to be weak.
• without adequate knowledge of your topic, all the advice above becomes relatively trivial. come prepared!
• remember that you need to extend throughout your speeches all the way to the ff.
• don't get too stressed out! debate may seem like the end of the world, but the grass is greener on the other side. have fun, argue with passion, and make the most of it.

I'm a parent judge in my third year of judging debate. Please do not spread or use excessive debate jargon. Speak slowly, focusing on clarity and quality of argument over quantity. Keep your delivery organized and oriented toward a first-time listener of the topic.

Support assertions with evidence, providing context or relevance as necessary. Beyond making your case, please respond directly to your opponent's arguments. Highlight areas of contrast and points you believe to be particularly favorable to your cause. Passionate engagement is fine, but please take care to be civil and respectful.

Present a clear summation of key points made (and not made by your opponents), and why your side should prevail.

Finally, I'm not interested in Theory arguments.

I look forward to hearing you.

I am a parent judge, with no judging experience. Please speak slowly and make sure to be clear. If you speak too fast, I'll drop you. Please do not use any debate jargon. Do not spread and try to collapse on one argument. I would like to see weighing and comparison of arguments. Be respectful to each other, stick to the facts, watch the timer.

I am a parent judge and new to judging public forum, with only a little prior experience in judging. I did policy debate in high school 30 years ago, but have forgotten most things. I like organised arguments, and I need you to clearly signpost your arguments and weigh your evidence and arguments.

Email: aaroncontreras04@gmail.com

Debate is a game so have fun

- Tech>truth most times, but the crazier an argument gets, the lower my threshold for responses to that argument is. Feel free to run wacky arguments as long as they have good warranting though.

- If something happens in cross, please bring it up in the next speech.

- Weigh Weigh Weigh Weigh Weigh it's how I decide the round pls weigh. Weighing in first FF is okay, but it's better if done earlier (not in second FF though)

- I won't vote off of dropped defense if it is not extended

- No new arguments in FF. This applies to extensions. If there isn't a clean link and impact extension in summary, I won't evaluate it even if it is in FF.

- Second rebuttal must respond to turns otherwise they are dropped

- Defense should be in first summary as I think that 3 minutes is long enough to do so.

- Please collapse and extend case properly in summary and final focus. This means extending the uniqueness, link, and impact. I probably can't grant you any offense if you don't do this.

- I presume the first speaking team if no offense is generated in the round

Speaks

- Signpost, otherwise I'll be hella confused as to where you are on the flow

- Speak pretty, and be strategic and you'll get high speaks

- Moderate speed is ok, but if you start spreading I will drop your speaks

- Going new in the 2. Don't do this, I'll ignore it and tank your speaks

- This goes without saying but teams who are racist, sexist, homophobic, ableist, etc will receive a 25L

Evidence

Evidence is overrated, I think that PF has become much more focused on the validity of evidence, and while this is important, warranted analytics beats unwarranted carded stats every single time.

Here are a few things I like to see in the debate:

1. PLEASE don't speak too fast. If you do, don't expect me to get all your arguments

2. Overall, be kind and have fun

Good luck, and may the best team win!

Hey! I'm Tanay(he/him). I debated Public Forum on the National circuit while at Lexington HS for four years. I will mostly judge Public Forum, and if I'm somehow judging another format, take me as a new judge. TLDR is pretty much the miscellaneous stuff.

Add me to the email chain: tanaydalmia612@gmail.com.

I will disclose and give oral feedback at the end of the round if you want me to and if the tournament lets me, just give me time to complete my ballot.

Misc. stuff:

I vote off the flow(tech>truth mostly).

- For my ballot, I begin on the weighing, which tells me which side to look to first. If you tell me another way to evaluate the round, do so in your speech.

- I try to be tabula rasa(go in with no preconceived notions)

- Nothing is sticky. Once it’s dropped, it’s done.

- Weigh. Weigh, weigh, weigh. Weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh. Comparative and meta weighing is best.

- I can handle some speed, as long as it's still coherent. If I miss something though, from your speed, that might hurt you when you refer to it later. If you send me speech docs, esp for case and rebuttal, I'm less likely to miss things.

- Logical arguments with no evidence>evidence without warranting

- Don't read blips and blow them up later.

- I don't really presume, so if both teams do something that would make them lose their offense and cause presumption, then I will usually ignore the oversight by both teams and evaluate both, unless I have a reason not to. I hate intervening, make sure to have proper coverage.

- You MUST have evidence properly construed.

Progressive Debate:

I’m not super well versed in progressive debate, whether it be theory, kritiks, etc. However, if you explain your arguments well, I am willing to evaluate them. Do know though, you are probably putting yourself at a little bit of a disadvantage.

Evidence:

Teams can call for evidence, and while the other team is looking for it, no one's prep is used. However, do not take forever and do not steal prep during this time. If you're jotting like a quick note once, I'm fine with it, but not more than that. It wouldn't be fun for anyone if that became an issue. If you take too long to find a piece of evidence, you either have to choose to drop that evidence or take running prep to finish finding it.

Please use good evidence. If one team declares that a piece of evidence is misconstrued, I will look at it on the email chain and if I agree, I'll scratch it off my flow. If it's a huge misconstruction, I might even vote the violating team down and/or reduce speaks. If one team calls for a round-ending evidence challenge, we will follow the tournament's direction on that.

I'm fine with paraphrasing. If there's an issue though, I'll evaluate it the same way I do a misconstruction issue because that is essentially what it is.

Speaks:

If the tournament provides me with a list, I'll use that instead.

My average is 28.5, and I'll move up and down from there.

Novices automatically get 1 point higher than what I would have given them in JV/Varsity.

29.5-30: Superb debating, you didn't have many big flaws or any in your debating and strategy, and you articulated extremely well.

29-29.5: A really good job, a few flaws, the execution was still on point, and articulation was quite good.

28.5-29: Above average, some flaws but I still liked how you did overall, and good articulation.

28-28.5: Pretty average, you did a good job but there were definitely flaws, and you spoke pretty well.

27.5-28: There were some issues with execution, but it was still passable. You might have paused a bunch or seemed confused at times, but I mostly knew where you were.

27-27.5: There were a bunch of flaws or one huge flaw that you probably want to tidy up. Your speaking was lacking in some way, but I see potential.

26-27: Multiple major flaws on your side. Significant misses in speaking.

Lower than 26: Pretty rare, you must have done something really big.

If you say anything homophobic/sexist/etc, I will stop the round, drop you, and give the lowest speaks possible. Just don't please.

Final thoughts:

Feel free to ask me anything before and after round. Or just talk, I'm chill with that.

I'll be pretty laid-back, so let's have a good time.

Good luck and have fun!

I am a parent judge. This is my third year judging public forum debate, online and in-person.

Please treat everyone with respect. Use conversational tone and speed. In your final focus, I would appreciate clear analysis of why your team should win. Thanks.

I am a High School English Teacher and this is my first year teaching/judging PF Debate. Please speak slowly or at least with average cadence.

I'm a Blake debate alumna and now an assistant coach.

Worlds Schools debate was my main format, and I competed it for three years at the national level. Speech content: include the principle debate, rebuild / extend arguments from the first speech in the second speeches, and become more globalized for third and fourth speeches. Weigh - and early!! Speaking style: signpost.

As a secondary format, I competed in PF. I am very familiar with the format, and lay on most topics. Read dates, signpost, and I prefer cards / evidence over paraphrasing.

Be nice to each other! At the end of the day, debating is about learning and having fun.

EMAILS FOR EMAIL CHAINS: blakedocs@googlegroups.com and sierra@u.northwestern.edu

Hi! I am currently a senior at Newton South and have done PF for four years. A couple things:

1. Please don't say "just a quick off time road map." Please.

2. In rebuttal, the second speaking team should frontline turns. Not required, but I like when teams collapse in second rebuttal.

3. I don't just care that your card says something—explain to me why it says that.

4. PLEASE WEIGH! Make my decision easy by telling me why your argument is more important.

5. I can't vote for you if in your second half speeches you aren't extending a warrant and an impact (and weighing and frontlining). Please please collapse.

6. I don't like theory and will probably evaluate it wrong. Would *strongly* advise against running it.

7. Make me laugh and I'll boost your speaks:) If you are mean to your opponents, expect your speaks to reflect that.

Let me know if you have any questions! Excited to judge!

I debated with some frequency in high school so i understand how it works but I'm not particularly flow or technical

Hi friends! I'm a debater and all around cool person.

About me:

I've been doing PF for four years as (mostly) a second speaker at Lexington High School in MA. local and state level. she/her

Debate stuff:

- Keep the round clean. (a) Find the cleanest piece of offense on the flow and weigh that. I want to avoid intervention as much as I possibly can, but if arguments get muddled, that's hard for me to do. I would far prefer to vote off a conceded, well-implicated turn than an arg riddled with conflicting warranting. (b) signpost. (c) collapse in the second half of the round. (d) tell me why I'm voting for you in your final speeches. Make my job as easy as possible!

- Implicate everything: explain the relevance of everything you extend, ie. warrants, impacts, blocks + explain why the arguments your opponents dropped matter so I don't have to do any analysis

- i would advise against spreading. heres an overview of why i think its bad: (a) there's a sizable chance your opponents won't be able to understand you (b) concision is good (c) it can encourage worse argumentation, it’s really hard to listen to a debater dump 30 bad quality turns on their opponent and collapse on the 2 obscure turns they dropped.

- I have 0 background in policy or LD, so if you want to run theory, Ks, disads, pre-fiat args, counterplans, or any other non PF argument you're gonna need to explain it to me in the simplest possible terms.

- I don't time speeches or prep.

- Debate respectfully. If you're unnecessarily patronizing or rude, I'll dock your speaks. I also won't evaluate any discriminatory arguments.

- Have good evidence ethics: your evidence highlighting should be consistent with the intent of your author, avoid paraphrasing in general but have full cut cards readily available if you do paraphrase, etc. I'll call for evidence if you ask me to. If evidence is bad, I basically just evaluate the round as if it didn't exist. im tech>truth unless you say a statistic that is factually incorrect, don't lie.

lastly (a) feel free to ask me any questions before round, (b) i'll disclose and give feedback after round if you want it and the tournament allows, and (c) have a great time!!!

email: mbgordon@outlook.com

I am a parent PF judge and am an attorney and legal consultant.

Please make your framework clear and, when necessary, address why your framework should prevail. When you clash with your opponents, I will judge your case based on how you weigh your arguments' significance relative to your opponents' arguments.

Please do not spread (or talk too quickly). Fast speakers assume the risk that I could miss some arguments/points/evidence. Additionally, if in my view you've spoken at a fast clip, I will not view unfavorably your opponent failing to respond to an argument that you have advanced.

Citations without explanations or explanations without citations are not persuasive. Please do not use debate jargon.

Keep the discourse civil. Incivility in any form will hurt your cause. I encourage tactical and strategic thinking in arguing, rebutting, and in cross fire.

I appreciate clear analysis of why your contention should win the day in the summary and final focus. The final focus should have all that you would like me to vote on (including why I should vote for your side by explaining why the other side's arguments fail and why yours don't.)

Hey y'all! My name is (Judge?) Pranav Gunnala, I am a 3rd year debater at Lexington High School in Massachusetts.

Add me to any email chains at 23gunnala2@lexingtonma.org and label your chain as "Tournament - Round - Aff team name vs neg team name"

Here is what you can do to win a round:

- Tech over Truth (mostly): I will vote on basically anything, but please weigh, implicate and extend

- Weighing: If I hear any meta weighing, i.e "we outweigh on magnitude because our number x is bigger", I will probably not flow it. Weighing comparatively (Your argument vs. theirs) shows me you have a deeper understanding of the topic and will sway me considerably.

- CX: I am a big proponent that Cross is stupid (except for argument clarifications) and people say dumb things because of the pressure of being put on the spot. I don't flow anything in cross, and likely wont pay any attention to what y'all are saying either, unless Im confused on whats going on. Feel free to use cross as evidence review or prep, I think both of those will contribute to a stronger round than will a 3 minute shouting match.

- Prog Debate: Feel free to run theory, K's or spread, but understand that I am still newbish to these strategies, and might struggle. If you do want to run something progressive, it would help me alot if you could disclose your case, or else i might struggle with comprehending whats going on. Read content warnings when you have to!

- In any debate that gets messy, I will default by which team does better weighing and implication (laying the groundwork for strong arguments goes a long way!! :) ), but if neither team does that, i will vote on my own beliefs

- Speaker points are pointless imo, and in the online space especially, put way too much focus on technology. I start everyone at 28 speaks, and typically wont go lower (unless you say anything problematic or be rude in cross, etc), and I reward good signposting etc liberally

Finally, have fun! Debate is competitive and can get heated, but being friendly and respectful to your opponents is a great way to increase education and equality in our space.

