(All debate events)

Please speak very slowly and defend your side of the topic.

I don’t like when people spend most of their time reciting cards. Even if you talk like an auctioneer (don't do this!), the speeches are still too short for you to include more than ~2-3 pieces of research without bastardizing something. Invest as much time as possible in original analysis and framing even as you draw upon sources for reasoning and quotations.

Please don't overstate the scope of your arguments. Social science work never "proves" claims as sweeping as the ones you may want to make (even if you cite a randomized controlled trial that used $10m in funding from Bill and Melinda Gates). And neither do Immanuel Kant or xyz opinion columnist "prove" the topic true/false/good/bad.

Instead of proving, try to convince me. I choose whichever side persuades me that they are more thoughtful. To that end, I don’t flow and don't care about “dropped” arguments. Engage with the cruxes of your opponent’s position, but if there are too many claims and/or if some of them are silly, I won't reward you for covering them. I'm not going to pretend that I don't have priors and won't hesitate to give less weight to claims that (subjectively) strike me as ridiculous, irrelevant, or insufficiently justified. It's also your opponent's job to argue why your claims are ridiculous/irrelevant/insufficiently justified, but that doesn't mean I'll give equal default weight to any proposition you raise.

I did LD in high school and understand that cases (and styles) are partly determined in advance. There's only so much you can do to adapt to each judge, so just think of this as advice on the margin. I'll reward you for slowing down, making fewer arguments to spend more time explaining them, and prioritizing thoughtfulness/good faith over trickery.

I'll share results if the tournament lets me and am happy to talk about the round for ~5 minutes if we have time after.

Feel free to ask questions before we start, and I look forward to hearing you debate!

(My email is will.aarons@yale.edu. Add me to the email chain in case I need to look at your sources.)

I am a writer, activist, and proud mom of a high school debater in Berkeley, California. I used to be a policy debater back in the 1990s at Londonderry High School in Londonderry, New Hampshire. Thanks to my experiences as a high school debater, I've enjoyed fruitful careers in journalism and now political strategy and community organizing.

My judging preferences:

• No spreading or speed-reading.

• Use all time allotted to carefully build on your arguments and counter all of your opposition's arguments.

• Start all speeches with a roadmap: Definitions, contentions, rebuttals, and framework or weighing mechanisms for the debate.

• All POIs should be verbal and judge encourages debaters to take them at some point during their speech.

• Be cognizant of introducing new arguments at the end of the debate. I'm pretty good at picking up on these and will award extra points to debaters who successfully point them out as well!

• This judge enjoys taking detailed notes--"flowing"--the rounds, and is happy to give oral feedback at the end of the debate. I will not disclose in earlier rounds so as not to demoralize anyone. I want y'all to finish strong.

• High school debaters ROCK--Good luck!

TL;DR - tech>truth, clarity in thoughts and in speech (do not spread), be logical in linkchains and among your arguments, weigh, no theory, K, etc.

Although I am a parent judge, this is my eighth year judging debate tournaments, so I am not new to judging. I will flow arguments and will vote off of the flow (I'll mostly do tech > truth unless the arguement is so obviously false that nearly everyone would agree without googling it). That being said, please do not spread, because I'm bound to miss some of your arguments (if it doesn't make it onto my flow, I won't be able to evaluate your arguement). It is your job to make sure that you communicate your arguements clearly and logically.

Please note:

- clarity, especially clarity of thought and logic, is more important than speed

- I will focus on the weigh, and whether you've proven that your standing argument(s)'s impacts are greater than your opponents. This means that as you go through your arguments (before you weigh), you must tell me what the impacts of your arguments are-- don't assume they are obvious, and I'm not likely to make them up for you. You can be creative about how you weigh, potentially including scope, magnitude, timeframe, probabilty, or a metaweigh, etc.

- I do not like off-topic/theory arguements that try to disqualify the other team. Debate the topic at hand.

- I appreciate roadmaps and signposting. I'm OK if the initial roadmap is off-time, but they really should be part of your speaker time. And be sure to continue to signpost as you address new arguments-- you don't want me to put your arguments on a random part of my flowsheet.

- Gov/aff does have the right to define terms, and I do give leeway for that. Don't abuse it though-- I really don't like having to judge a "definitions" debate, and if the definition doesn't allow a path for opp/neg to win, I'm voting with opp/neg.

- Warrant your arguments. Completely unsubstantiated arguments are hard to vote on, especially if rebutted by the opposing side. If both sides are unwarranted, I'll view it as a wash and it won't survive the round.

- And to quote Ryan Lafferty: Be charitable to your opponents’ arguments! I’d much rather you mitigate the best version of your opponents’ claims than demolish a heavily strawmanned version of them.

For PF specifically:

- I value warrants over cards. Tell me why your argument(s) make sense logically rather than telling me a card said so. I have faith that you can always find someone who will say just about anything (e.g.-- the earth is flat).

- Focus on the weaknesses in your opponents link chains rather than reading from a prepared block file.

- The clash should be obvious by the rebuttal speaches. Second rebuttal can start to frontline in addition to rebutting the prior speech, however they must respond to all offense (including turns) or else I'll assume the argument is conceded.

- I won't be on your email chain and almost always wont look at your evidence. It's up to you to convince me, rather than me determining whether the evidence is worthy. That being said, if someone asks me to look at evidence (e.g., in order to determine whether the evidence was represented correctly), I will.

Speaker scores are ultimately subjective based on impefect judging. For PF, in addition to the above, I'll also be analyzing the quality of the research in determining speaker scores. For Parli, broad background knowledge is a big plus.

Background

New York born, San Diego raised. La Jolla High School graduate. Currently a sophomore at Yale University studying History and Religious Studies. Competed in Parliamentary Debate throughout high school, partnered with my twin brother Croix, who also goes to Yale. Outside of competition, I served as a lay judge frequently at local debate tournaments. 

Preferences

Whether you speak quickly or slowly isn’t important to me: as long as you speak clearly and with enough volume, I’ll follow along. Don’t inundate your argument with statistics, facts, quotes, etc. Build a logical, clear, down-to-earth case in the aff or neg. Don’t rely on framing your opponent out of the debate through definitions or weighing mechanisms. Unless it's very clever, stagnating your opponent, and the debate, in these details is annoying. That being said, I give credit to following a set weighing mechanism and establishing reasonable definitions of the resolution. Vocabulary is cool, jargon is pretentious. Less is (sometimes) more. Confidence is competence. Don’t be rude, but be aggressive in your rebuttal. There should be clash in a debate round. 

