I am a parent judge with 5+ years of PF/LD/ Policy experience. Please consider me a Flay Judge.

• Speak as fast as you would like, but I will ask you to slow down if I cannot understand. No spreading please. I am fine with 15 seconds of grace time.
• Please be respectful of your opponents and give them a chance to speak. Do not keep interrupting or be rude or condescending. If not, I will drop your speaker points.
• Please do not read any form of progressive argumentation (theory, kritiks, etc.) as I cannot evaluate them and will not give you credit for them.
• Off-time roadmaps and sign-posting are encouraged. It helps me follow your debate better.
• My decision will be based on your contentions, evidence, rebuttals, impacts, summaries and weighing. I will evaluate all those on both sides to come to a decision.
• I like to see well-researched cases backed by strong and credible evidence. Please include me in the email chain to share cards as I like to review them as well.

Good luck and have fun!

Forensics is a speaking competition in which the art of rhetoric is utilized - speaking effectively to persuade or influence [the judge].

Socrates' remarks in Plato's Apology is the basis of my judging: "...when I do not know, neither do I think I know...I am likely to be wiser than he to this small extent, that I do not think I know when I do not know" (Ap. 21d-e).

My paradigm of any round is derived from: CLARITY!!!

All things said in the round need to be clear! Whatever it is you want me to comprehend, vote on, and so forth, needs to be clearly articulated, while one is speaking. This stipulation should not be interpreted as: I am ignorant about debate; contrarily, I am placing the burden on the debater to debate - it is the responsibility of the debater to explain arguments presented. Arguments have a criteria; therefore, clash, at the substantive level, is a must!

1) I follow each debate league's constitution, per the tournament.

2) General information, for any debate types:

A) Speed: As long as I can understand you well enough to flow the round, since I vote per the flow!, then you can speak as slow or fast as you deem necessary. I do not yell clear, for we are not in practice round, and that's judge interference.

B) Case: I am a tab judge; I will vote the way in which you explain to me to do so; thus I do not have a preference, or any predispositions, to arguments.

Set a metric in the round, then tell me why you/y'all have won your metric, while your opponent(s) has lost their metric and/or you/y'all have absorbed their metric.

The job of any debater is to persuade the judge, by way of logical reasoning, to vote in his or her favor, while maintaining one's position, and discrediting his or her opponent's position. Good luck to all!

Ask any other clarification questions before the round.

Updated for ’24-’25. If there’s anything not covered in here (tried to be as extensive as possible), just ask, but if it’s something like “are you good with counterplans” I might be v sad.

For Novice State (will be deleted 1/18): not lay,pls do not treat me like a parent judge. Tired of not flowing and worrying about “the email chain” and then a lack of nuanced ev comparison or even line-by-line (and then judges don’t care either, which is its own issue...). The decision will always be disclosed. Pleasedon’t send PDFs or google docs, don’t send the 1NC before the 1AC is read (be reactive and smart), engage w/ the 1AC in the 1NC (will vote Aff on presumption otherwise). “This is LD” is only a response to T-USFG.

- I really prefer docs formatted circuit-style (here is an example of like the minimum for a traditional doc formatted in that way, for your own convenience and learning)

- Felt compelled to add this: because this rez uses "and/or," the Aff is burdened with defending one or both. They get to decide that. Negs should rejoin.

- Paraphrasing is bad. Please, for everyone's sake, read cards. Format accordingly. Academic/evidence ethics are a gateway issue.

About: 4 years of LD in a GA HS (local first then circuit), UGA ’24, ’24 (M.Ed. if it matters to you, it probably doesn’t). Have judged on the circuit and locally since 2021. Familiar enough with the resolution to know what you’re talking about, not familiar enough to know all the intricate ptx DAs. Do whatever you do best—would rather see good theory debates than bad K debates, etc.

- Pronouns: they/she.

- Yes, I want to be on the chain (chansey.agler@gmail.com), speechdrop and fileshare on tab are fine; I won’t look at google docs, PDFs are inadvisable

- Fine w flex prep

- Pls don’t try and shake my hand after the round thx in advance; ask me for permission before recording an RFD

Speaks:

- Speed is fine if you’re clear, be extra clear (start slower) when it’s the first round of the day or of the tournament, appreciate slowing down on advocacy, interp, ROB, standard/criterion texts—more signposting is good, I usually need a few seconds to switch flows—audibly saying “onto the DA” and pausing for a second in the 1AR, for example, is helpful

- Speaks are based off of efficiency, strategy, and clarity, not arbitrariness—playing behind the scenes to try and balance historic gaps in speaks, lowering them for split 2NRs

- I typically average ~28.5 relative to the pool, would usually prefer not to disclose them immediately after the round

Prefs Cheat Sheet:

Ks, Policy: 1

Traditional: 2

Philosophy*: 2

Theory: 4

Tricks: 4

TL;DR: collapse, weigh, common sense is important, read complete arguments, do more link work

Top-level/must knows:

- Will vote on most arguments, better for policy and K arguments (method debates and clash rounds are fine). Experienced w/ philosophy but LD’s execution is hit-or-miss. Theory or tricks-heavy strats need to be complete arguments and have actual warrants. Meaningful, resolvable, complete arguments are good, hail marys are inadvisable regardless of style.

- Explanation, weighing, clash, and judge instruction are crucial. Do more resolving interactions btwn things. Yes tech > truth in that I resolve rounds based on the flow, am open to a lot of args (would prefer to see what you’re good at), but truth matters in the sense that args start at zero and go up from there and I’m not abandoning all common sense, if I didn’t understand it, I can’t vote on it.

- Most judges give awful RFDs—not listening to the round, ignoring arguments made besides what they like/don't like. Trying very hard not to be like that but there is a greater range of uncertainty in my decision when I have to do more work—explaining, doing link weighing, and resolving clash mean I can echo the 2NR/2AR and avoid decisions I am unhappy with, fine with questions but aggression/postrounding are nonstarters.

- Not a fan of frivolous/‘tabula rasa’ nonsense since I think what we do is and should be meaningful, the closer an arg gets to abhorrent or contrary to debate’s intent (think “flat earth”), the likelier it is I won’t evaluate it. Will not evaluate arguments generated exclusively by AI (unless it’s a performance about AI or something ig?).

- Not voting on -isms or discriminatory args, this includes args from hate orgs (ex: the heritage foundation). Will eval impact turns like spark, wipeout, and extinction good (read: as negative util/preserving value) but I understand why many aren’t receptive to these. Not evaluating things like ‘warming good.’ Threshold for responses is always lower the worse/edging on abhorrent the arg is.

- CX matters, you must be able to explain args to win on them, CX should never be 3 min of “what was your first contention…wouldn’t you agree…”

- Independent voters can be persuasive in the age of reading off docs and just not understanding engagement, in the age of widening ideological gaps, and the age of increasing accountability. Not everything rises to the level of independent voter, but speech acts do matter.

- Accessibility is important—lmk accommodations directly if possible, most emails go to my spam (this happened in a round), misgendering/racism/other -isms in round lead to loss of speaks and/or the ballot if egregious. I take misgendering very seriously. You and your opponent have the right to point it out and make it instant DTD, even if it happened in the 2AR. Advocating for this is exhausting. If there’s an issue of similar nature, let me know in whatever way possible.

- weigh <3

Lincoln-Douglas

Policy

- Probably most comfortable judging this, fair game for most things, though I will say I prefer topic DAs (esp w/ specific links to the plan) to generic ptx, not wild about tangential extinction impacts (do we really need to read ‘extinction’ on a topic like “standardized tests?”)

- Fine with specific plans and PICs, not fantastic for either extreme of the nebel T debate

- Tag and ev quality both matter—incoherent args (tags like “No China war” followed by a long card are as bad as a card highlighted to incoherence) are incoherent (this is a massive problem in LD rn and policy args are imo most affected by this), you only get credit for what’s flowed, do more ev weighing

- I think inserting re-highlighting is fine if it’s from portions of ev already read, must be aloud if it’s a different portion even if from the same article

- I think zero risk is a thing, CX can do a lot of work here too

- Like good impact turns, ev quality is necessary, innovation makes for some interesting debates, stale impact turns like the same version of spark every round are bad

- Yes internal link weighing—contest probability, timeframe, etc., makes my ballot easier when both sides impact to extinction

- 1NC needs to do more competition work in LD, love good perm debates but 10 “perm do both” analytics aren’t it

- Judge kick seems bad, 2NRs should learn to make strategic choices, won’t not eval it but definitely receptive to “it’s arbitrary”

- Case debates are great debates, do more solvency/link turns and not just 1 min of impact D after spraying 6 off (2NRs on case are always welcome btw)

- In LD, you should still warrant util/SV in the 1AC—the 1NC should always go for an NC if this isn’t the case

- If evenly debated, ground > limits for T; Aff on CP competition, Neg on CP theory; condo good; semantic controls pragmatic

- “You get ptx” or “we want ptx” isn’t great as an explanation of models for T, other than that, good for T interps that delineate models of debate and go for topic lit/controversy, 2AR must extend case if T was the 2NR, if you’re reading “X school’s Aff is the TVA,” explain what that means

- Not very moved by tournament dates, popularity, etc. for T—popularity doesn’t make an Aff immune to T as a germane criticism, though functional limits are persuasive

- Bad for plan flaw unless the plan text is meaningfully different from real implementation (“this isn’t how that law works in practice” = fine, “US meaningless/no period” = please no)

Kritiks

- Very solid or very weak rounds based on the work you do to make it great, honestly much better for a more technical K debate though I do understand that performances are important too

- I try to be familiar with a decent variety of lit but I do not guarantee I know the intricate details of your lit base (most familiar with queer theory), you should still explain args as if I do not have a base understanding, have voted from things like psychoanalysis to a simple cap K and back, you do you if you can explain it

- Not familiar with denser critiques of IR, happy to judge these but I’m unlikely to understand it without the 1NC doing some work here

- Have devoted a lot of focus in particular to queer and trans lit—don’t go for it just to go for it, higher threshold to win it when “state bad” is your only link, these lit bases are indebted to Blackness in their resistance strategies (this seems most relevant in methods debates)

- Ks of discourse – be reasonable, policing is bad, racism and other forms of abhorrent discourse are also bad

- Non-T Affs are completely fine, just have a relevant ballot story and do ‘something’ (don’t care what that ‘something’ looks like though—very low threshold here)—I do also enjoy creative visions of affirmation and like Affs that innovate

- Presumption and case pushes are good against K affs (more than a few short analytics)—a lot of teams fall short in explaining what the Aff does, what it endorses, ballot key, etc.—doing work at these levels treats the Aff like an Aff and makes for better rounds than “fiat is good because I prefer policy debates”

- Have judged a bit of K v. K rounds, K aff v. cap K is usually straightforward but otherwise, do a lot more “turns/solves case” and work on the perm than just “root cause,” resolving work is key—the two Ks aren’t usually a criticism of the same thing so perms that demonstrate interactions or resolve “perms in a methods debate” are more convincing than 5 brief versions of “perm do both”

- Not a fan of the “perm double bind”

Independent Voters

- I tend to view these as pressing concerns that must override substance, I think debaters are oftentimes too quick to throw out “auto-drop” or “repugnant” warrants without explaining DTD implications, but I also think problematic discourse is terrible—very receptive to things like misgendering as an IVI, less to things like “this is independent” if it’s a reps turn or something that should be resolved substantively; I find that many independent voters fall short of DTD and seem more DTA—for example, “legal definitions bad” seems like DTA

- Theory args (condo, CP legitimacy, etc.) =/= independent voters, idk why these are lumped together ngl

Framework (Policy v. K)

- Policy teams that go for “ToP doesn’t explain everything, prefer particularized methods on this issue” along with “state engagement good on this issue” do much better than those that rely on generics

- Aff FW v. K: a) start resolving “weigh case” vs. “debate is about discourse” much earlier, b) “extinction o/w” is overused and avoids clash, c) I honestly don’t usually understand most “procedural fairness” args on their own and so impacting the deficit to fairness is necessary

- T-FW—a) not great for “planless” Affs that still defend the rez in LD (e.g., a Kant AC), b) state engagement being better for movements and solving case is really enjoyable, “rez is worth debating” is good if applicable, c) 1-off FW strategies that devote most of the 1NC time to answering the Aff are honestly really enjoyable because of depth of clash

Philosophy

- Familiar with analytical ethical phil, limited familiarity with continental, quicker to understand the former (if it’s like Levinas I can probably understand what you’re saying but if it’s really esoteric then you should err on the side of overexplaining esp in CX), execution in LD is hit-or-miss—I like good FW debates but bad ones hurt my head

- Explain your theory of ethical good, explain the application of Kantian ethics instead of just going “that’s coercive, can’t do it”—I’ll listen to things like “taxation always bad” if that’s the logical conclusion of your FW, but that rarely seems to be the case—I think CX is important in these debates

- Won’t hack for epistemic/ethical modesty but I also won’t disregard high risk of extinction purely bc there’s clash at the framing level

- Not huge on phil ACs that also read a util advantage or phil ACs/NCs that get super tricky

- Unlikely to vote on FWs I can’t explain back to you or that are extremely circular to the point of uselessness—performativity and constitutivism warrants are often culprits here

- I do not want to hear source Kant. If other cards are outdated and constantly need bracketing for things like gendered language, perhaps it is time for revision

- TJFs: a) I understand the necessity for them in circuit contexts, though they usually don’t make sense unless util is in play, b) most TJFs are poorly warranted, explain why analytics or carded offense are good/bad, c) phil ed loss? maybe? idk that’s for you to decide

- Impact-justified frameworks are probably bad

- AFC/ACC: this is debate. clash is a thing and good and args that deny clash make me sad.

Traditional LD

- I started trad and understand it, I only vote off the flow (not “who spoke better”), if you only have lay experience, just be aware that I understand the topic, debate, and a variety of styles—it doesn’t mean “read something crazy for the sake of it.” Unless definitions of words are relevant to the debate (aka topicality), just debate substance. The Aff is not bound to a “plan,” but solvency is a germane question, and you can’t just say “it’s LD.”

- The 1NC must engage with the Aff, not doing so means I’m voting Aff because the Neg has the burden of rejoinder, 1NCs are weirdly orienting themselves to very little case coverage nowadays

- I do not want to hear cases that read like an essay

- Yes I disclose, ask questions in-person

- Ev comparison, weighing, and analysis are good in these rounds—it is not enough to say “x matters,” tell me why x/y matters more, don’t just restate things, grandstanding is unhelpful

- FWs should have warrants and not be “upholding my side of the rez,” explain why util or Kant or whatever is true

-Do not read "constitutionality" as a framework. Reconsider reading something often construed to antiqueerness in front of a queer judge.

- If there’s no clash at the FW level, just concede FW and move on, two people can agree on a metric and disagree on the best action under it, I guarantee I will be happier if I see an in-depth DA + case debate in trad than bad FW debate

- Trad v. circuit: circuit teams should explain their args (esp in CX, not explaining means I’m skeptical of your understanding of the arg), simplifying is good (1-off, case for Ks and 2-3 off w/o procedurals for policy = good), not penalizing trad teams for not understanding circuit norms like disclosure, not penalizing circuit teams for playing the game (ex: if it’s a late prelim/elim and you go 5-off, more sympathetic than early prelims)

- Say the name of the card before what you cut, don’t paraphrase ev, made-up ev = auto-L, brackets that modify meaning = L

- Shenanigans like “they had no value/criterion” if they conceded FW or did something like reading a K will not make me happy (pls don’t mansplain LD to me…)

- “they were abusive” – what’s abusive, do I drop the argument or the debater, how do I rectify this, why do I care (theory >>> “this is abusive” with no warrant/impact)

- Trad debaters can respect in-round safety too, this does cost ballots (overt racism and antiqueerness has made a resurgence in locals again), will penalize this stuff even if there’s not an argument made

- No set lens on the rez (Aff should do something but idk what “something” is), debaters’ dismissal of things like Ks =/= reasons to reject on my flow, if you think Affs should debate the topic, argue they should—read T-FW and not NCs that don’t engage

- Yes, I’m fine with CPs, but most “counterplans” in lay rounds don’t make sense to me tbh—pls endorse a singular, counter-course of action w/ actual ev that the CP solves Aff offense—don’t read an abstract counter-claim—I won’t vote on CPs I don’t understand

Theory

- Have judged a reasonable amount of theory, highly dependent on execution, needs more weighing btwn standards and i/l weighing to fairness/ed—resolvability is key and otherwise I tend to defer to substance and/or presumption—deficits to fairness are rarely weighed (ex: neg flex vs. PICs stealing Aff offense)

- Better for policy theory than LD-style strategic/friv theory, make the abuse story and model clearer (condo always bad? what’s allowed?), if I can’t draw the line btwn speeches, unlikely to vote on it (10 second condo args don’t make for good 3 min 2Ars)

- DTA + reasonability are often persuasive, beating back paradigm issues in general is often persuasive

- Bad for friv and abstract theory, clear and specific interps are easier for me to eval, won’t eval stuff abt opp’s appearance or similar, use common sense, not very good for “URL theory” or “punching theory” or other things circulating rn

- Combo shells are both arbitrary and strategic against spiky affs

- I prefer that you do explicitly extend uncontested paradigm issues but that you not be annoying abt it

- Don’t use theory to shut out tough convos

- Not a fan of “must include links to circuit debater” or the like

- Lots of shells = usually unstrategic, more than 2 and I usually question your strategic decisions

- Not flowing new 2AR theory args unless the 2NR was abusive (“strike it from the flow” will suffice too)

- Have voted for RVIs in the past, not entirely opposed to voting for them per se but I think substance is usually easier to resolve given the lack of weighing or resolving done in these kinds of rounds, and RVIs are usually not well-warranted or extended

- Misdisclosure is tough, I need: a) SLOW DOWN and tell me what was ASKED FOR and what was GIVEN—I eval screenshots from both ends, b) standards that tie into this difference, c) DTD warrants (why not drop an analytic if that’s what you’re indicting?)

Disclosure

- Disclosure is good on balance but I’m not huge on disclosure theory esp when the violation gets more contrived—as of late I think reading disclosure theory is a mandate for equality over equity and I’m pretty receptive to exceptions to the rule, policy v. policy is where I am most persuaded by it and K rounds least so

- Don’t need to disclose performances or similar materials (narratives probably fall under this umbrella)

- Not voting on this at a local. Y’all haven’t figured out how to format a doc, let alone use the wiki.

- New Affs bad is not my favorite arg but I’ll hear you—go for better warrants over generics, skip “can’t engage” if you put a lot of answers on case, “new Affs justify some level of Neg abuse” >> DTD, the joke “I prepped for “it’s new”” was maybe funny once in like 2019

Tricks

- I honestly do not understand TT as much as you probably want me to if I’m in the back

- Okay-ish for things like ethical paradoxes and maybe epistemic ones (one-card “skep Ks” are a nonstarter but gettier problems can be cool), not big on strategies designed to avoid clash—not a fan of sweeping theory spikes or “disregard the flow” that are tricky in nature, much worse for theory tricks than things like paradoxes

- Warrants are key, if I can't explain it back to you based on what was said in-round, it doesn't get the ballot

- If you want paradoxes to take out a framework, you have to devote time to them

- Bad for crazy logic paradoxes, I cannot flow a million Ps and Qs or understand an equation in the context of an LD round

- Slews of analytics are hard for me to flow, slow way down if the 1AC/1NC is loaded

- I evaluate all speeches in a given round, the exceptions do not usually come from tricks

Evidence Ethics (all events)

- I'll eval both theory and ev ethics challenges, the latter stops the round and winner gets a W, loser gets low speaks, theory plays out like any other theory debate

- If it's an ev ethics challenge, everyone needs to be silent and I’m looking over everything, if coaches/debaters try and sway this after the challenge, it’s an auto-L

- For clipping: I tend to not flow off the doc—this means I need a recording and definitive proof (beyond just a line or so)

Misc Stuff

- LD Defaults: Comparative Worlds, Epistemic Confidence – I have no defaults on theory (make arguments), permissibility and presumption both negate at face value, though presumption flips Aff if the Neg reads an advocacy – it is MUCH easier to convince me that presumption affirms than permissibility

- I don’t care if you sit or stand—just be clear

CONFLICTS:

All entries – Sequoyah HS (GA), Perry HS (AZ), Ivy Bridge Academy (GA), Dean Rusk MS (GA)

Please speak at a slow, respectable speed, make your points clearly, provide solid evidence that is clear and concise, be respectful to other speakers. Have fun!

i judge debate rounds like the new york times editorial board: i just wish i could vote for everyone!

2015-2019 circuit pf/extemp at theodore roosevelt in des moines, iowa

put me on the chain: finnm.cool02@gmail.com

DEBATER MATH IS BAD MATH

not a huge fan of friv theory

tl;dr anything not discriminatory goes, please comparatively weigh, collapse strategically, and frontline!!!

first to steal some from other paradigms:

ethics > tech > truth, if I think that voting for you makes debate more exclusionary, in a manner I find indefensible, I will have no problem dropping you without a technical justification. Sorry not sorry.

the most enjoyable part of debate is when debaters successfully mold a convincing narrative out of ridiculous concepts

I will not vote on any case arguments addressing domestic violence, sexual violence, or rape that were not preceded by a pre-round trigger warning. If, upon hearing this trigger warning, the opponent requests the argument not be made and that request is denied, I'll listen/be receptive to theory arguments about why I ought to vote a particular way based on the introduction of that issue. That doesn't mean I'll automatically pull the trigger on it one way or the other, but I will be exceptionally open to doing so if the argument claiming I should evaluate the mere fact that the sexual violence argument is made is won in the debate.

now, some thoughts of my own:

Ks encouraged, your speaks will reflect that if you run them well...