I competed in speech and debate while in high school. I work as a registered nurse in an emergency department. I have judged since 2012.

-Please do not speak so fast I cannot understand your words or reasoning.

-Do your best to make it clear what points you are addressing in the opponents case.

-If discrediting a competitor, do it with respect and be clear why your arguments outweigh theirs.

-I do read the evidence you provide and weigh your sources to points in your argument.

I'm a parent of a PF debater and have taken the role of judge in PF debate for two years.

Some preference below:

1. Analytical, logical and evidence.
2. Clear presentation, structure and signpost.
3. Engage with the arguments presented by your opponent.
4. Logical argumentation with good clash on the topic. Not constantly reading material.
5. Speak at moderate speed, but not top speed.

I am a parent judge, and this is my first opportunity to volunteer. I am looking forward to hearing from you all and appreciate your effort getting ready for this tournament!

I imagine everyone is a bit nervous, so please be respectful, courteous, and patient with each other so we can have the best possible environment for learning and growth.

If you use jargon or abbreviations, I probably won't know what you are talking about. So do your best to use plain English.

Good luck! You're do great!

Hi I'm Enya! I debated for 4 years at Newton South, mostly on the nat circuit. I'm a few years out.

Add me to the email chain - enya@kamadolli.com (this is solely for convenience in case y'all ask me to look at evidence, I'm almost never looking at evidence unless a team asks me to)

Pronouns: she/her/hers

Please introduce yourselves w/ pronouns

---- For Novices ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1) You are amazing and we are all here to learn so please don't be stressed or nervous and try to have fun :)

2) Weighing is the easiest way that you can get me to vote for you. Please make it comparative though. Also please remember to also extend a warrant and an impact in summary and final focus (and it should be the same warrant and impact).

3) I don't vote off cross. Obviously I'll pay attention and give you feedback as to what were strategic questions, etc, but nothing you say in cross will be written down by me. That means that you should focus on asking about things that will help you out, not asking about things and saying things that should probably be in a speech.

4) Please please please collapse on just one or two arguments. I do not evaluate rounds by counting. I will only vote for something if there is a warrant and impact and ideally weighing. If you extend three contentions in summary/final focus, you have to do this for each contention.

(If you don't understand any of the things above or below, please ask. Also if at any point during round you are confused about speech times, cross times, or prep time, please ask)

---- General things-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

***if you say anything or act in any way that is sexist, racist, homophobic, transphobic, classist, egregiously elitist, islamophobic, etc, I will drop you and likely report you to tab***

1) Tech > Truth. Keep in mind that if you lose the flow, you will lose the round.

2) I require the frontlining of all offense in 2nd rebuttal. That means turns AND weighing. If those are not addressed, I consider them conceded in the round. You might want to frontline some other stuff too. That’s up to you :)

3) Evidence+warranting > warranting > bEcaUse thE EvIDenCe SayS sO.

4) Please use they/them pronouns with anyone that you don’t know the pronouns of

5) Everyone gets a 10 second grace period. Please do not start anything new during the grace period. However, certainly DO NOT interrupt your opponents, raise your hand/fist, or do anything else disruptive during that 10 second period. I frown upon this practice even after the 10 second period, given that I am also timing the speech and I will put my pen down after the 10 second period, so there's no need to frantically wave your timer at me.

6) the Zoom/NSDA platform technology picks up deeper voices. That essentially means that if a person with a deeper voice and a person with a higher voice are talking at the same time, only the person with the deeper voice will be heard. Please be aware of this and adjust your behavior in cross accordingly!!! If you are a person with a deep voice who ~literally~ does not let anyone else get a word in and/or interrupts others, expect a 26.

7) Feel free to ask me questions about my decision. If you have any questions about how I evaluated any specific argument/weighing, I encourage you to ask them if my RFD didn't make it clear enough. I'll most likely give an oral RFD unless the round runs really late, but if for some reason I don't, feel free to email me with questions once you get my RFD.

8) I'm willing to entertain progressive argumentation if you explain it well and you aren't running it against novices or teams that clearly don't know how it works. I'm quite open to kritiks, but please keep in mind that I don't have a ton of experience with them, so keep them accessible. Any sort of minority advocacy argument will be well-recieved by me. I'm not a huge fan of disclosure and paraphrase theory, but if it's on my flow I'll evaluate it.

---- Things that’ll boost your speaks -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Giving your opponents prep time if they use all of theirs up (+1)

Collapsing in second rebuttal (+1)

Rebuttal weighing overview (+0.5)

Having some good weighing mechanism that I’ve not encountered yet on a topic (+0.25)

I am a relatively new parent judge.

I would prefer that you speak slowly and understandably.

Please weigh and use good evidence ethics throughout the round.

I will judge based on how well each team argued and defended their point.

Hi, I'm a parent judge

I would like you to do the following.

1. Speak slowly and clearly. I take notes so this lets me catch everything you're saying and gives you a better chance of winning.

2. Please don't use debate jargon. I'm very unfamiliar with it.

3. Be polite and respectful.

4. I value Quality > Quantity. Don't dump a lot of responses. Please implicate them well telling me why they matter and why I should vote off of it.

5. Please keep track of your own time and be honest about it.

------

Good Luck!

Hello! I’m Pierina Katoanga, and I’m a parent of a Regis debater. I am a lay judge with no previous experience debating.

Please ensure that you speak clearly and slowly so that I have a better chance of following your arguments.

I’m not familiar with a lot of debate jargon, so please keep that a minimum. Similarly, I might not know a lot of topic-specific acronyms/shorthands, so it would be helpful to state the full name for ease of reference.

During crossfire, please refrain from talking over one another and be respectful; it should be back-and-forth.

For speeches, organization is important; make it clear what you’re responding to and what argument you’ll be using in the final two sets of speeches.

With regard to the use of evidence, I will not keep track of author names so please re-explain what the evidence itself says.

Lastly, I will repeat again: pacing and clear articulation of your delivery would be really helpful.

Thank you, and I wish you all the best!

Debated. Did okay. Don't care about debate anymore.

Speech docs would be helpful and can be emailed to ekemelmakher@gwmail.gwu.edu

IMPORTANT: Read the pet peeves section of my paradigm at the very least. I get really annoyed when you do all of the pet peeves in a round. For every infraction that I notice, -0.5 off speaks. If you plan on disappointing, strike me.

PLEASE BRING ME FOOD. If you do I’ll give you 30s!

Debate is a game so have fun

- Truth over tech, please for the love of all that is holy have warranting

- If something happens in cross, please bring it up in the next speech.

- Weigh Weigh Weigh Weigh Weigh it's how I decide the round pls weigh. Totally new Weighing in the first FF is okay, but it's better if done earlier

- Make your weighing comparative, don't just use buzzwords like "we outweigh on scope" — that means nothing to me; there should be comparison and actual warranting for why I should prefer your arguments to your opponents

- No new arguments in FF. This applies to extensions. If there isn't a clean link and impact extension in the summary, I won't evaluate it even if it is in FF.

- Please collapse and extend case properly in summary and final focus. This means extending the uniqueness, link, and impact. I probably can't grant you any offense if you don't do this.

-Theory: Don't read it, I'll drop you. If there is actual abuse that needs to be covered, you don't need a theory shell.

Speaks

- Signpost, otherwise I'll be hella confused as to where you are on the flow

- Speak pretty, and be strategic and you'll get high speaks

- Moderate speed is ok, but if you start spreading I will drop your speaks

- This goes without saying but teams who are racist, sexist, homophobic, ableist, etc will receive a 25L

Evidence

Evidence is overrated, I think that PF has become much more focused on the validity of evidence, and while this is important, warranted analytics beats unwarranted carded stats every single time.

Pet Peeves

- Saying "My time starts on my first word". No really? I thought it started on your fourth word.

- Saying "We're gonna take some running prep." As opposed to walking prep? Where's the prep going? Just take prep, and tell me how much you took after.

- Giving a really long off-time roadmap, and then not even sticking to it. PF rounds are often pretty linear, you can just tell me what side of the flow you're starting on

Fun Stuff

If you do a 360 jump and call it a massive 180 when you read a turn: +0.5 speaks

The Office jokes in speeches: +0.5 speaks

Hey! I'm Parth(he/him), a junior at Lexington HS, in my fourth year debating Public Forum on the National circuit. I will mostly judge Public Forum, and if I'm somehow judging another format, take me as a new judge.

my email for evidence: parthko05@gmail.com

I will disclose and give oral feedback at the end of the round if you want me to and if the tournament lets me

Misc. stuff:

I vote off the flow(tech>truth mostly).

- Weigh. Weigh, weigh, weigh, you need to compare your impacts

- I can handle some speed, as long as it's still coherent.

Progressive Debate:

I’m not super well versed in progressive debate, whether it be theory, kritiks, etc. However, if you explain your arguments well, I am willing to evaluate them. Do know though, you are probably putting yourself at a little bit of a disadvantage.

Evidence:

Teams can call for evidence, and while the other team is looking for it, no one's prep is used. However, do not take forever and do not steal prep during this time. If you take too long to find a piece of evidence, you either have to choose to drop that evidence or take running prep to finish finding it.

Please use good evidence. If one team declares that a piece of evidence is misconstrued, I will look at it on the email chain and if I agree, I'll scratch it off my flow.

Speaks:

If the tournament provides me with a list, I'll use that instead.

My average is 28.5, and I'll move up and down from there.

29.5-30: Superb debating, you didn't have many big flaws or any in your debating and strategy, and you articulated extremely well.

29-29.5: A really good job, a few flaws, the execution was still on point, and articulation was quite good.

28.5-29: Above average, some flaws but I still liked how you did overall, and good articulation.

28-28.5: You did a good job but there were definitely flaws, and you spoke pretty well.

27.5-28: There were some issues with execution, but it was still passable. You might have paused a bunch or seemed confused at times, but I mostly knew where you were.

27-27.5: There were a bunch of flaws or one huge flaw that you probably want to tidy up.

26-27: Multiple major flaws on your side. Significant misses in speaking.

Lower than 26: If you say anything homophobic/sexist/etc, I will stop the round, drop you, and give the lowest speaks possible.

Good luck and have fun!

I am lay judge who has recently (since 2021) started judging PF debates.

Speech clarity is very important, use signposting, some/medium speed is okay. Please state your claims clearly, provide evidence and highlight the impact(s). Don't use too much technical stuff - if you do, please explain it in short otherwise the argument will be lost on me. I award speaker points based on how clearly you lay out your case. It helps if you provide a good summary of your case in the final focus.

Lastly please be respectful to your competitors and everyone else in the room.

Hi! I debated in PF during high school and am a freshman in college.

I can keep up with speed, but if you think I'll miss something, please offer a speech doc. Signpost and weigh the arguments in rebuttal. Make sure to interact with your opponent's arguments. For second rebuttal, you can frontline terminal defense and turns. Anything not covered in the summary will not be considered in the round's evaluation. Extend any contentions, blocks, and frontlines to collapse on. During final focus, please do not introduce any new responses. I can evaluate good points made in cross if they are brought up in speeches later.

As long as you are respectful during the debate and do not make any insensitive comments, I will give you reasonable speaker points.

Add me to the email chain: angieleung24@gmail.com

email me for q's/email chain: audil@andrew.cmu.edu

Hi, I'm Audi Lin, and my pronouns are she/her. I'm a current first-year at Carnegie Mellon University, and graduated from Lexington High School in 2023. I debated LD my novice year, then switched to PF for my sophomore & junior year. A good debate should make everything clear cut where I understand your arguments and how/why it is better than your opponents. If things get messy, don't expect me to completely understand/flow everything you say. Run whatever you want as long as it's not blatantly racist or offensive. I am generally tech>truth but I have a very low threshold for frivolous theory and tricks. Please do not run these arguments if your opponent has no idea what they are, especially if you are novices. Give trigger warnings where appropriate (and air on the side of caution!) and please respect people's pronouns! If you feel unsafe at any time, give me a signal or let me know and I will stop the round immediately.

tl;dr:

- I will vote off the flow, so signpost and line-by-line

- warrant, extend your full link story and impact, implicate, and weigh

- i'd really rather not judge intervene, so make it clear what your argument is

-- for weighing and links, make sure you do the comparative: sure, your impact may be big but explain why it is bigger than your opponents

- I'd rather focus on the debate itself rather than making sure you go over time, so time yourself, and if your opponent goes over time, respectfully let them know

- You can take flex prep but clarifying q's only, from personal experience flex prep that gets super offensive/defensive goes nowhere and is a time suck

- I want the round to be chill and educational and fun so please make that happen aka don't be rude/snobby

LD:

- Like I said, I did LD my novice year, and mostly ran util and structural violence

- run other arguments at your own risk, but either way: fully explain EVERYTHING

- don't spread, I might be slightly better with talking speed than a normal lay judge but this does not mean you should go 300 words a minute

- collapse, I'd rather you have a solid argument that I fully understand than several blippy arguments that I can't vote off of

PF:

- PF is PF, so please stay topical

- things you want me to vote on have to be in every speech after first rebuttal

- in later speeches, please give quick narrative style overviews at the top of your own case then line by line if u want me to vote on your contentions otherwise dropped defense will mitigate your impacts. this also means u should frontline in second rebuttal and extend defense in first summary.