Details 

I will keep time and flow, but so should you (obviously). Decide with your opponents if an off-time roadmap is permitted, or follow tournament rules. If you are doing an off-time roadmap (overview, etc) don’t be obnoxiously detailed. If you go over time in your speech, I won’t freak out. I don’t mind if you ask your opponent questions during their speech, but will frown if your questions serve only to interrupt. If you decline to answer a question, acknowledge the questioner so they aren’t standing awkwardly. 

New to judging, no debate experience, MUN secretariat experience. No spreading. I look for solid logic/reasoning, strong analysis of evidence, and clarity and connection of arguments. If you use jargon/terminology, please explain the term briefly. Be respectful.

I am a coach for the Summit High School debate program.

For e-mail chain: melaco@gmail.com. Speechdrop is also great.

School Affiliation: Summit HS, NJ

Number of Years I’ve been judging debate since 2018.

Number of Years I Competed in Speech/Forensic Activities: 4 years (A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away.…)

If you read nothing else, read this: I am a flow judge. (IMO, truth does not exist within the confines of a debate round. The setting of the resolution is the beginning of world creation, which you will build upon and participate in during the round and that is outside the confines of "the real world." I fall short of being a tech judge, but I lean tech.) I expect teams to warrant and clearly show why arguments should be voted on, including weighing. Be very clear in your final speeches on why you are winning the round. State clearly what your path to the ballot is. I want to judge without intervention, so you need to give me the exact reason to vote for you on the flow. I prefer for you, in your final speech, to tell me the RFD you would like me to write.

I don't vote on anything in cross, unless it has been brought into a speech. I don't vote on new arguments brought up too late in round.

Happy to clarify any of my prefs, ask before round begins.

Organization: I need you to be clear and organized in order for me to follow you to your best advantage. Sign-posting in speeches and line-by-line in rebuttal is always appreciated, it ensures that I'm following you adequately.

Plans/Kritik/Theory: I went to a critical theory-oriented art school MFA program, so no surprise, I love theory, kritik and tricks because it reminds me of grad school. I have a pretty broad background on much of the literature. That being said, it's good to consider me a flay judge when presenting theory/kritik/tricks. You need to completely understand your argument (and not just reading something you found on the wiki or that a friend gave you), and it needs to be clearly presented during the debate in an accessible way. I need well-explained, warranted voters. Please warrant your implications. Be very clear on why I should vote for you.

Timers and Prep: I generally run a timer, but I expect you to also be keeping time. When you run prep, I like to know how much time you think you've run, so I can compare it to my own time. Also, if you pause prep to call a card, I expect all prep to stop while the card is being searched for, then prep can start again when the card is found.

Everything Else:
Cards (where applicable): I prefer factual, carded evidence. I accept tight academic reasoning. I accept published opinions of recognized, experienced professionals within their realm of knowledge. If a card is called by a team, and the other team can't find it, I'm going to strike it from consideration. I rarely call cards unless there is a dispute about the card. I really hate judge intervention, so I flow on how cards are argued by the debaters. Generally speaking, I will not call a card based on disputes that are only raised during cross. I will only call a card for two reasons: 1. if there is a dispute about a card between the debaters brought up in a speech and it is an important dispute for the judging of the debate or 2. if the other team has given me reason to believe evidence is fake or fraudulent. Dishonesty (such as fabricating research sources) will be reported to tab immediately.

Judge Disclosure: I personally feel it is good for a judge to disclose, because it keeps us accountable to the teams that we are judging. As a judge, I should be able to give you a good RFD after the round. So, if tournament rules and time allow, I don't mind sharing results with you after I've finished submitting for the round. However, I will not disclose if that is the rule for a particular tournament or if there are time constraints that need to be taken into consideration.

Judging after 8pm: I'm a morning person. If it is after 8pm, I am probably tired. Clarity in your speeches is always important, but takes on even more importance after 8pm. Talk to me like I'm half-asleep, because I might be.

SPEAKER POINTS:

Default Speaker Point Breakdown:
30: Excellent job, I think you are in the top two percent of debaters at this tournament.

29: Very strong ability. You demonstrate stand-out organizational skills and ability to use analytical skills to clarify the round

28: Ability to function well in the round, however at some point, analysis or organization could have been better.

27: Lacking organization and/or analysis in this debate round.

26: Is struggling to function efficiently within the round. May have made a large error.

25: An incident of offensive or rude behavior.

LD&Parli: Sign-post. Weigh!! Truth > Tech, unless you have a truly stellar mech. I don't flow off the doc. I prefer trad debate, but you can run progressive arguments — just don't weaponize them against people who are clearly novices.

Stephen Fitzpatrick

Director of Debate, Hackley School

I am primarily a Parli debate coach - that said, over the years I have coached and judged virtually every debate format.

As a former trial attorney, I am looking for clear, persuasive, and intelligible speakers - speed-reading from your computer screen will not impress me. If I can't understand what you are saying, either because of the speed with which you are saying it or due to a lack of explanation, reliance on jargon, and no explicit connection to the resolution, it will be far less likely to impact the round. Beware of reading cases you either did not prepare or do not understand. In Public forum, that will be especially evident during cross-fire. I will flow, but only to the extent I can follow what you are saying. Same goes for any Points of Information or other forms of interrupted speech in other types of format. Be polite, be direct, and be persuasive.

As for evidence, spitting cards at me without tying them explicitly to your arguments and the overall resolution will also have a limited effect. I pay close attention to cross-fire - ask good questions, be generous, listen to your opponent's responses, and respond accordingly. I reward debaters who have a solid understanding of the factual underpinnings of the case as well as basic knowledge of current events, historical precedents, and specific details directly related to your arguments. If one of your contentions requires specialized scientific, legal, or economic principles, make sure you can explain them to clear up misunderstandings and clarify factual disputes.

In a Parli round based predominantly on argumentation rather than concrete factual evidence, make sure you explain your logical connections clearly. None prepped rounds does not mean NO evidence - good examples from history, general summaries of common knowledge, and comparisons ore references to basic factual information all have a place in debate. Tethering your arguments to some sense of how the world actually works is preferably to entirely theoretical arguments that have little grounding in reality.

I will be open to persuasive, integrated cases, and critical impacts. In Public Forum rounds, make sure to summarize the round during final focus. I am not an overly technical judge, so I will take every speech into consideration and even consider arguments in cross-fire to be part the round when making my decision. Speaker scores will range based on a variety of factors, but speaking style, demeanor, and argumentation will all factor in.

