conflicts: groves high school (class of 2019), wayne state university (class of 2023, secondary ed major w/ minors in public health & gender, sexuality, and women's studies), detroit country day high school

always put me on the email chain! Literally always! if you ask i will assume you haven't read this! legit always put me on the email chain! lukebagdondebate@gmail.com

pronouns: they/them.

the abridged version:

• do you, and do it well

• don't cheat in ways that require me to intervene

• don't misgender me, or your competitors

• do not assume i am going to vote for you because you say my name a lot

some general stuff:

the more and more i do debate the less i care about what's put in front of me. when i first started debating, i cared very deeply about norms, the resolution, all that jazz. now, if you're willing to read it i'm willing to judge it. i'd rather see an in depth debate with a lot of offense and clash than anything else, and i don't care whether you do that on a T flow vs. a k aff or a cap flow vs. a policy aff.

my least favorite word in the english language (of which is not a slur) is the word "basically." i would rather listen to everyone for the rest of time describe everything as "moist" than listen to you say the word "basically." i've hated this word for years, do not use it. make of that what you will.

it should be said i at one point read a parody aff that involved my partner and i roleplaying as doctor/patient during the 1ac. i care exceedingly little what you want to do with your 8 minute constructive, 3 minute cx, and 5 minute rebuttals - but those speech times are non-negotiable (unless the tournament says otherwise). play a game, eat a salad, ask me about my cat(s), color a picture, read some evidence; but do it within the constraint of a timer.

(this "time fetish" is less of a "respect my time" thing and more of a "i need to know when i can tell tab who i voted for" thing. i take a lot of pride in getting my decision in before repko, and i wish to continue that streak.)

stuff about me as a judge:

i do not follow along in the speech doc. i try not to look at cards. be clear, be concise, be cool. debate is first and foremost a communicative activity. i will only read y'alls ev if there is serious contention, or you tell me to. i HATE DOING THIS, and this very often does not go how people think it will.

if you say "insert re-highlighting" instead of reading the re-highlighting i WILL consider that argument uncarded

bolded for emphasis: people are also saying they can 'insert a caselist' for T flows. this is not a thing. and i will not consider them part of the debate if this occurs.

i do not play poker both because i am terrible at math and because i have a hard time concealing my emotions. i do have pretty bad rbf, but i still think you should look at me to tell what i'm thinking of your speeches/cx.

speaker points:

Misgendering is bad and a voting issue (at the very least I will give you exceptionally low speaks). due to my gender identity i am hyper aware of gender (im)balances in debate. stop being sexist/transphobic jerks, y'all. it's not that hard. additionally, don't be racist. don't be sexist. don't be ableist. don't be a bad person.

Assigning speaker points comes down to: are you memorable? are you funny? are you a bad person? Did you keep my flow neat? How did you use cross?

I usually give in the 28.2-29.9 range, for reference.

ethics violations:

i consider ethics violations clipping, evidence fabrication/omission of paragraphs between the beginning and end of the card, and violence (e.g. calling Black people the n word as a non-Black person, refusing to use correct pronouns).

for clipping: a recording must be presented if a debater brings forth the challenge. if i notice it but no one brings it up, your speaker points will suffer greatly.

for evidence miscutting (this is NOT power tagging): after a debater brings it forward the round will stop. if the evidence is miscut, the team who miscut the evidence will lose with lowest speaker points possible. if the evidence is not miscut, the team who brought forth the violation will lose with the lowest speaker points possible. i will not entertain a debate on the undebatable.

for violence: i will stop the debate and the offender will receive the lowest speaker points possible and will lose. the person who is on the receiving end of the violence is not expected to give input. if you misgender me i will not stop the debate, but your speaker points will suffer.