- start collapsing in first summary because depth>breadth in terms of giving quality arguments in short PF speech times

longer version:

- try to preflow before round, I get that it seems tedious but my recommendation is that you have your flow and print several copies of it, so that you don't have to rewrite everything every round

- kinda your average tech judge so please clash to avoid judge intervention, or at the very least weigh a lot :)

- do a lot of weighing/impact calc and logical analysis

- once again please weigh weigh weigh

- crossfire shouldn't be extra debating, please ask and answer questions in a non-aggressive and CIVIL manner or I will be frustrated, get a headache and probably dock speaks

- If you are using evidence, I expect your evidence to be highlighted consistent with the intent of your authors. Pretending your cards include warrants for the claims you make (when they do not) is unacceptable. If your tag says "causes extinction," the text of of the part you card you read needs to say extinction will happen. Misrepresenting your evidence is a huge issue for me. I may call for evidence, most likely if I think it is misrepresentative.

--- THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT YOU SHOULD CALL FOR EVERY SINGLE CARD IN THEIR CASE JUST TO MAKE SURE EVERYTHINGS REPRESENTATIVE

- feel free to ask me questions about my decision if you're confused, I will not dock speaks and I feel like it usually helps you learn how you can improve in the future, and there is a non-zero probability I am wrong (but low probability)

- i am fine w speed if you do all of the following: prioritize clarity, make sure your opponents are ok too, slow down on tags, authors, and analytics, signpost clearly, offer speech docs if necessary

- lastly, debate is a game: this means that you should not be exclusionary, follow the rules or warrant why you shouldn't, and let me know if there is anything I can personally do to make the debate more accessible to you, and HAVE FUN!!!!!

Extra:

- speaks start at 28-28.5 and go up or down depending on your speaking and round strat

Feel free to ask me questions after the round, I think its a great way to learn but please don't post round me :)

Hi! I debate for Milton Academy.

The essence of public forum debate is to make politics, economics, and history accessible to an average person. I would therefore suggest that you do the following:

- Choose your arguments. Explaining one argument in depth is always preferable to naming five arguments without explaining anything at all.

- Extend your case. Walk me through how your links arrive at the impact. I need to understand your argument to vote for you.

- Spend time to weigh. Weighing is more meaningful than comparing numbers. Why should we prioritize lives over poverty? Why are smaller impacts more urgent? Case turns and prerequisites are powerful.

- Avoid running arguments that you know are ridiculous.

- Frontline in second rebuttal. No new responses in second summary.

- Respecting timing is respecting everyone in the room, including me.

- I will not be able to understand you if you spread or run theory.

In my opinion, debate is not an aggressive shouting match but a graceful clash of words. A win or a loss may feel like the end of the world for you today, but I hope that you would ultimately come away from this round with the enthusiasm, camaraderie, and personal growth that would sustain you throughout your debate career and beyond.

Hi! My name is Lotem Loeb and I am a first-year college student. I am traditionally a Public Forum debater with four years of experience. During a round, I primarily focus on the flow and your speech (how you articulate arguments, volume, and a strong speaking voice). The most beneficial and important things to do during your speech are:

• Provide brightlines for all major arguments. This clarifies the round and reminds me of your important points.

• Weighing in all speeches (including comparative weighing)! If you do this, I can more easily assess your impacts.

• Extending links throughout the round.

• Cross should not be a continuation of debating, make sure to ask relevant questions and not explicitly further your arguments.

• Please be sure to frontline starting in Second Rebuttal or First Summary.

• Do not under any circumstances make any offensive arguments. I do not tolerate any arguments that come at the expense of any groups or specific individuals and I will dock speaker points. Also, make sure to be respectful of your opponents during round.

• If you use a theory/K I will only vote for you if it is presented well (I would prefer you do not since your opponent may not have experience with such).

If you spread during speeches that is okay, just make sure to emphasize clarity in arguments and enunciate.

You will do great and make sure to have fun!

Email: lotem.loeb@gmail.com

Erica (she/her). Debated PF at Stuyvesant for four years. Email for speech docs and email chains: el963@georgetown.edu

Feel free to ask me questions before the round. Sexism/ racism/ homophobia/ harassment/ etc. isn't cool. I will instantly drop you.

I won’t flow over 180wpm. (unless you speak so clearly that I don’t notice — which you probably won’t)

Speak fast at your own risk. I won’t vote on anything not on my flow. I also won't flow what's said overtime. I will absolutely clear you.

Tech > Truth, but just barely. In my heart it’s truth > tech. Do with that what you will. On the off chance I vote for your four extinction scenarios, I will be so unhappy, I’ll cap your speaks to 27.

If you lie in your speech and I catch you 27 max.

Anything you want me to vote on must be said in both summary and final focus. I like weighing and warranting.

For every infraction that I notice, -0.5 off speaks. If you plan on disappointing me, strike me.

No progressive argumentation. I will instantly drop you. If there’s abuse in the round, just say it; you don’t need a shell.

Time your own prep.

Taken from Tommy Barone:

I am a senior at Regis High School who has competed with moderate success (a few bids, a lot of elims) in PF (and infrequently in LD) on the National Circuit.

TLDR: I want a civil, unmuddled, honest, inoffensive, and accessible round with comprehensive weighing, persuasive warranting, and sufficient empirics to bear out the argumentation. Make your best effort to follow through on that wish and you're in good shape (but don't feel compelled to abandon your style in so doing; I will adapt as best I can)!

Basic judging philosophy: I view flow norms of debate as useful and ascribe to them only insofar as they are most paradigmatically conducive to rigorous analysis and thorough argumentative engagement. Debate in whatever fashion you believe best meets those two criteria, but I believe that a warrant-focused debate with lots of good comparative analysis and an overarching narrative does so most effectively (and does not require superfluous speed or overuse of jargon).

Long, non-exhaustive, and entirely unstructured set of preferences:

Warrant warrant warrant. I couldn't care less about your evidence if it's not warranted.

Tell me to call evidence and I will; misconstrue it and you're getting horrible speaks.

Spewing debate jargon isn't a rhetorical technique. If it's misused or excessive it's reductive to the intellectual level of the round and it will guarantee you bad speaks.

Weigh early, often, and in a way that interacts with your opponent's weighing. Saying buzz words like "scope" or "magnitude" isn't really compelling if I don't know how your arguments actually interact.

Collapse on your best offense and build a coherent narrative that adequately frontlines major responses. Beyond being poor strategy that massively dilutes your weighing (I'm not going to think multiple pieces of offense important!), I think it's borderline abusive and torpedoes the overall quality of the round because it creates a super reductive burden on the other side to extend and implicate adequate responses for 2+ arguments.

It's fine to read a lot of responses in rebuttal, but if they're not sufficiently explained/implicated or warrantless, I'm going to have trouble evaluating them even if they make it to the end of the round. In final focus and summary, try to collapse on just a few responses and implicate them well.

I'm truly fine flowing fairly fast PF speech, but I will be very annoyed if you don't enunciate and signpost well in so doing.

If you're going to run a turn, please implicate the overall effect thereof. So many people read a "turn" that actually just recognizes one negative effect of something and concludes that it must therefore be net negative. Effects are almost always multidirectional, so, unless you're implicating why something is net your way, I'm probably going to presume that the net effect is whatever the original offense was, or I'll at least avoid voting on the issue. Regardless, unless the turn is well weighed and impacted, I'm really not inclined to vote for it.

In second rebuttal, ideally frontline everything you're going to go for in the back-half speeches. I think it's problematic to only respond to turns in second rebuttal because that leaves first final focus responding anew, which I think creates an unfavorable time skew. I understand this puts pressure on second rebuttal, but you can deal with that by collapsing early (which I would actually appreciate regardless--it makes the weighing nicer). That being said, I won't regard defense as conceded if not frontlined in second rebuttal, I'll probably just dock speaks (note: turns DO need to be frontlined in second rebuttal).

Both summaries need to have defense, offense, and weighing (definitely with a focus on the latter two).

If you read off of your computer for the entire round from prewritten text, you're getting very low speaks because that isn't what debate is.

If you say something was conceded, it better be conceded. Probably my biggest pet peeve in debate is when people say a very clearly responded-to argument was dropped, and I will definitely drop speaks substantially for doing so.

You will lose the round with awful speaks if you run arguments that are inaccessible or argue in an inaccessible way (theory, Ks, spreading, anything from LD/policy). The only theory I'd even consider evaluating would be in response to a genuinely very abusive in-round strategy (examples include: spreading, second rebuttal disads, absurd response dumping, turn dumping).

I will be so mad if your style of argumentation is about muddling up the round with high volumes of non-responsive information.

I am the weakest possible version of tech over truth. The only time I'll vote on a flagrantly untrue argument is if it's totally conceded. While I think good critical-thinkers should always be able to deal with outrageous arguments, running them wastes a team's time, throws them off, and is rarely intellectually honest.

If you run disads, I literally might just not evaluate them because I think they're so abusive (in second rebuttal, I absolutely won't). If you run a disad and call it a turn, I'll be furious (an M4A example: neg differential pricing is not a turn on aff access).

In general, I tend to think that a super turn-heavy strategy by the first-speaking team fringes on abusive and is really reductive to the intellectual quality of the round, so, while I won't intervene because of it, I will a) have a lower standard for how much frontlining needs to be done in second rebuttal and b) have a higher standard for the quality of the extension/weighing of the turn.

Hi!

My name is Laila Mamdouh, a senior at Lexington High School and I judge PF.

A quick note: If I’m not judging PF or LD, treat me like a new judge please and thank you!

I'm going to start off with the list of things I prefer you don't do while debating:

• I’m not a fan of theory, so please don’t run theory, it'll make me very sad to flow it :(

• No spreading, unless your super duper good at it!!

• Please don't paraphrase UNLESS you have the actual evidence that goes with it (and if so, then just read the evidence) --> Don't even start the Paraphrasing theory with me

• If y'all want to look at each others evidence, please don't wait till your opponents are taking prep to ask for it, not cool and could result in evidence ethics problems that we could all just avoid.

• Please Don't bring up arguments after Summary, I won't flow it :(

Case Reading: Personally I like judging Lay but if you are going to do Tech, totally fine just let me know before the round starts so I can mentally prepare. It's four minutes for reading but I'm so kindly giving you a grace period of 10 seconds after that, I stop flowing. Please have moderate speed THROUGHOUT the four minutes, and good emphasis = higher speaker points :)

Crossfire: Please be nice and respectful and don't say stuff that you can get called out for or in general. Also minimize interruption --> comes off as rude = less speaker points :( I don't flow crossfire so if it's something important you gotta bring it up in your speech. (With this in mind, I am very nice with Speaker points as long as we can stick to these simple rules :))

Rebuttal: Please signpost if you know how so it's easier for me on the flow. **If you have time: WEIGH. You can never go wrong with weighing. Friendly reminder to please WARRANT your responses. Also please Terminalize your impacts!! (good emphasis here is good as long as you're not yelling please). Frontline your terminal defense and turns. Having link-ins from your case only makes it stronger. Don't drop arguments that you want me to vote on, that'll be very sad.

Summary: DON'T JUST SUMMARIZE the round. Tell me why you win the round and your opponents don't: Weigh, comparative weighing would be even better as long as you're telling me why you outweigh and what kind of weighing you plan to use. Still enough time to bring in responses if you're desperate, again warranting.

Final Focus: Tell me what I should take away from the past hour and why YOU deserve the win.

A few things I need to mention:

• Please Signpost! This helps me map the whole debate on my flow and it makes my life SO much easier.

• In your later speeches, if you want to bring up cards, tell me the content of the card and not the name like Jackson 21 and leave it at that.

• Quantifying Your impacts!! I can't stress this enough, what is the impact of the 2 Billion program if you're not gonna tell me?

• You have to let us know about any Trigger Warnings before the round, you can't just say it like it's part of your speech.

• Please don't misconstrued your evidence, it looks so bad on many levels even if you aren't caught.

• Please be respectful. Certain lines shouldn't be crossed and I believe we are well versed on that.

