Background:

I am currently pursuing an undergrad degree majoring in Economics from the University of Dhaka. I have been actively debating and judging for several years now both in the global schools and varsity debating circuits.

I'm currently the Vice Chair of the Bangladesh Debating Council, which is in charge of overseeing the entire English debating circuit within Bangladesh as well as the selection of our national WSDC team. I was previously an Equity Officer at the Council and an External Equity Advisor for the Debate Network Nepal Equity Committee, helping create and implement the equity policies governing both bodies.

General Notes for speakers:

- Substance over style. Debaters coming from a myriad of different backgrounds will likely be accustomed to using that many different styles. But the best debaters are always able to convey their message just as persuasively no matter what their stylistic approach is.

- I highly value charitable engagement. It's important to know when and where to push back against your opponent, and when you ought to concede something. Strategic concessions are not to your disadvantage, they only add to the overall persuasiveness and strength of your case.

- Being comparative is extremely important. Arguments from either side might be proven to be true and important, but if they run parallel to each other without a clear-cut way in which you are breaking the deadlock, chances are that judges will need to make an arbitrary choice in deciding who wins the debate.

- Being comparative is also important when it comes to weighing different arguments against each other. You should ideally be giving reasons to judges as to what arguments matter and why.

- Doing likelihood analysis for your arguments is always helpful as it lends itself to how believable your impacts are.

- You can extend on arguments in later speeches (only exception being no brand new arguments in whip speeches) but that should not come at the cost of augmenting arguments run earlier in the debate and responding extensively to your opponents.

- It's very important that your case remains relevant to the topic of the motion at hand.

- I have no issues matching people's speed and I am quite used to following fast paced rapid fire delivery. The only thing I seek is clarity of thought and how much evidence you provide in support of your argument.

- Having a set structure is oftentimes helpful for speakers to keep track of what needs to be said but also makes it easier for judges to follow that which matters. There are many different ways in which speeches could likely be structured depending on individuals' personal preferences, while still being able to convey the important things.

- I take very thorough notes. Will likely cover the most important issues in the RFD but would be happy to give extensive personal feedback after the debate.

Hello! I mostly have a British parliamentary background, but have also debated a bit in the worlds schools format (third speeches). Here are just some tips/ things that I am looking for.

Harvard HST (Lincoln - Douglas): Read all of the below under world schools, but no marks for rhetoric. You may speak relatively fast, but don't spread. If you have "evidence" but don't also provide warrants, that means nothing to me. Don't impact outrageously.

Harvard World Schools Tournament:

1. The team that wins is the team that wins the most important clashes in the debate. Debate is all about clashes

2. Teams going for the same impact, with different but unrefuted warrants is (in most cases) not a great idea. Think about it this way, if you say that you get X, and so do the Opp, I have to judge the shift in the world caused by that clash as the difference between the two, instead of just crediting the entirety of the benefits to one team

3. I think that strong rhetoric can heavily impact the weight placed on certain impacts, but you can never win a clash, when the warrants are stronger on the other side, as a result of good rhetoric.

4. Speak slow, or I will not be able to flow (and you'll probably lose style points too)

5. The more unintuitive your argument is to the average reasonable voter, the higher your burden of proof in relation to the claim is!

6. Opp should provide independent reasons to not vote for their side. Most rebuttal, unless you are able to flip the impact to your side is purely mitigatory. This is not enough to count as a positive contribution.

6. Have fun! Statistically 50% of teams will lose the round, but if you enjoyed it/ learnt something, you're a winner 100% of the time!

I want to provide the best educational experience for the participants and go to great lengths to ensure an inclusive, constructive and equitable environment

I'm a former World Schools debater for Team Canada, and currently an APDA and BP debater.

Main things to keep in mind:

1) I like warrants. From Inko Bovenzi's paradigm: "Strong Warrants > Warrants with Evidence > Warrants > Evidence" I like this approach for two reasons: a) Evidence on its own is rarely capable of proving an argument. Debate topics are contentious issues with evidence in favor and against — maybe the evidence in favor is stronger in certain contexts and weaker in others. b) In the time constraints of a debate round, evaluating the strength of warrants is a fairer and more achievable objective than evaluating the strength of evidence. The former, done well, requires me to listen to and assess your logic. The latter requires me to read entire studies, evaluate the soundness of their methods, in many cases distinguish between causation and correlation, and ensure that the link between that evidence and your argument is sound.

2)Weigh arguments. Most rounds can be won on weighing. But weighing needs to be good. Saying "only magnitude matters, probability does not" is not good weighing. I guess in some limited cases, that will win you the round. But I can't think of any cases where it would give you good speaker scores. Any evaluation of a utilitarian outcome is necessarily a combination of probability and impact. You can argue that an impact is so great that we should prioritize it despite the low probability, but that is far from saying "only magnitude matters because we can't assess probability" or some line of reasoning like that.

3) Theory: I really don't like theory arguments, and I have no experience making or evaluating them. I will listen to theory arguments, but I won't love them.

4) Speed: Don't do anything outrageously fast. I will not penalize you for going fast. But you run the risk of underanalyzing certain claims or not communicating them clearly enough for them to be round-winning.

5) Calling evidence: I generally won't call evidence, except in some cases if you ask me to. But in general, try not to do that unless necessary. I also have a good sense of when teams are lying about or exaggerating evidence. So do not do that.

6) Be respectful to your opponents.

7) HAVE FUN!

Background/Experience - I am a first year at Harvard studying Computer Science. Debated 4 yrs of Policy and 2 yrs of LD in high school in Kansas. I do Parliamentary now for HDCU.

Email Chain: harjon@college.harvard.edu

TLDR: don't spread, don't drop arguments, explain your arguments, weigh the round, don't be hateful

For All Debate Formats:

I'm more experienced than your parent judge, but just treat me like one. I vote based on the round and the arguments within it, but will use my own knowledge if the arguments are muddled at the end of the round and the weighing isn't clear.

Speed: moderate to fast-talking, please don't spread. If I need to be on the email chain to understand, you're going too fast.

Flow: not amazing at flowing, but I will do my best to flow all your arguments. More flow than lay (60/40). If I can't keep up, I will not flow. You'll know because I won't be visibly writing.

Weighing: win the weighing, win the round (usually).

Arguments - as long as you have a good claim and reasoning and make sure I understand it, you'll be able to win on mostly anything.

Obviously, no racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. arguments or I automatically give you the loss. Please trigger warn for the others in the round, you never want to cause someone else harm.

Policy - 4 yrs in HS, only competed at state level (KS)

I like stock issues arguments a lot, but I'll vote for almost anything. I did more traditional style policy debate.

Topicality - It's not a reverse voting issue. If you win it, you win the round. Make sure you have voters and standards.

Counterplans - Conditional bad, but if you can convince me otherwise, I'll vote for it. Must be competitive with Aff.

Kritiks - I have very little knowledge of kritiks, so please explain your argument thoroughly, or else you risk me voting on who I understood/believed more.

Framework - I have to understand it to vote based on it, so explain thoroughly, or else you risk me voting on who I understood/believed more.

Theory - Disclose is bad, I will (probably) vote against you for it. For most anything else, explain well or else you risk me voting on who I understood/believed more.

Dropped arguments are true arguments - make sure to carry them through.

If you explain well enough and your logic is sound, analyticals will beat cards. Cards make up arguments, they are not arguments alone.

LD - 2 yrs in HS, went to NSDA 2021, but I was mediocre

I did more traditional LD, so I like defending the whole resolution rather than Affs with a plan. I'll still vote for plan Affs, use policy to see more about that.

Value/Criterion - probably the most important in the round. If you win why yours is better and your arguments align with it, even if you lose all the other arguments, you'll still win (usually).

Warrants/Reasoning - matter more here than evidence, so you can still win with no cards.

Kritiks - same as policy.

Topicality - same as policy.

PF - never debated ¯\_(ツ)_/¯, only judged

I was told to drop theory, so run it at your risk. If it's run, it better be 1) reasonable and 2) very thoroughly explained.

Will vote similar to policy/LD so paradigm probably applicable to PF.

Weigh and you'll usually win. Don't drop arguments. Explain well.

Make sure your final focus tells me explicitly why I am voting for you and why you win. I don't care for Aff said Neg said, that's for the summary to take care of. Final focus should make it easy for me as a judge to vote for your side.

World Schools - never debated ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Make sure your arguments are clear, organized, and logical. Explain what clashes you won, why that matters, and why it means you win the round.

Hey!

The most important thing to know if you're going to be debating in my room is how much I value fair and thorough engagements! This looks like making concessions where necessary (when the arguments have been properly analyzed and are logical) and engaging in fair and charitable comparisons.

Next up, don't be rude! Please respect your opponents.

Thirdly, I am fully cognizant of the fact that speakers have a lot of material to cover in such a small time, but please make sure you don't excessively speed through those arguments! Speak fast, but don't zoom through your speech! Calm down and speak clearly so your opponents and I understand you.

Finally, always be conscious of your burdens in the debate and do justice to them. Do not merely assert, justify those claims. Role fulfillment is a must-do!

Good luck!

Hello,

Bio: My name is Jessica Awurum and I am a Law School Student at the University of Ilorin Nigeria. I have been a debater since 2019 and have been engaged with high school debating since 2020 mostly as a judge and coach. I was also the President of the legal debate team for 2 consecutive years and currently coach with a number of debating institutions. I am very versed with all debating strategies as I have to engage a number of different debating styles on a frequent basis with my engagements on international fronts.

Email: jessicaawurum@gmail.com (same as tabroom mail)

Advice for speakers:

No matter what form of debate, here are some general rules of respect I expect all participants to follow:

• I credit good structure and organization highly as it shows intentionality and preparedness in the debate. Factors like a clear flagging of your argumentation and summary speeches that focus on clashes will all be credited. I look to them to resolve really close calls sometimes so be aware.

• Being respectful and polite is also a fundamental rule for me. I will not accept any form of rudeness Ableism, mockery, racism, homophobia and abusive tone will be hugely frowned out. This doesn't mean you can't be strategically triggering but it must be only within the content of the debate to offset your opponent and must only be on objective metrics. (That is up to you to figure out but it has to be generally objective) No yelling, interrupting, cursing, or name calling during cross. I will dock speaker points for inappropriate behavior or language.

• A trigger warning must be given for topics concerning SA, abuse, etc. If the opposing team is not okay with these topics, you are expected to have a backup argument that you can use in its place.

• I appreciate valid evidence and clear statements from them. If you have alot of specific knowledge on an area do not hesitate to use them all in a story in a song in whatever way you please. Feel free to also weaponize that expert knowledge as you see fit to point out your opponent lack of Knowledge thereof. Using references of any kind from educational to facts from games will all be accepted as binding form of evidence

• Innovative arguments are welcomed with good analysis. I am open to unorthodox argumentation and running new evaluation metrics to an old truism or likewise. Thinking out of the box and making an unconventional or radical argument will not earn you a loss especially if you engage it well. Feel free to break from standard. Be creative in a realistic way!

• I respect a good rebuttals void of individual criticism of the speaker but still as engaging. I will not credit responses that are new argumentationsas rebuttals. So make sure to tailor your responses to the immediate argument you are responding to.

• Debate fairly and do not place unfavorable burdens on your opponents. Debate theory arguments are legitimate arguments and acceptable. Please don't drop them.

Biases:

I have no inherent bias per se. I would say that I am very averse to disrespectfulness and I cannot deny that any form of discrimination or equity violation will impact your ability to convince me on anything else. Please be very respectful of everyone in the room.

That aside, I don't vote on truism but actually analysis. This means even if I know for a fact that your claim is true I will not value it if you do not prove it.

Note Taking:

This defer for the style or debating but i range from taking short note of bullet point, to noting key terms to elaborate notes. More importantly I am likely to note personal feedback for each speaker as I listen to their speech so feel free to ask for personal notes after the speech and those will be provided for you.

I am open to judging all styles of debating: Parliament, CX, Policy, Congress and other speech styles. I do not have as much experience with Lincoln Douglas mostly because I don't use it often but I Understand all the processes of it.

Finally, I am pretty decent and understanding so if you have any questions do not hesitate to ask them including feedback on the round through your coaches or parents. Also notify me of any notice I should be taking from your speech prior to it so I don't miss something you would consider as important.

Thank you .

