Palm Classic
2022 — NSDA Campus, CA/US
LD - CA Paradigm List
All Paradigms: Show HideI am a parent judge. I have judged over 6 debate tournaments. I like to have participants compete with good spirit, be respectful of your opponent. I don't like spreading. Also opponents should be responsible for keeping each other's times. I like a thorough debate with clear framework, contentions, and rebuttals.
No circuit debate or spreading. Mostly judged LD for the last 7 years. I look at LD as a value-based debate, if participants are debating on totally different value/VC, I would expect debtors to clarify why their VC is better than the opponents. Also expect to weigh in how your contentions are reflecting on VC. In the final speech, please clarify, why should I vote for you. Please be polite and genuine. If you are making a statement of dropping arguments, please make sure you believe in it. Speaker points are based on how effectively you are articulating your arguments with out repeating/waisting any time/statements.
I have been judging LD debate for the past 3 years. I am a lay judge who does flow, but please make sure to be clear with your arguments to make sure I get everything you say (no spreading!).
The main things I take into consideration when judging are your clarity in speaking, confidence in your persuasion, and ability to prove why your arguments are stronger than your opponent's. Please make sure you weigh both sides to make it clear to me why you believe the world you are asking for is better. Also, I will not understand any circuit arguments and I will likely vote against you.
Furthermore, it is very important that you are respectful to your opponent. Failure to do so will likely result in a loss.
Happy Debating!
I've been coaching and judging for over 15 years, so I've seen and heard it all by now. What really stands out to me is strong, clear debating. Please avoid being rude or condescending—respect goes a long way. Be concise and ensure your arguments are understandable. Use your evidence wisely, and while big impacts are great, realistic ones are even better. To me, the heart of debate is education and communication. Show me you've learned something, and demonstrate that you can communicate your ideas in a thoughtful, well-structured way. Most importantly, have fun! It’s amazing to watch students grow and become the leaders we know you can be. And just a bit of advice from someone who's been around—don’t give up. It might sound cliché, but consistency and persistence lead to success. Keep at it, and good luck to everyone!
I follow the flay pattern. I like to focus on the flow of the argument and also place emphasis on the presentation of the content.
Ideally, each contention should be called out before you deep-dive into it so that I can correlate the substance/examples of your argument to your contention.
If the above is taken care of, I can easily make out what you are presenting, regardless of whether you speak fast or slow.
In CX, please be courteous to your opponent and allow them to finish responding to your question(s).
I am a parent judge with 3 years of judging experience with traditional LD. I do flow, granted that pacing is at an understandable level.
Do not spread, run kritiks, counterplans/plans, theory or topicality. I will not flow circuit arguments.
Here are simple things I value
- Be respectful to your opponent
- Structured and logical arguments
- Don't read cards for the sake of reading cards, I value intuitive arguments and logical extensions.
- Signpost, extend, and summarize voter issues. Impact calculus is appreciated.
My preferences are:
- State your contentions clearly
- Speak clearly and slowly, don't spread. You will know you are speaking too quickly if I drop my pen. I cannot follow you if you speak too quickly so pay attention to this preference.
- Be polite, if you are rude and disrespectful to your opponent or to me, you will lose the round.
-Track your own time and your opponent should track their time.
-I like sign-posting
-I like quick off time road maps
I am a flow judge. If I don't understand you, I won't put it into my flow. That said, there is a difference between speaking fast and spreading. You can speak fast but if it is incomprehensible (spreading), I will miss the argument and it didn't make it onto my flow. Also, do not expect me to understand the topic; it is up to the debaters to allow me to understand the round. Please clearly state your impacts in your final speeches.
In LD, there are 4 minutes of prep and I generally don't allow for flex prep. There's cross-x time for a reason. You can ask for evidence during prep but not clarification (again, that's what cross x is for).
I weigh on framework and impact analysis. I look for arguments that are both logically sound and that have proper evidence to support it. I would probably describe myself as leaning traditional but I am comfortable with progressive arguments.
I have judged Congress, Public Forum, Lincoln Douglas, and Parli, but I am most familiar with LD.
I would also request that there should be a non-aggressive and friendly cross-examination and class. Be respectful to each other. Keep track of your own time and your opponent's.
Prefer debaters to speak not too fast. Standard news reader speed <= 150 wpm preferred.