Here's my email if you need to contact me: Lailamamdouh611@gmail.com, if you will run a chain, please add me to it, Thanks!

MOST IMPORTANTLY: HAVE FUN!! Your life doesn't depend on debate. A Win is a Win and a Loss is also a Win :)

Hey all, I am a graduated Varsity Public Forum debater so I have a solid amount of experience with all sorts of cases and debating styles so you won't have to worry too much about complex language or speed. That being said, I still am a public forum debater meaning that I do not have much experience with spreading in public forum. However, if you do have me in another form of debate, I can handle spreading and Ks as long as you break it down, please do not assume I know about the K you are running.

Flows: I'm not a huge fan of repeating yourself and over-explaining, so no need to get caught up or over do it. On top of that, I really appreciate good signposting and roadmapping so I can make as much of a lovely and organized flow possible. Also, I can identify when stuff is dropped usually, but, I still want you to show and explain why it is important that they dropped.

Speaking: Again, I've watched and participated in lots of debates, so no need to break things down too much. However--especially in the online world--spreading is usually lost on me, don't speak too fast and try to focus on diction. Coherency makes me a happy camper.

One additional nitpicky thing, I'm not super serious about strict debate formalities but I have one pet peeve regarding respectfulness. I, the judge am your audience so please do not address your opponents as "you", it can come off as hostile, please refer to them as "they" or "my opponents".

If you have me in Policy or LD, I have experience judging these types of debate so I do have a general knowledge of them but still, assume I am lay.

Thanks for reading and happy debating,

Aidan

I did PF in high school for 4 years. If you speak too quickly, I'll likely miss something. I will time your speeches and prep time but please please time yourselves and do not go over time. I'll let you know when time is up and then I'll probably stop flowing.

Email: debate@inboxeen.com

**Be kind. Have fun. Don’t be afraid of me! I was once you and I know what it’s like! When I award speaks, they are heavily influenced by the level of kindness and congeniality shown in round. I am judging because I love the activity as much as you, and I want to help you do better if I can!**

School Affiliation(s)

Current Affiliation: East Chapel Hill HS

Current Role at Institution: I'm currently the Associate Director for Digital Communications at the Yale School of Management, but dedicate my off-time to S&D!

Previous Affiliation(s) and Role(s)

The Bronx High School of Science (Bronx, NY)

I coached primarily Public Forum Debate and Legislative Debate (Congressional Debate) at the Bronx High School of Science from roughly 2011-2015. I judged across all events – speech included. I began my coaching career at Bronx as an extemp coach.

River Valley High School (Mohave Valley, AZ)

I have judged and coached (primarily Public Forum) throughout the years since graduating from this school.

Debate Experience

River Valley High School (Mohave Valley, AZ)

I competed primarily in policy debate at River Valley High School in Mohave Valley, AZ. I also competed in other speech and debate events.

Columbia University in the City of New York (New York, NY)

I was a member of the Columbia Policy Debate team and competed for one year during my time in college.

Other

Tell me what to do – i.e. ‘tabula rasa’ insofar as one might even exist, and insofar as it might be helpful to roughly describe my ‘paradigm’.

Please ask specific questions at the beginning of the round for further clarification. E.g. my threshold for buying a reasonability standard has significantly heightened with age.

Run whatever you’d like – hypotesting, retro theory, nothing at all! I can handle it!

Most importantly, this is an educational activity and I believe in Debater/Debate -- i.e. you are more important than the round, so please speak up if you feel uncomfortable and tell me/your coach/tab immediately if something bothers you. I believe in the platinum rule - treat others as they'd like to be treated. Be kind to each other and have fun!

I am the aunt of a debater. This is my first time as a judge.

Email: cm3054@princeton.edu if you need it for any reason, I prefer docs to email chains but up to you, I like to be shared on the evidence.

TL;DR: Ex-PF debater currently a sophomore at Princeton. Don't spread, for the love of all things debate signpost, weigh WELL, I won't flow after time for speech is up. I'm not well-versed in theory or K's; you're welcome to run it but I can't guarantee I'll understand it. Won't drop you for misconstrued ev but I won't consider it in my eval of the round.

Me: I'm a current Princeton student and ex-debater with 4 years of PF experience. I went to several National Circuit tournaments and won a few local ones. As I was a flow debater, I would consider myself a flow judge; I'm not necessarily up to date on what has happened in the world of PF in the past ~3 years.

Timing: Since I'm judging varsity, please time yourselves. If your opponent is over time, that's up to you to call them out.

Speed: Speak as fast as you would like as long as you aren't spreading. Take that to LD or some other form of debate where spreading is welcome. I'll accept a speech doc if you want to spread, but if you spread without one I'll dock your speaks significantly.

Theory/Kritiks: I am not well-versed in either (again, I haven't been in the PF space in years). I'm decently familiar with disclosure theory but in all honesty I find it somewhat idiotic and get bored listening to rounds entirely on this topic. You're welcome to argue it though. Assume I don't know theory jargon/terms so please make sure to briefly explain them. I can't guarantee I will understand how to incorporate theory and/or K's into my evaluation of the round but run it at your own risk. I really dislike theory run against opponents who aren't familiar with it - imo that's mean and an abusive way to pick up wins, I'll likely drop you if you do this. I'm generally not a fan and think this stuff belongs in other forms of debate unless you are genuinely trying to change the debate space and not just trying to use it to win.

Signposting: Hopefully the following reminder should only apply to novices - PLEASE SIGNPOST! (AKA, "In my opponents' contention 1, [tagline], they say xyz. In response, we say zyx.") In the words of my favorite debater, Dorothea Newman, signpost so much that I feel like I'm driving in a construction zone. My biggest pet peeve is not signposting. I also appreciate numbered responses and if you do this I'll give you decently high speaks; it just makes my flows pretty. I will subtract -1 speaks if you fail to ever signpost in the round.

Weighing: Make sure to do a good job weighing, I would rather vote off of who does a better job weighing than my own personal view of impacts. Additionally - you can't just say "we win off of probability and magnitude (insert other weighing buzzwords)", you must tell me why your argument is more probable/has a greater magnitude. Metaweighing is great.

Reasons for drops: I can and will drop you if you are racist, homophobic, xenophobic, sexist, ableist, etc. Xoxo. Maybe if you run really abusive theory against opponents who are not familiar with theory.

Misconstrued evidence: As disclosure becomes more common within debate, we're seeing less of this, but that being said I won't drop a team for misconstrued evidence, but I will consider that piece of evidence null if it's sufficiently proven to be misconstrued.

Extra: Make the debate interesting!!

Good luck and please don't postround me. I'm just a tired college student. You'll live. Also more than happy to email you a picture of my annotated flows if you don't find the RFD sufficient.

Fourth-year assistant coach at Ridge High School.

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

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

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

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

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

Hi! I'm a current freshman at Cornell University and a recent Lexington graduate. I debated PF for four years in the local and national circuit. Feel free to ask any questions before or after the round. Thanks and good luck!

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

TL;DR

-Shruti Pokharna (she/her)

-Add me to the email chain → shruti.pokharna@gmail.com (Please subject the email chain using the following format: Tournament Name, Round #, School Name & Team Code vs. School Name & Team Code)

-If I'm judging you in any format other than PF, treat me as you would a new judge.

-I will disclose and give oral feedback at the end of the round unless the tournament doesn't allow it.

-Will judge tabula rasa as long as your arguments are flowed through to the end of the round. Don't drop anything you want me to vote on - nothing is sticky.

-Weigh as much as possible! The earlier in the round you start weighing, the better.

-Warrant your evidence well! Logical arguments w/o evidence > unwarranted evidence. I'll vote on pretty much any argument if it's explained well enough.

-I will listen but not flow anything said in CX. If there's anything you want me to evaluate, bring it up in one of your speeches.

-I can handle speed, just be as coherent as possible and be able to provide me with speech docs.

-Absolutely no tolerance in the round for anything sexist/racist/homophobic/ableist, etc. Your speaks and round results will suffer. Read content warnings if your argument warrants one. Please be respectful!

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

DO

Do clear evidence comparison in every speech, signpost throughout the round - especially rebuttal. Impact calc and comparative weighing are great strategies (try to start as soon as rebuttal) BUT tell me which weighing mechanism you’re using and WHY you outweigh.

For second rebuttal, frontline terminal defense and turns. Having link-ins from your case is a robust strategy. Extend by explaining your claim/warrant/impact and and don't drop any arguments you want me to vote on. During summary, extend all contentions, blocks, frontlines you are collapsing on. Please weigh to show me how these arguments compare against one another. Anything not said during summary will not be used to evaluate the round.

Effective two world comparison in your final focus is the best way for you to win my ballot. Call out dropped arguments by the opposing team and tell me why it's important.

Make sure to speak clearly and time your own speeches and prep.

Bring up points from CX you want me to evaluate during any of your speeches.

Be respectful to your partner and your opponents. Read content warnings if your argument requires one! Please let me know if you feel unsafe during the round - I will stop the round and contact Tab.

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

DON'T

Once again, there's no tolerance for anyone in the debate space to be disrespectful/homophobic/sexist/ableist, etc.

Don't read arguments you can't explain or warrant strongly.

Don't bring up new evidence in the final speeches.

Don't steal prep or hog CX time.

Don't misconstrue evidence - it can have harsh consequences.

Don't trade clarity for speed.

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

EVIDENCE

No one’s prep is used while a team is looking for evidence. That being said, if it takes too long, I will either drop it off of my flow or run your prep. Additionally, please use sophisticated evidence that is consistent with the author’s intent in writing it. If a team claims that evidence has been misrepresented, I will take a look and make a decision on the validity of the claim. If I agree, I’ll drop the argument. If the misrepresentation strongly obstructs evidence ethics, the violation will be dealt with on the terms of the tournament or I will deduct speaks and vote the team down. I’m good with paraphrasing as long as you're able to promptly provide cut cards if asked and there isn’t any misconstruction or misrepresentation of evidence.

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

NOTE ON PROGRESSIVE DEBATE

I’m willing to evaluate any arguments but am not well versed in theory/k’s. If you choose to run any of these, please explain and clearly warrant them out.

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

SPEAKER POINTS

I’ll start at 28.5 and move up or down depending on your round performance (clarity, strategy, communication, etc.)

<26: must’ve done something horrible (homophobic/racist/sexist, etc.)

I've competed in Public Forum before, but this is the first time that I've judged.

How I'll evaluate the round: Give me the cleanest link into the best weighed offense

Stuff I like:

• ACTUAL WEIGHING: Don’t just use buzzwords like “we outweigh on scope” — that means nothing to me; there should be actual comparison and warranting for why I should prefer your arguments to your opponents
• Link weighing <3 (especially early on in the round — I love weighing in rebuttal)
• Clean AND clear extensions: If I don’t see this in both summ and ff it makes it super hard for me to vote for you and I will not be happy; make your narrative clear to me by the second half
• Collapsing: I will CRY if you try to extend all your arguments in the second half of the round
• Front-lining and signposting: Just do it for the love of god

Stuff I do not like (things that will tank your speaks + potentially make me drop you)

• "cLaRiTy oF LiNk wEigHiNg"
• Not reading trigger warnings for sensitive topics — do it, it’s not hard
• Post-rounding: feel free to ask questions but know that my decision is final and I have submitted my ballot by the time I tell y'all
• Rudeness, disrespect, bigotry of any sort (ie racism, sexism, ableism, etc)

RANDOM STUFF

Defense: Terminal defense is sticky (unless front-lined), but all other defense needs to be extended in the second half for me to evaluate it. Though, please don't make the round get to a point where I'm evaluating solely based on defense

Summ/FF: I love a good line-by-line speech, but very much appreciate voters when the round gets super muddled; do whatever you prefer though

Cross: I'm probably writing feedback or watching a tiktok so if something important happens tell me in another speech; also am fine with skipping grand and using it as prep if both teams agree

Ev: I try my best to flow author names and dates, but I usually miss some so please contextualize your ev for me at least once (even if it's just a sentence) if you're going to use author name consistently. Try not to power tag or miscut stuff; I won’t call for evidence unless you tell me to AND it’s important to the round; please don't rely on your author/ev to do all the work, give me warrants! Warranted analytics >>> unwarranted evidence (side note, put me on the email chain: anagha.pur@gmail.com)

Theory/prog arg: Don’t do it, please; I probably won’t understand it/be able to evaluate it and I really don’t think you need it in PF unless the abuse is truly, horrifically egregious (at which point I probably will call it out myself)

Topic Knowledge: No longer debating/coaching myself so I probably won’t have much topic expertise for any tourneys - so please avoid jargon! It will only confuse me and muddle the round and I will not be happy; also if you’re running a niche argument then please explain it thoroughly because I won’t vote off something I don’t understand

Speed: Fine with it, but if you're going 300+ wpm send me a speech doc

Speaks: I'll bump them up if you do any of the below

• Call turns massive 180s
• Make me laugh in round
• Bring your pet!!
• Send me a tik tok
• Generally making the round go efficiently (For online: come early/at the check in time so we can get started and finish early!!)

