Tabroom.com

CHSSA Middle School State Championship

2022 — Online, CA/US

Debate Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Isabela Almeida Hire None

arthur alvarez Hire None

Adriana Amanti Athens Debate

Last changed on Thu March 17, 2022 at 7:07 AM PDT

Hi everyone! I did high school debate for four years and I am currently on my university's debate team and mock trial team. I have the most experience in Public Forum, Congress, Extemporaneous Speaking (+debate), and Original Advocacy, although I am still very familiar with other events. I have competed on local and national circuits for debate, including CHSSA state, NSDA Nationals, Stanford, Duke, and Harvard. If you have any questions about my debate experience or anything else, feel free to ask me before the round! My email is adrianaamanti@gmail.com

Congress

I am most familiar with CHSSA Congress from practice and coaching, but I have also judged CFL Congress. I firmly believe that Congressional debate is congressional debate by itself and not Public Forum/Policy/LD, so please avoid speaking incredibly fast/using technical terms like referring to the flow, links, heavy emphasis on solvency and burden of proof, dropping arguments, etc. Persuasive tone and easy-to-follow pace is crucial. Please avoid being condescending to other representatives/senators during cross-examination. I love clash (including friendly clash) and believe that it is one of the most important parts of the debate. I enjoy seeing unique speech introductions that aren't the typical "life, liberty, pursuit of happiness/justice for all" and will give you higher speaker points for it! If there are problems with the legislation, feel free to pick it apart. Real-world impacts are incredibly important, but make sure to contextualize them in the debate round.

Public Forum

I consider myself to have a 'tabula rasa' view of judging when I come into round. Please make sure that you walk me through your link chains, explain your warrants, and how your link chain works into your terminal impact. Impacts are incredibly important in the round, so don't drop them! Make sure that you quantify your impacts and give me a weighing mechanism (scope, magnitude, etc) in summary and final focus to help me make my decision. Do not flow through ink (a.k.a respond to your opponents' arguments!). I will appreciate it if you collapse on arguments you're winning on in summary. If you are using a framework other than cost-benefit analysis, make that clear in your constructive. If a framework debate occurs in the round, you can take some time to address it, but do not make it the entire focus of the round, or I will just vote using cost-benefit analysis. If I do not hear a terminal impact from your case, I will most likely vote you down. Please explain any acronyms in the debate. I won't be able to really follow any niche acronyms or abbreviations until I'm well into the tournament, and this helps everyone.

I also think accessibility is incredibly important in a debate round. If you are going to spread, make that clear BEFORE you begin your constructive or your rebuttal. Also, if you are going to spread, send speech docs to everyone in the round. I can follow, but I'd prefer to be able to see it in front of me. You don't know if someone has a disability or an impediment, and it will look extremely bad on your part if you spread and get hit with theory that I will vote off of. That being said, I am open to hearing theory in rounds (including disclosure theory) if it is being run for a good reason and not just to pick up a ballot. Make the voters to your theory explicitly clear. If you are hit with theory, you MUST respond to it. I am open to hearing Ks.

I absolutely do not tolerate any sort of condescending behavior in rounds, especially during grand cross. I know it gets heated, but please treat your opponents with respect. Racism/transphobia/misogyny/classism and any other discriminatory behavior or comments will instantly lose my ballot. At the end of the day, this is a debate round, so have fun :)

Here are some resources below for newer/inexperienced debaters that don't know what's being discussed here or how to respond to these arguments. Like I said, accessibility is crucial!

https://thedebateguru.weebly.com/kritiks.html

https://thedebateguru.weebly.com/theory.html

Shifatul Apurba Athens Debate

Last changed on Wed October 6, 2021 at 3:05 AM +06

Name: Shifatul Ahsan Apurba

School Affiliation: BRAC University

Number of Years Judging Public Forum: <1

Number of Years Competing in Public Forum: >1

Number of Years Judging Other Forensic Activities: >3

Number of Years Competing in Other Forensic Activities: >3

If you are a coach, what events do you coach? - Not a coach

What is your current occupation? - Undergraduate Student

General Notes for speakers:

1. Speakers should be aware of the following information.

2. In particular, I appreciate teams that have a clear structure, can explain the implications of evidence effectively, and can correctly connect evidence to their arguments.

3. It's better if you describe the underlying trend/core problem connected with it while using proof.

4. It's critical to maintain your audience's interest. Judges' jobs are made simpler by direct comparison and weighing. In addition, you should demonstrate how your advantages exceed their drawbacks and how your advantages surpass your opponents'.

5. If you make a case for comparative advantage, be ready to back it up with evidence that connects directly to the evidence your opponent utilized.

6. You should be ready to explain why your strategy is a superior method, such as because it gets the job done faster/easier and requires fewer resources.

7. Please don't make any arguments that aren't obvious to a well-informed voter. This content will be devalued if you do this.

8. You must refrain from using any terminology that may lead to equity breaches.

9. We enjoy having a roadmap.

10. It's okay to speak quickly as long as you're clear.

11. As long as you're comprehensible, I don't mind what type of style you have. Different debaters have varying styles because of their different upbringings, and it is something I respect.

12. During presentations, I have a decent amount of energy. In the heat of battle, I jot down the most salient queries and the answers given to them.

SANJEEV Bansal The Golden State Academy

Shriya Bidani Gretchen Whitney High School

Stephan Brooks Brooks Debate Institute

Last changed on Sat March 11, 2023 at 4:04 AM PDT

STEPHAN BROOKS (updated 03/10/23)

Owner & Director of Brooks Debate Institute (Fremont, CA)

Assistant Debate Coach @ Miller Middle School (San Jose, CA)

COMM Professor & Graduate Student @ San Jose State University (San Jose, CA)

FORMERLY:

- President & Debate Director @ The Brooks Academy in Fremont, CA (2013-2015)
- Head Debate Coach @ Archbishop Mitty HS in San Jose, CA (2013-2015)
- Head Debate Coach @ Mission San Jose HS in Fremont, CA (2012-2013)
- Public Forum Coach @ James Logan HS in Union City, CA (2007-2011)
- Competitor @ James Logan HS in Union City, CA (2001-2005)

I have been competing and coaching for 20+ years. I have experience in and have judged most formats of debate at every level: local, leagues, circuit, invitationals, TOC, CA State and NSDA Nationals, etc. I specialize in Public Forum and have coached the format since 2007, coaching the event at several San Francisco Bay Area schools and programs, including my own teams. I currently coach privately, and work primarily with middle school students these days. I was a communication studies major in college. Speech and debate is literally my life.

REQUIREMENTS & DEAL BREAKERS: (this applies mostly to PF and generally to other formats)

Do or die! Read carefully! Ignore at your own risk!

1. SPEED/SPREAD: No. I will NEVER tolerate it. I refuse. If you speak over 300 words per minute, you AUTOMATICALLY LOSE!I firmly believe that the whole point of debate as an activity to teach and train effective communication skills. If I (your target audience) tell you I HATE SPEED/SPREAD, and you GIVE ME SPEED, then I will GLADLY GIVE YOU A LOSS. Speed kills.

2. EVIDENCE:

2a.Paraphrase (especially in PF) is both OK and actually PREFERRED. I competed in Public Forum when the event was first created in the early 2000's as a response and alternative to circuit/spread LD/Policy. The short speech times of PF are by design: to encourage and challenge debaters to interpret and convey the meaning of vast amounts of research in a very limited amount of time. To have debaters practice being succinct.

2b. Email/Evidence Chains: No. I will NEVER call for or read cards- I think judge intervention is bad. It's your job to tell me what to think about the evidence presented in the round, yours and your opponent's.

2c. Warranting sources is required if you want me to VALUE your evidence. Last name and year is NOT good enough for me. (In PF... I will tolerate it elsewhere)If you say "Johnson 2020 writes" that means nothing to me. I want credentials/qualifications. If your opponent provides source credentials and you don't, I'll default to your opponent's evidence.

3. FINAL SPEECHES OF ANY DEBATE FORMAT: I REQUIRE 2-3 (no more!) clearly NUMBERED & articulated VOTING ISSUES presented to me at the end of your side's final speech. If you fail to give me voters, and the other side says "our single voting issue is that the sky is blue" I will vote on that issue. Please tell me what you want me to write on my RFD. If you keep debating the flow for the entirety of your final speech, you will lose. I repeat... in the final speech... Don't debate! Tell me why you win!

JUDGING PREFERENCES:

- I am a "POLICYMAKER" judge and like to tell all of the competitors that I judge that "I like to vote for the team that made the world a better place." That is my ultimate criteria for judging most debate rounds, but I am absolutely open to debaters providing, justifying, and impacting to their own standards.

- I am VERY STRICT about debating the EXACT WORDING of the RESOLUTION: Letter of the law! For example... if the resolution says "X produces more benefits than harms" then I believe we are debating a FACT TOPIC (not policy!) and I will vote for the team that presented the best benefits / worst harms. I will NOT vote for the team that treated the resolution as a POLICY TOPIC and spent the round impacting to a nuclear war in the future that hasn't happened yet.

- Strong impacts are extremely important to me in order to weigh arguments as offense for each side. If you don't impact, I don't weigh. Don't make me do work for you.

- I believe in "affirmative burden of proof"- the AFF typically gets the privilege of defining and last word (outside of PF), so they had better prove the resolution true by the end of the round. If teams argue to a draw, or if both teams are just plain terrible, then I tend to "default NEG" to the status quo.

- As a policymaker judge I like and vote on strong offensive arguments. On that note: I love counter-plans. Run'em if ya got'em.

- I appreciate strong framework, fair definitions, and I love to be given clear standards by which I should weigh arguments and decide rounds. Tell me how to think.

- I am NOT a "Tabula Rasa" judge- Although I hate judge intervention, I reserve the right to interpret and weigh your argument against my own knowledge. I am fine with voting for an argument that runs contrary to my beliefs if it is explained well and warranted. I am NOT fine with voting for arguments that are blatantly false, lies, or unwarranted. If you tell me the sky is green, and I look outside and it's blue, you'll lose.

- I am NOT a "Games Player" judge. Leave that stuff at home. I want real-world impacts not garbage. I hate it when debaters make all sorts of crazy arguments about stuff that would never have a remote chance of happening in reality. Example: "Building high speed rail will lead to a steel shortage (sure...) and then a trade war with China.. (uh huh...) and then a NUCLEAR WAR!" (right...)

- On that note, I HATE MOST "THEORY" & "PROGRESSIVE" ARGUMENTS.I love it when debaters debate about the actual topic. I hate it when debaters debate about debate. Don't do it! You'll lose! Unless your opponent is legit guilty of a genuine fairness violation: moving target, fair ground, etc. Then I will absolutely drop them.

- I flow, but I do NOT "vote on the flow"- my flow helps me to decide rounds, but I'm smart enough that I don't need my legal pad and pens to decide rounds for me.

- Final speeches of ANY debate I watch should emphasize voting issues. Tell me how I should weigh the round and explain which key arguments I should vote for- DO NOT repeat the entire debate, you'll lose.

- Speed: I'm okay with some speed, but I ABSOLUTELY HATE SPREAD. You should be concerned with quality of arguments over quantity. If you're reading more than 250-300 words per minute, you're probably going too fast.

- I generally critique and disclose whenever possible.

PERSONAL BACKGROUND:

POLITICAL

- I identify as a Classical Liberal.

- I treat politics the same way I treat religion: like an all you can eat buffet. If I see something I like I put it on my plate, regardless of what party/group it came from, and sometimes even if it clashes with my core beliefs/values. A good idea is a good idea.

- I voted for Obama in 2008, and stay registered as a Democrat in order to vote in the California primary. I made the mistake of donating to Bernie Sanders in 2016 and now the Dems have my email/phone number and hit me up for money every election cycle.

- I'm a big fan of Andrew Yang and the Forward Party. I may not personally agree with Yang on all issues, but I like him as a thinker.

- I listen to Ben Shapiro's podcast/show during the week and watch Bill Maher on Friday nights. I like to think I honestly have an ear for both sides and major political parties in the U.S.

COMPETITIVE

- I competed for James Logan High School in Union City, CA from 2001-2005.

- Trained in Policy Debate the summer before 9th grade. Went to VBI to learn LD summer before 10th grade. Took up Parli in 11th grade. Midway through my junior year I tried out this brand new debate event called "Ted Turner," which would be known as "Controversy" until finally becoming Public Forum Debate.

Derek Chang Hire

Fangfei Chen Prestige Debate Academy

Indumathi Das Egan Junior High School None

Ashlie De La Rosa ModernBrain

Sheetal Dehadaraya Tierra Linda Middle School

Madhura Deo Joaquin Miller Middle School None

Taisia Dubinina Young Genius, Bay Area Speech and Debate Academy

Tawfique Elahi Athens Debate

Last changed on Sun September 4, 2022 at 10:04 AM +06

Background:

Tawfique Elahi is a debate coach at BL Debate Academy, Vancouver. He holds a bachelor's in computer science from NSU. He did his undergraduate thesis on Human-Computer Interaction for Digital Financial Inclusion.

He is currently the Secretary of the World Universities Debating Council (WUDC) and the Asian BP Debating Council. He brings a wealth of debate experience to the table. He has judged elimination rounds at more than 75 debate championships on five continents (Asia, Africa, Australia, Europe, and North America), served on 17 Chief Adjudication Panels, 3 Equity Panels, 30 Grand Finals, and chaired 12 elimination rounds. Among his major successes are serving as Chief Adjudicator at the McMaster High School Tournament and judging final series rounds at the World Championship of Debating (Korea WUDC), Hart House IV, and Canadian BP Championships. He is experienced with the WSDC, CNDF, BP, CP, PF, LD, Policy, Asians, Australs, and Easters formats.