one of these, because i love getting caught in the hype

brad hombres ------------------------------------X--banana nut brad

generic disad w/ well developed links/uq------X------------------------------------ thing you cut 30 mins before the round that you claim is a disad

read a plan--------------------X---------------------don't read a plan

case turns--X----------------------------------------generic defense

t not fw--------------X-------------------------------fw not t

"basically"-------------------------------------------X-just explaining the argument

truth over tech------------------X--------------------tech over truth

being nice-X------------------------------------------being not nice

piper meloche--------------------X--------------------brad meloche

'can i take prep'----------------------------------------X-just taking prep

explaining the alt------X--------------------------------assuming i know what buzzwords mean

process cps are cheating--------------------------X-------sometimes cheating is good

fairness--------------------------------X----------------literally any other fw impact besides iteration

impact turn-X--------------------------------------------non impact turn

fw as an impact turn------X--------------------------------fw as a procedural

green highlighting-X----------------------------------------any other color

rep---------------------------X----------------i don't know who you are and frankly i don't care to find out

asking if everyone is ready -X-----------------------------------asking if anyone isn't ready

jeff miller --------------------------------------X--- abby schirmer

PUBLIC FORUM SPECIFIC THINGS:

i find myself judging this a lot more than any other activity, and therefore have a LOT of opinions.

• time yourself. this includes prep. i'm not your mom, and i don't plan on doing it for you. the term "running prep" is becoming very popular, and i don't know what that means. just take prep.
• don't call me judge. "what should we refer to you as?" nothing! i don't know who is teaching y'all to catch judges' attentions by referring to us directly, but it's horrible, doesn't work, annoys all of us, and wastes precious time. you should be grabbing my attention in other ways: tone, argumentation, flowability, humor, sarcasm, lighting something on fire (please do not actually do this). call me by my first name (luke) if you have to, but know if you overuse it, it has the exact same affect as calling me "judge."
• PLEASE don't assume i know community norms, and saying things like "this is a community norm" doesn't automatically give you that dub. i entered PF during covid, and have a very strong policy background. this influences how i view things like disclosure or paraphrase theory.
• even more so than in policy, "post-rounding" me after a decision is incredibly common. you're allowed to fight with me all you want. just know it doesn't change my ballot, and certainly won't change it the next time around.
• i will never understand this asking for evidence after speeches. why aren't we just sending speech docs? judges are on a very strict schedule, and watching y'all spend five minutes sending evidence is both annoying and time consuming - bolding, because i continue to not get and, honestly? actively hate it when everyone spend 5-10 minutes after each speech exchanging evidence. just sent the whole speech. i don't get why this isn't the norm
• i'm fine with speed and 'unconventional arguments.' in fact, i'm probably better for them because i've found PF aff/neg contentions to be vague and poorly cut.
• PFers have a tendency to call things that aren't turns "turns." it's very odd to me. please don't do it.
• i'm not going to delay the round so you can preflow. idk who told y'all you can do that but they're wrong
• if you are using ev sending time to argue, i will interrupt you and make you start and/or i will tank your speaks. stop doing this.
• i'm very split on the idea of trigger warnings. i don't think they're necessary for non-in-depth/graphic discussions of a topic (Thing Exists and Is Bad, for example, is not an in-depth discussion in my eyes). i'm fine with trigger warning theory as an argument as long as you understand it's not an automatic W.
• flex prep is at best annoying and at worst cheating. if you start flex prepping i will yell at you and doc your speaker points.
• PLEASE READ THIS IF YOU WANT TO READ THEORY:I hear some kind of theory (mostly disclosure) at least once a tournament. I usually end up voting for theory not because the theory is done well, but because the other team does not answer it properly. I do like theory an unfortunate amount, but I would prefer to watch a good "substance" debate than a poor theory debate

LINCOLN DOUGLAS SPECIFIC THINGS:

• please read my policy and pf paradigms. they have important information about me and my judging

• of all the speech activities, i know about lincoln douglas the least. this can either be to your advantage or your detriment

• apparently theory matters to a lot of y'all a lot more in this activity than in policy. i got a high threshold for voting on any sort of theory that isn't condo, and even then you're in for the uphill battle of the century. i like theory debates generally, but watching LDers run theory like RVIs has killed my confidence in LD theory debate.

• 'i'm gonna take X minutes of prep' isn't needed. just say you're taking prep and take prep. i'll never understand LD or PF judges who act as if they are parents and y'all are 5 year olds asking for cookies after dinner; if you can figure out how tabroom works and how to unmute yourself, i'm pretty sure you can time your own prep.

