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!

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.

Speech:

I am a relatively inexperienced speech judge but have plenty of experience in forensics. Please feel free to ask any questions.

Public Forum:

Flow judge.

Stating something that contradicts what your opponents have said isn't debating; it's disagreeing. AKA implicate your responses and don't repeatedly extend through ink.

I look for the path of least resistance when I'm deciding a round.

If you misrepresent evidence, I will drop you.

Theory: Generally, I don't think theory belongs in PF debate. I think PF is unique in the sense that accessibility is an integral part of the activity and in my opinion the speed at which debaters often have to speak and the evidence cited in theory shells are simply not accessible to the public at large. That being said, I understand the value of theory with respect to protecting competitors from abuses in round and out of respect for all debaters and arguments alike I will listen and flow theory and evaluate it in the round. I've even voted for a team who ran it once. All I'll say is the only thing worse than running theory is doing it badly. If you don't know what you're doing and you don't actually have a deep understanding of the theory that you're running and how it operates within a debate round, I wouldn't recommend that you run it in front of me. Lastly, if you're going to run theory you should know that I really value upholding the standard that you run in and out of rounds and across all topics.

Experience:

Debated in PF during all four years of HS for Bronx Science, dabbled in Policy for a year at Emory. Coached for 3+ years. Currently a law student at Emory.

Judged various forms of debate since 2013.

Please add me the to email chain: bittencourtjulia25@gmail.com

alec.j.boulton.molero@vanderbilt.edu

My name is Alec, you can call me that and not "judge" <3

-General-

Tech > truth, "tabula rasa" whatever.

Make these rounds interesting. Debate is a game, have fun with it!

Postround.

Cool with anyone speaking in cross.

Ignore my facial expressions.

If you think something is missing from my paradigm, ask me before round or make an argument in round for why I should follow a certain rule when judging. You can also ask me paradigm questions in-round, but I won't give answers that will advantage one team.

Give me real extensions. "Extend our argument" is not an extension. "Extend Cortez who says M4A grows the economy" isn't one either. I also don't care for the card name. I need warrants.

Be quick with evidence or read off cards/send card docs, I'll hard dock speaks.

-Traditional-

Second rebuttal doesn't need to frontline defense, just offense (including implications and weighing).

Weigh. "We outweigh on probability because [insert a response you forgot to read]" is not weighing. If an argument is won, the probability is high. Clear up mess, I'm not voting on unarticulated implications. Scrap weighing categories like "time frame" and "magnitude," just tell me why your offense is more important.

Terminalize your impacts. "20% GDP" isn't an impact.

-Progressive-

I increasingly feel the need to specify that I have a bar for warranting in progressive debate: understand what you're saying. Don't assume I'll vote on your shortcuts. Nothing to be scared of, if you think you'd normally be fine you shouldn't need to change your debating. Anything is fine, just be clear with offs and actually make warrants.Think through what you're doing and try to explain your position to me as though the goal was to fully get me to understand your argument.

If the other team didn't explicitly agree to have a prog debate and they make any abuse claim, I'll drop you. The exception is in-round violations that require theory, but in that case at least be clear pre-speech about what you want to do.

Speech by speech responses are fine, extensions start in summary.

Paraphrase and don't disclose if you want. An absurd amount of judges are incredibly bias and basically auto-drop teams that don't paraphrase or disclose as long as any half-written interp is read. I'll judge those debates.

-Evidence-

I'll call for evidence that I think is important or if I am told to call for it. If you have terrible evidence ethics, I'll call you out, drop the evidence from the flow, and prob take speaks off depending on how bad the evidence is.

If you don't give the warrant in the round, I don't care how good the evidence is.

You don't need evidence for everything. The "arguments start with research and evidence" coach/judge mentality strangles creativity and free thought. If you have a logical claim, back it up with logic. Be careful with what you may think is "logical," you might not see the hole in your chain, and that's part of why you are debating. If something requires evidence (pointing out quantifiable changes for example), then evidence is needed. If one side has evidence and the other has bad logic, then the evidence will be weighed heavily. Trust yourself. Evidence is very nice, and research is important, but don't let it be the cage of your mind.

-Speaks-

If you care about this (which you should!!!), here are some things you can do to up your speaks:

- dap up your opponents (sportsmanship!)

- be nice (or really just don't benot nice)

- don't steal prep time, it's always obvious

- have your evidence ready

- play fair

- literally just don't give me a reason to drop your speaks. I'm not trying to give out 30s, but I like giving higher-end speaks when I see genuine debating and real attempts to engage with this activity :)

I coach withDebateDrills- the following URL has our roster, MJP conflict policy,code of conduct, relevant team policies, and harassment/bullying complaint form:https://www.debatedrills.com/club-team-policies/lincoln-douglas-team-policy

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

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!)

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.

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.

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?

EXTEND YOUR ARGUMENT. You can't win an argument if you don't extend it. If you don't extend your argument, it is like there is terminal defense on it. Frontlining your argument and then failing to extend it is a waste of time. EXTEND YOUR ARGUMENT.

TLDR: Think of me like a traditional PF judge/someone who has been coaching for 20 years. Quality>Quantity. Logic>Evidence

Experience: I debated in Public Forum for Valley International Prep. I quartered at the TOC

How I evaluate rounds: Your primary concern should be winning and extending your argument. That is a prerequisite to any impact weighing you want me to consider. Generally, I think most of the impact weighing teams do is fairly elementary and ineffective. I don't need you to tell me you outweigh on scope because you affect more people. I think link ins, short circuits, and pre recs are far more valuable than impact weighing.

Be Clear and Comparative: Want to make my decision easy? Implicate your responses. Don't assume I know if defense is mitigatory or terminal. Tell me, "This functions as terminal defense to my opponents case because..." Do comparative analysis. If you and your opponent read opposing evidence, tell me why to prefer yours. Is the author more credible? Is the study more recent or more comprehensive of all factors? If you outweigh on scope and your opponent outweighs on magnitude, tell me why scope matters more.

Want to make my decision really easy? Tell a clear story. If you have the stronger narrative, I’ll probably find a way to vote for you in close rounds that could go either way. PF is fundamentally a persuasion event - if you convince me your side is true, you’ll probably win the round.

Technical stuff:

2nd rebuttal has to frontline ALL turns and terminal defense on the argument they are going for. Defense isn't sticky. Any defense that you're going to read in final focus should be in summary.

Overviews?

There are three types of overviews in my mind.

1) New offense (oUr tHiRd cOnTeNtIoN iS...)

Don't read it. I won't vote on it. I prefer actual clash to random DAs.

2) An overall response to their case.

Good idea

3) Weighing overviews.

GREAT IDEA.

Speed: Keep it under 225 WPM. Quality>Quantity

I’m logic >>>>>> evidence. You can win my ballot without reading a single card. I care about ideas, not authors. I will not evaluate a card without a warrant. The warrant can be either in the card or made analytically by you. Only evidence > logic if both teams have rock solid logic but one has evidence.

I’m tech > truth with one caveat - the stupider an argument gets, the lower my response threshold gets. That said, a response has to exist.

Take your opponents at their highest ground. Don't lie to me. If they responded to your argument, don't say that they conceded it. If they read a warrant or an impact, don't tell me that they didn't. That's lazy, disingenuous, and bad debating. You'll do a lot better by saying, "Even if you believe everything my opponents said, we STILL win the round," and then weighing your arguments against the best iteration of theirs.

Theory? Sure. Paragraph theory is fine. I don't need it in shell form. If you call for evidence and it's really miscut, I WILL vote on an evidence ethics shell. I default to RVIs and I think teams should be able to read reasonability responses.

Ks? Ehhh. I prefer util debate. That said, I've read basic K stuff so if you wanna read a K and that's your topic strat, I wont change that or penalize you for it. Just please be really clear and explicit and explain stuff well.

Speaker Points: I will give speaker points based on your rhetorical appeal. Usually there are two different speaking styles that work pretty well. You can go the dominant route and be loud and confident. Think, "THE ROUND IS OVER." Or you can go the calm, quieter, confident route. Think, "The round breaks down pretty simply." Give me some alliteration or a catchy phrase and you'll probably get a 30. I probably won't give anyone below a 28 unless you explicitly do something I say not to do in my paradigm or say something problematic/offensive

Other Things:

1. I will disclose no matter what... even if it's against tournament rules (just don't tell on me). My least favorite thing as a debater was not getting any feedback or knowing the results of a round.