Overall, I would be considered a FLAY judge - I abhor the phrase "tech over truth" - debaters who like to earn wins on technical conventions not actually in the rules or use arcane jargon that no one outside the debate world understands will be disappointed with my rulings if their arguments aren't clear and easy to follow.

Hi! I'm a Junior at Yale. In high school I debated public forum, and I have some limited experience in Parliamentary, World Schools, and L/D debate. It's now been three years since I did high school debate so I am most definitely less techy so please don't be overly annoying with (at the very least) techy terminology.

Most of the time I will vote off of the flow, but that flow is influenced by the quality of your speeches and whether or not you are making arguments that have basis in reality. Treat me as a reasonable judge who will vote off of what is said in round and how well it is argued, but will not compromise my sanity by voting for an argument that is absolutely not true (as in, VERY clearly false or misleading).

Some preferences for the round:

1. You should not be spreading. I am okay with a decent level of speed, but if you need to ask yourself whether or not you are speaking too quickly, you probably are.

2. Before each speech (obviously excluding cases), please tell me what you will be addressing. For novices, this does not mean tell me a story of your life, but rather give me a very concise outline of what you will be doing in your speech (i.e. our case, their case, then weighing)

3. Please signpost (i.e. "now let's go to their second contention/argument on xyz").

4. Please be respectful to your opponents. Intensity is fine, just don't cross the line.

5. No theory please, unless there is a clear and intentional abuse against you.

6. Although I don't like the whole "tech vs truth" scale, this would be my evaluation: I will vote off the flow unless an argument is outrageously false or misleading (Don't worry, I will be very reasonable in how I apply this rule). Furthermore, if you run a really obscure argument, my threshold for the quality of responses will be slightly lower.

What I should see in your speeches:

1. Second rebuttal should at least frontline turns, although the more you can respond to the better.

2. Summary and Final Focus speeches should be pretty well coordinated on each team (I should not be hearing completely different narratives between 1st and 2nd speakers). Starting with summary, I would prefer if you collapsed on a single argument (only go for everything if they literally did not respond to an entire contention).

3. In terms of what you should be extending, you don't need to walk me through your entire case. Instead, depending on how well your opponents respond, carry through the relevant warranting/links to your impact(s), and restate the impact(s). In other words, don't just tell me to extend your links on a contention. But again, this assumes that you have sufficiently frontlined or mitigated your opponents response(s).

Ask me in the round if you have any further questions or need to clarify something. Treat me as a reasonable judge who will vote off the flow but still cares about reality.

Good luck!

I am a Yale student with experience in Public Forum and Parliamentary Debate. Please speak slowly.

Note that the below was written in a parliamentary debate context, where I spend the vast majority of my time judging. I've judged LD, PF, CX, WS in the past, but not for several years, so I may not be as familiar with the conventions as I used to be. All the below should still apply.

ABOUT ME:

I competed for Ridge in extemp for four years, and for Rutgers on APDA for four years. I've coached (lay) policy, PF, extemp, Congress, and parli for Ridge (on and off) since 2016, and I coached North Star Academy in policy for one academic year. I served as NPDL Reporting Director in the 2022-2023 season. I have degrees in political science and accounting. I work in analytics for an insurance carrier in Connecticut. I use he/him pronouns. I really love debate.

GENERAL/OVERVIEW:

Debate is collaborative, adversarial truth seeking. I like all kinds of arguments (but I like good arguments best). Be kind to each other! Rounds should be safe spaces, I will drop you for bigotry.

SPEED:

I don’t have any issue with speed in principle. Personally, I’m not great at understanding circuit-level speed, but I’m happy to say clear as often as needed. If your opponent makes a good-faith request that you slow down, you should slow down. If you don’t do so, I’ll almost certainly drop you.

STRUCTURE:

Framework debate is very important. I think that everything said in a round, including framework, is an argument, and arguments shouldn’t simply be asserted. Why should I prefer your weighing mechanism? Why is your actor the correct one?

Please signpost very cleanly. I never want to wonder what argument/subpoint/section of your speech you are on.

I very, very strongly prefer rebuttals that are almost entirely off-flow. PMR and LOR are opportunities for you to write my ballot for me. These speeches should weigh impacts, crystallize, and show me why you won the round.

Unless directed otherwise by tab policy, I will consider all new arguments in rebuttal speeches if they are not called out in points of order. Even if tab policy directs me to protect the flow, if I'm unsure if a point is new or not, I will likely default to assuming the argument is not new. All of this is to say: if you think a point is new, call a point of order!

If you go over time, I will stop flowing at the end of grace (for formats with a grace period). I will cut you off if it gets to be particularly egregious.

For virtual tournaments, if you're running a plan or counterplan, I would appreciate it if you paste the plan text in the chat function.

COUNTERPLANS:

I don’t have any issue with CPs, but I dislike plan inclusive counterplans and counterplans that are very minor modifications to the plan (eg, do the plan but do it two weeks later). I don’t dislike them enough to intervene against them, and I have voted for them in the past, but I think they’re probably bad for debate and will be amenable to arguments to that effect. In any case please put your CP text in the chat for virtual tournaments.

THEORY/K/TOPICALITY:
I like all three! I like K affs! I like well done theory in response to Ks! But see above: I like all arguments. You should run these if you think they are appropriate for the situation. I was not a K debater, and I am not especially familiar with any of the kritikal literature, but I am happy to listen to whatever you read. In any case, with any of these arguments, please make sure the critical components (eg alt, ROB, interp, violations, etc) are highlighted and easy to flow.

Post 2023 NPDL TOC note: I find myself voting for K teams relatively often because they often give me really clear roles of the ballot, while teams responding to a K are often a little less clear about the ROB. My aim is to intervene as little as possible, and where one team tells me what my ballot is for and the other team doesn't, I'm very often voting for the former. So, if you're responding to a K: don't just tell me why the K is bad, tell me what my ballot is for, and why I should vote for you. It's perfectly fine if your answer to that is the ROB is to vote for the team that proves the resolution true/false! I really can't stress enough how important this is.

You should not read my paradigm to mean that I am not amenable to Ks bad arguments: I am perfectly willing to vote for Ks bad, and am open to RVIs deployed to that effect. That said if your standard response to Ks is disclosure theory it's probably best to ask the team if they're planning on running one.

I do not especially like frivolous theory (tropicality, note the r, makes me sad) and will do my best not to vote for it.