I have been judging for 3 years now. I judged 2 years for PF and 1 year LD.
This is my 3rd year of judging (I am a parent judge). Mostly familiar with LD and some Pofo.
Please be respectful and have fun. I really prefer NO spreading. I am open to just about anything, but please explain it like I am new to the argument. Please signpost. You do not have to ask me before each speech, all roadmaps can be off time.
Please crosstime!
Being rude to your opponent, or cutting them off in CX beyond an appropriate level will reflect on your speaker points.
I am mostly tech>truth as long as there is a solid link.
I value these 7 things most:
1) Pace/Clarity/Timing
2) Speech, Quality, Tone
3) Points/Details/Organization/Examples
4) Turns and Rebuttals
5) Flow Through of Contentions
6) Cross Ex Offense and Defense
7) Closing & Quality/Clarity of Final Rebuttals
please be clear with your arguments. sell my vote for me. and have fun.
Hi, I'm Jessica (she/they)
Archbishop Mitty '21
University of Michigan '25
LD for 4 years, circuit LD for 3, currently debate as 1A for University of Michigan
email: db8jess@gmail.com
Let me know before the round if you have any questions.
Miscellaneous
If any competitor in the room ever feel unsafe, just shoot me a private email (and/or you can simply leave the room) and I’ll immediately stop the round + drop the other debater.
Slow down in overviews, key analytics, blippy theory shells, and don't just spread at your 400+ wpm right in the beginning of your speech.
tl;dr
Order of preference: larp/stock k's/theory, other k's/high theory, (probably strike) dense phil/tricks
Won't backflow.
Probably won't vote on the independent voter unless it actively makes the debate space unsafe.
policy
I'm find with decently abusive cps (consult cps, process cps, etc, aff theory on these types of args is also legitimate though).
Don't just say no risk/terminal defense and expect me to believe it, unless there is a 100% conceded position.
Please understand the evidence you read and have a coherent ballot story by the last speech - stop skipping like 3 internal links in a disad and assume I'll buy your 1% risk of extinction.
kritiks
Have nuanced k's, I am most familiar with common k lit (cap, security, set col), but I'll probably understand other k lit if you explain them well enough.
I usually think the alt is the weakest part of most kritiks, so be able to bring up concrete examples of how the alt solves. Don't just keep repeating the same jargon or tagline in the card over and over again because I'll either fall asleep or get really annoyed.
If there is even any sort of answer to it, the floating pik is nonsensical but if they don't ask, feel free to go for it.
Have a solid link wall. Pointing out lines from their case will boost your speaks.
Oh, also, if you're going to read baudrillard/bifo in front of me, I have a pretty high threshold for voting on them and if you're actually winning I'll still give you the win, but #sorrynotsorry I'll probably give you pretty bad speaks.
non-T affs/framework
I do feel more comfortable adjudicating topical debates but just explain why your model of debate is better. For K affs that are very dense - please explain well, and don't make my brain hurt.
I think the TVA is pretty persuasive. I'm inclined to buy impact turns on fairness, so I am probably going to be more convinced by a 2NR on clash. This, of course, will vary based on the quality of the speeches.
I know it's tempting to just read one off framework, but engaging with the aff substance and reading other offs will get you better speaks. And generally, I just think it's a better strategy and lead to more enjoyable debates.
T/theory
I have a very low threshold for answers on friv theory and RVIs.
Weigh between your standards and their standards.
Run your condo/dispo bad (I'm pretty ambivalent for >2 but anything less is probably condo good). Also condo = dispo (I can be persuaded otherwise, but
Make well-warranted standards. A one-line blip in the 1ar on condo bad probably isn't going to work quite well if you full intend to go for a condo 2ar. I'm probably going to be bad at adjudicating theory debates with 203948234 blips.
phil
Not good for judging dense phil vs phil debates, besides kant (which I have a greater level of familiarity with).
That being sad, I have debated against a fair share of philosophical arguments as a debater, so I'm not going to be absolutely clueless. If you do read phil in front of me: slow down on analytics, have a coherent syllogism, explain the literature well, and do weighing between justifications.
Go for the turn
tricks
strike me if you're entire strat is tricks.
speaks
speaks are based off of strategy/efficiency.