2. Please come to the round preflowed. If both debaters are in round, and you're wasting time preflowing, I'll take a speaker point off.

3. I'll only call for evidence if there is debate about what the evidence says.

4. I'll try to nod if I like/agree with what you're saying and frown if I don't. As a debater, the facial expressions of judges always helped me know what to go for and what to drop. I also just think that generally, reading the way people are responding to what you are saying and making adjustments when necessary is a valuable life skill, so I will help you do that.

5. Feel free to post-round me if you disagree with or have questions about my decision. I think post-rounding will help you improve/understand my decision better and will make me a better judge.

If you disagree with any of these philosophies and believe I should be judging the round differently, tell me in a speech and warrant it. I'm open to creativity. For example, if you think that I should be evidence > logic or think I should not require frontlining in second rebuttal, and your reasoning is sound (and not well responded-to), I'll oblige

(Last Updated 6/10/21)

General (read in addition to specific event):

I debated 4 years of policy in high school. After graduating I participated in 3.5 years of American Parliamentary debate with the University of Massachusetts Amherst. I am currently the Public Forum Coach at Westridge School and Flintridge Preparatory.

I try to evaluate all arguments fairly. I have no preference between kritical or traditional style arguments. My only reservations when it comes to non-traditional arguments are when they are poorly executed. If you are running a K your link and framework should be clearly outlined. The same goes for theory.

I think the best debate happens when both teams fully grasp each other's contentions. If your opponent can't understand your contention the judge probably can't either. So be clear and transparent.

I also don't do any work on the flow for you. If you want me to vote or extend something tell me to do so and why.

I understand that debate can be competitive and get heated from time to time. That is no reason to be rude to your opponents. Just be respectful and enjoy the debate.

Policy/LD:

I'm definitely a more old school policy debater. I spent my policy career running policy affs, T, politics, and responding to Ks with framework. That being said, please don't alter your strategy heavily because of that. I understand the debate space changes so if you're a K team I'll consider your args just as much as I would consider a standard disad/cp combo or traditional aff. I just might be a bit slower grasping the thesis of your arg so be as clear as you can be.

I am not the biggest fan of conditionality or similar args, but if you feel they are particularly applicable in a round feel free to run them.

I am fine with speed, but it takes me a second to adjust to any given speaker, especially with online and different mics. So start off your speech below your max speed then work up to it over the next few seconds so I can adapt.

You can add me on the email chain (email at the bottom), but I won't evaluate any of it throughout the round as I believe that invites too much opportunity for judge intervention. If a point in the debate really comes down to who's ev is better then I will evaluate it post round before submitting my ballot. Throughout the round give me the warrant for why to prefer your ev.

PF:

I really don't have much patience with evidence exchange. You should have all your evidence cut into cards and easily accessible to send. If it is a matter of slower internet or tech limitations, or your opponent requested a large amount of ev that is fine. However, "looking" for a piece of evidence to send shouldn't take longer than 10-20 sec.

I won't doc you for it, but I'm against paraphrasing in PF. If your ev is solid there shouldn't be much of a difference from using a card vs paraphrasing, so read the card.

I can keep up, but I hate speed in PF. If you really want to spread you should be in policy or LD. PF is supposed to be accessible to everyone, spreading is a barrier to that in PF. Although spreading through a bunch of arguments and then collapsing to whichever the other team misses is a viable strategy I don't think it is substantial or productive debate. I won't drop you because of this, but if your opponents clearly can't keep up or understand I might doc a few speaker points.

I don't want to be on email chains. I feel that invites too many opportunities for judge intervention throughout a debate. Additionally, I don't want debaters going through the round under the assumption that I am reading through all the ev that is exchanged. If there are contradicting pieces of evidence give me the warrant for why to prefer your ev. If a point in the debate REALLY comes down to who's ev is better, then I will ask for the relevant cards post round before making my decision.

I do appreciate collapsing when appropriate, and starting your weighing earlier rather than later in a round.

Feel free to ask me any questions about my paradigm or preferences.

Email: isaacjgutierrez97@gmail.com

Be respectful during the crossfire.

No preferred speaking style.

Try to send evidence asked for during crossfire in the chat after crossfire/during prep time, let's not waste time searching for cards during questions.

Provide trigger warnings for topics your fellow debaters may find sensitive.

If you're worried about time mid-sentence just complete your thought, I will stop you when I have to.

This is my 39th year teaching and most of that I have also coached speech and debate. As far as debate goes, I coached LD starting in the mid 80's running on and off through 2017. I coached policy on and off from 1990-2000. I have coached PF on and off since its inception. I have coached congressional debate since the early 80's. I don't have a paradigm for Speech events, but I have coached and judged all speech events since the early 80's as well.

As a Congress Judge:

Delivery: I embrace the role play. You are all portraying legislators from across the country and should behave with the decorum that role suggests. That being said, we have legislators from across the country with various styles and habits -- that makes congress debate AWESOME! There is no single, perfect way to deliver!

Evidence Usage: CD is, at its core, a debate event. Arguments should have sound, sourced evidence that follows NSDA rules. Empirical claims require empirical evidence.

Analysis - If I am judging Congressional Debate, chances are the tournament is a national caliber tournament (otherwise I would be working in some capacity in tab). I expect high level analysis at a high level tournament. If you are the 4th speaker and beyond - I expect unique arguments and I expect analysis and refutation of earlier speakers. Crystallization speeches do not merely mention every speaker that spoke earlier on a piece of legislation. It literally crystallizes the two sides, weighs the impacts of the two sides, and persuades me of their chosen position.

Argument Impacts: Please identify who or what is impacted. Be specific. In CD, please explain real world impacts. The narrative of impacts is as important (if not more) as the numerics of impacts.

On the topic of cost benefit analysis and weighing... Be careful of playing the numbers game. A large number of persons harmed may not necessarily outweigh a single person harmed, if the single person's harm is total and complete and the larger number still enjoy existence.

Decorum: Behavior in and out of chambers is important. Respectful, educational, kind, and full of fun... these should be in balance! (I don't like boring debate)

I don't have a calculator on the above. Very seldom is there a debater who is awesome at them all... But all need to be part of the mix. If I am judging a top round, I suspect that all speakers will be amazing! That means the final ranking will come down to relevance in the round. If all speeches were brilliant, questioning and answering were spot on, and knowledge of topics is at the top, who stood out as the genuine, 'real deal'?

PF Paradigm - I embrace the notion that the event is intended to be judged by an informed public forum. That does not mean dumbing down arguments because you think the judge is dumber than you because they didn't go to camp (adults don't go to camp). I think most judges want to hear good arguments that pertain to the resolution and want to hear clash between positions. That being said, here is my more specific paradigm:

Speed - I love an energetic debate, but save spreading for policy (and sadly LD). You should have written a prima facie case that either affirms or negates. It should be written so that the first speaker can energetically deliver it. Most PF spread isn't really spread, it is spewing and incoherent choking due largely to the student's failure to adequately cut their case. I am fine with clean, clear, speed. Can I hear arguments delivered at 385 wpm? yes. Will I flow them? probably not.

Frameworks - Sure, if you really are running a framework. If it is legit (and stays up in the round throughout), both sides will be weighing impacts within that framework.

Observations - Sure, if they are observations. Observations are not arguments. They are observations. "It is raining - observation: things are wet." "If Trump wins the election it will trigger nuclear war" is an argument, not an observation.

Warrants and Impacts are your friends!! Numbers are just numbers - how do they happen? why do they happen? who is affected and why them? is there possible counter causality? Really good logic if well explained will beat blippy numbers. Well explained statistics that are connected and clear will beat poor logic.

Flowing - Yes, I flow. I expect you to do so as well. I don't flow card names and dates - so make sure when you refer to a piece of evidence you reference what it says, not a name.

