hey

link to serious paradigm if u have a bit of time before round

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TE4Qsl5u_dTU7Vkg2UGROpokFLHpBOX5CHvWY30-H9s/edit?usp=sharing

Name: Shifatul Ahsan Apurba

School Affiliation: BRAC University

Number of Years Judging Public Forum: <1

Number of Years Competing in Public Forum: >1

Number of Years Judging Other Forensic Activities: >3

Number of Years Competing in Other Forensic Activities: >3

If you are a coach, what events do you coach? - Not a coach

What is your current occupation? - Undergraduate Student

General Notes for speakers:

1. Speakers should be aware of the following information.

2. In particular, I appreciate teams that have a clear structure, can explain the implications of evidence effectively, and can correctly connect evidence to their arguments.

3. It's better if you describe the underlying trend/core problem connected with it while using proof.

4. It's critical to maintain your audience's interest. Judges' jobs are made simpler by direct comparison and weighing. In addition, you should demonstrate how your advantages exceed their drawbacks and how your advantages surpass your opponents'.

5. If you make a case for comparative advantage, be ready to back it up with evidence that connects directly to the evidence your opponent utilized.

6. You should be ready to explain why your strategy is a superior method, such as because it gets the job done faster/easier and requires fewer resources.

7. Please don't make any arguments that aren't obvious to a well-informed voter. This content will be devalued if you do this.

8. You must refrain from using any terminology that may lead to equity breaches.

9. We enjoy having a roadmap.

10. It's okay to speak quickly as long as you're clear.

11. As long as you're comprehensible, I don't mind what type of style you have. Different debaters have varying styles because of their different upbringings, and it is something I respect.

12. During presentations, I have a decent amount of energy. In the heat of battle, I jot down the most salient queries and the answers given to them.

San Diego State University Comm major

Current Trojan Debate Squad member (Policy Debate) 23/ '24

NDT / CEDA qual

Your work towards making your speeches clear for my flow will be reflected in my ballot.

Please include me in the email chain joaquinresell@gmail.com

As far as experience goes, I participated mostly in PF in high school. I'm not overly familiar with other facets of debate, but I know what to look for and what a round should consist of.

Some general pointers:

Be civil. I have an extremely low tolerance for disrespect. CX can be intense, I get it, but recognize the line between aggression and disrespect. As debaters we've been trained to think we are the intellectual end all, be all. Check yourselves when you're being too cocky and recognize when aggression is warranted and when it's not.

Totally fine with speed as long as you're being clear. With that being said, imma say clear once and once only.

Cross: I typically don't flow CX unless something especially spicy (or funny) is mentioned. Remember, aggression =/= disrespect. If a point is significant enough make sure it's carried through to your next speech.

For my PF peeps: I'm fairly traditional in what I allow in-round. Meaning I will not flow theory, counter plants, kritiks, or any extreme spreading. Leave policy where it belongs.

I judge based on the flow. If an argument is important to you, keep addressing it and extending it. Just stay true to traditional debate rules; don't make new arguments during your summary or conclusion, extend what's important to you, and keep your main arguments alive throughout the round.

Lay judge with limited experience.

Suggestions for contestants: Be respectful, stick to the facts, watch the timer.

Parent judge with no prior experience.

Please be respectful and speak clearly.

Try to avoid using debate jargon and make sure to explain your arguments thoroughly, as anything that goes unexplained may not be taken into consideration.

Please include me on email chain if there is one amberbendersky@gmail.com

I’m a college senior at Texas A&M University who might be a bit rusty now.

My coach in HS was Stormee Massey who is now at Vancouver Debate Academy she did policy for 9 years and I used to watch her judge policy outrounds.

I am good with speed if you do not send a doc just make sure you are clear. I have extensive flows with each card written to help flow.

Also make sure if you run anything progressive your opponent knows/understands whatever your K, CP, DA, etc is doing (mainly this is for a progressive v traditional but still)

I did a little bit of PF but mostly LD in High School. I typically ran Ks both aff and neg or Theory or T. I also did run DAs and CPs but not as often.

LD: I do not care what you run, run what you want it is y'alls debate rounds and I want y'all to run what you are comfortable with and I will flow accordingly.

If you are neg and run theory I would like to also see you prove affs arguments are wrong along with being abusive because unless aff is straight up abusive on what neg can and can not do I will not typically vote off a neg T shell by itself.

Please have framework to give impacts.

• Framework: if y'all have same value and criterion/standard do not waste your time, if y'all have different ones do not spend too much time, give me a quick why yours matters more and I should weigh under your framework because then move on.

Wiki whatever does not matter to me. When I debated I used an empty flashdrive I named tortillas and passed it around the room. As long as you are clear what evidence you are reading who it is from and when that is what matters.

PF: I am good with like everything it is y'alls debate rounds run your cases how you want and I will flow accordingly just make sure you extend through each speech.

If you have any issues at all just get my attention and if you have any other questions just ask.

"The subversive intellectual enjoys the ride

and wants it to be faster and wilder;

she does not want a room of his or her own,

she wants to be in the world, in the world with others

and making the world anew."

-Jack Halberstam, The Wild Beyond: With and For the Undercommons

I love debate. Enough to give it 6 years of my life and likely many more. I have made a point to engage in every format and have made pretty good progress in that goal. I love the tech of Policy, NFA-LD, NPDA, but do heavily enjoy rhetorical presentation in forms like BP or PF. I'm currently a college debater and am always learning new things, but I promise to listen closely, judge with as open of a mind as possible, and offer feedback to help you improve.

I view debate as competitive story-telling. Both sides are here to tell me a story about the topic. This effects how I view most questions in debate. As a quick outline toward earning my ballot, however, I care about three things:

1) The Contents of Your Arguments

2) Why they are Important

3) How they Compare and Interact with Your Opponent's Arguments

If you articulate to me these three things better than your opponent, I will very likely vote for you. Other than that, I want to hear your voice in the story that you want to tell. Please run the arguments and have the debate that you are most comfortable with, in the style that you are most comfortable with. I love new ideas and I love clash. If you can promise these two things, I will be entertained.

While like most judges, I will vote for an argument if it's clearly won, here's an FAQ list for how I tend to lean on different controversial issues in the community:

Tech -----x-------------- Truth

Good Analytic --x----------------- Bad Card

Contextualized links --x----------------- Uncontextualized Studies

New ideas -----x----------------- Prewritten arguments I've heard 1000 times

Public Forum:

While I appreciate the more rhetorical framework that PF is supposed to exist in, I like concrete impacts and a story for why those impacts matter and how they relate to the resolution. I love evidence comparison, impact analysis, and analytical examples.

I'm likely more open to theory or more progressive argumentation than your typical judge, but I love traditional argumentation as well. Tech isn't a tool for bullying or obfuscation. The burden of proof is on you to explain your argument to your opponents. If your opponents don't get your argument, that's your fault.

An argument needs a claim, warrant, and impact for me to consider it. This weird 'tricks' trend where teams sneakily toss in an independent line about voting for them isn't tech or line-by-line debate. It will only lower your speaks and my opinion of you as a debater.

I lift my pen up and stop flowing after the time for your speech runs out(I time independently).

Don't be rude to your opponents during Crossfire and allow the other team roughly equal speaking time(I keep track and it effects speaks).

Also when it comes to framing what's in the resolution/what it looks like, I am far more convinced by probability evidence("The Japanese Prime Minister says Article 9 Revision would be this") then debate theory analysis("this is the most fair ground for a debate"), please still make voter impact comparisons however if this ends up being the clash but I'd prefer to at least start in the lit base for determining what the resolution means.

On the "sticky defense" conversation. I like arguments to be extended in the summary. That being said, I don't need you to repeat word for word every argument made. For instance "extend our 5 points of defense on their first contention" would work well for me especially if you then contextualize those 5 points to the weighing.

On Kritiks, I'm honestly uncertain what that means in context of Public Forum debate. Can you make arguments or entire contentions based in "critical" theories of power? Absolutely!! In fact, when I debate in PF those are my favorite arguments to make. However, in PF you are explicitly given ground to defend which can run you into uniqueness problems. For instance, on the Japan Article 9 resolution, you can absolutely tell me that deterrence is part of a militarist mindset and even if it does technically "work" to solve an individual problem like Chinese aggression in the South China Sea that it creates a type of society or outlook that is very negative. This works because it makes sense to me on face that revising Article 9 would be a dramatic departure toward a militarist mindset/society then the Status quo. However, if you were to tell me that capitalism is bad, I'd agree with you but become confused as to how Capitalism would be any different between the squo and an article 9 revision. In plan-based formats like Policy this is solved by creating a counterplan(called an alternative) that shifts away from Capitalism but I'm unsure how you'd resolve the uniqueness issue in PF. However, if you think your argument makes sense in a PF paradigm, then I'd love to hear it.

Policy

I want clash and comparison, not scripts and uncontextualized framework fights.

Like most judges, I view the Negative as having the burden of rejoinder of a prepared affirmative opponent. What this means in practice:

Conditionality, I lean Aff. 1-2 CPs and 1 Alt plus the squo is very reasonable for fruitful engagement over the Affirmative. Every added Counter-advocacy after that is exponentially more potential negative worlds added and I lean more to depth over breadth when it comes to clash and do believe complaints about time from the Aff can be very valid(Having only 30 seconds in the 2AC per CP for instance is often not a very productive debate). That being said, if you win the condo debate, you win it and I will do my best to evaluate it fairly (see theory for more).

I define dispositionality as "if there is offense on the shell, the Neg can't just kick it." it's my default view on disads and I could be persuaded to apply it to CPs if the Aff put in the work. I will not reanimate turned Das though if they're not extended in the 1 and 2ar. You have to make the strategic decision to go for them.

On sneakier Counterplans like Consult, Process, Actor, Delay; I need direct solvency advocates to buy these as legitimate and I need an explanation of how they are functionally competitive. If consulting is a ten minute phone call from the President, I don't see why that can't happen while Congress passes the plan. If no one runs theory, then I'll take it for granted but I'd encourage your opponents to go for it.

Perms are advocacies. While they are a test of competition, don't think of them as a point of terminal defense but an explanation of what the world with both the Plan and Counterplan would look like. If the Counterplan isn't at all competitive then the world is only better off, however, even if there is functional tradeoffs to the Perm, I could be convinced the net benefits outweigh. This means I would like it if 1AR and 2AR extensions of the perm fleshed out what the world of the perm would look like and how it resolves the net benefits of the CP.

2AR and 2NR collapses need to pick an advocacy and tell me why that is better. I will not judge kick a CP for you unless there is explicit theory telling me otherwise (as in interp with standards/voters). Same thing with the Aff, you get either the plan or a perm, not both. Your job in the last speech isn't to show how you've won the debate via a thousands cuts, but to synthesize all the elements in the debate and give me a clear story of why I should vote for you.

Kritiks:

Generally, I love critical analysis. Like most things, I prefer specific judge direction and comparison.

I need something to give me uniqueness usually an alternative. Alternatives can be as simple as a re-orientation or be full counterplans, but if I buy they have questionable solvency, your kritik impacts become non-unique really fast. I think in some ways, judges let alternatives get away with murder when I think alternative solvency should be a serious consideration when it comes time to vote.

Ideally, framework just tells me how to evaluate the round and contextualizes the links and alt to let me know what level I am evaluating these on (pre-fiat discourse, policymaking, knowledge frames, etc.). I love framework that actually gives fair opportunity to both sides and just lets me know how to compare a plan text to a re-orientation alternative. I dislike I-win statements that get introduced in the 2NC just in case the Neg want to kick the alt. Kicking the alt can be a winning strategy but I would encourage the Aff to point out that if there's no solvent alternative to capitalism than producing anti-capitalist knowledge frames probably doesn't have the planet-saving potential the Neg claims.

That being said, I believe in systemic causality way more than brinks and love root-cause argumentation. However, Serial policy failure means nothing unless contextualized to this Aff's policy.

Links should be specific and compelling. The more generic or nonspecific the link, the more convinced I am that a perm is net-beneficial. A link of omission unless under very specific circumstances is simply not a link. Framework will also majorly affect how seriously I take your link. If I buy material proximal causes are what I should care about, rhetoric becomes a lot harder to justify as important. This is also why the Aff arguing there's a different root cause to an ideology that the Neg doesn't solve can go a long way in applying defense to the link and alt.

For the Affirmative on kritiks, specificity applies as well. If the Neg's position is that capitalism creates a harmful ontology, I don't want to hear about how capitalism has been good historically for material luxuries. I think kritiks can have this weird mystical aura where we just assume the Aff now has the burden of defending all of capitalism but that's often not the case. The more specific the defense of your plan, the more I'm likely to buy it.

Critical Affirmatives:

I despise what's become known as the clash of civilization. I think there is value to exploring the stories of the topic, I've always thought that the scope of the topic being defined as the USFG is dumb. However, I think a limitless topic is harmful to clash. The way I currently see it, debates are storytelling and topics are genres. The farther away from the genre your story is, the harder it is for me to learn about the genre or to see clash with opposing stories. The less germane to the topic you are, the easier it is for the Neg to convince me that clash and literature education have been lost.

If you are a T-USFG team that reads the same scripts about predictability and fairness with no contextualization or comparison to the Aff than I am a probably a bad judge for you.

However, if you are a T-USFG team that comes prepared with a TVA (topical version of the Affirmative) or an articulation of why a more restrictive understanding of the resolution is best for debate or its participants in a way that's comparative to the Aff's impacts than I'm a great judge for you. I don't want to be left with a situation where I have to decide whether accessing radical research or advocacies is more important than predictability, if this is the situation I will likely lean Aff but if you give me a way to weigh clash against alternative epistemologies than I'll defer to the weighing in the round. Just remember that material death is different than social death when designing the TVA.

I believe judges have to take t-usfg framework seriously so as to have predictable core generic for the negative. Therefore, neither team should expect me to do the heavy lifting for them in the framework debate. Do not imply impacts, make them explicit and compare them!

Fairness is not a voter unless fleshed out. I'm unsure what fairness looks like in debate. By design it is an asymmetric game and in some ways, the different positions people find themselves in is very cool and educational. My worst fear for debate is becoming replaceable with AI that autogenerates cases. We are all different humans, with different styles, brains, and perspectives. I want to hear what is interesting to you.

For the Aff, Framework for Clash is awesome. Providing a debate framework that still allows Neg clash and good educational debate to happen will start to evaporate the Neg's offense. Being able to provide Neg ground for engagement will do wonders for both speaks and overcoming ground and predictability standards.

Outside of framework, I would love Neg clash on the core of the 1AC. There's a lot of literature out there and a well-put together negative strategy on a critical affirmative would be at the very least rewarded with high speaks and seems like a much better way to win as well. Attack their assumptions, attack their methods, provide counter-advocacies. Tell me an alternative story.

To evaluate these debates, I compare offense and whether the 1AC advocacy is net better or worse for the world. Usually the impacts (such as harmful ideologies) are attached to the squo which means solvency is important for both sides (solvency can take many forms beyond traditional policymaking including discourse, affect, debate community impacts, etc) . This doesn't mean the 1AC advocacy has the burden of solving all of white supremacy to gain offense (discourse is probably a linear impact scenario), however, it does mean that I need a specific analysis of what the harm is and what the 1AC advocacy does to solve them. For example, if whiteness is actually constructed top-down by political economic structures, then poetry probably doesn't do anything to solve those harms.

Attached to this, if you choose to read an argument in debate, you've invited others to clash. The Aff chooses the conversation and have invited the Neg. I dislike the idea that 1ACs or certain parts of 1ACs are too personal to be involved in the debate. If that's the case, please save yourself the trauma and leave that out of the speech.

My threshold for dismissing "conservative" arguments is very high. Especially if I'm not sure what a conservative even is anymore. If an argument wouldn't get a professor or teacher fired, I think it's educational to learn how to clash with it.

"No perms in a methods debate" doesn't intuitively make sense to me with the caveat that I think that 1ACs should be bounded to their assumptions. If the Aff assumes social death is caused by libidinal investment in institutions, it feels weird that their advocacy would shift to include institutions without in some way having different solvency. Tl;dr I need an articulation from the Negative why one method of activism would trade-off with another.

I am interventionist on Independent voter issues and I judge based on good faith attempts. If you are a team that relies on independent voter issues against the Neg's clash in the debate rather than on articulating your affirmative harms and solvency than I am probably not the best judge for you. Obviously if a Neg team really goes for oppression/dehumanization good or openly racist tropes I will stop the round, but negating the 1AC in a way the Aff didn't expect/want is not constitutive of a procedural issue, neither is a microaggression that we can resolve informally. Also I'd prefer to deal with micro-aggressions w/o the ballot, if a team is actually attempting to do harm in the round than that's a debate safety issue and we should probably stop the round, if it's based on ignorance I would honestly prefer to just stop the debate for a minute, explain the micro-aggression and suggest an alternative way for the team to articulate what they mean rather than make it a procedural debate for the rest of the round. I won't always have the keenest eye and could be ignorant myself, so if there is an issue bothering you that you'd like to address, feel free to interrupt a speech or wait until the speech is over than just mention you'd like it if an argument was made in a more equitable way. We're all learners here and each of us deserve safety in the debate space without the weird competitive game getting in the way.

If you care, in the 2013 NDT Finals, I'd have voted for Emporia SW over Northwestern LV (not that anyone would ever ask me to judge a round when I was in Middle School). In the 2002 CEDA Finals I would've voted for Michigan State CM over Fort Hays RR. Both were very close debates for good reason, but that's just how I fall as a judge in the way I currently see debate and I'm down to discuss debate history with you after the round.

Theory: It's an organized way of explaining that your opponents have somehow violated the rules or desirable norms of debate. I will admit that I have always felt policed by theory so run it at your own risk. That being said, if you win, you win. I have voted in favor of the interp more than the counterinterp despite my own embarrassment at that fact.

Standards are links, voters are impacts, and your interp is the uniqueness. I think there is a tendency of judges to not vote based on the flow and instead glaze their eyes over as if theory is just an invitation to listen to mechanical dialogue then vote up their personal favorite speaker. Though it may get messy, I will do my best to evaluate each theory shell as it's own flow in an offense/defense paradigm.

