Hey!

I'm Kaeshev (he/him) I've debated for 4 years at Cary Academy, and I'm now a senior.

My goal for judging is to not be the villian of your debate tournament; however, all good heroes need an opposition, something to, against all odds, overcome. I'm probably not going to be that.

Some notes on how I judge:

Framework, remember the purpose of the framework, to provide focus and value to impacts.

I really enjoy the speaking aspect of debate, so try to make your arguments clear and cohesive through good narrative flow and effective language. As long as you are coherent, speaking won't cost or win you a round.

Cards are important, but please do make clear what argument they support and why it matters.

Respect stands alone, at the pinnacle of all achievement, without respect towards me and your opponent, I cannot respect your speaker points, or your hollow victories.

Bonus points (justify a bonus point in post round if you so please):

+speaks if you say a word I don't yet know of.

+speaks if you give me a joke that I like enough to add to my paradigm

Lastly, for your viewing pleasure, the collection of jokes deemed worthy, beginning with number 10 from the hallowed Jokes for Intellectuals page:

"10. Entropy just isn't what it used to be."

Retired physician, parent judge. Appreciate a quote or beautiful rhetoric when used to open a construct and grab the listener. Appreciate ability to distill the best arguments, clearly spoken, over pure speed of speech in concluding remarks.

Coach for 20 years- judged all events. Important- link of claims back to value structure, moderate speaking pace is very much appreciated. I flow rounds and use the flow to guide my decision but do not drop debaters just for not extending all arguments cleanly. I like to hear logical fallacies called out as much as I like to hear logic employed in a round.

I'm Anna (she/her). I’m a sophmore at Brown University. I coach PF for Durham where I debated from 2018-2021.

Add me to the chain: anna.brent-levenstein@da.org

TLDR:

At the end of the day, I’ll vote off the flow. Read whatever arguments, weighing, framework etc. you want. That being said, I don’t like blippy debate. Don’t skimp on warranting. If your argument doesn’t have a warrant the first time it’s read, I won’t vote off of it. I am especially persuaded by teams that have a strong narrative in the back half or a clear offensive strategy.

Specifics:

1. I always look to weighing first when I make a decision. If you are winning weighing on an argument and offense off of it, you have my ballot. That said, it must be actual comparative, well-warranted weighing not just a collection of buzzwords(e.g. we outweigh on probability because our argument is more probable is not weighing). Prereqs, link ins, short circuits etc. are the best pieces of weighing you can read.

2. Collapse and extend. I'm not voting off of a 5 sec extension of a half fleshed out turn. It will better serve you to spend your time in the back half extending, front-lining, and weighing one or two arguments well than 5 arguments poorly.

3. Implicate defense, especially in the back half. If it is terminal, tell me that. If it mitigates offense so much that their impacts aren't weighable, tell me that. Otherwise, I'm going to be more likely to vote on risk of offense arguments. Impact out and weigh turns.

4. I will evaluate theory/Ks/progressive args. When reading Ks, please make my role as a judge/the ROB as explicit as possible. Additionally, please know the literature well and explain your authors' positions as thoroughly and accessibly as possible. I see theory as a way to check back against serious abuse and/or protect safety in rounds. I will evaluate paraphrase and disclosure theory but find that the debates are generally boring so I won't be thrilled watching them.

I won't tolerate discriminatory behavior of any kind. Read content warnings with anonymous opt outs. Respect your opponents and their pronouns.

Finally, I really appreciate humor and wit. Making me laugh or smile will give you a really good chance at high speaker points.

If you have any questions feel free to ask me before round. I will disclose and give feedback after the round.

My daughter started Lincoln Douglas debate last year and I am a parent judge. I prefer when you speak at a pace in which is understandable and complex arguments are welcome as long as they make sense and are backed with reasonable evidence. I do not appreciate "spreading" as it makes it hard to understand your arguments when speaking at an incredibly fast pace. Philosophies are very interesting, please just define them beforehand and clearly state how it ties in with your case to make it easier for me to understand. Thank you!

Hello, I'm Manisha Chauhan-Patel, a parent judge looking forward to hearing about the upcoming Speech & Debate Tournament.

