Email: aminatabest1@gmail.com

Would like to be added to the email chain

I have been debating for a minute, I am a k debater I usually go for framework based arguments
Don’t be racist, sexist, homophobic, trans-phobic or any xenophobic arguments
I will really vote for anything just tell me why I should vote for your arguments.

Hi I'm a parent judge with limited SPAR and PF judging experience. This is my first time judging Impromptu. Please try to speak slower and more clearly. Thank you and best luck in the tournament!

Email: joshanne.chiang@gmail.com

Hi! I debated public forum for four years in high school. Please explain thoroughly, signpost, and don't go too fast. Please, please weigh. If I'm not judging PF, I'm probably not as familiar with your event, so I'm sorry. Basically, if you run progressive debate arguments, I most likely won't get what you're doing, or at least not be able to evaluate your arguments as well. Plans/counterplans in non-PF are fine though.

Please be courteous to your opponents. You are definitely allowed to be assertive, but show your opponents the same respect that you want from them. This includes refraining from being condescending and being equitable/inclusive with your argumentation.

I don't flow cross. Please time yourselves.

Feel free to ask me anything. Above all, have fun and good luck!

I mainly have a history of PF but have extensive debate experience. I will usually flow throughout the round, crossfire included. However, nothing matters to me unless it is extended.

• I am tech>truth
• I prefer line-by-line summaries, I also prefer collapsing
• I'm pretty strict about summaries not including new arguments. If an argument is new, I will catch it and won't count it.
• Spreading is fine. Be reasonable.
• I'm not a huge stickler about being respectful, as long as you're not, like, verbally harassing your opponent...

I am a parent judge.

I am a judge with experience judging multiple debate tournaments throughout the entirety of 2021. I've mainly done LD and PF, but I also have judged some Parliamentary, Congress, and individual events as well.

I believe it is important for things such a debate to be accessible to anyone, so clarity in communicating ideas and speaking at a clear, easy to understand speed will be important to me, as well as clearly articulating tag-lines of arguments, and I would prefer refraining from jargon when possible.

I will mainly try to judge Tabula Rasa, as I believe it is fair and important for the debaters to have control over what the rules of the debate are, and if those rules are mutually agreed upon, then it sets everyone up for the highest level of success. I won't be bringing preconceived notions into the debate, as I would prefer to judge to debaters on the merits of what they bring to each round.

In the last speeches of the round, I want you to tell me which argument you think I should vote on and WHY, and how it compares to the other team's argument.

I am a parent judge with limited previous judging experience.

My preferred rate of delivery is a 2-3 out of 5. If you are unclear, I will not flow your arguments even if they are true. This helps me understand your arguments and better allow me to evaluate the round.

Substance debate and contention level debate under the resolution is most important. Framework is important as well, but you should make the best argument as I will vote for the most persuasive speaker.

It is very important to have strong evidence to back up your claims. If you make assertions without good authors/sources/credentials to support your position, that is not a strong case.

It is recommended that you include voting issues at the end of the round that crystallize your position and your speech so that I, as the judge, know what to vote on and who to vote for.

What I prefer:

-TYPE OUT PLANS IN CHAT (counterplans and alts too)

CLEAR STRUCTURE AND ORGANIZATION IS A MUST! Give me any type of roadmap and FOLLOW it so I can flow.

-All of your impacts should have relatable explanation; ensure that your impacts are relatable to your judge and audience.

-Have voters/reasons why I should vote for you.

-Clear framework (definitions, type of round, criteria on how I should view and judge the round).

-Plans and counterplans are great, but if you're using mandates, I prefer ones that have been done before (in the news, or have at least been proposed) instead of some random plan that you think is good.

-Round Etiquette: I will call you out and stop your speech if you go beyond 10 seconds past your allotted time and speaking over your time will of course lower your points. Be mindful of rudeness towards other debaters as well as to your judge.

-Style: I like clear speaking, good reasoning, and good logic. I especially love when debaters show more animation in their voices, but nothing too over the top is necessary.

What I don't like:

-FILLER WORDS/pausing your speech to make a side comment (verbally checking the time, clearly reading communication from your partner non-discreetly, the list truly goes on) will absolutely detract me away from flowing your speech

-Pacing- I am fine with however fast you wish to speak, I will be able to flow. However, if your opponent asks you to slow down, then listen and slow down- be accessible.

-Dropped arguments

-New arguments in rebuttals- even if your opponent does not call you out, I do not like them and will notice.

