I have coached debate since 1971, beginning at Manchester (now Manchester Essex) from 1971-2005, and now at Waring School since 2005. I have coached national champions in both policy debate and public forum debate, so I can flow a debate. I am a "tabula rasa" judge, meaning that I believe that the debaters (and not my personal opinions or delivery preferences) will determine what issues and arguments should win the debate. I grew up in Kansas and debated for Topeka West High School (1962-65), where all judges were citizens of the host community. All of our debate was conducted in front of "citizen judges." That's what I believe is most important in PFD. The event was designed so that it would be persuasive to an intelligent and attentive member of the "public." For that reason, I feel that the delivery, argumentation, and ethos of the debaters should be directly accessible to such an audience. I do agree that dropped arguments are conceded in the debate and that NEW arguments in the final speeches should be ignored. I love it when debaters are directly responsive to the arguments of the other side, letting me know on a point by point basis where they are on the flow. I also honor those debaters who show courtesy to their opponents, who have a sense of humor, and who tell the truth about what they have said. I expect that all evidence will be ethically researched and presented in the debate. I will penalize (with points) any debaters who are sarcastic, demeaning of opponents, or biased in terms of race, religion, sexual orientation, or social class. I will always be happy to talk with you about any decision I make as well as to show you my flow and explain how I assessed the debate. I will do this AFTER I have submitted my ballot. In recent years, I have been spending more of my time in tab rooms than judging, but I truly enjoy the time I can spend in the back of the room. In these trying times, you debaters are our hope for the future, naming FACT-BASED arguments about important issues.

Tim Averill (timaverill@comcast.net) 978-578-0540

I have been judging PF for three years. I flow to capture and compare both arguments I appreciate the need for speed, but also ask that competitors don't speak so quickly, I can't understand them. Respect for other debaters during and after the rounds is very important. Be assertive, certainly, but rudeness is unnecessary. I appreciate debaters who have clearly prepared well and researched their topic sufficiently to be able to address unexpected ideas or approaches to a topic.

Hi! I debate PF at Newton South High School!

If u have any questions feel free to msg me on facebook messenger or email me @drormia@gmail.com

creds to janani ganesh <33

general stuff

a. i think weighing is like THE MOST IMPORTANT THING in a round pls weigh and give a strong narrative

b. tech ----------------x-------------------------------------- truth

speed/speech:

- u can speak fast but not like extremely fast, try to go like conversational speed

- if u have a speaking disability (ex. stuttering) lemme know before round or msg me but if you dont feel comfortable telling me im not gonna tank anyone speaks for stuttering [the same applies for any other like disablity, i want to make debate as inclusive as possible]

- if ur opponents tell u to slow down, pls slow down there are many factors why ur opponents may ask u that

however if u r spreading send me and ur opponents a speech doc

content

- WRITE MY BALLOT FOR ME. DO VOTERS (ex. "there are 3 places ur voting for us in this round") i want to spend as little time after the round deciding who won (unless if theres clash ofc which is rly good) and i rly dont want to intervene

- weighing is so crucial. if there is not weighing i will default whoever's narrative is stronger.

- i hate theory so pls try not to run it. try to treat me like a lay with theory. if ur rly pressed about running theory/k's ask ur opponents first if they are comfortable cus not everyone has the resources to learn about these kinds of things

- make sure to point out which arguments are conceded/dropped but don't lie or i will be sad

cross x

- i dont vote off cross but i will be listening

- make sure ur not just asking clarifying questions but attacking their stance as well

- if both of yall run out of things to say just ask ur opponents how their day was

- dont be rude but be assertive pls i wanna see confidence!!

Debate should be a safe and inclusive environment, if you ever feel unsafe/uncomfortable before or during round pls feel free to reach out to me at my email: drormia@gmail.com

I'm excited to judge all of you! Let’s make every round a fun round!

I am a senior at the Waring school and have been debating since the beginning of my freshman year.

I vote based on responsiveness to the opponents' argument and the ability to support claims through strong evidence or reasoning. Please remember to carry through your reasoning as well as your impacts to the later speeches in the round. I will not consider new evidence that is brought up in grand cross or final focus.

I believe that a good debate has a balance of truth and tech. Debate is about a balance of the two. A strong debater can effectively use rhetoric, evidence, and strategy in a round.

Please be respectful to your opponents, especially in crossfire. Try not to interrupt, unless someone has been speaking for a significant amount of time without asking/answering a question.

I will deduct points for any debaters who are sarcastic, demeaning of opponents, or biased in terms of race, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, or social class.

I will give you +.5 speaker points if you are on the pro and you call your arguments "protentions" instead of contentions.

For CCA Speech and Debate Camp 2019:

Your round, unlike me, shouldn't be a meme.

Experience:

PF for 2 years

Paradigm:

I'm fine with speed, but preferably, go slower because then I can capture more of your links in more detail. If you are going significantly fast, send me your speech at gupta.debate@gmail.com before the round.

WARRANT! WARRANT! WARRANT! Warranting allows an easier way for me to actually have a reason to buy your arguments and could honestly be your best chance at BSing the round.

Please don't make me use my brain and signpost. Signposting makes me like you more and that gives you a ballot. Go down the flow in the order it was made.

Whatever I don't flow didn't happen because I usually don't flow minutiae and useless information or stuff I didn't buy.

I don't pay much attention to cross. Please bring up anything important from crossfire in your next speeches because chances are I will forget it.

Good weighing is an easy way to my ballot (so is bribery jk). Weighing literally shows me exactly why I should vote for you.

Speaker Scale?:

If I'm being honest, I may just RNG your speaker points because I get low speaks every time, so I salty and think they don't matter.