Hello there! I’m Ishan. I am excited to hear what y’all have to say!! For what it’s worth, I haven’t been involved in a couple of years, so please explain jargon and debate a little slower than you would otherwise.

Email for LD: ishanbhatt42@gmail.com. Could you make the subject line something like: “ Tournament -- Year -- Aff vs Neg”?

Updated for Harvard 2024

Form Preferences:

1. Read what you want if it is well-warranted and well-explained. This is theoretically a content-neutral preference, but I may be worse for very short arguments with very extreme implications. The size of an argument’s implication and its length should be inversely correlated.

2. Please be sure that every word you say is understandable. I’ll say clear. If I do, please go back, and say your argument again. I don’t open speech docs until after the round, so I do want to hear all the words of the card.

3. If an argument is dropped, you get the warrant, not the tag. The implication of a dropped argument can still be contested.

4. I’m more persuaded by specific arguments. It’s hard to win no progress if you drop aff solvency, threat inflation if you concede the China war scenario, “fairness always first” without some debating about the internal link, etc.

5. Please be transparent about your argument. Don't be coy about the function or content of the argument, or else I may not understand it either! And please don’t refuse to answer questions at all.

6. The 1NC must fully develop the argument. My sense of the meta is only based on judging twice in the last two years, but I thought many off-case positions I saw weren’t complete arguments and the 1AR could’ve briefly dismissed them.

Content Preferences:

Plans/CPs/DAs:

• I really don’t need everything to lead to extinction.
• For most “cheating” counterplans, a clear theory of “what should be competitive” is most compelling.
• A perm needs explanation in the speech in which it is introduced.

Theory:

• Predictably defining the words in the topic matters the most for topicality. Once you’ve defined a word, proving a good vision for the topic regarding research, ground, limits, etc. is great.
• I basically won’t vote on bad theory arguments, especially really contrived interpretations (e.g., “may not do exactly what you did”). A solid “this is arbitrary + reasonability + don’t drop the debater” push should do the trick for me.
• Reasonability, to me, makes most sense as “voting on theory means we lose out on a substantive debate, therefore defense is sufficient.” I’m often confused by reasonability “bright line” arguments.
• Please don’t claim that a debate practice (like a new case or conditionality) makes debate “unsafe.” I feel like safety is meaningful thing and is probably outside the realm of technical debating.

Ks:

• You need to explain a structural claim, not just say the claim.
• I likely won’t vote on an argument about personal stuff.
• I really don’t understand most arguments over fiat. “Fiat” makes most sense to me as shorthand for the “is-ought” fallacy.
• I might be stricter than the median judge for neg DA links – if you “destroy the system of capitalism,” the neg is probably right about the link to the econ DA.

See also: Andrew Garber's paradigm.

Please ask in-round if interested, happy to answer any questions! :)

Hi! My name is Anh, and I'm super excited to see y'all debate! In high school, I competed mainly in WSD and attended WSDC my junior and senior years. I now (occasionally) do BP in college. 

A couple of things I look for in a round: 

1. Argument Construction/extension

When I hear your arguments, I should understand why your impact occurs, the extent to which it occurs (the degree of harm/benefit), and why it is unique to your side. 

2. Argument Interactions 

I will feel more compelled to vote for you if you weigh both mechanisms and impacts. For ex, you could tell me why your mechanism is more likely to achieve X than the other team's mechanism. Or why, assuming both mechanisms work, X impact is more important than Y impact. This type of weighing should certainly be in the 3/4s, but I welcome weighing earlier as well. 

GL!

I'm a senior at Harvard with experience in world schools and parli debate. I've never competed in PF.

General thoughts: I flow. I guess I'm tab in the way it's usually understood, but I think the way in which it's usually understand is wrong. This article was written for a different format but it's insightful and very close to how I think about debate.

Harvard Tournament 2023 (Public Forum):

1) I really like warrants. Evidence can make your argument stronger, but I weigh well-explained mechanisms very heavily. Don't claim that your argument is "just empirically true" because of cards, go beyond them and make your internal links as detailed as possible. Like Inko Bovenzi's paradigm says: "Strong Warrants > Warrants with Evidence > Warrants > Evidence"

2) Please weigh explicitly. Debaters tend to be smart and topics tend to be controversial. The logical conclusion is that both teams are usually saying something that makes sense. This is why it is crucial to weigh. If neither side weighs explicitly, you're relying on my intervention. This is unpredictable. I am moody. I'll give you a frustrating RFD.

3) I have a presumption against high-magnitude, low-probability impacts like nuclear war. I will listen to them and evaluate them, but generally believe that you're better off spending time on plausible and interesting arguments than showing how the resolution increases the risk of WW3 by one-millionth of a percent.

4) Please don't spread. Brisk conversational pace is ok but if you feel like you need to double breathe, you're going too fast.

5) I've never done a format with theory: I don't know anything about it and generally have a strong bias in favor of arguments about the topic. I will listen to theory if you read it, but make sure to over-explain every concept instead of relying on jargon--I won't know what an RVI is.

6) Be civil and respectful. I won't hesitate to drop you for being mean to your opponents.

7) I won't read a speech doc. I'll occassionally call for evidence, mostly when you tell me to, but use this very sparingly or I'll be angry at you. Remember point 1), I'm extremely unlikely to actually vote off evidence alone (unless you outright lie about it, then you'll lose!)

The most important thing to me is that you care about what you are speaking about.

WSDC asks us to debate on balance and engage with the essential clash of the motion directly. I want to see teams making solid impact analysis and taking the other team's highest ground on directly, while demonstrating to me that they would still prefer their world given a best case scenario outcome on both sides. I also would encourage you all to summarize the debate by the third and reply and give me clash categories / big picture themes. This will help me (and all of your judges) make a clearer decision and process the information of the debate more easily. A judge will find it easier to vote your your side if you make it easy for them to do so by giving the judge what is essentially RFD in your impact analysis and weighing.

I have experience debating in Worlds in high school and British Parliamentary in undergrad and coach a Worlds team currently.

Member of Harvard College Debate Union

- No Spreading!! Clear communication is a major consideration.

- Quality over Quantity

May the odds be in your favor!

Affiliated with Dutch Schools Debate College (DSDC) and ZIP Slovenia. I actively coach and judge in the World Schools format and have been on the coaching team for the Dutch national team in 2022.
Do work for any programs/schools in Texas. I I have graduated at Gimnazija Bežigrad high school in Slovenia where I competed in WS for 4 year. Attended the World Schools Debating Championship under Team Slovenia in 2016 and 2017. Do not need to be conflicted/coded with any schools.

Currently enrolled in Maastricht University, Netherlands where I'm completing a Master's in Neuropsychology. I'm the president of Rhetorica Debating society - university debate club after being a coach of the club for a year. I have competed at several British Parliamentary tournaments (Amsterdam Open, Trinity IV, Eindhoven Open).

The judging experiences include 4 years of judging in world schools format and 3 years of judging in British Parliamentary format. Experiences in coaching include 4 years in both World Schools and British Parliamentary format internationally (the Netherlands, Italy, Slovenia, USA, Turkey).

Rounds Judged in World School Debate this year:

__X___I judge WS regularly on the local level

__X__I judge WS at national level tournaments

_____I occasionally judge WS Debate

_____I have not judged WS Debate this year but have before

_____I have never judged WS Debate

Rounds judged in other events this year:

Check all that apply

____ Congress

____ PF

____ LD

____ Policy

____ Extemp/OO/Info

____ DI/HI/Duo/POI

____ I have not judged this year

____ I have not judged before

Chairing a round involves leading the consultation between wing judges, challenging them to defend their call and asking for comparisons on major clashes. You are required to see from what perspective they saw the debate and include their justification in your feedback. After a discussion with fellow judges you deliver the call (if open round) and the feedback, where you incorporate how other judges saw the debate as well.

I would describe a WS debate to someone as having a topic/motion and havig two teams where one side has to defend the motion and another one oppose it. Each side has to introduce the context, problem, definitions and mostly importantly 2-3 arguments for their side. In the first half of the debate speakers focus more on building their case and developing argumentation, whereas in the second half they focus more on rebuttal, clashes and seeing debate holistically. The team that wins the debate is the one whose rguments are still standing at the end of the debate, as well as the side that is better in terms of content, strategy and style.

When taking notes in a debate I split a page onto 6 parts and dedicate a column to each speaker. During each speech I note down the arguments, relevant examples, important rebuttals as well as possible contradictions or tensions present in the speech. Apart from making notes on the speeches I mark down the clashes and how they evolve through the debate. Lastly, I make notes on how the case of each side persists through the speeches - are there relevant logical links missing, are the arguments lacking impacts etc.

If both practical and principal arguments are presented, it depends on the motion which ones weigh more. If a motion is set out to be as a motion about beliefs, freedoms or basic principles then the principled arguments will weigh slightly more. However, if the motion is more practical, such as policy motions where we are discussing practical implementations of policies, then the practical arguments might weigh more. Nevertheless, most motions lie somewhere between that - they are not set out to be on each polar end and in that case the two types of arguments are considered equally (given it was adequatelly explained why each matters).

The way I evaluate a speaker's strategy also depends on which position they have in the debate. For first speakers it's crucial they present a clear and comprehensive framing of the debate (problem, context, model, status quo). I also observe whether they choose strategically relevant rebuttle of the other side's arguments. For second speakers strategy entails mostly how well they prioritize content in their speech, how well they use time management and filter out less relevant points of both sides and which arguments of their own side they prioritize more. For third speakers it's mostly similar - strategy concerns whether they successfully identify clashed of the debate and how well they manage time in their speech (by not focusing too much on details).

If the speaker was going too fast I would most likely deduct points from the style category as they weren't comprehensible and easy to listen to. If the fast pace tampered with how well the arguments were presented, this would consequently mean that content points would also be deducted.

If there are competing claims, it would be important to observe the depth of analysis, particularly the explanation of why one claim is more likely to happen than the other - why one trend has a higher likelihood of happening than the other. If the logical mechanism behind a claim is better explained, then that side wins the clam.

Model quibbles may be important if the difference in models would mean significant differences in argumentation. If the case is contingent on a model than the model is highly important. But if the case stands regardless of smaller variations in the model, then the model is slightly less important. Either way, teams should not replace rebuttal with attacks on the model.

If there are competing models (model vs. countermodel), it's again important to note how well each is explained. Specifically, how plausible it is in the real world, how likely t is to happen, is there fiat power for it, has it been implemented somewhere already. Besides the quality of explanation of the model, it also depends on how well the other side attacks the model. Each side has to respond to the model of the other side, however opposition has a bigger burden to defend and justify their model as proposition usually has assumed fiat and necessity for the model.

My first high school debate was in 1984, and I have judged debates since 1990s.

I believe debating is one of the most enjoyable -- and personally beneficial -- extra-curricular activities.

Hi hi

I did WSDC and whatnot in high school, so I'm familiar with the norms of worlds judging and round expectations. A couple of specific things: (1) Make sure your arguments are properly mechanized. The term fiat is thrown around in world worlds too often without proper explanation or justification. I like interesting models, just explain them well and make sure they're reasonable. (2) Please impact things. This is straightforward, but if you have an argument, tell me why it matters relative to the debate. (3) Weigh! Be incredibly explicit about why one argument is more important than another in the back half. You don't have to win all/ the majority of arguments in world schools, just the most important ones!!

No spreading and no tech just debate the topic please and thank you

Hi! I'm Navin and hopefully, I'll be judging you today!

Some things you should keep in mind:

1) Please weigh your arguments, preferably as early as rebuttal. Weighing must be comparative (don't just state how big your impact is. Actually make a comparison against the other team's impacts).

2) Have a clear narrative from the beginning. From second rebuttal onward, it should be clear what arguments you are going for. I don't like shifty strategies where teams go for arguments that they only spent 10 seconds on in a previous speech.

3) Warrant your responses. I will not be compelled to believe a piece of evidence if you just say "x author says this therefore it is true." I need a justification behind the claim. If you want me to consider responses and/or arguments, warrants and links need to be extended in every speech.

4) Speed is not an issue for me. Just send a speech doc.

5) Evidence quality is important but it is the other team's responsibility to call out bad evidence ethics, not mine. I'm not going to drop you if you misrepresent evidence but I will be less compelled to believe your argument.