When judging, I'm looking for clear messages and persuasive information that justifies your side of the argument. I would especially like you to be polite when addressing each other and be timely in your responses.

Fast talking (spreading) is not going to cut it, I would like you to speak openly and succinctly about the subject matter.

I will base your points on the following:

> professionalism

> research

> attitude

> arguments for/against

> empathetic

I'm keen to hear your side of the argument and will do my best to judge transparently as possible. Good luck!

I have been the sponsor of the Speech and Debate Team at Apex Friendship High School for the last eight years. This is my eighth year judging. I have taught English for 20 years and Speech for five.

1. Framework is critical. If you don't connect your evidence to your framework, you haven't succeeded.

2. Do not spread--I value quality over quantity.

3. I value strong CX skills--being able to think on your feet and attack an opponent's case is key to winning the round.

4. Civil discourse is expected.

Benjamin Franklin High School

Tulane University

Current Conflicts: Durham Academy

Email: SeanFaheyLD@gmail.com (please put me on email chains and feel free to email me questions)

September 2022 Update (Read if you're a traditional debater): How exciting to be back in person! Some notes on lay debate in front of me. I am open-minded in terms of how you approach these debates as long as it does not come at an unfair expense to your opponent (ex: spreading against competitors who do not want to). Please be respectful of each other. I think about traditional LD fairly linearly - win offense underneath whatever framework is winning in the round. Whether that means conceding your opponents framework and going for turns or having an elaborate framework debate, all that matters to me is whether you outweigh under the winning framework. Cases without a criterion are very hard to evaluate unless you contextualize your offense to your opponents standard. I don't see much value in the value debate (no pun intended) other than using the value as an additional reason to prefer a certain criterion. I will listen to lay theory arguments, such as 'no counterplans', but, if you want to win on this argument, you need to articulate the theoretical argument as a voting issue and why (fairness/education/etc.). I appreciate thoroughly extended impacts and clear, decisive weighing. Also - with peace and love - please don't try to shake my hand, we just got out of a big pandemic. Have fun and debate your best!

I debated for 4 years at Benjamin Franklin High School in New Orleans, LA. I competed at the TOC twice and got to finals of the CFL National Tournament my senior year. I've taught at the Victory Briefs Institute and The Debate Intensive.

I read all styles of arguments at some point in time, but mostly read critical theory. That said, I’m open to all styles of argumentation and speed (I will state clear as needed). I like in-depth debates that emphasize critical and comparative handling of evidence/nuanced arguments. Simply reading a card is not really a full argument to me; rebuttals need to have a clear, full extension of arguments presented in your evidence. I don't have much lenience in evaluating extensions that are just the tagline and author. This should also flag that I’m not a huge fan of blippy styles of argumentation and, while debate is a competitive activity, I’d rather evaluate a more scholastic engagement of ideas.

I decide based on the flow, but everyone says that and it kinda means nothing. That said, I view myself as an educator and, as such, I don’t allow hateful/violent discourse and I will reflect that with my ballot/RFD.

I usually flow CX. I like well-used CX time.

Please slow down for plan texts, CP texts, theory interpretations, perm texts, or anything that has precise value in its wording.

Little blurb on disclosure+debating politely:

I think open source disclosure is a very good thing and I regard most attempts to avoid this norm as unpersuasive. That said, I have voted against disclosure theory many times on impact turns to fairness or transparency, given those arguments are won on the flow, of course. I think reading disclosure theory against debaters clearly out of the national circuit loop is pretty unkind and often voids engagement, so please don’t. That said, I think reading disclosure theory against novices/early varsity members of large programs on the wiki is acceptable because their coaches should tell them to do so/do so for them (especially if the rest of the team discloses) and sometimes these debates are the only way for people to learn.

In the same vein as my policy on disclosure theory, please do not spread out debaters who clearly can not spread. You can still win this way because I won't intervene, but I will dock your speaks because I think it's rude. Please be considerate and inclusive.

Little blurb on theoretical presumptions:

In the past I have said what I default to in terms of paradigms for theory and framework, but I’ve come to view this norm as an incentive for lazy debating. I think you should have to justify everything necessary for you to win.