30 speaker points: That's a D2 Heg moment

Roasting Aditya may = auto 30 depending on the roast.

20-29 Speaker Points: My mom's screaming at me to sleep so idk gl

This is my fifth year judging PFD. I did not debate in high school or college, so I try to approach PFD as a "citizen judge." When I listen to a debate, I track a lot of factors. The three most important factors are: 1) citing information sources and demonstrating that you performed solid research and know your topic, 2) expressing a clear set of contentions and subpoints, 3) and how well you listen to your opponents and attack their argument.

In terms of delivery, I favor slow or medium pace and clear, well developed arguments.

Finally, it is important that each team respects its opponents. I understand that debates can get exciting, but I do not like to see opponents interrupting or talking over each other too much in crossfire. Good luck today.

Experience: 4 year pf debater at Milton High School

Add me to the email chain: Anderson.Korman.03@gmail.com

For Novice: If you can listen to some of the things listed below, great and your path to the ballot may be a bit cleaner. However, I didn't even know what 95% of this meant as a novice so don't sweat it if you're confused. If you are confused with what any of this means, feel free to ask me before/after the round, or send me an email and I'll be happy to help.

For Varsity: The guidelines below are mainly for you and when judging varsity rounds, I expect that they are followed in round. If you have any questions or need clarification, please feel free to ask before/after the round or by emailing me afterwards.

I don't love judge intervention so I'll track your time for my own purposes, but I expect you to cut yourself off at a reasonable time. A few seconds over will not hurt anyone so don't worry and just finish your thought. Its only if you drone on that you'll probably be cut off.

I'm probably not going to vote off of a set framework unless both teams provide one so better to just not read it in the first place. However, if you do read it then I expect you stick with it throughout the whole of the round, and dropping your framework is akin to dropping weighing in general.

Warrants are key and therefore though I prefer a logical argument over an illogical one, I will definitely vote for a well warranted argument regardless of likelihood.

I am most likely going to vote for the biggest impact in the round, but if there is a smaller impact argued better or more logically I could also place my ballot there, just convince me why your smaller impact outweighs the larger one.

Speed is fine but I prefer debaters who speak clearly over any form of speed. Remember that if I can't understand you, the chance of winning my ballot is slim to none.

In-Round:

Extensions need to be full throughout the round: no extension means the point can't be voted on in final.

I would prefer if you collapse in the 2nd half of the round, as that just makes my decision even easier.

I will listen to cross but will not flow it: any points that you want me to vote off of should be brought up in a subsequent speech. The only exception to this is if someone concedes something huge to the round. Even if I'm not flowing a whole cross I'm still listening and so treat cross as important as other speeches because in my experience it can be where rounds are won or lost.

I encourage aggressiveness in cross, including "tag teams" in GX, as long as these are not overly aggressive or are aggressive simply for the sake of aggressiveness; there should be some intent behind how you act in cross.

Weighing should start as early in the round as possible and a weighing mechanism carried throughout the round is preferred.

Whichever team gives the 2nd rebuttal should frontline during that speech.

Cards and Extensions:

Taglines and signposting are not only appreciated but expected, and teams that do not do either/both will both get lower speaks and have a harder time winning.

When citing evidence, I need you to not just read me a card, but also to implicate (tell me why it's important). Cards without any implication will not be weighed in the scope of the round unless neither team implicates a single card.

When carrying through a card, I am fine with you just citing the name of the author/source (however it is cited in case) insofar as you also tell me what it says. This can be brief and does not have to be a direct quote, I simply need to hear that you are carrying the point through and why the point is relevant.

Overall:

The debate space should be as accessible as possible, and as such I will not tolerate any form of discriminatory language, whether it be racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, etc. If I see any of this in a round, I will end it and give the other team a win while the offending team will both receive the lowest speaks possible.

If you ask for any evidence, I expect you to use it during the round in some way. Please do not stall time by asking for evidence, especially when it does not pertain to the main aspects of the argument. However, I think that asking for evidence is especially important and encourage teams to ask for evidence, simply to maintain restraint in asking for excessive amounts of evidence. Along that same line, I am only going to look at a card if you ask me to, or else I don't really see a need to base my ballot on 1 piece of evidence that nobody called for.

Progressive Argumentation:

No counterplans please!

I will evaluate most basic progressive arguments (disclosure, topicality, content warning etc), and have some experience with them. If you think it would work, run it and I'll do my best.

I have very little experience/knowledge about how Kritiks work so if you wanted to run one it would have to be explained well, but I am again more than happy to hear it.

Overall Notes:

I love a good turn so I will vote along with turns as long as they are well warranted; a turn with no warranting is just as useless as if you don't implicate a card.

Overall, just have fun! Debaters often fall into the trap of losing all the fun of competing and it always looks like some kids are here like its a chore. I will always favor debaters that bring a fun energy to the activity.

I debated four years of public forum debate in high school for The Altamont School and now do APDA at Brown U.

I consider myself to be a really normal judge and don't have any really interesting demands, but here are some things that can help guide how you take on the round!

1) PRE-FLOW: please preflow before round! I will not let yall do it in the room if the round should have started already.

2) EXPLANATION: contextualize cards; explain why they are important and how they support your point/ interact with your opponents case. not doing this makes it really difficult as a judge to understand how you want the round to play out and usually leads to forced intervention

3) 2ND SPEAKING TEAM: you gotta cover turns in 2nd rebuttal. if you don't cover turns then it is offense for the first speaking team.