HOWEVER if you run an identity-based position and neither of you are a member of that community, don't

i'd prefer theory to be run in shell form but i won't penalize you if you're unfamiliar with formal technical structure, just explain why your opponents are being abusive/bad for debate and why that means i should vote for you

if strictly a substance debate, i evaluate the fw debate first and do impact calc under that

good and interesting fw debates will lead to high speaks, but also don’t throw a framework in just because (especially CBA, which is just a waste of time in constructive)

presume 1st speaking team if no offense, absent a presumption arg made in the round

if an argument is not addressed in the next speech, it is a dropped argument (this means yes, you do have to frontline in second rebuttal)

defense is sticky!!! if you drop terminal defense on an argument i won't vote for you on it, even if it never comes up again after first rebuttal

weigh comparatively ideally beginning in rebuttal, if your "weighing" is just yelling your impact and some buzzword like magnitude at each other, nobody's gonna be happy

for me to vote on any offense and frontlined defense that is in final focus, it must also be in summary

be strategic! you don't have to go for everything, and it's never a good idea to do so!

speed-wise I’m good for ~250wpm anything more and I’ll need a speech doc to avoid missing things (but if you feel excluded by your opponents going too fast, implicate that as in-round abuse for a path to the ballot)

evidence should have author last name and date

extensions have warrant and impact, actually explain the argument and why it matters rather than just “extend Whalen 14 moving on”

speaks are 27 and above unless you’re big heinous

plz plz plz ask me any questions you have before/after the round, this is an educational activity

ill disclose speaks if you ask me

auto-30s if you:

-win on anthro or baudrillard (this doesn’t mean I’ll hack, you have to actually win the arg)

-take no prep time & win

I am currently a student at the university of Michigan. I am currently studying finance with a data science concentration alongside public policy. Throughout my debate career I have debated mainly Road schools to be a long side policy and Lincoln Douglas.

I am a parent judge, and have been judging mainly PF for 4+ years. I appreciate clear communication and respect for time. I prepare for the topic and like to be involved. I will accommodate any challenges due to online nature of the debate, but would appreciate if the participants have tested their connectivity etc.

Pronouns: He/Him/His

Email: tjbdebate@gmail.com

I'd really appreciate a card doc at the end of the round.

About me

Debated in policy for four years at Damien High School in La Verne, CA. I placed pretty well at some national tournaments and received some speaker awards along the way. I have worked as a judge and staff member at the Cal National Debate Institute. I was a consultant/judge for College Prep, and this is my second year as an assistant coach for College Prep.

I mostly think about debate like her. If you like the way she thinks then I probably think the same way.

Top Level

**** I will try my hardest to flow without looking at my computer so I suggest debating as if I have no reference to what is being read. Clarity is much more important than unchecked speed. SERIOUSLY CLARITY > SPEED ****

Debate is a competition, but education seems to be the most intrinsic benefit to the round taking place. I believe that debates centered around the resolution are the best, but that can mean many different things. Debate is also a communicative activity so the first thing that should be prioritized by all the substance is the ability to clearly convey an argument instead of relying on the structure and tricky nature of policy debate.

The most important thing for me as a judge is seeing line-by-line debating instead of relying upon pre-written blocks. Drops happen and that is debate, but what I most hate to see are students reading off their laptops instead of making compelling indicts of their opponents' arguments off the top of their heads. Debate requires some reaction to unexpected things but I think that it enhances critical thinking and research skills.

When it comes to content, I sincerely do not have any big leans toward any type of argument. Just come to the round with a well-researched strategy and I will be happy to hear it. My only non-starters are arguments that promote interpersonal violence, prejudice toward any group of people, or danger toward anyone in the round. If those arguments are made, the offending team will lose, receive a 0 for speaker points, and I will speak with their coach. The safety of students is the number one priority in an academic space such as debate.

Thoughts on Specific Arguments Below:

Disadvantages: Impact calculus and Turns case/Turns the DA at the top, please. These debates are won and lost with who is doing the most comparison. Don't just extend arguments and expect me to just clean it up for you. I like politics DAs, but I want more comparisons of whose evidence is better and more predictive instead of just dumping cards without any framing arguments. Go for the straight turn. I love bold decisions that are backed up by good cards.

Counter plans: I am all about good counterplan strategies that have great solvency evidence and finesse. I have grown tired of all the nonsense process, agent, and consult counter plans, and while I will vote for them, I prefer to hear one that is well-researched and actually has a solvency advocate for the aff. Regarding theory, most violations are reasons to justify a permutation or to lower thresholds for solvency deficits, not voters. Consult CPs are however the most sketchy for me, and I can be convinced to vote against them given good debating.

Topicality: Love these debates, but sometimes people get bogged down by the minutiae of the flow that they forget to extend an impact. Treating T like a disad is the best way to describe how I like teams to go for it. Please give a case list and/or examples of ground loss. Comparison of interpretations is important. I think that the intent to exclude is more important than the intent to define, but this is only marginal.

Kritiks: Over time I have become more understanding of critical arguments and I enjoy these debates a lot. The alternative is the hardest thing to wrap my head around, but I have voted for undercovered alternatives many times. I think that the more specific link should always be extended over something generic. Extending links is not enough in high-level rounds, you have to impact out the link in the context of the aff and why each piece of link offense outweighs the risk of the aff internal link. I prefer that the negative answer the aff in these rounds, but I do not think it is impossible to win without case defense. The only thing that matters is winning the right framework offense.

Planless Affs: Performance 1ACs are great but there has to be an offensive reason for the performance. I won't vote on a dropped performance if there is no reason why it mattered in the first place. I prefer that these affs are in the direction of the topic, but if there is a reason why only being responsive to the resolution matters, then I am fine with it not being so. Framework is a good strategy, but I don't like voting on fairness, because I don't believe that it is a terminal impact. I believe that having a fair division of labor is important, but not because debate is a game. Debate has intrinsic educational value and both teams should be debating over how they access a better model of the activity. For the negative, I like it when teams just answer the aff method and clash over the effectiveness of the 1AC.

Conditionality: I think that up to 3 advocacies are fine for me. Anything more and I am more sympathetic to the aff. Don't get it twisted, if the neg screws up debating condo, I will vote aff.

Feel free to ask me anything before the round. Most importantly compete, respect each other, and have fun.

I am  from TN and am looking forward to judging debate. Please make sure to speak on the slower side and clearly so that I can understand your arguments. Make sure to speak loudly and make eye contact as it helps me understand you better as well. Please be polite .

Thank you.

Kempner '20 | Stanford '24

Email: b.10.benitez@gmail.com

or just facebook message me

4 years of PF, qualified to TOC twice

________________________________

23-24 update: I haven't thought about debate in a minute, so the likelihood I know the intricacies of your arguments is low. However, don't hold back, treat me as tech judge, ask any questions beforehand.

- I've thought about it more, read whatever you want to read. However, my standard for technical proficiency rises as the more technical an argument becomes. i.e. if you want to read non-topical arguments, you'd better make sure you're doing a near perfect job in the back half to win because I won't search for a path to the ballot for you unless it's obvious. TLDR: make our lives easier by having good summaries and finals, I won't do the work for you.

- my old paradigm is here. Lots of my thoughts are the same, just ask me.

- if look confused, i probably am

- GRAPEVINE 24: FLIGHT 2 FLIP + PREFLOW BEFORE ROUND.

General stuff

• Flex prep is cool and tag team speeches/CX is fine with me

• if ur down to skip grand for 30 seconds more prep (during the time of grand), i'm down

• absent any offense in the round, i'm presuming neg on policy topics and first on "on balance" topics

• Defense you want to concede should be conceded in the speech immediately after it was originally read.

• A concession requires an implication of how the defense interacts with your argument not just "we concede to the delinks"

• discourse links are super sketch (i.e vote for us bc we introduced x issue into the round)

Hey all,

I'm a former four-year high school PFD debater and currently participate on the college circuit for both Mock Trial and British Parliamentarian Debate. In high school, I also dabbled across Individual events: Poetry, Poi, Oratory, Congress, getting to NSDA Nationals, and NITOC in Poetry and Poi respectively. For PFD, I was both a first and second speaker. In congress, I was the district's presiding officer.

In college, I'm a planned Political Science, Philosophy, and Econ major with a minor in data science. I say this to show I will hear both deontological and utilitarian arguments equally but want to hear at least some weighing in the summary and final focus. This weighing should be done on some agreed framework-I don't like rounds that are just fw based, I get if it is a point of contention up until summary speeches but beyond that is just draining for everyone (I find that if this is the case one team is usually being abusive).

If you spread, I'm ok with that, but please make sure you are articulating well and that you read your tags/sources for every card.

On sources, this is a major gripe of mine. I will be open to hearing any source objections play out, and if the opposition can not give you a valid citation I will expunge the card from my final calculus. Essentially, cite credible sources and have those citations handy.

I was big in high school on having outside-the-box cases and theory, and think it is always exciting to hear these arguments, but make sure you have a clear link chain, if one leg breaks do you have another to lean on? (if so make that known---remember I'm a Philosophy major so I love a well laid out arg).

I always hated when judges added in their own argumentation as a means to justify a loss: to be clear, I will not do that. If I add a possible question or counter arg that was not articulated in the round to your ballot, know that did not factor into my ruling.

That being said, I'm competent enough to understand where most arguments are going...As I said I am studying poli-sci and econ. If it's between a summary speech rearticulating a non-responded objection or hitting another arg, always hit the other arg.

Finally, a note on formatting. I'm not a stickler for the off-the-clock road map that has grown to be ever so pervasive-instead I just want you to signpost throughout your speech-I and everyone else in the room should be flowing, help us out when you transition from one side of the flow to the other.

First and Foremost any racist, homophobic, xenophobic, misogynistic, ableist, demeaning, degrading comments or arguments will instantly result in me dropping the debater in round and 0 speaker points for them.

Second, this paradigm was written by Satyam Bhushan from East Ridge Debate :)

I am a lay judge and this is my first year judging. Speak to me as if I'm a middle schooler. Assume all I know is what the resolution is.

Keep track of time by yourself.

Prog Arguments: I have no experience with Ks, Theories, or Tricks (I'm also not particularly a huge fan of them). Running them is just a risk for yourself and I would prefer the debate remained on substance. I would hate to vote against a team simply because I don't really understand progs.

Constructive: Avoid spreading, you can give it a go but it would be at your own risk. Clear and concise speaking will go a long way.

Rebuttal: Again no spreading, ensure the responses are warranted, don't just say "on their [insert card name] card blah blah blah". You can read the card name but make sure you tell me what the card is saying and why your response interacts with it.

Summary: When extending, don't just read the card name, give me a story and a scenario, ensure the extension is clear and not rushed. Frontlines should be well sign-posted and warranted. Ensure you weigh, why does your impact matter. Do all of these in a way that you would try to convince a middle schooler or anyone who doesn't know the topic to a great detail. No new frontlines in second summary. You can analyze what has been said already or bring in a new thought process of what's already been said but there should definitely not be new information or cards.

Final Focus: Emphasize on extending and weighing similar to summary but definitely condense the debate and tell me what the real issues are and why you win them.

Crossfire: I would prefer grand cross would not be skipped. Be respectful in all the crossfires. I will not consider any statements made in cross in my ballot unless it comes up in a speech.

The most important thing is that throughout the debate you are telling me a story and why its more valuable. Due to my inexperience, be wary and do your best to prevent me from getting lost in the tech and the line-by-line that many debaters are used to.

Hello My name is Mariana Blanco, I am parent judge with no prior experience.

I ask that you speak clearly, at a medium speed as I don’t want to miss key points of your argument because of trying to understand what you are saying. Communicate in an organized manner providing sufficient research evidence and reasoning with logic.

Good sportsmanship and kind and respectful attitude towards your opponents are important to me.

Cade, he/him

competitor @ Washburn University: '21-Present

coach @ NSU University School: '24-Present

Past Affiliations - debated @ Topeka High School: '17-'21, coached @ North Broward Prep: ‘22-‘24

Don't be mean, this should be a fun event for everyone. People who are mean will be punished via lower speaks. People who are actively awful (discriminatory, violent, or hateful to no end) will be punished via a combination of lower speaks, an L, and a discussion with relevant coaches/adults affiliated with your school.

cade.blenden03@gmail.com

Policy

- Style

Not very good at flowing theory/T debates executed at full speed - anything with lots of analytics should be slowed down a decent bit. In general, anything you want me to get down verbatim should have a corresponding shift in speed and intonation that allows me to write it all down - make it seem like it matters!

I find that I am often compelled by good judge instruction. Doing it increases the likelihood that I pick up what’s being put down. I think solid 2NR/2ARs are intentionally persuasive and spend time doing non line-by-line things - such as describing how the ballot should be written and why - that make getting me on your side much easier.

I am very happy when the final rebuttals are given off of paper/'the flow.'

I appreciate well-organized speech docs/efficient use of Verbatim, and have a equal disliking toward poor doc formatting or incredibly inefficient use of Verbatim.

I am unable to resolve or engage issues that occur outside of the debate round. If there is a concern about someone's behavior/conduct outside of the debate round itself, it should be handled with tab and other relevant adults.

If I notice clipping in a debate, I will decide the round against the team committing the violation. I may or may not stop the round, depending on how egregious it is - perhaps the educational value of the debate itself still exists if the infraction is more minor. If I do not notice, an accusation must be supplanted by evidence, and in the case of an ethics challenge I will default to tournament procedure/NSDA rules where applicable.

- Argument

In terms of argument preference, I am willing and able to listen to anything. Strongly tech > truth, though an argument being on the side of truth makes tech much easier to explain and win. Below are things I enjoy or think about different arguments.

Call out bad evidence---old internals that don't make sense anymore, impacts that should have been triggered, things under highlighted, etc.---I am super on the level there and think UQ, internal link scenarios, etc., mostly for policy affirmatives and DAs, should be updated.

-- T: not many preferences, not really a big fan of "whole res" type arguments, I like when procedural impacts come with examples of what a harmful/unfair/antieducational model of debate produces/looks like. If someone can explain how reasonability works to me, and wins that it is better than competing interpretations, then perhaps I will be reasonable. Otherwise, competing interpretations seems to make sense.

-- other NEG procedurals (ASPEC, plan flaws, etc.): I believe plan texts should be well-written, and am happy to listen to procedural arguments about affirmatives or counterplans where that is not the case. Acronyms and a lack of periods seem to be two common problems I see. Unless its an objective problem with how the plan text is written relative to the resolution, or a grammatical error in the plan itself, I am probably not down.

-- K: links should be specific to some part of the AFF. definitely in the camp that links premised on the AFF not having done something are not links at all. alternatives seem like they would have to 'solve the aff' in some sense to be competitive, but what that means I am unsure of, since critiques could solve the affirmatives harms in myriad ways that policy alone could not. I think AFFs should get to weigh their impacts. I am more likely to be excited voting NEG for the K with lots of 'link uniqueness' articulations---winning that the AFF meaningfully makes the status quo worse is where a lot of critiques fall flat in my eyes.

-- CP: I dislike lengthy multi-plank advantage counterplans. fan of silly process counterplans and PICs, and am generally of the belief that any counterplan can be read given the team is willing to defend against theory. judge kick seems to be valid if the NEG wins condo is legitimate, and condo itself seems fine, but the more positions/conditional planks we start adding, the more amicable I am to theory about it.

-- DA: the more generic the link/application of the link, the more likely I am to believe AFF link defense. old evidence sucks, and analytics about how world events disprove the DA because [x] thing happened and the link didn't, is compelling to me. do impact calculus! politics DAs trend toward annoying when there is not a substantive link given the resolution, and lots of debate's pseudo political theory [e.g., "winner's win"] seem bunk without lots of corresponding analysis about why it is true for the political scenario of the DA.

-- case: I like 1NCs where case is more than an afterthought/impact defense platter. I am theoretically game for sillier impact turns, however, I dislike old evidence. Wipeout from 2014 isn't my speed, but perhaps new takes or new cards - if they exist - would make me see it and similar positions in a better light.

Public Forum

Cards should be in Word documents preferably. If you have Google Docs I am pretty sure they can be converted (and shared) in Word still, and you should do that if that is the case. No PDFs. Also, learn to use the very helpful organizational tools provided by Verbatim. Broken docs or nav panes result in massive losses in vibe points.

Below is a living, breathing list of words, fake concepts, bad practices etc. that I have heard/seen used in PF rounds I've judged - saying/using/deploying any of the whatevers below is frustrating and probably hampers your chances of success with me in the room.

"delink"
any thing flagged as impact calculus which does not start with "timeframe, magnitude, probability" - idk what a scope is or any of the myriad other pf words out there mean, but all of them seem to be poor abstractions of these core three.
paraphrased evidence
cards with non-existent tags
cards with tags that are a transition word and a comma - "accordingly,...", "thus,..." and anything similar fit the bill
"uplayering"
asking for disclosure at the start time of the round - not disclosing at all - disclosing nonsense documents without tags or citations clearly labelled
failing to send speech documents before speeches start
confusing framing (an addendum to impact weighing) with framework (the procedural question of how a judge should evaluate substantive questions within the debate)

“metaweighing”

Parent judge with 5 years of experience judging PF and some LD, both in-person and online. I'm not quite a tech judge, but am getting closer. For PF debates:

• Clearly lay out your contentions and subpoints upfront, and refer back to them during the round when you're providing additional evidence or warrants. Extend in your final speeches.
• I don't need an off-time roadmap, but feel free to provide one if you think it's helpful. Your speech should be organized well enough that I can tell when you're talking about your case or your opponent's, without an upfront roadmap to guide me there.
• I don't flow crossfire unless something new jumps out that I'm looking for later. In the next speeches, be sure to extend anything from crossfire that you want me to consider. Otherwise, you've made the decision that it's not important for me to hear or consider.
• Weigh, or at least tell me what the impacts are of your argument. Without that, I'm left without much of a "why" upon which to judge the round.
• That said, impacts should be reasonable and realistic. If nuclear war and 7 billion deaths really are a likely impact of your argument, that's fine. But I might give equal weight to an argument that would lead to 100K deaths from a conventional war that is more likely to happen in your future-state or the status quo. Or one that would increase the deficit by 5%, if that's more likely to be the outcome. And I definitely won't give much weight to a nuclear war impact from something like organic farming, or Medicare for All -- again, be realistic.
• If you want to run theory, go for it, but remember you're trying to convince me (not a professor or college debater) that your argument is better than your opponent's. Most theory cases don't do a lot for me, so you have a higher bar to clear if you're going to go that route.
• This goes without saying, but be polite and respectful to each other, and have fun. Even if it gets testy during the round, please congratulate each other at the end and shake hands (or fist-bump). I know the competitive aspect of this is real and can get intense, but remember why you're here.

I believe that public forum was designed to have a "john or sally doe" off the street come in and be a judge.  That means that speaking clearly is absolutely essential.  If I cannot understand you, I cannot weigh what you say.  I also believe that clarity is important.  Finally, I am a firm believer in decorum, that is, showing respect to your opponent.  In this age of political polarization and uncompromising politics, I believe listening to your opponent and showing a willingness to give credence to your opponents arguments is one of the best lessons of public forum debate.

Engineering grad and IT professional living in DC; I did PF in Virginia 2013-2017 and have been judging debate since 2018.

General:

1. Please pre-flow before round start time. I value keeping things moving along, and starting early if possible, so that the round does not go overtime.

2. I'm fine with speed, if you speak clearly and preferably provide a speech doc.

3a. Time yourself. When you run out of time, finish your sentence gracefully, on a strong note, and stop speaking.

3b. I will also time you. When you run out of time, I will make a hand gesture with my fist, then silently stop taking notes on my flow and wait for you to finish. I will cut you off if you are 30 seconds over time; if I cut you off, it means I didn't listen to anything you said for roughly the last 30 seconds.

4. I don't care if you sit or stand. Do whichever you prefer.

5. If you run K, please hand-hold me a little bit in terms of explaining their structure and why I should vote on them. I like when debaters deconstruct the format/topic/incentive structure of debate, and I've been around long enough to be more and more receptive to those arguments. However I haven't yet judged a K round.

6. I like case/evidence disclosure. It leads to better debates and better evidence ethics. When a team makes a pre-round disclosure of case/evidence or shares a rebuttal doc, I expect that the other team will reciprocate. I expect that you have an evidence doc and can quickly share any evidence the opposing team calls for. If you have not prepared to share your evidence, you should run prep to get your evidence doc together. I want rounds to proceed on schedule and will note it in RFD and speaks if a significant and preventable waste of time occurs in the round.

7. Be nice. It's really important to remember that however well or poorly the round is going, you need to be respectful in the way your treat other participants in the debate. I will not accept debaters who attempt to make their opponents feel less than, even if those debaters are winning on arguments.

PF:

I typically vote on terminal impacts. Use your constructive to state and quantify impacts that I as a human can care about. I care about saving lives, reducing suffering and increasing happiness, in descending order of importance. Provide warrants and evidence for your claims, then extend your claims and impacts through to final focus. In final focus, weigh: tell me *how* you won in terms of the impacts I care about. You should also weigh to help me decide between impacts that are denominated in different units, for instance if one side impacts to poverty and the other side impacts to, idk, life expectancy, your job as debaters is to tell me why one of those is more important to vote on. If you both impact to the same thing, like extinction, make sure you are weighing the unique aspects of your case, like probability, timeframe, and solvency against the other side's case.

1. If you call a card and begin prepping while you wait to receive it, I will run your prep. Calling for evidence is not free prep.

2. Be nice to each other in cross; let the other person finish. Cut them off if they are monopolizing time.

3. If you want me to consider an argument when I vote, extend it all the way through final focus.

LD:

The way I vote in LD is different from how I vote in PF. In the most narrow sense, I vote for whichever team has the best impact on the value-criteron for the value that I buy into in-round.

This means you don't necessarily have to win on your own case's value or your own case's VC. Probably you will find it easier to link your impacts to your own value and VC, but you can also concede to your opponent's value and link into their VC better than they do, or delink your opponent's VC from their value, or show that your case supports a VC that better ties into their value.

Policy:

I have judged novice policy once. I'm aware of the structure of policy debate and various mechanics/techniques that have made their way into LD/PF. You should assume I will need a little bit of hand-holding if the round hinges on theory, topicality or K. If the round doesn't go there and no one instructs me otherwise, I will look to impact calculus by default when voting.

Congress:

I don't judge Congress nearly enough to have an in-depth paradigm, but it happens now and then that I judge Congress, particularly for local tournaments and intramurals. I will typically give POs top-3 if they successfully follow procedure and hold the room together.

Ranking is more based on gut feeling but mainly I'm looking to evaluate: did you speak compellingly like you believe and care about the things you're saying, did you do good research to support your position, and did you take the initiative to speak, particularly when the room otherwise falls silent.