Congress:

I did congress for four years and graduated from Plano West in 2020. For speakers, just make it a good debate and not boring. I feel like the idea of a good congress speech is self-explanatory. Also don't be racist, sexist, homophobic, ableist, etc. I want to believe that kids in congressional debate have a better ability to be kind than those in the actual congress.

I notice when competitors are super cliquey in the round. It's really obvious when a group of debaters already know the PO well and all get good precedence.

For POs -- Please don't waste time, don't let the speakers waste time either, don't be biased, and you can expect T3 from me.

Extemp:

My high school was pretty good at extemp so while I personally wasn't really competing much in the event, I know what a good extemp speech looks like. A good structure in your points will take you a long way.

For any other event:

I am a lay judge. :)

Hello! I’m a lay judge with no previous experience debating and an Arlington parent. I'm also a fifth grade teacher. I look forward to listening to you, and I will appreciate the work you've done to prepare!

Be respectful and professional to each other.

Speak clearly and slowly, so that I can follow your arguments.

I’m not familiar with debate jargon yet, so please keep that a minimum. Similarly, I might not know a lot of topic-specific acronyms/shorthands, so... state the full names of organizations, programs, etc. (after a bit, you can shorten these names or use the acronyms).

During crossfire, refrain from talking over one another and be respectful; it should be back-and-forth.

For speeches, organization is important; make it clear what you’re responding to and what argument you’ll be using in the final two sets of speeches.

With regard to the use of evidence, I will not keep track of author names so please re-explain what the evidence itself says.

Again: Please speak clearly and slowly.

Thank you, and I wish you all the best!

sammrich@umich.edu

Hello!

I debated on the policy team for Brooklyn Tech for 4 years and now I'm a freshman at the University of Michigan (not on the debate team here though).

For policy: I read a solid mix of everything in high school so I am probably familiar with whatever type of argument you want to run, that being said I have only judged a few rounds on the water topic so make sure to explain whatever you're reading well, especially DA scenarios and things like that (obviously explaining your arguments applies to everything you read but it will be especially important in that context). All I ask is that you properly compare impacts/evidence and tell me how to weigh your arguments—when I go to write my ballot I want to already know how to prioritize different arguments and what I should be voting on.

For PF: Though my background is in policy, I've judged a fair amount of PF rounds and feel comfortable doing so. However, I may not be familiar with the intricacies of the topic so keep that in mind.

Feel free to ask me any questions via email or in-round about my own debate history, other specific preferences, etc. Good luck!

pf debater, flow judge

warrant ur args, idrc abt cards

if ur gonna call out opponents evidence dont do it too often be strategic

if u dont frontline in second rebuttal, and ur opponents extend cleanly in first summary i count ur entire case clean conceded

solvency args dont win rounds unless burden of proof is put clearly on the neg to prove that regardless, aff world is still worse

twilight references for extra speaks

be swag, have fun, but not too much fun

I am currently a novice on Columbia's Parliamentary Debate team, but I have years of experience in Speech and Debate itself. I competed in Original Oratory, Informative Speaking, and World Schools Debate. Despite my main Speech experience, I am comfortable with judging debate as well. I am not extremely familiar with the timing and order of speeches so I may require some assistance/reminding.

I appreciate clear speaking (in a manner that is not extremely fast), as well as proper etiquette from both teams. I evaluate on based on the logical reasoning of an argument, and the proficiency with which one can both defend it and extend it. Please be respectful in rounds to your opponents (no cutting off etc), and let me know if you have any special circumstances (for instance, would like to be referred to by specific pronouns, tech issues).

I look forward to seeing you all speak!

Hello, my name is Anya Saponja. I am a recent graduate from The New School where I studied both Philosophy and Politics. I have judged a handful of times. I am looking for clear and concise arguments delivered in a slow meter.

Senior at AB who debated PF back in the day.

Just follow the rules.

Preflow your cases before round so that we are not wasting too much time.

I wish I knew what the topic is, but I'm still relearning how to "Google" something after 1 year in hibernation; make the resolution clear in all of your speeches.

Cheesing in Final Focus is BAD; you will instantly lose by bringing up new args here. No new responses, args, interpretations, etc from 2nd Summary on.

Reasoning to an arg or response is a must (don’t just list responses out expecting me to evaluate them myself).

Let me be honest: I may go truth over tech if you don't give me the aforementioned reasoned args and responses, given that I ask for this reasoning so that you (not me) can control how their validity and topic relevance is verified.

Make sure to collapse at some point, but also give me narrative (show-not-tell you and your opponent's status-quo after the trajectory of the round) and weighing in Summary that is extended to Final Focus that I can evaluate in my RFD. Summary and FF are the only two speeches I will vote on as such.

Meme case is still a case: I will uncontrollably laugh at meme args, but will not fault you for running them. Just have fun when running them, and I'll evaluate them based on how quickly you start uncontrollably laughing while reading them (it won't take long). You'll get high speaks for stepping out of your comfort zone by making the absurd make some sense.

I do flow cross if there are major concessions. Chill here, since there is only so much you can accomplish in cross before losing sight of the args and focusing on assertion of dominance instead (not ok btw; instant 22 on speaks, or whatever is the lowest I can give you, because its that disrespectful to your opponents).

At the end of the day, be a good person, pace yourself in speeches, and you will get high speaks from me even if you don't win the round.

Quick note for in-person: I will call time, but keep track of yourselves and your opponents, mentioning the invalidity of overtime arguments in later speeches.

Quick note for online: I don’t do email chains. Just use the chat, or make a google doc if you really need to highlight a portion of the called card. I will time, but keep track of yourselves and opponents in case I fall behind due to other factors.

paradigm

I did PF in high school! Here are some things I like to see in a round:

1. Pretty extensions. If you want me to vote on an argument, re-explain it in summary and final focus.

2. Frontlining in second rebuttal. If you want me to vote on one of your contentions, you should defend it in second rebuttal.

3. Collapsing. It's better to pick and clearly explain 1 of your contentions than speed through 3.

4. Weighing. Tell me why your argument is more important than your opponents'.

5. A friendly crossfire. Please don't interrupt or talk over your opponent in cross. I probably won't pay attention to crossfire, but if people are being mean I'll drop speaks.

I'm not super familiar with progressive arguments (k, theory, etc.), so if you do run them please explain them well.

Feel free to ask me any questions before the round!

P.S. if you do a TikTok dance/make a TikTok reference you'll get +.5 speaks

Hey guys! I'm Solai Solaiyappan and I'm a Senior at Lexington High school and I've debated PF for 4 years.

I have a few things that i'm picky about.

1) Don't Spread (Speed reading) during any speech and speak CLEARLY.

2) No K's and theory and anything that is not PF.

3) Pls weigh. Weighing is very important and if you don't weigh I won't really know what your impacts are at the end of the round.

4) Try and go down the flow. This is a pretty hard thing to do but it is very rewarding because every judge can follow you and comprehend your points.

5) Do not be mean in cross. If you see that your opponent is struggling please do not bombard them with questions. Let them have time and let them try and respond. If I feel like you are being mean I will dock speaker points. The max I'll deduct is 3 points.

6) If your opponent dropped a contention or point that is important in the round don't just say it. Explain why it is important that they dropped it.

7) Same with extending points. Don't say "extend the johnson 18 card". Extend it and explain what the card is briefly.

Also, I'm fine with complex language as long as it doesn't go overboard. If it does I will ask you to explain after your speech. I really want to express my concern about spreading because when you spread I won't be able to catch all your points. I want you guys to focus on diction. Try and have fun y'all.

P.S. I'm a pretty chill person and I will be giving y'all good speaks as long as y'all don't say anything racist or mean.

I am a 3rd year parent judge.

I prefer when debaters speak in a conversational cadence. I have trouble following the points and arguments when debaters speak quickly.

I try to listen closely and understand your argument. When evidence is presented fast, and in large doses, it can be overwhelming and go past me. So, I prefer when debaters choose the most relevant evidence and explain why this is critical to their side. Please include me on emails when you share evidence.

I appreciate sign-posting. Help me understand and follow your approach.

I am inclined to appreciate teams that debate well while being respectful of their opponents. I'm put off by rudeness and disrespect.

Good luck and I look forward to judging the round!

I am a parent judge with minimum judging experience, but I am a deal negotiator by profession.

Please speak slowly and be clear and concise.

Please do not use any debate jargon.

I value style over argument

Please no spreading

Clearly frame your case, watch the time, and show enthusiasm.

And I would appreciate clear analysis of why your contention should win the day in the summary and final focus.

I'm a freshman in college, and I debated in public forum in high school. I judge a lot, so I'm happy to give advice and answer questions at the end of the round.

Add me to the email chain: rv2529@barnard.edu.

• I'm open to theory and progressive arguments when ran well.
• I can follow speed, but please provide a speech doc if you expect I will miss something on my flow. That being said, speed shouldn't tradeoff with clarity.

• In both rebuttals, I expect teams to 1) signpost as you go down the flow so that I know where you are and what is being responded to 2) weigh the arguments and not just say, “we outweigh, ” tell me which weighing mechanism and WHY you outweigh.

• For second rebuttal, frontline terminal defense and turns.
• PS: I like link-ins from case and preq. arguments a lot. I don't like when teams use their case arguments as their only responses ie. deterrence vs. escalation debate (interact with the individual warrants and links!)
• In summary, extend all contentions, blocks, frontlines you are collapsing on. Please weigh to show me how these arguments compare against one another.
• I like meta-weighing -- tell me which mechanism is better.
• Not a fan of sticky defense but I will consider it if that's what the round comes down to.
• The final focus speech is a good time to slow down and explain the argument and the direction the round is going in. Please do not bring in any new responses or implications during this speech.
• I generally enjoy listening to crossfire. Still, I will LISTEN to crossfire, but I will not FLOW crossfire. I can only evaluate good points made in cross if they are brought up in speeches later.
• Clarity and strategy are the key factors that will impact your final speaks.

• I like framework when it is well warranted and unique... I don't like "cost-benefit analysis" framework

Good diction and, not talking too fast, are important. When sending evidence ensure you send it on the chat or if emailing the evidence, cc me on the email chain.

I have been a lay/parent judge for the past 4 years. I did not debate in high school and am not well versed in the technical aspects of debate. I judge rounds as if I were watching a presidential debate. (Because really you're doing this to learn how to present a point of view in the real world.) Are you able to present a valid argument with points relevant to the topic? Can you respond to the other presenters arguments in a logical manner with validated information ? Are you able to speak in a respectful tone yet still effectively argue your side of the question ?

Debate Paradigm

Paul Wexler Coach since 1993, Judge since 1987 Debated CEDA,College Parli, HS LD and Policy, College and HS Speech Current Affiliation: Needham High School Coach (speech and debate) I coach a little with Arlington HS (Massachusetts)
Previous Affiliations: Manchester-Essex Regional, Boston Latin School, San Antonio-LEE, College of Wooster (Ohio) (competitor) , University of Wisconsin (Madison)(coach): Debate and Speech for Irvine-University HS (CA) (competitor)

Coach: All debate events (LD, PF, WSD, Congress) plus spectrum of speech events.

Novice Paradigm is here first, followed by PF, and then LD (though much of LD applies to PF and nowadays even policy where appropriate)- Congress and Worlds is at VERY end.

I put the novice version first, to make it easy on them. Varsity follows. LD if below PF (even though I judge a good deal more LD than PF).

PLEASE NOTE SECTION BELOW REGARDING DISCLOSURE BY NEEDHAM AND ARLINGTON HS (MA) TEAM MEBMERS!

Novice Version (all debate forms)

I am very much excited to be hearing you today! It takes bravery to put oneself out there, and I am very happy to see new members join our community.

1)The voting standard ( a way to compare the arguments made by both sides in debate) is the most important judging tool to me in the round. Whatever else you do or say, weighing how the different arguments impact COMPARATIVELY to the voting standard is paramount.

2)I believe that debaters indicate through analysis and time management what their key arguments are. Therefore, a one-sentence idea in case, if used as a major voting issue in rebuttals/final focus/, will receive 'one-sentence worth' of weight in my RFD. even if the idea was dropped cold. That's not no weight at all. But it ain't uranium either.

Simply extending drops and cards is insufficient, be sure to connect to the voting standard and explain the argument sufficiently. I do cut the Aff a little more leeway in this regard than the neg due to time limitations, but be careful.

