I competed in policy debate in high school, parliamentary debate in college, and I have been coaching since 2001. I would consider myself a tabula rasa judge, as much as that is possible. I feel comfortable with any line of argumentation, but expect clear articulation of said argumentation. I want you to provide me with compelling reasons why you should win the debate. Generic argumentation, weak links, and time sucks are not appreciated. I don't judge a ton (in my local circuit I am in tab a lot), but I did judge at NSDA Nationals in 2020 including some late Elim rounds. I keep a detailed flow so staying organized is key to winning my ballot. Pronouns: she/her/hers. If you have questions, feel free to ask before the round starts. Email for the chain: amdahl-masona@nclack.k12.or.us.

I am a lay judge. Let's have fun.

Hello!

I am Avery Betz, I was a parli debater for 4 years and went to state one of those years. I am pretty comfortable with essentially anything you want to run, but make sure to debate in good faith.

I weigh my rounds based on impact calculus, so if you think you win on flow you should demonstrate how that impacts the round and my decision. I also am not very organized, so please make sure that your speech is organized, and that when you are refuting something, you clearly state what you are refuting from, i.e. "the impact of their third contention is negligible because....".

If you want any further elaboration feel free to ask me before the round!

(They/Them)

Yes, put me in the email chain. But also speechdrop >>> email chains.
keegandbosch@gmail.com

Experience: My personal competitive experience is mainly in IEs, though I have competed nationally in debate events and coached LD, Policy, and IE students. My debate background is primarily policy and NFA-LD.

Paradigm:
In all forms of debate, my primary concern as a judge is to remove as much subjectivity as possible. In the interest of this goal, I vote almost exclusively off of the flow. This is not to say, however, that I will blindly flow your arguments without thought. Ex: if your opponent drops an interpretation in their T flow, that does not mean you can define the word to mean whatever you want.

In the interest of being flow-centric, I try not to make assumptions and do the work for you. I will judge based on what actually happens in the round, not what I assume you meant should have happened. If you want credit for running an argument, I need you to actually run that argument.

I really appreciate debaters who give clear overviews in the final speeches. I want to be explicitly walked through the round so far, and told step-by-step what arguments I should prioritize and why. If you make it easy for me to vote for you, you will be happy with the vote.

I believe Kritikal argumentation is a vital cornerstone of inclusive debate practice, and I generally consider the K to be a priori. However, as with everything, if you can provide me with a solid argument why the K is bad and you debate on that flow better than your opponent, I will still vote against the K. It's not about what I believe, it's about who is the better debater in that round.

As long as you are supporting your arguments with strong evidence and you are debating well, I will not vote against you simply because I disagree with your claims. If your opponent doesn't disprove it analytically, I will not vote against it simply because of preference.

(NOTE: there are obviously exceptions to these rules. I will not vote in favor of something like "slavery good" or "women's suffrage bad." Any argument that is inherently problematic or harmful to others will not get my vote, even if you argue it better than your opponent. You don't get to hurt other people for a ballot.)


SPEAKER POINTS:
This is not my own words; it was shared with me by a teammate and I believe in the system as a method of removing subjectivity in scoring. (Updated as of 11:22 AM on 12/12/2015.)

27.3 or less-Something offensive occurred or something went terribly wrong
27.3-27.7- You didn't fill speech times, didn't flow, didn't look up from your laptop, mumbled, were unclear, or generally debated poorly
27.7-28.2- You are an average debater in your division who based on this rounds performance probably shouldn't clear but didn't do anything wrong per se...
28.2-28.5- Based on this rounds performance you might clear at the bottom.
28.5-28.9- You probably should clear in the middle/bottom based on this rounds performance. Same rules as above on moving in to this bracket from above or below.
28.9-29.3- You probably should clear in the middle/top based on this rounds performance. Same rules as above on moving in to this bracket from above or below.
29.3-29.7- You probably should clear at the top based on this rounds performance. Same rules as above on moving in to this bracket from below.
(You can also be moved in to this bracket from an above or below point bracket by debating someone in this bracket and performing well or debating someone in the lower point bracket and performing poorly. Or you can move up in brackets by doing stuff that was compelling in the round, such as reading arguments I liked, made me think, were technically proficient, or generally did something interesting.)

Version for tournaments that force whole-number speaks:

25 - Something went awry
26 - Probably won't clear, but nothing was wrong
27 - Should clear at the bottom
28 - Should clear in the middle
29 - Should probably clear at the top
30 - Exceptional

If both speakers fall into the same category, the winner will bump up 1 point. A few random notes (I update these as things come up)

About Specific Issues (I update these as things come up in rounds)

Re: in-round abuse. I am extremely sympathetic to in-round abuse. If you treat your opponent's poorly and they read a theory shell about why that's a reason to reject the team, odds are fairly good that I'll buy into that line of argumentation. You can avoid this by not being a jerk to your opponents.

Re: post-rounding. I do everything in my power to give a clear and thorough explanation of the round and why I voted the way I did. I am happy to answer questions about the round and do what I can to give you a sense of how to improve moving forward. I am happy to spend as much time after the round as you need answering questions and discussing the round. HOWEVER, I guarantee that debating me post-round will not change my ballot. I always submit my ballot before disclosure. Post-round debating just creates a hostile space for judges and debaters alike, and it's not the image of debate that I want to create.

Re: evidence sharing. In ALL FORMATS I want to be included on the email chain or the speechdrop. Particularly in PF, I don't like the community norm of asking for evidence after the speech and taking a bunch of time off the clock to find and share evidence. Your speech docs should be put together before the speech, and you should send your speech to the email chain or send it in the speech drop before you speak.

Re: speed. I am completely fine with spreading, but YOU are responsible for clarity. I will call clear twice in a speech. After that, if I don't get it on the flow, then I don't get it on the flow. Speed is only okay as long as it isn't excluding anybody from the round. If your opponent asks for a slow debate, don't spread them out of the round, be inclusive first and foremost. But I personally love speed, so don't slow down for me, certainly.

TL;DR
I will vote for the team who debates better, regardless of what techniques are used to do so (so long as those arguments are not harmful to others.) WHAT YOU ARE MOST COMFORTABLE AND CLEAN DEBATING WITH IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN WHAT I LIKE. If you have any questions, coaches and students can contact me at keegandbosch@gmail.com

Hello Everyone,

I am a parent judge and I have a background in technology.

I am a truth over tech judge. If you're able to weigh effectively and concisely, you'll probably get my vote. Do not use technical terms or run a K, because most likely I will not understand what you're doing and you'll lose my vote. Be polite and respectful.

Best of Luck!

Sudipto

My name is Joseph Brower.

Background: I was on the Speech & Debate team throughout High School. I was a State Champion in Public Forum Debate and Radio. I competed nationally in Congress. I graduated 4-Years ago and work in construction management. I'm majoring in Civil Engineering at Portland State University.

Paradigm: Common-sense arguments that are backed by evidence are encouraged. However, I will not vote based on which team/individual I personally agree with. I will only vote based on which team/individual has better argued their points and refuted their opponents.

I am Carson Chamness this is my 4th year of college debate. I currently debate at Lewis and Clark College and have competed and judged college debate.

As a judge I will strive to be as unbiased as possible, judging based on the quality, and depth of argumentation. Explain the logic behind each point and how a claim will provide a favorable outcome.

I also reward strong rebuttal, within arguments, and arguments that view the motion/topic from multiple viewpoints.

Organization of speeches, Is also important as it allows for one's speech to make more sense and makes sure judges follow your points and flow your speeches.

Lastly speak clearly, especially in an online debate unclear speaking can cause others to not understand your point, so make sure you are speaking loudly and clearly so judges and your competitors understand what you are saying as it's hard to judge or respond to someone's speech if one couldn't understand, and follow your speech.

I did mostly speech in middle school to high school, with only marginal experience in debate (most of it comes from helping my friends in their debate prep).

My main philosophy for debate and how to deal/prepare for judges comes from a quote from Bruno E. Jacob, one of the founders of the NSDA: "I should be able to take someone off the street and they should be able to come and judge a round. And if they aren't able to judge it, then we aren't doing something right." Thus, treat me as a lay judge. Which mostly means, as a baseline:

a) Be clear about your points. The way you convey the information, logically present the facts to tell a story, is just as important as the information itself

b) Be respectful and civil

c) I prefer to vote for an option that actually does something to solve a problem rather than argue technicality.

For Debaters:

Hello,

I am judging for the first time and where I know about the flow of the debate , I am technically not familiar with counterplans and so on, please explain them thoroughly.

I prefer moderate to slower speed of speech of the given argument.

I always emphasize on clarity of speaking which will always make me take your side.

I am particularly against to emotional expression of arguments as I prefer more of a convincing content with necessary evidences.

Before the round ends a look at the case sheet of both the parties can always be a better help.

To end up with, I am totally against to the interruption in the flow of one's speech either by their team or the opposing team.

All the best !

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

For Speech :

Hello ,

As a person judging for speech I expect a combination of answers to the question (merely the topic of the speech) and your composition of words, statements and texts which should be a selling point to convince me , where I don't mind the way you try to emphasize the ways your view point is true or fair.

In most of the cases, I like to have some sort of factual info added in your speeches. to add with, a little bit of Humor, Sarcasm (if applicable) will always be plus.

To end with, I expect an effective speech (in the time boundaries given) which is an attractive one whether its a story telling or interpreting something or putting out your view point it should be able to make an impact .

All the best!

About me: I am a father, Language Arts / History Teacher, and Speech and Debate coach. I have been a member of our community as a competitor, judge, and coach since 1990. I believe that this activity is the most important thing young people can do while in school. Trends an styles come and go, but one immovable truth guides my participation in this activity: I care for you, am proud of you, and look forward to you taking control of our country and making it better than when you found it.

About LD: I see my role in the round as a non-intervening arbiter tasked with the job of determining what world, aff or neg, we would be better off living in. I have judged V/C rounds, policy rounds, theory rounds, framework rounds. And while I have not attended a camp, or have a grasp of the current jargon in circuit debate, I find myself able to render decisions consistent with my peers even though I might not be able to vocalize my rationale the way camp debaters expect. I know who won, I just don't have the catchy phrases or lingo to explain how. You can not spread if you don't include me in the email chain. And even then, during rebuttals, I really do need clear signposting and pen time at the critical moments when you need me to hear your analysis. I am a smart guy, but as a father and teacher, I don't have the time to be hyper-versed in the literature. But if you take a small chunk of time, explain your theory, I'll get it. Ultimately, the email chain and the pen time will allow me to have a clean flow. And I (and you) want that clean flow for me to render a decision we can all be happy with.

So what are we looking at to secure my ballot. I'm a rubber meets the road kind of guy. I look for impacts. I expect engagement. I typically don't pull the trigger on T. I find most T arguments un-compelling if even my uneducated self knows about issues the Aff is bringing up. And in a world of disclosure, I am guessing most people know what's going on. This isn't to say I don't vote on T, but my bar is high. I'm open to pre-fiat arguments. I'm fine with considering RVIs. I'm fine with CX during prep if both competitors are ok with it. I don't mind audience members, but I will clear the room if I find the audience being disrespectful, or trying to cheat a glance at my ballot.

My RFDs in round are short, focus on the major voting issues, and are not open to cross examination by students or their coaches. I will write my more detailed thoughts out on the e-ballots prior to the end of the tournament.

Finally, I'm not going to be hurt by how you pref me. I'm going to do my best to do right in the round. One will agree with me. One won't. That's the nature of the game. But the sun will rise on the morn regardless of how you pref, or how I vote.

I am a lay judge. Because I have no technical background in debate, I anticipate watching for:

- Mutual Respect and Civility. Participants should display emotional maturity and refrain from personal attacks, hostile tones, or talking over each other.

- Logical Arguments that Flow Well. Collect your thoughts so you are concise and clear rather than rambling. Provide specific support for your arguments. Explain arguments at the level that an intelligent, but unfamiliar person may require.

- Confident and Persuasive Delivery. Sound interesting. Vary your tone to show emphasis. Sound like a human.

Howdy! (this is a work in progress, please give me some time lol)

Ally/Allison Denton

Email: throw me on the email chain - ally.denton02@gmail.com thx!

Pronouns: she/her

Please note that I am a newer judge. I care that everyone has fun and is kind before anything else.