Things ppl actually care about:

• 50-50 on Framework v Non-T affs and not necessarily because of my personal opinions on the matter.
• Fairness and education are voters in no particular order; I think strength of link is especially relevant in the determination of which of these matters more in a given round.
• That said, I think epistemic modesty, as it is generally used, is pretty nonsensical. Don’t really understand weighing a deontic violation against a risk of an impact.
• I think K affs should do something or place some theoretical weight in the act of affirmation. Pessimism based affs with no clear solvency mechanism (or definition of what solvency is in the eyes of the affirmative position) generally seem to be negative presumption arguments in my mind. Feel free to change my mind on this point. I’ve seen exceptions to this.
• Please explain your permutations by illustrating a clear picture of the world it supposes.
• Weigh impacts and strength of internal links. PLEASE. Don’t presume that I think extinction is worse than genocide, war, etc. and give me some way to do risk analysis.
• Asinine theory follows the pornography rule for me, you know it when you see - my threshold on answering these args is substantively very low.
• Have fun, take it easy, and make some jokes or something.

I have judges multiple events, however I spend most sessions in Debate, Congress, L-D and PF.

The opportunity for me to judge at Nationals several times has been exciting and very rewarding!

I want to be able to understand you, please speak clearly. My expectations for this

event are:

Disrespect is never ok, be fair to each other and treat people as you would like to be treated.

Be kind, to others as well as yourself.

Logical, clear arguments are appreciated!

"Don't raise your voice. Improve your argument." Desmond Tutu

Hello! I’m Rohen (he/him) I’m currently a senior at Cary Academy, having debated LD all four years.

This paradigm is a little long, but I figured I’d err on the side of too much information over too little. There’s a TL;DR at the end.

Confused about some terminology I use? Does something I said not make sense? Is this paradigm contradictory? Do you think a rule I made is dumb? Did I leave something out? Please feel free to ask me about anything in here at the start of the round.

Here’s how I evaluate a round:

First, framework. Before I look at any of the contention-level arguments, I’ll evaluate the framework debate. Did you justify your framework and show flaws in your opponents’? Then I’ll use your framework. Of course, winning the framework does not automatically win you the round (and losing the framework doesn’t count against you). If you and your opponent have similar enough frameworks that you can agree on one during cross-ex, I will be very happy if you do that.

Second, facts. The next thing I need to figure out is what facts I should believe. Does the aff world increase global temperatures by 1ºC in the next 20 years? Does negating increase the probability of war by 25%? It’s up to you to convince me.

There are two ways you can convince me of a fact: a logical argument or a card (or multiple of either!). In general, I will most likely trust a well-sourced card over any purely logical argument. That said, I expect every card to be supported by some sort of rationale. If your card says X is true but you can’t tell me why, I can’t particularly trust what it says. In addition, if your opponent makes a strong logical argument against your rationale, The only exception is if you can prove the true reason is unknown—if you can quote an expert saying “yeah, it’s definitely true, but we have no clue why”, I’ll accept that.

I will weigh sources against each other. I am very convinced by arguments about sources’ reliability. If your evidence is a metastudy and your opponents’ is a think tank with known bias, point that out! I also am predisposed to not trust opinion articles unless you can sufficiently convince me the author is a) an expert and b) writing in good faith.

Most likely, by the end of the round, some facts will be muddy. At that point, I’ll make my best guess as to the probability of it being true based on what’s been presented so far. If you both end up with equally strong arguments and rebuttals, I’ll probably take it as 50/50.

Third, impacts. By this point, I know a bunch of things that are true (or probably true). Great. Now I have to figure out why I care. I’ll look at why the facts I’ve accepted are important under the winning framework and evaluate the round accordingly. Weighing is important here. Even if your opponent proves every fact they argued in their case, if you can argue those facts don’t matter under the winning framework, you are in a strong position to win the round.

TL;DR:

lay=slay

trad=rad

spread=dead

util=trutil

flay judge.

I’m Michael (he/him). I am in my fourth year debating PF at Durham Academy as part of Durham HH. Add me to the chain: hansendebate@gmail.com.

If you have any questions about ANYTHING (including term definitions) in this paradigm please ask me before the round. I will not discount your debate ability nor will I think differently of you for asking; if you do, I will bump your speaks up 0.1.

