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 am for disclosure

If you go over 200 wpm, I will stop flowing that.

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 do congress

Do congress well and I will give you good ranks

Don't lie

In my feedback I will focus on constructive criticism, not what you did perfectly. This allows both of us to focus on what you can improve.

Speech content
- Any speaker at any point in the round can get my 1
- I don't have a bias towards any format, structure, or method. All that matters is that you debate well and clearly
- No one knows how to weigh in congress so please weigh
- Empirics =/= analysis
- I appreciate original, novel, and funny rhetoric. Try to distinguish yourself from 'congress kid #4742'
- If I've heard your exact speech before I will literally drop you even if it's the best speech in the round, don't pawn other people's prep off as your own

Delivery & presentation
- I don't weigh content against presentation "70/30" or anything like that
- Presentation helps you get your point across; don't neglect it

Presiding officers
- 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

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
- I see all the politicking for what it really is ????

Have fun, be nice to eachother, make a deliberate and conscious effort to be inclusive, go get those Ws

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!

i am a lay judge. speak slow

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!

Hello, I'm Ethan Wilkes (He/Him) John Paul Stevens HS '23. I have experience in congress, LD, PF, WSD, and extemp. 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.

With that being said,if you think my decision is incorrect, post round me

put me on the email chain: ethanjwilkes@gmail.com

Congress:

I will listen to any argument EXCEPT CONSTITUTIONALITY. It's defensive, lazy, boring, and unclear why my framework for evaluating a debate round is by how much a bill violates the rules made my bigoted white men. With that out of the way...

I absolutely love this event but believe that it needs lots of fixing to meet its full potential. Because of that belief, my paradigm is less conventional than most of the congress judges you will encounter, here are the things that I like:

1. Evidence quality is very important to me. It isn't the sole thing that will determine my rankings. but if there is something that can be quantified, it probably should. If there is an argument that you could probably find a solid piece of evidence for, you should probably have that evidence. I'm not going to drop you for responding to an argument analytically, but use evidence if your argument needs evidence.

2. I think philosophical/principle/value based arguments have a place in congress but I don't see them ran effectively very often. I'm not talking about unconstitutionality or 3 minutes of defense, I'm talking about the moral stance that a bill creates. If you're wondering what I think a good example of this is, watch Zach Wu from Yale finals 2021 on first bill. I default to evaluate impacts under util but I'm susceptible to buying implicit moral frameworks that are intuitive (Zach does a great job of this), think of this similar to a principled argument in world schools.

3. I will be flowing every speech and evaluating the round like it's LD (read LD paradigm below if you're interested). After each debate, please call for at least a 5 minute recess so I can write an "RFD" as to why I think the aff or neg won the round. My ranks will be determined by who I think convinced me the most that their side was winning the round. This is the best way for me to evaluate the flow of a round while intervening as little as possible. Do with this information as you will.

4. Weighing is important, but not as important as the congress community likes to pretend it is. Yeah, 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. Below, I have the order that I care about weighing mechanisms in a congress round (it is purposely different than LD)

Pre requisite > Scope/Magnitude > Time frame > Probability

LD:

I'm willing to vote on anything with a warrant, tech>truth, i have bad hearing so i cannot keep up with your speed unless i have a speech doc

Saying your opponent doesn't have evidence then ignoring the analytical warrant is not a compelling response

For your prefs:

T/Theory - 1

RVIs are probably bad, default to competing interps

the more friv the shell, the lower the bar for answering it is

I default DTA for T violations unless there's not difference (entire case is violation of T), I am otherwise impartial on DTA or DTD

I will not vote on a shell that is about the appearance of your opponent (yes, this includes shoe theory)

I lean more towards small schools not having to open source, impartial on whether or not new affs are bad

Non-topical Ks - 1

Please actually believe in the argument you are making, of course I have no way to know if you do, but just pls lol

If you are running anything prefiat, you should be prepared to handle the T debate that will obviously commence

Trad - 1/2

Kinda boring but not all that bad, I'll judge this as tabula rasa as I can

Policy - 1/2

CPs should be competitive with the plan

Mostly impartial on whether or not PICs, consult CPs, actor spec, etc are abusive, can be convinced either way

Pls tell me what your permutation looks like "perm do both" will leave me clueless with what to do on my flow

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

Pre requisite > Probability > Scope/Magnitude > Time frame

Topical Ks - 2

I think you should be able to defend the alt as a policy action -- 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 view Ks as DAs with a CP, if you want to kick the CP (alt) and go for the K as a disad of the aff, be my guest

not afraid to vote on a floating PIK as long as it's hinted at in the NC

I am willing to vote for cap good, heg good, etc

(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

Phil - 3

I've become increasingly more tolerant of phil debates, I think debaters going against these phil cases should engage more on the contention level argumentation rather than banking the round on them winning framework

• Comparative world > truth testing
• Presumption affirms < presumption negates
• Permissibility affirms > permissibility negates

Congress:

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 - 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 get the T4-5 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, and here's some bonuses:

1. I used to dance professionally. If you get up and execute a good pirouette while giving a turn, +1 points.
2. Bring me food +3