Before getting into everything, please be accessible and kind. Read trigger warnings and check with the other team and judge BEFORE the round starts. In high school, I dabbled with LD, and did okay in Congress for a year - but for my last two years I did Policy - and then I fell in love with K debate. If it helps, I was the 1A/2N. 99% of my rounds senior year ended with me going for afropess, cap, or some fun K that my partner and I found. I study philosophy in college. So have fun and make the round interesting! I do my best to flow and keep track of everything.

Policy notes

Please read your plan text BEFORE the 1AC or when your opponents ask. I do not care if it is a new aff. It is a way to be kind and accessible for your opponents. If you have to be squirrely, I question if your case is good. Anyways, do it or I will drop you.

As much as I understand spreading from a strategic standpoint, I still need to have some of an idea of what you're saying. I flow what I'm told to.

You're more than welcome to email me with any questions. Or just ask me before round.

I am new to judging, but I did debate all 4 years of high school. I am not familiar with any of the current topics, so please explain as much as necessary for me to understand all of your arguments.

Speed is fine as long as I can understand everything that you say. Even if I have your case, I don't want to have to read to understand all of your arguments, so keep it clear and understandable. You can run as many arguments as you want, as long as you can weigh them at the end of the round.

In general, I will prefer tech over truth. As said, I am not knowledgeable on the topics, so I will believe what you tell me unless it is refuted by the other team. If you drop arguments anywhere in the debate, I won't consider them as voters. Please extend all of the arguments that you think are important in each speech, even if they were unrefuted (and tell me that it wasn't refuted).

On evidence, I won't ask to see anything unless you call it out in-round. Make sure to tell me which piece of evidence to ask for so I can read it at the end.

Policy:

I am comfortable with most arguments except for K's. You can run a K, but you will need to do a LOT of explaining if you want me to really understand it and be able to vote on it. Otherwise, you can run pretty much any arguments which are allowed in the circuit.

LD:

Honestly, I don't understand values and criterions, so you'll need to do a lot of explaining for me to understand how to vote on it. Otherwise, you can run any arguments similar to policy.

PF:

I am most comfortable with PF out of all the forms of debate. I competed at the state and national level for two years, and came in third place at the Idaho State Debate tournament 2021. You can run pretty much any arguments here, as long as I can understand what you're saying. If you don't state a framework I'll assume that you are doing a cost benefit analysis. I don't like definitions in the beginning, just explain terms to me along the way. I am okay with paraphrasing evidence here, but be sure to represent the evidence correctly.

What's up gamers.

I don't have a ton of experience with debate, however, I do understand the format and how to flow. I can keep up with fast talking pretty well. I can evaluate theory, however, any jargon will have to be explained (seriously I don't understand debate jargon). If you choose to run a K, please explain your words.

Please signpost your arguments. I cannot be held financially, emotionally, or legally responsible for any missed arguments that are not declared.

Be respectful to competitors, especially during cross-x. Please don't cut someone off on purpose.

If you call me "judge" during speeches, I may giggle.

Email: tess.frisque@gmail.com

I am a lay judge with little knowledge on this topic.

Please speak slowly and clearly and explain why your arguments are weighted.

Spend a lot time to explain your argument and your talking point is the most important for me.

I will not disclose in prelims.

Please do the timing yourselves.

Last update: 8 November, 2023 for NPDI

I have mostly retired from judging but pop back in every once in a while. My familiarity with events is as follows: Parli > PF > Policy > LD > others. With that in mind, please be clear with the framework with which you would like me to evaluate the round. I will hold myself to the evaluative method defined within the context of each round. Absent one, expect that I will make whatever minimum number of assumptions necessary to be able to evaluate the round. If I find that I cannot evaluate the round... well just don't let it get there. Have fun!

Pronouns: he/him/his

Background:

-Coaching history: The Nueva School (2 yrs), Berkeley High School (2 yrs)

-Competition history: Campolindo (4 yrs, 2x TOC)

•TLDR: read what you want and don't be a bad person.

-If you do not understand the terminology contained in this paradigm, I encourage you to ask me before and/or after the round for clarification

-Please read: Be inclusive to everyone in the debate space - I will drop teams who impede others from accessing it or making it a hostile environment. Structural violence in debate is real and bad. I reserve any and every right to believe that if you have made this space violent for others, you should lose the round because of it. If you believe your opponents have made the round inaccessible to you, give me a reason to drop them for it (ie. theory). Respect content warnings. Ignoring them is an auto-loss. Respect pronouns. Deliberately ignoring them / misgendering is an auto-loss. Outing people purposefully / threatening to do so is an auto-loss. Intentional deadnaming is an auto loss. I am willing to intervene against the flow as I see fit to resolve these harms. I am prepared and willing to defend any decision to tab. If there is any way that I can help you be more comfortable in this space let me know and I will see what I can do :)

•Case

-Terminalize and weigh impacts

-Uniqueness must be in the right direction

-Most familiar with UQ/L/IL/I structure, but open to other formats as long as its organized and logical

-Read good, specific links

-No impacts, no offense

-Counterplan strats are cool. do CP things, defend the squo, do whatever you want

-Use warrants

•Theory and the such

-Competing interps > reasonability, if you read reasonability it better have a brightline / a way for me to evaluate reasonability

-Friv T, NIB, or presumption triggers: not my preferred strat but if explained and justified, I have and will vote on it

-Read your RVI, justify why you get access to it

-Drop the team, but I am easily convinced otherwise given justification

-Weigh standards, voters

-No preference for articulated vs potential abuse, have that debate and justify

•Kritik

-I won't fill in your blanks, the K must explain itself through its articulation, not its clarification

-Beware of reading identity based arguments that you are not a constituent of

-I'll listen to your K aff, justify not defending the resolution or lmk how your K aff defends the res

-Your alt/advocacy/performance better do something (or not! justify it!)

-Links must be specific, link of omission/generic links <<<<< specific links

•Misc:

-I am not a points fairy.

-if you want me to flow things well, tagline everything and signpost well

-have a strategy, read offense, collapse, justify your impact framing

-Have the condo debate, I don't default

-a thing with explanation and a warrant > a thing with no warrant but an explanation > a thing with no warrant and no explanation

-Default layering is T>=FW>K>Case, but I am easily convinced otherwise given justification

-I can flow your speed (300+ is a bit much for online, but if i can hear it, its fine), "clear" means clear, "slow" means slow

-Speak any way you would like, so long as I can hear your speech you're fine I don't mind what else you do

-I by default track if arguments in rebuttals are new, but if you are unsure if I have flowed it as new, call the POO. When in doubt, call the POO - I will identify whether or not the POO defines an argument that is new.

-Presumption flows neg unless neg reads an advocacy, in which case presumption flows aff, i will vote on presumption but it makes me sad

-tag teaming is fine, but I only flow what the speaker says

-I don't flow POI answers, but they are binding

-if you have texts to pass, do so quickly and within the speech or during flex

-high threshold for intervening in the debate, but I will do so if justified and is the last resort

-i flow speeches, not cross, but again cross is binding

-please time yourselves. i will not time you. if you go egregiously over time I will stop you and tank your speaks

-don't be rude in cross

-i will not call for a card unless the validity of the argument it warrants determines the debate

-don't paraphrase your card or powertag, if you feel like you have to paraphrase, you probably can find a better card

-read offense, I'll only vote on things in the last speech, so if you want me to vote on it, it better be extended through the other speeches explicitly

-put me on the email chain, dgomezsiu [at] berkeley [dot] edu

-if you want extra feedback or have questions, email ^ or facebook messenger is a good place to reach me

I have judged debate since 1988. I started programs in San Jose, San Francisco, and Portland. I have judged every form at the state and national level. I am pretty tabula rasa. In fact, one reason we brought Parli into the state of Oregon in 1997 was that we were looking for something less protocol driven and less linguistically incestuous. Policy and LD seemed to be exclusive to those who could master lingo. With Parli, we had a common knowledge street fight. So, I am open to your interpretation of how the round should be judged. Incorporate anything from your tool box: weighing mechanism, topicality challenge, counterplan, kritik, et al.

But, I still have to understand what you are saying and why. . .and so does your opponent. (Hey, now this guy seems like a communication judge. Eye roll.) I will not judge on debate tactic alone; I am not a Game Player . . . though I did play PacMan once in 1981.

Next, I am a teacher. This is an educational activity. Students should be working on transferrable skills--what are we doing in this debate chamber that we will use outside of the room in a classroom or a college campus or life? So, no speed. I will call "clear" to help you adapt to the room. And, while I am open to creative opposition to premises and other kritiks for the round, I won't abide by arguments that degrade a people or an individual. I was stunned when a debater once tried to argue that Internment was not that bad. I do not think they believed this in their heart; how could we have come to a spot in this educational event where this young person felt that this was a viable argument?

Let us have fun and walk out of the room with something to think about... and our limbs in tact! Con carino, Gonzo

I am a parent judge with some training and experience. I will listen closely to the arguments you make and try to evaluate the round based on what I hear. Please do not speak too fast as I may be unable to keep up. If you are making technical arguments, please explain them at the level that an intelligent, but unfamiliar person may require. A few notes:

- I expect you to time yourself and each other

- Refrain from being rude to each other

- Keep you cameras on at all times

- Keep in mind that communication with me is key to effective argumentation

I am a parent judge with some experience.

Please speak slowly and clearly.

Please respect other speakers during crossfire and do not interrupt opponents.

Your case is the most important part of the round.

Please weigh in the round and compare your arguments.

Good Luck!

Hi! My name is Ian, and I use he/him pronouns.

I was a policy debater in Idaho who graduated in 2019. I'm familiar with and comfortable evaluating most arguments. A few things:

I'm a flow judge. It's been some time since I last debated, so please make voters clear and do the work weighing them against each-other so I don't have to. I like kritiks but please don't assume I know the literature.

I'm comfortable with speed, but please slow down and speak louder on your tags. If I can't flow your speech without the doc, your speaker points won't be awesome.

Debate is a game. Please have fun and be nice!

Don't spread or use wacky definitions, and don't make your arguments super jargon-laden, I was never heavily trained in that in the first place, and it's not the transferable skill you get from doing debate. Communicate the logic of your arguments as clearly and effectively as possible. I remain somewhat salty about many rounds in which my arguments were better but the opponents out-jargoned and out-spread me, and basically won the judge on confident aesthetic. Make no mistake that trick will not work on me.

Strong links, impacts, and solvency are the main judging criteria for me. I also like seeing good clash during debate and I'm primarily a flow judge, so please refer what you're responding to when making advantages/disadvantages/contentions. Most importantly, please be respectful of your opponents and I hope the round is educational and fun!

Please be civil and clear in your speech. I'm not a fan of spreading or Kritiks. I appreciate clearly outlined contentions and organized arguments.

Please speak slow and clear.

Not a big fan of lying so that would not be appreciated.

If you do clash make it clear.

And lastly, before reading cases and etc. please state which case you will be reading.

:)

Pronouns: She/they

Tldr; It is important to me that you debate the way that is most suited to you, that you have fun and learn a lot. While I have preferences about debate, I will do my best to adapt to the round before me. The easiest way to win my ballot is lots of warrants, solid terminalized impacts (ie not relying on death and dehumanization as buzzwords), clear links, and a clean as possible collapse.

• For more lay/policy-oriented teams: Please sign-post, give warrants, and solid impacts. There is value in drawing attention to death and dehumanization but I would prefer that you speak beyond death & dehumanization as buzzwords -- give me warranted impacts that demonstrate why death & dehumanization are voting issues. Please make your top of case framing clear and try to stay away from half-baked theory positions. I would prefer a full shell with standards and voters, please.

• For critical, tech, and/or speed-oriented teams: I love it all -- I am open to the criticism, policy, performance, theory; whatever you want to do. Please keep in mind that my hearing is getting worse and being plugged into the matrix makes it even harder to hear online. I may ask for some tags after your speech if you spread. I probably default to competing interps more so now on theory than before but I’ll vote where you tell me to.

• For non-NorCal debaters: I recognize that debate varies by region. I’m happy to accommodate and do my best to adapt to your style. That said, I’m more likely to vote on a clear and consistent story with an impact at the end of the round.

Longer threads;

• RFDs: I’m better with oral feedback than written and I will disclose. The brainpower to write RFDs is substantially more draining than talking through my decision. I think it also opens up opportunities for debaters to ask questions and to keep myself in check as a judge. I learn just as much from you as you do from me.