Email for email chain : lydaouda223@gmail.com

Clarity>Speed
K's/K affs are fine but you must explain what the alt is and how I should value it over the opposing team.
You can run anything in the round, just explain it well.
I will have a prep time running but do keep your own prep. More comments can be given pre round. Don’t be racist, sexist, or abelist and have fun.

Hello debate peeps,

I am a public forum debater and have been debating for 3 years.

I am a flow judge. Please don't spread.

Extend arguments in final and summary.

Please FRONTLINE. Second Speaking team frontline in rebuttal, if you do not I will buy that you conceded to their responses to your argument.

I like to listen to cross, I won't flow it unless brought up in other rounds.

Be clear, I buy evidence with ANALYSIS, over rhetorical answers only.

Do not run anything too sketchy. I will call for cards if it sounds sketchy.

Please signpost.

No new responses in second Summary and Final.

Evidence said in the round must have the author name and date, if it does not I will not buy the evidence that you present.

Things in final focus must have been said in summary.

Don't be rude in round.

If you are sexist, racists, xenophobic, etc. I will give you the "L" no matter how well you are winning on the flow.

And finally, have fun in round.

amanda072086@gmail.com
Speak clearly. Any speed is fine as long as you slow down and read your tag lines and main points very clearly. Spreading is fine. Give clear indication of when you have reached the burden you set out.

LD: I am a true values debate judge in LD. Tabula rasa judge. Flexible to any kinds of cases and arguments as long as they are respectful. If your case is not topical or abusive and your opponent argues and proves that in their speeches then I am willing to vote based on topicality, education and abuse.

PF and CX: Be respectful and cordial to your opponent. I’m open to most anything in Policy rounds. Always stay on the debate topic, don’t wander off onto an irrelevant subject because it’s more enjoyable to argue about than the topic is. Always allow your opponent the opportunity to complete their sentence before continuing to cross.
I’m a Tabula rasa Judge especially in Policy debate. If you don’t tell me how you want me to weigh the round and set a minimum burden for each side to have to meet within the round to win then I will default to judging based on the block and will turn into a games playing judge and will make voting decisions based on what my flow shows and dropped arguments or arguments that were lost or conceded will very much factor into my vote. Impacts, Warrants and links need to be made very clear, and always show me the magnitude.

Run whatever you want

Don't say anything inhumane

I will be timing you so don't try to steal prep

Call me Joanne not Judge

I'll give you a 30 if you have the best speech in the world

Make jokes related to your speech, I might just boost your speaks

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

???? <== That's my fav emoji lol

Hi! I'm Vidhi Patra, a high school LD and Parli debater. I also participate in a lot of speech events (extemp, impromptu, OI).

things I appreciate:

A. Current evidence along with an explanation of the argument in the debater's own words along with a crisp impact.

B. Good manners!

C. Turn on your camera if it is an online tournament. Sit straight or stand up straight and make eye contact with the camera as you would if you were in person.

D. Roadmap before your speech (except for the first and last speeches)

E. Don’t forget to weigh your final arguments against your opponents in the final speech.

I prefer evidence/case sharing to occur on an email chain. My email is mailtovidhipatra@gmail.com.

You can speak as quickly as you think I can understand you, but I won't tell you to slow down. Choose your speed wisely.

You can time yourself, but I am the official timekeeper. If your alarm goes off on your opponent, I find that unethical. If you argue with me, don't expect to win the round.

Feel free to ask about more specifics during the round.

Please be respectful. Bigoted behavior will not be tolerated. I'm pretty fair with speaker points as long as you put in your best effort.

lunakansasdebate@gmail.com

email chains please i do not know what a "tabroom share" is and i will only learn against my will.

You should aim to be clear in front of me. Now double what you think is clear enough and that's about the range you need to be in.

KU '26

"judge" or "Luna"

Do whatever. I'm an educator first. Maximize your chances of winning by arguing with my ballot not your opponent.

Final rebuttals are most likely to win if they start with: "Our argument is X. Their best argument is Y. Even if they win Y, we have still won the debate on X for Z reason."

Feel free to email or ask any questions.

Huge fan of wearing masks in in-person debates (+0.5). Our mild inconvenience can help save lives!

Average speaks are 28.5

Ev ethics (L25) is skipping more than 5 words in a card, misciting author or article title, cards cut missing atleast 1 sentence, or cards cut that don't start and end with the start and end of paragraphs in the article.

I have no strong argument pre-dispositions as long as they are combined with judge instruction (see above) and attempt to be smart arguments (my favorite troll arguments are the ones where you debate well and beat all the other good teams).

