I like to see debate that shows a strong display of knowledge for the basics of public forum. I appreciate off time roadmaps. I pay close attention to sources and will weigh sources within the round. Speed consistency is more important than just speed; in other words, spreading is fine but only if you can maintain the same speed without abruptly having to speed up at the end or losing momentum and slowing down. In terms of attitude, it is important to show sportsmanship with your teammate and competitors.

About me: Mohit Agarwal - College Student, Not lay, Former PF debater

+2 speaks if you mention how evolution is fake

Tech > Truth

Drops are sticky and usually fatal

If you spread disclose

For LD/Policy:

I get basic value criterion stuff, if you run theory/K's/CP's/Disads I will try to follow along and don't have a problem with ROTB style args, but I have extremely little experience with it.

For PF:

If you run disclosure theory or anything exotic I will be very entertained and then drop you, do LD if you want to run theory so bad.

For congress:

I should never be judging this and if I am I will be sad ;(

Dont add me to email chains - if you want me to look at evidence just ask me

Hi! I have 3 years of experience with PF Debate.

Pronouns: he/him/his

Email Chains: Teams should start an email chain—it's the fastest way to exchange evidence and the best way to maintain evidence ethics. Add my email (challanu000@isd284.com). That being said, I don't mind if you choose to show evidence on your computer to the other team at in person debates. I would also prefer that speech docs are sent in the email chain at the beginning of your speech (just for constructive) to ensure clarity and faster evidence exchange if either team needs it.

Speed: I'm fine with you going fast, but that doesn't mean you should do it. I prefer that you have a few, well-explained, well-enunciated contentions than spread the entirety of Champions Brief. Also, while I am able to keep up with teams speaking fast, I rarely get card names. Never tell me to "remember card xx", always reiterate what that card is and why this is important.

Evidence: Just make sure you are following PF rules and are ethical. You are expected to be able to show citations and cut cards whenever your opponents calls for them, or if I call for them at the end of the round (I do this very rarely). Don't paraphrase.

Time: I'll be keeping track of speech times. If you go 5-10 seconds, that's ok but don't make it a regular practice. Anything over that results in me ignoring the rest of what you say and twiddling with my hair for the rest of your speech.

Framework: I default to cost-benefit analysis, but if you give me another framework that goes uncontested and/or is defended and reiterated consistently, I will use it in my decision.

Weigh and signpost! Especially during Summary and Final Focus. Off-time roadmaps are great and establishing voters will never hurt you (just make sure you pick the right voters). Never flow through ink (this also means defense is never sticky). Always verbally extend your linkchain and reasoning and why this is important despite all that your opponent tells me. You can also weigh in rebuttal, compare your evidence (recency, credibility) or even just compare your warrants.

Crossfire: Don't be mean or unnecessarily aggressive. Yelling at your opponent does nothing for you. I don't flow cross and whatever happens. So, even if your opponents concede their entire case and bow down to you, you need to bring it up in a speech for me to take it into account. However, I still listen to cross for speaker points.

Don't read Ks. They just muddle up the round and even if your opponent runs SPARK or aliens, I will be voting for them.

Feel free to ask me questions before or after round if you need clarifications, have specific questions about the round, and/or want additional feedback.

How I give speaker points:

30 = Flawless, you were an amazing speaker.

29 = Impressive!

28 = Good job!

27 = Base level speaker

26 = Could use some work. Look for my RFD for feedback.

25 = You were actively rude, or there was some really large issue in how you treated arguments.

20 = You literally said a slur in round, or something like that. If you aren't being stupid, you are guaranteed higher than this.

+0.5 if you bring me food
+0.5 if you overuse colorful vocab, like goofy or funky

Hi there! Good morning.

I am a second year public forum parent judge.

Your goal is to effectively communicate your arguments to me. If you are talking too fast to be intelligible, you are not effectively communicating - don't spread.

I'm not a flow judge, obviously, but I take notes. I pay attention to every speech and cross.

Attitude / Aggression
This is a PF debate. We are human beings and citizens of the world. Aggression is okay, but a rude/offensive behavior is a no-no.

HOW I DECIDE MY BALLOTS:
* Use your Summary and Final Focus speeches to collapse and crystallize your key points.
* USE CROSS WISELY. This is typically where I make my decision. I pay attention both to how strongly you're able to respond to the opponents’ questions with evidence and analysis. I will also judge based on how effectively you are able to break the opponents arguments with your questions.

Speaker Points:

I default at a 27.5, and change them after every speech to finalize them.

All the best!

I am primarily a flow judge.

Background
I am a senior and current varsity debater at Wayzata High School. I’ve debated in PF for three years.
Pronouns: He/Him

Speed
I can flow most speeds. That said, I would heavily prefer if you didn’t spread. If you do, make sure it’s coherent and clear, both for me and your opponents.

Evidence
Follow PF rules. Be ethical. Don’t grossly misrepresent cards. Any paraphrasing should be backed with a cut card if requested. Evidence sharing will be counted as prep for the team asking. I will disregard evidence if it cannot be produced in a timely matter when asked for.
I will not flow card names, so when extending, restate the card’s content. If your opponents read conflicting evidence, please compare them and explain why your evidence is better, such as recency or credibility, else the argument may be a wash.

Time
Keep track of time. I’ll hold up my timer to indicate when time’s up. A few seconds over to finish up your sentence is fine, but anything said 5 seconds over time will not be considered.

Framework
Default is cost-benefit analysis. I will vote for other frameworks if it is established and brought up repeatedly. If contested, explain why your framework is a better way to evaluate the round.

Rebuttal
Signpost (state where you are on the flow). 2nd rebuttal should respond to arguments made in 1st rebuttal as well as opponents’ case. Don’t just read cards off a file; make sure you explain why it harms your opponents’ case if not made obvious from the card alone.

Back-Half Rounds
Continue signposting. Extend case and responses, collapsing (dropping weak arguments) if necessary. Weigh impacts. I do not recognize weighing mechanisms such as “circularity” and “specificity” as legitimate.

Cross
I will not flow cross. Any important information gained or arguments conceded should be brought up in the next speech. Clear and direct explanations responding to questions will increase your speaks. I do not appreciate hogging or stalling time. If a question is asked before time ends, the opponent may respond even if it goes over. It’s nice to see debaters be passionate and engaged in the debate, but please maintain a cool head and stay respectful at all times.

Theory
I will not vote on frivolous theory.

Speaks
Affected by actual speaking ability (stutter words, voice inflections, etc.) as well as speech organization (wildly zipping around the flow lessens speaks). Speaking ability matters more, however.
Baseline is 28. Will not go below 26 unless you are actively engaging in discriminatory or hateful speech.
Interesting vocabulary (such as “goofy”) while maintaining clarity will increase your speaks.

1. I am generally predisposed to teams that feel like they are attempting to persuade me, the judge, vs. exclusively their opponent. Many debates get too deeply into the weeds and fail to provide some kind of clear, overarching narrative — similarly, individual arguments are too often under warranted, with no analysis, and without a clear resolution of existing clash. Debate, to me, feels the most valuable and enjoyable when the skills demonstrated seem transferable / relevant to real-life argumentation and discourse — this means accurately tagged arguments that are developed throughout the round and rebuttals that show clear engagement with the content of opponent’s arguments. I prefer summaries that are not pseudo-rebuttals and that clearly explicate the narrative of the team while also providing offensively-minded voters and substantive weighing.

2. Evidence / in-round ethics are both extremely important to me. If at any point it becomes clear that a team is mis-representing, mis-labeling or otherwise abusing evidence, there will be a severe reduction in speaker points. I am also open to dropping the team if it seems like it’s given them an unfair competitive advantage. Because of all this, I am generally against paraphrasing unless the paraphrased content absolutely adheres to the content of the original source.

3. In-round civility is extremely important to me. Teams that are overly aggressive in crossfire, steal prep, go well over on time, or take forever when pulling up evidence will have reduced speaker points. Teams that cross over from rudeness into racism, sexism, homophobia, classism, etc… will be dropped (this includes arguments that contain racist, sexist, etc...warranting)

4. I understand the necessity for speed and heavily truncated argumentation in some rounds but generally have an overwhelming preference for a conversational pace and clear analysis. As such, I dislike the use of debate jargon and overuse of debate community patter (“A couple problems here” “This evidence is really, really clear!” “Recognize -”).

5. I will do my best to vote strictly off the flow but even within that paradigm it’s impossible to remain absolutely divorced from some degree of subjective decision-making over the course of a round. Thus, as with any judge, whether explicitly stated or not, I’m going to be heavily predisposed to the arguments that make coherent sense to me, starting from the constructive. Too many rebuttals and cases feel like ransom notes in which two or three words from thousands of evidence sources have been copy and pasted together to form something borderline incoherent. To put it another way — I’m not against surprising or novel argumentation but if something seems fake, it’ll feel weaker to me in a round. That being said, I want to limit judge intervention as much as possible and will do everything possible to not incorporate things external to what’s been argued in the round.

The best debates I’ve seen always seem to leave both debaters feeling like they’ve had fun. I’m confident that fulfilling these five preferences will lead to a strong round more often than not. Thank you!

Addition: I’m open to Ks and other kinds of experimental debate. I haven’t had a lot of experience judging them and the ones I’ve seen have generally been deeply unconvincing but I’m not against them at all

I'd consider myself a lay judge. My sister Maddie Cook coaches PF for Lakeville North & Lakeville South in Minnesota, and she's roped me into judging. So, basically, this. This is my second year judging, and I've mostly judged novice and a little JV PF. Here are some thoughts I have based on the debates I've judged so far:

• I like it when link chains are explicitly clear and when you clearly state what the impact is.
• Go slower than you would in front of a coach.
• I may miss a few technical things.
• Probably don't read theory or K's...

1st year out PF debater from Wayzata High School in MN. Haven’t judged in a bit, so please don’t go too fast. I judge very similarly to my partner, Neev Mangal.

Pre-Round

Please set up an email chain for evidence exchange and put me on it: ethancordeiro747@gmail.com. If you plan on reading fast or are paraphrasing, I’d definitely like to see a case doc before constructive and rebuttal.

I use he/him/his pronouns

General

Tech > Truth. I evaluate virtually any argument that doesn’t involve an oppressive discourse.

You need 2 big things to win my ballot.

A. Weighing:It needs to be in summary and final focus—extra points for incorporating into rebuttal! All weighing should be comparative, so don’t just make assertions about prob/mag/timeframe etc., explain to me why I should prefer it to opposing arguments.

B. Extensions of the whole argument: Extend a warrant, a link, and an impact (at least) for every argument you go for in every speech. Anything less than that makes it harder for me to extend cleanly. I feel strongly about this because otherwise, teams can abusively spread many poorly-warranted arguments in the back half.

Evidence

I don’t like paraphrasing, but I also recognize that one could just cut evidence really egregiously and it would be just as unethical as misrepresenting evidence while paraphrasing.

I flow card names but I may write them down wrong, so don’t rely on repeating them in the back half.

Failure to produce evidence within 1 minute means a drop in speaker points.

If there is a significant debate about a particular piece of evidence, I will look at it before making a decision.

Crossfire

I don’t flow it, but if the opponents make a key concession in cross I might evaluate it if you bring it up in speech!

I do not like those questions where you ask the opponent to just list examples of places or situations where an argument has materialized. I understand the merit in analyzing real-world cases, but the questions themselves need to facilitate analysis. Please don’t use this time to make a “gotcha” moment out of an opponent’s failure to rattle off 18 nations where their argument “happened” with no context.

