I'm fairly flexible to most styles and strategies, however, I have a few guidelines:

• I'm not a fan of "spreading" or speed reading although appreciate the strategy.  But please make it easy for your judge and opponents to understand and follow you by speaking distinctly and calmly.  I realize everyone has a lot of material to cover so please don't run through your material attempting a speed record.
• Please do not forget to weigh impacts, preferably in summary and final focus
• I find evidence to support your logic and arguments important, however, please emphasize your logical arguments first.  Make sure they're coherent and fully explained, and be persuasive.  And ensure your data/evidence clearly supports your arguments as opposed to rattling off facts and figures for their own sake.
• And, of course, be polite and respectful to all participants

I am the Director of Speech and Debate at Charlotte Latin School. Have been coaching all types of debate (except Policy), but most specifically Public Forum.

Email Chain: bbutt0817@gmail.com

----Lincoln Douglas----

1. Judge and Coach mostly Traditional styles.

2. Am ok with speed/spreading but should only be used for depth of coverage really.

3. LARP/Trad/Topical Ks/T > Theory/Tricks/Non-topical Ks

4. The rest is largely similar to PF judging:

----Public Forum-----

- Flow judge, can follow the fastest PF debater but don't use speed unless you have too.**

- I am not a calculator. Your win is still determined by your ability to persuade me on the importance of the arguments you are winning not just the sheer number of arguments you are winning. This is a communication event so do that, with some humor and panache.

- I have a high threshold for theory arguments to be valid in PF. Unless there is in round abuse, I probably won’t vote for a frivolous shell. So I would avoid reading most of the trendy theory arguments in PF.

5 Things to Remember…

1. Sign Post/Road Maps (this does not include “I will be going over my opponent’s case and if time permits I will address our case”)

After constructive speeches, every speech should have organized narratives and each response should either be attacking entire contention level arguments or specific warrants/analysis. Please tell me where to place arguments otherwise they get lost in limbo. If you tell me you are going to do something and then don’t in a speech, I do not like that.

2. Framework

I will evaluate arguments under frameworks that are consistently extended and should be established as early as possible. If there are two frameworks, please decide which I should prefer and why. If neither team provides any, I default evaluate all arguments under a cost/benefit analysis.

3. Extensions

Don’t just extend card authors and tag-lines of arguments, give me the how/why of your warrants and flesh out the importance of why your impacts matter. Summary extensions must be present for Final Focus extension evaluation. Defense extensions to Final Focus ok if you are first speaking team, but you should be discussing the most important issues in every speech which may include early defense extensions.

4. Evidence

Paraphrasing is ok, but you leave your evidence interpretation up to me. Tell me what your evidence says and then explain its role in the round. Make sure to extend evidence in late round speeches. 

5. Narrative

Narrow the 2nd half of the round down to the key contention-level impact story or how your strategy presents cohesion and some key answers on your opponents’ contentions/case.

SPEAKER POINT BREAKDOWNS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hey all,

I was a PF debater for 4 years

I am greatly opposed to debate Jargon and believe your argument should speak for itself. The content of your speech is greater than the way you construct it. That being said I will always prefer specificity IE calculated numbers (don't give me arbitrary percents they mean nothing to me, if your card says a certain percentage of a population give me the number of people or if it says reduces fatalities 20% calculate that out and give me that number) and clearly linking evidence for how something will happen not just asserting it will.

Be kind to your opponents, no nodding for your partner (I HATE that), and argue respectfully (I will knock points for all these things)

I appreciate unconventional cases and humor (as long as its good but cheesy can be good)

shotty sourcing will land you with an L

You are all deserving of respect and acclaim for the work you have done and the work you will do.

Name Chris Gentry

Previous institutional affiliations and role

Appalachian State Debator

Current Coach Hubbard High School

Debating experience

High school and college debater – graduated college in last 5 years

If you debated what speech did you do most often?

Double Member

What do you view your role as the judge in the debate? (Possible answers may include: referee, policymaker, tabula rasa, stock issues, capable of effectuating change or educator).

Tabula Rasa

In what ways do you intend this judge philosophy to be helpful to debaters? In other words, what would you hope debaters would do with this philosophy?

I hope they use this judge philosophy to better understand the sorts of debates that I judge, and to get a better understanding for how I receive arguements

Do you take flash time as prep time? In other words, when does prep begin and end with you? Do you expect debaters to keep track of their own prep time?

I expect debaters to keep track of their own prep time, and the end of prep time is determined by the tournament.

Do you have teams provide you speech documents throughout the debate by flashing or emailing them to you? Do you have teams provide speech documents throughout the debate by emailing them to you?

Whatever the team prefers

If you do, why have you adopted this practice? If you do not, have you made a conscious decision not to and if so why?

I think that decision should be made to the debater

What is your normal range for speaker points and why? What can earn extra speaker points for a debater? What can cost speaker points for a debater, even if they win the debate?

I give 25-30 points, 25 being for poor speech, less than 25 for abuse. You can lose points for demonstrated abuse in round or poor treatment of partner or opposition. You can gain points through good responses and effective response strategy

Do you say clearer out loud if a debater is unclear? Is there a limit to the number of times you will say clearer if you do? Do you use other non-verbal cues to signal a lack of clarity?

I will say clearer or louder 3 times.

Do you find yourself reading a lot of evidence after the debate?

Yes

Do you evaluate the un-underlined parts of the evidence even if the debaters do not make that an argument?

No, I need the argument to be made for why a thing matters, how it matters, and what it is that matters. I will only read the underlined parts of the evidence if I doubt validity

If you read evidence after a debate, why do you tend to find yourself reading the evidence?

To ensure proper decisions and to confirm accuracy if any cards feel like they are incredible.

What are your predispositions or views on the following:

Topicality.

As long as it is clear and warranted especially on ground loss. I need the impacts to be fully leveled out, and I need there to be solid arguments for fairness impacts.

Theory for the aff versus counterplans and/or kritiks

I definitely prefer critical arguments that are resolution specific versus the generic kritik, however I am fine with the generic kritik as long as you tie it well to your argument and the resolution being debated. I will vote on perm and theory if presented well. I will also vote on topicality for nontopical Aff . That said, I really like critical arguments when they’re not generic and the ideas are clearly articulated. Explain your ideas instead of just throwing terms around. Sure, I may know what the terms mean, but I need to know how you are using them to determine the functionality of the argument. I also think it’s important to not only tell me the importance of (or need for) the interrogation or deconstruction the criticism engages in, but also why should we engage with THIS specific interrogation/deconstruction and what, if anything, it seeks to solve, resolve, change, etc. In other words, don’t drop or omit solvency of the criticism.