6) Civility in the debate space is extremely important to me. Do not be rude or make any offensive comments. Some snarky behavior I can handle. Repeated disrespectful comments and behavior will affect your speaker points and maybe even results.

7) Progressive arguments are not my cup of tea. However, as far as I see it, they function like any other argument, so as long as you structure it like a regular arg, I should be able to understand and flow.

8) Debate shouldn't be as stressful of an activity as it is. Too many people treat it as a competition at the expense of the enjoyment of the activity and the opportunity to share your beliefs. Persuasion and appeal are core parts of debate and will help you in the real world. So remember, have fun! :)

Good luck!

Questions before round? Contact me at navindurbhakula@college.harvard.edu or Navin Durbhakula on Facebook.

For the rounds I am judging, I will be looking for appropriate mechanisation of the arguments presented, proper analysis of their full impact and clear cohesion and structure in the way they are presented. I will also be paying special attention to how you explicate the magnitude and time frame of the arguments that you believe best sum your case and help your side and stance. A crucial part of that is that you strategically collapse on your strongest argument and zoom in on their magnitude.

In terms of style, the most important thing for me is that you are first and foremost respectful of one another. There is nothing wrong with having a strong assertive style, and even a strongly critical when questioning the other team, but you should never attack another's debate person or offend them in any way while doing that. Beyond this, I appreciate clarity and being able to follow your flow from one argument to the next - in other words, slow down!

Finally, I want to be able to see clear evidence of collaboration between you and your teammate in terms of how your arguments build on top of one another without duplication and how you refer to the points made by your teammate in your speech to enhance your analysis.

P.S: my face does weird things some times when I am engrossed in notetaking or deep thought, I can promise you it is no reflection of how you're doing so don't be intimidated and have fun!

Hello! Quick background on me, I did PF all four years of high school and now do APDA/BP with the Harvard College Debating Union.

I'm a pretty standard judge:

1) Summary/Final Focus

i. I generally will only vote off offense that is included in summary AND final focus.

ii. Turns that you want me to vote off of must be in first summary.

iii. Defensive responses for the second speaking team need to be in both summary/final focus.

2) Please WARRANT the cards you care about. Otherwise, they generally don't matter.

3) YOU MUST TERMINALIZE AND WEIGH YOUR IMPACTS! If you do not do this, it will be up to my judgment what matters most in the round. (My judgment will likely not be what you like, so PLEASE collapse and weigh your voters).

4) I am not a fan of theory unless it's clearly relevant to the round.

TL;DR: speak at a fast conversational pace (or even just a conversational pace); read fewer, better-explained positions; I'll try not to intervene much. I'm bad at flowing.

Update (Harvard RR 2023): I haven't judged since last year. Please take the speed stuff seriously.

Background. I debated national circuit LD for Cambridge Rindge and Latin, qualifying to the TOC twice. I graduated high school in 2019 and have debated and judged little since then. My email is andrewg4000@gmail.com -- feel free to email me any time (even if you just have random questions about debate or want book recommendations or something).

Defaults. I aim to be as tab as possible as long as the round remains safe for the debaters. I'll try to assume whatever the debaters assume so that I minimize intervention. If both debaters assume fairness is a voter, then I'll assume that it's a voter, even if it's not explicitly justified. As a debater, I ran philosophical frameworks, theory, some policy positions, and the occasional K. Because of my experience as a debater, I will be more familiar with some positions than with others. That said, I will try my best to understand your arguments and evaluate them fairly.

Speed. Speak slowly. I do not flow off speech docs. I am terrible at flowing and listening, and always have been. I am likely much, much worse at flowing than I was as a debater, since I judge LD about once per year. You might think that while spreading you're clear, or slow, or understandable, but you're probably not. If you slow to a fast conversational pace, I will be grateful and reward you with higher speaks. Given all this, if you're going fast, don't get upset at me for missing some of your arguments.

Arguments I don't understand. I am not receptive to arguments I don't understand. (To clarify, I mean positions that were ill-explained. For example, I know something about Kantian moral philosophy, but explain it to me as though I don't.) Debaters often cut cards from dense or poorly written sources (e.g., Kant, Baudrillard... really most K and phil authors fall under here) and then specifically cut the cards so as to be as information dense as possible, making the arguments extremely hard to follow. I will probably from now on be more receptive to just not evaluating these arguments or at least having a low threshold for responses. Unfortunately, most debates I've judged have come down to trying to evaluate two positions I don't understand. My decisions in these cases are probably fairly random; you have been warned.

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

On a related note, I dislike when debaters are mean to each other. I was vicious in this sense as a debater. For example, I sometimes cracked jokes at the other debater's expense when I had a decisive advantage. I regret doing so, and this sort of behavior usually makes me uncomfortable. I particularly dislike the personal call-outs in some debates. Although in very rare instances this behavior might be justified, I think that it is more often close to bullying or intimidation than a just accusation. You are in high school, and I'd like to see you be respectful and kind to each other.

See also Ishan Bhatt's, Pacy Yan's, and Jacob Nails's paradigms.

Appendix A. Important Articles.

I highly recommend "Plato Beyond the Platitudes" by Marshall Thompson. I also recommend "Politics and the English Language" by George Orwell.

Appendix B. Miscellaneous paradigmatic thoughts.

- I don't need voters on a theory shell to be extended unless contested.

- I don't understand most issues with fiat. See this excellent article. For example, if you defend the resolution and say that you "don't defend implementation," I am willing to dismiss this argument if the other debater says "they don't defend implementation -- hahahahahaha" and moves on, unless you give a compelling explanation for why not defending implementation is coherent.

- I default truth testing.

- I default epistemic/ethical confidence rather than epistemic/ethical modesty.

- On theory, I default drop the arg, reasonability (sufficient defense is enough to reject the shell), and no RVIs. The threshold for sufficient defense depends on the strength of the arguments for reasonability. For example, if you say that theory is almost always bad, substance is amazing, and only the most extreme circumstances make the round such that the judge can't vote for the better debater, then my threshold for sufficient defense will be low (i.e., my threshold for what counts as sufficient offense for voting on the shell will be high). If I have to default to reasonability or if there are not many arguments for reasonability, then I will assume a fairly high threshold for sufficient defense.

- I don't evaluate arguments that tell me to change speaks (e.g., "give me a 30").

- I think that debaters should justify something like drop the debater if they want to make an independent voter. I am unlikely to vote on independent voters unless such a warrant is present (see above: I default drop the arg). If it's the 2NR or 2AR and you're answering an independent voter without a drop the debater warrant, quickly pointing out that the voter lacks drop the debater and providing a quick reason to drop the argument instead of the debater should be more than enough.

- I am still a bit confused about how I should evaluate 2AR weighing. Right now, I tend to think that if 1ARs have impacts to weigh against NC impacts, then they should weigh in the 1AR rather than in the 2AR. I have so far erred neg on debates where the aff could have weighed in the 1AR but waited until the 2AR to do so. I think that the same should apply to NCs against impacts from the AC. But this is probably the least certain part of my paradigm.

- Here's another thing that annoys me: people who try to spread, but they're basically going at a fast conversational speed while changing their pitch of voice so that it sounds kind of like they're spreading. Spreading doesn't help you here.

Appendix C. Against Spreading

Spreading is bad:

1. It makes debate much less accessible;
2. It makes it easier for people to get away with nonsense (e.g., cards that make no sense, extremely blippy arguments) since judges can't tell what the debaters are saying;
3. Usually it encourages debaters to learn pretty useless skills (e.g., talking extremely fast) rather than some actually useful speaking skills (speaking with good emphasis, efficiency, eloquently).

Counterarguments:

1. Spreading teaches people how to process information quickly. Reply: I haven't seen much evidence for this claim, nor that it transfers beyond a narrow type of information (speeches/lectures delivered quickly orally). Anyway, this skill is very specialized and not that useful. It's good for listening to videos at faster speeds, but most of my non-debater friends can do this too.
2. Spreading allows people to introduce more evidence, make debates more interesting, go more deeply into cool literature. Reply: See point 2 above, which moots most of this argument.
3. If I don't spread but my opponent does, I'll lose! Reply: This is why I want to enforce both debaters not spreading. Anyway, I don't think the disadvantage is that great; efficiency and good strategy can make up most of the loss.

Didn't cover most of the things here, nor did I explain them well. Hope you get the gist though.

Hey all! If you have me as a judge, chances are that I'm super excited to judge your round and meet you all if I haven't already :)

A couple things about me. I debated in PF for four years at Newton South High School. I understand how a flow works and should have no problem following along with speed (if I am having trouble, I'll let you know). Second speaking teams do not have to frontline in second rebuttal unless they want to, and first speaking teams can extend dropped defensive arguments from rebuttal to final focus.

That being said, I tend to prefer arguments that I believe over speeches that are technically dazzling. I will be willing to vote off of theory, but I am also fairly skeptical regarding how important it is. If you have to use it, go for it; if you don't, probably better to not run theory. I love good warranting, and will not vote for a point if the warrant is not extended throughout the round. (Update: If I think an argument is stupid, I will also not vote for it. Convince me!) Going for fewer arguments with great explanation and weighing is probably the easiest way to win my ballot.

Oh also, putting this in here because it's a thing people are starting to do differently. I still default NEG, not first. If you want me to explain why, just ask.

Along those lines, the worst feeling in the entire world is when you lose a judge because they voted in a way that you didn't know they were going to vote. If there's anything I can answer for you before the round, please just ask.

Jacqueline Wei has a really good paradigm. Can we pretend that I just copy-and-pasted it here?

My Background:

I debated PF for three years on local and national circuit.

I also did LD and Parli a couple times, am a novice in APDA, and can greatly appreciate big picture/philosophical arguments.

PFers- I don’t flow cross ex (so if it’s important mention it in your speech)

I look for a few things in a successful round:

1. Clear speaking: I believe one of the most important aspects to strong debating is developing oratorical skills. That being said, I want to see clear, concise argumentation. Additionally, although I flow all rounds, I am not a “tech judge”. I do not buy arguments said while spreading and I certainly will not extend things on the flow just because you say “extend this.”
2. Narrative building: By this I mean paralleling summary and final focus to enhance consistency and establish cohesive links around the issue you choose to crystallize. I need to know what the ramifications of what you are talking about mean in the big world AKA I want to see all your Impacts extended and clearly contextualized in the final speeches.
3. Weighing on impacts AND links: While weighing on impacts is the most intuitive portion, I really want to know why your link into the impact is more significant than your opponents link into theirs. Especially if you are impacting to the same thing, this is probably going to be the most crucial portion to my decision.

All of this said: I will not stand for sexist/racist/intolerant views in round. Please be respectful, be rational, be clear, be assertive, and enjoy yourself!

Hi, make funny jokes = boosted speaks

I am a career Adjudicator experienced in various formats of debating such as British Parliamentary, World Schools, Asian Parliamentary, Australs, Public Forum, Policy debate and several others.

Please be respectful to other debaters while speaking because I am very strict in implementing rules because I always want all debaters to feel comfortable in their debate rooms despite meeting people from different backgrounds and beliefs.

Go read Justin Qi's paradigm. I'll judge based on it.

FOR PF:

1. I prefer warranting > evidence
2. Please no spreading
3. Be realistic with impacts. If the impact of the case is nuclear war but it has zero plausibility, it's really hard to vote on it
4. Weigh your arguments. Multiple things in a round can be true, but they are probably not all equally important
5. I don't understand complex theory, so if you use it, I might get lost
6. Please be courteous and respectful to your fellow debaters!

FOR LD:

1. I prefer traditional LD
2. Please no spreading
3. Please don't read Ks or theory
4. I prefer warranting > evidence

I am blank slate, tabula rasa. What I hear is how I judge.

I want to understand you while speaking (I’m in sales) and I want you to debate each other for the topics presented in the round. I will not read any files unless there is a clear distinction of misunderstanding.

-Paradigm for Ash-

updated February 18th, 2022

-Background-

As a competitive debater, judge and coach of 8 years, I have experience with:

British Parliamentary, Canadian Parliamentary, Australian Parliamentary, Public Forum, World Schools. I prioritize clear mechanization in case above all else. Explain your links/ mechs and give as much context as you can.

> Off Time Roadmaps are encouraged

> You do not need to make any kind of eye contact

> I may be asking for cards

> I do flow cross fire

>I prioritize substantive rebuttal over metadebate/ tech responses.

