Tim Alderete - The Meadows School

-It's either Aff prep or Neg prep - No one preps for free.

-Text, from a debater I just judged to their coach, who is a friend of mine: “What is your friend on? He started my timer early because I took a deep breath.” Me: I'm gonna put that in my Paradigm!

-I do want to be on the email chain, but I won't be reading along with your speech doc - timalderete@yahoo.com

-I am cantankerous about Prep time - for me, it ends when you hit Send on the Email.

-The majority of my decisions will revolve around a lack of flowing or line by line structure.

-I will vote for most any coherent argument. A "coherent" argument must be one that I can defend to the team or debater who lost. Many think this makes me interventionist, but you don't pref me anyway.

-I not the best judge for bad arguments, the Politics Disad, or dumb theory. I will try to take them as seriously as you do, but everyone has their limits. (For example, I have never voted for disclosure theory, because I have never heard an intelligent argument defending it.)

-I do not vote for unethical arguments. The "Contact Information Disclosure" argument is dangerous and unethical because it abets online predators. It will receive a loss and minimum points.

-I don't give great speaker points. To compensate, if you show me decent flows you can get up to an extra point. Please do this Before I enter the ballot.

-I "can handle" your "speed" and I will only call "Clearer" once or twice if you are unclear.

-I have judged and coached a lot of LD rounds – I like philosophical arguments more than you may expect.

-I have judged and coached a lot of Policy rounds – I tend to think like a Policy debater.

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

I am a lay judge. Don't be nervous to correct me on debate lingo or debate rules. I do not always disclose, but I usually will if requested. If you are rude or disrespectful to your opponents, I will drop you.

Speak clearly. If you are talking as fast as possible, I’m not going to understand a word you’re saying and that’s not going to get you any points even if what you are saying is good. I need to be able to understand what you are saying. Speak at an appropriate pace and you’ll be good.

- For any round-related correspondence, please utilize the following email address: jasondbarton15@gmail.com.

Background:

- I am an assistant debate coach at Albuquerque Academy in ABQ, New Mexico (mostly coaching CX and LD).

- I recently finished my Ph.D. in philosophy at the University of New Mexico. I specialize in German Idealism, hermeneutic phenomenology, and Lacanian psychoanalysis.

- I debated CX, LD, and PF (though mostly PF) in Dallas, TX and the surrounding areas throughout high school (2011-2014), and I debated on the NPDA/NPTE circuit with Rice University more recently (2015-2019). My partner and I finished second at nationals (NPTE) our senior years. I consider myself to be comfortable with traditional and progressive styles of debate.

- My pronouns are he/him/his.

Crucial Points:

- Please attempt to be as courteous to one another as possible.

- In terms of argumentation, I do not necessarily have a preference for which kinds of arguments you present (e.g., policy affirmatives, DAs, CPs, Ks, Theory, etc.), but I would like them to be thoroughly explained, well-warranted, and impacted out (including weighing/impact calculus) throughout the debate.

- I gravitate towards evaluating framework very highly in the round (e.g., sequencing claims pertaining to competing methodologies). It is very likely that, if you are winning the framework debate, you are ahead in the debate (according to my assessment).

Theory/Topicality:

- I approach theory and topicality by analyzing the interpretation/violation layer first and the standards/voters layer second. If the opposing team wins a "we meet," they have effectively no linked the argument in my judgment (and thus need not even address the standards/voters).

- In assessing the standards/voters layer of the theory/topicality debate, I am looking for (a) extensive comparison between the respective standards of the interpretation and the counter-interpretation with respect to the voters (i.e., internal link analysis) and (b) priority claims in regard to voters (How do the voters interact with one another? Does one ground the possibility of another?).

CPs/Ks:

- On CPs and Ks themselves, I would prefer clearly marked solvency for both positions (I think CP/K solvency is pretty important - especially the question of "how do you solve the aff?" if this is an aspect of your position).

- I would like K links to be specific to the affirmative as opposed to more generic K links ("you use the state/capitalism/etc.") - if that's not the case, I am receptive to "no link" arguments from the affirmative.

- I think framework debates on Ks can be really educational, and I value framework pretty highly when considering which impacts matter in the round. Root cause claims can function as tiebreakers between competing frameworks.

DAs:

- I like DAs with precise/lucid uniqueness stories and specific links to the affirmative.

- I enjoy arguments from the affirmative about how the DA links to the CP. I think some valuable offense can be garnered from these.

Perms:

- I believe perms are a test of competition and not an advocacy, but I'm willing to evaluate the contrary.

- Also, if the perm text doesn't make sense (e.g., "do both" when alt text says "reject aff"), I will consider this argument in relation to the viability of the permutation.

ONLINE: you must send docs if you’re going to talk fast. It’s hard to hear over the computer.

General

Add me to all email chains: colebrown131@gmail.com. My pronouns are he/him or they/them. Please let me know if you need anything or have questions at any time. Tag team CX is fine. You should time yourself and ideally your opponents to ensure fairness.

Spreading and Evidence

I've had a lot of questions about these things so I'm going to split them off into their own paragraph. I don't mind spreading, but I have ADHD which makes writing down from hearing difficult. It's also been four years since I've regularly flowed policy debate. I will not penalize you for going as fast as you want, but I may not be able to flow your analytics or taglines that are being spread (speaking fast is always fine). You are fine spreading through the constructives on shared docs as all I'm listening for is to make sure it matches the doc. Please feel free to ask about this at any point in the round. I prefer quality over quantity and I don't buy blippy/unwarranted extensionsso there's a significant disadvantage to going at a pace that would make it difficult for me to write this down anyways.

I strongly prefer that evidence be shared with me and your opponent(s). NLD and PF are exempted, and if you can't please let me know. For elimination rounds of any kind, this isn't optional.

NO FRIVOLOUS THEORY OR ANYTHING ELSE TO GAME ROUNDS.I love theory and tricks, but I won't be legalistic about voting on them if I don't feel like they're in good faith. Don't be put off by this I'm just tired of having to vote down teams for reading 10+ theory args.

Policy

I have competed in policy for four years so I am okay with you running whatever you want (as long as it is professional/functional). Overviews/underviews and clear signposting are important. All evidence introduced must be on docs shared.

I am very willing to vote on any theory argument, but I will also just ignore theory obviously run as time skews especially, but not only, if the opponent points that out. Ts, FW, and properly created CPs are too rare. DAs, Ks, and K affs are fine. Weighing of impacts directly is absolutely critical to winning rounds. I have nothing against nuclear war impacts, but if you're conceding the probability of an extinction impact while weighing it against your own policy impacts, you've done something wrong (this is just an example).

LD

I haven't competed in LD but I've been judging it this year. I am fine with whatever you run, as long as it is professional and functional. Read the policy section if you are debating progressive. I appreciate a good framework round but I am frustrated when both sides use the same value and fail to notice this. Clash is important. If you don't specifically weigh impacts I'm going to struggle to make decisions especially when the framework debate is moot or not helpful in evaluating the round.

PF

I am a policy debater so I will primarily weigh your arguments as expressed, without reference to the quality of the presentation. Debating on the flow and fully fleshing out your arguments are important to me.

Email: blainesdebatestuff@gmail.com (add me on all email chain's.)

Preferences:

If you have any specific questions about my paradigm, a ballot, or a decision please feel free to reach out to me at blainesdebatestuff@gmail.com and I will be happy to help you out.

Please prioritize debating how you are comfortable rather than conforming to every little thing that I say in my paradigm. My paradigm is more of a suggestion than a requirement to win the round. Debate is for the debater, not for the judge; and I want to see rounds where teams want to be there. I am comfortable with all styles of debate and don't think there is an objective best way to do it. If you debate how you know how, you will do great!

I judge mostly on tech, but I do like big picture arguments in the ladder half of the debate. However, please please please EXTEND YOUR WARRANTS first before going big picture on me. Common sense is your greatest tool, warranting will almost always trumps cards.

Please weigh weigh weigh. I need you to tell me why you win. I don't want to be the one to decide what arguments are most important. You as the debater should be telling me this. With that being said, effective weighing is reliant upon good link debate. Good warrants are a pre-requisite to weighing, and good evidence is necessary to have good warrants.

T: I am comfortable voting on T. Competing interps are best. However, I should have a reason to vote for T, like if your opponent violates but there is no real impact to T, I'm just gonna drop it. If you want there to be RVI's you need to tell me; I will assume there are no RVI's otherwise.

Case K: You can read them, but they should have direct links to the case or topic. If you have specific questions, just send me an email or ask me in round. K's in PF feel like you are shooting yourself in the foot because of the time constraint, LD and policy are preferred.

I have noticed a new trend with K debate where teams are kicking the alt and running the K as a DA/Turn to case. I am not a super big fan. This is fine in some circumstances, but people are doing it way too often. If you are going to do this, you better have super solid framework.

Performance or Debate about debate: Threshold for winning on these arguments is higher than a case K, but you can run them. Just make sure your framing is good, and I need solid warrants on why I should vote on performance.

Warranting is everything. Evidence is great, but the evidence has to have a warrant to weigh it. This is also true if you are trying to do evidence comparison. (Ie. If you tell me to post date, there needs to be a warrant as to why the post dating matters.)

I am comfortable with both trad and progressive LD and am happy to judge on both and don't think one is better than the other.

Judge Instruction is your friend. Paint a picture of the round and why you win and you will have a better chance of me voting for you.

Most importantly, just be comfortable and have fun!

I generally consider myself a Tabula Rosa judge, but no one is a blank slate entirely unless they want to be treated as a doormat by debaters. I have no desire to be treated as your doormat. This is a communication event, so the most important thing you can do with your arguments is communicate them well. Evidence and warrants are welcome and appreciated when making claims. Civil discourse is expected. You are competing against your opponent, but that does not give you the right to ignore their human dignity or make them feel unsafe in anything except perhaps their chance of winning the round. Respect every human in the room, I have little tolerance for abusive behavior. This is a communication event so you need to effectively communicate your ideas. Spreading is not generally effective communication.

I have been teaching political philosophy at Colorado Mesa University for the past 26 years and coached their Parliamentary Debate team for several of those years when I first started. I competed in Policy debate for Northern Arizona University from 1986-89. So you can assume I have a solid working knowledge of the mechanics of debate and the structure of arguments. I flow rounds to track arguments. I also have a very good understanding of most political philosophies you are likely to draw on for values, and I appreciate the application of a criterion as a lens to apply the value to the case. I suspect it is impossible to get to Rawl's original position where we could lose all pretense of implicit bias, but I will make every effort to minimize the impact of my own implicit biases where I can.

I DON'T WANT TO SHAKE YOUR HAND PLEASE DON'T ASK

Now that that friendly introduction is over:

Email: maanik.chotalla@gmail.com

I'll disclose speaks if you ask.

Background: I debated LD for four years for Brophy College Preparatory in Arizona. Graduated in 2016. Current LD coach for Brophy College Preparatory.

TOC Update: I haven’t updated my paradigm in a few years and while my attitude towards debate hasn’t fundamentally changed the activity and norms within it have very much changed so I felt a need to write an update. At its core, I do believe this activity is still about speaking and so I do still value debaters being able to articulate and deliver. Yes I will still vote tech but I have very little patience for debaters who refuse to adapt and articulate. My preference is to not be reading your rebuttal off a document, if it isn’t on my flow I can’t vote for it. All that said—my advice to you is to go slightly below your max speed with me. I believe every judge embellishes their flowing ability to a degree and while I’m not awful at flowing I am certainly not as good as I used to be and I also have no competitive incentive like you do to be perfect on the flow. I will do my best but I am certainly going to be a cut under most judges that were former TOC competitors. I am simply in a spot in where debate is no longer my whole life (just a large part of it) and I have not been able to keep up with everything. Will do my best but if you are expecting a robot judge you will be disappointed.