I aim to be as tab as possible as long as the round remains safe for the debaters. I'll try to assume whatever the debaters assume so that I minimize intervention. If both debaters assume fairness is a voter, then I'll assume that it's a voter, even if it's not explicitly justified.

Please speak relatively slowly and place emphasis on your words! I do not flow off speech docs. I think that slowing down improves people's efficiency greatly, so there's little tradeoff between speed and number of arguments. This does not mean I would penalise you for speaking faster, I would still credit you similarly for all the arguments I can understand. Given all this, if you're going fast, don't get upset at me for missing some of your arguments.

I will try to average 28 speaks, but who knows if that'll happen -- I bet I'll inflate. You can get higher speaks by being persuasive, clear, efficient, creative, and strategic. You can get lower speaks by doing the opposite.

If you are debating against someone with clearly less knowledge about debate than you have (e.g., you're an experienced debater debating an inexperienced one), please make the round as accessible to both debaters as possible. If you can only win with obscure positions and debate jargon, then debate has failed you; you're not good at debating, you're just good at playing inside baseball. (For the same reason, I would prefer that debaters read arguments that I can understand without being an expert in the relevant area of academia/public policy/whatever the current debate trend is. My role is not to be an educator, but nonetheless I would prefer that debaters have rounds that are fun to judge and educational.)

Hi, I am Khadydiatou Thiam,

Email chain: thiamkhadydiatou05@gmail.com

This is my Paradigm:

- Make sure that you always stick to your case.

-Don't drop any arguments (But if the other team does not point out the dropped argument I might let it slide).

-Make sure that your Affirmative has a clear plan because if I cannot understand it I won't vote for it.

-Impacts Calc is an easy ballot for me

-Disads: Running this is one of the common negative strategies. I would vote on it but just make sure they link to the Affirmative that you are running it against

-Counterplan: These are an okay strategy just make sure you run it with a disad or at least have a net benefit.

-Permutation: This is the easiest way to address a CP just make sure that you don't drop it and prove that it would work.

- Topicality: This is not the best negative strategy in my opinion but if it makes sense I will vote on it.

-K: I'm a flex debater so I would love listening to a K Debate

-Other than that just don't be rude, don't say anything offensive and most importantly HAVE FUN!

7yrs of policy debate experience
Include me on the email chain -- My email: iby2248@gmail.com

- - -

I'm good with spreading.

Don't be any of the "-ists" (Racist, Sexist, etc.)

Call me Judge Or Ibrahima (Ee-bruh-hee-ma) in round (really wtv you prefer)

- - -

I can be swayed by any argument as long as it is fleshed out well. I believe in Tabula Rasa, although from my experience in debate, I like it when the Affirmative weighs the hypothetical implications of not doing the affirmative effectively. For the negative, any negative argument (traditional or untraditional) can be ran as long as its argued beyond a threshold.

As a judge, I default negative if the Affirmative has not done enough work to prove how the benefits to implementing the plan outweigh the status quo AND any potential harmful aftereffects to doing the plan. Whether it is a Kritik, TVA, CP, etc., the Aff must provide enough defense of their case and can't rely solely on hypothetical implications.

Not too familiar with this years topic so don't expect me to know every term.
- - -

Don't violate any of the non-negotiables: no sexism, no racism, (any of the -isms). No insensitive comments. No blatant disrespect. Treat debate what it is, an academic space and a platform for the voice of marginalized communities and a way for new ideas to circulate.

- - -

More comments can be given pre-round.

---

DO NOT CHANGE YOUR STRATEGY FOR THE BALLOT - I AM OPEN TO ANY AND ALL ARGUMENTS.

Email: kwdebate21@gmail.com *include me on the email chain*

Conduct: Be organized, prepared and considerate of yourself and others. Don't steal prep time and always communicate with me about any tech issues as they are happening.

Decision Making: Have clash with your opponent, compare positions, explain and extend your cards & arguments. In the last rebuttal arguments paint a story that frames the round the way you want me to decide it. I'll vote where you tell me to if there's not significant responses or opposition to it. At the end of a debate it mostly comes down to impact assessment and warrant comparisons. If you do go down the impact weighing route you must explicitly tell me why I should weigh your impact/case over the opposing side.

Aff: Run what you want, I honestly don't care as long as it has some sort of relevance to the topic. If you go down the K route you MUST properly explain your case; I have a substantial understanding of many K literature base, but always prioritize clarity over unnecessary complicated K jargon. If you have a performative Aff you need to extend and explain the relation of the performance to the Aff and to the resolution as a whole.