Debate should be fun. If everyone is nice, respectful, and chill about the round I will bump your speaks.

If you are _ist or discriminatory in any way I will drop you.

TL;DR – tabula rasa tech judge. Warranting, signposting, extending, weighing, collapsing, ballot directive language are all things I really like. High quality research will be heavily rewarded. I vote on the flow and will evaluate Ks and theory (with caveats, see below). No tricks.

Read smart arguments, be creative, and think through the logic of your opponents arguments. Please do not just mindlessly read cards. Smart analysis > unwarranted evidence

General:
To win a substance argument, it must be fully extended in both summary and final focus, i.e. the uniqueness, link, internal link(s) and impact with warrants on each of those levels. If it is not, I will not vote on it

In Varsity divisions, have cut card case docs ready to send in the chain – this should be something you prepare before round (this is what a cut card looks like).

PF speed is fine but you need to be clear. However, real spreading is extremely inaccessible, forces opponents to flow off extremely long docs, and many teams send docs that differ from their actual speeches. For these reasons, I will not flow off doc. I will not flow overtime. Slow down in the back-half.

Number responses in rebuttal. Defense is not sticky. Collapse on one case argument in summary and go for the same argument in final focus.

If you misconstrue evidence and the other team points it out, I won’t intervene but all they need to do is read an IVI and I will give you an L20. Please do good research and read good evidence.

How I evaluate:
I look at weighing/framing first and then evaluate the best link into said weighing. However, you need to be winning the offense into the weighing in order for it to matter.

If you are losing terminal defense on an argument, you cannot access weighing through that argument.

That means that short-circuit analysis (one argument functioning as terminal defense on another/meaning their scenario doesn’t trigger) comes before any other weighing. If both teams have short-circuits on the others’ argument, timeframe analysis becomes extremely important because it determines which teams’ short-circuit triggers first.

Everything in the first rebuttal must be responded to in second rebuttal or it will be considered conceded. Similarly, everything in second rebuttal must be responded to in first summary.

This includes weighing; for example, if weighing is read in first rebuttal and is conceded in second rebuttal, it is conceded. Second summary cannot make new responses. However, second summary can read their own new weighing and read metaweighing for why that outweighs the other team’s conceded weighing.

On the other hand, if first rebuttal also included meta-weighing that was conceded in second rebuttal, the weighing debate would be over and second summary would not be able to respond.

Link-ins to opposing teams’ framing/impact weighing necessitate link weighing. Link-ins to their argument, absent any other weighing mean that you access both your argument and theirs in which case I will vote for you. However, if you link-in and they win that their link outweighs your link, they win.

I will not evaluate non-comparative weighing. Instead, read comparative weighing; aside from short-circuits (more on them above), weighing ultimately comes down to two things: probability and magnitude.

An argument’s probability is determined by defense. If their argument has no defense on it, it has 100% probability. Likewise, if their argument has terminal defense on it, it has 0% probability.

I will not evaluate new responses as “probability weighing” if they were not made in rebuttal. However, if they were made in rebuttal and implicated in the back-half as mitigatory defense I will evaluate them as reducing the probability of an opponent’s scenario. But, if your opponent is winning weighing, they will still have some offense into said weighing and they will win the round. “Our argument is more probable than theirs because _____ (their argument will never happen)” is a response, not weighing.

This includes arguments like “our argument triggers first” because the only reason that would matter is insofar as it affects probability because intervening actors mitigate their case, but that would be a new response so I won’t evaluate it.

Magnitude weighing encompasses a large variety of weighing, including scope, severity, dev world analysis, long-timeframe; any piece of weighing that claims that the impact you are preventing is worse than the impact they are preventing is magnitude weighing. Either extinction or structural violence will probably win the magnitude debate but I won’t intervene.

Carded weighing is fire.

Progressive Debate:

Theory
I have read theory, but I think that it is most often used in PF in a way that significantly decreases accessibility for the entire space. I will evaluate theory, but only if your opponents know how to engage with those arguments. This means that if the other team has read theory before, disclosed interps on the Opencaselist PF Wiki, or have gone to a nat circuit tournament before, they have demonstrated that they can engage with these arguments. On the other hand, if this is their first varsity (octas bid) nat circuit tournament, do not read theory on them.