NO GRANDSTANDING. This is a time to ask questions, not to spend 1 minute teeing up for a question by making an argument. If you catch your opponent grandstanding and ask “so where’s the question?” I’ll probably boost your speaks.

Progressive Stuff

Most Ks I’m fine with listening to. I’m not super experienced with them, though, so they’re not a sure-fire way for you to win.

I’m far less receptive to progressive args if you’re reading them against a team that’s significantly less experienced than you are.

Speaking

Just so you know, I will never factor your outward appearance or physical habits into assigning speaker points.

Default is 28. Moves up and down from there.

Preface

Speech and Debate are educational activities. My goal as a judge is to pick the debater(s) who best argues their case or the speaker(s) who best meet the criteria of a given event. But I also am seeking a round that is educational. Abusive arguments and rhetoric have no place in debate. Treat each other with kindness. We are all here to learn and expand our knowledge and experience. Racist, sexist, ableist, homophobic, transphobic, xenophobic, etc. arguments should not be made. Everyone is welcome in the debate community, do not marginalize and silence folks with your argumentation.

Also, since speech and debate are educational activities, feel free to ask me questions after the round. I'm here to help educate as well. As long as we have time before the next round has to start (and I've got enough time to submit my ballot before Zach Prax comes looking for me), then I'm always happy to answer questions.

Background

Director of Debate at Wayzata High School (MN) since Sept. 2020, I've been coaching and judging locally and nationally since 2013. I also coach speech at Wayzata and at the University of Minnesota.

I am a licensed, practicing attorney. I work as a criminal prosecutor for a local county in Minnesota and I have a MA in Strategic Intelligence and Analysis with a concentration in International Relations and Diplomacy.

Likes

- Voters and weighing. I don't want to have to dig back through my flow to figure out what your winning arguments were. If you're sending me back through the flow, you're putting way too much power in my hands.Please, please, please make your voters clear.

- Clear sign posting and concise taglines.

- Framework. I like a solid framework. If you have a weighing mechanism, state it clearly and provide a brief explanation.

- Unique arguments. Debate is an educational activity, so you should be digging deep in your research and finding unique arguments. If you have a unique impact, bring it in. I judge a lot of rounds and I get tired of hearing the same case over and over and over again.

Dislikes

-Just referencing evidence by the card name (author, source, etc.). When I flow, I care more about what the evidence says, not who the specific source was. If you want to reference the evidence later, you gotta tell me what the evidence said, not who said it.

-Off-time roadmaps are often a waste of time. If all you are doing is telling me that the Neg Rebuttal is "our case their case" then you don't need to tell me that. If you are going to go FW, then some cross-application, then your case, then their case, then back to FW, then that is something you should tell me. More importantly SIGN POST, SIGN POST, SIGN POST.

-SPEED. This is Public Forum, not Policy. If you spread, you're probably going to lose. I flow on my computer so that I can get as much on my flow as possible, but if you're too fast and unclear, it's not on my flow. If it's not on my flow, it's not evaluated in the round.

-Evidence misrepresentation. If there is any question between teams on if evidence has been used incorrectly, I will request to see the original document and the card it was read from to compare the two. If you don't have the original, then I will assume it was cut improperly and judge accordingly.

-Shouting over each other on CX. Keep it civil. Don't monopolize the time.

-"Grandstanding" on CX. CX is for you to ask questions, not give a statement in the form of a question. Ask short, simple questions and give concise answers.

-One person taking over on Grand CX. All four debaters should fully participate. If you aren't participating, then I assume it's because you do not have anything more to add to the debate and/or that you aren't actively involved in the debate and I likely will adjust speaks accordingly.

-K cases. I do not like them in public forum, especially if they are not topical. However, a K that is topical and actually engages with the topic and is generally within the topic meta is something I *may* vote off of. But it must be topical, otherwise I will not vote off the argument.

-Loud, annoying, alarms at the end of speeches. Especially the rooster crow. Please no rooster crow.

-Speaking of timers, if you're going to critique your opponents for going over time, you should probably make sure that you aren't going over time yourself. Also, you don't need to turn your timer to show me that your opponent is over time. I'm aware of their time, it just comes across as rude.

General

-I'm generally a flow judge, but I don't always flow card authors/names. My focus on the flow is getting what the evidence claims and what the warrant is, rather than who the source was. Referring back to your "Smith" card isn't enough, but giving a quick paraphrasing of the previously cited card, along with the author/source is much more beneficial and effective. Similarly, "Harvard" is a collegiate institution, not an author. Harvard doesn't write anything. Harvard doesn't publish anything. They may have a publishing company or a magazine that publishes, but Harvard does not, and last time I checked, John Harvard has been dead since 1638, so I doubt he has anything pertinent to support your argumentation.

-I'm an expressive person. I'll make a face if I believe you misstated something. I'll nod if I think you're making a good point. I'll shake my head if I think you're making a poor point. This doesn't mean that I'm voting for you or against you. It just means I liked or didn't like that particular statement.

-I like CX, so I tend to allow you to go over time a bit on CX, particularly if team A asks team B a question right before time in order to prevent them from answering. I'll let them answer the question.

-Evidence Exchanges. If you are asked for evidence, provide it in context. If they ask for the original, provide the original. I won't time prep until you've provided the evidence, and I ask that neither team begins prepping until the evidence has been provided. If it takes too long to get the original text, I will begin docking prep time for the team searching for the evidence and will likely dock speaker points. It is your job to come to the round prepared, and that includes having all your evidence readily accessible.

-If anything in my paradigm is unclear, ask before the round begins. I'd rather you begin the debate knowing what to expect rather than complain later!

Lincoln Douglas

I'm a PF coach, however I judge LD frequently and I often assist LD students throughout the season.

- I find that it is best to treat me as a "flay" judge... I will flow, but I'm lay. I am very familiar with most of the traditional value/criterion/standards. If you have some new LD tech that is popular on the circuit or something, then I'm probably not the judge for you to run that, unless you are going to fully explain it out because I probably don't know it.

- Speed kills. I do not want to have to strain myself trying to flow your speech. I do not want you to email me your case in order for me to be able to follow it. As noted above in the PF section, if I do not get it on my flow, it probably does not end up impacting the round. I am not afraid to say speed or clear, but by the time I realize I have to say it, it's probably too late for you.

- K debate. I really have no interest in judging a K.

Congress

- I really want some speech variety from y'all. Often, when I'm judging a congress round, I'm serving as a parliamentarian so I'm with you for several sessions. As a result, I should be able to get to see you do a variety of different speeches. I actually have a spreadsheet I use to track everyone's speeches throughout the round, what number speech they gave on each bill, which side they argue for, how often they speak, etc. After the round is over and I'm preparing my ballot, I will consult that to see whether you gave a variety of speech types. Were you consistently in the first group of speakers? Did you give mid-round speeches where you bring clash and direct refutation? Did you mainly give crystallization speeches? Or, did you do a mix of it all? You should be striving to be in the last category. Congress is not about proving you can give the best prepared speech or that you can crystallize every bill. It's about showing how well-rounded you are.

- Speaking of prepared speeches. My opinion is that you should only come in with a fully prepared speech if you are planning to give the authorship/sponsorship or the very first negative speech. After that, your speeches should be no more than 50% canned and the rest should be extemporaneous. This is a debate event. It is not a speech event. Prepared speeches in the mid and late stages of debate are a disservice to yourself and your fellow congresspersons.

- PREP. I have judged a lot of congress over the years. I've judged prelims, elims, and finals at NSDA, NCFL, and the TOC. I am frankly COMPLETELY AND UTTERLY TIRED of y'all having to take a 10+ minute break in between every piece of legislation to either A) prep speeches; B) establish perfect balance between aff and neg; or, C) do research on the bill. A and C really frustrate me. I know y'all are busy. I know that sometimes legislation comes out only a few days before the tournament. And I know that sometimes there are a lot of pieces of legislation to research. But y'all should be spending time to prepare your arguments and have research so that all you're doing mid-round is finding evidence to refute or extend something that happened in the round. And the way tournaments are structured these days, it is rare for a round to have so many people in the chamber that not everyone can speak on a bill.

FYO from Edina HSPF, CS @ Georgia Tech

Put me on the chain -- erol.ansel@gmail.com

Background: Debater for Edina (team codes: Edina EJ, EB) and qualified to the TOC twice. Techy LARP debater, hardly read theory -- yes, an extinction scenario spammer. But hey it worked against strake dy, blake tp, and plano mz so can't complain. Academically -- pretty thorough understanding of economics, statistics, and math; little background in foreign policy or critical literature.

Unconditionally, Tech > Truth.

General Perspective on Strategy (all formats):

A quote stolen from Archan Sen: "Cowardice is good and all the good debaters maximize it. Go for dropped aspec and minimize clash. The point of debate isn't to showcase your bravery and flex about how you made unstrategic decisions by deciding to clash with your opponents." Make rounds clean. Rounds with unnecessary clash tend to be as hard to evaluate as rounds with no clash.

Policy Debate (Scroll for PF)

Prefs: I am not an experienced judge and have NO CLUE what the topic is. Pref me at your own peril -- in order of my preference of the types of rounds I want to see: Policy v. Policy > Policy v. K, or Theory >> K v K > Tricks. And if by some chance you're reading this paradigm and you have me, please win by a large margin. I don't care how you do it. TL;DR: Tech > Truth, prefer LARP line-by-line debates but am okay at progressive rounds.

Generally, do whatever you want; my judging preferences aren't strong enough to override who did the better debating (but nonetheless adapting to me is certainly strategic). Be nice in round, have decent evidence ethics, and maintain efficiency and clarity in the line-by-line.

I concur with my former coach Charlie Jackson in that I will vote for winning arguments even if I don't understand them. Chances are, I won't understand a lot of what you say. I don't know your topic; I have not debated your format ever, I do not know your jargon and when in doubt, over-explain rather than under-explain, especially for non-policy args - I expect warrants for XYZ being a round-ending theoretical or critical argument.'

Arguments: I'm most experienced with standard policy stuff. There is no risk in going for DAs or CPs in front of me as long as you are comfortable defending their theoretical legitimacy. By default, all positions are theoretically legitimate (i.e. okay unless proven otherwise); I don't know enough about your format norms to have predispositions regarding conditionality or PICs or anything really. I'm happy to hear impact turns and framework arguments, though will probably assume act utilitarianism. I strongly prefer argument engagement especially in the context of Kritiks. They are much more effective when they are aff-specific, directly diminish aff-solvency, and have tangible alts. K Affs are great when executed well - in general held to a higher standard than policy affs. Theory - defaults: DTA, text > spirit, c/i, no RVIs. Nothing is frivolous if you win it. Theory should be read in the speech immediately following the violation. Topicality - read specific definitions, a variety of warrants are persuasive to me.

I think it is helpful to contextualize my evaluation process: For each argument relevant to the round, I will determine the extent to which a team has won the argument. I will then establish a prioritization or chaining of arguments - (a DAG or POSET for mathematically inclined folks) - and then vote for the argument that precedes others (roots the graph). If there are two or more potential winning arguments from opposing sides with no comparison, this means that the debaters have failed. In such a scenario, I will vote for the side that has a winning out with the least amount of intervention from me, or presume (happy to entertain presumption warrants).

I will reward kind debaters who have fun, make sound strategic decisions, and execute well with higher speaks. I appreciate it when later speeches are given off-flow. Please do not go for arguments with the intention of 'tricking' your opponents (and most probably tricking me as a consequence). It's also a mega-flex if you can debate pretty slow and still win cleanly.

Feel free to ask any questions about my decision post-round, post-ballot-submission.