Jargon - I am not a fan. Don't say de-link. It is often unwarranted. Explain how and why. Unique is a noun, not a verb. You cannot 'non-unique' something. I love turns, but don't just spout 'turn.' Explain why their argument works against them. Or show how their impacts actually are good, not bad. At its heart debate is a communication education activity; I take your education seriously.

Kritiks - They are arguments. I was okay with them in policy when they were a 'thing,' largely because policy is more game than debate. I was not okay with them in LD when used as a gimmick. I am the LD judge that still clings to the notion that we should have value debate. However, a well thought out K that communicates the impact of the issue must be answered in any debate! In PF, I might be okay if a team ran a kritik that they truly believed in, and they clearly had the ethos and pathos to convince me it wasn't just a gimmick, I MIGHT vote on the K if it is argued well. OR, if their opponents clearly understood the K but just didn't want to deal with it. A K is still an argument, and the premise of the K needs to be responded to as an argument. If not, chances are I am going to vote for the K.

I am not a fan of: rude behavior, gender put-downs, dog whistle language, or individuals being mean/cocky just for the heck of it. =26s-27s. I would go lower, but most tournaments won't let me.

I love intense and lively debate. I love true arguments that are well researched, argued, and impacted. I love smart. Smart gets 29.5s and 29.9s. It has been a very long time since I gave 30's but I do give them!

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

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 :)

*paradigm finessed from Ryan Zhu*

- PF debater from Edina JW, have competed nationally and locally.

If you wish to have any accommodations to make the debate safer/better or have any extra questions after reading the paradigm, contact me on Facebook Messenger or at evanjiang943@gmail.com

put me on the email chain if there is one: (email above)

tl:dr - tech > truth judge - tabula rasa. I'll flow the entire round, debate how you want - line by line/big picture idc. Everything in FF should be in summary.

- ay have fun! crack jokes - itll make the whole debate more fun and enjoyable

- i'll disclose the decision - if you think i messed up, roast me all you want, post round me, ask questions, idrc but don't be a dick.

speed: i can keep up and flow anywhere up to 300wpm. send a speech doc to me if you're gonna spread and make sure you aren't excluding your opponents.

weighing: pls pls weigh! weighing is the easiest way to win the round and structures how i view the debate. GIVE ME A REASON WHY TO PREFER YOUR ARGUMENT/LINK/IMPACT OVER YOUR OPPONENTS.

second rebuttal: second rebuttal should frontline at the least turns, but prolly defense also. split however you want (ie 2/2 or 3/1).

first summary: unfrontlined defense is sticky for first summary and can go from rebuttal to final focus. if it is frontlined, still need to extend it. turns should always be in summary.

theory: i'm good with most theory arguments as long as there is a real violation, like the other team not reading a content warning for a potentially triggering argument. i'm not gonna vote on friv theory (shoe theory, disclosure, paraphrase) tbh. paragraph theory is fine if you don't know how to write the full shell.

Ks: these are prolly fine if you want to run the argument, but slow down and explain it rly well. i won't know the lit base but I'll listen to the arg and know how they work.

tricks: no.

speaks: Average ~ 28.5 and go up/down the 0.1 scale from that. strategic decisions and collapsing earn a bump. i'm not gonna evaluate 30s theory tho.

evidence: cut cards are a must - whether you read those cut cards verbatim or paraphrase them is up to you. If anyone calls for ev, pls be able to give them the card promptly.

don't do these:

If you make an offensive comment (ex: racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.), you will get the L and lowest possible speaks. Debate should be inclusive and safe for people.

offensive overviews: don't pull out a new contention in rebuttal, i'm not going to vote for an unrelated DA out of second rebuttal, and i don't think that reading a new contention level arg in first rebuttal is strategic.

dumping unwarranted args: don't read as many arguments as you can if it means sacrificing the warranting and explanation. that being said, i'm fine with any crazy arguments as long as there are warrants and implications. quality > quantity plz.

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!

Parent judge, Very lay, might flow a little. HATES RAPID SPEECH (DO NOT SPREAD) Do not run Bostrom! He will not vote on it, or most Nuke war scenarios tbh. Knows very little about the topic. Does know some about other topics.

bskirsch@umich.edu

Hackley '21 | Umich '25

Currently doing policy at Michigan and coaching PF.

Before the round, tell me your favorite song and I will play it like a baseball walk up song before your speeches.

--- PF ----

I think I'm a pretty standard flow judge. I'll evaluate anything, and you should do whatever you do best in the round. That said, here are some preferences I have:

Speed is totally fine. I'll be able to flow mostly anything, unless you're spreading 3081 paraphrased blips per second. I will not flow off a speech doc, I can't read.

The second rebuttal should frontline the first, but I won't drop you for not doing it. If the second rebuttal doesn't frontline, then the first final focus should pull the defense from the first rebuttal. Don't go over defense that doesn't have a response in 1st summary that's wasting time.

More progressive things: Theory is fine but not encouraged. I do not want to evaluate a paraphrasing or disclosure round, it's just not very fun. If you win, you win, but don't expect good speaks. My bias is that paraphrasing is good and disclosure is good, but that won't impact the round. I'm probably one of the best K judges you will get in PF. Tricks are truly horrible things, but if you win it you win it.

Post-rounding is encouraged. Please ask questions during my RFD, it helps me focus feedback. If you think I made the wrong decision, feel free to tell me that and reason with me. I'm not very smart, so it's very possible I'm wrong. If you believe my decision was wrong, punch me in the face.

--- Policy ---

Note: Basically nothing in the PF Paradigm applies, don't read it.

I only started doing policy in college, and have watched single-digit high school policy rounds. You should treat me as if I know literally nothing about the topic (because I don't know very much about the topic). It'd also help me make a better decision if you went a little bit slower than top speed.

I'd be comfortable judging either a policy round or a K round, but I'd probably be better at evaluating policy rounds. I'll vote on absolutely anything so long as there are warrants and you are explaining things well.

Tech over truth within reason - it matters to me that you are making good arguments. Those arguments can be as bizarre as you please, so long as you're explaining and warranting things well.

Impact calculus that's somewhat specific to the impacts being read would probably be good. The less I use my brain, the happier you will be. (I'm not very smart)

All things considered, I'd rather the aff have a plan, but who am I to tell you how to debate. I'll be generally sympathetic to framework arguments but don't let my preferences impact your strategy too much.

Please face me during speeches, I feel really uncomfortable when teams don't do this.

Have fun with it and be nice to each other.

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 debated PF at Stuyvesant High School for 4 years.

Update for Harvard Tournament: i am old now. please do not speak fast because i truly will not be able to follow it. please disregard everything below. a slow, logical, and captivating speech delivery will surely convince me.

Speech-docs & questions about the decision should be emailed to: jeremylee@college.harvard.edu.

If you are going to read an argument about a sensitive topic, please include a content warning. Give a phone number for participants to anonymously report any concerns, and if there are any, you must have an alternative case ready to read.

TLDR: Treat me like a lay judge. I will evaluate rounds with a technical standard, but I dislike fast, blippy "tech" debate. As tech as I try to be, your persuasive ability will inevitably skew me one way or another, so please don't throw away presentational skills for the sake of spewing jargon. Every argument needs a clearly-explained warrant for me to consider it. I will vote for the team with the least mitigated link to the greatest impact.

Technicalities

- Cross will not impact my evaluation of the round. Use it for your own benefit to clarify arguments.

- First summary doesn't need defense.

- I care little about numbers and number comparisons in weighing. Most of the time, impact quantifications in PF are over exaggerated because impacts that happen on margins are extremely difficult if not impossible to quantify.

- Weigh turns & disads (If you don't, I won't know whether to evaluate your response or your opponents' case first. This means I can still vote for a team with a dropped turn on their flow.)

- Compare your weighing to your opponents. If this is not done, know that I weigh primarily on the link level because I think it is the key factor in determining the marginality of your impact (or if it happens at all). If you don’t want an unexpected decision, do the weighing yourself. Side-note: Link ins don’t count as weighing unless you show that your link is stronger than theirs.

- It is my belief that weighing fundamentally comes down to two things: how large your impact is and how probable your impact is. I take both things into account so if you weigh on probability and your opponent weighs on magnitude (and you both don't interact with each other's weighing), I will intervene to determine which argument is more important.