With that established, a few preferences:

1. Interps should be read ASAP in the speech immediately following the violation; counterinterps should come in the speech immediately following the interp.
2. I default text over spirit of the interp
3. I default no RVIs in the absence of yes RVI warrants. However, if they violate your counterinterp and you win that it is the better norm, I will drop them to promote that norm and you don’t need an RVI.
4. I default competing interps > reasonability but will vote on reasonability if you win it.

I’m neutral tab ras on most theory but threshold will be low on stuff that’s obviously frivolous (shoes theory, font size theory, etc.)

Topical Kritiks
I like topical Ks and think they are good for the activity, and if you want to read them I will evaluate them.
1. Please write them yourself using high quality research. Treat it like a research project and an opportunity to learn something new. PLEASE do not just steal a K from LD/Policy and read it, because you likely will not understand it and neither will anyone else. I think that critical literature encourages academic curiosity and the exploration of important ideas and assumptions that underlie much of policymaking.
2. Explain your K well. This means explaining both the implications of your K (how it interacts with the arguments the opposing team has made) and the role of the judge/role of the ballot. If I don’t understand your K I won’t vote on it
3. Disclose your K open-source w/highlights (on https://opencaselist.com/hspf22) so that other teams can engage with your literature and research rather than auto-losing every round. These Ks are very complicated and not very well-understood so I wouldn’t worry too much about anyone stealing yours.

K-Affs
I’ll evaluate them, although I believe that while many aspects of debate and the debate community are very problematic, these issues are best addressed when not tied to a competitive outcome/space such as the ballot. However, I will not intervene. In these rounds, it is imperative that both teams are respectful of each other and avoid personal attacks.

Again, anything you do that is discriminatory will get you dropped. I might not catch something discriminatory; if I didn’t catch something, let me know at any point. There are no frivolous requirements here/you don’t have to read theory to do this. You'll probably get a W30 if what you're saying makes remote sense. If I notice a male debater talking down to a female debater in cross I will point it out. This stuff is unacceptable.

Post-rounding is an educational practice. That being said, your post-round should focus on improving your prep, strategy, and execution in future rounds, not in changing my decision (I will not change my decision after I have submitted it); both teams should ask any questions they have, not just the team that has lost.

Some of my favorite judges: Anna Brent-Levenstein, Bryan Benitez, Emma Smith, Gabe Rusk, Charlie Grabois, Zayne El-Kaissi.

I have so much respect for all these kids who are brave enough to try debate.

My only comment is that I prefer the clarity of speech over speed. Please do not talk so fast that I cannot understand what you are saying.

Put substance over style. Don't talk too fast. Be deliberate and confident in your argument. Be civil.

I have a fairly straightforward perspective on my judging preferences. I am very much a traditional flow judge. I do not prefer progressive styles. I don't prefer spreading, and if a debater speaks so quickly that I have trouble understanding them, I will not be able to prefer their arguments.

Backing up your arguments with convincing evidence and telling me specifically why I should prefer your evidence over your opponent's will help you win the round. Extending your arguments throughout the flow and pointing out to me any concessions your opponent made in cross-ex or any arguments dropped by your opponent will greatly strengthen your case. Voter issues are helpful. Explain to me the reasons for why you believe you won the round. Clarity of thought and logic for me will trump fast speech every time.

Hi, I'm Laura (she/her)

I am a parent judge.

I am fine with faster than conversational speed, but make sure I can flow.

Feel free to include me on the email chain: lmeyermd@gmail.com

I will vote off the flow and won't intervene. I am best at evaluating more traditional or slower policy style rounds, and open to more basic kiritiks and philosophy. Whatever you read, make sure you are explaining your links and giving good judge instruction.

I am a parent judge and have been judging PF and LD debates since 2020.

You can consider me a lay/traditional judge for the most part. I will allow philosophy but only if the arguments are clearly articulated. No theory, tricks, prog or spreading at all.

I base my decision primarily on what transpires on the debate floor rather than background information and written cases. You may share references to verify the authenticity of your quotes if challenged by your opponent.