4) 1ST SPEAKING TEAM: you can extend defense from first rebuttal to final focus but pls try to have some in first summary. I expect at least some defense in 1st summary, especially since there are 3 minutes for the summary now.

5) WEIGHING: even if something is "clean-dropped" you still need to weigh it. I will have a hard time voting on any argument (no matter how cleanly extended) if I am not sure why it's important.

6) ARGUMENTS

A)if you are making an argument about harms to countries that are viewed as "developing" by a western hierarchical perspective, or discussing in your case or in weighing, please be respectful and don't make your own uncarded analysis about the struggles these countries have. I would also prefer not to hear weighing analyses about these countries that mention anything about "these countries have so little" etc.

B) if you are running an implementation/process of getting the bill to the public argument, do so at your own risk. I generally do not find these arguments persuasive or topical, and chances are that if your opponent says I should not evaluate those kind of arguments in a debate round I will drop it from my flow. An example of this is "the united states should not pass ____ because it would be torn up in the courts/loaded with riders."

C) if you are running an econ argument, please be sure to explain it really well in extensions in ff and summary. in my experience, econ rounds are the most difficult to judge because of clarity problems in link extensions and warranting, so make sure you spend time explaining it!

7) EXTENSIONS: don't extend through ink. interact with the argument you are responding to and dont just say "my opponents dropped ___" when they really did not. Frequent issues with extensions through ink lead to lower speaker points and a worse round :(

8) EVIDENCE: I will call for cards you tell me to call for if they are highly important to the debate round. I will also call for any card that seems too good to be true. Evidence ethics is very important and I will intervene if I catch faulty evidence

Alex Li (He/Him/His)

Acton Boxborough '24

Lincoln-Douglas Debater at AB

Email: alexli01890@gmail.com

———————————————————————

I prefer tech > truth. I’m okay with speed and any progressive arguments (K’s, Theory)

I’m most familiar with traditional LD so feel free to run any phil args

I debated for four years in Public Forum on the national circuit for Acton-Boxborough Regional High School in Massachusetts. I'm currently a policy analysis major at Indiana University.

General Stuff:

• Tech > truth, mostly.

• You do not need defense in the first summary unless the second rebuttal frontlines.

• I am not that familiar with progressive arguments (Theory, K, etc.) so I might have a bit more trouble understanding them. If there is an abuse in round, you can just call it out in speech; it doesn't have to be formatted as a shell.

• I default to the first speaking team.

• A lot of times (I did it too) debaters will see that their judge is a past debater and just spread random cards without warrants. Understand that I still know the topic a lot less than you do. You still have to read warrants and explicate them for me to understand what your argument is.

Things I Like:

• Although I do not require it, I love it when teams frontline efficiently in the second rebuttal. I think it is strategic to do so and it makes for a better debate in my opinion.

• I will always prefer smart analytics over unwarranted cards. If you read some nuke war scenario and your opponents question why war has never occurred it is not enough for you to just drop evidence and say it post dates. Interact with the warrants and show me why your side is stronger.

• Weighing is super important for my ballot. If you do not show me why your arguments matter more than your opponents I will not know how to vote and my ballot might get crazy.

Things I Do Not Like:

• Disads/offensive overviews are yucky, especially in second rebuttal. It gives insecure energy, like "I don't know how to respond to an argument so you're just reading another piece of offense to crowd it out on the flow". My threshold for responses to these are low.

• I do not like new responses in final focus that are disguised as “JuSt WeiGhiNg.” I will notice and it will not be on my flow.

• A lot of teams think that if they frontline case then that just counts as an extension of it. I do not believe this is true. I prefer that there are explicit extensions made and I will always grant more credence to the args of a team that does so.

Speaks:

I am pretty lenient with speaks but there are a few things that you should keep in mind.

• I was pretty aggressive in crossfire so I am fine with that as well but just be conscious of your opponents. This means letting them respond to your questions, ask their own questions, and overall just have an equal opportunity to talk.

• Talking over someone never won a debate and I can assure you that winning perceptually doesn't really win my ballot.

• If you are blatantly racist, ableist, homophobic, sexist, etc. to either your opponents or within your argumentation, I will hand you an L and tank your speaks. Strike me if that's an issue (honestly quit debate, too <3)

This paradigm doesn't cover everything. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me before the round. Have fun!

Email: bloayza2019@gmail.com

Experience: 3 years of high school debate for DMHS in LAMDL, now doing my 4th year of college debate at CSUF

I ain't asking for much, just don't be racist, hateful, sexist, homophobic, ableist, and basically, anything that might make a competitor uncomfortable or might make ME uncomfortable.

I'm comfortable with spreading but if you spread through crucial arguments I may not catch it at times so if you want me to flow your most important arguments then slow down a bit. In the realm of online debate sometimes I might not catch arguments if they're not given in conversational speed.

IF you are reading this as an LD debater you will get more info reading the policy page to get a better idea

==LD==

Don't run tricks in front of me. I will not get them, which means I won't vote on them. This also goes for theory debates theory has to be very good at explaining violations and why this is a voting issue or else leave me out of it.

Nebel T isn't a real argument, I do not care who Nebel is.

I probably won't vote on Reverse Voting Issues, they don't make a lot of sense to me as a policy debater (but can possibly be persuaded)

==Policy Debate==

Framing: Framing arguments are a very easy way for me to vote for you, I find it something easy to vote on when teams tell me how I should evaluate the round and why evaluating the round that way is good. This also means that having the role of the ballot/judge argument would be very effective in persuading my decision but these arguments need warrants to them.