BQ:

I've never judged BQ before and have been researching the format, watching some rounds and bopping around Reddit for the last week or so to understand the rules and norms. Since I'm carrying some experience with other formats in, you should know I will flow all speeches, and only the speeches. I will give a lot of leeway to the debaters to determine the definitions and framing of the round, and expect them to clash over places where those definitions and framings are in conflict, and ultimately I will determine from that clash what definitions and framing I should adopt when signing my ballot.

Please put me on the email chain (rburns@svudl.org) and if you have any questions about what follows, don't hesitate to ask! .

12+ years coaching and directing college and high school debate programs on national and local circuits.

I primarily judge policy, but have also judged a fair amount of LD, PF, and WSD. The teams I've coached on the nat circuit run primarily critical arguments. Most of my local judging involves more traditional policy rounds.

I understand and appreciate critical and policy arguments and am fine with you arguing about whatever you wish to make the debate about.

I see my role as an educator, center my decisions on the arguments made in the debate (while trying to bracket my own preferences), and am flow centered as my default (unless arguments are made for a different approach to adjudicating - if you can win a different approach is better, I'm open).

Here are my thoughts on procedural arguments.

Games have to be fair and simulate something we love about life, or be connected to life or they are not very fun. But what does it mean for a game to be fair? Is that the only value I should care about?

I love debate, so access to it is a terminal impact. It is an educational game (or it has been for me) so education is also a terminal impact. But it's a game. So fairness matters.

I don't think any of these three procedural impacts are more basic or fundamental than the other. I just abide in the tension and allow debaters to frame and weight the impacts.

I believe debate is about open inquiry, and I want to allow debaters to test all kinds of claims. If you choose to examine philosophical questions, or explore how identity and subjectivity are formed by debate, I will enjoy the discussion more than a procedural CP + politics DA. But I'll work hard to fairly adjudicate whatever your interest is.

Please note that explanation will serve you in debates centered around complicated concepts. Although I have done graduate work in philosophy, I would rather be treated as an informed layperson than a specialist.

Current Affiliations - Parent of Rock Hill High School student

Top level note - Be respectful to your opponents. If I detect a rude or callous tone in your voice or body language it will count against you. If your intent is to use these type tactics it would be best if you strike me.

Email: kip.carr1@gmail.com

Public Forum

I DO NOT WANT TO BE ON YOUR GOOGLE DOC - WORD DOCs on EMAIL CHAINS OR SPEECHDROP PLEASE

kip.carr1@gmail.com - please create an email chain prior to the round

My student participant is educating me on the event terminology, so please don't overestimate my complete understanding of the vernacular.

• Spreading: Do not spread...I don't have extensive experience judging that style. I won't comprehend the argumentative context if I don't hear it.
• Paraphrasing: Do not paraphrase evidence...all evidence should be introduced as full cut cards. I understand that in PF this may be the norm, but if your opponent calls it out I'm very inclined to vote on that.
• Extensions: Bring up each extension of an argument in each speech. If you don't extend thru speeches, I will likely not vote on that argument.
• Progressive Arguments: Do not run theory, kritik's or topicality arguments. I am new to this event and I will not be able to effectively vote on them.
• Exception - If there is clear abuse of the rules in the round, a well explained theory argument may work but take into account my previous points

Raul Cepin (he/him/his)

Binghamton University '18

Bishop Loughlin Memorial High School ’13

Contact: cepin.jr@gmail.com

Debated for 4 years in high school, debated in college and qualified to the NDT every year I debated. Qualified teams to the TOC.

1. I think line by line as a guideline for the structure of flowing is effective

2. K, performance all okay - debated this kind of stuff. Be clear and make sure I get it.

3. T/FW - T is good and important, so is framework. You need to defend an interpretation.

4. Tricks are a no-go

Dear Debaters,

I am a parent judge so please speak clearly and so I can understand what you are saying and why.

I will give full speaker points to all debaters who can do this.

I will ultimately vote for the team who can best use logic to support their case.

Good luck!

When judging a debate, I consider

- arguments and style about equally. It is easier for me to evaluate arguments presented in a structured format.

- the final focus as a chance for debaters to summarize their strongest arguments

- whether the debater extends an argument in rebuttal or summary speeches

- analytics supported by evidence over analytics.

I am a parent judge. No Jargon please.

Please speak clearly.

Truth > Tech.

I will post the results to Tabroom for the prelim rounds.

Be respectful and good luck!

Hello,

I'm a parent judge and have been judging PF for two years

Speaks start at a 28 and go up or down depending on the round

I like a clean debate and clear arguments. I will vote off dropped arguments and weighing

Impact before speed. Please do not spread or yell. Use fewer, clear arguments that I can understand. This will win over cramming in so much so quickly that I can't understand the points you're trying to make.

Please email case, documents or cards to kelly.ciombor@gmail.com

Don't be disrespectful or impolite to your opponents. Be courteous and no rudeness or personal attacks. I will drop speaker points

If an argument or point is not refuted or contested by the other team, I will accept that as truth.

My background: I am a former CEDA debater (1987-89) and CEDA coach (1990-93) from East Tennessee State University. Upon my retirement in August 2021 I've judged numerous at numerous debate tournaments for PF, LD, IDPA, Parli, and Big Questions (mostly PF and LD). (FYI, when I participated in CEDA it was quasi-policy, not true policy like it is today.)

Speed: I can keep up with a quick-ish speed - enunciation is very important! Pre round I can do a "speed test" and let you know what I think of a participant's speech speed if anyone wants to. I think it is especially important to make sure cases are comprehensible. I look at speech docs if something only if evidence is questioned. I was never a super speed debater and didn’t encourage my students to speed. Please keep all this in mind if you normally utilize speedy delivery.

Theory: I am familiar with topicality and if other theory is introduced, I could probably understand it. (I also used to run hasty generalization but not sure if that’s still a thing or not.) Theory is best used when it’s pertinent to a round, not added for filler and needs to be well developed if I am expected to vote on it. If you are debating topicality on the neg you need to provide a counter definition and why I should prefer it to the aff.

The rounds: Racism/sexism etc. will not be tolerated. Rudeness isn’t appreciated either. I do not interject my own thoughts/opinions/judgements to make a decision, I only look at what is provided in the round itself. Re: criteria, I want to hear what the debaters bring forward and not have to come up with my own criteria to judge the round. My default criteria is cost/benefit analysis. I reserve the right to call in evidence. (Once I won a round that came down to a call for evidence, so, it can be important!) As far as overall judging, I always liked what my coach used to say – “write the ballot for me”. Debaters need to point out impacts and make solid, logical arguments. I appreciate good weighing and I will weigh the arguments that carried through to the end of the round more heavily than arguments that are not. Let me know what is important to vote on in your round and why. Sign posting/numbering arguments is appreciated and is VERY important to me; let me know where you plan to go at the top of your speech and also refer back to your roadmap as you go along.

Cross Examination: a good CX that advances the round is always valued. If someone asks a question, please don’t interrupt the debater answering the question. I don’t like to see a cross ex dominated by one side.

In most rounds I will keep back up speaking time and prep time.

I hope to see enjoyable and educational rounds. You will learn so many valuable skills being a debater! Good luck to all participants!

Lynne Coyne, Myers Park HS, NC. 20+ years experience across formats

GENERAL COMMENTS

I have coached debate, and been a classroom teacher, for a long time. I feel that when done well, with agreed upon “rules of engagement”, there is not a better activity to provide a training ground for young people.

Debate rounds, and subsequently debate tournaments, are extensions of the classroom. While we all learn from each other, my role is parallel to that of an instructor. I will evaluate your performance. I see my role as to set a fair, but stringent, set of expectations for the students I am judging. At times, this means advancing expectations that I feel are best for the students and, at times, the broader community as well. I see myself as a critic of argument , or in old school policy lingo, a hypothesis tester. The resolution is what I vote for or against, rather than just your case or counterplan, unless given a compelling reason otherwise.

Below please find a few thoughts as to how I evaluate debates.

1. Speed is not a problem. In most of the debates I judge, clarity IS the problem not the speed of spoken word itself. I reserve the right to yell “clear” once or twice…after that, the burden is on the debater. I will show displeasure… you will not be pleased with your points. Style and substance are fundamentally inseparable but I recognize that low point wins are often a needed option, particularly in team events. The debater adapts to the audience to transmit the message-not the opposite. I believe I take a decent flow of the debate.

2. I generally dislike theory debates littered with jargon (exception is a good policy T debate that has communication implications and standards—if you’ve known me long enough this will still make you shake your head perhaps). Just spewing without reasons why an interpretation is superior for the round and the activity is meaningless. Disads run off the magical power of fiat are rarely legitimate since fiat is just an intellectual construct. I believe all resolutions are funadamentally questions of WHO should do WHAT--arguments about the best actor are thus legitimate. I am not a person who enjoys random bad theory debates and ugly tech debates. I judge debates based on what is said and recorded on my flow--not off of shared docs which can become an excuse for incomprehensibilty. I look at cards/docs only if something is called into question.

3. Evidence is important. In my opinion debates/comparisons about the qualifications of authors on competing issues (particularly empirical ones), in addition to a comparison of competing warrants in the evidence, is important. Do you this and not only will your points improve, I am likely to prefer your argument if the comparison is done well. All students should have full cites for materials.

4. I am not a “blank state”. I also feel my role as a judge is to serve a dual function of rendering a decision, in addition to serving a role as educator as well. I try not to intervene on personal preferences that are ideological, but I believe words do matter. Arguments that are racist, sexist, homophobic etc will not be tolerated. If I see behaviors or practices that create a bad, unfair, or hostile environment for the extension of the classroom that is the debate round, I will intervene.

The ballot acts as a teaching tool NOT a punishment.

5. Answer questions in cross-examination/cross-fire. Cross-ex is binding. I do listen carefully to cross – ex. Enter the content of CX into speeches to translate admissions into arguments. Do not all speak at once in PF and do allow your partner to engage equally in grand cross fire.

6. Debating with a laptop is a choice, if you are reading from a computer I have three expectations that are nonnegotiable:

A) You must jump the documents read to the opposition in a timely manner (before your speech or at worse IMMEDIATELY after your speech) to allow them to prepare or set up an email chain.

B) If your opponent does not have a laptop you need to have a viewing computer OR surrender your computer to them to allow them to prepare. The oppositions need to prep outweighs your need to prep/preflow in that moment in time.

C) My expectation is that the documents that are shared are done in a format that is the same as read by the debater that initially read the material. In other words, I will not tolerate some of the shenanigan’s that seem to exist, including but not limited to, using a non standard word processing program, all caps, no formatting etc..

7. Weighing and embedded clash are a necessary component of debate. Good debaters extend their arguments. GREAT debaters do that in addition to explaining the nexus point of clash between their arguments and that of the opposition and WHY I should prefer their argument. A dropped argument will rarely alone equal a ballot in isolation.

8. An argument makes a claim, has reasoning, and presents a way to weigh the implications (impacts). I feel it takes more than a sentence (or in many of the rounds I judge a sentence fragment), to make an argument. If the argument was not clear originally, I will allow the opponent to make new arguments. If an argument is just a claim, it will carry very little impact.

POLICY

At the NCFL 2023 I will be judging policy debate for the first time in a decade. Here is the warning: I know the generic world of policy, but not the acronyms, kritiks, etc., of this topic. You need to slow down to make sure I am with you. As in all forms of debate, choice of arguments in later speeches and why they mean you win not only the argument, but the round, is important. If you are choosing to run a policy structured argument in another format--better be sure you have all your prima facia burdens met and know the demands of that format.

Choose. No matter the speech or the argument.

Please ask me specific questions if you have one before the debate.

Email: josephcharlesdan@gmail.com

You can call me Joseph (he/him) in rounds.

I was a CX debater in high school for 4 years and now debate for UTD.

My preference is the k, but I ran a lot of policy. The only arguments you shouldn't run in front of me are tricks and preferably not phil (I never ran it or debated against it, so there's a good chance I can't evaluate a phil round the way you would want me to). Debate however you want; I try not to interject my own biases into the round. This also means I'm tech over truth and will vote for arguments that I personally don't agree with. Cross is binding and I'll be paying attention. If you make the round easy for me to judge through judge instruction, you will be more likely to win and there's a much lower chance of judge intervention.

FW is fine; I don't have any specific feelings towards it. I think teams need to do more impact framing/comparison, especially if you are going for a procedural impact. I think the we meet is a yes/no question, while the TVA and SSD are more flexible. I enjoy KvK rounds as long as there is an actual link. Contextual link analysis and argument comparison are important and the easiest ways to get ahead in a round. Policy teams also let the neg get away with way too much on the alt. The perm is generally a persuasive argument against non-ontology Ks, so I do expect neg teams to have a robust answer to it.

Dropped arguments are not necessarily true, but I do give them some credence. Not that it will change the way I evaluate rounds, but I generally think debaters are better off going for arguments that are better and they are more familiar with than chasing ink unless an argument was mishandled. Spread however fast you want as long as it's not unclear.

Critical literature I read in debate:

• Afropess (Wilderson, Warren, Gillespie, Barber, etc.)
• Baudrillard
• Berardi
• University
• Cap
• Fanon
• Security

But I'm down with anything.

Email me if you have any questions!

I am a trial attorney that has been practicing law since 2000. I never participated in speech or debate competitions as a high school or college student, but through the past twenty years and law school I have been actively arguing on behalf of my clients. I have two children with several years of speech and debate experience so I know the hard work and commitment that it takes to be prepared for these tournaments. Please email me your arguments and cards prior to the round gdell@diattorney.com

Important to Me

Debate:

I want to understand your arguments. Do not speak super fast as I don't understand what you are saying. I would like for you to speak at a normal pace and provide the facts and resources that support your arguments. Simple vocabulary words are great. A 6th grade student should be able to understand your arguments and all the words you use. Listen to your opponents arguments and state specifically why you disagree with them. Do not restate your argument as a reply to the opponents positions. I want to feel like you believe in your argument and really understand it. I assume you have requested your opponents arguments prior to the round, and if you have not, then you should do so.

Speech

Relax and have fun. Assume, I don't know anything about your topic so I am looking forward to hearing about it. If you need help with timing, please let me know.

Debated PF at Westwood High School, 2018-2022

Send Email Chain before round starts and add me: nathan.fang4@gmail.com.

I agree with Amogh Mahambare's Paradigm.

K's and Theories are fine, but make sure to articulate it well and clearly.

Speed is fine, just don't spread. Treat me as a flay judge for better results.

For the rounds I am judging, I will be looking for mechanisms of arguments, analysis of impact, proper structure when presented, with attention to how you explicate the arguments you believe best sum your case.

When it comes to style, the ability to flow from one arguments to the next and the clarity of presenting your argument is important. That being said, respecting your opponent is of utmost importance.

It is also important to see how you collaborate with your teammate, building on top of their arguments, refering to points made by teammate (without repeating them whole) to better your point

Special Note For January Topic - Repeal Section 230:

In my opinion, this debate has two parts to it:

1. What is the proper interpretation of Section 230.
2. Given the above interpretation, what is the best course of action to take regarding its future and why.

Successful arguments will address both parts.

Good luck!

About me:

I am a relatively new parent judge with limited understanding of debate jargon. My day job is developing software for a financial services company.

My approach:

I think I would be best described as a flow judge. I don't flow cross fire (so don't use it to introduce arguments or evidence), but I listen to it to correct statements I may have misheard. That said, if you bring up a point in cross fire that is a new point, I expect that to be brought up in a subsequent speech in order for it to impact my decision.

I don't flow speed really well, so spread at your own risk.

I think I am tech > truth. If you do not address your opponents arguments, I will accept them as true.

As the round progresses I am looking for your team to:

1. Clearly state your contentions.
2. Support your contentions with at least 1 piece of evidence.
3. Tell me the impacts, their weight, and their probability.
4. Tell me why the collective weight and probability of your impacts out weigh your opponents'.
5. Respectfully refute your opponents' claims, evidence, weighing or probability as appropriate, preferably with counter evidence of your own.

I will drop your speaker points for rudeness. You can passionately debate the topic and still be respectful.

I don't understand theory and Kritiks so probably best not to use them with me.

send the email chain to jonahgentleman@gmail.com

Hi, I'm Jonah (he/him). I regularly competed in both LD and policy at Advanced Technologies Academy and now attend Rutgers University. My guiding philosophy when judging is that I will evaluate any argument, as long as it is properly warranted and does not make the round unsafe for anyone involved.

Policy

These are the rounds I am the most comfortable judging. I like 1NCs that spend a good bit of time on case and really engage with the aff (rehighlightings, smart analytics, things like that). I think impact turns are cool too. I think impact weighing is extremely important, and robust disad turns case explanations make me happy. I enjoy hearing smart advantage CPs. Nebel T is boring but if you read it I think going for limits offense is much smarter than semantics.

Kritiks/K Affs

I am probably the least comfortable judging these debates. I think policy vs. K debates can be cool, but they often feel overly confusing. I get really annoyed by super long 2NR overviews that don't make things any clearer. If I can understand what the K's thesis is, why the aff links, and why that's bad coming out of the debate - that's perfect. But I find that does not happen often. I have the most experience with cap, security, setcol, and queerpess, but anything beyond that might require more explanation than you're used to. For K affs, if I come out of the 2AR clearly understanding what your model of debate is and why that’s good, I will be very inclined to vote for you. Framework is probably the best strategy to go for in front of me, because K vs. K debates get very confusing quick.

Theory/Phil/Tricks

I'm all for it. I only ask for two things: make sure that your arguments are warranted and that you do weighing!! I notice 1AR theory debates become super hard to resolve when standards aren't responded to or weighed. Also it would be great if you go just a bit slower than usual because I am bad at flowing. I recently found out that I think phil debate is pretty cool. Feel free to read any philosopher you are comfortable with as long as you can explain it. I guess I'm fine with whatever tricky arguments you want to read BUT the sillier these args get the lower speaks you will get.

Traditional

I did a lot of traditional debate in high school am fine with judging it. I think that the value criterion is very important and should be very prevalent in every speech when it comes to weighing. Circuit competitors should be inclusive as possible to traditional debaters.

Public Forum

Adding this here because I occasionally judge this. Hopefully knowing that I have a policy background should be enough for you, but the two most important things to consider is that I evaluate rounds very technically and I won't listen to paraphrased evidence. Disclosure is also not really a norm yet in this event so I'm not very persuaded by related arguments.

Update for TOC Digital (12/2-12/4): I don't believe in sticky defense. Extend your arguments in every speech.

Speaker Points

I used to have a somewhat in-depth system here but I realize I really don't follow it. I think most rounds I judge I give speaks from 28.5 to 29. If I think you collapsed well and liked your strategy you'll get 29-29.5. If you are a super duper awesome debater you'll get above that, but it's somewhat rare for me.

Misc.

- Prep time ends when the doc is sent.

- I'll disclose speaks if you ask.

- I really really really don't like evaluating death good arguments.

- Misgendering is obviously very bad and if you do it repeatedly your speaks (and potentially my decision) will reflect that.

- It would be very cool if you slowed down on analytics, because I can't vote on something I didn't hear. This is compounded by my slightly below average flowing skills.

- If you couldn’t already tell, I lean tech over truth.

- If you are annoying in CX I will get annoyed.

- Accessibility is really important to me. Don’t bully novices and don’t be elitist toward traditional debaters.

- Accusations of clipping/violating ev ethics will stop the round. I think evidence is miscut if it is plagiarized, incorrectly cited (author/date), skips paragraphs, or starts or ends in the middle of a paragraph (where the skipped part of the text changes the meaning). I require a recording to verify clipping. If the accuser is correct, the other team loses with minimum speaks. If the accuser is wrong, they lose with minimum speaks.

I am a parent judge. I will be taking notes on the debate. I would like debaters to explain their arguments very clearly. I will not evaluate new arguments brought up in the final speeches.

I am a parent judge so please no spreading. I am looking for clear arguments and for a respectful debate. Please keep your own time.

Hi, I am a parent of an avid debater, and I am a scrupulous note taker. I always read up on the topic prior to judging, but explain things to me as if I am learning about it for the first time. I have an extensive history judging on the national circuit for PF. I like teams which have good evidence to support their claims. Try to tell me a story with your arguments about why your impacts matter in the first place. Links in your logical reasoning should be clearly explained, and I won't consider your impacts unless your links make sense. Also, if it is not in summary, then it shouldn't be in final focus. During Cross-X try be as respectful of your opponents as possible, and being respectful helps your speaker points. If you're going to turn your opponent's argument, make sure there is an impact. Also last but not least, weighing during summary and final focus definitely makes it easier for me to judge your round. Look forward to judging your round!

I am a lay judge with 2 years of judging experience. A few notes about my preferences

Don't speak too quickly, explain arguments and enunciate well as if I am unable to understand what you are saying I will not be able to evaluate it in my decision

Be respectful during cross, as I will lower speaker points if you are rude to your opponents

Don't run any arguments such as theory or K's that use complex arguments

And lastly, have fun and debate well!

Lay Judge

Affiliations: Middleton High School (WI), Tufts University

Background: I debated PF for three years and Congress for fours years in Wisconsin, with limited experience on the national circuit. I'm a history and political science double major, so I love seeing historical examples/political theory (not to be confused with debate theory) within cases :)

General Paradigm (PF): I'm definitely more of a traditionalist, but I’m tech over truth as long as you aren’t blatantly lying. Don't spread; talking fast is fine, but speak at a rate that a non-debater would be able to understand. (If you have to take giant gasps of air when speaking, it's a sign you're going too fast) I'm not the best with too much speed, so I might miss arguments. I will not read speech docs. If I do not hear the argument, it will not be a factor in the round. Use all the PF jargon you want, but please don't use any disads, Ks, or anything rooted in Policy/LD. If you’re fiating something, please make sure your explanation is clear.

Also, please extend (this means your warrant and your impact) your arguments with their card tags, signpost, give me a brief road map (signposting > roadmap) and weigh. Weighing is extremely important for me. Saying that something pre-reqs something else means absolutely nothing if you haven’t given me a warrant, and I don’t see it as a form of weighing. I will vote for a bad argument weighed well over a good argument weighed poorly. Meta-weigh if you have to. If your opponents are weighing on probability and you're weighing on magnitude, tell me why I should prefer probability over magnitude. These things will both elevate the round and make judging it way easier, so it's a win-win for all of us.