- I won't vote off of dropped defense if it is not extended

- Paragraph theory is good with me and is probably more accessible. However, this does not mean you do not read blippy theory for the sake of throwing your opponent off. Still give me a clear interpretation, violation, standard, and voter. [Note: I am not very familiar with progressive argumentation and would prefer it not to be run unless there is real abuse in the round. If you do choose to run it, I will evaluate it as logically as I can, but I cannot guarantee that I will evaluate it the same way your typical "tech" judge would.]

- No CPs or Ks.

- Weighing in first FF is okay, but it's better if done earlier (not in second FF though)

- No new arguments in FF. This applies to extensions. If there isn't a clean link and impact extension in summary, I won't evaluate it even if it is in FF.

- Second rebuttal must respond to turns (I count as dropped otherwise)

- No offensive OVs in second rebuttal. I just won't vote on it

- Tech>truth most times, but the crazier an argument gets, the lower my threshold for responses to that argument is.

- Extensions of offense need to be in summary and final focus. You need to always link the argument back to the resolution and draw it out to an impact. If this isn't done, you will 90% of the time lose the round because you have no offense. I have a relatively high threshold for what counts as a clear extension because it is essential for transparent collapsing.

- Please don't use the abusive strategy of kicking out of all of your opponent's responses to your case just to read a new link to your impact. If your opponents do this, call them out for it in speech.

- If no offense is left by the end of the round, I presume the team that lost the coin flip. If the round is side-locked, I presume the first speaking team because I believe it is at a structural disadvantage in the round.

Etiquette (how to get high speaks)

- Don't spread. I flow on my computer, so I can follow speed, but the faster you go, the more likely I am to miss something on the flow. Additionally, I find that 99% of the time, you do not need to go fast to cover the flow; you simply need to improve your word economy. Finally, I believe that spreading is bad for the activity. It excludes so many people from being able to comprehend and learn from the round, making the activity overall less accessible. If you can speak at a moderate speed while still covering the flow efficiently, you will be rewarded with high speaks.

- Signpost. If I am not writing on my flow, there is a good chance that I just don't know where you are on the flow.

- Do not be rude to your opponent. This includes making faces while your opponent is speaking, speaking over your opponent in cross, and making jokes at the expense of your opponents. Excessive rudeness that makes the activity inaccessible to marginalized groups will result in me dropping the debater. My threshold for this is not that high because I despise this behavior in an activity that is meant to be fun and educational for all participants.

- I will give you high speaks if you speak pretty and are smart on the flow.

- Do not read 30 speaks theory.

Evidence

- Please don't call for every piece of evidence your opponents read. I understand if you think the card is super important to win the round, but in 99% of rounds, I do not even consider evidence in my decision. I instead look at logic and argument quality, so call for evidence sparingly.

- I think evidence is overrated and warrants matter much more. This means you need to attach warrants to evidence and also should discourage the misconstruction of evidence. Your insane card won't win you the round. Read your evidence ethically and then explain its role in the round.

(Guide) Warranted analytics + evidence > warranted analytics > unwarranted evidence > assertions.

- At the minimum, last name and year

- I am fairly lenient with paraphrased cards because I understand that when all evidence is taken word for word from the source, word economy suffers and many debaters resort to speaking faster. However, this is on the condition that evidence is NOT misconstrued. If you are to paraphrase evidence, make sure to fully understand the source and maintain the source's intention; do NOT paraphrase evidence for the sake of getting it to say what you want it to say.

- I will only call for evidence if you tell me during a speech or if I find it relevant to my decision at the end of the round.

- To discourage cheating, if you blatantly misrepresent evidence, I will drop the entire arg/contention.

Misc.

- I expect all exchanges of evidence to take no longer than 2 minutes. If you delay the debate significantly while looking for a specific card, I may dock your speaker points for being disorganized and wasting time. If someone requests to see your evidence, you should hand it to them as soon as possible; don't say "I need my computer to prep."

- Please don't try to shake my hand after the round.

- Wear whatever you want, I don't really care.

- Feel free to ask questions about the decision after the round. I won't feel offended if you disagree with my decision, and I am happy to discuss it after the round.

If you have any other questions, ask before the round.

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.

tldr do what you do best; i'll only vote for complete arguments that make sense; weighing & judge instruction tip the scales in your favor; disclosure is good; i care about argument engagement and i value flexibility; stay hydrated & be a good person.

--

About me:

she/her

policy coach @ damien: spring 2022 - present

ld coach @ loyola: fall 2023 - present

--

My strongest belief about argumentation is that argument engagement is good - I don't have a strong preference as to what styles of arguments teams read in front of me, but I'd prefer if both teams engaged with their opponents' arguments; I don't enjoy teams who avoid clash (regardless of the style of argument they are reading). I value ideological flexibility in judges and actively try not to be someone who will exclusively vote on only "policy" or only "k" arguments.

I am comfortable evaluating arguments that are commonplace in policy (cx) debate; less comfortable evaluating nonsense trick-blip-phil-paradox-skep-word-soup quirks of lincoln douglas. This means that any CX team that debates in a coherent and well-researched manner (whether policy or k) should be fine in front of me. LD teams that read real arguments should be fine in front of me. LD teams that read "eval after 1ar" should strike me before they strike a parent judge.

General note about reading my paradigm - most things are phrased in terms of policy debate structure & norms (2nr/2ar being 5 minutes, "team" instead of "debater," "planless aff" = "non-t k aff," etc). If I'm judging you in LD and you have questions about how something translates to LD, feel free to ask!

--

email chains:

ld email chains: loyoladebate47@gmail.com and nethmindebate@gmail.com

policy email chains: damiendebate47@gmail.com and nethmindebate@gmail.com

if you need to contact me directly about rfd questions, accessibility requests, or anything else, please email nethmindebate@gmail.com (please don't email the teamail for these types of requests)!

--

flowing: it is good and teams should do it

stolen from alderete - if you show me a decent flow, you can get up to 1 extra speaker point. this can only help you - i won't deduct points for an atrocious flow. this is to encourage teams to actually flow. i recently witnessed a 2ac that answered a whole k that was not read in the 1nc. it nuked my value to life. this is my attempt at remedying it:)

--

All of my deal-breakers/hard and fast rules/moments of "I won't vote on this" are dependent on four things:

1 - protecting the safety of the participants in the round (no harrassment, no physical violence, etc).

2 - voting for things that meet the minimum standard to be considered an argument (it needs to have warrants & make some amount of logical sense).

3 - rules set forth by the tournament (speech times, one team wins and one team loses, I have to enter my own ballot, etc).

4 - i will only evaluate the debate after the end of the 2ar. this is 0% negotiable. i did not think i would have to say this, but i guess i do.

--

My voting record is roughly 50-50 on most major debate controversies (yes, even planless affs vs framework). As long as your argument doesn't violate the above four criteria, go for it!

I think that warrants are hard to come by in many debate rounds these days, even ones with “good” teams. Err on the side of a little too much explanation, because if your arg is warrantless, you will be ballotless. Extensions need to include warrants, not just taglines.

Independent voters need warrants and an articulation of why they should be evaluated before everything else. These debates could generally benefit from more judge instruction and weighing. Simply calling something an independent voter doesn’t mean I vote for you if you extend it.

Disclose or lose. Non-new affs should be on the wiki & should be disclosed to the neg team a minimum of 30 min before round. Neg offcase positions that have been read before should be on the wiki. Past 2nrs should be disclosed to the aff team a minimum of 30 min before round. New affs don't need to be disclosed pre-round. I am 1000000% done with teams that don't disclose. I have zero belief that there is any good reason for non-disclosure. If your opponent engages in any disclosure nonsense, read theory and there's a 95+% chance I vote for you, regardless of how good they are at the theory debate. Don't like disclosing? Pref someone who is willing to tolerate your nonsense (not me).

note: i am far more lenient on disclosure with novices/debaters who haven't debated at national-circuit tournaments before. the grumpiness of the above section is directed at people who know how to disclose and purposefully avoid it. you know who you are:)

--

Some general notes

Accessibility & content warnings: Email me if there is an accessibility request that I can help facilitate - I always want to do my part to make debates more accessible. I prefer not to judge debates that involve procedurals about accessibility and/or content warnings. I think it is more productive to have a pre-round discussion where both teams request any accommodation(s) necessary for them to engage in an equitable debate. I feel increasingly uncomfortable evaluating debates that come down to accessibility/cw procedurals, especially when the issue could have easily been resolved pre-round.