Also theory is more organized way of making a traditional rhetorical argument around what should be allowed in debate which means I don't necessarily need someone to articulate the debate norm that's been violated as an "interp." More rhetorical substitutes such as "abuse" do just fine as long as I can trace your argument to a rule, a violation, and an impact to that violation.

"We Meets" are terminal defense as it renders the impact nonunique. I am tired of teams not taking the argument seriously and judges letting debaters get away with some of the worst interpretations I have ever seen. If your opponent is arguably topical within your interpretation, I find it hard to take your voters rhetoric seriously. If you are going to run theory in front of me please have a specific interpretation and violation. As for the Aff, if you want to be clever with the We Meet arguments then please do so. To me the violation is the most important part of the t-shell and I wish teams reprioritized it. IT IS A VOTING ISSUE! Expect me to take your interpretation and violation seriously. That part of the flow is my starting question for every theory debate.

I am a parent of a student who is in high school. I am also an Army Veteran. I am new to judging debate, Be nice to each other. I will do my best to be fair and just. Good luck to you all.

Graduated from La Salle College Preparatory in 2021

Attending Hawai'i Pacific University studying History and competing casually in British Parliamentary debate here.

Went to TOC in 2020 in Public Forum and Nationals in Big Schools once and Public Forum twice.

For Debate:

I will vote on the cleanest issue on the flow in the round so try not to waste your time on things that have gotten too muddled throughout the round and seek the clearest route to the ballot. I ran K's and theory in high school in Public Forum so if you know how to introduce that into the round correctly I am totally in support. Make sure in any debate round that your arguments also reflect your audience.The easiest thing to vote off is weighing in a round. If you do not weigh your arguments I have no idea how to evaluate or vote for them. I am fine with speed.

For Speech:

I competed casually in Extemporaneous Speech in high school and have not done speech since then. I will judge to the best of my ability noting NSDA standards.

Please ask questions if needed before or after rounds.

I am a parent judge and have not judged very many rounds. Please speak slowly and clearly if you want me to understand your arguments. I do not flow speeches or crossfires extensively but I will pay attention to everything that is said during the round.

Be nice to your fellow debaters.

Hi! I'm a student primarily interested in economics and philosophy. This will be my first time judging. I debated for about two years in PF and CNDF, participating in a handful of local tournaments. It has been quite a while since then, so I am rusty with jargon and theory.

Please talk clearly and signpost properly during your speech if you talk faster than normal. I am also happy to provide feedback if needed!

I am a parent judge, and having been judging quite a bit of HS PF in the past couple years.

What you need to do to win my ballot:

Speaking Style: Slow, clear, articulate; please be respectful and professional during crossfire (you will get better speaking points if so)

Content: Please support your contentions with sufficient evidence and substantiate your point of view, explain all of your links clearly and with logic

Deciding Factor: Who is able to explain their arguments strongly and more convincingly; I believe crossfire and the follow ups are important in asking and answering questions, identifying gaps in others' argument, clarifying and strengthening your position.

Theory: PF is designed to provide middle and high school students opportunities to debate on real life topics, to demonstrate understanding and reasoning on substantial events. Even though theory has a place in PF, I would not judge a theory debate.

Flay judge

pepperomint@gmail.com for email chain

• do not spread!
• weigh impacts

I am a judge for the first time. Please keep your delivery to a slower pace and be clear. I would appreciate clear arguments and explanation of your underlying assumptions.

I'm a volunteer and I've read over some information about this topic and watched a demo video, but I'm still new to judging and learning it.

Please keep your delivery slow and clear. I appreciate clear analysis of why you should win in the final focus.

What am I looking for in a debate?

I value a solid understanding of the actors, strong framing, and plausible mechanisms. It is always a good call to go for a mechanism that is intuitive and believable over one that is strained, even if the strained mechanism could theoretically produce greater impacts.

I enjoy new perspectives that make me think.

I respond well to speeches that begin by establishing what is most valued in a debate, and the burden for each side. I also respond well to teams that demonstrate working together through having unifying themes throughout multiple speeches.

Background: I have only debated at the collegiate level. I am most experienced with IPDA and Parliamentary debate.

Paradigm: First and foremost, I expect cordiality between all parties. As a judge I believe my role is to be an outsider that is simply spectating an argument. I prefer debates that tend to ignore trying to convince the judge, but rather beating your opponent with sound arguments and direct clash to their arguments. I will not intervene in the round at all unless I feel it is necessary for clarification. Furthermore, I expect both parties to uphold their burden for the round and clarify exactly what your burdens are if it is not clear. I can handle any pace of a debate and will be able to flow; however, flying top speed to beat your opponent with multiple trivial contentions will not win you any points, unless your opponent fails to address them completely. All in all, I enjoy educational debates with clash and an overall impact to the contention as well as the resolution.

I am a retired speech and debate coach and am comfortable with all debate, speech and interp events. In CX I am a stock issues/policy maker; in LD I am more traditional; in PF I look for evidence and analysis. Congressional Debate and Extemp need evidence and analysis as well.

General info for all debate—

1) no speed - this is a communication event

2) follow guidelines for each event that make that event unique.
3) I prefer a debate that is organized structurally so I may flow easier. I like internal structure like A, B, C and 1, 2, 3.

4) if an argument is not attacked it is a drop unless originator of argument fails to extend in which case it’s a wash.
5) CX is for asking questions not making speeches. Keep it professional.

Specifics

LD- I expect a value & criterion. When topics are policy oriented, I can vote on policy. Regardless, I find standards to be important, especially how debaters respond. Please be sure to respond to the FW. I do not view LD as one person policy so be aware of your argumentation style.

CX- this is a team event and both partners need to be actively involved in the debate. I expect the affirmative to offer a plan. I am fine with counter plans but if one is presented it must be competitive with the plan (either mutually exclusive with the affirmative or be undesirable in conjunction with the plan). I am fine with disads. I don’t care for Kritiks and would prefer you debate the topic rather than make theory arguments. I want a friendly debate free of rude or negative comments and a cross ex that is meaningful and helps strategically set up future arguments. If you are varsity and debate a inexperienced team help make it a teachable round so they remain interested in the activity and grow as a debater- no need to beat them up and discourage inexperienced teams. I do evaluate the stock issues first and then look to policy making. I do my best to come to the debate with an open mind. I also like the debater to be clear in extending arguments, I expect credible evidence (explain why it matters) and to provide analysis and voters.

My background: I am a former CEDA debater (1987-89) and CEDA coach (1990-93) from East Tennessee State University. Upon my retirement in August 2021 I've judged numerous at numerous debate tournaments for PF, LD, IDPA, Parli, and Big Questions (mostly PF and LD). (FYI, when I participated in CEDA it was quasi-policy, not true policy like it is today.)

Speed: I can keep up with a quick-ish speed - enunciation is very important! Pre round I can do a "speed test" and let you know what I think of a participant's speech speed if anyone wants to. I was never a super speed debater and didn’t encourage my students to speed.

Theory: I am familiar with topicality and if other theory is introduced, I could probably understand it. (I also used to run hasty generalization but not sure if that’s still a thing or not.) Theory is best used when it’s pertinent to a round, not added for filler and needs to be well developed if I am expected to vote on it. If you are debating topicality on the neg you need to provide a counter definition and why I should prefer it to the aff.

The rounds: Racism/sexism etc. will not be tolerated. Rudeness isn’t appreciated either. I do not interject my own thoughts/opinions/judgements to make a decision, I only look at what is provided in the round itself. Re: criteria, I want to hear what the debaters bring forward and not have to come up with my own criteria to judge the round. My default criteria is cost/benefit analysis. I reserve the right to call in evidence. (Once I won a round that came down to a call for evidence, so, it can be important!) As far as overall judging, I always liked what my coach used to say – “write the ballot for me”. Debaters need to point out impacts and make solid, logical arguments. I appreciate good weighing but I will weigh the arguments that carried through to the end of the round more heavily than arguments that are not. Let me know what is important to vote on in your round and why. Sign posting/numbering arguments is appreciated and is VERY important to me; let me know where you plan to go at the top of your speech and also refer back to your roadmap as you go along.

Cross Examination: a good CX that advances the round is always valued. If someone asks a question, please don’t interrupt the debater answering the question. I don’t like to see a cross ex dominated by one side.

In most rounds I will keep back up speaking time and prep time.

I hope to see enjoyable and educational rounds. You will learn so many valuable skills being a debater! Good luck to all participants!

Before the round begins, I kindly request that the teams send me their cases in advance. This will greatly assist me in keeping track of the arguments and taking thorough notes during the round. Although this is not a requirement, it will help to improve the quality of my decision and feedback. I would like to assure you that the case information will be kept confidential and will only be used for the purpose of the round. Teams will not be penalized if they choose not to share their case. This request is solely aimed at enhancing the academic outcome of the round.

How I base my decision: Warrants (45%), Weighing Mechanism (45%), Impact (10%)

• It is important to note that while teams may focus on the magnitude of their impact, a strong argument also requires a well-supported warrant and a method for comparing and weighing arguments. A lack of these elements can weaken the overall effectiveness of an argument.

• Tips to Strengthen Warrants in a Debate: 1) Challenge or defend the logic or evidence presented by your opponent instead of simply restating your own argument. This will bring new information to the discussion and help me understand the issue better. 2) During crossfire, ask "how" and "why" questions that focus on the reasoning behind your opponent's argument. Using common sense can also be valuable, as it can support a hypothesis that is backed by evidence and basic reasoning.

• Examples of weighing mechanisms: utilitarianism, cost-benefit analysis, priority based on urgency or importance, ethical principals: fairness, justice or equality, trade-offs.

Speaker points: Content & preparedness Quality (80%), speed (20%)

Your speaker points will primarily be determined by the quality of your arguments. The rest of the score will take into account your speaking speed. Public Forum debates should be clear and easily understood by all listeners, and speaking at a moderate pace will ensure everyone is able to fully follow and engage with the debate. I am comfortable with average speaking speeds, but if there are any misunderstandings due to excessive speed, it's important for the speakers to remember that it is ultimately their responsibility to communicate their ideas clearly.

Current college student, did PF for 4 years of high school so I'm familiar with speech times and the general structure. Try not to go too fast and speak comprehensibly.

I have been a coach and consultant for the past 28 years and done every debate format available stateside and internationally. I also have taught at Stanford, ISD, Summit, UTD, UT, and Mean Green camps as a Curriculum Director and Senior Instructor. I think no matter what form of debate that you do, you must have a narrative that answers critical questions of who, what, when, where, why, how, and then what, and so what. Debaters do not need to be shy and need to be able to weigh and prioritize the issues of the day for me in what I ought to be evaluating. Tell me as a judge where I should flow things and how I ought to evaluate things. That's your job.

If you would like for me to look at a round through a policy lens, please justify to me why I ought to weigh that interpretation versus other alternatives. Conversely, if you want me to evaluate standards, those need to be clear in their reasoning why I ought to prioritize evaluation in that way.

In public forum, I need the summary to be a line by line comparison between both worlds where the stark differences exist and what issues need to be prioritized. Remember in the collapse, you cannot go for everything. Final focus needs to be a big pic concept for me. Feel free to use policy terms such as magnitude, scope, probability. I do evaluate evidence and expect you all to do the research accordingly but also understand how to analyze and synthesize it. Countering back with a card is not debating. The more complicated the link chain, the more probability you may lose your judge. Keep it tight and simple and very direct.

In LD, I still love my traditional Value and VC debate. I do really like a solid old school LD round. I am not big on K debate only because I think the K debate has changed so much that it becomes trendy and not a methodology that is truly educational and unique as it should be. Uniqueness is not the same as obscurity. Now, if you can provide a good solid link chain and evaluation method of the K, go for it. Don't assume my knowledge of the literature though because I don't have that amount of time in my life but I'm not above understanding a solidly good argument that is properly formatted. I think the quickest way to always get my vote is to write the ballot for me and also keep it simple. Trickery can make things messy. Messy debaters usually get Ls. So keep it simple, clean, solid debate with the basics of claim, warrant, impact, with some great cards and I'll be happy.

I don't think speed is ever necessary in any format so speak concisely, know how to master rhetoric, and be the master of persuasion that way. Please do not be rude to your opponent. Fight well and fight fair. First reason for me to down anyone is on burdens. Aff has burden of proof, neg has burden to clash unless it is WSD format where burdens exist on both sides to clash. If you have further questions, feel free to ask specifics.

In plat events, structure as well as uniqueness (not obscurity) is key to placing. Organization to a speech as well as a clear call to order is required in OO, Info, Persuasive. In LPs, answer the question if you want to place. Formatting and structure well an avoid giving me generic arguments and transitional phrases. Canned intros are not welcome in my world usually and will be frowned upon. Smart humor is always welcome however.

I want you all to learn, grow, have fun, and fight fair. Best of luck and love one another through this activity!!

I like to see clear introductions, summaries and conclusions. Please show me that you understand the topic and then clearly develop your case and impact work. Link your arguments and be specific. Make sure your rebuttals do their job, but make sure your own case is developed as well as your criticism of your opponents. Solid research is usually necessary to win positions. Feel free to ask any questions before the round if there is anything you would like to know about. Good luck and have fun!

Hello!

I’m very excited to be judging you today. I competed for 4+ years in a variety of events, but mainly PF, Congress, and speech events like OI, Expos, and Extemp. In college, I competed for 3 years on the collegiate Model UN circuit. As for my judging history, I’ve judged regularly ever since I graduated high school and have had the opportunity to judge most events. Here are a couple things that I look for:

Debaters: I like off-time roadmaps, it helps with signposting and keeps my flow clean. I do flow and keep track of arguments and evidence but that doesn’t mean you can disregard speaking style, eloquence, etc. The winner of a round should be the better speaker AND have the best arguments. Make sure you’re impacting your arguments and carry these impacts throughout the round. It makes my job a lot easier and then I won’t consider them as dropped. If you have a standard or value criterion, make sure to tie back your arguments to it (it should act as a thesis to your arguments). If you do not have a standard/VC and your opponent does, I will be forced to weigh the round on their standard unless you give me promising reasons why I shouldn’t. When I was debating, I used to be able to keep up with full speed spreading. I can no longer do this so please do not spread. You may speak quickly but if I’m not able to keep up on the flow, I’m going to miss your arguments and it will only hurt you. I don’t understand theory shells, Ks, or any other obscure parts of debate. Do not include them in your speeches because I will disregard them. Be kind and respectful during CX. I really hate when people consistently talk over others or end up yelling in rounds. You can have the same debate respectfully and calmly.

Speech: Make sure you’re staying in time and do not overly dramatize parts of your speech. For extempers, try your best to dedicate equal amounts of time to each of your points and be clear with your transitions.

Above all, please just be mature, respectful, and have fun!

General

• Because argumentation is a game, technology trumps facts.
  Speed: Please keep your conversation contained and talk at a normal pace. You should know that the quicker you run, the more likely I am to miss anything.
  Any surrendered defence must be made within the speech itself, just after it was read.
  Instead than merely saying "we agree to the delinks," a concession should imply how the defence interacts with your argument.
  Provide trigger warnings; if another team does not feel comfortable with an argument, adjust it. I don't care whether you sit or stand, wear professional attire, or anything else. You are free to discuss the merits of trigger warnings for discourse and society, but you should not intentionally damage another person.
  The defence isn't cohesive.
  Tag-teaming speeches/CX and flex preparation are ok by me.
  I'm going to assume a negative vote on policy items and a first place vote on "on balance" topics until shown otherwise in the round.

  Case

  Be merry. Just do what you want.
  Authors that frame their arguments in terms of a case study (like those who write on extinction or systemic violence) have my undivided attention.

  Rebuttal

  As such, I shall have a lower bar for responding to the offensive overarching arguments included in the second reply.
  I believe it's important to make a strong showing in the second rebuttal, but you may use whatever approach you choose there.
  The odds of a conceded turn are always one hundred percent.

  Summary

  There's a catch with the twists and turns. If you extend a link turn on their case, as my buddy Caden Day and I both feel you should, you should also make the delineation of what the effect of that turn is, otherwise I don't understand what the goal of the turn is.
  It would be much easier for me to follow the argument if you listed case offences and turns in order of author. Don't state "extend our link" if you want your argument to be upvotable: "Expand our jones evidence which suggests that extensions like this are beneficial since they are simpler to follow." I want amplification of originality/connection/impact.
  Do not finish your summary with a barrage of shaky, unreasonable statements; this includes arguments that have already been acknowledged.
  Initial Synopsis
  The defence should be pushed back, but if you push it back in the last round, I'll be a little easier on your side. This is particularly true given that the non-native speakers have had two opportunities to address the issue. Nevertheless, it is not a fatal defence at this stage, and it will at least lessen their effect.
  Second Synopsis
  In the event that the weight is not present at this time, I shall not consider any further weighing from your side.
  Defenses need to be made more expansive.

  Final Focus

  Simple repetition; emphasise originality; increase relevance and effect.
  Don't imply meaning where none exists; It is not feasible to check to see if I misheard, and it wastes my time.

  Cross

  The cross is persuasive, but only if mentioned in public.

  Evidence

  Notwithstanding my awareness of the problematic nature of evidence ethics, I will only request evidence if the other side requests it of me.
  If your opponents are deliberately misrepresenting evidence, you should address the issue head-on in your argument.
  A excellent analytic with a decent warrant, in my opinion, is superior than a fantastic empiric with no warrant. Put it to good use
  You have one minute to provide the proof your opponents have demanded before your speaking points begin to be deducted.
  The only exception is if the wifi is terrible or if you need to bypass a paywall.

For the rounds I am judging, I will be looking for appropriate mechanisation of the arguments presented, proper analysis of their full impact and clear cohesion and structure in the way they are presented. I will also be paying special attention to how you explicate the magnitude and time frame of the arguments that you believe best sum your case and help your side and stance. A crucial part of that is that you strategically collapse on your strongest argument and zoom in on their magnitude.