Public Forum:

PF rounds tend to suck, so make my life easy. Public Forum debate is a game and here are the rules of the game:

(1) - All arguments must be made explicitly in speeches within the allotted speech times to be considered.

(2) - New offensive arguments are acceptable in constructive and rebuttal but not later. New defensive arguments can be made any time as long as they are directly responding to a new argument made in the previous speech (backlining, frontlining). New weighing is acceptable whenever with the caveat that I have much higher standards for 2nd final weighing if it is new. Defense is not probability weighing, and I can tell the difference.

(3) - Arguments are conceded if they are not responded to in the following speech, with the exception of second constructive not needing to respond to first constructive. Conceded arguments are truths for the rest of the round. If both sides make conflicting concessions than the debate may be resolved later.

(4) - Any argument (policy, theory/T, K/FW, CP/DA) is fine to make as long as it is not violent or abusive. All arguments are fine to read by default. Respond with theory if you have a problem with an argument made.

(5) - Arguments must be extended in every back-half speech after they are made to be considered in round. Final should mirror summary for the most part.

(6) - At the end of the round, the winner is the team who has won the highest priority argument in the round.

(7) - Evidence ethics: call your opponent out if they do something not OK in the form of a formal evidence challenge. If I notice something fishy I will tank speaks but I won't change the ballot. Paraphrasing is okay if you don't lose to theory.

Here are my preferences

(1) - Go fast and send me a speech doc. Winning by spreading your opponent out is not something that I mind at all, it makes it really easy to judge when one side has a conceded extinction scenario going into summary.

(2) - After you have an easy path to the ballot, slow down a bit.

(3) - Weigh often and weigh well. I will presume 1st (or whatever is warranted) if you don't and you probably don't want that. Weighing is equally as important as defense.

(4) - Speaking pretty will not make up for poor argumentation. If I can understand it, that's good enough.

(5) - Speaker points start at 28.5 and go up and down based on strategic decisions/errors; I won't give below a 27 unless you did something worse than throwing the round.

(6) - Read my policy paradigm if you're going to read progressive arguments.

Hi!

I am a parent of a debater. I am a software developer and business owner.

Some things you should know:
· Be nice and respectful. Try not to talk over each other.
· I will take notes throughout the forum.
· I will not bring any of my personal biases into my role as a judge.

These are the criteria I will judge:
· clarity of case
· clearly stated opening argument
· use of facts and examples
· overall clarity of presented argument
· crossfire - well-constructed questions and answers

HEY DEBATERS! THANKS FOR READING MY PARADIGM, BECAUSE IT SHOWS THAT YOU ACTUALLY CARE.

I'm very speech-heavy, so make sure you have good projection, a commanding voice, and confidence. I want you to grasp my attention from the get-go. I'd say I'm a flow judge, but if you spread, I'll instantly know who NOT to vote for. Topic wise, I know the arguments and have seen both unique and stock cases for it, so you don't have to dumb down definitions and things; focus more on defense and offense instead of crazy extensions.

Overall, make sure you COMPARATIVELY WEIGH, because that tells me that you learned their case AND you know your case well. Make sure you're respectful to both the opponents and your own partner(if you have one), because snarky or pretentious debaters aren't the ones I choose. I'd rather you be confident and collected than highly informed and rude. Also, if you drop a Taylor Swift reference, I'll love you forever. Everyone go listen to the Midnights album to prepare yourselves. Have fun and give it your all!

==For all ==

My experience with debate: I did PF in 9th, LD in 10th and 11th, and some PF my senior year (all for Eden Prairie High School). I had pretty good exposure to circuit debate and "progressive" arguments. Never got a bid, but made a bid round and competed in many tournaments.

My interests (the things you should not bs): I am passionate about econ, law, and healthcare stuff. I am fairly libertarian on all 3, though I will never punish you for not conforming to my ideological priors.

Thoughts about debate: My goals are to be 1) a predictable judge who 2) promotes educational debate and 3) rewards the better debater. Thus, how I will judge:

1. I will be as tabula rasa (tech>truth) as possible. I will look for offense by looking at what was extended in the final speech, and go back through my flow to see the line of arguments made.

2. Explanation and weighing go a long way if both debaters have offense. Earlier is much better (last speech weighing is almost useless), and responding to weighing arguments is really important. Note: buzzwords are not weighing (scope, magnitude, probability, etc need explanations)

3. Burden is on you to explain. I will not do work to understand some framework/theory and its implications. You have to explain how arguments interact. I suggest you collapse to one piece of offense and one piece of defense per piece of offense your opponent has in your later speeches--20 second explanations of your argument are smart.

4. I will never use a speech doc to flow. I'm totally for you guys sending speech docs to each other if you'd like, but I'm a decent flow and if I can't keep up, I feel like that's a clear sign the debate is too fast to be educational. Will say clear if you're too fast or unclear, but if I stop typing, that's a sign that something's wrong (could also be that it's time to move on the next argument)

5. I will drop arguments that I don't feel both sides should be expected to know. I.e. Kritiks, theory arguments, counterplans, and other abuse will j not be allowed if it's not the norm of the tournament. "Layifying" is not something I want to adjudicate so don't do that either. If you're unsure if I'll accept a type of argument given the tournament situation, please ask. Obviously, if both you and your opponent are fine with something, I'll be happy to judge it.

6. I will try my best to keep time and will be a slight stickler about prep, so sorry in advance for being grouchy.

My paradigm got deleted earlier today for some reason — this is a quick 2 minute one: all you need to know is I'm Tech > Truth, don't spread, please extend and implicate links, and be reasonable people.

Thanks!

Hi Hi! I’m Jeune and I’m currently a senior at Eagan High school. I’ve debated public forum for 4 years and currently a varsity member.

Email chain: jeunehagape@gmail.com

One thing that’s super cool is that I’ve also debated the 2022 Novcember topic so I understand what you’re going through.

What to do in round:

Be Respectful :You can debate against someone without being aggressive, rude or mean. Also, don’t be racist, homophobic, sexist, xenophobic, ableist, etc…. Duh.

Speed:I can flow pretty well, but I don’t like it when debaters speak overly fast and their opponents are thrown off and confused. If I can tell you are doing this I’ll likely make a comment on it, but please try to be as clear as possible. No spreading.

Argumentation: I’m open to any arguments as long as they are explained clearly, warranted and not offensive or mean. Any arguments you expect to win on must be carried through all the way from Case to Final Focus. Dropping args is understandable as long as there are no turns placed on them.

Weighing:Number one way to get my ballot is by weighing. Explain your arguments CLEARLY and if you can compare them to your opponents impacts, you’re doing great.
If you need help use these terms:

Magnitude

Probability

Severity

Reversibility

Scope

Prerequisite

Timeframe

Other Notes:

-Summary is not another rebuttal, condense the round

-Please don’t run theory, Ks or counterplans

-Stay topical

-If there is a rule/ethics violation (ex. Miscut evidence) please bring it up in round and I will evaluate it

-Try to stay in time but if you’re a few seconds over it’s not a big deal

Speaker points:I start at 28 and either give or take based on how you act in round. I’m very lenient so as long as you participate and be kind to your opponents then you’ll likely be given high speaks.

if you say something nice to everyone in the room you get +0.5 speaks.

Have fun! andJust be good :)

Varsity PF Debater from Wayzata High School

PF advise- While defense is important, teams that play offensively with turns and strong rebuttals are often teams I would vote for.

It is not too important to me but I appreciate clean link chain as well as impacts that can be extended cleanly through the flow, makes things easier for myself as well as create a formal debate environment.

I do not keep track time and expect that each team will manage to do so. If a team asks for a card, time will start when the card is given to team that request it.

I am pretty chill in the most part (unless if I spot rude or disrespectful behavior) and I hope for a respectful and entertaining debate!

Good Luck to Any Debater Reading this!

From,

Sleep-Deprived Senior Mahir ("Ma-hear")

he/him/his

I am currently a varsity debater for Eastview; I’ve debated for 4 years.

Don’t be mean, don’t go over time, don’t speak ungodly fast, and don’t lie or misconstrue evidence.

Add me to email chains if you make them for evidence: riley.hetland@gmail.com

If you have any questions, ask me before the round

fridahinoj.edu@gmail.com

Current PF debater at Eastview HS.

How to win my ballot:

• Keep your arguments organized and consistent throughout the round.
• Make sure to extend your case, defense, and offense throughout the entirety of the round.
• Make comparative arguments / if you're making a counterclaim make sure to explain why I should prefer you.
• Be respectful to your opponents and to me. I don't care how loud you can yell. Don't spend a minute answering a question.

How to lose:

• I'm fine with speed but spread at your own peril. If you don't make sense, your arguments don't make sense, or I can't understand you that is your fault.
• Don't bring up new arguments in second summary or final focus.
• If you feel your opponents are being unethical feel free to call it out in one of your speeches but...

DO NOT read theory or a K, I will switch tabs to the world cup and give you a 25.

Evidence Ethics:

Please read proper citations. FULL NAME and date are required. I would really like to hear the publication and author credentials as well. The credibility of evidence may be used as a tie-breaker.

When calling for evidence I'd prefer if we used the old method of taking prep to show cards but it's up to the debaters in the round if they want to use an email chain. No I don't want to be in the chain. If you ask if I want to be in the chain I'll know you didn't read this. If there is a real issue of misrepresentation and unethical usage of evidence (please callout unethical behavior) or there is evidence that is highly contested at the end of the round I may ask to see it.

30 - Flawless performance

29 - Noteworthy performance

28 - Solid understanding of the format

27 - Average

26 - Needs work

25 - Unethical or Rude

***

History: I’ve competed on the MN Local circuit along with the national circuit since 2018 primarily under the code Edina JS. Qualified to TOC all 4 years of high school.

Contact Info: ryanjiang15@gmail.com for email chains and round inquiries or on Facebook (make sure to get the right one though).

TLDR: Tech > Truth, prefer LARP line-by-line debates but am competent at progressive rounds. Shoutouts to my boys Ishan Dubey, Will Pirone, and Ilan Benavi. Read their paradigms – they're longer and more detailed than mine with a few exceptions which will be underlined.

General Info:

Postrounding is good and educational – just do it after I submit speaks

Send docs in a coherently labeled email chain.

I'll keep clearing you if I can't flow what you're saying

Weighing arguments doesn't matter if you aren’t winning the argument

Have card docs pulled up before the round; if it takes more than 2 minutes to find evidence I’ll strike it from the flow and drop your speaks

Don’t be mean or noninclusive or you’ll drop your speaks/lose the round

TKOs are stupid and uneducational and make the other team feel bad. Do not try this in front of me.

General substance:

Must include taglines beyond "Thus" if you're going fast

"No warrant" claims are not enough unless you read counterwarrants. The only exception I have for this is when you are calling out powertagging.

Evidence:

Analytics are super based. I will evaluate a rebuttal solely of analytics.

You have to read card names if you’re making claims about the world: you can’t just say “our evidence says” and expect me to believe you

Telling me to call for evidence will make me do it. Don't be one of those sneaky people who ask for me to see evidence after the round is over though.

if you paraphrase you have to have the cut card available if they call for it

I think PF's norm of "their evidence is bad therefore they should lose" is ruining the activity. Just call an evidence challenge and I'll evaluate it – I filed numerous evidence challenges myself while debating and it's not that hard. If you read an IVI during the round related to this, I will know you did not read my paradigm and will drop your speaks. At the end of the round, I'll call for the evidence in question and evaluate it as if an evidence challenge was called.

Rebuttals:

DAs, offensive overviews, and weighing overviews are fine

Impact turns are really fun and will boost your speaks if you do it right. This includes Spark, Climate Change good, Preemptive Strikes good, etc...