Crash Course version:
-Go for whatever you want, I like all forms of argumentation
-Have fun, debate is an evolving activity and I'm all for hearing creative well-warranted arguments
-The round belongs to the debaters, do what you want within reason
-Tech > truth, extend your warrants, do impact analysis, weigh
-I default to competing interps but will go for reasonability if you tell me to
-For Ks please be prepared to explain your obscure lit to me, don't assume I'll know it because I promise you I won't. It will benefit you if you give an overview simplifying the K.
-If you run a theory shell that's fine but I don't really like it when a shell is read as a strictly strategic decision, it feels dirty. I'll probably still vote for you if you win the shell unless it's against a novice or someone who clearly had no idea how to respond to it.
-Default to epistemic confidence
-Good with speed
-Don't like tricks
-Don't be rude, the key to this activity is accessibility so please don't be rude to any debaters who are still learning the norms. This activity is supposed to be enjoyable for everyone

For the LARP/Policy Debater:
-You don't necessarily have to read a framework if you read a plan but if your opponent reads a framework I'm more likely to default to it unless you do a good job with the framework debate in the 1AR.
-If you run a framework it can be either philosophically or theoretically justified, I like hearing philosophy framing but that is just a personal preference
-Utilize your underview, I'm guessing you're reading it for a reason so don't waste your time not extending it.
-Running multiple counterplans is okay, prefer that you provide solvency
-Make sure your counterplan does not link yourself back into your DA, please

For the K Debater:
-Please label each section of your K (link/framing/impact/alt) it makes it more clear to me how the argument is supposed to function
-If you aren't running a typically organized K then please just explain the argument properly as to how I should evaluate it
-If your ROTB is pre-fiat you still need to respond to post-fiat framing to completely win framework debate
-Feel free to ask more questions before the round

For the traditional debater/everyone else
-Crash course version should cover everything. I have more below for the people who really want to read it but you can always ask more questions beforehand

More details:

1. General

I like debates which are good. Debaters who are witty, personable, and I daresay good speakers usually score higher on speaker points with me. I'll vote on any argument (So long as it isn't blatantly offensive or reprehensible in some way). I'm a big believer that the round should belong to the debaters, so do with the debate space what you wish.

I like framework debate a lot. This is what I did as a debater and I believe that it makes the round very streamlined. I always like hearing new and cool philosophies and seeing how they apply, so run whatever you want but please be prepared to explain them properly.

Please slow down on impacts and pause between tags and authors!! Yeah, I know everyone has the case right in front of them nowadays but I still want you slowing down and pausing between your authors and tags. Finally, for both of our sakes, please IMPACT to a weighing mechanism. I have seen too many rounds lacking impact analysis and weighing. It's possible it will lead to a decision you don't like if you don't impact well. I don't particularly care what weighing mechanism you impact to so long as you warrant to me that it's the more important one.

2. Theory/T

Run whatever shells you would like but nothing frivolous, please. I wouldn't recommend reading theory as strictly a strategic play in front of me but I will still evaluate it and vote on it if you prove there is actual abuse in round. I default to competing interps but will go with whatever you tell me. In general, I think you should layer theory as the most important issue in the round if you read it, otherwise what was the point in reading it?

Shells I will likely not vote on:
-Dress Code theory
-Font size theory
-Double-win theory (I'll probably just drop whoever initiated it)
-Frivolous shells unrelated to debate (i.e. lets play mario kart instead)
-Comic Sans theory
-This list will grow with time

3. Tricks

I don't like them. Don't run them. They make for bad debate.

4. Ks

I myself was never a K debater but I've now found myself really enjoying hearing them as an argument. I'd appreciate if you could label your K or section it off. I wasn't a K debater so I don't automatically know when the framing begins or when the impacts are etc. The biggest problem I usually see with Ks is that I don't understand the framing of the argument or how to use it as a weighing mechanism, so please help me so I can understand your argument as best as I can. I have dropped Ks because I just didn't understand the argument, err on the side of me not knowing if it is a complex/unconventional K.

5. Miscellaneous

I don't time flashing/making docs during the round but I expect it to take no longer than 30 seconds. Try to have a speech doc ready to go before each round. I'm good with flex prep. I don't care if you sit or stand. I'll hop on your email chain. Don't be rude, that should go without saying. Lastly, and I mean this seriously, please have fun with it. I really prefer voting for debaters who look like they're having a good time debating.

If you have any questions feel free to ask before the round or contact me via email

I am a parent judge. No spreading, speak clearly.

I prefer traditional debate.

Assume that I know nothing about the topic. Your job is to educate me about the topic and share all relevant details etc in order for me to judge properly.

Evidence is big, I try my best to flow.

Don't use too much debate jargon.

When debating, make sure to refer to the impact and key voters to facilitate clear understanding for me, and what I need to evaluate most when deciding my ballot.

Negative strategy-- there needs to be some sort of offense in the round. A defensive strategic approach has rarely won my ballot.

email for email chains - Kathleen.clark1@gmail.com

Lay, parent judge

No spreading.

Please time yourself

Voting on impact( crystallize your arguments, be exceptionally clear, I will not do the weighing for you-> tell me exactly Why I should vote you)

I'm pretty tabula rasa. If you don't tell me what to put on my flow, it won't go there.

Please clash. Please weigh. Please tell me why your argument is the better argument or why I should vote for it. Give me voters or you ain't got my vote.

If you choose to run a joke case know that your link chain must be solid or else you will probably lose. I'm all for you trying though.

My name's Ryan, and I am a Freshman at Rice. In high school, I did LD for two years and PF for one year.

Email: ryangan2012@gmail.com

1. Please extend
2. I'm most comfortable judging Trad/LARP. No Ks or non-topical cases please.
3. I like counterplans.
4. I don't have much experience with plans but running them should be fine
5. Theory is fine if the abuse is reasonable and not frivolous.
6. No spreading. I should be able to understand what you're saying without having to read off your case/evidence.
7. A decent chunk of your last speech should be weighing under the framework and explaining why you won the round.
8. Don't be an opp to your opp

I am a parent judge and looking for cool and calm presentation.

Please provide analysis on evidence and explain to me why it matters. Simply reading evidence and saying "I have evidence that negates my opponents' claim" does not make me buy the argument, that evidence must either warrant that or you explain that warrant to me. I am not in tune with any debate jargon, uniq and link make no sense to me so just use layman terms for those, impact is the only thing I understand please weigh for me.

If you are doing LD, I will probably not understand any framework besides Util, so please just use util if you don't want to spend 2 minutes of your speech explaining rawls or some other FW to me.

I don't know what a Theory or Kay is.

Basically, treat me like I am dumb, signpost everything explain why the other side doesn't win, tell me what to vote on and weigh. If you bring up new evi in the 1NR or 2AR I will catch that and you will be dropped so don't do that.

Good luck and most importantly have fun!

I am a former high school LD, PuFo, and Parli debater, I also did Parli in college and am a member of Pi Kappa Delta. I have a BA Degree in Sociology with minors in History, Political Science, and Economics. I am the NFA-LD(1 vs 1 Policy) debate coach at Simpson College and the Assistant Director of Speech and Debate at Kent Denver School. I also have a Masters Degree.

If you want to read a nicer version of my paradigm please look up my good friend David Sylva's page it is basically mine written much nicer =)

I have been involved in speech and debate for 10 years on and off, and I am a mix of Tabula Rasa and Game judging. I am a flow heavy judge, so reefer back to the flow. Make my job as easy as possible tell me what's happening.

Please put me on the email chain: scgdebate@aol.com.. or: Just create a speechdrop (https://speechdrop.net/)

Spreading- Don't care, however if your opponent or another judge does not want spreading then DO NOT spread. But, read as fast or as slow as you want. I can hear and understand around 350-450 wpm, it honestly depends on my mood and attention that day, PLEASE ASK BEFORE ROUND STARTS!!

Signposting- VERY VERY IMPORTANT. Make my job as easy as possible tell me where you're at on the flow and where you're going, you have 15-30 sec for an off-time roadmap USE IT!!!

K's- Make sure you run them correctly, appropriately, and make sure they apply (Links Matter). You can K a K. Honestly it's your round just run it. I am familiar with a lot of K literature but I need and want you to explain it to me.

Topicality's- I am unsure about topicality still. I will vote on proven abuse... But I will vote on potential abuse sometimes.. Honestly just convince me your are correct.

Theory- Love it, I coached a theory hack at Simpson and I find theory very very fun =). Again just convince me you are correct.

Framework Debate- Love it, as a former LDer.

Definitions Debate- Love it, once again as a former LDer

Voting issues- Very important, TELL ME WHY YOU WIN!!!!!!!!!

Like I said I am TOTALLY open to anything, 100% Tabula Rasa and Game, whatever I have on my flow is what I use to decide who wins. Sometimes I make weird facial expressions just ignore them, I might be thinking about how and why I'm writing the way I am or thinking about my pen's smooth writing, or anything weird so just ignore my face lol.

Side note: the most important part of this activity is the educational value YOU'RE getting out of this. NO MEME cases, and nothing stupid, I am on Discord and Reddit DAILY so I do know what's going on in the community. Stock issues are VERY important you should know them and refer back to them whenever possible. IF you can prove your opponents are de-valuing the education of the debate that's a big plus(On that note it is important to PROVE that they are de-valuing the education of the debate. DO NOT just tell me they are you MUST PROVE IT). I can't stress this enough DON'T make me do work for you, yes I know all about Kant and Marx and Butler and all the big-wig philosophers and I know how they link to everything but YOU must tell me explicitly your links AND your impacts, they are literally the most important thing in round don't forget to do some Impact Calc/weighing in round. Have fun though everyone, this is an amazing and rewarding activity and do your best. =)

I’ve been coaching debate of all varieties for over 20 years now. I love this activity, and believe it teaches some important and useful skills.

What you want to know:

1. Speed is fine. Be clear.

2. Disclosure is preferable at circuit tournaments (I’m less concerned about it locally).

3. Progressive arguments, in general, are good by me. Some caveats:

A. I generally prefer to vote on substantive issues over procedural ones. My threshold for theory is fairly strict, and the abuse has to be pretty clear.
B. Tricks aren’t cute. They’re intellectually dishonest bad faith arguments that I think are bad for debate. Run them if you must, but I’m generally disinclined to reward them.
C. Kritiks based on identity arguments (fem rage/trans rage/etc.) are relevant and important, but if you do not identify with the positionality upon which the kritik is based, and are running the argument for its strategic value, you are doing a really bad thing by co-opting a discourse to which you have no right or claim, and commodifying it for wins. Do better.

4. Good impact analysis is important to me, explain clearly why you should win. Tell me the story you want me to believe.

5. Don’t tell lies. Bad debate math counts as lies. I’m happy to evaluate all arguments, but lies are not arguments. There isn’t room in this activity for intellectual dishonesty.

6. Have fun, be kind and generous and charitable. This is a really rewarding game, even when you take an L. Enjoy it, and help others enjoy it too.

Edit for 2024: This applies largely to high school LD debate. I believe these things in general for all debate, but ask me if you have questions about specifics at a tournament. Thank you!

Assistant Director of Speech and Debate at Presentation High School and Public Admin phd student. I debated policy, traditional ld and pfd in high school (4 years) and in college at KU (5 years). Since 2015 I've been assistant coaching debate at KU. Before and during that time I've also been coaching high school (policy primarily) at local and nationally competitive programs.

Familiar with wide variety of critical literature and philosophy and public policy and political theory. Coached a swath of debaters centering critical argumentation and policy research. Judge a reasonable amount of debates in college/hs and usually worked at some camp/begun research on both topics in the summer. That said please don't assume I know your specific thing. Explain acronyms, nuance and important distinctions for your AFF and NEG arguments.

The flow matters. Tech and Truth matter. I obvi will read cards but your spin is way more important.

I think that affs should be topical. What "TOPICAL" means is determined by the debate. I think it's important for people to innovate and find new and creative ways to interpret the topic. I think that the topic is an important stasis that aff's should engage. I default to competing interpretations - meaning that you are better off reading some kind of counter interpretation (of terms, debate, whatever) than not.

I think Aff's should advocate doing something - like a plan or advocacy text is nice but not necessary - but I am of the mind that affirmative's should depart from the status quo.

Framework is fine. Please impact out your links though and please don't leave me to wade through the offense both teams are winning in that world.

I will vote on theory. I think severance is prolly bad. I typically think conditionality is good for the negative. K's are not cheating (hope noone says that anymore). PICS are good but also maybe not all kinds of PICS so that could be a thing.

I think competition is good. Plan plus debate sucks. I default that comparing two things of which is better depends on an opportunity cost. I am open to teams forwarding an alternative model of competition.

Disads are dope. Link spin can often be more important than the link cards. But
you need a link. I feel like that's agreed upon but you know I'm gone say it anyway.

Just a Kansas girl who loves a good case debate. but seriously, offensive and defensive case args can go a long way with me and generally boosters other parts of the off case strategy.

When extending the K please apply the links to the aff. State links are basic but for some reason really poorly answered a lot of the time so I mean I get it. Links to the mechanism and advantages are spicier. I think that if you're reading a K with an alternative that it should be clear what that alternative does or does not do, solves or turns by the end of the block. I'm sympathetic to predictable 1ar cross applications in a world of a poorly explained alternatives. External offense is nice, please have some.