In terms of style, the most important thing for me is that you are first and foremost respectful of one another. There is nothing wrong with having a strong assertive style, and even a strongly critical when questioning the other team, but you should never attack another's debate person or offend them in any way while doing that. Beyond this, I appreciate clarity and being able to follow your flow from one argument to the next - in other words, slow down!

Finally, I want to be able to see clear evidence of collaboration between you and your teammate in terms of how your arguments build on top of one another without duplication and how you refer to the points made by your teammate in your speech to enhance your analysis.

P.S: my face does weird things some times when I am engrossed in notetaking or deep thought, I can promise you it is no reflection of how you're doing so don't be intimidated and have fun!

Blake '21, UChicago '25

Did PF on the nat circuit for 3 years and I am currently an Assistant Coach for Blake.

Tl;dr:

- Pls run paraphrasing theory: Paraphrasing is awful, evidence is VERY important to me and I am happy to use the ballot to punish bad ethics in round.

- Send speech docs, its better for everyone.

- Strike me if you don't read cut cards/if you paraphrase or don't think evidence is important, you will be happy that you did.

- I flow.

- Tech>truth.

- All kinds of speed are fine, spreading too as long as you are not paraphrasing.

- 2nd rebuttal must frontline, defense isn't sticky, and if I'm something is going to be mentioned on my ballot, it must be in both back half speeches.

- Please weigh.

- I will let your opponents take prep for as long as it takes for you to send your doc or cards without it counting towards their 3 minutes, so send docs pls and send them fast.

- The following people have shaped how I view debate: Ale Perri (hi Ale), Christian Vasquez, Bryce Piotrowski, Darren Chang, and Shane Stafford.

jenebo21@gmail.com AND blakedocs@googlegroups.com -- Put BOTH on the email chain, and feel free to contact me after the round (on Facebook preferably, or email if you must) if you have questions or need anything from me. I am always happy to do what I can after the round to help you out.

General Paradigm:

- I will enforce speech times, prep time, etc with a timer and the ballot (if its like absolutely egregious, taking multiple minutes longer than you are allowed, etc)

- In most PF rounds, roadmaps aren't necessary, just tell me where you are starting and signpost. If there are 8 sheets, then yes, please give a roadmap.

- The Split: 2nd rebuttal must frontline; turns and defense.

- The Back Half: If I am going to vote on it, or if it is going to be apart of my RFD (all offense or defense in the round), it needs to be both in the summary and the final focus. None of this sticky defense nonsense. Weighing needs to start in summary, and final focus should be writing my ballot for me.

- Speed: I can handle all speeds in PF. More often than not, clarity matters more than WPM. I know debaters who speak super fast, and I can understand every word, and I know debaters who don't speak fast but are still super unclear, and vice versa. I will say clear if I cant follow. You can spread IF you are doing it like it is done in policy (spreading long cards, not a bunch of paraphrased garbage, slow down on tags/authors, sending out a speech doc is a must). IF you spread AND paraphrase, however, your chances of winning points of clash immediately plummet.

- Pls send speech docs with cut cards, I will probably ask for them so then I can read cards without having to call for a million different ones, and it shortens the amount of time taken for ev exchange by a million, so just pls send them.

- Weighing: You need to weigh on both the link and impact level, very often the team that weighs will pick up my ballot. I don't hate buzzwords as much as other PF judges, but I do need an explanation. Please start weighing as early as possible, in the rebuttals if you can. Early weighing helps you make strategic decisions and makes my life easier since weighing is what guides my ballot. I will always prefer weighing done earlier and dropped, over late weighing so weigh early and often. The evaluation of the round on my ballot starts and ends with weighing and it controls where I look to vote. I don't need a story or a super clear narrative, but write my ballot for me and make it easy. In line with this, I would highly encourage you to go for less and weigh more.

- Collapse: PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE collapse, preferably starting in second rebuttal. This makes all of our lives easier because you don't want to have to spam buzzwords blippily in response to some poorly extended argument, and I don't want to sift through a flow with tons of tags and zero warrants or weighing. Pick an argument to go for, and weigh that argument. That is the easiest way to pick up my ballot. Debate isn't a scoreboard, winning 3 arguments doesn't mean you get my ballot if your opponent only wins 1 argument.

- I cannot believe I have to make this a part of my paradigm, it should be exceedingly obvious, but no delinks or non-uniques on yourself (specifically that delinks the link you read in case or something which makes the opposite argument that you made initially) to get out of turn offense. It makes being first impossible and its just so stupid. I won't evaluate those arguments and your opponents are free to extend those turns. Obviously, you can concede your opponents defense, but you cant read it on yourself, new in second rebuttal.

- If the 1st constructive introduces framework, the 2nd constructive probably should respond to it (or at least make arguments as to why they can respond later). I don't know where i stand on this technically yet, but this is where i am leaning now, arguments can be made either way on this issue in round and i will evaluate them normally, but if the 1st constructive introduces framework and the 2nd constructive drops it, i think its ok for the first rebuttal to call it conceded unless otherwise argued.

- On advocacies/T: This is something that should be resolved in the round and I will eval the flow if this argument is made but my personal thoughts are as follows. Because the neg doesn't get a CP in PF, the aff's advocacy does not block the neg out of ground (basically neither side gets to control the others ground). The aff does the whole aff, the neg can garner DAs off of the aff's advocacy or any interpretation of what the aff could look like, not just what that aff was in that round. An example would be the neg could still read a Russia provocation negative on the NATO topic (Septober 2021) even if the aff does not read a troop deployment advocacy for their advantages. Alternatively, if the neg can get a CP then I suppose the aff can get an advocacy. Either way works - the point being that PF should consider some sort of method to adjudicate this in round.

- Be nice and respectful, but keep it light and casual if you can! Debate is fun, so lets treat it as such.

- I will be quick to drop debaters and arguments that are any -ism, and I won't listen to arguments like racism, sexism, death, patriarchy (etc) good. The space first and foremost needs to be safe to participate in.

- I don't care what you what you wear, where you sit, if you swear (sometimes a few F-bombs can make an exceedingly boring debate just a little less so!), if you do the flip or enter the room before im there, etc.

Evidence:

I like cut cards and quality evidence, I hate paraphrasing. Disclaimer: this is going to seem cranky, but I don't mind well-warranted analytics. I just hate paraphrasing. Ev is always better than an analytic, but if you introduce an arg as an analytic, I won't mind and will evaluate it as such. But if your opponents have evidence, you will likely lose that clash point. Here a few main points on evidence issues:

- Evidence is the backbone of the activity, otherwise it devolves into some really garbage nonsense (I do not value debate as a lying competition). As a result, debates about evidence are very easy ways to pick me up. Arguments about evidence preference are very good in front of me, and I will probably call for cards at the end of the round because most debate evidence is horrifically miscut or paraphrased. Evidence quality is very very important, and I have NO PROBLEM intervening against awful evidence especially in close rounds. Good evidence is important for education and quality of debate, so if you have bad evidence, I am happy to drop you for it to improve the activity and hopefully teach you a lesson. This applies to both if you cut cards or paraphrase, because cutting cards doesn't make you immune to lying about it, so generally cut good cards, and read good evidence.

- Paraphrasing: The single worst wide-spread practice in PF debate today is paraphrasing. Its just so obviously silly. Its bad for the quality of debate, its bad for all of its educational benefits, and its unfair. I hate it so so much. So please cut cards, its not difficult and it makes everyone's lives better. That said, I know that it happens regardless so here are a few things important for the in round if you do paraphrase:

a. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE have a cut card or at least a paragraph, you absolutely need to be able to have this, its a rule now. Your opponents do not need to take prep to sort through your PDFs, and if you cant quickly produce the evidence and where you paraphrased it from, I'm crossing the argument off my flow. I have very little tolerance for long, paraphrased evidence exchanges where you claim to have correctly paraphrased 100 page PDFs and expect your opponents to be able to check against your bad evidence with the allotted prep time.

b. If you paraphrase, you MUST be reading full arguments. 40 authors in 1st rebuttal by spreading tag blips and paraphrasing authors to make it faster is not acceptable and your speaks will tank. Claim, warrant, ev is all required if I am going to vote on it or even flow it.

c. If you misrepresent a card while paraphrasing, not only is that bad in a vacuum, but I will give you the L25. If you realize its badly represented OR you cant find it when asked and you make the arg "just evaluate as an analytic" I will also give an L25 and be in a really bad mood. Its a terrible, terrible argument, so please dont make it. If you introduce the evidence, you have to be able to defend it.

d. Dont be mad at me if you get bad speaks. There is no longer world in which someone who paraphrases, even if they give the perfect speech gets above a 29 in front of me. I used to be more forgiving on this, but no longer.

- Evidence exchange: if the header "paraphrasing" meant you skipped over that part of my paradigm, I will reiterate something that is important regardless of how you introduce the evidence; if you cant produce a card upon being asked for it within a minute or two, at best you get lowest speaks I can give and probably the L too.

- Even if its not theory, arguments that I should prefer cut cards over paraphrased cards at the clash points are going to work in front of me. Please make those arguments, I think they are very true.

- Another thing im shocked i have to put in my paradigm, but you need to cite the author you are reading even if you paraphrase from them, for it to be counted as evidence and not an analytic. if you read something without citing an author, I will flow it as an analytic and if your opponents call for that piece of ev, and you hand it to them without citing it in the round, I am dropping you. Its plagiarism and extremely unethical. This is an educational activity, come on ppl.

Progressive paradigm:

DISLCAIMER: Deep in my bones, I believe that debate is good. It may presently be flawed, but I believe the activity has value and can be transformative. Arguments that say debate is bad, and should be destroyed entirely (often times this is the conclusion of non-topical pess arguments, killjoy, the like) will be evaluated but my biases towards the activity being good WILL impact the decision. Doesn't mean they are unwinnable, but it is probably wildly unstrategic to run them.

I'm receptive to all args, including progressive ones in the debate space, but they have been getting REALLY low quality recently. I worry about the long term impact about some of these really bad versions on the activity. Please, think about the model you are advocating for, think about if its sincerely going to make the space better for the people growing up in it.

- While there are obvious upsides to progressive arguments, I don't appreciate frivolous theory (see below). This does include spikes and tricks, I don't like them, pls don't run them. If the theory is frivolous, and I reserve the right to determine that, I won't vote on it no matter the breakdown of the round.

- I won't vote for auto-30 speaker point arguments

Theory:

- I probably default to competing interps unless told otherwise, but that doesn't really mean much if you read the rest of this paradigm. I am going to evaluate the flow, so if you read theory arguments that I won't intervene against, I am going to evaluate it normally.

- I generally think no-RVIs. The exception to this might be an RVI on IVIs.

- IVIs are really bad for debate. If they are a rules claim, make it a theory shell. Most of the time, they are vague whines that are spammed off in the span of 4 seconds without any explanation. This proliferation is nearly existential for the activity, and it needs to stop.

- I have no problem intervening against frivolous theory (i.e. shoe theory), so if you run theory in front of me, please believe that its actually educational for the activity. Even theory like social distancing or contact info are ones where its hard to win in front of me, and in some contexts I probably won't vote on it. Resolved theory and other nonsense will barely warrant getting flowed for me, I won't vote on them.

- Theory needs to be read in the speech following the violation. Out of round violations should be read in constructive.

- Paraphrasing is bad: I will vote on paraphrasing bad most of the time, as long as theres some offense on the shell. I personally think its good for the debate space and am very predisposed to voting for it. I will NEVER vote on paraphrasing good, I don't care how mad that may make you to hear, I just won't do it. If you introduce cut cards bad or paraphrasing good as a new off (like before a para bad shell) I will instantly drop you. That said, you can win enough defense on a paraphrasing shell to make it not a voter. Paraphrasing theory is the exception to the disclaimers outlined above, I think paraphrasing should be punished in round and am happy to vote on it.

- Disclosure is good: I am less excited to hear it because typically, disclosure rounds are really bad and messy. Open source is good too, I have come around on it, so you can basically run whatever disclosure interp you want. Run it if you think you can win it, but dont be fearful to hear it ran against you in front of me. Respond to it, and I will vote as I would a normal flow.

- Trigger warnings: This theory has been read a lot more recently, I will eval it like a normal shell, but for the record, I think trigger warnings in PF are usually bad, and usually run on arguments that dont need to be trigger warned which just suppresses voices and arguments in the activity. You can go for the theory, but my threshold for responses will be in accordance with that belief typically.

Kritiks/Arguments that people in PF are calling "Kritiks" even when they are not:

- I am all good with kritiks, although im not as experienced with them as I am with other args, but that isnt a reason not to run a K in front of me. I will be able to flow it and vote on it as long as you explain it well.

- Blake 2021 made me think about this a lot, and I think the activity is just going through growing pains that are necessary, but some of these debates were really bad. So please think through all of the arguments you read, so that you can articulate exactly what my ballot does or what specifically I am supposed to be doing. This means implicating responses or arguments onto the FW debate, or the ROTB.

- Also, no one thinks fiat is real (pre/post-fiat is just an inaccurate and irrelevant label), so lets be more specific about how we label arguments or discourse. Make comparisons as to why your discourse or type of education is more important than theirs, this is not done by slapping the label "pre-fiat" onto an argument because NO ONE THINKS ITS REAL. Just get past that label and explain why.

- You also need to do a pretty good amount of work explaining why or how discourse shapes reality, just asserting it does isn't much of a warrant and this debate is always underdeveloped in rounds I am in.

Speaks:

I will probably give around a 27-28 in most rounds. I guess I give lower speaks than most PF judges, so I’ll clarify. 27-28 is middling to me with various degrees within that. 26-27 is bad, not always for ethical reasons. Below a 26 is an ethical issue. If you get above a 29 from me you should be very happy bc I never give speaks that high almost ever.

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

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

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

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

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

Coach @ Asian Debate League

Debated 4 years at Kapaun** Mount Carmel in Wichita, Kansas, 2017

Debated 4 years NDT/CEDA/D3 at University of Kansas, 2021

Email chain: gaboesquivel@gmail.com

I treat judging debate with the same love and care that I treat my job. I love what we do.

My biases:

I lean aff for condo. Some might say too much. I might expect a lot from you if you do go for it.

I didn't go for K's much but I really like debating them vs my policy aff. More than policy v policy debates. Links are the most important thing for me. Impacts are a close second. I value consistency between the scale of the links and impacts i.e. in round impacts should have in round links.

I strongly bias toward "The K gets links and impacts vs the aff's fiated impacts" unless someone delivers a very persuasive speech. I can be persuaded that making a personal ethical choice is more important than preventing a nuclear war.

I lean toward affs with plans. Fairness concerns me less than usual nowadays. I like research/clash impacts.

I will read evidence and vote for evidence in debates where things are not settled by the debater's words. This happens frequently in T debates and impact turn debates.

Status quo is always an option=judge kick

How I judge:

I work hard to listen and read your evidence. I am honest about what I don't understand. I am patient with novices.

Be clear or go slower (7 or 8/10) for online debate otherwise I'll miss the nuance in your arguments. I clear twice before I stop flowing.

I flow and use everything I hear in my decision, and overemphasize what is said in the rebuttals. I'll reference the 1AR speech to protect the 2NR on a 2AR that "sounds new" and I'll reference the block on a 2NR that claims the 1AR dropped something. I'll reference a 2AC on a 1AR that claims the block dropped something, etc.

For a dropped argument to be a true argument it must have been a complete claim and warrant from the beginning. I am not a fan of being "sneaky" or "tricky". Unless you are going for condo ;)

I am persuaded by ethos and pathos more than logos. I find myself wanting to vote for a debater who tries to connect with me more than a debater who reads a wall of blocks even if they are technically behind. When both teams are great speakers I rely more on tech and evidence.

I try to craft my decision based on language used by the debaters. I reference evidence when I cannot resolve an argument by flow alone. PhD's, peer reviewed journals, and adequate highlighting will help you here. If I can't resolve it that way I'll look for potential cross applications or CX arguments and might end up doing work for you. If I do work for one team I will try to do the same amount for the other team. It might get messy if its close, that's what the panel is for, but please challenge my decision if you strongly disagree and I'll tell you where my biases kicked in.

**Pronounced (Kay-pen)

Dear debaters,

To me, a debater with good style is clear, interesting, charismatic, and persuasive in a way that seems more credible, compelling, and their analysis more important.

Effective and logical arguments require speakers to present relevant and compelling examples and have strong rebuttals. They should be aiming to make sophisticated arguments, explaining all of the links that lead from premise to conclusion, and doing so in a systematic and logical way.

Regarding the structure, I am in favor of signposting.

Please let me know your debating structure at the beginning. When you start your argument, please make your points clear first and then approve them one by one, by prioritizing important material over unimportant material.

I also judge your attitude and confidence through your posture and gesture.

I prefer clear sentences over extravagance. Please speak clearly and don't spread.

Wish you the best of luck and enjoy yourselves in the debate!

Ping Fang

I prefer speakers to give a roadmap before they begin and list arguments one by one. The evidence presented needs to be relevant. I judge based on whether you can convince me with solid logic and reasoning.

Hi!

any pronouns but he :)

Former speech/debate competitor at John F. Kennedy CR, (go cougars!)

third-year varsity debater at GMU (yay patriots!)

overall, If you make offensive arguments expect speaks to be tanked and an L.

Please put me on the email chain 21jfuchs@gmail.com

Policy

don’t change your argument style for me, I have done both styles of debate and appreciate a good debate :)

K-AFFs/FW-- I read K-affs but this doesn't mean I'll auto-vote for you. Explain to me your theory of power and how it operates in the round. I like it when the K aff has some stable advovacy, so that I know what I am voting on but if that isn't you tell me why it doesn't matter. On framework, a good impact turn goes a long ways. For the NEG I'd prefer you have some sort of TVA that is related to the aff in some way. K v K debates are so fun, but they tend to get very messy towards the end so make sure you start out with your offense and what you're winning. I don't find the argument that K-affs shouldn't get perms to be persuadable at all.

K's --- Love them. I have a link to the aff and impact it out. I am more likely to vote on a K without an alt, but you should tell me you are kicking the alt. If you are going for the alt please for the love of god explain how it solves your llnk.