Lastly, if you're going to read triggering arguments, read a trigger warning and make sure everyone's okay with you running that kind of contention before case/before the round.

Theory/Prog Arguments: I don't like theory, but I am willing to keep an open mind.

Evidence: If there's an evidence conflict in the round that's serious enough or a card that sounds too good to be true, I'll call for the card. If it's an online tourney, send evidence to hebaemail618@gmail.com.

Speaks: Please don't be overly aggressive. I won't flow cross, but I will note disrespectful behavior, so make sure everyone gets enough time to speak, and be aware of implicit power dynamics due to race, gender, age, etc.

Other Stuff: Have fun with it! There's far too many debaters who walk in stiff-postured and stony-faced. At the end of the day, this is a performance. Loosen up, crack some jokes, smile a little, anything that will make your side more compelling and more interesting to watch. There is a fine line between being funny and being mean, though. Don't cross it.

Congress

I've been judging Congressional Debate at the TOC since 2011. I'm looking for no rehash & building upon the argumentation. I want to hear you demonstrate true comparative understanding of the advantages and disadvantages of the plan presented by the legislation. Don't simply praise or criticize the status quo as if the legislation before you doesn't exist.

LD Paradigm:

Each LDer should have a value/value criterion that clarifies how their case should be interpreted.

I prefer to evaluate a round by selecting whose V/VC weighs most heavily under their case. Winning this is not in itself a reason for you to win. Tell me what arguments you're winning at the contention level, how they link, and how much they weigh in comparison to other arguments (yours and your opponent's) in the round.

Voting down the flow, if both sides prove framework and there’s not a lot of clash I would move on to the contention level and judge off the flow.

PUBLIC FORUM

SPEED
Don't. I can't deal with speed.

EVIDENCE
Paraphrasing is a horrible practice that I discourage. Additionally, I want to hear evidence dates (year of publication at a minimum) and sources (with author's credential if possible) cited in all evidence.

REBUTTALS
I believe it is the second team's duty to address both sides of the flow in the second team's rebuttal. A second team that neglects to both attack the opposing case and rebuild against the prior rebuttal will have a very difficult time winning my ballot as whichever arguments go unaddressed are essentially conceded.

SUMMARIES
The summaries should be treated as such - summarize the major arguments in the debate. I expect debaters to start to narrow the focus of the round at this point.

FINAL FOCUS
FOCUS is key. I would prefer 2 big arguments over 10 blippy ones that span the length of the flow. If you intend to make an argument in the FF, it should have been well explained, supported with analysis and/or evidence, and extended from its origin point in the debate all the way through the FF.

IMPACTS

I rock with the nuclear war impact, but it's getting a little old, lol. The concept of a nuclear war is too complex and I find that it's been thrown too loosely in the debate space. I know it's cliche, but please don't generate this impact and tell me you win on magnitude and expect that to be a reason for me to give your team an easy ballot. If one of your impacts genuinely leads to an outbreak of a nuclear war, please warrant it well.

CX

I am a policymaker judge who does not ignore the stock issues. I think the Aff's job is to propose a topical policy solution and the Negative's job is to demonstrate why that policy should be rejected. I will weigh the advantages and disadvantages, plan vs CP, and impacts. I will vote on kritiks if they can be clearly enunciated and applied to the advocacy in round. C-X is a highly effective way of framing/rebutting your opponent's arguments.

NFA-LD

I view NFA-LD as one-person policy. Please refer to CX comments just above.

INTERP

Overall: I pay real close attention to the introduction of each piece, I look for the lens of analysis and the central thesis that will be advanced during the interpretation of literature. When the performance is happening, I'm checking to see if they have dug down deep enough into an understanding of their literature through that intro and have given me a way to contextualize the events that are happening during the performance

POI: I look for clean transitions and characterization (if doing multiple voices).

DI: I look for the small human elements that come from acting. Big and loud gestures are not always the way to convey the point, sometimes something smaller gets the point more powerfully.

HI: I look for clean character transitions, distinct voices, and strong energy in the movements. And of course the humor.

INFO: I'm looking for a well researched speech that has a strong message to deliver. Regardless of the genre of info you're presenting, I think that showing you've been exhaustive with your understanding is a good way to win my ballot. I'm not wow'd by flashy visuals that add little substance, and I'm put off by speeches that misrepresent intellectual concepts, even unintentionally. I like speeches that have a conclusion, and if the end of your speech is "and we still don't know" then I think you might want to reassess the overall direction you are taking.

FX/DX: When I'm evaluating an extemp speech, I'm continually thinking "did they answer the question? or did they answer something that sounded similar?" So keep that in your mind. Are you directly answering the question? When you present information that could be removed without affecting the overall quality of the speech, that is a sign that there wasn't enough research done by the speaker. What I vote on in terms of content are speeches that show a depth of understanding of the topic by evaluating the wider implications that a topic has for the area/region/politics/etc.

I am a retired coach. I have judged LOTS of rounds in all formats. I consider myself traditional in my approach to all events. I have provided my paradigm for speech and debate events here.

Public Speaking Events

All speeches should have well structured introductions, fully developed body, and satisfaction for your audience thru your conclusion. Sources are key to your speech, you should use a variety of appropriate sources. I expect that your speech will include the "why do I care" - What draws your audience to want to learn more from what you have to say. In extemp, I expect you to answer the specific question you were given. I evaluate all non-verbal communication in your presentation. I accept all perspectives on all topics; however, I expect that your are aware of your audience and avoid language or statements that may be offensive.

Interp Events

First and foremost, pieces should be appropriate for the venue. While I understand that some pieces may contain some sexual innuendo, I will reject innuendo that is not a part of the original script or that is added for the "shock value" rather than the development of the performance. Your introduction should be more than telling me the storyline that you are presenting. There is a reason you chose this piece, a topic you want to discuss. Share that in your intro. Give me believable characters that I can empathize with. Be sure there is an identifiable difference in your characters.

In all debate rounds

Don’t depend on email chains or flashing briefs to include an argument in the round. If it is not spoken during your speeches, it is not in the round. I prefer a more communicative speed of delivery, especially when using online competition. I can keep up but, I think the idea of trying to spread your opponent out of the round is not in the realm of what debate should be. I would rather hear a good clash on the arguments presented.

In PF

I believe PF should be a debate with class. Interactions between opponents should be cordial. Crossfire should be used to obtain information NOT to belittle your opponent. You can not ignore your opponent's arguments and expect to win. Evidence and common sense are key.

In LD

I feel that LD should be philosophy based. Even if the topic is policy-oriented, the selection of a policy is always based on values. Therefore, you should be prepared to debate your value and criterion to support your view on the topic. If you can't support your view, how can I accept your position?

A Kritik on the topic is not an acceptable position. You have been given a topic to debate and that is what I expect to hear. If all you offer is the Kritik, you have not upheld your burden and will lose the round. Running a Kritik on the topic in addition to case arguments is a huge contradiction in your case.

If you want me to view the round from your viewpoint, you must provide voters in your final speech.

In Congress

I judge a lot of congress rounds. If you want me to rank you in the chamber there are a few things you need to remember.

This is a congressionaldebate. I expect that you do more than read a prepared speech. There should be responses to previous speeches. I want to hear more than the affirmative said, i want you to refer to the specific person that made the argument/statement

Provide sources to the house to substantiate your points. I want organization. I would like to see a preview of your points but a well organized speech is more important.

You need to be active in the chamber. Questions are an essential part of the process. With that being said, don't ask questions that do not seek to expand information. That is a waste of the chamber's time and takes time away from those with solid questions.

I want CLASH. It's important that legislators names are mentioned in clash, not just "the affirmative said" or "the negative said. I judge a lot of congress and except clarity and persuasive style. This is not policy debate so speed is a negative.

In CX

I encourage traditional debate in terms of format. That means I do not like open cx. With that being said, I accept progressive style arguments. I will listen to your arguments, but I expect you to provide warrants and logical analysis. If you are the opponent, don’t assume I will reject an argument on face, you must respond if you want to win the argument.

I DO vote on STOCK ISSUES. So Affirmative teams should be prepared to meet those standards.

Negative teams, please don’t throw out a dozen arguments only to drop the ones that don’t stick. If you bring the argument into the round plan to carry it thru to the end.

Label your arguments before you start reading your briefs!

I believe it is essential that you weigh the impacts of your argument in the round.

I am a parent judge and have judged a few times in the past.

I DO NOT HANDLE SPEED. If you are reading to fast or do not speak clearly I can’t understand.

Time your own prep and speeches.

I don't have a particular preference on how you debate. Just follow the guideline and assume I know nothing about the topic that you are debating on.

Explain why your case is better than your opponents, and why you should win the round over them.

**If you run any sort of K or theory with me as your judge it is incredibly unlikely I will vote for you, I have never met a team that has run a K well with a lay judge

Be professional and Happy debating.

Hi there -

Follow these guidelines and you will be successful with me as a judge.

1. The Most Obvious - Be Nice!

Be nice to your opponents in the round. If you are rude in crossfire or speeches, I will drop your speaker points.

2. Provide full cards.

When giving cards, please send the link to the website, the authors name and date, and the paragraph from the website.

3. Weigh it.

Make sure to weigh your impacts to show why you are winning the round and tell me what you are weighing off of.

4. Make sure to time yourself.

5. Don’t spread.

Happy debating!

I am a flay judge. I usually vote off of logical arguments with solid evidence and weighing.

I am a linguist by training so your language of debate matters to me. I like clear and comprehensible speeches, meaning you might have to slow down a bit (I'll give extra speaker points to those speakers)

I also care about being courteous and professional during your debate, meaning I would never vote for those who are too aggressive and rude.

I value speaking skills as much as logical ability. Speak clearly and concisely. I prefer if you are NOT speed reading. If I can't hear/understand what you are saying, I can't vote on those aspects of your argument.

I don't know your case as well as you do. Explain it to me. Sell me on your arguments. In short: Explain Like I'm Five.

I am a parent judge and fairly new to the world of Speech and Debate. Please do not spread (i.e., speak clearly and slowly enough so I can understand you) and keep your own time. I would also appreciate clearly stated and well-structured arguments so I can follow the flow of debate. I am looking forward to a respectful and courteous debate. Good luck and most importantly, have fun!

Please send your cases to daodebate@gmail.com

I debated LD and PF in hs, APDA in uni. Currently studying applied math, biology, and computational medicine at Johns Hopkins

Pronouns: He/Him

Email Chain/Contact: ikhyunkim2138@gmail.com | Facebook

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Quick Prefs

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Note: For PF teams, I am comfortable with Ks, Theory, etc. just execute it well...please

1-2: K/LARP
3-4: Phil/T/Theory
5-6: Tricks (please just strike me)

It seems like there is a tendency to pref based on speaks given so here are some quick stats on that

LD

Avg Aff Speaks: 28.9
Avg Neg Speaks: 28.8
Avg Overall Speaks: 28.8
Side Skew: 50.575% Aff, 49.425% Neg

PF

1st Speaker Avg Speaks: 28.8
2nd Speaker Avg Speaks: 28.7
Side Skew: 42.500% Aff, 57.500% Neg (idek what's going on here tbh)

CX

Avg Speaks: 29.1

Last Updated: 10.22.2022

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Defaults

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

• I default to truth-testing

• I default to semantics > pragmatics

• I default to epistemic modesty but I don't mind using epistemic confidence; just warrant why I should.

• I default to competing interps. Feel free to run RVIs when deemed appropriate but warrant why I should err towards accepting the RVI.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Non-T

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

• No matter what you do, please have a non-arbitrary role of the ballot else I will likely struggle in terms of framing the debate on both sides. Make sure you explain how your case functions in the round and explain why it's important through the ROB/J/S. That said, explain why we should reject/interpret the resolution differently.

• Aff, please respond to TVA as too many rounds with these types of affs have been lost because of a dropped interp or dropped TVA. Conversely, neg, please run TVA on these types of cases and it will make your work a lot easier if you win it. However, TVA is not enough for you to win the round.

• Cross is binding for me as I do believe that you can garner links/DAs off of the performance of either you and or your opponent even if your evidence says something else. That said, I'd like to emphasize that for these debates that the form of the evidence presented becomes far less restricted and there isn't some inherent hierarchy between them so don't disregard them.

• The permutation tends to be more awkward to both understand and evaluate in these debates so I'd suggest that you overexplain the perm to make it clear. This includes how you sequence the perm.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

K

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

• Ks that only link to the aff’s FW and not to their advocacy feel awkward to me, so take that with a grain of salt.

• I default to perms being a test of competition rather than advocacy. You can try to change this, but you'll have to overexplain to me what it means for a perm to function as advocacy and clearly characterize the advocacy of the perm.

• PF teams, I love hearing Ks but only if they are well done. This means you should know what you are talking about and have a deep understanding of the literature you are reading. That said, please don't be a prick by reading a K in front of a team that clearly has no experience with progressive debate (just use your common sense, it's not that hard to figure this out).

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

T/Theory

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

• I don’t have defaults w.r.t. to voter questions such as DTD vs DTA, fairness/education being a voter, etc. It is YOUR job to tell me why your shell is a voting issue.

• I don’t particularly have an issue with RVIs. Feel free to go for an RVI, but I will need convincing on why you get them in the first place, characterize/construct it for me, etc.

• Please don't run frivolous theory in front of me. If the round becomes messy because of it, then your speaks will suffer.

• PF teams, while I am a supporter of theory in PF, please please please don't read shells unless there is/are an actual abuse story behind them. If not, your speaks will suffer.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

LARP

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

• I generally am not a fan of conditional counterplans especially since I feel like the neg time skew arguments can be really strong. That said, I am fine with listening to them and will vote on them just please don't be dodgy by not clearly answering whether the counterplan is conditional or not.

• If the neg is running a conditional counterplan, I won't kick it unless it's clear that the counterplan is kicked. This means that just because squo is better than aff doesn't mean I default to voting neg if it wasn't made clear that the conditional counterplan is kicked.

• My position on perms is the same in LARP strategies as it is for Ks.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Phil

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

• If you are comfortable doing so, feel free to message me on FaceBook or email me if you want to ask if I know your philosopher well. Otherwise, don't assume that I am well-read up on the specific philosophy that you're reading and do the work of walking me through with it.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Tricks

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

... <- this summarizes my thoughts and feelings about tricks, take that as you will

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Other Points of Interest

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

• Aff/Pro should have a speech doc ready to be emailed by round start time. Flight 2 should enter the room at Flight 2 start time.

• If both sides are fine with it, I’m fine with granting flex prep. Don’t be rude about it, or else your speaks may suffer. Don’t take too long flashing prep unless you want your prep docked along with your speaks

• Engaging with the tagline alone ≠ engaging with the argument or the card. This is a huge pet peeve of mine so please don't just engage with the tagline but engage with the internal warranting of the cards being presented. Cards don't exist simply to back up the claims made by taglines but they have within them their own layers of argumentation which is centralized by a thesis that links to the tagline. TL;DR respect what the authors are actually saying especially given that probably over 80% of your speech is their words verbatim.

• If your speech includes abbreviations or acronyms, please explain them first. Never assume that I know what they mean.

• While I recognize there's no obligation to share your analytics, I will award +.3 speaker points for those speeches including all/nearly all analytics in the speech doc AND that are organized in a coherent manner.

• I tend to make facial expressions that reflect how well I am processing an argument when it's being read i.e. if I am confused then I'll look confused and if I think the argument is good then my face will show this.I apologize in advance if my expressions confuse you; strike me if this is an issue.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Concluding Remarks

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

If you have any questions for me before the round starts about my paradigm, please ask after all the debaters are in the room so I don't have to repeat myself. Quick shoutouts/other paradigms that may be worth your time looking at of those who have influenced me as a debater, judge, and a person include Anne-Marie Hwang, Adam Tomasi, Sim Guerrero-Low, Michael Koo, Martin Sigalow, and Annie Wang I am more than happy to explain my decision whether it be in person after the round or through email/social media. Thanks for reading, good luck and have fun!

I've judged public forum debates for a while now, so I'm familiar with common positions and arguments. Please speak at a moderate pace and slow down for taglines and author names.

I'm an open-minded judge. Sticking to the resolution is crucial, and creative thinking is valued. However, the ability to handle strong arguments and deep thinking is just as important.

Remember, let's keep the focus on the topic and have a constructive exchange of ideas. Good luck to both teams!

For GBX '24: The tournament requires that we use the Tabroom doc share. DO NOT set up an email chain, follow tournament rules, please.

Also per the tournament invitation, "Each round’s decision time deadline is based on the Tabroom pairing start time. If the judge does not enter a decision in tabroom by the decision time, it is within the Tabroom’s power to flip a coin to determine the winner of that debate." DON'T BE LATE, the tournament does intend to enforce this.

About me:

I have been coaching and judging PF for eleven years. I judge on local circuit tournaments and have also judged many national circuit tournaments, including the TOC. I am familiar with the topic, but that does not mean that you should not explain your arguments. As a coach I am very aware of all the nuances of Public Forum debate.

Put me on the email chain: nkroepel@district100.com and belviderenorthpf@gmail.com

Round specifics:

Tech>truth (I always try to be tabula rasa and not interject my knowledge into your round). I will vote on just about anything besides abusive, offensive arguments. I will take arguments as true, unless otherwise argued by your opponent for the scope of the round.

I can flow speed, but I prefer not to. I do not want you to use it as a way to exclude your opponents. In the end, Debate is about intelligible conversation, if you are going too fast, and don't do it well, it can get in the way of clarity of expression, which upsets me.

I do not flow cross-fire, but I do pay attention to it. However, if you make an excellent point in cross-fire, you will have to bring that information up in a subsequent speech. Also, DO NOT be rude, I will reduce your speaker points for it. It is inappropriate for teams to make their opponent's feel inferior or humiliate them in the round.

If you are speaking second, please address your opponent's responses to your case, especially turns. It does not have to be an even split, but make sure it is something that you do. Defense is not sticky, you need to extend it.

I expect that summary and final focus are cohesive to each other. First summary needs extend defense. Second summary needs to address responses on your case, especially in areas you are going to collapse on, and it should also respond to turns. I do expect that you collapse and not go for everything on the flow in summary. I WILL NOT vote on an issue if it is not brought up in summary. Please weigh in your final two speeches and clash your arguments to those provided by your opponent.

As I expect the summary and final focus to be consistent, that also means that the story/narrative coming from your partnership also be consistent. I may not give you a loss because of it, but it is harder to establish ethos. Defend a consistent worldview using your warrants and impacts.

Make it easy for me to fill out my ballot. Tell me where I should be voting and why. Be sure to be clear and sign-post throughout.

Extensions need to be clean and not just done through ink. In order for you to cleanly extend, you need to respond to responses, and develop your warrant(s). You cannot win an impact without warranting. In rebuttal, please make sure you are explaining implications of responses, not just card dumping. Explain how those responses interact with your opponents' case and what their place in the round means. DO NOT just extend card names in subsequent speeches.

The flow rules in my round for the most part, unless the weighing is non-existent. I will not call for evidence unless it is a huge deal, because I view it as interventionist.

DO NOT make blippy arguments-warranting matters!

DO NOT make the round a card battle, PLEASE. Explain the cards, explain why they outweigh. A card battle with no explanation or weighing gets you nowhere except to show me why I shouldn't vote on it.

And finally progressive debate-I'd strongly prefer you do not read atopical arguments. I think most kritikal positions are exceptionally unpersuasive on a truth level, but this should not explicitly influence how I evaluate them, except to say that I'm probably more willing than most to evaluate intelligent analytical defense to Ks even if your opponents have "cards" to make their claims. I am still learning when it comes to judging/evaluating theory. I need a slower debate with clear warranting-neither K or T are a big part of my judging experience either. You CAN run it in front of me but combining it with speed makes me even more confused. I can't promise that I will always make the right decision.

Hi, I am a third-year student at the University of Virginia. I've judged speech and PF before and am a lay judge. I usually take a lot of notes but please limit the technical stuff if possible.

Gina Li is a strategy, merger and acquisition professional with 20+ years working experiences in various sectors. She was an expat working abroad for 15 years with global perspectives. She has been judging both Public Forum and Lincoln Douglas since 2018 at various events, in addition to facilitate local student-run speech and debate volunteer activities in the bay area.

She requires all contestants to speak clearly, not necessarily faster the better, try to maximize the given time to rationalize the best data and evidences to support the key arguments. While majority of the contestants are well prepared on their contentions, the winner normally possess the abilities in better framework, effective arguments to counter opponents positions during rebuttal, crossfires and closing. Also please RESPECT your opponents, try not to cut them off if possible.

Knowing everyone is working very hard on each tournament, I wish each contestant the best luck!

I am a lay judge. I am a parent judge that has judged at a few tournaments.

Don't read fast, if I can't understand or don't hear it, I won't evaluate it. 

Make sure to be respectful to your opponents at all times.

Being respectful and persuasive is the best way to win. 

Try to make the vote as easy and clean as possible. Tell me why you have won the round. 

Have fun!

I am a new judge. I will flow in debate, and prefer a well-paced presentation, with clear logic behind evidence. Eye contact helps as well. Please be clear when speaking.

Hello! I am a parent judge volunteering my time to participate in various online and in person Speech & Debate tournaments. With a degree in Social Sciences, love of current events, history, politics and culture, and former high school teacher of 11 years, participating as a judge in tournaments is quite rewarding. I take my role seriously and approach each presentation with an open mind and true admiration for the hard work and dedication students put into developing their craft. Although I have judged many rounds and categories of speech, I consider myself a novice when participating in various forms of the debate arena. Thank you.

I am a lay parent judge that prefers respectful argumentation at fair speeds with clear articulation and professional behavior.

I am an old school debate judge. Though I have only judged a few rounds of WSD this year, I have coached and judged WSD within the Houston Urban Debate League. I have also judged WSD, & LD at NSDA Nationals, but not recently.