Your speaks will go up if:
stop doc-botting, cut your own evidence, have really nicely formatted docs, make me laugh, etc etc
Your speaks will go down A LOT if:
you're rude, postround, take a long time sending out prep
fyi: i will give you extra speaks if you make (good) references to brandon sanderson (mistborn or stormlight archive) (+0.3), aot (+0.1), or fmab (+0.2)
Extra
people I talk about debate the most with/probably share similar debate ideology with: Arnav Simha
I've been judging tournaments since 2017 - mostly debate (LD/PF/Parli) but some speech events as well.
Things I like in debate:
- Debating on the resolution
- Running traditional framework and making it clear with clash and weighing mechanisms
- Good, explicit speech structure and signposting
- Strong clash
Things I do not like in debate:
- Spreading (if I don't hear it, I can't flow it)
- Kritiks / theory
- Falsified evidence
Things I am probably OK with in debate:
- CPs, where permitted by tournament rules
Things I am probably not OK with in debate:
- Highly implausible impacts
Good luck... and good skill!
Hi. I’m a lay (parent) judge currently working in a legal field. I decide based on the strength of the contentions to affirm or to negate the resolution and delivery of the arguments and counter arguments to support your contentions and to refute your opponent’s contentions, based on the facts, relevance, logic, and how convincing the overall contentions and arguments are. I like creative, unique contentions as long as they are relevant and sufficiently developed. Not a fan of spreading or other technical stuff. I look forward to seeing a good debate.
Stanford/Berkeley Note: I haven’t judged in a full year. That means I haven’t heard spreading in a full year. Sadly, these will probably be my last two tourneys judging debate (I’m starting a PhD in math). I don’t expect (and you shouldn’t expect me to be) a great judge, though I’ll do my best. Pref at your own risk. My debate ideologies haven’t changed (I still have no issue with tricks) but given that I expect to be significantly worse at flowing, I also expect to be a worse judge for tricks than I used to be on a technical level.
What's up. I'm Lukas/Luka (either is fine, they/them). Yes, I do want to be on the email chain. Lukrau2002@gmail.com, but I prefer using the fileshare option on NSDA campus, or speechdrop. If you would like, I am happy to send you my flow after the round (my dropbox expired so I'm no longer saving my flows after the round except in my trash folder, so if you want your flow ask me quick).
Important Warning: the longer the tournament goes the worse I become at judging. If I've judged like 10+ debates be prepared for short rfds and be clear so I don't misflow you and make things obvious so I dont do illogical things.
I will listen to any argument, (yes, including tricks, nebel T, intrinsic perms, extra T, K affs of any type, listing these as they are supposedly the most "controversial") in any event, against any opponent, with the exception of the obviously morally objectionable arguments (use common sense or ask), arguments attempting to change the number of winners/losers, and arguments attempting to take speaker points out of my hands (IE, no 30 speaks spike). With those exceptions, my only dogma is that dogma is bad. If you are confident in your ability to beat your opponents on the flow, pref me high. If you have certain arguments you dogmatically hate and are terrible at debating against, it is probably in your best interests to pref me low, because I will almost certainly be willing to evaluate those arguments no matter how silly you find them.
I believe that paradigms should exclusively be used to list experience with arguments, and that judges should not have "preferences" in the sense of arguments they dont want to evaluate. We're very likely being paid to be here to adjudicate the debates the debaters want to have, so the fact that some judges see fit to refuse to evaluate the fruit of some debaters' labor because they personally didn't like the args when they debated is extremely frustrating and frankly disrespectful to the time and effort of the debaters in my opinion. So below is my experience and a quick pref guide, based not on preference, but on my background knowledge of the arguments.
Experience: HSLD debate, Archbishop Mitty, 2018-2021; TOC qual 2020, 3 career bids. VBI camp instructor - Summer of 2021, Summer of 2022, Summer of 2023. Private coaching - Fall 2021-2022 (no longer actively coaching). Happy to talk about math stuff, especially topology!
Pref guide - based on experience as a debater and judge, not personal arg preference
1 - Weird/cheaty counterplans
1 - Policy Args
1 - Phil
2 - Ks (queer theory, cap)
2 - Tricks
2 - Theory
2 - Ks (other Ks, not high theory)
3 - Ks (high theory)
Again, I cannot stress enough that this is solely based on my knowledge of the lit bases, not my love for the arguments. I read and enjoyed judging many a deleuze aff as a debater and more recently judge. The amount of reading I did to read those affs was very minimal and I mostly just stole cards, so would I say I actually know the args very well? Probably not. Would I enjoy evaluating them? Absolutely.
