Hello Folks. My name is Anand Anne. Please make sure to speak in a coherent manner with good evidence.

add me to the chain: stefan.boone12@gmail.com

Frontlining:

I believe that defense should be sticky. My likelihood of believing/accepting frontlines decreases as the round progresses. For instance, if a response is made in 1st rebuttal, a basic response to it in the second rebuttal would suffice, but a more well-explained response in second summary would be required.

This means that I think it is strategic to frontline in the second rebuttal. But you certainly shouldn't feel obligated to.

Extensions of Defense:

With a three minute summary, I think it's not too difficult to extend defense in the summary speeches. So please do so. At all times, extending defense is a great way of reinforcing your point and persuading me more. (However, dropped defense sticks to infinity if it goes unresponded to by the other team)

More specifically, you must extend defense in first summary if they frontline their arguments in second rebuttal, or else I think your defense is essentially dropped.

Second summary should definitely be extending defense and responding to frontlines that are made, but I will allow defensive extensions from second rebuttal to second final focus, because I think frontlining is super important to debate. But, again, the more you repeat/extend an argument, the more likely it is that I understand it and I factor it into my decision.

Extensions of Offense:

an extension of an argument is only accepted if BOTH the link AND the impact are extended. Extend the warrants behind both of these parts as well. This means that if I don't have BOTH of these parts of an argument extended in both the second half speeches, I won't vote for it unless there are severely unusual circumstances

keep your summaries and final foci consistent based on the most important issues in the round (they should be about the same arguments)

Please consolidate the debate as early as possible (2nd rebuttal + First summary) into the most important arguments, then focus on those arguments. I prefer 1 well-explained, well-extended, well-weighed argument over 100 that aren't done very well.

Weighing:

don't just weigh using random buzz words, do comparative weighing between your offense and your opponents' to help me vote for you. If you just repeat your impact and attach a "magnitude" or "scope" to it, I won't evaluate it as weighing.

Evidence Stuff:

I will not call evidence until it is absolutely crucial to my decision. This means that if I don't understand your argument by the end of the round, (link-story or impact scenario), I will not call for your evidence to clarify it, you just won't generate much offense. Please warrant well With this in mind, there are three scenarios where I will call for round-changing evidence.

1. I am explicitly told to call for it as an implication of an indict.

2. There are competing interepretations from the teams and neither team gives me a compelling reason to prefer theirs.

3. The meaning of the evidence has been changed/misconstrued when extending it throughout the round.

Speed:

You can go pretty quickly in terms of speed for a PF round, but don't be full on spreading unless a) you can be super clear while doing it and b) your opponents are ok with it. I really won't tolerate it if speed is used to exclude more local/inexperienced debaters from competing.

Tech vs Truth:

i'm more tech than truth. But, I'll have a lower threshold for analytical responses when an argument is super out there, and be more likely to buy the defense it. If you wanna go crazy, do so, but make sure you're not misconstruing evidence, and explain your argument and the warrants behind it super well

Miscellaneous:

i vote for the neg on presumption unless warranting given for a different way of presuming.

i will always prefer the more clear, specific, and well-warranted argument.

i am mostly inexperienced with theory and K debate. I don't think you should run it in front of me.

Speaks - ill give the highest the tournament allows me to

I cannot keep up with speeds over around 900 words /four minute. Give a speech doc if u plan on going faster.

please ask any questions you may have before the round

***PLEASE NOTE THIS WAS ORIGINALLY WRITTEN FOR PARLI***

First, you don't need to use your time to thank me, and you really don't need to shake my hand. Both of these concepts feel gross, personally.

I debated parli in high school, but not since, and heavy use of theory will likely get lost on me, just because I was never that sophisticated. I am open to some artful experimental/off-topic stuff, but actual trolling is a pathetic waste of everyone's time.

I am not a "blank slate" judge and will struggle to accept what I know to be blatant falsehoods.