The split:

2nd rebuttal must frontline any argument you want to go for in the back half, including defense, or it’s conceded.

Defense is not sticky – first summary should extend pieces of defense unless they are explicitly conceded by second rebuttal to kick out of another response

Collapsing in 2nd rebuttal is good. However, concessions must be explicit and make the implications for me: Saying “we’ll concede the defense to kick the turn” is not enough and if the other team calls you out for this, I will still evaluate the turn.

Extensions:

Claims do not have to have warrants when extended if they are conceded

Extending links on impact turns is a must

Extensions like “extend Jiang ‘21” doesn’t mean anything, you have to also extend the claim and warrant

I will not vote on arguments that lack extensions, but please make sure to point it out in speech if this occurs

Frameworks don't have to be extended in rebuttal because I view them like case arguments. This also applies to theory shells/Ks.

Weighing:

I dislike try-or-die claims but will evaluate them begrudgingly. If the other team reads intervening actors analysis I'll probably be persuaded by it.

Link Weighing > Impact Weighing usually

Make sure to weigh arguments. Strength of link weighing or clarity isn't weighing.

Probability weighing is not an excuse to read new defense

Make sure to respond to their weighing; otherwise I probably will intervene

Theory:

Offensive Counter-Interpretations are the one thing you cannot alter with warrants. Shells inherently should be for setting norms, even if it is an in-round violation, meaning the other team should have some path to the ballot.

Theory is fine. Shell form is preferred but paragraph form is fine. If there are multiple offs you should do weighing between them. An "IVI" is not a theory shell.

I default Drop the Argument, Spirit over Text, Competing Interpretations over Reasonability, and No RVIs

"Theory is hard" is not a good argument. There are way too many resources online for me to be persuaded by this as a personal response. If you have questions, email me before or after the round and I'll be happy to redirect you. Note that this does not mean I won't evaluate this as a standard if you don't make the argument that you specifically don't know theory.

Unless both teams agree to reasonability, a counterinterpretation is a must for a path to the ballot.

Substance crowd-out is an impact and reasonability is more than persuasive in many situations. Make them well warranted and you will probably win. C/Is are still required though.

Theory must be read in the immediate speech following the violation i.e. no disclosure theory in 2nd rebuttal

Theory biases include the following (this does not mean I will automatically vote for or against these shells though): Disclosure is a good norm (full text > open source), Round Reports are not frivolous theory, Paraphrasing is probably more bad than good, Topicality is good if you read a carded definition and explain why that's a good definition

Ks:

Ks and Performances are fine but be warned I’ll probably be persuaded by Topicality if nothing makes sense by the end of the round. However, I’ll still evaluate them fairly (hopefully).

Do not paraphrase a K

I will only vote on Ks that are provided by your opponent. This means links of omission or reading a K in 1st constructive is something I will not vote on.

I will vote on arguments like "we started the discourse"provided you are actually winning the argument. I also really don't like these and if your opponents make the response "the flow determines the objective winner of the round" I will probably lean on that to break the clash.

Reject ____ is not an alt. "The ROTB is to vote for me" is also not one, even if you try to paraphrase it cleverly.

Theory probably up-layers the K.

Perms are good.

Other progressive arguments:

Tricks are REALLY dumb (believe me I read them once as a debater). Please don't waste your time – also I only really understand skep and paradoxes but from my understanding, you'd still have to win presumption if you read these. Read theory against tricks if you find yourself in that situation.

Plan/Counterplan debates are way more interesting in my opinion and if both sides want to, I'll evaluate them.

Framework is cool. Extinction reps is probably true but I've found philosophical ones (particularly Kant and Lacan) to be very interesting. Util is probably true (structural violence frameworks are fine, I just don't think they're strategic).

Cross:

I don’t flow cross, you probably have like 50% of my attention here.

Be nice in cross, don’t grandstand.

Please actually answer questions. If someone asks you a "yes/no" question, I better hear one of those words starting the response.

Jokes are cool if they aren't at the expense of the other team. This changes if you actually know each other (tell me before I submit speaks though).

Presumption:

I default to the first speaking team because I think first final focus is way too hard. Warrants to persuade me otherwise is fine as long as they're made in summary. The only exception to this rule is if final focus goes all in on presumption and does not extend offense, in which case I will evaluate whether the defense is terminal.

So here are the few things I think are important in round.

1.) Please use all of or close to all of your speaking time

2.) As Aff in rebuttal I want to hear more attacks against Neg not going over your own case. This doesn't accomplish anything for Aff in rebuttal.

3.) Use all of your cross time and ask good questions

4.) Be respectful to one another. This is the most important don't interrupt one another.

That's all, good luck!

Hello, I did Public Forum Debate and Extemporaneous Speaking for four years at Eagan High School in Minnesota. Now, I'm at Georgetown.

There are a few things I look for in a debate round, here they are in order of importance (roughly):

1. Be respectful. Debate has a history of inequality and double standards so it is important to A. don’t perpetuate those issues and B. do what you can to improve debate. Being disrespectful can tank your speaks and being sexist, homophobic, racist, etc. can lose you the round.
2. Extend your case one of the biggest issues with novice rounds is that people drop their evidence and story. Tell me how your arguments connect to the resolution and why clearly you should win. I cannot vote for you if you do not tell me why to vote for you
3. Signpost I cannot flow your speech if I don’t know where you are.
4. Interact with your opponents arguments specific responses are the most persuasive, show me you understand how their case works and CLEARLY COMPARE IT WITH YOURS, why should I prefer yours?
5. Good evidence/ evidence ethics PF has a tendency to have awful evidence ethics. USE CARDS if for some ungodly reason you need to paraphrase follow NSDA rules and have carded stuff.

All the jargon lol

Truth > Tech, flay, no theory unless it is like an equity issue (that does not mean disclosure theory),defense is not sticky.

I'm a first-year out who did PF in high school.

As a flow judge, I will vote for whichever side makes me do the least work to get the dub. This means that any dropped argument, no matter how goofy, is true. Of course, the threshold to adequately respond to these goofy arguments is lower.

Constructive:

Speed is fine but no spreading. Going slower is always preferred though.

Rebuttal:

If you read an overview, it can't be whole new separate contention. It must interact with their case in some way.

2nd speaking team must frontline responses made in rebuttal by the 1st speaking team. Ideally this means 2nd speaking team starts on their own side of the flow first then onto 1st speaking team's case. If this doesn't happen it's annoying because of the time skew.

I really like weighing competing warrants in rebuttal. For example, if one team tells me that Putin invaded Ukraine because of NATO expansion and the other team tells me that Putin invaded to restore the USSR, compare the evidence for me (post-date, empirics, sample size, meta-study, etc.) so that I do not have to intervene in my ballot with my personal beliefs.

Summary:

Most important speech. If it's not in summary it's most likely not on my ballot. Therefore, defense from rebuttal is not sticky.

It's much cleaner in summary if you walk me again concisely through the link chain for arguments you are going for. The best rounds happen when a team only collapses to 1 or 2 major voters instead of covering everything on the flow. Cite the names of cards that are most important to extend your uniqueness, links, warrants, and impacts. In other words, don't just extend the impact from C1 without telling me what the rest of C1 says to get there.

If you are going for a turn, it must be fully implicated (i.e. impacted and weighed) in order for me to consider it. This could be as simple as explaining why your turn links into their impact, so now you have access to their impacts as well and why that impact outweighs everything else. Turns are the arguments most misused in debate in my opinion because almost no teams reading them ever do the work necessary to make them matter in the context of the round.

If you are doing weighing (which you should because it minimizes me intervening to decide which arguments matter the most), it must be comparative. For example, don't just say "we outweigh on probability because our impact has a 90% probability of happening because of X, Y, and Z." You have to go one more step and also say "on the other hand, our opponent's impact has less probability because of X, Y, and Z." Otherwise, it's not actually weighing. Also, prereq weighing and link-ins are the best types of weighing in my opinion.

Final Focus:

Write my ballot for me. This should mirror summary.

Other:

No progressive arguments like kritiks or theory please. No idea how to evaluate them, unfortunately.

I don't flow crossfire, so bring up anything important in the next speech.

Just take it easy and I'll vote for you.

I have 4 years of debate experience from 2019-2022. 3 years in Public Forum and 1 year in Lincoln Douglas.

Something first: Just assume that I have a basic understanding of the resolution. You NEED to tell me everything else. Please extend what you want me to consider. If something is said in rebuttal, dropped in summary, and then shadow-extended in final focus, I will not consider that thing.

Speed: I would say that I can handle most speed. However, once you go so fast and you start jumbling your words together, that's when things become problematic. However, if you do go fast, please try to enunciate your words so it makes it easier to follow.

How to get my vote: I am a tech judge. I will vote off what has been said in the round. So prior knowledge will not come into play. However, please weigh. Weighing makes my and everyone else's lives much easier. It tells me why you won so it makes it easier to give you my vote. No shadow extensions. If you want me to consider something, it should be extended throughout all of your speeches.

Speaker Points: All I ask really is to be nice to each other. Aggressiveness is welcome however too much will see a reduction in speaker points. Obviously, no racist, homophobic, or any other words that might fall under the "don't use at school category" Everything else will depend on your ability to give speeches.

Now onto the fun stuff

Evidence: I would like to see evidence during the debate. However, logical responses is great! But when using evidence, please ensure that your evidence is actually saying what you think it’s saying. If your opponents call for a formal evidence challenge and you lose it, then the win automatically goes to the opponent. This is because debate is an educational activity. People should not be spreading false information. However, at the same time, if you abuse the formal evidence challenge, there is a possibility that you will be voted against. At the very least, speaker points will drop.

Framework: I would LOVE to see a framework; #LincolnDouglasDebater. The framework will be used to judge and give a decision. If no framework is given from either side, a cost-benefit analysis will be used.

K's: I welcome them. I have seen and used K's in the past. However, you must be able to argue your K well for me to vote for you. However, I do not understand the most complicated literature sometimes so use K's at your own risk.

Theory: I understand theory. However, this does not mean that I can vote off theory. I understand what it entails and what it is trying to argue, but I would love and prefer to see the debate stay mostly topical. At least debate things that are sort of related to the resolution.

Lastly, HAVE FUN!

I am affiliated to East Ridge high school in Woodbury, MN. I have been judging Public forum debates for past 3 years. I prefer teams to speak slow, loud and clear so I can follow through.

Background

I graduated last year (Senior, debated all four years varsity, mostly local tournaments and a few circuit tournaments) at Wayzata High School in Plymouth, Minnesota. I judge very similarly to my partner, Ethan Cordeiro.

Current affiliations: Wayzata High School, MN

Pronouns: he/him/his

Email Chains: Teams should start an email chain—it's the fastest way to exchange evidence and the best way to maintain evidence ethics. Add my email (nmangal@caltech.edu). That being said, I don't mind if you choose to show evidence on your computer to the other team at in person debates.

Evidence

I don't really like paraphrased evidence. I'm fine if you read it, but you should be able to provide a cut card with clear indication of which parts you paraphrased upon request (you should be able to provide a cut card regardless of if you are paraphrasing or not).

Each card read must have author's last name (or publication name, if no author is listed) + year.

PF Specific

I evaluate the round primarily based on the flow.

I don't extend dropped arguments, and I expect that you extend your arguments correctly.

Speed is fine It's been a while since I've debated, I can still handle speed but not too fast ????.

There's a difference between a spirited debate and a rude one.