• going fast does not mean you are good at debate, please don't rely on speed for ethos

• i hate disclosure theory and will prob vote neg 99.9% of the time (the .001% is for new affs or particularly bad answers). just put your stuff on the wiki, i genuinely don't understand why this is a debate to be had. just disclose. what year are you people living in.

things i don't care about:

- whether you keep your camera on or off (if you wanna lose free speaker points, that's up to you)

• speed. however, you should never be prioritizing speed over clarity.

hidden at the bottom: if you read the kato k and call it the "oppenheimer k" in the roadmap for the whole round i will give you a 30

neda-specific:

please use all your time. my bar for civility is much lower than most neda judges, so make of that what you will. please also use evidence.

For Lincoln-Douglas debates, I look for clearly articulated value and criterion, with opening case statement arguments that are closely related to the value and criterion.

Arguments that are overly structured with complicated subset points begin to lose effectiveness; a clean, clear structure is more convincing.

The pace of speaking should not be so rapid, in haste to make as many points as possible, that the judge cannot clearly discern the arguments being made. A well designed argument is more convincing than rushed speaking where the judge may not be able to acutally discern the points the debater is trying to make.

NEG should focus in the case statement period more on building a strong argument rather than using an inordinate fraction of time to initiate rebuttal; if the case statement is made stronger, and minimal time devoted to the beginning of rebuttal, the NEG argument will probably withstand AFF rebuttal better.

Both AFF and NEG should avoid such phrases in rebuttal like "...if you don't buy that argument..." Such language suggests uncertainty in the argument just presented, which undermines its effectiveness.

I am a fairly traditional judge with three years of experience (mainly LD, but also Congress and some PF). I do not like overly aggressive spreading. I can handle any debate jargon you throw at me, but I don't appreciate it when people speak lightning fast to try and jam up their opponents.

I am a historian by training, so I expect the contentions to be based in some degree of reality. I can accept that open borders will cause a nation's sovereignty to erode somewhat, for example, but I cannot accept that open borders will lead to a nuclear conflict between two countries. Make sure your contentions are plausible.

Respectful, clearly articulated debates.

yes, i would love to be added to the email chain mattcorso7177@gmail.com

i am a junior at fordham university. i debated policy for 4 years at la salle college high school

policy:

- i can handle spreading and am cool with speed as long as you are clear (please slow down for tags and analytics).

- you should go for whatever you are most comfortable with. this applies to the neg as well. i'm not too picky when it comes to arguments, just run what you like (as long as it is not sexist, racist, homophobic, ableist, etc.). that being said, you have to tell me WHY you win.

- i'm cool with all off-case arguments. i am most familiar with the security K (ran it all the time), but still run what you'd like. just give me ROB and explain your alt well.

- i weigh T before CP/DAs but this obviously doesn't happen every time. CPs have to be net beneficial. the best DAs are ones that directly clash with the aff. specific links make me very happy

- tech > truth but you'd have to really be winning the technical debate if you're running an objectively false argument.

- substance and general correctness is cool - don't make me hate that I have to vote for you.

- impact calc wins rounds, obviously.

- if I haven't covered something or if y'all have any questions feel free to email me.

LD:

i have a good understanding of how LD works. most of what I believe in policy applies to LD. just remember that impact calc is a thing. also please debate your values (novices too often forget to do this)

Hi, I'm Elijah -

Email chain: nastudent21@gmail.com

North Allegheny '21

Carolina Chapel Hill '25 | Psych major

Quals -

a) competitive success: broke at 1st circuit tourney I attended (Yale '19), octas Princeton '19, 11th prelim seed/9th speaker Loyola '20, NSDA Academic All-American, qualified to nat trad tourneys (NSDA/CFL/PHSSLs) all 4 HS years, won some locals

b) leadership: HS deb8 VP (senior year), secretary (junior year), event leader (HS+MS), and camp coordinator

How I judge -

Read anything that isn't repugnant. I've cut/spread everything from hard-right heg good to hard-left pess Ks. So pull out your aprioris/indexicals/paradoxes, theoretical phil NCs, radical pess Ks, fav extinction policy disad, or a K/performance aff. My goal is to judge as robotically/tabula rosa as possible to avoid judge intervention. Weighing is super important (you tell me if extinction outweighs oppression or if reps come before content). I flow off what I hear, not the doc (spread however fast you want and if its too fast for me I'll just say slow/clear. However, I think I'll be good). I only use the doc for ev ethics/quality checks if its disputed in round.

I'm still happy to judge traditional/lay deb8 (again, it's your deb8 = you do you).