I acknowledge debate is a public event. I also acknowledge the concerns and material implications of some folks in some spaces as well. I will not be enforcing any recording standards or policing teams to debate "x" way. I want debaters at in all divisions, of all argument proclivities to debate to their best ability, forward their best strategy and answers and do what you do.

Card clipping and cheating is not okay so please don't do it.
NEW YEAR NEW POINT SYSTEM (college) - 28.6-28.9 good, 28.9-29.4 really good, 29.4+ bestest.

This trend of paraphrasing cards in PFD as if you read the whole card = not okay and educationally suspect imo.

Middle/High Schoolers: You smart. You loyal. I appreciate you. And I appreciate you being reasonable to one another in the debate.

I wanna be on the chain: jyleesahampton@gmail.com

PF

PLEASE SIGNPOST - tell me where you are during your speech

Extend the full argument and explain it - don't just tell me to "extend [card name]" or "extend [contention]"

Please weigh - tell me which impact is more important and why

BE NICE - I'll drop you if you're rude/disrespectful to your opponents

let me know if you have questions.

LD

I have gotten very dumb in my old age (22) so please take it easy on me and debate slowly and as clearly as possible. I am very familiar with PF but am new to judging LD.

[UPDATE for 2024 UKTOC World Schools]

I'm so excited to judge you in World Schools this weekend! I'll be applying the judging rubric and guidelines for World Schools provided by the UKTOC staff, which you can also find linked on the sidebar of the tournament's homepage. I respect the conventions of the event and I expect you to do the same as a competitor. Overall, you should strive for excellent lay appeal in your delivery/presentation, and content/substance that an intelligent, open-minded, and well-educated audience would find persuasive.

___

Kyle Hietala (he/him)
kylehietala@gmail.com

CURRENT:
Program Director & Head Coach, Palo Alto High School
President, National Parliamentary Debate League (NPDL)
Vice President, Coast Forensic League (CFL)

FORMER:
Coach: St. Luke's, Spence, Sidwell Friends
Competitor: LD, APDA

____

SUMMARY
Experienced, ‘truthful tech’ flow judge from a traditional debate background. I’m receptive to many arguments, styles, etc., but I prefer strategic case debate or substantive critical debate. Any clash-heavy strategy focused on well-warranted, comparative, topical argumentation should work well for you. I'm not a great judge for contemporary progressive debate (e.g. AFF Ks, performance, tricks, frivolous theory). I'm fine with moderate speed if you slow down on taglines, enunciate, inflect, etc., but I won't flow off the speech doc. Above all, please be kind and respectful to others. And have fun!

____

VOTING
I usually vote wherever the most thorough warranting and responsive weighing was done. If there's no meta-weighing by either team, I tend to prioritize probability/timeframe over scope/magnitude. I tend to value analysis (quality, depth) over assertion (quantity, breadth) on the flow – I'm unlikely to vote for something blippy and underdeveloped, even if it was conceded. I tend to vote against strategies I consider clash-evasive (e.g. frivolous theory, tricks, conditional CPs, unlinked Ks). Keep in mind that my own rhetorical responsibility is to cogently justify to the losing team why they lost — so being clear is always to your advantage.

____

CASE/POLICY
I think debaters chronically misallocate time to stating the obvious about impacts (e.g. "extinction irreversible"), instead of comparing not-obvious details about warrants/evidence. Impact terminalization is fine, but I'm reluctant to vote for extreme impacts with brittle links – I'd prefer to hear probability analysis rather than nuclear war/extinction reductionism. AFF needs to show how their advocacy/plan creates solvency. I like framework-heavy case strategies that challenge net benefits/utilitarian policymaking, especially strategies focused on actor analysis and ethical obligations.

KRITIK
I like K debate, but I also find a lot of it to be obtuse. The link is the most important part of the kritik, because it tells me what you're critiquing/what your opponent did wrong. Links of omission are not links, and reject the AFF/resolution is not an alternative. I'm not comfortable with Ks that ask me to make judgments about a student's immutable identity.My favorite K debates are topically-relevant examinations of academic assumptions, especially in discourse/rhetoric.

THEORY/TOPICALITY
I'm receptive to theory/topicality when it's needed to check in-round abuse, but unreceptive to it for its own sake. An abundance of technical skill shouldn't excuse someone from playing fairly. I'm willing to intervene against debaters who think that baffling their opponent with frivolous theory entitles them to my ballot, and I'm also happy to intervene in favor of a debater who don't know the minutiae of theory shells, but are contesting something that is excluding them from the round.

I am what you would call "old school". I will entertain a progressive debate, but I much prefer a straight-up classic debate with value and criteria.

I am a former LD debater, and have currently been judging semi-consistently for 3 years. When it comes to style of debate, I am open to almost all types of traditional and progressive forms. I will not accept non-topical critiques or disclosure theory (If you have any questions about this or a certain theory or critique you wanna run, feel free to ask before the start of the round). I also will not allow flux prep part way through the debate, both debaters must agree to flux prep before the round if they would like to do so. regardless of style of debate or speed, fluency should be happening to an understandable level, and I would ask if you are to read at a spreading speed then please slow down to a normal pace for headlines and authors. If you are worried about your mic working consistently either due to its quality or internet connection, please don't. I will ask everyone to send their cases over and I will read and count anything from the highlighted section of your cards even if your mic cuts out for technological reasons. That being said, I will need your case to be properly formatted and highlight (or at the very least done in a way that is understandable to read and listen for me and your opponent). Please don't waste your time explaining debate jargon or the resolution (unless there is a legitimate reason to provide definitional framing in your case) to me, I have debated and judged long enough to understand what you are going for in most cases. I expect and prefer strong line by line arguing and sign posting for me and your opponent throughout your rebuttal speeches. I would also suggest giving key voters at the end of the round in order to neatly crystalize your arguments and framework evaluate the round. If I have missed anything beyond what has been previously stated feel free to ask me before the round has started.

I am a parent judge

I would like to see a logical flow in arguments, and for debaters to not beat around the bush. 

I am a former policy debater so you can run anything that you want. I prefer a head-on debate, but you can run Ks. I don't like K affs. I do take cross examination into consideration.

For spreading I require that you do slow down when reading taglines and analytics

****For LD***** I do require that you send me your documents

Email: ckeeslerevans3@gmail.com

I am a parent judge

Please talk slowly and no speaking fast as It will be hard for me to understand
Only do traditional debate

Please time yourself

I will pay attention to all arguments

I will try to judge fairly and not based off of speaking

gordondkrauss@gmail.com

Head LD Coach, Peninsula High School.

I try to evaluate debates based on the arguments made. I will attempt to avoid intervening, but I tend to care very little about short, underdeveloped theory arguments.

I evaluate substantive debates probabilistically and do not believe in absolute defense or zero risk.

Theory: It is unlikely that I will consider theory arguments that aren't about a counterplan, reverse voting issues, or theory arguments that aren't conditionality as reasons to drop the debater. I'm okay for the aff if its international fiat, delay, consult, conditions. Otherwise, pretty neg-leaning. Regarding conditionality, I'm better for the neg. The aff wins by explaining why straight turning counterplans is key to aff strategy/clash.

K: Framework arguments that exclude the consequences of the plan or critiques of the affs representations are unpersuasive. Impact turning the K is fine. I'm also pretty good for permutations against alternatives that claim to "fiat" the existence of large, sweeping movements. Alternatives are most persuasive when they provide a different way to approach the problem that the plan attempts to solve. If the link argument is good, I should conclude that it disproves the desirability of the plan.

Planless: I'm better for the neg. I think that the best impact is fairness but could be persuaded by others.

Topicality: I think most alternatives to plan in a vacuum are bad, arbitrariness/predictability is important when deciding which interpretation is best for aff or neg ground, and I'm generally unpersuaded by competing interpretations.

DAs: Link turns case matters more than reasons one impact turns another. Generally, the link matters more than the uniqueness.

Philosophy: Arguments that rely on truth-testing to win are non-starters. If you have an evidenced defense of a non-consequentialist framework, I might be fine.

Death is not good.

Start cross-ex before asking questions. A marked doc does not mean take out the cards that weren't read.

Insert rehighlightings, read recuttings.

I'll resolve ethics challenges identically to Navya Simha.

I'm a non-interventional judge. I like debates with meaningful arguments and don't encourage too much speed or aggressive tactics. I prefer quality over quantity. I'm going to be diligent in taking notes and watching for impact, flow, link, and rebuttal in the debates. I'm not a big fan of definitions as most of the time both sides are similar. I'd expect Cross to be focused on clarifying your opponent's points/cases but not as an opportunity to humiliate. I appreciate the summary at the end to clearly point out why your case is more weighted and why I should vote for you.

I wish you all the best!

Hi! I'm Noam. I use he/him pronouns. I debated at Park City High School (2018-2022), where I now coach LD & Policy. I'm also a student at UChicago, where I've done some APDA. In high school, I competed in traditional LD, national-circuit LD, and local-circuit policy. I did enough circuit debate that I'm well-versed in progressive debate norms (as of 2022), but my focus is more on traditional debate now so I may be a bit rusty.

Yes, I want to be on the chain. Email: nclevinsky@gmail.com

This paradigm is mostly written for national circuit LD, so I'm putting a short version at the top since I'm judging policy at this tournament.

• I'm a tech judge, I will vote on the flow over presentation or how much I think what you're saying is true.
• I'm good for any style of argument—kritiks, k-affs, policy-style arguments, theory, topicality, etc. are all good with me. Most of my debate experience focused on the kritik, but please just read whatever you're best at.
• I'm good with speed up to 300 wpm. I will yell "clear" if I can't understand you.
• In rounds where one team is more technical than the other, I will still vote on the flow, but I may dock speaks if you spread when your opponent asks you not to or read an extremely complicated kritik against novices. Just be nice.
• Speaks reflect your clarity, organization, and strategic decisionmaking.
• I will never vote on an argument that is racist, sexist, homophobic, or bigoted in any other way. If you think this applies to your opponents' argument, call them out.

If you want to read all of my random musings about debate or find my thoughts on a specific argument, feel free to take a look at the (much) longer paradigm below:

Pref shortcuts (mostly for circuit LD)

I'm very flexible, but I'll attempt to rank which arguments I'm most comfortable evaluating. This is not a ranking of how much I like certain arguments, but rather how well I understand them as a judge.

1 - Kritiks (cap, postmodernism)

2 - Phil, other kritiks

3 - Policy stuff

4 - Topicality, generic theory

5/Strike - Tricks, frivolous theory

Introduction

This paradigm is geared toward national circuit LD because that's what I've spent the most time thinking about.

Policy debaters, please read the sections that apply to you (policy arguments, k's, T, theory) and ignore the ones that don't (tricks, philosophy). Please don't feel that you need to adapt to me as an LD judge, as I am fairly proficient in policy and will not impose my LD beliefs onto policy debates. In fact, I feel that most LD norms would be bad for policy. Do what you do best. I will probably appreciate it.

Traditional (less technical) debaters: Don't worry about all the technical jargon in this paradigm if you don't understand it. I will evaluate the content of your arguments over how you present them, and I heavily value evidence/reasoning. Feel free to try out new arguments you couldn't read in front of parent judges. I appreciate a well-executed traditional debate, so just do what you do best.

PFers: I guess I judge this now. I barely did PF in high school, so I'm probably not up to date on your topics or acronyms. Be nice and explain such things to me :). I'm a tech judge, but don't feel the need to adapt to me on that account. Your best bet is to have a straight-up PF debate, just make sure to focus on the flow because that's how I vote. If you want to read stuff that's untraditional in PF (theory, critical arguments), go for it, but know that I will hold you to a high standard as someone who has experience with these arguments. Also, you don't need to read anything in the "specific arguments" section of this paradigm, as that's all LD/Policy oriented.

Important note for trad vs. tech debates: When traditional debaters encounter progressive debaters, I will still vote on the flow. Unfortunately, this means that I will more often not vote for the more technical debater. I believe that you should try to include your opponent whenever possible, but I will not automatically drop you for reading technical arguments against a lay debater. I may, however, tank your speaks if you read Baudrillard against a novice, spread 350wpm against someone from a small traditional circuit, or pull any similar tomfoolery. If you are the traditional debater in this situation, know that your passionate grandstanding will not win my ballot. Even if your opponent's arguments are unfamiliar, your best bet is to contest them head on. That being said, traditional debaters should let technical opponents know if they're uncomfortable with speed or progressive arguments. I can't force your opponent to slow down or read more accessible arguments, but I may reduce their speaker points if they refuse your requests.