How you win my ballot

1. Weigh!

2. Collapse.

3. Extend correctly & drop strategically--I would rather hear a specific, coherent narrative in summ/ff than a slew of card names or broad statements. Focus on your strongest 1-2 link(s).

4. Signpost (tell me where you are on the flow).

Rebuttal

2nd rebuttal needs to respond to everything said in 1st rebuttal.

Weighing in rebuttal is always welcome.

There is no need to extend your case in rebuttal. If you have extra time, I would much rather hear weighing or responses.

Summary

Extend offense and defense, this means case, turns, responses.

I don't mind if you go down the flow or use voter issues. Just make sure to signpost where you are on the flow.

If you opponent drops a turn, feel free to go for it as a voter.

2nd summary is too late to introduce new evidence.

Collapse.

Final Focus

Should mirror summary.

Final comparative weighing.

Speaks:

Everyone starts at a 28 and goes up or down from there. I won't give 26 or lower unless you're rude or racist/sexist/homophobic etc.

I'll assign speaks being conscious of the division I'm judging in, i.e. my threshold for a novice 30 is lower than that for a jv 30.

Timing:

I will keep time for all speeches and also keep track of prep (force of habit). While I expect debaters to keep their own time, feel free to ask me how much prep time you have left.

I stop flowing 5-10s (max) after the speech ends and will indicate that your time is up.

Cross:

1st speaking team asks the first question. Ask for a follow-up if you want one. If your opponent is talking for ~30s and you want to ask a follow-up, politely interject.

Crossfires are unique in the round. I don't flow them, but I do listen. If you want to bring something up in the round, doing it in cross and making sure it is in speeches as well is a good strategy. Be nice and polite in cross!! We want people to continue this activity, not quit it because of rude crossfires.

Focus crossfires on asking and answering questions. If you're not answering a question, you should be asking one. I think "responding" to your opponent's answer just wastes time because cross is not on the flow. Save arguments for speeches. If you catch your opponent grandstanding, ask them “where’s the question?".

Be clever with your time; clarify what you need to clarify and use your questions to poke holes in your opponents' arguments.

Other Things

I will only call for evidence if the round depends on the card or if you specifically tell me to call it.

If there's no weighing I evaluate the round based on who accesses their argument the most clearly.

K's/non-topical arguments/theory/etc.

I will evaluate anything you put into the round. I’m not super experienced with all forms of progressive args, though.

Note for local tournaments: I’m less receptive to progressive args if you’re reading them against a team that’s significantly less experienced than you are.

Important Note, copied from my coach's (Cody Dorumsgaard) paradigm:

Debate is an educational activity. My goal as a judge is to pick the debater(s) who best argues their case. But I also am seeking a round that is educational. Abusive arguments and rhetoric have no place in debate. Treat each other with kindness. We are all here to learn and expand our knowledge and experience. Racist, sexist, ableist, homophobic, transphobic, xenophobic, etc. arguments should not be made. Everyone is welcome in the debate community, do not marginalize and silence folks with your argumentation.

Also, since debate is an education activity, feel free to ask me questions after the round. I'm here to help educate as well. As long as we have time before the next round has to start (and I've got enough time to submit my ballot so the tab room doesn't come looking for me), then I'm always happy to answer questions.

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 :)

Hi! I'm a Senior at Wayzata high school and a PF debater for 3 years. My pronouns are he/him.

How I vote:

I am a flow judge. Tech >> Truth unless the argument is just horrible.

I am truth in the sense that your argument must link to the resolution.

I'm tech in the fact that you should respond to every argument your opponent flows thru the round, including turns and delinks

Give me a way to vote, or I will choose magnitude (Unless you want that, but please still give me voters)

Collapsing is a good idea, so please use it so I can do less work to make a decision

Speed:

If you spread, I'm not voting for you. 3 contentions is enough.

I am fine with reasonable speed, but make it understandable for not only me, but your opponents.

Speaking points:

Stuttering won't affect your speaker points if you are able to push an argument thru

If I can't understand your arguments, I will lower your speaker points

Essentially, if your speech is clean and clear, you will get high speaks

Also, if you spin while giving a turn or use “goofy” in your speech, I will raise your speaker point by 0.5 :)

What I don't allow:

As an Bisexual Indian, I will not tolerate any homophobia or racism of any kind. Middle school has scarred me :)

No new args in 2nd summary

No theory for god's sake. Unless its a theory about pronoun misuse

No arguments that misquote evidence or don't actually link to the resolution

No misconstrued evidence.

Glad to be ur future judge :)

I am relatively new to judging, so avoid debate slang and excessive speed. If you are going to speak fast, enunciate. I would rather your simply things and over-explain then use slang or terms that are confusing.

Above all, be kind to one another, both in and out of round.

I weigh arguments based on the evidence presented in the round. I will assume the arguments and sources you tell me are fact until they are questioned by your opponents (tech over truth). I like roadmaps, and strong signposting.

Define your impacts, and make them obvious. Restate them through the round, and weigh them.

I am Scott Nesvold, a parent judge with two years of experience judging. Here's a breakdown of my judging paradigm:

1. Communication Style:
- Clear Speaking: I highly value debaters who articulate their arguments clearly and coherently. If I cannot understand your argument, it becomes challenging for me to evaluate it.
- Respectful Tone: Maintain a respectful and professional tone throughout the round. Rudeness or disrespectful behavior will not be rewarded.

2. Argumentation:
- Roadmaps: I appreciate debaters who provide clear roadmaps at the beginning of their speeches. A well-structured and organized speech will earn you points in my book.
- Signposting: Please make it easy for me to follow your arguments. Clear signposting allows for a smoother flow of the round and helps me in understanding the structure of your case.

3. Debating Style:
- Dislike of Spreading: I am not a fan of spreading. I will be more inclined to vote for debaters who prioritize clarity and depth over speed.
- Flowing Crossfire: I will be actively flowing crossfire, so make sure your points are clear and concise during this time.

4. Tech over Truth:
- I prioritize technical execution over the absolute truth of an argument. Effective weighing, clash, and strategic use of evidence will be crucial in winning my ballot.

Best of luck, and have a great debate!

Hi! I am a former debater for Eastview Highschool (MN) for four years

Add me to the email chain elisabeth314@icloud.com

PREFERENCES:

Evidence -Cite your evidence well, a full citation includes: the author's full name, date published, publication name, and any relevant qualifications the author might have. Saying Brown '20 tells me nothing about that person. Lack of proper citations will result in low speaks

Speed- I'm good with speed, however, that does not mean it is always strategic to go fast. If I can't understand you I can't vote for you.

Room set up -ah a relic of the pre-covid era, but one we should bring back! Pro please sit on the judge's left and con on the right, first speakers sit in the middle. Please stand when you speak too! Except for Grand cross.

Rebuttal-Signpost, sign post, sign post!!!! If you are doing a second rebuttal remember to address your case as well as your opponents.

Summary- No off-time roadmaps, just tell me where you are starting, time starts on your first word. Please condense the round into voters this makes it easier for everyone. Don't just extend cards by name, but by the entire idea in the card. Write my ballot for me, and tell me what the most important arguments are in the round!

Final focus - This should match your partner's summary and tell me exactly why I should vote for you. Focus on persuasion and big ideas here!

Cross-ex be a good human. Don't talk over one another, don't be rude, doing these will result in low speaks. Have fun!

Post round- I will not disclose, so please do not ask :) If you have questions about an argument or about debate in general feel free to ask me about it I am more than happy to answer!

Have fun- Most importantly everyone should be having fun! This is the point of debate to learn and have fun!

My speaks breakdown

30- Best at the tournament, you should win

29- Very good! I only have a few minor critiques.

28- Good!

27.5- Average speaker

27- Still need some work, if you say hedge at any point in the round. Pronounce the full wors

25 or below, you were rude in round

Hello! I'm Sofia, I debated four years of Public Forum for Blake and I am currently a first year at UChicago.

Please add these to the email chain: saperri@uchicago.edu,blakedocs@googlegroups.com

If you are a novice, scroll down to the bottom of my paradigm to the "for novices" section

HOW I JUDGE:

Tech > Truth. I will be flowing all your speeches and will make my decision based on the flow, with as little intervention as possible. If you want me to vote off something that happened in cross, you must bring it up in a speech. Evidence is super important; please read cut cards, and if your opponents ask you for evidence you must be able to send the fully cut card (not just a URL!) to the email chain. Keep track of your own prep time. In speeches, I'll stop flowing at 5 seconds over if you're finishing a thought but if you start a new response overtime I won't flow it. Don't be unnecessarily rude, I'll tank your speaks. I do love some snark tho; you don’t always have to be nice in debate. Racism/sexism/homophobia/ableism/etc will not be tolerated and will result in an auto L.

Please send speech docs with cut cards before your speech!!!!!

SUBSTANCE DEBATE TAKES I HAVE:

Defense is not sticky – you must extend all defense that you want to matter for my ballot, even if it was conceded, in the first summary. Additionally, second rebuttal has to frontline and objectively, from a strategic standpoint, should frontline before it attacks the opponent's case.

Weighing– make your weighing comparitive and warranted, and you must respond to your opponent's weighing and explain why yours is better. I cannot emphasize this enough. Weighing preferences: Say probability instead of strength of link. Saying you outweigh on probability because the argument was conceded is stupid- think of some real warrants. Outweighing on timeframe isn't just "our impact happens now, theirs happens in 10 years" - you need to implicate this claim, ie the solution to their impact doesn't have to be the aff (intervening actors solve). Tbh, I think metaweighing is stupid 99% of the time- a better strat when trying to win a weighing debate is to match all their mechs/respond to them, and use your extra mechanisms to "break the tie". Weighing should start in 2nd rebuttal and the last place where new weighing is ok is 1st final (already kinda cheeky– don't read 4 new mechs, it has to build off of summary's weighing)

Extensions – Extend uq/link/IL/impact of the argument you are going for. My link/impact extension threshold is relatively low, but warrants do still have to exist. I personally don't think you have to extend case in second rebuttal– extensions should start in the summaries. Additionally, you should never go for both contentions, or both links of one contention, it's a waste of your time. Go for one piece of case offense, and 1-2 pieces of turn offense. Or just go for turns

Framework– Framework is great when done correctly; otherwise, it's a massive waste of everyone's time. For example, DO NOT read cost-benefit analysis framework– framework is meant to frame your opponents out of the debate. Reading the implicit, universal rules of a debate round as your framework is not strategic at all. Additionally, if you are reading SV framework, you should probably make the the warrants for the framework specific to the group you are impacting to (women, indigenous people, etc). Otherwise, you allow the opponent to get away with some very sketchy link-ins which defeats the purpose of framework. PF is having this stupid trend of kids spending 15 seconds reading "fRamEwOrK" that essentially says "SV is bad, vote ___ to break the cycle"– this is not what good framework looks like. There should be several, smart warrants for why your framework is important as well as a clear ROTB with warrants as well.

Evidence comparison– do it. post-date, empirical, meta-study, greater sample size, etc. Please don't make me intervene when there's two competing claims/warrants just sitting there on the flow– evidence comparison is key in these scenarios.

Speed– When done well, I love it. I think it allows for more interesting, technical debates with more clash. However, if you can't spread, DON'T DO IT. I will not flow off your doc. Your speaker points will suffer. You can still win rounds with efficiency + good word economy; please please don't try to go fast if it sacrifices your clarity.

