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.

speaking style:

- no spreading

- don't speak extremely slow to fill in your speech time, points will be deducted

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

I'm a lay judge.

Weigh

Frontline second rebuttal

Be nice

Have fun

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:

debating pf since oct 2019, so fairly technical and flow-oriented, been judging since 2022. i have some bp experience but that was all the way back in 2019/2020; haven't judged for that format before.

basics:

• tabula rasa. tech >>> truth (tell me why climate change matters. don't throw it at me). i don't like extinction impacts mainly because if everyone who ever ran a extinction impact (looking at policy debaters) was actually right, we'd have died off decades ago, but i'll evaluate them just the same as any other impact. just weigh

• warranting wins my heart (and a better speech, possibly better speaks, maybe even my vote~) that isn't to say, though, that y'all can warrant in one speech and then not mention it for the rest of the round, please extend clearly if you want me to vote for your argument

• do things for yourself. not under any circumstances will i ever be happy with doing things for you- i will not be happy if you make me do the weighing myself, the collapsing myself, essentially anything you want me to evaluate in the round. i'm lazy, don't like doing things i don't have to do

• i personally don't care whether you turn your camera on or not for online tournaments, but please tell me your name at least?? before every speech?? you don't want me giving your speaks to your partner or something

• i follow the point scale given on tab for speaker points, though i'm generally really generous with speaks

• i am fine with speed so long as you speak clearly. if your speed makes your opponent struggle to follow along, i will ask you to slow down- a second warning will result in deducted speaks as speaking inaudibly/unintelligibly excludes debaters from being able to interact with arguments to the best of their ability, as well as brings down the value of the round. in other words- if you talk 300+ WPM (talking to you policy debaters), send a speech doc or slow down drastically- we can't keep up. lmao i do appreciate your ability to speak fast, but this is a debate round, not a talent show

• please use warranted cards/evidence in your speeches! i will call for a piece of evidence if necessary. on that same note, i will only call for cards if: a) i was told to call for it, b) it doesn't seem valid to me, or c) i need to clarify a point on my flow. if i or the opponents call for a card and you cannot provide it within sufficient time or at all, i will treat it like your opinion or a piece of analysis

• summary and final focus should mirror. once again, i'm not happy with having to do things for you. i will not, under any circumstances, buy a point brought up in FF but not in summary- i won't extend your arguments for you. obviously i'm not going to evaluate new arguments in summary either, except in response to a new argument your opponents made- meaning you should reconstruct in second rebuttal. i will accept limited cross-applications of your case or previous arguments because those aren't new, but if you want to read new content do that when you can (and that means not in final focus. please. it's unfair and it's annoying.)

• weighing also wins my heart. tell me why your impacts are more significant, why your links/arguments are better, why i should care/vote your way. also, if you don't weigh my feedback for you will literally look something like "WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF GOD WEIGH" and yes this is sumn that's happened before lmao

• i have a limited understanding of theory, kritik or progressive arguments. please don't read them in general.

1. if you do, i won't be able to evaluate the round properly and may up making a decision otherwise construed 'unfair' or 'biased' - and while i've also complained to judges, to tabroom, to my academy director about unfair decisions, hey - this one's on you lmao
2. if you ABSOLUTELY MUST, MUST, MUST read your progressive arguments please explain them to me (and the opponents if their knowledge is lacking as well). if i still don't understand, sorry - ??

• whether offline or online, i'll give you ten seconds of grace time, but after that i will stop flowing and lower your speaks in accordance with how much time has elapsed over the speaking time allotted. i want to say i'll knock on the table, but i normally forget to do so - if the time's elapsed thirty seconds overtime i'll prolly just unmute and say sumn

• please read content warnings for potentially sensitive topics and ask if the opponents are alright with it; you must have an alternate case if not. i can and will drop you if my judgement decides the round is unsafe and this can happen at any time - i stick by the rules and am generally very law-abiding but i'm willing to risk getting in "trouble" if it means the round remains safe. this means that if you have an offensive case and you're speaking first in the round, i'll drop you and we can spend the rest of the round chitchatting about more pleasant (or unpleasant topics). or taking a nap. i'm up for both. pleasant will consist of "how's your day going" or any other questions you might have, unpleasant might be if you genuinely don't understand why your case is offensive and then i have to explain to you why it is, and since most people i judge are, like, four years older i don't think it's going to be very fun for you or i

• on a more cheerful note, if you're a kpop stan guess my top boy group + my bias OR mention kpop somehow in your speech, relating it to the topic. then you get +0.5 speaks <33 or if the round ends early/you get there before your opps do and we're not constrained for time we can fangirl/fanboy together

if you have any questions, feel free to ask me before the round or email me at hstellajjang@gmail.com . good luck to y'all

1. Time yourselves
2. You can speak fast, just not too fast
3. Weigh if you don't weigh, and do it properly
4. Try not to talk over each other/argue during cross