Speed/clarity – I will say clear up to two times per speech before just doing my best to flow you. I can handle a decent amount of speed. Going slower on analytics is a good idea. You should account for pen time/scroll time.

Online debate -- 1] please record your speeches, if there are tech issues, I'll listen to a recording of the speech, but not a re-do. 2] debate's still about communication - please watch for nonverbals, listen for people saying "clear," etc.

I am not comfortable evaluating out-of-round events. The only exception to this is disclosure. I will vote on reasonable and good faith disclosure theory (yeah you should probably disclose on opencaselist, no you probably shouldn't lose for forgetting one round report). I will not vote on arguments about random out-of-round events, things that happened in another round, things that happened on a team's pref sheet, or any other arguments of this nature.

--

Speaker points:

Speaker points are dependent on strategy, execution, clarity, and overall engagement in the round and are scaled to adapt to the quality/difficulty/prestige of the tournament.

I try to give points as follows:

30: you're a strong contender to win the tournament & this round was genuinely impressive

29.5+: late elims, many moments of good decisionmaking & argumentative understanding, adapted well to in-round pivots

29+: you'll clear for sure, generally good strat & round vision, a few things could've been more refined

28.5+: likely to clear but not guaranteed, there are some key errors that you should fix

28+: even record, probably losing in the 3-2 round

27.5+: winning less than 50% of your rounds, key technical/strategic errors

27+: winning less than 50% of your rounds, multiple notable technical/strategic errors

26+: errors that indicated a fundamental lack of preparation for the rigor/style of this tournament

25-: you did something really bad/offensive/unsafe.

Extra speaks for flowing, being clear, kindness, adaptation, and good disclosure practices.

Minus speaks for discrimination of any sort, bad-faith disclosure practices, rudeness/unkindness, and attempts to avoid engagement/clash.

--

Opinions on Specific Positions (ctrl+f section):

Case:

I think that negatives that don't engage with the 1ac are putting themselves in a bad position. This is true for both K debates and policy debates.

Extensions should involve warrants, not just tagline extensions - I'm willing to give some amount of leeway for the 1ar/2ar extrapolating a warrant that wasn't the focal point of the 2ac, but I should be able to tell from your extensions what the scenario is, what the internal links are, and why you solve.

Planless affs:

I've been on both sides of the planless aff debate, and my strongest opinion about planless affs is that you need to be able to explain what your aff does/why it's good.

I tend to dislike planless affs where the strategy is to make the aff seem like a word salad until after 2ac cx and then give the aff a bunch of new (and not super well-warranted) implications in the 1ar. I tend to be better for planless aff teams when they have a meaningful relationship to the topic, they are straight-up about what they do/don't defend, they use their aff strategically, engage with neg arguments, and make smart 1ar & 2ar decisions with good ballot analysis.

T/framework vs planless affs:

I'm roughly 50-50 in these debates. I don't have a strong preference for how framework teams engage in these debates other than that you should be respectful when discussing sensitive material.

I think that TVAs can be more helpful than teams realize. While having a TVA isn't always necessary, winning a TVA provides substantial defense on many of the aff's exclusion arguments.

I don't have a preference on whether your chosen 2nr is skills or fairness (or something else). I think that both options have strategic value based on the round you're in. Framework teams almost always get better points in front of me when they are able to contextualize their arguments to their opponents' strategy.

I also don't have a preference between the aff going for impact turns or going for a counterinterp. The strategic value of this is dependent on how topical/non-topical your aff is, in my opinion.

Theory:

The less frivolous your theory argument, the better I am for it.

Please weigh! It's not nearly as intuitive to make a decision in theory debates - I can fill in the gaps for why extinction is more impactful than localized war more easily than I can fill in the gaps for why neg flex matters more/less than research burdens.

default to no rvis <3 medium uphill to change my mind on this one

Topicality (not framework):

I like T debates that have robust and contextualized definitions of the relevant words/phrases/entities in the resolution. Have a clear explanation of what your interpretation is/isn't; examples/caselists are your friend.

Grammar-based topicality arguments: I don't find most of the grammar arguments being made these days to be very intuitive. You should explain/warrant them more than you would in front of a judge who loves those arguments.

Tricks (this is mostly an LD thing):

I used to say that I would never vote on tricks. I've decided it's bad to exclude a style of argumentation just because I don't enjoy it. Here are some things to know if you're reading tricks in front of me:

1 - I won't flow off the doc (I never flow off the doc, but I won't be checking the doc to see if I missed any of your tricks/spikes)

2 - The argument has to have a warrant in the speech it is presented

3 - The reason I've been so opposed to voting on tricks in the past is that I've never heard a trick that met the minimum threshold to be considered an argument

Kritiks (neg):

I tend to like K teams that engage with the aff and have a clear analysis of what's wrong with the aff's model/framing/epistemology/etc. I tend to be a bit annoyed when judging K teams that read word-salad or author-salad Ks, refuse to engage with arguments, expect me to fill in massive gaps for them, don't do adequate weighing/ballot analysis/judge instruction, or are actively hostile toward their opponents. The more of the aforementioned things you do, the more annoyed I'll be. The inverse is also true - the more you actively work to ensure that you don't do these things, the happier I'll be!

Disads:

Zero risk probably doesn't exist, but very-close-to-zero risk probably does. Teams that answer their opponents' warrants instead of reading generic defense tend to fare better in close rounds. Good evidence tends to matter more in these debates - I'd rather judge a round with 2 great cards + debaters explaining their cards than a round with 10 horrible cards + debaters asking me to interpret their dumpster-quality cards for them.

Counterplans:

I don't have strong ideological biases about how many condo advocacies the neg gets or what kinds of counterplans are/aren't cheating. More egregious abuse = easier to persuade me on theory; the issue I usually see in theory debates is a lack of warranting for why the neg's model was uniquely abusive - specific analysis > generic args + no explanation.

Judge kick - you've gotta tell me to do it. I'm not opposed to it, but I won't assume that you want me to unless the 2nr tells me to. No strong opinions for/against judge kick.

currently no strong opinions on things like normal means or counterplan competition on the fiscal redistribution topic. this means you can probably get away with more in front of me as long as you warrant it/read good evidence.

--

Arguments I will NEVER vote for:

-arguments that are actively discriminatory or make the round unsafe ("misgendering good," "let's make the debate about a minor's personal life," other stuff of that nature).

-any argument that attempts to police what a debater wears or how they present (this includes shoes theory/formal clothes theory).

-any argument that denies the existence/badness of oppression (i don't mean i won't vote for "extinction outweighs." i mean i won't vote for "genocide good.")

--

if there's anything i didn't mention or you have any questions, feel free to email me! if there's anything i can do to make debate more accessible for you, let me know! i really love debate and i coach because i want to make debate/the community a better place; please don't hesitate to reach out if there's anything you need.

Chad Meadows (he/him)

chadwickmeadows@gmail.com

If you have interest in college debate, and would be interested in hearing about very expansive scholarship opportunities please contact me. Our program competes in two policy formats and travels to at least 4 tournaments a semester. Most of our nationally competitive students have close to zero cost of attendance because of debate specific financial support.

Debate Experience

College: I’ve been the head argument coach and/or Director of Debate for Western Kentucky University for a little over a decade. WKU primarily competes in NFA-LD, a shorter policy format. This season (2023) we are adding CEDA/NDT tournaments to our schedule.

High School: I’ve been an Assistant Coach, and primarily judge, for the Marist School in Atlanta, Georgia for several years. In this capacity I’ve judged at high school tournaments in both Policy Debate and Public Forum.

Argument Experience/Preferences

I feel comfortable evaluating the range of debates in modern policy debate (no plan affirmatives, policy, and kritik) though I am the most confident in policy rounds. My research interests tend toward more political science/international affairs/economics, though I’ve become well read in some critical areas in tandem with my students’ interests (anti-blackness/afropessimism in particular) in addition I have some cursory knowledge of the standard kritik arguments in debate, but no one would mistake me for a philosophy enthusiast. On the nuclear weapons topic, almost all of my research has been on the policy side.