> I do not require friendly introductions

> Using your opponents name or speaker position is fine, avoid referring to your opponents in the third person (gendered pronouns are messy!). This includes me. You can refer to me as judge, chair, panel- but do not refer to me as Madame Speaker. I will not reduce any speaker points for this, I'm just not personally comfortable with this.

> I may give low point wins.

On Theory, I value theory to be limited to a K or a potential a priori lens, akin to a model or critique. Theory is a priori, but does not proceed the value of case. It merely is a lens for me to view and understand case, rebuttal, and the rest of the debate. Run theory alongside contentions with arguments.

On Prog, contentions should. a) identify structural inequality, b) explain how it manifests vis-a-vis the debated topic, and c) how policy change meaningfully deconstructs and combats structural inequality in this instance. To merely recognize it is not enough in providing solvency against pillars of institutuionalized violence. If conditions b and c are not met, I will not count this as a Prog case.

TLDR: I am not a tech judge. Spending the second half of a PF round using condensed referential metadebate on tech is a waste of time with me. Comparative analysis should use reference to substance and not floating PF norms as I do not adhere to or even agree to all of these 'norms'. Norms can be made up by students on the fly to their advantage on unsuspecting judges, or be norms in some schools and regions and not others. Debate is not fun when you want to make up rules on the fly in order to gatekeep wins/loses. Just convince me. That's what this sport is about- persuasion- not hidden rules. I don't adhere to any norm you could throw at me in speech. Most judges don't. Most judges in JV don't know what you are talking about. Debate is a worse sport for meta-debate/ tech prioritization.

Please avoid appealing to dogwhistling and overly euphemistic language that demonizes groups of people or other ideological camps.

I openly welcome argumenation or sourcing that may use Marxist critical theory, Libertarian, Socially Conservative, Neoliberal, logic and understandings. Please do not assume my politics or preferences simply based on my education, appearance, gender, or age and try to appeal to them. I find this practice uncomfortable.

GG!

I will deduct speaker points for:

> -.5 speak for: "Good morning/ Good afternoon/ Good evening" as an introduction.

Hey guys! Really excited to be judging you this round. I have a background in debating American/British Parliamentary and Extemp Policy, and I've coached World Schools and Public Forum extensively. A few brief things to know about my judging style:

1. I'm okay with people speaking moderately quickly, meaning 1.5-2x conversational speed. If you are spreading too quickly for me to flow, I will use the policy norm of saying "clear" and expect you to slow down after that.

2. Weigh. Impact. Otherwise, I will evaluate the importance of your arguments for you, and 50% of the time it won't be in the way you want me to.

3. Even if you're in a research-based format, give some logic to back up your evidence. You will not win based on a single, unsupported statistic or quote from some old guy.

4. All POIs/crossfire must be incorporated into later speeches in order for me to count it as substantive. Explain to me why the answer you got from your opponents matters in the context of the round.

5. I do not vote off of theory. The one exception to this is trigger warning theory. Include a content warning if you are going to discuss distressing topics (e.g. sexual violence).

Harvard 2022 Update: I used to tell debaters that I liked KitKats so they could gain my favor. Due to the inability to deliver snacks online, I'll mention instead that I'll like you infinitely more if you mention Bulgaria in your speech :)

Hi y'all! I'm a second-year out who debated (well tried to) at Newton South for four years.

I'm flow enough, but extremely high speed or techiness is past my pay grade. "Uniqueness determines the direction of a link" or something is a term I never got while debating, and you'd have to really explain it to me now.

New arguments will be thrown out in summary and any new points are thrown out in final focus (if you're the other team, please shake your head vigorously and look incredulous to help me notice that it's new).

If some evidence is wack, let me know and I'll look at it. Bad evidence may drop speaks and make me throw out the point.

Uncontested defense flows through first summary. I've forgotten all the other rules of PF, so if you want any clarification just ask.

Please signpost! I've realized that in my old age my listening comprehension has deteriorated. Without really clear signposting any kind of speed is wasted on me.

Please weigh! But good weighing. It needs to be warranted, it's better if it's comparative, and I would appreciate link weighing as well. If both sides weigh but don't say why your weighing analysis is better, we're back to square one. This is a really easy way to win the round. Without weighing, I prioritize links over impacts.

Calmness: this is a really fun tournament! Enjoying the act of debating is hard when things get tense, but it makes everyone's day better.

Ask actual questions in cross! I usually don't evaluate cross, but I will poorly evaluate "I'm right, do you agree" or "You're wrong, do you have a response?"

It's really important to read paradigms so I'll give you 0.5 speaker points just by telling me you read my paradigm.

Good luck!

Background/Experience: I am a Junior at Harvard studying Government. I did LD my junior and senior years in Louisiana and on the national-circuit level. I won state and did relatively well on the national circuit.

Arguments

- Tricks: I never understood these. f you run them, just make it super clear.

- Topicality: I'm cool with this.

- K Affs: These are also great.

- K's: These are also great.

- Stock Cases/DA- Great stuff.

- CP- Great stuff.

Questions: tjohnson@college.harvard.edu

I am an Australian judge (currently an active member of the Harvard College Debate Team) most familiar with the Australs/World Schools format and spent 8 years over the course of my adolescence debating in this format. I will pick you up if you are reasonable and warrant well, and will drop you if you run a case that is very inaccessible or technical.

Note here that I WILL intervene if I think that something has been said in the context of the debate that is so unreasonably far-fetched that it is clearly empirically incorrect, and drop it (regardless of whether or not this has been refuted --> applies mostly to formats lenient toward intervention such as World Schools and less to APDA unless that is your collapse).

I will always buy practical arguments over principle.

Do not assume that I am an expert on the topic you are discussing, and spell it all out for me, including specific weighing.

Finally, don't be rude. It's against the spirit of debate generally and doesn't do much in the way of creating an environment conducive to making everybody feel comfortable.

G'Day!

My name is Meg Kandarpa, and I am a Cornell ILR student in the Class of '23. I currently debate for Cornell in British Parliamentary/Worlds debate. (It seems counterintuitive to list BP qualifications on a site that is not used for BP but if you truly want to know ask me).

In high school, I primarily partook in APDA/parliamentary debate but also competed in world schools, congress, public forum, and MUN/speech.

Judging Paradigm

My judging paradigm is relatively simple - If the round doesn't say it, then I don't judge in it (this is 100% based off the flow - not my intuition). This includes not pointing out contradictions, missing links, and other case failures. I'm not one who believes in "punishment judging" - eg if a first speech fails to provide a needed definition, I don't take "away" points.

Refutation is also a good practice - direct responses to teams and telling me why you win also does help!

Also - please weigh/impact. I always see myself questioning "so what" at the end of most cases. Don't let that be your case.

If there's any way I can make the round more accessible for you in any way please don't hesitate to let me know before (or even during) the round.

Specificities to Online Debate (Credit to a University of Rochester buddy - Ali Abdullah who wrote this)

Please please slow down a bit; online debate certainly isn't conducive to blazing fast speeds (especially when most of y'all aren't even enunciating properly in person). This doesn't mean you can't speak fast, just be sure to slow down enough that I can make out every word you're saying. I'll try to tell you if I can't comprehend you but chances are by the time I do I've already missed something important.

Please try avoiding speaking over each other during CX; I love heated CX but 2+ people with their microphones on become incomprehensible in an online setting.

On video, you certainly don't have to have it turned on when I'm judging you. There are a multitude of reasons for this from privacy reasons to personal comfort, etc. Basically, you do you. I may also ask you to turn your video off if my internet is being slow, but I'll never ask you to turn it on. I find myself paying infinitely more attention to what you say and the tone/form in which you say it than your facial expressions anyway.

On that note, my video will most likely be on as it makes me stay connected and focused - and for debaters to feel comforted knowing that I am not watching Netflix in round. I never make facial expressions when I'm judging anyway so it wouldn't really be useful to y'all in that sense.

Debate Etiquette

I make it effort when doing introductions to offer a space for pronoun preferences. This is by no means required, but helpful if needed. If someone discloses pronouns or doesn't - always best to defer to the speaking position over assumptions.

I'm all for heated debates, but behavior that can frankly be determined as just jerkish is not something I stand for. This includes aggressively cutting debaters off, excessive facial expressions (if it's that ludicrous, 99% sure I caught it as well) and any generalizations/insinuations towards an entire group of people.

Again - generalizations of groups of people - bad and unpersuasive. That goes for debate, and just life advice while we are at it.

Cheers, and thanks to all who have read this far (good luck if I'm judging you!)

Meg Kandarpa

Hi! I am Rahat Khan and I have started debating with Asian Parliamentry and British Parlimentry debating. After gathering experiences, the thing that remained constant all the time is debate always appears to me like a window where I can see the world from different perspectives in a very short time. I have judged AP and BP debates before and I am familiar with Public Forum Debate as well. Good luck!

if you are rude to your opponents, i will dock speaks.

Pls talk slowly that's all I ask, makes for a better RFD. Not too familiar with PF, mainly do APDA stuff. Lay judge.

I do American and British Parliamentary on the Harvard team but have no familiarity with any other formats so you may want to treat me as a lay judge.

I will not (generally) read any cards and will not flow crossfire. If something important comes up, you must mention it during a speech for me to vote on it. I will only check a card if someone points out to me in-round that the card has been misrepresented.

Talking slightly fast is fine but if you spread, I will not follow your arguments well.

You must be respectful during the debate, I will tank your speaks if you make problematic arguments or disrespect others in the room.

FOR LD:

I prefer traditional LD. No Ks or theory.

Tech > truth but if you can explain why your opponent has made a very unlikely argument or has not illustrated a feasible link chain, I will probably be quite receptive to that rebuttal. Likewise, if you can explain why your argument is most reasonable and probable, I will be happy.

FOR PF:

I am probably biased in favor of the most reasonable sounding team in the round. I tend to dislike arguments where the impacts are massively overblown (e.g. world-ending extinction events) unless you've warranted them really well or given me some good weighing as to why I should prioritize magnitude over likelihood.

I care about warrants more than evidence. I also like to hear explicit weighing.

Hi! I did PF for 4 years in high school. I graduated from high school in 2017 and I do parli now at Harvard.

Notes

- I haven't prepped the topic. Please explain things

- I try to only vote off of offense that's in final focus and summary. This is to encourage you to collapse on arguments and weigh

- I don't care if you have a card for something if you can explain why it's logically true

- I love warrants. Please don't justify something by just saying its "empirically true"

- I'm rarely receptive to progressive arguments (Ks/theory) unless there's a real instance of abuse in the round

- I don't flow cross

I am a junior at the University of Michigan-Ann Arbor, majoring in Statistics and Asian studies. I have four years of Public Forum debate experience and participated in major university tournaments every single year in high school. I have judged over 13 tournaments in the past two years. All in all, I am a flow judge, and speed is okay with me. Some suggestions are listed below:

1. Do not bring up new points in the final focus... I will not give you any credit as it will not appear on my flow sheet.

2. Please please please weigh your impact!!!!!!!

3. If your opponent drops a point/impact/link that you think is important, you better call it out.

4. Make sure to extend your argument throughout the debate to get full credit.

5. If I think a card is too good to be true, I might ask for it at the end of the debate.

6. I am okay with speed, BUT please make your words clear. Also, DON'T SPREAD!

7. Please do not interrupt your opponents during cross-fire...give him/her a chance to finish the response before inserting another question or response.

8. Please reconstruct your argument in the rebuttal.

9. I wouldn't flow crossfire. Therefore, if anything happens in the crossfire that you think is important, such as your opponent making a concession, you need to bring it up in your next immediate speech.

10. If you want me to vote for you, you need to have clear voters and link stories!

11. You have to reconstruct in rebuttal to extend your own argument. Or else I consider that to be dropping your argument.

At the end of the debate, there are three things that I will for sure do: disclosure, round analysis, and personal feedback. Please give me a few minutes at the end of the debate to allow me to choose the winning side. During these two minutes, I will also call for cards if the round is too close; just want to be careful :)

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

I have never judged World Schools before. Ignore everything below

---

Auto 30s if both teams agree to skip all crossfires and prep time. Auto 29s if both teams agree to skip all crossfires, or if you offer + the other team refuses. Otherwise I cap speaks at 28. If you want lots of time to write your speech, do policy.

I have a short attention span. Don't make the round unnecessarily long, or I will be in a bad mood.

