Hello,

I go by Brian, and I am a Director of Ivy Bridge Academy. I don't need to be in the loop for email chain unless it is necessary: brianchoi627@gmail.com

I do keep track of time and flow on my own. With that said, every speech ought to meet or be as close to the allotted time.

Contention:

I prefer clarity above all else. Please emphasize key terms (i.e, Impact). No spread and no spam of contentions (C1-3 is preferable). Flay judge preference

Crossfire:

Please be respectful in giving the opposing team a chance to speak and ask questions. Don't read evidence pls. I will drop you if you don't respect the cross rules.

Rebuttal:

Sign post, sign post, sign post! Frontline is preferable for 2nd Rebuttal.

Summary:

My favorite part of the debate. Extend and go over what your opponent dropped. If you don't impact weigh, then you concede.

Final Focus:

I pay keen attention to what claims the opponent(s) dropped as well as emphasizing most of the FF on weighing cases and impacts. This is the speech to which I prefer to have the speakers tell me what I should judge the debate on and why the opponents' case should be dismissed. Persuasion is key!

Speaker Points

26-26.9- You dropped your entire case, fell short on allocated time (i.e, 2 minute rebuttals.. yes I have heard these at nationals before), and overall did not present debater skills.

27-28 I couldn't fully understand you (clarity) or your case. You dropped some points and may not have shown synergy with your partner (ie, grand cross and flow of debate).

28.1-29 You did well. This is what I usually give and you barely dropped anything.

29.1-30 Horrah! You did amazing. Had no flaws, and I don't have any speaking feedback to give.

Hey! I'm Tanay(he/him). I debated Public Forum on the National circuit while at Lexington HS for four years. I will mostly judge Public Forum, and if I'm somehow judging another format, take me as a new judge. TLDR is pretty much the miscellaneous stuff.

Add me to the email chain: tanaydalmia612@gmail.com.

I will disclose and give oral feedback at the end of the round if you want me to and if the tournament lets me, just give me time to complete my ballot.

Misc. stuff:

I vote off the flow(tech>truth mostly).

- For my ballot, I begin on the weighing, which tells me which side to look to first. If you tell me another way to evaluate the round, do so in your speech.

- I try to be tabula rasa(go in with no preconceived notions)

- Nothing is sticky. Once it’s dropped, it’s done.

- Weigh. Weigh, weigh, weigh. Weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh. Comparative and meta weighing is best.

- I can handle some speed, as long as it's still coherent. If I miss something though, from your speed, that might hurt you when you refer to it later. If you send me speech docs, esp for case and rebuttal, I'm less likely to miss things.

- Logical arguments with no evidence>evidence without warranting

- Don't read blips and blow them up later.

- I don't really presume, so if both teams do something that would make them lose their offense and cause presumption, then I will usually ignore the oversight by both teams and evaluate both, unless I have a reason not to. I hate intervening, make sure to have proper coverage.

- You MUST have evidence properly construed.

Progressive Debate:

I’m not super well versed in progressive debate, whether it be theory, kritiks, etc. However, if you explain your arguments well, I am willing to evaluate them. Do know though, you are probably putting yourself at a little bit of a disadvantage.

Evidence:

Teams can call for evidence, and while the other team is looking for it, no one's prep is used. However, do not take forever and do not steal prep during this time. If you're jotting like a quick note once, I'm fine with it, but not more than that. It wouldn't be fun for anyone if that became an issue. If you take too long to find a piece of evidence, you either have to choose to drop that evidence or take running prep to finish finding it.

Please use good evidence. If one team declares that a piece of evidence is misconstrued, I will look at it on the email chain and if I agree, I'll scratch it off my flow. If it's a huge misconstruction, I might even vote the violating team down and/or reduce speaks. If one team calls for a round-ending evidence challenge, we will follow the tournament's direction on that.

I'm fine with paraphrasing. If there's an issue though, I'll evaluate it the same way I do a misconstruction issue because that is essentially what it is.

Speaks:

If the tournament provides me with a list, I'll use that instead.

My average is 28.5, and I'll move up and down from there.

Novices automatically get 1 point higher than what I would have given them in JV/Varsity.

29.5-30: Superb debating, you didn't have many big flaws or any in your debating and strategy, and you articulated extremely well.

29-29.5: A really good job, a few flaws, the execution was still on point, and articulation was quite good.

28.5-29: Above average, some flaws but I still liked how you did overall, and good articulation.

28-28.5: Pretty average, you did a good job but there were definitely flaws, and you spoke pretty well.

27.5-28: There were some issues with execution, but it was still passable. You might have paused a bunch or seemed confused at times, but I mostly knew where you were.

