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!

Whats up yalls. Im super chill. My daughters debate and my husband is a judge. Tbh i have an open mind to anything but if this is for toc dig ser 3 then I will probs be tired. If you are evidently humorous throught your speech, your speaks will reflect it. I wanna say im lay. I can evaulate theory but not really that familiar with k or phil Im willing to have a good time. Debate is for creating a fun environment for everyone. Dont be that guy who mansplains in cx. People with attitudes that arent willing to adjust to their opponent in rounds are losers tbh. Im indian, if you make india seem like a W country then ill be more inclined to vote for you. Ill bump your speeks if you play indian music when you enter the round or have a conversation about india.

Please send me ur case docs before round, taking 100930283921 min to send evidence is lowkey annoying. If you are sending ev read in rebuttal, make an email chain. The chat gets rather messy. First team should start the email chain. Regardless cases should be sent to me. latha.agnel@gmail.com.. send a pic of an autoricshaw in the email chain first

I average 28.5

Speak slowly (if you read ur case in tamil ill vote for u)

don't post round

be funny - ill up ur speaks

u dont need to dress formally, im litely gonna be in pajamas who cares

time urself, i forget the times, and tell me if ur taking prep, write it in chat and dont bs prep

ONE OF MY PET PEEVES IS CALLING FOR CARDS AND NEVER BRINGING THEM UP. like at that point ur just wasting time.

hi!

I am a parent judge so please do not do anything that you wouldn’t do for a parent judge, and I have a few rules of thumb.

1. Please do not speak too fast and make sure you are clear while you speak.
2. I listen to everything during the round, and I will judge based off whose argument is more convincing.
3. Please be respectful and kind to both me and your opponent's.
4. Please have fun and try your best and good luck to both of you guys!

Hi! My name is Shannon Babu, and I'm a parent judge from Concord, MA. This school year (2024-25), I am primarily judging speech events, but I also judge public forum. I am a high school biology teacher, so I love to see your clear thesis, your logical process, and a nice tight summary in your speech. My primary concerns in public forum are your logical process: linkages, evidence, weighing, etc.

For speech:

Extemp
Here's some ways to get a high ranking from me:
-Answer the question
-Content > delivery, but doing both is always better. Maintain a slower pace so I can actually flow
-Clever/unique substructure and diversified arguments.
-Answering NO (or whatever is not the obvious answer)
-I’ll generally reward creativity.

In general for public forum:

I expect you to keep your own time, but I'm happy to keep time for you - just ask.

It's ok to be nervous, and it's ok if your voice shakes - that means you care about what you're doing! We're all here to learn and help each other, even through a competitive environment.

You may sit or stand, whatever makes you the most comfortable.

You may speak relatively quickly with me, but please don't spread. My ears are only human.

I will allow a few extra seconds for a debater to finish a sentence, finish a question, or finish an answer.

If you have any questions for me during the debate, please ask! It's ok to ask questions between process steps, and asking is ALWAYS better than not asking.

I have the following non-negotiable expectation:

*treat your teammate and opponents with respect and dignity (polite body language, mindful utterances/whispering, professional language, etc).

I'm excited to hear your arguments - I know how much work goes into your preparation, and I'm here to support your process!

A little bit about me: I coach for Millburn High School in New Jersey. I competed on the circuit in high school and college.

I do my very best to be as non-interventionist as possible, but I know some students like reading judge's paradigms to get a better sense of what they're thinking. I hope that the below is helpful :).

Overall: You can be nice and a good debater. :)

Here are some things to consider if I'm your Parliamentarian/ Judge in Congressional Debate:

- I am a sucker for a well-executed authorship/ sponsorship, so please don't be afraid to give the first speech! Just because you don't have refutation doesn't mean it isn't a good speech. I will be more inclined to give you a better speech score if you stand up and give the speech when no one is willing to do so because it shows preparedness.

- Bouncing off of the above bullet point, two things I really dislike while at national circuit tournaments are having no one stand up to give the earlier speeches (particularly in out rounds) and one-sided debate. You should be prepared to speak on either side of the legislation. You're there to debate, so debate. I'm much more inclined to rank you higher if you flip and have fluency breaks than if you're the fourth aff in a row.

- Asking the same question over and over to different speakers isn't particularly impressive to me (only in extreme circumstances should this ever be done). Make sure that you are catering the questions to the actual arguments from the speech and not asking generic questions that could be asked of anyone.

- Make my job easy as the judge. I will not make any links for you; you need to make the links yourself.

- Warrants are so important! Don't forget them!

- If you are giving one of the final speeches on a piece of legislation, I expect you to weigh the arguments and impacts that we have heard throughout the debate. Unless there has been a gross negligence in not bringing up a particular argument that you think is revolutionary and changes the debate entirely, you shouldn't really be bringing up new arguments at this point. There are, of course, situations where this may be necessary, but this is the general rule of thumb. Use your best judgment :).

- Please do your best to not read off of your pad. Engage with the audience/ judges, and don't feel as though you have to have something written down verbatim. I'm not expecting a speech to be completely flawless when you are delivering it extemporaneously. I historically score speeches higher if delivered extemporaneously and have a couple of minor fluency lapses than a speech read off of a sheet of paper with perfect fluency.

- Be active in the chamber! Remember, the judges are not ranking students based upon who is giving the best speeches, but who are the best legislators overall. This combines a myriad of factors, including speeches, questioning, overall activity, leadership in the chamber, decorum, and active listening (i.e. not practicing your speech while others are speaking, paying attention, etc.) Keep this in mind before going into a session.

- Please please please don't speak over the top of one another. This being said, that doesn't mean you have a right to monopolize the questioning time, but there is a nice way to cut someone off if they're going too long. Use your best judgment. Don't cut someone off two seconds after they start answering your question.

- I rank based on who I think are the overall best legislators in the chamber. This is a combination of the quality of speeches, questioning, command of parliamentary procedure, preparedness, and overall leadership and decorum in the chamber.

Let me know if you have any questions! :)

Here are some things to consider if I'm your judge in Public Forum:

- Please add me to the email chain if you have one: jordybarry@gmail.com

- I am really open to hearing almost any type of argument (except K's, please don't run K's in PF), but I wouldn’t consider myself a super techy judge. Do your thing, be clear, and enjoy yourselves!

- Please debate the resolution. It was written for a reason.

- It's important to me that you maintain clarity throughout the round. In addition, please don’t spread. I don’t have policy/ LD judging experience and probably won’t catch everything. If you get too fast/ to spreading speed I’ll say clear once, and if it’s still too fast/ you start spreading again, I’ll stop typing to indicate that I’m not getting what you’re saying on my flow.

- Take advantage of your final focus. Tell me why I should vote for you, don't solely focus on defensive arguments.

- Maintain organization throughout the round - your speeches should tell me what exact argument you are referring to in the round. Signposting is key! A messy debate is a poorly executed debate.

- I don't weigh one particular type of argument over another. I vote solely based on the flow, and will not impose my pre-existing beliefs and convictions on you (unless you're being racist, sexist, homophobic, antisemitic, or xenophobic). It's your show, not mine!

- Please please please don't speak over the top of one another. This being said, that doesn't mean you have a right to monopolize the questioning time, but there is a nice way to cut someone off if they're going too long. Use your best judgment. Don't cut someone off two seconds after they start answering your question.

- Be polite!

- Make my job easy. I should not have to (and will not) make any links for you. You have to make the link yourselves. There should be a clear connection to your impacts.

- Weighing impacts is critical to your success, so please do it!

Any questions, please feel free to ask! Have fun and good luck!

I am a lay judge and am not familiar with very technical debate “jargon”. Plain English is my preference. I prefer to be hands off and let students determine the tone and tempo of the debate. I value strong, well reasoned arguments, backed by evidence over number of contentions. I like logical flow and follow through during a debate. I prefer moderate speed and can not understand when you spread! I prefer it when you hone in on some salient contentions by the end of the debate. I like teams to be respectful of each other. I prefer not to disclose.

Please keep your delivery slow and clear. I appreciate clear analysis and weighing in the final focus. I have a daughter who competes in PF, but this is my first time judging. Please explain all acronyms and technical terms. I care most about logic and argumentative reasoning, and will judge upon the first framework established unless it is challenged.

Cade, he/him

competitor @ Washburn University: '21-Present

coach @ NSU University School: '24-Present

Past Affiliations - Topeka High School: '17-'21, 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

Style

Speed is encouraged. Clarity is required. A lack of clarity loses debates more than a lack of speed will. If I have issues with your clarity or speed, I will say "clear" or "speed", and will repeat it a second time if it is not fixed after the first. Following that, you'll have to guess based how I am typing and looking I guess.

I enjoy watching debaters who can go 'off the flow' often, especially in later rebuttals. I think big picture framing is a good way to sell me on most things - I am usually persuaded by well-articulated 'win conditions' followed by good execution of relevant arguments that prove the win condition true. I think debaters have a problem with pairing down the number of arguments they are going for (either in terms of entire flows or a breadth of arguments on a particular flow) - I enjoy debaters who know where to invest their time most effectively and how to simplify swathes of the debate when they become irrelevant.

Not very good for 100% speed theory/T debates - really anything super fast with lots of analytics shld be slowed down a decent bit.

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.

Prompting looks silly, but in the end I am probably flowing the prompter rather than the promptee anyway. I would do this as little as possible, it annoys me to have the cross-talk and makes me compelled to lower both teammates speaks since it indicates to me that the both of you were ill equipped for the speech (and thus the speaker points derived from the speech).

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.

Argument

I dislike this section and have rewritten it dozens of times over the past years, primarily because I feel it is my job to adapt myself to the circumstances of a particular debate, rather than y'all adapting to my subjective and entirely malleable thoughts that I don't even feel confident putting to words. Below will be some basic thoughts that I am slightly more sure of than most things.

Presumption should be at least an argument in a lot more rounds than it is - especially in rounds agains critical affirmatives.

Reasonability feels fake to me. I generally think competing interpretations is more compelling than reasonability, but I think that comes from a lack of a cogent explanation of how reasonability works when I have heard it argued for.

I don't think it is strategic for critical affirmatives to waste time trying to carve out a counter-interpretation on FWK in 90% of cases. IDK how "NEG interp + AFF" or "being in the direction of the resolution" does more in most circumstances than dedicating that time going for impact turns or other genres of offense against framework. If you’ve got a funky one you feel is workable, I’m game!

I think a lot of 2ACs are exceptionally weak on case, and a block that dedicates time to punishing someone who is blitzing a page of case arguments in under 20 seconds will probably be rewarded.

I like negative teams that are willing to get creative. I think 2Ns should embrace the mantle of negation theory and test the AFF on as many fronts as it wishes - 2As should be able to demonstrate why obviously nonsensical proposals fail or win theory/perms/whatever else. Generally game for conditionality.

Jane Boyd

School: Grapevine HS - Interim Director of Debate and Speech

Email: janegboyd79@gmail.com (for case/evidence sharing)

School affiliation/s – Grapevine HS

Years Judging/Coaching - 39

Years of Experience Judging any Speech/Debate Event 39

Order of Paradigms LD, PFD, World Schools, Policy (scroll down)

I am NSDA-certified in all debate and speech events.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Lincoln Douglas Debate

A good debate is a good debate. Remember that trying to be cutting-edge does NOT make for a good debate by itself. While I appreciate innovation, I hate tricks for the sake of tricks and theories used as a strategy. I prefer topic-based arguments. Keep that in mind.

Framework/Values/Criteria/Standards/Burdens

Standards, criteria, framework, and/or burdens are the same thing - these are mechanisms for determining who wins the debate. If a value is used, it needs to be defended throughout the case and not simply as an afterthought. The framework of the debate should not be longer than the rest of the case. Unless it is necessary to make the framework clear, cut to the chase and tell me what is acceptable and unacceptable, but don't spend 2 1/2 minutes on something that should take just a few sentences to make clear. I want a substantive debate on the topic, not an excessive framework or theory. Note the word excessive. I am not stupid and usually get it much quicker than you think. In the debate, resolve the issue of standard and link it to the substantive issues of the round, then move on.

Evidence and Basic Argumentation:

The evidence adds credibility to the arguments of the case; however, I don't want to just hear you cite sources without argumentation and analysis of how it applies to the clash in the debate. I wouldn't say I like arguments that are meant to confuse and say absolutely nothing of substantive value. I am fine with philosophy, but I expect you to explain and understand the philosophies you are applying to your case or arguments. A Kritik is nothing new in LD. Traditional LD, by nature, is perfect, but I recognize the change that has occurred. I accept plans, DAs, counter plans, and theory (when there is a violation - not as the standard strategy.) Theory, plans, and counter plans must be run correctly - so make sure you know how to do it before you run it in front of me.

Flow and Voters:

I think that the AR has a tough job and can often save time by grouping and cross-applying arguments, please make sure you are clearly showing me the flow where you are applying your arguments. I won't cross-apply an argument to the flow if you don't tell me to. I try not to intervene in the debate and only judge based on what you are telling me and where you are telling me to apply it. Please give voters; however, don't give 5 or 6. You should be able to narrow the debate down to critical areas. If an argument is dropped, then explain the importance or relevance of that argument. Don't just give me the "it was dropped, so I win the argument." I may not buy that it is a crucial argument; you must tell me why it is crucial in this debate.

Presentation:

I can flow very well. Slow down, especially in the virtual world. The virtual world is echoing and glitchy. Unless words are clear, I won't flow the debate. Speed for the sake of speed is not a good idea.

Kritik:

I have been around long enough to see Kritik's arguments' genesis. I have seen them go from bad to worse and then good in the policy. I think K's arguments are in a worse state in LD now. Kritik is absolutely acceptable IF it applies to the resolution and, specifically, the case being run in the round. I have the same expectation here as in policy the "K" MUST have a specific link. "K" arguments MUST link directly to what is happening in THIS round with THIS resolution. I am NOT a fan of generic Kritik, which questions whether we exist and has nothing to do with the resolution or debate. Kritik must give an alternative other than "think about it." Most LDs ask me to take any action with a plan or an objective - a K needs to do the same thing. That said, I will listen to the arguments, but I have a very high threshold for the bearer to meet before I vote on a "K" in LD.

Theory:

I have a very high threshold of acceptance of theory in LD. There must be a straightforward abuse story. Also, coming from a policy background - it is essential to run the argument correctly. For example having a violation, interpretation, standards, and voting issues on a Topicality violation is essential. Also, please know the difference between topicality and extra-tropical. Learning what non-unique really means is essential. Theory for the sake of a time suck is silly and won't lead me to vote on it at the end. I want to hear substantive debate on the topic, not just a generic framework or theory. RVI's: Not a fan. Congratulations you are topical or met a minimum of your burden I guess? It's not a reason for me to vote, though, unless you have a compelling reason.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Public Forum Debate

I am more of a traditionalist on PFD. I don't like fast PFD. The time constraints don't allow it. There are no plans or counter plans. Disadvantages can be run, but more traditionally, without calling them disadvantages.

Basic debate principles - claim, warrant, and IMPACT must be clearly explained. Direct clash and clear signposting are essential. WEIGH or compare impacts. Tell me your "story" and why I should vote for your side of the resolution.

I have experience with every type of debate, so words like link cross-apply and drop are okay.

The summary and final focus should be used to start narrowing the debate to the most important issues with a direct comparison of impacts and worldview

I flow - IF you share cases, put me on the email chain, but I won't look at it until the end and ONLY if evidence or arguments are challenged. Speak with the assumption that I am flowing, not reading.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

WORLD SCHOOL DEBATE

I have experience and success coaching American-style Debates. World Schools Debate quickly became my favorite. Every year that I coached WSD, I coached teams to elimination rounds at local, state, and NSDA National tournaments. I judge WSD regularly and often.

The main thing to know is that I follow the norms of WSD (to which you all have access). I don't want WSD Americanized.

How would you describe WS Debate to someone else?

WSD is a classic debate—the type that folks think about when they think about debates. It is much more based on logic and classic arguments, with some evidence but not much evidence. It is NOT an American-style debate.

What process, if any, do you utilize to take notes in the debate?

I flow each speech.

When evaluating the round, assuming both principle and practical arguments are advanced through the 3rd and Reply speeches, do you prefer one over the other? Explain.

I look at both. Does the principle have merit, and the practical is the tangible explanation? I don’t think the practical idea has to be solved, but is it a good idea?

The WS Debate format requires the judge to consider both Content and Style as 40% of each of the speaker’s overall scores, while Strategy is 20%. How do you evaluate a speaker’s strategy?

Strategy is argument selection in speeches 2, 3, and 4. In 1st speech, it is how the case is set up and does it give a good foundation for other speeches to build.

WS Debate is supposed to be delivered at a conversational pace. What category would you deduct points in if the speaker was going too fast?

The style mostly, but if it is really fast then maybe strategy as well.

WS Debate does not require evidence/cards to be read in the round. How do you evaluate competing claims if there is no evidence to read?

The argument that makes the most sense, is extended throughout the debate, and does it have the basics of claim, warrant, and impact?

How do you resolve model quibbles?

Models are simply an example of how the resolution would work. Which model is best explained, extended, and directly compared? If those are even, which one makes the most intuitive sense to me?

How do you evaluate models vs. countermodels?

Models and countermodels are simply examples of how the resolution would work. Which model is best explained, extended, and directly compared? If those are even, which one makes the most intuitive sense to me?

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Policy Debate:

A good Debate is a good debate. I flow from the speech not from the document. I do want to be on the email chain though. I prefer good substantive debate on the issues. While Ks are okay if you are going to read them, make sure they are understandable from the beginning. Theory - the same. If you think you might go for it in the end, make sure they are understandable from the beginning.

Be aware, that on virtual, sometimes hard to understand rapid and unclear speech (it is magnified on virtual). Make necessary adjustments.

Links should be specific and not generic. This is everything from K to DA.

The final speech needs to tell the story and compare worlds. Yes, line by line is important but treat me like a policymaker - tell me why your policy or no policy would be best.

Hi, I’m a second-year college student and did 4 years of PF, Debating on the National Circuit from Orlando. Debater on the Florida State University debate team

Overarching things:

Tech>Truth: I evaluate the round solely on what's presented in the round regardless of the truthfulness of the argument. But remember the more sophisticated your argument gets the lower threshold I have on evaluating responses.

Frameworks: I default to the framework most brought up in rounds throughout speeches, If no clear framework is applied I will be forced to decide the argument by myself. If a team provides a framework for me to evaluate the round under it should be introduced as early as possible and extended throughout all speeches. If there are two frameworks please do the comparative for me and explain why I should pick one over the other. However, if only one team brings up a framework and the other team does not engage with it I will weigh all arguments of that one framework.

Comparative Analysis: Please do the comparative for me with different arguments. If both teams are running similar arguments do the comparative and tell me why yours is better. If teams are running different arguments I need to know why I'm preferring your argument. Absent comparative analysis, I will have to interpret things on my own and you don't want that.

Extension: Extending only the authors and taglines of cards doesn't suffice for me. You need to extend the substance of the card as well and how they relate to your impact. If you want me to evaluate something in FF is should be included in the summary speech. I usually allow first-speaking teams to extend defense straight to final focus but in reality, you should be mentioning important defense extensions in summary.

Progressive args: If you are going to run it then do so well and actually explain it with warrants. I will not buy a simple shell case that gets dropped.

Other things:

-I will flow cross. If something important happened in cross, mention it in the speech. A good cross is a great way to up speak.
- Will be lenient with going over time however DO NOT make it excessive, if I think you are abusing the system I will stop flowing.
- Quality over Quantity; don't spread. If you plan on speaking fast please send a speech doc. If I can't understand you I'll say clear and after 3 times I'll stop flowing.
- Second rebuttal should respond to turns/disads.
- Please collapse on a few arguments in summary. I prefer quality over quantity and clear extensions.
- Weigh, weigh, weigh (as early as possible in the round)
- Implicate turns and defense

L/D

Debate is like driving a car - you need the right accessories, and most importantly, you gotta know how to drive the car. You get better the more you drive, and eventually, you learn some pretty sick moves.. Getting a judge and getting a new car is pretty similar. Both require some getting used to, but once you figure it out, the highway is yours. You might be wondering what kinda car I am. Well, I'm not a 2020 Ford Mustang, but I'm also not a broken down 1988 chevy impala. I'm a 2006 Ford Fusion. I've been around the block and got some miles on me, but now I tend to sit in the garage. Let me give you some advice for driving a 2006 Ford Fusion. Here are some things that make the car run:

If you are affirmative, you should defend some sort of concrete action, preferably an action that can be written in one to two sentences and can be passed to your opponent. I tend to think that affs need stable plan/advocacy texts because it's important to generate stable offense. If your entire 1AC is the text, maybe this isn't the car for you. I also tend to think that the plan action should be topical, or at least topic adjacent. This is really a preference, instead of a hard and fast rule. I'm not a big fan of rejecting the res outright unless it's just that bad. If you find yourself constantly rejecting the resolution, that's awesome, but maybe I'm not the car for you.

Your 2006 Ford Fusion goes 0-60 in 8 seconds, which is a long time. As a debater, try to avoid going 0-60 in 8 seconds. I'm down for speed, but if you start the speech going full speed, I'm probably gonna miss some stuff. I can hang with your top speed, but work your way there. You can drive the car on the highway, but make sure you're using the acceleration ramp.

The car you've been given also has some weird dimensions. I think that debate is a game of net benefits, regardless of the arguments read. I tend to not vote for tiny IVIs or RVI's, but instead, I look at the entire flow. Your job is to create a larger narrative as to why I vote for you, so you should do impact calculus.

This car is a little old. Here's acceptable brands of fuel:

1. Topical affirmatives are great - especially with fleshed out advantages. I tend to award speaker points not just based on the quality of the debate, but the quality of your research. Well researched advantages with tangible impacts are best. The fiat question here isn't too important for me. I assume everything is fiated to some degree, even K affs. Just have something sticky for the neg to garner offense.

2. DA/CP debate is great for me. I love politics and hegemony debates, and I especially love them when paired with counterplans. Make sure your counterplan is competitive and actually solves the aff.

3. Theory. Theory is a great tool when used responsibly. I tend to like most theory, with some exclusions, which I'll get to below. Please note. You don't overfill your gas tank - so don't read too many theory arguments. I tend to think that 2 pieces of theory during a speech is the absolute ceiling. Otherwise, the debate gets messy and the car won't run well for you.

4. K debate. You should do some of that! You should have a clear alternative with links that describe why the plan actually trips the impacts. Saying "Plan uses the USFG" is fine, but that's only a link. Have multiple links. Also it's important that you very clearly describe the world of the alternative. Providing a really dumbed down two-sentence explanation of the action of the alt is recommended.

5. I'm gonna be honest, this car can only take special types of fuel. If you read the following K's in front of me, I'm more down to understand what you're getting at: Neolib, biopower, antiblackness, cap, fem, and on occasion, D&G. It's not that I'm not familiar with other lit, but I'm just not as well read as some others might be.

2006 Ford Fusions are not super complicated to drive, but here are some things that make it break down:

1. Perms are not advocacies, and I don't think they have net benefits. Advocacies have net benefits, but perms do not. They are tests of competition, so you should talk about competition.

2. I don't like silly theory. I think if you read an argument in the 1NC you should read it with your chest. SPEC is cool, but maybe only read it if you're actually going to go for it AND it would be strategically viable for you to do so. Also, I can't really get behind the whole "you should read the plan text in the first X minute thing." Just don't read silly theory. Make it count.

3. The car breaks down when you read disclosure. I won't vote on disclosure arguments, regardless of the format. It's not my realm to decide what happened before the round, but I often think disclosure only benefits larger schools. Disclose, don't disclose, I don't care.

4. I'll be upfront with you, there's a fair amount of car manuals that are not compatible with this version of the Ford Fusion. I get lost easily when the following lit bases are read in front of me: Baudrillard, Bataille, Buddhism, Nietzsche, and really anything in this tradition of really high theory. Again, I might not be the car for you, but if you do have to drive this car, don't use cruise control. Drive the car where you want it to go, and I'll go there with you as long as the path is clear.

5. I prefer depth. I really don't wanna see you read 7 off in the 1NC just to spread the other team out. Read maybe 3 offcase positions and drive the car real nice.

At the end of the day, the 2006 Ford Fusion isn't a hard car to drive, but there are certain ways the car needs to be driven. The car doesn't have a GPS. I don't know where you are going unless you make it explicitly clear. Rebuttals need to be wholistic and have clear win conditions. You've gotta park the car if you want the ballot.

The last thing I'll say is that I expect y'all to be nice. Don't spread your opponents out if they're a novice team, and more importantly, don't be hateful in your speech. It's been a really rough year for all of us, and this is a space to get away from the noise around us. If you start spewing that kinda speech, the car windows are getting rolled up and that's an auto loss. No exceptions. I really don't really think that people should be rude.

Oh yeah, I forgot to talk about speaker points. If you drive the car mostly right, without a fender-bender, the average is around a 28. If you wreck the car or deliberately start reversing on the highway, it'll probably go down from there. Don't wreck the car.

NSDA 2021 Updates: Add me to the email chain, or however you prefer to get me the evidence.

- Please don't miscut (I will drop you)
GLHF

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.

I have a background in software and had many opportunities to informally debate technology as I was always asked to research and provide input on technological directions for the company.