Speed/Clarity: I was good with speed in high school, but I am a bit rusty given that APDA and trad LD max out around 200 wpm. I haven't judged much this season, but I should still be good up to 300. I highly prefer it when you slow down a bit on tags and cites. This helps me keep track of which card you're on. I will say "clear" if I can't understand you. I won't drop you for spreading against a team that is much slower than you, but I may dock your speaker points if I feel like you're leveraging your speed in a way that is rude/unfair. Your best bet is to ask your opponents if they're ok with spreading before the debate. Spreading is always ok in outrounds.

Decision Philosophy (important stuff is in bold)

I believe that debate should encourage academic growth and exploration. The debates I love are ones in which students advocate for their beliefs and don't shy away from conversations with real-world implications. I also believe that debate is a game in which students convince a judge to vote for them. Therefore, I consider myself an ideologically flexible judge. While some arguments resonate with me more than others, I feel that my job as a judge is to vote for whoever is winning on the flow. While I don't think it's possible for any judge to evaluate debates objectively, voting for whoever wins on my flow is the closest I can get to unbiased. Read whatever you are best at. With very few exceptions, I'll be willing to vote on it.

I often find myself voting for whoever wins a framing mechanism then proves they meet it. Once I have some sort of metric through which I can evaluate the round (a value-criterion, standard, ROB, competing interpretations, etc.), I'll probably vote for the debater who wins the most important argument under that metric. I have noticed a lack of layering and weighing in almost every debate this season. Please be the exception to this pattern.

Arguments need to have a claim, warrant, and impact for me to evaluate them. That means you should make a statement, provide a rigorous reason it is true, and explain its implication in the round. I am unlikely to vote on arguments that aren't completely presented in the first speech. Warrants don't necessarily need carded evidence, but cards will improve the argument's credibility.

I appreciate debates with a lot of clash. I've noticed that many debaters rely on arguments being conceded or undercovered in order to win. I find this trend of running from debates very disturbing, and I think we could all learn from more head-on debates. I think that good strategies contest opposing arguments instead of avoiding them. I will obviously still vote for conceded arguments, and you should go for them if you think it's a good strategic move. However, I like it when debaters actually debate.

I like it when debaters are innovative. You will probably get high speaks if you read an argument that is unknown to debate. Just clearly explain to me what you're doing and defend your norm.

I will not vote on any arguments that are racist, homophobic, transphobic, sexist, or bigoted in any way. If your opponent does this and I don't catch it, call them out so I can drop them. Depending on the severity of the issue, I will either let the debate continue or stop the round immediately. If you feel really uncomfortable and you'd like me to stop the round, please ask. This doesn't mean you should spam independent voters, it means you should take note when there is a serious problem. There are limits to this intervention. I will drop any debater who reads arguments like racism good, but I won't automatically vote for you off an argument about util being racist.

Specific Arguments

Policy Arguments:

Back in high school, I went to plenty of west coast LD tournaments and won some policy tournaments in Utah. I certainly don't specialize in this, but I like to think I understand it.

Policy arguments should have uniqueness, a link, maybe internal links, and an impact. You need to win all of these and weigh them to win a policy debate. Weighing is huge for me in policy debates. Weigh strength of link, use multiple metrics for impact calculus, and weigh between those metrics. It will make my job easier.

I like policy-style arguments that talk about structural violence as opposed to nuclear war. I do, however, understand that extinction outweighs is a great argument, so I get it if you read big stick arguments.

I'm a sucker for a good case push. Turns are amazing arguments and I love it when people collapse to them. I'm fine with impact turns as long as they're not repugnant (china war good is fine, sexism good is not fine. I don't love death good, spark is ok though).

Policy debaters still need to engage in the framework debate, ideally with an actual framework instead of 8 independent reasons that extinction comes first. Policy cases that lack a good framework page will likely lose to the kritik or phil.

Plan/counterplan texts should be understandable and you should always read a well-warranted solvency advocate.

Tell me when you're kicking something, and get rid of any turns before you kick it. I will vote for turns on kicked arguments.

Conditional advocacies are fine, but prepare for the theory debate. Conditionality does not get you out of reps. If your conditional counterplan links to one of your disads, kicking the disad does not get you out of that (conceding no link or impact defense would work).

Kritiks:

I love the kritik. I mainly went for the kritik throughout high school and it's my favorite argument to coach. I really enjoy these debates. I am most familiar with literature about capitalism, semiocapitalism, some postmodernism, cybernetics, and environmental studies. This is not an exhaustive list of kritiks I can evaluate, but rather the ones I understand best. If you read one of these kritiks, I might subconsciously hold you to a higher standard because I'm more familiar with them. Please don't read a specific k just because I like it, read what you're good at. I'd prefer a well-executed identity k over a poorly-executed cap k any day of the week.

I am willing to evaluate any k literature, but please explain thoroughly if it's a niche theory I'm unfamiliar with. You should also explain kritiks that I understand. I won't fill in gaps with my prior knowledge.

I like it when k debaters engage in the line by line and I'm not a fan of massive overviews that are just cross-applied throughout the speech. That being said, k debates shouldn't be blip storms. Please explain your arguments thoughtfully while also showing how you're winning the flow. I think that quality>quantity in these debates. K debates also demand a lot of analysis beyond the line by line and explanation of how arguments interact. Do these things. Explicitly tell me how and where to vote.

I am perfectly willing to evaluate kritiks with a model of debate that doesn't rely on the flow (performance, for example), but you need to win a warrant for such a model and explain to me how I can decide the round.

Some random notes on the kritik

- Extending a theory of power is very important, you should do this to outweigh whatever your opponent is saying. I view a theory of power as an important framing mechanism that establishes uniqueness and goes along with the ROB.

- K affs are cool when they're topical, cool when they're not topical, and very cool when they're somewhere in between the two. Please explain to me why your topicality counterinterp is a better model for debate, ideally by reading more than impact turns.

- I view k v. k debates as comparisons of theories of power and methods. For me, these debates break down to which k can explain a relevant form of oppression, and which k can solve that form of oppression.

- Please be able to clearly explain your alts and what they actually do. I am not here to hear people read vacuous alt cards then extend a bunch of buzzwords.

- Specific links are amazing, generics are also fine

- I'm unfamiliar with k tricks but I'll vote for them if well-articulated. I should be able to tell that it's a floating PIK by reading the 1NC.

- I will not immediately drop you for reading ontological claims about an identity group you don't belong to, but I will very likely drop you if your opponent calls you out for it (and warrants why what you're doing is bad).

Theory and Topicality:

I get it. I did national circuit LD so I have dealt with a lot of theory, much of it frivolous. I'll vote for almost any shell if you win it.

Things I wont vote for (don't read them): arguments about your opponent's appearance (shoes theory), ridiculous spec shells (spec favorite movie or some other silliness)

I'm good for anything else, although the bar for responses is lower against frivolous shells.

I default drop the debater, competing interps, no RVIs, although all of these can be easily changed.

Please weigh your standards. These debates can get irresolvable very quickly if you don't.

I'm also good with topicality. T framework, nebel, and more specific shells are all fine.

When reading t against k affs, feel free to go hard for fairness first, but I do prefer impacts contextualized to the k. I was almost always on the k side of these debates, but I think t framework is a great shell and I'm happy to vote for it. These debates are about models, so please win why yours is better.

I'm probably not that well-read on your topic, so super-specific t debates might be hard for me to follow. I'll evaluate them, just explain your acronyms and definitions to me like I know nothing.

Generic policy shells like t-substantial are fine. I don't love them, but go for it if it's your best strategy.

Philosophy:

I did a lot of this in high school. Read whatever framework you'd like, I will evaluate it fairly. If the framework is niche, please explain it.

The best frameworks have robust syllogisms. Deep explanation will make me happier than a 12 point prefer additionally section. I will vote on either though. I prefer phil cases that are actually about philosophy, as opposed to vehicles for tricks or 1AR theory. The bottom line is that I like thinking about philosophy, but I will vote on more tricky phil strategies as well.

Reading a framework isn't an excuse for bad offense. You should read cards and explain why they're relevant under your framework. That being said, I think turns are some of the best responses to phil strategies.

I don't like the trend of oversimplifying complex frameworks. Extinction is probably still worse than lying, even if you win Kant. Your standards should be nuanced and you should use impact calculus under every framework.

Tricks:

I don't like them, I will still vote on them. The bar is very low for responses, and gets lower as tricks become less nuanced and more recycled.

You need to win a framework that allows me to evaluate tricks (truth testing, most likely). Otherwise, I probably won't vote on them.

Every argument needs a claim, comprehensible warrant, and clear impact in the first speech. "I am the greatest conceivable being because grapes are purple" does not count as a warrant and does not need to be responded to.

I honestly like some of the more philosophical tricks, especially when they're original or funny. Please just explain them well and weigh them against your opponent's arguments.

Theory spikes are fine. Just like any other argument, they need claims, warrants, and impacts.

I am very willing to vote on arguments that criticize tricks debate, like theory or kritiks. This might be one of your best angles against tricks if you don't think you can line by line them.

Other Musings

Speaks are based on clarity, organization, strategic choices, argumentative creativity, technical execution, and rhetorical appeal. I try to average about 28-28.5 points on the national circuit, probably lower in Utah since the point scale is less inflated at local tournaments.

Weighing and layering are the quickest paths to my ballot. If you do one or both of them well, you will very likely win.

I like being told what to do. Please explain to me how arguments interact, which arguments matter, and where I should vote. Write my RFD for me in your final speech.

Overall, just do what you do best. Be passionate. Read arguments you love. Be innovative. Show me that you care. Disagree with your opponent. Have fun!

I am a traditional/lay judge - most of this paradigm can be derived from that statement. I will most likely not understand progressive debate, and dislike debate jargon. When forced to judge progressive debate, I will try my best.

Dos:

• Have depth in understanding of the topic.
• Use relevant evidence. Don’t just read a random card as a warrant that, in fact, does not support your tag. Also, please point out your opponent’s misuse of evidence when it occurs.
• Maintain the ability to seek common ground even in a debate situation - your opponent is not necessarily your enemy. Be kind, no ad hominem. I will most likely not flow off the document, so please be coherent in your actual words.
• Good presentation is still quite important to me. I will try to minimize this bias, but in the face of a close round, the better speaker will win.
• Have good, logical warrants. Evidence itself is not a warrant - and evidence is not necessarily concrete. Clear link chains are a must. Explain links, warrants, and impacts very thoroughly.

Don’ts:

• Make bold statements without adequate support. I will try to minimize judge intervention on arguments, but when weighing similar arguments I will go for the one that makes more logical sense. I still appreciate creativity, but they must pass the common sense test first.
• Spread. I can only flow what I can hear. Check speed/clarity with me before you start speaking if necessary.
• Link cause and effect without adequate intermediate transitions. I am not able to "jump", without your adequate help, to the conclusion that your opponent's position will lead to climate change, nuclear war, civil war, etc. I will be skeptical about these kinds of doomsday arguments in general, so if you must make them, you will have an uphill battle.

Misc:

• Truth > Tech
• Argument Quality > Quantity
• Make it easy for me to decide the winner of the round - judge instruction is a must. Signpost and present the voters of the round as clearly as possible.

My name is Ty, I use he/him pronouns.

I would like to be on the email chain. My email is tylunde4@gmail.com

I am currently a sophomore in college. I did policy debate for all 4 years of high school. I have judged mostly novice policy debate this year, so if there are any specific acronyms so I know what you're talking about. I am generally ok with speed, however, it has been a while, so please make sure that if you are speaking fast you are CLEAR.

As a debater, I mainly debated policy arguments rather than Kritiks, however, I will listen to your Ks if you choose to run them, I will need you to explain well why the K matters most in the round/why I should be voting for you based on the K. It will be more difficult to win on a K for me.

In order to convince me to vote for you please make sure you explain how I should evaluate the round, and why your team wins based on this framing. I don't want to have to extrapolate what matters most from vague comments that are not well explained. If you have questions about my opinions on specific types of arguments please ask before the round, but I will generally evaluate any argument as long as they are well-argued.

For LD: Keep in mind I did policy, but in general I will keep up with most differences quickly. Ask me any argument specific questions in room before the round starts.

Please do not be racist, sexist, anti-LGBTQ, anti-semitic, or otherwise bigoted and discriminatory in round.

Hey y'all my name is Mia! (pronouns she/her)

Don't hesitate to ask me any questions/clarification/definitions about my paradigm! (back as a novice pfer my judge started throwing around the word "frontlining" and my partner and I were too nervous to ask what that even meant)

tldr: how to win my ballot? give me a convincing story about why your side matters more (key voters and world comparison are rly helpful tools to do this). I need important arguments that you think are key to you winning to be extended through the entire round to the last speech if you want me to consider them. 3 key things: extensions, evidence comparison, impact weighing. Lay out how I should be voting, so that the final decision is clear.