I have few preferences with regard to content, but view some argumentative trends with skepticism: Counterplans that result in the plan (consult and many process counterplans), Agent counterplans, voting negative any procedural concern that isn’t topicality, reject the team counterplan theory that isn’t conditionality, some versions of politics DAs that rely on defining the process of fiat, arguments that rely on voting against the representations of the affirmative without voting against the result of the plan.

I feel very uncomfortable evaluating events that have happened outside of the debate round, especially in the CEDA/NDT community where I have limited knowledge of the context regarding community trends.

I have little experience evaluating debates with some strategies that would only be acceptable in a 2-person policy debate context - 2ac add-ons, 2nc counterplanning, 2ac intrinsicness tests on DA, etc. I’m not opposed to these strategies, and understand their strategic purpose, but I have limited exposure.

Decision Process

I tend to read more cards following the debate than most. That’s both because I’m curious, and I tend to find that debaters are informing their discussion given the evidence cited in the round, and I understand their arguments better having read the cards myself.

I give less credibility to arguments that appear unsupported by academic literature, even if the in round execution on those arguments is solid. I certainly support creativity and am open to a wide variety of arguments, but my natural disposition sides with excellent debate on arguments that are well represented in the topic literature.

To decide challenging debates I generally use two strategies: 1) write a decision for both sides and determine which reflects the in-round debating as opposed to my own intuition, and 2) list the relevant meta-issues in the round (realism vs liberal internationalism, debate is a game vs. debate should spill out, etc.) and list the supporting arguments each side highlighted for each argument and attempt to make sense of who debated the best on the issues that appear to matter most for resolving the decision.

I try to explain why I sided with the winner on each important issue, and go through each argument extended in the final rebuttal for the losing team and explain why I wasn’t persuaded by that argument.

Public Forum

Baseline expectations: introduce evidence using directly quoted sections of articles not paraphrasing, disclose arguments you plan to read in debates.

Argument preferences: no hard and fast rules, but I prefer debates that most closely resemble the academic and professional controversy posed by the topic. Debate about debate, while important in many contexts, is not the argument I'm most interested in adjudicating.

Style preferences: Argumentation not speaking style will make up the bulk of my decision making and feedback, my reflections on debate are informed by detailed note taking of the speeches, speeches should focus their time on clashing with their opponents' arguments.

I am a parent judge and have been actively judging since 2019 in multiple national tournaments. I have completed the NSDA judge training and Cultural Competency course. As a global business professional, I travel extensively and am fairly familiar with most topics debated in NSDA PF.

Speak at a reasonable pace – clarity is your responsibility. If you make an argument, you should explain and weigh the argument. Warranting is important. Clearly signpost throughout the round. Extending an impact, without explaining its warrant won’t win you the impact. Paraphrasing is fine – but needs to be accurate. Explain clear voting issues in the final focus. I like to hear why you should win.

Cards: Exchange of cards is mandatory when requested. If you cannot produce a card in 2 minutes, I will ignore it.

Timing: Time yourself (rounds and prep)

Audience: This is public forum – public (especially parents) are welcome.

Jeffrey Miller

Current Coach -- Marist School (2011-present)
Lab Leader -- National Debate Forum (2015-present), Emory University (2016), Dartmouth College (2014-2015), University of Georgia (2012-2015)
Former Coach -- Fayette County (2006-2011), Wheeler (2008-2009)
Former Debater -- Fayette County (2002-2006)

jmill126@gmail.com and maristpublicforum@gmail.com for email chains, please (no google doc sharing and no locked google docs)

Last Updated -- 2/12/2012 for the 2022 Postseason (no major updates, just being more specific on items)

I am a high school teacher who believes in the power that speech and debate provides students. There is not another activity that provides the benefits that this activity does. I am involved in topic wording with the NSDA and argument development and strategy discussion with Marist, so you can expect I am coming into the room as an informed participant about the topic. As your judge, it is my job to give you the best experience possible in that round. I will work as hard in giving you that experience as I expect you are working to win the debate. I think online debate is amazing and would not be bothered if we never returned to in-person competitions again. For online debate to work, everyone should have their cameras on and be cordial with other understanding that there can be technical issues in a round.

What does a good debate look like?

In my opinion, a good debate features two well-researched teams who clash around a central thesis of the topic. Teams can demonstrate this through a variety of ways in a debate such as the use of evidence, smart questioning in cross examination and strategical thinking through the use of casing and rebuttals. In good debates, each speech answers the one that precedes it (with the second constructive being the exception in public forum). Good debates are fun for all those involved including the judge(s).

The best debates are typically smaller in nature as they can resolve key parts of the debate. The proliferation of large constructives have hindered many second halves as they decrease the amount of time students can interact with specific parts of arguments and even worse leaving judges to sort things out themselves and increasing intervention.

What role does theory play in good debates?

I've always said I prefer substance over theory. That being said, I do know theory has its place in debate rounds and I do have strong opinions on many violations. I will do my best to evaluate theory as pragmatically as possible by weighing the offense under each interpretation. For a crash course in my beliefs of theory - disclosure is good, open source is an unnecessary standard for high school public forum teams until a minimum standard of disclosure is established, paraphrasing is bad, round reports is frivolous, content warnings for graphic representations is required, content warnings over non-graphic representations is debatable.

All of this being said, I don't view myself as an autostrike for teams that don't disclose or paraphrase. However, I've judged enough this year to tell you if you are one of those teams and happen to debate someone with thoughts similar to mine, you should be prepared with answers.

How do "progressive" arguments work in good debates?

Like I said above, arguments work best when they are in the context of the critical thesis of the topic. Thus, if you are reading the same cards in your framing contention from the Septober topic that have zero connections to the current topic, I think you are starting a up-hill battle for yourselves. I have not been entirely persuaded with the "pre-fiat" implications I have seen this year - if those pre-fiat implications were contextualized with topic literature, that would be different.

My major gripe with progressive debates this year has been a lack of clash. Saying "structural violence comes first" doesn't automatically mean it does or that you win. These are debatable arguments, please debate them. I am also finding that sometimes the lack of clash isn't a problem of unprepared debaters, but rather there isn't enough time to resolve major issues in the literature. At a minimum, your evidence that is making progressive type claims in the debate should never be paraphrased and should be well warranted. I have found myself struggling to flow framing contentions that include four completely different arguments that should take 1.5 minutes to read that PF debaters are reading in 20-30 seconds (Read: your crisis politics cards should be more than one line).

How should evidence exchange work?

Evidence exchange in public forum is broken. At the beginning of COVID, I found myself thinking cases sent after the speech in order to protect flowing. However, my view on this has shifted. A lot of debates I found myself judging last season had evidence delays after case. At this point, constructives should be sent immediately prior to speeches. (If you paraphrase, you should send your narrative version with the cut cards in order). At this stage in the game, I don't think rebuttal evidence should be emailed before but I imagine that view will shift with time as well. When you send evidence to the email chain, I prefer a cut card with a proper citation and highlighting to indicate what was read. Cards with no formatting or just links are as a good as analytics.

For what its worth, whenever I return to in-person tournaments, I do expect email chains to continue.

What effects speaker points?

I am trying to increase my baseline for points as I've found I'm typically below average. Instead of starting at a 28, I will try to start at a 28.5 for debaters and move accordingly. Argument selection, strategy choices and smart crossfires are the best way to earn more points with me. You're probably not going to get a 30 but have a good debate with smart strategy choices, and you should get a 29+.

This only applies to tournaments that use a 0.1 metric -- tournaments that are using half points are bad.

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.

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.

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.

I'm a first year debater at Harvard College, and while I did not debate PuF myself in high school, I have judged a lot of PuF rounds.