Judged for the first time in late 2022 (an in-person event) and then again 2 weekends in early 2023 (both online).

Of course, sometimes it is required to cover everything but, speaking at nearly an incomprehensibly fast pace just to include relatively unimportant items doesn’t seem to me to be a good strategy or good for speaker points. In my debate judging opportunities so far, I have already seen several examples of convincing major arguments getting lost in a sea of quickly brought up and too-lightly supported very minor and tangential points.

Hello. I am a first-year parent judge. Feel free to review my record for experience so far.

1. Manner: Please be respectful to the other team. Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
2. Speed: If you plan to talk fast, make sure you are loud and clear.
3. Evidence: Provide credentials/qualifications of the source unless it is self-explanatory.
4. Topic: I have basic knowledge of the topic. Please spell out all acronyms and organizations because I may not know them.

I always disclose if time allows and the other judges in the same debate agree. You can email me if you have any questions on my paradigm or RFD.

Good luck!

mikeqc@gmail.com

I am an engineer that favors logical arguments more than emotion calls.

Please keep your delivery slow and clear. Speaking quickly is fine, but if I can't actually understand what your evidence is saying, I will likely not give that evidence as much weight.

Please approach each round as an opportunity to learn and with respect for your opponents. I appreciate clear analysis of why you should win in the final focus.

Hi, I am a parent judge. I will try to be tabula rasa to the best of my ability. Please speak clearly at a conversation pace, and say which argument you are addressing in rebuttal, summary, and spell out the voters in Final Focus.

What is most important to me:

-Impacts (probability, numerical values, socio-economic impact, have good cards to support)

-Clarity of arguments

-Good evidence

-Respond to every arguments, don’t drop arguments

-No theory, I don’t even know what that is

Stay calm and respectful, remember debate is supposed to be fun and if you have any questions please ask!

Thanks,

Vinay Chopra (he/him)

vinaychopra@gmail.com

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 was never a super speed debater and didn’t encourage my students to speed.

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!

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

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

Looking For:

-Consistent arguments/logic (do the arguments you use have consistent logic with others you use? Are you arguments cohesive?)

-Thoughtful research/well-chosen examples (not as many examples as one can think of, just your best/strongest)

-Civil tone/respect between debaters/good sportsmanship

-Limited amount of logical fallacies (goes back to first point, but figured I'd include it; if you can avoid them altogether this is preferable)

-Good/relevant crossfire questions and responses (also keeping consistent with your team's overall logic/argument)

-Weigh your arguments/impacts in the second round! (This helps me frame how I'm meant to think about your evidence and strengthens your view)

Not Looking For:

-"Spreading" or any "speed" debating (I am not specifically trained in this style of debate, nor do I find it beneficial in the long-run; watch your speed––it's just as important that your judge/audience can fully parse/absorb your arguments/info as it is to fit every piece of information in)

-Redundant/repetitive arguments or contradictions in your own information/logic (ties into the above points on having consistency and well-thought-out examples)

-"Dancing around" the question (particularly noticeable in crossfire exchanges; there is no shame in admitting to not knowing something/needing more research to be done on a given question; you're not running for high office so no need to circumvent direct/clear answers to things)

Background

Former LD debater (traditional) from Ohio (traditional state). NSDA qualifier 1998. Recently returned to debate as a coach. Law prof.

Circuit Debate

I've judged a lot of rounds, but I'm relatively new to circuit debate.

I believe the pedagogical goals of debate are best served by rounds that substantively engage the resolution. I'm open to any arguments when stated clearly and explained, but I will only vote on arguments that you explain well enough that I understand them. It's your job to offer clear explanations of complex arguments within the round.

Some speed is okay, but please do not spread. You can put me on the mail chain at qcurtis@gmail.com, but this is a speech activity not competitive emailing, so do not expect me to spend the whole round in the document.

Virginia Debate

I flow rounds and vote off the flow when I can. I don't like voting for bad arguments, but I can't vote on arguments that you don't make.

Keep your speeches organized, tell me where you are on the flow, and impact and weigh your arguments. Identify key arguments and give voting issues in NR and AR2.

Don't drop critical points; point out and impact your opponent's dropped points. Affirmative gets some scope to condense the round to key arguments in AR1.

If you feel you won a point in cross-x, make that argument in a speech.

No new arguments in the NR or AR2. Those speeches are for extending arguments already on the flow.

Evidence

Strong factual claims should be supported with evidence. Evidence that simply asserts value or philosophical claims without argument gets limited weight. Good analysis > bad evidence.

Speed

In varsity rounds: Some speed is okay, but keep it under control and make sure you are clear. I will signal with a raised hand if I need you to slow up a bit.

In JV rounds: JV rounds are for learning. A bit faster than conversational pace is okay, but I have low tolerance for speed that might be too much for a new debater.

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 debated Policy/Oxford and LD from middle school through college (admittedly, many years ago), as well as Congress in high school. I also competed in multiple forensics categories throughout middle school and high school — consequently, I appreciate good oratory skills.

As a PF judge, I am hoping to hear:

• argumentation that is well-reasoned and clearly presented
• as much direct clash as possible, with no points left unaddressed — I would rather hear a creative, if obscure or even slightly outlandish, rebuttal to an opponent's point, than for you to ignore it
• arguments to evolve and deepen as the debate unfolds, rather than to simply be repeated without any extension
• some attention paid to relative impacts
• some attention paid to highlighting your opponents' weaknesses — I will be flowing, and will notice when your opponent has dropped an argument or has weak evidence to support their arguments, but I will also be hoping to hear that you've recognized the same
• solid, persuasive oration — remember, your goal is to convince me that your arguments are stronger than your opponents', and persuasive delivery can be a very effective tool here
• a civil and courteous exchange between teams who respect each other

Hello Debaters,

I am a lay judge who does not have any debate experience. My English is not the best so please make sure you speak slowly!

I am more truth > tech.

Please do not spread!

I am fairly new so please make sure you are patient and turn away from using debate words.

Instead of saying AA or anything with abbreviations, please say the whole name of the subject out.

Thanks! Please remember to have fun.

Hello,

I'm Jay Deshmukh. I'm a recent Georgetown alumni. I am new to public forum but I have a background in extemporaneous speech.

General rules:

I can keep up with most link chains (even the more complicated ones) so don't worry about running a slightly complicated argument.

You can go fast but if you spread I may not be able to hear everything. Anything I can't hear can't be evaluated.

Be polite.

How to win my ballot:

Weigh (don't just repeat your impact, tell me why its the most important in the round)

Warrant your arguments well (don't just tell me something will happen, explain why it will).

Things that will help you in the round:

Make sure to provide a consistent narrative throughout the round. This will help me understand your argument better.

Warrant your evidence as I may not understand why something will happen and analysis would help me understand your argument.

Even if you're going fast, speak clearly.

I hoped this helps, and good luck in your round!

this is my first time judging so please speak slowly and clearly

articulate your arguments and provide logical warranting

do not read technical arguments (kritiks, theory, etc.)

please be respectful to your opponents

good luck!

I am a lay judge and have not debated, though I have a basic understanding of PF concepts and how the rounds work. I have a business degree and have worked with public presentations.

Please time your own speeches and prep time. I will try to keep track, but I appreciate you doing it for me. I appreciate some level of moderate pacing of speeches as well.

Thank you

Updated: 12/9/2023

Hello! I'm a sophomore at college. I debated for four years in Minnesota and now do APDA in college. I mainly did LD, but know a bit about PF and Congress. I've only done traditional debate, but I have some baseline knowledge of some circuit-level arguments like kritiks and theory (more on that later). I qualified and competed in the State tournament three times in LD, so I think I'm somewhat knowledgeable about Debate. Glad you are reading this since most don't.

TL;DR:

Be nice; don't run stupid and random circuit arguments unless you can explain them well; weigh your arguments; don't lie in the last speech; don't use problematic arguments; I prefer cameras on but I won't really care; don't expect me to know exactly where Fuentes, 2018 is without telling me where it is; and please signpost.

General:

Don't purposely be racist, homophobic, transphobic, sexist, ableist, classist, or any other thing. Just. Don't. If you are, don't expect to win. Expect an L20 :)

Don't be passive-aggressive or belittle your opponent. This is all for fun and you shouldn't bully people because you know more about China than them. If you do, expect very low speaks. Maybe even a loss.

Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion:

You should be aware of who you are in the Debate space. Sure, in a round, you truly have no identity (you are just a debater who is trying to convince me you're right), but there's something strange about a white man using eco-fem or Black Anger. While I believe that you should be allowed to use arguments that don't pertain to you (for example, me, an Asian guy, talking about how something might perpetuate misogyny), I ask that you first try to reevaluate why you are using those arguments. Are you using them because you believe it or because it will grant you more bodies on the flow? If it's the latter, maybe rethink it.

I won't drop you because you used an argument that doesn't pertain to you at all, but it's something to recognize. A good question to ask yourself is if you would be comfortable making these arguments in a room where a person from that group is in. For example, if you are using an argument about Asian-Americans, would you still say it if an Asian-American was in the room? If not, you probably shouldn't make it at all.

Again, I won't ever hold it against you. I think that would be silly if I'm allowed to gatekeep arguments from you just because of who you are. But this is just a PSA for life in general.

Allowable arguments:

I'll vote on almost anything (except bigotry): even extinction and "death good" arguments. Be warned that certain arguments are much harder to prove. This means that I'm generally tech over truth.

Please please please have a trigger warning for anything that may trigger people (things like sexual assault, suicide, etc.). Especially if you use arguments that are descriptive of those triggering arguments. If you are using descriptive mentions of something that can be triggering, ask yourself if that is really necessary. There's no reason why you can't just mention their existence and still use them. Trust me, your argument doesn't become weaker because it's a non-descriptive mention of them.

Regarding Kritiks: as I said, I only did Trad debate, but I know what a K is and how it works. So do explain things to me very clearly if you use some weird literature for your K. If you hate that, sorry not sorry.

In terms of Theory: I am going to have a pretty high bar for a "drop the debater" voter. I'm also not going to weigh any frivolous T that is just... stupid. Sorry for the judge intervention but idc if you argue very well that I should vote for the shorter debater to stop height discrimination. Or something like first, last three words or whatever. Please stop.

Speeches and Rebuttals:

Please signpost. I'm not a mind reader; I can't magically tell where you are on the flow. If I don't know where you are, I can't flow it. If I can't flow it, I can't give you that argument. If I can't give you that argument, I can't give you the win. If you use multiple arguments against something, number them. So don't get mad if you see a ballot that isn't in your favor because I didn't catch your third response to their fifth response in your first subpoint in your second contention that was about somelastnameyouspedthroughandididnotcatch, 2014.

Please address the fact that your opponent dropped your argument. If you drop the dropped argument, you don't get the point. Mention your opponent dropped something and extend it and say why that drop is important. For example, if the AFF dropped the NEG's contention two, then in the next speech say they did and explain why it's important.

Please weigh your arguments. I shouldn't (and won't) have to weigh them myself. Weighing them for me gives a clear reason to vote for you since you explain why your arguments are more important. If you forgot, the main weighing metrics are magnitude, probability, timeframe, and scope.

Don't lie in the very last speech. I get that if you're losing you have to say something like "I outweigh on this" even though you didn't. Who knows, maybe your last speech will persuade me to vote for you. What I mean by lying is saying something like, "My opponent dropped this" when they did not drop that. It's frustrating when something like this happens especially in front of a parent judge since you can't correct them. You'll lose speaks if you lie on purpose.

If you run out of time during a speech, finish your last thought. If you keep going, I will stop you.

Cross:

If time runs out during cross, I'll allow the person to answer the last question that was just asked.

This isn't a shouting competition: don't try to one-up your opponent.

Please answer the questions that are being asked to you. Being shady isn't a good strategy. Please stop if they ask you to stop.

Cross is binding, y'all.

I don't necessarily flow cross, but I am listening.

Specifically about crossfire in PF: I am really hating the using cross as a time to badger each other. PLEASE stick to asking questions. This isn't another rebuttal. Calm down. I have (and will) dock speaks because of the absolutely rude and terrible behavior I've seen during crossfires.

Speaking:

If you're gonna talk fast, only talk fast through your evidence. Please slow down while signposting or reading any tags or card names. Maybe even take a break after you say a tag, so I can flow it.

What really annoys me is when people just address something by card name especially if that card is the only one under a contention. Just mention the contention at that point. I get that you have to address it by card name sometimes but please tell me where it is. Sometimes I don't catch the author. Instead of saying "Johnson 20," say "Johnson 20: second card under my contention one." Remember, if you are just saying something and I have no idea where it is on the flow, don't be surprised you lost even though you extended that one magic card when I have no clue where it is or what it says.

I start my speaks at 27 and go up or down based on how well you are speaking and articulating your arguments.

In general for how I evaluate speaks, I consider how poised you are in your speaking (are you speaking with clarity, precision, being efficient with your sentences), how good you are at articulating your arguments, and how you are able to navigate and link between arguments. There's no formula for this.

Online Etiquette:

I prefer cameras on but I don't really care. I understand sometimes cameras just aren't feasible for a lot of reasons. Online debate makes it so much harder to hear so if you're talking fast, speak very clearly and slow down for tags. Covid really did a number on Debate etiquette and it surprises me so much. Just don't be eating or something. It's more important than in-person debates that you ask if everyone is ready.

Pet Peeves:

Don't say, "I win because..." or "you have to vote neg because..." No, I don't have to vote for you. That is my decision.

If you are using Kant, you should not care about consequences. If you care about consequences, you are using it wrong. I'll still consider your framework as is, but I will not be happy.

Please ask if everyone is ready.

.

Sorry that this is long. Have any questions? Ask me before the round, and I will answer them.

For circuits that use email chains: phuong.doan7114@gmail.com. I probs won't look at it unless someone points out something sketchy or something. I just expect y'all to speak in a way that I can flow without me reading it. Otherwise, what's the point in speaking? I also think Debaters have the burden to tell me why a piece of evidence is good or bad. I'm not doing that for y'all.

I am a lay judge. Please speak slowly and clearly. Please articulate your claims, warrants and impacts. Please also articulate which claims, warrants and impacts of your opponent's arguments you are challenging. The more I understand your arguments and challenges, the more likely I am to vote for you. I appreciate a clear analysis of why you should win in the final focus.

Please include me in the email: doshibnd@gmail.com

Good luck to everyone!

Email: fangyandu@yahoo.com

I am a lay judge with limited knowledge of the debate topics. Please speak clearly and at a reasonable rate of speed.

I like well organized arguments with supporting citations and evidences. Please have the full original cards available to share in case they are requested.

I am very easy-going when it comes to debate. I coach congress, extemp, and PF in my home state. I have judged every debate category at the state level as well as PF, LD, and policy at the national level and congress at TOC.

Congressional Debate:

• You need a good balance of pathos & evidence in your speeches.
• If you're the second, third, fourth, etc. speaker on a topic & you're not introducing clash, you are wasting everyone's time.
• Each speech should have something new to say. Again, if you're not the first speaker on a topic & you're repeating the same argument that everyone has said before you, you're wasting time.
• Aim for unique arguments.
• Cross-ex should advance the debate.
• Everyone always asks about delivery rate. I don't care how fast or slow you speak, just make sure I can understand you.
• Extemp your speeches if you can or speak from an outline.
• Make sure you have the basics of public speaking. Posture, hand gestures, eye contact, diction, inflection, etc.
• Be respectful. If you cross the line from assertiveness into aggressive/disrespectful you're ranked last in the chamber on my ballot, point blank period.

Public Forum/Lincoln-Douglas Debate:

Flow-Centric: I am a flow judge. I base my decisions on the arguments that are presented in the round and how effectively they are refuted. I expect debaters to clearly signpost arguments and responses. Dropped arguments are dropped. If you completely drop an argument in rebuttal, you can't bring it back in summary like nothing happened. Know the difference between dropping an argument and collapsing on an argument.

Argumentation: Quality of arguments is paramount to me. I appreciate a debate that is centered around a deep understanding of the topic, logical reasoning, and strong evidence. Make sure your arguments are well-structured, have a clear link to the resolution, and are supported by reliable evidence. Avoid excessive jargon and instead focus on clear and persuasive explanations.

Rebuttals: Strong rebuttals are crucial. I value debaters who can skillfully dismantle their opponents' arguments while reinforcing their own. When rebutting, directly reference the argument you are responding to, explain why your opponent's logic or evidence is flawed, and articulate the impact this has on the round. Be sure to extend your own arguments throughout the round and clearly indicate how they stand up to your opponent's rebuttals.

Presentation: While the substance of arguments is most important, effective communication also plays a role in a successful debate. Speak clearly and at a reasonable pace. Make sure your arguments and responses are coherent and easy to follow.

*For LD* Do not drop your framework. Seriously, I have seen too many debaters completely forget to debate V/VC. Win on your case, but also tell me why I should prefer your framework and why your case upholds that framework better than your opponent.

*For all debate*I do not care what arguments you run. My personal beliefs do not matter while you are debating. As long as your evidence is true and logical (and you're not arguing for something truly heinous) run whatever you please.

Email for email chains (please include me on them): sierra.duncan88@gmail.com

Have fun, debate well, and don't take it too seriously!

Pet Peeve: Poorly extended arguments. Please extend your arguments well. There is a sweet spot between brevity and depth that you should try to hit, but don't extend your case in 5 seconds please. This is a hill I will die on, and so will my ballot.

Feel free to email for questions, feedback, or flows: zdyar07@gmail.com. Also add it to any email chains.

TLDR: I'm a typical flow judge. I value quality of argumentation over quantity. Please collapse, extend warrants and impacts, frontline, and weigh your arguments. I'm fairly tech (see my notes at the bottom and make your own assessment). I also tend to think a lot-- I don't always vote on the path of least resistance, I vote on what's warranted, implicated and extended in the context of the round.

Background: Was a mediocre PF debater for 4 years in Minnesota at both traditional and nat circuit tournaments. Coached and judged since 2020. Graduated from UW-Madison in 2023 with degrees in Economics and Political Science.

Basic Judging Philosophy I vote off of what is warranted, I prefer what is weighed. Give me reasons to prefer your warranting over their warrants and do weighing that COMPARES your impact to their impact by telling me why yours is more important and WHY. Don't just say a buzzwords like "scope" or "de-link" and move on.

After the round: I will give you an oral RFD if possible once I submit my ballot, and feel free to question/post-round me because it makes me a better judge. I will also call for cards (see evidence section).

Speed

- I can handle around 250 words per minute BUT only if you SLOW DOWN ON TAGLINES. Send a speech doc if you are above 225 wpm or have bad clarity.

- Reading fast is not an excuse to be blippy. Speed should allow you to have better warranting and more depth, not less. Speed + 6 contention cases are not the move

- Just because you CAN read fast with me, doesn't mean you SHOULD. Read at whatever pace you debate best at, don't try and rush just because I'm techy.

Evidence

- You may paraphrase, BUT I expect you to send a cut card with a citation. DO NOT send me a full PDF and tell me what to control+F. I doc speaks for bad behavior in this department.

- After the round I will call for some key cards from case/rebuttal, even if they weren't relevant to my decision. This is my way of checking power tagging/bad cuts. If a card sounds too good to be true, I will call it. Even if the card isn't relevant to the round, I will drop your speaks if it is miscut.

Rebuttal

- Number your responses so it's easy for me to flow.

- Collapse in 2nd rebuttal (it's strategic in winning my ballot). you MUST frontline offense in 2nd rebuttal, and I strongly strongly strongly prefer you frontline every arg you are going for fully.

- Disads are fine in rebuttal. If a DA is read in second rebuttal, I'm more lenient on frontlines/responses in 1st summary. Try and link-in if you read a DA.

Summary & Final Focus

- I have a VERY high threshold for case extensions (lots of warrants plz). Don't underextend or you will probably lose.

- I prefer defense to be in summary (defense isn't sticky). I will maybe evaluate defense that is extended from 1st rebuttal to 1st Final Focus ONLY IF it is cold dropped, but there is a low chance I will evaluate 2nd rebuttal to Final Focus defense. I will never evaluate defense that isn't extended in Final Focus. Your best chance of winning defense is to extend it in both summary and final focus.

- Offense needs to be in both summary and FF.

- If you don't collapse, frontline, and weigh in summary, you probably won't win my ballot.

Theory

- I will vote on theory, but I prefer it to be read in the first speech possible (i.e., don't read a shell in 2nd rebuttal if it can be read in 2nd constructive). Disclosure, paraphrasing, content warning, misgendering theory, etc. are all fair game.

- I'm not a theory expert-- don't assume I have strong technical knowledge of foundational theory concepts like RVIs, reasonability vs CIs, etc. For instance, I almost screwed up a decision because I didn't know whether a specific response qualified as an RVI or not bc no one explained it to me. So explain and implicate that kind of stuff for me more than other tech judges.

- Very pro-content warning shells, but ONLY when they aren't friv (i.e., I think reading one on a poverty impact is too much, but reading like a gendered violence content warning shell is definitely not friv). However, I'm non-interventionist so I'll vote on anything. I do believe that content warnings aren't a race to the bottom and that there is some reasonable threshold for me to buy them, but also this is one of the places I kind of default to a reasonability stance-- I think there is some gray area I want people to hash out in rounds though.

- If you use theory to exclude your opponents and you have structural advantages in the debate community I will you drop the shell faster than you can read your interp. But, if it's two rich private schools bashing each other over the head with theory, go ahead.

- Don't extend your shell in rebuttal (you shouldn't extend case in rebuttal either).

Ks

- I've voted on Ks several times before, but I'm not well-versed in the lit so slow down on tags and key warrants.

- You need to at least have minimalist extensions of the link, impacts, and all other important parts of your arg (framing/ROB) in summary AND Final. Don't try and read the whole thing verbatim.

Progressive weighing

- Progressive weighing is cool-- I like well-warranted metaweighing (though I've seen it done well only a handful of times), link weighing, and SV/Extinction framing.

- Saying the words "strength/clarity of link/impact" is not weighing :(

Assorted things

- If both teams want to skip cross/grand cross and use it as flex prep, I'm cool with that. Negotiate that yourselves though.

- Read content warnings on graphic args, though I'm more open to no content warnings non-graphic but potentially triggering args like human trafficking (will evaluate CW theory though). Google forms are ideal, but give adequate time for opt-out no matter how you do it.

Speaks

-Speaks are inherently biased towards privileged groups-- I will try and evaluate speaks strictly based on the quality of args given in your speech.

-There are 4 ways your speaks get dropped: 1) Arriving late to round (unless you have a legitimate reason/accessibility concern), 2) Being slow to produce evidence or calling for excessive amounts of cards, 3) Stealing prep time, 4) Saying or doing anything that is excessively rude or problematic.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How tech am I? Here are some arguments and how I'd evaluate them.

- Climate change fake/good: While obviously untrue, I would vote on it as turn/defense. However, my threshold for frontlines would be low, so it likely isn't a super strategic choice.

- Election Args/[politician] bad: Would 100% vote on it-- run whatever so long as it isn't offensive

- Racism/sexism/homophobia good: Nope.

- Economic Growth Bad (DeDev): Would 100% vote on this.

- Tricks: Nope.

- Impacts to animal/plants: I would love the chance to vote on this with a framework.

I am a parent-judge. I'm excited to hear you debate, but please do not spread. It's more important that I can follow you. I'm looking for the team with the best argument, logical flow, and good sportsmanship. I will be taking notes during the debate, so you may see me looking down. Don't worry. I'm listening. I would appreciate it if you would keep time yourselves. In final focus, make it clear why you've won. I have great respect for you already. I know you have worked hard and prepared for this day. I'm pulling for each and every one of you.

I am a LAY JUDGE. No plans, no counterplans, no spreading, no kritiks, no theory, no topicality,

Please weigh your arguments in summary. Warrant all claims. No paraphrasing, you HAVE to have cards Present your arguments clearly. Please clearly state if opponent has conceded an argument, I will not evaluate arguments you do not explicitly make. I am a blank slate judge, so do your best to make a persuasive case and respond to all of your opponents arguments. You are responsible to track your prep time.

He, my name is Lisbeth! A few things to note:
- I am a parent judge
- I haven't done research on the topic, so make sure to explain any jargon!
- I'm going to try to be as objective as possible, but don't go too far off from reality
- Most importantly, have fun!

Congress: I like to see that you know the game of Congress so if I can tell that you're strategizing (internally, with others in the room, with teammates) I'm gonna be happy. I like debaters that debate. Sounding pretty is good but giving rebuttals and avoiding giving constructive speeches in the middle of the legislation are even better. You should have enough evidence or common sense to speak on either side of the legislation at any point, wasting recesses to write speeches or chide others for not being ready (while you're not offering to speak either) will be criticized.

Public Forum: Give me voters in summary and final focus or give me death! I am a logic-chain judge; if your arguments require me to suspend disbelief or ignore reality then expect them to be dropped from the flow. Behavior within the round matters just as much as performance so please do not be rude to your partner or competitors and try to maintain professionalism for the sake of an efficient round. Speeches that matter the most to me are rebuttals so an organized rebuttal that responds to as much of the competitors case as possible will positively impact my vote overall.

The following info is specific for the TOC DIGITAL SPEECH AND DEBATE SERIES 3.