Background: One year of pf, 3 years of ld. I've debated on more traditional circuits (nsda nats), more progressive nat circ, and regular locals, so I am familiar with most styles of debating.

General Things:

-Evidence exchange is one of the most important parts of keeping debate fair, I'm all for asking for evidence off prep as long as it doesn't take a huge amount of time. Debaters sometimes drastically or incorrectly change the meaning of a card through paraphrasing or cutting, so if you're suspicious of a piece of evidence, you can ask me to call for it in a speech, or I may call to see it myself. If I find the evidence to be misconstrued, I won't consider it in the round. If your opponent can't produce the evidence, you can ask me to not consider it in the round.

-Extensions: these are pretty important to me in the flow; if you dont know what an extension is, it is the author, tag, and a bare minimum warrant/summary of an argument. Don't waste a really good case by not extending it through the round.

-Equity: i will not tolerate debaters making arguments that are very clearly problematic/offensive to a marginalized identity. If this happens in round, please call it out. I am willing to buy independent voters based off of this, however don't attempt to abuse or manipulate that stance.

Offense/Defense- ideally balance both. Offense to show how your opponent's world is worse than yours. Defense so you still have your own case by the end of the round to stand on

PF:

-good organization is much appreciated

-i like believable arguments over crazy exaggerated link chains, but as long as you can warrant it I’ll consider it

Policy:

-have done a bit of college policy, but not super familiar with the structure so bear with me, I am pretty familiar with this topic lit though, you can read ld paradigm for other things

LD:

quick prefs (in what I feel comfortable evaluating) :

1-trad/k affs/performance k

2-stock k, phil, t, theory

3-larp

4-pomo

5-tricks, skep triggers

In a trad round, I will first look at who wins on framework to see how I evaluate. If one person clearly wins the fw debate, I evaluate all impacts on the flow under that fw, (ie util), so fw debate matters. If the fw debate is a wash, then I'll just go to weighing impacts with ambiguous framing, if you don't go for fw especially do the impact weighing and key voter work for me. (You don't need to go for framework if you both agree on it).

I do not default to debate is a game, debate is anything you want it to be, *except* a space to be violent

I will vote for any argument even if it's out there, but arguments need warrants. I was a k debater myself, but mostly idpol (fem, border k etc), so that and traditional debate is what I'm most familiar with. I understand the concepts of most phil and theory but make sure I actually understand what you're saying, and don't be intentionally confusing.

I don't like tricks, frivolous theory, or super abusive multiple offs/spreading against people who very clearly can't handle it. I will not vote on you for this if this is all you have going for you. If I am your judge, you can ask me I consider your opponent to be doing any of these at any point in the debate for clarification/if you're confused what's going on.

I'm cool with flex prep. I'm heavily down with reps/discursive voters. Independent voters are fine. But most of all, I'm looking for clash, world comparison, and impact weighing. Each speech is a SPEECH, not a race to overwhelm your opponent, so tell me a convincing story of why your side wins and I'll probably vote for you.

Notes on spreading:

-if you're spreading without a doc, be very careful, I'm not the best at picking up things without a doc, I'll warn you with "slow" once or twice, even a doc with an outline/summary of what your analytics will be is helpful to follow

-that being said, I heavily prefer having a doc for everything if you'll be speaking fast

-even if i do have a doc, slow down on tags/analytics

notes from asu:

-quality>quantity arguments, much easier to buy something if it's well developed and actually makes sense

-please give me voters, u don't have to say "key voter" but ideally i should not be picking out what to vote on myself

-whatever happened to good analytics as rebuttals?

-extensions! pls!

-u have to try respond to ur opp's answers to the 1AC/NC, or else ur gonna be left without much of a case

-yes, add me to the chain (mlupica.debate@gmail.com)

Hi! I'm Emmiee (they/them) - emmiee@berkeley.edu is the email

I did 4 years of debate in HS (3 policy, 1 LD) and 3 years of college policy for UC Berkeley. In both I started off reading very LARP/policy arguments and then branched out into more soft left and K territory. The arguments I've spent most of my time reading are queer pessimism, psychoanalysis, and Russian set-col. I've been coaching Harker LD for 6 years now and have taught at ~10 LD/policy camp sessions.

TL;DR/For Prefs:

I try to stay as tab and non-interventionist as possible. There is literally not a single argument I have not voted for. All of my decisions are purely based off of how the flow lines up and I don't care if you're going for an RVI on Nebel, a PoMo FrankenK, indexicals, a heg DA, "surrender to ____", the Hobbes NC, etc. If I stopped voting for downright horrible arguments that were won on the flow, I would quickly end up having to give out double losses.

It's not my job to "preserve the sanctity of the activity" or whatever, especially given all of the things I pulled in my own debate career; it's my job to vote for whoever won and then roast any arguments I didn't personally like in the RFD. There are only three arguments I don't want to see: those that are blatantly oppressive (___icm good, etc), those that are unethically read (clipped, text of article altered, etc), or those that lack a claim/impact/warrant.

Other Important Info:

• In general, I judge a lot of clash debates, bubbles, bid rounds, etc and I get that stress is high, different schools/regions/circuits have different norms and habits, everyone's tired, etc but please do your part to make the round as un-painful as possible. Assume good intent, don't be purposefully sketchy or mean, etc.

• I am 100% cool with post-rounding - if you think I forgot to flow something important, gave a nonsense RFD, didn't address something you think should have decided the debate, etc by all means grill me over it, as long as you're not actively rude to me or your opponent.

• Some rounds I take a super long time to decide and have a lot of comments - it's usually because I'm typing all the comments out on my flow for a while. If I take forever or dump feedback on you, it's not a bad thing - I probably just have a lot of random thoughts, especially if it's a K debate. If it's too fast, too much, it's the end of the day and you want to go to bed, you need to run to another round or prep, etc just let me know I 100% get it.

• Incoherently rapid-spread a million blippy analytics and lose - if you want me to flow your giant analytic wall via online debate without missing anything important, you are going to need at least 3 of the following: [1] doc was sent out with the analytics in it, [2] you are at least somewhat clear and aren't going the same speed you go reading a random line in a card, [3] there's intonation/volume changes when you go from arg to arg and/or on the important terms, or [4] the arguments are numbered/labelled/separated somehow and you more-or-less stick to the flow when you extend them instead of dropping them in a bunch of random places.

• Don't over-accommodate but don't be mean to traditional/novice debaters - if you're in the top 50% of the pool I will boost speaks if you slow down somewhat (especially on tags), are polite and don't clown on your opponent for not understanding something basic, generally try to be helpful and CX and try to help them understand your arguments if they're confused, etc. Likewise, will drop speaks if your strategy for the W is very blatantly just to spread out a newer kid with a bunch of arguments they've never heard of while being rude to them the whole time.

• I also tend to get progressively stupider as the tournament goes on and I'm sorry if you catch me on the end of day 2 and I'm a little spacey. Tournaments tend to aggravate disability-related things and I burn out especially fast. I can still make coherent decisions, but will just take a little longer and give less concise RFDs. If you're going to break a DA with a super convoluted and nuanced I/L chain or get into a super ticky-tacky phil throw down in R6, please adjust your degree of hand-holding accordingly.

Specific Arguments:

• LARP: This is the style of debate that I mainly coach and am most comfortable with (along with Ks). I'll vote for your totally contrived politics DA and for "heg good outweighs the K/soft left AFF" if you win it on the flow.

Various other things of use:

• I default to presuming NEG, unless the NEG reads a counter-advocacy.
• I also tend to rely on how people explain their arguments and don't do a lot of card reading unless I'm forced to or someone asks me to do it.
• If you're AFF and the NR dropped the AFF so the 2AR is clearly going to be impact v. offcase weighing and then all about the DA or CP or whatever please give me at least 1 sentence about the 1AC scenario somewhere so I know how we got to a certain impact outweighing something else or what the PERM on the CP would look like. If the NC totally drops the AFF and you go for 100% SOL we O/W whatever whatever in the 2AR please give me a sentence in the 1AR about the AFF because it's weird to have it disappear and then reappear and very confusing. 
• I'm agnostic on a lot of things that the LARP community seems to be split on and will let it slide or let debaters debate it out in round. If you insert rehighlightings and say in your NC something to the extent of "their ____ scenario is horribly cut - we've inserted the rehighlightings" so I know it's something you meant to insert and not something you didn't read due to time constraints and the other team says nothing, I'll evaluate it. If they read theory, I guess we're having a theory debate now. Same with judge kick - I'll do it if I'm asked to, won't do it if you don't or you do and your opponent wins that I shouldn't for some reason. Multiplank CPs where you kick out of planks, "haha PERM do the CP this is normal means" reveals in the 1AR, etc are all very much in the same camp - I'll roll with it if it's not contested, will evaluate contestation and potentially roll with it anyways otherwise.

• K: I'm generally very down for weird/memey arguments but on god if you choose to pull a bunch of conflicting pomo ev into a doc just so you can spend the round yelling vague buzzwords without making any attempt to say anything specific about the AFF I will tank your speaks. If you're not familiar with whatever you're reading so your arguments or cards you end up cutting aren't phenomenal that's fine. If your K is about the need to sideline the AFF/topic and instead center your performance, community, something else, etc that's that's fine. If you have a genuine defense of why you need to sound like the PoMo generator or remain very nebulous and vague that's fine. I truly don't care what it is you do, but please don't just try to win by being too incoherent/confusing for your opponent. 

Other fun things:

• If someone's reading a K vs. you and you're confused, at least 50% of the time in my experience the argument is just incoherent and you should make the common sense "the alt obviously doesn't solve because ___"/"nothing about their K vaguely makes sense"/"___ isn't a link and the card isn't even about the topic or the tag it's something else entirely" argument that's in your head. I keep having to vote for Ks that I know are poorly executed because the other side psychs itself out. 

• I vote for K AFFs and I vote for FWK all the time - it usually comes down to which side actually engages the other as opposed to reading generic prewritten overviewy dumps because that's the side that doesn't drop a bunch of things in the 1AR/NR/2AR. I'm down to vote for the "debate is a game and only a game ergo procedural fairness" flavor of FWK as well if you win it, but I very quickly start getting turned off if part of that strategy involves being a jerk to the other side. 

• White debaters doing the Race War disclosure stuff confuses me. I'm not opposed to voting on it at all but I simply have no idea what this does so if it's going to be part of your strategy I need you to articulate the I/L link between that and whatever you claim it solves or allows you to do. Strategy-wise, "I'm not ____ but I get to read arguments about ____ group because ____" is a lot more intuitive to me than whatever is going on here.

• If you're going to go for "____ thing that wasn't on-face morally abhorrent is a V/I" I need to hear: [1] a warrant in both speeches and [2] some articulation of why this comes before whatever other framing arguments/layers exist in every speech this argument is made in - you can obviously have a lot more extrapolation on #2 when you go for it, but I find it hard to be persuaded by a 5 word argument that only really gets explained at the end of the debate

• Phil: I'm pretty familiar with the literature at this point even though this really wasn't my corner as a debater. A lot of the stuff immediately below applies - phil debates tend to devolve into each side proliferating a bunch of one-liners and then going for three of them without much weighing/etc and that makes it very hard to parse through. When one side says "nuclear bomb kills everyone so we can't enjoy life or discuss values ergo util" and the other side says "adding a circle to a circle doesn't make it more circular ergo kant" it is two ships passing in the night that hurt my brain. Please for the love of God tell me what the implication of you winning something on your end is for the phil debate writ large, why your stuff comes first, how it interacts with what's going on on the other side, etc. If you extend your 3 hot takes on the NC and do 0 actual interaction with the AC FWK or vice-versa you will either lose or have to sit for an hour while I stare at the flow and try to make it make sense. 

• T/Theory: I will vote for it; I'll vote for the RVI on it. I don't think my personal opinions on how many condo is ok or semantics matter because it shouldn't factor into how I judge. In the absence of clear warranting from either side, I will obviously be more swayed by nebulous abuse or reasonability claims depending on the context of that specific round. The bullet point about incoherent rapid-spreading analytics definitely applies here - I can't vote for what I can't flow and a few good arguments go so much farther than proliferating random impacts and links that'll just get everyone confused all over the place. It's hard to yell "clear" over Zoom because it cuts out the other person's audio for a second so if you're blitzing through huge walls of text I'm probably going to miss arguments.