Certifications:

• NFHS Protecting Students from Abuse

• NFHS Cultural Competence Course

General Notes for speakers:

I really admire teams that are well-structured and can clearly express the implications of evidence and properly tie back the evidence to their position.
While you’re going to use evidence, it's preferable that you also explain the underlying trend/core issue associated with it.
Engagement is important. Direct comparison and weighing make the lives of judges easier. It's preferable that you also illustrate how the advantages on your side outweigh theirs, and how their disadvantages outweigh their advantages.
If you argue a comparative advantage, be prepared to justify it with proof that explicitly links to that piece of proof that your opposition used.
If you’re presenting counter-plans, be prepared to analyze why your counter-plan is a better approach, for example, you reach the resolution faster/easier and take fewer resources.
Please don’t present any point that will not be understandable to an average intelligent voter. If you do so, that piece of material will be discounted.
Please don't use any offensive language that leads to equity violations.
Roadmaps are appreciated.
Speaking fast is fine, but please use clarity.
Any kind of Style is fine with me as long as you're fairly understandable. I acknowledge that different debaters come from different backgrounds, and thus have different styles.
I reasonably flow during speeches. During the crossfire, I take notes for the most important questions raised and how they're answered.

Anthony Escalante Athens Debate

David Gallegos Hire None

Aimee Ge Graham Junior High School

Donia Ghaith ModernBrain None

Charles Guo Joaquin Miller Middle School None

Liang Guo Velásquez Academy None

Bharti Hathalia The Golden State Academy

Francisco Hernandez Hire None

Darya Alina Heydari Hire

Evelyn Hidalgo Hire None

Ralph Ho Hire

Kelly Hurst Hire None

Juan Igarzabal Athens Debate

Last changed on Sun October 10, 2021 at 10:15 AM EDT

Debators can run any (I mean ANY) argument to me as to why they should win the round from the arguments that they are making.

PLEASE give me examples, solvency, and impact analysis in the round, as well as clashing with your opponents and on their arguments.

Tech/Flow/Tabula Judge, but I get skeptical in very blippy arguments so keep that in mind.

The issue of Tech/Truth happens when deciding clash/which impact worse since debaters didn’t do it themselves (cleaning the debate) (Ex: Ontological violence vs. nuclear war)

I hate intervening

I will vote on topic, K, T, Theory, Performance (which I will judge the performance), Presumption, etc…

For T/Theory, explain and show the abuse. Flesh the argument out and explain why I should, don’t just say “vote fairness, the end”

For K: explain the thesis (don't just say post-modern jargon), impact, link, ROTB, Solvency...

Keep the spreading to 350 wpm. If I don't understand you, I will yell "clear!", but if you keep spreading so bad, I'll just stop saying "clear!".

SIGNPOST PLEASE; DON’T MESS WITH MY FLOW

Any questions? Ask me before round

Down Below is a list of critical Literature that I have read/Judged to give debaters an idea of the literature they can use. Always interested in hearing new arguments

Note: Some kritiks are generic due to the many types it has

Ableism, Cyber-Fem/Borg, Orientalism

Schopenhauer, Agamben Derrida, Marxism,

Security, Afro-Furturism, Ecofem, Necropolitics

Terror, Afro-Pessimism, Empire, Neo-Colonialism

Global Warming, Althusser, Hauntology, Nietzsche

Zizek, Anthropocentrism, Lacan

Neoliberal, Nuclear, Baudrillard, Latinx

Peace Theory, Spanos, Batman, Legalism

Post-Colonialism, Anarchy, Bataille

Libertarianism, Queer Theory, Vilirio

Biopower, Fem IR, Settlerism, Spectacle

Borders Gender Language, Subaltern

CRT, Buddhism, Carl Schmitt, Suffering Rep

Tuck and Yang, Capitalism, OOO, Spanos, Militarism

Juan N Igarzabal Hire

Last changed on Sun October 10, 2021 at 10:15 AM EDT

Debators can run any (I mean ANY) argument to me as to why they should win the round from the arguments that they are making.

PLEASE give me examples, solvency, and impact analysis in the round, as well as clashing with your opponents and on their arguments.

Tech/Flow/Tabula Judge, but I get skeptical in very blippy arguments so keep that in mind.

The issue of Tech/Truth happens when deciding clash/which impact worse since debaters didn’t do it themselves (cleaning the debate) (Ex: Ontological violence vs. nuclear war)

I hate intervening

I will vote on topic, K, T, Theory, Performance (which I will judge the performance), Presumption, etc…

For T/Theory, explain and show the abuse. Flesh the argument out and explain why I should, don’t just say “vote fairness, the end”

For K: explain the thesis (don't just say post-modern jargon), impact, link, ROTB, Solvency...

Keep the spreading to 350 wpm. If I don't understand you, I will yell "clear!", but if you keep spreading so bad, I'll just stop saying "clear!".

SIGNPOST PLEASE; DON’T MESS WITH MY FLOW

Any questions? Ask me before round

Down Below is a list of critical Literature that I have read/Judged to give debaters an idea of the literature they can use. Always interested in hearing new arguments

Note: Some kritiks are generic due to the many types it has

Ableism, Cyber-Fem/Borg, Orientalism

Schopenhauer, Agamben Derrida, Marxism,

Security, Afro-Furturism, Ecofem, Necropolitics

Terror, Afro-Pessimism, Empire, Neo-Colonialism

Global Warming, Althusser, Hauntology, Nietzsche

Zizek, Anthropocentrism, Lacan

Neoliberal, Nuclear, Baudrillard, Latinx

Peace Theory, Spanos, Batman, Legalism

Post-Colonialism, Anarchy, Bataille

Libertarianism, Queer Theory, Vilirio

Biopower, Fem IR, Settlerism, Spectacle

Borders Gender Language, Subaltern

CRT, Buddhism, Carl Schmitt, Suffering Rep

Tuck and Yang, Capitalism, OOO, Spanos, Militarism

Pablo Jacobo Athens Debate None

Mithannsh Jain Athens Debate

Last changed on Sat February 5, 2022 at 9:15 PM IST

A Proud Indian Law Student from Bangalore is obsessed with debate and the culture of sharing knowledge, perspectives, and experiences! Has organized and hosted multiple debate tournaments across continents and is a debate and judge coach to Indian debaters in the British Parliamentary debate circuit. Proud to be the youngest person to break as a judge in multiple university-level international tournaments and an enlisted national level judge frequently in ISDS (Indian School of Debating Society). I genuinely want to create a beautiful world of debating and bring out the attractive potential of judging and debating within myself and others.

Judging Rubric:

In any given debate, there are a few baseline criteria I use to evaluate arguments and speeches:

1. Clarity: tell me what the debate is about and what it should be evaluated on, e.g. helping vulnerable groups, maximizing freedom of choice, etc. These should ALWAYS be followed by mechanization.

2. Mechanization: do not just state claims and rebuttal them with counter-claims. Mechanization means giving me strong reasons why your claim or counter-claim is accurate and why it is crucial in the debate and the MOST IMPORTANT in the debate. That means you must do good quality weighing along with your mechanization.

3. Weighing: Take the other side's best-case scenario, and do a comparative analysis with the average case or worst case scenario on your side. If you can show me that even if your side's best case does not work, your average or worst case is still better than the other side's best case, and give me strong reasons as to why you've scored a solid win.

4. Engagement: being genuine in addressing the other team's case is key to winning a debate. Do not assume points for the other side or try to water down their issues without giving me a proper rebuttal. Listen keenly to what each speaker says, and do your best not to run away from the core of their case, even if it seems complicated to engage with. Try your best!

5. Structure: present your speeches in a clear and straightforward way. Complexity does not win debates; simplicity does. Clear structure and detailed but straightforward analysis make it easy for teams to understand your arguments and for me as a judge to do so as well. I value signposting (giving me a brief outline of what you will talk about in your speech), flow (signalling the end of one argument and the beginning of another), and clear comparatives throughout the speech.

6. Team Dynamic: how you and your partner present your case. I need to see strong support structures and extensions to strengthen arguments and see well thought out speeches that do not sound contradictory or confused on one end. Cohesion and synchronicity are critical!

7. Respect: let's not be derogatory or discriminatory towards anyone in the debate. Let us not think differently of them because they have different accents or are not from where you are from. Any slander, arguments based on stereotypes, lack of respect for gender identities and general offensive language will result in repercussions and a report to the tournament organizers. Let's celebrate diversity and culture, and learn from different perspectives!

Good luck, everyone!

Ramesh Jaladi Stratagem Learning

Amanda Johnson Hire

Srinivas Kalbhavi Joaquin Miller Middle School

Last changed on Thu February 4, 2021 at 2:10 PM PDT

I am a lay judge and this is my first year of judging. I flow the rounds, and I generally have some background knowledge on the topic, but please treat the round as if I do not because I may not know what you are talking about.

What I look for in a round regarding any debate style:

Speaking Speed: Please go at a moderate speed. I don’t want to have to judge a round where I am barely able to flow because of the speed the round is going at. I also want to make sure that both I and your opponents are able to understand your contentions. It’s very time-consuming in crossfires to ask for a summary of your contention(s).
Timing: Please make good use of your time. I would appreciate it if you time yourself. I will be timing, but I think as debaters you need to develop the habit of timing yourself.
Attitude: Please be respectful. I will not tolerate inappropriate language, interruptions, etc., and it would be in your best interest to avoid this. I will dock speaker points if anyone is rude.
Crossfires: In your crossfires, allow your opponents to respond completely and don’t interrupt anyone. Also, please have your cards handy in case your opponents call for a card. It would save a lot of time.
Cherry Picking: Please don’t take a single example and generalize it to the overarching idea. I’ve judged rounds where debaters have done this - for instance, on the PF NSA surveillance topic the privacy vs. security argument - and it’s very messy and hard to judge.
Prep Time: Please don’t take any prep time before your crossfires. I’ll be glad to give it to you any other time, like before rebuttal, summary speech, etc., but I discourage taking any before a crossfire. I am okay with taking either running or set prep.
Technical Difficulties: I like starting as soon as possible, and it would be greatly appreciated if you can resolve any tech issues with your partner/on your own before entering a round.

Speaker Points: I’ll be basing your speaker points on your speed, style, timing, attitude, crossfires, and, of course, the actual content of your speeches.

Clarify any questions you have for me beforehand.

I look forward to judging a clean and interesting round.

Deepti Kapoor The Golden State Academy None

Manpreet Kaur Athens Debate

Last changed on Sat January 15, 2022 at 6:24 AM PDT

Online Debate: In the event, you get cut out, I will ask that you resume your speech from whatever your opponent or I last flowed.

Etiquette:

- Do not attack your opponents, attack their arguments.

- If you are rude, offensive, disrespectful, racist, sexist, etc I will tank your speaks and possibly drop you if it's a big enough issue. Debate is competitive, but that doesn't mean you can be mean.

If there is a problem or you think something is wrong (like shady evidence), tell me ASAP so we can pause the debate if needed and solve the issue. If there is a disagreement about the content of a card, I will call for the card at the end of the debate.

Debate:

- LD!! Framework: I want to see strong justifications (please have a card, don't just run framework without having a card, it seems like you haven't researched the topic or don't care about the debate at all) during the framework portion and strong links to the framework throughout the debate.

- When you extend, don't just extend tags, extend cards + impacts or just impact in case time is low.

- When you are making refutations use blocks and evidence! If you don't have blocks, please make some blocks. I like evidence, but I will settle for analytical arguments if both sides don't have warrants.

- Signpost during your speeches and cite the year & author (the last name is fine if you want to give credentials to weigh the evidence that's great!) of your cards. It's ridiculous how many people don't, I'm literally just hearing the resolution and I have no clue what the common arguments so if you start refuting things without specifying what it is, I'm not gonna try to play connect the dots to figure out what you're doing. It's not hard, I'm sure most of you can do it.

- Once you drop something, you cannot come back to it. *If your impacts are better, I might disregard. If you're good on the flow, you have good impact calc, but you drop one non-crucial argument, I might disregard.

- If you bring up an argument in cx but don't later in the round, then it's useless.

Policy!!

- Tech > Truth

- Slow down on analytics and tags!

DA

- specify on link stories

- Do the impact comparison so I don't have to do all the work thx

CP

- tell me what the NB is and how it solves!

- do the line by line well

Speaks/Drop:

- debate skills > talking pretty, you can be a polished speaker AND a flow debater

- If you bring up new evidence or new arguments in a later speech where the opponent does not have a chance to respond, I will tank your speaks (you won't walk out with anything higher than 24) same thing for new evidence, don't bring new evidence when the other team will not get to respond. That's bad faith and I will drop your speaks and potentially even your side if it becomes a key argument.

- I really really hate when you tell me how I should be voting, I am pretty sure I can vote for myself, so use that time to build your arguments, your links, etc.

- I am fine with speed, be like Eminem if that's what ya want, but I do not want to watch spit fly and just hear heaving. If you are going too fast for me to understand, I'll just say clear. If you don't slow down, I won't be able to flow so when you extend or cross-apply, your side will be missing pieces

- If you make me laugh, it will boost your speaks :))

Vivaksha Khanduri Young Genius, Bay Area Speech and Debate Academy None

Jared Koch Athens Debate

Last changed on Fri March 18, 2022 at 3:47 AM PDT

Hello! Currently I am a community college student in something of an academic limbo who will soon, God (Catholic or otherwise, I’m open to letters of recommendation) willing, be transferring to UC Berkeley.

I’ve debated for quite some time for the Mount San Jacinto Community College team but now I am something of a debate mercenary debating for College of the Canyons for whom I am the only member of the team.

This will be my first time filling out a judging paradigm form so please forgive me if it is somewhat unorganized.

Experience

So, in regards to my personal debate experience I was a High School Parli debate and thus qualify as a debate veteran. I have competed in Parli and am well acquainted with both the types of arguments as well as the sort of meta "culture" I suppose surrounding this. What this means is that I will typically be familiar with most debate terminology and will not be suprised get a case of the vapors if you propose a K or run an abuse argument. However, that being said I do certainly have grievances with some form of debate, somewhat due to personal trauma being a debater with only a club to compete with and encounter suited barbarians who would constantly run K's and definitional arguments in a round. I will also mention that although I have started to judge it more, I am not someone who has competed in Policy debate nor Public Forum, and as such I would perhaps advise you to try to use terminology that isn't only in that format, or at the very least take a moment to explain it as assuming the judge knows your secret debate society language can occasionally make it difficult to judge you in round.