Off-time roadmaps– Most of the time these are goofy. Just tell me where you are starting and sign-post from there. If there are three sheets or more then please tell me the order of the sheets but that’s lowk it

PROGRESSIVE DEBATE TAKES I HAVE:

Theory

I default to competing interps, but essentially I'll just evaluate the flow (not much different than evaling a substance round)

Theory must be read in the speech right after the violation

Out of the shells you could read I will probably be most receptive to paraphrasing and disclosure theory, I have some experience reading these arguments, although not a ton– send the shell to the email chain before you read it. Also stop forgetting to extend drop the debater in the backhalf

PF doesn't seem to understand what an RVI is, so if you want to read a shell know that THIS IS WHAT I CONSIDER AN RVI: All we need to prove is that we don't violate to win this round (ie similar to winning off of defense). HOWEVER, if the responding team concedes no RVIs that DOES NOT MEAN THE SHELL IS CONCEDED. If the responding team wins offense on the shell (ie a counter-interp) they can still win the round. This argument is very simple and I don't understand why there is such confusion surrounding this issue. It's just like a normal round - if you win a turn on your opponent's case, that is a voting issue for you.

Some random preferences that may be useful to you: Don't read a para good counter-interp, I will not vote for frivolous theory, I'm generally skewed towards trigger warnings bad, I think round reports are ultra dumb

EDIT: Theory is done so poorly in PF 99.99% of the time and it's honestly painful to watch/endure sometimes. I cannot promise you your speaks won't be dookie if you read theory. That said, do what you need to do to win, but I would probably advise against reading theory in prelims if I'm your judge.

Kritiks

I have some experience reading and/or debating set col, security, fem, and cap, so those are for sure the three I would feel most confident evaluating. However, just generally run Ks at your own risk with me, I don't know much about most of the lit

Stop running Ks without an alt or reading very goofy alts– please read an actual alt that YOU UNDERSTAND + CAN EXPLAIN. If your opponent asks you "what is the alt" / "how does the alt solve for the harm" / "what is the role of the neg/aff in this debate", and you can't respond without opening your speech doc and word-vomiting policy backfiles, rethink the strat.

Similar to theory debates, I believe K debate extensions should be done off the doc - that’s what I did all throughout my career and I believe it makes things a lot more consistent. If you’re paraphrasing your ROTB and alt differently every speech it could potentially make you a moving target and make your argument a lot more vulnerable to responses. I feel like it also just makes the debate more efficient, especially if the argument is new to you.

IVIs

Literally just no

There are structures and mechanisms in place for you to deal with in-round abuses, DO NOT read a 10 second blip with horrific warranting and expect me to vote on it. Read theory or call a violation with tab

If you are going to read an IVI, I'll feel comfortable voting on any RVIs read against it + evaluate it through reasonability

FOR NOVICES:

TLDR: TO MASSIVELY INCREASE YOUR CHANCES OF WINNING THIS DEBATE, EXTEND ONE OF YOUR CONTENTIONS AND WEIGH IT. Like 70% of novice rounds are won by simply doing this.

Some things I would like to see in round:

1. Every speech after constructives must answer the speech that came before it. For example, in second rebuttal you must respond to the responses the other team put on your case (as well as respond to their case). Also,
"sticky defense" is not a thing- defense must be extended in first summary for it to matter.

2. Please weigh your arguments! Magnitude, probability, Prerequisite, etc. and give a reason why your argument outweighs. If you just say "we outweigh on magnitude" and move on without comparing the impacts and actually explaining why, I can't really evaluate it. Also, make sure to respond to your opponent's weighing, otherwise I'm forced to intervene.

3. In summary and final focus, extend the links/warrants/impact(s) of the arguments you're going for. If you just say "extend Russia" and don't explain what "Russia" is, I can't vote on it. My link/impact extension threshold is relatively low, but warrants+internal links do still have to exist.

4. Please narrow down the back half of the debate! Y'all should really only be going for one contention from case, and don't try to extend every response from rebuttal in summary/final focus. Choose a couple you think are the strongest and you are winning the most, and explain those+weigh them well. In summary you should probably be collapsing on 2-3 pieces of offense (arguments that give me a reason to vote for you, like case or turns) and in final focus you should probably be collapsing on 1-2.

5. Last speech where new arguments are okay is first final focus, and that's just for new weighing (and it should be building off of summary's weighing, not like 3 completely new mechs)

6. Please signpost, order, and label your arguments!!!

MISCELLANEOUS:

My goddesses: ELIZ and TRONK

stay clippin

Most importantly, don't stress and have fun! You got this :)

Currently the Congressional Coach at the Lakeville Debate Team

Congress-Specific Paradigm: I rank based on how well each student utilizes the 3 main canons of rhetoric (ethos, logos, pathos). Ethos is measured by how much you successfully engage in congressional role-playing. Logos is measured by how successfully you structure and present a logic-based argument. Pathos is measured by your overall speaking ability. I prioritize in the following order: argumentation > speaking skills > congressional role-playing.

Please note that strong speaking will never outweigh a poor or incoherent argument. This is a debate category, not speech.

To improve your ranking, I want to see extemporaneous speeches with well-warranted and linked arguments (CWI), regardless if it's a construction, rebuttal, or crystallization speech. Asking well-thought-out questions and responding successfully to questions will improve your rank. Showcasing a well-developed understanding of each bill will improve your rank, even if you don't speak on every bill. I am open to progressive debate, so bend/break the rules IF AND ONLY IF you have a legitimate reason to do so. I want to see clash in round, so don't just repeat what others have argued; instead, give me new information, ideas, whatever. Giving a speech to avoid breaking cycle will also raise your rank even if your speech is less prepped.

POs: Major mistakes WILL cost you. Small mistakes can be forgiven, especially if caught immediately and corrected, but continuous errors will lower your rank. The round relies on you, and judges will catch your precedence mistakes even if the chamber doesn't. I will only provide a high ranking to a successful and accurate PO.

PF/LD/Policy Paradigm

Experience: 4 years of PF in high school in Minnesota (2012-2016), 4 years of intercollegiate Ethics Bowl (2016-2020). I have a B.S. in communication arts (concentration in political rhetoric) and computer science from the University of Wisconsin-Madison. I've judged PF every year since 2016 and have experience judging Congress, Public Forum, Policy, and Ethics Bowl. I currently work in tech.

Speaking: I prefer clean, concise, and persuasive speech. This will affect the speaker points, but my preference will not interfere with who wins each round. I will do my best to keep up with spreading, but I am not as experienced. Any excessively rude remarks will seriously hurt your speaker points score. Be polite.

Argumentation: I will follow any theory or progressive-level argumentation presented to me, but again I am not as experienced with this so be as clear as possible. Be consistent, use warrants as needed, and provide strong links into impacts. I will not intervene on a weak link chain. I will intervene on poor/inaccurate evidence.

Judging: I attempt to come in with an open mind to the best of my ability. My choice depends on everything said during the round and nothing more. The winner of each round will be determined based on the framework provided to me, the best-substantiated framework if there is conflict, any progressive framework if argued, or a broad act utilitarian cost-benefit analysis as default. I will weigh the impacts of each side based on that framework and pick up the side that provides the best world. I advise extending your arguments consistently, engaging directly with your opponent's responses, and explaining why your arguments ultimately outweigh your opponent's.

I am happy to answer any questions or concerns and provide feedback as needed. Feel free to contact me at sarakrabon@gmail.com

Hello!

I can keep up with spreading and speed-reading, but you being clear and understandable to everyone will be factored into your speaker points.

Please do not use off-time road maps, signposting in-speech is how I flow best.

Civility in cross-fire is a must, and I value politeness when it comes to speaker points.

I am a senior experienced in Public Forum, Classic, and Policy styles and have judged middle school Policy for two years. So bring the debate verbiage and let's make this a good round!

Pronouns: she/they

Add me to the email chain: indigo.sabin@gmail.com

Pronouns: He/Him

Hey all! I did Debate for four years at Eagan Highschool, and am a current freshman in college. Feel free to ask me any and all questions before the round. I’m happy to disclose if the tournament allows, and I’m also happy to answer any questions regarding my decision. However, know that my decision will obviously not change after talking to me after round.

General stuff: I'm Tech>Truth, which means I will evaluate all arguments no matter the legitimacy of it. That doesn’t mean I want to though! I think the longer Im involved with debate, the more I’ve started to lean toward the truth side of things. This is mostly because I don’t want to vote off of a bad argument just because it's funny. I think it’s so much fun to write those cases, and use them when you’re out of then tournament or with your friends. But I also know that can be frustrating for some trying to take each round seriously, regardless of their position in the tournament. I will vote for these arguments if you win on the tech, but I don’t want to, and you’re going to have to do a lot of work to do that in the first place. If there is actually no clear offense on either side I vote neg on presumption, which is lame, but so is a lack of evidence. I’m not really worried about that though.

Aggression: I truly despise aggressive debaters within cross and if you are one of those people I will give you a 25. Please be nice to each other. Debate is a activity/game we play to further our learning, understanding, and argumentation, not to show that we are better or that our opponents are foolish for not acting the same as you.

How to win my ballot:I’m looking for clear and concise argumentation along with consistent and comparative weighing. Speed is fine, but clarity is key in terms of persuasiveness. I also ask if you are going fast that you’ll send a speech doc. Im a judge that likes to call cards, and if you’re going to go fast on top of that, I would prefer receiving speech docs. As I said earlier I will vote on just about anything, but I need to see strong warranting at every level of the link chain, and I need YOU to tell me why your case is better than the opponents. Basically whatever side will be the easiest and clearest path for me to vote, I’m going to take it. So I ask you make it easier for me, because messy debates are, well, a mess to deal with.

Weighing: I'm begging you to weigh. And start weighing ans early ans you can. Weighing in rebuttal has never hurt a team, and just creates a stronger narrative for your side, and why you should win. Weighing becomes one of the first things to be forgotten, which makes more work for me to do comparison for you. You really don't want that, because I am not going to look at your contention the same way you do, so tell me how to look at it!Otherwise I'm going to make a decision 50% of you don't love.

Back half: Please condense the flow within your Summary, I do not need every single argument I've heard this round within your summary. First summary is fine to bring up some brief evidence to block out the negatives rebuttal. After Second summary I will evaluate absolutely nothing that is new within any of these speeches. FF should just be a more concise summary that uses THE EXACT argumentation used within summary. I absolutely hate bringing up new arguments in final focus and just thinking about it now makes me sad.

Theory/Prog:I do and will evaluate theory, but I will not vote for any frivolous theory.

-I’m a paraphrasing hack, because evidence in debate is so atrocious. You need to have the evidence in your card verbatim, and you need to have cut cards, I’m begging you.

-I will vote on trigger warning theory if one hasn’t been provided. I’m not stingy on how this is done, you can give a trigger warning verbally, or through a google form. I really don’t care how the trigger warning is delivered, as long as both sides understand the content they’re going to hear.

-I like disclosure, but it’s not an auto-win if you’re in the pro disclosure side. I really don’t love judging disclosure but I will.

-I’m not the best judge to evaluate Ks but I will. It’s not my favorite debate, and I don’t really see much of a purpose. All arguments and experiences are valid, but there’s a time and a place for those to be argued for. I think since most people don’t have good answers to it, it becomes a tool used to win, rather than to highlight an issue within our community or world.

Speaker Points: 99% of the time I won't give you anything lower than a 27, unless you say something truly triggering, offensive, racist, sexist, or rude in any way. Tbh speaker points are pretty dumb, so I give relatively high speaks. I wouldn't worry about it as long as you're a half decent human being. But if you’re really looking for that 30, here’s what I’m looking for.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello, I'm Mark. I debated in PF and Congress for East Ridge, and have been judging since 2017.

If you read nothing else: be respectful to one another. You will not win if you are not kind.