I am a lay judge and I am new. I do have other experiences that I can leverage. I'll make a sincere effort to make the round fun, fair, and inclusive.

Speaking too fast will undermine my ability to understand/appreciate your arguments. To make sure that I don't miss anything, please send me speech docs to pcfu@outlook.com for constructives before round.

Rebuttal docs would be appreciated as well. Also, please don't spread.

If you have any questions, please reach out to pcfu@outlook.com. Looking forward to judging you!

I have been a debater in my past life and have judged many debates including LD and PF. At a very high level, what I look for:

1. Arguments substantiated with evidence. Do not generalize.
2. Clarity in thought and presentation of your argument. I need to see that you understand your argument.
3. I don't consider myself as a lay judge but am not an expert too.
4. Clear structure built on value / value criterion (LD)
5. Respect your opponent. Be civil.
6. Moderate speaking speed
7. Crystallization points are welcome
8. Sometimes, a little dropped point can make the difference
9. Kritiks: Probably not the best judge for you if you are running Kritiks. If warranted, I would vote for a K but your level of explanation will have to be higher. Especially if you are a novice, you need to really understand what you are reading or you won't be able to explain it to me
10. Theory: I am fine with theory but I believe it should be reserved for when actual abuse has occurred in the round. I am not a fan of frivolous theory.
11. If you would like to share the case, you can reach me at galirs@yahoo.com
12. I take notes during the debate.
13. These contentions are to be backed up by warrants, evidence in the form of quotes, or citations from sources
14. Competitors "weigh" their points in comparison to their opponents to explain why it is more important through the framework of scope, magnitude, prerequisite, etc

Hi I am a parent judge:

I would like it if you didn't speak fast and spoke clearly

Also I don't like it when people talk over each other in cross

I wish both teams good luck in the debate

email me for questions/add me to the chain: tara.gill.527@gmail.com

tl;dr:

Me: "Do you know why I'm such a laid-back judge?"

Y'all: "Why?"

Me: "I go with the flow"

(creds to @Debate Memes on Facebook haha)

• yes I will vote off the flow
• honestly just debate well enough to make me care enough about the round (which means focus on the bolded text below)
• warrant, extend your full link story and impact, and weigh and you're doing really well
• I don't think most debaters truly spend time explaining warrants or weighing
• things you want me to vote on have to be in every speech after first rebuttal
• I want the round to be chill and educational and fun so please make that happen

quick disclaimers

i'm now old and grumpy and care a bit less about debate than i used to so please don't assume i have extensive topic knowledge

novices:

it's so cool that you're trying out this activity even though it's probably kind of scary. If you don't understand some of my preferences in the long version, the tl;dr should be fine. Just know that you're probably doing great and that you got this :)

feel free to ask me any questions before/after the round.

Longer Version:

hi! I did 2 years of Public Forum at Lexington but I started out my debate career in policy which influences how I judge!

- i'm more tech than the average tech judge so please clash to avoid judge intervention, or at the very least weigh a lot on both link and impact levels :)

- in later speeches, please give quick narrative style overviews at the top of your own case then frontline/line by line (i still don't know what frontline means but just don't drop stuff) if u want me to vote on your contentions otherwise dropped defense will mitigate your impacts. this also means u should frontline in second rebuttal and extend defense in first summary.

- i will vote off most arguments including theory/k if they are debated well (my threshold for these being run well is pretty high lmao so try at your risk) and not used just to be exclusionary (check the bottom of my paradigm)

- do a lot of weighing/impact calc and logical analysis (not just for me, it is also strategic if you're lost/confused and I would know first hand oops)

- once again please weigh weigh weigh. really make the force of gravity a lot here (i'm sorry i'm a physics nerd)

- start collapsing by first summary because depth>breadth in terms of giving quality arguments in short PF speech times

- crossfire shouldn't be three minutes of extra debating please ask and answer questions in a non-aggressive and CIVIL manner or I will be frustrated, get a headache and probably dock speaks.

- if you want to take off a jacket or shoes in round feel free to do so because i almost never debated with shoes. this will not affect speaks or the result :)

- feel free to ask me questions about my decision if you're confused, I will not dock speaks and I feel like it usually helps you learn how you can improve in the future

- i am fine w speed if you do all of the following: prioritize clarity, make sure your opponents are ok too, slow down on tags, authors, and analytics, signpost clearly, offer speech docs if necessary

- lastly, debate is a game: this means that you should not be exclusionary, follow the rules or warrant why you shouldn't, and let me know if there is anything I can personally do to make the debate more accessible to you, and HAVE FUN!!!!!

Extra:

- fist-bump instead of shaking hands haha

- I'll default to a slightly above a 28 if it's by 0.1 and 28.5 if it's by 0.5

- i am also happy to talk after round, show you my flows, and answer questions about either debate or life :)

LD (MSDL States 2024):

i am fairly confident in my ability to flow a debate and understand arguments that are clearly explained to me, however, I also understand there are certain thing specific to LD that I am not familiar with.

• focus on weighing your arguments against your components, basic frameworks (util, structural violence) I am familiar with and are good for providing that comparison
• not sure about other "value criterion" that's a term i've heard but i don't know what that means so just explain to me clearly
• not super used to nat circuit LD speed anymore, but a little speed is fine
• rest of the paradigm applies

Hi, I am Ratan, and here are some of the things about how I judge rounds:

1) Speed: I would appreciate if you speak in normal pace (marginal slow or fast is ok) and clearly.

2) Evidences/References: If you quote any data, back it by an evidence/reference.

3) Content: Be focused and adhere to the topic.

4) Please be respectful towards your opponents- no mockery or intimidation.

5) Keep your volume level normal, try not to be too loud.

About Me:

did pf while i was in high school (class of '17). i'm pretty tech for my time, but progressive argumentation is not my thing, so don't read it.

The Basics:

- i can handle speed, but i am rusty so don't go crazy
- intelligent warranting/impacting/weighing > card dumping for extensions and voters
- signpost wherever you can, just makes my life easier

update (3/10): for evidence sharing, use a google doc to save us all some time. my email: rajang456@gmail.com

I am a lay judge. Please keep in mind a couple of things.

1. Please speak at medium pace and speak clearly, so that I will be able to understand everything that you are saying.
2. Please do not use debate jargon.
3. Do not assume I know everything about about the topic. Please make sure to give clear explanations about the arguments that you are making.
4. I would like comparative analysis and weighing.
5. I will not be keeping time. Each team should be keeping their own time and should not be going over time.
6. Be specific, I don't want generic claims and I want you to interact with your opponents arguments.
7. I also heavily value statistics, but you need to back it up with real analysis.
8. I will pay attention during all crosses, so make sure that you that you can explain your arguments well.
9. Make sure to be polite and respectful to each other in round.
10. Don't forget to have fun!

I am new to judging. Please speak slowly and explain your arguments clearly in round.

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.

I'm a parent judge.

I have progressive software running on traditional hardware. I like progressive arguments such as Ks and narratives, but I cannot flow speed or blippy arguments because of my disability. Rhetoric is important, oratory is important, substance is what I vote on.

I prioritize clash over everything else, including procedurals and framework. I don't care how many arguments you make or how much evidence you provide if there is no clash in the round. I will only vote on uncontested offense if it is both extended and impacted in a later speech. Do not frontload the AC with an absurd amount of offense, see what your opponent misses in the NC, and then only extend uncovered offense. You will not win this way, I do not allow debaters to throw in everything and kick out of all but the easiest route to win.

I have Dysgraphia which affects physical writing and information processing. I cannot write quickly, even if I'm flowing digitally, and it takes me longer to process what I'm writing. That means if you choose to spread, or have a speech full of blippy arguments I will probably miss some things. If I miss an argument for this reason, it is not a voting issue. Do not grill me after the round as to why I did not vote for X or Y, and DO NOT try to figure out my threshold for speed. I understand that you're just trying to understand what you can do for your best chance at success, but please understand how insulting that is.

I never want to interfere in a round, but in the case of abuse I will. Decorum is a voting issue!

I have been doing Public Forum for about 4 years, and I was the Novice Director at Brooklyn Tech. Overall, I love judging and I really do enjoy giving you feedback on how to grow as a debater.

If you do disclose please email me your case, it makes it easier for me to flow the round and decide who should win the round, my email is nabila.hoque2004@gmail.com.

1. Theory: YES. I love it when people run theories. However, you have to realize you're fighting an uphill battle since many judges won't know how to evaluate that. I, however, am bored and get excited about interesting arguments. The well-argued theory makes for interesting debates. This, for example, is how you call people out on rulebreaking - don't just say "it's illegal/not allowed," make it an argument with impacts.

2. Card-calling: I believe that being able to call for a card is an important strategic tool. That means it should be used, get this, strategically. You should have your cards ready and it should not take that much time to get it, however, if you are taking a long amount of time I will start running your prep.

3. Crossfire: Crossfire is your time to clarify. Don't expect me to write any argument you make during crossfire because it won't happen. Instead, follow up on strong points during your next speech. Finally, resist the urge to engage in shouting matches, it will definitely cost you speaker points and is a terrible use of everyone's time.

4. Attitude. If you are rude to either your opponent or me I will deduct your speaker points and if your attitude is off the charts I will give the other team the win regardless of the flow. Overall, be nice.

5. Rebuttals. Signposting is something I want to see all throughout the debate, however, in rebuttals it is key. I like off-time road maps and I expect that you should follow your off-time road map during the speech. I also want a logical and concise analysis of the faults of the opponent's argument, not just "this card says otherwise." Tell me why their argument is faulty and why your argument is better.

Speaker Points

30 - If you run a good meme case/if you speak with an eloquence that can only be personified by someone like Barack Obama/Best speaker in the tourney in my opinion.

29 - If you speak really well with minimal error.

28 - Good job but you can use some improvement.

27 - You need improvement, but it's only an upward climb.

26 - There's a lot of room for improvement. Don't get down if you receive this from me. The debate is all about improvement, and if you attain this score then I will definitely give you tips on how to improve and better yourself in the verbal and digital feedback.

25 - Why are you here?

24 - If I have to go down here then you should go to policy/LD/Parli/Anything that isn't PF...

This is my first time judging any tournament and my first time encountering public forum debate. First and foremost, although I have been speaking english for years, it is my second language so please speak SLOWLY––I cannot emphasize that enough. Slow. Secondly, just assume I know nothing about the topic and explain your arguments thoroughly. Doing these two points will only help me understand your arguments better, which makes it more likely I'll vote for you. I recommend you collapse your arguments so you have time to explain them and make it really clear why they're most important. Please avoid debate jargon because chances are I'm not going to know what you mean. And finally, please be polite and respectful to your opponents and remember to have fun!

Sophomore at UC Berkeley

anish.iyyavoo@berkeley.edu

phone number: 408-913-3189

Cambrian Academy'22 - reached PF Gold TOC/round robin level, should be able to keep up w most pf rounds, and LD Policy(just send docs if you are going >250 wpm)

Feel free to ask me questions before round

Big Takeaway in all formats of debate: WARRANTS OVER EVIDENCE, I NEED WARRANTING TO VOTE

Public Forum Paradigm:

Novice/Flay Paradigm(if you consider yourself a non-technical debater, read below) <-- Lay Rounds

in second rebuttal respond to the responses made on your case, address first rebuttal in second rebuttal

the arguments in final focus must be in summary

READ WEIGHING, tell me why YOUR arguments are more important than your opponents, don't just restate your argument!

Varsity/Tech Paradigm(If you consider yourself a flow or technical debater, read below) <-- Tech Rounds

tech > truth

Read TWs, avoid gendered language, No misgendering.

TLDR: Weigh everything, metaweigh, lots of signposting

everything in 1st rebuttal/summary is conceded if not responded too in 2nd rebuttal/summary - nothing is sticky, i want everything in final to be in summary - if you dont frontline properly in second rebuttal i will be very very unhappy

Second rebuttal has to respond to first rebuttal

Rebuttal has to be responsive to case, no new contentions, if ur reading generic DAs weigh them

Note: if you claim things are sticky/conceded but they are responded too - i wont be happy

You'll get good speaks(30s ish), just don't prep steal

Postrounding is cool

Full extensions required(every warrant, link) has to be extended

Send speech docs, I can probably flow around 275 wpm but send docs

TKOs are cool, Hidden links are fine, DAs/OV's cool, no framing past summary, I presume loser of the coin flip / first

Impact turns are fine

Weigh every turn/response - I like comparative analysis

I buy link level probability weighing(with warrants that aren't just asking for intervention i.e. historical precedent, actor analysis) ~ i'd be careful here though DONT READ CLARITY WEIGHING, also i love pre-reqs/link-ins w weighing

Metaweigh!! if you dont - Strength of Link > Magnitude > Timeframe > Link Level Probability ig

Prog:

Go for it - Trix are cool, Im not too familiar with a lot of high theory K literature but go for it, im pretty comfortable with theory - read it whenever, read phil if you want

I think disclosure and paraphrasing are probably good, but i can be persuaded either way

You can win turns/offensive CI's without winning RVIs, i think RVI debates are dumb

I default to competing interps, no rvi's, drop the argument

Hello Debaters,

I am a lay judge who is just out of college. I do not have any debate experience.

I am more truth > tech.

Please do not spread!! I will tank speaks. However, if your case is over 900 words long, I would like to be shared with your case.

I am fairly new so please make sure you are patient and turn away from using PF words.

Instead of saying AA or anything with abbreviations, please say the whole name of the subject out.

If you run theory or any k’s I will give the other team the win without a second thought.

Thanks! Please remember to have fun!

Email- JKaminskii34@gmail.com

TLDR (updated 11/4/22)

1. Speed is fine, you won't go too fast
2. Win the flow=win the round
3. Presumption =neg
4. Theory is cool, run it well (Interp, violation, standards and voters. RVI's have higher burden)
5. K debate is even better
6. Defense needs to be extended
7. I default to magnitude/strength of link weighing
8. You can run any and all args you want, but they cannot be problematic/discriminatory/ attack your opponents. This will be an auto 20 speaks and L.

My debate experience:

Current assistant PF coach at Trinity Prep

3 Years of NFA-LD Debate

4 Years of Public Forum debate

Paradigm-

It should be pretty easy to win my ballot. In my opinion, debate is a game, and you should play to win. Here are the specific things most debaters would want to know.

PF

- I am cool with speed, so long as you don't use it to push your opponents out of a round. I will call clear if you become hard to understand, so keep that in mind.

- I will evaluate all types of arguments equally unless told otherwise.

- I am willing to listen to things like K's and theory arguments, so long as they are impacted out in the round.

- I really enjoy framework debates as well. I think these can be particularly beneficial for limiting the ground your opponents have in the round.

- I am tech over truth, which means so long as it is on my flow, I will evaluate the argument regardless of my own feelings on it. I will also not flow arguments through ink on the flow, so be sure to engage with your opponents answers in order to win the link level of your argument.

- Summary and FF should be somewhat consistent in terms of the direction they are going. Inconsistencies between these speeches will be harmful, especially when it comes to evaluating the strengths of your links and impacts

- On that same note, I want to see some sort of collapse in the second half of the debate- going for everything is typically a bad strategy, and I want to reward smart strategic choices that you make.

- I default to a net benefits impact calc, unless given a competing way to view the round. I am cool viewing the round through any lens that you give me, so long as you explain why its the best way for me to evaluate the round. If absent, I have to intervene with my own, which is something I hate to do.

- If you want me to call for cards, you need to ask me to do so. In that same regard, I wont intervene unless you leave me no other option.

- I dont flow CX, so if you want me to hold something that was said as binding, you need to bring it up in all of the subsequent speeches.

-Speaker points, in my opinion, are less about your speaking performance and more about your ability to present and explain compelling arguments, interact with the opposition, and provide meaningful analysis as to why you are necessarily more important. Content above style

-On a more personal note, I want the rounds that I judge to be educational and allow debaters to articulate arguments about real world issues, all of which deserve respect regardless of your own personal opinions. I have seen my partners and teammates experience sexism, racism, and other types of discrimination, and I have absolutely zero tolerance for it when I am judging.

-If you have any other questions about my paradigm, please feel free to ask me. I also will give feedback after rounds, you just have to find me and ask.

LD

- All of the above applies here as well. There are a few extra points that may be helpful.

- I will always evaluate framing first, so long as there are competing positions. If values are the same, just collapse and move on. These can be either traditional or more progressive/kritical frameworks.

- For the NR/2AR, don't go for everything- there simply is not enough time and debates are not lost by making strategic decisions to go for one or two arguments instead of extending the entire case.

- I dont need voter issues- just go top down the AC and NC and win your offense/extend defense.

- Impact calc is necessary- PLEASE weigh your impacts. I default to a net benefits impact calc, unless given a competing way to view the round.

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

सभी को नमस्कार I lay judge. Immigrant from India. Learning English grandson help make account for me. I prefer people who explain clearly and slowly things for me. 500 words for every 4 minute speech. I truth over tech.(beta wrote this part "truth over tech" and explained it and I agree) He/him add me to emailing chain using rkap2024@gmail.com

In all debates, I look for two things:

~ Effectiveness of Arguments: are your points supported effectively? I will do my best to take flow notes on all arguments, but I also can't catch everything. I will use my own flow to determine who won in each argument throughout the debate.

~ Delivery of Arguments: are your points and arguments delivered effectively? Can I as the judge actively see and follow your points throughout the debate?

Whichever team is best in both scenarios will win the debate.

I am a new judge. This is all new to me. Please talk clearly and slowly. Thank you!

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!

UCSD' 22

I debated LD, PF, CX, and Parli in highschool. The main event was Parli

Went to TOC for PF and was ranked 5th in the nation for Parli.

TLDR; Run anything you want, in order of my favour: LARP, Theory, K, Performance, Heavy Phil, Trix. I flow everything I can hear/reasonably read. I will say now tho I been out of the game for a while so may not be as fast as I used to be.

Dkolikineni@ucsd.edu

General

I'm tabula rasa, so I won't lean to any specific argument over another, so run what you'd like. Though I will not fill in any gaps for you and if I cannot say for certain you have won the round by the end, you will not win. It is most strategic for you to

a.) tell me which arguments you have won

b.) why you won them

c.) and why that means you won the round.

Prefs (In order of my understanding)

LARP / Case Debate - 1

Theory - 1

Philosophy - 1/2

K's - 2

Performance - 3

Speaks

30: Perfectly performed debate on all layers + you were entertaining to judge.

29+: All layers of the debate were handled very well.

28+: Most layers of the debate were handled well.

27+: Some layers were handled well.

26+: Missed critical aspects of the debate and didn't handle most layers adequately.

25+: Fatal error / Lot to improve on.

0: Defending sexism, racism, etc

Arguments

Kritiks

a. If you're going for a K, make sure the framework, link, impact, and alt are clearly stated. Provide a ROTB when applicable to make my job easier. If it's a K that is uncommon on the circuit, spend 15 seconds explaining the thesis PLEASE

b. If you say "the alt is to vote neg", provide justification in the sense of analysis, logic, or evidence.

c. General links are not ideal. Give me something directly from the aff case that links the case.

Aff Kritiks

a. In addition to everything else stated above, give me good reasons why the aff gets to be non topical (if you are non topical).

b. Creative but logical alts make me more inclined to vote for you.

c. If you don't have me convinced by the 1AR, I probably won't vote for your K Aff.

Plans

a. Clever plans that go outside the expectations of the resolution but still are justifiably topical are good. Be very specific in what your plantext contains. (All the different types of Specs).

b. Give me a solvency advocate. Ideally two. Go for the perm.

c. (For Parli) Give me a copy of your plantext on a separate piece of paper before or during your 1AC.

Counterplans

a. Please, PLEASE, prove why the counterplan is competitive.

b. Counterplans should have advantages independent of the rest of the debate.

c. Perms by the neg are valid. Convince me though.

Disads

a. More recent evidence is better than not.

b. A direct link is better. Something specifically from the aff you're facing.

c. Give me quantifiable impacts.

Misc

a. In LD, CX, and PF you can spread all you want provided you send me a speech document.

b. In Parli I am fine with a fast pace however I won't allow LD / CX speeds simply because I cannot guarantee I'll catch everything.

c. I cannot spell if my life depended on it and I care less still to try so just keep that in mind.

d. If anything isn't answered on this paradigm, ask me briefly before the round.

Parent judge, prefer well developed arguments with good logic.

Please keep the debate at a conversational speed.

Whilst I will do my best to take notes, I do appreciate sound logic and constructive evidence.

Please respect your opponents and keep speeches and crossfire civil.

Most importantly, remember to have fun!

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.

Please speak loudly and clearly. Don't speak too fast, explain to me clearly why I should vote for you

michaellee32164 (at) gmail (dot) com: add me to the email chain

northwestern, middleton

unless an exception is stated below, do all the things judges/coaches like, and assume i will vote on any argument given better technical execution

average 28.5 speaks

policy:

* ideologically neutral, will vote on anything

* explain perms a little in the 2ac

* please look like you are flowing

* extensions of arguments must include warrants, not just "they drop x"

* learned most policy stuff from buntin

pf:

* ask questions after round, win or lose

* i like rigorous line by line in rebuttals and summary

* i prefer you to cut ur own cards, use email chains with word documents, upload docs to opencaselist after each round, and disclose before round, strength of preference in that order

* second case doesn't need to respond to first, second rebuttal should frontline

* extensions of arguments must include warrants, not just "they drop x"

*don't read tricks, rvis, death/suffering intrinsically good, oppression good; otherwise, ideologically neutral

* (wdca) i don't like deciding rounds on evidence violations; feel free to make them though if you think your opponents are acting maliciously

David Levin

he/him/his

Email chain: davidlevindebate[AT]gmail.com

Coach for: Speyer Legacy School (NY)

Conflict for: Speyer Legacy School; St. Luke's School

More experience: PF and Policy

Less experience: LD, Worlds, Extemp, Parli

No experience: Interp, Oratory, anything else unmentioned

----------

Expectations:

-All evidence read will be in cut cards and sent before its respective speech (marked documents afterward is ok)

-Debaters will not clip cards or otherwise misrepresent evidence (paraphrasing is a voting issue)

-Debaters will treat their opponents, judge(s), room and partner with decency

-DEBATERS WILL BE READY TO START THE ROUND ON TIME

-Debaters will time themselves

----------

UKSO LD:

I don't do as much LD judging, but I have plenty of experience with Policy and PF debate. As such, I'll be judging like this is a 1v1 policy round, just stay on top of speech times/order. Speed is fine if you're clear. Below are my (very truncated) thoughts on various arguments/styles:

Kritiks: Yay.

Plans/Counterplans/Policy stuff: Yay.

FW/T: Yay.

Theory: Sure.

Phil: Sure?

Trad: Ok.

Friv Theory: Ugh. FINE, I guess.

----------

PF:

NOTE FOR SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER: I am a tech over truth judge, but that ends at the point where the core ground of one side of the topic is rooted in neofascist talking points. "Migrants bad" is a losing argument, and the authors/literature you bring into this space matters. Due to the brokenness of this resolution, I'm inclined to be much more lenient to the aff's competing interpretations on T. I'd much rather hear a generous interpretation of what constitutes surveillance infrastructure than the Heritage Foundation's racist drivel. These are very appropriate circumstances for affs to critique the ideological underpinnings of the resolution.

-Speed is fine if you're clear and loud

-Collapse on the argument you want written on my ballot

-Kicking an argument is distinct from not addressing an argument

-Weigh links, especially with similar terminal impacts

-Presumption defaults to the side closest to the status quo

-I flow each contention separately - keep that in mind for road maps/signposting

-Kritik and FW/T debates are my favorites - if you want feedback on a critical argument, I'm a good judge for you

-This trend of having a sentence on the wiki serve as "terminal defense" against theory is silly. if you're thinking about theory enough to have a blurb about it on your wiki, I expect you've thought about it enough to have substantive responses

----------

Policy:

-My topic knowledge is limited - keep that in mind with regard to acronyms and terms of art

-Start your speeches a bit slower to let me get acclimated to your voice/speed - me "clearing" you wont affect your speaker points, but it could affect what i'm able to get on my flow

-Multiple conditional advocacies are fine, but run the risk me keeping a messier flow

-Generally, no RVIs

-K v. K and K v. FW/T debates have historically been my favorites/most intuitive to evaluate

-I love judge instruction - write my ballot in the 2N/AR

-Signpost, Signpost, Signpost!!

I'm open to all arguments if you explain them well. I will try to evaluate all parts of the flow with the least amount of intervention. However, I will preface that I suck at flowing so you should most definitely slow down on analytics. I would prefer a doc for anything you have written down, including rebuttal speeches. If you don't want to send it to your opponents, I am fine with you sending it to only me so that I can keep track.

Quick Pref Sheet - Scroll all the way down for PF

1- Phil

2- Theory/Policy/Tricks

3/4- Ks

Quick Notes

-I don't listen to cross

-Send out all docs, not just flashing cards or sending certain cards

-EXTEND UR ARGUMENTS

Philosophy

I read a lot of Kant when I debated and am currently studying philosophy. I enjoy weird frameworks although you might want to err on the side of overexplaining if it is very complex and new. Big fan of skepticism/internalism/determinism.