TL;DR: do NOT be mean, ballot will lean toward the team with more logical close outs rather than the team with smoother speeches

1. Please treat your opponents kindly, do not unnecessarily interrupt them, do not make rude facial expressions while an opponent is talking or condescend to them during crossfire (rude conduct will lose you the round SO fast)

2. My flow is usually really detailed and will ultimately be how I determine the round - make sure to weigh all of your contentions well and address your opponents

3. Make sure to summarize your arguments and weighing well in Final Focus/ Summaries - this will be the most deciding portion of the debate

Best of Luck!

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

Paraphrasing is ok

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

I am a parent judge. I don’t have high school or college experience in debate. I have judged a few tournaments, in LD and PF over the past 3 years.

I value arguments that are clearly articulated and presented (please do not spread), logically constructed, and are aware of their premises and implications. I also value sound evidence.

I appreciate courtesy and sportsmanship.

Finally and most importantly, I want you to have fun. If you do, I do too!

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 :)

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.

Marist, Atlanta, GA (2015-2019, 2020-Present)
Pace Academy, Atlanta GA (2019-2020)
Stratford Academy, Macon GA (2008-2015)
Michigan State University (2004-2008)

Pronouns- She/Her

Please use email chains. Please add me- abby.schirmer@gmail.com.

Short version- You need to read and defend a plan in front of me. I value clarity (in both a strategic and vocal sense) and strategy. A good strategic aff or neg strat will always win out over something haphazardly put together. Impact your arguments, impact them against your opponents arguments (This is just as true with a critical strategy as it is with a DA, CP, Case Strategy). I like to read evidence during the debate. I usually make decisions pretty quickly. Typically I can see the nexus question of the debate clearly by the 2nr/2ar and when (if) its resolved, its resolved. Don't take it personally.

Long Version:
Case Debate- I like specific case debate. Shows you put in the hard work it takes to research and defeat the aff. I will reward hard work if there is solid Internal link debating. I think case specific disads are also pretty good if well thought out and executed. I like impact turn debates. Cleanly executed ones will usually result in a neg ballot -- messy debates, however, will not.

Disads- Defense and offense should be present, especially in a link turn/impact turn debate. You will only win an impact turn debate if you first have defense against their original disad impacts. I'm willing to vote on defense (at least assign a relatively low probability to a DA in the presence of compelling aff defense). Defense wins championships. Impact calc is important. I think this is a debate that should start early (2ac) and shouldn't end until the debate is over. I don't think the U necessarily controls the direction of the link, but can be persuaded it does if told and explained why that true.

K's- Im better for the K now than i have been in years past. That being said, Im better for security/international relations/neolib based ks than i am for race, gender, psycho, baudrillard etc . I tend to find specific Ks (ie specific to the aff's mechanism/advantages etc) the most appealing. If you're going for a K-- 1) please don't expect me to know weird or specific ultra critical jargon... b/c i probably wont. 2) Cheat- I vote on K tricks all the time (aff don't make me do this). 3) Make the link debate as specific as possible and pull examples straight from the aff's evidence and the debate in general 4) I totally geek out for well explained historical examples that prove your link/impact args. I think getting to weigh the aff is a god given right. Role of the ballot should be a question that gets debated out. What does the ballot mean with in your framework. These debates should NOT be happening in the 2NR/2AR-- they should start as early as possible. I think debates about competing methods are fine. I think floating pics are also fine (unless told otherwise). I think epistemology debates are interesting. K debates need some discussion of an impact-- i do not know what it means to say..."the ZERO POINT OF THE Holocaust." I think having an external impact is also good - turning the case alone, or making their impacts inevitable isn't enough. There also needs to be some articulation of what the alternative does... voting neg doesn't mean that your links go away. I will vote on the perm if its articulated well and if its a reason why plan plus alt would overcome any of the link questions. Link defense needs to accompany these debates.

K affs are fine- you have to have a plan. You should defend that plan. Affs who don't will prob lose to framework. A alot.... and with that we come to:

NonTraditional Teams-
If not defending a plan is your thing, I'm not your judge. I think topical plans are good. I think the aff needs to read a topical plan and defend the action of that topical plan. I don't think using the USFG is an endorsement of its racist, sexist, homophobic or ableist ways. I think affs who debate this way tend to leave zero ground for the negative to engage which defeats the entire point of the activity. I am persuaded by T/Framework in these scenarios. I also think if you've made the good faith effort to engage, then you should be rewarded. These arguments make a little more sense on the negative but I am not compelled by arguments that claim: "you didn't talk about it, so you should lose."

CPs- Defending the SQ is a bold strat. Multiple conditional (or dispo/uncondish) CPs are also fine. Condo is probably good, but i can be persuaded otherwise. Consult away- its arbitrary to hate them in light of the fact that everything else is fine. I lean neg on CP theory. Aff's make sure you perm the CP (and all its planks). Im willing to judge kick the CP for you. If i determine that the CP is not competitive, or that its a worse option - the CP will go away and you'll be left with whatever is left (NBs or Solvency turns etc). This is only true if the AFF says nothing to the contrary. (ie. The aff has to tell me NOT to kick the CP - and win that issue in the debate). I WILL NOT VOTE ON NO NEG FIAT. That argument makes me mad. Of course the neg gets fiat. Don't be absurd.

T- I default to offense/defense type framework, but can be persuaded otherwise. Impact your reasons why I should vote neg. You need to have unique offense on T. K's of T are stupid. I think the aff has to run a topical aff, and K-ing that logic is ridiculous. T isn't racist. RVIs are never ever compelling.... ever.

Theory- I tend to lean neg on theory. Condo- Good. More than two then the aff might have a case to make as to why its bad - i've voted aff on Condo, I've voted neg on condo. Its a debate to be had. Any other theory argument I think is categorically a reason to reject the argument and not the team. I can't figure out a reason why if the aff wins international fiat is bad that means the neg loses - i just think that means the CP goes away.

Remember!!! All of this is just a guide for how you chose your args in round. I will vote on most args if they are argued well and have some sort of an impact. Evidence comparison is also good in my book-- its not done enough and i think its one of the most valuable ways to create an ethos of control with in the debate. Perception is everything, especially if you control the spin of the debate. I will read evidence if i need to-- don't volunteer it and don't give me more than i ask for. I love fun debates, i like people who are nice, i like people who are funny... i will reward you with good points if you are both. Be nice to your partner and your opponents. No need to be a jerk for no reason

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.

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

Hey everyone,

My name is Jack I’m a junior at Fordham University studying Finance and Econ. I did PF for 4 years in HS and loved it. I’d say I’m pretty flay. I will be flowing but I also value things like crossfire (assuming they still have that) and overall debate perception, that is who it seems won the round. That is an important aspect out of the PF world. I currently do Mock Trial at Fordham, PF is way better. Don’t be a jerk, but also totally okay with calling out opponents out for logical inconsistencies. Looking forward to the rounds!

Yo. I mostly competed PF on the local MN circuit and started circuit debate my senior year under Chaska OV. I grabbed a couple of bids and broke at TOC, NSDA, and NCFL my senior year.

Put me on the email chain and send speech docs to EkaanthSravan@gmail.com :)

Debate is a game. Warrant, Weigh, Win. Go wild, I will vote on anything that's not ____ist, ____phobic, or exclusionary

anything that is not responded to in the speech directly after the speech it was read in -barring first constructive- is conceded period.

I decide rounds by evaluating if terminal defense is read on whatever argument won the weighing debate.

I'm not kind with speaker points, I think most judges severely inflate them. If you're going for speaker awards, it's not enough to win, you have to win stylishly.

For a more detailed paradigm, other categories, novices, and speech click here and scroll.

Most importantly, remember to smile, joke around and have fun :) It's high school debate lol.

Oh and yes tricks are still very dumb

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.

Hi y’all my name is Santi, i competed for Strake Jesuit for 4 years and closed out Texas PF State in 2020. I’ve read a total of nothing on this topic.

TLDR

Just warrant your arguments, carry across summary and i’ll vote for you most rounds. Any speed is fine but if you know for sure you’re going fast just send out a speech doc. All theory is fine and i’m less versed on K’s and tricks but if you explain it I’ll vote for it.

FULL PARADIGM

Full disclosure I 100% copied this paradigm from my old partner Cooper Carlile (Bold = most important)

If you say "off the clock roadmap" I will give you a 25. just tell me what the structure is

Debate is a game so I will evaluate / vote on (almost) any argument that you read.