• Kritiks: are important for opening up how we think about normative policy debate and a great way to challenge the performance/role-playing of policy debate. Given that many kritiks are an entry point for students to access policy-making/the debate space I am less enthused about opportunistic or abusive kritiks and arguments (which mean it's safe to assume I see debate as a pedagogical extension of the classroom not as a game). Please do your best to explain your position, especially if it’s somewhat obscure because the farther I get away from being a competitor, the less familiar I am with some of the stuff out there. For reference, I was a cap debater but don’t think I will just vote for you if you run cap. I actually find my threshold on cap ks is much higher given my own experience and I guess also the mainstream-ness of the cap k. I have a strong preference for specific links over generic ones. I think specific links demonstrate your depth of knowledge on the k and makes the debate more interesting. Please feel free to ask questions if you are planning on running a k. I think identity-based kritiks are * very * important in the debate space and I will do my best to make room for students trying to survive in this space. I’m good with aff k’s too. Again, my preference for aff k’s is that your links/harms are more specific as opposed to laundry lists of harms or generic links. It’s not a reason for me to vote you down just a preference and keeps the debate interesting.

• Theory: Please drop interps in the chat and make sure they are clear. As stated above I probably default to competing interps, but I’ll vote where you tell me to. RVIs weren't a huge thing when I was debating in college so I'm honestly not amazing at evaluating them except when there's major abuse in round and the RVI is being used to check that. So if you’re sitting on an RVI just make sure to explain why it matters in the round. I have a preference for theory shells that are warranted rather than vacuous. Please don’t read 9 standards that can be explained in like 2.

• Other items

• I do not flow after the timer. I've noticed this has become more and more abused by high school teams and I'm not into it. So finish your sentence but I won't flow your paragraph.

• Off-time roadmaps are fine.

• Very specific foreign policy debates are fun and extra speaks if you mention what a waste the F35 is.

• I will drop you or nuke your speaks for racist, transphobic, sexist, or just generally discourteous nonsense.

• POOs -- Since we're online, I don't pay attention to chats (unless reading interps) and I don't recognize raised hands. So, please just interrupt and ask your question. It's not rude, just makes things easier.

If you've read this far lol: sometimes knowing a little about my background helps debaters understand how I approach debate. I debated parli (& a little LD) at Santa Rosa Junior College for 3 years. My partner and I finished 4th in the nation for NPTE rankings and had a ridiculous amount of fun. Then we debated at San Francisco State University for our final year with the amazing Teddy Albiniak -- a formative experience and a year I treasure deeply (long live the collective! <3). Our strengths were materialism and cap, and very specific foreign policy debates.

Go gaters

I am a communication judge. I like students to clearly communicate, give real-world examples and have clear clash. Structure and organization are very important and will help me flow the round. I don't like progressive LD. I don't enjoy a definition debate in any form of debate but I will vote on topicality. I want civility, persuasion, and a clash. I generally vote on stock issues in Policy and I am not a fan of K's.

TLDR; I debated parli in high school for 3 years and have been coaching PF, LD, and Parli for the last 9 years since then with state and national champions. I try do be as tabula rasa as possible. Refer to specifics below

Follow the NSDA debate rules for properly formatting your evidence for PF and LD.

If paraphrasing is used in a debate, the debater will be held to the same standard of citation and accuracy as if the entire text of the evidence were read for the purpose of distinguishing between which parts of each piece of evidence are and are not read in a particular round. In all debate events, The written text must be marked to clearly indicate the portions read or paraphrased in the debate. If a student paraphrases from a book, study, or any other source, the specific lines or section from which the paraphrase is taken must be highlighted or otherwise formatted for identification in the round

IMPORTANT REMINDER FOR PF: Burden of proof is on the side which proposes a change. I presume the side of the status quo. The minimum threshold needed for me to evaluate an argument is

1) A terminalized and quantifiable impact
2) A measurable or direct cause and effect from the internal link
3) A topical external link
4) Uniqueness

If you do not have all of these things, you have an incomplete and unproven argument. Voting on incomplete or unproven arguments demands judge intervention. If you don't know what these things mean ask.

Philosophy of Debate:

Debate is an activity to show off the intelligence, hard work, and creativity of students with the ultimate goal of promoting education, sportsmanship, and personal advocacy. Each side in the round must demonstrate why they are the better debater, and thus, why they should receive my vote. This entails all aspects of debate including speaking ability, case rhetoric, in-and-out-of round decorum, and most importantly the overall argumentation of each speaker. Also, remember to have fun too.

I am practically a Tabula Rasa judge. “Tab” judges claim to begin the debate with no assumptions on what is proper to vote on. "Tab" judges expect teams to show why arguments should be voted on, instead of assuming a certain paradigm. Although I will default all theory to upholding education unless otherwise told

Judge preferences: When reading a constructive case or rebutting on the flow, debaters should signpost every argument and every response. You should have voter issues in your last speech. Make my job as a judge easier by telling me verbatim, why I should vote for you.

Depending on the burdens implied within the resolution, I will default neg if I have nothing to vote on. (presumption)

Kritiks. I believe a “K” is an important tool that debater’s should have within their power to use when it is deemed necessary. That being said, I would strongly suggest that you not throw a “K” in a round simply because you think it’s the best way to win the round. It should be used with meaning and genuinity to fight actually oppressive, misogynistic, dehumanizing, and explicitly exploitative arguments made by your opponents. When reading a "K" it will be more beneficial for you to slow down and explain its content rather than read faster to get more lines off. It's pretty crucial that I actually understand what I'm voting on if It's something you're telling me "I'm morally obligated to do." I am open to hearing K's but it has been a year since I judged one so I would be a little rusty.

Most Ks I vote on do a really good job of explaining how their solvency actually changes things outside of the debate space. At the point where you can’t or don't explain how voting on the K makes a tangible difference in the world, there really isn't a difference between pre and post fiat impacts. I implore you to take note of this when running or defending against a K.

Theory is fine. It should have a proper shell and is read intelligibly. Even if no shell is present I may still vote on it.

Speed is generally fine. I am not great with spreading though. If your opponents say “slow down” you probably should. If I can’t understand you I will raise my hands and not attempt to flow.

I will only agree to 30 speaker point theory if it’s warranted with a reason for norms of abuse that is applicable to the debaters in the round. I will not extend it automatically to everyone just because you all agree to it.

Parli specifics:

I give almost no credence on whether or not your warrants or arguments are backed by “cited” evidence. Since this is parliamentary debate, I will most certainly will not be fact-checking in or after round. Do not argue that your opponents do not have evidence, or any argument in this nature because it would be impossible for them to prove anything in this debate.

Due to the nature of parli, to me the judge has an implicit role in the engagement of truth testing in the debate round. Because each side’s warrants are not backed by a hard cited piece of evidence, the realism or actual truth in those arguments must be not only weighed and investigated by the debaters but also the judge. The goal, however, is to reduce the amount of truth testing the judge must do on each side's arguments. The more terminalization, explanation, and warranting each side does, the less intervention the judge might need to do. For example if the negative says our argument is true because the moon is made of cheese and the affirmative says no it's made of space dust and it makes our argument right. I obviously will truth test this argument and not accept the warrant that the moon is made of cheese.

Tag teaming is ok but the person speaking must say the words themself if I am going to flow it. It also hurts speaker points.

Public Forum specifics:

I have no requirement for a 2-2 split. Take whatever rebuttal strategy you think will maximize your chance of winning. However note that offense generated from contentions in your case must be extended in second rebuttal or they are considered dropped. Same goes for first summary.

I will not accept any K in Public Forum. Theory may still be run. Critical impacts and meta weighing is fine. No pre-fiat impacts.

Your offense must be extended through each speech in the debate round for me to vote on it in your final focus. If you forget to extend offense in second rebuttal or in summary, then I will also not allow it in final focus. This means you must ALWAYS extend your own impact cards in second rebuttal and first summary if you want to go for them.

Having voter issues in final focus is one of the easiest ways you can win the round. Tell me verbatim why winning the arguments on the flow means you win the round. Relate it back to the standard.

Lincoln Douglass and Policy:

I am an experienced circuit parliamentary debate coach and am very tabula rasa so basically almost any argument you want to go for is fine. Please note the rest of my paradigm for specifics. If you are going to spread you must flash me everything going to be read.

Email is Markmabie20@gmail.com

I am a parent judge. Please slow down when speaking, and speak at a pace where your opponent and I will understand you clearly.

Running anything is fine by me as long as you have an eloquent and well-supported argument to back yourself up the more evidence the better. Off-time road maps and signposting are always helpful, and please try to avoid jargon if possible. I also appreciate tying down the argument to a couple of key points and weighing on impacts.

It’s easy to get caught up in the little things in a debate, but always remember to be respectful to your opponents. Attack the arguments, not the people.

For speeches and IE, remember to speak with confidence and clarity.

About me: I did congress and PF in high school. Now I do British Parliamentary debate in college.

Round expectations: Be polite and respectful, do not talk over each other!!! Have proof of all your evidence/cards/quotes ready incase something becomes contested and you need to verify it.

What I look for: Clear link chains, warranting, impact calc, weigh the round for me or I will not know what to vote on. Speak clearly and do not spread, a little speed is ok but not too much.

I give a 10 sec grace period and you will be cut off after that expires. Time your own speeches, your prep, and your opponents time to hold them accountable. I do not flow cross.

I am a parent judge with some training and 5 years of state level experience (Oregon) . I have also judged at the Middle School National Competition in 2019, several TOC during 2020-21, and Congress at the High School Nationals in 2022.  I will listen closely to the arguments you make and try to evaluate the round based on what I hear. Please do not speak too fast as I may be unable to keep up. If you are making technical arguments, please explain them at the level that an intelligent, but unfamiliar person may require. - I expect you to time yourselves and each other. - Refrain from being rude to each other (I have never seen this occur in any round I have ever judged or observed). 

Background

I did parli and extemp at Ashland High School in Oregon. I also occasionally did LD and PF including on the national circuit and at NSDAs. I ran a really wide range of things in high school, and I love creative debaters. I studied broadcast journalism in college, so this topic excites me. Have fun and let me know if there is any questions before the round.

TLDR

Do:

Run what you want

Collapse at the end of the round

Have structure and signpost

Don't:

Shadow Extend

Read something you don't understand

Say all Ks are bad

General

I'm five years out now, but I think I can still keep up. I will vote on almost anything, but I am lazy, so please make it easy for me. That means explain your arguments, why you won them, and why that means you won the round. Anything you want me to vote on, should be in your last speech, regardless of debate style. I will disclose after the round if I can.

Speed/Speaks

Vocal inflection should not disappear when you go fast. That is especially true in later speeches. I will call clear if I have to, but speed isn’t a problem. Keep taglines slow just for the sake of me keeping a clean flow. The more signposting you do, the faster I can flow. Speaks are about clean speeches with good strategy. An overview never hurts.

DAs/CP

Case debate is fun. I am down for generics, but that does open you up to non uniques easier. I will probably not vote on politics unless the link is really good. CPs are underutilized, especially advantage CPs.

Kritiks

Ran them a fair amount when I was debating. Please understand the K you are running. Links are key to everything. I am pretty sympathetic to the perm if there is no clear link. I am most familiar with whiteness, cap and anthro. High theory needs to be explained, but I am open to it and familiar with a lot of the general ideas behind it. Identity Ks are great, but saying you deserve the ballot only because the debate space is unfair an uphill battle with me. Feel free to try and prove me wrong.

Theory

Default to competing interps, no RVIs and theory comes first. I don’t need articulated abuse to vote on theory, but it is stronger with it than without it. If you want me to vote on it you need to make sure each part of the shell has clear offense that you extend. More specific interps are going to give you a better shot at the ballot and better speaks

Framework

Default is net benefits/policy maker. I am fine with anything however self serving roles of the ballot are really annoying and if they have no warrant, then they are easy to get out of for your opponent. I am comfortable with most of the major moral theories that are used. Feel free to ask before the round how much I know.

Weighing

Default to probability over magnitude unless you give me a reason otherwise.

Evidence

The warrant is the thing that matters no matter the style. Put me on the email chain or tell me what cards you want me to call. The more card calling I have to do by myself, the more I am having to intervening.

Miscellaneous

I believe in terminal defense, so going for try or die when you have conceded you solve nothing is not going to win you anything.

Tag teaming is all good, but don’t be that team that tag teams the whole time.

Shadow extensions are bad. Arguments need to be extended throughout the round.