Below are purely procedural things
Ev ethics note: I will evaluate ev ethics claims the way the accusing debater wants me to out of 2 options: 1] stake the round on the egregiousness of the ev ethics claim, if the violation meets my arbitrary brightline for egregiousness I will drop the debater with bad ev ethics, if not the accusing debater will lose 2] if you read it as a theory shell I will evaluate it as a theory shell. If you're unsure about my arbitrary brightline for staking the round, note that such ev ethics violation need to be reasonably egregious (to auto end the round, I would prefer to see malicious intent or effect, where the meaning of the evidence is changed) - whereas my brightline for voting on it as a theory shell is much lower, and given the truth of the shell you will likely win on the shell, regardless of effect or intent. This means if you have an edge case its better to debate out the theory because you'll probably win simply bc those theory shells are pretty true but I'm pretty adverse to auto dropping ppl so you might not if you stake. If it is obvious and egregious though feel free to stake the round I will definitely vote against egregious miscuttings.
CX is Binding. This means with respect to statuses, etc, your arguments must abide by the status you say in either the speech you read the argument, or the status you say the argument is in cross X. If you say an arg is uncondo in CX, but attempt to kick it in a later speech, & I remember you saying it was uncondo in CX, I will not kick the arg.
But I take this notion farther than just argument statuses. If your opponent asks you "what were your answers to X", you may choose to list as many arguments as you like. You may say "you should've flowed" and not answer, that's your prerogative. But if you DO choose to answer, you should either list every argument you read, or list some and explicitly say that there were other arguments. If your opponent asks something like "was that all," and you choose to say yes, even if I have other args on my flow I won't evaluate them because you explicitly told your opponent those were your only responses. DO NOT LIE/GASLIGHT IN CX, even by accident. Correct yourself before your opponent's prep ends if you've said something wrong. I will not drop you for lying but I WILL hold you to what you say in CX.
My personal beliefs can best be described via Trivialism: https://rest.neptune-prod.its.unimelb.edu.au/server/api/core/bitstreams/3e74aad4-3f61-5a49-b4e3-b20593c93983/content
LD
Include me on the chain: dylanyliu3@gmail.com
I competed for Brentwood in LD on the circuit from 2017 to 2021, competing for Emory in policy, 25'. He/Him.
I value the work and effort that goes into preparing and attending a debate tournament. I am excited to judge your round and value both my and your time!
Here's my judging stats.
BFHS Update:
I LOVE TRAD DEBATE.
For nats, lay, pf:
Ignore everything below. Debate is a game of persuasion: a] i'm influenced by winning arguments, b] i'm influenced by influential speakers. Lay/pf debate is an exercise in accessibility, strategic choices, efficiency, and judge adaptation. Think of me as a debater roleplaying as a parent judge and you'll have a good time.
Cross-ex is a speech with limited time constraints; you can ask silly questions during prep but I won't flow them or think about them.
Cordiality is good and important. Stealing prep is bad and I'll obliterate your points.
For LD/CX:
I don't feel that I have robust ideological views about debate, and I find that most paradigms ultimately become a lecture about how people think debate works and why you should debate that way in front of them. I am certainly unqualified to explain what particular T argument is the most compelling and why, that being said, I think you should debate how you want to debate, and I will evaluate the round to the best of my ability as the debaters have told me to. I do have some 'warnings' that you may find germane to how I make my decisions usually.
I am likely bad for pomo and tricks and will vote for it only if there is a very compelling explanation in the rebuttals that tell me what it is I'm voting for exactly and why that means you win. I don't feel particularly comfortable voting for positions that I couldn't explain back to you.
I tend to think debate is good because of clash, otherwise it's not debate.
I dislike blips. I tend to think that a winning argument requires an investment of time, and would prefer to vote on the core of the round.
i will bump up both debaters' speaker points if the 1ac begins at the round start time.
I think in round violence against people in the room can be a compelling ballot - I think there's a sliding scale of when I'm obligated to intervene and I will gladly end it shamelessly and seemingly arbitrarily, especially for children.
Clipping and other evidence violations is a tab question; I will actively listen for clipping and am open to recordings or proof that someone else is clipping.