Neg: Have a clear strategy throughout the debate. Run what you want, just explain. Don't continuously complain about the Aff's strat b/c I promise you I won't care (unless it's absurd, which I highly doubt). Defend your rights to certain links & interpretations. I agree presumption matters but explain why it does; i.e. ground, limits etc.

Extra (Policy):

- I will vote on T/FW if you win the impact it has on the debate

- (DAs) Have clear links and link/impact stories. Have reasons why the DA turns case.

- (CPs) Have a good & clear net benefit. Perms must paint a story of the new squo and what it would look like. Theory is a MUST.

- (Ks) Alternatives need to articulate what their world looks like, how it resolves the links. Be able to explain the FW/warrant in a way which provides negative ground and debatability.

I will time all speeches and will NOT count arguments after the timer.

~ PDM IB: ALEJANDRO SCOTT

This is all about YOU and I am here for YOU. I'm on your side!

JUDGING PREFERENCES

- Were the rules of the event followed? (Can I tell it is poetry and not prose)

- Was the performance clean and polished? (More to do with effort than sole skill)

- Was there palpable energy to the performance? (In-person or through a computer screen)

- Was the student having fun? (Could I relax and watch someone reveling in doing what they do best)

- What did I learn? (What do I know at the end of your performance that I did not at the beginning)

BACKGROUND & EXPERIENCE

Member & Captain of the IE Squad at the University of Texas at Austin

-AFA Poetry National Champion 2005

-AFA Eight National Out-rounds, Five-time National Finalist

Member & Captain of Speech Team at Wheaton Warrenville South High School

-IHSA State Champion of DI and HDA (Humorous Duet Acting)

-IHSA Six-time State Finalist

National Final Round Judge for AFA National Championships

Coach at University of Texas National Institute of Forensics (UTNIF) 2004-2022

Current Head Speech Coach for Quarry Lane School

2024- 2/4/2024

I'm not just any judge; I'm a ”cool” judge with a journey dating back to 2000. So, when you step into this arena, know that you're dealing with someone who's witnessed the ebb and flow of the debate currents over the last 2 decades. I am old.

General:
Yes you can go fast if you want to, just be clear, and loud enough for me to hear. I will be flowing along and won’t look at doc’s or cards unless warranted by y’all. I will do my best to time with you.

World Crafting:

Your task is to construct a compelling narrative, competing worlds, both sides have a world to offer, you sell it.

Argument Framing:

Frame your arguments as pillars that support the world you've built. Your job is to make me see the strategic significance of your narrative. Don't just present; show me why your world outweighs the others.

The K:

I have a soft spot, but only if done well. Critical acumen is your secret weapon. Integrate it seamlessly into your world, making it a key component of your narrative. I also am not a fan of non black POC running afropress, or similar k's, so please don’t. Other than that, no issues with K’s.

Theory:

Preemptive theory is unnecessary imo unless the topic warrants it, but most debates do not need a theory most of the time, but it is your round, so do you.

Tech vs. Truth:

Truth sometimes trumps tech, and in other rounds, tech might take the lead. But what matters most is how well your crafted world stands.

Rudeness is a No-Go:

Discourteous vibes won't elevate your speaks. For real

Impact Calculus and Critical Thinking:

Impact calculus is the key to your world's strategic significance. Dive into critical thinking, showing why your crafted universe is not just valid but important.

Authentic Knowledge Over Blocks:

Don't just parrot blocks; show genuine understanding. Bring knowledge to the forefront, not just rehearsed lines.

Voting Issues:

Present me with clean voting issues – make it glaringly apparent why your world is the one I should endorse. THERE IS NO 3NR. So please make it definitive in the last rebuttal

TL;DR

Be clear

Weigh

Impact calculus

liberal.cynic.yo@gmail.com

>If you want to add me to the chain or send hate mail.<

2023
i will flow to the best of my ability i have the carpal tunnel but can still keep up
spreading is only chill if you are clear
I don't need to be on the email chain but here it is if you feel like adding me anyway
liberal.cynic.yo@gmail.com
I am indifferent to the kind of argument you are choosing to use, i care if you understand it

ask questions

My paradigm was lost to the void, who knows what it said...

for long beach 2018
i'll make this, and fix it later

1. yes, i flow

2. yes, speed is fine

3. flashing isn't prep (unless it takes wayy to long )

4. i look at the round as competing narratives, i do not care what you run as long as you know what it is you are running

5. ask questions

Debate:

Speech:

lay judge sorry!