Affirmative’s need to read a plan in order to win on the aff:

They don’t need to read a plan but they do need an advocacy that is different than the SQ

Performance teams that use elements other than spoken word (such as songs, dance, poetry, silence) to support their arguments

I find performance based arguments to be not very persuasive unless they are topically specific. I find the nature of debate to be too constricting for performance solvency and I feel like they can be non-uniqued easily.

I don’t buy arguments that your in-round "performance" solved for more than what it might have in the immediate context (if you advocate for suspending the illusion of the debate world). I also hold that the act of debating, criticizing, and advocating itself is a performance, and so you will need to do extra work to justify how and why yours is extra unique. I do think "performance" as critical metaphor can have access to rhetorical solvency, but it's harder for me to access literal solvency. So while I am not biased towards projects or performances so long as they are grounded in some context that is in round, I think they can still be interesting and get a ballot.

What types of debates do you enjoy the most and why?

I enjoy good K v K debates

I enjoy unique critical debates

I also have a large background in policy and love a good old fashion 2 on v 2 off and a cp

Mike Harris
Wichita East High School -Director of Debate

Online norms - Be nice and have fun. Clean tech makes me happy. Fast is not always the best when it becomes unclear. I flow your speech, not your speech docs, especially after the 1AC/1NC.

2020-2021 Update : One of my undergraduate degrees is criminal justice. I'm well versed in both theory and procedures. I've hosted guest lectures this season with speakers on Police militarization and the Use of Force, Death Penalty, and "The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Color Blindness". I have a federal court judge scheduled to speak. My knowledge level is high, which means your arguments are going to have to be explained correctly to persuade me most effectively. Truth is important on this topic, especially when making claims to solve structural problems at a value level.

I have significant experience in the past 15 years judging many tournaments both in Kansas and around the nation. I am the Director of Debate at Wichita East in Wichita. I have multiple students currently competing in the NDT/CEDA, and Parli circuits in colleges across the country. We have had many national qualifiers in policy debate in recent years . I coached the 2nd and 3rd place teams at NCFL, had three teams in the top 30 at NSDA and coached the 7th place team and a top ten speaker, and had two teams qualified for the TOC. I have been exposed to many teams and styles from across the nation. Below is a brief explanation of some of my judging preferences. This is by no means a complete explanation, so feel free to ask specific question regarding my paradigm:

I'm a tabula rasa judge as much as that exists and you will need to address framing in this debate to win my ballot. DOn't care of it's K v K, clash of covs, or policy debates.

Speed - No preference as long as you are clear. I can keep up on the flow with any team although I do not believe that extreme speed is required to win. I prefer clarity and quality argumentation to speed. With that said, I most enjoy a quality high speed round that combines the above traits.

Kritik's - Literature is essential to quality kritik arguments. I do not have any problem with performance k's or kritikal aff's. I'm familiar with kritikal identity and postmodern lit. I am a glutton for solid evidence and I know that the literature exists. Be prepared to explain the literature clearly and succinctly. I have a philosophy degree although I am quite a few years removed from in-depth study of the literature.

CP's - If it solves the for the aff advantages and has a net benefit I'm good. I'm solid on theory. Not often do I reject a team on theory.

Topicality- My threshold for topicality is high. That said, I have voted on T in very significant out rounds when I don't feel it has been covered appropriately, and it is extended effectively. T must be impacted out and weighed to be a factor in my decision. I've judged a lot of debates for a long time, and seen debate go through a lot. Be specific and focus on t what would happen if this specific aff is allowed. I have interesting perspectives on the concept of fairness.

Disads - I am particularly interested in strong specific links and true internal link scenarios. I hate hearing internal links and impacts that are based on evidence from 2007. I am convinced at this level of debate evidence for disads should be updated every week to paint an accurate portrayal of the world. I will weigh a disad impact scenario without good specific links against case impacts in all cases, but the risk will probably be very low. I'm going to vote for whichever team (aff or neg) has the best and most true story.

Case - I love a good case debate. Above I mentioned I have a criminal justice and philosophy background, it is important to note my main degree area if study was political science (IR) and history.. I have found that specific and significant case turns by the negative can be very effective in undermining an aff case and being enough to win a round. Common sense analytics are important to accompany cards for both teams. Shadow extensions do little for me, I want warrant analysis with specific comparisons.

Theory and framework - Ask regarding specifics. Impact it out, ask for leeway, answer independent voters. I think this is an area of debate that is often under-covered and not understood by many advanced teams. I vote for kritikal affs and neg t/framework about evenly. I'll go either way. I don't like cheap theory (disclosure in round one of the first tournament of the year), but understand creative theory as part of the game.

All said, have fun and enjoy yourselves. Please signpost appropriately! I don't always catch the authors and sometimes it gets interesting in rebuttals when all I keep hearing is the "Brown 11' card" over and over. I can usually figure it out, but is annoying and a waste of time. I am very open-minded and will listen to anything, however teams need to explain both claims and their appropriate warrants. [mailto:devadvmike@gmail.com]

Toga '25 | PF | leonardo.jia@gmail.com

This applies to PF only:

-I flow

-Frontline in 2nd rebuttal

-Introducing weighing in rebuttal is cool but no later than summary

-If it's dropped in the last speech (excluding constructive), that must be pointed out, otherwise it remains on the flow

-Collapse

-Turns need weighing to be a piece of offense

-I am not nitpicky with time, you can go slightly over

-Final focus shouldn't go all over the place

-Theory/Ks are ok (substance too obviously), anything else is not

-I disclose only if I am allowed to

New Note - I'm totally uninterested in adjudicating arguments that endorse self harm, suicide, or purposeful death. I won't auto-vote against you but if someone you're debating asks me to stop the debate I will. If I end up voting for you, you will not like your points.

Things like wipeout/spark/other impact turns are a little different than this category for me and you can still read those types of hypothetical impact turns as they don't feel the same as [self harm good].

I am a coach at the University of Texas-Austin, Liberal Arts and Sciences Academy and The Harker School. Other conflicts: Westwood, St Vincent de Paul, Bakersfield High School

Email Chain: yes, cardstealing@gmail.com

Debate is an activity about persuasion and communication. If I can't understand what you are saying because you are unclear, haven't coherently explained it, or developed it into a full argument-claim, warrant, impact, it likely won't factor in my decision.

While there are some exceptions, most debaters I've judged the last few years are pretty unclear, so its likely I will miss some arguments. Zoom has magnified this issue for me (not necessarily the debaters fault). Final rebuttals offer you a space to retrace the part(s) of the debate you think are most relevant to the decision. This both makes it much more likely I will understand your argument and will likely improve your speaker points.