Theory

Enjoy this debate but the problem is that I suck at flowing fast theory debates :(

Normsetting, CI, DTD, No RVIs for defaults

Friv theory is fine but also a lower threshold for responses for these shells

Policy

Pretty straightforward- enjoy weird PICs and impact turns

not the most caught up with the topic so elaborate on acronyms and other topic specific things

yes judge kick, condo probably good although will vote on condo bad

Tricks

I don't enjoy paradox and apriori dumps but will still vote on them (might not enjoy your speaks)

I enjoy creative tricks and weird arguments that are substantive

Ks

Not a lot of background information on Ks

Understand a bit of Set Col and Cap but that's about it

Probably believe that affs should defend the affirmative but will still vote on non T affs

if you can coherently explain me to your K, then I'll vote on it

PF

I am considered a "progressive" judge in PF. I am fine with just about anything and you can debate however you want in front of me.

I am a parent judge. Please talk slow. I value clarity of argument and logic flow. I will not understand any debate jargon. Please do not use it.

I'm a parent judge. Please do not spread or use excessive debate jargon. Speak slowly, focusing on clarity and quality of argument over quantity. Keep your delivery organized and oriented toward a first-time listener.

Support assertions with evidence, providing context or relevance as necessary. Beyond making your case, please respond directly to your opponent's arguments. Highlight areas of contrast and points you believe to be particularly favorable to your cause. Passionate engagement is fine, but please take care to be civil and respectful.

Present a clear summation of key points made (and not made), and why your side should prevail.

Thank you.

I'm a parent judge with some experience judging public forum and speeches. I'd appreciate if you could speak clearly and at a reasonable pace. Clarify and quality of argument are valued more than quantity. Thank you and good luck!

I'm a parent judge. Fluent in English but not a native speaker, so slow down, I don't evaluate what I don't understand, including jargon. I vote for the cleanest argument extended through the round, and I care most about logic and argumentative reasoning (that's not to say that I don't care about anything else, however).

4 years of pf @ oakton || karinliu2011@gmail.com for email chains

lmk if you have questions about my paradigm! ◡̈

general

- resolve clash/compare warrants (!!!!!), collapse, extend, & weigh

- alright with speed, send a doc if going fast (but i still might not catch everything)

- second reb should frontline, if not i'll be very hesitant to buy new frontlines in 2nd sum

presumption

- unless given warrants otherwise, i'll presume the team that lost flip

- if it's side locked i'll presume the squo

prog

- i understand theory a lot more than k's, no friv theory or tricks

^ i have v basic understanding of prog so i might vote wrong, make sure it is rly warranted

speaks

- L20 if you run problematic arguments or run prog/spread on newer debaters

^ aka don't ask anything starting w/ "but wait"

I am new to debate. I will appreciate debaters to speak clearly and not to speak too fast.

Lay judge. I do not like theory approaches to debate but substance. Talk slowly, points deducted for excessively high speed. Do not exaggerate consequences/impact.

My judging criteria is as follows:

1. Truth of claim :

The claim must be proven with strong reasons and evidence. The second level of proving the truth of your claim is in responding to responses of your proof of the claim from the opposing team. This is important because the other team could attack a link in the truth of your argument and without sufficient response then the likelihood of truth of your argument becomes diminished. The result of this is that your impacts are unlikely to occur because the claim has been proven to be false which greatly reduces your chance to win the debate.

2. Impacting :

The claim once proven should be impacted. The importance of the argument is strongly reliant on your impacts. The greater the impact proven the more likely the importance of the argument increases. Ensure your impacts are reasonable within the debate and can be proven rather than looking for a huge impact that is unlikely to be proven within the debate.

3. Responses :

There are two level of responses I think are important within the debate. Responses that are constructive in nature which means you are responding to a rebuttal that was attacking your argument and rebuilding your argument. The second are deconstructive arguments attacking the opposing teams arguments. It is important to have different responses to the most strongest arguments in the round. Firstly because it allows you to mitigate the other teams arguments much more and reduces the likelihood the response is answered by an easy response from the other team. Lastly because you need to prioritize the strongest arguments and respond to those particular arguments within the round because they are the most likely to win the round and time limitations do not allow you to respond to every single argument.

4. Weighing :

Most responses within debate rounds usually only mitigate the other teams arguments and do not necessarily prove them to be completely false. The importance of this is to understand the importance of weighing after giving your responses, it is because although mitigated some strong arguments are still left within the round that required to be weighed up. You can use different metrics to weigh your arguments such as which one affects more people, more urgent or occurs more often and many others to prove your arguments are more important.

5. Structure :

It is important to have an argument that flows from the beginning to the end of the argument. This is because it makes it easier to track the argument and reduces the likelihood that there is internal inconsistency within the arguments.

Kindly respect your opponents. Do not engage in any rude and offensive language/actions within the debate round. I encourage you to be creative and have fun as you learn and engage with new people within the realm of debating. All the best !

Hello! I am a lay judge with very little experience. I prefer if you go slow and make sure I understand all your arguments. Also, please do not spread and refrain from excessive debate jargon. I lean to judge and award points based on your rebuttals. Good luck!

I am a lay judge, I will flow what I can, as long as I can follow. Assume I know definitions and a little prior knowledge to the topic. Please keep the environment fun. Don’t forget to have fun!

I am a parent of a Myers Park High School speech and debate student and have two seasons of experience judging Public Forum. I have also judged Lincoln-Douglas once. I am a retired accounting professional. I prefer for debaters to speak at a moderate pace rather than a very rapid one. I value argument over style. I will view overly aggressive debaters, and especially disrespectful ones, less favorably. I find weighing by debaters at the end to be very helpful. I provide some feedback in person at the end of debates but do not typically indicate which side won the debate, and in some cases I may need to go through my notes and do more thinking to determine who won. I do not consider any information not mentioned by the debaters in reaching my decisions.

Parent Judge - that tells you a lot.

General Philosophy:

-I value intelligent thought-process. “Winning” a contention is less important than showing well-researched warrants and logical links to key impacts.

-Do you acknowledge the other side’s argument? You will likely debate both sides of today’s topic, so you know there are good contentions on both sides.

-I could tell you my philosophy on speech speed (s-l-o-w d-o-w-n) ; warranting (show off your warrants and explain them) ; theory arguments (save your breath) ; timing (time yourself, 15-sec grace) ; turns (wonderful), ; collapsing for weighing (I like, you don’t have to) ; etc, but that would imply I know what all these terms mean. I’m not here to judge your knowledge of debate rules but to judge your respectful delivery of summaries and weighs.

-Be nice. The most intelligent people in the room are your teammate and your opponents. Not me. So treat them as such if you want to have a chance of winning. Did I mention, be kind.

Even professional judges get their decisions wrong 5-10% of the time. Expect volunteers like me to be more incompetent but friendlier.

Have fun with a fun topic.

Currently Head Coach at Campbell Hall (CA)

Formerly Head Coach of Fairmont Prep (CA), Ransom Everglades (FL) & Pembroke Hill (MO), and Assistant Coach for Washburn Rural (KS), and Lake Highland (FL).

Coached for 20+ years – Have coached all events. Have coached both national circuit PF & Policy, along with local LD and a bit of Parli and World Schools. Also I have a J.D., so if you are going to try to play junior Supreme Court Justice, please be reasonably accurate in your legal interpretations.

Address for the email chain: millerdo@campbellhall.org

Scroll down for Policy or Parli Paradigm

_____________________

Public Forum Paradigm

_____________________

SHORT VERSION

1. If you want me to evaluate anything in the final focus you MUST extend it in every speech, beginning with the 2nd Rebuttal. That includes defensive case attacks, as well as unanswered link chains and impacts that you want to extend from your own case. Just frontlining without extending the link and impact stories from constructives means you have dropped those links and impacts.
2. Absent any other well-warranted framing arguments, I will default to a utilitarian offense/defense paradigm.
3. Please send speech docs to the other team and the judge WITH CUT CARDS BEFORE you give any speech in which you introduce new evidence. If you don't, A) I will be sad, B) any time you take finding ev will be free prep for your opponents, and C) the max speaks you will likely earn from me will be 28. If you do send card docs I will be happy and the lowest speaks you will likely earn will be 28. This only applies in TOC & Championship-level divisions.
4. Don't paraphrase. Like w/ speech docs, paraphrasing will likely cap your speaks at 28. Reading full texts of cards means 28 will be your likely floor.
5. Narrow the 2nd half of the round down to one key contention-level impact story and 1-2 key answers on your opponents’ case. This should start in the 2nd Rebuttal.
6. No new cards in 2nd Summary. No new cards in 1st Summary unless directly in response to new 2nd Rebuttal arguments.
7. I'm OK w/ Theory & Ks - IF THEY ARE DONE WELL. Read below for specific types of arguments.

DETAILED VERSION

(This is more an exercise for me to refine my own thoughts, but if you want more detail than above on any particular issue, here you go)

1. Summary extension

If you want me to evaluate anything in the final focus you MUST extend it in the summary. Yes, that includes defense & turns from the rebuttal. Yes, that includes unanswered link chains and impacts. And that doesn't just mean "extend my links and impacts." That doesn't do it. You need to explicitly extend each of the cards/args you will need to make a cohesive narrative at the end of the round. If you want to go for it in the FF, make sure your partner knows to extend it. Even if it is the best argument I’ve ever heard, failure to at least mention it in the summary will result in me giving the argument zero weight in my decision. Basically, too many 2nd speakers just ignore their partner’s summary speech. Attempting to extend things that were clearly dropped in the Summary will result in a lowering of speaker points for the 2nd speaker. This is # 1 on my list for a reason. It plays a major factor in more than half of my decisions. Ignore this advice at your own peril.

1A. 2nd Rebuttal Rebuild

Everything I just said about Summary also goes for 2nd Rebuttal. Anything you want me to evaluate at any later point in the round needs to be mentioned/extended in 2nd Rebuttal. That includes extending / rebuilding the portions of your case you want me to weigh at the end, even those that were not addressed by your opponents in the first Rebuttal. For example: 1st Rebuttal just answers your links on C1. You not only need to rebuild whatever C1 links you want me to evaluate at the end of the round, but you also need to explicitly extend your impacts you are claiming those links link to in at least a minimum of detail. Just saying" extend my impacts" will not be sufficient. At least try to reference both the argument and the card you want me to extend. And, yes, I know this means you won't be able to cover as much in 2nd Rebuttal. Make choices. That's what this event is all about.

2. Offense defense

Absent any other well-warranted framing arguments, I will default to a utilitarian offense/defense paradigm. Just going for defensive response to the the opposing case in FF won’t be persuasive in front of me. I am open to non-traditional framing arguments (e.g. rights, ontology, etc), but you will need to have some pretty clear warrants as to why I should disregard a traditional net offensive advantage for the other team when making my decision. You need warrants as to WHY I should prefer your framing over the default net benefits. For example, just saying "Vote for the side that best prevents structural violence" without giving reasons why your SV framing should be used instead of util is insufficient.

3. Send Speech Docs to the other team and judges with the cut cards you are about to read before your speech

This is the expected norm in both Policy and LD, and as PF matures as an event, it is far past time for PF to follow suit. I am tired of wasting 15+ min per round while kids hunt for cards that they should already have ready as part of their blocks and/or cases to share, and/or just paraphrasing without the cut card readily available. To discourage these bad practices, I choose to adopt two incentives to encourage debaters use speech docs like every other legitimate form of debate.

First, if you do not send a speech doc w/ all the cards you are about to read in that next speech to the email chain or by some other similar means in a timely fashion (within the reasonable amount of time it should take to send those cards via your chosen means - usually a couple of minutes or so) before you begin any speech in which you read cards, you can earn speaker points up to 28, with a starting point for average speaks at 27. If you do send a speech doc with the cut cards you are about to read in order, it is highly likely that the lowest speaks you earn will be a 28, with a starting point for average speaks at 29. If you don't have your cards ready before the round, or can't get them ready in a reasonable amount of time before each relevant speech, don't waste a bunch time trying. It defeats the part of the purpose aimed to speed up rounds and prevent tournaments from running behind because kids can't find their evidence. If speech docs are not a thing you normally do, don't let it get into your head. Just consider me as one of the many judges you'll encounter that isn't prone to hand out high speaks, and then go and debate your best. I'll still vote for whomever wins the arguments, irrespective of speaks. Afterwards, I would then encourage you to consider organizing your cases and blocks for the next important tournament you go in a way that is more conducive to in-round sharing, because it is likely to be the expected norm in those types of tournaments.

Several caveats to this general rule:

1) the obvious allowances for accidentally missing the occasional card due to honest error, or legitimate tech difficulties

2) if you engage in offensive behavior/language/etc that would otherwise justify something lower than a 25, providing a speech doc will not exempt you from such a score,

3) I will only apply these speaker point limitations in qualifier and Championship level varsity divisions - e.g. state, national, or TOC qualifiers & their respective championship tournaments. Developmental divisions (novice, JV, etc) and local-only tournaments have different educational emphases. So while I would still encourage timely sharing of evidence in those divisions, there are more important things for those debaters to focus on and worry about. However, if you are trying to compete for a major championship, you should expect to be held to a higher standard.

4) As referenced above, these artificial speaker point limitations have no impact on my ultimate decision regarding who wins or loses the round (unless one team attempts to turn some of these discouraged practices into a theory argument of some kind). I am happy to give low-point wins if that's how it shakes out, or else to approximate these same incentives in other reasonable ways should the tournament not permit low-point wins. The win/loss based upon the arguments you make in-round will always take priority over arbitrary points.

Basically, I won't require you to provide speech docs, but I will use these two measures to incentivize their use in the strongest possible way I feel I reasonably can. This hopefully will both speed up rounds and simultaneously encourage more transparency and better overall evidence quality.

4. Don't Paraphrase

It's really bad. Please don't do it. As an activity, we can be better than that. In CX & LD, it is called clipping cards, and getting caught doing it is an automatic loss. PF hasn't gotten there yet, but eventually we should, and hopefully will. I won't automatically vote you down for the practice (see my thoughts on theory below), but I do want to disincentivize you to engage in the practice. Thus, I will apply the same speaker point ranges I use for Speech Docs to paraphrasing. Paraphrase, and the max speaks you will likely get from me is a 28. Read texts of cut cards, and 28 is your likely floor. The same relevant caveats from speech docs apply here (minimums don't apply if you're offensive, only applies to higher-level varsity, and it won't impact the W/L).

5. Narrow the round

It would be in your best interest to narrow the 2nd half of the round down to one key contention-level link & impact story and 1-2 key turns on your opponents’ case, and then spend most of your time doing impact comparisons on those issues. Going for all 3 contentions and every turn you read in rebuttal is a great way to lose my ballot. If you just extend everything, you leave it up to me to evaluate the relative important of each of your arguments. This opens the door for judge intervention, and you may not like how I evaluate those impacts. I would much rather you do that thought process for me. I routinely find myself voting for the team that goes all in on EFFECTIVE impact framing on the issue or two they are winning over the team that tries to extend all of their offensive arguments (even if they are winning most of them) at the expense of doing effective impact framing. Strategic choices matter. Not making any choices is a choice in itself, and is usually a bad one.

6. No new cards in Summary, unless they are in direct response to a new argument brought up in the immediately prior speech.

1st Summary: If you need to read cards to answer arguments first introduced in opponents case, those needed to be read in 1st Rebuttal, not 1st Summary. Only if 2nd Rebuttal introduces new arguments—for example a new impact turn on your case—will I evaluate new cards in the 1st Sum, and only to specifically answer that new 2nd Rebuttal turn. Just please flag that your are reading a new card, and ID exactly what new 2nd Rebuttal argument you are using it to answer.

2nd Summary: Very rarely, 2nd summary will need to address something that was brought up new in 1st summary. For example, as mentioned above, 2nd Rebuttal puts offense on case. 1st Summary might choose to address that 2nd Rebuttal offense with a new carded link turn. Only in a case like that will I evaluate new evidence introduced into 2nd Summary. If you need to take this route, as above in 1st Summary, please flag exactly what argument you say was new in the 1st Summary you are attempting to answer before reading the new card.

In either case, unless the prior speech opened the door for you, I will treat any new cards in Summary just like extending things straight into FF & ignoring the summary—I won’t evaluate them and your speaker points will take a hit. However, new cross-applications of cards previously introduced into the round ARE still OK at this point.

6A. No new cross-applications or big-picture weighing in Final Focus.

Put the pieces together before GCF - at least a little bit. This includes weighing analysis. The additional time allotted to teams in Summary makes it easier to make these connections and big-picture comparisons earlier in the round. Basically, the other team should at least have the opportunity to ask you about it in a CF of some type. You don't have to do the most complete job of cross-applying or weighing before FF, but I should at least be able to trace its seed back to some earlier point in the round.

7. Theory

I will, and am often eager to, vote on debate theory arguments. But proceed with caution. Debaters in PF rarely, if ever, know how to debate theory well enough to justify voting on it. But I have seen an increasing number of rounds recently that give me some hope for the future.

Regarding practices, there is a strategic utility for reading theory even if you are not going for it. I get that part of the game of debate, and am here for it. But if you think you want me to actually vote on it, and it isn't just a time suck, I would strongly encourage that you collapse down to just theory in the 2nd Rebuttal/1st Summary in a similar fashion that I would think advisable in choosing which of your substance-based impact scenarios to go for. Theory isn't the most intuitive argument, and is done poorly when it is blippy. If it is a bad practice that truly justifies my disregarding substantive arguments, then treat it like one. Pick a standard and an impact story and really develop it in both speeches AND IN GCF in the similar way you should develop a link story and impact from your substantive contention. Failing to collapse down will more than likely leave you without sufficient time to explain your abuse story and voter analysis in such a way that it is compelling enough for me to pull the trigger. If you are going to do it (and I'm good with it if you do), do it well. Otherwise, just stick to the substance.

My leanings on specific types of theory arguments:

Fiat – For policy resolutions, until the “no plans” rule is changed, PF is essentially a whole-resolution debate, no matter how much teams would like for it to be policy. That means the resolution is the plan text. Thus, if teams want to exclusively advocate a specific subset(s) of the resolution, they need to provide some warrants as to why their specific subset(s) of the resolution is the MOST LIKELY form the resolution would take if it were adopted. Trying to specify and only defend a hyper-specific example(s) of the resolution that is unlikely to occur without your fiat is ridiculously abusive without reading a plan text, and makes you a moving target – especially when you clarify your position later in the round to spike out of answers. Plan texts are necessary to fiat something that is unlikely to happen in the status quo in order to create a stable advocacy. Basically, in my mind, “no plans” = “no fiat of subsets of the resolution.” Also, please don't try to fiat things in a fact-based resolution (hint, it's probably not a policy resolution if it doesn't look like "Actor X should do Thing Y"). Also, Neg DOESN'T get to counterplan. Again, you can't specify anything, so neg doesn't even have the resolution to fiat. So, no actionable K alts and no CP texts (even if you call them a "generalized, practical solution"). You are stuck defending the status quo, absent a good role of the ballot framing arg for critical negs.

Multiple conditional advocacies – Improbable fiated advocacies are bad enough, but when teams read multiple such advocacies and then decide “we’re not going for that one” when the opposing team puts offense on it is the zenith of in-round abuse. Teams debating in front of me should continue to go for their unanswered offensive turns against these “kicked” arguments – I will weigh them in the round, and am somewhat inclined to view such practices as a voter if substantial abuse is demonstrated by the offended team. If you start out with a 3-prong fiated advocacy, then you darn well better end with it. Severance is bad. If teams are going to choose to kick out of part of their advocacy mid-round, they need to effectively answer any offense on the "to-be-kicked" parts first.

Paraphrasing - Don't paraphrase. I come down strongly on the side of having cut cards available. This doesn't mean I will automatically vote for paraphrasing theory, as I think there is minimal room for a conceivably viable counter-interp of having the cards attached to blocks/cases or something similar. But blatant, unethical, and lazy paraphrasing has, at times, really threatened the integrity of this activity, and it needs to stop. This theory arg is the way to do that. If your opponents paraphrase and you don't, and if you read a complete paraphrasing arg and extend it in all of the necessary speeches, it is going to take a whole lot of amazing tap dancing on the part of the guilty party for me not to vote for it.

Trigger Warning - I am likely not your judge for this. I'm not saying I won't vote on it, but it would be an uphill battle. Debate is a space where we shouldn't be afraid to talk about important and difficult issues, and opt-outs can too easily be abused to gain advantage by teams who don't genuinely have issues with the topics in question. There would need to be extensive use of graphic imagery or something similar for me to be likely to buy a sufficiently large enough violation to justify voting on this kind of argument. Not impossible, but a very high threshold.

Disclosure - Disclosure is good. My teams do it, and I think you should too. It makes for better debates, and the Wiki is an invaluable tool for small squads with limited resources and coaching. I speak from experience, having coached those types of small squads in policy against many of the juggernaut programs with armies of assistants cutting cards. Arguments about how it is somehow unfair to small teams make little sense to me. That being said, I don't think the lack of disclosure is as serious of a threat to the integrity of PF as the bad paraphrasing that at one point was rampant in the activity. Disclosure is more of a strongly suggested improvement, as opposed to an ethical necessity. But if the theory arg is run WELL, I will certainly vote on it. And that also includes arguments about proper forms of disclosure. Teams that just post massive blocks of unhighlighted, ununderlined text and/or without any tags read to me as acts of passive aggression that are just trying to get out of disclosure arguments while not supporting the benefits that disclosure provides. Also, responses like "our coach doesn't allow us to disclose" or "email us 30 minutes before the round, and this counts as terminal defense against disclosure arguments" are thoroughly unpersuasive in front of me. I'm sorry your coach doesn't support disclosure, but that is a strategic decision they have made that has put their students at a disadvantage in front of judges like me. That's just the way it goes.

Where to First Introduce - I don't yet have a strong opinion on this, as I haven't had enough decent theory rounds to adjudicate for it to really matter. If you force me to have an opinion, I would probably suggest that theory be read in the first available speech after the infraction occurs. So, disclosure should probably be read in the Constructives, while paraphrasing shells should likely be in either the 2nd Constructive or 1st Rebuttal, once the other team has had a chance to actually introduce some evidence into the round.

Frivolous Args - I am totally here for paraphrasing and disclosure, as those practices have substantial impact on the quality of debate writ large. I am less likely to be receptive to silly cheap shot args that don't have the major benefit of improving the activity. Hence, leave your "no date of access" or "reading evidence is bad" theory args for someone else. You are just as likely to annoy me by reading those types of args than to win my ballot with them. Reading them means I will give the opposing side TONS of leeway in making responses, and I will likely look for any remotely viable reason I can to justify not voting on them.

Reverse Voting Issues - Theory is a perfectly acceptable strategic weapon for any team to utilize to win a round. I am unlikely to be very receptive to RVIs about how running theory on mainstream args like disclosure or paraphrasing is abusive. If a team properly narrows the last half of the debate by kicking substance and going for theory, that pretty much acts as a RVI, as long as the offending team still at least perfunctorily extends case. Now, once we stray more into the frivolous theory territory as referenced above, I will be much more likely to entertain a RVI, even if the team reading theory doesn't kick substance first.

8. Critical Arguments

In general, I would advise against reading Ks in PF, both because I think the event is not as structurally conducive to them, and because I've only ever seen one team in one round actually use them correctly (and in that round, they lost on a 2-1, because the other two judges just didn't understand what they were doing - ironically emblematic of the risk of reading those args in this event). However, since they are likely only going to increase in frequency, I do have thoughts. If you are a K team, I would suggest reading the Topicality and Criticisms portions of my policy paradigm below. Many of the thoughts on argument preference are similarly applicable here. A couple of PF-specific updates, though:

A) Alternatives - Because PF Negs don't get fiat (e.g. no power to CP), I don't buy that Neg gets the power to fiat any type of action-based alternative. You can reject or maybe do nothing, and, of course, you can garner offense off of all of the traditional ontology and/or epistemology first in decision-making framework args you want. But trying to fiat any action as an alternative (e.g. engaging in active resistance, or anything similar) isn't likely to fly with me, unless you can make a really solid ROTB arg to change what my vote means. This severely limits what you can do from the Neg in front of me. Be warned.

B) Role of the Ballot args - "Our role of the ballot is to vote for the team that best reduces structural violence" isn't a role of the ballot. It is a bad impact framing argument without any warrants. Proper ROTB args change what the judge's vote actually represents. Normally, the ballot puts the judge in the position of the USFG and then they pretend to take or not take a particular policy action. Changing the ROTB means instead of playing that particular game of make believe, you want the judge to act from the position of someone else - maybe an academic intellectual, or all future policy makers, and not the USFG - or else to have their ballot do something totally different than pretend enacting a policy - e.g. acting as an endorsement of a particular mode of decision-making or philosophical understanding of the world, with the policy in question being secondary or even irrelevant to why they should choose to affirm or negate. Not understanding this difference means I am likely to treat your incorrectly articulated ROTB arg as unwarranted impact framing, which means I will probably ignore it and continue to default to my standard util offense/defense weighing.