CP's - a good advantage counterplan has my heart. don't forget a net benefit. for the AFF I think too often bad counterplan's are answered with too many cards, I think your aff can answer a lot of these don't get lost in the sauce. Tell me how the perm works, saying the words perm is not a perm in of itself.

Theory -- I can't sit here and say don't go for theory because I was in fact a theory girl, but uh please explain it. Give and interpretation and explain your violation. I think condo can be excessive, but that's for y'all to debate about.

DA's --update your uniqueness <3. I love a DA smackdown, politics DA was my favorite 1NR to give. Tell me why the DA turns the case, I need an explanation and not just the tagline.

T --hot take but these debates can be pretty fun. I think they get pretty messy when your just reading blocks at top speeds. Tell me why X aff explodes into 100 different affs. Use caselist to give me other topical affs. I LOOVVVVE a good T debate.

I don't care what you do as long as y'all keep it interesting and have fun..

I am a parent and a lawyer by training. I have made and heard many arguments over time, although not in the area of school debates.

•Speed: Do not speak too fast. It is more important to present your contentions and evidence clearly and concisely. •Organization: Clarity and structure are important to me. Roadmaps are helpful.

•Final focus: Please, no surprises.

•Common decency:

Respect your judge. Respect your partner. Respect your opponent.

Avoid name-calling (EX: saying your opponent or an argument is stupid). That’s rude and also lazy debating.

Avoid yelling matches in crossfire.

Let your opponent finish their argument when possible without interrupting.

Email for email chains: ryleyhartwig@gmail.com

I competed in public forum at American Heritage in high school (2014-2016) and policy at FSU (2016-2018). Any questions you have specifically about my paradigm can be asked before the round.

Paradigm

- Do anything you want to do in terms of argumentation. It is not my job as a judge in a debate community to exclude certain forms of argumentation. I probably have not read your specific K lit if you go that route, make sure you explain it. If your theory is frivolous its a lot less likely to win, but go for it if you are confident in winning it. If you are reading a "role of the ballot" and it is different in every speech, I probably will not evaluate it. If you are reading a "role of the ballot", you should be able to recite it from memory without changing the phrases multiple times in the debate. Do not read a "role of the ballot" if you do not plan on keeping it consistent, it will result in worse speaker points.IF you're reading a K or other critical argument, explain your authors warranting, don't just assert an extension without explaining and characterizing your authors warranting to the specific debate.

- If neither team has any risk of offense at the end of the debate, I will default neg on presumption. I ALWAYS prefer to vote off a risk of offense over presumption, your probability analysis could win you the round. Provide a contextualization for your impact, and attempt to maintain a narrative throughout the later half of the debate. You will be a lot more convincing.

- Generally have been tech over truth. In PF there are significant time constraints to explain intricate link chains to arguments that may maintain more "tech" than "truth" in their nature--try to stray away from these. My threshold for responses to arguments that are more "tech" than "truth" is pretty low. If there is a large difference in strategy that allows for one of the "tech" over "truth" arguments to win on the flow, that is where I will vote. (eg. Team A reads a nuclear war scenario, Team B only responds with vague variants of "MAD", as long as Team A responds and extends warrants, this is still a tech over truth win)

- Sound logic is better than crappy cards. I think the main determinant of good quality evidence is not where it comes from, but the warranting the author uses to justify either their research or logic-based conclusions. The "why" in evidence is more important than where it is from unless a debater can prove that where the source is from be grounds for the warranting to be undermined.

- Cx is binding.

- If you disagree with my RFD, feel free to postround respectfully, I will be glad to answer any questions or give my thought process when deciding as long as the discussion remains civil.4

As a new parent judge, I will appreciate if you can speak clearly with relatively simpler sentences. Please do not speak too fast, and do not utilize long sentences or complicated structures, and avoid using acronyms which I probably won't understand. So that I can make a more inclusive judgement, not on the reduced contents. Please do not paraphrase when you first introduce evidence, and make sure your cards are ready to share with the other team. I will evaluate argumentative logic first and care about evidence quality and evidence ethics. Hope you are all polite, respectful, and watch your speech time. At the end of each round, I may need time to sort out the deciding factors from memory and notes, so will not be able to announce the result immediately.

Important: Do not interrupt the other team during cross, as I cannot hear you when both sides talk.

hi! i'm sky.

please strike me if i've coached you before. i've marked many of you as conflicts, but it is impossible to get all of you when you attend multiple schools, debate academies, etc. i'll always report conflicts to tabroom.

email is spjuinio@gmail.com. add me to the email chain.

please try to have pre-flows done before the round for the sake of time. i like starting early or on time.

tech over truth. i don't intervene, so everything you say is all i will evaluate. be explicit; explain and contextualize your arguments. try not to rely too much on jargon. if you do use jargon, use it correctly. extend evidence properly and make sure that your cards are all cut correctly. tell a thoughtful and thorough story that follows a logical order (i.e. how do you get from point A to point E? why should i care about anything you are telling me? i should know the answers to these questions by the end of your speeches). pursue the points you are winning and explain why you are winning the round. remind me how you access your impacts and do NOT forget to weigh. giving me the order in which i should prioritize the arguments read in round is helpful (generally, this is the case for judge instructions). sounding great will earn you high speaks, but my ballot will ultimately go to those who did the better debating.

read any argument you want, wear whatever you want, and be as assertive as you want. any speed is fine as long as you are clear. i will yell "clear!" if you are not. my job is to listen to you and assess your argumentation, not just your presentation. i'm more than happy to listen to anything you run, so do what you do best and own it!

speeches get a 15-second grace period. i stop flowing after 15 seconds have passed.

don't be rude. don't lie, especially in the late debate.

rfds. i always try to give verbal rfds. if you're competing at a tournament where disclosure isn't allowed, i will still try to give you some feedback on your speeches so you can improve in your next round/competition. write down and/or type suggestions that you find helpful (this might help you flow better). feel free to ask me any questions regarding my feedback. i also accept emails and other online messages.

now, specifics!

topicality. it would behoove you to tell me which arguments should be debated and why your interpretation best facilitates that discussion. make sure your arguments are compatible with your interpretation. if you go for framework, give clear internal link explanations and consider having external impacts. explain why those impacts ought to be prioritized and win you the round.

theory. make it purposeful. tell me what competing interpretations and reasonability mean. i like nuanced analyses; provide real links, real interpretations, and real-world scenarios that bad norms generate. tell me to prioritize this over substance and explain why i should.

counter-plans. these can be fun. however, they should be legitimately competitive. give a clear plan text and take clever perms seriously. comparative solvency is also preferred. impact calculus is your friend.

disadvantages. crystallize! remember to weigh. your uniqueness and links also matter.

kritiques. i love these a lot. i enjoy the intellectual potential that kritiques offer. show me that you are genuine by committing to the literature you read and providing an anomalous approach against the aff. alternatives are important (though i have seen interesting alternatives to...alternatives. if you go down this route, you can try to convince me that your argument is functional without one. as with all arguments, explain your argument well, and i might vote for you). as aforementioned, tell me to prioritize your argument over substance and why.

cross. i listen, but i will not assess arguments made in crossfires unless you restate your points in a speech. try to use this time wisely.

evidence. again, please cut these correctly. i'll read your evidence at the end of the round if asked, if your evidence sounds too good to be true, or if your evidence is essential to my decision in some fashion. however, this is not an excuse to be lazy! extend evidence that you want me to evaluate, or it flows as analysis. make sure to identify the card(s) correctly and elaborate on their significance given the context of the round. don't be afraid to compliment your card(s). consider using your evidence to enhance your narrative coherence.

public forum debaters should practice good partner coordination, especially during summary and final focus. consider taking prep before these speeches because what you read here can make or break your hard work. arguments and evidence mentioned in the final focus need to have been brought up in summary for me to evaluate it. i flow very well and will catch you if you read new arguments, new evidence, or shadow extensions (arguments read earlier in the round that were not read in summary). none of these arguments will be considered in my ballot, so please do not waste time on them. focus on the arguments you are winning and please weigh, meta-weigh, and crystallize!

tl;dr. show me where and why i should vote. thanks :)

you are all smart. remember to relax and have fun!

Hello, I am a parent judge. Please make sure to always be polite to your opponents and try not to speak super fast. I hope to judge a great round!

lay/parent judge

Hello debtors,

I am a new parent judge. Please try not to spread, I am afraid that I can't effectively judge. Good Luck!

Background – Debater for over 6 years and an experienced judge in multiple formats.

General Notes for speakers:

· I)I appreciate organized speeches which are clear to follow. The manner, style, vocabulary and pace of the speech doesn’t matter insofar as the speech is able to communicate the depth and meaning of the argument and case.

· II)Healthy environment must be maintained during speeches i.e. AVOID: - a) condescending behavior to opponents, b) passing rude and stereotypical statements about particular community which might be offensive to majority of rational individuals, c)Racist, sexist and homophobic prejudicial behavior, d)Generally abusive and unfair tone.

· III)Use material which would be understandable by an average reasonable voter.

· IV)Customization, innovation and uniformity in arguments is always cherished

· V)Feel free to reach out to me via mail for any queries or assistance.

Arguments and Cases:

· I) I do not have any preference in terms of which Type of arguments matter more, however I sit with an open mind for the speakers to convince or sell argument want me to buy through their Persuasiveness. (you should be able to sell a comb to a bald person)

· II) Analysis to the arguments- simply stating a fact isn’t enough until and unless you prove :-a)why a particular fact matters more than others, b) how it is relevant, c)Implication of the argument, d) evidence to support the facts, e) Analysis to core issues and trends to support the consistency and applicability of an argument.

· III) Give taglines to flag out your arguments – i.e. while giving a speech which includes *why pollution is bad* - the taglines can be a) Pollution is bad because it has health hazards to humans , b) Pollution is bad because it impacts climate change and c) Pollution impacts economy. These headlines can further be analyzed.

· IV) Counter proposals/ plans – if you wish to introduce counter proposals, try to analyze and extend the comparative of the benefits of your opponent’s plan and your counter plan. For eg. You can compare it by means of feasibility, efficiency, cost benefit analysis, time saving etc.

· V) Comparative – be comparative and weigh as to why your impacts have stronger stance than your opponents. Make the specific links of “where your side is comparatively better and how?”

· VI) Uniformity – it is important to establish a clear stance of the team and becomes easier to follow. Any inconsistency in form of contradiction, doubts or hesitation shows non uniformity of the bench which reduces the integrity of the case. Insofar as the contradiction isn’t huge enough which might change the entire meaning and impacts of your case, it doesn’t impact you much with respect to speaker score, otherwise you might attract certain penalties based on the degree of contradiction.

VII) Engagement - Rebuttals and clashing is very valuable to judge the closest teams in a round. Simply reading prewritten cards aren’t enough to win a debate, you need to modify and adapt in order to outweigh your opponents. Prove why you are right and disprove your opponents. Weight your benefits with theirs, compare your harms with theirs and tell why your world is still better than your opponents.

Speaker scores

The ballots reflected will be based on following criteria

· 1) Overall performance in terms of arguments, analysis and engagement.

· 2) Quality of speeches irrespective of whether you win or lose.

· 3) Any form of racism, sexism, ableism and homophobia seen in your speeches will tank your scores.

Hi! I am Rahat Khan and I have started debating with Asian Parliamentry and British Parlimentry debating. After gathering experiences, the thing that remained constant all the time is debate always appears to me like a window where I can see the world from different perspectives in a very short time. I have judged AP and BP debates before and I am familiar with Public Forum Debate as well. Good luck!

I am a parent judge. I don't have any personal debate nor coaching experience. The fundamentals of your argument is the most important to me. I appreciate clarity and structure in speech so please speak in reasonable speed, and I don't understand debate jargons. Poise is important as I value communications in a civil and educated manner. I appreciate the opportunity to go on an intellectual ride with you and your components, so please speak clearly, be civil, and most importantly show me your ability to think critically.

I am a junior at the University of Michigan-Ann Arbor, majoring in Statistics and Asian studies. I have four years of Public Forum debate experience and participated in major university tournaments every single year in high school. I have judged over 13 tournaments in the past two years. All in all, I am a flow judge, and speed is okay with me. Some suggestions are listed below:

1. Do not bring up new points in the final focus... I will not give you any credit as it will not appear on my flow sheet.

2. Please please please weigh your impact!!!!!!!

3. If your opponent drops a point/impact/link that you think is important, you better call it out.

4. Make sure to extend your argument throughout the debate to get full credit.

5. If I think a card is too good to be true, I might ask for it at the end of the debate.

6. I am okay with speed, BUT please make your words clear. Also, DON'T SPREAD!

7. Please do not interrupt your opponents during cross-fire...give him/her a chance to finish the response before inserting another question or response.

8. Please reconstruct your argument in the rebuttal.

9. I wouldn't flow crossfire. Therefore, if anything happens in the crossfire that you think is important, such as your opponent making a concession, you need to bring it up in your next immediate speech.

10. If you want me to vote for you, you need to have clear voters and link stories!

11. You have to reconstruct in rebuttal to extend your own argument. Or else I consider that to be dropping your argument.

At the end of the debate, there are three things that I will for sure do: disclosure, round analysis, and personal feedback. Please give me a few minutes at the end of the debate to allow me to choose the winning side. During these two minutes, I will also call for cards if the round is too close; just want to be careful :)

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

I am a parent judge. My email is saidcomprising@gmail.com

Please speak in a conversational pace.

Stay focused on the merit and substance of your cases, instead of spending a significant amount of time on attacking procedural errors of your opponent's.

I am unpersuaded by existential risk arguments -- there is a very low bar for responding to these.

I expect cameras to be on all the time.

I don't believe "the more" is necessarily "the better." That is, I won't be impressed just by the quantity and speed of words delivered. I encourage you to speak in your normal speed, be calm, firm, concise and highlight your key points repeatedly.

I value logic reasoning, common sense as much as relevancy of the evidence. Hope you can understand that continuous recitation of a large chunk of quantitative evidence can hardly be absorbed in such a short time. I encourage you to be selective for only those strongest numbers.

Counter-arguments and other responses to your opponents indicate the extent and depth of your preparation. I put a lot of focus on those.

For final speeches, please emphasize the points that I should care about.

I am a parent judge and this is my 2nd year judging PF. I am open to any arguments and rebuttals but will be specifically looking for arguments that are supported by evidence and will rely on you to demonstrate the impact and calculate the numbers (where appropriate). I am looking for you to flow your arguments and rebut your opponents arguments. Please do not leave your opponent's contentions hanging without a rebuttal.

While I will weigh the round, I am looking for you to provide you point-of-view and will certainly take that into consideration.

Lastly, please be respectful (I will deduct points if you are not), have fun and speak slow enough so that I can understand you. Compelling arguments with evidence and impact are more important than speed and volume.

I am a first-time parent judge.

1. Speak slowly and clearly. If you speak too quickly I won't be able to understand what you are saying.

2. Please signpost and frame your arguments in a logical flow.

3. Be courteous, polite and respectful to your opponents.

Hello My name is Anthony Maglaqui. A little background about myself, I did public forum debate for all 4 years of my high school debate career.

My paradigms are as follows:

I am capable of flowing, so consider me a flow judge.

I do not flow cross-x, I believe cross-x is for both teams to extrapolate/gather information and present to me in your rebuttals, summaries, and final focuses.

If you start spreading, I will not continue to flow. I expect you to articulate your arguments in a timely manner.

Please signpost in your arguments.

My name is Wairimu Manyara and I have experience in BP, World Schools, Asian Parliamentary and PF formats. I am critical and focus on the comparatives to give constructive feedback. I will vote for any argument regardless of my personal thoughts on debate. I do not have the ability to adjudicate on disputes about anything outside of the debate.

While I've been coaching Public Forum for a number of years my background is in British Parliamentary debate. So I'm partial to logical and narrative explanations that are backed up by solid evidence, rather than just evidence-dumping.

I appreciate speaking slowly and clearly laying out the points. During rebuttal be sure to signpost (e.g. "On their second contention/C2 about ___"). Good luck.

I have judged almost every form of debate possible. I have been involved in US policy debate since its invention. You must respond to the other teams arguments. Flowing is good. You be your best debater. I will try and be a fair judge. I am very familiar with the PF topics. Be nice to your opponents and your debate partner.

One last thing. I do not think PF debate has the capacity to provide space to have a good debate about arguments relating to "disclosure" and "paraphrasing" as a reason to lose a debate. It is an international event and those particular cultural norms are not accessible for everyone across the planet of debate.

You can put me on the email chain : stormeebryemassey@gmail.com

NOTE- I do not look at your speech doc during round- I only ask to be on the chain in case I need to view cards after round. Please do NOT assume that because something is in your doc, it was flowed.

Team Involvement:

Coaching Experience:

Head Coach of US Debate Formats for Vancouver Debate Academy (BC)

Former Director of Debate at Grapevine HS and Trinity HS in TX.

I have over 7 years of experience coaching competitive speech and debate.

Competitive Experience:

College: University of Oklahoma Class of 14'

HS: Flower Mound High School 09'

Background in Events: I did Policy debate for 9 years (4 at Flower Mound High School; 5 at OU)- I was a big K debater.

I have coached students in CNDF, BP, Policy, LD, Congress, WSD, and Public Forum.

I currently coach Public Forum Debate, WSD, CNDF, and BP.

PF [Updated for Stanford 1/9/24]

Here are my top five suggestions if you have me in a PF round:

1. Be organized- I keep a clean flow (I was a policy debater for a long time and have judged on a collegiate level). Do not say your opponent missed something unless you are 100% positive.

2. Have evidence readily available- I evaluate a lot of your credibility in context of your evidence. If evidence is paraphrased poorly, is out of context, is not easily accessible, or is clipped- your team will lose points with me. Debate with integrity :)

3. Crossfire with care- Try to drive crossfire with questions and strategy- I am not a fan of back and forth arguments/tiffs during crossfire. Avoid being aggressive, please. I do pay attention to crossfire.

4. I am a gameboard judge (tech over truth- barring offensive argumentation that is racist, sexist, etc.). - if you concede an offensive argument- that is potential offense for your opponent. If your opponent concedes an argument- point it out and extend it. I will almost always evaluate tech over truth if spin is not addressed directly.