3) As noted above, be sure to weigh your arguments compared to the arguments made by the other side. That means " We are winning Argument A - It is more important than the other sides Argument B (even if they are winning argument B) for reason X"

4) Have fun! Learn! If you have questions, please ask. This is an amazing activity and to repeat what I said above, am 'glad and gladder and gladddest' you are part of our community.

To earn higher speaker points...(Novice Version)

Be kind/professional towards those less experienced or skilled. i.e. , make their arguments sound better than they probably are, make your own arguments accessible to them, organize the disorganized ideas of opponents, etc. while avoiding being condescending.

If clearly outclassed, stay engaged and professional. Try to avoid being visibly frustrated. We have all been there! You will absolutely get this eventually. (Plus, you never know- you may make the 'golden ticket argument ' to winning the round without knowing it...)

If I think you have done either of these, it will always result in bonus speaker points.

ALSO...

-Engage with your opponent's ideas. Clash with them directly, prove them wrong, demonstrate they are actually reasons to vote for you, etc., or at least of lesser importance,

Exhibit the ability to use CX /crossfire effectively ( This DOES NOT mean 'stumping the chump' it DOES mean setting up arguments for you to use in later speeches.)

To earn lower speaker points (novice version)

1) Act like a rude, arrogant, condescending, ignoramus. (or just one of these)

In other words, making arguments which offend, 'ist' arguments or behaving like a jerk - If you have to ask, chances are you shouldn't. "if it looks like a duck, and sounds like a duck, chances are it IS a duck." Being racist or sexist or classist or homophobic means one loses regardless, but behaving like a jerk in a non-'ist' way still means you lose speaker points and if offensive enough I'll look for a reason to vote against you.

2)Use cases obviously not your own or obviously written by a super-experienced teammate or coach. Debate is a place to share your ideas and improve your own skills. Channelling or being a 'ventriloquist's dummy' for someone else just cheats yourself. Plus, for speaker point purposes, you are not demonstrating you have mastered the skill of communicating your OWN ideas, so I can't evaluate them.

3)Avoid engaging with your opponent's ideas. Avoiding engaging through reliance on definitions, tricks, etc., or other methods may win you my ballots, but will earn lower speaker points.

4) For outrounds and flip rounds, please especially note section marked 'outrounds' at end

PUBLIC FORUM

I've judged it and coached it since the creation.

I default to voting on the whole resolution. I vote for whichever side shows it is preponderantly more desirable That may include scope, impact, probability, timeframe etc.

Most of what I say under Lincoln-Douglas below applies here, regarding substance as well as theory/and Ks. The differences OR key points are as follows.

1) I judge PF as an educated layperson- i.e. one who reads the paper (credibile news sources) but doesn't know the technicalities of debate lingo.

As such your 'extend this" and "pull that" confuse me for the purposes of the round - I will ignore debate lingo unless you explain the argument itself.

1b) I shall ignore 'theory' arguments completely (in PF, I will also ignore 'education' theory arguments, as well as 'fairness'-- '. Frame those arguments in terms of substance if you opt to make them, if there is a connection you will be fine). Theory arguments as such shall be treated as radio silence on my flow. I will also default to thinking you are uninterested in doing the work necessary to understand the topic, and that you are publicly announcing you are proud of being ignorant.

If someone's opponent is prima facie unfair or uneducational, say so without running a 'shell'.

1c) I WILL evaluate K's when based on the topic literature. Many resolutions DO have a reasonable link when one does the research

Your rate of delivery should be appropriate to the types of arguments you are making.

2)Stand during the cross-fire times. This adds to your perceptual dominance.

3) Offer and justify some sort of voting standard I can use to weigh competing arguments.

4) On Evidence...

--a)Evidence should be fully explained with analysis. Evidence without analysis isn't persuasive to me. (the best evidence will have analysis as well, which is the gold standard- but you should add your own linking to the round itself and the resolution proper).

4b) In order to earn higher speaker points, I expect evidence use to adhere to the full context being used and accessible. This doesn't mean you can't paraphrase when appropriate, it does mean reciting a single sentence or two and/or taking excessive time when asked to produce the source means you are still developing your evidence usage ability. Of course, using evidence in context (be it a full card or proper paraphrasing-) is expected Note #6 below.

You will also want to make note of the 'earn higher speaker points' in the novice ection above, it also applies to varsity.

--Quantitative claims always require evidence, the more recent the better.

--Qualitative claims DO NOT always require evidence, that depends on the specific claim.

-5)-Be comparative when addressing competing claims. The best analytical evidence compares claims directly within itself.

-6)Produce requested evidence in an expeditious fashion- Failure to do so comes of YOUR prep time, and eventually next speech time. Since such failure demonstrates that organizational skills are still being developed. Being in the 'developing skills' range is, like with any other debate skill, reflected in speaker points earned.

'Expeditious' means within ten seconds or so, unless the tournament invitation mandates a different period of time

-7)-Blips in constructive speeches blown up large in summary or final focus are weighed as blips in my decision calculus

8)No 'kicking' out of arguments unless the opponent agrees with said kicking. "You broke the argument, you own it."

9) I will most likely only ask for cards at the round's end in the case of ethical challenges, etc, or if I failed to make note of a card's substance through some reason beyond a debater's control (My own sneezing fit for example, or the host school's band playing '76 Trombones on the Hit Parade' in the classroom next door during a speech.

10) What I have to say elsewhere in this document about how to access higher speaker points, technical mattters, and how to earn super low points by being offensiv/rude also applies to PF.

Most Importantly- as with any event " Have fun! "If you are learning and having fun, the winning shall take care of itself."

LD Debate -Varsity division

Note on January February 2023 topic. Making arguments grounded in racist appeals (such as claims group X is more prone to criminality) will result in a loss and low speaker points.

Shorter Version (in progress) (if you want to run some of these, see the labeled sections for most of them, following)

-Defaults to voting criterion.

-Theory-will not vote on fairness or disclosure. It will be treated as radio silence. See below for note regarding both Needham HS and Arlington regarding disclosure of cases by team members.

-Education theory on the topic's substantial, topic-related issues OK but if frivolous RVIs are encouraged.(i.e., brackets theory, etc ) I will almost always vote on reasonability.

--Will not vote on generic skepticism. May vote on resolution-specific skepticism

-Blips in constructive speeches blown up large in rebuttals are weighed as blips in my decision calculus

-It is highly unlikely I shall vote on tricks or award higher speaker points for tricks-oriented debaters

-No 'kicking' out of arguments unless the opponent agrees with said kicking. "You broke the argument, you own it."

-Critical arguments are fine and held to the same analytical standard as normative arguments.

-Policy approaches (plans/CPs/DAs) are fine. They are held to same prima facie burdens as in actual CX rounds- That also means if you want me to be a policy-maker, your evidence better be recent. If you don't know what I mean by 'prima facie burdens as in actual CX rounds' you should opt for a different strategy.

-Narratives are fine and should provide a rhetorical model for me to use to evaluate approach.

-If running something dense, it is the responsibility of the debater to explain it. I regard trying to comprehend it on my own to be judge intervention.

As I believe debate is an ORAL communication activity (albeit one often with highly specialized vocabulary and speed) I (with courtesy) do not wish to be added to any 'speech document ' for debates taking place in the flesh or virtually. I will be pleased to read speech documents for any written debate contests I may happen to judge.

Role of ballot - See labeled section below- Too nuanced to have a short version

To Access higher speaker points...

Be kind/professional towards those less experienced or skilled. i.e. , make their arguments sound better than they probably are, make your own arguments accessible to them, organize the disorganized ideas of opponents, etc. while avoiding being condescending.

If clearly outclassed, stay engaged and professional. Try to avoid being visibly frustrated. We have all been there! You will absolutely get this eventually. (Plus, you never know- you may make the 'golden ticket argument ' to winning the round without knowing it...)

If I think you have done either of these, it will always result in bonus speaker points.

ALSO...

-Engage with your opponent's ideas. Clash with them directly, prove them wrong, demonstrate they are actually reasons to vote for you, etc., or at least of lesser importance,

exhibit the ability to listen.(see below for how I evaluate this)

exhibit the ability to use CX effectively (CX during prep time does not do so) This DOES NOT mean 'stumping the chump' it DOES mean setting up arguments for you to use in later speeches.

To Access lower speaker points

1) Act like a rude, arrogant, condescending, ignoramus. (or just one of these)

In other words, making offensive arguments, 'ist' arguments or behaving like a jerk - If you have to ask, chances are you shouldn't. "if it looks like a duck, and sounds like a duck, chances are it IS a duck." Being racist or sexist or homophobic means one loses regardless, but behaving like a jerk in a non-'ist' way still means you lose speaker points and if offensive enough I'll look for a reason to vote against you.

2)have your coach fight your battles for you- When your coach browbeats your opponents to disclose or flip- or keeps you from arriving to your round in a timely fashion, it subliminally promotes your role as one in which you let your coach do your advocacy and thinking for you.

3)Avoid engaging with your opponent's ideas. Avoiding engaging through reliance on definitions, tricks, etc., or other methods may win you my ballots, but will earn lower speaker points.

4)Act like someone uninterested in knowledge or intellectual hard work and is proud of that lack of interest. Running theory as a default strategy is a most excellent and typical way of doing so, and in public at that.-- (But there are other ways).

Longer Version

1)The voting standard is the most important judging tool to me in the round. Whatever else you do or say, weighing how the different arguments impact COMPARATIVELY to the voting standard is paramount.

I strongly prefer debaters to focus on the resolution proper, as defined by the topic literature. I tend to be really, REALLY bored by debaters who spend the bulk of their time on framework issues and/or theory as opposed to topical debating.

By contrast, I am very much interested in how philosophical and ethical arguments are applied to contemporary challenges, as framed by the resolution.

You can certainly be creative, which shall be rewarded when on-topic. Indeed, having a good command of the topic literature is a good way to be both.

My speaker points to an extent reflect my level of interest.

2) I evaluate a debater's ENTIRE skill set when assigning speaker points, including the ability to listen. See below for how I assess that ability.

3)One can use alternative approaches to traditional ones in LD in front of me. I am receptive to narratives, plans, kritiks, the role of the ballot to fight structural oppression, etc. But these should be grounded in the specific topic literature- This includes describing why the specific resolution being debated undermines the fight against oppressive norms.

4) I am NOT receptive to generic 'debate is bad' arguments. Wrong forum.

5) Specifics of my view of policy, critical, performance, etc. cases are at the bottom if you wish to skip to that.

ON THEORY-

I will not vote on...

a)Fairness arguments, period. They will be treated as radio silence. - See famed debate judge Marvin the Paranoid Android's (which I find optimistic) paradigm on this in 'The Debate Judges Guide to the Galaxy.' by Douglas Adams.

"The first ten million (fairness arguments) were the worst. And the second ten million: they were the worst, too. The third ten million I didn’t enjoy at all. After that, their quality went into a bit of a decline.”

Fairness debating sounds like this to me.(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFvujknrBuE)

And complaints about having to affirm makes the arguer look and sound like this from 'Puddles Pity Party'

Instead, tell me why the perceived violation is a poor way to evaluate the truth of the resolution, not that it puts you in a poor position to win.

b) I will not vote on disclosure theory, it shall be treated as radio silence. The following sentence applies to both Needham HIgh School and Arlington High School. I have assisted a little with Arlington High. Both Needham and Arlington High Schools, by team consensus, do not permit its' members to disclose except at tournaments where it is specified as required to participate by tournament invitation. I find the idea that disclosure is needed to avoid 'surprises' or have. a quality debate to be unlikely.

c) I will vote on education theory. In most cases it must be related to the topic literature. However, I am actively favorable to RVIs when run in response to 'cheap' , 'throw-away' , generic, or 'canned' education theory. Topic only focused, please.

d)Shells are not always necessary (or even usually). if an opponent's position is truly squirrelly ten seconds explaining why is a better approach in front of me than a two or three minute theory shell

e) I am highly unlikely to vote on arguments that center on an extreme or very narrow framing of the resolution no matter how much framework you do- and 100% unlikely based on a half or full sentence blurb.-

'Extreme' in this context means marginally related to the literature (or a really small subset of it)

ON BLIPS AND EXTENSIONS

I believe that debaters indicate through analysis and time management what their key arguments are. Therefore, a one-sentence idea in case, if used as a major voting issue in rebuttals, will receive 'one sentence worth' of weight in my RFD. even if the idea was dropped cold. That's not no weight at all. But it ain't uranium either.

Simply extending drops and cards is insufficient, be sure to connect to the voting standard and explain the argument sufficiently. I do cut the Aff a little more leeway in this regard than the neg due to time limitations, but be careful.