27-27.5: There were a bunch of flaws or one huge flaw that you probably want to tidy up. Your speaking was lacking in some way, but I see potential.

26-27: Multiple major flaws on your side. Significant misses in speaking.

Lower than 26: Pretty rare, you must have done something really big.

If you say anything homophobic/sexist/etc, I will stop the round, drop you, and give the lowest speaks possible. Just don't please.

Final thoughts:

Feel free to ask me anything before and after round. Or just talk, I'm chill with that.

I'll be pretty laid-back, so let's have a good time.

Good luck and have fun!

UPDATED January 2024:

I haven't been judging LD for a while; I've mostly been judging PF for the last 3 years. I've almost certainly left things out of this paradigm - if you have more specific questions that aren't covered here, email me at serena.e.fitzgerald@gmail.com.

Generally:

I competed primarily in LD in high school (graduated 2015) and NPDA in college (graduated 2018). I've been a (mostly) full-time debate coach since.

I base win/loss only on the content of the arguments; speaker points are based on a combination of rhetorical performance, strategic vision, and technical skill.

Speed is fine, but I'm somewhat rusty, so I might "slow" or "clear" you. I'll call for cards if there is a dispute over their content, but I won't rely on a speech doc to cover for mudmouth or sloppy spreading.

I don't vote off of "arguments" made in cross, only in timed speeches.

Weighing, framing, and evidence comparison are all incredibly helpful since it a) makes my job easier and b) allows you to control which arguments I evaluate first. Absent debaters' arguments, I generally default to evaluating procedurals first, kritiks second, and policy arguments last.

I'm fine with "sticky defense" but I generally won't evaluate anything unless extended in the last speech; and if it's extended through ink I won't evaluate it.

Specific arguments

LARP/policy/util debate - I'm an econ and political science major, so I'm a fan of really specific, nuanced arguments in those fields. I'm comfortable judging really obscure or squirrely contentions, since they liven up the tournament a bit.

I am willing to engage in a lot of warrant comparison if the debaters don't do it for me in order to weigh whether a DA/ADV is more probable, so having specific, solid warrants in your evidence (rather than broad claims) will likely help you.

Kritiks - I'm a big fan of good K debate, and creative, interesting philosophical arguments or frameworks will probably boost your speaks.

I have a relatively high threshold for frame-outs. I find myself more comfortable either voting on substantive solvency arguments based in the critical literature, or granting a weighing mechanism that substantively benefits your critique, than an outright "don't evaluate their case at all" framework. The other two options might be more strategic ways to cross-apply your framework cards in front of me.

In college and high school, I mostly read Ks focusing on Marxism, anti-colonial writers like Fanon and Friere, and poststructuralist authors like Foucault and Guattari. Puar, Mbembe, and Butler are some of the contemporary philosophers most influential over me. For other theories, you may want to read an overview if you are collapsing to it, to make sure I understand your thesis accurately. (It's probably helpful even if I have read that author before, since you might be emphasizing a different part of their work.)

Theory/ Procedurals - I default to competing interpretations. I'm pretty neutral about most theory debates and I'll vote for most interps (yes, including shoe theory) as long as you win on the flow.

I find that compared to other judges, I'm not as rigid about the phrasing of theory arguments. If someone substantively makes a "we meet" argument but doesn't formally flag it as such, I will still evaluate the content of the argument and apply it to the theory. However - this is imperfect, and I may not always know what you meant a particular argument to refer to, so it is still always best to flag your arguments and signpost clearly.

I don't have a very high opinion of IVI's as they are usually read; the existence of theory in debate does generally seem like the best way of deciding and enforcing the "rules" of debate. However, I find they're usually more persuasive when they incorporate more substantive arguments (especially if it dovetails with the thesis of the case or other arguments presented) - for example, many of the responses that critical affs develop to topicality are very interesting.

Hi I'm Molly Huang. I’ve debated pf for 3 years in both national and international tournaments.

My greatest achievements: winning the best debater award for the 2022 High School Debate Tournament hosted in Taiwan and represented Taiwan for the 2021 National Speech and Debate Tournament.

Plz add my email for speech/docs: 1200034molly@gmail.com 

Tech>>Truth 

I am a flow judge. However, it is your responsibility to weigh and tell me why your team is winning this round. I should not be the one weighing for you. Treat me as a judge who knows nothing about this topic and try to be as persuasive as possible.

I usually don't take notes during cross fire, unless I find some points brought up by either team challenging.

I often don't keep track of time. You should be the one doing so.

Don't spread!! Most online tournaments are in US timezone and I live in Taiwan, so if you want to spread send me the speech doc. If you don't send me the speech doc and I missed what you're saying, I would not take that point into RFD. 

Remember debate is about having fun and making improvements.

Most importantly, respect each other! 

