I did debate for 4 years while I was in high school, primarily congressional debate and world schools debate. I look primarily for quantified data and good uses of rhetoric. Being rude to fellow competitors will not reflect well on you upon my ballot. I fully expect refutation after the first cycle or two of the round. 
When judging Pf or LD, I don’t particularly enjoy spreading unless you know you are speaking clearly.  I am looking for strong arguments and again heavily favor quantified evidence. I highly favor traditional LD. 

Hello there, my name is Akhil Nadithe (he/him). I am extremely familiar with PF, LD, poetry and Extemporaneous speaking. I am familiar with WSD, BQ, and most types of interp.

Email address: ask for email address in round.

First and foremost, please do your part to make debate a safe, educational environment. Don't be racist, sexist, homophobic, Islamophobic, ableist, exclusionary or discriminatory in any way.If you are, I will drop you

Paradigms are TLDR so here are some bullet points

Tech>Truth

I love trix+meme cases (Debate is supposed to be fun)

Pls send me both cases and I would also like to see asked for cards aswell

DON'T SPREAD, I will stop flowing.

Please tell me what you think my RFD should be in the last speech.

I don't flow cross. If you want me to vote on something that happened in cross, bring it up in the next speech.

Second rebuttal must frontline turns.

Extend links, warrants, and impacts.

Have fun

Hi! I'm a junior at FAU HS and this is my 6th year competing in congressional debate.

Debate is not a game
You're usually discussing matters of life and death -- this entire activity is a dialectic about how to improve the nation and the world. Your rounds are about more than just getting the 1 or a W. Similarly, debate affects the lives of people who participate in it. Success can mean scholarships or admittance to great colleges. Please don't trivialize how important that can be for people.

"Principally!!!" is a trendy new filler word in congress
I WILL mark you down for saying this. It adds nothing to your content and does not make you sound smarter. Also a nice little litmus test to see if you actually read my paradigm lol.

Speeches & style -- I'm judging you based on the result, not the process.
"Constructive," "rebuttal," and "crystallization" speeches are a social construct! They are a lens to understand your role as a speaker, not a strict blueprint for a speech. I don't care if you use CWDI, block structure, or just freestyle. I don't care if you use a legal pad or an iPad or nothing. These are just your tools -- I'm judging you based on the result, not the process.

If I've heard your exact speech before I will literally drop you even if it's the best speech in the round. Do not pawn other people's prep off as your own.

No one knows how to weigh in congress so please weigh.

Empirical citations =/= Causal analysis. Telling me why your arguments are true and why they matter are different things entirely. Don't mix em up!

In terms of congressional debate, most rounds have two issues: the debate is surface-level yet pretty damn confusing. I love speakers who can cut through to the heart of a topic and implicate that back to the debate as a whole.

I appreciate original, novel, and funny rhetoric. Try to distinguish yourself!

Delivery & presentation
Presentation is necessary to help you get your point across. If you neglect presentation that will reflect on your overall performance.

OK so people have started using iPads a lot more since I first wrote this paradigm. For context, I don't know anyone who has been using an iPad for longer than I. If you use an iPad, you need to look and sound like a fluent speaker with a legal pad. Bulky cases will weaken your performance. Having to hold the iPad in front of your face the whole time will weaken your performance. Pad dependency, as always, will seriously count against you. The iPad is a tool, not a crutch.

Laptops are a flat out no. You won't get a rank from me speaking off a laptop.

Love padless performances, they're impressive af.

Presiding officers
POs are the worst part of congress. There is no way to fairly rank a room of speakers against someone whose entire job is to update a spreadsheet and bang a gavel. If I had it my way, every round would have a tournament-provided PO. But don't worry. I have a fair way to evaluate POs regardless of anything else: Bad POs will be dropped, good POs will at least get a rank good enough to advance to the next round.

A good PO is fast, fair, aware of parliamentary procedure & tournament-specific rules, and serves as a leader and problem-solver in the round.

I rank POs in final rounds differently. I don't think POs deserve to champ unless they do something brilliant or demonstrate exceptional leadership. I've never seen a final round where I thought the PO deserved to champ, even though they often do. I will never give a PO the 1 in a final round. Think that's unfair? Not really. POs often champ without getting a single 1. If I'm judging a debate tournament, I'd rather give the 1 to a debater.

If you're a PO and get no feedback from me, that means you did a good job. Fret not.

Other stuff
"Automatic previous question after 3 speeches on the same side" is not a rule unless we're at TOC or tournaments that specifically use TOC rules.

Speech equity is great and important, but there is no such thing as a formal base system. I have nothing against someone getting the chance to speak more than everyone else if it keeps debate going and fresh.