OLD SCHOOL IDIOSYNCRASY- THE IMPORTANCE OF LISTENING

1) On sharing cases and evidence,

Please note: The below does not apply to the reading of evidence cards, nor does it apply to people with applicable IEPs, 504s or are English language learners.

1) I believe that listening is an essential debate skill. In those cases where speed and jargon are used, they are still being used within a particular oral communication framework, even if it is one unique to debate. It makes no sense to me to speak our cases to one another (and the judge), while our opponent reads the text afterwards (even more so as the case is read) and then orally respond to what was written down (or for the judge to vote on what was written down). If that is the norm, we could just stay home and email each other our cases.

In the round, this functions as my awarding higher speaker points to good listeners. Asking for the text of entire cases demonstrates you are still developing the ability to listen and/or the ability to process what you heard. That's OK, this is an educational activity, but a still developing listener wouldn't earn higher speaker points for the same reason someone with developing refutation skills wouldn't earn higher speaking points. My advice is to work on the ability to process what you have heard rather than ask for cases or briefs.

As I believe that act of orally speaking should not be limited to being an anthropological vestige of some ancient debate ritual, I will courteously turn down offers to be added to any speech documents, except at contests designed for such a purpose.

Asking for individual cards by name to examine their rhetoric, context etc, is acceptable, as I don't expect most debaters to be able to write down cards verbatim. I expect those cards to be made available immediately. Any time spent 'jumping' the cards to an opponent beyond minimal is taken off the prep time of the debater that just read the case.

I will most likely only ask for cards at the round's end in the case of ethical challenges, etc, or if I failed to make note of a card's substance through some reason beyond a debater's control (My own sneezing fit for example, or the host school's band playing '76 Trombones on the Hit Parade' in the classroom next door during the 1AC)-

On Non Debater authored Cases

I believe two of the most valuable skills in debate, along with the ability to listen, are the ability to write and research (and do both efficiently).

I further believe the tendency of some in the debate community to encourage students to become a ventriloquist's dummy, reading cases authored by individuals post-HS, is antithetical to developing these skills. Most likely it is also against most schools' academic code of conduct. I reject the idea that students are 'too busy to write their own cases and do their own research'

Therefore

I will drop debaters -with minimal speaker points- who run cases written by any individual not enrolled in high school.

In novice or JV rounds I will drop debaters who run cases written by a varsity teammate.

Further, if I suspect, given that debater's level of competence, that they are running a position they did not write ( I suspect they have little to no comprehension of what they are reading) I reserve the right to question them after the round about that position. If said person confirms my suspicion about their level of comprehension, they will be dropped by me with minimal speaker points.

THAT SAID my speaker points will reward debaters who are trying out new ideas which they don't completely understand yet- I think people should take risks, just don't let yourself be shortchanged of all that debate can be by letting some non-high school student - or more experienced teammate- write your ideas for you. Don't be Charlie McCarthy (or Mortimer Snerd for that matter)

Finally, I am not opposed to student-written team cases/briefs per sae. However, given the increasing number of cases written by non-students, and the difficulty I have in distinguishing those from student-written positions, I may eventually apply this stance to any case I hear for the second time (or more) at a tournament. That day has not yet arrived however.

ON POLICY ARGUMENTS (LARPING)

I am open to persons who wish to argue policy positions as opposed to voting standard If that framework is won.

Do keep in mind that I believe the time structure of LD makes running such strategies a challenge. I find many policy link stories in LD debate, even in late outrounds at TOC-qual tournaments, to be JVish at best. Opponents, don't be afraid to say so.

Disadvantages should have clear linkage to the terminal impact, the shorter the better. When responding, it is highly advantageous to respond to the links. I tend to find the "if there is a .01% chance of extinction happening you have to vote for me" to be silly at best if there is any sort of probability weighing placed against it.

Policy-style debaters assume all burdens that actual policy debaters have, That means if solvency -(or at least some sort of comparative advantage, inherency, etc. is not prima facie shown for the resolution proper, that debater loses even if the opponent does not actually give a response while drooling on their own cardigan. (or your own, for that matter).

That means if you want me to be a policy-maker, your evidence should be super-recent. Otherwise, I may decide you don't meet your prima facie burdens, even for 'inherency' which virtually nobody votes on ever. Why? The same reason one shouldn't read a politics DA from October 2022

Side note: If your OPPONENT does so, please be sure to all call them out on it in order to demonstrate CX or refutation skills. (I once heard someone ignore the fact a politics DA was being run the Saturday AFTER the election, it having taken place the Tuesday prior.... I was sad.

I do have some sympathy for the hypothesis-testing paradigm where up-to-date evidence is not always as necessary- if you sell me on it. Running older evidence under such a framework may or may not be strategic, but it WOULD meet prima facie burdens.

If you don't know what I mean by 'prima facie burdens', or 'hypothesis-testing' you should opt for a different strategy. - Do learn what these terms mean if interested in LARPing, or answering LARPers.

I am also actively disinclined to allow the negative to 'kick out' out of counterplans, etc., in face of an Aff challenge, during the 1NR. Think 'Pottery Barn'- to paraphrase Colin Powell- "You broke the argument, you own it."

ON NARRATIVE ARGUMENTS

In addition to the 'story', be sure to include a rhetorical model I can use to evaluate the narrative in the course of the round. if you do so effectively, speaker points will be high. If not, low.

One can access the power of narrative arguments without being appropriative of other cultures. This is one such approach (granted from a documentary on Diane Nash)

ON CRITICAL ARGUMENTS

I hold them to the same analytical standard as more normative or traditional arguments. That means quoting some opaque piece of writing is unlikely to score much emphasis with me, absent a complete drop by the opponent. And even if there is a complete drop, during the weighing stage I could easily be persuaded that the critical argument is of little worth in adjudicating the round. When debating critical theory, Don't be afraid to point out that "the emperor has no clothes."

In the round, this functions as debaters coherently planning what both they and their sources are being critical of, and doing so throughout the round.

Identifying if the 'problem' is due to a deliberate attempt to oppress or ignorant/incompetent policies/structures resulting in oppression likely add nuance to your argument, both in terms of introducing and responding to critical arguments. This is especially true if making a generic critical argument rather than one that is resolution-specific.

Critical arguments all take place in a context, with the authors reacting to some structure- be it one created and run by 'dead white men' or whomever. The authors most certainly were familiar with whom or what they were attacking. To earn the highest speaker points, you should demonstrate some level of that knowledge too. HOW you do so may vary, your speaker points will reflect how well you perform under the strategy you choose and carry out in the round

In any case, be sure to SLOW DOWN when reading critical arguments.

ROLE OF THE BALLOT-

I believe that debate, and the type of people it attracts, provides uniquely superior opportunities to develop the skills required to fight oppression. I also believe that how I vote in some prelim at a tournament is unlikely to make much of a difference- or less so than if the debaters and judge spent their Saturday volunteering for a group fighting out-of-the-round oppression Or even singing, as they do in arguably the best scene from the best American movie ever.--

I tend to take the arguments more seriously when made in out rounds with audiences. The final round of PF in 2021 at TOC was important and remarkable. In fairness, people may see prelims as the place to learn how to make these arguments, which is to be commended. But it is not guaranteed that I take an experienced debater making such arguments in prelims as seriously, without a well-articulated reason to do so.

Also bear in mind that my perspective is that of a social studies teacher with a MA in Middle Eastern history and a liberal arts education who is at least tolerably familiar with the literature often referenced in these rounds. (If sometimes only in a 'book review' kind of way.) But I also default in my personal politics to feeling that a bird in hand is better than exposing the oppression of the bush.

if simply invited or encouraged to think about the implications of your position, or to take individual action to do so, that is a wild card that may lead to a vote in your favor- or may not. I feel obligated to use my personal knowledge in such rounds. YOU are encouraged to discuss the efficacy of rhetorical movements and strategies in such cases.

ONE LAST NOTE

Honestly, I am more than a little uncomfortable with debaters who present as being from privileged backgrounds running race-based nihilist or pessimist arguments of which they have no historical part as the oppressed. Granted, this is partly because I believe that it is in the economic self-interest of entrenched powers to propagate nihilist views. If you choose to do so, you can win my ballot, but you will have to prove it won't result in some tangible benefit to people of privilege.

ON MORALLY OFFENSIVE ARGUMENTS

Offensive debaters, such as those who actively call for genocide will be dropped with minimal speaker points. The same is true for those who are blatantly racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.

I default to skepticism being in the same category when used as a response to 'X is morally bad' types of arguments.

By minimal speaker points, I mean 'one point' (.1 if the tournament allows tenths of a point) and my going to the physical (virtual) tabroom to insist they manually override any minimum in place in the settings.

If an argument not intended to be racist or sexist or homophobic or pro-murder could be misused to justify the same, that would be debatable in the round- though be reasonable. "if it looks like a duck, and sounds like a duck, chances are it IS a duck." Arguing over if general U.S. immigration policy is irredeemably racist is debatable in the round, arguing that an entire group of people should be excluded based on religion is racist on face, and arguing that it is morally permissible to tear gas children is a moral travesty in and of itself.---

Outrounds/Flip Rounds Only

I believe debate offers a unique platform for debaters to work towards becoming self-sufficient learners, independent decision-makers, and autonomous advocates. I believe that side determination with a lead time for the purposes of receiving extensive side specific coaching particular to a given round is detrimental to debaters developing said skills. Further, it competitively disadvantages both debaters who do choose to emphasize such skills or do not have access to such coaching to start with.

Barring specific tournament rules/procedures to the contrary, in elimination rounds this functions as

a) flip upon arrival to the round.

b)avoid leaving the room after the coin flip (i.e., please go to the restroom, etc. before arriving at the room and before the flip)

c) arrive in sufficient time to the round to flip and do all desired preparation WITHOUT LEAVING THE ROOM so that the round can start on time.

d)All restrictions on electronic communication commence when the coin is in the air

Doing all of this establishes perceptual dominance in my mind. All judges, even those who claim to be blank slates, subliminally take perceptual dominance into account on some level. -Hence their 'preferences'. For me, all other matters being equal, I am more likely to 'believe' the round story given by a debater who exhibits these skills than the one I feel is channeling their coach's voice.

Most importantly

Have fun! Learn! "If you have fun and are learning, the winning will take care of itself"

POLICY Paradigm-

In absence of a reason not to do so, I default to policy-maker (though I do have some sympathy for hypothesis-testing).

The above largely holds for my policy judging, though I am not as draconically anti-theory in policy as I am in LD/PF because the time structure allows for bad theory to be exposed in a way not feasible in LD/PF.

Congress

To Access better ranks

1) Engage with your opponent's ideas. Clash with them directly, prove them wrong, further develop ideas offered previously by speakers on the same side of legislation as yourself, demonstrate opposing ideas are actually reasons to vote for you, etc

2)Speech organization should reflect when during a topic debate said speech is delivered. Earlier pro speeches (especially authorships or sponsorships) should explain what problem exists and how the legislation solves for it. Later speeches should develop arguments for or against the legislation. The last speeches on legislation should summarize and recap, reflecting the ideas offered during the debate

3)Exhibit the ability to listen. This is evaluated through argument development and clash

4)Evidence usage. Using evidence that may be used be 'real' legislators is the gold standard. (government reports or scholarly think tanks or other policy works. Academic-ish sources (JSTOR, NYRbooks, etc) are next. Professional news sources are in the middle. News sources that rely on 'free' freelancers are below that. Ideological websites without scholarly fare are at the bottom. For example, Brookings or Manhattan Institute, yes! Outside the box can be fine. If a topic on the military is on the docket, 'warontherocks.com ', yes!. (though cite the author and credentials. in such cases)

4b) Souce usage corresponds to the type of argument being backed. 'Expert' evidence is more important with 'detailed' legislation than with more birds-eye changes to the law.

5)exhibit the ability to use CX effectively - This DOES NOT mean 'stumping the chump' it DOES mean setting up arguments for you or a colleague to expand upon a speech later. Asking a question where the speaker's answer is irrelevant to you- - or your colleagues'- ability to do so later is the gold standard.

6)PO's should be transparent, expeditious, accurate and fair in their handling of the chamber.

6b)At local tournaments, 'new PO's will not be penalized (or rewarded) for still developing the ability to be expeditious. That skill shall be evaluated as radio silence (neither for, nor against you)- Give it a try!

To Access worse ranks

1) Act like a rude, arrogant, condescending, ignoramus. (or just one of these)

In other words, making offensive arguments, 'ist' arguments or behaving like a jerk - If you have to ask, chances are you shouldn't. "if it looks like a duck, and sounds like a duck, chances are it IS a duck." Being racist or sexist or homophobic or transphobic means one loses regardless, but behaving like a jerk in a non-'ist' way still means I'll look for a reason to rank you at the very bottom of the chamber, behind the person who spent the entire session practicing their origami while engaged in silent self-hypnosis.