Please don't read win 30 in front of me
idk what zero and one hundred mean.
I am not a professional judge, but I have been judging events for a while (as you can check from my history). My goal is to be fair and not be biased by my own opinions on the topic, race, gender, location or school name.
My request to you all, please try not to spread. If I can't capture your contentions in my notes, I will not be able to give you points for it (unless your opponent brings it up later, for me to catch up on it). So focus on quality and not on quantity.
Learn from each other and have fun.
Harvard 2025 - I am sick so please take it easy on my lol. I'll try my best to keep up but am not at top shape. Also I won't be shaking anyones hands.
Email: timothy.matt.meyer@gmail.com
Circuot wise, I'm generally a bit rusty; judged a bit last year and before that was actively involved in 2020. When running advanced arguments do your best to make it clear what my role is and why it matters. Speedwise, I'm still a bit rusty and don't like being overly reliant on docs (self rating of 7/10).
RVI's
My default position is against RVI's, with the only exception being extreme quantity (of legitimate violations) or severity of a single one.
Slightly tech over truth
__________________________________________________
Experience /Qualifications:
I've been a part of forensics for almost 10 years, competed in multiple IE's and both Lincoln Douglas and Parliamentary debate. Qualified and broke at nationals. Coached state and national finalists across Congress/Speech and extremely competitive PF and Parli teams at the state level.
Preferences
All forms of debate:
Make sure you signpost effectively and clearly convey your arguments. Also clearly illustrate any links and impacts you have.
I have a fair understanding of the active topics (and am always interested to learn more in these rounds) but it is against my principles to make arguments for you. I won't connect your links/impacts to something you haven't said in round, so don't assume that I will.
I'm fine with speed for whatever is reasonable for your event (policy-✓✓✓, LD-✓✓, PF-✓, Parli-why?). Debate is educational, nobody wants to be in a round where they are just being yelled at incomprehensibly. Respect clears and share your docs.
I have a more traditional background; if your impacts are extinction, make sure the link chain in getting there is clear. I strongly prefer impacts grounded in reality that cleanly flow through vs a shoddy push at 5 different extinction scenarios.
My most important personal preference: Manners
This activity is very competitive and confrontational. I understand that sometimes it can get heated. But at any point if anything offensive is done to the other team, I will immediately drop speaker points (and potentially the round based on the severity.) It's important to engage in discourse respectfully.
Lincoln Douglas:
Make sure to clash and subsequently defend your framework. This is the crux of your case, you shouldn't be moving over it.
Be organized, and clearly lay out how your arguments interact with your opponents.
Fairly open to progressive argumentation. I enjoy Kritiks (though I'm a bit rusty on these) and Plans. I'm not a big fan of theory but respect meaningful shells (frivolous theory). Respect the rules of the tournament as well. I really don't want to have to run to tab to figure out if your arguments are legal or not.
Public Forum:
I want clear links and impacts from both sides. Anything you think is important, emphasize. Make sure to be organized and professional.
I accept the use of Kritiks/theory when permissible, but personally believe the format of PF is not conducive to the depth of kritiks.
I pay attention during cross but won't judge on it. Make sure anything you want to be flowed is said in round.
Parliamentary:
Signpost Signpost Signpost
Signposting is more important here than in any other event. Make sure you are organized, and you are consistently signposting throughout your speeches. If I get lost, there's a good chance a main argument will be missed.
Make your links clear and stay relevant to the resolution for your arguments to flow through.
Argument wise, basically anything goes
I would appreciate no spreading. If I do not hear or understand what is being said I will stop flowing.
I am a parent judge.
Please speak clearly and a fast conversational pace is fine.
Signposting is preferred.
I will be taking notes during your speeches.
Please be courteous to your opponent.