If you write the RFD for me in the debate that explains how impacts and layers stack up and weigh, you are overwhelmingly likely to have that be the actual RFD. If you end up neck deep in a super messy and dense theory/T debate and manage to stay organized, clear, and pretty line by line, you will get a 29.5 minimum. My biggest issue with these debates by far is the messiness and lack of weighing on both sides. It is really hard for me to evaluate debates when no one explains why they have the stronger I/L to education, why phil education outweighs topic education, why their NC theory should come before 1AR theory, whether T or theory comes first, etc.

Only other relevant things is that I presume T/Theory > K unless told otherwise and am not the best with grammar so I can flow your upward entailment test argument and vote for you off it, but I don't have more than a surface level understanding of it outside of its strategic value in debate.

• Trix: I've voted for lots of tricks debaters, but think that tricks objectively are all silly and false and have adjusted my threshold for responding to them to a comparable level. My bar for responding is "this is nonsense and you shouldn't vote on it because ___". If there's three hidden words in an analytic wall that are dropped, the threshold changes to the above along with "you should allow this response even though it's new because ____" in the next speech. I'm very sympathetic to newer LDers or policy cross overs losing over mishandling some silly spike they didn't know about and personally took a lot of Ls that way, but if you decide to sit the entire round without making a single argument about why "evaluate the round after the 1AC" is a horrible idea, you will lose to it.

All of the stuff in the T/Theory section about spreading through analytics, the fact that no one weighs or implicates anything, etc all applies.

Hello! My name is Ria Manathkar and I'm excited to judge your round! I did LD for 4 years in high school so I'm comfortable with the different types of LD debate, though I have been out of practice for a couple of years. I can judge traditional/LARP rounds all day if you want, but I'm also fine with DAs and Ks. I just want clear voters at the end, remind me consistently how you tie back to framework, and try to explain when you are making extensions (not just "extend this card").

I'm good if y'all want to spread as long as I'm on the email chain, but I may not catch everything you say off the doc. I'll yell "Clear" if I can't understand you during rebuttals though.

Please be nice to each other. I will never, ever allow any form of discriminatory language in round of competitors or anyone else. Please be polite and respectful.

If you have any questions or need to add me to the email chain my email is riam2025@gmail.com. Thanks!!

LD

Email for docs: sherry.meng91@gmail.com

tech>truth - but high threshold for stupid arguments. I'll vote for it if it's dropped, but if your opponent says no, that's all I need. Noting I will give you an earful in rfds if such an argument comes up!

-Topicality: I understand progressive arguments are the norm. However, I am a firm believer that we debate a topic for a reason. No one should walk in the round without looking at the topic and just win off an argument that is not directly related to the topic. The educational value is maximized when people actually research and debate the topic. All tools are at your disposal as long as it's on topic per the NSDA website for the tournament.

-Theory: I default fairness and education good. If you don't like fairness or education, then I will vote for your opponents just to be unfair per your value. I default to fairness first but I'm easily swayed. I default reasonability, I tend to gut check everything, consider me as a lay judge.

-K and Phil: not well versed in these, so don't assume I get your argument by saying a few phrases. Warrant your arguments, I don't know any jargon. Noting for phil, I default util unless you can persuade me otherwise.

-Tricks: Not a big fan of it. You are unlikely to get my vote if you don't argue very well with a trick. I don't think they're real arguments.

-Speed: I can handle speed up to 200 words per minute. Hopefully, that will improve over time. You can't sacrifice clarity for speed before you lose me.

-Argumentation: A clean link chain is highly appreciated. Solid warrants will also help a lot.

-Organization: Sign-post is very helpful.

If you want to talk science, make sure you get the facts right. I am an engineer by training and I am very quick to spot mistakes in scientific claims. Even though I would not use it against you unless your opponent catches it, you may get an earful from me about it in RFD.

PF

I assign seats based on who is AFF and who is NEG, so flip before you unpack.

General things:

- I like to describe myself as a flay judge, but I try my best not to intervene. Sometimes I hear ridiculous arguments (usually "scientific" arguments), and I will tell you while I disclose why they are bad. That said, I will always evaluate the round based on what is said in the round, and my own opinions/knowledge won't make an impact on the decision.

- Be clear on your link chain; during the summary and final focus, you must explain your argument's logical reason.

- Speed threshold: if you go above 200 words per minute I'll start missing details on my flow

- Evidence: I only call evidence if asked; it's up to you to tell me when evidence is bad.

- Jargon: Public Forum is meant to be judged by anyone off the street, so don't use jargon.

- Progressive Argumentation: Don't read it. Topicality is essential. The side that deviates from topicality first loses.

- Weighing: if you don't weigh, I'll weigh for you and pick what I like.

If you have any questions, just ask me before the round.

rhys.e.moon22@gmail.com

Peninsula 22 | Harvard 26

All of my preferences are somewhat malleable, but like every other judge, my history in the activity informs the biases and frames of reference through which I view certain arguments.

Policy:

Most comfortable with this. Condo is fine. I find that many affirmative qualms with counterplans can be resolved through competition debating rather than theory. Not the biggest fan of politics. Good for impact turns.

Kritiks:

These are fine. CX really matters here (on both sides). 2NR floating PIKs + framework interpretations are new arguments, and I won't evaluate them. I think that most kritik alternatives can't solve the links and definitely can't solve the case.

K-Affs:

I think that affirmatives should defend a plan. I strongly prefer fairness impacts over clash/movements. Good for the Cap K. Amenable to arguments that K-Affs should be held to a much more rigorous standard re: permutations.

Philosophy:

Probably bad for this, as you might expect. You should err on over-explaining your syllogism, and make impact calculus arguments on the contention or at least try to compare your offense against their turns/defense. I'm absolutely horrible for this if your strategy relies on calc indicts, frivolous theory, random independent voting issues...similar nonsense.

Theory:

I am convinced by reasonability + DTA. My interpretation of reasonability is that I should weigh the impact of the shell vs. the DA to substance by foreclosing a debate over the topic by voting on theory. I am unconvinced and confused by most "brightlines" for reasonability and find them arbitrary.

I'll probably tailor your speaks to the ridiculousness of the theory argument and significantly lower the bar for responses.

Other:

I am not interested in judging rounds where the primary strategy on either side is to read tricks, frivolous theory, or other similarly unwarranted arguments that necessitate being dropped in order to win. I will actively stop flowing if you blaze through twenty spikes in monotone without ever pausing between arguments.

Show your opponents respect! Have fun if you can.

saul munn

he/him or they/them whatever you're more comfortable with

peninsula ld 2020-2022

peninsula parli 2018-2020

undergrad at brandeis studying philosophy

add me to the chain saulsmunn@gmail.com

---

NOVICES: LOOK AT THE NOTE AT THE BOTTOM!!!

---

PREFS

i'm not amazing at (circuit) debate, lol -- sorry

1 - policy

2 - stock phil/stock theory/annoying policy stuff like politics DAs and agent CPs

3 - non-stock phil/K/non-stock theory

4/5/strike - trix

---

i'm not really that familiar with non-stock phil and non-stock K — feel free to go for it but you should explain it more than you normally might. write my ballot in the 2nr/2ar to make it easier to vote for you.

trix are a great way to get bad speaks and probably an L

---

RANDOM STUFF

- IMPORTANT: PLEASE do not send cards in the body of an email -- add them to a doc and send the doc :)

- IMPORTANT: SET A WIN CONDITION AND EXPLAIN HOW YOU MEET IT! please write my ballot for me in your rebuttals — explain what your arguments mean for my ballot, don't just make the argument.

- 0.1% chance ≠ 0% chance — read up on nassim taleb

- send analytics if you have them

- be nice

- don't be racist/sexist/homophic/classist/any other type of discrimination/exclusion

- be funny (pls & ty)

---

SPEAKER POINTS:

do:

- use correct grammar

- bring some massive energy

- have good & consistent formatting in your document (blank line between each card, each offcase cleanly listed, same highlighting color, same font, no bullet points, etc)

- have a clean and c r i s p wiki. i'm not going to go looking, but if you think yours looks clean and crisp, point it out to me (before the round starts)

- make me laugh (in a good way)

don't:

- use bad grammar

- have an unorganized speech/don't give an order/dont follow the order you gave/etc

- have bad strategy

- show up late/have to use the bathroom halfway through/generally disruptive/rude

- be annoying -- either to me or to the other team (what's a floating pik?)q

- make me laugh (in a not so good way)

---

FOR NOVICE/PF/PARLI/ETC:

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE send the documents you're reading, if you're reading from any documents. send the document right before your speech (preferable), before the whole debate (less preferable), or after the debate (really not preferable and i'll probably dock your speaker points). you don't need to send it to your opponent, but are you really that afraid to have a quality debate?

the reason i need your document is that i need to check to make sure that you're using your evidence correctly. for instance, if you misquote an article, or say that evidence came from 2021 when it actually came from 2015, or claim that your author has a PhD when they actually don't – that's an instant loss, even if the opponent doesn't point it out. if you see something with bad evidence ethics, point it out to me during your speech as a theory argument (if you know how to make them; if not, then just point it out).

---

a haiku:

if you're in pf

and you choose to paraphrase

please expect nuked speaks

-saul munn

Hello! I am a parent lay judge, please do not spread. I don't super love nuclear extinction arguments unless you have a very very very clear reason why it imminent.

Hello! I coached as an assistant 10 years ago under a Double-Diamond Coach and recently returned to coaching again at West High School in Salt Lake City, Utah. You are more than welcome to share your preferred pronouns before round, but only if you are comfortable doing so :)

My main, most important judging philosophy beliefs:

· Please signpost - it makes it much easier to flow.

· I'm not opposed to critical arguments, but keep them accessible to people who aren't terribly familiar with K debate or literature.

· I'll weigh the impact. Make it clear. Traditional mentality but understands progressive.

· I probably won't understand your arguments if you're not consistent with your warranting.

· Offense must be in summary and final focus.

· IN Public Forum or Lincoln Douglas, I PREFER THAT YOU ACTUALLY READ EVIDENCE THAN JUST PARAPHRASING. I guess what I am saying is that it is hard to trust your analysis of the evidence. The rounds have a flavor of Parliamentary Debate. Giving your opponent the entire article and expecting them to extract the authors intent is difficult. Having an actual card is key. If I call for a site, I do not want the article, I want the card. You should only show me the card, or the paragraph that makes your article.

· This is not grounds for teams to think this means run PARAPHRASE Theory as a voter. Proliferation of procedural issues is not what this particular event is designed to do. You can go for it, but probability of me voting for it is low.

· This should go without saying, but ANY racist, homophobic, sexist or hateful comments or arguments will not only hurt your speaker points SEVERELY, you most likely can expect to lose.

· Just because you don’t have a carded response to something your opponent said does not mean you cannot have a decent analytical response. I’ll listen to those analytical responses over any crappy card.

· Please, warrant your responses. Tell me WHY a study concludes something, don’t just give me their results. Good warrants go with good arguments.

How I determine speaker points:

· Not abusing prep time and being ready to debate quickly before round will improve your points.

· Doing weighing, collapsing, and warranting effectively is the best and easiest way to get high speaks with me in the back of the room.

· I won’t be listening to cross ex, so if you are being rude enough to warrant my attention, your speaker points will reflect that.

Other parts of my paradigm that are slightly more technical:

· Theory (for me) in PF is fine. You should only be using this if your opponent does something egregiously unfair and not to fill up time or show me that you did LD/Policy. If you do read theory, you should only be going for that and it’s your burden to prove how your opponent framed you out of the debate.

· Speed is fine. If I can’t understand you, then you should slow down. I am a new hearing aid wearer and ambient noise will make it difficult for me to concentrate on what you are saying if you are speaking too quickly.

· Road maps should be concise, you’re telling me what sheets I should start on, not making arguments.

· Terminal defense does not need to be extended in first summary for it to be in final focus, unless second speaking rebuttal responded to it. I will be more likely to weight defense of it is in both first summary and final focus, but it’s not required.

I have been coaching and judging High School debate since 2003, though I have spent the better part of the last decade in tabrooms, so don't get to judge as much as I used to. :-)

If I had to classify myself, I would say that I am a pretty traditional judge. I am not a huge fan of Ks, because for the most part, I feel like people run Ks as bad DAs, and not a true Ks.

I cannot count the number of times I have had a student ask me "do you vote on [fill in the blank]"? It honestly depends. I have voted on a K, I have voted on T, I have voted on solvency, PICs, etc., but that doesn't mean I always will. There is no way for me to predict the arguments that are going into the round I am about to see. I can say that, in general, I will vote on almost anything if you make a good case for it! I want YOU to tell me what is the most important and tell me WHY. If you leave it up to me, that is a dangerous place to be.