Jargon is meant to make debate more efficient, not more exclusive. Use whatever terms you think you can get your point across best with.

If you have questions or want to talk more about a round I already judged you in, email me at karl.moeglein@gmail.com or message me on Facebook. Feel free to clarify anything you want to before the round.

My name is Robin Monteith and I am the coach for The Overlake School in Remond, Wa. I am a parent coach and was introduced to speech and debate through being a parent judge. This is my 7th year judging at speech and debate competitions. All years, I judged PF, LD, Congress, and many speech categories. I have no policy experience. I became a coach in the 2019-2020 school, and coach students in many speech categories, PF, LD, and Congress. My educational background is in psychology and social work.

I am looking for students to convince me that the side they are arguing on is right. I like statistics, but am also looking for the big picture, but with enough specifics to understand the big picture. It will help if you give a clear and highly organized case. Make sure that you don't talk so fast that you lose your enunciation. Also, remember that I am trying to write and process what you are saying so if you are talking really fast some of your arguments may be missed. While the point of debate is to take apart your opponents case, I do not like it when teams get too aggressive or cross the line into being rude. I value both argument and style in that I think your style can help get your argument across or not get it across well. Don't do theory or Kritiks. I am not a flow judge, but do take extensive notes. You need to extend arguments in your summary and final focus and I will disregard any new arguments presented in final focus and second summary as this is unfair to your opponents. In summary I like for you to summarize the important parts of the debate for me. Both your side and your opponents. In final focus I want to hear voters. Why do you think you won the debate. What evidence did you present that outweighs your opponents evidence, etc.

Preferred email: rmonteith@overlake.org

I competed in Public Forum in High School at Rowland Hall (UT), and did BP in College at Lewis & Clark. I currently coach for Catlin Gabel (OR).

If you plan to share docs, please make an email chain titled "Round [X] Aff-[Team A] Neg-[Team B]". My email is mulfordc@catlin.edu

my main, most important judging philosophy beliefs:

-weigh arguments in the round. Make your case the easiest path for the ballot.

-collapse collapse collapse. please. you only hurt yourself by trying to go for every word said in the round.

-just because you don’t have a carded response to something your opponent said does not mean you cannot have a decent analytical response.

-please, for the love of god, warrant your responses. Tell me WHY a study concludes something, don’t just give me their results. Good warrants go with good arguments.

how I determine speaker points:

-not abusing prep time and being ready to debate quickly before round will improve your points.

-doing weighing, collapsing and warranting effectively is the best and easiest way to get high speaks

Other

-theory (for me) in pf is fine. you should only be using this if your opponent does something egregiously unfair, and not to fill up time or show me that you did ld/policy. if you do read theory, you should only be going for that and it’s your burden to prove how your opponent framed you out of the debate.

-speed-if I can’t understand you, ill say clear.

-I often vote for teams with fewer, well reasoned and weighed arguments than ones which dump arguments on me. You also risk that I will miss arguments.

Include me on the evidence chain: myhre_joshua@salkeiz.k12.or.us

I have experience with several different kinds of debate, including policy, LD, public forum, and parli. I debated in policy throughout high school and some in college.

I am out of practice with flowing speed. There's not a lot of fast policy debate in my region. I appreciate slowing down and clear articulation on taglines as well as theory/framework arguments. I'll say "clear" twice and then stop flowing if you don't oblige.

I am willing to listen to any form of argument - I have no particular bias against kritiks or any kind procedurals.

Topicality - I have a bit of a higher threshold for voting on topicality. If you want to go for T then it needs to be a substantial part of your 2NR. I prefer competing interpretations but will default to reasonability unless you clearly articulate your impacts.

If you want to make theory an argument, I'm willing to listen. I can be convinced that conditionality is either good or bad depending on what happens in the round.

I tend to think K's are okay, although most debaters can never really tell me what the alt actually does. If you want to make a framework argument, then go for it.

Good impact analysis/comparison is essential for me to make an good decision.

Extra speaker point for whoever can make the most clever Dune reference.

Hello.
- I did 2 years of (American) Parli in high school in the Bay Area circuit, and I’m about four years into doing British Parli here at LC.
- Not a fan of speed in debate. There are pedagogical reasons for this, but more importantly, I’m not great at writing it down. If you want my ballot, you’re going to do better if you speak at a more measured pace.
- Don’t be bigoted in front of me (and ideally not when you aren’t in front of me, either). It's bad for your speaks, bad for your chances of getting the ballot, and it's just generally a bummer.
- There are a lot of judges at this tournament that you’d do very well reading Ks in front of. I am probably not one of them. I’ll vote for it if you can prove to me that debating the round without the K is causing harm in a direct way, but that’s a hard sell unless someone is actively doing something problematic. I am not familiar with most K literature, so you’ll have to walk me through it. If you try to walk me through anything by Baudrillard, I may cry.
- Theory is cool though, for voters you should probably say why they matter. I like education, I like fairness, I like clash, but you should still tell me why those things being valued in debate make the world better. I’m also open to arguments as to why I’m totally wrong about those being good things. Theory is a priori, and I will default to drop the debater (also open to just dropping certain unfair things, if you can convince me that’s better). Will default to evaluating by reasonability, because I have an outsized opinion of myself and I think I’m good at judging reasonableness.
- Impact calc: do it. Generally I’m going to default towards probability over magnitude (or structural impacts over flashpoint impacts). Something something better policy-making. I’m open to arguments as to why I shouldn’t do this, though. Reversibility and timeframe should probably be terminalized into mag or prob.

- Please weigh stuff. Please do impact calc. Terminalize your impacts and then evaluate them comparatively against your opponent’s stuff. I don’t want to do it so I’m hoping you’ll do it for me.
- PICs are fun, perms are also cool. Perms are probably not an advocacy? Idk dude I don’t have to deal with that sorta thing in BP.
- Be courteous to your opponents and to your partner. Conducting yourself with kindness and good humor, even and especially in competitive situations, makes the world a better place.
- I think that humor has a place in debate, and making me chuckle can earn you speaker points. Winning the debate obviously comes first, though.
- Because I am a dumb BP debater, I think that truth actually might have some bearing on the debate world. That means that if you make blatantly false claims that the average intelligent voter would know to be false, I’m probably not going to believe you. Debate might be a game, but it’s a game built on a very specific context, which is policy-making. Call me naive, but I like to hope that policy-making is somewhat based on truth. For any sort of spec knowledge, or anything that's debatable this doesn't really matter, I'm more referring to "Earth is flat sky is green" kinda stuff.

I like Death Grips, and drink Monster Energy Zero Ultra.

As a mother to two debaters, I have had my fair share of debate tournament experience. As per what my kids say, I am not a flow judge, but more like a lay judge. I like to see how arguments flow through, but at the end of the day, whichever case is stronger and better in being communicated to me will win debates. Please note that I do not consider points in cross ex valid unless brought up in speeches and that fast talking is harder for me to understand. Sportsmanship and quality of speaking are of the upmost priority here. Every idea is runnable if you are a good speaker.

Hello! I am a new parent judge with no previous Speech & Debate experience. I am learning all of the terminology, so you can expect me to focus on content over theory. I look forward to hearing you all debate! Don't stress out, be respectful to each other, and have fun!

Email: astorbredhead@gmail.com

Glenbrooks Update

If you want my ballot you need to effectively write my ballot for me. There are a few things that I mention in my paradigm that I love to see that people seem to forget about. Namely extending and weighing. You need to extend the warranting for whatever argument you are going for and extend the impact. If your opponent does not do this PLEASE point it out because in my opinion with 3 minute summaries you do not have offense unless you give some extensions. With that said, to avoid losing my ballot please signpost your extensions. Say to me "Judge please extend our first contention where we say ____ which leads to ___ which gives us our impact of ____". If only one team extends, as long as that team has some access to their argument they will probably win. This also goes for weighing. I as a judge do not want to intervene. Weighing is the easiest way for me to compare your arguments, so please weigh. If only one team weighs, as long as they have some access to their arg they are probably going to win because it doesn't matter how hard you are winning your argument if you do not tell me how to compare it to your opponents arg. In an ideal world both teams have a couple pieces of weighing by summary and then both do meta weighing in FF. Same thing goes for weighing in terms of signposting. Please directly tell me you are about to weigh and please tell me where to weigh it.

CSUF/LD UPDATE

I have not ever judged LD and really do not know much about it. Please treat me as a flay judge. You can read prog arguments in front of me, but realize that I likely do not really know how evaluate them. I can handle some speed, but definitely not a lot. If you have circuit and trad cases please read the trad ones. Even if you aren't going fast I would appreciate getting put on the email chain. Please let me know if you have any questions before the round.

TW - IMPORTANT (Specifically for PF)

If you are reading something that is potentially triggering please read a TW, and give your opponents the opportunity to opt out. If you read an argument that could obviously trigger someone like sexual assault without a TW I will be mad and not like you. I understand that some people may feel this is a stupid rule because they think that it is unreasonable to force debaters to have multiple cases, but I would say it is a lot worse to force someone to relive trauma.

Parli

I think Parli rounds are typically either really good, or quite disappointing, mainly because I think there is a big divide between teams that know how to prep, and teams that don't. Parli is not a debate about who has the best cards the way that Policy, PF, and LD are, HOWEVER, that doesn't mean that I as a judge don't value cards, I think that I have an obligation to. In my opinion the best cards to try and find in Parli by far are impact cards. You can use logic to make link chains, and you don't need evidence to define basic political facts, but you can't just assert that the electrical grid being damaged kills X many people. Having quantifiable impacts is such a huge help especially in the weighing side of the debate.

In terms of progressive debate, I am not opposed to it, but know that I am not the best judge for it.

I think weighing is incredibly important when you don't have cards, as such I think weighing should be like your main focus in Parli. You should probably start weighing as early as you can. I am also a huge sucker for meta weighing because I think that it is super under utilized, so if you do that I will be quite happy.

Although I don't think most Parli rounds should be judged on a strictly line by line level, that doesn't mean that you should abandon the flow. In fact chances are if you go line by line you are a lot more likely to get my ballot than if you don't.

A lot of my PF paradigm applies as well, so probably read that if you have time. Otherwise if you have any other questions just ask me.

PF

I did PF. I can flow moderately fast but don't go too fast. If you spread I will insta drop you (please be aware I define spreading very liberally so to be safe just go slower). I am definitely not opposed to hearing K's or theory debates, but please be aware that I do not have a lot of experience in that realm of debate and as such I am definitely not the best judge for it. With that said, please be aware that I come from a school that did not have any support for debate and as such, although I do recognize the positive change that can run from running progressive arguments (especially against other good teams who know how to handle those arguments), I also recognize the inherent inaccessibility that prog arguments possess. I mention this so you know that I support you running prog arguments, but also am subconsciously more likely to support and vote for the team not running those args.

You need to weigh, if only one team weighs I will default to them.

Extend warrants and not just authors.

2nd rebuttal should probably frontline, but prioritize turns. Defense is sticky in 1st summary.

For the most part I am only going to call for cards if either one of the debaters tells me to, or if the card seems kind of outrageous. If I call for a card just because it seems outrageous I will only check to see if it is blatantly fake, all other evidence analysis should be done by the debaters. Any other questions just ask me.

One last thing. PLEASE EXTEND. I have had to drop multiple teams now that were dominating the round simply because they only extended their impact. You need to extend the warranting. To be safe signpost your extending. Don't just frontline and extend somewhere in your frontlining. At some point in Summary or FF say to me now extend my whatever contention.

DROPPED DEFENSE DOES NOT NEED TO BE EXTENDED IN SUMMARY

But it does need to be in FF

Dropped offense must be extended.

SIGNPOST I want to know where I'm flowing your arguments. Jumpy responses confuse me. If I’m confused by your speech you are less likely to win.

WARRANT I need you to explain why your turn is a turn to extend it. Tell me, “extend the turn on their C2, where we tell you _______ according to _______.” I won't vote on a turn without warranting.

COLLAPSE Don't make the round about 10 different arguments. Narrow it down to something you can flesh out at the end of the debate. This has become a huge issue. If the other team doesn’t collapse and you do, I’ll be more likely to vote for you because I’ll have a better comprehension of your case.

WEIGH Tell me why I prefer your argument PLEASE! SEVERITY, REVERSIBILITY, MAGNITUDE, TIMEFRAME; USE IT. If you weigh and your opps don’t; guess what? You win. Weigh.