TECH vs. TRUTH:

I guess I’m slightly on the tech side of things? I don’t think I have ever judged a round where I thought “since I’m a tech judge, I will vote x, but if I were a truth judge, I would have voted y.” I think arguments need to be warranted to have any weight in my decision, though.

I will always adhere to tab/tournament policy re: evidence.

POIs:

I think you should take one, I don’t care if you take more than that (I would actually encourage you not to take more than that).

ENDNOTES:
I’m always happy to answer any questions before the round, or about my RFD/feedback after the round. I love judging and I’m very excited to be judging your round.

Please speak at a normal pace. I prefer substance over style but enjoy good rhetoric. No ks. Theory will not be appreciated as a tool to win - only use it to point out actual abuse. Warranting should be supported with evidence. Weighing is important. Signposting is greatly appreciated.

Jennifer Gremmel Hunt Paradigm

Background:

Coach, Academy at Little River (2010-present)

Coach, Immaculate High School (2013-present)

J.D., B.F.A. (double major: dance & politics)

I fell into coaching when a colleague decided that, given my legal background, I was well-equipped to teach debate. You & I know better. I learn from my students every day. I’ve judged the Yale Invitational (3) and Penn Liberty Bell Classic (1), in addition to many local extemporaneous policy hybrid tournaments.

Yes, of course, I flow. Speed (not spread) is ok so long as articulation is clear and arguments are organized and signposted/tagged. Don’t use speed as a crutch or to impress. Like most, I try to be tabula rasa: I leave personal biases at the door, and I don’t extend arguments for you. But watch out, I don’t vote exclusively on the flow. The entire argument is paramount for me. I don’t de facto award the win to quantity over quality, nor will I buy the utterly ridiculous

I come to see debate. To that end, I want to see clash. Topicality should (and must) be defended if there is an issue. Theory and Kritiks, meh. If you run something along those lines, be certain it is the best path and explain it, as you are implicitly convincing me to move away from the debate with you. 

Impacts: I do like to hear real, reasonable impacts. Weighing: Crystallize and convince me. Give me something to vote.

Zero tolerance for shouting and rudeness, though to quote another judge, “sarcasm warms the heart.” 

As an educator, I want to hear a debate about the resolution. I want to experience your critical thinking and reasoning skills through your outstanding oratory skills. I’m reasonably intelligent, but I’m not in your head. Educate me.

Background:

Academic (Business) Librarian & Tenure Track Faculty Member - Southern CT State University

Parent of HS Debate student

Education: MLIS (Univ of IL Urbana Champaign), MA (Univ of Cincinnati)

I am a university student with experience in debate in BP. I am less familiar with American Parliamentary styles.

Strong preference for content over style, provided it's communicated reasonably well. 

Please time yourselves and your opponents. 

I have experience debating in BP and World Schools in high school. 

"Assuming a pill exists that compels the user to tell the truth, THW destroy it." — Recent fun motion

UPDATE FOR COLUMBIA 2022 (VPF)

Read the following sections: Overview, General Paradigm, Miscellany and Weird Aside on Evidence -- all else is Parli specific.

Relevant information for PF: I have a strong distaste for theory but as per modern paradigmatic standards, I'm happy to evaluate it as warranted in the round. The bar to convince me to pick up or drop a team on a theory call is likely pretty high. I will tank you if the theory is strategic and not based on something reasonable.

Regarding evidence in PF. I actually debated PF some in High School, I'm not unfamiliar with evidence and carded debate. The maxim that evidence doesn't replace warranting is still true, though, and I will reward better warranted arguments over better carded arguments assuming the belivability of the claim is constant.

Ask me questions before the round if you have questions -- I'd love to get to know you as well -- debate is a game, but we are all members of the community of debate and I'd love to foster that as much as possible. Ask me questions about college debate if you're a senior (or not) -- I'll connect you with the debate team of your institution if you know where you're going etc. I love verbal RFDs so will probably give one. I don't understand PF speaker points so take those with a grain of salt.

I don't claim to be an expert in PF or anything close. I do understand argumentation, warranting, impacting, weighing, etc, and want to see all of that in a round at the highest quality possible.

Parliamentary Debate

If you read nothing else, read this: don't spread; don't tag team; keep stuff in your time; be wary of theory; impact; weigh; warrant.

Overview

I debated for four years as a student at Stuyvesant High School and currently debate APDA for Columbia University. I have experience teaching debate to middle school and high school students, I tab way too often, and have lead more judge orientations than I care remember. If you care, I'm the president of APDA, the oldest and best college debate league.

People tend to care a lot about these paradigms — I really don't — if you have specific questions, ask me before rounds, in GA, whatever. Please do ask if something is unclear!

I run whacky cases, I debate whacky cases, I choose whacky motions — I really don't mind a lot if it's done well and respectful and conducive to a good round of debate.

General Paradigm

So everyone likes to claim they're a tabula rasa judge. I think this is nonsensical. Obviously personal views will not influence the round, but as arguments leave the sphere of the normal and easily bought, the burden of warranting well increases.

It's reasonably straightforward for me to buy, for example, that individuals do things that make them happy, and since eating ice cream makes people happy, people eat ice cream; but is comparatively hard for me to buy that actually, instead of eating the ice cream in my refrigerator, I'm going to make a 2 day trek across tundra to obtain some of the same ice cream.

I don't mean to discourage complex, strange, or whacky argumentation; rather, I aim to encourage elegant, simple, but robust warranting.

Theory

Theory has its place (LD / Policy / new PF circuit / your dinner table maybe ?) — and it's almost never in a parliamentary debate round.

Please limit any kritiks, theory calls, whatever else theory masquerades as nowadays, to instances where the use therein is warranted. Unless something is tightly or abusively defined / modeled or one team is engaging in reprehensible behavior, there is no need for theory — debate the resolution. This is an instance where I am certainly not tabula rasa, I will almost always, except in these previous instances, assume that the theory is being used in an effort to actively exclude the other team simply because the assumption is that I, as a seasoned debater, can follow it (which I can). Except in the caveated cases, the burden is on the team using a kritik or some other theory to prove to me they are not doing this.

If you want to argue about mutual exclusivity of a counterplan, or whatever else you want to do, please be sure to not forget to warrant, and explain things in reasonable terms. Just as you're not going to go off using advanced economic terms in rounds, and instead going to explain how a bubble works (hopefully), don't just use a pick, actually explain and warrant it. And on that, a counterplan had better be mutually exclusive, or at least functionally so, given certain tradeoffs.