In debate, as in public speaking, I believe in effective communication; that translates to No Speed in delivery. In WSD, the status quo must be viewed within any plan offered. I have heard, and voted on, the Prop’s use of stock issues. Though I am not a fan of progressive cases. I do not like Kritiks. Like in policy debate, I prefer simple language without the use of jargon. Contentions/substantives must be clear along with source citation. If the debater has a contention with multiple cards, it is recommended that sub-pts be applied to link back to the main argument / claim. I prefer the impact of the argument to be stated at the end of each contention. In the warrant(s), I like examples that can be related to. Links need to be clear and present. Depending upon the resolution, I do enjoy hearing about a moral obligation, or the desirability or undesirability of the topic. I like professional interaction between the debaters during POI. Participation in POI have an effect on ranks. I like to see everyone at least ask two and take two questions, if possible. I am more a line by line judge on the flow. Direct clash is essential. Team members working together is very important. Speech/case organization is important, and should be relatively easy to follow.

Any other questions may be asked, and are encouraged, before the round.

In L-D:

I am a traditional judge. Value & Criteria are paramount…philosophically based. If the word “ought” is present, the moral obligation must be established. The Aff & Neg must show how their value and criteria outweighs their opponent. It must be shown how the value is achieved by the criteria. Contentions must be clear and signposted. Sub-pts within contentions for multiple cards are necessary to distinguish the sub-pt claim’s significance.

L-D is not policy debate. I prefer no plans, CP’s, stock issues, kritiks, or progressive cases. Direct clash and refutation is important.

I am an opponent of speed.

In Congressional Debate:

As a traditional judge, I am a huge proponent of effective persuasive speaking; no speed. I look for the fundamentals of speech structure. A speech must include, but not be limited too: An attention getter, signposting of main points, a logical and organized sequence, a summary and effective closing. Within the content of a speech, clash on previous speeches is necessary, while extending arguments. Participation in the chamber is essential. I frown on unprofessional behavior in the chamber during cross. Once a question is asked to a speaker, let the speaker answer. I do not like anyone speaking over each other.

In PF:

I am a traditional judge. My main focus centers on the word "Should," if present in the resolution. Should focuses on the desirability and undesirability of the topic. I really am not interested in Plans or Counter Plans, but I normally do not vote for them unless it is significant. Impact Calculus is beneficial. I do not weigh Kritiks. I do not like speed. Effective communication is essential, along with clash. I frown on unprofessional behavior during cross fire & Grand Crossfire. Once a question is asked to a speaker, let the speaker answer. I do not like anyone speaking over each other. Case should have the essential elements of a standard speech...No jargon. It is necessary to signpost, and beneficial to break down the main contentions into sub-pts to link sub-arguments back to the main contentions. Impacts should be stated at the end of each contention(s). It helps if debaters go line by line in the rebuttals and the final focus. Voters are necessary. PF is not CX debate. Other questions for clarification may be asked, and encouraged, before the round.

Hello everyone, my name is Brighid! I'm very excited to be judging in your debates! I'm a relatively new judge who highly encourages a focus on speech clarity and making the debate easy to understand. In short, present your contentions concisely and confidently. 

(Please, please, please, unless you are well prepared for a theory round, do yourself a favor and strike me if you don't cut accurate cards, don't send evidence in email chains, or don't disclose at circuit tournaments.)

Blake: Second flight teams please start the email chain while you're waiting in the hallway.

Background: He/Him/His; 3L at NYU Law; current assistant PF coach at Durham Academy (NC); previously assistant director/head debate coach at Delbarton (NJ) 2020-2024.

Email Chains: Please add nmdebaterounds@gmail.com to the email chain with the following subject line: Tournament Name - Rd # - School Team Code (side/order) v. School Team Code (side/order). Teams should send case evidence (and rhetoric if you paraphrase) by the end of constructive – copy and paste all text and send it in the body of the email. The same applies for rebuttal evidence.

Evidence: Even if you paraphrase, I will only evaluate evidence in cut cards. These are properly cut cards.

Accommodations: Yes, just ask before round.

Main PF Paradigm:

• Preflow before the round; speaks start at 28.

• Offense > Defense; clear and whole backhalf extensions matter.

• Slow down for tags when spreading. If I clear you, then you are no longer saying words -- slow down or annunciate.

• Second rebuttal / 1st summary should frontline all turns + their collapsed argument(s).

• New weighing in first final is okay, depending on if it’s responsive to 2nd summary

• Please do comparative weighing with timeframe, mag/scope, and probability. I rather not try to evaluate try or die.

• Tabula rasa to an extent – longer link chains will still be difficult to vote for and I will intervene on anything blatantly racist, sexist, homophobic, or fabricated (i.e., major evidence issues).

• Don’t crash out in cross. Put cross analysis in ink with your speeches.

• Trigger warnings with opt-outs are only necessary with graphic depictions or identity-based Ks read. Otherwise, content warnings are generally good. Use your best judgment and follow tournament guidance.

"Progressive" PF: I prefer topical debates but am open to the following arguments at varsity/open national circuit tournaments:

• Ks: Run at your own risk, but have judged IR, Cap, Securitization, and Killjoy arguments, but significantly less familiar with high theory lit (i.e., Baudrillard, Bataille, Nietzsche).

• Theory: Topicality, Disclosure, Paraphrasing, and Vague/Utopian Alts, and their derivatives/CIs are fine to read in front of me. I default to competing interps and spirit over interp text. I generally think open-source (cut card + tag) disclosure is good and paraphrasing is bad, but won't intervene on the flow. If your disclosure is unintelligible because you pasted pages of article text, then I believe you did not disclose (open to this as a debate response).

• Introducing excessive off positions in PF (e.g., 4) will decrease the chance of a comprehensible RFD.

Questions? Ask before the round.

I am in my third year of judging PF debates. My judging paradigms are -

1. Communicate arguments clearly with logical reasoning and good evidence.
2. Speak clearly.
3. Weighing arguments and comparison of impacts are important.
4. I will evaluate arguments that are extended through the round.
5. Collapse on the strongest arguments in summary and final focus.

Hi, I have judged at national-level tournaments in PF and LD.

All events: be inclusive and KIND :)

I like good slow arguments and prefer speakers give clear instructions and organizations.

I will listen to all argumentations but please be reasonable...

I have taken the Cultural Competency course and other certifications for NSDA.

ASK BEFORE ROUND FOR ANY QUESTIONS.

Hi friends! My name is Rhea Nandwani. (she/her) I am a sophomore at UF studying psychology, criminology, and sociology. I competed on the national circuit for 5 years and coached for my high school's debate team last year.

With that being said, here are a few things I like as a flow judge:

• first and foremost, please do your part to make debate a safe, educational environment. don't be sexist, homophobic, islamaphobic, xenophobic, racist, ableist, etc. If you are, I will drop you and tank your speaks. this is a zero-tolerance policy.

• as an extension of the first bullet point, you must read trigger warnings for any sensitive arguments related to identity, mental health, or structural violence. this is basic human decency. If not, I will evaluate tw theory- this is the only time I’ll invite theory. For non-graphic arguments, you just need to read a TW. For graphic arguments, you need a TW and an opt out. Opt out through anonymous google forms.

• I do not believe that theory or non-topical kritiks belong in Public Forum. Please do not run it with me as a judge. I will, however, always evaluate topical frameworks/ks. Again, tw theory is fine to run with me when there has been a violation. You can also read IVIs with me.

• make sure everything you want me to vote on is in summary or final focus. tell me why you are winning.

• please implicate and weigh turns

• please collapse

• I would like to see all the evidence shared in round. I will only consider it in my decision, however, if you tell me to in your speeches.

• I can handle speed, but if you spread I can't promise that I will catch everything you say; send docs for accessibility purposes if you are speaking over 950 words in 4 minutes.

• weighing is the key to winning rounds. please interact with your opponents' weighing.

• second rebuttal must frontline.

• defense is sticky for the first speaking team (just extend it/talk about it in final)

• postround me all you want. I want to answer your questions so that I can be a better judge

• i am never going to factor cross into my decision. if something significant happens in cross, please point it out to me in a speech if you want me to consider it in my decision. lowkey probably gonna be on my phone during cross.

• i default to first speaking team absent weighing or any path to the ballot

• I think speaker points based on presentation are stupid. I will never evaluate speaker points based on how 'well'/loud you speak or how 'clear' you are. What you are wearing/how you look does not matter to me either. Literally, in round, feel free to take off your blazer/heels/tie. Be yourself. Instead, I will evaluate speaker points based on strategic decisions made in round and quality of responses/arguments.

• please let me know if there is absolutely anything I can do to make debate a safer/more fun/more educational experience for you. I am happy to talk to you before/after rounds to support you in any way I can. Debate is scary and hard at times, but talking about it can make a difference. Feel free to contact me with questions or concerns at rheavnandwani@gmail.com

• Lastly, I know it is difficult, but TRY to HAVE FUN! At the end of the day, this is just a debate round. Your intelligence or worth is not dictated by your success at tournaments. In addition, regardless of your records at tournaments, you are learning and growing just through the time you put into preparing topics. You are doing great!

• i would love it if you include a reference to music artists or tv shows hehe

• Good luck:) you got this:)

Debates tournaments were not a part of my schooling and thus I am not very versed in technical issues with debate tournaments. So I value clarity of argument and speech. Thus fast speech is something that hinders my understanding of what the participant is trying to present. Well-paced speech which is clear in content is valued more than fast speech with more content. I also like to have participant keep their own time. If possible presenting links of reference in the chatbox are prefered.

Have more than one year experience in debate judge. As a senior leader in my current organization, I host and present several meetings globally. My goal is deliver right contents to the audience, demonstrate appropriate body language, keep the audience interested by not repeating the contents, have a constant eye contact, modulation of voice, using the right speed and pronunciations to deliver the contents effectively.

During the judging process, I take notes and compare the notes for providing points, my rationale and feedback. I look for passion from the students on the topics they debate. This will show their hard work and how involved in the topics.

I am currently a junior at Emory university. I debated public forum at the quarry lane school for four years.

tech > truth

please add me to the email chain - sahanan345@gmail.com. Send speech docs before each speech !

I'm fine with speed, but make sure you're clear. Frontline in 2nd rebuttal. Any offense you're going for in final focus should be extended completely (uniqueness, links, impacts) in summary. Cross is binding but doesn't matter unless it's in speech. Please collapse !

Start weighing as early as possible and definitely focus on comparative weighing (both link and impact level if possible), when I'm looking at the arguments, I'll start with the one with the strongest weighing.

Always be respectful towards your opponents. I won't evaluate arguments that are sexist, racist, homophobic, ableist, etc. Lastly, debate can be stressful but make sure to have fun :)

Regarding prog arguments, I have little to no experience with Ks (I’ve debated a K maybe once or twice). If you want to read a K, I think it’s super interesting but I probably won’t be able to evaluate it well and am not a great judge for that. I’ve debated/read theory before, and have more experience with it than Ks, but I’m not extremely experienced with it either.

Good luck and feel free to email me before or after the round if you have any questions.

amanda072086@gmail.com
Speak clearly. Any speed is fine as long as you slow down and read your tag lines and main points very clearly. Spreading is fine. Give clear indication of when you have reached the burden you set out.

LD: I am a true values debate judge in LD. Tabula rasa judge. Flexible to any kinds of cases and arguments as long as they are respectful. If your case is not topical or abusive and your opponent argues and proves that in their speeches then I am willing to vote based on topicality, education and abuse.

PF and CX: Be respectful and cordial to your opponent. I’m open to most anything in Policy rounds. Always stay on the debate topic, don’t wander off onto an irrelevant subject because it’s more enjoyable to argue about than the topic is. Always allow your opponent the opportunity to complete their sentence before continuing to cross.
I’m a Tabula rasa Judge especially in Policy debate. If you don’t tell me how you want me to weigh the round and set a minimum burden for each side to have to meet within the round to win then I will default to judging based on the block and will turn into a games playing judge and will make voting decisions based on what my flow shows and dropped arguments or arguments that were lost or conceded will very much factor into my vote. Impacts, Warrants and links need to be made very clear, and always show me the magnitude.

Debate Experience:

High School Policy - 3 Years

College Policy (City University of New York)- 4 Years

Cumulative Judging/Coaching (CUNY, NYU, NYCUDL, Bronx Science, Rutgers University) - ~ 5 years

GSU 2017 Edition

I'm coming out from a 2 year debate hiatus and an intensive video production/broadcasting program. I haven't been up to date with the latest literature on the debate circuit so don't assume I know your Jackson evidence is hot fire without any warrants. I also may not be your top pick for your fast and clever Consult CP debate because my hands are not fast enough to send that message to my brain. This might change with more judging throughout the season but I'll let you know.

On to the general stuff...

I evaluate the debate based on who did the best debating. That's usually done through my flow unless you create a framework for me to do otherwise. Run what argument fits your style and do it to the best of your ability. Args of the meme variety are on the table but you would have to do a lot, and I mean a lot of work, for me to vote on them. Please also note that I won't be down for your oppression good, rights Malthus type of args.

Make sure you can jump / e-mail chain files in less than 5 minutes (not for me but for the tournament staff).I will do my best to keep my rhetoric gender neutral. As a generalrule, I tend to stick to gender-neutral pronouns however I will do my due diligence to be familiar with your preferred pronouns and you have every right to correct me on the spot if I fail to do so.

Case Debate

Solid. I'm not the best public policy analyst on the circuit to know some of the nuances of your args so this would require some explanation of what these abbreviations mean and what do they look like in the context of the debate.

Politics/Disads

I'll listen/flow them. I vote on them every now and then.

CPs

As I mentioned above I'm not the best when it comes to CP theory. My general opinions on CPs, in general, is neutral so if you need someone with a firm stance on whether a consult CP is legit or not then you should defer to a different critic.

The K

They're ok.

Framework/T

Debatable.

Hi!

I am a parent of one former and one current PF debater. I have judged a fair amount of local tournaments and a few national circuit tournaments here and there. I am by no means a experienced judge, and my knowledge on debate jargon and technicalities is limited (keep that in mind during the round and please adjust).

Some things I look for/like to see:

• Clarity of speech; Try to refrain from speaking too fast and talk clearly, if I cannot keep up with you, I cannot fairly judge the round.
• Body language; Eye contact and a confident posture/presence is always good!
• Speaker points; I mostly award speaks based on clarity of speech, and your sportsmanship/attitude in the round. Be respectful to your opponents and the round, and you'll most likely get good points.

Other notes:

• I'm not very picky about speech time/prep time; as long as its agreed upon by both teams, feel free to go over 10-15 seconds. Just try not to take advantage of this.

Good luck to all of you, I know you've all worked very hard to get here, and have a fun tournament!

• Competed in PF and Public Speaking in HS
• jasminejw.park@mail.utoronto.ca
• Send me an email before/after rounds if you have questions; feel free to use this email for an email chain
• Please time yourselves!
• Minimal spreading is fine but if I can't understand you, it won't end up on my flow
• Clear taglines are helpful
• Tech > Truth
• Weigh in FF with voters!
• I don't flow crossfire; mention it in rebuttal/summary/FF if you want it to go on my flow
• If it takes you more than 5 minutes to find a card, you don't have it
• If you're asking for every single evidence and I don't see why you needed it, it won't benefit you
• Be respectful during the debate

Hey!

The most important thing to know if you're going to be debating in my room is how much I value fair and thorough engagements! This looks like making concessions where necessary (when the cases have been properly analyzed and are logical) and engaging in fair and charitable comparisons.

Next up, don't be rude or disrespectful! Avoid racist and discriminatory slurs. I am more than willing to penalize debaters on this basis.

Thirdly, I am fully cognizant of the fact that speakers have a lot of material to cover in such a small time, but please make sure you don't excessively speed through those arguments! DO NOT SPREAD. If I can't hear it in your speech, I will not flow. Please speak clearly so your opponents and I understand you.

Finally, always be conscious of your burdens in the debate and do justice to them. Do not merely assert, justify those claims.

Good luck!

I am a former Oklahoma Speech Theater Communications Association State Policy Debate Champion (1998) I also debated in CEDA in college and went on to coach in the Southern Oklahoma Jr. High and High School competitive speech teams.

Stock Issues: Legal Model – Topicality – Significance of Harm – Inherency – Solvency – Advantage Over Disadvantage

Policy Making: Legislative Model – Weigh advantages versus disadvantages

Hypothesis Testing: Social Science Model – Each negative position (some of which may be contradictory) tests the truth of the affirmative; it must stand good against all tests to be true.

Tabula Rasa: Democracy/Anarchy Model – Whatever basis for decision the debaters can agree on will be used as a judging standard.

Game Player: Gaming Model – Debate is a rule-governed game; you play by (and are judged by) the rules.

I am familiar with all of these judging paradigms. If you believe I should follow one then present an argument for it and support it with evidence. Without evidence and analysis, I default to being a stock issues judge.

For additional insight on how I judge individual issues please see the following link: https://www.nfhs.org/media/869102/cx-paradigms.pdf

I know this is long, and hypocritically so since I ask you to be concise in-round. This just grew over several years because I judge a bunch of different events. Instead of paring it down, I've decided to leave it but point you to what actually needs your attention. For an overview, read the TLDR paragraph. Key words are bolded in the middle section to help with skimming (I know you don't have a ton of time between rounds). Then look for your event in bold at the bottom. Feel free to skip what's not relevant to you. If you have questions about what happened after receiving your ballot, coming back here and reading more thoroughly will likely answer your question(s). If it doesn't, feel free to talk to me about it when you see me next.

TLDR: Focus on value and criterion in LD, don't misuse evidence in PF, and speak extemporaneously in Congress. Always warrant your arguments in every event. Don't be too tricky. Thou shalt not commit logical fallacies. Thou shalt not go off-topic by using abusive "progressive debate" tactics such as kritiks, counterplans, or meta-analysis of debate. I am a traditional judge who flows and is tech over truth.

In a debate round, most of all I'm looking for a clear, concise, and robust exchange of ideas. Some ways to work on this are to make sure you're signposting in all of your speeches, planning ahead to ensure that you're fitting the most important contentions and objections into the allotted time, and responding directly to the arguments and objections your opponents put forth in their own speeches. Do all of this without strawmanning your opponents (or committing any other major logical fallacies).

Most importantly, warrant: Don't take it for granted that your judges can see why your opponents are wrong, or that your contentions speak for themselves in response to challenges. Even if I do see these things, I can't score you well unless you are doing this work yourselves in the debate. Don't let any of your opponents' objections make it through the flow uncontested. Always warrant your claims. Cross-apply your contentions liberally in rebuttals so that I don't think you've dropped any of your own arguments.

I'm not a fan of most forms of "progressive debate," as I want you to make accessible arguments relevant to the resolution, not signal your position on whatever is currently in vogue. For example, if the resolution is about whether the United States should raise taxes on the wealthy, and you're arguing in favor of doing so, it is 100% okay (and probably a great idea) to give arguments about how capitalism can leave certain groups behind and how trickle-down economics only exacerbates wealth inequality and thus eliminates equality of opportunity. It is not germane to the resolution, however, to make all of your arguments about how capitalism is nothing but a tool of oppression and we need to abolish it, as this is not what is at question in the resolution. Similarly, I find meta-analysis of debate as an activity in-round to be grating. I will always favor the person/team using their speaking time to discuss the issue at hand in the resolution.

I'm also not a fan of counterplans because they shift the burden of proof in the round to the NEG/CON. The burden of proof belongs on the AFF/PRO. If you don't want to defend the status quo, I think you need to ask yourself why you're spending your free time doing this activity. As a coach and an instructor, the greatest value I see in debate is that it teaches students to charitably look at and adopt perspectives that are fundamentally different from their own. Using abusive tactics to get around doing this robs you of the greatest benefit of doing debate, and robs your opponent of the opportunity to engage in a robust exchange of ideas about the actual topic of the round. Here I'll provide the analogy of papers: if a student handed me a paper that was well-written, but never actually addressed the topic they were supposed to write about (or worse, questioned the process of writing the paper in the first place), they would fail because they did not actually complete the assignment. The same is true in a debate round.

This doesn't mean I just want to seestock cases. Unusual and inventive arguments are often a major plus. Traditional judges don't want to see the same round over and over again, either. Just make sure you're warranting these arguments and that they're topical.

A note on speed: I don't mind spreading and can keep up with it as long as you don't talk like you have marbles in your mouth. But before you spread, consider that you will have many lay judges in this circuit who are unfamiliar with this speed or even hostile to it. Proceed at your own peril. Additionally, I often see debaters spread to try and overwhelm their opponents with cards to respond to without ever substantially developing or warranting their arguments. When I read student philosophy papers, I look for two things before anything else: clarity and concision. The lesson from this is that sometimes less is more because it forces you to focus on what really matters in the round, and as such you develop your arguments around key voting issues far more than you would if you were just hammering your opponent with as much evidence as possible.

A couple of notes on questioning: I'm not a fan of debaters interrupting or steamrolling their opponents. Be courteous and give the other team/person a chance to respond and to ask their own questions during grand cross while still using your own speaking time well. Being the loudest person in the room is not synonymous with being the best debater. I do not flow questioning, either. If you want something that came up in questioning to factor into my decision, you need to bring it back up in one of your speeches.

A final note on my ballots: I try to write pretty detailed ballots because I know how frustrating it is to lose a round and then not understand why, or to be told something vague or even get a blank ballot. I try to make up for this all-too-pervasive problem with debate judging by providing you with detailed feedback. However, I want you to understand that only the comments in my RFD directly factored into my decision. I'm writing comments throughout the round to you individually to try and provide feedback on your cases (especially because I know some of you may not have coaches), as well as your argumentation and speaking styles. Sometimes I will write things in the individual comments section that are my personal opinion on what makes a good case, or whether something is a convincing argument. As a tabula rasa judge, this kind of thing does not factor into my decision unless the other debater(s) call(s) you on anything I mention in one of their speeches. I provide this individualized feedback not to explain my decision, but to potentially help you grow as a debater. The RFD is the real explanation of my decision.

For Lincoln-Douglas: If you're using a moral or political theory from analytic philosophy (i.e. utilitarianism/consequentialism, deontology/rights-based, virtue ethics, Rawlsian distributive justice/justice as fairness, any kind of social contract theory, principles from medical ethics, etc.) please make sure you know what you're talking about. I have way too many rounds where a utilitarian or consequentialist framework devolves into deontology or rights-based theory, and vice versa. Or worse, where a debater uses a contradictory value and criterion, such as pairing autonomy with consequentialism. And these are the simplest moral theories; the bar will be even higher if you choose Rawls or something more obscure. I'm not against you using these theories (in fact, as a philosophy teacher I want you to do so), I just want you to use them well and appropriately. I highly recommend that all LD debaters read the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy extensively in order to better prepare for using and coming up against philosophical concepts in rounds. Theories from continental philosophy will be a tougher sell for me in general because they're even more difficult to use appropriately.