---

I debated for hunter college hs ('20) in nyc and broke at toc. I coached bronx science ('20-'21) and do some apda at harvard ('24).

1. All 1st rebuttal to 1ff extensions are fine, including offense. I don't care if you frontline in 2nd rebuttal, or extend turns or defense in 1st summary. No new 2ff weighing. I presume 1st speaking team. I have a high bar for not presuming - if it takes longer than 120 seconds for me to decide the round, I will presume. This includes when both teams are winning offense but neither weighs, even if the weighing is obvious.

2. "If I have the choice between voting for an impact that’s weighed as the biggest in the round but is muddled versus a less important but clean impact, I will resolve the muddled impact every time."

Speed is fine, I will clear you if necessary, send me the doc if going 300+. Don't interrupt women in cx.

---

Theory: Paraphasing is good for debate. In general, I default reasonability. Running theory asks me to intervene, by not evaluating substance, because the in-round abuse supposedly outweighs. You have to make me actually believe that the abuse was significant and outweighs substance, or else I won't intervene. If in doubt, ask before the round.

All online tournaments: If you choose to read any cards, disclosure theory is a TKO. You must send all your case evidence in card form with reasonable context and proper cites to the email chain before you read case.

I care very little about what your evidence says, and I won't read ev unless you tell me to. In fact, I would love a round in which neither team reads any evidence. However, teams seem to be obsessive about evidence-calling, and in this online format, in-round evidence exchange is incredibly clunky and results in a colossal waste of time. Just get it over with before the round. I don't particularly care if you post it on the wiki, and it's fine if you paraphrase your cards in the speech, but the other team needs to be able to read your evidence quickly and readily without wasting everyone else's time while stealing prep time and pretending the email hasn't arrived.

catherinxliu@gmail.com

Sioux Falls Washington ‘21, Harvard ‘25

Experience: I did LD for 4 years. I now do a lot of APDA/BP. I mostly did traditional debate but am generally familiar with/did some circuit. I was a 2021 NSDA finalist in LD.

update for Harvard:

I do not know any topic-specific jargon. It’s in your best interest to explain things very clearly, no matter what position you run.

Here are my general thoughts about debate. Feel free to ask me other questions before the round starts.

• Tech > truth
• I am fine with evaluating most things, and you should run what you're most comfortable with. I would prefer if the aff is at least vaguely in the direction of the topic—what this looks like is up to you. Realistically, I am probably better at evaluating policy positions and stock Ks/phil than I am at evaluating theory or other Ks/phil, but I also think debaters who are good at explaining how things interact with the round will win anyways.
• Reasonable speed is okay, but my ability to understand spreading is really not very high now, and I will not flow off the doc. Slow down especially on tags and analytics.
• You need to extend the whole argument (warrant + impact).
• I usually find that the 2a/n is more effective when you collapse on fewer things that are well weighed instead of many things. If you don't weigh your arguments, I will have to do it for you, and you may be upset by what I think matters most.
• Most theory is fine, but the more frivolous it is, the lower my threshold for responses. Interpret this how you will.
• I will not evaluate tricks.
• Please compare link strength, especially in util v. util debates :(. If aff reads "US presence causes terror through anti-Western sentiment" and neg reads "actually US counterterrorism efforts decrease terror" and then both of you keep extending these arguments past each other without any further comparison, I have no idea how to evaluate the clash and will not vote on it, even if the impact itself is well weighed.
• I like clear judge instruction.

Hi!

I've debated and judged at 50+ uni and high school tournaments before on BP, AP, WSDC and PF formats.

My judging habit is to record nearly every single word debaters say and then cautiously evaluate how each part of speeches functions on each clash, regardless of your speaking rate.

1. I don't automatically believe assertions as valid/strong arguments, unless they're proven or supported. Don't worry! It doesn't mean extra burdens on supporting every sentence you say.

But I suggest you to offer your understanding for the materials you use & minimum explanations & mechanism & analysis & reasoning.

2. I believe warrants should effectively support your stance, not just be listed.

tldr: traditional flow judge with nat-circuit experience, prefers well warranted and narrative debates, does not enjoy speed

Hi! Quick background about me, I am old now but used to debate at Boston Latin. Hit me up on FB with any questions before the round.

Think of me like a lay judge trapped in a tech debater's body. I will flow, I am (usually?) tech>truth, tabula rasa blah blah blah but I will vote 99 times out of 100 for the team that a) collapses and weighs strategically, b) provides a clearer narrative across all speeches, c) actually warrants their args (I really don't care how many cards you dump on me if I don't hear a clear warrant). Don't just extend your args, tell me why I should care about your arguments in the real world or at least care more about your arguments than your opponents'.

I never ran progressive args while I debated, so I have a pretty high threshold to hearing them in round. Once again, I'm flexible: if there's something in the round that truly warrants such an arg, read it. Just don't get all caught up in technical mumbo-jumbo as much as just trying to keep things clear and reasonable for me.

I am not great at flowing speed, and I never preferred to go ultra-fast when I debated so don't expect me to be able to follow along if you are gonna pull an Eminem (at least Em is usually pretty clear when he spits).

The activity is meant for everyone to have fun and learn so honestly just do whatever y'all do best and lemme know if there is anything I can do better to accommodate you as debaters.

WSDC Experience

IA and equity officer CWSDC High Schools Debating Championship 2022, Equity Officer HKDO 2021, Equity Officer CWSDC High Schools Debating Championship 2022, IA breaking judge DADC 2022(Debate Association Singapura Debating Championship) IA breaking judge 12th Hong Kong Debate Open 2021, breaking WHO 2021, IA Europen 2021 breaking judge, IA on Hong Kong Senior SDC 2021 broke to finals, IA on Asia Pacific 2021 broke to finals, Accepted as a judge on Macau WSDC 2021, Trainer and judge on WSDA Kranjska Gora 2021

Oxford WSDC 2021, Argo Open 2021 broke as IA, Online Dutch Debating Schools Championship 2021 broke to semis as IA, broke as IA to finals on Oldham Asian-Pacific league 2021, broke to finals as IA, judged Oldham international league 2021 as IA, broke as a IA to semifinals at Prague Debate Spring 2021,Winter Holidays Open broke as a judge every year attending- 2013-2020: judge finals 4 times, on Prague Debate Spring 2019 and 2014 broke as a judge, on Bratislava Schools Debating Championship broke as a judge 2017, on NSDC In Kopenhagen broke as a judge In 2018. Member of Council of methodology In CDS- creating materials for judges and judges workshops , actively judging regional and national tournaments In Croatia since 2012 and graduation. Judged WSDC Croatia all preliminary rounds in 2018

Active member of Council of methodology in Croatian debate society since 2016, actively coaching debate club Busmani/II.gymnasium since 2012, judging all national and regional tournaments since 2012, judge mentor since 2015, coordinator of judges workshops for all judges in Croatian debate society, and a member of team that is working on debate materials for IDEA NL.

Coach of debate club Bušmani s in 2nd Gymnasium, Zagreb since 2012. members from club every year since 2012 have at least one debater on WSDC Croatia team

Debated LD - 1997 - 2001

Coached High School LD / Policy / PF / World Schools - 2001 - 2010, 2015 - present

Assistant Policy & British Parliamentary debate coach at the University of Miami - 2010 - 2017

I am open to all debating styles and could handle speed. I appreciate all the skills that go into being competitive in the debate space; updated research, comparative analysis in rebuttals, making strategic decisions with time allocation, and creativity in argumentation to name a few. Tailor-made Kritiks are probably my favorite type of argument, but conversely, generic link of omission K's are on the opposite side of my preference spectrum. Love the politics DA, make sure your cards are updated! Will vote on theory if we all wasted our time and education was lost in the round. If you're having a non-traditional debate, a discussion of the role of the ballot is important. Save your breath on RVI's and put your tricks away for me. Prefer Speechdrop over email chains.

Any specific questions, feel free to ask before the round.

I care deeply about warrant strength and will intervene against over-claimed impacts. Please avoid theory and be reasonable.

pf: my only real reservation is that I can't handle a crazy amount of speed (if you're going too fast for me to keep up I will stop flowing). outside of that, feel free to have whatever kind of round you want. I actually enjoy theory debates so if you choose to go that route I won't mind.

ld: see andrew gong's ld paradigm

worlds: pls weigh

I debated in Public Forum debate (2013-2017) at Western Highschool in Florida.

I have a Bachelor's degree in Political Science from the University of Florida and a Master's degree in Liberal Studies from Georgetown University. Attending Northeastern University Law School in the fall.

a couple of things:

-Y'all should be timing the debate. I am the judge, not a babysitter. I like when teams hold each other accountable.

- don't read a new contention in rebuttal. that's not going on my flow

- The first summary should extend defense if the second rebuttal frontlines the argument. I think it is strategic for the second rebuttal to respond to turns and overviews.

- My attention to crossfire will probably depend on the time of day and my current mood. Please use it strategically if not I'll probably switch to watching youtube videos. - do not just read evidence explain the evidence in your own words. Tell me why the evidence matters to me at the end of the day.

- the summary is cool and all but don't go for everything on the flow, condense the round and give me a narrative. Quality of voters> Quantity of voters.

- Weigh, weigh, weigh, weigh, weigh.

-any other questions ask me before the round

SPEAKER POINT BREAKDOWNS

"30: Excellent job, you demonstrate stand-out organizational skills and speaking abilities. Ability to use creative analytical skills and humor to simplify and clarify the round.

29: Very strong ability. Good eloquence, analysis, and organization. A couple minor stumbles or drops.

28: Above average. Good speaking ability. May have made a larger drop or flaw in argumentation but speaking skills compensate. Or, very strong analysis but weaker speaking skills.

27: About average. Ability to function well in the round, however analysis may be lacking. Some errors made.

26: Is struggling to function efficiently within the round. Either lacking speaking skills or analytical skills. May have made a more important error.

25: Having difficulties following the round. May have a hard time filling the time for speeches. Large error.

Below: Extreme difficulty functioning. Very large difficulty filling time or offensive or rude behavior."

***Speaker Points break down borrowed from Mollie Clark.***

if you want to learn more about debate and get better under my guidance.

Click on the link below and sign up now!!!!

https://vancouverdebate.ca/intrinsic-debate-institute-summer-camp-2022/

Hello I'm Ritabrata a second year student, currently persuing an LLB degree. I have been involved in debating for the past three years extensively judging and speaking at British Parliamentary, American Parliamentary, Asian Parliamentary and Policy Debates.

Some of my Top Judging Achievements include:

1) Harvard College World Schools Invitational 2022 Open Semis Panel

2) University of Pennsylvania World Schools 2021Open Grand Finals Panel

3) Oxford WSDC 2021 Open Octofinals Panel

As a speaker I have won the Yale IV Fall 2021 ( ESL ) and have spoken at outrounds at various tournaments across Asia North America and Europe

Few things to note:

1) I don't have a problem with people speaking at any speed but ideally upto 1.5x to 2x speed is convenient to track and follow

2) State the relevance, analyze and then subsequently weigh and impact arguments and not only assert them to maximize the full potential you can derive out of an argument

3) I'm open to theory arguments but they must be explained well with context and relevance

4) I'm a bit skeptical to kritiks but I'm open to your presentation and will evaluate it like all other arguments based of the analysis presented

5) I'm open to arguments across a spectrum of complexity and actively encourage new ideas

I debate parlimentary at Harvard.

emokski@college.harvard.edu

Key principle:

Utilitarianism is functionally the only objective framework to evaluate the impact of your arguments, which is especially important for weighing. If you don't tell me why your claims matter in that framework, I won't be able to evaluate them correctly.

Two other principles:

Don't read theory.

Don't speak fast.

PF Speaks:

29.5-30: Great job, you should be in the top speakers.

29-29.5: Nice job, solid argumentation. Focus on more nuance, but you've mastered the fundamentals.

28.5-29: Keep going, you're on the right track! Generally good grasp on the fundamentals.

27.5-28.5: There is some work to be done, focus on the fundamentals of debate.

27.5 and lower: you were mean, offensive, rude, and generally not fun to watch.

I'm a Parliamentary debater at Harvard. Don't speak fast. If you run theory, I will drop you.

Background

Debated for over four years and has experience adjudicating British Parliamentary, WSDC and Public Forum debates.