5. I am not likely to vote on frivolous arbitrary theory- if you read an argument that your opponent should lose because they didn't do some arbitrary thing like putting their phone number on the wiki- I will not likely vote for you and will likely want to vote against you. For me to vote on theory- you have to prove in-round abuse. However, if your opponent concedes the theory, I will vote on it- I will just be very sad.

Debating is, according to me, is like an intellectual sport where you have to learn certain skills to win.

Refer to these specific points-

1. Topic knowledge- You need not be scared of an unknown topic, I won’t judge your past knowledge on the topic, and rather I will give weightage to how you interpret it in the round and explain it initially. But, at the same, you may get some brownie points if you insert a fact and impress me!

2. Speed- Do not go too fast to keep forth all your points and disturb your flow. Either select a sensible number of points or shorten all of them to present them wisely. If I am unable to match the speed, you have the chances to lose.

3. Rebuttals- I would love to hear logical rebuttals from you, but even the wacky ones won’t harm you. Make sure you tell me where you are on the flow, and I’ll like numbering your responses to things, it makes flowing easier for everyone.

4. Summary- A good summary is what I’ll appreciate. Just be very specific in it; you can also add a couple of new points in it but prefer reiterating the previous ones.

I am not going to judge you on every word you speak but make sure, most of them make sense. Be honest, don’t pretend on the know-how, and do well.

Feel free to ask me any questions you may have before the round starts.

es.motolinia@gmail.com and please add blakedocs@googlegroups.com to the chain as well (this is just how Blake keeps track of our chains because otherwise they get lost).

Just send speech docs from case through rebuttal. We don't need to wait for it to come through but it speeds up ev exchange. If you are in a varsity division and don't have a speech doc, pls do better.

TL;DR clean extensions, weighed impacts, and warrant comparison are the easiest way to win my ballot.

I debated for 2 years in the UDL at Clara Barton and 4 years in PF at Blake (both in MN). Please don't mistake me for a policy judge, I was only a novice and didn't do any progressive argumentation. I have been judging for 5 years.

My judging style is tech but persuasion is still important. I prefer a team that goes deeper on key issues (in the 2nd half of the debate) rather than going for all offense on the flow. There can/ should be a lot on the flow in the 1st half of the debate but not narrowing it down in summ and FF is extremely unstrategic and trades off with time to weigh your arguments and compare warrants.

Use evidence, quote evidence, and we won't have a problem. Don't paraphrase and don't bracket. Bad evidence ethics increases the probability that I will intervene against you, especially in messy debates. I'll start your prep if you take longer than 2 minutes to find and send a card.

Responding to defense on what you're going for and turns is required in the 2nd rebuttal. Obviously respond to all offense in second rebuttal, new responses to offense in second summary will not carry any weight on my ballot. I am very reluctant to accept a lot of new evidence in the 2nd summary because it pushes the debate back too much. (Note: I still accept a warrant clarification or deepening of a warrant/ analysis because that is separate from brand new evidence.)

Defense needs to be in first summary. With 3 minutes, summaries don't have an excuse anymore to be mediocre. Bottom Line: If it is not in summary then it cannot be in final focus. If it is not in final focus then I will not vote on it.

In order to win, you gotta weigh. The earlier you start the weighing, the better. I don't like new mechanisms in 2nd FF (1st FF is still a bit sketch. I am fine with timeframe, magnitude, probability new in the 1st FF but prerequ should probably come sooner). The 2nd speaking summary has a big advantage so I don't accept that there is no time to weigh. It is fine if the summary speaker introduces quick weighing and the final focus elaborates on it in final focus (especially for 1st speaking team). If both teams are weighing, tell me which is the preferable weighing mechanism. Same for framework. Competing frameworks with no warrant for why to prefer either one becomes useless and I will pick the framework that is either cleanly extended or that I like better.

I vote on warrants and CLEAN extensions. A proper extension in the 2nd half of the round is the card name, the claim+ warrant of the card and the implication of the card. Anything short of this is a blippy extension, meaning I give it less weight during my evaluation of the flow. Name of the card is the least important part of the extension for me so don't get too caught up on that, it will just help me find the card on the flow.

I vote on the path of least resistance, if possible. That means that I am more inclined to vote on a dropped turn than messy case offense. But turns need to be implicated, I won't vote on a turn with no impact. Even if your opponent drops something, you still have to do a full extension (it can be quicker still but I don't accept blippy extensions).

You can speak fast, but I would like a warning. Also, the faster you speak, the less I will get on the flow. Just because I am a tech judge, does not mean I am able to type at godly speeds. Don't sacrifice persuasion, clarity, or argumentation for speed otherwise it will be counterproductive for the debate and (possibly) your speaker points. Sending a speech doc (before or after the speech) does not mean that you can be incomprehensible. I still need to be able to understand you verbally, I will not follow the speech doc during your speech.

I am still learning when it comes to judging/ evaluating theory and Ks. I am more familiar with ROB but still need a slower debate with clear warranting. I am more familiar with Ks than theory but never debated either so the concepts are taking me longer to internalize. You can run it in front of me but combining it with speed makes me even more confused. I understand a lot of basic ideas when it comes to theory argumentation but your warranting and extensions will have to be even more explicit for me to keep up. I am in favor of paraphrasing bad and disclosure good theory. I don't have many opinions on RVIs or CI vs reasonability so you should clearly extend warrants for those args.

IVIs are silly and avoid clash. If there is abuse, read theory. If there is a rule violation, stop the round.

Similarly, any sort of strategy that avoids clash is a non starter for me and I will give it less weight on my flow. An example of this is reading one random card in your contention that doesn't connect to anything, then it becomes an argument of its own in the back-half with 3 pieces of weighing.

Also, be nice to each other (but a little sass never hurt anyone). Still, be cognizant of how much leeway you have with sass based on power dynamics and the trajectory of the round/ tone of the room. Sass does not mean bullying.

Take flex prep to ask questions or do it during cross. Essentially, a timer must be running if someone is talking (this excludes quick and efficient ev exchange). You don't get to ask free questions because the other team was too fast or unclear.

If I pipe up to correct behavior during a round, you have annoyed me and are jeopardizing your speaker points. I have a poker face when I observe rounds but am less concerned about that when judging so you can probably read me if I am judging your round.

Sometimes messy rounds will come down to nitpicky things so here are some clarifications:

Warranted Cards > warranted analytics > unwarranted cards > unwarranted analytics

Qualified source and author > qualified source only> qualified author only > no qualified author or source

Link +impact extension > Link with no impact > impact with no link

Comparative weighing > weighing that is only about your impact > weighing that is about opponents impact only

I only have this list because some rounds have come down to each team doing one of these things so this list explains where/ how I intervene when I need to resolve a clash of arguments that were not resolved in the debate.

If the tournament and schedule allows, I like to disclose and have a discussion about the round after I submit my ballot. Ask me any questions before or after the round.

Background

Debated for over four years and has experience adjudicating British Parliamentary, WSDC and Public Forum debates.

Thoughts

1. Debates are about engaging and discussing various standpoints; therefore, I enjoy a round where teams try to engage with their opposition as much as possible. Parallel debates can be difficult to adjudicate and leaves adjudicators with a difficult task of weighing parallel arguments and having to pick which one they relate to most.

2. Always prioritize analysis over matter dumping. Debates are about being able to defend a stance and that requires sufficient analysis of whatever that stance may be. In case you find your team having a lot of points to canvass, always opt for those you consider strongest and focus on analysis.

3. Be conscious of whatever stances you decide to defend. Always try and make the room as safe a space as possible for everyone to engage in the debate. Avoid making arguments that come off as racist, sexist or discriminatory in any way. Always address yourself to the points raised and avoid personal attacks or directing any negative comments towards individual speakers no matter what their stance may be.

The nature of any debate form is civil and powerful persuasion. In the case of Public Forum debate, it was said to have been created to make debates understandable to the average person - think the U.S. presidential debates. The word “public” in Public Forum debate is noteworthy for this reason.

As in any debate, clear delivery is key. I encourage all speakers to pay attention to enunciation and speed in their speech. The popularity of Public Forum debate is rooted in its accessibility. The best speeches are constructed and delivered to appeal to the widest possible audience.

I am a parent judge with no prior debate judging experience. Engineer by profession, so like to see logical arguments supported by evidence.

Speed: Do not speak too fast. I look for clear persuasive arguments with logic, evidence and analysis.

Organization: Off-time roadmaps are welcome. Please time your speeches.

Respect: Please be respectful. Passion and confidence is good, but no rudeness, name calling or meanness.

I am a parent judge and you can assume that I will not know deep debate terminology. I will weigh your arguments based on the factors such as relevance, logic and likelihood. Things that matter to me: clarity of arguments (it does not matter how solid your argument is if you cannot explain it clearly) and politeness (focus on the ideas, not the person).

UPDATE FOR BERKELEY: I am a first time judge. Please do not speak fast or spread, as I will not understand you. If I do not understand your argument, I will not be able to vote for you. Additionally, please do not use debate jargon as I will not understand that either.

Tech > truth. A dropped argument is assumed to be contingently true. "Tech" is obviously not completely divorced from "truth" but you have to actually make the true argument for it to matter. In general, if your argument has a claim, warrant, and implication then I am willing to vote for it, but there are some arguments that are pretty obviously morally repugnant and I am not going to entertain them. They might have a claim, warrant, and implication, but they have zero (maybe negative?) persuasive value and nothing is going to change that. I'm not going to create an exhaustive list, but any form of "oppression good" and many forms of "death good" fall into this category.

Specifics

Non-traditional – Debate is a game. It might be MORE than a game to some folks, but it is still a game. Claims to the contrary are unlikely to gain traction with me. Given that, I'm a good judge for T/framework. One might even say it makes the game work. I don't think the correct palliative for inequalities in the debate community is to take a break from debating the topic. Approaches to answering T/FW that rely on implicit or explicit "killing debate good" arguments are nonstarters.

Related thoughts:

1) I'm not a very good judge for arguments, aff or neg, that involve saying that an argument is your "survival strategy". I don't want the pressure of being the referee for deciding how you should live your life.

2) The aff saying "USFG should" doesn't equate to roleplaying as the USFG

3) I am really not interested in playing (or watching you play) cards, a board game, etc. as an alternative to competitive speaking. Just being honest.

Kritiks – If a K does not engage with the substance of the aff it is not a reason to vote negative. A lot of times these debates end and I am left thinking "so what?" and then I vote aff because the plan solves something and the alt doesn't. Good k debaters make their argument topic and aff-specific. That is SO easy to do on the high school CJR topic - I would much rather listen to a reform vs abolition debate than rehashed stuff from past years. I would really prefer I don't waste any of my limited time on this planet thinking about baudrillard/bataille/other high theory nonsense that has nothing to do with anything.

Unless told specifically otherwise I assume that life is preferable to death. The onus is on you to prove that a world with no value to life/social death is worse than being biologically dead.

I am skeptical of the pedagogical value of frameworks/roles of the ballot/roles of the judge that don’t allow the affirmative to weigh the benefits of hypothetical enactment of the plan against the K.

I tend to give the aff A LOT of leeway in answering floating PIKs, especially when they are introduced as "the alt is compatible with politics" and then become "you dropped the floating PIK to do your aff without your card's allusion to the Godfather" (I thought this was a funny joke until I judged a team that PIKed out of a two word reference to Star Wars. h/t to GBS GS.). In my experience, these debates work out much better for the negative when they are transparent about what the alternative is and just justify their alternative doing part of the plan from the get go.

Theory – theory arguments that aren't some variation of “conditionality bad” are rarely reasons to reject the team. These arguments pretty much have to be dropped and clearly flagged in the speech as reasons to vote against the other team for me to consider voting on them. That being said, I don't understand why teams don't press harder against obviously abusive CPs/alternatives (uniform 50 state fiat, consult cps, utopian alts, floating piks). Theory might not be a reason to reject the team, but it's not a tough sell to win that these arguments shouldn't be allowed. If the 2NR advocates a K or CP I will not default to comparing the plan to the status quo absent an argument telling me to. New affs bad is definitely not a reason to reject the team and is also not a justification for the neg to get unlimited conditionality (something I've been hearing people say).

Topicality/Procedurals – By default, I view topicality through the lens of competing interpretations, but I could certainly be persuaded to do something else. Specification arguments that are not based in the resolution or that don't have strong literature proving their relevance are rarely a reason to vote neg. It is very unlikely that I could be persuaded that theory outweighs topicality. Policy teams don’t get a pass on T just because K teams choose not to be topical. Plan texts should be somewhat well thought out. If the aff tries to play grammar magic and accidentally makes their plan text "not a thing" I'm not going to lose any sleep after voting on presumption/very low solvency.

Points- My average point scale is consistently 28.2-29.5. Points below 27.5 are reserved for "epic fails" in argumentation or extreme offensiveness (I'm talking racial slurs, not light trash talking/mocking - I love that) and points above 29.5 are reserved for absolutely awesome speeches. I cannot see myself going below 26.5 absent some extraordinary circumstances that I cannot imagine. All that being said, they are completely arbitrary and entirely contextual. Things that influence my points: 30% strategy, 60% execution, 10% style. Saying "baudy" caps your points at 28.7.

Cheating - I won't initiate clipping/ethics challenges, mostly because I don't usually follow along with speech docs. If you decide to initiate one, you have to stake the round on it. Unless the tournament publishes specific rules on what kind of points I should award in this situation, I will assign the lowest speaks possible to the loser of the ethics challenge and ask the tournament to assign points to the winner based on their average speaks.

I won't evaluate evidence that is "inserted" but not actually read as part of my decision.

I have a bachelors degree in communication and public relations. I have debate experience from being elected senior class senator for Marymount University.

COPY FROM BLAKE MEYER

- All should be timing the debate. I am the judge, not a babysitter. I like when teams hold each other accountable.

- don't read a new contention in rebuttal. that's not going on my flow

- The first summary should extend defense if the second rebuttal frontlines the argument. I think it is strategic for the second rebuttal to respond to turns and overviews.

- My attention to crossfire will probably depend on the time of day and my current mood. Please use it strategically if not I'll probably switch to watching youtube videos. - do not just read evidence explain the evidence in your own words. Tell me why the evidence matters to me at the end of the day.

- the summary is cool and all but don't go for everything on the flow, condense the round and give me a narrative. Quality of voters> Quantity of voters.

- Weigh, weigh, weigh, weigh, weigh.

-any other questions ask me before the round

SPEAKER POINT BREAKDOWNS

"30: Excellent job, you demonstrate stand-out organizational skills and speaking abilities. Ability to use creative analytical skills and humor to simplify and clarify the round.

29: Very strong ability. Good eloquence, analysis, and organization. A couple minor stumbles or drops.

28: Above average. Good speaking ability. May have made a larger drop or flaw in argumentation but speaking skills compensate. Or, very strong analysis but weaker speaking skills.

27: About average. Ability to function well in the round, however analysis may be lacking. Some errors made.

26: Is struggling to function efficiently within the round. Either lacking speaking skills or analytical skills. May have made a more important error.

25: Having difficulties following the round. May have a hard time filling the time for speeches. Large error.

Below: Extreme difficulty functioning. Very large difficulty filling time or offensive or rude behavior."

***Speaker Points break down borrowed from Mollie Clark.***

Hi,

Update for St. Mary's. Do not spread. Do not read progressive arguments.

My name is Evan Ortiz, I debated for 4 years in Texas, and was ok. I now compete for the University of Texas at Austin and help coach for NSU in Florida (Speech only tho because I live for extemp). Feel free to reach out to me if something in my paradigm confuses you.

Please add me to the email chain evanortiz64@gmail.com

Please let me know if I can do anything to make the round a safer or better experience for you. I love debate and I want to make sure rounds are a place that you can love, too.

Judging Philosophy:

- I won't look at a card unless you tell me to do so!

- I am not a super big fan of paraphrasing. I feel like this is a big ethical dilemma in PF and I am just not a fan, please just read cut cards.

- Impact calc is the easiest way to win and the most important part of PF. Just please explain your impact clearly with a fully supported link chain to it and weigh and you will the round. I expect clear weighing in the round and it is beneficial for y'all to do so, if you don't weigh I may default to my own mechanisms and you may not like that. ---> you final focus should just write my ballot for me

- 2nd rebuttal must answer the 1st in some sort of way... if not? Go off I guess the summary better do work then.

- Summary needs to extend defense - you have time now :(

- summary and final focus should mirror each other ALWAYS. Please don't make me play a game of I SPY on the ballot, it will much easier for you to win if you as a team know exactly what you are going for and mirror each other

- I would really prefer clear full extensions. I don't simply want just "extend Jones 12" because that doesn't really tell me much. Instead, extend Jones, the warrant, and any necessary offense from it. Explain to me why Jones is important.

- warranted responses >>> blippy card dumps

Miscellaneous Nonsense

- Have fun!!! Debate after all is an activity first, competition second. Please have fun in the round.

- Be nice to each other. Sass is sometimes cool, but know your lane and stay in it.

- Run whatever you want, you do you!

*Regarding the notion from above. Honestly, do not read theory in front of me. The only interaction I have had with Theory in PF is larger schools reading disclosure theory on relatively small and or inexperienced schools. I don't want to see it. Regardless of my debate background with a small school, frivolous disclosure theory is not educational for the round nor fun for me to judge. If you choose to run theory, it better not be disclosure theory. If it is, and you are from a large school with the institutional knowledge to engage with theory and you choose to read it against a small school or inexperienced opponents, you will not like the outcome. It is mind-boggling to me that this is a norm and will not vote for it. If you want to read other theory, I would prefer it not to be in shell form - just give me the jist. I don't like voting off of theory technicalities, so make it at least accessible. (Paraphrase theory is meh but if you can prove a violation then sure why not)

email: sanjitap2003@ucla.edu, pronouns: she/her

hello! i debated in pf at dougherty valley for 3 years (doughtery valley kp and dougherty valley rp) and am now a sophomore at ucla. i'm a flow judge that will buy basically anything, but above all please make sure you are inclusive and kind.