2)If among any speaker other than the author and first opposition, rehashing arguments that have already been made with no further development (no matter how well internally argued or supported with evidence your speech happens to be backed with)

3)Avoiding engaging with the ideas of others in the chamber- either in terms of clashing with them directly or expanding upon ideas already made

4)Evidence usage. Using evidence that may NOT be used be 'real' legislators is the gilded standard. Examples include blatantly ideological sources, websites that don't pay their contributors, etc. This is especially true if a technical subject is the focus of the debate.

4b)In general, using out of date evidence. The more immediate a problem the more recent evidence should be. Quoting Millard Fillmore on immigration reform should not more be done than quoting evidence from the Bush or even the Obama Administration. (That said, if arguing on the level of ideas, by all means, synthesize important past thinkers into your arguments)

5) Avoiding activity such as cross-examination

5b)'Stalling' when being CXed by asking clarification for simple questions

6)Act like someone uninterested in knowledge or intellectual hard work and is proud of that lack of interest

7)POs who show favoritism or repeatedly make errors.

What (may) make a rank or two of positive difference

Be kind/professional towards those less experienced or skilled. i.e. , make their arguments sound better than they probably are, make your own arguments accessible to them, organize the disorganized ideas of others, etc. while avoiding being condescending. Be inclusive during rules, etc. of those from new congress schools or are lone wolves.

If clearly outclassed, stay engaged, and professional. Try to avoid being visibly frustrated. We have all been there! You will absolutely get this eventually. (Plus, you never know- you may make the 'golden ticket argument ' to ranking high without knowing it...)

If I think you have done the above, it will improve your rank in chamber.

World

First, Congrats on being here. Well earned. One piece of advice- Before starting your speaking in your rounds , take a moment to fix the memory in your mind. It is a memory well-worth keeping.

I have judged at the NSDA Worlds Invitational since 2015 with the exception of two years, though I have coached the New England teams each year. I judged WSD at a few invitationals and competed in Parli in college.

While I am well-experienced in other forms of debate (and I bloviate about that quite a bit here) for this tournament I shall reward teams that do the following...

-Center case around a core thesis with supporting substantial arguments and examples. (The thesis may- and often will- evolve during the course of the round)

-Refutation -(especially in later speeches) integrates all arguments make by one's own side and by the opposition into a said thesis

--Weighs key voters. Definitions and other methods should be explicit

Effectively shared rhetorical 'vehicles' between speakers adds to your ethos and ideally logos.

---Blips in constructive speeches blown up large in later speeches are weighed as blips in my decision calculus

--Even succinct POIs can advance argumentation

-Avoid using counterintuitive arguments.(often popular in LD/PF/CX) If you think an argument could be perceived as counterintuitive when it is not, just walk me through that argumentation.

Debate lingo such as 'extend this" and "pull that" confuse me for the purposes of the round - I will ignore debate lingo unless you explain the argument itself.

--Use breadth as well as depth when it comes to case construction (that usually means international examples as well as US-centric, and may also mean examples from throughout the liberal arts- science, literature, history, etc.- When appropriate and unforced.

If a model is offered, I believe 'fiat' of the legislative (or whatever) action is a given so time spent debating otherwise shall be treated as radio silence. However, mindsets or utopia cannot be 'fiat-ed'.

To earn higher speaker points and make me WANT to vote for you-

-Engage with your opponent's ideas for higher speaker points. Avoiding engaging through reliance on definitions or other methods may win you my ballots, but will earn lower speaker points. (This DOES NOT mean going deep into a line by line, it does mean engaging with the claim and the warrant)

Be kind/professional towards those less experienced or skilled. i.e. , make their arguments sound better than they probably are, make your own arguments accessible to them, organize the disorganized ideas of opponents, etc. while avoiding being condescending.

If clearly outclassed, stay engaged and professional. Try to avoid being visibly frustrated. We have all been there! You will absolutely get this eventually. (plus, you never know- you may make the 'golden ticket argument ' to winning the round without knowing it...)

If I think you have done these, it will always result in bonus speaker points.

and needless to say, I'm sure, offensive debaters, such as those who actively call for genocide will be dropped with minimal speaker points. The same is true for those who are blatantly racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.

If an argument not intended to be racist or sexist or pro-murder could be misused to justify the same, that would be debatable in the round- though be reasonable. "if it looks like a duck, and sounds like a duck, chances are it IS a duck." Arguing over if general U.S. immigration is irredeemably racist is debatable in the round, arguing that an entire group of people should be excluded based on religion is racist on face, and arguing that it is morally acceptable (or even amoral) to tear gas children is a moral travesty in and of itself.

Again, congratulations on being here!! You have earned this, learn, have fun, make positive memories...

Okay SO this paradigm was really outdated since the last time I updated it. No longer a PF stickler.

Instructed at NSD 2023

Grands -- I have recently learned what the topic is. Please overexplain. Please be good on the flow so I can be happy voting for you. I think there is a comfortable middle ground for you to not split the panel.

IDCA: Same things in CX as in LD, more ideologically disposed against tricks -- have not judged many rounds on the hs topic so please overexplain.

TL;DR: Pref me high if you have proficient technical and interesting debates (Policy and Kritikal). It doesn't really matter what I evaluate, pretty 50/50 on TFWK and Non-T Affs. I find Phil a perk of LD debate but still please provide a substantive explanation on why I should be voting for you. Please have better theory debates. (Also good for an agreed upon Trad round)

I FLOW BY EAR: (meaning I don't backflow the doc if I don't feel like it) I tap out at around 340 WPM, signpost if you really want something heard. You can ask to see my flow after round.

Yes I want to be on the chain, send the doc on time or early: davidwu2027@u.northwestern.edu

Please slow down for online debate.

Hi! I'm David, a first year debating at Northwestern. I've been doing debate for about 8 years. I've done literally every style of debate, thinking about NDT-CEDA right now.

You can spread, be as progressive as you want, literally make whatever argument you want in round as long as it doesn't support any isms. If you do, I will probably instantly drop you with an L 25.

Pref me (How good I am at evaluating rounds (I can trust my evaluation in everything but dense phil)

1 - K, Performance, IdPol, Baudrillard

2 - Pomo, Theory, CX

3 - Trix

4 - High Off (please don't make me flip through 9off)

5 - Your Phil literature, including Kant, Trad

For LD

Literally any form of disclosure is probably a good practice. Please send out your docs ASAP. I'm pretty tabula rasa as a judge. I'm also not very expressive but when I do emote you should very well keep note of it. If you're reading non-black afropess "I will watch you like a hawk" (stolen from someone else's paradigm). I'll yell clear once then your speaks can take the hit. If I didn't flow it it didn't happen.

Defaults (Literally can be changed with a line)

Neg on presumption.

The Aff should probably be topical.

Condo is fine.

Theory is DTA, no RVI.

Whatever framing comes first.

Perfcon is fine.

Debate in general is okay otherwise you wouldn't be participating in it.

CP's have to be both functionally and definitionally competitive.

Okay with postrounding. I did it "a lot" but only in a respectful manner up until the time people have to go for their next round. I should be able to defend my decision if I made it.

I'm pretty easy with speaks. Probably around a 28.5 or above but speaking is all ethos and speaks are always going to be arbitrary. They're up to MY discretion so do things that make ME happy and you'll probably see it reflected in your speaks (even though you might not pick up the ballot). The two are also correlated.

For PF

Do literally anything. Go crazy. I want to see PF modernized and people reading security K's or weapons K's are literally the start of it. I spent 3.5 years thinking about what it meant to be a PF debater only to come back to look at it from a progressive debater's perspective.

Defense is never sticky.

Just make sure your version of debate is accessible. If it functionally isn't (spreading over a team that clearly never has faced it) you're probably not gonna like how I end up evaluating the round.

I vote off the flow and give you speaks based on your ethos. Means a LPW is possible. I probably have the most experience reading about international and foreign affairs but I'm not gonna pretend like I have personal icks in round.

Debate is problematic, most of all in PF so I think that there are definitely things that you can do to make the debate experience better for everyone.

I have a REALLY high threshold for voting on theory in this format, needless to say if you execute it like an LD debater I'll be happy to vote for you.

I actually read evidence so if you misrepresent your cards then I will drop you for it. If you read off cut cards ALL THE BETTER!

Signpost and give judge instruction. I want to intervene as little as possible but if your opponents literally instruct me to read a piece of evidence in round then I WILL read it.

I have a lot of people I looked up to in PF. I think smart warranting and good fundamental evidence/knowledge outweighs literally any poorly or mediocrely interpreted card. It's just disappointing to see people just read over the same pre-cut blocks without making better or more intuitive pieces of argumentation.

I really loved PF when I debated it. I thought it was the best thing in the world but I truly believe that it can be better. I think that the reason that I keep coming back to debate is because I fundamentally believe that it is a good thing.

For literally any other event:

I judge to keep track of and identify the best performance, argumentation, and reasoning made in round, but IF I DONT NOTICE IT, keep track of the nuances, PLEASE explain to me. It's critical that I understand the intention of your arguments along with the arguments that you make.

Hi, I'm Joshua, a freshman at the University of Massachusetts Amherst who has debated in pf for 4 years.

Speed if fine as long as you are clear, don't spread. Don't be mean, weigh plz; tell me why you win the round. Signpost.

In-depth preferences:

- Just like, don't be mean in cross. I understand the distinction between assertiveness and aggressiveness, but aggressiveness will greatly lower your speaks. Don't go over the time limit as I will not flow it. A few more seconds is fine to finish your sentence or point. Also if you're going to steal prep, don't be obvious about it.

- Make sure to Signpost, tell me where you are on the flow so I can follow and write down your arguments!

- I do not flow cross, if something important comes up, mention it in your speeches.

- I do not flow author names, rather, I flow card content. If you want to extend something, tell me what the card says too, don't just "Extend McDonald '18"

- First rebuttal: don't go back to your own case and re-read what's in it. Feel free to weigh their case against yours, or make new analyses and even sub-arguments, but do not simply reread what's already in the case that I heard the first time again. If you're really done, end early.

- Please do some analysis and impact your cards, don't just throw cards/numbers/stats around. Impact calculus is important. I don't care if you tell me that this program will cost the U.S. $50,000 if you don't tell me what that means in the wider context of things. Will healthcare funding also go down? Will taxpayers have to pay extra? Will we have to cut other government programs? Tell me what is going to happen as a result of the numbers you tell me.

- I give really good speaks, perhaps to good, you basically will always get above a 28 as long as you aren't like mean in cross.

-Let me know if you have any questions

speak clearly and not too fast

please start an email chain: syadavdebate@gmail.com

----------

I would call myself a fairly flow judge. "tech > truth" unless the evidence that is being read is very misrepresented.

Anything you want me to vote on must be extended in summary. There's no such this as sticky defense. Frontline in 2nd RB. Frontline, if applicable, and extend in summary.

You do not have to extend case in 1st RB.

I prefer the weighing done for me; as in a bunch of warrants, defense and turns will do nothing for me if they are not contextualized. I expect to hear why I should prefer your side with reference to warrants. I could maybe vote on something left off of FF, but I won't extend something from case/rebuttal to summary UNLESS it makes sense in the round (ie opponent brings it up again). Weighing should be comparative, doesn't help if both teams say they have a high probability without comparing to their opponent.

I do not flow cross-ex (but I do listen). if it's a new argument/warranting in CX, it should be in a speech. Be nice

As for mechanics, I am pretty flexible and should be comfortable with speed (unless it will be very fast/spreading) as long as you are clear. A speech doc will be well appreciated if you are speaking fast. I'm open to theory, as long as it is not frivolous (ex: no shoe theory). Ks and shells are both ok. I default to reasonability. Please note I am not an expert with theory, and again speech docs will help me understand more. (especially in online debate)

Have evidence ready, shouldn't take longer than 1-2 min to find it or send it out. Also, I will take it from your prep if you're prepping when your opponent is getting a card. I know online debate means I can't enforce this too well so honor system.

About paraphrasing: It takes away from the education of the debate, I do hate it, and while I won't drop you (on face) for it, I won't like you any better if you give me 40 one-lined "cards" in case or rebuttal. Plus it just takes away from the round when your opponent has to call for 10 cards because you read them too fast. (Anti) Paraphrasing theory will pretty easily win my ballot if done well.

..............................................................................................................................................

Overall, I try my best to make the right decision (but I'm nowhere near perfect). If you have ANY questions feel free to contact me (syadavno1@gmail.com) or ask me before/after the round. Thank you!