I judge based on the evidence and arguments presented in the round. That means if your opponents argue that the sky is green, and you don't question them or their evidence, then the sky is green.

It is the job of every competitor in the room to keep the debate evidence-focused. If a team introduces evidence that is found to be outright falsified, the round ends in a loss for that team and a discussion between myself and their coach. It is every competitor's responsibility to ensure your teammates and your opponents are properly using evidence.

Things I like in debate:

- Clear frameworks. This is how I will vote, and usually means defining key parts of the resolution and presenting a weighing mechanism.
- Weighed impacts. How do your impacts stack up against your opponents'? Tell me explicitly, especially in summary and final focus.
- Organized arguments. Signpost. I can better keep track of organized arguments, helping you win.
- Critical thinking. Point out logical inconsistencies, make sure your opponents aren't misrepresenting evidence, etc.
- Unique arguments. As long as your evidence and logic are solid, these can be fun. Make sure they're in the scope of the resolution.

Things I don't like in debate:

- Non-topical arguments. Sometimes called "Kritics," these do not fly with me. You have a resolution, debate it.
- Shot-gunning evidence. One good source is always worth more than a dozen poor sources.
- Argument spreading. As above, one solid argument is always better than many shaky ones.
- Talking too fast. Slow down. There is no need to yell. If I can write down everything you say you'll be better off.
- New arguments after rebuttals. I may consider new evidence if you are asked for it, but brand-new arguments won't be considered.
- Falsifying evidence.

Feel free to ask me any questions you have before or after the round. We are here to grow and learn new skills.

Lastly, good luck and have fun :)

For Last Chance Qualifiers:

• Start the chain as soon as possible. My email is further down
• I'm tired. It's the end of the year. Please don't just blip through your prewritten extensions in summary without contextualizing anything, that would make me sad. This is also my first tournament judging this topic so don't expect me to understand everything if you speed read through complex arguments. You do yourself a favor by slowing down on the arguments that take our your opponents
• Rebuttal is the time to go silly with your 500 turns case args, but I will not be happy if you extend all into the Summary. Just go for the one that was undercovered and impact it out
• Pet peeve: While I've been helping my team prep, I don't know all the acronyms and won't be looking up any that I don't understand. If it's never clarified what an acryonym stands for, sorry but I can't vote for it
• Go crazy with the impacts but don't expect me to vote for you just because you mentioned nuke war. If I can't follow the link chain then I won't vote for it
• Please don't prep steal. Keep your camera on when your opponent is sending over evidence and keep your hands in view. This was one of the most frustrating things for me when I was debating, and Iwill penalize teams who don't adhere to this. Send speech docs before every speech so that this doesn't happen
• I'm cool with Ks but I'm not super familiar with the literature - so go slow and explain it. If I don't understand it I won't vote for it
• Theory is good and creates good norms. If people didn't lose on disclosure theory then they wouldn't disclose. If people didn't lose on paraphrasing theory they would paraphrase. While I'll do my best to be tab on these topics, just know that I strongly believe in disclosure and am very against paraphrasing. That being said, I won't be happy if you read an OS vs first three-last three disclosure shell, good is good enough

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Tech > Truth. Win on the flow, that's all. Debate is a game, make crazy choices and you'll be rewarded if done well. I don't care much about cross, it won't play a role in my decision unless brought up in a speech. Anything you say after your timer runs out, even if it's a second over, will not be on my flow

Making the round unique/interesting will be rewarded with speaks

You can assume I'm ready, you don't need to ask

Please don't give me an off-time roadmap - just signpost

I'll disclose if both teams want to hear it

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Hey! I debated in PF for five years, and now I coach for Eagan High School and go to Macalester College

Add me to any evidence exchanges: lsalonga@macalester.edu

I'm currently debating in collegiate policy and I am pretty bad at it lol- but at least I have a sense of the more technical args

If you ask me if I want to be on the email chain I'm docking a speak because it told me you didn't look at my paradigm

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________

This is how I used to judge a couple years ago, most of it still stands

This is how my partner judges, he's more in-depth than me

I'll disclose if I'm allowed to. Post-Round me if you feel like it, because I'm definitely not a perfect judge

For Novices/JVers:

- Please don't be mean to each other! It's just a local tournament, you don't need to act like this round defines you. Y'all should have fun :)

(Trust me when I say that I understand if the team is being frustrating. If they're being frustrating, it'll factor in their speaks)

- I don't need you to extend card names in Summary/FF, but the entirety of your argument (uniqueness, links, impact, etc.) needs to be in Summary and Final Focus for me to consider it. If you can walk me through how affirming or negating leads to something good/bad, I will be very very happy

(P.S. : Please ask me questions about any part of my paradigm if you're confused)

For Varsity:

I just want to make it clear that "our coach didn't teach us" isn't really a valid excuse when you're hit with progressive arguments. There's an abundance amount of online resources on learning progressive debate. Like this!!

- Tech > Truth (I don't care about how good you persuade me or how much I believe your argument is true)

- Cut Cards > Paraphrasing (If you paraphrase and your opponents call you out on it and tell me why that's unfair, I'm going to vote on that unless you can defend paraphrasing)

- Anything dropped in second rebuttal is conceded

- Idc about speed, go fast if you want, but send out speech docs if you're gonna go fast

- If you take more than 30 seconds to pull up a card, I'm running your prep. I'll also be timing every speech, and even if you're a second over I'm not flowing anything you say

- Substance > theory (I'll hack for disclosure and paraphrasing theory)

- CI > Reasonability (but willing to be convinced otherwise)

I am a head debate coach at East Ridge High School in Minnesota with 10 years of debate under my belt and 15+ years of speech coaching / judging experience as well. I love both activities, and I love seeing creative / unique approaches to them. I've sent several students to Nationals in both speech and debate categories for the past several years.

In 'real life' I'm an intellectual property attorney. I love good arguments in all types of debate. But I will NOT make logic jumps for you. You need to do the legwork and lay out the argument for me, step by step. I LOVE legal arguments, but most of all I love a good Story. Frame your arguments for me. Make the impacts CLEAR. (e.g. in PF / LD - WEIGH them.) Tell me how and why to write my ballot for you and I probably will!

Voting Values
I vote on topicality in any type of debate that I judge. If your arguments are non-topical, and you get called on it, they will be struck from my flow. Everyone got the same resolution / bills, that's what I want to hear arguments about.

I am NOT a fan of Kritiks - you got the resolution ahead of time. Debate it.

SPEED

THIS IS A COMMUNICATION ACTIVITY. Your goal is to effectively communicate your arguments to me. If you are talking too fast to be intelligible, you are not effectively communicating.

If you make my hand cramp taking notes, I'll be crabby. I am a visual person and my notes are how I will judge the round. If I miss an argument because you were talking at light speed, that's your fault, not mine! :)

Attitude / Aggressiveness

100%, above all, you are human beings and citizens of the world. I expect you to act like it. I HATE rudeness or offensive behavior in any debate format. Be kind, be inclusive. By all means, be aggressive, but don't be rude.

Public Forum: I am a huge framework fan. You have the evidence, frame the story for me. If you give me a framework and explain why, under that framework, your evidence means I vote for you, I will. Don't make me do summersaults to get to a decision. If only one team gives me a framework, that's what I'll use.

Re: Summary / FF - I expect the debate to condense in the summary / final focus - and I expect you to condense the story accordingly. Look for places to cross-apply. I do need arguments to extend through every speech to vote for them - but I do not expect you to reiterate all evidence / analysis. Summarizing and weighing is fine for me.
WEIGH arguments for me. Especially if we're talking apples and oranges - are we comparing money to lives? Is there a Risk-Magnitude question I should be considering?

Re: new arguments in GC/FF - I won't weigh new ARGUMENTS, but I will consider new EVIDENCE / extensions.

Re: Argument / Style - I'm here to weigh your arguments. Style is only important to the extent you are understandable.

I generally don't buy nuclear war arguments. I don't believe any rational actor gets to nuclear war. I'll give you nuclear miscalc or accident, but it's a HIGH burden to convince me two heads of state will launch multiple warheads on purpose.

Lincoln-Douglas: If you give me a V/C pairing, I expect you to tie your arguments back to them. If your arguments don't tie back to your own V/C, I won't understand their purpose. This is a values debate. Justify the value that you choose, and then explain why your points best support your value.

Congress: This is debate. Beautiful speeches, alone, belong in Speech categories. I expect to see that you can speak well, but I am not thrilled to listen to the same argument presented three times. I expect to see clash, I expect to see good Q&A. I love good rebuttal / crystallization speeches.

I DO rank successful POs - without good POs, there is no good Congressional Debate. If you PO well in front of me, you will be ranked well.

World Schools: This actually is my favorite form of debate. I want to see respectful debate, good use of POIs, and organized content. I've judge WSD at Nationals for the last several years and I do adhere to the WSD norms. Please do not give me "regular debate" speed - I want understandable, clear speeches.

I am open to many styles of debate, but lets be clear, if you speak so fast that I am not able to register your various points or process them together as a cogent argument then I am unable to award points- slow down.

He/Him/His

Marcosciamanda@gmail.com

I’m a senior at Lakeville North and have competed in Public Forum since 2018. I haven't done much judging or debating this year, but I'll do my best to make the most correct technical decision in every round.

General:

Debate is a game.

Tech>Truth, but all claims need warrants.

Speed won’t be an issue for me, but be clear, signpost, and be responsive to your opponent’s requests to slow/clear.

Evidence:

Bad evidence ethics (i.e. misconstruing or falsifying evidence) isn't fair and will lose any team the round.

Cut cards are a must, paraphrasing often leads to false representations of evidence.

Email chains > google docs/any other method of evidence exchange.

Teams that send full speech docs will be rewarded with substantially higher speaker points.

PF paradigm:

I will vote for the team with the best link in to the best-weighed impact.

Frontline in second rebuttal. Any argument not responded to in second rebuttal is considered dropped.

Defense isn’t sticky. If you want to talk about it in final focus, it should be in summary.

Collapse to one uniqueness argument, one link, and one impact. There are exceptions to this rule but generally going for fewer arguments while warranting them out more is a better strategy.

Similarly, choose 1-2 best arguments on their side to collapse on. Warrant the argument, respond to frontlines, and explain why it means you win the argument.

Comparative weighing is super important. If you win the weighing and have a risk of offense, I’ll almost certainly vote for you. Meta-weighing is necessary if you and your opponent are using two different weighing mechanisms.

Progressive Arguments:

I don't have a ton of experience with progressive arguments, but I have a basic understanding of their functions and structure.

A few comments:

1) Theory should be used to check abuse. The bar to respond to frivolous theory is low. I support disclosure and the reading of cut cards, although this doesn't mean I'm a hack for disclosure/para shells.

2) I don't think public forum is the ideal format for Kritiks because speech times are too short. I'll still do my best to evaluate them.

Coached by these people (I agree with these debate views):

Maddie Cook

Bryce Piotrowski

Be logical. Be clear. Solidify your statement with proof and evidence.

High speaker points will be awarded for exceptional speech skills, creativity, and margin of victory.

EDEN PRAIRE TOURNEY: This is the first tournament I've judged on this topic, so it might be beneficial for you to do a bit more explaining/warranting than you would for a judge who is seasoned on this topic. (Dw though I can catch on pretty fast.)

Hey guys! I'm a former PF debater and I'm currently studying political science at the U of M.

Tech>Truth HOWEVER don't lie, I won't vote for "the sky is green" BUT POINT OUT THE TECHNICALITIES!

- I can handle any speed, but I’ll get a bit annoyed if you have to send a speech doc.

- I love a good narrative, tell me the story of your argument! Warrant it well.