Feel free to ask me any questions you have and call me Elijah/Eli/judge (whatever makes you feel most comfortable).

I did public forum for 4 years in high school and have been coaching it for 3 years now. I am going to divide this into 3 parts because I usually judge PF, LD, and policy (occasionally). Also apologies if this is all very long and confusing! If you have any questions, please ask me before the round and I will answer! Or if you have questions about the round after it's over, ask me!

Public Forum

I am okay with speed. However, send me your case if you think you will be speaking fast. I need to understand what you are saying if you want me to vote for you. I like to see clear and clean extensions of your links, warrants, etc. I have been seeing a lot of shadow-extending recently and if it happens in round, I can't vote for you on those arguments, cards, warrants, or whatever it is. You don't need to weigh too much in your rebuttal, but you need to start weighing in summary for me to vote for you. In PF, I prefer a line-by-line debate that has a lot of warranting, making it clear what arguments you are winning, whatever it may be. And make sure to signpost too. For summary, I think that the round needs to be brought down to 1-3 key issues on your side and your opponent's side as to why you are winning and starting impact calc. Basically, summary should be treated as a longer version of final focus. For final, I like impact calc that does a good analysis on both sides, with good warranting with why you win and why you win the impact debate. And don't be rude in the round to your opponents, such as being mean during cross or during your opponents' speeches. I am more likely to vote you down solely based on that.

Lincoln Douglas

I have been judging LD for probably the last 2 years, so I have a lot of experience of the format and how the round works. And also with the background of PF that helps too. My big thing is that I love a framework debate. If you win framework, I am more than likely to vote for you. Because (unless your opponent accesses your framework too), you have the better explanation for why we must evaluate the round based on that interpretation. If both debaters agree on framework, then it becomes a round based on who accesses framework better, becoming more of a standard "line-by-line" debate. If both sides don't discuss framework enough or just drop it, then I will resort to judging it similar to a PF round.

Policy

For the national circuit - I apologize if I am your judge. I will do my very best but please do not spread. I hate spreading and most people doing it aren't amazing at it. I would rather you speak clearly and focus on good arguments.

For the local circuit - I know most of you don't spread, but don't do it regardless.

email - johnevans201413@gmail.com

I am an Oakland Catholic parent volunteer judge.

I prefer clear and organized cases. I do not mind speed as long as I am able to understand your argument. If I cannot understand your case, I cannot flow your argument. I prefer that debaters argue in the order of their flow. In rebuttal I do like to hear why a debater feels they won the round and why I should vote for them.

I do expect that debaters treat each other with respect. I will deduct points for rudeness or disrespecting your debate opponent.

My name is Jackie Hertzel. My pronouns are she/her. I am a traditional judge, in my 4th year of judging. I take my notes on an online flow during the round. I am interested in hearing what debaters have to say so please be mindful of your speed. I appreciate off time roadmaps, calling out dropped arguments and noting voting issues. If one debater’s argument goes unchallenged then I will assume it is valid. I am not a fan of spreading. Good luck and have fun!

Respectful, clearly articulated debates.

I am a traditional judge who values clash and framework. I like to hear interesting philosophies and how you incorporate them with your case. I am comfortable with judging a more technical debate, but make sure to slow down when you speak and explain your arguments well. Please don’t read Ks/Tricks/incredibly dense Phil. Theory is permissible if the abuse if truly devastating, just make sure to flesh out the argument well and explain why you should win the round off of it if you choose to take that route. All in all, keep the debate traditional, speak slowly, and explain your arguments well. Good luck to you!

competitor 1986 - 1990

judge and coach 1995 - present

I am a traditional debate judge.

I do not like spreading in debate rounds. If your delivery is too fast or too unclear, I will not be able to flow vital information. If that information is not on my flow, I cannot make a decision based on it when you tell me that it is a voting issue.

I prefer clash, thoughtful logic, and clear weighing mechanisms in a round.

Traditional Judge

Public Forum: As a PF judge, I am fine with speed, but please do not spread. If you spread and I cannot flow all of your arguments then they will not carry through the round. My flow is greater than your flow. I am fine with all competitors keeping track of their time but I will keep the official time. If you continue speaking after time has elapsed, I will not flow your arguments. Please be mindful of time when calling for cards, it can be a time suck and you may end up using all of your prep time. I will keep track of your prep time (especially when card calling). I will tell you when I start and end the timer. I will not follow your directives to do so and the time that I have is the official time. Decorum is important to me as well, while I won't give you a loss for poor decorum, I will give you lower speaker points.