The winner will nearly always be the team able to identify the central question of the debate first and most clearly trace how the development of their argument means they're ahead on that central question.

Virtually nothing you can possibly say or do will offend me [with the new above caveat] if you can't beat a terrible argument you probably deserve to lose.

Everyone seems to have intense clashphobia these days - this isn't about policy or k debate, its across the board and going for the least covered option seems to be everyone's mantra. I get why you think that's strategic, but typically it results in shallow rebuttals, frustrating decisions, 1-1-1 panels and lower points. Specific AFF/NEG research that demonstrate the third and fourth level testing everyone seems to think is important wil be rewarded with higher points. All in on "not our ___" will not.

I flow CX, unless its some random clarification question you forgot I will stop flowing CX after 3 minutes. The "I'm going to ask a million questions while my partner preps their 2NC" has gotten ridiculous.

Framework-

newer - I don't judge many non-framework debates anymore. I tend to vote neg when the neg wins clash is the biggest/most portable impact + explanation for how it improves over the year as a result of their interp and access aff offense via TVA or SSD. I tend to vote AFF when they win an impact turn to the end result of clash alongside robust answers to the NEG ballot can't access that offense args. I think 2NCs that lack an explanation of how 2nd and 3rd level testing occurs under their interp and changes over the year, with examples, lacks credibility when going for only clash matters (you can maybe win the debate on a different terminal impact, but lately I haven't really voted on other ones). Fairness is both an internal link and an impact. Debate is a game but its also so much more. You can persuade me to think one way or the other in any given debate and I've learned to love judging these debates because I often learn new things about the activity and its potential.

older - but not un-true

I find myself voting negative a lot on procedural fairness a lot, even though I don't think this is persuasive in a vacuum. The reason is that K affs seem to have a lot of trouble deciding if they want to go for the middle ground or just impact turn--pick a strategy and stick to it 1AC-2AR and you're more likely to be in a good place. The block is almost always great on T, the 2NR almost always forgets to do terminal impact calculus. Testing arguments become much more persuasive to me when you give specific examples for how those would occur. What neg args would you be able to read against a potential TVA? Why is it good for the 2AC to research those positions, how would you researching answers to their answers be beneficial? A lot of this stuff just gets assumed and I think that a lot of repetitiveness from most framework 2NCs can be substituted for this kind of depth early in the debate. 2NRs sometimes seem to spend so much time on why they access AFF lit base/impacts that they don't end up extending a terminal impact or external offense at all. I think it's difficult to win a debate when you basically go for a CP w/o a net benefit.

I'm a lot better for framework that sounds closer to T with a limits and clash as the primary impacts then the soliloquy on the most superior model for debate. Clash as the most important internal link to education/fairness/skills/game etc. is usually more persuasive to me than other arguments on T.

Counter-plans-

-If your CP competes based on the certainty or immediacy of the plan, it doesn't take a ton on theory for me to reject the counter plan.

-I won't kick it for you unless you tell me to. Judge kick makes more sense to me than it used to, but I still think the AFF can win it shouldn't be allowed.

-"perm do both" or "perm do cp" with no explanation isn't a complete argument. I get that given negative off-case prolif sometimes this feels inevitable, but I'm confident results will improve if you give warrants for any permutation that you think it's likely will find its way into the 2AR.

Kritiks

-affs usually lose these by forgetting about the case, negs usually lose these when they don't contextualize links to the 1ac. If you're reading a policy aff that clearly links, I'll be pretty confused if you don't go impact turns/case outweighs.

-link specificity is important - I don't think this is necessarily an evidence thing, but an explanation thing - lines from 1AC, examples, specific scenarios are all things that will go a long way

Disads

-they should be intrinsic to the plan, with enough time investment affs can potentially win that agenda politics disads are not a logical opportunity cost.

-uniqueness controls the direction of the link typically makes the most sense to me, but you can probably convince me otherwise

LD -

I have been judging LD for a semester. The policy section all applies here.

Tech over truth but, there's a limit - likely quite bad for tricks - arguments need a claim, warrant and impact to be complete. Dropped arguments are important if you explain how they implicate my decision. Dropped arguments are much less important when you fail to explain the impact/relevance of said argument.

RVIs - no, never, literally don't. 27 ceiling. Scenario: 1ar is 4 minutes of an RVI, nr drops the rvi, I will vote negative within seconds of the timer ending.

Policy/K - both great - see above for details.

Phil - haven't judged much of this yet, this seems interesting and fine, but again, arguments need a claim, warrant and impact to be complete arguments.

Arguments communicated and understood by the judge per minute>>>>words mumbled nearly incomprehensibly per minute.

Unlikely you'll convince me the aff doesn't get to read a plan for topicality reasons. K framework is a separate from this and open to debate, see policy section for details.

Lay judge with local experience. Please do not spread.

Hello! I am a junior at Charlotte Latin School. I have done a little bit of Lincoln Douglas and Policy, but my main event is Public Forum. 

Email: 23lalan@charlottelatin.org

--Lincoln Douglas--

I am good with spreading as long as a speech doc is sent, and your opponents are okay with it.  

Frameworks: I believe that Framework is a large part of the debate, all of the offense I vote for has to link back to the value criterion. I will not do that work for you. 

No tricks

Tech > Truth

Hold my hand. Guide me through your argument, organization is key. 

--Public Forum--

I like to see collapsing in order to keep arguments more organized. 

Key things I like to see in a round: 

1. Extensions

• If you do not extend it than I will not consider it at the end of the round

- Do not just read off the card name, make sure to tell me why the extension of that piece of evidence matters 

2. Sign posting 

• Make sure to keep speeches organized and signpost so I can follow along with speech.
• Off time road maps are helpful  

3. Weigh

-Weighing is crucial, it helps me determine who wins the round. Make sure to weigh in rebuttal, and all continuing speeches and clearly outline why your side is better than your opponent. 

—Policy—

Same rules apply as to LD. 

No consult, amendment, or abusive counterplans

I am not an expert, but I will flow and make the best decision I can so make sure to weigh and tell me why you win 

Flow judge who appreciates civility, especially in cross, which should be used for asking and answering questions, not speech making. Generally, a question may be followed by a follow-up, after which it is the turn of the other side. Starting the first constructives with key definitional and framework arguments is a good idea, as is providing, in FF, your view on how the impacts should be weighed. Try to terminalize your impacts in terms of values, including human life, equity, the environment, etc. Debaters should keep their own time only, and provide their account of how much prep time remains after each instance in which they take some and reconcile it with me if I have a discrepancy. Evidence should be represented with scrupulous accuracy, and the source should be fully identified, including the credentials of the writer, the date, and the publication. If I call for a card and observe that the evidence is old and you didn't give a date, I'll be concerned. Likewise, if you use evidence in a way that's misleading, I won't be pleased, e.g. if you use it to make a general claim when it's talking about a specific instance that bears little relation to the contention it's being used to support. Evidentiary challenges should be presented to me immediately after the final speech. Stylistically, debaters should speak clearly and audibly, while avoiding shouting. Speed will always be an issue, and debaters are urged to pace themselves mindfully of their opponents and judge(s).