- Frontline in 2nd rebuttal/1st summary

- If it's in FF it has to be in summary

- Defense isn’t sticky

- Please collapse, spreading 500 contentions in a summary is not fun and doesn't help you.

Ks/Trix/Theory: I hate prog debate, It's not actually "setting good norms" it's just a cheap win. If you run this at a local tourney I will drop you. At a circuit, I’ll evaluate it, HOWEVER, run it at your own risk. You better be really good at it.

- Please don't call it a disad if it's not a disad.

- If you can prove (screenshots, doc history, etc.) that the other team is cheating, I will drop them.

- I was a debater myself, so I know all the tricks in the book on how to steal prep time and stall on finding cards. I will catch on!

- I'm a pretty understanding person, so if your computer dies, or you have a random coughing fit in the middle of your speech, don't worry, we're all human :)

- If you are mansplaining, your RFD will make you cry just saying...

- I love jokes and wholesome, funny crossfires, etc. so if you all make that happen everyone is getting 30s.

- If you think I judge screwed you, tell me: lilyspaulding@gmail.com

Framework: I default CBA but if you give another framework- uncontested- I will use it in my decision.

Case:

• I love wacky contentions, so go for it!

• I don’t care how you cite your cards, I normally do “Spaulding '22”

Crossfire:

• I do not evaluate cross in my decision

• Cross skills probably will reflect in your speaks

• If someone makes a concession I won’t evaluate it UNLESS YOU BRING IT UP IN YOUR NEXT SPEECH

• Be as aggressive as you want just don't cross the line to being rude

Rebuttal:

• Neg rebuttal must frontline

• Cards should be read for sources unless they’re analytic

• Please signpost and tell me which side of the flow I’m on

• WARRANT YOUR RESPONSES

• IMPLICATE YOUR TURNS

Summary:

• You can give MN or a line by line I don’t care

• You should be weighing

• Tell me why you won your arguments

• No new stuff in neg summary

• I love summaries so don’t mess this up…. Jk

Final Focus:

• Condensed summary

• If you didn’t weigh in summary you should weigh here

• Things can completely flip in final focus, so don't blow it off (even if you think you're losing!)

PLEASE WEIGH I'M BEGGING YOU IF YOU WEIGH PROPERLY AND THE OTHER TEAM DOESN’T THE ODDS ARE LOOKING PRETTY GOOD FOR YOU!

If you show me that your case is in Comic Sans, you will get +0.5 speaks.

If you're racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. I will drop you on the spot and also contact your coaches.

Hi! FYO from Blake – did PF for 4 years and Worlds Schools for 3 years

Tldr: tech > truth, weigh, have good evidence.

Put me on the email chain: blakedocs@googlegroups.com

General

If neither teams extend, absent evidence questions, I will presume for the first speaking team – it feels less biased than arbitrarily picking certain skills or behaviors to award.

You can't clear your opponents – they are not obligated to adapt to you. Debaters are free to do whatever they think is most strategic to win the round, whether or not their arguments are comprehensible is up to the judge to decide.

You don't have to ask me to take prep time – just do it plz :/

Things that aren't debatable

Wins + Losses – at the end of the round I will vote for one of the teams.

Speech Times – see NSDA rules

Rebuttal thoughts

Frontline in second rebuttal – if you don't, the first reb is conceded and I will consider any later responses new and won't evaluate.

It seems like some rebuttals like to dump a bunch of blippy and under-warranted analytical responses. If an argument doesn’t have a warrant, I can’t evaluate it – point this out to me and you'll have a much easier job frontlining/backlining.

Defense maybe sticky

Defense isn't sticky if you're using opponent's defense to kick a turn. You can't concede new defense to kick out of turns after your first speech to respond. For example, if someone reads a turn in rebuttal, you frontline it in second rebuttal and it is extended in first summary, you cannot concede defense to kick out of it in second summary. This is true EVEN IF there was defense read that takes out the turn.

Defense isn't sticky if it is poorly responded to but not extended. For example, if someone frontlines their C1 but misses a delink, I won't eval the delink unless it is extended.

Defense is sticky if contention is not addressed at all. If you don’t frontline a contention in second rebuttal, you cannot extend that contention in later speeches, even if the other team doesn’t extend defense to it.

Extensions

Extend Warrants. (saying "Extend the links" doesn't count)

Please collapse the debate in the back half! Ideally, you'll be going for at most 2-3 pieces of offense in summary and 1-2 pieces of offense in final focus

Weighing

Please weigh + answer your opponent's weighing mechs + compare your weighing mechanisms (i.e. metaweighing). I evaluate the weighing debate first, so if you want to pick up my ballot, you should focus your efforts here during the back half.

I won't evaluate new weighing in second final focus, and I generally won't in first final focus. However, I'm a bit more lenient for elaborating on weighing done in first summary in first final focus, just don't read like 3 new weighing mechanisms.

I’ll time speeches. I don’t really care if you go 5-10 seconds over finishing up a response, but I won’t evaluate responses that are started after time is up.

Evidence

Send speech docs. I will boost speaks by .5 for case and rebuttal docs getting sent out.

Please send cut cards! I will cap speaks at 27s if you fail to provide the paragraph that you paraphrase from.

I will only call for evidence a) if I can't vote based on arguments made in round b) someone asks me to call for it. If you paraphrase and the evidence I get is shockingly bad, I will be mad >:(

Progressive arguments

stay clippin

jk don't actually clip – it's against the rules!

I'm going to list my beliefs on theory here, because I think that when it comes to arguments about norm-setting for the activity, my obligation to be "tech" comes second to my obligation to promote education. What this means in practice is that in close theory rounds, I am likely to pick up the team whose practices/behavior aligns with what I believe is good for debate. That said, I'm still willing to listen to theory debates and if the round is an absolute smack down I won't intervene against theory shells I think are unnecessary but not harmful.

paraphrasing is bad. Para good warrants are balls and my threshold for responding to them is quite low.

disclosure is good. OS (tagged and highlighted ev) >>>>>>> full text (no tags or highlights) > first three last three (read OS interps! disclosure nowdays is kinda egregious)

TWs for non-graphic descriptions of violence r bad – the idea that marginalized groups have to ask for permission to talk about oppression, even when their arguments are edited and censored to be non-graphic, is not slay. That said, if you want to run TWs good I will evaluate it and won't intervene against it – again, I'm listing my beliefs here so you're not surprised how my ballot turns out in close/messy rounds.

round reports r unnecessary but I'm willing to eval the theory.

I default to competing interps (risk offense means I'll probably vote on a shell if there's no counter-interp). However, I am sympathetic to reasonability arguments if they are made in round.

Don't push it with theory, I will try my best to be open-minded and not intervene against silly interps (round reports cough cough) but the more you get into the shoes theory, 30 speaker point theory, etc side of things the more likely I am to not evaluate it. Even then, I dislike the trend in the circuit towards weaponizing evidence rules/disclosure practices to punish teams with good practices – to me, there is a qualitative difference between reading disclosure on a team who doesn't disclose and reading open sources on a team who does first three last three. Again, I'm not going to intervene on face if you're reading theory in this vein, just don't go too far down this rabbit hole.

RVIs to para or disco are domeless. I vibe with RVIs: 1) if you're running a ROTB about topical discourse 2) If the theory is obviously friv

I know the very basics of cap and security Ks, if you run anything beyond that make sure to send docs and explain it clearly.

Misc

Time your own prep.

Don't say offensive things! (your classic -isms) If something makes you feel uncomfortable/unsafe in round, please email me or send me a message on Facebook messenger(Elizabeth Terveen)!

People that have informed my thoughts on debate: SOFA and TRONK

Have fun!

Minnesota parent judge. Be respectful. Sometimes I have difficulty following debaters during their speeches. Therefore, for both your initial speeches and your rebuttals, please send documents with what you read to edinadocs1@gmail.com so I can follow along.

Debated for 3 years on Minnesota and National Circuit for East Ridge High School.

Add me to the email chain if you want: kellyyang429@gmail.com

TLDR: flow/flay judge, the Second rebuttal has to be frontline, signpost everything, I don’t evaluate cross unless you tell me to, Weigh impacts, please collapse, and I prefer line-by-line rebuttals and summaries.

Public Forum

General

• I consider myself a flow judge, but try to chill out because flow rounds tend to be super messy.
• Tech over truth.
• Speed: Try not to spread, I prefer narrative over information.
• I will time, however if you go over, I will not consider anything said over 10 seconds.
• Off-time roadmaps are fine.
• Try to use all the time in your speeches

Constructive

• Try not to go over time too much
• Make sure your case has a clear narrative
• Wacky and weird arguments are encouraged!!

Rebuttal

• I prefer you don’t go back to your case, just weigh at that point or just end the speech.
• Second Rebuttal HAS TO FRONTLINE. It is essential that you rebuild your case.
• Front lines need impacts, treat like they are a contention!!
• PLEASE signpost

Summary

• I PREFER line-by-line summaries, however, I’m fine with voters (try not to do voters)
• Please collapse and condense the round
• Try not to extend in ink, that’s really messy and honestly a really bad habit
• Extend case and crucial defense
• WEIGH YOUR IMPACTS - if you do not weight, I have nothing to go off on

Crossfire in general

• I won’t evaluate anything said in cross unless you bring it up in the next speech
• I love aggressive cx, but try to be respectful too. Respect over aggression.
• I will not vote for a team that is disrespectful during the round.

Final Focus

• Try to follow the structure that was given in summary or else it becomes hard to flow on my end
• WEIGH YOUR IMPACTS
• If it wasn’t in summary, I will not consider it in FF

Evidence

• Don’t misconstrue evidence
• Call for cards if you want, but also send them to me if you do
• I usually won’t weigh evidence into the decision, but if it is critical to the round I will call for it
• Email chains, are better during rounds as it prevents confusion between opponents.

Other

• I’ll disclose if both teams want me to and if the people tabbing allow me to

• Progressive debate (K’s and Theory). Don’t run it for the sake of running it, unless it’s absolutely necessary to the integrity of the round. Additionally, I don’t know much about progressive debate. (Basically, don’t run it in front of me)
• For speaker points, just keep the round clean and I will usually default to 27-28 and 28-29 for the losing and winning team, unless you commit something super egregious or if you’re an amazing speaker.
• I’ll consider giving you and your partner 30s if you say a GOOD joke in your speech.
• I will drop you if you say “Judge, this round boils down to”....jk
• If you made it this far, congrats??
• Anyways, have fun and good luck!!
• Moreover, have fun, don’t focus too much on how well you will place. Drop a joke, and call me Kandy in one of your speeches and I’ll know you read my paradigm.

Hello !

This is my second year as a parent Judge. I am a lay judge that will vote for the team presenting me strong arguments supported by accurate, convincing and relevant evidence and outweighing the impacts

1. I would prefer you state a source with more information while reading cards. For example: John Apple reports from the brooking institute in 2022, instead of Apple 22, this way it gives your source credibility and I will know that it is not from some random angry Reddit user’s post.

1. Please speak at a reasonable pace. Remember, this is not a speed reading competition. ABSOLUTELY NO SPREADING. If I get lost in your speech because you're reading too fast, I won't be able to judge your case fairly.

2. Please be mindful of the time limit. If you are 5 seconds over the time limit, I will stop to flow your speech.

PLEASE NO RUNNING THEORY, KRITIKS OR FRAMEWORK I will immediately Vote against you.

Above all else, PLEASE TREAT YOUR OPPONENTS AND JUDGE WITH RESPECT.

I am excited to be your judge and I can’t wait to listen to your debate. Best of luck to both teams!