I can have trouble understanding very rapid speech, especially if quiet, partially due to an auditory processing disorder. If you start to spread and you've lost me, I will throw my pen down in anger and glare at you dead in the eye and/or yell CLEAR at the very top of my lungs. Further, the sound of constant gasping for breath makes me want to shove my pen through both eardrums just for a moment of respite. This is debate, not auctioneering. In other words, don't spread. Just don't do it.

Humor and wit and personal style are great ways to earn speaker points! Invective toward the other side, etc. is the fastest way to bleed them. Ditto *any* sort of hostility to marginalized/oppressed groups in your case (racial minorities, women, LGBTQ folks, so on and so forth). That is a quick path to me giving you the lowest score possible and reporting you.

Final pet peeves: if you're going to talk extensively about funding, know how appropriation works. If you're going to cite the Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights, get it right. I don't expect anyone to grasp the nuances of foreign policy or anything like that, but you should have a very good functional understanding of the US government structure, laws, and especially the legislative process.

Ultimately, please have fun and DO NOT TAKE YOURSELF TOO SERIOUSLY, because I'm having fun when y'all are. And if you have any questions or clarifications to bring up before the round, please feel free to do so.

As a parent judge, it would be very helpful to pay attention on the following points:

1. speak slowly and clearly
2. emphasize key points

Mike Girouard

Years involved in debate: 20+ (policy 20+years, PF 7yrs, LD 7yrs)

Coached at Baylor, Kansas State, U of Rochester, The New School, Augustana College, The Asian Debate League and several High Schools - Debated at Univ of North Texas

I hate people who try to pigeon-hole judges into fitting a particular mold or label them as hacks that only vote for certain args or certain types of arguments. That being said I would say that I feel as though I can judge and evaluate any kind of debate that you want to have. I have some feeling about args and I will discuss those more in detail below, but it’s important to keep in mind that when you debate in front of me you should be comfortable in yourself and your arg and you should be fine. Have the debate that you want to have, because in the end that will make it more enjoyable and educational for everyone involved.

One last caveat, as this year has progressed and with the transition to paperless debate I find myself calling for less and less evidence after the round. I feel as though you should be doing the debating in the round. If it is a question of what the card says or doesn’t say I will probably call for the evidence, but don’t expect me to piece together your argument by reading all of your evidence after the round. I feel as though this does a disservice to a team that is at least attempting to do the argumentation on the line-by-line.

Prep Time – my default is that prep time should stop when the other team is flashing their evid. That being said if there is blatant disregard for this or abusing of this I will revert to prep-time not ending till after the speech has been flashed and given to the opponents. Before this does occur I will say something in the round.

CP’s – I love a good PIC. I think it should be the burden of the Aff to defend every aspect of the plan and should have some defense of including it in the plan. I really don’t like to vote on theory, but I will if that is what you want the debate to be about. As far as perms go, use them as you like. Just justify your theory and your fine. If you are going for a CP in front of me keep a few things in mind: it must have a net benefit and some sort of DA to the perm, it doesn’t necessarily have to solve for all of the Aff, but you need to have something to answer the portions that you don’t solve for, you can have a critical net benefit if you like, just explain how it functions in relationship to the Aff and the advocacy of the CP.

DA’s – Not really a whole lot to say here. I like U cards to have some sort of a warrant. Debate the warrants in the round and don’t make me have to evaluate 15+ U cards to help settle that debate. I would prefer fewer cards with more warrants to help settle this problem. Make sure you are giving me some sort of impact calc in the last few speeches and weighing all the potential outcomes of the impacts (i.e. – even, if statements). If the aff reads a K of your impacts you have to justify them or you will probably lose that argument. I prefer scenarios with fewer and more warranted internal links as to avoid the proliferation of outlandish impact scenarios. Make sure there is a solid link and you are weighing everything in the last few speeches and you should be fine.