- first: make sure you are reading content warnings with opt outs for sensitive topics (if you are unsure if a topic requires a content warning, better safe than sorry). if you are racist, sexist, homophobic, or discriminatory in any way i will drop you regardless of the content of the round.

- tech>truth, i love unique arguments that bring new perspectives to topics, i will not call for any evidence regardless of how sus i think it is if you do not prompt me to (i think that's intervention) HOWEVER, if i do call for the evidence and it is terribly misrepresented, i reserve the right to drop you

- second rebuttal should frontline, at least all of the offense, if you don’t i consider it dropped

- no "offensive overviews" in second rebuttal please, pf speech times were not built for this, if you are reading turns they must be implicated when you read them, i will not buy new implications into second summary and final

- i love love love weighing and think it's the best part of a debate round! please do it as early as second rebuttal. PLEASE please collapse on ONE argument in second rebuttal

- speaks are started at 28.5, i think speaks are arbitrary and allow biases to creep into judging so i will only go up based on strategic decisions made in the round or if you make me laugh , not speaking style

- you can talk as fast as you want but if i say clear 2 times and still can't understand you i'll stop flowing

- i prioritize WARRANTS over an evidence throwing party any day. good analysis > unwarranted stats

- i really really don't like when people get angry and mean during debate rounds. there is no reason to be mean over a round you won't remember in a few weeks.i will tank your speaks heavily for this :(

- summary and final should mirror each other and extend your case and impact. i will not vote off of it if the full argument and impact are not in both speeches. 

- i have experience with theory arguments but if i feel even slightly that you are reading the argument to win ballots, not because there is abuse, i will not vote on it. i have slightly less experience with Ks but i can understand and judge most if you explain the warrants and framing.

above all, have fun! let me know if there's anything i can do to make the round more comfortable for you :)

I am a parent judge; my student is a policy & public forum debater as well as speechie.

I have only judged speech and a bit of public forum debate before, so for LD and CX, please speak slowly and clearly, and make sure you explain your logic thoroughly to me.

I need good logic, reasoning, and warrants to buy an argument. Back up your claims with good links. And BE SURE to explain the bigger picture as I am not too familiar with the topic.

Good luck and have fun!

Clearly explain the impacts of your contentions, and the internal links within them; the less work I have to do filling in the blanks for your case, the more likely you are to win. Use your summary and final focus to explain to me why your side is winning the debate, don't just use them as extra rebuttal speeches (if I have to go all the way back to both teams' constructives to decide who's winning because rebuttal, summary, and final focus didn't make it clear enough, there's a lot more room for me to think you out of a win). If you don't extend an argument through summary and bring it back up in final focus, I miiiiiight weigh it but even if I do I'm going to weigh it less heavily than if you extended it through summary and final focus. At least frontline responses to turns in second rebuttal. If you want something from crossfire on the flow, mention it in a speech. Speed is fine (make sure to really clearly enunciate names; I can generally figure out a somewhat unclear word, but if a name isn't clear it's a lot harder to figure out from context). Fine with K's. Tech over truth. Don't make your off-time roadmap much longer than "our case then their case" (i.e. "I'm going to weigh our first contention against their second and then..." is too long). Mostly did Congress and Parli in high school (with some LD, briefly), some British Parliamentary in university (don't ask), and I coached Public Forum for a few years. Academic background in Economics.

Hey!

The most important thing to know if you're going to be debating in my room is how much I value fair and thorough engagements! This looks like making concessions where necessary (when the cases have been properly analyzed and are logical) and engaging in fair and charitable comparisons.

Next up, don't be rude or disrespectful! Avoid racist and discriminatory slurs. I am more than willing to penalize debaters on this basis.

Thirdly, I am fully cognizant of the fact that speakers have a lot of material to cover in such a small time, but please make sure you don't excessively speed through those arguments! DO NOT SPREAD. If I can't hear it in your speech, I will not flow. Please speak clearly so your opponents and I understand you.

Finally, always be conscious of your burdens in the debate and do justice to them. Do not merely assert, justify those claims.

Good luck!

I am a parent judge, so please go at a good pace and explain everything thoroughly so I can keep up with your case.

Good luck and be respectful!

I am a parent judge. This is my first year judging PF tournaments after a break.

Speak clearly and please try not to spread.

Good luck

Name: Pallob Poddar

School Affiliation: North South University

Number of Years Judging Public Forum: less than 1

Number of Years Competing in Public Forum: less than 1

Number of Years Judging Other Forensic Activities: less than 1

Number of Years Competing in Other Forensic Activities: less than 1

If you are a coach, what events do you coach? I'm not a coach

What is your current occupation? Student

My opinions or beliefs about how the following play into a debate round:

Speed of Delivery: Not too fast cause greater persuasion won't be achieved if you talk too fast.

Format of Summary Speeches (line by line? big picture?): Big picture but don't generalize opposition's case. You still need to engage with their each and every arguments.

Role of the Final Focus: Persuading the judge why your team wins.

Extension of Arguments into later speeches: Will be counted until the final focus.

Topicality: The most important thing.

Plans: Specific plans or models are not required.

Kritiks: Try to engage with the opposition's best case.

Flowing/note-taking: Hugely important so that you don't miss out important things.

I value argument more but I also notice the style.

If a team plans to win the debate on an argument, in my opinion that argument has to be extended in the rebuttal because summary speeches should focus on the summary of the debate.

If a team is second speaking, the team should answer to it's opponent's rebuttal first in the rebuttal speech. If they have enough time after that, they can cover the opponent's case as well.

I vote for arguments that are first raised in the grand crossfire.

I would judge the debate as it was. So, try to engage with the opposition's case more and make the debate easier to judge.

I am tab.

Public Forum:

-Clarity is key. I get it – you have four minutes and the temptation to speed read through as much evidence as possible is overwhelming. But in my opinion, burying your opponents in cards they can’t follow – and thus cannot properly respond to – is not debate. Enunciation and inflection in your speaking will also help clarify your points.

-I may put my hand up during your speech as an indication that you should slow down – I will try not to, as I know this can throw you off, but I will if I am genuinely unable to follow your arguments.

-Another big point: respect your opponents (and your partner). You can be assertive without yelling, badgering, or putting someone else down. I will not tolerate any racist, homophobic, sexist, or ableist actions or arguments in these rounds.

-In your constructive, I care about the quality of your contentions over the quantity. I would rather see a few contentions that are well-supported by a lot of research from multiple, respectable sources than many poorly supported contentions and subpoints.

-I also care about seeing a clear link chain, where you analyze how each piece of evidence supports and builds your argument. Please don’t just throw sources together and call it a day – I like hearing your own (brilliant) analysis :)

-Please clearly impact your points! Super important for me when weighing the round is whether you can still access your impacts and what the magnitude of those impacts are.

-Please try to cover as much of your opponent’s speech as you can in your rebuttals – it’s more important to me that you fully address your opponent’s arguments than that you “go back to your own speech” and defend your own constructive.

-Start narrowing down the debate to voters in your summary. This is the speech where I want to see responses to rebuttal arguments/attacks on your contentions raised by the other side.

-If you don’t have a question during CX, don’t be afraid to ask a clarifying question.

nogreatpowerwar@gmail.com

When debaters walk in the room, they expect the judge to render a fair decision, not to rob them of years of hard work and dedication by substituting their personal biases for the arguments presented.

I am a parent judge, please speak at an understandable pace, and please articulate your words. Discourage Debate jargons. Don't be rude keep it professional, refrain from mocking and other criticizing movements. Present your evidence properly and expand on why it matters. Good luck!

My background is 90s policy debate for Vestavia Hills HS & Georgetown University. I'm confident that I can handle aggressive pace and esoteric arguments. However, I demand clarity, appreciate intonation, and I am more likely to vote for arguments that I personally believe are true. Please don't read bad evidence. I might punish you for that. Personally, I have an undeniable preference for justice-based arguments like human rights and economic egalitarianism. However, I aspire to be non-interventionist/tabular as a. You can win just about any argument if you make a compelling case within the debate.

BLAKE UPDATE: If you are reading this and in LD, full disclosure, it has been a minute since I have judged LD and I have yet to do so online! Just be mindful of speed so that you don't get cut off by the tech

if you're going to not read cards or you paraphrase , you should probably strike me. In addition, it shouldn't take you longer than 30 seconds to find evidence. After 30 seconds, I will begin your prep. If it takes you longer than a minute and 30 seconds, all you can bring up is a 30 page PDF, or you cannot produce the evidence at all, you will lose the round. Please send the email chain to both cricks01@hamline.edu and blakedocs@googlegroups.com

• TL;DR- I was primarily an LD debater in high school, debating for Whitefish Bay HS in Wisconsin. I am now an assistant coach at The Blake School in Minnesota. I have different paradigms for different events, so read for the event that pertains to you and all should be fine!

  LD

  Speed: Typically, I can understand most speeds. However, i have let to judge online LD, so going a bit below your top speed may be beneficial to you. Slow down for tags, CP/Plan Texts, and if you’re reading unusual kritiks or frameworks. I want to make sure I spend more time conceptualizing what you’re talking about as opposed to figuring out what you just said. I will say “clear” or “slow” three times before beginning to dock speaks.

  Plans and Counterplans: Follow your dreams. I find these debates to be very interesting and a great way for debaters to creatively attack the topic. Make sure to make your advocacy very clear though.

  Kritiks: While I do love a good Kritik, make sure you’re running it well. Understand your kritik, don’t just pull one out of your backfiles and hope for the best. Again, make your advocacy clear. If you’re kritik is weird, please explain it well.

  Theory: I will vote on theory, but I do have questions about frivolous theory. That said, use your best judgement within the context of the round.

  Philosophy: Yes please! Explain it well and you should be golden!

  PF

  • I will pretty much listen to, flow, and vote off of anything. Have fun :)

  • I do have a high threshold for extensions. Blippy extensions are not my favorite thing, so extend your warrants as well

  • The inability to produce a piece of evidence that you have introduced into the round ends the round in an L-25 for your team

  • theory is lovely. I genuinely believe disclosure is good and that paraphrasing is bad.
  • Provide impact calc throughout the round
  • I will not vote on arguments that are dropped in summary, even if you bring them up in final focus, be warned. I may consider them if the warranting is a little bit blippy in summary, and better explained in final focus, but it has to 1) have been in rebuttal as well and 2) basically the only clean place to vote
  • CLASH IS KEY

  • Please read cards. Paraphrasing is becoming a problem in debate and often leads to some kind of intellectual dishonesty. Let's just avoid that.

  • Try to avoid Grand Cross becoming Grand Chaos in which there's just yelling. It isn't at all productive.

  • 2nd rebuttal should rebuild!

  • extending over ink makes me very sad :(

• Miscellaneous:

  • Do not be a terrible person. Don’t be sexist/homophobic/racist etc. If I see this, not only will I be sad, but so will your speaker points

  • Please please please weigh your arguments.

  • Also- please please please give voters!! If you don’t tell me what you think is important in round, I’ll have to decide for myself and you may not enjoy that.

  • please please please time yourselves and your opponent. I do however have a 10 second grace period to finish arguments you are already in the process of making, but I won't evaluate entirely new args after the speech time

  • Yes- I want to be on the email chain. My email is cricks01@hamline.edu

Hi my name is Ria, I competed in Policy, PF and Lincoln-Douglas for four years in high school. I've been judging policy, LD, Congress, PF and Parli since then. Ive judged for WACFL, VHSL and for several CA HS debates so far. I've judged every kind of debate, MetroFinals, State semifinals, I've judged up to semi-final elimination rounds (before final finals) in the Debate HS National Championships NSDA Nationals in DC.

Send me your plans before the start of the round I judge you on - this will make me much more able to consider your framework and go through the finer points in your argument. My email is riamerrill@yahoo.com.

Speed

I prefer debaters to speak at about 70% of their maximum speech speed. I do not appreciate spreading at all. So spreading in rounds I highly discourage. It is the debaters responsibility to make sure that I can hear all evidence, contentions, etc. If I didn't hear it, that I can't judge you on a statement that I didn't hear!

Prep Time -

Please let me know at the start of the round if you will take running prep or set minutes at a time between arguments.

Time Keeping - I will keep time for all arguments, but I highly encourage debaters to keep their own time for each argument and also to keep time for their opponents speeches, in order to encourage a nice tight debate.

Arguments.

Come into the debate prepared for the debate. Do NOT ask me for prep time at the start of a debate. You should have done that earlier.

I will always use a reasonability standard in judging arguments. Running theory is asking me as the judge in intervene in the round, and I will only do so if I deem it appropriate.

I very much as a judge appreciate Cross X's that don't run over time and I judge accordingly on that matter.

Topicality: Fine. Just make sure you specify what the impact of topicality on the round is.

Narratives: Fine, as long as you preface with a framework which explains why and how narratives impact the round.

Please do not make a case without backing that up with strong evidence and examples. That just depresses me in a debate frankly. That ruins the framework of an argument on a case Aff OR Neg for me.

Arguments that are obviously racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, Islamophobic, anti-Semitic, etc. are not OK. (Read: you will lose if you go ahead and run them.)

I enjoy a substantive debate that has real clash versus ill formed half baked ideas or ill-linked impacts

I appreciate weighing mechanisms where you explain to me why I should weigh your impacts over your opponents.

Rudeness and i.e. talking over your opponent when they are already speaking first, will lose you speaker points.

Overall I really value clear logical presentations of your case, the clearer and more logical your framework, the stronger your case is likely to be.

I do not get much out of hearing information repeated multiple times over and over in a round. Keep your arguments fresh!

I appreciate when debaters give me voters during the final speeches in a round.

Speaker Points

I judge primarily between 25-30. I have given a 21 to debaters who neglected to bring laptops or any evidence in a debate and just spoke extemporaneously in a policy round before. I have severely penalized a debater who referred to Africa as a country 6 times in a speech. Africa is not a country!

I VALUE clear speech and a minimization in speeches of sentence fillers such as Ahhhs and ummms. Language fluency and flow is highly valued to me as a judge in terms of rewarding speaker points.

25 is a problematic round, with gaping flaws in speeches, huge amounts of time left unused, blatantly offensive things said, patently incorrect information cited, or other glaring rhetorical issues.

26 is a milquetoast round. The debater had consistent issues with clarity, time management on presenting the case in the context of argument times, or in language fluency and flow in speeches, which makes understanding or believing the case much more difficult.

27.5 is average. Speaker made no glaring mistakes, but nevertheless had persistent apparent errors fluency, clarity or other areas of rhetoric.

28.5 is above average. Speaker made very few mistakes, or made a few minor mistakes in speech which were not repeated. Speaker was compelling, used rhetorical devices and strategies well.

30 is perfect. No breaks in fluency, no issues with clarity regardless of speed, very strong use of rhetorical devices and strategies.

I do take points off for a lack of fluency or clarity, which very fast speaking speed often creates.

Judging style

In a debate, I strongly look toward framework, impact analysis and evidence to support claims. I very much value specific statistics to make a claim over a general statement.

“That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.” —Christopher Hitchens - I met him in Beirut in grad school in 2009. We went out for cocktails after he gave a speech to my grad school class at the American U of Beirut. Then a very happily tipsy Hitchens decided to go out running like a banshee late night through the Beirut streets and then decided to rip down a poster of an SSNP (Syrian Nationalist Party) slogan, apparently within sight of some SSNP nationalists, and he was promptly beaten up by a bunch of Syrian Nationalists in Beirut that night. I always feel bad about that one, if Hitchens had had just listened to my advice that he stay at the bar, that beating by SSNP thugs wouldn't have happened. Hitchens was dead 2 years later. RIP.

Counterplans

I'm fine with counterplans if its a tight, cogent counterplan that is topical to the debate round.

Virtual Debate

Please stay in the frame of your camera during the debate. Share me on your plans - add me to the email chain - riamerrill@yahoo.com

.I look forward to when I get to judge a really excited, clashy debate!

Add me to the chain and send docs: ssaharoy@yahoo.com

I am a parent judge and doing this for last 3 years

I'm bad at flowing so pls don't go too fast

For me clarity is more important than speed

Debate is as much about learning as it is about winning.

•Speed: I’m comfortable with faster than conversational speed and if you’re too fast, I’ll hold up my pen high to indicate that I’ve stopped flowing.

•Organization: Clarity and structure are important and it helps me to flow your arguments. Tags are helpful. I’m good with off-time roadmaps.

•Extend your arguments: Please no surprises late in the debate. .

•Policy style arguments: I’m not a Policy judge. Make sure you explain your terms if you choose to go this route. I will not vote for arguments I don’t understand.

•Common decency:

Respect your judge. Respect your partner. Respect your opponent.

Avoid name-calling (EX: saying your opponent or an argument is stupid). That’s rude and also lazy debating.

Avoid yelling matches in crossfire.

PF:

I did PF and qualled to gold TOC twice.

- if its not in summary it should not be in FF; extend links, warrants, and impacts please don't just say u can extend this

- Frontline turns in 2nd rebuttal, defense is sticky but I will not evaluate offense unless it is extended and implicated

- speed is fine. if you will be spreading send me a speech doc (harishri2021@gmail.com)

- sign post please

- tech > truth

• Ks and theory are fine if you run it well and explain (do not do it just to confuse ur opponents)

please for the love of god preflow before the round if I have to wait for you I will be spiced, possibly enough to drop ur speaks

MOST IMPORTANT: if you want me to evaluate ur turns then u must do a 180 degree turn every time you read one. (this is a joke but I will boost ur speaks for it)

Parli:

• make me laugh
• do not make up evidence

I am a parent judge for Horace Mann school. After a stroke 10 years ago, I am unable to write/flow in round, so unfortunately the round will be decided in a rather non-traditional fashion. I will do my best to keep track of the arguments you read, and won't intervene (although I will find it more difficult to vote for arguments that I think are particularly ridiculous) but if I can't remember the arguments you read I can't vote for them so CLARITY IS YOUR FREIND!

Don't read theory, k's, tricks, or anything silly obviously because I wont understand it. My stroke also left me rather hard to understand, I will do my best to give feedback in round, but if there is an issue I can also type it up. (My hearing and processing are fully functioning, and most people can understand me if I speak slowly, but please feel free to say if you can't understand me and I'll be happy to repeat what I said, or I will type up some rough thoughts.)