Things that will ding your speaks/get you dropped:

1. Bad evidence ethics. If you very blatantly misrep evidence then at best I will drop your points by 1. If your opponents call for your card and then tell me to read it and drop you for bad evidence, there's a chance I'll drop you for it. Bad evidence undermines education.

2. Sexism, racism, and general excessive rudeness with get you L20ed instantly.

When giving my rfd, I am not opposed to clarifications of the debate from both teams (like postround me, hard (this doesn’t mean you get to argue with me. I’m for postrounding to clarify my decision, not to continue the debate.)). Hopefully this clarifies the debate and prevents any team from feeling like they got screwed. A judge should be able to explain their decision. I'll ask questions if I think I'm missing something.

For the most part I will support anything you run, but just ask me about it before the round.

If are going to do an email chain please put me on it: astorbredhead@gmail.com (To be clear, although I want to be on the email chain for convenience sake just in case I need to look at a card, I do not plan on/want to have to be looking through your cards)

P.S. If something happens during the round that you don't feel comfortable talking about publicly (i.e. misgendering) send me a dm in zoom, an email, or any other way of conversation.

I have been coaching and judging High School debate since 2003, though I have spent the better part of the last decade in tabrooms, so don't get to judge as much as I used to. :-)

If I had to classify myself, I would say that I am a pretty traditional judge. I am not a huge fan of Ks, because for the most part, I feel like people run Ks as bad DAs, and not a true Ks.

I cannot count the number of times I have had a student ask me "do you vote on [fill in the blank]"? It honestly depends. I have voted on a K, I have voted on T, I have voted on solvency, PICs, etc., but that doesn't mean I always will. There is no way for me to predict the arguments that are going into the round I am about to see. I can say that, in general, I will vote on almost anything if you make a good case for it! I want YOU to tell me what is the most important and tell me WHY. If you leave it up to me, that is a dangerous place to be.

Important things to keep in mind in every round.
1) If your taglines are not clear and slow enough for me to flow, I won't be able to flow them. If I can't flow it, I can't vote on it. I am fine if you want to speed through your cards, but I need to be able to follow your case.

2) I like to see clash within a debate. If there is no clash, then I have to decide what is most important. You need to tell me, and don't forget the WHY!

That leads me to...

3) I LOVE voting issues. They should clarify your view of the debate, and why you believe that you have won the round.

Did Policy and PF for 4 years. Comfortable with any argument, be innovative!

If you can ever "that's what she said" me, you get 30 speaks, if you do that to your opponents more than 3 times, 30 speaks and I presume for you. That would be based.

I want all speech docs where evidence is read to be on the chain. (all constructive speeches 1AC/1NC 2AC/2NC. That's rebuttal for you kids). If you don't have ev for the 2AC/2NC well ummmmm ya. I won't look at it but it is for evidence exchange purposes. srikartirumala@gmail.com.Add both to the chain!

Don't ask me to verify I'm there before every speech. I want to flow, not keep unmuting. Just assume I'm always ready.

Philosophy:

I am a fairly tab judge who operates solely on an offense/defense paradigm. Tech>truth to the fullest. I will do no work for you as that's your job (so I won't even implicate defense for you as terminal). You do you -- don't change how you debate for me. I will adapt to your style (unless your style does not hit the basics like extensions, comparative weighing etc.)

Do not

1. Any -isms. Just be a good person it's not hard. For the people who read "racism is a democratic value kick people off social media" this is you!

2. Bad ev. You will not win a round trying to fake ev in front of me if it is called out. For me faking or misrepresenting ev is as good as cheating and all your opponents need to say is "it's a voter for education/fairness/legit anything". And I'll hack. But you need the prove the evidence is actually bad IN ROUND. Ie - it's not enough to say "It's faked" U must say "It is faked because of X reason -- that's cheating and it's a voter for fairness/education".

I do not like

1. Paraphrasing

2. "Discourse" as solvency. I'm sick of it and probably will insta delete your "K" from the flow. Have a real alt / well thought out method.

3. No speech Docs.

4. "Probability weighing". This is just reading empirics, anything else is just a link mitigation or a no link argument and ways smooth brained teams with bad rebuttals can sneak new defense into summary @Sarvesh babu looking at you.

5. Claiming any progressive stuff isn't "public in public forum" I will laugh at you during RFD whilst playing Laughing to the bank. If you're in varsity, you should be prepared to deal with all the arguments no matter what.

This part is stolen from THE beach

***If you are in varsity at a TOC bid tournament, I will by NO MEANS evaluate a "we do not understand theory or K/theory or K excludes me because I don't know how to debate it" response. In fact, I will give you the lowest speaker points the tournament reasonably permits-- you're perpetuating horrible norms in this activity. Do not enter the varsity division of tournaments if you are unwilling to handle varsity level argumentation. ***

As an aside to this ^, if you a reason why theory/ K is bad, I won't automatically intervene but your speaks are GONE and I will legit buy "bruh what the heck is this it allows for bad norms" and then strike it off my flow. This is one of the worst takes I've ever heard, and I'm really sick of people perpetuating the narrative that "public forum should be for the public" or whatever dumb thing boomers in this activity who are afraid of anyone that isn't a cishet white male doing well in the activity propagate. I also will not buy any "people don't know how to disclose or access wikis" it's just blatantly untrue and disrespectful to small school debaters. It's not a response -- it's just you not knowing how to interact. this is the one spot I feel 0 shame in intervening, I will laugh at you while I do it and play Laughing To The Bank by Chief Keef while I read the decision.

I like these

1. Theory (but not stupid and friv)
2. Kritical args (But actually with solvency not DiScOuRsE)
3. Framing / Meta Weighing
4. I errheavily towardsparaphrasing being bad, speech docs being good, and disclosure being good, and will evaluate procedurals based on that.
5. Lots of explanation on what's happening in the flow (I won't do any work, if you don't tell me why it's important or what to do with it it's nothing)

Why do I care so much about good ev?

I've had teams straight fake ev against me and it hurts. As a researcher the skills you get from research in debate is unparalleled to other activities. Faking evidence is akin to cheating, and this is a competitive activity. There's y'alls little procedural.

Strike me if you

1. Fake evidence / do not cut your cards (you know who you are)

2. Think I'm going to buy your "persuasive appeal" BS, speaks are a construct and don't matter in a W/L

3. You are going to run problematic arguments, I won't deal with them. I don't like to intervene on the flow, but I will in these cases. I might even physically stop the round depending on how bad it is.

Arguments:

1-5. 5 means I love

LARP: 5

Go crazy, idc. I mostly LARPed in HS

Framework: 4.5

- not much to say, I read fw in HS a lot. I never really did LD, so if I'm in judging it, please explain phil? I'm actually really confused and bad at phil debate. Tbh, if i'm judging you and you are going to read phil, please just treat me as a lay judge (just on the fw, u can spread or do w/e later).

T/Theory: 5

- If I believe theory is frivolous, I might not give you good speaks. Make sure it's accessible. I used to read theory like crazy in HS. I am 100% fine if you read it in shell or paragraph form, that's your choice.

- I completely tab on most theory args unless it's p obvious it's friv against K or against a novice. I'mma hold you to a high burden when it comes to extensions in these cases. I tend to err towards paraphrase bad and disclosure good but I will not hack at all. I've read both paragraph theory and shell in HS so I'm ok with w/e u are. If you are in Policy./LD where there are a billion different AFFs, I think disclosure is definitely a good norm. If you are in Policy/LD I expect better. if you paraphrase in any event ur speaks are gone.

Dude, Condo is Dispo don't try and cap otherwise.

K : 4

- I started reading more Kritical arguments my senior year, this being said, any argument can be explained properly. I tend to err towards K over T, but I'll be tab. High theory is fine dumb it down. If I'm confused over the K, it means ur OV or your extension wasn't good enough or explained well, and I'll probably vote on something cleaner.

- Note, I rarely read K in policy, I was more of a LARPER, but I will probably understand most of what you are saying if you bother to try to explain it to me. This means get rid of a lotta the K-specific jargon "e.g. state of exception". I'll understand some of the stuff i'm familiar with but still be careful. In policy / LD though you need to really explain the K. I’m going to be lost if ur just spreading cards. The 1NR/2NC needs to have REALLY good OV extension that REALLY explains your theory.

- I am fairly familiar with most K lit. I read Set Col, Sec, Orientalism, Imperialism, Neolib, Biopolitics/Biopower, but I'll buy k about anything just PLEASE don't just spread ur usually jargony OV. Very familiar with most IR terms / list

This is my hot take, I don't like identity AFFs that much in PF. Trust me, I am VERY VERY HAPPY to vote them up, and often do, just know I don't really like how it's being done in PF where I can't tell WHAT SOLVENCY IS! If you do it right I'll enjoy it.

Plans/CP : 5

- IN ANY EVENT These are perfectly ok in my mind, I will buy a good plan bad theory tho. All u have to prove is that the plan potentially could be viable, some sort of implementation or actor and I think the theory doesn't apply. I am fine if u just tell me a counter plan to the AFF/Neg, and defend that it's good. Rules are meant to be broken if they are bad so a response to a CP can't be "NsDa RuLeS sAy No CP" give me a reason why I should uphold that norm.

• I prolly think process CPs are another method of doing the plan.
• I think infinite condo on CPs are bad

DA: 5

- All good,weigh them!

Trix: 3

If you want me to vote neg on presumption/AFF risk of solvency/1st speaking team -- warrant out why, don't just yell this. Aka IL how how the trick applies to your presumption, lot of people, miss this. Don't j be like "EMPIRICUS 2 BC *Breath* fehhfuiewhfewhfewfhewewh. Ok next trick"

I think especially in PF this is a bad strat but in LD / Policy I guess I get it a bit more.

I started keeping tally of how many times I voted for Trix: IIIIIIII

Speed: 4

- PF spread fine, I am cool with full policy spread, just make tags distinct from cards ("AND", Slow down). If you aren't sure how distinct your tags are from cards, just speech doc. Also make sure the opponent can understand, or speaks might be hurt. I will call clear twice, then I will give up. People ask what I can flow, I can probably flow up to 300 wpm without a speech doc with card names.

- I will probably not need to use your doc, make your tags really clear, and if ur not clear when spreading I will clear you. if I clear your thrice, your are capped at a 27.

Performance/Non T AFFs : 4

You need to make the ROTB very clear and win it. also PLEASE READ A LINK! Why is the ballot needed? What is my role as the judge? Also like how does ur case link into the ROTB? Make it very clear. Honestly I tend to err K > T so this might be a good strat, but make sure you are ready to win the AFF. Also please tell me why your method is uniquely key.

• If you are hitting a non T aff it isn't enough to tell me the rules are something I must maintain, I say screw the rules unless u tell me why the rules are good.
• Tbh if there isn't a CLEAR method / solvency you're capped at a 26

Presumption:

- Absent presumption warrants given in speech, I default to whoever lost the coinflip.

TKOS: 2

- saves us all time. Typical rules apply, if there's a path to the ballot, you L20, if none, W30. I won't stop round ever -- but if you're right I'll be like ok and stop flowing. Don't really like tho there's always a chance u drop the ball but if u call one go for it. DO NOT LIKE THESE but I'll consider the following

1. A procedural on no speech docs is a TKO vs a team that does not disclose or a team that spreads random paraphrased stuff -- if it's dropped

2. Bad evidence is a TKO -- treat this similar to an NSDA challenge if the ev is crap call it out I won't like it

3. No cut cards is a TKO if it's conceded.

4. Problematic language is a TKO. This includes repeated misgendering or anything of that form. I don't understand why some judges DON'T make this a TKO?

5. Any IVI on a team that says "prefiat offense is bad" is basically a TKO, I won't stop round but lol I'm not going to flow responses to it.

6. Bad haircuts is a TKO. I don't wanna look at your receding hairline. My kids know what I'm talking about. (obviously a joke)

I have experience as a competitor in congressional debate and extemp, but not in other debate formats. Because of this, you should aim to explain your arguments in a way that isn't overly reliant on format-specific knowledge. This doesn't mean that you can't be creative with your arguments, but just that you need to be clear about how your position logically follows from your evidence.

There is no grace time in parliamentary debate!! I stop flowing when your speech time has ended.

When I judge in person, I'm usually waking up like 4 hours earlier than normal, so I tend to yawn a lot during debates. Sorry if it's distracting, and I promise I am not getting bored or falling asleep!

General

These are all ultimately preferences. You should debate the way you want to debate.