The K – I am open to most K’s. I don’t believe that Realism/Framework is the end all answer to the K. Try engaging in the arguments that are being run and you have a better chance of picking up the ballot in front of me. Arguments that question your representations or epistemological starting point are best answered by providing an offensive justification for your reps or your starting point. Just make sure you are explaining how you want me to evaluate your K in relationship to the Aff. What are the impacts, what are the implications, do you have an alt, and what is the link. Make sure all of these things are in the debate and you will be fine. I do find that most people don’t answer one fundamental question in these types of rounds: What is the role of the critic? Just answer or at least recognize that these questions exist and you should be alright.

Topicality – My default is that this debate should be about competing interpretations. You should attempt to answer the question: which interpretation is better for both this debate round and the community as a whole. This being said, if you don’t want me to evaluate it based on competing interpretations just make the arg and justify it with warranted args and you should be fine. If you are going for T in front of me you probably need to spend a little bit of time on it in the 2NR. I’m not saying that you have to go for T and nothing else, but I think it’s an arg that requires a little bit of time for you to adequately go for it. Things I look for in a T debate: Clear distinction between interpretations, warranted reasons for why your interp is better as well as why the other interp is bad, and the impact these have on not only the round but the community at large.

Theory – Not a big theory hack, but will vote on it from time to time, especially in instances of clear articulated in round abuse. Just make sure you are giving warranted reasons why your theory is legit, the specific abuse that has occurred and the impact of them being allowed to do what they did. That being said, theory should be more than just a whine, engage their args and make sure that you are at least answering their args. If you expect for me to vote on theory you should devote some time to it in the last couple of speeches.

Performance – I’m fine with different styles of debate. There are instances where you can ask me to not flow or be so “flogo-centric” and assuming there is a warranted reason why this is legit I will be alright. A few things to keep in mind if you do chose to do this in front of me: why is your method better than what exists now? why should it be preferred and what are the larger implications on the debate community? Just make sure you are attempting to at least perceptually engage the other teams args and you will be fine.

This is my 4th year as a parent judge. I do flow the rounds.

Speak clearly and reasonably paced. Extend arguments in your speeches. If opponent concedes, do call it out for me to count it

All the best!

Please speak at moderate speed and be very clear on contentions and subpoints.

Please be respectful during CX

I am a veteran teacher that loves vigorous debate and discussions. I prefer students to engage the topic with insightful and meaningful arguments. Be kind in the debate to the other students and make sure to respond to arguments made by your opponents.

Don't spread - I prefer conversation speed. If you go faster than that then you do so at your own risks.

Be firm and aggressive but not rude - I enjoy a heated debate but not mean and rude comments or disrespectfulness during speeches.

I wouldn't consider myself to be a specialized debate judge so if you use a bunch of debate jargon that may not work out well for you.

If you have questions feel free to ask. Good luck!

hi! i'm sky.

please conflict 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.

add both emails to the chain:

spjuinio@gmail.com

nuevadocs@gmail.com

if you would prefer to set up a speechdrop instead of an email chain, that works too! no matter the agreed-upon avenue for exchanging speech docs, it should be set up before the round starts. i do not like wasting time searching for evidence in the middle of a round. do not fear the exchange! there should be nothing for you to hide.

while on the topic of time, please try to have pre-flows done before the round. as you can tell, i like starting early or on time.

tech over truth. i don't intervene, so everything you say is all i will evaluate. there are many ways to win my ballot. ordinarily, you should explain and contextualize your arguments. 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 have more answers than questions by the end of your speeches). pursue the points you are winning and explain why you have won 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 your round helps me follow your speeches and ensures i get as much information down as possible. generally, judge instructions are helpful for everyone participating in the round. it is for that same reason that i highly encourage signposting. jargon is useful for clarifying the functions of your responses, but you should take some time to elaborate on the actual response you're making for an easier evaluation. without such elaboration and an overreliance on jargon, i might not fully understand or buy into your points. in addition to your storytelling and organization, you should extend evidence properly and ensure that your cards are all cut correctly (please refer to the NSDA evidence rules). otherwise, i strike the evidence from my flows. sounding great will earn you high speaks, but my ballot will ultimately go to those who did the better debating.