9. Crossfire

If you want me to evaluate an argument or card, it needs to be in a speech. Just mentioning it in CF is not sufficient. You can refer to what was said in CF in the next speech, and that will be far more efficient, but it doesn’t exist in my mind until I hear it in a speech. Honestly, I'm probably writing comments during CF anyway, and am only halfway listening. That being said, I am NOT here for just not doing cross (usually GCF) and instead taking prep. Until the powers that be get rid of it, we are still doing GCF. Instead of just not wanting to do it, get better at it. Make it something that I should listen to.

10. Speaker points

See my policy on Speech Docs & Paraphrasing. If I were not making the choice to institute that policy, the following reflects my normal approach to speaks, and will still apply to how I evaluate within the 25-28 non-speech doc range, and within the 28-30 speech doc range. My normal reference point for “average” is 27.5. That’s where most everyone starts. My default is to evaluate on a scale with steps of 0.1, as opposed to steps of 0.5. Below a 25 means you did something offensive. A true 30.0 in HS debate (on a 0.1 scale) doesn’t exist. It is literally perfect. I can only think of 3 times I have ever given out a 29.6 or higher, and each of them were because of this next thing. My points are almost exclusively based on what you say, not how you say it. I strongly value making good, strategic choices, and those few exceptional scores I’ve given were all because of knowing what was important and going for it / impact framing it, and dumping the unnecessary stuff in the last half of the round.

11. Ask for additional thoughts on the topic

Even if you’ve read this whole thing, still ask me beforehand. I may have some specific thoughts relating to the topic at hand that could be useful.

12. Speed

Notice how I didn't say anything about that above, even though it's the first questions like half of kids ask? Basically, yes, I can handle your blazing speed. But it would still probably be a good idea to slow it down a little, Speed Racer. Quality > quantity. However, if you try to go fast and don't give a speech doc with cut cards before you start speaking, I will be very, VERY unhappy. The reason why policy teams can go as fast as they do is that they read a tag, (not just "Smith continues..." or "Indeed...")which we as the audience can mentally process and flow, and then while they are reading the cite/text of the card, we have time to finish flowing the tag and listen for key warrants. The body of the card gives us a beat or two to collect ourself before we have to figure out what to write next. Just blitzing through blippily paraphrased cards without a tag (e.g. "Smith '22 warrants...") doesn't give us that tag to process first, and thus we have to actively search for what to flow. By the time we get it down, we have likely already missed your next "card." So, if you are going to try to go faster than a broadly acceptable PF pace, please have tags, non-paraphrased cards, and speech docs. And if you try to speed through a bunch of blippy paraphrased "cards" without a doc, don't be surprised when we miss several of your turns. Basically, there is a way to do it right. Please do it that way, if you are going to try to go fast.

________________________

Policy Paradigm

________________________

I debated for 4 years in high school (super old-school, talk-pretty policy), didn't debate in college, and have coached at the HS level for 20+ years. I am currently the Head Coach at Campbell Hall in Los Angeles, and previously was an Assistant Coach at Washburn Rural in KS, and head coach at Fairmont Prep in Anaheim, CA, Ransom Everglades School, in Miami, and The Pembroke Hill School in KCMO. However, I don't judge too many policy rounds these days, so take that into account.

Overview:

Generally, do what you do, as long as you do it well, and I'll be happy. I prefer big-picture impact framing where you do the comparative work for me. In general, I will tend to default to such analysis, because I want you to do the thinking in the round, not me. My better policy teams in the past where I was Head Coach read a great deal of ontology-based Ks (cap, Heidegger, etc), and they often make some level of sense to me, but I'm far from steeped in the literature. I'm happy to evaluate most of the normal disads & cps, but the three general classes of arguments that I usually find less persuasive are identity-based strategies that eschew the topic, politics disads, and to a lesser degree, performance-based arguments. But if any of those are your thing, I would in general prefer you do your thing well than try and do something else that you just aren't comfortable with. I'll go with the quality argument, even if it isn't my personal favorite. I'm not a fan of over-reliance on embedded clash, especially in overviews. I'd rather you put it on the line-by-line. I'm more likely to get it down on my flow and know how to apply it that way, and that's the type of debating I'll reward with higher speaks. Please be sure to be clear on your tags, cites, and theory/analytic blocks. Hard numbering/”And’s” are appreciated, and if you need to, go a little slower on those tags, cites, and theory/analytic blocks to be sure they are clear, distinct, and I get them. Again, effort to do so will be rewarded with higher speaks.

Topicality:

I generally think affs should have to defend the topic, and actually have some sort of plan text / identifiable statement of advocacy. There are very few "rules" of debate, thus allowing tons of leeway for debaters to choose arguments. But debating the topic is usually a pretty good idea in my mind, as most issues, even those relating to the practices and nature of our activity and inclusion therein, can usually still be discussed in the context of the topic. I rather strongly default to competing interpretations. I like to see T debates come down to specific abuse stories, how expanding or contracting limits functionally impacts competitive equity, and exactly what types of ground/args are lost/gained by competing interps (case lists are good for this in front of me). I usually buy the most important impact to T as fairness. T is an a priori issue for me, and K-ing T is a less than ideal strategy with me as your judge.

Theory:

If you are going to go for it, go for it. I am unlikely to vote either way on theory via a blippy cheap-shot, unless the entire argument was conceded. But sometimes, for example, condo bad is the right strategic move for the 2AR. If it's done well, I won't hesitate to decide a round on it. Not a fan of multiple conditional worlds. With the notable exception of usually giving epistemology / ontology-based affs some flexibility on framework needing to come before particulars of implementation, I will vote Neg on reasonable SPEC arguments against policy affs. Affs should be able to articulate what their plan does, and how it works. (Read that you probably ought to have a plan into that prior statement, even if you are a K team.) For that reason, I also give Neg a fair amount of theoretical ground when it comes to process CPs against those affs. Severance is generally bad in my mind. Intrinsicness, less so.

CPs:

Personally, I think a lot of the standard CPs are, in any type of real world sense, ridiculous. The 50 states have never worked together in the way envisioned by the CP. A constitutional convention to increase funding for whatever is laughable. An XO to create a major policy change is just silly (although over the last two administrations, that has become less so). All that being said, these are all legit arguments in the debate world, and I evaluate and vote on them all the time. I guess I just wish Affs were smart enough to realize how dumb and unlikely these args actually are, and would make more legit arguments based on pointing that out. However, I do like PICs, and enjoy a well thought out and deployed advantage CP.

Disads:

Most topic-related disads are fine with me. Pretty standard on that. Just be sure to not leave gaping holes / assumptions in your link chains, and I'm OK. However, I generally don't like the politics disad. I would much rather hear a good senator specific politics scenario instead of the standard “President needs pol cap, plan’s unpopular” stuff, but even then, I'm not a fan. I'll still vote for it if that's what is winning the round, but I may not enjoy doing so. Just as a hint, it would be VERY EASY to convince me that fiat solves for most politics link stories (and, yes, I understand this places me in the very small minority of judges), and I don't see nearly as much quality ground lost from the intrinsic perm against politics as most. Elections disads, though, don't have those same fiat-related issues, and are totally OK by me.

Criticisms:

I don’t read the lit much, but in spite of that, I really kind of like most of the more "traditional" ontological Ks (cap, security, Heidegger, etc). To me, Ks are about the idea behind the argument, as opposed to pure technical proficiency & card dumping. Thus, the big picture explanation of why the K is "true," even if that is at the expense of reading a few more cards, would be valuable. Bringing through traditional line-by-line case attacks in the 2NR to directly mitigate some of the Aff advantages is probably pretty smart. I think Negs set an artificially high burden for themselves when they completely drop case and only go for the K in the 2NR, as this means that they have to win 100% access to their “Alt solves the case” or framework args in order for the K to outweigh some super-sketchy and ridiculous, but functionally conceded, extinction scenario from the 1AC. K's based in a framework strategy (e.g. ontology first) tend to be more compelling in front of me than K's that rely on the alt to actually solve something (because, let's be honest here - alts rarely do). Identity-related arguments are usually not the most compelling in front of me (especially on the Aff when teams basically put the resolution), and I tend to buy strategic attacks against them from the left as more persuasive than attacks from the right.

Random:

I understand that some teams are unbalanced in terms of skill/experience, and that's just the way it goes sometimes. I've coached many teams like that. But I do like to see if both debaters actually know what they are talking about. Thus, your speaks will probably go down if your partner is answering all of your cross-ex questions for you. It won’t impact my decision (I just want to know the answers), but it will impact speaks. Same goes for oral prompting. That being said, I am inclined to give a moderate boost to the person doing the heavy lifting in those cases, as long as they do it respectfully.

________________________

Parli Paradigm

________________________

Parli is not my primary debate background, so I likely have an atypical paradigm for a parli judge that is influenced by my experiences coaching policy and circuit PF. Please adapt accordingly if you want to win my ballot.

First, I honestly don't care how you sound. I care about the arguments you make. Please, don't read that as an immediate excuse to engage in policy-style spreading (that level of speed doesn't translate super well to an event that is entirely analytics and doesn't have cards), but I will likely be more accustomed to and be able to handle debates that are faster than most of the HS parli rounds I have seen to date.

Two general things that I find annoying and unnecessary: 1) Introducing yourself at the top of each speech. I know who you are. Your name is on the ballot. That's all I need. This just seems to be an unnecessary practice designed to turn an 8 minute speech into a 7:30 speech. Forget the formalities, and just give me the content, please. 2) I don't need a countdown for when you start. We aren't launching a rocket into space or playing Mario Kart. Just start. I am a sentient enough of a being to figure out to hit the button on my timer when you begin talking.

I'll go speech by speech.

1st Gov/PMC: Spending the first minute or so explaining the background of the topic might be time well spent, just to ensure that everyone is on the same page. Please, if you have a contention-level argument, make sure it has some kind of terminal impact. If it isn't something that I can weigh at the end of the round, then why are you making the argument?

1st Opp/LOC: Same as above re: terminal impacts in case. Any refutations to the Aff case you would like me to evaluate at the end of the round need to be in this speech, or at least be able to be traced back to something in this speech. That means you probably shouldn't get to the Aff case with only a minute or two left in the speech. If your partner attempts to make new refutations to the Aff case in the 2nd Opp, I won't evaluate them.

2nd Gov/MGC: Similar to the 1st Opp, any parts of your case that you want me to consider when making my decisions need to be explicitly extended in this speech. That includes all essential parts of an argument - link, internal link, and impact. Just saying "extend my Contention 2" is insufficient to accomplish this task. You will actually need to spend at least a modicum of time on each, in order for me to flow it through, in addition to answering any refutations that Opp has made on it in the prior speech. Considering that you will also need to spend some time refuting the Neg's newly introduced case, this means that you will likely NOT have time to extend all of your contentions. That's fine. Make a choice. Not all contentions are equally good. If you try to go for everything, you will likely not do anything well enough to make a compelling argument. Instead, pick your best one (or maybe two) and extend, rebuild, and impact it. Prioritizing arguments and making choices is an essential analytical skill this activity should teach. Making decisions in this fashion will be rewarded in both my decision-making at the end of the round, as well as in speaker points.

Opp Block: If you want me to evaluate any arguments in the these speeches, I need to be able to trace the responses/arguments back to the 1st Opp, except if they are new answers to case responses that could only have been made in the the 2nd Gov. For example, 2nd Gov makes refutations to the Opp's case. New responses to these arguments will be evaluated, but they need to be made in the 2nd Opp, not the 3rd. However, to reiterate, I will absolutely NOT evaluate new refutations to Gov case in these speeches. Just as with the 2nd Gov, I also strongly advocate collapsing down to one contention-level impact story from your case and making it the crux of your narrative about how the debate should be decided. Trying to go for all three contentions you read in the 1st Gov is a great way to not develop any of those arguments well, and to leave me to pick whatever I happen to like best. I don't like judge intervention, which is why I want you to make those decisions for me by identifying the most important impact/argument on your side and focusing your time at the end of the round on it. Do my thinking for me. If you let me think, you may not like my decision.

Both Rebuttals: Just listing a bunch of voters is a terrible way to debate. You are literally just giving me a menu of things I could vote on and hoping that I pick the one you want. You would be much better served in these speeches to focus in on one key impact story, and do extensive weighing analysis - either how it outweighs any/all of the other side's impacts, or if it is a value round, how it best meets the value framing of the debate. As I stated in the Opp Block section, please, do my thinking for me. Show that you can evaluate the relative worth of different arguments and make a decision based upon that evaluation. Refusing to do so tells me you have no idea which of your arguments is superior to the others, and thus you do not have a firm grasp on what is really happening in the round. Be brave. Make a choice. You will likely be rewarded for it. Also, there is very little reason to POO in these speeches. I keep a good enough flow to know when someone is introducing new arguments. If it is new, I won't evaluate it. I don't need you to call it out. I largely find it annoying.

I am a lay judge. I am looking for clear communication, professionalism and mutual respect in the debate. I also expect the debaters to maintain time.

I will also look for how each debater responds to questions and answers. Debate should be vigorous, but debaters should show decorum and respect when countering.

Comparing and contrasting in your arguments is very important. Do strong weighing between the two arguments (Affirmative/Negative) and explain why yours is better than theirs and why I should vote for you. Explain and extend and make sure that you EMPHASIZE what you really want me to hear. Slow down and be clear.

I look favorably on the debater that can make their point, and at the appropriate time move on to another strong point of their argument rather than one who stays on the same point for too long.

I don’t prefer intervening and expect teams to call out bad behavior such as spreading, new arguments in final focus etc. Competitors do not have to reply every argument in case a team is using spreading tactic. 
Competitors are encouraged to focus on main issues pertaining to the topic rather than “minor” or “obscure” arguments.

Qualifications: I competed in speech and debate tournaments for five consecutive years throughout all of high school. Most of my debate experience comes from public forum and I have extensive judging experience as well.

Paradigm:

- I am fine with speed, but please talk clearly. If I cannot understand you, what you say will not appear on my flow.

- Organization is important. If you are organized, I will be able to connect your speeches throughout my flow better and (hopefully) end up voting for your team. Be especially clear with taglines.

- Weigh the impacts and clearly tell me why you win. If you don't, I will end up having to put my input into the vote.

- Impacts are important. Even if you have a clear claim and warrant, nothing will count unless you have an impact as a result of that. I will most likely vote based on your impacts and voters, so make sure they are clear and strong.

- Warrants are important. If you have an impact but no clear warrant or link to the resolution, I will not vote for it.

- Be sure your arguments are backed up by evidence. The better your arguments are backed up, the stronger it will be.

- I do not flow during crossfire. If anything important comes up during crossfire, be sure to mention that within your speeches if you want that to go on my flow.

Any clarifying questions about my paradigm can be asked before the round starts or to anstlgus02@gmail.com.

Hi! I'm excited to be your judge today. I am a trained speech and debate judge.

For debate - Please don't speak too quickly. If you speak too fast, I will stop flowing and your arguments will not be evaluated as part of the round. Please add signposts to make arguments as clear to me as possible. Impacts are important to me - I want to understand the real world significance of the argument. Don't just tell me the argument, tell me why I should care.

For speech - I love speech events where you incorporate personal stories and humor. Have fun, because your energy will be contagious!

I am a lobbyist/policy analyst in the Washington, DC area and I have no background in debate. I am a parent judge. I keep notes however I do not have any background on weird topics, nor do I know debate jargon. This is my maiden voyage as a parent judge but I do know some of the basic rules.

Please do not excessively spread or yell. Talk in a conversational tone. If I can't understand you, I can't judge you.

I will try not to vote off of cross but if you can’t defend case in cross/generally are not doing well in cross I will take off speaker points.

I prefer off time road maps and please stick to them. If you don't I'll probably be confused.

Be respectful to your opponents at all times. Let your opponents talk in cross please!

Keep your arguments generally socially acceptable.

Ideally, please time yourself, but I can set a timer if you are unable to.

Feel free to send me cases at tdmullins3@gmail.com if you think I might have difficulty understanding.

I am a parent judge.

Preferences: No spreading and do not use debate jargon or fully explain it. Make sure you self time and keep track of your prep. Signpost and be respectful. Have fun!

I'm substance over style. Make your points and rebut those of your opponents, and you will score well. However the more clearly you speak, the easier it is for me to take notes - if you go too fast, I may not be able to track it all.

And be nice. Remember that if there were no opponents, there would be no debate - a good opponent is as valuable to sharpen your skills as a good partner.

parent judge

Please keep your own time

Hey, I'm a lay judge! This is my second year judging.

Some things I'd like to make the round easier for me and for you:

I'd prefer it if you weren't spreading as much so that I can thoroughly understand your argument.

Also, since I don't know much about the topic, I'd appreciate it if you could explain your argument well to me. 

Good Luck,

Narendra

namdhari@umich.edu

Update for TOC 2024:

I haven't debated in a minute but here's my background: Did PF for 1.5 years, switched to LD my senior year and qualified to the TOC. Since college, I haven't actively competed / judged PF occasionally, my overall preferences / views on debate haven't changed significantly but I'd place a significantly higher emphasis on deep research and evidence quality. Additionally, my tolerance for tricks / friv theory / clash evasive strategies is generally a lot lower than it used to be -- that being said I'm probably still more receptive to this than most PF judges and won't hack against it, just might not be as good at judging these rounds and will over-reward high-level strategic round vision in these debates.

With that in mind the below paradigm is largely up to date, and happy to answer any questions in round or prior via email.

Things that might need to have more emphasis given how long it's been since I debated (especially for PF):

1] Clarity -- please signpost clearly and slow down a little on taglines, I don't flow off the doc and won't go back unless you've marked cards.

2] Overviews / Round Vision -- Tell me what you're going to do before you do it, even if this is just 3 seconds of "High risk of a DA outweighs a mitigated case" at the top of the 2NR, it helps me know what's happening strategically, don't feel the need to overdo this compared to other rounds but if you don't do this already, try to do it (I promise other judges will also thank you with speaks boosts!)

3] Packaging / Simplicity -- In and out of debate I've realized that regardless of how complex arguments are going in, the hallmark of competence is being able to explain it simply. I used to be more on the side of thinking I'm stupid in these debates when the 2nr/2ar is unclear and going back through cards, rereading taglines and overviews to try and get an understanding of what was said. Today, I'll err more on the side of punishing you for long jargon-filled overviews, extension blocks that aren't tailored to the round and not being able to explain/contextualize your arguments in a simple way

4] I don't know the topic lol

5] I don't know if evidence ethics / file sharing standards in PF have gotten better over the years but I have absolutely zero tolerance -- send out docs (don't waste time/steal prep asking for cards) and don't miscut/paraphrase.

Paradigm:

I don't think you should worry about reading this too closely, I'll evaluate any argument however you tell me to in round and I will try to be as tab as possible butI do have biases which while I can try to keep them out of debate, some will implicitly be present and I feel like it would be better for me to make you aware of them rather than pretend they don't exist.

TL/DR: These are just my preferences as to what I believe is good for debate I won't default one way or another unless there is absolutely no pushback from either side.

Regardless, a ranking of how familiar I am with things:

Policy/K/T - 1

T-FW/K Affs - 1

Theory - 2

Phil - 2

Dense Phil/ Pomo read as an NC - 3/4

Tricks - 4/5

K vs K debates -- 4/5 (I like them but I'm a coinflip heavily weighted towards the perm)

K Affs vs FW

- Been on both sides and these are my favorite debates to judge however I probably do lean slightly neg.

- CI's are good to resolve some offense and provide uqs for an impact turn but it's not necessary.

- 2N's need to do a better job winning the terminal impact to FW, don't overinvest into reading long blocks that explain why the aff is unfair/decks clash because let's be honest, they aren't gonna contest that most of the time, focus on implicating why that is important both in the context of debate and in the context of the affirmative.

- Framework 2nr's I've thought were excellent often use the same verbiage as the aff instead of using long o/v blocks.

- TVA/SSD to resolve some offense is good, even if it doesn't

- 7 minute 2nr's entirely on the case page often get confusing for me when they lack good judge instruction -- try and be clear as to what you are doing on teh case page before you get into the lbl

K

- good for larp v k

- bad for k v k (biased towards the perm + often get confused a lot); if I do end up unfortunately judging one of these, judge instruction is paramount. I will evaluate these debates generally knowing that theories of power are largely compatible. So, my ballot will be a reflection of differences between the aff and the alternative and the impact to those differences. If the difference between the two indicates the alt is worse than the aff, I vote aff. If the difference between the two indicates the alt is better than the aff, I vote neg.

- lbl > long o/v's

- Framework CI = you don't need an alt unless the aff says you do and winning links is sufficient if you've won framework

- Alts that result in the aff are fine absent a 1ar warrant why they aren't (being shady in cx is kinda annoying tho)

- Only understand cap, Moten/Harney, Warren (never read this in round), and a little bit of Baudrillard -- explanation is good.

- All the interactions that people consider "k tricks" should be implicated in the 1nc or else 2ar answers are justified (saying lines in the card make the claim most often doesn't really count)

LARP

- Like this a lot

- UQS prolly controls link direction

- all cp theory can be dtd granted a warrant

- hate reading cards and I will stay away from it as much as possible but end up having to read ev in most rounds.

- defense is underrated and can def be terminal if implicated as such (i.e: bill alr passed prolly is terminal)

- solves case explanation can be new in the 2nr as long as it was in 1nc evidence

- perm shields the link/cp links to nb -- explain these args to me! I'm not v smart/takes me time esp since I don't know the topic lit most likely

Phil

- Haven't read anything besides util/Kant and a little prag -- think it's hella interesting doe if that counts for anything

- Weighing is important, spend more time explaining your syllogism and why that excludes theirs.

- TJF's prolly o/w and are the move if I'm in the back

- weird complex ev mandates not-weird not-complex explanation

Theory

- Like this

- Weigh between standards

- low threshold to vote on rvis -- still need to justify them and w/e

- reasonability should be explained and is v strategic at times -- I will not vote on an RVI if you are going for reasonability obviously

Tricks

- will vote on these as long they are implicated fully in the speech they are read

- I can't flow for my life so like try and slow down a Lil bit

Evidence Ethics

- did pf for 2 years, cut cards weren't a thing, people paraphrased, the average card was shorter than T definitions, and evidence was sent via url's + ctrl F -- I really don't care at all about ev ethics until it's mentioned but i'm p sure my standards for ev ethics are very stringent so if you do call it out/stake the round on it in PF you will probably win 90% of the time

- if staking the round, that should happen the moment the violation is called out. -- don't read a shell and debate it out until the 2ar and then decide you wanna stake the round instead

(i.e: Miscut 1AC ev means you should stake the round immediately after you see it BUT at the very latest after 1nc cross)

Misc:

- I'm cool with post rounding -- not cool w/aggressive or toxic post rounding

- Clear judge instruction is really helpful

- Hate it when people steal prep

- hate unclear signposting

- Record your speeches in case audio cuts out

- time yourself and stop at the timer. (pls)

Hi everyone,

I am a lay judge and I am excited to be part of the tournament.

1) Please do not speak too quickly as it takes me time to process information.

2) Please do not use debate jargon.

3) Please be respectful to each other.

4) Have fun & good luck!

Background

I have experience in just about all types of debate. While some distinctions between formats I see similarities rooted in intentional relationships, education and rhetoric. I do not see the judge as a blank slate. So I have some things that I think, based on my experiences as a debater, social science teacher, coach, parent and program director effect my role as a judge. We all have filters.

Personally, I debated NDT for the University of Houston in the early 80's. Achieving out rounds at major national tournaments and debating at both the NDT and CEDA Nationals. I have coached all debate events and many speech events. My policy teams won St. Marks and Memorial TOC tournaments and enjoyed success nationally. My students were also successful on Texas UIL and local circuits. I have had debate teams, LD debaters, extemp speakers and congress entries placed 1st or 2nd in Texas and have also coached a state oratory champion.

Currently, I consult and do debate on the side from home. I'm 62 years old. Concerns or questions about a judge that age are addressed below. The two biggest concerns are usually handling "speed" and "progressive" arguments. Speed with style and good technique is one thing speed that seems like a stream of consciousness is another. As for what progress is or progressive is, well that depends on your experiences.

I am open to alternative approaches to resolutions but also enjoy frameworks employed in the past. Debating and coaching in Houston and teaching at the UTNIF for a decade definitely shaped my my ability to listen to different types of frameworks - or what the debate is supposed to mean or accomplish. I have coached at so many levels, for many years on different topics - instead of seeing differences I see many similarities in the way arguments are framed evolve. I debated when it was highly questionable to do anything beyond policy debate - even counterplans, much less conditional frameworks, but being from a small squad (in a different info environment - when access to research and evidence was definiteley privileged) we pursued the edge strategies - such as hypothesis testing to level the field. Coaching in policy we ran all range of arguments. Over time shifting to a more critical approach. Once again in response, in part, to the changing information space. On an education topic we went deep all year on Critical Pedagogy and on a criminal justice - Constitutive Criminology. There are very few rules in debate. What policy debate means and what my vote means are for grabs by both teams. I'm not into labels at way to define myself. If I had to pick a term it would be: Critic of Argument

A couple of notes

Speed, unless evolution is really off track, speed can't be any faster, even from when we debated in college. Speed is rarely what set the best debaters apart. However, these are my first NDT rounds this year. (I'm contemplating grad schools in the mountain west for next year) Make sure acronyms, initialisms etc. are clear first before ripping through what will be new information for me. I suggest making sure each of you arguments (CP/K/DA - plan objection if you're old -) have a quick efficient thesis that makes sure I understand your position and its potential in the round before you take off speaking more quickly.