I'm a current debater that's been competing for 4 years.

I'm a lay judge.

Weigh

Frontline second rebuttal

Be nice

Have fun

Hey, I'm Aidan! I competed in Public Forum and Extemp at Benilde-St. Margaret's School from 2019-2023, primarily on the MN local circuit. I am studying Philosophy, Politics and Economics at Davidson College in NC.

Paradigm for Spring Break Special: NA :)

AddjpotooleDB@gmail.comfor docs/chains

Did 4 years of PF at Newsome (‘23)

If you don’t know some of the terms I use in the paradigm, don’t be afraid to ask

If both teams agree, you can change anything in my paradigm for the round (This includes lay vs flow, tech vs truth, weighing preferences, speaker points, how I evaluate prog, and any other nuances in debate). Just let me know before round starts

PF

I’m going to default to being flow because thats the type of round I would want to judge. Refer to the section above if you want me to be lay or tech.

Flow Paradigm

As a flow judge I’m going to be voting off of the line by line, but won’t give technical losses like not extending all Defense is sticky. Collapse please. Bring up your voters in both summary and final.

Weigh & Meta Weigh. I firmly believe that meta weighing is the easiest way to the ballot, and quite often the team that gives the best meta-weighing will win. Emphasize this heavily in FF. I default to Probability > Cyclicality > Scope > Magnitude > Severity

Mavericks get 6 mins prep

Speaker Points: I'll make the round 29-28 in most cases. If I feel the round is messy it will be 28-27, super close will be 30-29, and a mismatch 30-28. Say “Time will start on my second word” to let me know you’ve read all of this so far (You’ll get a boost in speaks). Also + speaks if you disclose on the wiki.

I won’t flow cross but I’ll pay attention to what is said. If the round is an absolute toss up to me I will vote based on who I thought looked stronger in cross. Treat cross more for the performance aspect of debate rather than the argumentation. If you feel you won a point in cross, tell me in a speech.

Time: I will keep track of time, debaters may keep a personal timer as well. I will not flow anything said over time, so keep this in mind

Everything under this is specifically if teams decide they want me as a tech judge

Speeches

2nd Rebuttal should always frontline & I won’t accept new frontlines in 2nd summary. This threshold is low, though- as long as you can briefly mention your response you can expand upon it in

Summary Stuff: Its ok with me if you don’t want to read out all if the cards word for word you use in case that you want to extend. Just say “Extend our C2, specifically Depetries 21 and Velasco 13.” I only prefer this for the sake of spending more time on the clash of responses rather than just restating them. I personally don’t require weighing in summary, but it wouldn’t hurt you to do so. Weighing in 1st summary should be responded to in 2nd summary. Any arg not extended in summary can’t be used in FF.

FF I expect the same from both teams, simply tell me why you won and they lost. Heavily lean into weighing. If no meta weighing happens, I'll default to Probability > Cyclicality > Scope > Magnitude > Severity. As long as you give even a little meta weighing I’ll buy into it until the other team responds.

Ask your opponents before you spread. I can personally handle 300ish wpm but if you are going 250+ send a doc.

Prog Stuff

Kritiks: You might need to explain them to me like I am 5 depending on the complexity. I’ll be able to follow the more common stuff like cap and neocol, but anything beyond that I likely won’t know much about. As long as you explain the literature clearly you should be ok with me.

Theory: I'm familiar with how to evaluate it. If there is a legitimate violation, read it the speech after the violation has occured. I default to competing interps but can be told otherwise. Also, don’t read anything on round reports.

LARP/Trix: Don't know anything about it, try it if you want but I have 0 experience

MOST IMPORTANT PART: If you run some funny case/theory, you will likely lose the round, but will receive 30 speaks, I will ask you to sign my flow, and you will be entered in the paradigm Hall of Fame.

Hall of Fame

x

x

x

x

x

i don't flow cross

time yourself

gl

My email is walkersmith2022@gmail.com if you need to contact me for any reason.

Debated PF for 4 years in HS.

Got some bids, qualified to NSDAs, and made it to finals at NCFLs so I wasn’t completely terrible.

Random Thoughts:

- Tech>Truth, but the less grounded in reality the argument it, the less it has to be responded to.

- Remember that debate is not about just "winning" as many arguments as possible, but about being persuasive, even in the most technical rounds. Make sure you are constantly tying arguments back to the central question of "So what?" or in other words, why does what you're talking about matter?

- If a framework is introduced in case, it should be extended and applied in every speech.

- Theory is fine but I prefer substance debates, if it’s really fringe and not serious (for example shoes and singing constructives), little response will be required.

- I am fine with talking fast but don't spread, I will not look at a speech doc.