I understand the need to utilize the limited time available to render your arguments effectively. However, please balance that against the clarity of your communication. Unintelligible arguments will be largely unsuccessful.

I will typically allow you to finish your thought if time runs out, but within reason. I will extend the same courtesy to your opponent.

I will monitor your break allotment but expect you to do as well. I may gently remind you if you seem to be running significantly over your intended break time but it is ultimately your responsibility to manage.

The clarity and comprehensiveness of your case and overall framework is obviously important, but admittedly also the most prepared part of of the debate. Your ability to counter your opponent in cross examination and rebuttals, while keeping sight of your own framework, is often what determines the winning side.

I will entertain any arguments which are sound and logically presented, though internal consistency is essential. Likewise, I enjoy watching debaters of all styles and attitudes. An aggressive approach is great if it displays your passion for debate as long as you don’t cross the line into disrespect, while a composed demeanor can often be just as impressive. Think on your feet, stand your ground, be thoughtful, engaged, rational, coherent and organized…and enjoy the experience!

Written by son

I’m a doctor and a lay judge; I’ll take notes but I will not evaluate the round off of the flow.
Be nice and have fun!

aravulapati@gmail.com and caryprdebate@gmail.com

for chains ^

I am a parent judge who has been judging LD in eastern North Carolina for the past two years. I appreciate the challenges and pressure that competitive debating brings, and as such insist that a cordial and respectful environment be maintained at all times. This will ensure space for the highest level of thought and expression.

The most important points that I respond to in a successful debate are:

1) Clear logic and articulated support. Preferably argued under an overarching structure where evidence can be understood through tangential relationships, and not a series of unrelated statements.

2) Composed and effective communication, including body language as well as verbal skills.

3) Intellectual agility- the ability to quickly craft and articulate thoughtful positions in a short time frame.

If these points are present I am confident that you will be a very strong debater, and gain as much as possible from these exceptional educational opportunities.

There are however a few things that hinder my ability to evaluate information and arguments as fairly as possible. Primarily speed is a detriment to my ability to synthesize the arguments being offered. Please no spreading. Also, as a lay judge I prefer traditional debate styles. Stay on topic and debate the merits of the given topic. It will allow for my fullest engagement and fairest evaluation.

Hi, I'm Nash. I'm a freshman at Brown and did LD in NC for my entire high school debate career (except for one PF tournament). I now do APDA (parliamentary). I'm mostly traditional, but I've debated a little bit on the circuit as well and can understand and evaluate progressive arguments to a certain extent. If you want high speaks, just be respectful but also assertive.

My email is nash.riebe14@gmail.com for email chains.

TLDR: I'm a flow judge. Do all the essentials (ie. weighing, extending, etc.) and we'll be set. If the round is progressive, send me the docs. Also, preference for prog. args is plans/CPs>Ks>Theory>Tricks. Be respectful.

Round preferences:

FW: I won't vote off of FW unless you losing the FW debate cuts off all your offense/impacts. I really like FW and think it is chronically undervalued, so please try to have a good FW debate... unless you're the neg and can collapse. If you can collapse, then do it. Don't have an asinine fw debate just to win my ballot because it won't work and my feedback will definitely be you should've collapsed. But if your case is like libertarian and the aff ran Rawls then obviously don't collapse. I understand most of the common LD FWs (Rawls, Locke, Kant, Gov. Leg., Util, etc.) so just run whatever you want and it should be fine. If it's something weird, just explain it and make sure it links to your contentions.

CX: I don't flow CX, but I do view it as binding, and I might write something down if I think it's interesting. That being said, if you want me to remember something from cross, make sure you let me know in rebuttal.

Contention level stuff: I'll evaluate rounds technically, but I also prefer that your arguments be true and not have absurdly long and improbable link chains (but I won't vote you down if they do). So I'm probably tech>truth. Make sure all your arguments are well-warranted, your impacts are clear, and weighing is done, and it should be good. Also, tell me why you're extending, cross-applying, etc. because just saying "extend Johnson 10" doesn't really do anything for me as a judge. I need to know why it matters.