Thoughts

1. Debates are about engaging and discussing various standpoints; therefore, I enjoy a round where teams try to engage with their opposition as much as possible. Parallel debates can be difficult to adjudicate and leaves adjudicators with a difficult task of weighing parallel arguments and having to pick which one they relate to most.

2. Always prioritize analysis over matter dumping. Debates are about being able to defend a stance and that requires sufficient analysis of whatever that stance may be. In case you find your team having a lot of points to canvass, always opt for those you consider strongest and focus on analysis.

3. Be conscious of whatever stances you decide to defend. Always try and make the room as safe a space as possible for everyone to engage in the debate. Avoid making arguments that come off as racist, sexist or discriminatory in any way. Always address yourself to the points raised and avoid personal attacks or directing any negative comments towards individual speakers no matter what their stance may be.

Hello! I'm currently a junior at Harvard College debating in APDA with experience judging PF, World Schools, and APDA.

Be polite and respectful during rounds.

If possible arrive early

I OPT OUT OF ALL DISCUSSIONS OF ISRAEL/HAMAS

You will be auto-dropped if you read arguments relating to the current conflict.

General debate best practices:

I care more about warranting than about evidence, just quoting a New York Times article is not enough to convince me of your argument.

I appreciate off-time road-maps and clear side-posting, but it will not negatively affect you if you do not do these things.

Weighing is important! Please explicitly weigh why an argument is more important than your opponents.

You do not need to prove complete solvency for me to buy an impact or argument - ie any reduction in climate change is better than no reduction, regardless of if you solve climate change

For PF:

I cannot understand spreading so please try not to read faster than 212 words/min. If I can't understand it, I won't evaluate it.

I generally don't buy high-impact low probability arguments unless they are well warranted—ie if you say x will lead to nuclear war, there must be a very good link-chain.

I generally don't flow cross-ex, if a contradiction is important please pull it through to FF!

For APDA:

I don't have any theory pre-beliefs.

For LD:

I cannot understand spreading so please try not to read faster than 212 words/min. If I can't understand it, I won't evaluate it.

I will not evaluate theory or ks, so don't read them.

I have a lot of experience competing in debate as a high school and college student (30 years), so you can expect me to be passionate about the issues you are speaking for and against but I will not bring personal preferences into debate like some other judges. I judge various events so here is a general outline of what I am looking for in a speech:

1. Passion - no matter what I want to see that you care about what you are speaking about. If this is lacking you can expect a poor ballot.

2. Good Arguments - when I have a tie between two capable and passionate debaters, this is where I go to break the tie. If you repeat arguments expect a poor ballot. Also note for formats like WSD and LD, I will try my best to flow the round, but you need to tell me arguments are dropped. I look for sound reasoning and logic flow in all of the debates and in LD, PF and other evidence based debates I will be asking you to read all of your cards.

3. Inflection and Voice - If I lose interest during your speech you are doing something wrong. Keep me engaged throughout. If you lose me when you are describing an argument you will not be on my flow and I will drop that argument completely.

4. Any type of rudeness and any chance at cutting other competitors speaking time (especially for POs in congress) will result in the lowest rank possible. RESPECT PRONOUNS and POI choices.

Claire Park (she/they)

Email: claireparkdebate@gmail.com

Short Version

- Read whatever you want

- tech = truth

- I like good evidence, I like spins more

- "status quo is always an option" means judge kick

- Judge direction is always good

I prefer to evaluate the debate on what is said in the debate, and I can vote for any argument. I think slight judge intervention is inevitable, but l do my very best to limit it as much as I can.

Online debating

- If I can't hear you or if my wifi is bad, I'll verbally let you know

- My camera will be on, if it is off I am not ready

Background Info

- Georgetown '25: not debating

- Major: Science, Technology, and International Affairs concentrating in Security, especially with AI.

- Notre Dame ‘21: 2N/1A

Case

Please use your 1AC

Disadvantages

Turns case is good

Impact calculus is close to essential

Topicality

Case lists and TVAs are really persuasive to me

Usually, competing interpretations > reasonability

Counterplans

As a 2N, I love a good cheaty and tricky counterplan, so I'll consider it more than the average judge.

Kritiks

Honestly, you can read any K in front of me

Specific links can only help you

K affs

The aff

- I'm fine with them - the closer you are to the topic the better

- I'm more inclined to say that you get a perm

the neg [overview]

Framework [neg]

- Same thing as topicality portion

- I've voted for framework and I've voted against framework - as long as you debate it well I'm all for it

K v K

- My favorite debates to judge when done well, and my least favorite when done messily

Theory

- Similar to the topicality paradigm

- I don't really have a strong opinion on condo

- I'm inclined to think that perf con isn't a voting issue

Miscellaneous

*I'm fine with tag-team cross-x, as long as you give the person who's supposed to question and/or answer the chance to do so

*Also if an argument is dropped, I won't give it weight unless you extend the argument. Don't just point out it's dropped

- I don't really have that many strong opinions on debate that'll affect the decision. I prefer to be convinced of your argument despite my opinion.

SPEECH PARADIGM

wsd & extemp

I've judged only some wsd & speech, BUT I have done some debates in wsd and know a bit about speech and understand the structure. Honestly, just debate, argue, and convince well and I will judge to the best of my abilities.

Hey, I am a parliamentary debater from Harvard. Please be respectful at all times to both me and the team you are going against. Please don't run theory. I am fine with any speed of talking and I do not value evidence that highly.

Name: Pallob Poddar

School Affiliation: North South University

Number of Years Judging Public Forum: less than 1

Number of Years Competing in Public Forum: less than 1

Number of Years Judging Other Forensic Activities: less than 1

Number of Years Competing in Other Forensic Activities: less than 1

If you are a coach, what events do you coach? I'm not a coach

What is your current occupation? Student

My opinions or beliefs about how the following play into a debate round:

Speed of Delivery: Not too fast cause greater persuasion won't be achieved if you talk too fast.

Format of Summary Speeches (line by line? big picture?): Big picture but don't generalize opposition's case. You still need to engage with their each and every arguments.

Role of the Final Focus: Persuading the judge why your team wins.

Extension of Arguments into later speeches: Will be counted until the final focus.

Topicality: The most important thing.

Plans: Specific plans or models are not required.

Kritiks: Try to engage with the opposition's best case.

Flowing/note-taking: Hugely important so that you don't miss out important things.

I value argument more but I also notice the style.

If a team plans to win the debate on an argument, in my opinion that argument has to be extended in the rebuttal because summary speeches should focus on the summary of the debate.

If a team is second speaking, the team should answer to it's opponent's rebuttal first in the rebuttal speech. If they have enough time after that, they can cover the opponent's case as well.

I vote for arguments that are first raised in the grand crossfire.

I would judge the debate as it was. So, try to engage with the opposition's case more and make the debate easier to judge.

Go read Ye Joo Han's paradigm. I'll judge based on it.

Paraphrasing is ok

Parli debater at Harvard. No theory, please!

My background is 90s policy debate for Vestavia Hills HS & Georgetown University. I'm confident that I can handle aggressive pace and esoteric arguments. However, I demand clarity, appreciate intonation, and I am more likely to vote for arguments that I personally believe are true. Please don't read bad evidence. I might punish you for that. Personally, I have an undeniable preference for justice-based arguments like human rights and economic egalitarianism. However, I aspire to be non-interventionist/tabular as a. You can win just about any argument if you make a compelling case within the debate.

I am a former Oklahoma Speech Theater Communications Association State Policy Debate Champion (1998) I also debated in CEDA in college and went on to coach in the Southern Oklahoma Jr. High and High School competitive speech teams.

Stock Issues: Legal Model – Topicality – Significance of Harm – Inherency – Solvency – Advantage Over Disadvantage

Policy Making: Legislative Model – Weigh advantages versus disadvantages

Hypothesis Testing: Social Science Model – Each negative position (some of which may be contradictory) tests the truth of the affirmative; it must stand good against all tests to be true.

Tabula Rasa: Democracy/Anarchy Model – Whatever basis for decision the debaters can agree on will be used as a judging standard.

Game Player: Gaming Model – Debate is a rule-governed game; you play by (and are judged by) the rules.

I am familiar with all of these judging paradigms. If you believe I should follow one then present an argument for it and support it with evidence. Without evidence and analysis, I default to being a stock issues judge.

For additional insight on how I judge individual issues please see the following link: https://www.nfhs.org/media/869102/cx-paradigms.pdf

Hi! My name is Kay Rollins. I am a junior at Harvard University. I competed for the Potomac School in Virginia for five years, where I did extemp (and some Oratory and Public Forum). Here’s what I look for in round:

PF:

Note: PF is about being accessible to the public, and theory is (largely) inaccessible. Please keep all of your points topical to the resolution. I can handle speed, but PF is not policy, so no spreading.

1. Tech>Truth

2. I am a flow judge. If you drop arguments, you lose them.

3. No theory. I do not care if the other team did not have their case on the Wiki. Public Forum argument should be topical to the resolution.

4. Signpost your speeches and weigh your arguments. If you don't tell me WHY your arguments matter, I cannot evaluate them.

5. I don't flow cross-ex, but that doesn't mean I'm not listening. Make that time count.

Extemp:

1. The MOST BASIC RULE of exemp is to ANSWER THE QUESTION. If you do not clearly answer the question, I will drop you. Common pitfalls in answering the question: Changing "how should" to "should" or vice versa, ignoring a comparative in the question (like "Who is best qualified to be secretary of state" requires you to compare people, not just explain why one person is qualified), changing actors (if a question asks you how congress should address an issue, don't tell me what Biden should do).

2. Analysis is much more important than presentation in extemp. Your presentation (fluency, delivery, etc) should not be so bad as to distract from your content, but your content is what matters.

3. No personal AGDs or non-topical AGDs. If the topic is about Syria, don’t compare it to a middle school lunchroom dynamic or a fight with your siblings. Do not compare the war in Ukraine to a Taylor Swift song. However, if you want to make a joke about a real-world event that was funny, that's fair game. Check out r/nottheonion for funny, real news stories.

4. Your points should be distinct (no bleed between points)

5. If you have a point about how we should change something, be specific about what we should change (like a certain law, regulation, etc) and how that would happen.

6. Have fun! Be yourself! RELAX!

For all events (both speech and debate):
1. Have fun, be respectful, and try to make good arguments (or a good performance)

2. Any discriminatory actions/language will result in an automatic drop

Good luck; I look forward to watching your speeches!

If you have any problems, email me at krollins@college.harvard.edu

Everett Rutan

Judging Paradigm

I’m primarily parli these days, but the principles would apply to any form of debate I might judge.

I check all the boxes: successful, national circuit high school debater (policy/cross-ex); debate coach for over 25 years; tab director for over 20 years; debate league director for over 15 years; taught at a respected parliamentary debate summer workshop for 10 years. However, my career was in business, not education or the law, which does affect my point of view.

None of that is “actionable”, in that it is of no help to you if I’m sitting in the back of the room with my flow and stopwatch waiting for you to begin. The following may be more useful.

My role as a judge is to sort through the debate you and your opponent choose to have and produce a reasoned, persuasive decision. My “case” (RFD) should accurately reflect what was said and be acceptable to each of the debaters as a valid opinion on what occurred, even if they may take issue with that opinion.

This judge-as-debater approach has certain implications:

· My source material is the debate you choose to have. If you don’t agree on what it should be about, then my decision should be based first on your definitional arguments. If you do agree, then my decision should be based on the relative weight of arguments on the issue. If both teams agree—explicitly or tacitly—to have a particular debate, my opinion as to what the motion or debate should have been about is not relevant.

· The more work you do to lay out a path to a decision, the less work I have to do building my own, and the fewer decisions I have to make as the judge. That generally works in your favor.

· Your arguments should be based both on what you present and, perhaps even more so, on what your opponents present, with a fair comparison and weighing.

My business background has certain implications:

· Debate is intended to be educational. I have less sympathy for arguments that no one would make or consider in the real world. Theory arguments should be clearly explained and shown to have a serious impact on the matter at hand. The more distantly related an argument is to a plain reading of the motion, the greater the need to justify that argument.

· Not all arguments are equal. Judging is not simply counting arguments won, lost, or dropped, but comparing the persuasive weight of each side. I expect both sides will win some arguments and lose some arguments and drop some arguments. If you don’t weigh them, I will.