Important things to keep in mind in every round.
1) If your taglines are not clear and slow enough for me to flow, I won't be able to flow them. If I can't flow it, I can't vote on it. I am fine if you want to speed through your cards, but I need to be able to follow your case.

2) I like to see clash within a debate. If there is no clash, then I have to decide what is most important. You need to tell me, and don't forget the WHY!

That leads me to...

3) I LOVE voting issues. They should clarify your view of the debate, and why you believe that you have won the round.

Hi, I am a slightly experienced judge. I have been judging debates for around 1 year.

In a round, I am looking for clear argumentation. Use well-researched arguments and have specific sources to back your arguments. There has to be good communication and a fair debate. Please be respectful to your opponent. I will be looking forward to an interesting round.

LD:
I am a traditional judge. I understand some progressive argumentation, but it would be advisable not to run it.

tech > truth

It would be best if you convinced me about your contentions, your framework, and your weighing in order to win the round. At the end of your final speech, it should be clear why you should win. I will only flow your speeches and will not flow cross-examination.

Speed is fine to a certain extent but please refrain from speaking too quickly. If you know you will be talking quickly, add me to the email chain and share your cases.

Speaker Points:

I will award between 25 to 30 speaker points based on the skill and quality of speaking.

I'm very philosophy based in LD. I don't usually vote on disclosure theory or Ks. I think the argument is more important than just regurgitating as much evidence as possible. Also please try to make your sentences coherent.

TLDR: I'm okay with just about everything as long as it is well explained. Please add me to the email chain if you will be speaking fast and have a lot of material to cover. - dsinghania25@gmail.com

General stuff:

I did LD for almost 4 years on the AZ circuit and have experience in about 2-3 years of Impromptu. I mainly did traditional debate and LARP as well, but I have experience handling theory/Ks/other stuff you may want to run. Make sure to be clear in your speeches and signpost so I understand where on the flow you are. I'll probably keep my own timings, but it's up to you and your opponent to make sure you follow the time limits. The best way to win the round is by having strong and well-explained arguments.

Framework:

I think framework is an important tool in being able to win rounds. If it is well explained and you can justify how you lead to impacts under it or how your opponent doesn't lead to impacts under it, it can significantly increase your chance of winning the round. That being said, if both of you have the same FW or have minimal differences, show me why your impacts tie better into the framework chosen for the round.

Policy/LARP:

I did a lot of debate surrounding policy style arguments. The key things I look for in a round are framework, weighing impacts, and good clash in offense/defense debates. I like to hear substantial impacts so I can evaluate the round easier and I'm also a fan of good blocks/defensive arguments that can disprove the opponent's arguments. I think this being well explained and breaking link chains is a good way to make the round more interesting.

Theory/Ks:

I'm okay with Theory as long as you explain it well. I'm not a big fan of this style of debate unless a situation has come up where it is needed. Same with friv theory - not the biggest fan but will still listen to it and can vote on it. I prefer to not drop the debater, default to no RVIs as well. In general, if your opponent clearly has no idea what theory/disclosure theory is and how to respond to it, just be polite and treat is as another argument instead of basing the entire round on it rather than a substantive level debate.

With Kritiks, I see them as a competitive argument that can be run. However, the warnings I will give with this as with everything else is be clear with what foundation you are using and explain your solvency really well. Having a layman's explanation at the top of your Kritik so I understand what it is about will make a big difference.

Extra:

Most of this comes down to being clear where you are on the flow and how you will best win the round based on whatever argument you decide to run. Sitting/standing is all okay as long as you're comfortable and I'm able to hear you loud and clear. You'll most likely get good speaks if I can hear you well. Be nice to your opponent. As competitive as we make debate, it's supposed to be fun and enjoyable for everyone. Have a fun time debating and whatever you want to do that makes the round more entertaining for my time with you is appreciated!

I've been judging LD and PF debate for 11 years, mostly locally but also at nationals and some circuit events.

LD
I tend to prefer traditional V/VC debate, as that is what I am most experienced in, but I am open to progressive LD with some exceptions (see below).

This is my preferred form of debate: I look for strong framework threads from contentions up through criterion and value. I pay close attention to cross-ex questions and answers. I prefer quality over quantity, which means I like focused, robust, tightly-knit, well-reasoned arguments, and not an evidence barrage designed to overwhelm your opponent. Ultimately, I'm looking for clear clash.

Counterplans are fine only if topical. If you are planning to read a K, do so at your own risk. I tend to be more receptive to Ks that directly challenge an assumption within the resolution as opposed to calling some aspect of your opponent's presentation offensive or unethical. If you are running anything complex, explain it thoroughly and avoid jargon, because I likely will not be familiar with it given my traditional judging background. I am OK with fast talking, but do not spread. If you have a quick delivery, please share docs. I do flow. Anything beyond Ks and plans (tricks, spreading, theory, etc.) are a no-go.

PF
Like LD, I prefer a traditional PF debate with clearly delineated contentions, a strong framework and good linkage between contentions. Because a close round usually comes down to evidence clash, I want you to make clear to me which evidence you consider strongest and why it should sway me. Similarly, I expect you to help me understand how your evidence and arguments stacks up against your opponent's. On cross-ex I look for good, probing, thoughtful questions that help me see potential weaknesses in your opponent's case. Gotcha questions are a non-starter and should be avoided.

PF is not CX — do not spread. That said, I am OK with a rapid delivery, but please share docs if that is your tendency.

General notes:

• Don't forget the resolution — a good argument that does not effectively address the resolution can be a loser.

• I will vote for anything that is not racist, sexist, abusive, etc. as long as you win the argument.

• Do not be abusive or try to win simply by overwhelming your opponent (you likely will not win this way).

• I will ask to see evidence at the end of the debate if I need clarity or better understanding. My asking to see evidence should not be construed as meaningful for either side.

• If you have any questions, feel free to ask. I am happy to talk about myself and my paradigm.

Pronouns: he/him/his :)

Email: zoe.c.soderquist@gmail.com

Yes I want to be on the email chain. I will -2 speaks if you ask for my email, it's at the top of my paradigm. If you're unintelligible and don't send chain it's not going on my flow.

Background: I'm a private coach and previous coach at SWSDI and Brophy. I debated LD for four years and one year of college policy. While I specialized in LD, I've tried every debate event at least once.

-----------------------------------

LD/Policy TLDR

Read anything at any speed and I can probably evaluate it (though preferably slow down, even just a tiny bit, for author name and tags). Ask specific questions if you have weird things you want to run that an average former debater judge wouldn't understand.

If you're reading obscure literature, I would appreciate a brief explanation.

For theory, I don't mind if you read a shell but I don't like when debaters read several shells purely out of strategy when no abuse occurred or to throw off a novice.

Don't be rude, I will dock speaks and it will affect my decision.

I love signposting, weighing, proper extensions

For policy--I have had consistent problems with rounds running super late because sending takes forever. You get 5 min TOTAL for the round for sending. People constantly pretend that they're having tech issues just to prep more and it's quite obvious. I'm sympathetic to true issues but if there is not a good reason to go over 5 min it gets taken out of prep.

-----------------------------------

Defaults (I can change if you explain why):

Tech > truth

Comp worlds > truth testing

RVIs good

Competing interps > reasonability

DTD > DTA

-----------------------------------

Random:

Flex prep is fine

Tag team is fine

I will not be timing unless you ask.

Don't care if you sit or stand.

No using rest of cross for prep.

Asking for cards after speeches is fine, but actually reading cards is on prep. If you ask for the card during cross, you can use cross time to read it.

If your opponent asks for a piece of evidence during their prep, they can keep prepping the whole time it takes you to find the card. You get two minutes max and then I'm deleting it from my flow.

Tag team cross is fine.

-----------------------------------

Misc LD/policy things:

I don't think you have to read a framework with a plan, but if your opponent reads one then you're kind of screwed. I will eval a framework if there is one and framework is important for me.

Please label each section of your K (or any case, for that matter), it's really hard to figure out things when it's not labeled so it helps your case.

If you're running a pre-fiat ROB, you still need to answer your opponent's post-fiat framing (if applicable) to fully win framing.

Please follow all general LD rules (no new in 2, no conflicting offs, no double turns, etc.)

------------------------------------

PF paradigm- I was an LD debater but I did PF a a few times. Knowing my LD background, you can feel free to read framework or non-traditional PF arguments. HOWEVER, I feel PF should be a debate for a lay judge so everyone can understand it, so if you have a lay panel and you run that stuff be warned that might not end up favorably.

TLDR- If you have a tech panel do what you like, but on a lay panel I will be less flexible so you should act like I'm a somewhat experienced lay judge in such a situation. Additionally, reading progressive in front of an LD judge who did a lot of that stuff might be bad if you don't structure it properly or understand what you're doing.

- Asking for cards and reading isn't on prep unless the panel disagrees.

- I watch cross it shouldn't be used as a rebuttal it should be a time to actually ask questions. Please don't excessively talk over each other, keep it civil.

- Defense and offense aren't sticky I need extensions in summary or I don't bring it into final focus.

- No new arguments in final focus.

- Ask me any other questions, or refer to my LD/policy paradigms.

------------------------------------

Congress-

- Do not use debate terminology like "extend," "outweigh," or "vote aff."

- I care more about rhetoric than argument in a congress speech. Construction > content.

- Giving a good speech is not a guaranteed first place. You have to be active within the round (asking questions + motions) to do well. I keep track of people who raise motions and ask questions.

- Please avoid using a computer and/or fully prewritten speeches. At least print out the speech and paste it on a legal pad (c'mon, it's very easy to fake a speech).

- There is a huge PO shortage on our circuit. If you step up to PO, do a decent job, and (if I'm parli) are also active in the other session, you will receive a good rank as a result. If it's your first time POing, ask the parli questions and try your best and you probably can still get a decent rank. It's all about trying your best. But, even if you don't perform the best as PO, you can still make ranks by following the above suggestions in the next session!

Email - chulho.synn@sduhsd.net.

tl;dr - I vote for teams that know the topic, can indict/rehighlight key evidence, frame to their advantage, can weigh impacts in 4 dimensions (mag, scope, probability, sequence/timing or prereq impacts), and are organized and efficient in their arguments and use of prep and speech time. I am TRUTHFUL TECH.

Overview - 1) I judge all debate events; 2) I agree with the way debate has evolved: progressive debate and Ks, diversity and equity, technique; 3) On technique: a) Speed and speech docs > Slow no docs; b) Open CX; c) Spreading is not a voter; 4) OK with reading less than what's in speech doc, but send updated speech doc afterwards; 5) Clipping IS a voter; 6) Evidence is core for debate; 7) Dropped arguments are conceded but I will evaluate link and impact evidence when weighing; 8) Be nice to one another; 9) I time speeches and CX, and I keep prep time; 10) I disclose, give my RFD after round.

Lincoln-Douglas - 1) I flow; 2) Condo is OK, will not drop debater for running conditional arguments; 3) Disads to CPs are sticky; 4) PICs are OK; 5) T is a voter, a priori jurisdictional issue, best definition and impact of definition on AFF/NEG ground wins; 6) Progressive debate OK; 7) ALT must solve to win K; 8) Plan/CP text matters; 9) CPs must be non-topical, compete/provide NB, and solve the AFF or avoid disads to AFF; 10) Speech doc must match speech.

Policy - 1) I flow; 2) Condo is OK, will not drop team for running conditional arguments; 3) Disads to CPs are sticky; 4) T is a voter, a priori jurisdictional issue, best definition wins; 5) Progressive debate OK; 6) ALT must solve to win K; 7) Plan/CP text matters; 8) CPs must be non-topical, compete/provide NB, and solve the AFF or avoid disads to AFF; 9) Speech doc must match speech; 10) Questions by prepping team during prep OK; 11) I've debated in and judged 1000s of Policy rounds.