Don't yell or be mean in cross-ex. Avoid talking over eachother. If someone starts yelling or talking over you in cross-ex, let them. I promise it's more strategic to let them look bad and perhaps call them out for it, compared to fighting fire with fire. That being said, questioners AND answers should keep questions AND answers concise.

I see all the politicking for what it really is

Pronouns: he/him/his

Congress: This is a speech AND debate event. I value the debate side of things a lot more than the speech side-- if you don't have ref after the sponsorship, I'm not going to rank you over someone who does, no matter what. (and if you're the sponsor, it wouldn't hurt to also put some preref in). And when you're giving a speech last cycle, I really don't want to hear a constructive point.

The speech side of things isn't crucially necessary, but having it in your speech gives you a major advantage in my rankings.

Other than that, entertain me-- I enjoy larping and humor of all kinds in speeches as long as it isn't insensitive. On that note, don't be racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, or bigoted in any way. Doing so is the easiest way to get a 9 from me. As long as you don't use your political views to be discriminatory towards others, and your argument is well substantiated/from a source that isn't considered extremely unreliable, I'm willing to entertain very conservative or very liberal points. I'll try to not project my political views in any way on your ballot.

- In prelims, your speech should be 2:55-3:15. I'll rank you down a lot if its anything longer or shorter than that. I'll also rank you down for trying to break base 1/2 if your chamber is doing it. In out rounds, all of these things are a given.

- Also in prelims, I'll rank POs right after higher-level speakers, likely around 3rd to 5th. In out rounds, I'll give you the 3 or 4 if you don't make any major mistakes.

- Don't be aggressive in speeches/questioning-- I get that you're passionate about these issues, but I won't buy it if you're screaming.

Most importantly (besides not being a racist), have fun!

send speech docs

2x pf toc qual, couple of bids, not very familiar with theory/k's but am willing to evaluate them, will presume 1st if not offense, also did speech & WSD, and ran a few tournaments here and there

I flow

Hi! I’m Hannah Tuttle. I reside in Boca Raton, Florida, and have been active in NSDA for four years now. Now that we have that aside, I’d like to cover my general rules and specific advice for events.

Generally, I greatly appreciate being called by she/her pronouns. You may refer to me as Hannah, Ms. Tuttle, ma’am, Judge, whatever works for you as long as it is correctly gendered. If you have specific pronouns you would like to be called by, please inform me and your opponents before you begin speaking (when you spell your name, for example). You are more than welcome to wear cultural formal clothes or affordable clothes if this makes debate more accessible to you- it will not be held against you. Similarly, for all my ladies and skirt-wearers out there, I will not judge the height of your heels, length of your skirt, style of makeup, or hair as long as it is not blatantly showing anything I should not see. Please always be courteous to your opposition and avoid speaking over the other side too much. This is a red flag to me and can result in the deduction of points.

In Public Forum, I prefer quality and well defended arguments over having a large number of arguments. Having four or five contentions only works if you have adequate time to support all of those arguments and explain their relevancy to the overall point. I side with whichever side is more impactful, not whichever side speaks the fastest or fits the most words in. If I cannot understand you, I cannot judge you, so speak audibly and with proper diction. I do check your sources and I do side with arguments that use less biased sources, so try to keep it truly informative and not opinionated whenever possible. Avoid talking over the other side in cross ex unless truly necessary. Finally, avoid picking niche topics that are so obscure the other side can barely fight them. They’re usually less impactful arguments with less relevancy and they come off as just trying to outsmart the other side through technicalities rather than solid practice.

In Congress, I tend to judge on the content and the performance. Congress is a mix of facts and rhetoric. I prefer speakers who can deliver clever and well thought-out speeches with proper sources and decent presentation. I myself move around a lot while speaking, so I don’t tend to care about your movements as long as you are able to speak with a good flow. Please introduce yourself and spell your name clearly (and include pronouns if you’d like) so I can refer to you properly. Keep cross ex as succinct as possible as answering a variety of questions can really boost your argument. Be active in asking questions as an audience member.

Don’t forget to have fun!! Debate is a beautiful art form and I love participating. I’m always here to support you if you have any questions. We’ve all been novices at some point. :)

Looking forward to seeing you compete!

Welcome to my debate dissertation.

John Paul Stevens '23 + UT Austin '27 (Math)

I mostly did congress during high school but find myself usually judging circuit(ish) LD. I now occasionally do APDA (college debate) and run a debate camp.