Progressive stuff: If you're going to run a progressive arg., I need the doc. In terms of my comfort with understanding and evaluating the arguments, it's probably Plans/CPs>Ks>Theory>Tricks. I don't like tricks and they're kind of stupid imo but to each their own. Also, if you're a lay debater in a circuit round, I have a really low threshold for voting for you if you run a good theory shell or something (it actually has to be good though, especially if you're at a circuit tournament as a lay debater). I think circuit debate is a double-edged sword in terms of accessibility. Like I think arguments about increasing inclusion and accessibility for marginalized groups are super valid and should be prioritized. However, if your opponent literally cannot understand you, and they make that clear, and you do nothing to accommodate them, the road to my ballot becomes a lot longer. I personally loved a good plan when I did circuit rounds so I'm always happy to hear one.

General stuff:

• I'll flow any argument as long as it's not offensive
• Sign-post throughout the speech. If you're going in a weird order, make sure it's really clear
• I'll automatically give you higher speaks if you're funny. Like I think being snarky during cross, as long as it's not rude, is great
• I would prefer not to intervene, meaning I won't make extensions, cross-applications, etc. for you. I'll do my best to judge the round based on the arguments you're making, not the arguments I think you should be making
• I like judge direction, so don't be afraid to assert what I should or shouldn't be voting on. That doesn't mean I'll automatically do it, but I think it's generally a good thing and helps the judge to narrow down the debate
• Idrk if this needs to be said, but political literacy is really important. I'll bump up your speaks and probably be more prone to buy your args if you're connecting them back to current affairs and/or historical examples instead of just arguing in a hypothetical vacuum
• I won't give anything lower than a 27 for speaks unless you said something egregious.

PF: My comfort with progressive PF arguments is generally the same as LD. Like I said earlier, I've done PF, so I have a decent idea of what a round is supposed to look like. Make sure you're doing all the necessities (ie. weighing, extending, etc.) and we should be good. Try not to make the whole round about evidence please. You should call for cards within reason, but I think it's kind of frustrating when the round is just reduced to each side calling for a million different pieces of evidence.

Hello - I am a Managing Director with Accenture and have worked in 9 counteries across different industries. I beelive debating is one of the most important life skill. As you debate, please remember that in order to win a round, respect towards your opponent is paramount. It is hard to find in favor of debaters who belittle or berate their opponent in or out of round. Graceful winners are as important as graceful losers. I always look for a respectful debate. Once you roll your eyes, repeatedly interrupt, or are sarcastic, that's not good

I look forward to an engaging debate and all the best!!

Please no spreading. I value quality over quantity.

Although I am not/can't be free of my personal biases, I try to judge with an open mind and pay attention to the merit of the arguments presented. To me the goal of a debate is to present two sides of an argument as comprehensively and clearly as possible. I value arguments that connect directly to the framework and are presented in clear and simple language. Take your time to make a point and elaborate on it, instead of rushing through a long list of points that are only lightly scratched. I would also pay attention to whether you try to expose weaknesses in your opponent's arguments (but please be respectful). You are always welcome to use voice modulation and body language to make a point more lively. But do remember that the quality of your argument remains the most important factor.

Hello All. My name is Madhungi Vaidyanathan. I am judging speech for this and upcoming tournaments. I have judged Lincoln-Douglas debate in the past, and I am excited to judge speech for the first time as well. Here are some of the criteria I look for when evaluating rounds and finalizing ballots:

1. Speak slowly and clearly. This I value most important.

2. Make your speech encouraging. I value speeches with deep thought and articulation put into it.

3. Be polite. I do not encourage foul behavior.

4. Follow the event/round's rules. I will be directly scoring based off of the instructions given to me, so it would be easier if you stick to the rules of the round, for both you and me.

5. Try to make complex language more easier to understand with your speaking method. No matter how complex the word is, it would be helpful to convey it in an understandable way so that I can understand what you are saying.

Overall, I am very willing to meet the competitors and hear your speeches. I hope to learn a lot from your speeches (and make my day more interesting, lol!) at the competition. Wishing a good luck to everyone, I will see you soon.

This paradigm is written mostly for LD debates, which I frequently judge. Towards the end, I have specifics for PF debates, which I also judge, though less frequently.

What preferences do you have, as a judge?