Expect lower speaker points and to lose in cases of over eagerly applied theory.

Miscellany

I don't want to warrant for you. Don't make me.

I don't want to impact for you. Don't make me.

I don't want to weigh for you. Don't make me.

I am not going to get into what makes a warrant 'good' or an impact effective or weighing necessary, please as your coach, varsity, mentor, or email me if none of the previous options are available to you (johnrod.john@gmail.com).

The final two speeches of a round (the rebuttal or crystallization speeches) are NOT to restate every point in the round, but instead are meant to synthesize, weigh, and flesh out impacts. Please do that. The most effective rebuttal speeches focus on two to three levels of conditional weighing. I won't vote on some random unimpacted and unweighed pull through.

Don't spread — think about a speed a non debater would be able to reasonably follow. This usually means something fast, but not double breathing. Side note: someone who enjoys spreading please explain to me how this doesn't destroy the educational value in learning how to be a rhetorical and persuasive speaker please!

Instead of focusing on a breadth of argumentation, please focus on a depth of argumentation that is complex, and includes a high level of weighing structures and effective warranting.

Tag teaming — never seen this in parli outside of the west coast. Don't do it, you'll have your own chance to speak.

POIs — take them, use them, respect them. Don't go back and forth — if I wanted crossfire I'd be at a PF tournament. Seriously. Also, these are supposed to be fun and humorous — if you don't believe me, watch the House of Commons — however, you are HS debaters and probably take everything way too seriously, therefore I'll settle for not rude.

Offtime Stuff — No. You don't have to tell me what you're going to do, just do it.

Weird Aside on Evidence

Please don't confuse providing evidence with providing warrants. Simply because you were able to effectively use Google and find someone who said something doesn't mean that it's a) true b) important c) relevant d) it will happen again e) isn't without opposing evidence. Please always default to explaining why something happened, not simply that it did, or that someone believes it will happen again.

I have never once picked a team up for the quality of a card, and no round should ever come down to a piece of evidence in any way, shape, or form.

I have three years of parliamentary debate experience. Please speak moderately and clearly, leave no claim unwarranted, sign-post, address clashes, weigh impacts and have fun! 

I am the Parli debate team advisor for Horace Mann School. Attention to style is as important as substance: do not rush your speaking points and be courteous to your opponents. A winning team will make clear and concise arguments, follow through on points, use real-world examples if possible, and thoughtfully counter the other team's assertions.

The principles you are arguing from should presented with complete clarity by the first speaker, defended by the second, and made undeniable by the third. Refutation should be complete, but efficient. To me, good debaters refute the opposing team succinctly by seeing through to the underlying misconceptions. Demonstrate your ability to listen and respond not only to the individuals in the room, but to the wider audience who may be affected by the decision. Therefore, be passionate, insightful, and aware of the stakes.

Every argument is not worth one 'point'. Understand which arguments are most important and have the most weight, and help me as judge to see them. Convince me that your argument valuable, and choose high value examples and arguments such as those that advance humans towards a sane future or promote the highest values of justice, peace and opportunity. Defend the practicalities. When the details are ambiguous, principles will lead the decision. No hyperbole. Debate as though the stakes are high. But do not tell me the issue is a matter of life and death, unless you can convince me that it is.

Background

I am a debate coach and familiar with all formats of debate. Primary focus is now World Schools Debate. I have coached teams and competed on the international level with those teams so I am well versed in WSD. Embrace the format of this special debate. I don't enjoy seeing a PF attempt in this format-make the adjustment and be true to the form as intended for it to be.

Judging Paradigm

I'm a policy-maker at heart. Decisions will be flow-based focusing on impact calculus stemming from the question of the resolution.

If I'm not flowing, I'm either not buying your current argument or not appreciating your speaking style.

Play offense and defense; I should have a reason to vote FOR you, not just a reason to vote AGAINST your opponents.

WSD-Show me what the world looks like on your side of the motion-stay true to the heart of the motion

Style:

Manners

Yes, manners. Good debate is not rude or snarky. Do not let your primal need to savagely destroy your opponent cost you the round. Win with style and grace or find yourself on the wrong side of the ballot. You've been warned.

WSD- I love the passion and big picture

Speed

Speed is not a problem with me, it's probably more of a problem with you. Public Forum is not "Policy-lite" and should not be treated as such as far as speaking style goes. The beauty of PF should not get lost in trying to cram in arguments. Many times spreading in PF just tells me you need work in word economy and style. Feel free to speak at an elevated conversational rate displaying a rapid clarity that enhances the argument.

WSD-Don't even think about speed!

Organization

Speeches should follow the predetermined road map and should be signposted along the way. If you want an argument on the flow, you should tell me exactly where to flow it. If I have to make that decision for you, I may not flow it at all. I prefer your arguments and your refutation clearly enumerated; "We have 3 answers to this..."

Framework and Definitions

The framework (and definitions debate) should be an umbrella of fairness to both sides. The framework debate is important but should not be over-limiting to your opponents. I will not say "impossible" here, but winning the round without winning your framework is highly improbable. I am open to interpretation of the resolution, but if that interpretation is overtly abusive by design, I will not vote for your framework. That said, I caution your use of abuse stories. Most abuse arguments come off like whining, and nobody likes that. If a framework and accompanying definition is harmful to the debate, clearly spell out the impacts in those terms. Otherwise, provide the necessary (and much welcomed) clash. Most definition debates are extremely boring and a waste of time.

Final Focus

Your FF should effectively write the RFD for me. Anything less is leaving it up to my interpretation.

Good luck, and thank you for being a debater.

Hi! I'm Felix (he/him), and I debated PF at Walt Whitman High School in Maryland. I got to octas at the TOC and top-spoke Harvard, Lexington, and Bronx. Now I debate APDA and BP for Yale.

Add felix.j.leonhardt@gmail.com to the email chain.

Parli paradigm:

Treat me like any other parli judge. Don't make new arguments or responses in your last speech -- use this speech to collapse on an argument and explain why it wins the round.

PF paradigm:

I will vote off the flow (tech>truth, tabula rasa), unless one team is rude/offensive, in which case that team will lose.

I feel comfortable evaluating almost all arguments that I have come across in PF, but I have significantly more experience with topical debates. This means that I am more likely to make a good decision in topical rounds, and it means that I will be more receptive to arguments about why topical debates are good.

No matter what kind of argument you decide to read, here are my requirements.