Judging Style

So, I will firstly start out by saying that I am very much not a conventional judge in regards to some of my beliefs regarding judging during the round. I will take something resembling a flow, however I see rhetoric and narrative to be important aspects of a debate round that exists alongside the actual arguments themselves. I typically do not do a hard calculus of impacts and individual dropped arguments if they do not seem significant to me. I will also mention that I am willing to do slightly more labor on the judge's side than perhaps others. If you propose an argument but perhaps don't give an exact impact or connect to an the other team’s argument but I can see a connection, I will still consider it in that context but perhaps with not as much enthusiasm than if you explain to me why you argument about social media turning the Zoomer generation into zombie like drones of the state also relates to the opponents contension about twitter cancel culture being the next religious revival.

In regards to the question of whether the judge's perspective is brought into the round, I will admit that I very much believe that the judge is an actor within the round and that their knowledge does influence the round as well. What this means is that if you give an argument that is just blatantly false or not well supported, even within your speech, I will not treat it as though its logical rational truth within the round. I will still consider it and perhaps expect the other team to address it, but I will still have some standard myself as a judge. This doesn't mean I will attempt to be intentionally biased, however, just know that if I am judging you I am not going to just readily give you the win on any dropped argument or piece of evidence just because it wasn't fully addressed by the other team.

I do appreciate organization and reading out the general themes of your argument. You don't have to lay it out in your first speech and I will generally arrange the argument myself in my notes, but it is something that certainly makes it much easier to judge you, and I know because I myself have horrifically difficult to follow debate organization at times, like, modern art living room arrangement style.

Spread

So....this one is a bit difficult. I am quite used to following and partaking in speedier, more beefy rounds so in that regard I am not a lay judge. However, I am aware that in certain formats, particularly Public Forum and policy it is occasionally expected that the judge should be able to follow even if the debater is reading at a ridiculous speed attempting to cram in an entire list of arguments which, while I appreciate the enthusiasm, can make the round very difficult to judge in a manner that actually considers the arguments presented. In regards to speed, while I will allow you to speak quickly, please make sure you are actually emphasizing certain points and pronouncing your words and actually taking time to separate out your contensions. Also, in regards to accusations of spread, I am very much willing to take arguments in regards to this specific form of abuse, and I think that thinking you can win a round purely based on dropped arguments that are not even fully addressed by your team, or due to drowning the opponent in them is one of the more obnoxious tendencies of debate. I am fine with devious tactics and questionable frameworks if you can protect them, however this is something where I tend to find it a bit intentionally disruptive.

Kritques

So, Kritqiues….I guess I will start out by saying that I do quite appreciate these. They are like little warlock wizard spells that you can cast to hex your enemies or make them have to contend with being accused of “promoting an American individualist mindset” due to saying they think the Avengers movies provide great role models. I also think that Kritiques also sort of tie debate into the actual academic concerns that you may encounter at the college level, so I am very much in favor of them as a concept. You should still explain how it relates to the round, and present properly for debate by explaining why either supporting the resolution or the way in which the other team debating requires a consideration of the kritique. It can be difficult to achieve a win based on a Kritique alone, however if you feel it's powerful enough and want to make it the focus of your speech then I very much support that.

Also, I have been accused of being slightly Commie before...

(Don't worry, I probably won't summon the CIA)

Hari Kumar Joaquin Miller Middle School

Kabang Lauron Westridge School

Gyuhong Lee Joaquin Miller Middle School None

Timothy Lin Graham Junior High School

Last changed on Mon December 26, 2022 at 10:44 AM PDT

Quick summary for those of you who are speedreading my paradigm 5 minutes before the round:

I do parli+LD

I'm bad at flowing

Do: Signpost, traditional debate, good warranting, be nice

Don't: run frivolous theory, kritiks, spread

-------------------------------------------------------------------LONGER VERSION------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hello whoever might be reading this! I am Timothy Lin, A Sophmore at Los Altos High School(as of 11/4/2022). I have done a bit of parliamentary debate and Lincoln-Douglasssss debate. Sometimes reading a paradigm can make a judge intimidating, so I’m here to change that. I’m very new to judging, so I’m probably more nervous judging than you are debating. Just remember, we’re all trying to learn-that is, unless your parents or mentor forced you to sign up for the activity. Even if this is true, though, you should try to see if you can get something out of it-debate can be quite fun!

I will try to be Tabula Rasa, but of course that’s not completely possible-hence why we have paradigms. I would say I am truth over tech-sort of. What do I mean? I mean that I will have a hard time buying terminal impacts. This is not to say that I won’t-it’s just that my threshold of them is much higher than a tech judge’s might be. I will, however, evaluate and vote on arguments, even if I disagree with them, if I feel that someone is winning the argument. It might be harder for me to swallow the argument, but I will do the best I can to keep the bias out of my judgment. If your opponent drops an argument, I will view it as dropped. However, I want decent warranting for each of your arguments, rather than blippy one-liners which somehow provide a link to nuclear war.

Essentially-if your opponent drops an argument you made, I will consider it so. However, if what they dropped does not have sufficient warranting. I might choose to disregard it.

I guess I should do preferences now-note that these aren’t mandatory, but you would probably have a higher chance of getting my ballot if you follow this.

What I like:

Traditional debate: this is debate. I like seeing a good traditional debate.

Well linked arguments: Well linked arguments are great. The larger the impact, the more you need warrants for it. What’s even better with well linked arguments is if they are easy to understand. Simplicity is key-especially for judges like me :D

Being nice: this is one of the things that I like most about debate-the fact that you can argue against people but still be respectful of them. This is something that we may be missing in today’s politics… but I digress.

It’s incredible being able to argue vehemently against a position while still holding the person who has that position in high regard. This is a crucial life skill, and one that I will reward with higher speaker points.

Helping me out on my flow: Give me a roadmap, signpost well, tell me what your opponent has dropped, lay out clear arguments and impacts, etc.

This will definitely help you in the debate, and your speaker points.

What I don’t like:

Frivolous theory: Frivolous theory feels unethical to me. I know quite a few people may disagree, but I view debate as an activity to… debate the topic, not to argue over why someone broke the rules and you should drop them because of it. It also seems very weird to go for “educational” and “fairness” violations when you’re also not defending the resolution you were assigned…

Note-non-frivolous theory is fine. I can understand needing to run theory if your opponent truly is being abusive. If you win the theory debate, I will probably drop the argument, rather than the debater.

However, while it may seem that my position is very good for people who want to run borderline sketchy arguments, I will say that my threshold for “this argument is abusive” is quite low-essentially it’s “is this not frivolous theory? If so, can you articulate why this is abusive?”

Kritiks: Another controversial opinion, perhaps, but I find kritiks also antithetical to debate. Challenging power structures is fine(and in many cases, needed), but in the middle of a debate round and arguing about something completely not-topical is not the way to do it. If you want to talk about challenging power structures and whatnot, a great way to do it is have arguments relating to structural violence. (For example, affirming the resolution will exacerbate racism).

Just don’t talk about how my ballot will have real life impacts-because those impacts of a sophmore who’s just started judging are going to be miniscule.

Another problem with kritiks-I’m REALLY bad at understanding them. Do with this information as you will.

Spreading: I would prefer if you talked at a slow tempo. I am a notoriously bad flow-er, so even with you talking normally there’s going to be many things I don’t catch. If you spread, I won’t catch anything. You don’t have to talk as if you’re explaining things to a kindergartener, but try to make it a speed you would use in real life(like talking to a friend, maybe). There are almost no applications of spreading to real life (who reads off cards at 400 wpm in a real life setting?)

Again, remember these are just preferences. If you really have to run a kritik or spread, go for it. Just note that I’m probably not going to vote on it…

The most important thing here is to be nice-and have fun, if you can. If you lose, it’s ok! Maybe I was just a really bad judge. Maybe you were good, but your opponents were just even better. Maybe you had a bad day. Maybe this will be a great learning opportunity. Debate isn’t about winning or losing-it’s about learning.

Try to have fun at the tournament, and remember-I’m probably more nervous about this than you are!

I'm probably missing a lot-if you have questions, please do not hesitate to reach out!

timothylin6@gmail.com

(although note I probably won't check my email, so if I don't respond please do ask me before the round starts)

Other things:

Evidence sharing: If you and your opponent want to share cases, that's cool. If either one of you does not, that's also cool.

Please don't pressure your opponent into sharing cases if they don't feel comfortable doing so(let's not see disclosure theory either, eh?)

I generally will not read your evidence unless your opponent challenges it, or it sounds too good to be true.

My threshold for "too good to be true" is pretty high, since I don't want to be reading people's evidence and wasting everyone's time, so don't worry about that too much. Just have nicely cut evidence that is not misinterpreted :)

Weighing and voters:

Weighing would be nice. Often I come into a debate where one side has one impact going for them, and the other side has a different impact(a recent example being human rights vs increased crime). Weighing the impact can make me vote on it, especially if your opponent does not weigh.

Probability> magnitude: the way I like to reason why is if magnitude was more important than probability than the optimal strategy would to be to have every impact be extinction and have very tenuous links.

That doesn't mean don't go for magnitude-that's still a important weighing mechanism, and one I will vote on. For example, if your opponent has a 100% probability of saving a cat from a tree, and you only have a 10% probability of saving the economy, I will still vote for you, even though you have lower probability, because of magnitude.

That was probably very confusing-I just said probability>magnitude and then gave you a example where I vote magnitude>probability.

Essentially-as long as your arguments have a reasonable likelihood of happening I will evaluate the magnitude, but reasonable probability is a prerequisite to magnitude.

I'm very bad at weighing so I would like to see a great weighing speech.

Framework: I basically always run Utilitarianism, but this is your round, not mine. Run whatever frameworks you want. If you can justify it I will evaluate the round under your framework. I also don't really care about the value-the value criterion is what matters in my eyes.

What kind of judge am I: I would say I'm a flay judge. I'm that guy who tries to flow the debate but is bad at flowing, so ends up acting like a lay judge. I will try to evaluate the round on my flow, but... my flowing is awful. That being said, if there's something really important that you want on my flow, make sure to remind me "Judge, this argument is crucial. Put it on your flow."

Speaker points: Speaker points are... bad, in my opinion.

1) Speaker points are incredibly subjective-when I give out a 28 another judge might give a 27 for the same speech, or a 29. This essentially means whoever breaks because of speaker points is somewhat randomized.

2) Implicit bias. This ties into the first point, about it being subjective. There have been studies which show that certain groups tend to have lower speaker points than others.

3) This is about debate-not speech: Sure, you can give amazing speeches, but in the end. it's whoever debates better that wins. The problem with this is speaker points make you consider who spoke better, which affects you when deciding who wins. On the flip side, some people award speaker points based on who wins the debate. If that's the case-then again speaker points are useless.

Sorry for the rant. However, in the spirit of not screwing over a competitor simply because they have a judge with crazy ideas about speaker points, I'll award them like a normal judge-albeit reluctantly.

Ed Lingo Egan Junior High School

Last changed on Fri February 17, 2023 at 3:21 AM PDT

TL;DR - Parent judge who was a national circuit policy debater in high school and college long ago (see experience at very bottom of paradigm). Judging mostly open/varsity parli since Fall 2018 with some LD, PF, and Policy judging the last couple of years. Sections below for Parli, PF, and Policy.

General Overview: I will evaluate framework/criteria/theory/role of the ballot issues first. Unless argued/won otherwise, I default to judging as a policy maker weighing aff plan/world against status quo or neg counterplan/world using net benefits and treat debate as an educational game. I will ignore new arguments in rebuttals (summary/final focus in PF) even if you don't call a POO (Parli). I'm fine with tag teaming (but only flow what the actual speaker says). Speak from anywhere you prefer as long as everyone can hear you. When speech time expires, you can finish your thought, but I will not flow any new arguments started after time expires (no new args in grace period). Cross-ex/crossfire will not be considered in my decision unless you reference it in a speech (that will bring it into the round). You can go fast but probably not full speed (not 250+ wpm). I will call clear or slow as needed. If you run K's, please clearly link them to the resolution/aff plan/aff arguments and explain (K's post-date my debate experience). Signpost. Clearly justify/link theory arguments (high bar for you to win frivolous theory). Don't care about your attire. I rarely look up from my flow during rounds. No need to shake my hand.

If allowed by the tournament rules, please add me to your email chain (if applicable) using edlingo13 [at] gmail.com

==============================================

PF Debate Notes:

My apologies in advance as I have only judged a few PF rounds. I am familiar with the basic structure of PF and have extensive experience judging and competing in other forms of debate. Even though I have only judged a few PF rounds before, here's a few notes I think will help you.

- Please do your best to clearly weigh impacts in final focus. I know time is short. However, if you leave it up to me to weigh the advantages of both sides against each other, you are taking a big risk. Best to explain to me why you believe your impacts (harms/benefits) outweigh those presented by the other team. Though not required, I am fine with some weighing also happening in earlier speeches (summary, even rebuttal). For example, if after constructives you think you clearly outweigh, no need to wait until final focus to point that out.

- Where there are evidence conflicts (each side has evidence saying the opposite), please do your best to explain why I should prefer your evidence over that of your opponents (study vs. opinion, better author credentials, recency, etc.).

- In general, do what you can to provide clash. If each side just reiterates and defends their own case, that leaves a lot up to the judge. If you want my decision to go your way, best to provide that clash/analysis so I know why you believe you should win the round.

- Because I am flowing, I don't need you to do a whole lot to extend dropped arguments. If you are pressed for time, and, for example, an entire contention is dropped by the other team, you can just say "extend contention 2 which is dropped". It can help to reiterate the arguments to help fill in details I may not have gotten right on my flow, but it's not a hard requirement for me. You can save the analysis for weighing.