For online debate: put texts in the chat for every advocacy/ROTB/interp. Texts are binding.

I'm okay with speed and will slow/clear you if necessary. If you don't slow for your opponents, I will drop you.

I will protect in the PMR but call the POO.

Please give content warnings as applicable. The more the merrier.

A safe debate is my primary consideration as a judge. Do not misgender your opponents. I will not hesitate to intervene against any rhetorically violent arguments.

If any debater requests it, I will stop a round and escalate the situation to Tab, tournament equity, and your coaches. I will also do this in the absence of a request if I feel like something unsafe has occurred and it is beyond my jurisdiction/capacity to deal with it.

Case

Weigh, interact with your opponent's arguments, and signpost!! I prefer when your weighing is contextualized to the argument you want me to vote on, rather than across-the-board generalizations of preferring probability or magnitude. Unwarranted links have zero probability even if they are conceded. Cross-applications need to be contextualized to the new argument.

All types of counterplans are game and so is counterplan theory. Perms are a test of competition. I have no idea what a neg perm is, so if you read one, you have to both justify why the negative is entitled to a perm and also what a neg perm means in the context of aff/neg burdens.

I would prefer it if you cited your sources unless the tournament explicitly prohibits you from doing so. If there is an evidence challenge that affects my ballot, I will vote before I check your evidence, and if I find intentional evidence fabrication, I will communicate that information to tab.

Theory/Topicality

Theory is cool! Please have a clear interpretation and have a text ready. I am happy to vote on whatever layering claims you make regarding theory vs. Ks. In the absence of layering, I will default to theory a priori.

I won't vote on theory shells that police the clothing, physical presentation, or camera usage (for online debate) of debaters. I will evaluate neg K's bad theory, disclosure, and speed theory as objectively as possible, but I don't really like these arguments and probably hack against them. Aff K's bad/T-USfg is fine. I will drop you for reading disclosure in the form of consent/FPIC theory. I'll vote on all other theory shells.

I default to competing interpretations, potential abuse > proven abuse, and drop the argument. To vote for reasonability, I need a clear brightline on what is reasonable. I am neutral on fairness vs. education. I'm neutral on RVIs, but I'll vote for them if you win them. I am good with conditional advocacies, and also good with hearing conditionality theory.

Kritiks

KvK is currently my favorite type of debate to judge. Rejecting the resolution, performance Ks, and framework theory are all fine with me. Please read a role of the ballot. If you are interested in learning more about K debate, please email me and I will send you any resources/answer any questions you may have.

Tech v. Truth

I default to tech over truth, but I probably lean towards truth more than your average tech judge. I'm open to arguments that say I should weigh truth over tech and disregard the flow when technical debate is sidelining disadvantaged teams. I think while technical debate can be a tool for combatting oppression in the debate space, skill at technical debate is definitely correlated with class, income, and whiteness. As such, I'm willing to hear arguments that ask me to devalue the flow in favor of solving a form of violence that has occurred in the round as a result of technical debate.

Miscellaneous

For speaker points, I give 27s as a baseline. I won't go below this unless you are violent or exclusionary. Please answer 1-2 POIs if there isn't flex.

My resting face and my frowning face are the same, and I have very expressive nonverbals– I recognize that this combo can be intimidating/confusing and I strongly urge you not to use my nonverbals as indicators of anything. I promise I don't hate you or your arguments, it's just my face!

Good luck :^)

Greetings!!! I have children that debate at the Middle School and Varsity levels, but personally have limited experience judging. I generally have an open mind and do well at judging an argument on merit, but here’s the kicker - I do not respond well to people talking very quickly or incomprehensibly. Having said that, I look forward to hearing (well) from you!

I'm Lindsey, I am a law student who has some past experience with public forum debate.

My Paradigm

I will vote for the team that presents a stronger logical argument. I will consider arguments on quality of evidence presented, arguments speaking to why your case is impactful, and strength of responses to the opposition's argument.

The New York Post Article

I want to clarify a few things as succinctly as I can for future reference.

1) I do not condone banning topics from discussion or any judging style that automatically disregards a topic based on the subject matter. I have always been open to discussing difficult topics and will continue to be an advocate of freedom of speech.

2) In high school, I did not have access to many debate resources and did not regularly compete at national circuit tournaments (usually we had around 5 teams per tournament). Because of this, I often found advising and judging from online paradigms, forums, or message boards. When I became a Judge briefly, parts of my paradigm were meant to give free advice related to style and decorum. The main point I wanted to convey is that being respectful and genuine about presenting arguments leads to more persuasive argumentation. Contrastingly, utilizing provocative arguments only for the purpose of shocking a judge and winning is less fulfilling. I apologize if my language came across the wrong way, debaters should have the freedom to explore any topic they want

3) I do not support the recent publication of videos of debaters with the intention to shame their argument style. Every debater deserves the autonomy to make arguments that they want without fear of being cancelled or harassed on twitter. I think we should all try to be more open-minded about different ideas and understand that young people will often make mistakes and grow from them. Be respectful, engage with people in a good-faith way, and allow students the space to change their mind.

4) A good lesson for debate (and life) is to always try to understand nuance and different perspectives. I hope that anyone that reads any article (especially an article of this nature) would be intrigued enough to learn more, to contextualize their information, and to understand evidence before drawing conclusions. I will post the full conversation I had with James below for context.

Hi Lindsey: I am writing an article for The Free Press about judging bias in the NSDA. This bias is illustrated by Tabroom paradigms that tell students what they can and can’t say on the basis of politics and ideology.

I am reaching out because you along with other judges and the NSDA are the focus of my reporting. I will be publishing your name and your Tabroom paradigm below. In the interest of fairness and accuracy, I would like to provide you with the opportunity to comment and answer the following questions. I am reporting on the following comment from above:“...if you are white, don't don't run arguments with impacts that primarily affect POC. These arguments should belong to the communities they affect.” 1. What is an example of an argument that you believe a white student could not run because of their race? 2. Why did you eliminate this statement about race from your most recent paradigm update? If you could provide a response by9PM Eastern today (Fri, May 12), that would allow sufficient time for your comments to be incorporated. Best, James T. Fishback --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hey James! I don’t know if it’s exactly my place to say what arguments will/won’t make marginalized communities feel unsafe in the debate space and that’s one reason I updated my paradigm. I want it to ultimately be the debater’s decision, but I want to ensure a team that is directly affected by the argument is comfortable discussing it in the debate space. Another reason I eliminated this sentence was because I incorporated a similar idea in my section about progressive debate and I feel it captures the main idea better: I think debaters should communicate before the round to make sure both teams are aware of what topics will be discussed and are comfortable with it. In essence, I think arguments that may be super hard to argue for communities that are directly involved with the impacts should be discussed prior to the round to ensure debate is fun for everyone. My goal isn’t to “eliminate free speech”, but to have both teams be able to have a productive and fun debate. This kinda goes along with my first comment, but I didn’t eliminate the idea itself. I wanted to clarify later in my paradigm that students should notify one another to see if their opponents are comfortable with a proposed topic. I think these topics are important to be discussed, but not when one team is using the argument as a means to get a win without considering the feelings/experiences of their opponents (especially if their opponents are directly affected by the impact).

I am happy to clarify anything else if needed! Best, Lindsey Shrodek

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

Thanks Lindsey! This is helpful

Re: "I want to ensure a team that is directly affected by the argument is comfortable discussing it in the debate space." If, before a round, a team of black students expresses discomfort about their non-black opponents' case because it details the impacts of defunding the police on black families, would the non-black team still running that argument without consideration for the experiences of their opponents factor into how you chose the winner/assigned speaks?

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

I consider everything that happens in round. The goal of debate is to be a productive, positive-sum experience for everyone, and debaters need to be considerate of that goal when deciding how to run an argument and whether to run it at all. You can look at my updated paradigm if you want more information as the one you have is nearly two years old.

Best, Lindsey Shrodek

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

If you want to know where my intentions lie, please know that I intend to judge every round to its entirety, regardless of subject matter, that is why I wrote to James: "I consider everything that happens in a round." Thank you for reading! :)

I am a volunteer parent judge for three years. Please be respectful to your opponents and don't overuse jargon. Also, please speak clearly and at a pace at which your opponents and I can understand what you're saying. Please be concise with your speeches and don't try and make them longer than they need to be. Off-time road maps are also helpful, and I would appreciate you using them. It is easiest for me to vote for a team/debater when they have a clear speech and good rebuttals to attacks on their case.

Email: annesmith@lclark.edu.

Experience: Currently, I'm a third year competitor in NFA-LD at Lewis & Clark College. In high school, I did congress, parli and extemp in Southern California.

TL/DR: I like disads, case arguments, probable impacts, and smart analytics. I tend to be less willing to vote on frivolous theory or T and have a higher threshold for K solvency than most judges. I don't like progressive arguments in PF, extemp debate, and big questions. I'm okay with spreading in policy and prog LD.

General: I tend to lean in the direction of tech over truth, but if an argument is super blippy and blatantly factually untrue (eg a one sentence analytic about the sky being green) or I feel that at the end of the round I don't understand it well enough to explain it to another person, I'm not voting for it even if it was conceded. I vote for the winner of key arguments in the round and lean in the direction of preferring the quality of arguments over quantity of arguments.

Speed: I do a fast format. I'm okay with spreading in formats where it is standard practice (Policy and prog LD). I'll call "clear" or "slow" if you are being unclear or I can't keep up, which doesn't happen too often. If you spread, I appreciate it if you make it clear when one card ends and a new one begins (eg saying NEXT or AND between each card, going slower on tags, etc). I'm very willing to vote on speed theory if there is a genuine accessibility need (a novice in a collapsed division, disability impacting ability to understand fast speech, etc) or it's a format like PF; otherwise I tend to find "get good" to be a valid response.

In formats were spreading isn't standard practice, I don't have a problem people who talk faster than they would in a normal conversation, as long as a lay person could understand your rate of delivery.

Impact stuff: Like most judges, I love it when the debaters in all formats do impact calculus and explain why their impacts matter more under their framework. When this doesn't happen, I default to weighing probability over magnitude and scoop and using reversibility and timeframe as tiebreakers. I’m open to voting on impact turns (eg. democracy bad, CO2 emissions good), as long as you aren't say, impact turing racism.

Evidence: I care about the quality and relevance of evidence over the quantity. I'm more willing to vote on analytics in evidentiary debate than most judges and I honestly would prefer a good analytic link to a DA or K over a bad generic carded one. I'm willing to vote your opponets down if you call them on egregious powertagging.

Plans and case debate: In formats with plans, I love a good case debate. I will vote on presumption, but like all judges I prefer having some offense to vote on. I'm more willing to buy aff durable fiat arguments (for example, SCOTUS not overturning is part of durable fiat) than most judges. Unless a debater argues otherwise, presumption flips to whoever's advocacy changes the squo the least.

CPs: If you want to read multiple CPs, I prefer quality over quantity. I consider the perm to be a test of competition, rather than an advocacy. I’m more willing than most judges to vote on CP theory (for example, multi-plank CPs bad, PICs bad, no non-topical CPs, etc).

Kritiks: I'm willing to vote on Ks in policy, prog LD, and parli, but I think I'm less inclined to than most. I like it when kritiks have specific links and strong, at least somewhat feasible alternatives. I'm not super familiar with K lit outside of cap, neolib, and SetCol; hence, I appreciate clear and thorough explanations. I'm more willing to vote on no solves, perms, and no links than most judges. I think I’m more likely to vote for anti-K theory (utopian fiat bad, alt vagueness, etc) and perms more than most judges.

I'm not dogmatically opposed to voting on K affs, but I tend to find the standard theory arguments read against them persuasive. If you do read a K aff, I like specific links to the topic and a clear, at least somewhat specific advocacy.

Theory and T: Unless one of the debaters argues otherwise, I default to reasonability, rejecting the team, and voting on potential or proven abuse when evaluating theory and T. I do tend find arguments in favor of only voting on proven abuse convincing. I don’t like voting on most spec, and topicality based on wording technicalities, but sometimes it happens. Trying to win a frivolous theory sheet (for example, if we win our coach will let us go to the beach, e-spec when your opponent specified in cross, etc) in front of me is an uphill battle. I’ll vote on RVIs in very rare circumstances, as long as you explain why the sheet’s unfairness was particularly egregious. I'm less willing to vote on disclosure theory than most, but I'm very willing to consider "this case wasn't disclosed, therefore you should give analytics extra weight" type arguments.