1. Be nice!

2. With the exception of arguments made in first constructive, if any argument (weighing, defense, turns, etc.) isn't responded to in the next speech, it is conceded. This means second rebuttal needs to frontline.

3. Nothing is sticky; first summary needs defense if you want it to be on my ballot.

4. You need to extend your arguments in summary and final focus.

5. Debate is an educational activity, so fairness is very important to me. As such, I won't evaluate arguments that I believe are made to win the ballot in a way that your opponents can't interact with. This includes theory against novices and tricks.

Below is some additional advice. While nothing below is required, it will probably help you win, and it will definitely help you get better speaker points.

1. You almost always need weighing to win. Don't explain why your impact is large or probable, explain why your impact is larger or more probable than the other team's impact. This goes for any type of round -- substance, theory, K, or other.

2. Teams don't read as many analytics as they should. Don't just read your blocks; explain to me why your opponents' argument is wrong.

3. For arguments about structural violence, framing is good. It should come early in the round.

4. I dislike the new trend of reading six case arguments and going for the one that's undercovered. I don't think you leave yourself enough time to fully explain a link chain for each argument, and by omitting parts of the link chain, I think you make it harder for your opponents to respond. If you do this, I will consider the other team's pointing out the omission (of lack of development) of a certain part of the link chain as sufficient defense.

5. Ask me questions after the round. Learning from both wins and losses is how to get better at debate.

Most importantly, have fun! I love debate and I want everyone to love it.

I'm a coach with experience in public forum debate, parliamentary debate, and extemporaneous debates. Some general notes:

ALL STYLES

- Arguments only matter if they extend across the flow. If you raise a contention in the first speech, then drop it for the bulk of the round, I won't count it.

- I'm generally quite literal with frameworks. You tell me something is important, it will show up on your ballot as part of your reason for decision. An extra speaker point to both debaters on any team who successfully uses frameworks OTHER than utilitarianism or net benefits.

- Impacting your contentions matter, but your links (i.e. how you connect steps of your contention together) matter more. Don't foresake one for the other.

- I'm not impressed by use of hyper-specific debate jargon. Use of jargon that I don't understand OR replacing actual refutation with jargon will result in deduction of speaker points. Assuming I'm a lay judge will serve you well.

- I do not find roadmaps useful. If you need to do it to keep yourself organized, that's fine, but I will probably disregard them.

- Definitional debaters are normally not useful or compelling unless they have a high impact outside of the debate itself. I have almost never awarded a round on the argument that a definition is "tight" or unfair to one side, but have rewarded rounds based on substantial definition debates that have practical or philosophical impacts. (E.g. debates over the nature of justice.)

- I rarely vote in favor of kritiks. I find it's rare that the issues raised in kritiks are impactful enough that they justify derailing the debate as traditionally presented. Their impacts often require judge intervention into the round that is independent of actual arguments being made, which I do not feel comfortable with. If you wish to make a kritik, you should make it with the assumption that you're likely to lose the round and that that is worth it for you.

- There are no silver bullets in debate. These are general guidelines, but following these will not guarantee you a win and should not be treated as such.

FOR PUBLIC FORUM

- Quoting cards will not win you debates; how you explain your cards matters.

- I'm more impressed by speakers who speak using their own words and paraphrasing of evidence rather than quoting from pre-written cases.

PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE

- POIs strongly encouraged. Debaters who refuse to take any POIs (especially if multiple are offered) will find their speaker points severely docked.

- It's hard to win on the OPP block. GOV teams who start weighing arguments in the MG and lay out a clear framework for why they're winning the round are more likely to win. In addition, GOV teams who call dropped args by their opponents will go far.

EXTEMPORANEOUS DEBATE

- BEWARE THE HALF AFF! A lot of CDA teams spend their round encouraging me that they are actually just like their opponents only without the bad stuff. This won't win you rounds with me. The debate has given you a side; stick to it!

Hello! My name is Aamir Malik. I live in Summit, NJ.

I have experience judging at a number of National and Local Debate tournaments, mainly with Public Forum events.

I was not involved personally in Speech & Debate in high-school or college, but had many friends who were, and I have also familiarized myself with the current formats by referring to the various resources on TabRoom and YouTube.

Professionally, currently I am a senior executive at a major global life-science company and focus on creating scientific breakthroughs to improve the lives of patients experiencing disease. Prior to that, I spent 25 years as a management consultant at a leading global consulting firm.

I value thoughtful analysis, compelling facts, and specifics vs. generalities. I value substance over style and I place an emphasis on brevity and clarity. I also value debaters who speak at a normal pace rather than those who "speed-speak."

I am inspired by all the students who participate in Speech & Debate and while I recognize the inherent competitive nature of the programs, I genuinely believe that simply having the courage to participate and taking the time to learn and reflect from the experience will carry the real long-term impact in students' personal development.

Thank you for the chance to be a part of this with you and good luck!

• I go to Yale. Dissing Harvard is always appreciated. 
• Neither tech over truth nor truth over tech. The best cases are well-argued, precise, and established on factual analysis. I say that to be intentionally confusing.
• If you include a Star Wars quote or reference I will boost your speaks.
• I know masking is up to you but if I can't hear you because you are masked I may drop you. Make sure I can hear you.
• If you use Confucian thought to advance your argument I will also boost your speaks.

I like creativity, personality, and logic (obviously).

I don't like unnecessary Points of Order.

I don't like debaters speaking faster than a normal person speaks in an everyday conversation. If I don't flow it, I won't know it!

Public Forum

I have coached PF for about 10 years so I have a fair bit of knowledge about the style and most likely the topic that is being debated as well. This means that you should not worry too much about speed or giving arguments that are too complex. I'm a lay judge :)

My comments after the round will usually involve RFD and how to improve some arguments. The "improvements" part has no impact whatsoever on my decision in the round and is only meant as something to take into your next round. I do not complete arguments for teams or refute them based on my own knowledge. I will judge the round only based on what was said in the round.

Email-fredrickni97@gmail.com

Please don't refer to cards ONLY by author name because I don't note down author names for cards (e.g. "John 18 or Smith 20") I'm putting this at the top so y'all see it.

Content:

-No theory. I won't vote on it. You can metadebate, I just don't like how inaccessible theory debate is for PF.