- I don't flow crossfire, but do pay attention and will use it to help clarify my understanding of issues/positions in the round. Bring it up in a speech if you want something said in crossfire to be part of my flow/input to my decision.

- Unless not allowed by tournament rules, I prefer to be on the email chain (mostly it helps me fill in my flow if I missed anything).

================================

Parli Debate Notes (though much is applicable to all forms of debate):

** Note to Tournament Directors - Please add Flex Time to High School Parli debate (see sections 4.C. & 4.H. of the NDPA rules for a definition of Flex Time). I think it will increase the quality of debates/clash in the round, give judges a bit of time to clean up their flows & make notes for later feedback to debaters, and ensure fairness in how much time is taken for each speaker to start.

Default Framework:

In the absence of a contrary framework argued/won in the round, I will make my decision as a policy maker comparing the aff plan/world against the status quo or neg counterplan/world.

Unless argued/won in the round otherwise, I think debate is an educational game. I believe the educational part is primarily for the debaters and only secondarily (at most) for the judge(s) and/or audience. This is one of the reasons I have trouble with K's that are loosely, if at all, related to the resolution being debated. The game aspect of debate implies a need for fairness/balance/equity between aff & neg sides.

With the above defaults (and realistically biases) in mind, I will try to come into the round tabula rasa ("blank slate"). Certainly I won't intentionally bring my political biases into the round. I will try to minimize using any outside knowledge of the topic, but realistically some of that may creep in unless background information is clearly explained in the round.

Especially if you don't like the above framework, please do provide your own in the round. I'm far more likely to make the decision you expect if I'm using framework/weighing criteria that you know (above) or have argued/won in the round.

Theory:

Fine by me. But as with everything else, please explain/justify the theory arguments you make. Don't like blippy theory you toss out in hopes the other side will drop your one line VI/RVI or, similarly, some pre-canned, high speed theory block that even you don't understand (and I can barely flow, if at all).

Speed:

As long as you can still be clear, I am fine with any speed. I will call "slow" or "clear" as needed during the round. But, it's still best to slow down on tags and issues you believe are critical in deciding the round. Especially in the first tournament or two of the year and the first round in the morning, best to go a little slower for me. If you want me to get a clean flow, keep things to a max of perhaps 200 or 250 wpm rather than 350 or 400. Don't spread in a monotone. I know from experience that it is possible to add (brief) pauses where there is a period, slow down on tags, and vary your speed while still averaging 300+ wpm. If you are going to go very fast, it is your responsibility to practice it until you can do so with clarity and in a way that can be flowed.

Kritiks:

K's post-date my competitive debate experience. I have read up a bit on them and seen them used in a few rounds (parli and policy rounds). If you run one (or more), make sure you have a clear link to the resolution/aff plan/aff args. It's also important that you clearly explain the K to me and to the other team (including why it applies in this round and why it should be a voting issue). Just spreading through a K that even you don't understand in the hopes I will understand it and your opponents will mishandle it is very unlikely to be successful. On the other hand, if you understand it, clearly explain it, and answer POI's from your opponents if they seem confused by it, I will seriously consider it in my decision. If you plan to run a K-aff, please disclose to your opponents at the start of prep (or earlier). If you don't, a theory argument by the neg that you should have done so is very likely to win.

Counterplans:

Counterplans seem like a natural fit for Parli to me. Especially with a topic that gives the aff broad leeway to choose a somewhat narrow plan, CPs are a good way to make the round fair for the neg side.

Dropped Arguments:

I will extend arguments that your opponents dropped for you (I think this is now called protecting the flow), but it's still best for you to extend them yourself so that you can explain to me why/how those dropped arguments should factor into my decision. When you extend, I don't need you to re-explain your arguments or extend every individual point in a block that is entirely dropped (though no harm in doing so). How you believe the dropped arguments should impact the overall round is more important to me.

New Arguments in Rebuttals/POO's:

I will ignore what I believe to be a new argument in a rebuttal speech, so you don't have to call a POO. However, I do understand the general POO process. So if you want to make certain that I will be treating something as a new argument in rebuttals (and therefore excluding it from my decision making process), go ahead and call the POO. I'd prefer that you don't call a lot of POO's (more than 3), but certainly won't count it against you if you feel the need to call each one out. Though odds are if you are calling that many, I already get that we've got a rebuttal speaker who doesn't realize I will ignore new arguments in rebuttals.

Tag Teaming:

Fine by me. I will, of course, only include what the actual current speaker says in my flow.

Speaker Location:

Stay sitting, stand up, or go to a podium. It's all fine by me. However, if you are a quiet speaker in a noisy room and/or I or the opposing team call out "clear", "louder", etc. please speak in a direction/location that you can be heard by all. I'm fine with taking some time before a speech or stopping time during a speech if we need to adjust everyone's location so all speakers can be clearly heard. If someone can't hear the current speaker, I'm fine with them calling out "louder". If the speaker can't easily adjust so everyone can hear them, go ahead and stop time and we will take time to rearrange so you can be heard without having to shout.

==============================================

Policy Debate Notes:

- Debated 4 years of policy in high school (in CFL/California Coast district, went to State & Nationals, won State), but that was long, long ago.

- Defaults: I will default to judging based on stock issues as a policy maker. For theory issues, I will default to treating debate as an educational game (game implies fairness/equity). On both counts, I am open to alternative frameworks/roles of the ballot.

- Theory, framework, K's need to be developed/clearly explained to me and your competitors or you will have an uphill battle trying to win them (doesn't mean you won't if the other teams drops it or grossly mishandles it, but I do need a basic understanding of your argument in order to vote on it). Likewise, calling something a voting issue doesn't make it one unless you explain why it should be a voting issue.

- I know very little K literature.

- I won't be able to keep up with a full speed/invitational/tech debate these days. But you can certainly speak at a rate that the "person on the street" would think of as quite fast. I will call clear/slow if I'm having trouble keeping up.

- I don't flow cross-ex, but do pay attention and will use it to help clarify my understanding of issues/positions in the round. Bring it up in a speech if you want something said in cross-ex to be part of my flow/input to my decision.

==========================================

Experience:

My competitive experience is almost exclusively policy debate from the late 70's and early to mid-80's. Four years in high school policy debate (1 yr Bellarmine followed by 3 yrs Los Gatos High). Quarters or better at many national invitational tournaments (e.g. Berkeley & Harvard back when they weren't on the same weekend ;-). 1st Place California (CHSSA) State Championships. Invites to national level round robins (Glenbrook, Harvard, UCLA/USC, Georgetown) -- back then the tournament director invited those teams they believed to be the top 9 in the country (perhaps a few more if some teams couldn't attend). In high school I briefly experimented with LD. During my senior year in college (UC Berkeley), I debated one year of CEDA debate. Went to perhaps a half dozen tournaments. Won a couple of them, made it to quarters/semis at some others. Helped the Cal team reach #2 in the national CEDA rankings.

Ethan Liu Athens Debate

Last changed on Mon February 13, 2023 at 11:58 AM EDT

Some background:

I did PF throughout high school and parliamentary debate (APDA) at the University of Maryland. I've coached students in PF, Parli, LD, and Policy and I've judged all debate formats, though I'm most up to date with PF.

Some general things:

1. Don't be rude.

2. Rounds are evaluated based on argumentation, not rhetoric.

3. I can handle speed as long as you remain coherent. I will never intentionally penalize you for spreading but you take on an increasing risk that I miss something on the flow the faster you speak. Send me a speech doc if you want to be safe: thnliu288@gmail.com

4. I will stop flowing when time is up (yes, you can finish your sentence). Keep track of each other's prep time.

5. I don't flow cross but will pay attention. For me, cross often helps clarify things (remember, I'm not an expert in the topic you're debating). If there's something from cross you'd like me to evaluate in my decision, bring it up in your speech.

Some notes on debate and flow

1. Please signpost and road-map. Telling me where you are on the flow will ensure that I am also there.

2. Tech > truth. The further from "truth" your argument strays though, the lower the threshold I have for what qualifies as a response. For instance, "no they can't" is an acceptable response to "elephants can fly".

3. I (tend to) only evaluate arguments made in the speech where they belong. Constructive arguments belong in the opening speech. Responses should be made in the first speech they can be made in (generally the subsequent speech). New arguments don't belong in the final speech.

4. Extend (and frontline) the arguments you want me to flow through. If you forget to extend it, I'll probably forget to vote on it.

5. I will only call cards if you explicitly ask me to and they matter for my decision. Hint: they almost never do.

6. Tell me how to weigh arguments or I will weigh them myself. I'm bad at weighing.

Specific argument preferences/biases

1. I am receptive to pretty much any type of argument, so long as you tell me why it matters.

2. Progressive arguments (Ks, theory) are cool. However, I offer no guarantee to keep up to date with the latest acronyms or terminology, so err on the side of explaining things more thoroughly and/or share speech doc.

a. I prefer "drop the argument" to "drop the debater". I'll consider whatever you run, but I'm more inclined to buy the former.

b. Used to be categorically against RVIs, have come around somewhat. I'm down to vote on them, but it's context dependent.

c. Still very against tricks, very receptive to theory on tricks bad. If I have to vote on them, you are almost certainly getting a low speak win.

3. My defaults: policymaker role of the ballot, debates should be fair and educational, the world exists, science is correct, the earth is flat, words have meanings, consequentialism, equality. Feel free to make arguments to the contrary, but keep in mind that you incur the burden of proof.

4. Creative arguments don't inherently have an edge over stock ones. If you win with nuanced arguments, though, you'll get higher speaks.

5. If you say "baba yetu" in your speech, I'll sky your speaks. I'm not kidding.

Yue Liu Prestige Debate Academy

Wesley Loofbourrow Hire

Last changed on Fri June 3, 2022 at 9:05 AM PDT

Tech savvy truth telling/testing debaters who crystallize with clarity, purpose persuasion & pathos will generally win my ballot.

My email: wesleyloofbourrow@gmail.com

Updated Paradigm for NDCA & TOC

My intent in doing this update is to simplify my paradigm to assist Public Forum debaters competing at the major competitions at the end of this season. COVID remote debating has had some silver linings, and this year I have uniquely had the opportunity to judge a prolific number of prestigious tournaments, so I am "in a groove" judging elite PF debates this season, having sat on at least half a dozen PF TOC bid rounds this year, and numerous Semis/Finals of tournaments like Glenbrooks, Apple Valley, Berkeley, among many others.

I am "progressive", "circuit style", "tabula rosa", "non-interventionist", completely comfortable with policy jargon and spreading, open to Kritiks/Theory/Topicality, and actively encourage Framework debates in PF. You can figure out what I mean by FW with a cursory reading of the basic wikipedia entry "policy debate: framework" -- I am encouraging, where applicable and appropriate, discussions of what types of arguments and debate positions support claims to a superior model of Public Forum debate, both in the particular round at hand and future debates. I think that PF is currently grappling as a community with a lot of Framework questions, and inherently believe that my ballot actually does have potential for some degree of Solvency in molding PF norms. Some examples of FW arguments I have heard this year include Disclosure Theory, positions that demand the first constructive speech of the team speaking second provide direct clash (rejecting the prevalent two ships passing in the night norm for the initial constructive speeches), and Evidence theory positions.

To be clear, this does not mean at all that teams who run FW in front of me automatically get my ballot. I vote all the time on basic stock issues, and in fact the vast majority of my PF decisions have been based on offense/defense within a role-playing policy-maker framework. Just like any debate position, I am completely open to anything (short of bullying, racism, blatant sexism, truly morally repugnant positions, but I like to believe that no debaters are coming into these elite rounds intending to argue stuff like this). I am open to a policy-making basic Net benefits standard, willing to accept Fiat of a policy action as necessary and justifiable, just as much as I am willing to question Fiat -- the onus is on the debaters to provide warrants justifying whatever position or its opposite they wish to defend.

I will provide further guidance and clarifications on my judging philosophy below, but I want to stress that what I have just stated should really be all you need to decide whether to pref/strike me -- if you are seeking to run Kritiks or Framework positions that you have typically found some resistance to from more traditional judges, then you want to pref me; if you want rounds that assume the only impacts that should be considered are the effects of a theoretical policy action, I am still a fine judge to have for that, but you will have to be prepared to justify those underlying assumptions, and if you don't want to have to do that, then you should probably strike me. If you have found yourself in high profile rounds a bit frustrated because your opponent ran positions that didn't "follow the rules of PF debate", I'm probably not the judge you want. If you have been frustrated because you lost high profile rounds because you "didn't follow the rules of PF debate", you probably want me as your judge.

So there is my most recent update, best of luck to all competitors as we move to the portion of the season with the highest stakes.

Here is what I previously provided as my paradigm:

Speed: Short answer = Go as fast as you want, you won't spread me out.

I view speed as merely a tool, a way to get more arguments out in less time which CAN lead to better debates (though obviously that does not bear out in every instance). My recommendations for speed: 1) Reading a Card -- light-speed + speech doc; 2) Constructives: uber-fast + slow sign posting please; 3) Rebuttals: I prefer the slow spread with powerfully efficient word economy myself, but you do you; 4) Voters: this is truly the point in a debate where I feel speed outlives its usefulness as a tool, and is actually much more likely to be a detriment (that being said, I have judged marvelous, blinding-fast 2ARs that were a thing of beauty)...err on the side of caution when you are instructing me on how to vote.

Policy -- AFFs advocating topical ethical policies with high probability to impact real people suffering right now are best in front of me. I expect K AFFs to offer solid ground and prove a highly compelling advocacy. I love Kritiks, I vote for them all the time, but the most common problem I see repeatedly is an unclear and/or ineffective Alt (If you don't know what it is and what it is supposed to be doing, then I can't know either). Give me clash: prove you can engage a policy framework as well as any other competing frameworks simultaneously, while also giving me compelling reasons to prefer your FW. Anytime you are able to demonstrate valuable portable skills or a superior model of debate you should tell me why that is a reason to vote for you. Every assumption is open for review in front of me -- I don't walk into a debate round believing anything in particular about what it means for me to cast my ballot for someone. On the one hand, that gives teams extraordinary liberty to run any position they wish; on the other, the onus is on the competitors to justify with warranted reasoning why I need to apply their interpretations. Accordingly, if you are not making ROB and ROJ arguments, you are missing ways to get wins from me.