Public Forum - 1) I flow; 2) T is not a voter, non-topical warrants/impacts are dropped from impact calculus; 3) Minimize paraphrasing of evidence; I prefer quotes from articles to paraphrased conclusions that overstate an author's claims and downplay the author's own caveats; 4) If paraphrased evidence is challenged, link to article and cut card must be provided to the debater challenging the evidence AND me; 5) Paraphrasing that is counter to the article author's overall conclusions is a voter; at a minimum, the argument and evidence will not be included in weighing; 6) Paraphrasing that is intentionally deceptive or entirely fabricated is a voter; the offending team will lose my ballot, receive 0 speaker points, and will be referred to the tournament director for further sanctions; 7) When asking for evidence during the round, refer to the card by author/date and tagline; do not say "could I see your solvency evidence, the impact card, and the warrant card?"; the latter takes too much time and demonstrates that the team asking for the evidence can't/won't flow; 8) Exception: Crossfire 1 when you can challenge evidence or ask naive questions about evidence, e.g., "Your Moses or Moises 18 card...what's the link?"; 9) Weigh in place (challenge warrants and impact where they appear on the flow); 10) Weigh warrants (number of internal links, probability, timeframe) and impacts (magnitude, min/max limits, scope); 11) 2nd Rebuttal should frontline to maximize the advantage of speaking second; 2nd Rebuttal is not required to frontline; if 2nd Rebuttal does not frontline 2nd Summary must cover ALL of 1st Rebuttal on case, 2nd Final Focus can only use 2nd Summary case answers in their FF speech; 12) Weigh w/o using the word "weigh"; use words that reference the method of comparison, e.g., "our impact happens first", "100% probability because impacts happening now", "More people die every year from extreme climate than a theater nuclear detonation"; 13) No plan or fiat in PF, empirics prove/disprove resolution, e.g., if NATO has been substantially increasing its defense commitments to the Baltic states since 2014 and the Russian annexation of Crimea, then the question of why Russia hasn't attacked since 2014 suggest NATO buildup in the Baltics HAS deterred Russia from attacking; 14) No new link or impact arguments in 2nd Summary, answers to 1st Rebuttal in 2nd Summary OK if 2nd Rebuttal does not frontline.

Hello, I am Naveen Thogati. This is my second-year judging novice LD. I prefer quality over quantity in your argument. I would request that you do not spread so it is easier for me to understand your arguments. Thank you.

Hey I’m Zach I did parli in hs . Im down with spreading but make sure analytics are sent In the email chain. Add me to the chain

Zachtom101@gmail.com

About:

Hi, I’m Asher (he/him). I competed in LD from 2017-2020 and qualified to the TOC twice. Shortened my paradigm for efficiency – feel free to email/message me if you have any questions about my opinions on specific arguments. Other events at bottom

Email: ashertowner@gmail[dot]com

Online Debate:

1. It’s in your best interest to go at 50-65% speed for analytics and 80-90% speed for cards. Slower on tags, conversational pace for short tags that are 1-3 words/plan texts

2. Record your speech locally to send in case there are network/wifi issues. I will not let debaters regive speeches – if you didn’t record it locally I will vote off of what I have on my flow

Judging philosophy:

1. I will vote on anything as long as it is won, not blatantly offensive, and follows the structure of an argument (claim, warrant, and impact). My decisions are always impacted first and foremost by weighing, no matter what style of debate you choose. I value argument quality and development – I’m unlikely to pull the trigger on cheesy, one-line blips and reward debaters that perform quality research and explain their positions well.

2. You must take prep or use CX if you want to ask your opponent what they did/did not read

3. I will not vote on anything which occurred outside of the round (with the exception of disclosure) or use the ballot as a moral referendum on either debater. Genuine safety concerns will be escalated and not decided with a win or a loss.

4. "Insert rehighlighting" - you should be reading the card if you're making a new argument distinct from the one the evidence made when it was initially introduced. Insertions are okay if you're providing context, but you should briefly summarize the insertion. I'm unsure how to enforce this besides being a little annoyed if you go overboard, but if your opponent makes an argument that your insertion practices are toeing the line I'll be inclined to strike them off my flow

Preferences:

1. I think theory can be an invaluable check on abuse and enjoy creative interpretations that pose interesting questions about what debate should look like. The more bland and frivolous the shell the more receptive I am to reasonability. Reasons to reject the team should be contextual to the shell – otherwise rejecting the argument should be able to rectify the abuse. Counterplan theory is best settled on a competition level

2. Kritiks should be able to explain and resolve the harms of the affirmative - the less specific the link arguments, their impact, and the alternative the more likely I am to vote aff on the permutation and plan outweighing. Impact turns are underutilized. 2NR fpiks = new arguments unless clearly indicated earlier in the debate

3. I have no strong ideological predispositions against planless affirmatives. However, in a perfectly even matchup I would likely vote on framework

Evidence ethics:

I will end the round and evaluate whether or not the evidence is objectively distorted: missing text, cut from the middle of a paragraph, or cut/highlighted intentionally to make the opposite argument the author makes (ie minimizing the word “not”). For super tiny violations like powertagging I’d prefer you just read it as a reason to reject the evidence.

Misc:

Be nice to your opponent! Will nuke your speaks if you are too rude, especially if your opponent is a novice or is making a good faith effort to get along

PF stuff:

PLEASE TIME YOURSELVES.

I'm comparatively less involved in this event and so I'll try not to impose my opinions on its conventions. For varsity, I'd prefer both teams share their evidence prior to their speeches, and I dislike paraphrasing as a practice but won't automatically penalize you for it. Speed is fine but not ideal given the norms of the activity. Generally speaking, I would prefer you not read progressive-style arguments given this format's time limitations. Other than that, just weigh.

I am a lay parent judge, with 3 yrs of experience judging PF and LD.

Public Forum:

I’m okay with most arguments as long as the evidence provided is clear and concise and I can see a clear link from your argument to the conclusion you make. Be sure to extend your arguments through Final Focus, I’m only going to consider them if you do. Impact weighing is crucial and wins rounds: tell me why your impact outweighs. Don’t spread; if I can’t discern your words, I won’t flow them.

Cross Ex: I believe that Cross Ex is a crucial part of the round. Maintaining composure and delivering sound responses is an essential part of debate and shows your knowledge of the case and ability to think fast on your feet.

Lincoln Douglas:

DO NOT SPREAD !! If you do I will drop you. Use logical, well reasoned arguments, support it with evidence and also highlight their value and impact. Dont simply read lengthy quotations - instead summarize them to explain how they support your contention(s).

And finally, be respectful of your opponents, and have fun.

I debated PF for 4 years in high school, however have limited experience with LD. I'm not very keen on progressive arguments, and if you still choose to run such a case, I will likely fail to understand and probably drop you. Please stick with traditional debate and speak clearly for my sanity and your opponents'. Even though I have debate experience, please treat me as a lay judge in rounds and explain your args clearly. Pls and ty <3

I am the Scott Woods who teaches and coaches at BASIS Scottsdale in Arizona. There are others. For instance, I am not the slam poet Scott Woods (although I enjoy his work), so if you try a slam poetry case because you think that your judge is a pretty famous slam poet, you will probably be disappointed by the ballot.

About me: I teach middle school English and high school speech and debate. I competed in interp and platform events in college. I'm a Scoutmaster, a Republican, and I go to church regularly. Many people who know me don't believe that I am as conservative as I think I am.

I want the debate round to be for the benefit of the debaters. I have been coaching and judging debate for several years, mostly in PF, but some LD. I also judge policy rounds occasionally. I've judged at the TOC four times and at NSDA Nationals three times. When I judge on a panel, my decision is often different from the majority, possibly because my judging skills are so refined and subtle, or maybe for other reasons that escape me.

I think of debate as an educational game that should be fun, challenging, and life changing for the good. I don't like sneaky approaches to debate, tricks, or unsporting behavior. I especially don't like anything that attempts to achieve an unfair advantage over an opponent. Among the behaviors I don't like to see are spreading, because it seeks to gain a time advantage by squeezing more content in the given time, forcing one's opponent either to spread or to be disadvantaged, because it makes debate into a ridiculous exercise (and I consider making good things appear ridiculous in order to achieve personal gain to be bad form), and because it is aesthetically unpleasant (and I consider intentional ugliness inflicted on others to be bad form). Also, if you spread I won't flow as much, won't understand as much, and won't believe you as much. If both teams spread, then I'll just have to guess at who won, which is very likely something that you don't want me to do. Please speak in a clear, persuasive voice at a reasonable public debate speed, and be sure to point out when the other side is spreading, show the harms, then show why they should lose on that. I'll probably buy it.

If your debate strategy includes using tactics that have the effect of giving you an unfair advantage over your opponent, your chances of winning will go down. Your arguments should give you the advantage, not your sneaky approach, your hidden claims, your abusive framework, or your tricky wording. Again, call out your opponent's sneakiness. This is especially fun and elegant in an LD round when your opponent values morality, justice, fairness, etc., and you call them out for violating standards of morality, justice, or fairness.

I prefer clear, well-reasoned arguments that are logically valid and well supported by warrants and evidence. I also value impacts. Show me magnitude and probability. I will evaluate these by taking on the stance of an intelligent person who is well educated, open minded, and not a fool. If you read a card but don't put it into the context of a clear argument, then I won't care about it. You have to use evidence to support your warranted arguments. Your cards are your evidence. I hear many LDers giving lengthy quotes of dense philosophy, without contextualizing the quoted speech. I would much prefer that you summarize the entire argument of the philosopher clearly, briefly, and accurately, rather than quoting some paragraph that seems to support your interpretation. I almost never buy appeals to authority. If you say that Philosopher X says Y, therefore Y is true, I will probably not believe you. Feel free to call your opponent on this.

Since I think that debate is a worthwhile activity that can positively shape the character of youth, I value having fun and being nice. I don't want to spend an hour or so with people who are being mean to each other. Let's have fun and enjoy the round.

I won't leave my knowledge, training, or prejudices at the door, mainly because I can't (if I were truly tabula rasa, I would be an infant or an imbecile). Instead, I'll try to be aware of them and limit the impact of my own opinions or knowledge on the debate. If you don't make the argument, I will try not to make it for you. You must do all the work in the debate. I will, however, apply my knowledge of effective argumentation and the "reasonable person" test to the arguments in the debate. If you give me a weighing method and a clear path to signing the ballot for you, your chances of winning the round go up. Please understand that I will fail to leave behind my biases, assumptions, prejudices, etc. This is a feature of being human. We can't control the processes of our thought very well, and we are largely unaware of what guides and controls our thinking. Your job as a debater is to make these biases, assumptions, and prejudices irrelevant against the overwhelming power of your arguments. Good luck.

Please understand that I will likely be judging you after having taught children all day or having traveled a long distance and slept poorly. I will probably not be at my best. This is true for many of your judges. You should consider taking this into account when you write your cases and make your arguments. After you lose a round that you think you should have won, don't complain about the stupid judge. Instead, consider what you could have done differently to compensate for that judge not being at his or her cognitive best. That's your responsibility. I don't want to think during a round. Thinking is hard. It's not my job. I often disappoint debaters when I am required to think. Your job is to pre-think the round for me, better than your opponent does. The team that does this best will win.

It's up to the round to decide on the framework. If your framework is abusive or unreasonable, I'll drop it and favor your opponent's analysis, especially if your opponent calls it out as such. I prefer realistic frameworks that generously look at the resolution as though the debate were really a public forum (even in LD) for discussing an important issue. I also prefer realistic arguments that are accessible to the public.

It bothers me when debaters don't know their case because someone else wrote it, they haven't researched the topic, or they are just using the cards that came with the briefs without trying to understand the bigger picture. This become a problem when debaters misinterpret cards or philosophers they don't understand. If your opponent calls you on your card and disputes what it means, then I will call for the card at the end of the debate and make my own judgment. I don't want to do this for a number of reasons, mainly because I don't want to do the work that you should be doing. That being said, I know a lot about many subjects, so if I think that you are misinterpreting a card, I may call for it, even if your opponent has not called you out on it. I don't like to do this, but I also don't like misinterpreted or false cards to affect a round, and I don't expect high school students to have comprehensive knowledge of the world. If I think that your card was misinterpreted, then I will drop the argument it supports.

Please do the work for me. Make it easy for me to decide who wins. Tell the story of the round. Be organized on the flow in your rebuttals.

If your opponent calls for a card, they may continue to prep while you search for it, without that time counting against their prep. This is the procedure at the TOC, which I particularly like because it encourages teams to provide their opponents with the cards they ask for in a timely manner. If you don't have the card, and the context surrounding it, then I will drop the argument that is supported by the card. If your card clearly says something other than what you say it does, I will very likely vote for the other side. Please don't misrepresent your evidence.

Regarding policy debate: Every round that I have judged in policy debate has come down to judge adaptation. Whoever adapts best to my limitations as a judge (see above) will likely win the round (or, if you prefer, my ballot). My recommendation is that policy debaters should have two cases: one that they normally run and another that they write for judge adaptation. Debaters should also practice adaptation whenever they can, making sure that their arguments are comprehensible (at a minimum) and convincing (this should be the target) to normal, educated people.

Please speak clear, no spreading. I enjoy summaries and when contentions are clearly stated. Weigh the implications and convince me overall. Please time yourselves. I will take some notes but I won’t flow the entire round.