I believe debate is a game with educational implications. The purpose of this paradigm is not to tell you how to debate, it is simply a way for me to communicate my argumentative bias and broader debate philosophy to competitors. You choose what you do with the information in this paradigm. With that being said, if you think my decision is incorrect, you are welcome to post round me. As long as you remain respectful, I am always willing to have an educational discussion that can improve both my judging skills and your debating. However, if the tournament directors get upset, that's on you.

I'd prefer speech drop, but if not, put me on the email chain: ethanjwilkes@gmail.com

Now for the fun stuff. Buckle up cause I'm a yapper.

Congress:

The round starts in 5 minutes and you’re asking “is the judge flow?”: The easiest path to my 1 is for you to stop making arguments that you think are decent or good and start making arguments that you think will WIN the debate. There is a very key difference. Answer that argument nobody else will and defend your side's winning condition if you want my 1.

The long version:

Zach Wu once said, "[Congress] is neither a debate nor speech event. It is a game of raw persuasion: however you choose to win that game is totally up to you." I find this is to be the perception of the event I align most closely to.

Controversially, I am fine with you speaking with an ipad or laptop for accessibility purposes. I believe that being discreetly anti-technology in congress is inequitable, so if this is an accommodation you need it will not harm your ranking. With that being said, you should still not be reliant on reading off of whatever it is you bring up with you to speak.

Just like everyone else, I don’t like rehash, I don’t think you should give a constructive last cycle, I like refutation, etc etc. The remainder of this paradigm will be directed towards less obvious and more specific parts of congress.

I keep a scale in my head of which side I believe is winning the debate. At the end of the debate, I will rank the debaters by how much I believe they changed my scale of who is winning.

Here is an explanation of how I determine who I think is winning the debate/my general thoughts on congress:

• I seriously dislike when debaters rely on evidence without providing the logical warrant for their argument. It’s like when your math teacher tells you to show your work, if you just read a piece of evidence without explaining why your argument is true, I have no idea what you’re thinking. If you want to be most persuasive to me, make sure you explain the warrant for your argument. Evidence is supplementary.

• I also seriously dislike when debaters do a poor job of impacting. I would like a very in depth explanation as to why I should care about your argument both in the real world and in the context of the debate.

• Don’t just refute arguments willy nilly, refute the BEST arguments on the other side of the debate. It’s really obvious when debaters try to take the easy way out by refuting the arguments at the bottom of the barrel or making arguments that are not well thought out. Responding to the best ground of the other side is the best thing you can do to make your side win the debate.

• I hear a lot of arguments that are exclusively defensive (constitutionality, enforcement, etc.). I also hear a lot of arguments that don't follow the laws of uniqueness (not being dependent on a change in the status quo). So simply put, I believe that the affirmative’s job is to prove the bill is better than the status quo (and nothing else) and the negation's job is to prove the bill creates a worse world than the status quo. (this also means I will not evaluate your counter plan)

• Weighing is important, but not as important as the congress community likes to pretend it is. Yes, I need a reason to prioritize your argument over someone else's but since there are so many arguments in a CD round, it is not easy to individually weigh your argument against everyone else. So, whenever you decide to weigh, my advice would be to treat it like comparing worlds more than it is actual weighing. This also means that uniqueness is very important in my eyes because that's what characterizes each world in the debate. Remember, weighing must also serve a strategic purpose in the round. Weighing for the sake of weighing will not really give you many brownie points on my ballot.

• Have fun with structure -- Run one point and I'll think you're cool. Drop 5 warrants with no claims and I'll probably think you're even cooler. Forcing yourself to a rigid structure can seriously limit the potential of your argumentation so get creative!!!!

• It is rare that a PO will be deserving of my 1. It takes an incredible PO and a really rough chamber for me to even consider it. POs usually sit between my 3-6, but I may adjust it depending on what the break is for the round. It is also pretty rare that a PO will get my 9, but if I feel like the round was a total mess, I will consider the drop. But I generally just believe a PO should be in the background and do their best to make the judge and debaters job easier. I’m also not a big fan of flexing your accomplishments in your PO speech.

• I will always be in favor of stretching the norms of congress. What this means is up to you, but by no means do I believe that congress should be done in a specific way or that our norms are stagnant. Do things that have not been done before and make me rethink the way I view this event. I'm worried that competitors, coaches, and judges are getting bored of congress so any attempt to be interesting will be fairly evaluated.

LD (and policy):

I like good arguments and dislike bad ones...

Just kidding.

I vote for bad arguments all the time.

I'm willing to vote on anything with a warrant, tech>truth, speed is cool as long as you slow down on anything that isn't on the doc

I’m trying to become a fully tab judge robot that evaluates debates with no intervention or bias. I know I am delusional.