I must admit that I do have a slight bias on Topicality -- I have noticed that I tend to do a tie goes to the runner thing, and if it ends up close on the T debate, then I will probably call it reasonably topical and proceed to hear the Aff out. it isn't fair, it isn't right, and I'm working on it, but it is what it is. I mention this because I have found it persuasive when debaters quote this exact part of my paradigm back to me during 2NRs and tell me that I need to ignore my reasonability biases and vote Neg on T because the Neg straight up won the round on T. This is a functional mechanism for checking a known bias of mine.

Oh yea -- remember that YOU PLAY TO WIN THE GAME.

Public Forum -- At this point, after judging a dozen PF TOC bid rounds in 2021-2022, I think it will be most helpful for me to just outright encourage everybody to run Framework when I am your judge (3 judge panels is your call, don't blame me!). I think this event as a whole desperately needs good quality FW arguments that will mold desirable norms, I might very well have an inherent bias towards the belief that any solvency reasonably expected to come from a ballot of mine will most likely implicate FW, and thus I am resolved to actively encourage PF teams to run FW in front of me. If you are not comfortable running FW, then don't -- I always want debaters to argue what matters to them. But if you think you can win a round on FW, or if you have had an itch to try it out, you should. Even if you label a position as Framework when it really isn't, I will still consider the substantive merits behind your arguments, its not like you get penalized for doing FW wrong, and you can absolutely mislabel a position but still make a fantastic argument deserving of my vote.

Other than "run FW", I need to stress one other particular -- I do not walk into a PF round placing any limitations whatsoever on what a Public Forum debate is supposed to be. People will say that I am not "traditional or lay", and am in fact "progressive", but I only consider myself a blank slate (tabula rasa). Every logical proposition and its diametric opposite is on the table in front of me, just prove your points to be true. It is never persuasive for a team to say something like "but that is a Counterplan, and that isn't allowed in PF". I don't know how to evaluate a claim like that. You are free to argue that CPs in PF are not a good model for PF debates (and lo and behold, welcome to running a FW position), or that giving students a choice between multiple styles of debate events is critical for education and so I should protect the "rules" and the "spirit" of PF as an alternative to LD and Policy -- but notice how those examples rely on WARRANTS, not mere assertions that something is "against the rules." Bottom line, if the "rules" are so great, then they probably had warrants that justified their existence, which is how they became the rules in the first place, so go make those underlying arguments and you will be fine. If the topic is supposed to be drug policy, and instead a team beats a drum for 4 minutes, ya'll should be able to articulate the underlying reasons why this is nonsense without resorting to grievances based on the alleged rules of PF.

College Parli -- Because there is a new topic every round, the threshold for depth of research is considerably lower, and debaters should be able to advocate extemporaneously; this shifts my view of the burdens associated with typical Topicality positions. Arguments that heavily weigh on the core ground intended by the topic will therefore tend to strike me as more persuasive. Additionally, Parli has a unique procedural element -- the ability to ask a question during opponent's speech time. A poignant question in the middle of an opponent's speech can single handedly manufacture clash, and create a full conversational turn that increases the educational quality of the debate; conversely, an excellent speaker can respond to the substance of a POI by adapting their speech on the spot, which also has the effect of creating a new conversational turn.

lysis. While this event has evolved considerably, I am still a firm believer that Value/Criterion is the straightest path to victory, as a strong V/C FW will either contextualize impacts to a policy/plan advocacy, or explain and justify an ethical position or moral statement functioning as that necessary advocacy. Also, V/C allows a debater to jump in and out of different worlds, advocating for their position while also demonstrating the portable skill of entering into an alternate FW and clashing with their opponent on their merits. An appropriate V/C will offer fair, reasonable, predictable, equitable, and functional Ground to both sides. I will entertain any and all theory, kritiks, T, FW. procedure, resolution-rejection/alteration, etc. -- but fair warning, positions that do not directly relate to the resolutional topic area will require a Highly Compelling warrant(s) for why. At all times, please INSTRUCT me on how I am supposed to think about the round.

So...that is my paradigm proper, intentionally left very short. I've tried the more is more approach, and I have become fond of the less is more. Below are random things I have written, usually for tournament-specific commentary.

Worlds @ Coppell:

I have taken care to educate myself on the particulars of this event, reviewing relevant official literature as well as reaching out to debate colleagues who have had more experience. My obligation as a fair, reasonable, unbiased and qualified critic requires me to adapt my normal paradigm, which I promise to do to the best of my abilities. However, this does not excuse competitive debaters from their obligation to adapt to their assigned judge. I adapt, you adapt, Fair.

To learn how I think in general about how I should go about judging debates, please review my standard Judge Paradigm posted below. Written short and sweet intentionally, for your purposes as Worlds debaters who wish to gain my ballot, look for ways to cater your strengths as debaters to the things I mention that I find generally persuasive. You will note that my standard paradigm is much shorter than this unique, particularized paradigm I drafted specifically for Worlds @ Coppell.

Wesley's Worlds Paradigm:

I am looking for which competitors perform the "better debating." As line by line and dropping of arguments are discounted in this event, those competitors who do the "better debating" will be "on balance more persuasive" than their opponents.

Style: I would liken Style to "speaker points" in other debate events. Delivery, passion, rhetoric, emotional appeal. Invariably, the power of excellent public speaking will always be anchored to the substantive arguments and authenticity of advocacy for the position the debater must affirm or negate. While I will make every effort to separate and appropriately quantify Style and Content, be warned that in my view there is an inevitable and unbreakable bond between the two, and will likely result in some spillover in my final tallies.

Content: If I have a bias, it would be in favor of overly weighting Content. I except that competitors will argue for a clear advocacy, a reason that I should feel compelled to vote for you, whether that is a plan, a value proposition, or other meaningful concept.

PAY ATTENTION HERE: Because of the rules of this event that tell me to consider the debate as a whole, to ignore extreme examples, to allow for a "reasonable majority" standard to affirm and a "significant minority" standard to negate, and particularly bearing in mind the rules regarding "reasonability" when it comes to definitions, I will expect the following:

A) Affirmatives will provide an advocacy that is clearly and obviously within the intended core ground proffered by the topic (the heart of hearts, if you will);

B) Negatives will provide an advocacy of their own that clashes directly with the AFF (while this is not completely necessary, it is difficult for me to envision myself reaching a "better debating" and "persuasion" standard from a straight refutation NEG, so consider this fair warning); what the Policy folk call a PIC (Plan-Inclusive Counterplan) will NOT be acceptable, so do not attempt on the NEG to offer a better affirmative plan that just affirms the resolution -- I expect an advocacy that fundamentally NEGATES

C) Any attempt by either side to define their opponent's position out of the round must be EXTRAORDINARILY compelling, and do so without reliance on any debate theory or framework; possibilities would include extremely superior benefits to defining a word in a certain way, or that the opponent has so missed the mark on the topic that they should be rejected. It would be best to assume that I will ultimately evaluate any merits that have a chance of reasonably fitting within the topic area. Even if a team elects to make such an argument, I still expect them to CLASH with the substance of the opponent's case, regardless of whether or not your view is that the substance is off-topic. Engage it anyways out of respect.

D) Claim-Warrant-Impact-Weighing formula still applies, as that is necessary to prove an "implication on effects in the real world". Warrants can rely on "common knowledge", "general logic", or "internal logic", as this event does not emphasize scholarly evidence, but I expect Warrants nonetheless, as you must tell me why I am supposed to believe the claim.

Strategy: While there may be a blending of Content & Style on the margins in front of me as a judge, Strategy is the element that I believe will be easy for me to keep separate and quantify unto itself. Please help me and by proxy yourselves -- MENTION in your speeches what strategies you have used, and why they were good. Debaters who explicitly state the methods they have used, and why those methods have aided them to be "on balance more persuasive" and do the "better debating" will likely impress me.

POIs: The use of Questions during opponent's speech time is a tool that involves all three elements, Content/Style/Strategy. It will be unlikely for me to vote for a team that fails to ask a question, or fails to ask any good questions. In a perfect world, I would like speakers to yield to as many questions as they are able, especially if their opponent's are asking piercing questions that advance the debate forward. You WANT to be answering tough questions, because it makes you look better for doing so. I expect the asking and answering of questions to be reciprocal -- if you ask a lot of questions, then be ready and willing to take a lot of questions in return. Please review my section on Parli debate below for final thoughts on the use of POI.

If you want to win my vote, take everything I have written above to heart, because that will be the vast majority of the standards for judging I will implement during this tournament. As always, feel free to ask me any further questions directly before the round begins. Best of luck!

Jiangbin Luo The Golden State Academy

Yang Luo Stratford Sunnyvale Raynor Middle School None

Kuosheng Ma Flintridge Preparatory None

Vishwas Manral The Golden State Academy

Isabella Martin Athens Debate

Last changed on Sat November 19, 2022 at 9:31 AM EDT

Nothing will lose my favor or interest faster than a debate on the rules of debate. I appreciate well-researched cases and strong link chains, but I find spreading to be borderline intolerable. I want to see unfavorable points negated with elegant use of evidence and logic. Attempting to dominate a round with jargon and technicalities overshadows the sharing of ideas and the ability to learn from one another, which in my opinion, flies directly in the face of and casts a shadow on this art form. That being said, don’t be afraid to bring attention to outright abusive argumentation - just be prepared to back up what you’re saying in a way that is just and truthful. I like your personalities to shine through and for your communication styles to have an individual essence. Please don’t make me have to judge rounds based on who is the fastest or trickiest robot. It truly breaks my heart.

Manage your own time so that I can pay attention to what you’re saying. You may a timer that I’ll be able to hear (or not), but if it goes off, complete your thought as quickly and neatly as possible without just dropping it. Any new points introduced after time will count against you. I’m a fidgety sitter and prefer to flow by hand so I’ll usually turn off my camera while people are speaking, so as not to cause a distraction as I flip pages and scribble away. Please let me know if you’d prefer I didn’t do so. Also, no off time roadmaps - you should be writing/speaking well enough to inform me throughout your speech of where you are and the points you're making!

I am a former HS debater (2002-2006, Morristown West in Tennessee), and I had the most success in Public Forum - although I also enjoyed Congress & LD (I don't think Parli was available on a HS level yet or I probably would have tried it, too). I didn’t get really serious about PFD until about halfway through my high school speech career, and by my senior year, it was my main event. That year, my partner and I won both our NSDA (formerly NFL) National Qualifying tournament, and our state’s local organization’s championship. These accomplishments remain the highlights of my time in high school - not just because of the affirmation and recognition of my effort, but because of all the time spent and memories made with my teammates and closest friends along the way. I had tremendous passion for and gratitude toward Forensics, and I tried to embed that into my approach. I always prided myself on my relaxed, easy going, evidence and logic based, and respectful but fun speaking style. Remember that most of your judges are not former debaters and that you have an enormous opportunity to educate adults and maybe even change their minds about some things when you communicate effectively and in an accessible manner - consider the Ancient Greek foundational communication philosophies of logos, ethos, and pathos.

My favorite thing about judging is getting a glimpse at the future leaders of our nation’s government and workplaces, and you all give me a tremendous amount of hope. Thank you for your participation and congratulations to all of you, always, for your hard work and boldness in showing up for yourselves and your teammates today!

Riya Mehta Stratford Sunnyvale Raynor Middle School None

Phil Mui Tierra Linda Middle School

Anusha Neupane Athens Debate

Aliaksei Nikuliak Stratford Sunnyvale Raynor Middle School

Kenneth Ogden Egan Junior High School

Last changed on Fri February 17, 2023 at 12:51 PM CDT

Public Forum debate notes: The comments below are written with policy in mind. But the principles apply. I would suggest reading the whole thing but specifically the parts on qualification of evidence, education and accessibility. What I hear and record by hand on my flow sheet is the official transcript of the debate.

Background

I have experience in just about all types of debate. While some distinctions between formats I see similarities rooted in intentional relationships, education and rhetoric. I do not see the judge as a blank slate. So I have some things that I think, based on my experiences as a debater, social science teacher, coach, parent and program director effect my role as a judge. We all have filters.

Personally, I debated NDT for the University of Houston in the early 80's. Achieving out rounds at major national tournaments and debating at both the NDT and CEDA Nationals. I have coached all debate events and many speech events. My policy teams won St. Marks and Memorial TOC tournaments and enjoyed success nationally. My students were also successful on Texas UIL and local circuits. I have had debate teams, LD debaters, extemp speakers and congress entries placed 1st or 2nd in Texas and have also coached a state oratory champion.

Currently, I consult and do debate on the side from home. I'm 62 years old. Concerns or questions about a judge that age are addressed below.

I am open to alternative approaches to resolutions but also enjoy frameworks employed in the past. Debating and coaching in Houston and teaching at the UTNIF for a decade definitely shaped my my ability to listen to different types of frameworks - or what the debate is supposed to mean or accomplish. I have coached at so many levels, for many years on different topics - instead of seeing differences I see many similarities in the way arguments are framed evolve. I debated when it was highly questionable to do anything beyond policy debate - even counterplans, much less conditional frameworks, but being from a small squad (in a different info environment - when access to research and evidence was definiteley privileged) we pursued the edge strategies - such as hypothesis testing to level the field. Coaching in policy we ran all range of arguments. Overtime shifting to a more critical approach. Once again in response, in part, to the changing information space. On an education topic we went deep all year on Critical Pedagogy and on a criminal justice - Constitutive Criminology. There are very few rules in debate. What policy debate means and what my vote means are for grabs by both teams. I'm not into labels at way to define myself. If I had to pick a term it would be: Critic of Argument

A couple of notes

Speed, unless evolution is really off track, speed can't be any faster, even from when we debated in college. Speed is rarely what set the best debaters apart. However, these are my first NDT rounds this year. (I'm contemplating grad schools in the mountain west for next year) Make sure acronyms, initialisms etc. are clear first before ripping through what will be new information for me. I suggest making sure each of you arguments (CP/K/DA - plan objection if you're old -) have a quick efficient thesis that makes sure I understand your position and its potential in the round before you take off speaking more quickly.