K: I'm comfortable judging K's. I'm very comfortable with set col literature and I am familiar with afropess, ableism, and cap literature. Don't worry if I'm not familiar with your K literature all I ask for is a more thorough explanation of your literature and your theory of power. In order to win the K for me, you need to have a link, and if the link is vaguely explained/generic then I really won't buy that you link. If you do link what does that mean and why is that an indictment of the aff (what's the impact).

Kaffs: I'm cool with people running Kaffs and I won't immediately vote them down but I do have to require a good explanation of the aff.

DA: you can win a DA by itself if you have impact framing and how that impact outweighs the affs impacts and part of that impact framing you need to win uniqueness. You also need to win a link on how the aff causes the impacts of the DA. DA must have all its parts in order for me to evaluate it, it must have uniqueness, a link, an internal link, and more importantly an impact.

CP: I also vote for CPs with or without a DA, the DA in my mind is not necessary for a CP but that means proving the competitiveness of the CP and why the CP is preferable over that aff and that means why it solves better for the impacts of the aff or if you're running this with a DA why the CP solves and doesn't link to the DA.

T/FW: In order for me to vote for T you need to win a few questions, why you're model of debate is good, you also need to win how they violate and why that's bad for the round. You need to extend your standards/reasons to prefer your model of debate over theirs.

Hi! I am a first-year parent judge for LD. I judged PF last year. I have no prior debating experience, so I hope that you have done plenty of research on your topic and that you will use credible evidence and sound logic to support your arguments!

My expectations for debaters:

--- Speak clearly and calmly in a medium pace when delivering your arguments.

--- Be enthusiastic and confident, but also act natural.

--- Follow the speech and prep time limits strictly and exchange evidence in a timely way.

--- State a clear set of contentions and subpoints in your case.

--- Signpost in your speeches.

--- Try not to interrupt your opponents or talk over each other during cross-examination.

--- Show good sportsmanship and make debate fun and enjoyable!

Thank you!

Hi hi I'm Taban (she/her/hers), a 3rd year public forum debater at Newton South :) Pls include me on the email chain.

Debate should be a safe and accessible environment, if you ever feel unsafe/uncomfortable before, during, or after round pls feel free to fill out this anonymous form or reach out to me at my email tmalihi1@gmail.com (I'll be checking it regularly during rounds/tournaments I judge)

On that note, be respectful or your speaks will suffer. In speeches, cross, when asking for evidence, always. If you read a triggering case and don't read content warnings that everyone in the round (judges included) can anonymously opt out of, it's an auto L with the lowest speaks I can give, same goes for bigoted arguments/rhetoric. General guideline: read warnings for suicide, domestic violence, sexual violence, and graphic descriptions of violence & suffering.

Disclosure: I can't disclose for LS but I'll be giving comments.

Panel tips: If I'm on a panel please adapt to the other judges' needs--I can follow a lay round, but lay judges can't often follow a flow round. Basically, just go FLAY: keep a narrative, but use efficiency+rhetoric to win on the flow.

Below I've separated my paradigm into a Novices section, Varsity section, and Everyone section. Feel free to read as much or as little as you'd like--basically I'm your standard flow judge.

তততততততততততততততততততততততততততততততততততততততততততততততততততততততততততততততততততততততত

Novices! Hello besties!

See the "Everyone" section below this for specifics on everything in round.

I do my best to evaluate the round based on the defense and offense I have written down at the end of the round, and I really don't like having to intervene to make decisions. It's your job to tell me clearly why you win a round--write my ballot for me :)

General strategy things I like:

1. I care about your presentation, but as long as I can understand your points it doesn't matter what your speaking style is. I encourage you to try out new things and not worry about things like tripping up, stuttering, etc.--these are all part of the learning process and it's my responsibility as a judge to make sure y'all have a safe space

2. I highly recommend that you "collapse"--that means that in summary and final focus, you're going to choose only one of your arguments to talk about. For me, a single well-explained argument is ALWAYS better than two or three barely-explained arguments. The earlier in the round you collapse, the better!

3. Weigh your arguments! This tells me where to look first to evaluate arguments. Win your argument, win the weighing you used with it, and I'll 97% of the time vote on it

4. Point out things that are conceded or dropped by your opponents (if they don't respond to it in the speech after it's introduced, it's conceded/dropped. This means you probably win it, but please! If you want me to vote off of it, you HAVE to continue to explain it in every speech after that.)

Feel free to email me after round if you'd like more in-depth feedback or have questions :)

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

Varsity! Hello besties!

See the "Everyone" section below this for specifics on everything in round.

TLDR:

Here’s how I evaluate the round: Framing --> weighing --> offense --> default 1st speaking team

• You need to win your offense to win the weighing :)

Essentially make me do as little work as possible, judge intervention is not a fun time for anyone, do the analysis and write my RFD for me <3

• I’m a flow judge

• Tech>Truth

• Topicality>Theory

• Disclaimer: might not be the best at evaluating progressive arguments, Kritiks and non-frivolous theory (including in-round violations) are ok, but def not a fan of disclosure/paraphrase theories (regardless of my personal beliefs on debate norms)

• Please don’t run stuff just to win rounds because you know your opponents can’t respond to it. I am especially inclined to believe performative contradictions (ex: that disclosure shell one might read on a pair of novices in JV quarters, but didn’t read in a single other round, is probably not on-net helping debate norms, which makes me doubt the motives behind it). However, if it’s clear you’re reading your argument because it genuinely means a lot to you and/or exposing more people to its content would be beneficial, I will do my best to evaluate it in any round.

