im a parent/lay judge

if u present theory u will receive a big discount

not good with speed

make sure to time yourself

summary final focus important

if there are any other questions, ask me in round

UPDATED January 2024:

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

Generally:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Specific arguments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Qualification: I've competed in Speech and Debate for approximately six to seven years and have coaching and judging experience before and after my High School years. Most of my debating experience comes from Public Forum but I do have some involvement in World Style, CNDF, and British Parliamentary.

Judging Paradigm:

1. Speed is not a huge issue for me, but be considerate to everyone in the round so that contention taglines and pieces of evidence are clearly presented. (Be extra clear with presenting your contention taglines and refutation titles)

2. I will be flowing throughout the whole round, but refutations and reconstructions should be extended to the summary and final focus speeches. If contentions or refutations are dropped somewhere during the round, make sure to mention this in one of the speeches.

3. Summary and Final Focus speeches are the most important speeches in relation to making my decision at the end of the round. This also means that the team that can weigh-out arguments and present voter issues most effectively will most likely win the round.

4. Only have a framework if you are going to use it throughout the round.

5. Don't be rude.

Hi, I'm Chloe! I am currently a PF debater. Add me to the email chain: chloe.k.cwc@gmail.com

Here are a couple of my preferences for rounds:

Do

WEIGHING. Please weigh. It is so important, I will be so sad if you do not weigh

Extend. If you want me to vote for an argument you have to extend it !!

Frontline in second rebuttal. If you don't have enough time at least frontline offense

Signposting !!!!

Collapse to one argument, it makes your and my life so much easier

Turn your camera on and breakdance to heavy metal music for +0.7 speaks

Don't do

Goes without saying but don't be rude, overly cocky, racist, homophobic, etc. It will not be tolerated.

No new arguments in FF

"hOnoRaBLe JuDge"

Theory or Ks, I'm not comfortable with them

Other

I don't flow cross; if there was something important, then you should explicitly mention it in your speech

I know I said not to spread, but I am okay with speed (as long as you're clear)

Follow my instagram @chloe.yskang for +0.5 speaks ;))

tl;dr: I am a flay judge who votes on 1) weighing and 2) clean narrative and analysis.

--

Below is my detailed paradigm:

• I prefer clearly articulated arguments with logical links, warrants, and impacts.

• I will not have the same level of understanding of the topic as you do, so don't expect me to catch everything if you're rapid-fire-spitting content. I prefer you speak more conversationally and keep the event a "public" forum. The faster you speak, the more likely I am to miss content.

• Repetition is key to understanding. Make sure you're extending points you want me to vote on until the final focus.

• Weigh impacts and links through direct comparison. Tell me why your impacts are more significant and why your links are clearer and stronger than your opponent's. The clearer, the better and the more likely I am to vote for you.

• Please do not read theory, Kritik, or other progressive arguments. I have a shallow understanding and won't make a good decision should I evaluate them.

• Please read content warnings or have an opt-out form for sensitive topics and ask if the opposing team is okay with you reading the argument. You must have an alternate case if they aren't. I have the right to drop you if I think you're making the round an unsafe space.

Experience

I have competed in varsity PF and have 4 years of experience. Additionally, I've done other debate formats like CNDF and BP. I have a couple of bids and have qualified to the TOC for 3 years. Add me to the email chain: Hannahxu0320@gmail.com

Stuff

• Will vote tech > truth (to some extent)
• Won't evaluate anything in crossfire unless brought up in a speech.
• Frontline in 2nd rebuttal.
• Won't call for evidence unless you tell me I should. Nevertheless, cite your cards, and don't use sketch evidence.
• I'm open to Ks but not a fan of theory. I’ll evaluate theory if there is an actual rule break, but no friv. I don't want to hear anything disclo related (I debated for a small school :)
• I will only vote on stuff extended in the summary and final focus.
• Weighing >
• Signpost, please.
• Don't go for everything. Collapse on something.
• I'm fine with speed, as long as you are audible.
• Warrant your arguments and extend your entire link chain.
• Time yourself. I will give 10 seconds of grace time, but anything beyond that, I will not flow it.
• If you are rude, I will not hesitate to dock your speaks.

I am okay with speed but don't go too fast

I weigh on the arguments that are strong and get cleanly extended

I won't weigh on some shady arguments without good evidence backing them up

Please state your taglines for each contention clearly.

I don't flow crossfire, so make sure you mention all your points/ideas during your speeches

I'll give extra points if u shut down your opponents but not in a bad/rude way