Lincoln Douglas: As a LD judge, I am more of a traditional judge and prefer that the debate come down to one of the framework rather than contentions. I am fine with speed, but please do not spread. If you spread and I cannot flow all of your arguments then they will not carry through the round. My flow is greater than your flow. I am fine with all competitors keeping track of their time but I will keep the official time. If you continue speaking after time has elapsed, I will not flow your arguments. Please be mindful of time when calling for cards, it can be a time suck and you may end up using all of your prep time. I will keep track of your prep time (especially when card calling). I will tell you when I start and end the timer. I will not follow your directives to do so and the time that I have is the official time. Decorum is important to me as well, while I won't give you a loss for poor decorum, I will give you lower speaker points.

Congress: As a Congress judge, I like to hear clear and supported evidence in order to make an opinion about the legislation being debated. I enjoy hearing passionate speakers who care about their constituents. Decorum is important to me as well, while I won't give you a loss for poor decorum, I will give you lower speaker points.

I am a traditional judge.

Hello there, here is some information about my preferences in regard to debate.

Congress

- I judge based on 1) argumentation, 2) presentation, and 3) participation

- Be clear and concise, please do not ramble. If you are talking faster than I can keep up, it is hard to score accurately.

- Because sources are important in debate, please be clear when citing sources.

- Decorum is very important. Please treat your fellow competitors with respect. Interrupting other participants is not looked upon favorably.

LD

Speaking:

- You have a 10 second grace period. Once the grace period has elapsed, I will stop flowing.

- I am not a fan of spreading. If I cannot understand what you are saying, it is difficult to give you credit for it, which makes it harder to vote in your favor.

- Also, please make your definitions and contention titles clear to make it easier for me to flow your arguments.

- I listen to CX, but I do not typically flow it. I will only write something if an important point seems to be made. The questioning segment should be used for clarification and finding weaknesses, meaning the questions should be relevant to what has already been brought up in the round.

Reason for Decision (LD):

- I judge first on topicality and framework in importance, contentions are second (but still important), and CX is last.

- I judge based on my flow, which means that clarity, structure, and use of clashes are crucial in my eyes.

- Your contentions should be tied to both the framework and the resolution, and they should be supported by evidence.

- Additionally, it is up to YOU to point out the flaws in the opponent's arguments, as I judge the debate as it has been debated. I should not have to connect the dots at the end of the debate.

Interactions Between Opponents in the Round:

- Decorum is VERY important to me. If you are rude, condescending, or otherwise acting inappropriately, it will be reflected in your speaker points.

- Card calling should be used sparingly. If the card dispute is not brought up later in the debate, I will view it as being dropped in my flow. If I perceive that card calling is being used in an abusive manner, it may be reflected in speaker points.

- Please remember we are on a schedule, and out of curtesy to all participants and the organizers, let's try to keep the debate running smoothly.

I expect to see an articulate, well reasoned debate.

My preferences for LD:

1. I don't mind a fast speaker but do not spread. Please respect your time limits. While I will officially monitor time, I'd rather be focusing on what you're saying than watching the clock.

2. It is always good to have stats and examples for your contentions. Repeating the same points during different arguments (unless relevant in a new way) will not make them more effective.

3. If you do not clearly refute one of your opponent's contentions, I will usually give them the win regardless of how good your contentions were.

4. Speak confidently and respectfully, and in an orderly manner. Maintaining a coherent flow is always very helpful for me.

LD Judging Paradigm for Brad Taylor (Barrack Hebrew Academy, Bryn Mawr, PA)

PF and Parli: the comments on arguments. rebuttals, ground and speed extend to these events.

February 2023

BACKGROUND: I'm a former judge/coach/parent of a busy and fairly successful LD'er about a decade ago. I have continued volunteering my time both judging at and organizing regional tournaments. I've judged hundreds of LD rounds and many PF and Parli rounds, plus Congress and some Extemp.