Strike me if you focus more on the technicalities of debate rather than the persuasive elements, you should treat debating in front of me as different than most other judges. Time your prep and your speeches, I obviously can't stop listening, but I may say something if you go egregiously (5-10s overtime), and your opponents should hold up their timers if you go over to remind me.

Good luck, have fun!

General

• Technicality over Truth.
• Speak as fast as you want. However, if you’re going faster than I can process, I’ll text you to go slower once and then it’s on you.
• Defense you want to concede should be conceded in the speech immediately after it was originally read.
• I don't care if you sit or stand or wear formal clothes etc.
• Give trigger warnings.
• Absent any offense in the round, I'm presuming neg on policy topics and first on "on balance" topics.

Case

• Do whatever you want to do.
• I prefer framing arguments to be read in case, i.e extinction/structural violence authors.

Rebuttal

• Offensive overviews in second rebuttal should be discouraged and as such, my threshold for responses will be lower.
• I think you need to frontline in second rebuttal but do whatever you want to do, however,
• Anything not responded to in second rebuttal is regarded conceded.
• Turns that are conceded will have 100% probability.

Summary

• Caveat on turns. I believe that if you extend a link turn on their case, you must also make the delineation of what the impact of that turn is, otherwise, I don't really know what the point of the turn is.
• Case offense/ turns should be extended by author name.
• Do - “Extend our jones evidence which says that extensions like these are good because they're easier to follow"
• Dont - "extend our link"
• For an argument to be voteable I want uniqueness/ link/ impact to be extended.
• First summary
• Defense should be extended but I’ll give slightly more lenience to your side if extended in final especially since the second speaking team already had a chance to frontline it twice.
• Second summary
• This is your side’s last chance to weigh, so if the weighing is not here then I will not evaluate any more weighing from your side
• Defense must also be extended

Final focus

• Just mirror summary, extend uniqueness, link and impact.
• Don't make new implications on something that was never heard before.

Cross

• Cross is binding, just bring it up in a speech though

Evidence

• I know how bad evidence ethics are, however, I will only call for evidence if if the other team tells me to call for it
• If your opponents are just blatantly lying about a piece of evidence, call it out in speech and implicate what it means for their argument
• I’ve always been a firm believer that a good analytic with a good warrant beats a great empiric with no warrant. Use that to your advantage
• You’ll have a minute to pull the evidence your opponents called for before your speaks start getting docked

Hi

I have started participating in debate tournaments as judge since 2021. I have judged LD and Parli in CFLs. I like debate participants finding weak point in their opponents argument and exploiting that to prove their point. I get to learn a lot through debate and topics getting discussed. I enjoy the seriousness of time keeping and structured format. Looking forward to judging more.

I have some judging experience, however consider me a lay judge while making arguments. Speak at a resonable speed in order to make your speech more comprehensible.

General

• I don't care if you sit or stand/wear formal clothes etc, all that doesn’t matter to me
• give trigger warnings- if another team does not feel comfortable with an argument, change it. you can argue whether trigger warnings are good/bad for debate/society, but don't proactively cause harm on someone else.
• defense isnt sticky
• Flex prep is cool and tag team speeches/CX is fine with me
• absent any offense in the round, i'm presuming neg on policy topics and first on "on balance" topics

Case

• Have fun. Do whatever you want to d
• I prefer framing arguments to be read in case, i.e extinction/structural violence authors.

Rebuttal

• Offensive overviews in second rebuttal are BS and as such, my threshold for responses will be lower
• I think you need to frontline in second rebuttal but do whatever you want to do, however,
• Anything not responded to in second rebuttal is regarded conceded
• Turns that are conceded will have 100% probability

Summary

• for an argument to be voteable I want uniqueness/ link/ impact to be extended
• please extend warrants, I don't want to have a flood of blippy and unwarranted claims on my flow at the end of your summary
• this also goes for arguments that are conceded
• First summary
• Defense should be extended but I’ll give slightly more lenience to your side if extended in final especially since the second speaking team already had a chance to frontline it twice. However at this point, it’s probably not terminal defense if it was originally, but it’ll at least mitigate their impact
• Second summary
• This is your side’s last chance to weigh, so if the weighing is not here then I will not evaluate any more weighing from your side
• Defense must also be extended

Final focus

• Just mirror summary, extend uniqueness, link and impact.
• Don't make new implications on something that was never heard before, it’s annoying for me to go look back and see if you really said that, plus it’s just abusive

Cross

• Cross is binding, just bring it up in a speech though

TL;DR

• Be kind in all that you do.

• I flow but not particularly well (especially the back half) and generally will not evaluate arguments that I don't understand, so please collapse and make sure you clearly extend your warranting.

• I am generally okay with spreading as long as I get a speech doc.

• I have a slight preference for truth over tech. My brightline here isn’t totally clear so you’re probably best playing it safe.

• Under no circumstances will I vote for a "death good" argument and under very few circumstances will I vote for an "oppression good" argument. Pretty much every other type of argument is fine.

• Theory should only be run for legitimate norms and legitimate violations. Running stuff like “tall people theory” or “formal clothes theory” almost guarantees a loss.

• For email chain purposes: thadhsmith13@gmail.com

Background

I’ve been a member of the debating world for about eight years now. As a competitor, I saw some success at the state and national level in Public Forum, Lincoln Douglas, and World Schools, qualifying for the state championship four times and placing 10th at Nats in 2019. I also competed in BP debate at the university level in England. I am currently an assistant coach for American Heritage School - Broward.

I have a Bachelor’s degree in Political Science and Gender, Sexuality, & Race Studies. I have a Master’s degree in Theory and Practice of Human Rights. You can expect me to have more than the average level of knowledge in those areas. I like to think that I know about as much as the average person on most other things, but for economic arguments (or anything involving math) I get lost easily. Do with that what you will!

Evidence ethics

I have voted on evidence ethics violations in the past, both with and without competitors calling them out in round. Straw arguments, aggressive ellipses, and brackets could all be round-enders.

Don't paraphrase! I will be very open to cut cards theory, direct quotes theory, or anything else like that. If you do paraphrase, you need to be able to provide a cut card or the exact quote you're referencing if evidence is called. It's not a reasonable expectation for your opponents or I to have to scrub through a webpage or a long document searching for your evidence.

Public Forum

I find myself leaning more and more truth > tech, especially with the state of evidence ethics these days. It's really important for you to explain the link chain and somewhat important for you to explain things like author credibility/study methodology, especially for big impact contentions.

Line-by-line rebuttal is really important in the front half of the round. That means you should be frontlining in second rebuttal, respond to arguments in an order that makes logical sense, and actively extend your own arguments. For an extension to be effective you need to tell me what the argument is, how it works, and why it's important. You can almost always do this in three sentences or less. These pieces are important - I don't flow evidence names, so saying something like "Hendrickson solves" without an explanation does nothing for you.

Fiat is pretty much always a thing - There's a reason Public Forum topics usually ask "is this policy a good idea" and not "will this thing happen." My view of fiat is that it lets the debate take place on a principles level and creates a "comparative" between a world with a policy and a world without a policy. That said, politics arguments can work, but only if they relate to a political consequence of a policy being enacted and not if they try and say a policy will never happen in the first place.

Kritiks and theory are fine in PF. Be mindful of your time constraints. For kritiks, focus on explaining how your cards work and what the alternative is. For theory, make sure there's a legitimate violation and that it's something you're willing to bet the round on. Theory exists to create norms. I won’t vote on frivolous theory and I won’t vote on your shell if you aren’t actively embodying the norm you’re proposing.

Flex prep does not exist. “Open” crossfires don’t exist. As a whole, crossfire doesn’t matter that much but you still shouldn’t contradict yourself between cross and speech.

Lincoln-Douglas

I really enjoy a good framework debate and it’s something that I find is missing from a lot of modern LD rounds. One of the best parts of LD is getting to see how different philosophies engage with each other, and we’re gonna see that thru framing. I do my best to evaluate the framework debate at the very top and use it as my primary decision-making mechanism. Framing doesn't have to be done with a value/criterion if you'd rather run a K or Theory or something else, but you need to five me a role of the ballot if you don't use a value/criterion.

Please don’t spread philosophy or theory if you want me to flow it - I read and write it all the time and I still barely understand it, so I’m not going to understand what you’re saying if you’re going 500 words per minute. If you must spread your framework or K, send me the case or be prepared to explain it again next speech.

I’m fine with condo, fiat, and counterplans. Please don’t paraphrase and don't rehighlight.

"Debate bad" arguments are pretty weird. I probably won't vote on them because, at the most fundamental level, you're still participating in a debate round and perpetuating whatever core "harm" of debate that you're talking about. If your alternative is a reasonable alternative or reform instead of just "don't do debate", I could be persuaded, but you've got an uphill battle.

Congress

If you have me as your parli, there are two things you need to know about me: I love Robert's Rules of Order and I hate one-sided debate. Ignore these things at your own risk. Other important things, in no particular order:

• Display courtesy to your fellow competitors and do your best to ensure that everyone in the chamber is heard. I pay attention to pre-round, in-round, and post-round politics.
• Engagement with the other speakers is important, both through questions and through in-speech references. Every speech past the author/sponsor needs to have rebuttal or extension of some kind.
• Authorships/sponsorships (there's no such thing as a "first affirmative") need to explain exactly what the bill does. Don't assume I'll read the packet.
• Good Congress rounds have a narrative arc - The first few speeches should present core arguments and frame the round, the next few speeches should be heavy on refutation and extension, and the final few speeches should crystallize the debate.
• Many things that people do in-round have no basis in either the rules or parliamentary procedure. Many motions don't exist - There are no motions to "address the chamber," "open the floor for debate," "amend the agenda," or "impeach the presiding officer." You can't rescind a seconded motion (or a second), you can't object to a motion to move the previous question, most tournaments don't have a requirement to track question recency, elections should really be handled by the parli, etc.
• At this point, I've heard every canned intro under the sun. If I hear you use the same exact intro on multiple different bills/rounds, or the same intro as a dozen other people, or the same unfunny meta-references with random names subbed in, you are getting docked speech points. It takes barely any effort to come up with an intro that's relevant to your content.

World Schools

The most important thing for you to do is to remember the purpose of your speech. Your speech should not be defined by the "line-by-line," rather, you should have a clear idea or set of ideas that you are trying to get across and I should be able to understand what those ideas were at the end of your speech. I am a big believer in the "World Schools style," meaning that I like it when debaters lean into the concept of being representatives in a global governing body, when debaters deploy flowery rhetoric about grand ideals, and when debaters spend a lot of time establishing and engaging with the framework/definitions/plan for the debate.

Theory

I'm fine with theory as long as it's a legitimate norm and a legitimate violation. Don't run frivolous theory (I'm not going to vote on something like "debaters should sit during their speeches", for example) and don't run theory if it isn't a norm you're actively doing yourself (don't run disclosure theory if you didn't disclose either). I don't have a preference on DtD vs. DtA or Competing Interpretations vs. Responsibility. I lean rather heavily towards theory being a RVI, especially in PF debates where it often becomes the only argument in the round.

I'm ambivalent about trigger warnings. I'm not going to be the arbiter of somebody else's experience and there's not much evidence that they're actually harmful in any meaningful way. Be aware that simply saying "trigger warning" tells us nothing - If you have one, be specific (but not graphic) about the potentially triggering content.

Kritiks

Kritiks are an incredibly powerful education tool that let debaters bring light to important issues. That said, you do need a link, preferably a resolutional/case one. I'm not opposed to hearing kritiks that tackle the structure of debate as a whole, but I think that it's difficult for you to justify that while also participating in the structure (especially because I've seen the same debaters participate in debate rounds without talking about these structural issues). Just like theory, you should be talking about legitimate issues, not just trying to win a round.

Death Good/Oppression Good

"Death good" is a nonstarter in front of me. I get it - I was a high school debater too, and I have vivid memories of running the most asinine arguments possible because I thought it would be a path to a technical victory. As I've stepped away from competition, entered the role of an educator, and (especially) as I've become immersed in human rights issues indirectly through my research and personally through my work, I no longer hold the same view of these arguments. I've been in rounds where judges and the audience are visibly, painfully uncomfortable with one side's advocacy. I've voted on the flow and felt sick doing it. I don't anymore. Do not run "death good" in front of me unless you want a loss and 20 speaks. It's not good education, it actively creates an unsafe space, and its often incredibly callous to actual, real-world human suffering.

"Oppression good" is also generally bad but I can at least see a potential case here, kinda? Probably best to avoid anyway.

I have coached speech and debate at the high school level for 2 years. I am an experienced debate judge, and previous public forum competitor. Most of my experience comes from LD/PF but I am knowledgable enough in CX to keep up, however I don't have any strong feelings about DA, Cp, or krikits.

The only time I will keep track of is prep, everything else is up to competitors.

Speed-

Speed is fine generally so long as it's not used to so excessively that opponents and judges cannot understand and engage with your argument. Spreading is fine as long as you have a strong speaking ability (varying volume, pacing, tone etc). Go slower/clearer on taglines and key issues. I don't want to have to rely on reading your case to keep up. Speaking is just as important as getting as much information in as fast as possible.

RFD-

RFDs are usually made based on clarity and clash across the flow, as well as weight and impact of voters. I really appreciate clear voters and impacts in the 2NR/2AR as well as who offered clear and meaningful clash throughout the round rather than just "she said, I said" arguments. I prefer analysis over throwing more evidence without explanation.

My experience on the NM circuit is geared much for towards traditional styles of debate, so I tend to prefer slower more analytical LD and a less technical PF. However, go with the norm for your circuit andd I'll adjust with you.

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

Background-

I am the two-year incumbent president of the University Essex Debating Society. I have coached BP for over two years at university level and I regularly judge in PF debates.

Public Forum

Tech vs Truth:

Truth vs Tech is not a static either/or but rather an expanding and contracting cleavage given the unique context of each round.

For example, the greater the imbalance between either technique or truth, will subsequently result in a larger weight on the specific area of imbalance. Any great imbalance will take a president in the judging.

When differences in rounds are marginal, I initially do a technical overview where I determine where each team sits on the technical threshold below. I will then compare this to the threshold of truth.

I judge one over the other based when technique and combined who. For example, if one side has produced untrue arguments but shows great technique, and the other shows poor technique but has truthful arguments, victory will be decided upon a combination of, the quality of technique + quality of the truth claim.

Technical Threshold:

Flow

Structure

Rebuttals

Depth of analysis

Link

Demonstration of Warrant

Impact

Weighing

Solvency

Truth Threshold:

Who has provided a better warrant to what 'should' happen? I evaluate 'should' over 'likely' as most questions are not asking a debater what the probable outcome is but what their solution is. However, this does not discount the need for a warrant to include feasibility, therefore all claims need to be reasonably mechanised in the round, as I cannot fill in the gaps. I highly weigh the solvency of all arguments in relation to their 'truth'.

Kritique:

I like K, I think it's very valid, but note K cannot stand alone and the team must provide a reconstruction considering their kritique. I do not evaluate K as being inherently more abstract than a practical mechanical rebuttal would be. The theoretical nature of the rebuttal does not decrease warrant however like a traditional mechanism K must be fully analysed and linked directly to the question in order to be merited. Simple asserting, for example, that capitalism is a harmful and destructive system bears no weight if it is not linked to your evidence and answering the question.

Theory

Interests me very little.

Evidence Ethics:

Calling into question evidence legitimacy. Questions to bring up; Why is their evidence disreputable? How does this affect the warrant of their argument? Why is your evidence more trustworthy? After these questions are answered I will consider the impacts evidence quality brings to bear.

I prefer resources from academic resources over journalism articles if the article cites a YouGov poll find the link to the original YouGov poll and do not assume newspapers are doing their due diligence.

I am not massively concerned about evidence being biased unless a debater makes a specific mention of how it is. However, if a team is depending on evidence pieces to justify a claim with limited analysis, I am going to be more critical than if they provided analysis supported by evidence in the debate,

Speech:

My speech preferences are pretty lax, spreading I never encounter much in PF but I prefer people not to.

Misc:

UQ matters most----------------------X----------Link matters most

Politics DA is a thing----------X-----------------Politics DA is not a thing

Give me solvency or give me death !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Read no cards-----------------------------X------Read all the cards

I have the following preferences, but I will vote counter to these biases if a team wins 
their arguments in the debate. 
1. I view debates from a policy perspective as clash of competing advocacies. For me 
this means that minus a counterplan, the affirmative must prove that their plan is better 
than the current system. Fiat operates only to bypass the question of whether something 
could pass to focus the debate about whether something should pass. I do believe that 
fiat is binding so rollback arguments can be difficult to win. 
2. I will vote on topicality if the negative can clearly articulate how the affirmative is 
non-topical and why their interpretation is superior for debate. In this regard I see 
topicality debates as a synthesis between a good definition and a clear explanation of the 
standards. Critical affirmatives must be topical if the negative is to be prepared to debate 
them. I won’t vote on topicality as a reverse voting issue under any circumstance. 
3. I don’t find most theory debates to be very compelling, but I have voted for these 
arguments. These debates are often filled with jargon at the 
expense of explanation. If you do want me vote on these arguments then don’t spew your 
theory blocks at me (I’ve tried – but I just can’t flow them). Have just a couple of 
reasons to justify your theoretical objection and develop them. Pointing out in-round 
abuse is helpful, but if their position justifies a practice that is harmful for debate that is 
just as good. Identifying the impact to your theory arguments in the constructive is a 
must. 
4. I am a big fan of all types of counterplans (pics, agent, consult etc.). The only 
prerequisite is that they be competitive. I am not a big fan of textual competition and tend 
to view competition from a functional perspective. When evaluating counterplans I believe that the negative has the burden to prove that it is a reason to reject the plan. This 
means that the counterplan must be net beneficial compared to the plan or the 
permutation. Affirmatives can prove that some of these counterplans are theoretically 
illegitimate, but be aware of my theory bias (see above). 
5. Kritiks are fine as long as it is clear what the argument is and that there is a clearly 
defined impact. Statements that the kritik takes out the solvency and turns the case need 
a clear justification. Hypothetical examples are extremely useful in this regard, and the more specific the example the better. I prefer frameworks discussions occur on a separate page from the K – from a judging perspective I’ve noticed that when it’s all done on one piece of paper things tend to get convoluted and debate gets extremely messy. Having an alternative is helpful, but I can be persuaded that you don’t need to have one. 
7. The most important thing for you to know to get my ballot is that my decision is highly 
influenced on how arguments are explained and justified during the course of the debate 
rather than thru evidence. While I do think that at certain levels you must have evidence 
to substantiate your claims, good cross-examinations and well developed explanations and comparisons are often the key to persuading me to vote for one side over the other. Other than that just be polite but competitive, intelligent, and enjoy the debate. 