Format specific stuff:

High school LD: I'm okay with plans, CP, spreading, theory, and Ks in LD if both participants in the round are or if you're in a specific prog LD division. In prog LD, I tend to error aff on 1AR theory because of the time trade off. One condo CP is probably fine, anything more than that and I'll find condo bad pretty persuasive.

Talking about philosophy in trad LD is great; just make sure you explain the basics behind the theories you are using (I’m not a philosophy major for a reason). In trad LD, I think it's fine (and strategic) to agree with your opponent's framework if it was basically what you were going to use as framework anyway.

Policy: I’m mostly a policymaker judge. On condo, I'm more likely to side with the neg if they read 1 or 2 condo counter advocacies and more likely to side with the aff if they read a bunch or are super contradictory.

PF: I tend not to like Ks in PF; the speech times are too short. PF was designed to be accessible to lay audiences, so I dislike it when debaters use jargon or speed to exclude opponents, but if you both want to debate that way, I won't penalise you.

Parli:I believe that parli is primarily a debate event about making logical arguments and mostly writing your case in prep. As such, I'm very willing to consider analytics and dislike hyper-generic arguments (generic impact statistics and positions that link to multiple things in the topic area are fine, just don't run a case that would apply to most resolutions). I almost never vote for generic Ks in Parli, especially if they are read by the aff. Topic specific Ks that clearly link are okay. While I get a little annoyed by people abuse Point of Order in the rebuttals, please call POO if it is warranted (I don’t protect the flow unless you call them out). Unless there is a rule against it, tag teaming is totally fine, but I only consider arguments given by the person giving that speech.

hi qorls call me hope
she/they | email: hopesmothers@lclark.edu

yup that's right, u got a speech kid judging ur debate round.

I'm a 4th year at LC, primarily speech but I did some humble debate in addition. I've been competing for 8 years, now I serve as the National Student Representative for the Collegiate National Forensic Association. In HS, I had some interp TOC and NSDA outrounds and fortunately a couple placings and state titles as well. In college, some tournament titles and platform/interp breaks at NFA. I've been around, got the trauma to prove it (´༎ຶٹ༎ຶ)

I have some experience in LD and PF from high school. So I'll break down some generals and then specific—

Me to the debater spreading: "I CaN speAK FaST But I'M acTUaLly JuSt GATeKEepINg"

lol speed's fine for the most part. I'm a speech kid though so if u pathos it up I'll be more engaged, don't spread through your tags. Also, don't be afraid to call clear or speed on your opponent/don't be surprised if I call it on you; debate should (and in my round, WILL) be accessible*. The norms that currently guide debate elevate form over content, and that's dumb but I get it, do what you gotta do to keep afloat in the norm waves.

I'm tab, do whatever you like, make me laugh, bribe me, let's have a good ol time.

30's for everyone, unless ur intolerant and/or a shithead, do some reflection if warranted.

Send an email or ask for clarification if needed and advocate for your needs in round, I'll listen.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LD

Theory: So while I'm all for your hijinx on the T page, spoon feed this speech kid. I want everybody to read what makes them buzz but keep in mind what I am capable of comprehending based on my experiences. I have found I am more persuaded by proven abuse than hypothetical abuse on a T flow but that isn't an absolute.

K: perm doesn't work as offense.

I evaluate on the line-by-line and appreciate your ability to group & get into substantive arguments rather than blippy sentences that touch each line.

I generally advise that you don't assume you have a 100% chance in terms of the strength of link to your impact scenario, you should explain how it gets to that point with 100% certainty. I won't just vote what x person/auth. elaborates, but what you elaborate in the context of x person/auth.

CX: If something in CX isn't made in a speech, I didn't hear it and its not on the flow.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PF

I'm flowin, you win my ballot by winning in a technical way the flow.

Cards
I like cards and you should read them.
If you take 5-10 min. on every card call I'll notice and start tanking speaks, you should be able to access cards quickly.

Front Half (AC/NC & AR/NR)
Constructives can be anything, I don't take my own opinions of policy into a debate round.
I will evaluate and abide by the conceded/won framework very strictly and also as an apriori issue unless told otherwise.

Back half (2AC/2NC & 2AR/2NR)
The 3 min. summary in my eyes is something that just puts more onus on the 1st speaker to do more weighing/analysis than blippy line-by-line work.
Summaries that go first need to extend offense on the other teams case (like extend your turns), you don't need to re-extend your defense unless you're making cool tricky pivots.
Summaries that go second should do the same thing & handle defense on your case.

FF
Please frame/weigh your impacts, if you don't go for your f/w or try to win under the f/w in ff it's prob a really bad thing for you in my eyes.

Theory
I don't vote on disclosure or formal clothes. I look down on these args being read in round, especially in this event.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Accessibility/Speed: you need to be capable of making speech docs & sending them out for the opponent and the judge if you're going to start spreading. This needs to be done in a reasonable amount of time and I won't wait around to make this a more viable option for you if you come unprepared. If you choose to spread, you should be able to take on the accessibility accommodations that go with it*
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Email: haltonstancil@gmail.com

---For everything---

• NO SPREADING PLEASE!

- Remember to speak clearly and concisely!

-Make sure your arguments are explicitly explainable

-Roadmap and signpost, keep consistent organization throughout the round, number your points

- Refer to your tags/author’s content for referencing cards instead of “author date”, makes evidence way easier to identify during rebuttals and extensions

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

General: I have experience with debating/judging policy and congress. Clash is the #1 biggest thing I want to see in a round.

Stock issues/T: Stock issues debate makes for a great round, style is not always imperative. T is fine, but I often find that the argument chains don't provide the debate with a meaningful/educational impact.

K's/CPs: K's and CP's are great! My experience is financial/economic IR-interrelated theory, but please be creative.

Pronouns: He/Him/His.

* note for TOC * judge paradigms that include things like "I will drop you if you run a kritik," you just don't want black, indigenous, and students of color to access this space and it shows.

Specifics for Parli:

I am the Head Coach of Parliamentary Debate at the Nueva School.

ON THE LAY VS. FLOW/ TECH FIGHT: Both Lay (Rhetorical, APDA, BP, Lay) and Tech (Flow, NPDA, Tech) can be called persuasive for different reasons. That is, the notion that Lay is persuasive and Tech is something else or tech is inherently exclusionary because it is too narrowly focused on the minutiae of arguments is frankly non-sense, irksome, and dismissive of those who don’t like what the accuser does. I think the mudslinging is counter-productive. Those who do debate and teach it are a community. I believe we ought to start acting like it. I have voted for tech teams over lay teams and lay teams over tech teams numerous times. One might say that I do both regularly. Both teams have the responsibility to persuade me. I have assumptions which are laid out in this paradigm. I am always happy to answer specific or broad questions before the round and I am certain that I ask each team if they would like to pose such questions before EVERY round. I do not want to hear complaints about arguments being inaccessible just because they are Ks or theoretical. Likewise, I do not want to hear complaints that just because a team didn’t structure their speeches in the Inherency, Link, Internal Link, Impact format those arguments shouldn’t be allowed in the round.

Resolution Complications: Parli is tough partly because it is hard to write hundreds of resolutions per year. A very small number of people do the bulk of this for the community, myself being one of them. I am sympathetic to both the debaters and the topic writers. If the resolution is skewed, the debater has to deal with the skew in some fashion. This can mean running theory or a K. It can also mean building a very narrow affirmative and going for high probability impacts or solvency and just winning that level of the debate. There are ways to win in most cases, I don’t believe that the Aff should be guaranteed all of the specific ground they could be. Often times these complaints are demands to debate what one is already familiar with and avoid the challenge of unexplored intellectual territory. Instead, skew should be treated as a strategic thinking challenge. I say this because I don’t have the power to change the resolution for you. My solution is to be generous to K Affs, Ks, and theory arguments if there is clear skew in one direction or another.

Tech over truth. I will not intervene. Consistent logic and completed arguments these are the things which are important to me. Rhetorical questions are neither warrants nor evidence. Ethos is great and I’ll mark you on the speaker points part of the ballot for that, but the debate will be won and lost on who did the better debating.

Evidence Complications: All evidence is non-verifiable in Parli. So, I can’t be sure if someone is being dishonest. I would not waste your time complaining about another teams’ evidence. I would just indict it and win the debate elsewhere on the flow. However, there are things that I can tell you aren’t good evidence: WIKIPEDIA, for example. Marking and naming the credentials of your sources is doable and I will listen to you.

Impacts are important and solvency is important. I think aff cases, CPs, Ks should have these things for me to vote on them. If the debate has gone poorly, I highly advise debaters to complete (terminalize) an impact argument. This will be the first place I go when I start evaluating after the debate. Likewise, inherency is important. If you don’t paint me a picture of a problem(s) that need solving, should I vote for you? No, I shouldn’t. Make sure you are doing the right sorts of storytelling to win the round.

If there is time, I ALWAYS give an oral RFD which teams are ALWAYS free to record unless I say otherwise. I will do my best to also provide written feedback, but my hope is that the recorded oral will be better. I do not disclose in prelims unless the tournament makes me.

My presumption is that theory comes first unless you tell me otherwise. I’m more than happy to vote on K Framework vs. Theory first debates in both directions.

I flow POI answers.

Basically, I will vote for anything if it’s a completed argument. But, I don’t like voting on technicalities. If your opponent clearly won the holistic flow, I’m not going to vote on a blippy extension that I don’t’ understand or couldn’t summarize back to you simply.

Speaker points:

BE NICE AND PROFESSIONAL. Debate is not a competitive, verbal abuse match. Debaters WILL be punished on speaker points for being rude (beyond the normal flare of intense speeches) or abusive. Example: saying your opponent is wrong or is misguided is fine. Saying they are stupid is not. Laughing at opponents is bullying and unprofessional. Don’t do it.

Theory:

I’m more than happy to evaluate anything. I prefer education voters to fairness voters. It is “reject the argument” unless you tell me otherwise. Tell me what competing interpretations and reasonability mean. I’m not confident most know what it means. So, I’m not going to guess. Theory should not be used as a tool of exclusion. I don’t like Friv-theory in principle although I will vote on it. I would vastly prefer links that are real, interps that are real, and a nuanced discussion of scenarios which bad norms create. Just saying “neg always loses” isn’t enough. Tell me why and how that would play out.

Counter Plans:

Delay CPs and Consult CPs are evil, but I will vote for them.

The CP needs to be actually competitive. You also need a clear CP text. Actual solvency arguments will be much rewarded and comparative solvency arguments between the CP and the Plan will be richly rewarded.

DAs:

Uniqueness does actually matter. Simplicity is your friend. Signpost what is what and have legitimate links. Give me a clear internal link story. TERMINALIZE IMPACTS. This means someone has to die, be dehumanized, etc.. If the other team has terminalized impacts and you don’t, very often, you are going to lose.

Kritiques:

I was a K debater in college, but I have come around to be more of a Case, DA, Theory coach. I also have a Ph.D in History and wrote a dissertation on the History of Capitalism. What does that mean? It means, I can understand your K and I am absolutely behind the specific sort of education that Ks provide. That being said a few caveats.

Out of round discussion is a false argument and I really don’t want to vote for it. Please don’t make me.

Performances are totally fine and encouraged. But, they had better be real. Being in the round talking isn’t enough, you need warrants as to why the specific discussion we are having in the debate on XYZ topic is uniquely fruitful. Personal narratives are fine. If you are going to speak in a language other than English, please provide warrants as to why that is productive for me AND your opponents. I speak Japanese, I will not flow arguments given in that language.

I would prefer that you actually have a rough understanding of what you are reading. I don't think you should get to win because you read the right buzzwords.

Alternatives:

Alternatives need to be real. If they put offense on the Alt, you are stuck with that offense and have to answer it. Perms probably link into the K, please don’t make me vote for a bad perm.

Impacts:

I am less likely to vote against an aff on a K for something they might do. I am very likely to vote on rhetoric turns, i.e. stuff they did do. That is, if you are calling them racist and they say something racist, please point it out. Your impacts compete, but that doesn’t mean that you don’t have to answer their theory arguments or make your own. I would encourage you to show how your impacts compete pre- and post-fiat. Fiat isn’t illusory unless you make it so and extend it.