Policy Update

Please see the above, as applicable, especially as regards civility. I prefer that issues of framework, topicality, definition, and interpretation be dealt with up front. Creativity is fine, but it must be firmly grounded in the reasonable. New arguments should not be presented in the rebuttal speeches, although there's always a judgment call when they're coming in as blocks. Clash is good; clash nullification is problematic. Plans should be substantive and intended to further policy objectives, not trivial and intended simply to confound the opposition.

World Schools Debate Update

I suggest clarifying what is at stake in the debate early on, i.e. if the motion carries, what would be the implications beyond the specific impacts. For example, in a debate on restrictions on hate speech, there might be a lively debate about whether or not the Prop model would, say, have the impact of reducing bias-motivated violence, but I'd also be interested in a framework and definitional analysis of whether hate speech is an instance of free speech, and, more broadly what we'd be both gaining and giving up philosophically if the motion were to carry. Similarly, I'd be interested in hearing about what the standards would be to make a determination that speech was in a prohibited category and who would make these judgments. In other words, this discipline affords an opportunity both to consider PF-style impacts and also the broader, philosophical dimensions of the topic. I'm also interested in each team's thoughts on burdens, both the other side's and its own. What do you think you have to prove in order to win the round? What should your opponents be required to prove? Of course, examples are important, but often I need to know the context, what you're trying to prove, and how the example proves your point. In the example above, perhaps there's a country that has criminalized a certain category of speech. Is there a particular historical or cultural context that we need to know if we are to understand why they did so? Is the example generally applicable, i.e. would its example be desirable in many countries with different histories and cultures? I'm fine with your collapsing a round to your view of the fundamental clashes that should determine the outcome, but I suggest you not ignore an opponent's argument, even if you elect not to extend your analysis of it, i.e. point out why you're dropping it; otherwise, I might think you've overlooked it or are conceding it without showing why doing so is strategic. In terms of style, with eight minutes, there's no reason to talk rapidly or, heaven forfend, begin shouting, or go overtime. You can show your passion through the clarity and cogency of your argumentation, but try to remain calm. Ultimately, you win the debate by persuading me that your side of the motion's world is more desirable than your opponent's--for the reasons you have successfully argued. On POIs, my preference is that a debater signals a POI with their hand, whereupon the speaker, when they notice the signal, either takes the point or gently waves it down. Since the speaker now knows that the opponent has a point, it is not necessary for the opponent to resignal the original point or a different one; however, it's courteous for the speaker to pause before waiting too long to take the POIs they wish to recognize. I do tend to think that each speaker should take two per constructive. Having taken two, if the opponents wish to pose one or more additional points, the speaker may say that they will be taking no further points during that speech. Just a suggestion.

Updated for Fall 2019.- Yes, include me on any email chain. jessemeyer@gmail.com

I am currently an assistant PF debate coach at Iowa City West HS. I am also under contract by the NSDA to produce topic analysis packets and advanced briefs for LD, PF, and Biq Questions. I am also an instructor with Global Academy Commons, an organization that has partnered with NSDA China to bring speech and debate education, public speaking, and topic prep to students in East Asia. In my free time, I play Magic: The Gathering and tab debate tournaments freelance. I am the recipient of the Donald Crabtree Service Award, 2 diamond coach (pending April 2020), and was the state of Iowa's Coach of the Year in 2015.

I say all of this not to impress people. I'm way too old to care about that. I say this to point out one thing: I've dedicated my life to speech and debate. Since I was 14, this activity was a place where I could go to find people that cared about the same things as me and who were like me. No matter how bad of a day I was having, I could go to practice and everything would be ok. This is what debate is to me, and this is what I have worked towards since I became a coach. So it upsets and angers me when I see people that try to win debate rounds by making the world a worst place for others. There is a difference between being competitive and being a jerk. I've had to sit with students who were in tears because they were mistreated because they were women, I've had people quit the team because they were harassed because of their religion, and I've had to ask competitors to not use racial slurs in round. And to be honest, I am tired of it. So if your All Star Tournament Champion strategy revolves around how unconformable you can make your opponent, strike me.

With that being stated, here is how I view arguments.

In LD, I prefer a value and criterion, even if you are going non traditional in your case structure. I don't care if you are traditional, progressive, critical, or performative. I've judges and coached all types and I've voted for all types too. What I care about more is the topic hook you use to get your arguments to the relationship of the topic. If I can't find a clear link, if one isn't established, or if you can't articulate one, I'm going to have a really hard time voting for you.

I weight impacts. This is a holdover from my old college policy days. Clearly extend impacts and weight them. I view the value and criterion as lens for which I prioritize types of impacts. Just winning a value isn't enough to wind the round if you don't have anything that impacts back to it.

If you run a CP, the aff should perm. Perms are tests of competition. Most will still link to the DA so the neg should make that arg. The more unique the CP, the better. CP's should solve at least some impacts of the aff.

If you run a K, throwing around buzz words like "discourse, praxis, holistic, traversing X, or anything specific to the K" without explaining what those mean in the round will lower your speaker points. To me, you are just reading what the cards you found in the policy backfile said. Also, finding unique links to more generic K's, like cap or biopower, will be beneficial in how I view the round. But also note that on some topics, the K you love just might not work. Don't try to force it. A good aff needs to perm. Perm's on K debates tend to solve their offense. I do not like links of omission.

Case debate- Love it.

Theory- Do not love it. When I was in my 20's, I didn't mind theory, but now, the thought of people speed reading or even normal reading theory shells at each other makes me fear for my 50 minutes in round. If theory is justified, I will vote on it but there is a big barrier to what I count as justified. I need to see clear in round abuse. In lue of that, the potential abuse story needs to be absolutely 100% on point. This means that a theory shell that is zipped through in 10 seconds will not be getting my vote. No questions asked. Do the work because I don't do the work for you. Oh, I will not vote on disclosure theory. Disclosing probably is good but I do not require it and unless the tournament does, I don't see a reason to punish the debaters for not doing this.