For JF 2024- this is like my favorite topic ever. I am getting my MA in international affairs, and I have researched extensively the ICC and UNCLOS. International law is something I know a lot about, especially international environmental law. So, I will naturally have a high bar for accuracy in arguments. This may affect speaks, and if the wining debater is just saying false things, that's a low point win. Please just research how treaties work.
tldr- prefs key
Soft left affs- 1
1off K - 1 (esp with specific links, less if relying on link of omission)
theory/T- 2
larp-2
K affs- 2 (i have a high bar for these, be creative)
larp but like 8off DAs/CPs/theory- 3
Phil-3 (unless u explain it to me)
tricks-4
meme args- 5 (i have little patience)
--
cool with speech drop or add me to the email chain-katieraphaelson@gmail.com
Brentwood 19'
Smith 23'
The New School Graduate Program in International Affairs '26
Head Coach of Brentwood Debate
Hello! I'm Katie! I use they/them pronouns. I debated LD at Brentwood School from 2015-2019. I was a quarterfinalist at CHSSA state and 10th at NSDA nats my senior year. I focused mostly on circuit in high school and broke consistently my senior year. I mainly read performance non t affs and postmodernism Ks
I've been coaching and judging for about 6 years and have experience judging every event, but I do come from an LD background. This paradigm used to be super long but at this point I really only have like a few important things:
1) provide content warnings if you are going to talk about SA and violence against queer ppl. Please don't read cases that are primarily about SA/r*pe. thank u!
2) don't be racist, homophobic, transphobic, xenophopic, ableist, etc. Debaters are people. The people we talk about in debate are people. Every argument has real world implications. Be sensitive to that.
3)I have mainly been coaching trad debate, but I am good for circuit
a. my background is in Ks- id pol (queerness, ableism, queercrip, performance K affs) and pomo (D&G, Baudrillard, legal realism). I had many a KvK debate, so I am also very familiar with other K lit (antiblackness, set col, cap, fem).
b. I also love smart CPs and DAs with clear links and solvency aka DA uniqueness needs to be strong and CP has to solve. If the offs conflict, I like a good perf con arg.
c. I like theory that is based on in round stuff and is not frivolous- spec good/bad, condo (although i think condo is good reasonably), non frivolous T. I will vote on disclosure if it is clearly an intentional lack of disclosing. I’m not convinced by new affs bad.
d. I love a neg strat of K, T, CP, DA then kick the alt and go for the links as DAs to the aff. I also love a 1 off K.
e. Don't read meme arguments ill be really annoyed
4) I am neurodivergent, and it can be hard for me to get everything down if debaters spread super fast and I can't really understand the words. It is mainly to benefit y'all- if you want to make sure I am getting everything, send your analytics.If I can tell you are just reading off a prewritten doc, and you aren't sending those analytics, I will be sad. There won't be a penalty for not sending them, but you do send your analytics, I will give you +.01 speaks. I promise that disclosing your analytics in round does not give an advantage to your opponent, and it incentivizes reading blippy and cheaty arguments hoping that your opponent misses them. That's a one way ticket to not improving your debate skills.
5) I would like arguments to have warrants (hot take I know) so I won't just vote off of one line that was dropped bc it was dropped. If you are reading a case that proposes a new method or model of viewing the debate, I would like to know what that method/model looks like. If you weigh the case and I have no idea what the case actually is, I will not automatically pull the trigger.
6) time yourselves please! and keep track of your prep time. I am not keeping track.
7) Be nice to each other!!!!!!!
8) Debate the way you do best! Have fun!
Pronouns: he/him or they/them
Affiliations: Regent Legacy Academy
School strikes: Polytechnic School
Guidance for all debate activities:
Please be nice to each other. Be aware that disrespectful and discourteous behavior will result in me lowering your speaker points. I see speaker points as a way to discourage that kind of behavior.
I won't vote for you and will attempt to give you the lowest speaker points/ranking possible if you use hate speech *1 or advocate for nazism. So I guess you could say that I'm not a "tabula rasa" judge in the strict sense of the term.
Present a clear, convincing case for why you should win the debate in your rebuttal speeches. Don't expect me to do the work connecting the dots for you. Generally speaking, overviews before the line-by-line are a good place to do this work. Basically, if I have to do a lot of work to unravel who won the debate, I'm gonna be a bit displeased.
Please don't be cringe and try to steal prep time. Please keep track of each other's speech times as well as your own, as well as your own prep time.
Please don't hesitate to speak up and ask, if you have any specific questions before the debate begins! I usually like to wait until all the competitors are present before answering questions about my paradigm, so everyone has the benefit of hearing my answer at the same time, and can ask any follow-up questions.
Thank you and good luck!