· Explanations count more than facts (at least explanations broadly consistent with the facts). For any arguable topic there will be examples that favor each side. The fact that some people survive horrendous accidents unscathed is not in itself an argument against safety equipment; that many will refuse to use safety equipment that is inconvenient or uncomfortable is, at least against that particular type.

· I don’t have a problem making decisions. I rarely take long or agonize over them. However, I will do my best to provide a detailed written RFD, time permitting.

Finally, debate is about the spoken word. It is your job to persuade me and in your best interest that I clearly understand what you want to say. It is not my job to be persuaded, nor to intuit what you intended to say beyond a reasonable effort on my part to do so. This has the following implications:

· Speak as fast as you think appropriate. I flow well and can tolerate speed. But if I don’t hear it, don’t hear it as intended, or don’t get it on my flow, it won’t help you. It’s not my job to signal you if you are speaking too fast or drifting off into unintelligibility.

· Why wouldn’t you present more arguments than your opponents can handle in the time allowed? Spread is a natural consequence of time limits on speeches. But 13 weak reasons why an argument is true won’t help you even if your opponent drops 12 of them, but wins the one most important to the issue. And debaters with more than one level of subpoints almost always get lost in their own outline. Quality spreads as surely as quantity and has more impact.

· I understand some debaters provide outlines, cards, briefs, etc. I will listen carefully to what you say, but I will not read anything you give me.

I have published a great deal of material of varying quality on the Connecticut Debate Association website, http://ctdebate.org . You will find transcriptions of my flows, various RFDs, topic analysis and general debate commentary reflecting my opinions over the years.

FAQs

Definitions? Definitions are a legitimate area of argument, but don’t ask me to rule on them mid-round. Gov has the right to a reasonable definition of terms. If Opp does not like them, Opp should challenge in a POC, POI or at the top of the LOC. Don’t wait to challenge definitions late in the round. Gov need not explicitly define terms or present a plan: clear usage in the PMC binds Gov and must be accepted or challenged by Opp. In other words, if it is obvious what Gov is talking about, don't try to re-define the terms out from under them. P.S. No one likes definition debates, so avoid them unless Gov is clearly being abusive.

Points of Clarification? Like them. Think it’s a good tactic for Gov to stop and offer Opp a chance to clear up terms. Should occur at the top of the PMC immediately after presenting definitions/plan/framework, etc.

Pre-speech outline or road map? A common local custom not to my taste. Speeches are timed for a reason, and I see this as an attempt to get a bit more speaking time. But, when in Rome… They should be brief and truly an outline, not substance. I will listen politely but I won't flow them.

New contentions in the Member constructives? Perfectly legitimate, though it was considered old-fashioned even when I debated 50 years ago. It also presents certain tactical and strategic issues debaters should understand and have thought through.

Counterplans? If you know what you are doing and it’s appropriate to the motion and the Gov case, a counterplan can be extremely effective. Most debaters don’t know what they are doing, or use them when there are less risky or more effective options available. Many counterplans are more effective as arguments why the status quo solves or as disadvantages.

Written material? I’m aware in some leagues debaters give judges a written outline of their case, or pass notes to the speaker. I accept all local customs and will not interfere or hold these against you. However, debate is by spoken word, and I will not read anything you give me.

New arguments in rebuttal (Point of Order)? You should call them if you see them. But if you see them every five words it begins to look like an attempt to disrupt the rebuttal speaker. Landing one good PO puts me on watch for the rest of the speech; multiple “maybes” will likely annoy me.

Evidence? Even in heavily researched debate like policy, facts are cherry picked. Even in the real world one rarely has all the facts. Explanations generally outweigh simple facts (though explanations that contradict the facts aren't really explanations). Information cited should be generally known or well-explained; “what’s your source” is rarely a useful question or counter-argument. I am not required to accept something I know to be untrue. If you tell me something I don’t know or am not sure of, I will give it some weight in my decision, and I will look it up after the round. That’s how I learn.

Theory? (See “business background” comments above, and "Definitions".) These are arguments like any other. They must be clearly explained and their impact on the round demonstrated. They are not magic words that simply need to be said to have an effect. Like all arguments, best present them as if your audience has never heard them before.

Weird stuff? Everyone in my family has an engineering degree. We’re used to intelligent arguments among competent adults. We know we aren’t as clever as we think we are, and you probably aren’t either. The further you drift from a straightforward interpretation of the motion, the greater your burden to explain and to justify your arguments.

Rules of debate? There are none, or very few. If your opponent does something you think is out of bounds, raise a POI if you can and explain the impact on the arguments or on the debate in your next speech. Most "rules" debaters cite are more like "guidelines". If you understand the reason for the guideline, you can generally turn a weak "that's against the rules" into a much stronger "here is why this is harmful to their case."

ejr, rev July 2023

I vote on framework. Respect your opponent, have fun, and don't spread. I mean it. For real. Don't spread. You might WANT to... but don't. Resist the impulse! Please? Please?! Please. Wait, actually? The ONLY scenario where spreading would be cool is if you put it to music. Or if it rhymed. If anyone sings their speech I will give them full speaker points. That would be so cool please do that.

Also - be kind! For real. This is more important than the spreading thing. I have an incredibly low tolerance for condescension. Like, none.

And have fun :)

Please put me on the email chain - amyleighsantos@gmail.com

I debated for 3 years at Presentation High School in LD and policy and coached throughout college. I mostly read critical arguments, as well as some policy oriented stuff. I am probably not the best judge for phil/tricks, but that being said, you should read whatever you feel most comfortable with in front of me! I am absolutely fine with speed but I haven’t judged much lately so it would be helpful for me if you start slow. More specifics:

Ks: I really love K debate, as as I mentioned above, that’s what I read most of in high school. However, I will not just vote for you because I like the K, so please make sure you’re explaining the story of the K, putting in the work on the link and framing debates, etc. I also really loved reading K affs (I was big into fem stuff in high school) but make sure you are clearly articulating a reason to vote aff and what the aff actually does. I am looking for an explanation of what your method actually looks like in practice, and why it means I should vote for you.

Policy/LARP: I also really enjoy policy debate! I don’t think there’s really much to say here but I appreciate good evidence comparison, impact weighing, and overviews.

Framework/T: I love a good framework debate, but it's also in your best interest to engage the substance of the aff! I think the more specific your framework/T shell is, the more interesting/strategic

Theory: I don't mind theory but these debates tend to get messy, so try to keep it clean and maybe go a little slower.

Phil/tricks: I am really not a good judge for phil and don't particularly enjoy it, sorry :,(

The easiest way to win in front of me is to really clearly and explicitly explain your position and why you're winning. Collapsing to a few main arguments and explaining them well is always better than having too many arguments that aren't impacted or explained very well.

My favorite part about debate is when students are passionate about what they defend and read positions they care about. Please don't be sexist, racist, ableist, trans/homophobic, etc.

Hi! I'm Amal, a sophmore at Harvard with a background in Congress and APDA. My judging preferences are pretty standard, but here are just a couple of things to keep in mind:

-Please don't spread. If you need to go at a speed faster than one typically talks to get all your arguments through, that's totally fine, but you need to be understandable. If you're struggling to breathe, or are mixing up your words, I likely will not be able to make sense of what you're saying either and can't flow your full argument.

-No theory. If you try to run theory, I will likely vote for your opponents. I expect competitors to be debating on the topic at hand.

-most importantly: WEIGH EVERYTHING YOU SAY. You need to spell out for me why your links and impacts matter more than your opponents, and consistently connect every argument you make back to the main debate.

I am an international student at Harvard. I have experience in APDA, BP, and the World Schools formats.

I hate intervening. Please weigh so that I do not have to intervene. Weighing must be done on the impacts and ALSO internally within arguments to prove which team accesses impacts more

I appreciate creativity and am happy to hear clever and novel arguments. However, you must actually make logically robust arguments; I do not reward cleverness for cleverness' sake. In almost all cases, raw evidence claims are less persuasive to me than well-reasoned arguments (which can of course be backed by evidence). I find it extremely off-putting when debaters are unnecessarily aggressive to others. Make an effort to be respectful; chances are it will also make you a better debater. I’m fine with speed

I tend to make decisions very quickly, so don't take this personally. Rounds can be very good and very close but still very clear.

Hi!

My name is Sodiq Farhan (he/him). I am a graduate of the University of Ilorin, Nigeria and I have experience in speaking and adjudicating at national, regional, and international levels in British Parliamentary, World Schools, Public Forum, Policy, LD, Asian Parliamentary, NSDA speech and debates, amongst other formats. I also have solid experience as a trainer and coach. So I very much understand the need to create a very empowering learning experience for participants and provide them with useful feedback. I am confident that I will be a good and impactful addition to your team of judges and educators.

Email address: farhansodiq360@gmail.com

Conflicts: I do not have any.

PERSONAL NOTE:

One of the things to note if you would meeting me as a judge in a room will be that I hold in high regard, positive, fair, equitable and proper engagements during discussions and cross engagements. Do not be rude, disrespectful or discriminatory.

Even in instances when you do not agree to contexts and frames provided by the other team, I advice that you still engage the team’s case alongside presenting your counterfactual where necessary.

I also really appreciate that speakers ensure to always keep track of time and adhere to the timing as much as possible.

Lastly, I do understand that speakers often times have a lot of ideas to share during their speeches in a short stipulated time but please, don't speak excessively fast. Just as much as I would pay very close attention to speakers, I am most comfortable with audible and medium paced speeches.

Special Considerations for Virtual Debates:

Please ensure to confirm that your microphone works well and doesn't have any breaking noise. Be sure to be close enough to it as well, so that you can be as clear and audible as possible.

All the best!

BP debater at Harvard.

Do not rush speaking. Weigh your arguments. Give logic behind why things are true.

Theory is a loss. It does not prove anything and probably is wrong anyway.

Lies about Ukrainian will not be viewed favourably.

Hi!

What matters to me most in my room is your capacity to justify your arguments, especially on moral and philosophical points. I also appreciate a rather well structured speech in which the speaker explains their arguments clearly and rather methodically from point A to B. Next, don't be afraid to think outside the box, as I do properly enjoy the occasional interesting take or side on a rather conventional topic.

Good luck everyone!

Speak slowly and always explicitly weigh. I don't appreciate theory or spreading.

BP @ Harvard. Former WST experience.

Take risks, be bold, challenge me*! The more entertaining the round, the more favourably I will score. If you correctly guess the song I was listening to before the start of the round, instant 30. If you pronounce "Erdoğan" wrong, I will be sad.

*this does not mean run theory

Hi! I am Sandra and I have chaired and judged several international debate tournaments such as the World Schools Debating Championships.

I prefer a level of speed that helps deliver arguments in a clear and coherent fashion. I also prefer nuanced argumentation but I find value in different approaches to a topic. Feel free to be creative in your ways of reasoning as I will be approaching all rounds with an impartial and no rigid preferences outlook. Best of luck!

I'm currently a senior at Harvard debating with a decent amount of APDA and British Parliamentary experience. I did not do PF in high school – keep that in mind when you use technical jargon / speak faster.

Judging Philosophy: I flow. I'm tab, but I think that no judge is truly tabula rasa. Though not written for American HS formats, this article is very insightful and very close to how I think about judging.

I — and most judges, I hope — have an innate disposition towards liberal principles (not like Democratic, but like free speech, democracy, equal rights, alleviate unnecessary suffering, etc). This doesn't mean that I will always vote this way, but the more extreme your position is from this starting point, the harder it is (and the more work you must do) to convince me.

Some of my other thoughts are listed below:

TLDR, in image form:

TLDR, in written form: PF is an event designed for the public — please don't make me think too hard. Focus on weighing and warranting. Frontline in 2R. Don't be a dick. Debate, don't argue.

Paradigm:

1) Warrants: I like warrants. I weigh well-explained mechs much more heavily than evidence. Cards capture a specific instance of a phenomenon — tell me why that phenomenon has happened beyond pure luck. I don't find card disputes very persuasive; instead, debate on the warrant level. Make your internal links as detailed as possible.

2) Weighing: I like weighing.Do it more. I will always pick up a weighed argument over an unweighed argument, even if its warranting is not fully fleshed out. If neither side weighs, I will evaluate the arguments based on my own intuitions. My intuitions are bad. Don't let my intuition cost you the round. Barring any other explicit weighing, I evaluate strength of warrant as implicit probabilistic weighing.