• Point out things that are conceded or dropped (including defense--it’s not sticky)

⋆┈┈｡ﾟ❃ུ۪ ❀ུ۪ ❁ུ۪ ❃ུ۪ ❀ུ۪ ﾟ｡┈┈⋆ S̶̙͔͚̪͉̲̼͙̆̓͛͂̿͂̆P̴̧̳̤̰̟̘͚̘͙͇̚E̴̗̰̎̂̈́C̷̤̹̯̥̟͌̃̌̋̔͝Í̸͈̱͍͇̻̲̔̂̄͒̂̕̚͠F̷̛͚͍̼͍̣͉̣̱̟̠͂̊̊̓̉̌̽Į̴̣̟̜͔͈͚͙̠̃̐́̓̐̃̃͘̕͝ͅC̸̢̤̮̒̒̇̔̄̋͆̓̕Ṣ̶̡̲̮͓̫͉̲͑⋆┈┈｡ﾟ❃ུ۪ ❀ུ۪ ❁ུ۪ ❃ུ۪ ❀ུ۪ ﾟ｡┈┈⋆

*THIS IS FOR EVERYBODY*

Speed:

Please try not to go over 220 wpm or spread in any speech but if you do:

1) check with your opponents if it's okay with them

2) send everyone a speech doc with everything you read in round

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

Evidence:

• Don’t misconstrue evidence--paraphrasing is fine but please make sure you have good evidence ethics. I won't drop you for badly misconstrued evidence unless your opponents read args as to why I should, in any case I will probably just not evaluate the evidence/argument in my decision

• I’ll only look at/call cards if a team tells me to and it is important towards my decision

• When you extend evidence throughout every speech in the round, please extend the actual logic/warrant and not just the author name -- I value the content over just flowing the card name and date

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

Cross:

• I will be using this time to figure things out on my end, set up my flow for the next speeches, and write up my comments, so I won't flow during cross

• Please be respectful. If you're rude, aggressive, or consistently speak over others, your speaks will suffer.

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

Rebuttal:

• Please signpost/tell me where you are on the flow, off-time roadmaps are ok but pls keep them concise

• Well warranted analysis > blippy cards without warrants/logic ("Evidence+warranting > warranting > bEcaUse thE EvIDenCe SayS sO." -EK)

• Second rebuttal should at least respond to offense (turns, disads, weighing, etc.) and terminal defense

• All turns/disads need impacts, or else I don't know how to evaluate them. Weighing can come in summary.

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

Summary/FF:

• Summary + FF should mirror each other and have the same material (NO STICKY DEFENSE IN FINAL FOCUS, everything you extend in final focus should have been in summary, from the warrants to the impacts to the weighing)

• First final can have new-ish responses to new stuff in second summary, but second final should have nothing new at all (I will know)

• Collapse however you like, but quality over quantity--if I don't understand it, I'm not going to vote on it.

• WEIGHING is key--tell me why your arguments are more important than/matter more than theirs :)

• Weigh case/turns/disads

• Interact with your opponents' weighing in the speech after it’s introduced or it goes conceded. NOTE: just because your weighing is conceded doesn’t mean you stop explaining it, please warrant it out every time

• Meta-weigh (weigh your weighing mechanisms over their weighing mechanisms)

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

Thresholds for new responses:

- Offense (turns, disads): second rebuttal at the latest. First rebuttal, they don't need to be weighed, but second rebuttal, please weigh to give your opponents time to respond in first summary.

- Weighing: second summary by the latest, I'm good with meta-weighing in first final if it involves previously existing weighing in response to your opponent's weighing. The earlier you start this, the better <3

- Defense (in response to their case): second rebuttal

- Responses to their defense/frontlines/backlines: in the speech after it was introduced, otherwise what they say goes conceded, and the last I should hear of these should be first final focus at the very, very latest (and even then it's a little late)...second final focus should have nothing new at all, please

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

Speaker points: I base my speaker points on how well you balance technicality and maintaining a solid narrative! If I can understand your arguments and you're respectful, you will get a minimum of 28 speaks.

• +0.5 speaker points for a speech doc for every speech (even when you don't spread)

• Collapse in 2nd rebuttal! You choose ONE argument to focus on/vote on this early in the round, I give you +0.5 speaker points. Win-win.

-----｡･:*:･ﾟ★,｡･:*:･ﾟ☆----‧͙⁺˚*･༓☾ ⊹ ‧̫‧ ⊹ ☽༓･*˚⁺‧͙---- ｡･:*:･ﾟ★,｡･:*:･ﾟ☆-----

i agree with these paradigms

Enya Kamadolli: https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml

Andrew Li: https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=99668

Zach Diar: https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml

Michael Chu: https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml

Joy Taw: https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml

I use she/her pronouns.

For some background, I'm a first year college student and I have experience in both Public Forum and Lincoln Douglas debate. Here are some of my preferences/expectations:

General Important Stuff (everyone):

Be polite! Remember that debating =/= arguing; you should not be yelling at your opponents. I'm typically generous with speaks, but if you aren't civil to your opponents, I will dock points.

If your case discusses sensitive topics, you must read a trigger warning and make sure your opponents feel comfortable. Remember that the issues you debate about more often than not affect people in the real world. This means that discussing certain topics can be more stressful and personal to certain debaters.

If you are racist, homophobic, sexist, antisemitic, islamophobic, etc. I will automatically drop you.

Don't misgender your opponents! Mistakes happen, but make sure you correct yourself and apologize. If it continues, I will drop you.

Debate is supposed to be a fun an engaging activity. Don't make unsafe spaces for people!

Public Forum Stuff (everyone in PF):

Flow ---|------ Lay

Tech ----|-----Truth

I vibe with a good narrative and consistent rhetoric.

Signpost!!

Speed is fine, but warranting>card dumping with little explanation.