-Ks are fine

-Show me clear impacts and weigh them for me. This is super important in how I adjudicate rounds. Just proving a superior number of contention does not give you the round, proving why your contentions are more important wins you the round. Very rarely will there be a round where one side has no contentions standing at all, so I need some sort of metric to measure. This also means that I value a clear framework from both sides and potentially a debate about framework should that influence how I would adjudicate

-Crossfire is not super important to me unless either you go back to it in one of the speeches or something absolutely killer comes out of the exchange

Stylistic:

-Be courteous during cross-fire (ie. do not shout over each other) I will dock points if anyone is particularly rude

Misc:

-Have evidence ready; if the other team asks for it and you cannot give it to them in 1 min, it will be discounted from the round

-I will stop crossfire questions right at 3 minutes but I will allow for you to finish your sentence if the time is up during an answer

-I rarely write out RFD's on Tabroom ballots so my oral feedback after the round is where the majority of my RFD is explained

-I welcome questions or concerns about the round, and if you feel that I judged unfairly, please let me know after. While I cannot change the ballot, I will do my best to explain my RFD.

-I score speaks exactly as the tournament rubric instructs.

Parliamentary

I've done various parli-ish styles like BP and Worlds for about a decade now.

I mostly judge based on content, with very little focus on style as long as I can understand you.

Please keep time for both yourself and your opponents. If you keep asking POIs during protected times I will deduct points. Obnoxious POOs will also lead me to dock you points.

I am not a former debater. I'm a debate parent, coach, and Middle School Debate League administrator. I've been judging for around 10 years. For me to flow you well, don't spread or speak too quickly. Of course I try to be a blank slate and I won't tell you what arguments I think you should have run. I appreciate examples and illustrations, including hypothetical ones. I'm not a fan of repetition. I am a fan of clear definitions, plans, frameworks, models. I award speaker points based on clash, not style, but of course your delivery will make your clash more or less effective.

Everett Rutan

Judging Paradigm

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

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

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

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

This judge-as-debater approach has certain implications:

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

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

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

My business background has certain implications:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FAQs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ejr, rev July 2023

Flay judge, speak clearly and do not spread.

Welcome to my paradigm. My name is Daniel Sorial, and I debated in High School for the Academy of Information Technology and Engineering (AITE for short) for three years, the latter two heavily in parliamentary. I'm now a junior at Yale, and a member of the Yale Political Union.

As a judge, I most value weighing and effective rhetoric. Final speeches on both sides should go off the flow and paint the bigger picture. Why does any of this matter? What are the future implications of passing or not passing this motion? 

As per debate techniques, spreading within reason is acceptable. Feel free to speak faster than conversational pace, but necessitating hyperventilation does not pair well with good rhetoric. Spreading should be avoided, but I understand if it is necessary. If you genuinely can't offer your entire case in your first speech, you can give more arguments in the second speech. If you think of a new argument before the second speeches, give it. However, purposefully designing your first two speeches to give some arguments in one and others in the other is bad debate etiquette because it does not allow full engagement by your opponents. It therefore ought not necessitate the same level of refutation. As for other things, Ks and T-Shells are fine, but explain them well incase your opponents are not familiar. Different parts of the country have different techniques, so use them as you please, but ensure everyone is on the same page.

In parliamentary, take POIs, as it shows you have control over your speech. You should offer multiple to your opponents in every speech you can, though the speaker should only take one or two.

I appreciate civility, but being too nice is awkward. 

Good luck!

Hi! I am Naz Soysal (she/her), and I debated in World Schools Debate through high school. I was a member of the USA Development Team and Team Texas during those years, and I now compete in APDA and BP for Yale.

Some thoughts on debate in general:

1. Be nice. Debate is not that deep (even though it may seem like it sometimes). Don't ruin a round/tournament for someone else who will remember your rudeness.

2. Clarity is core. What does this mean? Explain to me in the final speech what you are winning, what you are losing, and why what you are winning is more important than what you are losing (ie WEIGH). Don't just list weighing mechanisms; explain why your weighing is more important than their weighing too.

3. Rounds should narrow. I care most about arguments that have been talked about the entire round, not some random subsection of one contention made in the first speech and dropped until the last speech.

4. I tend to care less about evidence/statistics than the logical backing behind arguments. Obviously, I abide by what is the norm for the event: I care a whole lot more about evidence (and especially evidence ethics) in PF than I would in WSD.

5. If the average reader of the New York Times wouldn't know what you're talking about, explain, explain, explain.

PF specifically:

1. I flow. I can't flow when you're speaking at lightning speed. You can speak above conversational speed, but if you see me stop flowing, you need to slow down– I am probably confused.

2. I've watched a few PF rounds with progressive arguments– generally, you can run them, but you need to explain things very clearly. Don't assume I know what an RVI is. Especially, don't be exclusionary– don't run theory on novices.

3. Please number mechs/responses and tell me where they are on the flow.

4. Add me to the email chain: naz.soysal@yale.edu

WS specifically:

1. I will gut-check your arguments. Please do not impact to nuclear war unless the debate is specifically about nuclear weapons.

2. I tend to have very little tolerance for language or style imported from PF/LD/Policy→ when judging a WSD round, if you use the word disad I will pretend to not know what it means. Style is a major factor in WSD– your speaker points will be docked.

3. Some judges have strong preferences on if you run a 3rd substantive or not in the second speech. I don’t really care, just be strategic. If you run one, make it matter in the round, else you’re just wasting speech time.

4. The big picture should be happening by 2nd opp at a minimum; line-by-line 3rd speeches are unstrategic. I don’t care how you condense the debate (questions, clashes, 2 worlds, etc.), but there should be a top-level structure.

5. If a principle is made properly, the argument will 100% outweigh the practical given the essence of a principled argument is that no matter the consequences, there are certain moral outcomes that matter more. Unfortunately, in 95% of debates I've seen or participated in, principles are made by putting a few buzzwords together and calling it a day. Again, be strategic. Make the argument properly or don't put it in at all– if your strength is practical arguments, then make practical arguments.

Above all, have fun!

Go slow. Be clear. Be nice.

If you would like more, I have written detailed paradigms for each style I judge:

PF paradigm

Parli paradigm

Middle school paradigm

In high school, I mainly debated in World Schools and British Parliamentary, but I also had a decently long history with Public Forum debate (though I haven't competed in the format for a good 4 years now). Hopefully I can finally break out of this coercive cycle of debate in university, but I'm likely to continue debating in the American Parliamentary and British Parliamentary formats.

As a result of my Worlds background, I tend to prefer the use of analysis (i.e. reasons why claims made in the debate are likely/unlikely to be true) over that of evidence or examples when it comes to justifying claims. This means that I am much less likely to credit arguments that rely solely on a specific historic/current event to justify its validity. To quote the prophet of World Schools debating Matthew Weibin Song, "One drawback of relying too heavily on examples is that such evidence can be circumstantial and fail to apply to many other cases."