Any progressive arguments, tricks, theories, I can't evaluate. Substantive arguments only, please.

Keep in mind that I am a lay judge. Most lay judges don't have knowledge of or even interest of knowing the nitty-gritty of public debates, and I am certainly one of that kind. You can think of lay judges as ordinary Americans watching politicians debating on TV, or as jurors sitting in a civil court and watching lawyers presenting their cases.

Generally speaking, if you defend your contentions well and put serious dents on your opponent's, you would have a good chance of winning the debate.

In a neck-and-neck round where AFF is winning this argument but NEG is winning the other, I would weigh the importance of each argument. If that still cannot break the tie, it may boil down to tiny things here and there that I won't elaborate here. Fortunately, I rarely had to do a coin flip for tie-breaker.

Logistics

I prefer normal conversational speed because English is not my native language.

If you plan to spread during the debate, it's imperative that you send your scripts/docs in advance, with clear highlighting. Tabroom's doc share feature is good enough, but if you'd like to include me in the email chain, here it is: michael.zhou@gmail.com.

Along the same line, please reduce the usage of jargons to get the most credit out of your claims and arguments.

It's my habit to take notes during the debate and write comments while debaters use their prep time. The purpose is to give instant and candid feedback to both debaters from a judge's perspective and lay out my reasoning for win/lose decision. I hope that helps debaters improve their cases, sharpen their skills and prep for next rounds.

How should debaters approach constructive speeches?

A few well-developed arguments prove more persuasive than a larger quantity of arguments. I am an engineer and practice the principle of reducing complex concepts to the simplest meaningful terms. You may often hear Alert Einstein being quoted "if you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." Sometimes, less is more.

Arguments should each be addressed individually in a concise manner, with a clear pause before moving to the next argument.

Now, the most important thing! Arguments should be coherent. Let me give an example. If you claim US military presence is the main factor of regional instability and next second you suggest US forces be redeployed from Middle East to Indo-Pacific region, that creates a self-inconsistence. These types of logical mistakes are extremely detrimental to your case's credibility. It's like shooting yourself in the foot. Let me stress this: logics and coherency.

How should debaters approach rebuttal speeches?

I prefer each rebuttal making a brief reference to the specific issue advanced in constructive speeches.

Same as constructive speeches, rebuttals should be delivered succinctly, with emphasis on the key issues.

How should debaters approach evidence?

Citations after article introduction.

How should debaters use values, criteria and arguments to support a value position?

Build the value that is not overly complicated, relatable, and criterion should not be over technical.

What arguments (such as philosophical, theoretical or empirical) do you prefer to support a value position?

Empirical.

Here are the reasons.

I am genuinely interested in many disciplines but I rarely read philosophy books, so I can't judge if you approach the resolution from a philosophical angle.

An ideal world exists only in a utopian ideology but we are living in a real world, and an imperfect one. Countless things theoretically ideal or with wonderful intentions have led to total disasters in human history.

So I prefer empirical arguments ONLY.

Please explain your views on critical arguments.

Critical arguments should provide substantial evidence for their support.

How should debaters run on case arguments?

Make sure all claims are supported with specific, defined examples, no paraphrasing.

How should debaters run off case arguments?

Make sure they have a purpose or illustration for the case at hand.

For PF

While most of content above is still generally relevant for PF, I am adding a couple of points specific to public forum debates that help you understand my preferences.

• Have a clearly outlined constructive speech. It would be a huge plus if you start with each of your critical points in an emphasized one-liner, because that saves me time to summarize it for you.
• I generally don't question or ask for evidence, unless your statements are outrageously contradicting with common sense or my knowledge. That does not mean the opponents won't poke holes and challenge you. Which brings my next point.
• I value quality rebuttals and that counts heavily toward decision making of who wins/loses. Meaning if you cannot refute your opponent's critical points effectively, those points will stand. You can think of this process as point reduction. Both you and your opponents start at a perfect 30-point. Every time you have a strong rebuttal, you are reducing points from your opponents. Every time you defend your constructive points well, you are reserving/keeping points for yourself.
• Last but not least, substance is more important than presentation. It's even okay to stutter during debates, and it won't count against you unless your arguments are not cohesive, which shows you are less prepared.