Evidence

I evaluate your proofs. Proof is a broad term - much more than published material.

I consider evidence to be expert testimony. A type of proof. The debater who presents experts to support their claims should lay the predicate - explain why that source is relevant and qualified to be an expert - when they present the evidence. Quotations submitted as evidence with just a publication title or name and date often fall short of this standard. Generally I don't want to call for a card after the round whose author was not qualified when presented in constructives. I will call for evidence on contested points. However, that evidence has been well qualified by the team presenting it and the debaters are usually talking about lines and warrants from the card. It is highly unlikely that I will call for card not qualified and/or not talked about in rebuttals. If a piece of evidence is not qualified in a meaningful way during a debaters speech - it is unlikely I would call for it after the round. I've seen traveling graduate students from England just dismantle top flight policy teams - they had proofs that all knew and accepted often with out some of the "debate tech" norms found in academic policy debate (NDT/CEDA). See the comments below on what matters in rebuttals!

Notes on Education

Spurious "quick claims" claims of a specific educational standard thrown out with out all elements of an argument are problematic. I am a life long educator who has witnessed and evolved with debate. Often teams quick claim Education as a voting issue. As an educator, I often see performance methodology (like only reading names and dates to qualify evidence or "card stacking" reading only the parts of a card that favor you - even if full context sheds a different light OR speed reading through post-modern literature as probably much more important than a debate tech argument) as serious education issues that could be discussed - and much more primary to education - than debate tech one offs.

I find "debate tech" like spreading and some uses of technology in round serve to privilege or tilt the playing field. This doesn't mean to slow to a crawl - fast and efficient - but also accessible to both the other team and the judge. So winning because the affirmative can't respond in depth to 8 off case arguments is not persuasive to me. Be bold - go deep on issues that you think are yours. "Debate Terms of Art" often fall in this category. Language choice should be accessible - even if it means adapting to your opponent as well as your judge.

Evidence often is not enough

Most debates aren't won early - the changing information space has created a lot of equity. But there two things debaters do in my experience in rebuttals that make a difference. After they have strategically collapsed or decided which issue to go for they:

1. They talk authors and specific warrants contained in the evidence - usually contrasting opposing authors and warrants. These warrants are prima facia - they are best when clearly identified - even in the opening speeches.

2. They can tell a narrative - or give examples of the mechanics, warrants, internal links in the card. They can also explain sequences of events - what would happen if I voted for your argument/position or team.

From an educators view - this is the goal of debate.

Counterplans and debate tech

Counterplan "micro theory" has really evolved. That is my term for many variations of counterplans that drive focus away from clash on the topic. Superficial, procedural and timing exceptions or additions counterplans. I actually spent time reviewing two articles on the history of PICs and their evolution prior to writing this. The excessive use of academic debate "Terms of Art" is problematic, sometimes exclusionary. I prefer head on collision in debate - and debaters who figure out how to position themselves for that debate. I prefer the debate come down to clash on field contextual issue as opposed to "side swiping" the topic. Just my preference.

I also find that this type of debate tech functions as a tool of exclusion. The debate should be accesable to your opponents without an overreliance of theory or tech debates. If they are used as time sucks that rubs me the wrong way going to your Ethos as a debater.

I do not and will not vote on or enforce a preround disclosure issue. Settle that before the round starts. Take it over my head if you object. If you ask me to adjudicate that - you might not like the answer.

How we treat each other

This is something that might trigger my voting in way you don't expect. Let's work on accomodating each other and creating safe spaces for academic discourse and the development of positive intentional relationships.

“Please speak slowly and clearly because if I can't understand then I can't vote for you"

Please keep your delivery slow and clear, I'm a volunteer and new to judging. Competitors may keep track of their own time, however keep in mind that I have final say when it comes to time. In addition, when taking prep time please announce it so I can keep track, I want both teams to have a fair opportunity to present and prepare.

Competed in PF for 4 years at Fort Lee.

This is my partner's paradigm, pretty much sums up my ideology.

!Very important: Make sure to comparatively weigh between your arguments and your opponents (as early as possible), extend all warrants in summary and final focus, and collapse.!

Some specifics:

- Frontline all offense you plan to go for in 2nd rebuttal (including frontlining defense). You can expand on the frontlines in 2nd summary, but I want everything to be in rebuttal.

- For progressive arguments: you can try them if you explain them well but I’ll have a tougher time following along because I never ran those arguments.

- Content warnings are mandatory for potentially triggering content.

- Please don't misconstrue evidence. Even if it's not important for my decision, it will lower your speaks.

- Skip grand cross for 1 minute of prep if both teams agree.

Postround if you want (ask me questions/disagree with my about my decision) - it helps me improve as a judge (unless you are rude)

tEch>Truth but if you’re telling me there’s going to be a zombie apocalypse or something totally unbelievable I won’t vote off of it.

don’t go for every argument, pick your best ones and tell me why they win you the round.

Ask any specific details you want to know before the round.

Hi, Its my first time judging so I'd consider myself a lay parent judge. Please introduce yourselves before the debate and state which school you're debating for. I will allow a 5-10 second grace period after speeches.

Be polite during cross.

Hello, I am a first time judge!

I would appreciate if you spoke slowly, definitely under 200 words per minute if possible. It will make voting for you easier if I can understand so arguments, so explain in detail and speak slowly. Please don't sacrifice clarity for speed.

Other than that, there's not much for me to say! Have fun and be nice.

Hello. I am a lay/parent judge, although I have a bit of experience judging. I will not write down arguments so if you want something to stick in my head, be sure to repeat it each speech. I will not tolerate any vulgar language or actions in-round. I would prefer it if you speak at a talking pace. I wish all teams luck in the round and if you have any questions, please feel free to let me know in-round. Send any evidence asked for in chat.

background: debated for eden prairie high school in minnesota and glenn high school in texas as a PF competitor on the local and national circuits.

tldr: tech over truth. pls pls pls collapse + weigh. idk much theory, so don't run it. ask questions before round. HAVE FUN. it's the reason we do debate.

general

akhil.perla18@gmail.com for the email chain

i will be timing speeches, but i'd encourage y'all to be timing yourselves. i stop flowing after 10 seconds over.

creative arguments are great! i will evaluate pretty much any well-warranted argument.

i REALLY dislike argument dumps in case. constructives with 4+ unwarranted contentions honestly gets away from the spirit of debate. fewer arguments that are well-warranted and have cleanly explained links will be rewarded far more than contention dumps that force opponents to pick and choose what to respond to.

i am not opposed to speed up to the point that it starts outpacing how fast i can write. if you're going too fast for me to flow, i just won't be able to get the warranting down as well.

i don't flow cross, so if you want something from cross to matter when i'm making my decision, make sure to bring it up in an actual speech.

if there's no offense on either side of the flow, i tend to default to the con team.

this hopefully goes without saying, but at the very least frontline turns in second summary.

evidence

don't paraphrase. if you get called out for it, that piece of evidence gets wiped off the flow for me.

especially egregious evidence/misrepresentation will result in an auto-drop.

weighing

weighing guides my ballot -- win the weighing and I look to evaluate that argument first

the earlier that weighing mechanisms are introduced, the more value i give to them when i make a decision.

extensions

i have a relatively high threshold for extensions. if you want warrants to be flowed through, make sure the argument is well frontlined and fleshed out.

speaks

average is a 28. anything above 29 means that the debater combined exceptional delivery with creative and high-quality argumentation. evidence issues drops you to 25 and anything offensive is an auto-20.

misc

well intentioned feedback from my technical judges was the most helpful advice i got as a debater. also, i think debaters are entitled to know why they won or lost a round. i welcome post-rounding and will stay as long (as reasonably possible) after the round as you'd like to answer questions.

Hello,

I'm a flay judge. I have been judging Varsity PF for 3 years now.

I believe evidence and impacts are the most critical while arriving at a final decision.

I enjoy debates where there are limited number of contentions and each team goes more into depth. Depth really shows how well prepared you are and how much you know on the subject matter. I like debaters who can talk confidently like a content expert rather than read from prepared notes and rehearsed lines.

I would like debaters to be civil and very respectful to each other especially during cross.

The state of PF has compelled me to do the unthinkable — write an actual paradigm. Here we go!

I debated for Walt Whitman High School for 3 years in PF.

I WILL NOT FLOW OFF OF A DOC.Read fewer arguments, don't try to dump your way out of clash.

NEW WARRANTS ARE NEW ARGUMENTS. If your argument didn't have a warrant or an impact in rebuttal, I will evaluate it without one, even if it newly appears in summary or (god forbid) final focus. That being said, GOOD WARRANTS > UNWARRANTED EVIDENCE.

RESOLVE THE WEIGHING DEBATE. If nobody tells me definitively which impact is more important I will decide based on vibes. This is probably a BAD THING for you. I really like pre-requisite and short-circuit analysis — if you don't butcher it I'll probably vote off of it.

Ks ARE GREAT, THEORY BETTER NOT SUCK. To be fair, your K better not suck either. I have fairly significant experience with K debate, but definitely make my role as a judge clear in your advocacy. If you run a frivolous or weirdly nit-picky shell in front of me, the best-case scenario for you is an LPW. Disclosure good, paraphrasing bad whatever. I don't really care about niche theory jargon; "paraphrasing is bad for X reasons" is the same thing as "A IS THE INTERP HEWJKHFJQKHJK" to me.

I AM LITERALLY BEGGING YOU ON MY HANDS AND KNEES TO COLLAPSE. I won't hack against you if you don't, but I will definitely assume that you hate me and want me to suffer if you extend 5 args in the back-half.

BE SILLY AND GOOFY AND HAVE FUN. Having a toxic, venomous round is such a headache. We will all feel better if you chill. To my guys and dudes specifically, bulldozing female debaters in cross isn’t a slam dunk. It makes you look like a loser.

DEBATE IS ABOUT EDUCATION, FEEL FREE TO USE ME AS A RESOURCE.You are always welcome to ask questions/contact me after the round. My Facebook is my name (Sophia Polley-Fisanich) and my email is sophia43762@gmail.com (don't put me on the email chain tho).

please make the round entertaining, don’t be overly annoying or rude, explain everything thoroughly, I refuse to read a case doc, paraphrase good, disclosure bad, have fun.

dont let me get bored and make sure to smile :)

——————————————————————————————————————————————————

TLDR: Extend and Weigh! Rounds that end in a timely manner will result in higher speaks for everyone.

Paradigm:

Please flip before the round and let me know what topic, side, and order right before the round starts. Preflow too. Don't take too long to find a card/evidence.

Tech > Truth

here is how I evaluate rounds:

- prefiat > framework > weighing > link/impact

- frameworks should have clear warranting as to why I should reject an alternative framework and the default CBA/util framing. Don't just assert it.

- Extend full arguments and weigh. If there is no extension, then I can't vote for the argument. I love extensions. please extend. extend please. extensions are important. Reexplain the argument like I am a close friend who does not do debate trying to understand what your argument is on a topic they have vague information on. Be decisive with your language. But make sure to be concise! (if you can’t tell extensions are really important)

- Don't extend through ink and warrant as much as you can + arguments extended in FF should have been in summary.

- In 2nd Rebuttal: just please frontline the argument you are collapsing on and respond to any relevant offense, including turns, DAs, case. no reason to reread your own case. i care more about extensions in summary and final so no need to reexplain anything other than responses to their responses in this speech. Extensions in 2nd rebuttal make no sense!

- Please do not be abusive with disads in 2nd rebuttal. I will be reluctant to vote on it if it is not well warranted or weighed or if it feels wonky. (tip: try to phrase it as a turn so I don't think about it too much). I'm not a fan of DAs in read in rebuttal in general so just make sure its fleshed out like a contention from case is.

- Concede arguments in the speech right after

- Summary needs to extend defense (make sure you respond to what they say against it)

- I would appreciate if you would skip grand cross and go straight to final (That being said I'd rather watch GCX than sit in silence so if you need prep, just do GCX, I won't give flex prep) (if in a panel, check with other judges)

- Please weigh.

- I won't evaluate new weighing in 2nd FF, unless no one else does weighing at all or the weighing debate just becomes confusing. I would recommend starting weighing early.

- Respond to your opponent's weighing in the speech right after they bring it up.

- When there are two competing claims/pieces of evidence that cannot be true at the same time brought up by two teams, do comparative weighing for me to evaluate which argument I should prefer.

- I like reasonably paced debates where debaters make use of rhetorical persuasion rather than fast debates. I prefer not using a speechdoc to flow. This means speak slower.

- I will only call for evidence if I believe it will impact my decision/not cleared up in the round (or if I am just interested).

- Important stuff in cross should be brought up in a speech if you want it flowed.

- I don't flow cross so make your crossfires funny and entertaining to watch (be nice/respectful) or have a good in round strategy for 30 speaks.

- I don't really know much about Ks or theory (and other pre-fiat arguments), but I have had experience debating and judging those types of rounds. If you choose to run these arguments make sure to make it super simple for me to understand how I am supposed to vote. Make sure to read it because you believe in the actual argument, not because you want to win a debate round. I reserve the right to vote however I want when it comes to prefiat (and usually I am biased against most progressive arguments, so keep that in mind). I might just become a lay judge if I want to. I will say that im fine with teams reading theory in a paragraph form so you dont have to waste an entire speech on a full shell. just make sure that you still have the same parts that a shell may have.

- If there are no lines of offense for your opponents to win off of, feel free to call TKO. If there is no path to the ballot for your opponents left, I'll give you the win and 30 speaks. If there is, then you will lose the round.

- If a team thinks they are getting absolutely nuked and forfeits prior to grand cross, I’ll give them double 30s.

- i'll become a lay judge if the round becomes boring.

- Give me food and magical things will happen.

How I'll evaluate the round: Give me the cleanest link into the best weighed offense

Stuff I like:

• ACTUAL WEIGHING: Don’t just use buzzwords like “we outweigh on scope” — that means nothing to me; there should be actual comparison and warranting for why I should prefer your arguments to your opponents
• Link weighing <3 (especially early on in the round — I love weighing in rebuttal)
• Clean AND clear extensions: If I don’t see this in both summ and ff it makes it super hard for me to vote for you and I will not be happy; make your narrative clear to me by the second half
• Collapsing: I will CRY if you try to extend all your arguments in the second half of the round
• Front-lining and signposting: Just do it for the love of god

Stuff I do not like (things that will tank your speaks + potentially make me drop you)

• "cLaRiTy oF LiNk wEigHiNg"
• Not reading trigger warnings for sensitive topics — do it, it’s not hard
• Post-rounding: feel free to ask questions but know that my decision is final and I have submitted my ballot by the time I tell y'all
• Rudeness, disrespect, bigotry of any sort (ie racism, sexism, ableism, etc)

RANDOM STUFF

Defense: Terminal defense is sticky (unless front-lined), but all other defense needs to be extended in the second half for me to evaluate it. Though, please don't make the round get to a point where I'm evaluating solely based on defense

Summ/FF: I love a good line-by-line speech, but very much appreciate voters when the round gets super muddled; do whatever you prefer though

Cross: I'm probably writing feedback or watching a tiktok so if something important happens tell me in another speech; also am fine with skipping grand and using it as prep if both teams agree

Ev: I try my best to flow author names and dates, but I usually miss some so please contextualize your ev for me at least once (even if it's just a sentence) if you're going to use author name consistently. Try not to power tag or miscut stuff; I won’t call for evidence unless you tell me to AND it’s important to the round; please don't rely on your author/ev to do all the work, give me warrants! Warranted analytics >>> unwarranted evidence (side note, put me on the email chain: anagha.pur@gmail.com)

Theory/prog arg: Don’t do it, please; I probably won’t understand it/be able to evaluate it and I really don’t think you need it in PF unless the abuse is truly, horrifically egregious (at which point I probably will call it out myself)

Topic Knowledge: No longer debating/coaching myself so I probably won’t have much topic expertise for any tourneys - so please avoid jargon! It will only confuse me and muddle the round and I will not be happy; also if you’re running a niche argument then please explain it thoroughly because I won’t vote off something I don’t understand

Speed: Fine with it, but if you're going 300+ wpm send me a speech doc

Speaks: I'll bump them up if you do any of the below

• Call turns massive 180s
• Make me laugh in round
• Bring your pet!!
• Send me a tik tok
• Generally making the round go efficiently (For online: come early/at the check in time so we can get started and finish early!!)

I have an international and business background and currently live in the Washington DC area. I love the debate club and was myself a policy debater in high school and college. I even did some judging when in college (even though many years ago). For me a winning argument is one that is clearly stated and abundantly supported with evidence not emotions. I can distinguish what sets apart a well prepared debater from a good public speaker that improvises along the way, based on how they build their case. I am result oriented and arguments supported with data are preferred over hypothetical theories. Debate teaches us to listen to both sides of an argument and more importantly to keep an open mind, despite of which side of the debate we are on. We must always listen and learn (research and analyze) each theme beyond our personal beliefs, so I expect both sides to be respectful of their opponents time and position. A good presentation for me is one that doesn't speed through the argument for the sake of the time limitation but one that is able to present a solid case with line by line analysis at a typical conversational speed. The use of jargon and addressing voting issues is acceptable and even preferred in debate to include the rebuttals and closing argument presentations. I look at both speaking skills and the strength of the arguments when deciding a winner, but if the two are close, the strength of the key arguments will influence me more.

Good luck and enjoy debating - it is one of the best skills you can pick up in high school and apply it for the rest of your life to any of your future endeavors.

I started to debate in 2017 as a high school freshman and accumulated extensive debate experiences which were but mainly in Public Forum. I ranked 10th in the national debate ranking in China and had won various awards in tournaments. Graduating from high school in 2020, I began my judging career as a college student and have since then judged more than 200+ rounds of public forum debate (both online and on-site). Overall speaking, I have judged and debated on a wide range of resolutions, social, political, economic, etc.

My judging philosophy is rather simple: Rule of Logic. I deliberate my decisions with a number of factors: argumentation (logic), quality of evidence, impact evaluation, and debating style (eloquence). (ps: evidence before impact for quality of evidence might decide if impacts are real and solid; for example the methodologies in which the research in your evidence was conducted clearly influences the relevant data)

I don't have a particular preference about speed but debaters must speak with clarity (don't let speed compromise your content) otherwise i might not be able to understand and thus fail to judge your arguments.

I've been a lay judge for a couple years now and enjoy it but still consider myself new-ish to judging. I've learned a lot from you all!

Consider sharing evidence directly on your device- it's the fastest. If you prefer emailing please include me-- raruna@yahoo.com

Please title the email chain in a way that includes the round, flight (if applicable), both team codes, sides, and speaking order.

Judging philosophy

1. I am a scientist by training (PhD) and value logic, cogent arguments, supporting evidence, weighing, warrants and impact, combined with clear delivery and thoughtful presentation of ideas. You can collapse or not, I don't have a preference, as long as it makes sense. If you're collapsing, please weigh so I can understand why your impact is more valid than the other team's.

2. Clash is awesome but be respectful. You can be classy, even when you are passionately defending your perspective. It's a great life skill.

3. Try not to speak too fast. Medium-fast is ok but if you spread I may (will) not follow. If I miss your point I can't evaluate it. Please signpost- that would be appreciated.

4. Again, I value impacts (meaningful impacts, not far-fetched ones) and warrants and especially appreciate weighing.

5. Avoid jargon. It might mystify me.

6. NO theory, K's, etc! I DO NOT understand the highly technical aspects of debate and would not be able to judge those.

General

7. Rules. Just follow the ground rules, please (time, prep, collegiality, no new arguments later in the round, etc etc). It makes for a fun and fair debate. You can (and should be) be strong and passionate speakers but you don't want to be that team that won the round but made it a miserable experience for everyone else in the room (including the judge).

6. TIME. Part of Rules (#7) but important enough to warrant its own section. Stick to time. Please. We both have rounds to go on to so keep each other and yourself honest. Be ready with and quick to share evidence and cards (I'm flexible within reason). I keep time but occasionally forget to, so don't depend on me. I will stop flowing a few (5-10) seconds after your time ends. Be professional and don't try to game the system (draining opponents' time by asking for a dozen pieces of evidence/squeezing in prep time, etc). It's annoying and I'll see through it.

7. I'm judging you but I am also supporting you. I recognize the hard work this sport takes, to think on your feet and construct and deliver persuasive arguments under time pressure and to be judged critically. I'll do my best to provide thoughtful feedback.

Good luck!!

Howdy,

I have countless years of experience as a judge/coach for HS debate, and I was a collegiate competitor back in the day (AFA , IPDA , NFA) ... currently I'm a consultant teaching IE's at the university level (AFA)

• PLZ treat your opponent and judge the way you would want to be treated, there is no room for rudeness or hate or toxicity in debate
• I prefer speechdrop, google docs or NSDA file share .. unless you're a debate coach or tournament director or prospective employer... you don't need my email
• tournaments that use .5 speaks are VERY bad, .1 all THE way
• I mainly judge College IE's and HS nat circuit PF - these are my absolute fav's
• Talking fast is ok, spreading is a big NO for me ... also if its not a bid tournament I DON'T want to be on the chain / will not look at the doc
• IF USING HISTORICAL EVIDENCE (whether debate or public speaking event) , you need to address the 5 C's of historical analysis ... if not then this is for you ---> L
  
  IE's: MS and HS level - you do you, be you and give it your all!!

Collegiate (AFA) - you know what to do

(MS , HS , College) - I'm a stickler for binder etiquette

Congress:

if you treat this event like its a form of entertainment or reality TV I WILL DOWN you , you are wasting your time, your competitors time and my time

PO's: I'm not gonna lie, I will be judging you the harshest - you run the chamber not me and I expect nothing but the best. Please be fair with everyone , but if I feel the PO is turning a blind eye or giving preferential treatment I will document it

^^ To the PO's, if you don't establish your gaveling procedure almost immediately I will have no problem ranking you last - non negotiable

Competitors: Creativity, impacts, structure and fluency are a must for me.

don't just bounce off of a fellow representatives speech, be you and create your own speech - its ok to agree tho

don't lie about sources/evidence... I will fact check

best way to get high ranks is to stay active thru the round

clash can GO A LONG WAY IN THIS EVENT

For direct questioning please keep it civil and no steam rolling or anything harsh, much thanks.

gestures are neato, but don't go bananas

witty banter is a plus

I only judge congress in person not online

NEVER wants to Parli a round

PF:

if y'all competitors are early to the round go ahead and do the coin flip and pre flow ... this wastes too much time both online and in person

tech or truth? Usually Tech, however it all depends on what you run, if you're going to say things that are absolutely not true (holocaust never happened... etc) STRIKE ME - because if I have to go Truth I will have no problem telling you you're wrong and will make an example out of you

I better see clash

IMO, Condo and anything Fiat should be left to LD/CX - but I will evaluate it I guess

if the resolution has loose wording, take advantage of it!!

I value good strategy and refined rhetoric, if you have this you'll most likely get my ballot

I'm all about framework and sometimes turns ... occasionally links

I don't flow during cross x , but if you feel there's something important that the judge should know.. make it clear to the judge in your following speech

I LOVE evidence... but if your doc or chain is a mess I'M going no where near it!!!

Signposting - how do I feel about this? Do it, if not I will get lost and you won't like my flow/decision

FRONTLINE in second rebuttal!! (cough, cough)

Best of luck going for a Technical Knock Out ... these are as rare as unicorns

IMPACT CALCULUS is your best friend !!!

Extend and weigh your arguments, if not.. then you're gonna get a L with your name on it

I'm ok with flex prep/time but if your opponent isn't then its a no in round - if yes don't abuse it ... same goes for open cross

When it comes to PF ... I will evaluate anything (if there's proper warranting and relevance) but if its the epitome of progressive PLZZ give a little more analysis

^ Disclosure Theory: if you have a history of disclosure then do it, if not then you will get a L from me, why? Great question, if you don't have a history of promoting fairness and being active in the debate community you have no right to use this kind of T

I'll be honest I am not a fan of paraphrasing, to me it takes away the fundamentals from impacts/evidence/arguments/debate as a whole - it lowers the value of the round overall

Speaker points - I consider myself to be very generous unless you did something very off putting or disrespectful

Easiest way to get my ballot is by using the Michael Scott rule: K.I.S "Keep It Simple"

LD:

take it easy on speed , maybe send a doc

Tech > Truth (most of the time)

links can make or break you

value/criterion - cool

P/CP - cool

stock issues - cool

K - HECK YEA

LARP - can go either way tbh

Trix/Phil/Theory - PLZ noo, automatic strike

never assume I know the literature you're referencing

CX:

I don't judge a lot of CX, but I am getting back into the groove.... best way to describe me when pertaining to policy is Game Theorist

Now in days no judge is really Tab - lucky you I'm all about Game Theory

look at LD above

PLZ send a doc

Worlds:

I expect to see clash

no speed, this needs to be conversational

don't paraphrase evidence/sources

STYLE - a simple Claim , Warrant , Impact will do just fine

its ok to have a model/c.m , but don't get policy debate crazy with them - you don't have enough time in round

not taking any POI's makes you look silly , at least take 1

^ don't take on too many - it kills time

don't forget to extend, if you don't it a'int being evaluated

the framework debate can be very abusive or very fair ... abuse it and you will get downed

as a judge I value decorum, take that into consideration

Overall:

If any debate round is near impossible to judge (terrible evidence, round going in circles, no clash, toxic behavior, challenges... etc) I will vote off stock issues

I like to consider myself a calm, cool and collected judge. I'm here doing something I'm passionate about and so are y'all - my personal opinions will never affect my judgement in any round and I will always uphold that.
If anyone has any questions feel free to contact me or ask before round - whether online or in person.