Policy:
I consider myself a competent flow judge who is fine with speed as long as I can understand you. *2
When I flow, I'll typically write a summarized interpretation of your tag line, the author's name and the date of the publication, and any key warrants or words I hear you say. And when you make analytical arguments, I'll write a summarized version of it. If I think you're saying something impactful, and you're saying it slowly enough, I'll flow every word you say. Basically, I'm going to try my hardest to rely on the debaters' analyses of their own, and each others', evidence and warrants, to resolve the debate. If you force me to read the speech doc and compare evidence after the debate has ended, you did something wrong, and there's a good chance you're not going to like my decision.
If neither team presents framework arguments, I default to evaluating which team did a better job debating their side of the resolution.
I have a pretty high threshold for T arguments in the sense that I think the negative needs to present a convincing case of why they win the interp vs. counter-interp, violation, standards, and voters debates on T.
I typically evaluate most arguments in the debate using an offense-defense paradigm. I'm usually going to default to giving the aff a risk of solvency and the neg a risk of their DA if there are not any turns on the flow. It's gonna be up to you, the debaters, to do the impact calc. Basically, I want you to write my ballot for me. Let me take the easy way out!
LD:
Fine with speed. See the first paragraph above for more detail. Generally speaking, I'll evaluate the topic in the context of whichever side wins the value/value-criterion debate.
Endnotes:
*1 Not going to attempt to propose an all-encompassing definition of what constitutes hate speech. I will be relying on a "I know it when I see it" approach.
*2 If I can't understand you, I will say, "clear," once during your speech. If I can't understand you, I will not be recording any of your arguments onto my flow for the duration that you cannot be understood. If it isn't too much to ask, could you please start your first speech relatively slowly and gradually pick up speed? That allows me to get used to your voice and manner of speaking. Thank you!
You can view a prior version of my paradigm here: https://web.archive.org/web/20180503224814/https://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Sander%2C+Steven
Much of that is still at least somewhat relevant and applicable.
Hello,
I have been judging in the YFL tournaments for the last 3 years and would prefer to judge speech events!
Thanks,
Siva Senguttuvan
---
General Background:
I debated at Maine East (2016-2020) on the TOC circuit and at the University of Pittsburgh (2020-2023), including the NDT. Currently, I work in the tech industry and am an Assistant Coach for the University of Pittsburgh.
My debate career focused on critical arguments (e.g., Afropessimism, Settler Colonialism, Capitalism). I particularly enjoy judging clash debates, or policy vs. critical. Traditional policy debaters should note my limited experience in policy v policy debates and rank me significantly lower / accordingly on their judging preferences.
If you follow @careerparth on tiktok, I will boost your speaker points.
Key Principles
The most important thing to know: If you make an argument, defend it fully. Do not disavow arguments made by you or your partner in speeches or cross-examination. Instead, defend them passionately and holistically. Embrace the implications of your strategy in all relevant aspects of the debate. Hesitation about your own claims is the quickest way to lose my ballot.
For reference, my judging philosophy aligns with those of Micah Weese, Reed Van Schenck, Calum Matheson, Alex Holguin, & Alex Reznik.
Debate Philosophy
I see my role as a judge as primarily to determine who won the debate but also to facilitate the debaters' learning. Everything can be an impact if you find a way to weigh it against other impacts, this includes procedural fairness. When my ballot is decided on the impact debate, I tend to vote for whoever better explains the material consequence of their impact. Using examples can help to elucidate (the lack of) solvency, establish link stories, make comparative arguments, and help establish your expertise on the topic.
While I have preferences, I will adapt to your argument style. I don't exclude debaters based on their choice of arguments, as long as they avoid racist, sexist, or similarly offensive content.
Speaker points are arbitrary. I tend to give higher speaker points to debaters who show a thorough understanding of the arguments they present. I am especially impressed by debaters who efficiently collapse in the final rebuttals and those who successfully give rebuttals with prep time remaining and/or off the flow.
---
Public Forum Debate
I am a flow-centric judge on the condition your arguments are backed with evidence and are logical. My background is in policy debate, but regardless of style, and especially important in PF, I think it's necessary to craft a broad story that connects what the issue is, what your solution is, and why you think you should win the debate.
I like evidence qualification comparisons and "if this, then that" statements when tied together with logical assumptions that can be made. Demonstrating ethos, confidence, and good command of your and your opponent's arguments is also very important in getting my ballot.
I will like listening to you more if you read smart, innovative arguments. Don't be rude and/or overly aggressive especially if your debating and arguments can't back up that "talk." Not a good look.