Reformative arguments- I coached kids on these arguments and I've voted for them too. The thing is that because I don't see them often I have the reputation of not liking them. This creates a negative feedback loop so I never see them and so on... I'll vote for them but you need to have a topic hook and some justification or solvency mech for your performance. I will also be 100% honest because I owe it to the debaters who do this style of debate and who have put in so much time to get it right, I'm probably a midrange judge on this. At large bid tournaments there are probably judges that are better versed in the lit base who can give you more beneficial pointers.

PF Debate

Unless told otherwise, I use the pilot rules as established by the NSDA.

I hold evidence to a high standard. I love paraphrasing but if called out, you better be able to justify what you said.

If I call for a card, don't hand me a pdf that is 40 pages long. I will not look for it. I want it found for me. If you expect me to find it, I will drop the card.

I am still getting on board with pf disclosure. I am not the biggest fan as of now. I can see the educational arguments for it but it also runs counter to the basis for the event. I do not require teams to share cases before round and arguments in round as to why not sharing put you at a disadvantage won't get you ground.

I appreciate unique frameworks.

This event is not policy. I don't drop teams for speed or reading card after card after card but I will dock speaker points.

I weight impacts. But with this stipulation; I am not a fan of extinction impacts in pf. I think it goes a bit too far to the policy side of things. Use your framework to tell me how to prioritize the impacts.

Treat others with respect. I will drop people for being intentionally horrible to your opponents in round. Remember, there is a way to be competitive without being a jerk.

Should also go without saying but be nice to your partner too. Treat them as an equal. They get the W the same as you.

Policy- Honestly, I kind of used the majority of what I wanted to say in the LD section since they are so similar nowadays.

T- Love it. Won most of my college neg rounds on it. Be very clear on the interp and standards. If you go for it, only go for it. Should be the only argument in the 2NR.

Qualifications: I competed in speech and debate tournaments for five consecutive years throughout all of high school. Most of my debate experience comes from public forum and I have extensive judging experience as well.

Paradigm:

- I am fine with speed, but please talk clearly. If I cannot understand you, what you say will not appear on my flow.

- Organization is important. If you are organized, I will be able to connect your speeches throughout my flow better and (hopefully) end up voting for your team. Be especially clear with taglines.

- Weigh the impacts and clearly tell me why you win. If you don't, I will end up having to put my input into the vote.

- Impacts are important. Even if you have a clear claim and warrant, nothing will count unless you have an impact as a result of that. I will most likely vote based on your impacts and voters, so make sure they are clear and strong.

- Warrants are important. If you have an impact but no clear warrant or link to the resolution, I will not vote for it.

- Be sure your arguments are backed up by evidence. The better your arguments are backed up, the stronger it will be.

- I do not flow during crossfire. If anything important comes up during crossfire, be sure to mention that within your speeches if you want that to go on my flow.

Any clarifying questions about my paradigm can be asked before the round starts or to anstlgus02@gmail.com.

I debated for around 3 years in high school and mainly competed in public forum as well as public speaking. I've been judging for about 3 years now. Currently, I go to the University of Toronto; feel free to send me an email if you have questions! jasminejw.park@mail.utoronto.ca

I do not mind if you spread as long as it is clearly understood. However, if your speech cannot be understood, I will not flow. It would be helpful if you state your taglines for each contention clearly.

For each contention, please make sure that it is organized. This means that there should be claim, warrant, and impact. These need to be backed up with evidence. However, I will consider logic as well (with evidence, of course). I consider weighing pretty heavily. Please weigh your impacts and state why you win. Voters are good.

I don't flow crossfire, so if you think that I should flow the things mentioned in crossfire, make sure you include it during your speeches so I can write it in my flow. I do consider speaking styles when necessary, although it will not be a deciding factor for when I'm voting. Just be respectful and have fun!

hey y’all :) I’m a third year debater for quarry lane

put me on the email chain: spatel0275@gmail.com

- send speech docs with cut cards for case and rebuttal BEFORE the speech.

as a judge, I expect you to be respectful and inclusive in round — don’t read arguments that are racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. because they WILL NOT be evaluated and you will most likely get terrible speaks/get dropped. also, if your argument(s) cover sensitive subject areas, please read a content warning.

- tech > truth

- speed: I’m good with speed but if you’re going really fast (>250 WPM) and don't send a speech doc I'm going to miss things.

- have comparative warranting, it makes it difficult to evaluate direct clash if there's no fleshed out warrants — I will generally prefer well-warranted arguments over a dump of unwarranted ev

weigh!! -- comparative weighing + impact calc are v important so make sure it's there

- i like to see metaweighing -- if both sides are going for different mechanisms (ie: magnitude vs probability), it makes it much easier to evaluate clash

frontline in second rebuttal -- frontline all responses against arguments that you want to go for in the second rebuttal, if you don't frontline defense against an argument that you go for, and your opponents extend it, I'll evaluate it as conceded

- also, defense is NOT sticky -- something must be in summary and final focus at a minimum to make it into the ballot. the final focus should essentially parallel the summary

extensions: extend the entire argument -- (ex. saying "extend the john '19 turn" is not enough for you to go for that turn) Links and impacts NEED to be in summary to be evaluated in final focus. Cohesion between the summary and ff are v important

signpost! -- i generally flow well but if your speech is messy, disorganized, and not well signposted i could miss stuff on the flow which obv is not good.

other:

- send speech docs/evidence before your speech!

- don't take an excessive amount of time to send evidence and don't steal prep while your opponents are sending evidence

- don't go over time, there's a grace period of ten seconds but anything beyond that is way over

- solid time allocation, efficiency, quality responses, and strategic round strategy = good speaks (i care less about speaking style, more about how strategic youre being)

- I don't really pay attention to cross but be nice! — I won’t evaluate something from cross unless you bring it up in a speech.

Introduction:

Hi, there! My name is Sandeep Sachdeva. I have only judged PF Debate once before this and I am really looking forward to doing it again.

General Information:

You are encouraged to keep track of your own time, as long as the volume isn't too loud. I will keep track of prep time. I highly recommend you do as well. Please keep in mind that once your prep time ends you must be organized and ready to move on with the debate. When reading please stick to a normal speed, I will not be able to understand "spreading" or speed reading. If I cannot understand what you are saying I won't flow it.  

I expect crossfire to be civilized and about the debate only. I appreciate a road map but keep it small and simple. Don't forget to weigh impacts, preferably in the summary and final focus, that will influence my decision. Also, do make sure you clarify which team and speaker you are before the round starts.

Above all, have fun! I am looking forward to being your judge and I can't wait to meet you. 