May all competitors have a great 2024-2025 season!!

Hello all,

I am a parent judge , i look forward to judging as the energy of the debaters and the passion they bring to the topic is commendable. I appreciate the participants to respect others and the diversity in opinion that is being presented. Debaters bring in their individual style for presentation of the case and the arguments which is well appreciated. The consideration for debaters would be to frame the argument and presentations as an effective communication thus depicting clarity of the argument.

Parent judge. Please speak clearly. Don't spread.

Prefer well-developed arguments with good logical reasoning, crossfire must be civil. Respect each other and enjoy the debate.

Truth>Tech

Arguments need to be extended effectively. Prioritize, and weigh.

Clarity, Evidence, and Courtesy go a long way.

Good luck!

Hi debaters! I am a parent volunteer and I am new to judging. I would appreciate if you would introduce yourselves.I 'm excited to hear you debate, but please do not spread. It's more important that I can follow you. I'm looking for the team with the best argument, logical flow, and good sportsmanship. I will be taking notes during the debate, so you may see me looking down. Don't worry. I'm listening. I would appreciate it if you would keep time yourselves. In final focus, make it clear why you've won. I have great respect for you already. I know you have worked hard and prepared for this day. I'm pulling for each and every one of you.

Hello. I am a parent judge.

• Be clear
• Explain your evidence
• Provide clear linkchains
• Be respectful, especially during CX
• Weigh impacts

Parent judge.

Be respectful to each other and talk clearly in a comprehensible, easy-to-follow manner.

Kyna-Anthony Shen paradigm:

Spread at your own risk. Whatever arguments that I can't catch will not be counted in the round. Clarity is more important than quantity. Share your cases with me in advance so it's easier for me to follow. Make sure link to framework. Signposting is important. Tell me why I should vote for your ballot.

Respect one another and respect the rules; no grace period after time is up, keep track of your own time.

I'm not knowledgeable in regards to K, and theory.

I am certified by NFHS for the following: Adjudicating Speech and Debate, Culture Competence, Protecting Students from Abuse

Paradigm:

I'm essentially a tabula rasa judge in that I will listen to justifications for any paradigm that you can convince me to hold  That isn't to say I don't have biases, but I can be convinced to vote against them if you set up standards, win them, and meet them.  One bias that I do hold (and it can be overcome) is that I default to seeing myself as judging the resolution up or down.  That is to say, if you affirm the resolution, I vote affirmative.  So, if you want to, say, run a topical PIC from the negative, you need to tell me why I should write "negative" on my ballot for something that is affirming the resolution.  

Speed:  

Speed is fine so long as you are not skipping syllables or slurring your speech. Too many debaters have a tendency do this to gain speed.  If you want to go faster than you can anunciate, you do so at the risk of losing me.  Slowing down on taglines and citations is always a plus, because I tend to organize my flow around cards (unless you get very theoretical, in which case, I'll switch to line numbers...so number your arguments in this case). It's also a good idea to get louder (and clearer) on phrases within the card that you especially want me to hear.  Doing this will ensure your argument gets on the flow in context.  Most judges like to hear cards and not just taglines, so we can evaluate source indictments.

Flashing:  

I'm evolving on flashing.  I once disliked it because I noticed that it made teams stop flowing, and resulted in less line-by-line rebutting.  This is an unfortunate habit.  I still allowed it because were some teams who managed to handle it just fine.  I think reading clarity is also sacrificed when flashing, because there is not the added pressure of having to be understood by your opponent.  But you still have to be understood by your judge!  Email chains are no better than flashing, by the way, and differ only in that judges are sometimes included in the chain.  I tried this once, and I realized that *I* stopped flowing!  It's not to say that I don't like being in on an email chain (so I can look at it during prep), but if you send me briefs, I will still not flow with them. 

On the other hand, teams who flash look more critically at their opponents' evidence and are less likely to accept the tagline as an accurate description of what the card says.  Even though all of the above problems are real, this new critical way of assessing evidence makes it worth it to flash.  So, flash away, but don't let that stop you from flowing!

This paradigm works for CX, LD and PF, but I should add that 

1) in LD, I am sympathetic to suggested paradigms that flow from the resolution.  For instance, if a resolution includes a call to action, a plan makes more sense.  If it doesn't, then not so much.  I can be convinced to shift this bias, but you must tell me why.

2) in PF, I tend to think more like a lay judge, since that is the spirit of the event.  I will be evaluating speaking skills and your ability to make logical arguments more broadly persuasive to a reasonable (but lay) audience.  That isn't to say I won't follow the flow if you get technical, but I will give you some lattitude to use grouping to buy time for more pathos and ethos.

My email address is icowrich@yahoo.com

Jude Sims-Barber, as featured on https://www.change.org/p/keep-the-public-in-public-forum?source_location=search

Hello debaters! I’m a university student studying philosophy and sociology, and was a debater throughout high school for three years. My main proficiency was with Lincoln-Douglas debate and Congressional debate but I am very familiar with Public Forum, Policy, and IDPA debate (and, to a lesser extent, British Parliament and World Schools Debate).

I use any and all pronouns and my email is njudesims@gmail.com.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NOTE: I have minor hearing loss. My inner ear tissue is scarred and my speech perception is affected as a result. This is not an issue of volume, it is an issue of clarity and enunciation. As a result, I cannot understand spreading. It is simply out of my ear's reach. And before you ask, no, you don't magically have the perfectly understandable spreading cadence.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

General Notes (please read):

Debate is educational first and foremost. Yes, it is competitive (a "game"), but you should always debate in good faith and not use cheap arguments or tricks just to win. Try to understand your opponent and their arguments, and try to make the debate reach a point of conclusion rather than simply making cheap dunks or disingenuous attacks. Communication relies on mutual trust and a desire to learn, not a desire to dominate or win.

Truth over tech. Techy truth is generally fine. I will not disclose. I don't have time to argue with high schoolers about why they lost.

While I understand the desire to make as many arguments as possible, the default should be using an ordinary, pedestrian speed to communicate well-researched ideas. Do not be disingenuous, either in the arguments you choose to run (knowing that they're designed or cut in a manner to disorient your opponent) or the way you explain/extend them.

-Stay topical. You chose to come to this tournament, you paid the entry fee, you know the topic. It's different when academics decide to discuss the weaknesses of our discourse models or the symbolic violence inherent in... English syntax. You aren't an academic, you're a high schooler competing in a competitive tournament you voluntarily signed up for--debate what the resolution says.

Time limits exist as a statement of how long the statements you need to make should take. They are not an excuse to cram as much stuff into that time by spreading.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For Lincoln-Douglas:

-Keep it traditional. The most engaging LD debates are those that speak in concrete terms about abstract ideas, using what we examine on a surface level (mere political issues) and revealing hidden moral assumptions or frameworks (theory).

-Is is not ought. Merely because something is the case in the real world says nothing about whether such a thing is morally justified. No, you don't have the solution to the is-ought gap.

-You must have a Value and Criterion. Lincoln Douglas is all about framing topics with an ethical framework. When we say that something is moral or immoral, we must do so with an ethical framework (i.e., consequentialism, deontology, etc.). A value of Morality is meaningless, as the purpose of LD is to normatively prescribe a special importance to a particular value or good (it tells me nothing as a judge if you value morality. You might as well say "it is good to do good things and bad to do bad things").

-Ethical theories are not values. You cannot 'value' utilitarianism--it is an ethical framework through which we quantify or evaluate that which we hold important. We can examine the utility of 'positive freedom' as a value, but we cannot simply value utilitarianism.

-Avoid criteria that are bulkily worded ("ensuring healthcare access" or something similar). Try to limit criteria to established philosophies, ideas, methods, or theories.

-I highly value philosophical consistency and a solid understanding of the philosophical ideas and ethical theories argued for. I know judge intervention is frowned upon, but if you misrepresent a philosophical position or idea, it will be hard for me to trust your proclaimed level of expertise on the topic. Simple mistakes are perfectly okay, as a lot of philosophy is rather impenetrable.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For Public Forum:

-PF is not policy. You used to be prohibited from citing evidence in PF until after Ted Turner sponsored it. PF is the lay debate in high school circuits. Keep it simple. To clarify, I do expect you to use evidence, but also your own proficiency for debate.

-If you know a piece of evidence is deeply flawed or even wrong, why run it on the chance that your opponent won't know how to respond? Does that not seem disingenuous to you?

-I'm primarily a flow judge, and I care deeply about clear statements of arguments and rebuttals. If you don't signpost, I'll likely miss it. Tech mainly bores me, so do try to make quality arguments--if you make bad arguments, then I won't prefer them solely because the opposing team couldn't mention the sixth drop of the fourth subpoint in a three minute speech. If the argument is bad, then it's bad--simple as. (By bad, I mean poorly explained, incoherent, frivolous, or cheap.) Drops are only a point in your favor insofar as the dropped argument is actually substantial to the overall debate.

-Focus on broader impacts. Remember that the burden of the CON is not to propose any comprehensive plan of action, merely demonstrate why the PRO is ineffective or harmful.

-Do not spend too much time on one specific point with one specific point of evidence. Give weight to what's important. Collapse by the end. The earlier, the better.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For Big Questions:

-Big questions is a descriptive debate, which means that you are debating on what is (descriptive) rather than what ought be the case (normative). What this means is that you are, on aff or neg, answering the big question at hand. What's more, big questions require big answers, and any reasonably big answer contains quite a lot of philosophy. Your case should include some measure of balance between raw theoretical material (philosophy, broadly) and hard science. Depending on the topic, you might lean more to one side (e.g., objective morality exists vs. humans are naturally self-interested).

-In my experience (for the few years BQ has been around), disputes over evidence in BQ shouldn't be boiled down to "well our sources disagree." Generally, a dispute around a big question is epistemological, about how we come to know things and how certain that knowledge really is. For example, saying that "humans are naturally protective of their young" is not really disagreeable on a factual basis, but whether that information is significant as to whether humans are self-interested is a matter of specific theoretical framing and definition.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For Policy:

-Don't spread. If you go too fast, I'll say 'clear' until you slow down. This has resulted in me saying clear within the entire 8 minutes of a speech, so please do slow down.

-Please do not force me to rely on an email chain to decide the round.

-On T: I am pretty lenient when it comes to whether a plan/counterplan is topical or not. My standard for determining this is whether or not the plan fits in what I conceive as the "spirit of the resolution." Something may not be strictly topical as per the verbiage of the resolution, but is still topical as it fits the resolution's intended spirit as written. The only times I will flatly reject a plan on topicality is (1) if it is too large in scope, as to encompass the resolution rather than the other way around, or (2) it is so disconnected from the topic that it may as well be a non-sequitur. As an additional note, please don't waste time making a bunch of topicality arguments. It is often time-consuming.

-K's are most commonly a cheap trick, in my view--I know that they're used topic to topic and round to round with little change, as a means to minimize exhaustive prep and real engagement with the topic. The only exception I'll give is to specific instances of abolition/discourse K's, in which you argue (in good faith, I'll be able to tell) that the verbiage or framing of the resolution overly limits available/acceptable discourse. Regardless, don't anticipate a vote in a K's favor. You signed up for this tournament, after all, and your decision to sidestep the topic reflects at least partially on your intellectual honesty.

TL;DR

• Be kind in all that you do.

• I flow but not particularly well (especially the back half) and generally will not evaluate arguments that I don't understand, so please collapse and make sure you clearly extend your warranting.

• I am generally okay with spreading as long as I get a speech doc.

• I have a slight preference for truth over tech. My brightline here isn’t totally clear so you’re probably best playing it safe.

• Under no circumstances will I vote for a "death good" argument and under very few circumstances will I vote for an "oppression good" argument. Pretty much every other type of argument is fine.

• Theory should only be run for legitimate norms and legitimate violations. Running stuff like “tall people theory” or “formal clothes theory” almost guarantees a loss.

• For email chain purposes: thadhsmith13@gmail.com

Background

I’ve been a member of the debating world for about eight years now. As a competitor, I saw some success at the state and national level in Public Forum, Lincoln Douglas, and World Schools, qualifying for the state championship four times and placing 10th at Nats in 2019. I also competed in BP debate at the university level in England. I am currently an assistant coach for American Heritage School - Broward.

I have a Bachelor’s degree in Political Science and Gender, Sexuality, & Race Studies. I have a Master’s degree in Theory and Practice of Human Rights. You can expect me to have more than the average level of knowledge in those areas. I like to think that I know about as much as the average person on most other things, but for economic arguments (or anything involving math) I get lost easily. Do with that what you will!

Evidence ethics

I have voted on evidence ethics violations in the past, both with and without competitors calling them out in round. Straw arguments, aggressive ellipses, and brackets could all be round-enders.

Don't paraphrase! I will be very open to cut cards theory, direct quotes theory, or anything else like that. If you do paraphrase, you need to be able to provide a cut card or the exact quote you're referencing if evidence is called. It's not a reasonable expectation for your opponents or I to have to scrub through a webpage or a long document searching for your evidence.

Public Forum

I find myself leaning more and more truth > tech, especially with the state of evidence ethics these days. It's really important for you to explain the link chain and somewhat important for you to explain things like author credibility/study methodology, especially for big impact contentions.

Line-by-line rebuttal is really important in the front half of the round. That means you should be frontlining in second rebuttal, respond to arguments in an order that makes logical sense, and actively extend your own arguments. For an extension to be effective you need to tell me what the argument is, how it works, and why it's important. You can almost always do this in three sentences or less. These pieces are important - I don't flow evidence names, so saying something like "Hendrickson solves" without an explanation does nothing for you.

Fiat is pretty much always a thing - There's a reason Public Forum topics usually ask "is this policy a good idea" and not "will this thing happen." My view of fiat is that it lets the debate take place on a principles level and creates a "comparative" between a world with a policy and a world without a policy. That said, politics arguments can work, but only if they relate to a political consequence of a policy being enacted and not if they try and say a policy will never happen in the first place.

Kritiks and theory are fine in PF. Be mindful of your time constraints. For kritiks, focus on explaining how your cards work and what the alternative is. For theory, make sure there's a legitimate violation and that it's something you're willing to bet the round on. Theory exists to create norms. I won’t vote on frivolous theory and I won’t vote on your shell if you aren’t actively embodying the norm you’re proposing.

Flex prep does not exist. “Open” crossfires don’t exist. As a whole, crossfire doesn’t matter that much but you still shouldn’t contradict yourself between cross and speech.

Lincoln-Douglas

I really enjoy a good framework debate and it’s something that I find is missing from a lot of modern LD rounds. One of the best parts of LD is getting to see how different philosophies engage with each other, and we’re gonna see that thru framing. I do my best to evaluate the framework debate at the very top and use it as my primary decision-making mechanism. Framing doesn't have to be done with a value/criterion if you'd rather run a K or Theory or something else, but you need to five me a role of the ballot if you don't use a value/criterion.

Please don’t spread philosophy or theory if you want me to flow it - I read and write it all the time and I still barely understand it, so I’m not going to understand what you’re saying if you’re going 500 words per minute. If you must spread your framework or K, send me the case or be prepared to explain it again next speech.

I’m fine with condo, fiat, and counterplans. Please don’t paraphrase and don't rehighlight.

"Debate bad" arguments are pretty weird. I probably won't vote on them because, at the most fundamental level, you're still participating in a debate round and perpetuating whatever core "harm" of debate that you're talking about. If your alternative is a reasonable alternative or reform instead of just "don't do debate", I could be persuaded, but you've got an uphill battle.

Congress

If you have me as your parli, there are two things you need to know about me: I love Robert's Rules of Order and I hate one-sided debate. Ignore these things at your own risk. Other important things, in no particular order:

• Display courtesy to your fellow competitors and do your best to ensure that everyone in the chamber is heard. I pay attention to pre-round, in-round, and post-round politics.
• Engagement with the other speakers is important, both through questions and through in-speech references. Every speech past the author/sponsor needs to have rebuttal or extension of some kind.
• Authorships/sponsorships (there's no such thing as a "first affirmative") need to explain exactly what the bill does. Don't assume I'll read the packet.
• Good Congress rounds have a narrative arc - The first few speeches should present core arguments and frame the round, the next few speeches should be heavy on refutation and extension, and the final few speeches should crystallize the debate.
• Many things that people do in-round have no basis in either the rules or parliamentary procedure. Many motions don't exist - There are no motions to "address the chamber," "open the floor for debate," "amend the agenda," or "impeach the presiding officer." You can't rescind a seconded motion (or a second), there's no such thing as a "docket nomination," you can't object to a motion to move the previous question, most tournaments don't have a requirement to track question recency, elections should really be handled by the parli, etc.
• At this point, I've heard every canned intro under the sun. If I hear you use the same exact intro on multiple different bills/rounds, or the same intro as a dozen other people, or the same unfunny meta-references with random names subbed in, you are getting docked speech points. It takes barely any effort to come up with an intro that's relevant to your content.

World Schools

The most important thing for you to do is to remember the purpose of your speech. Your speech should not be defined by the "line-by-line," rather, you should have a clear idea or set of ideas that you are trying to get across and I should be able to understand what those ideas were at the end of your speech. I am a big believer in the "World Schools style," meaning that I like it when debaters lean into the concept of being representatives in a global governing body, when debaters deploy flowery rhetoric about grand ideals, and when debaters spend a lot of time establishing and engaging with the framework/definitions/plan for the debate.

Theory

I'm fine with theory as long as it's a legitimate norm and a legitimate violation. Don't run frivolous theory (I'm not going to vote on something like "debaters should sit during their speeches", for example) and don't run theory if it isn't a norm you're actively doing yourself (don't run disclosure theory if you didn't disclose either). I don't have a preference on DtD vs. DtA or Competing Interpretations vs. Responsibility. I lean rather heavily towards theory being a RVI, especially in PF debates where it often becomes the only argument in the round.

I'm ambivalent about trigger warnings. I'm not going to be the arbiter of somebody else's experience and there's not much evidence that they're actually harmful in any meaningful way. Be aware that simply saying "trigger warning" tells us nothing - If you have one, be specific (but not graphic) about the potentially triggering content.

Kritiks

Kritiks are an incredibly powerful education tool that let debaters bring light to important issues. That said, you do need a link, preferably a resolutional/case one. I'm not opposed to hearing kritiks that tackle the structure of debate as a whole, but I think that it's difficult for you to justify that while also participating in the structure (especially because I've seen the same debaters participate in debate rounds without talking about these structural issues). Just like theory, you should be talking about legitimate issues, not just trying to win a round.

Death Good/Oppression Good

"Death good" is a nonstarter in front of me. I get it - I was a high school debater too, and I have vivid memories of running the most asinine arguments possible because I thought it would be a path to a technical victory. As I've stepped away from competition, entered the role of an educator, and (especially) as I've become immersed in human rights issues indirectly through my research and personally through my work, I no longer hold the same view of these arguments. I've been in rounds where judges and the audience are visibly, painfully uncomfortable with one side's advocacy. I've voted on the flow and felt sick doing it. I don't anymore. Do not run "death good" in front of me unless you want a loss and 20 speaks. It's not good education, it actively creates an unsafe space, and its often incredibly callous to actual, real-world human suffering.

"Oppression good" is also generally bad but I can at least see a potential case here, kinda? Probably best to avoid anyway.

Add me to the email chain: joestanburyjones@gmail.com

Background-

I am the two-year incumbent president of the University Essex Debating Society. I have coached BP for over two years at university level and I regularly judge in PF debates.

Public Forum

Tech vs Truth:

Truth vs Tech is not a static either/or but rather an expanding and contracting cleavage given the unique context of each round.

For example, the greater the imbalance between either technique or truth, will subsequently result in a larger weight on the specific area of imbalance. Any great imbalance will take a president in the judging.

When differences in rounds are marginal, I initially do a technical overview where I determine where each team sits on the technical threshold below. I will then compare this to the threshold of truth.

I judge one over the other based when technique and combined who. For example, if one side has produced untrue arguments but shows great technique, and the other shows poor technique but has truthful arguments, victory will be decided upon a combination of, the quality of technique + quality of the truth claim.

Technical Threshold:

Flow

Structure

Rebuttals

Depth of analysis

Link

Demonstration of Warrant

Impact

Weighing

Solvency

Truth Threshold:

Who has provided a better warrant to what 'should' happen? I evaluate 'should' over 'likely' as most questions are not asking a debater what the probable outcome is but what their solution is. However, this does not discount the need for a warrant to include feasibility, therefore all claims need to be reasonably mechanised in the round, as I cannot fill in the gaps. I highly weigh the solvency of all arguments in relation to their 'truth'.

Kritique:

I like K, I think it's very valid, but note K cannot stand alone and the team must provide a reconstruction considering their kritique. I do not evaluate K as being inherently more abstract than a practical mechanical rebuttal would be. The theoretical nature of the rebuttal does not decrease warrant however like a traditional mechanism K must be fully analysed and linked directly to the question in order to be merited. Simple asserting, for example, that capitalism is a harmful and destructive system bears no weight if it is not linked to your evidence and answering the question.

Theory

Interests me very little.

Evidence Ethics:

Calling into question evidence legitimacy. Questions to bring up; Why is their evidence disreputable? How does this affect the warrant of their argument? Why is your evidence more trustworthy? After these questions are answered I will consider the impacts evidence quality brings to bear.

I prefer resources from academic resources over journalism articles if the article cites a YouGov poll find the link to the original YouGov poll and do not assume newspapers are doing their due diligence.

I am not massively concerned about evidence being biased unless a debater makes a specific mention of how it is. However, if a team is depending on evidence pieces to justify a claim with limited analysis, I am going to be more critical than if they provided analysis supported by evidence in the debate,

Speech:

My speech preferences are pretty lax, spreading I never encounter much in PF but I prefer people not to.

Misc:

UQ matters most----------------------X----------Link matters most

Politics DA is a thing----------X-----------------Politics DA is not a thing

Give me solvency or give me death !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Read no cards-----------------------------X------Read all the cards

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!

My history is such that I have participated in Lincoln-Douglas, Policy, Public Forum, and Congressional debate. The vast majority of it was spent in a very traditional district in Lincoln-Douglas. That being said, I do believe that my varied background does allow for an understanding of progression in each format of debate. I am not entirely shut off to hearing anything, I might not wear a smile on my face about it... but I have voted on things like topicality and theory stuff. Now, if we want to get down to the specifics.

LD: First and foremost, Lincoln Douglas is evaluative debate. It doesn't always necessarily call for specific action, sometimes (most of the time) it just calls for justifying an action or state. I don't buy that there always has to be a plan. Additionally, I'm of the mindset that there is framework and substance. I tend to favor substance debate a lot more, that being said, if there can be a good amount of discussion on both sides of that, even better. I like to hear about the resolution, policy started to degenerate in my area to a series of Kritiks and bad topicality argumentation. I walk in expecting the resolution... I'd like to talk about things pertaining to the resolution if at all possible. The role of the ballot begins at the beginning as who was the better debater, if you want to change that let me know, but I tend to like it there. Finally, in terms of evidence, I hate calling for cards, but if it is so central and the round leaves everything riding on that piece of evidence I'll call for it. (Also if it's that key, and I for some reason miss it in my flow... Judges are human too.)

PF (UPDATED): Having judged and coached for a few years, I've learned to let a lot of the round play out. I HIGHLY value topical debate. It is possible to have critical stances while maintaining some relationship to the resolution. Additionally, I think PF is designed in such a way that there is not enough time to really argue K or T stances in a truly meaningful way. Take advantage of the back half of the round and CLARIFY the debate, what is important, why is it important and why are you winning? Tell me what I'm voting for in the final focus, make my job easier, and there's a good chance I'll make your tournament better.

One last note, please don't be mean spirited in the round, don't say that something "literally makes no sense." Don't tell me there is a flaw, show me the flaw.

In summation, run whatever you are happiest with, I might not be, but it's your show, not mine. Be great, be respectful, have fun. And if you have any other questions, feel free to ask! I'm not a mean judge (Unless I am decaffeinated, or someone is being disrespectful).

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!

I debated PF for four years at Delbarton. I currently coach for Charlotte Latin.

my email for the chain is alexsun6804@gmail.com

Tech over truth

go as fast as you want, but if there isn't clarity then none of the content within the speech will matter.

You should weigh and collapse on whatever arguments you think are the most important within the round.

Tell me where you are on the flow (signpost) for speeches after constructive, otherwise I'm going to be really confused.

For Rebuttal

Provide warrants (reasoning and explanation) and implications to your responses
First rebuttal should address your opponent's case and you can do weighing if you want

Second rebuttal should respond to your opponent's case and you should frontline your own case.

For Summary

Collapse on the most important arguments in the round

This is the latest you can start weighing, if you start weighing for the first time in final focus I'm not going to evaluate that.