Please have your evidence ready so there aren't delays.

Frontline in second rebuttal! Second summary is too late.

Other than frontlining in first summary, there shouldn't be new responses or offense after rebuttals. If there are, I won't flow them (with the exception of new weighing, which is fine before second FF).

Crossfire is pretty irrelevant. If you want a concession on my flow, mention it in a speech.

I probably won't call for evidence, so if you want me to look at something, say so in a speech.

When two pieces of evidence contradict, explain why your point makes more sense, or why your evidence is better. This is always smart, even if you're completely sure their source is unreliable or misconstrued.

Make sure to weigh all the arguments you collapse on, including turns. Don't forget to tell me why your weighing is better than theirs. I'm way too lazy to do analysis for you, and it probably won't end well for you if I have to.

Progressive Argument Stuff (not for novices):

I very limited exposure to progressive debate, so if your opponent does something problematic, it's much more strategic for you to tell me in your own words than read theory or a K.

With that being said, if you do choose to read theory or a K, generally stay away from more obscure jargon if you want me to understand. Since I don't have much experience, it's in your best interest to warrant and weigh thoroughly. Explain to me exactly what decision I should make and why.

Other Stuff (everyone):

If you do a spin while saying turn, bring me food, or make high quality puns, I will give you 30 speaks.

I prefer chill and friendly rounds with lighthearted banter.

However, if someone mansplains, whitesplains, or is overall rude or condescending, feel free to sass them back. I will give you high speaks for roasting them.

Fist bumps are the move.

I'm like 19 so I will probably cringe if you call me "judge" or anything formal.

Please try to come to round with preflows so there aren't delays.

Updated Jan 18 2022.

Hello! I'm Jessica. I am always extremely happy to be judging:)

I am a former LD debater from Wyoming! I qualified for Nationals in Big Questions, World Schools, Lincoln Douglas, and Congress. I did CX PF and Parli in college briefly as well.

I am not looking for anything wild in terms of the way you choose to debate. I trust debaters to do what's best for them and persuade me to vote your direction. If you tell me what I should vote on, I will listen, but if you don't I will just weigh the arguments made in round considering the impacts of all arguments, logic of the arguments, and overall coverage of major arguments. Logical arguments will always outweigh cards if you do not provide your own explanation of how the evidence applies to the round. Please provide voting issues for me.

- Please be as polite as possible:)

- Off clock road maps are dandy. Online - I'd also be happy if you said your name and side before you started speaking so that if I happen to not be looking directly at the video I can still tell who's who.

- You can talk fast if you need to, I do understand speed but it will make me sad in anything that is not CX.

- I will not read the evidence in the docs (except in CX), especially if you are not reading them at a speed that I can understand probably, but you sure are welcome to send it to me, and if you specifically tell me to "look at ___ because," then I will.

- I will listen to arguments made in CX, and please be sure to bring them up again in another speech.

- If you are debating LD, please debate LD, not policy. This is not to say I won't vote for you if you are running a counter plan, or talk fast, it just means your debate needs to be centered around ethics.

Email - jessicapetri@gmail.com

please make the round entertaining, don’t be overly annoying or rude, explain everything thoroughly, I refuse to read a case doc, paraphrase good, disclosure bad, have fun.

dont let me get bored and make sure to smile :)

——————————————————————————————————————————————————

TLDR: Extend and Weigh! Rounds that end in a timely manner will result in higher speaks for everyone.

Paradigm:

Please flip before the round and let me know what topic, side, and order right before the round starts. Preflow too. Don't take too long to find a card/evidence.

Tech > Truth

here is how I evaluate rounds:

- prefiat > framework > weighing > link/impact

- frameworks should have clear warranting as to why I should reject an alternative framework and the default CBA/util framing. Don't just assert it.

- Extend full arguments and weigh. If there is no extension, then I can't vote for the argument. I love extensions. please extend. extend please. extensions are important. Reexplain the argument like I am a close friend who does not do debate trying to understand what your argument is on a topic they have vague information on. Be decisive with your language. But make sure to be concise! (if you can’t tell extensions are really important)

- Don't extend through ink and warrant as much as you can + arguments extended in FF should have been in summary.

- In 2nd Rebuttal: just please frontline the argument you are collapsing on and respond to any relevant offense, including turns, DAs, case. no reason to reread your own case. i care more about extensions in summary and final so no need to reexplain anything other than responses to their responses in this speech. Extensions in 2nd rebuttal make no sense!

- Please do not be abusive with disads in 2nd rebuttal. I will be reluctant to vote on it if it is not well warranted or weighed or if it feels wonky. (tip: try to phrase it as a turn so I don't think about it too much). I'm not a fan of DAs in read in rebuttal in general so just make sure its fleshed out like a contention from case is.

- Concede arguments in the speech right after

- Summary needs to extend defense (make sure you respond to what they say against it)

- I would appreciate if you would skip grand cross and go straight to final (That being said I'd rather watch GCX than sit in silence so if you need prep, just do GCX, I won't give flex prep) (if in a panel, check with other judges)

- Please weigh.

- I won't evaluate new weighing in 2nd FF, unless no one else does weighing at all or the weighing debate just becomes confusing. I would recommend starting weighing early.

- Respond to your opponent's weighing in the speech right after they bring it up.

- When there are two competing claims/pieces of evidence that cannot be true at the same time brought up by two teams, do comparative weighing for me to evaluate which argument I should prefer.

- I like reasonably paced debates where debaters make use of rhetorical persuasion rather than fast debates. I prefer not using a speechdoc to flow. This means speak slower.