For your prefs:

T/Theory - 1

I am willing to vote on RVIs more than most judges but I still default to competing interps

The more friv the shell, the lower the bar for answering it is. To be clear, I will still evaluate any shell with the single exception that it is not about the appearance of your opponent.

I default DTA for T violations (but can be convinced otherwise). I am otherwise impartial on DTA or DTD

It can be really difficult to keep track of the line by line on these analytic heavy theory debates so please either slow down or put the analytics on the doc :)

K - 1

If the aff is non-T, be prepared to answer the T-Fwk, cap k, presumption, case pushback from the 1N. I truly dislike poorly prepped K debates but truly love in-depth, prepped K debates.

I really don’t like vague alts: I think you should be able to defend the alt as some action that someone can take -- even for all my set col debaters out there, you should be able to defend the pragmatic implementation of your land back alt, almost as if it was a plan. I especially dislike 2NRs that can't explain the alt or explain why it's contextual to the aff/what it does for the purpose of the debate

I view Ks as DAs with a CP, if you want to strategically kick the CP (alt) and go for the K as a disad of the aff, I’m here for it

I think teams going against the K should go for framework + extinction outweighs more often

I am willing to vote for cap good, heg good, spark, dedev, etc. However, I am NOT willing to vote for death good.

(goes with phil) Literature base I'm very familiar with: set col, marxism, security, mollow/crip pess/disabilities, afropess, baurdillard, deleuze, queer pess

Assume I know nothing about anything else

There is a serious issue with neg K teams making an argument that nobody understands then clarifying it in the 2NR and saying the 1AR mishandled. Please just be a good sport and don’t do this, explain the argument honestly if you are asked during cross.

Trad - 3

I'll judge this as tabula rasa as I can. Do not feel the need to debate "progressively" because you think that will be the most conducive to me. I will adapt myself to the round. I will say though, framework is often extremely silly in these trad debates because they are usually comparing something very similar (util vs. maximizing expected well being) or it is never implicated into the debate (framework is a lens I use to evaluate debates, not a voter in and of itself).

LARP - 3

I feel like CPs should be competitive with the plan, i guess it's fine if they are not but I find myself just buying the perm against these uncompetitive CPs the majority of the time

Mostly impartial on whether or not PICs, consult CPs, process CPs, etc are good/bad, can be convinced either way

Pls tell me what your permutation looks like "perm do both" and nothing else will leave me clueless with what to do on my flow, but I generally treat perms like a test of competition rather than an advocacy itself

I appreciate good impact turns, reading your generic spark or dedev backfile is cool, but creativity is even cooler

Pre requisite > Probability > Scope/Magnitude > Time frame

Phil - 3

Here’s how phil debates work: the AC riffs off 8 warrants for the cateogorical imperative (they are all one line and have no warrant), the 1N does not line by line them but the 1AR doesn’t extend them? the strategy in these debates never makes sense to me

I've become increasingly more tolerant of phil debates, I think you should engage more on the contention level debate rather than banking these rounds on framework. Of course you should put ink on both, but generally contention level debates are much less of a crap shoot. I would hate for you to lose the entire debate because you didn't respond to subpoint F of warrant 6 for induction fails.

My defaults:

Comparative world > truth testing

• Presumption affirms < presumption negates

• Permissibility affirms > permissibility negates

PF:

I will still probably evaluate about anything but I tend to prefer a good, fundamentally sound and traditional PF round. My other thoughts include:

• The main exception to the rule above is that I believe theory should be used as a tool in PF to set better norms. Theory by far is the non-traditional argument I am most susceptible to voting for in PF.

• PF K debates are a little silly in my eyes -- most teams are either reading surface level literature just so they can say they're reading a K or they're under-explaining more complicated literature so the debate usually becomes uneducational either way. However, if you take the risk and run the K but manage to change my perception, I will give you 30 speaks (you'll likely win the round too lol).

• Collapse in summary!

• A lot of judges want you to weigh early but I actually don't really care, as long as you weigh at some point.

• The team second speaking should frontline in rebuttal.

• I will not read evidence unless you tell me to in summary/final focus.

• Good framing arguments make me happy but don't feel the need to make any just because you think I'll like it

Worlds:

I competed pretty extensively on the international circuit. I mainly gave the 2/4, but spoke everywhere at some point. I sometimes compete in APDA in college which is basically worlds but a lot quicker and more technical.