No matter what value and criterion you choose, make sure you're linking all of your impacts back to your framework throughout the round. A brief mention at the top of each speech is not nearly enough attention to framework in LD. Also, please don't make your value "morality." That's redundant. All of these resolutions have the word "ought" in them; morality is implicitly valued in the round. You're not actually giving me any real information here about how you're using a theory of value to evaluate the resolution at hand.

For Public Forum: Evidence matters here even more than in the other debate events. Make sure you're reading all of your sources in their entirety before cutting cards. I'm always paying attention, and so are most of the other debaters: if you're using something out of context, you will get called on it eventually by one of your opponents or judges. I will call for evidence in close rounds, so be prepared to hand over your cards. Making empirical assertions without providing empirical evidence will make it very hard for me to vote for you, and misusing evidence will make it nearly impossible. Additionally, spitting out cards and contentions you're hoping your opponent will drop is not the path to my ballot. Well-reasoned and charitable argument is.

For Congress: It is to the whole chamber's disservice to get stuck on one bill or one series of bills. Even if your favorite bill is being discussed and you haven't gotten a chance to speak yet, it's in your best interest not to extend a tired debate. I would rather see fresh debate on a bill that is less familiar to you than continue to see the same arguments recycled over and over again.

Congress is meant to be an extemporaneous event. I don't want your speeches to be pretty and polished like a speech event, or even like a constructive speech in PF or LD. I want you to show me that you have a range of knowledge and interest in an even wider range of topics in current events, and can speak extemporaneously on these topics in the chamber. There's little I dislike more in debate than for a Congress chamber to take a recess so everyone can "write their speeches." This fundamentally misunderstands the purpose of Congress. The best advice I can give Congressional debaters for prep isn't to write polished speeches, but to regularly read (not watch) reputable news sources like The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Atlantic, and The Economist. If you must watch your news, go with the PBS News Hour or something international (i.e. the BBC), not partisan entertainment-oriented channels like CNN, FOX, or MSNBC. Podcasts are fun, but not a substitute for reputable news organizations with full-time fact checkers.

For Extemporaneous Debate, most of the above goes in various degrees. If one person runs a framework in this event, I'll weigh it against whatever framework is the best fit for the other debater's arguments (usually cost-benefit analysis, occasionally a rights-based theory). I won't just default to the person who has an explicit framework since it is not a norm to always have one in this event. Other than that, this is a rapid-fire version of the other events. The most important thing is to warrant, warrant, warrant, whether we're talking about arguments, evidence, tangible impacts, or a framework. Like with PF, spitting out cards and contentions you're hoping your opponent will drop is not the path to my ballot.

For Big Questions, the NSDA briefs are usually weird and unhelpful. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is your friend. Think very carefully about what makes a good argument, and nuance is most often the key with these kinds of resolutions. Trying to do something tricky or gimmicky (such as saying that objective morality is real because of natural selection instead of arguing in favor of actual normative moral truth) is usually going to work less well than offering a substantive, multi-faceted account of the issue at hand. However, I'm not totally opposed to these kinds of arguments and have voted for them in the past. Just tread carefully as the bar will be higher for them.

This event (usually) isn't about the empirical, but the metaphysical, and you should approach it as such. This means that looking for "evidence" from science instead of philosophy is often the wrong tactic. Reasoning and logic is evidence, as shown by the entire history of thought. Think about it this way: you can't find numbers in the natural world, but rockets still wouldn't work without mathematics. The same goes for logic, which is just verbal mathematics.

arriqs@gmail.com

Pronouns = they/them.

Framework is not always policing, but it can be weaponized. Focus on framing central ideas and offense. I am not a super technical judge.

High School

Speed is fine, but go only as fast as you can handle. Conditionality is generally okay. Everyone in the debate should be timing.

Explain Ks through history and current events. Examples are the easiest way to make a complex concept simple enough to evaluate in the short span of time we have.

I'm the head coach of speech and debate at The Pembroke Hill School in Kansas City, MO. I competed as an LD and Policy debater in high school. I coach all events. My team competes in the Kansas City region as well as national circuit tournaments (on occasion).

Universal things:

Extensions: in order for an argument to be properly extended in the debate, the warrant of that argument must be extended through the necessary speech. It is not enough to say, "Extend Smith '20". You must extend the warrants as well.

Respect/decorum: debate is historically an unequal place for women, non-binary students, and BIPOC. Debate is also an activity that is meant to educate and empower young people. You are allowed to make mistakes, and you should apologize when that mistake disrespects an opponent/judge. You are not allowed to make debate an unsafe space for anyone, and you deserve to lose if you do. While all debaters deserve your respect and professionalism, you should pay extra attention to ensuring that you are not engaging in culturally normalized behavior that makes spaces unsafe for the people I've listed above. I will happily listen to and vote for arguments I disagree with. I will not allow debaters to demean or dehumanize their opponents.

Policy

I am not fast enough to flow fast TOC rounds, I will not flow off of speech docs unless technical issues require me to do so--If I can't hear the tag/author/warrant, it doesn't go on the page. So, fast is fine, slower spreading is fine, but I don't judge enough super fast rounds to keep up with you. If you are concerned about this, two tips: 1. watch me, if I'm not holding my pen I'm not flowing. 2. Ask for verbal cues to slow if you want them.

I'll listen to every argument with the exception of positions that advocate racism/sexism/bigotry in the debate space.

Ks-Its fine to argue and go for Ks in front of me, but you must be able to articulate your warrants/impacts through both the warrants in the card and your own words. If you can't explain the K, you can't extend the K. Generic Ks are fine, but I prefer link/uniqueness debate over impact debate. Obviously, impact calculus is essential as the debate crystallizes.

T-I'm happy to watch a 2NR completely focused on T, don't be shy about reading T in front of me. Sub T should have specific, contextual language on the interp and violation.

DAs-I tend to give very little access to "any risk of the link" arguments on generic DAs. I much prefer link debate and uniqueness debate over impact debate. Obviously, impact calculus is essential as the debate crystallizes, but the arguments I am most persuaded by are link and uniqueness arguments.

ROTB-I try to be as open to ROTB claims/arguments from both teams as possible, but your position must make an AFF ballot possible in the 1AC and a NEG ballot possible in the 1NC. Debate is a game, but its purpose is educational.

Language/Abuse/Rules-I am persuaded by arguments that call for a stop to the debate for immediate adjudication on these issues. If you are accusing your opponents of breaking a rule/doing something abusive or disrespectful at a level in which you believe they should lose the round then I encourage you to advocate for that position. If that is your true point of advocacy, call for a stop and adjudication when appropriate.

LD

LD is a Value debate. I tend to favor cases with specific values and value criterions.

Speed: See policy

Plans and CPs: Totally fine, make sure you have solvency evidence in the case

Ks: I don't really get Ks in LD, the structure of LD as a V/VC debate allows debaters to make these arguments inside of the traditional structure. That's what I'd prefer. I'm not opposed to voting for a K in theory, but I think my barrier to voting for that position is higher than if it was advocated for inside of the traditional framework. You are welcome to change my mind, but tell me why the presentation of this position as a K is important and how I should weigh it against the V/VC framework of your opponent.

Impacts: I'm happy to evaluate LD under a deontological or consequentialist framework, but you should be consistent with your advocacy. While I default to "LD is a debate of moral questions" the reality is many topics ask debaters to imagine the moral calculus of policymakers. So, how to frame these impacts is up for debate.

PFD:

Plans and counter plans are against the rules in PFD. Period. Now, I know topics frequently put the PRO team in the position of advocating for a plan, and in those cases, supporting the resolution is functionally supporting a plan. That does not mean the CON is afforded CP ground. The CON (in these situations) is welcome to advocate for the status quo or the opportunity/loss of endorsing a PRO plan when alternative plans may be available.

Example: let's say PRO ground is the US passing Medicare for All. The CON may not advocate for Medicare for most with a private option--that's a CP. But, the CON may argue that voting PRO costs the opportunity of Medicare for most with a private option as Medicare for All explicitly forbids a private option. They can even try to establish that the status quo (in terms of solvency) will ultimately lead to Medicare for most with a private option if we just wait it out and don't pass Medicare for all. But they can not endorse the advantages of a private option as a function of CON ground. In these cases, you must establish these positions as general advocacy or solvency arguments.

Role of speeches: I believe the role of the first speech is to present the case, the second is to attack the case, the third is to defend the case, and the fourth is to crystalize and weigh the debate. I will not punish you if your interpretation is different (just please signpost so I know what's coming), but I will also not punish a second speech that doesn't extend the case nor a third speech that doesn't extend attacks).

Role of the ballot: it is the job of the debaters in the round to frame the role of the ballot in the final speech. You tell me what I'm supposed to weigh/vote for.

My primary coaching event is Congressional Debate. Don't freak out, I prefer the debate portion of the event as my high school background is in PF/LD.

For CD: I’ll always consider a balance of presentation, argumentation, and refutation. If you happen to drop the ball on one of those traits during a speech, it won’t ruin your rank on my ballot. I look for consistency across the board and most importantly: What is your speech doing for the debate? Speaking of which, pay attention to the round. If you're the third speaker in the row on the same side, your speech isn't doing anything for the debate. I definitely reward kids who will switch kids or speak before their ideal time for the sake of the debate, even if it's not the best speech in the world.

For both PF/LD: As long as you're clear/do the work for me, I have no preference for/against what you run/do in the round. I'll vote off of what you give me. With that, I really stress the latter portion of that paradigm, "I'll vote off of what you give me". I refuse to intervene on the flow, so if you're not doing the work for me, I'm gonna end up voting on the tiniest, ickiest place that I should not be voting off of. Please don't make me do that. Respect the flow and its links.

PF specific: I love theory. I don't prefer theory in PF, but again I'll vote off of where the round ends up...it'd be cool if it didn't head in that direction as a good majority of the time you can still engage in/ win the debate without it.

I don't time roadmaps, take a breather and get yourself together.

Speed isn't an issue for me in either event.

Avoid flex prep.

I prefer googledocs to email for evidence sharing (brittanystanchik@gmail.com).

Hello. I am a parent judge.

I have been judging Varsity Public Forum for the last two years.

Please speak clearly and don't rush your presentation so I can understand and digest your points and arguments. This is important since I take notes during the debate so that I can reference them when making my final decision and awarding speaker points.

Please don't throw around evidence, instead, give solid reasoning for all your points. I am influenced by data and credible evidence supporting your positions with good reasoning as well. I appreciate a good argument and am looking for clear evidence to back up your argument.

I would like to see respect shown on both sides of the debate. Talking over each other in the crossfire is not the best way to get your point across.

Good luck and I look forward to judging the round!

Hello, my name is Qibin

This is my second year and fifth tournament judging, I am a lay judge.

A few preferences:

1) Please don't rush/speak too fast

2) I may ask to see the evidence you cite

3) Please signpost clearly so I know what arguments you are addressing

4) Please weigh in summary and final focus

5) Please have clear extensions of your arguments so I can understand them better.

Let's have a fun and educational round!

Hello,

I am a parent judge and have some debate experience. I ask all of you to please be respectful of each other. Please speak slowly and keep track of your own time. Additionally, at the start of each round please share emails and get a google doc created to share evidence cards. I will also flow each round.

Thank you and good luck!

Debate Experience:

[4 years] High school: PF, LD, Congress, World School, American Parliamentary, and more; competed at nationals

[Present] College: IPDA, LD-Policy, British Parliamentary; competed at nationals

Judging since 2019

General Paradigm for ALL debate formats:

I value RESPECT and DECORUM above all. No shouting, being rude, cutting opponents off, making faces, openly expressing annoyance of opponents' arguments, certain body language, and more; these are valid reasons to deduct speaker points. Getting excited about an argument and going full into it does not count as disrespect. I judge based on age group. There is a fine line between firm and rude. If I see you being rude, I will give you low speaker points, but I won't make you lose the round.

I am a LOGIC judge, if something doesn't make logical sense, you'll lose the argument

I love ANALYTICS, analyze the evidence

Be organized

Clear contentions

Spreading or speeding is okay if you are coherent. Policy debaters, refer below

Off-time road maps, please

Follow the flow of the round- don't make my life harder than it has to be

I like jargon, its helpful and I am familiar, except for IPDA

LD-Policy + Policy Paradigm:

Run anything, I don't care, as long as it works. DA, T, CP, K, etc, all work, just make it make sense. I may be educated but I don't know the whole dictionary, so make sure to explain in simple terms at the end, like 2-3 sent final summary. Second, make sure you still attack the general Aff plan and why it does not work. I need both, just in case, to default.

I can not express this enough if I don't understand your arguments, then it's hard for me to vote for you.

Be organized and make sure you upload clean documents after your speech. No shady things, for example, copying your speech twice to make the document hard to navigate...really? Make sure to do this right after your speech ends, so your opponent has time to use the clean doc.

Spreading:

(1) Only do it if you want to relay more information and can speak clearly, if you have not practiced reading your document and are choppy + taking breaths in, do not spread

(2) make sure your opponents are okay, debate is supposed to be fair, equitable, and educational

(3) make sure to explain anything important, if I miss something and you don't explain it, that's on you

Links + Impact + Solvency - without it you won't win

Just because you read a card doesn't mean you're done. Explain its impact

I flow the cross. Anything important should still be brought up in the subsequent speech

LD Paradigm: Traditional Judge

Focusing on the V and VC

Clash is important

Links + Impact + Solvency - without it you won't win

I don't flow the cross, anything important, MUST be brought up in the subsequent speech

PF Paradigm: Lay Judge

Clear contentions, strong evidence, links, and impacts

I don't flow the cross, anything important MUST be brought up in the subsequent speech

Other:

Have any questions, need coaching, or help?

Contact me @ nuveriat@gmail.com

Need accommodations, let me know

Parent judge for Germantown Friends School with two years of experience

Speak confidently and clearly. We ought to all be grateful for having the opportunity to participate in debate. As long as everyone is comfortable, enthusiasm is acceptable. Consider yourself a future leader who is interested in every subject being discussed and argued here. These choices may have the biggest effects on society. It's the reason we're here.

Whether you win or lose doesn't really matter. We can see the world from both sides because of the debate.

Send case to email chain before your speech & I might ask for extra cards if I’m curious: joytaw01@gmail.com

My wifi sucks, it'll make it a lot easier for everyone to have at least speech docs prepared for your speeches - lowkey required for rebuttal, others optional but preferred.

I debated in HS but it's been a while (class of 2020) -- I can understand tech but prefer to be treated like a flay. Semi-ok with speed in the first half of the debate if there are speech docs (still pref not going super fast) (update: I lied I am tired please don't go fast. Do at your own risk but if it's not on my flow then womp womp) + No spreading in second half of the round pls. If you do, I guess I'll still evaluate it but it will only be what I can catch + your speaks will be dropped.

Lay ----- Flay --X--Tech

Public Forum:

General update/preference on framework: I don't like oppression olympics. I don't like talking about why we should prefer one group over another group so if both teams have framing impacting out to marginalized communities, I prefer the debate to just be on the link level unless you are undeniably winning on the warrant level. Also I don't like the "link-ins bad" arg as much either, I just don't like the round being over before it starts.

Theory - pls no theory unless it's about the other team not reading a content warning. I mean if u do read theory i guess i'll judge it but i prefer substance so my threshold for responding to theory is prob a lot lower than u would like. I also don't care for disclosure theory.

Evidence - I care about evidence ethics so don't egregiously miscut cards but if you are going to run ev ethics on someone, implicate why it's more important than substance debate or why it should control my ballot. Also, I think paraphrasing is fine in PF so don't run that on me lmao.

- keep track of your own times pls

- pls stop asking if it's okay to take prep just announce to the room so we're not waiting around and time yourselves

- Be clear. I never get enough sleep so if I don't catch it, it won't be on my flow.

- Frontline if you're second rebuttal

- I don't flow crossfire. If it's interesting I'll listen, but if it's important - bring it up in speech.

- Don't be rude to the other team or I’ll drop your speaks. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzpndHtdl9A)

- YOU CAN’T EXTEND ARGUMENTS WITHOUT EXTENDING WARRANTS!!!! (e.g. Don't just tell me ending arms sales causes war - give me reasons WHY that's true and extend the impact of WHY it's important) Every time you extend an argument you should extend the link chain + impact. No blippy extensions.

- Terminal defense is not sticky (translation: Rebuttals will not be directly flowed across so bring it up in summary if you want it in final focus)

- Collapse

- Pls don’t make me intervene (write my ballot for me with weighing)

warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants (warrants =/= evidence)

weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh but make it comparative

in summary and final focus

pls thank u

Policy update:

I'm familiar with policy debate, as in I've judged it before, but I never competed in it. I competed in public forum so keep that in mind when you're debating. Aka:

- don't go too fast, if you are gonna spread - send me a doc

- If you're running theories or Kritiks that are not intuitive -- please EXPLAIN THEM FULLY or it will not go your way. Also if it involves smth sensitive - please include a content warning.

- Time yourselves - I might do it on the side too but I want you guys to keep track of it yourselves. Especially prep or opponent's prep.

hi! i debated pf in hs. toc '19!

former co-director for nova debate camp, former coach for ardrey kell VM and oakton ML. add me to the email chain: iamandrewthong@gmail.com

tl;dr, i'm a typical flow judge. i'm tab and tech>truth, debate however you want (as long as it does not harm others). for more specific stuff, read below

most important thing:

so many of my RFDs have started with "i default on the weighing". weighing is NOT a conditional you should do if you just so happen to have enough time in summary - i will often default to teams if they're the only ones who have made weighing. strength of link weighing counts only when links are 100% conceded, clarity of impact doesn't.

other less important stuff:

speed is ok. i think it's fun. i actually like blippy disads (as long as they have warrants). but don't do it in such a way that it makes the debate inaccessible - drop a doc if your opponents ask or if someone says "clear".

whenever you extend something, you have to extend the warrant above all else.

defense is not sticky, but my threshold for completely new frontlines in second summary is super high. turns must be frontlined in second rebuttal.

new implications off of previous responses are okay (in fact, i think they're strategic), but they must be made in summary (unless responding to something new in final). you still need to have concise warranting for the new implication, just as you would for any other response.

i don't flow cross - if they make a concession, point it out in the next speech.

weighing is important, but comparative and meta weighing are even more important. you can win 100% of your link uncontested but i'd still drop you if you never weigh at all and the opps have like 1% of their link with pre-req weighing into your case. don't just say stuff like "we outweigh because our impact card has x and theirs has y and x>y", but go the next step and directly compare why your magnitude is more important than their timeframe, why your prereq comes before their prereq, etc. if there is no weighing done, i will intervene.

i encourage post-round questions, i'm actually happy to spend like however long you want me to just answering questions regarding my decision. just don't be rude about it.

progressive arguments:

i will evaluate progressive arguments (Ks, theory, etc).

no friv theory, no tricks

i default to reasonability, RVIs, and DtD *if not told otherwise* - before you start e-mailing me death threats, this is just so teams can't read random new shells in summary unless they're going to spend the time reading warrants for CI and no RVIs - i prefer theory debates to start in constructive/rebuttal, and i'll be sympathetic to teams that have to make new responses to a completely new shell in summary or final focus

i'm less versed on Ks than i am theory. i can probably follow you on the stock Ks (cap, sec, etc), but if you're going to run high level Ks (performance, afropess, etc), i'll still evaluate them, but i advise you run them with caution, since i might not be able to get everything down 100%. it's probably best to make these types of Ks accessible to both me and your opponents (you should honestly just explain everything like i'm a lay judge, and try to stay away from more abstract phil stuff like epistemology/ontology/etc).

if you have any more questions, feel free to ask or e-mail me before the round!

Prounouns: she/her

Triggers: n/a

Email: nmtommarazzo@gmail.com

Paradigm:

I'm a "Flay" judge, but I've been judging since 2014, and I've judged at major tournaments like Harvard, Georgetown, and UK. Don't spread - I flow the entire round (including crossfires) and I want to be able to not only understand your arguments, but note when you are or are not addressing your opponents' arguments. I prefer clear logic, solid evidence, and confident rhetoric.

FOR LD: Arguments are arguments, no matter what form the argument takes (theories, other k's, LARP, traditional, etc). Argumentsmust be justified, and you must persuade me of its importance (aka, the impact, be it to the topic, to the round, to debaters, etc.).DO NOT SPREAD.More-so than in numbers-based debates, losing the thread of a philosophical or idealogical argument will hurt you.

FOR PF: I don't believe that the entirety of a debate is evidence versus evidence, so frameworks, weighing, and actually speaking persuasively are a major plus. While I fully understand debate jargon, don't rely on it as you would with more technical judges. Make me care more about your world than your opponents'.

I prefer PF rounds are NOT theory or K arguments. However, I will always judge based on how you handle your case, and how your opponent handles it.

If the tournament allows spectators, those spectators should not be leaving and coming back repeatedly during the round. It's incredibly distracting for me and may hinder competitors as well.

FOR DIGITAL TOURNAMENTS: Please speak slowly enough that the internet connection can keep up with you. Even with a solid connection, going too quickly results in a blur of noise that makes it difficult to listen for judges and opponents alike.

Additionally: During a digital tournament, please speak up if you cannot hear your opponent. Don't wait until the end of their speech to note that, for you, they were cutting out. It is better to handle the issue with tech time and have the speech given normally than having an off-time recap.

-- LD NOTE FOR EDIE 2024--

Speed is completely fine, but if you're going 90% full speed and up I will be a bit more reliant on the doc. I am fine with spreading (especially if it's clear) but am out of practice with flowing top speed LD rounds.

— FOR NSDA WORLDS 2024 —

Please ignore everything below - I have been coaching and judging PF and LD for several years, but evaluate worlds differently than I evaluate these events. This is my second nationals judging worlds, and my 3rd year coaching worlds.

I do flow in worlds, but treat me like a flay judge. I am not interested in evaluating worlds debates at anything above a brisk conversational speed, and I tend to care a lot more about style/fluency/word choice when speaking than I do in PF or LD.