I am a rising high school senior who has debated PF throughout high school (flow judge). There isn't anything that alone will specifically guarantee my vote, but general courtesy throughout is always appreciated.

Some things to keep in mind:

• Be respectful in crossfire, and don't interrupt each other too much, as it will hurt your speaker points.
• Speaking fast is fine with me, but don't spread. Still, consider the online environment in your speed of talking.
• I won't call for cards, but please include me in whatever email chains you use.
• Evidence is key: I will likely not buy arguments that aren't backed by empirical evidence, especially if the opponent points those arguments out.

Good luck!

Background

- This is my 5th year of PF, I've qualified for the GTOC twice, treat me as a flow judge

- My one request is that both teams send cases with evidence to judges and opponents before each constructive. This prevents any delays with evidence exchanges, and means there are no tech issues.

Presumption:

- If you want me to vote on presumption, please tell me, or else I'll probably try to find some very minimal offense on the flow that you may consider nonexistent.

- I will default neg on presumption, but you can make the argument that presumption flows aff.

Extensions:

- The warrant and impact of an offensive argument must be extended in summary and final focus in order for me to evaluate it.

- Your extensions can be very quick for parts of the debate that are clearly conceded.

Weighing:

- Good weighing will usually win you my ballot and give you a speaker point boost, but please avoid:

1. Weighing that is not comparative

2. Weighing instead of adequately answering the defense on your arguments

3. Strength of link weighing - this is just another word for probability and sometimes probability weighing is just defense that should've been read in rebuttal

4. New weighing in second final focus that isn't responding to new weighing analysis from the first ff.

Evidence:

- I will read any evidence that is contested or key to my decision at the end of the round.

- I won't drop a team on miscut evidence unless theory is read. I will drop speaks and probably drop the argument unless there's a very good reason not to.

Speed:

- Go as fast as you want but I'd prefer it if you didn't spread.

- Don't sacrifice clarity for speed. If I can't understand it, it isn't on the flow.

Progressive Argumentation:

- I have a good understanding of theory and have voted on less conventional shells albeit my threshold for a response and your speaks could go down. Please read theory as soon as the violation occurs.

- I wouldn't trust myself to correctly evaluate a K. Most of the time I judge Ks I find myself thinking they don't really cause any change. You can read a K at your own risk and I will try my best to properly evaluate it.

- If there are multiple layers of prog. (ie theory vs K vs random IVI) do some sort of weighing between them.

- I don't evaluate 30 speaks theory. I tend to believe disclosure is good, but won't intervene.

Other things:

- I think speaks are arbitrary, but humor helps, especially sarcasm.

- Paradigm issues not mentioned here are up for debate within the round

- Reading cards > paraphrasing, but paraphrasing is fine

- Postrounding is fine

- Preflow before the round start time

- I will not vote on explicitly oppressive arguments.

3rd year on the Circuit

Add me to the email chain: 2005amrit@gmail.com

Tech > Truth (You can win an argument saying that the 1 + 1 = 3 if your opponent does not respond to it, I believe doing anything otherwise is judge intervention)

I require speech docs to be sent before constructive and rebuttal speeches

Frontline all offense in second rebuttal and defense on the arg ur going for (by all means frontline everything I think its a good strat)

Summary should extend defense

When you are extending responses on your opponents case please interact with their frontlines otherwise you're just wasting time.

No new weighing in second FF, very minimal new weighing allowed in First FF

IMPACT CALCULUS: this is what wins you debates. If you clearly explain to me and give warrants as to why your impacts matter more than your opponents, you're much more likely to win if they don't. Some common mechanisms include Probability, Magnitude etc.

Speaks:

+1 if you read cut cards in case

Auto 30 if you read straight from cut cards in both rebuttal and case

Progressive:

Shells:

Familiar with most (Paraphrasing, Disclosure, TW) , I can't judge a full fledged theory debate nearly as well as others so run at your own risk

Kritiques:

Can't judge them feel free to run at your own risk i will try my best, read a ROTB

Other:

Be respectful

Have Fun!

Former policy debater, recent PF coach and judge, new policy coach and judge. Email chains to chulho.synn@sduhsd.net.

Overview - 1) Because I haven't judged meaningful policy rounds in a while (as of Jack Howe 2021), I'm not really familiar with modern off-case arguments; 2) That said, run what you want to run and makes you happy; 3) I'm open to most arguments, but due to lack of familiarity with modern arguments (esp. arguments that address the superstructure of debate or the phenomenology of discourse) I need the debaters to execute the arguments completely, i.e., to an RFD...I thank you now; 4) I have no redlines regarding arguments except for ones based on bigotry, mostly b/c you have to listen to the argument before judging it; 5) I'm highly skeptical of conspiracy theories b/c they're stupid and dangerous, and I can be easily persuaded to ignore them or give completely executed turns; 6) Evidence is central to policy debate b/c evidence is central to probability and quantification; 7) Credibility of evidence determines the likelihood of outcomes or the accuracy of the impact; 8) I prefer debaters "weigh" throughout their speech, on the argument being weighed, not as a distinct section of their speech (e.g., "Now I will weigh the debate..."); 9) I love how policy debate has evolved, it's on me if I can't follow; 10) Be kind to your opponents, treat their arguments with respect; 11) I am more familiar with Public Forum, ~300 rounds judged since May 2020.

Policy specifics - 1) Having debated in college around the time the Macintosh was launched, I know my way around pen and paper, I flow well; 2) Talk as fast as you like; 3) I prefer a policy debate - H2O is such an important and interesting issue - to a K or theory debate, but the debate isn't about the judge; 4) I know H2O; 5) Conditionality OK, but disads to CPs are sticky; 6) Offense and defense interact at link and impact levels, job of debaters is to analyze interaction to RFD (e.g., explanation of pre-reqs, timing, relative brinks and uniqueness, internal link chains, scenario velocity, etc.); 7) Yes to topicality; 8) Plans/CPs should have plans with specific actions or vision/mission, or persuasive argument why plans/CPs should not; 9) Minimize paraphrasing, NO CLIPPING; 10) I decide based on flow what arguments are new when the argument affects my decision, irrespective of whether it's pointed out, but it's a good idea to point it out when it happens on an important argument.