Evidence

I evaluate your proofs. Proof is a broad term - much more than published material.

I consider evidence to be expert testimony. A type of proof. The debater who presents experts to support their claims should lay the predicate - explain why that source is relevant and qualified to be an expert - when they present the evidence. Quotations submitted as evidence with just a publication title or name and date often fall short of this standard. Generally I don't want to call for a card after the round whose author was not qualified when presented in constructives. I will call for evidence on contested points. However, that evidence has been well qualified by the team presenting it and the debaters are usually talking about lines and warrants from the card. It is highly unlikely that I will call for card not qualified and/or not talked about in rebuttals. If a piece of evidence is not qaulified in a meaningful way during a debaters speech - it is unlikely I would call for it after the round. I've seen traveling graduate students from England just dismantle top flight policy teams - they had proofs that all knew and accepted often with out some of the "debate tech" norms found in academic policy debate (NDT/CEDA). See the comments below on what matters in rebuttals!

Notes on Education

Spurious "quick claims" claims of a specific educational standard thrown out with out all elements of an argument are problematic. I am a life long educator who has witnessed and evolved with debate. Often teams quick claim Education as a voting issue. As an educator, I often see performance methodology (like only reading names and dates to qualify evidence or "card stacking" reading only the parts of a card that favor you - even if full context sheds a different light OR speed reading through post-modern literature as probably much more important than a debate tech argument) as serious education issues that could be discussed - and much more primary to education - than debate tech one offs.

I find "debate tech" like spreading and some uses of technology in round serve to privilege or tilt the playing field. This doesn't mean to slow to a crawl - fast and efficient - but also accessible to both the other team and the judge. So winning because the affirmative can't respond in depth to 8 off case arguments is not persuasive to me. Be bold - go deep on issues that you think are yours. "Debate Terms of Art" often fall in this category. Language choice should be accessible - even if it means adapting to your opponent as well as your judge.

Evidence often is not enough

Most debates aren't won early - the changing information space has created a lot of equity. But there two things debaters do in my experience in rebuttals that make a difference. After they have strategically collapsed or decided which issue to go for they:

1. They talk authors and specific warrants contained in the evidence - usually contrasting opposing authors and warrants. These warrants are prima facia - they are best when clearly identified - even in the opening speeches.

2. They can tell a narrative - or give examples of the mechanics, warrants, internal links in the card. They can also explain sequences of events - what would happen if I voted for your argument/position or team.

From an educators view - this is the goal of debate.

Counterplans and debate tech

Counterplan "micro theory" has really evolved. That is my term for many variations of counterplans that drive focus away from clash on the topic. Superficial, procedural and timing exceptions or additions counterplans. I actually spent time reviewing two articles on the history of PICs and their evolution prior to writing this. The excessive use of academic debate "Terms of Art" is problematic, sometimes exclusionary. I prefer head on collision in debate - and debaters who figure out how to position themselves for that debate. I prefer the debate come down to clash on field contextual issue as opposed to "side swiping" the topic. Just my preference.

I also find that this type of debate tech functions as a tool of exclusion. The debate should be accesable to your opponents without an overreliance of theory or tech debates. If they are used as time sucks that rubs me the wrong way going to your Ethos as a debater.

I do not and will not vote on or enforce a preround disclosure issue. Settle that before the round starts. Take it over my head if you object. If you ask me to adjudicate that - you might not like the answer.

How we treat each other

This is something that might trigger my voting in way you don't expect. Let's work on accomodating each other and creating safe spaces for academic discourse and the development of positive intentional relationships.

Emely Palafox Hire None

Hemali Patel Silicon Valley Speech and Debate

Thangam Pillai Joaquin Miller Middle School

Annika Pillutla Athens Debate

Katherine Poberezhskiy Valencia High School

Kruti Pota Joaquin Miller Middle School

Fiorella Pulido Athens Debate

Last changed on Thu October 29, 2020 at 11:44 PM EDT

Use speechdrop.net for sharing speech documents. No more email or flashdrive problems. The affirmative should have this ready to go before the round starts.

(Copy and paste Erick Berdugos paradigm ) but to summarize my general beliefs .....

Affirmative :

1) The affirmative probably should be topical. I prefer an affirmative that provides a problem and then a solution/alternative to the problem. Negatives must be able to engage. Being independently right isn't enough.

2) Personal Narratives - not a fan of these arguments. The main reason, is that there is no way real way to test the validity of the personal narrative as evidence. Thus, if you introduce a personal narrative, I think it completely legit that the personal narrative validity be questioned like any other piece of evidence. If you would be offended or bothered about questions about its truth, don't run them.

3) K -Aff : Great ,love them but be able to win why either talking about the topic is bad, your approach to talking about the topic is better,why your method or approach is good etc, and most importantly what happens when I vote aff on the ballot.

4) Performance : Ehh- I’m not the judge to run a good perf bu but I am willing to listen to the arguments if you can’t rightfully warrant them .
Perf cons ARE an issue and can cost you the ballot . Be consistent!
5) EXTEND ! EXTEND! EXTEND! “Extensions of the aff are overviews to the 1 ar” .... no they are not . I want to flow them separately not in some clump . It gets messy.

NEGATIVE :

1) Kritiks : I am not familiar with a large range of lit but I know plenty how to judge a good kritik and I enjoy it. Do not feel you need to run a K to win any sort of leverage in the debate ... you’re better off reading something you are comfortable defending than a crappy K you have no knowledge of . You need to be able to articulate and explain your position well don’t just assume I am familiar with your authors work. Alts need to tell me cause and impact aka what will the after look like ?? K MUST have a specific link. K arguments MUST link directly to what is happening in THIS round with THIS resolution. I am NOT a fan of a generic Kritik that questions if we exist or not and has nothing to do with the resolution or debate at hand. Kritiks must give an alternative other than "think about it." Have good blocks to perms !!! Especially if you have no links to the advocacy .

2) DA : Go for it ! I lean towards topical / substantive larpy rounds so I will definitely vote on a good DA . Make sure your impact calculus is outweighing and tell me how ! Internal links should be clear . If the impacts are linear that needs to be articulated as well . Pretty simple but feel free to ask me for clarifications !

3) CP/ PIC : Strategic if done correctly ! For the CP there needs to be net benefits and they should be extended throughout the round . Please don’t read generic cards you stole off a case file ( I can tell and it makes for a redundant debate ) I won’t vote against you for it but .. don’t plz . Theory against abusive CPs is completely legitimate. For the PIC - keep it clean ! *paradigm under construction *

Christian Quiroz Young Genius, Bay Area Speech and Debate Academy

Last changed on Wed September 26, 2018 at 3:00 PM EDT

Hey, I'm Chris, and I debated for Newark Science for four years in LD and Policy. To start, I'd like to say that although I was known as a particular kind of debater, I encourage you to do what you can do the best, whether that be Kant, theory, performance, etc.

As a common rule, please don't go your top speed at the beginning of your speeches. Go slower and build up speed so I can get accustomed to your voice. I've had times where debaters started at their top speed, which wasn't really that fast, but I wasn't accustomed to their voice at all, so I missed a few of their arguments. To prevent this, please don't start blazing fast. Build up to your top speed.

I've come to realize I am probably one of the worst flowers in the activity. This doesn't mean I won't hold you to answering arguments but it does mean that I am far less likely to get a 5 point response than the next person. Take that as you will.

I'm far from a tabula rasa judge; if you say or do anything that reinforces racist, heterosexist, ableist norms then I will vote against you. This is not to say that you'll always lose Kant against Wilderson; rather, it's about the way in which you frame/phrase your arguments. If you say "Kantianism does x, y, and z, which solves the K" then I'm more willing to vote for you than if you say "Kant says empirical realities don't matter therefore racism doesn't exist or doesn't matter"

On that note, I'm an advocate of argument engagement rather than evasion. I understand the importance of "preclusion" arguments, but at the point where there are assertions that try to disregard entire positions I must draw a line. I will be HIGHLY skeptical of your argument that "Util only means post-fiat impacts matters therefore disregard the K because it's pre-fiat." I'm also less likely to listen to your "K>Theory" dump or vice versa. Just explain how your position interacts with theirs. I'm cool with layering, in fact I encourage layering, but that doesn't mean you need to make blanket assertions like "fairness is an inextricable aspect of debate therefore it comes before everything else" I'd rather you argue "fairness comes before their arguments about x because y."

I think that theory debates should be approached holistically, the reason being that often times there are one sentence "x is key to y" arguments and sometimes there are long link chains "x is key to y which is key to z which is key to a which is key to fairness because" and I guarantee I will miss one of those links. So, please please please, either slow down, or have a nice overview so that I don't have to call for a theory shell after the round and have to feel like I have to intervene.

These are just some of my thoughts. If I'm judging you at camp, do whatever, don't worry about the ballot. As I judge more I'll probably add to this paradigm. If you have any specific questions email me at cfquiroz@gmail.com

UPDATE: I will not call for cards unless
a) I feel like I misflowed because of something outside of the debater's control
b) There is a dispute over what the evidence says
c) The rhetoric/non underlined parts of the card become relevant

Otherwise, I expect debaters to clearly articulate what a piece of evidence says/why I should vote for you on it. This goes in line with my larger issue of extensions. "Extend x which says y" is not an extension. I want the warrants/analysis/nuance that proves the argument true, not just an assertion that x person said y is true.

Anitha Rajesh Blach Intermediate School

Vaibhav Dilip Rangan Hire

Last changed on Thu August 4, 2022 at 1:49 PM PDT

Lynbrook 23

Most importantly, be nice and have fun.

FOR LSD CAMP:

Make smart arguments, keep track of your opponent's arguments, and compare the two. Let's keep calm and have some fun y'all! Oh and if you're in a higher lab don't try pulling any shenanigans to overwhelm a younger student.

FOR EVERYONE ELSE:

I'm a tech over truth judge committed to nonintervention but my experience debating has taught me that tech rounds more often than not devolve into antieducational contests gauging which teams can read the most amount of underdeveloped arguments. Although I am capable of sorting through a highly technical flow, I'd like to judge debates where teams engage on the warrant level with arguments and do smart analysis, contextualizing the round and the ballot in the back half. For reference, I think 2018 Nats Finals and 2022 TOC Finals are the pinnacles of Public Forum Debate. I prefer a nuanced, understandable, and productive round about the topic above all else.

My process of evaluating rounds:

1. Who's winning the weighing debate? Weighing determines which argument/s are to be evaluated first.

2. Evaluate the most important argument (as determined by the weighing). If you are winning this argument to be true, the round ends. Any WEIGHED turns on the most important issue also end the round.

3. Evaluate other miscellaneous pieces of offense.

4. Presume. I presume for the first speaking team; given the structural advantage going second gives teams, if you debated into a tie while speaking first, you did the better debating.

Specific Preferences

1. I am not a good flower so do not go too fast and BE CLEAR. I do not flow off docs since I intrinsically believe, along with many other debaters who have shaped my opinions, that debate is fundamentally a communication activity.

2. Do not read arguments that are nontopical. While I don't believe all nontopical arguments are antieducational writ large, I am unable to evaluate such rounds and believe I'd be doing you a disservice attempting to do so.

3. I won't call for evidence -- I believe that calling for evidence is the easiest way for a judge to intervene and it's functionally impossible to read evidence as a judge without introducing your own biases. As such, it is integral for debaters to do evidence comparison "Prefer our evidence/warrant because ____." Absent such comparison, that clash on the flow will simply be unresolved and I'll look elsewhere.

4. Warrants are infinitely more important than evidence. It is more important to understand your argument, even if you don't have an author explicitly spelling your argument out for you. Debate is not a game of internet rabbit-holes, but rather of logical persuasion. This also means I could care less whether you paraphrase or disclose.

5. Persuasive does not mean you can say "judge, we outweigh on probability because you know our argument is true in the real world" and call it a day.

gage reiner Hire None

Luis David Reyes Hire None

Kristina Rietveld Cogito Debate

Last changed on Sat December 3, 2022 at 2:45 AM PDT

EMAIL (LD, POLICY): kristinar@cogitodebate.com

Debate (mostly applicable to Parli.)

ONLINE TOURNAMENTS: PLEASE PUT ALL PLAN TEXTS (COUNTERPLANS AND ALTS ALSO) IN CHAT.

What I like:

- Clear structure & organization; If I don't know where you are on the flow, I won't flow.

- Arguments should be thoroughly impacted out. For example, improving the economy is not an impact. Why should I care if the economy is improved? Make the impacts relatable to your judge/audience.

- Meticulous refutations/rebuttal speeches - Don't drop arguments but DO flow across your arguments that your opponent drops. Have voters/reasons why I should vote for you.

- I was a Parliamentary Debater in college, so I really like clear framework (definitions, type of round, criteria on how I should view/judge the round) and I am 100% willing to entertain any and all procedurals as long as they are well-reasoned. You don't need articulated abuse. HOWEVER, I have a higher threshold for Aff Theory than Neg Theory (especially Condo).

- Plans and counterplans are amazing, please use plan text! Also, I prefer mandates that are in the news, have be done before or have at least been proposed; No random plans that you think are good. Also, if you do delay counterplans, Plan Inclusive Counterplans, or consult counterplans, you better have an amazing Disad. and unique solvency to justify the CP.

- Round Etiquette: I don't care too much about rudeness, except when it's excessively disruptive or utilizes ad hominem attacks toward another debater in the round. For example, don't respond negatively to a POI or Point of Order 7x in a row just to throw off your opponent; I'll entertain the first few and then will shut down the rest if you do that. I won't tolerate discriminatory behavior either. Be aware that debate is a speaking AND listening sport.