—LD/PF - Updated for Glenbrooks 2022—

Background - current assistant PF coach at Blake, former LD coach at Brentwood (CA). Most familiar w/ progressive, policy-esque arguments, style, and norms, but won’t dock you for wanting a more traditional PF round.

Non-negotiables - be kind to those you are debating and to me (this looks a lot of ways: respectful cross, being nice to novices, not outspreading a local team at a circuit tournament, not stealing prep, etc.) and treat the round and arguments read with respect. Debate may be a game, but the implications of that game manifest in the real world.

• I am indifferent to having an email chain, and will call for ev as needed to make my decision.
• If we are going to have an email chain, THE TEAM SPEAKING FIRST should set it up before the round, and all docs should be sent immediately prior to the start of each speech.
• if we are going to do ev sharing on an email, put me on the chain: ktotz001@gmail.com

My internal speaks scale:

• Below 25 - something offensive or very very bad happened (please do not make me do this!)
• 25-27.5 - didn’t use all time strategically (varsity only), distracted from important parts of the debate, didn’t add anything new or relevant
• 27.5-29 - v good, some strategic comments, very few presentational issues, decent structuring
• 29-30 - wouldn’t be shocked to see you in outrounds, very few strategic notes, amazing structure, gives me distinct weighing and routes to the ballot.

Mostly, I feel that a debate is a debate is a debate and will evaluate any args presented to me on the flow. The rest are varying degrees of preferences I’ve developed, most are negotiable.

Speed - completely fine w/ most top speeds in PF, will clear for clarity and slow for speed TWICE before it impacts speaks.

• I do ask that you DON’T completely spread out your opponents and that you make speech docs available if going significantly faster than your opponents.

Summary split - I STRONGLY prefer that anything in final is included in summary. I give a little more lenience in PF than in other events on pulling from rebuttal, but ABSOLUTELY no brand new arguments in final focuses please!

Case turns - yes good! The more specific/contextualized to the opp’s case the better!

• I very strongly believe that advocating for inexcusable things (oppression of any form, extinction, dehumanization, etc.) is grounds to completely tank speaks (and possibly auto-loss). You shouldn’t advocate for bad things just bc you think you are a good enough debater to defend them.
• There’s a gray area of turns that I consider permissible, but as a test of competition. For example, climate change good is permissible as a way to make an opp going all in on climate change impacts sweat, but I would prefer very much to not vote exclusively on cc good bc I don’t believe it’s a valid claim supported by the bulk of the literature. While I typically vote tech over truth, voting for arguments I know aren’t true (but aren’t explicitly morally abhorrent) will always leave a bad taste in my mouth.

T/Theory - I have voted on theory in PF in the past and am likely to in the future. I need distinct paradigm issues/voters and a super compelling violation story to vote solely on theory.

*** I have a higher threshold for voting on t/theory than most PF judges - I think this is because I tend to prefer reasonability to competing interpretations sans in-round argumentation for competing interps and a very material way that one team has made this round irreparably unfair/uneducational/inaccessible.***

• norms I think are good - disclosure (prefer open source, but all kinds are good), ev ethics consistent w/ the NSDA event rules (means cut cards for paraphrased cases in PF), nearly anything related to accessibility and representation in debate
• gray-area norms - tw/cw (very good norm and should be provided before speech time with a way to opt out (especially for graphic descriptions of violence), but there is a difference between being genuinely triggered and unable to debate specific topics and just being uncomfortable. It's not my job to discern what is 'genuinely' triggering to you specifically, but it is your job as a debater to be respectful to your opponents at all times); IVIs/RVIs (probably needed to check friv theory, but will only vote on them very contextually)
• norms I think are bad - paraphrasing!! (especially without complete citations), running theory on a violation that doesn’t substantively impact the round, weaponization of theory to exclude teams/discussions from debate

K’s - good for debate and some of the best rounds I’ve had the honor to see in the past. Very hard to do well in LD, exceptionally hard to do well in PF due to time constraints, unfortunately. But, if you want to have a K debate, I am happy to judge it!!

• A prerequisite to advocating for any one critical theory of power is to understand and internalize that theory of power to the best of your ability - this means please don’t try to argue a K haphazardly just for laughs - doing so is a particularly gross form of privilege.
• most key part of the k is either the theory of power discussion or the ballot key discussion - both need to be very well developed throughout the debate.
• in all events but PF, the solvency of the alt is key. In PF, bc of the lack of plans, the framing/ballot key discourse replaces, but functions similarly to, the solvency of the alt.
• Most familiar with - various ontological theories (pessimistic, optimistic, nihilistic, etc.), most iterations of cap and neolib
• Somewhat familiar with - securitization, settler-colonialism, and IR K’s
• Least familiar with - higher-level, post-modern theories (looking specifically at Lacan here)

Background: Debate and Speech Coach at East Ridge High School in Woodbury, Minnesota. Retired Attorney.

Regarding PF:

-Your speed needs to be conversational; if I cannot get it on my flow, you did not say it.

-I need to hear excellent warranting and narrative - I do not prep the PF topic, so make it make sense.

-I consider myself a truth-over-tech judge.

-I like quantifiable impacts.

-Off-time roadmaps are good for me.

-Voters and weighing are key to my ballot.

-Make the Summary and Final Focus what they should be, not a Rebuttal 2.0.

What I am looking for in Congressional Debate:

-an introduction to your speech, a roadmap, and some signposting/transitions are helpful

-arguments that include the necessary evidence to support them

-citations that give me enough information to find them, if needed

-the authorship/sponsorship speech that is polished and should include the status quo, the problem in the status quo, and how your bill solves

-speeches after the authorship/sponsorship speech should include refutation and clash with previous speakers - this is debate, not oratory

-questioning should further debate, so favorable or same-sided questions should be avoided

-if you are giving a mid- to late-round speech and do not include refutation, you will rank poorly in front of me

-avoid talking over each other and snark during questioning

-no rehashing of previous points, please

-breaking the cycle of debate is a risky move in front of me; flipping sides or saving your recency for the next piece of legislation is preferable

What I am looking for in a Presiding Officer:

-EFFICEINCY! The more wordy you are, the more your score goes down

-you should announce your procedures thoroughly at the very beginning

-you are not required to offer an electronic precedence and recency spreadsheet. The onus is on the debaters in the chamber to flow the debate and keep track of the P & R

-No auctioneering is needed. Call for a speech, seeing none, call for the next.

-a PO is there to allow the most debate to happen. Narrating the entire round with extra words fails to meet this objective.

-a PO should be able to get through about 12 speeches in an hour. Make that your goal.

-unless the Tournament says otherwise, the NSDA has no rule against breaking cycle and the number of same-sided speeches that can occur. You do not need to admonish the chamber each time it happens.

-You should not call for “Orders of the Day” unless you have a tabled piece of legislation you left on the table. “Orders of the Day” is not a time to state how many speeches and questions the chamber got through. Check out Robert’s Rules of Order if you are curious.

-DO NOT SAY: “Thank you for that speech of 3:09. As this was the 3rd Affirmative Speech, we are in line for a 1-minute block of questioning. All those who wish to ask a question, please indicate." INSTEAD SAY: “Speech time 3:09. Questioners, please indicate.”

Trevor Turner

He/them

Yes email chain: trevorturner2001@gmail.com

Debated 6 years in the Raymore-Peculiar School District (MO), 5 years at Kansas State

M.Arch '24, MA.Comm '26

I used to have a paradigm broken into the different arg typologies to give you a comprehensive overview on how I feel about them, but I'm hardly convinced people were reading any/all of it. Below is a framework of the most important things that could win/lose you my ballot. Assume if something is not explicitly called out here, my ideology falls in-line with the broader community's thoughts on the subject. Yes I'll answer additional questions about things not covered/undercovered before the round starts.

Top-level:

I'm not one for "wearing a poker face", so if it looks like I think your argument is wrong/bad or I'm confused, that's probably the case.

My threshold for two non-Black individuals running afropess/futurism/even certain anti-Blackness args is really high. As a Black person, it's pretty hard for me to sit through two non-Black people trying to prescribe, then force me to vote for, the best solution to violence that's unfathomable to non-Black beings. This Tweet from Katherine McKittrick is beautiful on this question.

My first Masters was in Architecture. During my time as a debater, I was often making haptic/visual arguments. I think art is a valid and extremely important form of argument. I do need to be prompted when to begin flowing (ie. if you are playing music before a speech) or if there are visuals in a doc.

Generally, Fast debate > Slow debate, barring any accessibility needs. Top of the 2N/AR should be top of my RFD.

K Debate:

Yes its good and valuable.

Yes I vote both ways in FW vs K aff debates. My RFD either direction on FW should probably start with how convincing the TVA is.

Presumption has become way too dangerous against K affs. Yes I'll vote on presumption if you can't explain why I shouldn't, but the 15sec 1NC presumption shell should really be shut down in the 2AC (hint: Impact turn + K of presumption -- you're prob not winning a link turn).

FW:

Again, have a good TVA.

Out of the box FW interps are fun!

Theory:

Why did 2As stop reading Condo???? It's the internal link for massive amounts of aff flex. Undercover a sheet in the 2AC? Thank god Condo gives 1AR leeway. Double-turn yourself? Contradictory condo (even potential abuse) bad. 1AR drop a perm? Oops -- but Condo gives you cross-apps. Yes I think that Condo is good for debate, but 2A's should be taking advantage of all additional flex opportunities that come their way.

Yes I vote both ways on PIC theory. Your speaker points will be rewarded for quality PICs.

If you want to want to make a formal evidence/ethics violation complaint, you need to prompt me to stop the round -- I will then follow tournament protocol. Yes, you can make arguments about evidence/ethics that do not involve stopping the round.

DAs:

I read a Disad in the 1NR maybe one singular time in all of my years of debating. My answer to them in the 2AC was always(?) an impact turn. Do with that info what you will.

List of random gripes:

If you read an unhighlighted card and BEFORE YOU BEGIN READING don't tell me whether you're reading the whole card, just underlined, just bold, etc. -- I'm putting my pen down.

Underviews are gross. Do impact calc instead.

I'm not a time keeper.

Good diction and, not talking too fast, are important. When sending evidence ensure you send it on the chat or if emailing the evidence, cc me on the email chain.

Alum of the program, competed 4 years and have coached for the last 2 (give or take). I have judged pf before as well as multiple speech events.

I look for who has the better cohesive argument. I also look closely for who is better able to thoughtfully deconstruct the other sides argument in cross. I am not picky, just be coherent.

Liberty University

Justicewdebate@gmail.com

Tech over truth. My goal is to judge debates with the least intervention possible. My paradigm is short because I have very few ideological predispositions about debate and decide debates accordingly. Debate is best when debaters respect their opponents, develop well researched arguments, and respond to arguments in the order that they are presented. Given this, debaters who view ethics challenges, Ad hominem, screenshots, etc as case negs should strike me. Debate is hard and I appreciate the time and effort debaters put into the activity. I hope to put similar effort into judging debates.

Hi! I'm Skylar, was formerly a debater at Blake. Please put skylar.wang@yale.eduon the email chain, and don't hesitate to reach out with any questions.

Notes for 10/9 -I'm not familiar with this topic at all, so make sure to say the full name of something before abbreviating!

changes:

- Pref slower/clearer speeches. If you're going faster i expect each arg to be more in depth/more of the card being read. Either way please please be clear– I really don't want to have to sift through an email chain after to reflow your arguments. f I can't understand you I will clear you twice and then stop flowing.

General:

- Please preflow before the round and give an off-time road map that tells me which specific argument you're starting on

- Second rebuttal should rebuild your own case and respond to theirs, and begin the weighing debate! ALL speeches after 2nd reb should have weighing

- Comparatives are very important: tell me why to prefer your reasoning over your opponents (eg. maybe because it's empirically proven, maybe because you have the best evidence on the question), most close rounds are resolved this way.

This can be evidence comparison too (eg. our ev is more holistic source, takes into account xyz factors). Please do this if you have conflicting evidence on a question, otherwise I have to sift through the email chain myself afterward to resolve this

- Impact calc is key, but make sure it's comparative and warranted!

- Link-ins and prerecs are good and useful weighing args that should be made. However, I think they're often given too much weight on the ballot and come out too late in the round, so if you want to use this mech make sure it's well warranted and well developed from summary (extra points if they come out in rebuttal). I also have a very low threshold for responding to them if they're blippy or simply asserted.

- Don't hesitate to call for evidence! Also, when you're sending it in the email chain, send cut cards, not just a link.

More on evidence, borrowing from Ale Perri: "Cut cards. Paraphrasing is becoming an easy vehicle for total misrepresentation of evidence. So I would strongly advise reading cut cards in front of me. The NSDA requires that you are now paraphrasing from a cut card or paragraph, meaning that if you are paraphrasing an entire pdf or article, I will evaluate the flow without that argument and your speaks will get tanked. I still strongly believe that even paraphrasing from cut cards is unacceptable because of the time skew that it enables against a team that is cutting and reading cards (i.e you are able to read 3 "cards" for every actual card they can read), but I will not drop you or the evidence for this if the paraphrase is legitimate."

- Prefer case rounds, but open to hearing prog debates. Did a little bit of framework and theory when I debated, but I haven't evaluated/heard a prog debate in ~2 years, so my ability to evaluate them is definitely less reliable now– run them with caution/with this in mind.

Back half specifics:

- Extensions (re-explanations of arguments) in summary need to be clear and warranted

- Strategy in summary/ff need to be similar, I won't vote off of a blippy claim made in summary and blown up in final focus

- For the arguments they've collapsed on, defense in ff needs to be in summary

- Collapse hard on a few arguments! If I see this properly executed earlier in the round, I'll boost your speaks

Speaks:

- I'm okay with any style– I don't think debate boils down to persuasion, but instead understanding the nuances of the argument and being able to do effective comparison. I view debate more as an academic means to unpack policy, and much less a speech event. It's a test of your research and efficiency, not your language.

- Average is 28

- No tolerance for exclusionary language or behavior

Feel free to ask any questions before round! Best reachable by email.

Put Me on the Email Chain: Cjaswill23@gmail.com

Experience: I debated in College policy debate team (Louisville WY) at the University of Louisville, went to the quarterfinals of the NDT 2018 , coached and judged high school and college highly competitive teams.

Policy Preferences: Debate is a game that is implicated by the people who play it. Just like any other game rules can be negotiated and agreed upon. Soooooo with that being said, I won't tell you how to play, just make sure I can clearly understand you and the rules you've negotiated(I ran spreading inaccessible arguments but am somewhat trained in evaluating debaters that spread) and I also ask that you are not being disrespectful to any parties involved. If I cannot understand I will stop flowing, what i don't catch I cannot evaluate so make sure that your speed is accessible. With that being said, I don't care what kind of arguments you make, just make sure there is a clear impact calculus, clearly telling me what the voters are/how to write my ballot. Im also queer black woman poet, so those strats often excite me, but will not automatically provide you with a ballot. You also are not limited to those args especially if you don't identify with them in any capacity. I advise you to say how I’m evaluating the debate via Role Of the Judge because I will default to the arguments that I have on my flow and how they "objectively" interact with the arguments of your opponent. I like narratives, but I will default to the line by line if there is not effective weighing. Create a story of what the aff world looks like and the same with the neg. I'm not likely to vote for presumption arguments, it makes the game dull. I think debate is a useful tool for learning despite the game-structure. So teach me something and take my ballot.

Other Forms of Debate: cross-apply above preferences

Debate is fun (although I don't have debate experience). I enjoy judging. Most of my judging experiences are PF followed by LD. I also judged limited rounds of parli, policy and congress. Except for PF, don't assume that I am familiar with the current topic. I usually disclose and give my RFD if it's allowed and time permits.

Add me to the email chain: cecilia.xi@gmail.com

I value clear warrants, explicit weighing and credible evidence. In general tech > truth, but not overly tech > truth (which means that I have to think about the truth part if you read something ridiculous) if you read substance.

- Speed: talking fast is not a problem, but DON'T spread (less than 230 words per minute works). Otherwise, I can only listen but not keep up flowing. If I missed anything, it's on you. If it's the first round early morning or the last round late night, slow down a little (maybe 200 words per minute).

- Warrants: the most important thing is clear links to convince me with supporting evidence (no hypothesis or fake evidence - I will check your evidence links). Use cut card. Don't paraphrase. If you drop your warrants, I will drop you.

- Flow: I flow everything except for CX. Clear signposts help me flow.

- Rebuttals: I like quick thinking when attacking your opponents' arguments. Turns are even better. Frontlines are expected in second rebuttal.

- CX: don't spend too much time calling cards (yes, a few cards are fine) or sticking on something trivial.

- Weighing: it can be any weighing mechanisms, but needs to be comparative. Bring up what you want me to vote on in both summary and FF (collapse please) and extend well.

- Timing: I don't typically time your speeches unless you ask me to do so (but if I do, the grace period is about 10 sec to finish your sentence but not to introduce new points). I often time your prep and CX.

Non-substance (prefer not to judge)

Ts: limited judging experience. Explain well to me why your impact values more and focus on meaningful violations. Don't assume an easy win by default reading Ts, if you sacrifice educational value for the sake of winning.

Ks: no judging experience. Only spectated a few rounds. Hard to understand those big hollow words unless you have enough warrants to your ROB. If you really want to do Ks (which means you are at risks that I won't be able to understand well), do stock Ks.

Tricks: I personally don't like it - not aligned with the educational purpose of debate.

Finally, be respectful and enjoy your round!

Lowell '20 || UC Berkeley '24 || Assistant Coach @ College Prep || she/her/hers

Please add both kelly@college-prep.org and cpsspeechdocs@gmail.com to the chain.

Please format the chain subject like this: Tournament Name - Round # - Aff Team Code [Aff] vs Neg Team Code. Please make sure the chain is set up before the start time.

Background

I debated for four years at Lowell High School. I’ve been a 2A for most of my years (2Ned as a side gig my junior year). Qualified to the TOC & placed 7th at NSDA reading arguments on both sides of the spectrum. I'd say my comfort for judging rounds is Policy vs. Policy ~ Policy vs. K ~ Clash Rounds >>> K vs. K.

I learned everything I know about debate from Debnil Sur, and I think about debate in the same way as this guy.He's probably the person I talk to the most when it comes to strategies and execution, it would be fair to say that if you like the way that he judges then I am also a good judge for you.

General Things

I'll vote on anything.I think there is certainly a lot of value in ideological flexibility.

Tech >>>>>>>>> truth: I'd rather adapt to your strategies than have you adapt to what you think my preferences are. The below are simply guidelines & ways to improve speaks via things I like seeing rather than ideological stances on arguments.

Looooove judge instruction - if I hear a ballot being written in the 2NR/2AR, I will basically just go along with it and verify if what you are saying is correct. The closer my decision is to words you have said in the 2NR/2AR, the higher your speaker points will be.

I will not use my ballot to resolve things that happened outside the round. Take it to tab or trusted adult coaches. Disclosure is an exception.

2024-2025 Round Stats:

Policy vs. Policy (7-15): 32% aff over 22 rounds, 25% aff in a theory/T debate over 4 rounds

Policy vs. K (2-2): 50% aff over 4 rounds

Clash (1-2): 66% neg over 3 rounds

Sat 0 times of 9 elim rounds

2023-2024 Round Stats:

Policy vs. Policy (11-18): 37.93% aff over 29 rounds, 22.22% aff in a theory debate over 9 rounds

Policy vs. K (5-2): 71.43% aff over 7 rounds

Clash (2-3): 40% aff over 5 rounds

K v K (1-0): 100% aff over 1 round

Sat once out of 12 elim rounds

Disads

Not much to say here - think these debates are pretty straight forward. I start evaluation at the impact level to determine link threshold & risk of the disad. My preference for evaluation is if there is explicit ballot writing + evidence indicts + resolution done by yourself in the 2NR/2AR, I would love not to open the card document and make a more interventionist judgement.

CPs

Default to judge kick. If the affirmative team has a problem with me doing this, that words "condo bad" should have been in the 2AC and explanation for no judge kick warranted out in the 1AR/2AR.

The proliferation of 1NCs with like 10 process counterplans has been kind of wild, and probably explains my disproportionately neg leaning ballot record. Process/agent/consult CPs are kind of cheating but in the words of the wise Tristan Bato, "most violations are reasons to justify a permutation or call solvency into question and not as a voter."

I think I tend to err neg on questions of conditionality & perf con but probably aff on counterplans that garner competition off of the word “should”. Obviously this is a debate to be had but also I’m also sympathetic to a well constructed net benefit with solid evidence.

Ks

Framework is sosososo important in these debates. I don’t think I really lean either side on this question but I don’t think the neg needs to win the alt if they win framework + links based on the representational strategy of the 1AC.

Nuanced link walls based on the plan/reps + pulling evidence from their ev >>>> links based on FIATed state action and generic cards about your theory.

Bad for post-modernism, simply because I've never read them + rarely debated them in high school. If you have me in the back you need to do a LOT of explanation.

Planless Affs/Framework

Generally, I don’t think people do enough work comparing/explaining their competing models of debate and its benefits other than “they exclude critical discussions!!!!”

For the aff: Tying your criticism to the topic >>>>>>>> saying anything in the 1AC. I’ll probably be a lot more sympathetic to the neg if I just have no clue what the method/praxis of the 1AC is in relation to the topic. I think the value of planless affs come from having a defensible method that can be contested, which is why I’m not a huge fan of advocacies not tied to the topic. Open to perms in method debates, but is something that can be debated. I prefer nuanced perm explanations rather than just “it’s not mutually exclusive”.

For the neg: I don’t really buy procedural fairness - I think to win this standard you would have to win pretty substantial defense to the aff’s standards & disprove the possibility of debate having an effect on subjectivity. I don't think I'd never vote on fairness, but I think the way that most debaters extend it just sound whiney and don't give me a reason to prefer it over everything else. Impacts like agonism, legal skills, deliberation, etc are infinitely more convincing to me. Absent a procedural question of framework, I am just evaluating whether or not I think the advocacy is a good idea, not that I think the reading of it in one round has to change the state of debate/the world.

Topicality / Theory

I default to competing interps. Explanations of your models/differences between your interps + caselists >>>>> “they explode limits” in 10 different places. Please please please please do impact comparison.

Topic education, clash, and in-depth research are more convincing to me than generic fairness impacts.