- I will only call for evidence if I believe it will impact my decision/not cleared up in the round (or if I am just interested).

- Important stuff in cross should be brought up in a speech if you want it flowed.

- I don't flow cross so make your crossfires funny and entertaining to watch (be nice/respectful) or have a good in round strategy for 30 speaks.

- I don't really know much about Ks or theory (and other pre-fiat arguments), but I have had experience debating and judging those types of rounds. If you choose to run these arguments make sure to make it super simple for me to understand how I am supposed to vote. Make sure to read it because you believe in the actual argument, not because you want to win a debate round. I reserve the right to vote however I want when it comes to prefiat (and usually I am biased against most progressive arguments, so keep that in mind). I might just become a lay judge if I want to. I will say that im fine with teams reading theory in a paragraph form so you dont have to waste an entire speech on a full shell. just make sure that you still have the same parts that a shell may have.

- If there are no lines of offense for your opponents to win off of, feel free to call TKO. If there is no path to the ballot for your opponents left, I'll give you the win and 30 speaks. If there is, then you will lose the round.

- If a team thinks they are getting absolutely nuked and forfeits prior to grand cross, I’ll give them double 30s.

- i'll become a lay judge if the round becomes boring.

- Give me food and magical things will happen.

About Me:

Georgetown LW

Homestead MW

Put me on the chain: zidao.debate@gmail.com.

If you are interested in debating at Georgetown or attending Georgetown camp, feel free to reach out!

TOC Update: I have done a moderate amount of topic research and have judged 26 rounds on the fiscal redistribution topic. Explaining acronyms and highly niche things would still be incredibly helpful.

Conflicts: Westwood, Northside, GBS, Woodward.

Top Level:

Debate is a competitive activity that emphasizes research and persuasion. The best debaters possess skills regarding both.

Great debaters make strategic choices backed up with well warranted arguments and well researched evidence. I love seeing confident debaters demonstrating the culmination of a year's worth of research through the arguments they make, whether that's an innovative new counterplan or a topic specific K.

I don't think I have any major anomalies as a judge that should heavily impact the way you debate. I am open to judging and deciding any argument.

My biases will only come into play at the absolute margins. All can be overcome with technical debating.

I have three non-negotiables:

1 - Debate should not be about issues that occurred outside the round. If something has occurred outside the debate that threatens the well-being of any of the debaters, I will end the round and go to tab.

2 - Everyone must follow speech times, speech orders, prep time, there will be one winner and loser, etc.

3 - No asking for speaks or crowd participation.

Decision-making:

Tech over truth. However, truth significantly helps your ability to win the argument. Unwarranted or ridiculous arguments can be easily dismissed, but you must answer them.

Zero risk is possible, but my threshold is higher than some other judges. For example, if the 2NR drops "fiat solves the link to the politics DA" and it was well-warranted in the 1AR, I would likely assign the DA zero risk.

Try or die does exist. It is when either in the world of the DA or the case, there is no defense to the claim that extinction is inevitable (Ex: 2NR goes for only alt causes to climate change). However, I can be persuaded to discount that frame by either team.

Author quals matter. Cards written by undergrads, etc. should not be given much weight.

Clarity and ease of communication > extremely fast/unclear subpoints that are impossible to flow. Nine times out of ten you are better off slowing down and emphasizing strong moments of connection.

I am not a robot. Debate is a communicative activity. Sounding like you're winning will help.

You can insert re-highlightings if it's within the text of the card that was already read, but you must give it context and explain the implication. If you're inserting something 3 paragraphs after the original card, you have to read it.

If your evidence is extremely under-highlighted, you will have a tough time selling me in a close debate.

Theory:

On the Aff, everything seems to be a reason to reject the argument except condo (but you have to say it).

I will judge condo like any other debate. However, I am intuitively more persuaded by Neg flex than most Aff objections.

The less intuitive the CP is, the more likely I am to be skeptical of it absent evidence. I am a harder sell for solvency advocate theory.

T vs Plans:

Topicality says this debate should not have occurred because the Aff was not within the bounds of the agreed upon resolution. Therefore, it asks me to forego evaluating a debate about the topic in favor of punishing the Aff.

I default to offense/defense in lieu of a reasonability argument. However, an offensively framed reasonability argument can be persuasive to me in light of my above thoughts. This must be grounded in predictable and qualified counter-interp evidence. Additionally, the Aff must win a significant amount of defense to Neg standards.

I don’t view reasonability as a gut check or a decision based on “vibes.” A successful reasonability argument still requires the Aff to win offense for why viewing the difference between two interps through the lens of offense/defense is a bad frame. It is also grounded in the reasonable doubt burden of proof in criminal law.

I am most likely to vote Neg when they are winning a large link to limits, doing concrete impact calculus, and explaining why they have an inroads to predictability/why Neg ground outweighs.

DAs:

DA turns case/solves case can be high impact. The earlier this debate gets started the better. It's also far more persuasive if you can get it higher up the link chain (ie: link turns solvency > nuke war turns warming).

I care a lot about the story-telling component of DAs. In other words, don't debate the parts of the DAs like a bunch of disaggregated pieces without a clear vision. Focus on the core narrative of the DA and ensure that your line by line supports that narrative. Ultimately, I need to be able to articulate in a few sentences the thrust of the scenario the Neg is trying to sell me. Similarly, the Aff needs to explain why the Neg's story is inaccurate.

Impact turns can be great debates, but the closer they get to spark/wipeout the more they start feeling like bad debates.

CPs:

Explanation is crucial. I need to be able to understand how the CP operates and what internal links or impacts the Negative is claiming it solves. This necessity is magnified by vague 1NC planks without solvency advocates.