3) Evidence: I don't really care about evidence. I will probably never call for a card unless I think someone has dramatically lied / misquoted / badly paraphrased it. See point 1. Add me to the chain if you must: azwang@college.harvard.edu.

4) Impacts: I have a significant presumption against high-magnitude, low-probability impacts (extinction, nuclear war, etc). I will listen to them, but I generally believe that you are better off spending time on plausible and interesting arguments.

5) Speed: Don't spread. If you're double breathing, I'm not fully flowing.

6) Theory: I don't know how to evaluate theory. I'm willing to evaluate it, but your burden of explanation is much higher in order to combat my strong bias of arguments about the topic. Err on the side of over-over-over-explanation.

7) General Vibes: Don't be a dick. Don't be any of the -ists. I will probably drop you if you affect anyone's ability to participate in this educational activity.

Thanks for reading this far. Here's a haiku to remember my paradigm:

mechs mechs mechs mechs mechs

weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh

weigh your arguments.

I mostly judge WSD, the below applies to such.

Clarity and cohesion (as a team) are good. Build off of each other.

If you don't have enough content to fill the entire allotted time, don't feel pressured to drag it out. A good speech can be shorter than 8 minutes.

Try to resolve conflicts on definitions and assumptions quickly. Not doing so cuts into the amount of time debating the substantive points, and it helps neither side.

Debate is a performance as much as it is intellectual exercise, so try to make sure your audience can understand it -- speaking at a conversational pace is best.

As a judge, I expect the debaters for each round to:

1. Have mutual respect to one another. Do not try to dominate the crossfire.
2. If you present a framework, I'll look for you to warrant your arguments to it.
3. Manage time well - it is an important element and quality that I look for, so use your time well. Please be sure to keep track of your own time.
4. Prepare to give quality evidence and explain them well - once you have stated it, follow through with it. Please be clean: signpost, extend the warrant (not just the card), and weigh impacts and links.
5. Support your claims with warrants - when you throw a claim out without a warrant I will disregard it.
6. I appreciate the creative approach and use of theory or other strategies but be sure you have enough time to follow through with it. Often time I see many great unconventional approaches, but the majority of them failed to deliver the full effect.
7. At the end of the day this is a communication event -- it's your job as the debater in the round to persuade me that the arguments you're winning are important, not just that you're winning the "most" arguments.

Please add me to the email chain if one is being used in the round.

E-mail: purplewenqiying@gmail.com

Good afternoon students! I am looking for good premises that can strongly support your conclusions. Logical fallacies such as bias fallacy will weaken your argument so please try to minimize logical fallacies as much as possible. Throughout your argument, please make sure the premises are true and that they are strongly needed for your conclusions to stand. Also please make sure to work collaboratively with your teammates as teamwork is essential in any debate. Thank you and have fun! I look forward to judging your arguments and I know all of you will do very well!

I'm a traditional judge.

4yrs LD Experience 2 Years Varsity

Speak Clearly and I would prefer if you don't SPREAD (I'll tank your speaks).

Clash a lot

Make sure to say why I should prefer your value over the opponent and to really emphasize this. The framework is very important when I take into account everything to vote for. The framework tells me what I should value most. If you have identical values, just say " I agree with my opponent." At the end of the round, I'll start weighing arguments based on how well they achieve their value. Or if you were to tell me to prefer prob > magnitude then I'll give priority to prob arguments in the round and give the round to the debater who showed him impacts are more likely to happen. Of course, I want solid justifications for this - you cant tell me to prefer prob over the magnitude and not explain the reasoning. I won't do the legwork for you

Make sure to weigh your impacts and extend them throughout the round. The argument has to appear in all your speeches and I won't take into account an argument that you dropped in the 1AR but bring back in the 2AR.

I am very a traditional judge, No k's, theories, and etc.

Edit: 2021: I haven't participated in LD Debate in about 2 years — will certainly be slightly rusty.

hello! I'm a freshman, mainly debated in the World Schools and British Parliamentary formats in high school (so apologies if I don't fully get the technical terms of PF/LD). be nice to your opponents, don't speak too quickly or else I might not be able to keep track of everything, try to weigh the importance of different arguments for me. i will weigh warranting and analysis over evidence cards. no theory please. looking forward to watching your round!

hi, i'm AJ! i graduated from Plano West in 2021 and competed in PF on the national circuit. my pronouns are they/them, and my email is ayi@college.harvard.edu.

- priority #1 is safety; be cognizant of your presence in the round/community, don’t be a problematic human being, use correct pronouns, provide content warnings with opt outs, etc.

- would strongly prefer if y’all came in preflowed and coin flipped/ready to go!

- outside of that, do whatever makes the debate enjoyable :) below are my preferences that might make it easier for you to win, but really do whatever you like. if you are compelling and/or justify decisions against my preferences below, you will likely be okay!

things i like in debate / things to know about me as a judge:

- i think about debate pretty similarly to renee li, alyssa nie, and aditya kumar.

- i'm quite expressive in response to what y'all say (though i also just nod/furrow my eyebrows in confusion a lot). i don’t like most pf arguments and still vote off of them so don’t be intimidated! but feel free to use my facial cues as you see fit.

- please prioritize warrants throughout the round, do not be blippy with them, and have clear extensions of your entire link chain and impact in the second half for anything you want me to vote on (including turns). any offense i vote on must be extended clearly in both summary and final focus and include good warranting.

- please collapse as much as possible. i really like smart analytics and strategic decisions, much more than blippy, unintelligent dumps of as much as you can possibly get through.

- new warrants are new arguments and will be treated as such

- you don't need to frontline defense in 2nd rebuttal, but whatever you don't fl can be extended straight into 1st ff. i think it probably makes for a more in depth debate if you fl defense and collapse in 2nd rebuttal, but it's up to you.

- on weighing: being comparative between the actual nuanced arguments on the flow (as opposed to the general idea of an argument i.e. climate change) when weighing or responding is really really important to me. i am not too impressed with the meta of broad prereq weighing that doesn’t actually make sense when considering your link chain’s effect on the impact.

- that said, please weigh, and please start it by summary!

- dislike: doc botting, blowing up blips in final, independent DAs in 2nd rebuttal, excessively unclear speed, overgeneralizations of arguments or of the squo, jargon (define terms if absolutely necessary) being called judge, friv theory (unless its actually funny)

- don’t really care about: crossfire (feel free to take 1.5 min of prep instead of gcx), author names (just cite stuff consistently), most presentation things (sit/stand/whatever you’d like)

- super down to give as detailed feedback as y'all want, but i know thats not always what anyone wants to listen to immediately after an rfd. so i'll default to giving just the rfd - if you want advice beyond that ask me after round/message me. also please reach out even if you just want to talk about debate/hs/life! AJ Yi on FB, @aj__yi on Insta

Salve! I'm currently a sophomore at Harvard College debating in APDA and British Parliamentary.

TL;DR: be nice, present your ideas clearly, and have fun!

LD Paradigm

1. I prefer traditional LD.

2. I might not catch everything if you're spreading.

3. Don't read Ks or theory.

4. I prefer warrants over evidence.

General Paradigm:

1. Be nice. I will not tolerate hate speech or offensive behavior of any kind.

2. I might not catch everything if you're spreading.

3. I might not understand complex theory arguments.

4. In your final speeches, prioritize weighing the most important issues, not rehashing the line-by-line arguments.

Enjoy the debate and good luck!

ask for my email for speech docs/contact

I debated LD for 4 years at Greenhill School. Besides a bit of coaching, I've been out of competitive debate since 2019, so please assume I know nothing about the topic and err on the side of clarity. If you have any questions, just ask! Most of my paradigm is similar to my coaches, so check out Aaron Timmons, Elijah Smith, Chris Randall's paradigms if you want to know more.

I ran a lot of Ks and policy args (DAs, process CPs, PICs, everything) when I debated, but I'm also comfortable with theory/topicality DONE WELL (and not just frivolously). I am somewhat familiar with framework/philosophy but my experience has been that most LD debaters don't know how to explain Kant in a 4 min speech. Please don't read tricks or say anything racist/ableist/sexist/otherwise problematic.

my argument preferences:

1. I love a good kritik debate. If you run afropessimism, set col, cap, or any structural criticism well, I will definitely be listening. That being said, please don't change your strategy because I said this - bad K debates are some of the worst.

2. I'm always down to judge a policy debate, especially if it's a classic counterplan/DA or interesting process-based debate. Spice it up. Just make sure you weigh and compare arguments. I will reward good strategy and creative arguments with speaks.

3. I am fine with T/theory, but I don't really enjoy judging them. I don't feel great voting on RVIs and I generally err on voting for substance when I can. But you should still read theory if you think it's justified or if it fits your strategy. I might not be pleased if it's clear that you don't have any substantive arguments (you're going for theory from the beginning), and your speaks will likely reflect that.

4. I don't enjoy framework or philosophy debates too much but I'm fine judging them. Just make sure you actually have a syllogism and justifications for your framework. I am less familiar with complex phil, so please use analogies and examples and all that to clearly explain the case. I won't vote on anything I doon't understand.

5. I hate tricks. I don't think they have any educational value. But in general, read what you want and just explain it well.

Important things (mostly copied and pasted from paradigms of people I respect):

- I won’t vote on an argument I can’t coherently articulate back to you (even if I got the words down).

- I really implore you to slow down. Please. I will be so generous with speaker points if you are speaking at a fast conversational pace (or if you genuinely are clear).

- If I cannot understand the words you're saying while you read a card, it will be as if you did not read the card. I will liberally disregard entire arguments if I did not catch a complete sentence.

- I will be super pleased if you choose to read fewer, well explained positions. If I copy/paste the highlighted words of your card into a word doc and they are not complete sentences, I will largely disregard the card. I MUST understand the argument in the 1AC and 1NC.

- I am not a “blank state”. I also feel my role as a judge is to serve a duel function of rendering a decision, in addition to serving a role as educator as well.

- I think disclosure is good. I trend towards more disclosure = better but tags/cites/first ten and last ten seems like a reasonable minimum to me. I think debates about full text vs open source etc etc are boring. (If you cannot put your positions on the wiki for some reason i think you should make an effort, in good faith, to make your previously read positions available to your opponent at least 30 minutes prior to the round).

- If a cheating allegation is made, the round is staked on that question. There is a difference between reading theory and making an accusation about someone's academic integrity, and I take these allegations very seriously. If the allegation is proven true, I will give a loss and the lowest speaker points possible. But if the person making the allegation is incorrect, they will get a loss and the lowest speaker points possible.

- Dropped arguments and the “auto-win” seems silly to me. Just because a debater drops a card doesn’t mean you win the debate. Weighing and embedded clash are a necessary component of debate. Good debaters extend their arguments. GREAT debaters do that in addition to explaining the nexus point of clash between their arguments and that of the opposition and WHY I should prefer their argument.

- Debating with a laptop is a choice, if you are reading from a computer I have three expectations that are nonnegotiable: A) You must jump the documents read to the opposition in a timely manner (before your speech or at worse IMMEDIATELY after your speech) to allow them to prepare or set up an email chain. B) If your opponent does not have a laptop you need to have a viewing computer OR surrender your computer to them to allow them to prepare. The oppositions need to prep outweighs your need to prep/preflow in that moment in time. C) My expectation is that the documents that are shared are done in a format that is the same as read by the debater that initially read the material. In other words, I will not tolerate some of the shenanigan’s that seem to exist, including but not limited to, using a non standard word processing program, all caps, no formatting etc.

miscellaneous things i like:

cross aps across flows, good and time efficient overviews, ballot stories/judge instruction, interesting cx, numbering args on the line by line, lots of line by line, good responsive k debates, TKOs, condo ethics, reading cards you cut yourself, historical or material examples, explaining the perm, good util justifications, weighing in theory debate, putting case on top, alt solves case + explanation, good paragraph theory (at times), good case debate (link/impact turns etc), strategic choice/collapse.

miscellaneous things i do not like:

you being a jerk, unresponsive overviews, long 1AC underviews (esp with any spikes), spreading fast while making 0 arguments, kicking the aff in the 1ar, splitting the 2nr/2ar, not explaining the perm, cps without net benefits, disads with the same impact as the aff, oppression good, death good, unnecessarily graphic descriptions of violence, kicking the alt in k debates, reading arguments you know nothing about, theory shells that indict the character of your opponent