Theory debates are usually the most difficult for me to resolve, and probably the most interventionist I would have to be in an RFD. Very explicit judge instruction and ballot writing is needed to avoid such intervention.

Ethics Violations/Procedurals

I don't flow off speech docs, but I try to follow along when you're reading evidence to ensure you're not clipping. If I catch you clipping, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you don't know what you're doing. I will give you a warning, but drop you if it happens again. If the other team catches you and wants to stake the round on an ethics challenge, I doubt you're winning that one.

Questions of norms ≠ ethics violations. If you believe the ballot should resolve a question of norms (disclosure, open sourcing, etc), then I will evaluate it like a regular procedural. If you believe it's an ethics violation (intentionally modifying evidence, clipping, etc), then the round stops immediately. Loser of the ethics challenge receives an auto loss and 20s.

Evidence ethics can be really iffy to resolve. If you want to stake the round on an evidence distortion, you must prove: that the piece of evidence was cut by the other team (or someone affiliated with their school) AND there was clear and malicious intent to alter its meaning. If your problem isn't surrounding distortion but rather mistagging/misinterpreting the evidence, it can be solved via a rehighlighting.

Online Debate

Please don't start until you see my camera on!

If you're not wearing headphones with a microphone attached, it is REALLY hard to hear you when you turn away from your laptop. Please refrain from doing this.

I would also love if you slowed down a tiny tiny tiny tiny bit on your analytics. I will clear you at most 3 times, but I can't help it if I miss what you're saying on my flow ;(.

Lay Debate / GGSA
I actually really appreciate these rounds. I think at the higher levels, debaters tend to forget that debate is a communicative activity at its core, and rely on the judge's technical knowledge to get out of impacting out arguments themselves. If we are in a lay setting and you'd rather not have a fast round when I'm in the back, I'll be all for that. There is such a benefit in adapting to slower audiences and over-explaining implications of all parts of the debate -- it builds better technical understanding of the activity! I'll probably still evaluate the round similar to how I would a regular round, but I think the experience of you forcing yourself to over-explain each part of the flow to me is greatly beneficial.

Public Forum

I've never debated in PF, but I have judged a handful of rounds now. I will evaluate very similarly to how I evaluate policy rounds.

I despise the practice of sending snippets of evidence one at a time. I think it's a humongous waste of time and honestly would prefer (1) the email chain be started BEFORE the round and (2) all of the evidence you read in your speech sent at once. Someone was confused about this portion of my paradigm -- basically, instead of asking for "Can I get [A] card on [B] argument, [C] card on [D] arg, etc...", I think it would be faster if the team that just spoke sent all of their evidence in one doc. This is especially true if the tournament is double-flighted.

If you want me to read evidence after the round, please make sure you flag is very clearly.

I've been in theory/k rounds and I try to evaluate very close to policy. I'm not really a huge fan of k's in public forum -- I don't think there is enough speech time for you to develop such complex arguments out well. I also don't think it makes a lot of sense given the public forum structure (i.e. going for an advocacy when it's not a resolution that is set up to handle advocacies). I think there's so much value in engaging with critical literature, please consider doing another event that is set up better for it if you're really interested in the material. However, I'm still willing to vote on anything, as long as you establish a role of the ballot + frame why I'm voting.

If you delay the round to pre-flow when it's double-flighted, I will be very upset. You should know your case well enough for it to not be necessary, or do it on your own time.

Be nice & have fun.

Hi! I’m Jen (she/her), a first-year out who debated PF for Taipei American.

Please add yenjenn3@uw.edu and taipeiamericanpf@gmail.com to the email chain.

How I view debate

• W's based on flow but a strong narrative helps me a lot **edit: I realize I vote pretty often on how comfortable I feel about an argument based on how consistent the narrative is as well.
• Sacrificing clarity for speed is bad; If I didn't catch it then it's not on the flow
• Warrants (why) and implications (so what) are the two most important things
• Defense is not sticky (however if something is clearly dropped, simple extensions are sufficient)
• Collapse second half and do it well (this means extending ALL parts of the contention you are going for and not going for your entire case)
• Comparatively weigh, preferably not just the impacts. Metaweighing can be good too. Also, don't sneak any responses you forget to read in rebuttal as weighing, I can tell lol
• What's in the FF needs to be in the summary, even better if they mirror
• I listen to cross but I noticed that I am not the most focused during it. Bring it up in a speech again if there is something important.
• Evidence ethics matters, don't egregiously miscut things; it's not fair to the argument nor to your opponents.
• Progressive debate? Not really down and If I were you I would not trust me assessing these arguments. If you still decide to do so, explain to me step by step as if I'm a lay. I really dislike disclosure and paraphrasing theory though. **edit: substance with prog framing is fine, but it should come up very early in the round, rebuttal at the latest.

Please ask me any questions before round or after my RFD. Lastly, I take this community’s work towards bettering inclusiveness very seriously. If there are any actions that raise doubts against this, you will face the consequences. So be a decent human being and glhf :)

Debate

TL;DR: If it’s not on my flow it doesn’t exist. If I can’t explain the argument to you in oral critiques/on my ballot I won’t vote on it. Disrespect, discrimination, or rudeness will cost speaks or, if severe enough, the round. Also, I agree with Brian Darby's paradigm. Go read that and come back here for specifics.

If the words "disclosure theory" are said in the round I will automatically give the team that introduced it the down.

General: I won’t do the work for you. I am tech unless the argument being run is abusively false (Ex: The Holocaust was fake; the Uyghur camps in China are #FakeNews; the sky is red; etc.). I don’t care what you run or how you run it (with a few exceptions below). You need to weigh, you need to explain why you won, you need to extend, you need to signpost. At the end of the round, I want to be able to look at my flow and be able to see clear reasons/arguments why one particular side won the round. I don’t want to have to do mental gymnastics to determine a winner and I hate intervening. Do I prefer a particular style? Sure, but it doesn’t impact my flow or my decision. If you win the argument/round (even if I don’t enjoy it) you won the argument/round.

Style Preference

Email chains/Cards

Don't put me on the chain. You should be speaking slow enough that I don't need to read the speech docs in round to keep my flow clear.

Flow Quirks

First, I still flow on paper - not the computer - keep this in mind when it comes to speed of speech. I kill the environment in Policy by flowing each argument on a different page. Be kind and let me know how many pages to prepare in each constructive and an order to put existing flows in. I flow taglines over authors so, let me know what the author said (i.e. the tag) before you give me the analysis so I can find it on the flow.

Speed

SLOW DOWN ON TAGLINES AND IMPORTANT FACTS In the physical world if you ever go too fast I will throw down my pen and cross my arms. In the virtual world, I suggest you start slow because tech and internet speed has proven to be a barrier for spreading, but I will give you two warnings when you start skipping in and out or when you become unclear. After two, unless it’s an actual tech issue, I’ll stop flowing.

Timing

Prep time ends when you press "send" for the doc OR when the flash drive leaves your computer (or in PF when you stand to speak). That being said, I don’t time in rounds. You should be holding each other accountable.

Speaks

I generally start at 28 and work my way up or down. As a coach and a teacher I recognize and am committed to the value that debate should be an educational activity. Do not be rude, discriminatory, or abusive – especially if you are clearly better than your opponent. I won’t down you for running high quantity and high tech arguments against someone you are substantively better than, but I will tank your speaks for intentionally excluding your opponent in that way. It can only benefit you to keep the round accessible to all involved.

Argumentation

PF Specific

Nothing is "sticky." If it is dropped in summary I drop it from my flow and consider it a "kicked" argument or you "collapsed" into whatever was actually discussed. Do not try to extend an argument from rebuttal into Final Focus that was not mentioned in summary. I will not evaluate it. Don't run Kritiks - more info below

Framework

If you have it, use it. Don’t make me flow a framework argument and never reference it again or drop it in your calculations. LD: Be sure to tell me why you uphold your FW better than your opponent, why it doesn’t matter, or why your FW is superior to theirs. Do not ignore it.

Kicks

I’m fine with you kicking particular arguments and won’t judge it unless your opponent explains why I should, but it won’t be difficult for you to tell me otherwise.

Kritiks

LD/CX: If you aren’t Black, do not run Afropessimism in front of me. Period. End of story. In fact, if you are running any K about minorities (LGBTQ, race, gender, disabilities, etc.) and you do not represent that population you need to be VERY careful. I will notice the performative contradiction and the language of your K (Afropessimism is a great example) may sway my vote if your opponent asks. Anything else is fair game but you need to explain it CLEARLY. Do not assume I’ve read the literature/recognize authors and their theories (I probably haven't). You decided to run it, now you can explain it.

PF: Don't run this in front of me. You don't have time to do it well, flesh out arguments, and link to the resolution. I will most likely accept a single de-link argument from your opponents or a theory that Ks in PF is bad. For your own sake, avoid that.

Structural Violence

Make sure that you understand the beliefs/positions/plights of your specified groups and that your language does not further the structural violence against them. These groups are NOT pawns for debate and I will tank your speaks if you use them as such.

Theory

You can run it (minus disclosure), but if your impact is “fairness” you better explain 1) why it outweighs their quantitative impacts and 2) how what they are doing is so grossly unfair you couldn’t possibly do anything else. If you run this I will not allow conditionality. Either they are unfair and you have no ground, or you have ground and their argument is fine. Choose. Do not run theory as a timesuck.

Tricks

Strike me. I don’t know what they are, I will probably miss them – just like your opponent – and you and I will both be wasting our time on that argument.

Speech/Platform

General:I'm looking for clear organization and relatively equal splits for the main points. I'm also looking for sourcing - minimum two sources per point of the speech with at least another source in the intro. The better speeches, in my opinion, cite at least seven sources - especially platform events. Also for platform events - originality of topic is taken into consideration (generally as a tie-breaker when two performances are equal).

Extemp:You gotta answer the question and connect each point to the answer. If your points are general and don't directly relate to your question it's gonna knock you down. Sources must be cited with at least month and year for articles in the last twelve months and year for older articles. Bonus points for a variety of publications and a hook that cleanly connects to the topic.

Informative:Visual aids should ENHANCE the speech, NOT MAKE the speech. If they are distracting me from the content of your speech then it will detract from your ranking.

Interpretation

Important Judging Quirk:I write comments as I'm watching (it's my version of flow for interp) so you're gonna get a stream-of-consciousness of what I'm thinking throughout the performance. I'm not being rude. I'm just giving you my real, raw thoughts as I watch your performance. If I'm confused you'll know I was confused. If I'm turned off by something you'll know I was turned off. If something made me feel an emotion you'll know it. If these types of ballots offend you STRIKE ME NOW. Do not wait until you get your ballot back and make me look like a bad guy because you didn't like how I took in your performance in the moment. Unlike a lot of interp judges (my kids do this event and I see their ballots) I'm trying to write down my thoughts and comments as they pop in my head, before I forget them forever. As a result (and with the number of rounds I judge) I don't always do a great job of editing these comments to make sure they won't sting. But students, coaches, if I say something you feel was unnecessarily hurtful please find me and talk to me. It was never my intention and I'd be happy to clarify my thoughts.

General:Performance needs a clear plot line (rising action, climax, falling action). No plot line? Not gonna be a good ranking. Character differentiation is key as well. If I get confused as to who is speaking when, it's gonna take me out of the performance. Blocking should make sense with the plot and remain consistent. If you create a wall, don't walk through the wall. Volume control is also considered - does the yelling make sense? Does it make me shrink away and not want to listen (not a good thing)? Is it legible? Emotions should match the scene/character as set up by previous scenes.

HI:I've become notorious for not laughing during performances. This is not me purposefully not laughing or trying to throw you off - I just don't find the humor in current HIs funny. In those cases I'm looking more at the characterization and plot line in the piece. That being said, if you see me laugh that is a genuine laugh and it'll for sure go into my considerations of rankings.

Congress

My interpretation of Congress debate is a combination of extemporaneous speaking and debate. The sponsorship/authorship and first opposition speech should be the constructive speech for the legislation. The rebuttals should build on the constructives by responding to arguments made by the opposing side. Both styles of speech should:

1. Engage with the actual legislation, not the generalized concepts,
2. Have clear arguments/points with supporting evidence from reputable sources
3. Have a clear intro and conclusion that grabs the audience's attention and ties everything together
4. Articulate and weigh impacts (be sure to explain why the cost is more important than the lives or why the lives matter more than the systemic violence, etc.)

Rebuttal speeches should clearly address previous speeches/points made in the round. With that in mind, I will look more favorably on speeches later in the cycle that directly respond to previous arguments AND that bring in new considerations - I despise rehash.

Delivery of the speech is important - I will make note of fluency breaks or distracting movements - but I am mainly a flow judge so I might not be looking directly at you.

Participation in the chamber (motions, questioning, etc.) are things I will consider in final rankings and generally serve as tie-breakers. If two people have the same speech scores, but one was better at questioning they will earn the higher rank. Some things I look for in this area:

1. Are your questions targeted and making an impact on the debate of the legislation OR are they just re-affirming points already made?
2. Are you able to respond to questions quickly, clearly, and calmly OR are you flustered and struggling to answer in a consistent manner with the content of your speech?
3. Are you helping the chamber move along and keep the debate fresh OR are you advocating for stale debate because others still have speeches on the legislation?
4. Did you volunteer to give a speech on the opposite side of the chamber to keep the debate moving OR are you breaking Prop/Opp order to give another speech on the heavy side?

Presiding Officer

To earn a high rank in the chamber as the PO you should be able to do the following:

1. Follow precedence with few mistakes
2. Keep the chamber moving - there should be minimal pause from speech to questioning to speech
3. Follow appropriate procedures for each motions - if you incorrectly handle a motion (i.e. call for a debate on something that does not require it or mess up voting procedures) this will seriously hurt your ranking

I am currently a Policy Debater at Gonzaga University and am coaching at Niles West High School

TLDR

Yes email chain - tzdebatestuff@gmail.com

Time yourself and time your opponents

I have experience with most types of arguments but don't assume I have read your author/lit already. Explain your theory/complex legal args in language that is understandable

Impact calc wins rounds

speed is good but outside of policy it's cringe

Tech over truth within reason (ie a dropped arg with no warrant or impact doesnt matter)

I don't care at all what you say and will vote on anything that is not immediately and obviously violent

Not a fan of the super-aggressive debate style - unless executed perfectly it comes off as cringe 99.9% of the time

Judge instruction please

T

Some of the most interesting debates I have judged have been T debates against policy teams. In a perfect world the negative should explain what the in round implications of the untopical aff were as well and probably more importantly what it would mean for debate if their interpretation was the new norm.

Going for T doesnt mean you cant extend a case turn you're winning

Limits is a very convincing argument for me - I probably agree that a ton of small affs would be bad

FW

I have read both policy and K affs

Debating about debate is cool but if it is distracting from x scholarship it is less cool

Bad K affs are not cool but good K affs are cool

K affs that don't address the resolution/stem from topic research are not good and start from adeficit

I find myself pretty split in FW v K Aff debates. If the aff sufficiently answers/turns FW I have no problem voting aff to forward a new model of debate. I find this specifically true when the 1AC has built-in or at least inferential answers to fw that they can deploy offensively.

At the same time if the negative does good FW debating and justifies the limits their model imposes I feel good voting on FW. I am not convinced that reading FW in and of itself is violent though I recognize the impact these arguments may have on x scholarship which means that when this gets explained I am down to evaluate the impacts of reading these types of arguments but I don't think its a morally bankrupt argument to go for or anything like that.

Debate bad as an argument is not convincing to me, we are all here by free will and we all love debate or at the very least think it is a good academic activity. This does not mean you cannot convince me that there are problems within the community .

Switch side debate probably solves your impact turn to framework - affs that undercover SSD put themselves in a really tough spot. I often find myself rewarding strategic 2NR decisions that collapse on SSD or the TVA (or another argument you may be winning).

Fairness is always good

Debate is a game- I am severely not convinced by "no it isn't, debate is my life" - it is inarguably a game to an extent and everyone chose to come play it. Unlimited other places to advocate for X literature means no reason debate is unique.

Theory

Theory is good.

If you read like 6 reasons to reject the team I think some warrants are necessary. ex:"Reject the team, utopian fiat bad" is not an argument - why is x thing utopian?

If you are going to go for a theory arg in a final rebuttal ensure your partner extended it substantially enough for you to have adequate arguments to go for or give a nuanced speech on the specific args extended by your partner - generalized rebuttals on theory are bad. At the same time I am cool with hailmary rebuttals on theory because you are getting destroyed in every other part of the debate

I tend to lean neg on condo stuff but not by much

Will vote on perf con

Dont read your theory blocks at 2 million wpm

Bonus points for contextualizing your theory args to the round they are being deployed in

If you want to go for theory spend more than 7 seconds on it when you are first deploying the argument

K

Cool with a 1 off and case strat

Kritiks are cool

Vague alts are annoying and if I cant understand how the alt solves case and you don't have good case stuff I am gonna have a tough time voting neg unless the link debate implicates that (and is articulated)

Explain links in clear terms and be specific to the aff you are hitting. Specific links are better than generic like state bad links but if you have a generic link please explain to me how the aff uniquely makes the situation WORSE not just that it doesnt make it better - these are different things

Pull out CX moments / sketchy 1AC decisions and EXTEND them as specific links

I am totally cool with performance and love me some affect but if you are reading cards about how performance is key to X and your whole "performance" is playing like 10 seconds of a song before your 1AC and you don't reference it again then I am cool voting neg on "even if performance is good yall's was trash" (assuming this arg is made lol)

Winning FW is huge but you still need to leverage it as a reason for me to vote on X. Just because you are "winning" FW doesn't mean I know how you want me to evaluate args under this paradigm. So, when you think you are winning FW explain how that implicates my role as the judge.

Apply arguments please - K debate is becoming increasingly broad (ie. if I win my theory of power I should win the debate) which I don't disagree with but it does mean specificity in argument application is more and more important. Tell me what you want me to do with the arguments you are making and which of the arguments your opponents made are implicated.

CP

CPs are great but 10 plank conditional counterplans are kinda silly.

2nc CPs (or CP amendments) are lit

Advantage CP defender

Probably should be functionally and textually competitive ig

DA

DAs are awesome and CP DA strat is a classic

UQ is extremely important to me. A lot of links are ignorant to UQ so explain the link in the context of the UQ you are reading

Explain your impact scenario clearly - bad internal links to terminal impacts r crazzzzzy

PF

I did PF in HS but it was trad so I am likely going to evaluate the round through a policy lens.

Will vote on theory

Cool with K stuff

LD

Pretty much same as PF - never did LD but I have judged it a ton so I will likely judge how you instruct me to but default to a policy lens.

_______________________________________________________________________________

Debate is hard and stressful but relax and be confident and have fun!

Feel free to email me with any questions tzdebatestuff@gmail.com

Firstly and most importantly, it'll be difficult for me to follow your argument if you speak too fast. Speak slowly.

I prefer weighing in summary and final focus.

Crossfire matters, I flow cross, although it's not as important as the other speeches to me.

I'm not too strict on time, I'll usually give a grace period of a few seconds after you go over time in your speeches, but please try to keep track of your own time.

Extend your arguments, I also expect both teams to frontline their arguments.

I expect you all to keep track of your own prep time.

Another small thing, I don't really care what year both team's cards are from, although it would be great if both teams cross-examined each other's evidence.

I'm a lay judge but I've been judging debates for a while now. I promise I'll be unbiased and work hard as a debate judge.

Thanks.

I am a lay parent judge. I prefer that debaters don’t speak too fast so that I could follow your arguments.

I will judge based upon:

1) solid logic and reasoning.

2) strong advocacy of your position.

3) utilization of evidence.

4) clear communication.

Please speak at a moderate speed.

Welcome to my angry rant!....I mean, my paradigm!

(don’t worry, I am nicer in my RFD).

I have 5 years experience in World Schools and Public Forum Debate. Flay for policy.

I hold debaters accountable for Public Forum’s original purpose- which is to communicate to the public*. I am not a lay judge, but if a layman couldn't at least understand you, you are defeating the purpose of public forum and you should be in policy instead.

tabula rasa, but don't overdo it. You don't need to define "the" for me :P.

I love kritiks when used sincerely, but not when they are used frivolously.

Substance over theory, forever and always. I despise theory (except topicality). If you use theory, you better have a GOOD reason and address a REAL issue, because it will not impress me as a default strategy. Theory was designed to keep debate fair...so don't be like rain on your wedding day (ironic...Alanis Morissette...no one?) and use it abusively.

There is nothing I hate more than a petty theory debate with no substance....but spreading is a close second. If a teacher assigned you a 2 page paper and you used 1pt font to get as much info in as possible while also hoping the teacher didn't catch your mistakes, you wouldn't get away with it. Spreading is no different. The assignment is to convey your message to the public as persuasively as you can in 4 minutes. I consider spreading to be like using 1pt font: cheating. Not to mention that spreading is SUPER elitist to ESL debaters.

Truth over tech, sorry not sorry. It’s not because I am lay, its because I am allergic to kool-aid and won’t drink it. I still hold you accountable to technical aspects of debate, but not if tech isn't supporting truth. I don't care if you memorize more jargon than your opponent, I care if you have better arguments. Impressive impacts with strong links win.

Framework should not be neglected!!!!

---------------Advice for my victims....I mean, competitors--------------------------------------------

I have a tendency to favor global impacts over domestic, and I am a sucker for strong logic based on economics. Please remember- the United States is NOT the world, and the values of the United States are NOT universal. If your opponents make assumptions, point them out to me.

Don't assume I am a liberal- if you want to argue that republicans are inherently bad, you need to prove it.

Don't collapse on a good argument for the sake of collapsing. It might take 5 seconds out of your summary speech to keep a contention in play that could save your whole round.

Don't focus on niche issues when your opponents' impact effects the whole world.

Real world impacts are more impressive to me than theoretical ones. Don't tell me something is going to lead to nuclear war unless you really can prove it. -_- Links or its fake.

If you are going to use climate change as your impact, you better be able to prove uniqueness.

I have a pet peeve for arguments that falsely equate correlation with causation. If your opponent calls you out on this correctly....-_-

Don't give me a false dilemma. Don't strawman. Don't be dumb. Don't be tricky. Just do your research.

FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, WEIGH YOUR IMPACTS.