-Style: I like clear-speaking but overly emotional arguments won't get to me. You are more likely to win if you use good reasoning and logic. In addition, don't yell during the debate; It doesn't make your arguments more convincing or impactful.

What I don't like:

- As I've said, I do like procedurals, but don't run multiple procedurals in a round just because you want to and didn't want to use your prep time to research the topic.

- Let's talk about Kritiks: Rule 1, No aff K's ever (kritikal advantages are fine, but not an all out K). Rule 2, make sure your K somehow links to the resolution for the round; No links, no ballot. Rule 3, I am cool with jargon, but accessibility is more important to me; If the other team cannot comprehend your case just because you are overusing buzzwords and high-level jargon, I won't be pleased. Rule 4, As much as I appreciate hearing people's personal stories and experiences, I don't think they have a place in competitive debate. I have seen on many occasions how quickly this gets out of control and how hurt/triggered people can get when they feel like their narrative is commodified for the sake of a W on a ballot.

- Speed: I can flow as fast as you can speak, however I AM all about ACCESSIBILITY. If your opponents ask you to slow down, you should. You don't win a debate by being the fastest.

- New Arguments in Rebuttals: I don't like them, but will entertain them if your opponent doesn't call you out.

- Don't lie to me: I'm a tabula rasa (blank slate) up until you actively gaslight the other team with claims/"facts" that are verifiably false. For example, don't tell me that Electromagnetic Pulse Bombs (EMPs) are going to kill 90% of people on the Earth. Obviously it is on your opponent to call you out, but if you continuously insist on something ridiculous, it will hurt you.

- Don't drop arguments: If you want to kick something, first ask yourself if it's something you've committed to heavily in prior speeches. Also, let me know verbatim that you are kicking it, otherwise I'll flow it as a drop.

Speech

I competed in Lim. Prep. events when I was a competitor, so that's where my expertise lies. However, I have coached students in all types of events.

Extemp: Do your best to answer the question exactly as it is asked, don't just talk about the general subject matter. Make sure your evidence is up to date and credible.

Impromptu: Once again, do your best to respond to the quotation to the best of your ability, don't just talk about your favorite "canned" examples. I score higher for better interpretations than interesting examples.

Platform Speeches: These types of speeches are long and are tough to listen to unless the presenter makes them interesting. Make it interesting; use humor, emotion, etc. Have a full understanding of your topic and use quality evidence.

Oral Interp. Events: I don't have very much experience in this event, but what I care most about is the theme the piece is linked to and the purpose it serves. I don't view OI's as purely entertainment, they should have a goal in mind for what they want to communicate. In addition, graphic portrayals of violence are disturbing to me; Please don't choose pieces directly related to domestic/sexual violence, I can't handle them and I won't be able to judge you fairly.

NON-PARLI SPECIFICS (for the rest of my paradigm that is not specific to CPFL but still relevant to all debate styles, reference the remainder of the paradigm):

Do:

-Include a value/criteria

-Share all cards BEFORE your individual speech (share as a google doc link or using the online file share function)

-Communicate when you are using prep time

DO NOT:

-Get overly aggressive during Cross-Fire (please allow both sides to ask questions)

-Present a 100% read/memorized rebuttal, summary or final focus speech (please interact with the other team’s case substantively)

I will vote for the team that best upholds their side’s burden and their value/criteria. In the absence of a weighing mechanism, I will default to util./net benefits.

Jesyca Rodriguez Hire None

Jordan Ross Stratford Sunnyvale Raynor Middle School None

Veronica Samaniego ModernBrain

Luvienne Sans Liangyi Youth Leadership None

Gaby Scully Hire

Achyut Shah Joaquin Miller Middle School None

Sandhya Shankarnarayan Graham Junior High School None

Suhani Sharma Valencia High School

Last changed on Sat October 23, 2021 at 2:28 AM PDT

I have experience in mainly Lincoln-Douglas Debate, both as a debater and a judge. As a debater I understand the basics of the other categories but may ask a few questions beforehand to make sure I judge properly.

Pronouns: she/her

tech > truth (Essentially I will judge only on the information that you provide in round, I may ask for copies of your case to ensure I have all the correct information.)

General:

Be clear when explaining the biggest impacts of your argument; the benefits of your side should be obvious. I don't usually flow during cross-examination but I might consider it for speaking points.

Do not be rude to your opponent. I understand the competitiveness and intensity of debate rounds, but that is never an excuse to be blatantly rude or disrespectful to your opponent.

LD Judging Preferences:

I'm alright with speed during speeches. I may interrupt you to let you know that you are going too fast at any time during the round. However, if you are spreading just to force your opponent out of the debate, that is an immediate drop.

Have clear links and connections, no matter what the card says it has to be proven relevant to the topic at hand or it is not considered in flow.

Framework is crucial, it is the defining factor of LD. Therefore, there is no need to overdo it but you definitely should do you best to mention it.

In terms of Theory and Kritiks, I am not very familiar with these and would suggest avoiding them unless absolutely necessary. If you do end up using them then please be sure to explain each part clearly.

Make sure to give off-time roadmaps when appropriate. Stay organized, especially in rebuttal speeches. SIGN-POSTING IS KEY in order for me to follow your flow and arguments.

When giving your rebuttals and final speeches, I encourage you to use voters to your advantage. Make it extremely clear why I should vote for you.

Voting Criteria: (for all events)

I will do my very best to give a holistic look at the round before making my decision. With that, please note that utilizing voters effectively only helps you.

In terms of arguments and rebuttals, make your defenses and offenses clear. Dropped arguments will hurt you only if they are pointed out, I will not look for what you dropped. Make all links and impacts as clear as you can.

Speaker points are pretty straightforward for me. I give anywhere between 27-29, unless you're perfect I might give you a 30. You'll get a 27 if your speeches are alright but need a bit of work. A 28 is average debating. A 29 is above average debating, eloquent, well-thought out, and easy to follow. I will automatically give you an extra speaker up to 29.5 if you can reference a meme during any of your speeches.

Any rudeness, hate speech, harmfulness, or profane language will have your speaks dropped all the way to the minimum and you will be dropped on the ballot for exactly that.

I look forward to judging you today and hope that you have fun! :)

Warren Shiell Velásquez Academy None

Anoop Singh Joaquin Miller Middle School

Ansh Singh Brooks Debate Institute None

Manveer Singh ModernBrain

Last changed on Sat March 5, 2022 at 12:20 AM PDT

Experience: Did 4 years of Parli in high school, did 4 years in college Parli.

Overview : To be honest, I would prefer the debate to be about the topic, but its not a deal breaker for me.

I’am a flow judge, you tell me to cross apply, I will cross apply; you tell me to extend I will extend, BUT DON’T EXPECT ME TO DO IT FOR YOU, you have to tell me. Offense is more powerful to me than defense, but its still smart to protect your case regardless. IMPACTS are my thing, easiest way to win with me is to have lots of good impacts with clear and reasonable internal links. In the number and variety of the impacts, have at it. If you want to run the impacts like Nuclear War, Space Weapon Planetary Destruction, Anarchy, Dehumanization, Resource Wars etc . Go for it ! Just have the Internal Links to back it up. I only flow what is said by the speaker, during their speech, but feel free to have your partner answer a POI for you. I’m fine with the whole, your partner adding on to your speech, just make sure you restate what they say, so its on my flow. I’m fine with you folks asking any other questions not on this paradigm during round.

Etiquette/Behavior: Debate is a very rigorous, respectable, and educational activity. I have the upmost respect for all of you debaters, so you might see me a bit serious in round. I want all of you to be respectful to your opponents and do not make fun of them and give them the proper attention they deserve. Public speaking is not natural to most, so please, if you are going to talk to your partner while your opponent is speaking, WHISPER. I'm totally fine with you doing your speech standing up or sitting down at your desk, be comfortable. I don’t mind if you are not dressed in “tournament attire”, mainly to avoid the Elitism, Nudist, and/or any other wonky K, but I also know people who are great debaters that cannot afford to wear a nice suit, so there is that.

Flow: Be clear and to the point.

Topicality: I don’t mind voting on T, but I have a very high threshold on them. You need to show me clear and present abuse in round.

Procedural: No A spec, No E spec, for god sake no Funding Spec. Trichot gives me a literal headache, don't go for it in-front of me. All of things you think are procedural should be on solvency and/or the framework.

Every round should be a Policy, miss me with that value/fact debate.

Critcal Aff’s

I am a believer of the disclosure. If you run a critical AFF you should disclose your advocacy to the Neg before or right as prep starts. If not and you go for it, and the NEG runs any decently canned disclosure theory on you, you’re in deep water with me. But if you have answers to disclosure good, you can still win as long as they are thicc and warranted.

Kritiks: Meh, they exist. If you make the case compelling. I HAVE voted on it.

What I will do is vote down the K if you don’t follow these prerequisites.

The K must be accessible (in terms of understanding) to everyone in the round. If you see your competitors confused or you see me confused, you're losing your K before you even finished with it. E.g. ontological, existential, pedagogical, epistemology, any philosophical K’s must be read in a way in which everyone in the room can understand what is going on. You will not win the round by your opponents being dumbfounded on your K.

The K also must be organized as well. Do not miss a thing!

There MUST be a link for the K. You must clearly link into why the debates warrants the use of your K.
Your K must have impacts

Your K must have a roll of the JUDGE, role of the ballots are stupid, to be honest. Like its a piece of paper that decides who wins, tell me how my consciences act of selecting the team that wins; has an impact inside and outside of the round.

Adv’s/DAdv’s: Internal links and Impacts ! Please. Harms and links, are a given, you should already know this.

Counterplans: If squo can solve then focus on the DA’s and case turns. If that doesn’t work RUN THE COUNTERPLAN ! But be ready for the PERM. I don’t mind you running your case on status quo, just mind the fact that you as the opp will face “you are not doing anything to fix the problem” argument from the aff.

THE PERM: this is where some the best debates I’ve ever seen, wind down to. The perm is a very serious move that can be run by the aff. I have and will vote on the Perm. It comes down to who really owns it. If you are a good opp and preemptively make your plan mutually exclusive you should be fine, but the usually gov runs a permutation anyway.If the PERM fails, I will resort to which plan has more impacts and are solving for the most harms.

Speaker Points: I judge on clarity and presentation of argument. I really do not care about regalness or elegance. I usually don't give 29 or 30. If you get a 29 or 30 from me, that’s essentially me saying, “damn you're good, you deserve to win top speaker”.

Speed: I’m fine with it, if it gets too fast I will yell “CLEAR”, in which I want you to repeat the last thing you said and slow down a little afterwards. If you make me say it more than 3 times, i'm knocking off a speaker point for every time you do it again.

Anything else you want to ask, ask me before the debate begins or even after. I'm extremely approachable.

Shashidhar Srinivasa The Golden State Academy

Abhinav Srinivasan Athens Debate

Serenity Staley EDH Debate

Charlie Synn Del Mar Montessori School

Last changed on Sat January 14, 2023 at 6:53 AM PDT

Email - chulho.synn@sduhsd.net.

Overview - 1) I judge all debate events; 2) I agree with the way debate has evolved: progressive debate and Ks, diversity and equity, technique; 3) On technique: a) Speed and speech docs > Slow no docs; b) Open CX; c) Spreading is not a voter; 4) OK with reading less than what's in speech doc, but send updated speech doc afterwards; 5) Clipping IS a voter; 6) Evidence is core for debate; 7) Dropped arguments are conceded but I will evaluate link and impact evidence when weighing; 8) Be nice to one another; 9) I time speeches and CX, and I keep prep time; 10) I disclose, give my RFD after round.

Lincoln-Douglas - 1) I flow; 2) Condo is OK, will not drop debater for running conditional arguments; 3) Disads to CPs are sticky; 4) PICs are OK; 5) T is a voter, a priori jurisdictional issue, best definition and impact of definition on AFF/NEG ground wins; 6) Progressive debate OK; 7) ALT must solve to win K; 8) Plan/CP text matters; 9) CPs must be non-topical, compete/provide NB, and solve the AFF or avoid disads to AFF; 10) Speech doc must match speech.

Policy - 1) I flow; 2) Condo is OK, will not drop team for running conditional arguments; 3) Disads to CPs are sticky; 4) T is a voter, a priori jurisdictional issue, best definition wins; 5) Progressive debate OK; 6) ALT must solve to win K; 7) Plan/CP text matters; 8) CPs must be non-topical, compete/provide NB, and solve the AFF or avoid disads to AFF; 9) Speech doc must match speech; 10) Questions by prepping team during prep OK; 11) I've debated in and judged 1000s of Policy rounds.

Public Forum - 1) I flow; 2) T is not a voter, non-topical warrants/impacts are dropped from impact calculus; 3) Minimize paraphrasing of evidence; I prefer quotes from articles to paraphrased conclusions that overstate an author's claims and downplay the author's own caveats; 4) If paraphrased evidence is challenged, link to article and cut card must be provided to the debater challenging the evidence AND me; 5) Paraphrasing that is counter to the article author's overall conclusions is a voter; at a minimum, the argument and evidence will not be included in weighing; 6) Paraphrasing that is intentionally deceptive or entirely fabricated is a voter; the offending team will lose my ballot, receive 0 speaker points, and will be referred to the tournament director for further sanctions; 7) When asking for evidence during the round, refer to the card by author/date and tagline; do not say "could I see your solvency evidence, the impact card, and the warrant card?"; the latter takes too much time and demonstrates that the team asking for the evidence can't/won't flow; 8) Exception: Crossfire 1 when you can challenge evidence or ask naive questions about evidence, e.g., "Your Moses or Moises 18 card...what's the link?"; 9) Weigh in place (challenge warrants and impact where they appear on the flow); 10) Weigh warrants (number of internal links, probability, timeframe) and impacts (magnitude, min/max limits, scope); 11) 2nd Rebuttal should frontline to maximize the advantage of speaking second; 2nd Rebuttal is not required to frontline; if 2nd Rebuttal does not frontline 2nd Summary must cover ALL of 1st Rebuttal on case, 2nd Final Focus can only use 2nd Summary case answers in their FF speech; 12) Weigh w/o using the word "weigh"; use words that reference the method of comparison, e.g., "our impact happens first", "100% probability because impacts happening now", "More people die every year from extreme climate than a theater nuclear detonation"; 13) 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 since 2014 suggest NATO buildup in the Baltics HAS deterred Russia from attacking; 14) No new link or impact arguments in 2nd Summary, answers to 1st Rebuttal in 2nd Summary OK if 2nd Rebuttal does not frontline.