Compare what the counterplan does to the 1AC internal links/impacts. Explicit comparison of these warrants can be a great help when evaluating the "sufficiency" of counterplan planks.

Not the greatest for process stuff that is not about the plan. If you have a net benefit that is a reason the plan is bad or even genuinely mutually exclusive with the 1AC, then I will be extremely receptive on competition. However, most consult and process backfiles are not competitive given equal debating. Best route to an Aff ballot vs these CPs are perms. This preference, like all other preferences, will not come into play unless the debate is extremely close.

If two teams are advancing different visions of competition in the final rebuttals, I will strictly evaluate the offense and defense for each interpretation.

PICs are fine if they result in something different than the Aff. Not the best for word PICs that do the entire plan. If you have good evidence that the inclusion of a certain topic word affects the plan implementation, then I am much easier to sell on your word PIC. This needs to be grounded in an argument about what constitutes a function.

Ks:

The more your K is secretly a counterplan and a DA, the better I am for it. If your K does not exclude weighing the plan, I find it important for there to be an associated framework argument that checks back against an otherwise relatively persuasive 2AR on perm double bind.

I'm not willing to split the middle ground on framework arbitrarily. If the Aff is saying "No Ks" and the Neg is saying "Only Reps Matter" in the final rebuttals, I will decide on one or the other. However, either team can advocate for a middle ground during the debate and I will be receptive. If you are doing this, make sure to clearly explain what your interpretation looks like and how I should make decisions based on that framework.

I am worse than average for Ks that entirely moot the plan. If equally debated, I find fairness and clash objections to these relatively persuasive. I evaluate these type of Ks similarly to how I would evaluate competition for a Process CP. To win, Affs need to be technically sufficient and answer all tricks/checklist items.

The best 2NRs make clear strategic choices on the K. I find myself voting Aff most consistently when the 2NR fails to collapse the debate down to a core set of issues. (Ex: Going for too many links, trying to both win fiat Ks and links to the plan, not developing your core theory of power enough). Similarly, most 2ARs against the K have to win a few core issues, and the rest usually falls into place.

K Affs:

I will flow and listen to any 1AC. You do not have to read a plan. All you need to do is out tech the other team. If you can’t do this, I am likely to be persuaded by T.

Against T, I am equally fine for an Aff that defends a counter-interp and an Aff that just impact turns. If the Aff wins that topically itself is violent, then a lot of objections about "models" or "ballet solvency" seem to go away. However, I find most objections to the reading of topicality unpersuasive.

I have no experience adjudicating K v K debates. I don't find "no perms" persuasive, but am entirely open to other things besides the advocacy statement being a basis for philosophical competition.

I am also good for impact turns. Does the 1AC say "attempting to control other states" is bad? Sounds like NPT Good is offense. Did the 2AC say reject "all instances of American imperialism?" Sounds like you can say Heg Good. My biggest comment about going for these sort of impact turn 2NRs is that teams need to do explicit judge instruction about what should be a "win condition" for the Neg. This will help hedge back against a 2AR that says it's only a debate about debate. Similarly for the Aff, I think defending your epistemic commitments, either through substantive answers/cross-apps from case or Ks of the impacts, is more persuasive than no linking everything.

If the Aff reads a plan but says it's good for a deontological reason like Kant or Buddhism, I think T is basically unwinnable.

Ethics/Decorum:

Assertiveness and humor is great and will boost your speaks. Have fun! I love debate and love to see people enjoying the activity.

Minimizing dead time in debates will not only allow me to make better and more helpful decisions (by giving me more decision time), but will also help your speaks.

Clipping= L + 0. This needs to be multiple lines, not a couple words. Any team may initiate an ethics challenge about clipping or other procedural violations (there must be recorded evidence). If I conclude the team is incorrect, they will lose the round and receive a 25. I will also self police this.

Overt sexism, racism, homophobia, etc = L+0. I am an educator that is responsible for the well-being of minors during the duration of the round. Threats of physical or psychological violence will never be acceptable. I will decide where to draw the line, but it would behoove you to ensure that you are FAR away from that line as possible with your decorum. I will not hesitate to instantly end the round, give you an L+0, and escalate the situation to tab.

Speaker points:

If you opensource (every card you've read) and let me know before the RFD, you will get .2 extra speaks.

If you give the final rebuttal without the use of a laptop, you will get .2 extra speaks (inspired by DKP).

Public Forum Paradigm:

I occasionally judge middle school PF rounds for Holy Trinity, where I am an assistant coach. Although I am a college policy debater, I do not think public forum should be a speed contest or obscure critiques/counterplans should be the focus of the debate. I will not be receptive to teams running these arguments as "cheap shots," especially in middle school.

The three things I care about the most for public forum debates are:

1. Answering your opponents arguments in an organized fashion. I love when debaters specifically reference arguments by labels, (ie: "their biodiversity argument") and then respond to that argument where they reference it. It makes it easier for me to decide the debate. Jumping around different arguments or disorganized speeches make it harder for me to decide.

2. Making strategic choices and doing impact calculus. In final speeches, I think there are little to no circumstances where debaters should be extending multiple contentions/arguments. Public forum speech times are very limited, so it's best to focus on the strongest argument you are winning and play defense to your opponent's stuff. Explain why your impact or argument is more important and why it matters.

3. Paying attention/flowing. Taking notes of what your opponent is saying and paying attention to what arguments they did or did not make are all important. I like it when debaters point out mistakes or what opponents said in prior speeches, because it shows me they're paying attention.

Have fun! Debate is a competition but it's also a fun activity that allows you to learn new things and make friends.