There is also a difference between calling the aff bad or it’s ideology bad and the debater a bad person. In general, debaters should proceed as if everyone is acting in good faith. That doesn’t mean that rhetoric links don’t function or that I won’t vote on the K if you accuse your opponent of promoting bad norms--intellectual, ideological, social, cultural, political, etc.. However, if one takes the pedagogical and ethical assumptions of the K seriously, Ks should not be used as a weapon of exclusion. No one has more of a right to debate than another. To argue otherwise is to weaponize the K. We want to exclude those norms and that knowledge which are violent and destructive to communities and individuals. We also probably want to exclude those who intentionally spread bad norms and ideology. However, I severely doubt that a 15-year-old in a high school debate round in 2022 is guaranteed to understand the full theoretical implications of a given K or their actions. As such, attacking the norms and ideology (e.g. the aff or res or debate) is a much better idea. It opens the door to educate others rather than just beating them. It creates healthy norms wherein we can become a stronger and more diverse community.

Framework:

I love clean framework debates. I hate sloppy ones. If you are running a K, you probably need to put out a framework block. I would love to have that on a separate sheet of paper.

Links:

Links of omission are vexing. There is almost always a way to generate a link to your K based on something specifically in the aff case. Please put the work in on this front.

Case:

I love case debate, a lot. Terminal defense usually isn’t enough to win you the debate. But defensive arguments are necessary to build up offensive ones in many cases. Think hard about whether what you’re running as a DA might be better served as a single case turn. Please be organized. I flow top of case and the advantages on a separate sheet.

Specifics for Public Forum:

Please give me overviews and tell me what the most important arguments are in the round.

Evidence:

Unless we are in Finals or Semis, I'm not going to read your evidence. I'm evaluating the debate, not the research that you did before the debate. If the round is really tight and everyone did a good job, I am willing to use quality of evidence as a tie-breaker. However, in general, I'm not going to do the work for you by reading the evidence after the round. It's your responsibility to narrate what's going on for me and to collapse down appropriately so that you have time to do that. If you feel like you don't have time to tell me a complete story, especially on the impact level, you are probably going for too much.

Refutation consistency:

I don't have strong opinions regarding whether you start refutation or defense in the second or third speech. However, if things are tight, I will reward consistent argumentation and denser argumentation. That means the earlier you start an argument in the debate, the higher the likelihood that I will vote on it. Brand new arguments in the 4th round of speeches are not going to get much weight.

Thresholds for voting on solvency:

PF has evidence and for good reason. But, that doesn't mean that you can just extend a few buzzwords on your case if you are going for solvency and win. You have to tell me what your key terms mean. I don't know what things like "inclusive growth" or "economic equity" or "social justice" mean in the context of your case unless you tell me. You have 4 speeches to give me these definitions. Take the time to spell this stuff out. Probably best to do this in the first speech. Remember, I'm not going to read your evidence after the round except in extreme circumstances and even then...don't count on it. So, you need to tell me what the world looks like if I vote Pro or Con both in terms of good and bad outcomes.

Theory:

I haven't come across any theory in PF yet that made any sense. I'm experienced in theory for Policy and Parli. If there are unique variations of theory for PF, take the time to explain them to me.

Kritiques:

There isn't really enough speaking time to properly develop a fleshed out K in PF. However, I would be more than happen to just vote on impact turns like Cap Bad, for example. If you want to run K arguments, I would encourage you to do things of that sort rather than a fully shelled out K.

Specifics for Circuit Policy:

Evidence: I'm not going to read your cards, it's on you to read them clearly enough for me to understand them. You need to extend specific warrants from the cards and tell me what they say. Blippy extensions of tag lines aren't enough to get access to cards.

Speed:

Go nuts. I can keep up with any speed as long as you are clear.

For all other issues see my parli paradigm, it's probably going to give you whatever you want to know.

Specifics for Lay Policy:

I do not understand the norm distinctions between what you do and circuit policy.

As such, I'm going to judge your rounds just like I would any Policy round --> Evidence matters, offense matters more than defense, rhetoric doesn't matter much. Rhetorical questions or other forms of unwarranted analysis will not be flowed. You need to extend arguments and explain them. If you have specific questions, please ask.

TL;DR: Don't be rude or discourteous; speak well and clearly

parli and extemp mainly in hs but i dabbled in almost everything

Debate:

Run what you want, as long as it isn't morally reprehensible (i.e. kill all puppies). I prefer fewer, well created arguments with solid warranting and reasoning. Walk me through the link chains and terminalize your impacts and the debate will be so much more educational that way.

the more you can genuinely enjoy giving ur speech and make me laugh the higher i will score you

I'm totally and completely fine with tech/theory arguments and default on reasonability unless told to otherwise.

Speaking:

Please don't spread its unproductive, inacessible, and unpersuasive. Make me want to vote for your arguments not just default on # of points scored here and there.

I start speaks at 28 (yw) and go up or down from there, with 1.5 being style and persuasiveness and the other .5 being creativity of arguments. You could be the reincarnation of Churchill himself and still get a 29.5 <3

Speech!!!!:

Don't have much to say to y'all, as speech is very much event based. I judge speech based on how much you are able to meet the intent of your event. I.e. in HI I want to laugh but in Ext I want to come out of it knowing something new about the world. Other than that, as long as you're enjoying the speech you're giving I believe that your best will shine through. Have tons of fun!!

Please ask me for my email before the round as I do like to be on the chain.

He/Him

1) Right before the round? Read this: To quote Miles Gray: "Judge philosophies are a bit silly because it is the exceptionally rare case where an issue must be resolved with reference to the judge’s arbitrary preferences. Usually the debaters make their arguments, one side presents a more comprehensive approach to the important issues and frames the close calls, and then judge votes for that team."

2) Procedural /meta stuff:

- I will not read along with the doc as you give your speech. If you want me to know how awesome your evidence is, you need to do it justice. If there is a card I am perplexed by, I may read it during prep time or cx.

- Please start debates on time, to the minute. The 1AC should be sent with speaker prepared to speak before that minute. A huge pet peeve of mine are teams that are entirely absent until minutes before the round.

- Time your own speeches, track your own prep, and do astute line by line/labeling/signposting.

- I flow straight down, and on paper. I appreciate strong communication habits.

- Debate is a game that plays with ideological flexibility, and quick critical thinking. To me, this means I am indifferent towards content and will evaluate nearly any argument. I reserve the right to draw that line on an ad-hoc basis.

- I believe tech over truth supports objective evaluation of debate rounds, but a fundamental aspect of human communication is that it is not objective. Your performance is as central to the game as the flow. It also doesnt make sense to me to regard truth and ignore tech because to even say truth > tech typically means there will be an answer via tech.

3) How do I decide debate rounds?

It is important to me that students know I will work hard to pay close attention to, and adjudicate the debates I watch.

I will look at my flow

1 - I will always use the path of least intervention. I find that each debate has a few key questions that typically determine the direction of the round. If one of those key questions is entirely conceded and there are no cross applications that sufficiently answer it (or if those cross applications happen too late) I will usually vote against the team that has technically conceded important portions of the debate. Please minimize intervention as much as possible by writing my ballot for me(tying it all together + using argument resolution)

I will look at my flow

2 - I will isolate those key issues of the debate and cross examine myself about how they happened in the debate. (what abouts, is this new, are there answers to answers unanswered, etc) In an ideal world, most of the thinking is done by you, telling me how to think about it. If you want to leave it up to me to think about it, be my guest.

Then I will look at my flow

3 - I will read evidence on those key issues to see how the evidence supports the answers.

I will look at my flow again

4 - I will pause to fill in speaker points.

I will look at my flow some more

5- rfd time

6 - QnA;

4) Speaker point guide

- If you're good at debate, you'll get good speaks.

- CX is my favorite speech in debate, unfortunately, it's usually the one I find most disappointing. Sometimes less is more.

- I love debate! I smile, I nod, I shake my head. My eyebrows wiggle. This is not necessarily an indication of winning or losing the round/any particular argument, I'm just vibing. If you make me laugh, bonus speaks for you!

If you are antagonistic to your opponents, I am going to give you a 26. Full stop. I am not cool with being rude to opponents. By all means, be witty, sarcastic, sassy, humorous, I like that stuff. Personal attacks are uncool.

Email chain: sophiaw1128@gmail.com

I did PF for four years, coached since graduating

flay --------> me ----------------------> ultra tech policy judge

Wear whatever you want, speak from wherever you want, doesn't matter

Default framing util, default weighing is highest mag first, presume first

Strike Guide:

Link spamming (10> in a case) and dumping frivolous progressive args will only hurt you

Trigger warnings are mandatory on sensitive/graphic content. Don't do anything violent/exclusionary. Clear and obvious violations to the average person that are pointed out = L20. Even if it's not pointed out you're probably not getting higher than a 25

Tech:

I judge substance better than I judge prog, keep that in mind, that being said -

Things that I am comfortable with:

Theory, Stock Ks, most frameworks ran in pf

Theory:

CI>R, DTA, no RVIs, text by default but up for debate

Should be read immediately after violation, depending on the situation (experience level, impromptu theory) I am OK with forgetting to extend interp or violation if there are no responses on it. Standards and voters need to be in every speech.

In messy theory debates with multiple shells involved. You must weigh in order to prevent me from intervening.

You can paraphrase or not disclose as long as you respond well to their respective shells. I don't mandate either nor am I biased towards those particular standards. I will also evaluate things like theory bad if you win it on the flow.

K:

Important: I will judge Ks using the mechanisms that doing pf has given me. Do not expect me to understand policy jargon or know how to implicate your literature properly. You know your own K best, so if you're going to real Ks please spend enough time telling me exactly how you want me to evaluate it. Otherwise it'll just be an uninformed ballot.

I am most familiar with stock Ks: fem, cap/sec etc, so if you're reading more niche K make sure to be extra diligent about implicating it.

Shells almost always uplayers the K, so you need to read counterinterp of respond to shells read, just weighing may not be enough (again depends on the K)

Things that I am not familiar with:

T, Tricks, High Theory/unnecessarily complicated philosophy

pls no

Speed:

Send doc

Speaks:

Speaks are given based on strategy/content instead of rhetoric/fluency. I give 30s. My baseline is 28. I rarely go below that.

Speeches:

Constructive:

Just be clear, I’ll vote on anything as long as it’s warranted

Rebuttals:

If you want to concede defense to kick out of turns on your case, or read your own defense on your own case to kick those turns (sketch, but fine), you need to do it immediately after the opposing speech which made those turns. Second rebuttal should frontline. if your opponents bring up weighing in first rebuttal it is okay to not address it until summary. I don't evaluate "no warrant" responses unless you give me counter-warranting, link weighing, or some degree of implication.

Summary:

Defense is not sticky and needs to be in every speech. That being said, the extent to which I'll tolerate blippy extensions is directly inverse to how much ink your opponent puts on said thing you're extending. At the minimum, I need link + Impact + implication.

Final Focus:

Be smart with ff strategy, easiest way to win me over as a judge.

Interact, weigh, go for the right things

Feel free to postround, it is good and educational. But please only do so if the round ends before 10pm, otherwise just email me

1. Don't spread: speak clearly so I (and your opponents) can clearly understand you.

2. Don't run Ks: focus on the substantive issues of the resolution being debated.

3. Most importantly, be civil: ad hominem is the easiest way to lose a round.

Hey everyone!

I’m a parent judge and don’t have a lot of experience judging.

For the november/december topic, I would say that I have enough knowledge on the topic to understand most arguments.

Please do not run any squirrely arguments.

I am more of a truth>tech judge rather than a tech>truth judge.

I vote off of what makes the most sense to me. If you want to win my ballot, then you need to explain your argument thoroughly. I would rather you spend all of your speeches explaining your argument rather than spend the whole time talking about your opponents case.

Weighing is important but Case is the most important thing in the round.

Please do not speak fast, a 600 - 700 word case would be preferable.

I do speaks off of how well I can understand you.

I have a background in policy debate, so that means that I like structure and specific impacts. Other than that, I am pretty tabula rasa. Please tell me how you win this debate with discussions of burdens and weighing mechanisms. In Oregon Parliamentary, I am not a huge fan of Ks because I do not think you have enough time to prepare one properly, but I will vote on one if the opp links into it hard, like you can show me how they are specifically being sexist, racist, trans/homophobic, etc.

I've judged multiple Parli rounds including some rounds on the national circuit. I likeb analysis more than speed and breadth. Rebuttal speeches should articulate in simple term. The debaters should stay calm, even and respectful.