I'd like to say I'm as tech as they come, but it truly is very difficult to evaluate these debates with 0 intervention. This is mostly because it's against the norm for you to kick arguments which makes my job a bit difficult. With that being said, I try and be as tab as I can, but forgive me if I make mistakes. My other thoughts are listed below:

• I find myself really confused with what I'm supposed to do with principled arguments on my flow. Maybe I'll evaluate it if I think the practical debate is a wash? Maybe it's how I'm supposed to weigh practical offense? Maybe it functions as a priori offense? I'm not really sure. So, if you decide to go for a principled argument, please tell me what I'm supposed to do with it on my flow and why.

• Rhetoric is SUPER cool and fun as long as it is good. This will probably not help you win the round but it will make me happy and boost your speaks.

• I think the opp block should coordinate on what they go for. Depending on what is more important in the round, one should probably dedicate a lot of time to defense, the other should be much more offensive. An 8 minute opp whip followed by a 4 minute opp reply that just summarizes the opp whip is a missed opportunity to say the least.

• Third subs are not required but can be very strategic. I usually found that when I went for them, it would rarely ever be brought up in the OA/RFD, even if it was basically cold dropped. I find many third subs to be very good if they are independent offense from the central clash of the debate. They will absolutely weigh on my ballot just like any other argument would.

• Structure speeches however you would like. Don't feel binded to some two/three question speech, I will just flow what I hear.

• Focus on the line-by-line! Win individual links and then implicate them as a larger voting issue in the round/run me through the strategic implications of the argument. This will make the round easiest for me to evaluate and will give you the best chance of winning my ballot.

• Do not be afraid to kick arguments/collapse! Very much against the norm in worlds but I would rather you do all the frontlining/extension/link work necessary for one argument than to poorly cover 3 arguments.

Extemp:

I throw away most technical argumentation factors for this event and will judge it like your AP Lang teacher. Logically sound arguments will be more important than speaking/rhetoric/jokes, but that doesn't mean they'll completely determine my ranks. Evidence is important, but not as important as people like to pretend it is. I would rather you give me no evidence but your argument makes logical sense than dump fake evidence. Also, unconventional structure is awesome and I will probably heavily reward it.

I have SO much respect for people that can do this as their main event for a long time. This is one of the most, if not the most, mentally draining events...so PLEASE take care of yourself. Drink water, eat good meals, and take breaks. This is true for every event but especially this one.

Good luck and fun debating!

Congress:

I compete in congress at the national level, and am now in my fourth year of competition.

Summary (if you don't want to read the whole thing): Flow is what gets you ranked, lay is what gets you the one.

Speeches: Solid arguments and round interaction are crucial to doing well and they're the baseline for getting ranked. Your intros and impacts, no matter how well-worded or well-delivered, don't matter if you don't have strong logical links and cards to prove that your impacts will even happen in the first place. After you've established this, in rounds where there are a lot of good arguments presented, having something like a good bar or intro, and especially cohesive speaking and round presence, is what will make you memorable. Someone who delivers their speech with confidence and clarity, perhaps adding in a bit of rhetoric, and has a strong argument will set themselves apart from everyone else in my perspective.

Ref/Weighing: Round interaction is key. You should almost always be refuting or weighing other people's arguments with your own. However, keep in mind quality doesn't equal quantity and that your refutations and/or weighing should be easy to follow. Group people's arguments together and respond in depth to it as a whole.

Questioning: Questioning won't be the difference between you getting the 1 or dropping the round entirely, in my opinion. I want to see you respond with confidence to questions after your speech. I won't pay a ton of attention to what is said, but I will notice more if you lose your confidence or someone successfully dismantles your argument. Additionally, once again, round interaction is key. Ask questions of other speakers.

POs - POs start at a 3 on my ballot and go up or down based on how the round goes. Run an efficient and organized round, lead the round through conflicts (too few speakers on one side, needing to flip, etc.), don't make an obscene amount of errors, and you will easily do well in my rankings. A few little mistakes that don't impact the flow of the round are okay in my book. We are all human, just collect yourself and move on, and I will too.

Other things: Don't be disrespectful/discriminatory/anything of the sort. That will get you dropped instantaneously. Be courteous, don't cut people off in questioning. But above all, have fun. Don't be afraid to show your personality in speeches or be passionate about a topic!

Good luck!! :)

For other debate events:

I've only ever debated in Congress, and that's where the majority of my experience is. I'll (try to) flow what you say, but given that I probably don’t know much about the nuances of your event and will become completely lost if you spread or give any tech arguments, so consider me lay.

And to reiterate what I said above, don’t be disrespectful/discriminatory/anything of the sort. That will get you dropped no matter what event I’m judging.

My email is oceanazhu@gmail.com should you need to send anything or reach out.