I am TECH > TRUTH. If it is conceded it is true. If you don't respond to turns in second rebuttal then they are conceded :/ You should also respond to terminal defense. it just makes it easier for everyone.

anything over ~225 wpm you should send a speech doc otherwise i prolly wont catch everything especially if im unfamiliar with the topic

I will default to Clarity/Strength of Link + Magnitude weighing. If it is conceded and if it has a large impact, you're prolly gonna win. also i presume squo

I am aight with Theory (despite only running disclosure, bc... PF), and to a much lesser extent Kritiks, just make sure I can understand it. also if theory/Ks are read they should be sent as speech docs before they are read

also im good with tricks... just flesh them out in the back half for the sake of everyone in the round.

IDC if you read offensive overviews in second rebuttal, first summary cannot just say that its abusive and say it doesn't matter, I am very receptive to any theory arg about offensive overviews though even if its just a paragraph theory esque arg

If you read cut cards, I will start you at a 28. If you disclose on the PF wiki I will start you at a 28.5 and if you send a speech doc before each speech that you read carded evidence I will start you at a 29. email me speech docs (or questions) @ santiago.weiland@gmail.com Otherwise, I determine speaks based on strategy, not speaking ability.

If it takes you forever to pull up evidence I will get annoyed

please for the love of god signpost PLEASE and weigh

if it isn't in summary then it should not be in final. I will just not evaluate it.

If you concede to defense you need to explicitly say which defense you concede to you cant just say "We concede to the defense on our first contention" like dog come on. You can also read defense against your own case to kick out of turns i think it's funny and strategic

Flex prep is cool and tag team speeches/CX is cool too

if im vibing with an arg then im prolly gonna nod my head. If i am not vibing, then I will not look like I am vibing.

"If you at any point in the debate believe that your opponent has no routes to the ballot whatsoever i.e. a conceded theory shell or a conceded higher level of the debate, you can call TKO. What this means is that if I believe that the opposing team has no routes to the ballot, I will give you a W30. However, if there are still any possible routes left, I will give you an L20." - Cara Day

I will also disclose after round and I will tell you your speaks if you want.

and finally, as Anson Fung once said, "Debaters are like big politicians speaking on a big stage." So have fun!

Hi y’all my name is Santi, i competed for Strake Jesuit for 4 years, closed out Texas PF State in 2020 and qualified for TOC twice.

TLDR

Just warrant your arguments, carry across summary and i’ll vote for you most rounds. Any speed is fine but if you know for sure you’re going fast just send out a speech doc. All theory is fine and i’m less versed on K’s and tricks but if you explain it I’ll vote for it.

FULL PARADIGM

Please for the love of everything don't say "off the clock roadmap", just tell me what the structure is. Eg their case then my case or starting on the meta then substance or framework then ill signpost from there.

Debate is a game so I will evaluate / vote on (almost) any argument that you read.

I am TECH > TRUTH. If it is conceded it is true. If you don't respond to turns in second rebuttal then they are conceded :/ You should also respond to terminal defense. it just makes it easier for everyone.

anything over ~225 wpm you should send a speech doc otherwise i prolly wont catch everything especially if im unfamiliar with the topic (that being said I’ve also been out of the activity for 2 years so don’t push it too hard)

I will default to Clarity/Strength of Link + Magnitude weighing. If it is conceded and if it has a large impact, you're prolly gonna win. also i presume squo

I am aight with Theory (despite only running disclosure, bc... PF), and to a much lesser extent Kritiks, just make sure I can understand it. also if theory/Ks are read they should be sent as speech docs before they are read or I'll heavily dock your speaks like 25 type beat. For the most part I’m not familiar with weird stuff and wack philosophy stuff, but norm-settings/in-round rules and parameters are all good.

Also I'm aight with tricks... just flesh them out in the back half for the sake of everyone in the round. They're funny and make rounds more interesting. I won’t automatically drop you for speeding through paragraph theory-style blips, but if you’re called out on it as a voter I’ll consider it if it’s a core part of the round.

IDC if you read offensive overviews in second rebuttal, first summary cannot just say that its abusive and say it doesn't matter, I am very receptive to any theory arg about offensive overviews though even if its just a paragraph theory esque arg. I'm aight with abusive arguments as a response just please warrant responses. Most of the time people will ignore 3+ warrants on abuse responses so it's not a bad strat tbh.

If you read cut cards, I will start you at a 28. If you disclose on the PF wiki I will start you at a 28.5 and if you send a speech doc before each speech that you read carded evidence I will start you at a 29. email me speech docs (or questions) @ santiago.weiland@gmail.com Otherwise, I determine speaks based on strategy, not speaking ability.

If it takes you forever to pull up evidence I will get annoyed and dock your speaks.

please for the love of god signpost PLEASE and weigh

if it isn't in summary then it should not be in final. I will just not evaluate it, like even if you say it I'll write it down and then scribble it out with an overwhelming amount of question marks.

If you concede to defense you need to explicitly say which defense you concede to you cant just say "We concede to the defense on our first contention" like dog come on. You can also read defense against your own case to kick out of turns i think it's funny and strategic.

Flex prep is cool and tag team speeches/CX is cool too, just gimme a heads up

if im vibing with an arg then im prolly gonna nod my head. If i am not vibing, then I will not look like I am vibing.

"If you at any point in the debate believe that your opponent has no routes to the ballot whatsoever i.e. a conceded theory shell or a conceded higher level of the debate, you can call TKO. What this means is that if I believe that the opposing team has no routes to the ballot, I will give you a W30. However, if there are still any possible routes left, I will give you an L20." - Cara Day

I will also disclose after round and I will tell you your speaks if you want. You can ask me literally any question on my decision and I'll even show you my flow if you want to see how I came to that conclusion.

and finally, as Anson Fung once said, "Debaters are like big politicians speaking on a big stage."

Side Note:

I am most receptive to narrative style debate and pass none of my personal beliefs. I’ll vote for you even if I hate your argument and think it’s complete BS, it’s up to y’all to make rebuttals so run whatever you want my dudes.

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

TL;DR 1) track prep verbally and don't mute otherwise, 2) I flow all crossfires, 3) don't waste time saying what you "don't know" about an argument, 4) in-depth extensions often aren't necessary

Oakton '20 (PF, some LD/policy/congress), JHU '24 (APDA, BP). Contact yoondebate@gmail.com for chains, Facebook or nyoon2@jh.edu otherwise. You can ask about decisions, speaks, individual feedback, or anything else - I'm always open to help anyone.

1. If nobody's prep is running, stay unmuted. Your prep starts and stops when you say "start prep" and "stop prep" out loud. Keep track of time - if you go decently over, I'll verbally interrupt your team going forward. I'll verbally notify you when prep ends.
2. Be equitable and respect others, don't use gendered pronouns unless they're explicitly denoted.
3. Don't skip or ask to skip anything. I won't flow over time. Don't hold up your timer/phone/fist when you think someone's time is up.
4. I flow cross. I don't flow off docs. I don't mind "off-time roadmaps" but I won't pay attention, say what your speech will do/is doing (signpost) on-time.
5. If presuming (very rare), I flip a coin, and I don't evaluate arguments saying to presume in other ways.
6. I'll disclose and will disclose speaks on request, average in-division 28, 29.5+ impressed me. No speaks theory.

1. Don't say "this argument is missing a warrant/reason/contextualization" on its own. Add any positive content - reasoning about why that factor's relevant, weighing, some example, connection to another point, anything! - just don't point out the lack of something and move on. This includes claims about what I "don't know," e.g. "you don't know when/where/how much this happens," please do not say this. This part is routinely ignored!
2. Arguments are dropped if the next opposing speech doesn't interact, excluding the first two speeches. (This applies to stuff like explicitly conceding something to make a point, or reading a new theory violation, no waiting around.) I ignore "strength of link weighing" saying to prioritize dropped points because they're dropped.
3. Contested (opponent directly addressed that specific claim) or weighed (you applied/compared to another argument) arguments must be extended in summary and final focus to be considered. Others don't have to be (e.g. an impact when the debate's been about links so far, "drop the debater" when both teams go for theory).

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!