sometimes, students desire to read arguments that do not involve the usual narrative building in debate (e.g. tricks). these are quite controversial, but i have evaluated and voted on such arguments before. debate is a game, so play strategically. if you can persuade me to vote on it, i'll do it.

read any argument you want, wear whatever you want, and be as assertive as you want. as nueva gc artfully articulated, "feel the rhythm, feel the ride, get ready, it's spreading time!" 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!

i always try to time speeches. it is strongly encouraged that you also time yourselves and your opponents. you should aim to finish punctually. if you're mid-sentence after your allocated speech time has ended, you can finish your statement. however, i stop flowing after an additional 15 seconds have passed.

teams who use hateful language automatically lose. i’ll end rounds early if given a compelling reason to (e.g. evidence violations).

want to sit, stand, or do a sick backflip while you speak? do whatever you're comfortable with (maybe skip the backflip).

don't be mean. don't lie. don't shake my hand.

rfds. i always try to give verbal rfds and feedback so you can improve in your next round or competition. write down or type suggestions that you find useful (this might even help you practice flowing better). feel free to ask me any questions, but do not fight me on my decision. let any decision, win or lose, motivate you to become a better debater. i truly want you to be! i miiiiight not disclose if you're part of the first flight and/or if the next round is expedited to stay on schedule. if you want me to give you feedback and i was unable to, or you'd like further clarification on my comments, know that i accept emails and other online messages. i'll do my best to respond.

now, specifics!

topicality. 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, so read real links, real interpretations, and real-world scenarios that bad norms generate. voters should be terminalized (e.g. if fairness, education, etc is good, what does it look like? how have your opponent(s) killed fairness, education, etc?). 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 that you are genuine by committing to the literature you read and providing an anomalous approach against the aff. please don’t forget your alternative. 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 points well and i might vote for you. i just find it difficult to grant offense to an argument with no advocacy). 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 (linking the NSDA evidence rules in case). i read every piece of evidence in the back half, so don't be lazy. evidence only counts when extended properly. otherwise, your "evidence" flows as analysis. make sure to identify cards correctly and elaborate on their significance. tell me why your cards are so great. ultimately, your evidence should enhance your narrative coherence. parli debaters need not worry about my typical stance on evidence because parli is a non-evidentiary format.

public forum debaters should practice complementary partner coordination, especially during summary and final focus. consider taking some prep time before these speeches because what you read here can make or break your hard work. arguments mentioned in the final focus need to be brought up in summary for me to evaluate them. i flow very well and will catch you if you read new arguments, new evidence, or shadow extensions. none of these will be considered in my ballot, so please do not waste time on them. focus on arguments you are genuinely winning. additionally, i tend not to evaluate purely analytical arguments in the back half. the exception is when i am specifically told to vote on analysis and given reasons why i should do so. this is a rare occurrence. typically, reading zero evidence leads me to presume neg because i cannot test the truth of your claims. i am not asking that you regurgitate what your cards state verbatim or reread every piece of evidence from constructive, but you should read at least one carded link and impact. i’ll consider any analytics if they logically correspond to your evidence. i look to the link debate to determine whether you access your impacts, so extend your arguments well! winning the link debate means you are winning your impacts. on the impact level, please weigh, meta-weigh, and terminalize! knowing exactly what i am voting for helps me vote for you confidently.

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

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

Hi,

I am a parent judge. I have some experience with judging LD

Please be respectful, stick to the facts, manage your time, and speak clearly.

Fewer well developed points is my preference

Hi! I am a first time judge but a seasoned business negotiator.

Please speak clearly.

Please construct your arguments that make logical sense and can pass the test of real-life scenarios.

Use examples as much as you can.

Looking forward to seeing you!

lay judge

speak slowly and clearly

presentation is very important

TELL ME WHY YOU WIN CLEARLY

3rd year flay parent judge