Solon Tan Westridge School

Kendra Tanouye Flintridge Preparatory None

Jakob Tran Flintridge Preparatory

William Turner ILearn Education

Janiel Victorino QD Learning

Last changed on Sat November 19, 2022 at 8:39 AM PDT

I’ve been Involved with Speech and Debate since 2015, although I’ve been judging almost nonstop since 2019. Available as a judge-for-hire via HiredJudge per request.

9.9/10 if you did not receive commentary on your ballot after the tournament, send me an email and I’ll be more than happy to get back to you on those as soon as I can!

if you need clarification on a ballot OR IF I JUDGED one of your rounds and you didn't recieve ANY FEEDBACK (esp with virtual tournaments it happens since I flow externally and copy-paste) please send an email ASAP to [ jvictorino0.forensicsjudge@gmail.com ] - I archive my ballots routinely!

Ballot Style:

Where possible I add timestamps to help students pinpoint exact moments in their speech that address the issue as noted by comment.it is a personal philosophy of mine to try never have less than 5 sentences on any ballot.

Debate Philosophy: I can comfortably judge parli, LD, PF, SPAR & Congress due to judging almost nonstop since the start of the pandemic. I don't have a lot of experience with policy debate as of this writing, I’m working on understanding spread speak as I do more tournaments. [current speed: 2 notches down from the fast verse in Rap God ]

I LOVE it when students are able to be fully themselves and have fun in a round
Debate Judging: I’m not the biggest fan of utilitarian as a value metric, but otherwise I try to approach the round as a blank slate. I like hearing both Ks & Traditional Argumentation however my rfd really depends on how you use them (or inverse thereof) in the debate.

Sportsmanship (like, dont lower your performance/ be rude on purpose, please) > Argumentative Cohesion & Organization > CX utilization & Clash > Framework Discourse > Delivery > Structural Presence, but I am a little stricter on citation~ doesn’t need to be the full date but it needs gotta be there

Congress: (also see above) but I like those who can flip arguments in their favor;You dont need to be extroverted to be PO, but POs should be attentive with overall energy in the chamber and facilitating ethical and intentional inclusion beforesilence becomes a huge issue in round, in addition to strict yet -visible- timekeeping.

RFD FLOW - if you don’t see specific comments in your individual section (due to round pace), look for three asterisks/ three eights like: [ ***or .888], I’ll post the entire flow with [ *** or .888 ] at the end of key arguments per speech. Flow Criticism will be in parentheses +&&&, looking like this (comment)&&&

Speech Judging: I can judge any speech event across all levels!

I would sincerely appreciate if students could self time so I can focus on ballots.

ivan villavicencio Hire None

Chengbo Wang Egan Junior High School

Christine Wang Flintridge Preparatory

Flora Wang Blach Intermediate School

Last changed on Sat March 11, 2023 at 12:53 AM PDT

Email: florawang.sd@gmail.com

About Me:

Hey! My name is Flora, and I'm a varsity (very lay) LD debater from Los Altos High School. Please make sure to read my paradigm before the round and ask me if you have any questions about anything :)

JF23 Topic (Open Borders): If you are neg and want my vote, do not run the Populism DA or any turns of that nature. I don't want to hear it, and very likely will not vote on it.

Western 2023 Update: please judge-adapt, thanks!

Most important things (TL;DR of below, but it doesn't cover everything below):

Be respectful to your opponent, please!! / Give trigger warnings before you start your speech.
In-person debate: Wear a mask if the tournament says you have to. I will vote where you tell me to, but I will not shake your hand :)
Yes, put me on the email chain. You can also email me if you have questions about my feedback after the round.
Keep your off-time roadmap to less than 15 words. Please. Just tell me where to flow.
Signpost, signpost, signpost
I probably won't look up from my computer because I'm busy flowing and writing feedback but I promise I'm paying attention!

General:

LD is also called a values debate. I love framework. But if the framework is (almost) the same, just collapse and move on! If there was a good framework debate that is equally compelling, I'll go to which side explained their impacts more clearly (impact weighing). To do this effectively, grant your opponent their full impact and explain why yours still matters more.

Make sure to signpost, especially if you plan to collapse arguments or when moving to the other flow. If you plan on extending cards (which you should!), also signpost there!

Creating a safe environment: Please offer a trigger warning before your speeches for ANY AND ALL potentially triggering or sensitive topics. I’m here to offer a safe, learning environment and if this is violated, I will take the appropriate actions. If there is any way that I can help you be more comfortable in this space, let me know (through email, DM, etc). I'll be checking my debate email relatively frequently at the tournament.

Do not spread out your opponent. Yay flow coverage but there are other ways to do that without spreading your opponent. If you feel like you are being spread out, yell “slow,” “clear,” etc. Don’t make me call “clear” more than twice.

Speaker points: I've never given anything below 27 and I average around 28.5. Let's keep it that way. I've also awarded one 30 if that matters too.

Non-LD events OR borderline prog LD: Treat me like I'm a parent judge: explain stuff to me.

Final advice: yay have fun and slay the day away

Also I'm far more chill in-person than my paradigm seems to imply -- I just think it's easier for me to be straightforward in my paradigm and less stressful for you to read through my paradigm while juggling last-minute prep and stress relieving exercises in the 10-15 mins between pairings and round.

If you made it this far, just one last quick reminder to be respectful in your round! I look forward to judging your round and sincerely hope that the feedback I provide after is helpful :))

Justin Wang Del Mar Montessori School

Kaitlyn Wood Hire None

Jiacheng Xi Hire None

Eleyn Xiong Del Mar Montessori School

Sandy Xu Blach Intermediate School

Last changed on Sat December 3, 2022 at 1:31 AM PDT

TLDR: be respectful, try to keep this a case debate, and I won't argue with whatever is on the flow (if it makes it on the flow)

Hello debaters!

My name is Sandy Xu and I am a sophomore at Los Altos High School. Parli is my main event, though I am familiar with PF and LD. However, since they aren’t my main events, I’d prefer it if you explain things a bit more as you would to a parent judge for those debate formats.

Judging Preferences:

I will be flowing during the round, but I'm not great so don't expect a perfect transcription or anything
Feel free to spread, but if I'm unable to catch it then it will not be flowed and won't be part of my decision
Please signpost because it enables me to follow your logic better
I am a "Tabula Rasa" judge, meaning I won't argue with whatever is on the flow. For example, if you say the sky is green and your opponents don't respond, I will assume for the context of the debate that the sky is green.
I will be voting on flow so please remember to weigh the impacts. I'd love to see some impact calculus.
Remember to give me a framework and tell me how I should weigh the round
Theory should only be run if the other side is being abusive in some way, however I am willing to listen to a theory and kritik debate. Case debate is preferred though.
I believe in "affirmative burden of proof" meaning aff has to prove that the resolution is true. I will default to the neg status quo if neither side is winning.

Parli Specific Preferences:

I don't protect the flow against new arguments, you have to call a point of order
I will pause my timer if a POO is called to hear the other side's defense to it

Speaker Points (if it’s exists):

I give speaker points on a scale from 26-30
You start with 28 speaker points and I will give you more or less depending on how well you speak
If I am unable to decipher what you are saying, you will lose speaker points
Being rude will also cause you to lose speaks
You can gain speaker points by speaking in an even, consistent rhythm and speaking without using filler words such as um, like, ok, etc
If you would like, you may use humor in your speech. I will add speaks if you give an engaging speech as long as it doesn’t sacrifice the information it provides.
Just a note: I do not give speaker points based on how well you debate, only how well you speak

Good luck everyone! I look forward to seeing you debate!

- Sandy

Anna Yang ILearn Education

Bingsheng Yi Prestige Debate Academy

Tyler Zabolio Athens Debate

Last changed on Tue February 7, 2023 at 4:49 PM EDT

I am on the Gonzaga Policy Debate team and am currently a sophomore.

A few things to note

Use CX as an opportunity to explain your arguments/links. Make sure to ask good questions, be respectful but at the same time don't let your opponent waste your time.

Don't steal prep, I will time everything but make sure to do so yourself as well.

I have experience with most types of arguments but don't assume I have read your author/lit already. Explain theory/complex legal args in language that is understandable.

Impact calc is what wins rounds.

speed is fine but spreading outside of policy is cringe.

I tend to look at T stuff through a lens that is sympathetic to the aff. I think a lot of counter interps are pretty limiting and unconvincing. That said I have no problem voting on T if its impacted out well and the violation is articulated well. I am a big fan of going heavy on T against affs that are aggressively untopical.

Debating about debate is cool but if it is distracting from x scholarship it is less cool. Bad K affs are not cool but good K affs are cool so take that as you will. I lean neg on framework. That said if a K aff sufficiently answers/turns FW I have no problem voting aff. i find this specifically true when the 1AC has built-in or at least inferential answers to fw. Debate bad as an argument is not convincing to me, we are all here by free will and we all (or at least most of us) love debate or at the very least think it is a good academic activity.

Theory

Theory is good. Also if you read like 6 reasons to reject the team I think some warrants are necessary. ex:"Reject the team, utopian fiat bad" is not an argument. Also if you are going to go for a theory arg in a final rebuttal ensure your partner extended it substantially enough for you to have adequate arguments to go for. I tend to lean aff on condo stuff but not by much.

Kritiks are cool and I am a big fan of going for the K. Vague alts are annoying and if I cant understand how the alt solves case and you dont have good case D I am gonna have a tough time voting neg unless the link debate implicates that. K outweighs is convincing usually. Explain links in clear terms and be specific to the aff you are hitting. Specific links are better than generic like state bad links.

CPs are great but 10 plank conditional counterplans are kinda silly. They need to be functionally competitive in order to warrant a neg ballot.

DAs are awesome and CP DA strat is a classic. UQ is extremely important to me. A lot of links are way to broad for me to buy a chance at the impact.

Debate is hard and stressful but relax and be confident and have fun!

Feel free to email me with any questions tzabolio@gmail.com

Yegor Zenkov Athens Debate

Last changed on Sat February 11, 2023 at 6:00 AM MST

Edit for Congress and Parli: If you are an opening/authorship speaker, you have a natural disadvantage, try to have at least one preemptive response to an obvious argument the opponents will bring up, otherwise, you risk reading non-interactive material purely based on how the rest of the debate goes. For parli this is less of a problem, so be sure to carefully and responsibly frame the debate so that other teams can interact without going too far afield.

Edit: I DO NOT VOTE ON CROSS APPLICATION ALONE. YOU MUST WIN YOUR CASE FIRST TO CROSS APPLY. SAY IT BRIEFLY IN YOUR FIRST SPEECH. BUT SAVE THE EXTENDED WEIGHING FOR THE END, DONT WASTE YOUR SPEECH ON CA WHEN YOU SHOULD BE ATTACKING OPPONENT'S WARRANTS.

CARDS ARE JUST DATA. YOU MUST STILL SUPPLY AND EXPLICITLY EXPLAIN THE WARRANT. TELL ME HOW THE NUMBER WAS ARRIVED AT AND READ YOUR OPPONENT'S NUMERICAL IMPACT CARDS TO CHALLENGE THEIR WARRANT. I will vote for someone who explains mechanisms of action but has no cards over someone with all the cards and no explanation. If you don't explain the warrant, and defend against opponent's alternate explanation, you don't get to claim the number. Don't just have cards that form a link chain. EXPLICITLY EXPLAIN THE LINK CHAIN. This sets out clearly what the opponent must do to respond.

I only vote off framework if the cases are a wash or you spend a ton of time on it. I'm much more easily persuaded by resolutional analysis on how an example is or isn't part of the aff world, and how relevant the stats are as a result.

Counterplans must explain how they are explicitly different from aff world (especially if the aff is claiming ground that the prewritten cp was not meant for), else Neg loses all unique offense.

Did PF and LD in high school, extemp in college.

I don't need to be on the email chain if you speak normally, but do if you spread. Most debaters who spread read too much evidence to effectively use, and most of the time reading the card reveals that the tag does not match the card text, or card text is more equivocal than the supported claim. Spreading can be used to lower the standard of evidence, as opponent has less time to respond. Therefore, I will intervene much more heavily on your side of the flow to compensate, cutting out any and all cards and links I don't personally buy.

Most arguments are fine.

If I miss something due to speed, it's not flowed. If you spread at least pause through author and date, missing those may cause me to put something in the wrong place on the flow.

The only time it's acceptable to extend an argument without briefly explaining it is your final speech.

Even if I know the K lit, I'm only voting on it if properly explained and linked.

SIGNPOST. SIGNPOST. Tell me where you are on the flow and what you're responding to.

Overviews and roadmaps shouldn't go longer than 10 seconds.

I don't vote off cross ex alone unless someone concedes something. Use it for clarification or to set up your next speech. If you use it to attack a warrant, you can save time in your next speech by referencing cross instead of reexplaining, I like it when people do that!

I strongly dislike when the text of a card does not match or fulfil its tag. If tag says extinction, the text should either say or be easily linked to extinction.

I dislike frameworks whose only function is to lock opponents from the round. In the case of a framework tie, I prefer the wider, more permissive framework.

If I'm not told how to weigh the round, I'll have to intervene. My default is to tally up the offence that links to the winning framework. I will vote off topicality.

Christina Zhang Velásquez Academy None

Michael Zhu Hire None

Login to Tabroom:

CHSSA Middle School State Championship

2022 — Online, CA/US

Debate Paradigm List

Judges