Give an order before your speech and the faster you conclude the debate, the higher your speaker points will be.
I am a parent/'lay' judge. Please weigh your arguments and explain them. I would prefer if you spoke in fast conversational speed. I will flow all arguments. Please maintain respect throughout the round.
I am a parent judge who has some experience judging traditional LD debates. I will flow your arguments. Please do not spread or run circuit arguments. Please be respectful to your opponent.
My preferences are:
- State your contentions clearly
- Speak clearly and slowly, don't spread. I cannot follow you if you speak too quickly so please pay attention to this preference.
- Be polite, if you are rude and disrespectful to your opponent or to me, you will lose the round.
-Track your own time and your opponent should track their time.
I am a novice judge so go easy on me!
I am a rational fact driven judge, so it's not about my personal values or beliefs.
I will strive to judge fairly to determine who has better debating skills.
I am definitely into the quality of the argument rather than the quantity of words or the volume - your arguments must be backed up by evidence, and be clearly audible - do not spread!
I want all debaters to be courteous at all times during the debate, and please note I won't disclose who won, but if asked I will provide constructive feedback.
Updated 01/07
Prefs TLDR---I have a lot more experience judging K rounds. I read a K aff and a policy aff as a result of being on a lot of hybrid teams. I would say I read K affs more due to coming from a small school than feeling stronger they were better for debate. I alternated KvK and framework/cap good style debates depending on the partner. You'll prob pref me for K rounds - fwiw, I have nothing against policy rounds and I'm fine to judge them.
I generally don't judge that often these days because I teach online classes on Sundays. And maybe because having a picture of a furby in your paradigm affects your prefs.
About me---
Coaching: University of Chicago Lab, South Shore, Potomac Debate Academy
Formerly: McDade Classical, Lindblom, Phillips Exeter, SWSDI, CDSI, CSSI
I also started this debate sticker shop in HS people keep buying from.
Things that I give high speaks for----
1. Argumentative and strategic consistency and awareness - in every cross or speech you give, I can identify a clear understanding of your case and strategy. You're not just reading each speech in front of you, you're thinking about the round as a whole. For Varsity, my threshold is a bit higher - I'm impressed by quick explanations in response to specific questions about your evidence/mechanics of your arguments. For Novice, I'd say I value decent topic knowledge.
2. What I consider to be good for "professionalism" is being accountable for prep time, speech times, and cross times. I won't be upset if you take a second to get ready when you are about to start your speech. But if you're consistently ending prep and speaking very promptly after, I will reward that with higher speaks since I do dislike when people "end prep" just to then very clearly continue to read through their speech and mentally prep until they start talking.
3. Be kind to your partners. Do not be overly cocky. The most confident and intelligent debaters I've ever seen didn't need to be rude to get that across.
Other things---
1. Speed's cool with me if it's cool with all debaters in the round. I'd personally send out a speech doc after 300wpm because of the likelihood of lag in online settings. In general, if you want your arguments on my flow make sure you're loud and clear. I flow everything on its own sheet, so off-time road maps are cool. Signposting is even cooler.
2. Don't use unnecessary jargon in novice. Unless this is visibly a higher level tech round, I do believe you should be doing everything in your power to make sure everyone in round has access to the same education you do.
3. Make debate educational, above all else. Accessibility is a pre-requisite to education. Exclude, you lose.
This is my first time judging. I like debaters who have clarity in their speech and please do not speak very fast.
- Speak clearly and slowly, don't spread.
- Be polite.
-Track your own time.
- I like quick off-time road maps.
- For those debaters who have Nuclear War as an argument - I hope you have evidence to support it.
Good luck!
“There is no such thing as public opinion. There is only published opinion. “ - Sir W. Churchill
Preferences:
-Speak clearly and slowly, don't spread. I cannot follow you if you speak too quickly so pay attention to this preference.
-Be polite, if you are rude and disrespectful to your opponent or to me, you will lose the round.
-Track your own time and your opponent should track their time.
- - State your contentions clearly
- - Speak clearly and slowly, don't spread. You will know you are speaking too quickly if I drop my pen. I cannot follow you if you speak too quickly so pay attention to this preference.
- - Be polite, if you are rude and disrespectful to your opponent or to me, you will lose the round.
- -Track your own time and your opponent should track their time.
- -I like sign-posting
- -I like quick off time road maps