PF specifics - 1) I vote on what debaters put on my flow; 2) Evidence is critical, minimize paraphrasing and cherry-picking <10% of the words in a card, ask for and refer to evidence by source/year and synopsis of content of evidence; 3) Apply frameworks/decision rules/voters where they are probative, not only in overview where framework is presented; 4) Whether or not 2nd Rebuttal frontlines is a strategic choice not a requirements, not frontlining puts more pressure on 2nd Summary but enables better defense + possibility of turning defense to offense w/turns; 5) Weigh w/o using the word "weigh", explain why your impact scenario is more probable/faster developing/has larger terminal impact/precludes opponent's offense/happens before opponent's offense; 6) No plan or fiat in PF, empirics prove/disprove resolution, e.g., if NATO has been substantially increasing its defense commitments to the Baltic states since 2014 and the Russian annexation of Crimea, then the question of why Russia hasn't attacked is critical to weighing likelihood of Russia lashing out when confronted with NATO military buildup in the Baltics; 7) Talk as fast as you want, be clear, don't talk as fast as you can and leave 30 seconds on your Constructive or Rebuttal; 8) No new link or impact arguments in Summary, answers to 1st Rebuttal in 2nd Summary OK if 2nd Summary can cover w/o frontlining, I decide what's new; 9) Dropped arguments still need to be pointed out as dropped, implication of dropped argument must be explained; 10) Ask for cards immediately after the speech, burden is on team providing cards to provide the request cards quickly, debaters shouldn't prep while cards are being delivered but the best enforcement is to provide the requested cards quickly, if you ask for cards I expect that you will read them and incorporate specific arguments against the requested cards, provide source/date for requested cards; 11) Be nice to one another, have fun.

2018 update: College policy debaters should look to who I judged at my last college judging spree (69th National Debate Tournament in Iowa) to get a feeling of who will and will not pref me. I also like Buntin's new judge philosophy (agree roughly 90%).

It's Fall 2015. I judge all types of debate, from policy-v-policy to non-policy-v-non-policy. I think what separates me as a judge is style, not substance.

I debated for Texas for 5 years (2003-2008), 4 years in Texas during high school (1999-2003). I was twice a top 20 speaker at the NDT. I've coached on and off for highschool and college teams during that time and since. I've ran or coached an extremely wide diversity of arguments. Some favorite memories include "china is evil and that outweighs the security k", to "human extinction is good", to "predictions must specify strong data", to "let's consult the chinese, china is awesome", to "housing discrimination based on race causes school segregation based on race", to "factory farms are biopolitical murder", to “free trade good performance”, to "let's reg. neg. the plan to make businesses confident", to “CO2 fertilization, SO2 Screw, or Ice Age DAs”, to "let the Makah whale", etc. Basically, I've been around.

After it was pointed out that I don't do a great job delineating debatable versus non-debatable preferences, I've decided to style-code bold all parts of my philosophy that are not up for debate. Everything else is merely a preference, and can be debated.

Style/Big Picture:

• I strongly prefer to let the debaters do the debating, and I'll reward depth (the "author+claim + warrant + data+impact" model) over breadth (the "author+claim + impact" model) any day.

• When evaluating probabilistic predictions, I start from the assumption everyone begins at 0%, and you persuade me to increase that number (w/ claims + warrants + data). Rarely do teams get me past 5%. A conceeded claim (or even claim + another claim disguised as the warrant) will not start at 100%, but remains at 0%.

• Combining those first two essential stylistic criteria means, in practice, many times I discount entirely even conceded, well impacted claims because the debaters failed to provide a warrant and/or data to support their claim. It's analogous to failing a basic "laugh" test. I may not be perfect at this rubric yet, but I still think it's better than the alternative (e.g. rebuttals filled with 20+ uses of the word “conceded” and a stack of 60 cards).

• I'll try to minimize the amount of evidence I read to only evidence that is either (A) up for dispute/interpretation between the teams or (B) required to render a decision (due to lack of clash amongst the debaters). In short: don't let the evidence do the debating for you.

• Humor is also well rewarded, and it is hard (but not impossible) to offend me.

• I'd also strongly prefer if teams would slow down 15-20% so that I can hear and understand every word you say (including cards read). While I won't explicitly punish you if you don't, it does go a mile to have me already understand the evidence while you're debating so I don't have to sort through it at the end (especially since I likely won't call for that card anyway).

• Defense can win a debate (there is such as thing as a 100% no link), but offense helps more times than not.

• I'm a big believer in open disclosure practices, and would vote on reasoned arguments about poor disclosure practices. In the perfect world, everything would be open-source (including highlighting and analytics, including 2NR/2AR blocks), and all teams would ultimately share one evidence set. You could cut new evidence, but once read, everyone would have it. We're nowhere near that world. Some performance teams think a few half-citations work when it makes up at best 45 seconds of a 9 minute speech. Some policy teams think offering cards without highlighting for only the first constructive works. I don't think either model works, and would be happy to vote to encourage more open disclosure practices. It's hard to be angry that the other side doesn't engage you when, pre-round, you didn't offer them anything to engage.

• You (or your partner) must physically mark cards if you do not finish them. Orally saying "mark here" (and expecting your opponents or the judge to do it for you) doesn't count. After your speech (and before cross-ex), you should resend a marked copy to the other team. If pointed out by the other team, failure to do means you must mark prior to cross-ex. I will count it as prep time times two to deter sloppy debate.

• By default, I will not “follow along” and read evidence during a debate. I find that it incentivizes unclear and shallow debates. However, I realize that some people are better visual than auditory learners and I would classify myself as strongly visual. If both teams would prefer and communicate to me that preference before the round, I will “follow along” and read evidence during the debate speeches, cross-exs, and maybe even prep.

Topicality:

• I like competing interpretations, the more evidence the better, and clearly delineated and impacted/weighed standards on topicality.

• Abuse makes it all the better, but is not required (doesn't unpredictability inherently abuse?).

• Treat it like a disad, and go from there. In my opinion, topicality is a dying art, so I'll be sure to reward debaters that show talent.

• For the aff – think offense/defense and weigh the standards you're winning against what you're losing rather than say "at least we're reasonable". You'll sound way better.

Framework:

• The exception to the above is the "framework debate". I find it to be an uphill battle for the neg in these debates (usually because that's the only thing the aff has blocked out for 5 minutes, and they debate it 3 out of 4 aff rounds).

• If you want to win framework in front of me, spent time delineating your interpretation of debate in a way that doesn't make it seem arbitrary. For example "they're not policy debate" begs the question what exactly policy debate is. I'm not Justice Steward, and this isn't pornography. I don't know when I've seen it. I'm old school in that I conceptualize framework along “predictability”; "topic education", “policymaking education”, and “aff education” (topical version, switch sides, etc) lines.

• “We're in the direction of the topic” or “we discuss the topic rather than a topical discussion” is a pretty laughable counter-interpretation.

• For the aff, "we agree with the neg's interp of framework but still get to weigh our case" borders on incomprehensible if the framework is the least bit not arbitrary.