I'll call myself an open-minded traditionalist. I'll start by evaluating the value framework debate and weight all contention-level arguments off of that. I’ll listen to just about anything. I prefer fewer well developed and supported arguments over many less substantial ones. Keep your link story tight. It is expected you understand and present claim/warrant/impact. Warrants are critical – please have them and make sure they are good ones.

I prefer cases and arguments focused on the resolution. This is the fair battleground for everyone. If you want to present technical stuff, a string of contingencies, or other less-than-direct approaches, I’ll listen. But last I checked, the rules say you’re here to uphold your side of the resolution.

Please make your arguments clear. You’re supposed to do the heavy lifting here – I should not have to decode what you’re saying. I’ll ignore name dropping, philosopher drive-bys, and argumentation short-hand. If someone reading your speech had to read a sentence twice to understand it, then it won’t be convincing when I hear it.

Rebuttals are key for me. Don’t just shuffle around and regurgitate what’s been said in the constructives. Provide analysis, re-argumentation, and clarity. And remember, we're not weighing whose evidence is better, rather whose arguments are better.

I’m OK with speed if you’re OK with clarity. I start missing things somewhere north of 200 words a minute – do the math. If you’re spreading, your opponent is compelled to clash, but I'll allow a spread to be countered by relatively fewer words. Remember, we’re not counting arguments to determine the winner. The side with the best stuff will prevail over the side with the most stuff. If you can do both, great.

I take a dim view of attempts to carve out a narrow requirement for yourself, or narrow ground for your opponent. You are here to debate, not hide from one. If you want to roll out theory to address fairness or abuse, fine. But the formalism is not mandatory and your opponent can respond conventionally. Make sure the abuse is legitimate. I have a low threshold for theory as part of an NC spread strategy.

I keep a reasonably-detailed flow. Please follow the flow and signpost! Gross repetition is not needed, but please tell me where you are. Your words will be more effectively assimilated into the debate if I don't have to search all over the flow.

Saving the best for last, please note I'm a non-interventionist. I'll fill in the overtly obvious, but you have to connect the dots. If you want it to count, SAY IT! Also, please NO NEW arguments in rebuttals. This is often reason enough to drop even if you're winning everywhere else.

add me to the email chain: djwisniew@gmail.com

I am a fifth year parent judge and a former competitor in Policy in the late 80s. Currently, I judge for my daughter who is a small school LD debater. Pref me high if you want a FLAY judge

No spreading - I do NOT appreciate spreading. Skimming through a document trying to figure out where you are is NOT debate. I need to be able to follow and understand your arguments and responses. Dazzle me with your intellect, not your speed. I will not be relying on the docs - they're only good for reference.

For LD circuit debate - It’s in your best interest to give me signposts (a lot of them, and be clear) - policy, case, K, disad, counter plan, etc. I will evaluate the flow per your direction. If T comes before case, tell me why and we're good. I like K when done well, but it's not an automatic win. I enter the round tabula-rasa, if you're running something complex please explain it well. Make sure I know where you are in the flow!

For Parliamentary Debate - I judge you based on what you tell me, not what I know. There’s never a bad side of the motion. I will be flowing all your arguments, and I make my decisions based on who convinces me their arguments are the strongest. Don’t forget to weigh, this is crucial to how I make my decisions! Any impacts are welcome. The extra 30 seconds are intended to complete a thought, not start a new one. Ties are awarded to the Opposition. Please rise when you want to interrupt with a question. Time pauses for POCs and POs, not POIs. Please be respectful to your opponents and have fun!

For all other debate most of the same points go - run whatever you’re comfortable with and I’ll judge the way you tell me to. A list of preferences:

1. Contentions should be based on quality, not quantity. I’m not going to vote for you if you fly through 12 contentions and tell me your opponent dropped half of them.

2. In circuit debate you should slow down and literally write the ballot for me. I don't like tricks, but for everything else tell me what weighs and I will vote for the most convincing.

3. I will weigh all arguments carried through, and consider the impact of dropped arguments per your direction. (please don't drop your opponent's entire case). In LD, please weigh your argument against your framework.Framework is crucial in LD, and you should always have impacts. In all others, please clearly state how your impacts outweigh your opponent's.

4. I don't consider any new arguments in final speeches.

5. In your final speeches, please number or letter your voting points so we are all on the same page. I’ll flow you regardless, but it’s in your best interest.

Debate should be educational and fair. Good luck and have fun!