- Preferably use an author name and date, but if you cite cards in any way and don't lie it will probably be fine. (Much stronger evidence is cited from a credible source, for example Smith '22 from RAND >>> Smith '22 from Buzzfeed)

- I will not flow crossfires but I will listen and they may shift my perception of the round, what is said in crossfire should be consistent with positions in the speeches. I am fine with whatever format of crossfire as long as there is equal speaking time.

- Rebuttals should throughly respond to the opponent's entire case, 2nd rebuttal should throughly defend its case, and 1st summary should also throughly defend its case while also covering the round as a whole and weighing.

- No new major arguments in summaries, no new evidence in finals, and no new weighing in the second final. Arguments and responses in finals should have appeared in summaries. Ideally, summary and final should be boiled down to the fewest voters/issues necessary to win the round.

- Actual weighing (explaining how your impacts are more important than your opponent's impacts, not just saying "we outweigh on scope" and then moving on) is guaranteed to boost speaks (and greatly increase your chances of winning the round), comparative weighing (explaining how your weighing mechanism is superior to your opponent's weighing mechanism) is even better.

- If neither side has produced a reason to vote for them by the round, I likely will default to the neg. (depends on the resolution) (this is super rare, nothing I've really had to personally deal with).

- I will only call a card if there is a direct clash or I am told to call a card. If you lied about it or something, you would probably lose.

Good luck, have fun!

send speech docs

2x pf toc qual, couple of bids, not very familiar with theory/k's but am willing to evaluate them, will presume 1st if not offense, also did speech & WSD, and ran a few tournaments here and there

I flow

Hi! I’m Hannah Tuttle. I reside in Boca Raton, Florida, and have been active in NSDA for four years now. Now that we have that aside, I’d like to cover my general rules and specific advice for events.

Generally, I greatly appreciate being called by she/her pronouns. You may refer to me as Hannah, Ms. Tuttle, ma’am, Judge, whatever works for you as long as it is correctly gendered. If you have specific pronouns you would like to be called by, please inform me and your opponents before you begin speaking (when you spell your name, for example). You are more than welcome to wear cultural formal clothes or affordable clothes if this makes debate more accessible to you- it will not be held against you. Similarly, for all my ladies and skirt-wearers out there, I will not judge the height of your heels, length of your skirt, style of makeup, or hair as long as it is not blatantly showing anything I should not see. Please always be courteous to your opposition and avoid speaking over the other side too much. This is a red flag to me and can result in the deduction of points.

In Public Forum, I prefer quality and well defended arguments over having a large number of arguments. Having four or five contentions only works if you have adequate time to support all of those arguments and explain their relevancy to the overall point. I side with whichever side is more impactful, not whichever side speaks the fastest or fits the most words in. If I cannot understand you, I cannot judge you, so speak audibly and with proper diction. I do check your sources and I do side with arguments that use less biased sources, so try to keep it truly informative and not opinionated whenever possible. Avoid talking over the other side in cross ex unless truly necessary. Finally, avoid picking niche topics that are so obscure the other side can barely fight them. They’re usually less impactful arguments with less relevancy and they come off as just trying to outsmart the other side through technicalities rather than solid practice.

In Congress, I tend to judge on the content and the performance. Congress is a mix of facts and rhetoric. I prefer speakers who can deliver clever and well thought-out speeches with proper sources and decent presentation. I myself move around a lot while speaking, so I don’t tend to care about your movements as long as you are able to speak with a good flow. Please introduce yourself and spell your name clearly (and include pronouns if you’d like) so I can refer to you properly. Keep cross ex as succinct as possible as answering a variety of questions can really boost your argument. Be active in asking questions as an audience member.

Don’t forget to have fun!! Debate is a beautiful art form and I love participating. I’m always here to support you if you have any questions. We’ve all been novices at some point. :)

Looking forward to seeing you compete!

email chain (I will probably not open speech docs unless there is an evidence dispute): njvanlandschoot@gmail.com

First and foremost, I am a flow judge. This means that I will award almost any dropped argument. Tech over truth as long as the argument is at least theoretically plausible, however unlikely it may seem.

Any model of debate is fine, and I will vote on any type of argument, including theory or ROTB that contradicts this.

I care more about substance than presentation. For PF I may take presentation into account if there is a major difference between the two teams, but in general you do not need to worry about this with me.

I will not factor the qualifications of a card into my decision unless told to do so. That being said, a good analytic is still better than a bad, or even worse, irrelevant card.

In reality, I do not care about disclosure, and I believe that prep time is enough. That being said, if someone reads a good argument on disclosure, I will still vote on it.

In CX I am fine with speed.

Don’t steal prep on purpose (I also do not intervene in almost any situation, so still be sure to call out your opponent).

I will disclose if I am allowed to.