Case Debate

• Depth in explanation over breadth in coverage. One well explained warrant will do more damage to the 1AR than 5 cards that say the same claim.

• Well-developed impact calculus must begin no later than the 1AR for the Aff and Negative Block for the Neg.

• I enjoy large indepth case debates. I was 2A who wrote my own community unique affs usually with only 1 advantage and no external add-ons. These type of debates, if properly researched and executed, can be quite fun for all parties.

Disads

• Intrinsic perms are silly. Normal means arguments are less so.

• From an offense/defense paradigm, conceded uniqueness can control the direction of the link. Conceded links can control the direction of uniqueness. The in round application of "why" is important.

• A story / spin is usually more important (and harder for the 1AR to deal with) than 5 cards that say the same thing.

Counterplan Competition:

• I generally prefer functionally competitive counterplans with solvency advocates delineating the counterplan versus the plan (or close) (as opposed to the counterplan versus the topic), but a good case for textual competition can be made with a language K netbenefit.

• Conditionality (1 CP, SQ, and 1 K) is a fact of life, and anything less is the negative feeling sorry for you (or themselves). However, I do not like 2NR conditionality (i.e., “judge kick”) ever. Make a decision.

• Perms and theory always remain a test of competition (and not a voter) until proven otherwise by the negative by argument (see above), a near impossible standard for arguments that don't interfere substantially with other parts of the debate (e.g. conditionality).

• Perm "do the aff" is not a perm. Debatable perms are "do both" and "do cp/alt"(and "do aff and part of the CP" for multi-plank CPs). Others are usually intrinsic.

Critiques:

• I think of the critique as a (usually linear) disad and the alt as a cp.

• Be sure to clearly impact your critique in the context of what it means/does to the aff case (does the alt solve it, does the critique turn it, make harms inevitable, does it disprove their solvency). Latch on to an external impact (be it "ethics", or biopower causes super-viruses), and weigh it against case.

• Use your alternative to either "fiat uniqueness" or create a rubric by which I don't evaluate uniqueness, and to solve case in other ways.

• I will say upfront the two types of critique routes I find least persuasive are simplistic versions of "economics", "science", and "militarism" bad (mostly because I have an econ degree and am part of an extensive military family). While good critiques exist out there of both, most of what debaters use are not that, so plan accordingly.

• For the aff, figure out how to solve your case absent fiat (education about aff good?), and weigh it against the alternative, which you should reduce to as close as the status quo as possible. Make uniqueness indicts to control the direction of link, and question the timeframe/inevitability/plausability of their impacts.

• Perms generally check clearly uncompetitive alternative jive, but don't work too well against "vote neg". A good link turn generally does way more than “perm solves the link”.

• Aff Framework doesn't ever make the critique disappear, it just changes how I evaluate/weigh the alternative.

• Role of the Ballot - I vote for the team that did the better debating. What is "better" is based on my stylistic criteria. End of story. Don't let "Role of the Ballot" be used as an excuse to avoid impact calculus.

Performance (the other critique):

• Empirically, I do judge these debate and end up about 50-50 on them. I neither bandwagon around nor discount the validity of arguments critical of the pedagogy of debate. I'll let you make the case or defense (preferably with data). The team that usually wins my ballot is the team that made an effort to intelligently clash with the other team (whether it's aff or neg) and meet my stylistic criteria. To me, it's just another form of debate.

• However, I do have some trouble in some of these debates in that I feel most of what is said is usually non-falsifiable, a little too personal for comfort, and devolves 2 out of 3 times into a chest-beating contest with competition limited to some archaic version of "plan-plan". I do recognize that this isn't always the case, but if you find yourselves banking on "the counterplan/critique doesn't solve" because "you did it first", or "it's not genuine", or "their skin is white"; you're already on the path to a loss.

• If you are debating performance teams, the two main takeaways are that you'll probably lose framework unless you win topical version, and I hate judging "X" identity outweighs "Y" identity debates. I suggest, empirically, a critique of their identity politics coupled with some specific case cards is more likely to get my ballot than a strategy based around "Framework" and the "Rev". Not saying it's the only way, just offering some empirical observations of how I vote.

I am a judge who gives feedback based on conceptual clarity/presentation clarity and the relevance of points/evidence involved. I also appreciate risk taking (that is respectful and kind). I prioritize clarity and impact more than speed and amount of time spent speaking.

I do not take points away for the diverse ways folks express their arguments/speeches, as I am inclusive to neurodivergence. I still provide notes of these expressions (ie. Eye contact, stutters, gestures, etc.) in ballots. Lastly, my approach is informed by anti-colonialism and equity for all.

I have judged for a few months under a year and I look forward to learning more.

This is my sixth year being the head coach at Kenston High School in Cleveland, Ohio. I have been a lawyer for 30 years and still practice law. I competed for four years in high school (Centerville, Ohio - three years policy debate, one year LD and four years congress) and four years in college (Miami Univ. - two years policy and two years CEDA). Impacts are important to me. I flow the debate vigorously. Please signpost and remain professional. Please don't talk over each other in c-x. Pronouns: he/him. Email for any chains: svoudris@me.com

I flow, but you should consider me a lay-judge. Win with your arguments and your logic, not debate tactics. In PF rounds, please do not impact your arguments out to 'human extinction.' I do not believe this is a realistic consequence of any of the topics debated in PF. 

I also do not allow off-time roadmaps. I really like roadmaps and signposting, but you need to do it within the timeframe of your speech.

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

I have four years of experience in PF debate both in the local Wyoming circuit and the national circuit. I prefer tech over truth so I'll buy any argument you present as long as it's well-warranted and not unethical (i.e. racist, sexist, etc...). I want to see clash and weighing because I think that makes for more interesting debates. That being said you should tell me how I should vote in the round. I won't intervene in the debate. However, if you don't tell me how to vote I will definitely evaluate the link debate first and probably vote off of whoever has the biggest impact second. I will consider dropped arguments as conceded unless you can give me a reason why I should consider the new answer. I don't really want to hear any new arguments in summary though. If it's something that can be cross-applied to an argument that you have already made, most likely I'll buy it. If there was only defense read on your contention but it's something you're not going to go for I'll let you kick it if you don't bring it up again in summary or final focus. If there is offense on the contention and you don't want to go for it you have to kick it yourself, I will not kick it for you.

It should be assumed that you shouldn't be mean in rounds so I expect good debate etiquette. If you are rude during the round at the very least I will give you low speaks. Debate is supposed to be a fun and open environment and we should keep it that way. Overall, just have fun!

If you have any questions about my RFD or feedback feel free to email me at yuyu.yuan927@gmail.com