Hi - Please slow down for your main contentions. Ensure you're well structured - sign posts are welcome. Don't forget to clarify impact.

I am a parent judge.

Please speak both clearly and slowly during your speeches. This includes not using technical jargon. It would also help if you organized your speeches.

Please explain your voters in simplest terms too.

I am a parent volunteer judge. Here are the key elements I look for in a debate:

1. Evidence and Reasoning: Thorough understanding of the topic. Sound logic backed with facts, statistics, and evidence. Evidence quality is critical.
2. Organization: Effective Introduction and Conclusion(not just wordy but effective). Well structured, and coherent theme development. Smooth transitions, effective use of time, knowledge of rules, effective use of your partner/collaboration(effective participation of both partners is important for me).
3. Refutation and defense: Effective use of logic to refute opponents arguments, ability to think on your feet (negative points for rote speeches/memorization), and recognition of fallacies. Organized and collected (and not flustered). Listening, and accurately understanding opponents premise is important. Effective cross examination, effective use of cross fire questions/time (effective questions, honest answers, skillful responses). Leverage cross examination to undermine opponents fundamental premise, and bolster your own POV(quality of cross examination questions is important).
4. Understanding of basic debating rules, and effective use of clock and rules against opponents. Being nimble, and ability to handle any style of opponent.
5. Penalties: Poor conduct/Bad language/Personal attacks. Poor teamwork. False evidence. Unfair methods. Not following the debate rules/time allocation.

Speaking presentation and style are for speaker points but do not substantively impact who wins or loses the debate.

I am a parent judge . This is my fourth year judging PF debates.

Speak clearly and articulate your points well. Please don’t spread.

I pay attention to cross-X sessions and how your are countering the opponent’s cases/arguments with proper evidences.

Please be courteous and respectful to your opponents.

Good luck!

I've been judging PF debate for almost 3 years as a parent judge.

I usually try to learn about the debate topic before judging a debate. I like arguments that are presented in an organized manner. I like arguments with supporting numbers and questions. I like debaters talking in moderate speed and with good presentation skills.

I would like to see debaters treat each other with good manner and have fun.

Hello everyone!

I am a lay Judge. My judging philosophy is simple; come up with a good structure, logical arguments, short summary speech and I shall consider you.

Debating is, according to me, more of what you present and less of what you know. I do not prefer long extensive arguments. Just come on the stage, give me handful strong arguments, do impact assessment of your points, make a few rebuttals and you are good to go.

Refer to these specific points-

1. Topic knowledge- You need not be scared from an unknown topic, I won’t judge your past knowledge on the topic, and rather I will give weightage to how you interpret it in the round and explain it initially. But, at the same, you may get some brownie points if you insert a fact and impress me!

2. Jargons & Speed- Do not go too fast in order to keep forth all your points and disturb your flow. Either select a sensible number of points or shorten all of them in order to present them wisely. If I am unable to match the speed, you have the chances to lose.

3. Rebuttals- I would love to hear logical rebuttals from you, but even the wacky ones won’t harm. Make sure you tell me where you are on the flow, and I’ll really like numbering your responses to things, it makes flowing easier for everyone.

4. Summary- A good summary is what I’ll appreciate. Just be very specific in it; you can also add a couple of new points in it but prefer reiterating the previous ones.

I am not going to judge you on each and every word you speak but make sure, most of them make sense. Be honest, don’t pretend on the know-how and do well.

Feel free to ask me any questions you may have before the round starts.

All the best!

I’ll prefer good speaks, not speakers!

I debated BP/PF in HS and currently debate APDA/BP.

A couple notes:

1. Don't spread, go as slow as you can. If I can't understand you without a speech doc then I won't flow.

2. On progressive args: I don't have experience with them and don't really understand them, so if you do run them please explain them as you would to a small child, and I will try my best to evaluate.

3. 2nd rebuttal must frontline turns, and I'll look very favourably upon your arguments if you frontline defense as well. Similarly, while defense is technically sticky through 1st summary if it isn't responded to, I will look much more favourably upon your defense if it is present in 1st summary in spite of it. In other words, the more direct engagement from speech to speech the better!

4. Warrants are extremely important. If your evidence doesn't have a warrant I won't evaluate it. If you make good warranted responses to your opponents evidence and they don't have warranted frontlines, I will probably evaluate it.

5. Weighing is also extremely important. If you don't weigh then I have to weigh, but I'm not very good at weighing so you'll probably be disappointed. Therefore please weigh. Additionally, please be comparative in your weighing. Don't just tell me why your argument is important, but tell me specifically why your x argument beats your opponents y argument, and why that matters in the overall debate.

6. Although I do debate, I am only a small child. Therefore, assume I do not know anything more about the world than a small child would, and explain arguments as simply as you can.

7. I am tech > truth, but I have a decently high threshold for proof. That is, from your evidence, you must prove all of the link level analysis that leads to your impact in order for me to buy it. An asserted impact that does not have sufficient analysis will not be evaluated, even if the other team does not respond to it. In addition, although I am open to voting on anything, the wackier the impact the higher the burden of proof is. If you are going to impact extinction, make sure that you provide compelling analysis that it could happen.

8. Have fun :) and best of luck!

I've judged in the Canadian University circuit for a while. I like cases with clear mechanisms that engage and weigh out against the other team. In general, I award wins to whichever team contributed to a higher quality of debate overall. Feel free to speak fast, although I might not flow everything if you try and speak as quickly as physically possible for a human to speak. I won't credit anything that isn't said in the round, so if a team hasn't engaged with one of your points please do point this out for me or else I may not notice. I will not read evidence unless it becomes a point of contention, so if evidence is bad please tell me why. Off-time road maps are appreciated. Any type of theory is completely fine with me.

I've competed in and taught speech and debate for 25 years in a number of formats, so feel free to run whatever you'd like. I enjoy old school case arguments as much as Ks, performance, and theory, but expect strong link and impact work regardless of the argument. I am very high flow, so shouldn't have an issue with speed or tech, but will try and get your attention if I'm having trouble following you. Specificity through good research wins positions, generally. Comparative weighing is a must. Feel free to ask before the round if there's anything specific you'd like to know about and have fun.

Background

Director of Speech & Debate at Taipei American School in Taipei, Taiwan. Founder and Director of the Institute for Speech and Debate (ISD). Formerly worked/coached at Hawken School, Charlotte Latin School, Delbarton School, The Harker School, Lake Highland Prep, Desert Vista High School, and a few others.

Updated for Online Debate

I coach in Taipei, Taiwan. Online tournaments are most often on US timezones - but we are still competing/judging. That means that when I'm judging you, it is the middle of the night here. I am doing the best I can to adjust my sleep schedule (and that of my students) - but I'm likely still going to be tired. Clarity is going to be vital. Complicated link stories, etc. are likely a quick way to lose my ballot. Be clear. Tell a compelling story. Don't overcomplicate the debate. That's the best way to win my ballot at 3am - and always really. But especially at 3am.

williamsc@tas.tw is the best email for the evidence email chain.

Paradigm

You can ask me specific questions if you have them...but my paradigm is pretty simple - answer these three questions in the round - and answer them better than your opponent, and you're going to win my ballot:

1. Where am I voting?

2. How can I vote for you there?

3. Why am I voting there and not somewhere else?

I'm not going to do work for you. Don't try to go for everything. Make sure you weigh. Both sides are going to be winning some sort of argument - you're going to need to tell me why what you're winning is more important and enough to win my ballot.

If you are racist, homophobic, nativist, sexist, transphobic, or pretty much any version of "ist" in the round - I will drop you. There's no place for any of that in debate. Debate should be as safe of a space as possible. Competition inherently prevents debate from being a 100% safe space, but if you intentionally make debate unsafe for others, I will drop you. Period.

One suggestion I have for folks is to embrace the use of y'all. All too often, words like "guys" are used to refer to large groups of people that are quite diverse. Pay attention to pronouns (and enter yours on Tabroom!), and be mindful of the language you use, even in casual references.

I am very very very very unlikely to vote for theory. I don't think PF is the best place for it and unfortunately, I don't think it has been used in the best ways in PF so far. Also, I am skeptical of critical arguments. If they link to the resolution, fantastic - but I don't think pre-fiat is something that belongs in PF. If you plan on running arguments like that, it might be worth asking me more about my preferences first - or striking me.

I flow, but you should consider me a lay-judge. Win with your arguments and your logic, not debate tactics. In PF rounds, please do not impact your arguments out to 'human extinction.' I do not believe this is a realistic consequence of any of the topics debated in PF. 

I also do not allow off-time roadmaps. I really like roadmaps and signposting, but you need to do it within the timeframe of your speech.

I am a current junior at Brown. I did PF for 4 years at College Prep and attended the TOC. I will vote off the flow, so please signpost during speeches. I will call for cards if you ask me to. Happy to answer any questions that come up before the round :)

Good afternoon students! I am looking for good premises that can strongly support your conclusions. Logical fallacies such as bias fallacy will weaken your argument so please try to minimize logical fallacies as much as possible. Throughout your argument, please make sure the premises are true and that they are strongly needed for your conclusions to stand. Also please make sure to work collaboratively with your teammates as teamwork is essential in any debate. Thank you and have fun! I look forward to judging your arguments and I know all of you will do very well!

In my judging round, I would like to hear:

1. clearly emphasized opinions, which would be repeated in the middle and at the end of the speech.

2. convincing facts or reasoning to support the opinions/attitudes.

3. in debate, pointing out why opponent's arguments are not right/sufficient

4. polite and attractive language, better with some humor

please start an email chain: syadavdebate@gmail.com

----------

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

College Prep, Oakland, California

University of Michigan, Ann Arbor

Coach at Success Academy Queens 1 Middle School

Full Judging Record: https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=12179

In General... Read anything you want to read as long as it isn't racist, sexist, ableist, homophobic, transphobic - you catch my drift. Junior year, I defended no plan coloniality affs on the Latin America topic and only went for one off kritiks on the neg. Senior year, I read an oil aff on the Oceans topic and went for politics disads. Given this, I am seriously welcome to all argument types as long as you argue for them well. Be nice, there is no blurred line between being disrespectful and a good debater. Also, I'd rather not call for cards at the end of a debate, explanation of your arguments during the round matter the most.

• Speed: I am fine with all ranges of speed as long as you are clear.
• Case: I like good case debate. Being able to tear apart the aff's 1AC is a great route for a win. Detailed case debate also shows you are well-prepared which is always a plus.
• DAs: I really like it when good impact debates happen on disads. Explain smart turns and impact filters. I am also a fan of smart defensive arguments.
• CPs: No one likes super generic counterplans but I get it. More specific the better but even if it isn't just be prepared to give good spin or else I won't be very compelled to vote for the counterplan.
• Ks: I am familiar with most of the kritiks read in high school debate. Thorough explanations are extremely important. I will not understand the point you are trying to make if you just throw a bunch of philosophical jargon at me.
• Topicality: T is cool just don't read T as a time suck. I think a well thought out T argument can be very dangerous for an aff.
• Framework: I am not predisposed to voting a certain way on framework as I have been a debater on both sides of the argument. I think an aff that is winning its value within the debate space is in good shape. On the other hand, a neg who is winning the limits debate is in good shape.
• Theory: I don't really see myself voting on theory unless it is flat out dropped or it is conditionality. Conditionality is probably not something that I will vote for if the neg reads only 1 conditional position. However, I think theory is underutilized in terms of using it to try to get a team to kick an argument.

Arguments and rebuttals should be delivered slowly with emphasis on communication delivery.

Arguments may be grouped and should each be addressed individually.

Rebuttals should address the important issues and extend arguments individually.

No preference about evidence but prefer When/Who if possible and needed.

What is your debate/judge experience?

Former debater in HS and in College

Coach in HS

What kind(s) of performance is effective and increases your odds of winning?

The topic is understood in-depth and the speech is presented convincingly. Points are strongly supported with clear arguments, . During crossfire and rebuttal, response is clear, accurate and logical. The way speeches are delivered can keep the attention of the audience.

What am I looking for in a debate?

The debate should demonstrate a wide research, various perspectives, good teamwork and appropriate delivery.

Lay Judge

Talk slowly or at a moderate pace for both cases and speeches.

Clarity is key - make sure to explain your arguments thoroughly. Don't use debate jargon as I probably won't be able to follow you.

Be respectful - don't be rude or passive-aggressive during cross.

Implicate and extend claims, warrants, and impacts. Don't assume the judge knows what you are talking about in every new speech, reiterate the most important concepts in the round that you want the judge to vote off of.

Reexplain all defense read in all speeches as it isn't extended if you don't explain the warranting from speech to speech.

WEIGH - Tell me why your arguments/links to those arguments matter more. If no weighing is done the round could go either way.

Background: I come from a background in high school and university debating.

Decision-Making Factors:

1. Weighing Arguments: The ultimate factor in my decision-making is the weight of the argument. While I do pay attention to the flow and organization of the debate, what matters most to me is the substance and impact of the arguments. I want to see debaters prioritize the significance of their strongest points.

2. Progressive vs. Traditional: I am open to progressive debating with theory or K's, but I encourage debaters to keep in mind that a more traditional approach can be a safer strategy.

Role of the Judge:

1. Tabula Rasa: I strive to be a tabula rasa judge, which means I will evaluate the round based on what transpires during the debate, rather than bringing preconceived biases or preferences.

Respect and Conduct:

1. Respect is Crucial: Respect is crucial in debates. Please avoid any passive-aggressive comments. I can recognize when things turn that way, and it will be taken into account in my judging.

2. Enjoyment Without Harm: Let's have fun with our arguments, but not at the expense of someone else's experience.

Feedback and Communication:

1. Questions and Comments: If you have any questions or comments, feel free to ask before or after the round. I'm available for feedback after the debate.

2. Speaker Scores: I typically assign an average speaker score of 27, unless your blow my mind or drop some jokes (risky).

3. Contact: You can reach out to me at georgewujizhang@gmail.com for post-debate feedback or for pre-debate email chain purposes.

If I flip a coin and it lands on its side (which apparently happens every 1/6000 flips for an American nickel), you will debate in Canadian National Debate Format instead of whatever format the tournament is in. Here's a link to a guide.
(This is generally for PF debates where there's a coinflip built into the format. I judge lots of parli now so sorry to any parli kids I confuse! Feel free to check out the CNDF format tho LOL)

I did PF and BP in high school, and have been coaching/judging since then. That being said, I'm studying neurobio+datasci in college so please don't expect me to remember all the IR/econ drama that goes on in the world :') If someone mischaracterizes a country's/individual's involvement in some global issue, it's better to call it out yourself than to assume that I'm aware of the mischaracterization.

I took bits and pieces of this paradigm from other judges' paradigms that I really like. Credit goes to Lauryn Lee and Kyle Kishimoto.

@ Parli kids: everything in this paradigm that isn't PF specific (cards/evidence, CX, etc.) applies to you.

Content

Please don't refer to cards ONLY by author name. I don't write down author names for cards and I'll have no idea what you're referring to. I'm putting this at the top so y'all see it.

I'm unfamiliar with theory and kritiks and I don't like voting off them. I am not the judge you want if you plan to run either of those.

Frameworks are cool but if you bring in a framework, you need to tie it into your arguments and explain to me what you gain/opponents lose. PF speeches are too short for you to waste your time on a framework debate if winning it makes no difference in the overall decision.

Warrants + Evidence > Warrants > Evidence. Not being able to explain your cards looks really bad on you. This also means that I prefer warrant comparison to evidence comparison. Evidence comparison should happen when the warrants directly clash and there isn't much of a way to evaluate them, or one side's evidence just sucks. But in general, comparative analysis is awesome and one of the best ways to win.

Saying the word "extend" is not extending evidence. You're extending arguments, not authors, which means there should be some explanation and some development. I won't vote on anything that's not extended through summary and brought up in final focus.

Weighing needs to be comparative and specific. This means your weighing has to directly interact with the opposing team’s argument – you should be answering the question “If all of their arguments are given to be true, why do I still win the round?” Because of this, I don’t really consider attacking the truth of their argument as an effective weighing strategy – weighing assumes the arguments to be true. I also think more teams should do meta-weighing – why is your form of weighing better than another? Why is your argument that wins on probability stronger than theirs that wins on magnitude?

I listen to cross-ex but I don't flow it. If you get a concession from CX, it doesn't matter until I hear it in a speech. CX ends as soon as the timer goes off, and to pre-emptively address your questions, you may finish your sentence, but don't add another 4 paragraphs to your answer, or I'll drop your speaks.

Style + Misc.

If you’re gonna go Lightning McQueen on me you need to be clear and signpost properly.

I’ll give extra speaks for a tastefully savage remark. This is not an invitation to be rude.

If it takes longer than 2 minutes to find your card, I'm not counting it.

Debate is great :) I'd be happy to talk to you after the round if you want more feedback or you can email me at elizzhou@berkeley.com

I am a parent judge. Please speak at regular speed. If you speak too fast, you risk losing me. I value logic in an argument. I have a strong background in statistics, so please make an effort to fully understand the evidence you present, especially those with numbers. Statistically a good posture and good manners correlate with higher speaker points that I give.

I am a first-time parent judge.

1. Speak slowly and clearly. If you speak too quickly I won't be able to understand what you are saying.

2. Please signpost and frame your arguments in a logical flow.

3. Be courteous, polite and respectful to your opponents.