Please WEIGH. It is very rare for teams to be able to completely discredit all of their opponents' argumentation, or cleanly win every clash that existed during a round. Obviously this doesn't mean that you shouldn't offensively engage with your opponents' material, but I would also appreciate it if teams would add an additional layer of analysis that proves why their strongest lines of argumentation are more important than your opponents' strongest lines of argumentation. This gives me much more clarity when it comes to the adjudication of the round, especially during messy debates where it is unclear how effective the rebuttal of both teams were.

Excited to hear an amazing round everyone :)

I debated parli and PF in HS and currently debate APDA and BP.

A couple notes:

1. Don't spread, go as slow as you can. If I can't understand you without a speech doc then I won't flow. Note for Yale 2024: I am especially sleep-deprived today so I cannot process anything fast at all. Please go as lay judge pace as possible.

2. On progressive args: I don't have experience with them and don't really understand them, so if you do run them please explain them as you would to a small child, and I will try my best to evaluate.

3. 2nd rebuttal must frontline turns, and I'll look very favourably upon your arguments if you frontline defense as well. Similarly, while defense is technically sticky through 1st summary if it isn't responded to, I will look much more favourably upon your defense if it is present in 1st summary in spite of it. In other words, the more direct engagement from speech to speech the better!

4. Warrants are extremely important. If your evidence doesn't have a warrant I won't evaluate it. If you make good warranted responses to your opponents evidence and they don't have warranted frontlines, I will evaluate it.

5. Weighing is also extremely important. If you don't weigh then I have to weigh, but I'm not very good at weighing so you'll probably be disappointed. Therefore please weigh. Additionally, please be comparative in your weighing. Don't just tell me why your argument is important, but tell me specifically why your x argument beats your opponents y argument, and why that matters in the overall debate.

6. Although I do debate, I am only a small child (and a philosophy major). Therefore, assume (correctly) that I do not know anything more about the real world than a small child would, and explain arguments as simply as you can.

7. I am tech > truth, but I have a decently high threshold for proof. That is, from your evidence, you must prove all of the link level analysis that leads to your impact in order for me to buy it. An asserted impact that does not have sufficient analysis will not be evaluated, even if the other team does not respond to it. In addition, although I am open to voting on anything, the wackier the impact the higher the burden of proof is. If you are going to impact extinction, make sure that you provide compelling analysis that it could happen.

8. Have fun :) and best of luck!

Hello - I have been judging debate for over a decade. Please be clear and concise in your language, have your cards easily available if your opponents ask for them, and please stick to the topic of the debate. In other words, please do not allow the debate to devolve into focusing on minutiae

Finally, excessive card calling without a clear purpose is strongly discouraged.

My name is Adam, I am an experienced debater (now college student) with more than four years behind my belt. Here are some of my tips for your round with me:

1) Please be respectful and attentive throughout the entire round

2) I am not a tech judge per se but greatly appreciate proper contention/advantage structure. The more organized you are, the more likely I will be to grant you the win. I crave a carefully crafted link chain.

3) IMPACTS ARE ESSENTIAL! A debate is won over impacts - make sure to allocate proper time to them in round.

4) Theory... it's alright. I appreciate the necessity of theory to keep rounds free and fair, but would rather not see the whole round become about it. Make your argument, and move on. I don't need to see a proper theory shell but please make it make sense.

5) SET A STANDARD AND STICK TO IT. I think standards are really important so don't forget to set one or to weigh your arguments against it during the round. If your opponent sets a standard you think is unreasonable, please suggest an alternative for me to weigh your arguments with.

6) I would rather you not bombard me with tons of evidence and facts. Parli is not about how many statistics you know or mathematical wizardry, but about logic and reasoning and argument. If your argument doesn't need statistics to be believed then I don't necessarily need to see them.

7) My flowing skills are good, but don't assume I have every little point down.

8) I much prefer a clear, slow, and precise speaker to a fast one who gets more points in. Debate is not just about arguments but arguing itself - thoughtful presentation and speaking is essential.

9) Have a good time! Debate is best when everybody is really engaged with and enjoying the glorious intellectual battle that it is. Appreciate the activity.

add me to the email chain: djwisniew@gmail.com

I am a sixth year parent judge and a former competitor in Policy in the late 80s. Currently, I judge for my daughter who is a small school LD debater.

No spreading - I do NOT appreciate spreading. Skimming through a document trying to figure out where you are is NOT debate. I need to be able to follow and understand your arguments and responses. Dazzle me with your intellect, not your speed.

For LD circuit debate - We don’t see progressive LD debate in Pittsburgh, so it’s in your best interest to give me signposts (a lot of them, and be clear) - policy, case, K, disad, counter plan, etc. I will evaluate the flow per your direction. If T comes before case, tell me why and we're good. I like K when done well, but it's not an automatic win. I enter the round tabula-rasa, if you're running something complex please explain it well. Make sure I know where you are in the flow!

For Parliamentary Debate - I judge you based on what you tell me, not what I know. There’s never a bad side of the motion. I will be flowing all your arguments, and I make my decisions based on who convinces me their arguments are the strongest. Don’t forget to weigh, this is crucial to how I make my decisions! Any impacts are welcome. The extra 30 seconds are intended to complete a thought, not start a new one. Ties are awarded to the Opposition. Please rise when you want to interrupt with a question. Time pauses for POCs and POs, not POIs. Please be respectful to your opponents and have fun!

For all other debate most of the same points go - run whatever you’re comfortable with and I’ll judge the way you tell me to. A list of preferences:

1. Contentions should be based on quality, not quantity. I’m not going to vote for you if you fly through 12 contentions and tell me your opponent dropped half of them.

2. In circuit debate you should slow down and literally write the ballot for me. I don't like tricks, but for everything else tell me what weighs and I will vote for the most convincing.

3. I will weigh all arguments carried through, and consider the impact of dropped arguments per your direction. (please don't drop your opponent's entire case). In LD, please weigh your argument against your framework. Framework is crucial in LD, and you should always have impacts. In all others, please clearly state how your impacts outweigh your opponent's.

4. I don't consider any new arguments in final speeches.

5. In your final speeches, please number or letter your voting points so we are all on the same page. I’ll flow you regardless, but it’s in your best interest.

Debate should be educational and fair. ABOVE ALL BE NICE! Good luck and have fun!