Rebuttal responses are not sticky so extend them if they are conceded

General structure for summary can be your case, weighing, their case, but you can do whatever you want in terms of the structure as long as it makes sense

Always extend or explain your case in summary

For Final Focus

Should be very similar to summary with exception to front lining and comparative weighing

Other stuff

Have cut cards ready if something is called

Extend offense in the back half, otherwise, I'll be forced to intervene or presume

I've done some stuff with theory and Ks, but don't be really trigger-happy with either. I'll do my best to evaluate them if it goes down in round.

Don't be rude or say something problematic in round. It could cost you the round.

Good luck in round

EMAIL CHAIN: jsydnor@altamontschool.org -- all rounds should set up email chains before scheduled start time. I would like to be included. Tabroom file share and other mutually agreed upon platforms are greatas well!

--------

Former policy debater in HS and College. I judge a lot of LD and PF because of my local area, but entirely influenced by policy background. This paradigm is written with this in mind. I love seeing where LD and policy are in communication with one another. While I'm familiar with K's, CP's, PICs, plan-focus debates, planless K Affs, T, Theory... I'm less familiar with some of the other arguments like high phil, a prioris, NIBs, etc. that are more well known in LD.

I am am open to most arguments, but I am unwilling to vote on arguments I don't understand enough to give a coherent RFD. The burden remains with the debater to make a sufficiently clear argument I am convinced is a path to the ballot.

I don't buy into the argument division between "circuit" and "local" debate and that I should inherently discount arguments or styles because it's Alabama not a "national" tournament. Any kind of exclusion needs to be theoretically justified.

Speed: 7.5/10. Speed is fine but debate is still a communication-based activity and I'm a poorly aging millennial. Sending speech docs is not a substitute for clarity.

--------

-CP: I default sufficiency framing and will judge kick unless told otherwise. Would rather hear args about solvency deficit, perm, and issues with NB than rely on theory to answer.

-K: I think all forms of debate are great, but K's and K Affs offer something unique to the activity that enhances its pedagogical value. However, that doesn't mean I know your specific literature or that I am going to immediately buy what you're selling. I like close readings of the 1AC to generate links as quality critical work.

-K Affs: Go for it. I believe the Aff has to advance some contestable methodology beyond "res is bad, reject the res." I usually believe offense on method is the most interesting site for clash. T-USFG/FW isn't off the table as a true guaranteed generic response and can be a really strong option given the way some K teams write their 1AC.

-Theory: Not my favorite debate but I know it can be important/strategic. Go a little slower on this if you want me to get follow the intricacies of the line-by-line. I have some hesitation with the direction disclosure and wiki theory arguments are going, but I still vote on it.

-T vs Plan Affs --I believe plans have the burden to be topical, and topicality is determined by interpreting words in the resolution. If you read a plan that is not whole res then you should always go into the round proving you definitionally are topical. I generally believe analytic counter-interps (like mainstream theory debates on norms) and reasonability alone are not winning options. Has the Neg read a definition that excludes your plan? If yes, you have a burden to counter-define in a way that is inclusive of your Aff. I am very persuaded that, absent a sufficient "we meet," if the Aff cannot counter-define a word in the resolution that is inclusive of the plan then I should A] not consider the plan reasonable, even if reasonability is good, and B] no sufficient competing interpretation of the topic, which is an auto-win for the Neg. (K Affs can be an exception to most of this because the offense to T and method of establishing limits is different.)

- T vs K Affs -- Willing to vote on it insofar as you win that you've presented a superior model for debate and that voting for you isn't violent/complicit. I generally believe fairness is not an impact. I like strong answers to meta-level questions, such as Aff descriptions of what debate and proceduralism vs debate as a game/site for unique type of education and iterative testing of advocacies.

-Phil: You should assume I know 0 of the things necessary for you to win this debate and that you have to do additional groundwork/translation to make this a viable option. I've only seen a few phil debates and my common issue as a judge is that I need a clear articulation of what the offensive reason for the ballot is or clear link to presumption and thus direction and meaning of presumption.

--------

If you choose to not set up an email chain or a reasonable alternative and then waste a bunch of time during the round with, your speaker points will be capped at a 27.5. "I'm not spreading so we don't need to share" misses the point. This activity is net better when you can look at your opponent's evidence, analyze it, and contest it. Calling for cards is not time effective. Just send the doc with the evidence you're going to read in that speech before the speech.

Email - chulho.synn@sduhsd.net.

tl;dr - I vote for teams that know the topic, can indict/rehighlight key evidence, frame to their advantage, can weigh impacts in 4 dimensions (mag, scope, probability, sequence/timing or prereq impacts), and are organized and efficient in their arguments and use of prep and speech time. I am TRUTHFUL TECH.

Overview - 1) I judge all debate events; 2) I agree with the way debate has evolved: progressive debate and Ks, diversity and equity, technique; 3) On technique: a) Speed and speech docs > Slow no docs; b) Open CX; c) Spreading is not a voter; 4) OK with reading less than what's in speech doc, but send updated speech doc afterwards; 5) Clipping IS a voter; 6) Evidence is core for debate; 7) Dropped arguments are conceded but I will evaluate link and impact evidence when weighing; 8) Be nice to one another; 9) I time speeches and CX, and I keep prep time; 10) I disclose, give my RFD after round.

Lincoln-Douglas - 1) I flow; 2) Condo is OK, will not drop debater for running conditional arguments; 3) Disads to CPs are sticky; 4) PICs are OK; 5) T is a voter, a priori jurisdictional issue, best definition and impact of definition on AFF/NEG ground wins; 6) Progressive debate OK; 7) ALT must solve to win K; 8) Plan/CP text matters; 9) CPs must be non-topical, compete/provide NB, and solve the AFF or avoid disads to AFF; 10) Speech doc must match speech.

Policy - 1) I flow; 2) Condo is OK, will not drop team for running conditional arguments; 3) Disads to CPs are sticky; 4) T is a voter, a priori jurisdictional issue, best definition wins; 5) Progressive debate OK; 6) ALT must solve to win K; 7) Plan/CP text matters; 8) CPs must be non-topical, compete/provide NB, and solve the AFF or avoid disads to AFF; 9) Speech doc must match speech; 10) Questions by prepping team during prep OK; 11) I've debated in and judged 1000s of Policy rounds.

Public Forum - 1) I flow; 2) T is not a voter, non-topical warrants/impacts are dropped from impact calculus; 3) Minimize paraphrasing of evidence; I prefer quotes from articles to paraphrased conclusions that overstate an author's claims and downplay the author's own caveats; 4) If paraphrased evidence is challenged, link to article and cut card must be provided to the debater challenging the evidence AND me; 5) Paraphrasing that is counter to the article author's overall conclusions is a voter; at a minimum, the argument and evidence will not be included in weighing; 6) Paraphrasing that is intentionally deceptive or entirely fabricated is a voter; the offending team will lose my ballot, receive 0 speaker points, and will be referred to the tournament director for further sanctions; 7) When asking for evidence during the round, refer to the card by author/date and tagline; do not say "could I see your solvency evidence, the impact card, and the warrant card?"; the latter takes too much time and demonstrates that the team asking for the evidence can't/won't flow; 8) Exception: Crossfire 1 when you can challenge evidence or ask naive questions about evidence, e.g., "Your Moses or Moises 18 card...what's the link?"; 9) Weigh in place (challenge warrants and impact where they appear on the flow); 10) Weigh warrants (number of internal links, probability, timeframe) and impacts (magnitude, min/max limits, scope); 11) 2nd Rebuttal should frontline to maximize the advantage of speaking second; 2nd Rebuttal is not required to frontline; if 2nd Rebuttal does not frontline 2nd Summary must cover ALL of 1st Rebuttal on case, 2nd Final Focus can only use 2nd Summary case answers in their FF speech; 12) Weigh w/o using the word "weigh"; use words that reference the method of comparison, e.g., "our impact happens first", "100% probability because impacts happening now", "More people die every year from extreme climate than a theater nuclear detonation"; 13) No plan or fiat in PF, empirics prove/disprove resolution, e.g., if NATO has been substantially increasing its defense commitments to the Baltic states since 2014 and the Russian annexation of Crimea, then the question of why Russia hasn't attacked since 2014 suggest NATO buildup in the Baltics HAS deterred Russia from attacking; 14) No new link or impact arguments in 2nd Summary, answers to 1st Rebuttal in 2nd Summary OK if 2nd Rebuttal does not frontline.

Cultural Competency Certificate

Please make your contention loud and clearly.

Regular speed would be ideal.

Love debate.

TABROOM PARADIGM

As a judge, I am committed to addressing barriers to accessibility in debate.

EXPERIENCE:

I did high school Lincoln Douglas for 4 years, and JV Policy at the collegiate level (Trinity University) for 2 years until 2018 or so. I have experience judging policy, LD, PF, and some speech events. I judged tournaments in the Houston, Austin, and San Antonio areas from around 2015-2018, took a break, and have been regularly judging online tournaments since 2020. At this point in my judging career, I'd say I'm still very knowledgeable with the basics, but I'm less comfortable now with high-jargon arguments in policy and LD (see, theory in LD, K literature). Having good and clear voters is important to me - I'd say the best 2NRs/2ARs are the ones that write my ballot for me. Tell me why I should vote for you!

SPEAKER POINTS:

I judge speaker points based on how clearly you navigate the flow (sign post, please!) and how clearly you articulate your voters in the final speeches. No speaker points will be deducted for stuttering - so long as you sign post (tell me where you are on the flow), have good organization on the flow, and tell me what arguments I should vote on, you will get above a 29. You will get low speaks if your speech is disorganized, and lower speaks if you are rude to your opponent.

My scale is usually (but not always):

30-29.5: excellent sign posting, clearly outlined voters, very good round. 30s will write a well warranted ballot for me

29.4-29: mostly good sign posting, at times a bit unclear, but you did a generally good job.

28.9-: not enough sign posting, your speech was somewhat disorganized.

LD/POLICY:

SPREADING:

For policy: I will permit spreading evidence if all debaters in the round are okay with it – if you wish to spread (evidence only), please ask beforehand in front of all participating members. If you or your opponents do not want to spread, no reason is necessary, and I will not flow any arguments that are spread if your opponent and I have explicitly asked you not to spread before the round (these requests to/ not to should be made before the round - I will not drop debaters for spreading, but I always welcome spreading kritiks). Spreading can be an accessibility issue, and it is important to make our rounds respectful. Good debaters do not need to spread to win!

If all debaters agree to spreading, then you HAVE to slow down for tag lines – if it’s important and you want it on my flow, then you HAVE to slow down and provide emphasis. It's been awhile since I did debate, so I'm not fast to flow anymore - ESPECIALLY for final speeches, do not spread analytics if you want your arguments on my flow/ ballots. I cannot give you a good RFD if I cannot flow your arguments

For LD: Please do not spread (and if you do talk quickly, just do so with cards, not tags or analytics). These rounds are too short, and at this point in my judging career I miss too much in LD rounds with spreading - treat me like a traditional judge, and give me quality arguments, and you will win against opponents with blippy speedy arguments

EXTENSIONS:

When extending an argument, you must extend the warrant as well. A dropped argument is a conceded argument.

And - weigh your arguments!! If you are losing an argument, but you are winning another and tell me why that’s more important, I will be more likely vote for you. Weigh, weigh, and weigh some more!

FRAMEWORK:

I enjoy framework debates, but they usually aren't enough to win a round alone. Clearly weigh your winning offense through the winning framework - whether that’s yours or your opponent’s - and you will win

I evaluate the round by: 1 looking at the winning framework (ROB, standard, etc), 2 relevant voting issues/ offense, and lastly (and arguably most importantly) 3 weighing (tell me why your offense matters more)

KRITIKS:

Ks are okay, but make sure your arguments are clear. Especially if you're reading denser philosophy, be sure to explain it clearly - I'm good on stock Ks, but if it's high level/ complex, explain it to me like I'm a lay judge (and I generally recommend erring away from these in front of me)

PLANS/CPs/DAs:

Love them, and I especially enjoy a good comparative worlds debate. I am able to write the best RFDs for these debates

TOPICALITY/THEORY:

IN CX: Topicality is fine, I will vote for it if there is a clear violation and it's articulated well. I am not the biggest fan of Theory.

IN LD: TLDR: Treat me like a lay judge if you're running theory, please do not spread your theory debates - I will not be able to follow. It is best not to run theory in front of me

My longer response: I think that theory in LD is very different than theory in policy. I was never really into the technical aspects of theory, and my skills in being able to judge it have eroded over the years. If you want a good and coherent RFD from me stay away from theory, and probably stay away from T as well (though I am more willing to hear this). If you are running theory/T in LD, you cannot spread if you want it on my flow/ ballot - I will not be able to keep up. If you choose to run theory and spread in front of me, I will do my best to judge this, but I would encourage you to run any other arguments in front of me. Judge adaptation is an important skill to have!

PF:

Everything above applies! Some additional notes:

• If you plan on speaking quickly/ spreading, then please make sure your opponents are comfortable with that before the round - I generally prefer it if PF rounds stay at a conversational pace, but if both teams want to speed up the speeches, that's okay.
• PF is not policy/LD. Remember - one strong argument with good weighing is better than multiple poorly warranted ones - know how much time you and your partner have to commit to addressing all arguments in play. I am okay if you want to run more policy-like arguments.
• In my experience, rebuttals should address all arguments, summaries whittle them down to the key arguments, and final focuses look at the voting issues. Again, I think the best final speeches are the ones that write my ballots for me!

MISC:

- Open cross is fine.

- I don't count flashing in prep, but keep this within reason.

- You are responsible for timing your own prep - I prefer to not have to keep time myself. Same with timing speeches - you are responsible for keeping track of your own time.

- If time is up, you can finish your sentence, but do not go significantly over. I do usually time speeches and will stop flowing when your time is up - if you're going towards 30 seconds over, this will reduce your speaker points.

- I will not vote on any morally repulsive arguments.

- Do not be rude. Debate is a competition, but we should respect one another and do our part to make this a welcoming educational environment.

- Weigh your arguments!! Generally speaking, you're not going to win every single argument in a round. That's okay. Win the most important argument, and tell me why it's the most important argument/ more important than the argument(s) your opponent is winning

COVID/ VIRTUAL DEBATING UPDATES:

- Please try to show up on time to rounds - that includes showing up to whatever "report time" or "check time" the tournament outlines. That being said - technical difficulties happen, and this will not factor into my RFD.

- If you think you'll be asking for evidence, collect emails/ create a Google Doc BEFORE speeches begin. No prep time is needed to share evidence, but try to be as quick as possible so that we can have an efficient round. Please get my email in round so I can be on the email chain. I think Google docs are the easiest and best way to share evidence

If you have any specific questions about my paradigm, feel free to ask me before the round begins! I am more than happy to clarify, and always appreciate when debaters read paradigms before rounds. Best of luck y'all, and have a great round!

Prounouns: she/her

Triggers: n/a

Paradigm: I'm a "Flay" judge, but I've been judging PF 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. 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.

PF Debate:

Make sure to remain polite and respectful.

Refrain from spreading; instead, focus on clear enunciation and adding depth to each point.

Name: Mike Wascher

School Affiliation: Lake Highland Prep

Number of Years Judging Public Forum: 10

Number of Years Competing in Public Forum: 0

Number of Years Judging Other Forensic Activities: 15

Number of Years Competing in Other Forensic Activities: 8

If you are a coach, what events do you coach? Public Forum, extemp

What is your current occupation? Debate coach

Please share your opinions or beliefs about how the following play into a debate round:

Speed of Delivery As long as it is clear, speed is not important

Format of Summary Speeches (line by line? big picture?) Turning point in the debate where the debater should take from the line by line the arguments they envision as being the decision points. Whether it is organized by the same order as the line by line or re-cast in voting issues makes no difference.

Role of the Final Focus Tell me what arguments you win, explain why those arguments, when compared to your opponents arguments, means you win the debate. The comparative work is crucial. If the debaters don’t do it the judge has to do it and that is a door debaters should never leave open.

Extension of Arguments into later speeches While I have no autocratic rule, I would imagine that something you plan to go for would be something that is extended throughout the debate. If argument X is a winner it just seems reasonable to me that it should be included in all speeches.

Topicality Sadly, this argument isn’t advanced much because the time it takes to present it is generally critical time lost on case arguments and the trade off is seldom worth. Having said that, I would vote on a T argument.

Plans Specific plans are, by rule, not allowed. Generic ideas about solving problems necessarily discusses policy options. The general idea of those options is the resolution when were have policy topics.

Kritiks If Public Forum is supposed to be debate about how current events are debated in the real world I find little room for theoretical ideas that are not considered by real world policy makers. If, however, the critical argument has specific links to the topic, (and history suggests that few I’ve heard do) it should not be rejected because it is critical.

Flowing/note-taking I flow the key parts of the argument and sometimes flow authors. I find myself noting dates when they seem to be old (and possible dated). I listen to cross fire and sometimes make notes when I heard something worthwhile.

Do you value argument over style? Style over argument? Argument and style equally? I value argument and I especially value warrants (which aren’t tag lines) that explain why your claims are persuasive.

If a team plans to win the debate on an argument, in your opinion does that argument have to be extended in the rebuttal or summary speeches? Not a hard and fast rule with me but I can’t imagine why a winner would be left out.

If a team is second speaking, do you require that the team cover the opponents’ case as well as answers to its opponents’ rebuttal in the rebuttal speech? Also not a hard and fast rule with me but strategically it is probably important you get back to some of your case, unless you plan to win offense on turns on your opponents case.

Do you vote for arguments that are first raised in the grand crossfire or final focus? Never!

If you have anything else you'd like to add to better inform students of your expectations and/or experience, please do so here. The three things I would like to hear more often in Public Forum debates are:

1) Comparative work. Explain why you win the debate not just win some arguments. You can win every argument you discuss but still not have a better story than your opponent. Take the time to explain why the arguments you win form a better story than your opponent’s offering.

2) Warrants. Claims are not persuasive. Why your claim is true, significant, harmful, etc., make for a persuasive argument. The best claim from the most qualified author is generally useless and it is sad when those “Best” authors write warrants and debaters fail to cut that evidence and read it.

3) Paraphrasing. I recognize that the PF world is at this point. I don’t like it. I believe there are ethical issues when one cites three different authors, for example, and none of the three are working on the same argument but rather writing one line that fits in and is found in a google search. I also find it problematic that some think they can summarize a master’s level work in six words. Paraphrasing opens the world to a lot of potential evil. I read a lot on our topics and do not be the person that is misrepresenting an author by a poor paraphrase. It’s as bad as clipping. Given the power to change the world I would mandate we go back to reading evidence but then again I can’t find enough people, maybe even one other person, willing to give me that power. So we will paraphrase but we will properly represent the evidence.

Hello my name is Meredith Wick and I'm a Lay judge. I will try my best to flow, but make it clear what points you are addressing in your speech.

Most important for me, please state your name, school, and speaker position before the beginning of every speech. This helps me give accurate speaker points.

Off-Time Roadmaps: I know they are a divisive issue. But if it's just me, the roadmap is greatly preferred. In a panel, use your best judgement based on the other judges' preferences.

Please no spreading or talking fast. If I can't hear you, I can't score you. Be nice to your opponents.

I will not be keeping track of speech or prep time. Set timers for yourself and your opponents. I hope for honesty, but I am relying on you to enforce it.

Email: meredithwick@gmail.com

Hi guys! My name is Ellen and I am a current student at the University of Virginia. I have experience in speech but this is my first time judging public forum. Please speak as slowly and clearly as possible so that I can understand everyone. Good luck!

Hello, I am a parent judge.

I am a parent judge. I will try to take notes on key parts or your speeches so please sign post and speak clearly/at a normal pace. I will judge based on 2 key factors:

1. Logic: whichever team has the most logical links between claims and provide reasoning (warranting) behind their claims

2. Weighing: proving which impacts have the most political, health-wise, etc. impact in different ways

Thanks and good luck!

Please speak clearly and slowly.

Please avoid debate terminology because I might not be able to understand

Please keep your own time

I like detailed and quantitative impacts

I will flow but i might not catch somethings

I will judge based on impacts and how well you perform

Good luck!

Hi, I'm a parent judge. This is the second time I am a PF debate tournament judge and the first time a VPF judge. So you could consider myself as a lay judge. I am not a native English speaker. Please do not speak too fast, as I can't evaluate what I don't understand. I vote for, on balance, the cleaner speech throughout the round, the stronger logic and reasoning backed by pertinent level of facts, and the higher level of confidence and better manner in which the arguments are delivered. Enjoy!

I am a former speech competitor, where I competed in Prose, Duo, OO, Info, DI, and ADS (a humorous OO) in high school and college. I am now a speech coach and occasionally judge debate.

I value well structured, well researched, clearly stated arguments. I expect respect during rounds between competitors, and appreciate a slower delivery. I am not able to follow spreading, so I will likely miss parts of your argument if you speak too quickly.

I have a zero tolerance policy for any racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, xenophobia, or any other -ism/-phobia.

Please add me to email chains: tianyicyang@outlook.com

pronouns: he/him

Tech > truth. I abhor when judges interject their own personal beliefs into their RFDs (with the exception of when teams make arguments that are racist, sexist, transphobic, ableist, etc).

Top Level:

The below bullet point list summarizes my broader view of debate arguments.

Now a couple of things that will make me happy that I wish novices did more often -

1. Impact calculus and ballot framing in the 2NR/2AR is mandatory - not doing so forces me to intervene/make assumptions about your arguments. In sum, tell me why I should vote for you at the top of your speech.

2. Line by line refutation is mandatory - anything else makes decisions really messy and makes it really easy for me to forget key arguments that you want me to evaluate - THE CHANCE THAT I MAKE A DECISION YOU DON’T LIKE GOES UP SUBSTANTIALLY IF YOU DO NOT DO CLEAR LINE BY LINE

3. SIGNPOSTING IS IMPORTANT - jumping between flows sporadically without indicating that you are doing so is super annoying - I will definitely lower your speaks if you do this

4. DON’T DROP THINGS JUST BECAUSE YOU DON’T KNOW HOW TO ANSWER THEM -It sucks that you’re facing a new argument that you’ve never seen before, but taking some prep time to figure out how to answer it is better than straight up dropping it and hoping the other team will forget they ever read the argument.

4. Clarity is a must - if you said something incoherently, I won’t have it on my flow.

5. Road maps before speeches are mandatory

Other Things:

1. Open Cx is fine

2. Please do not be rude to your partner or your opponents - being rude will be bad for your speaks

3. Please do not steal prep. If I notice that you are doing so excessively I will dock speaks. I understand that sometimes speech docs take forever to send out or save, so I'll try to be flexible.

4. Be confident! This will perceptually help you, and increase your speaks.

5. You can read basically any type of argument in front of me. On the neg, I've gone for DAs, CPs, Ks, T, impact turns, and various procedurals. On the aff, I've read soft-left affs, hard-right affs, and K-affs.

Here are some specific notes on types of argument:

DAs: I’m fine with politics DAs, I go for them all the time. @aff teams, you can often make bad DAs from the neg go away with a few smart analytics. You don’t need cards to point out that something is utter incoherent nonsense.

CPs: I love CPs that are from the aff's solvency advocate because they show that you (or someone on your team) actually read their ev. I'm fine with process CPs, but I'm even better for tricky perms. I’m also fine with generics like states, especially b/c there is basically 0 core neg ground on the water topic.

Ks on the neg: I'm alright with these, I'm most familiar with setcol and the cap K so with any other Ks a little bit more explaining will have to be done especially on the link level for me to vote for them. I do think that neg teams should win a specific link to the aff.

K affs: I probably won't judge a Kaff round, but just in case, I'll put some thoughts here. The most important thing in framework debates is impact calc - I need to know how I prioritize impacts and arguments. For K v K aff rounds, the aff probably gets a perm (no perms in a method debate never made much sense to me unless it’s dropped).

Topicality: The smaller the aff is, the more receptive I am going to be towards topicality arguments. I do think that reasonability is often a compelling argument IF EXECUTED CORRECTLY (especially when the T-interp is arbitrary), so T should probably not be your A-strat vs borderline topical affs unless you have nothing better to say (which, given the water topic, is an understandable situation to be in).

Theory (not including topicality) - My threshold for voting for theory is high-ish (I think reasonability or non-res theory bad tend to be quite persuasive against many theory arguments), but if they drop theory and you point that out and extend your argument I will vote for you.

Soft Left Affs: I've read these a bit, so I understand their appeal. However, I think that soft left affs are often run badly. Yes, your argument is probably true, but that doesn’t mean it merits a ballot if its not debated well. For example, a lot of soft-left teams say "conjunctive fallacy means no DA" and then proceed to poorly answer the DA, and that won't really work in front of me most of the time. I can definitely be convinced that the DA is so asinine that I should vote aff, but I won't reduce the DA for you.

Public Forum Specific:

I did policy debate in high school, not PF, so my experience in this area is quite limited. Haven't been in the debate space since April of last year so it'll take a bit of time to get used to how things are again. Most arguments should be fine but if you think I might have trouble understanding something make sure to explain it more in detail in your speeches.

I have been judging public forum debate for over a year but I am still a lay judge and I expect you know how lay judges make their decisions. If I happen to be the judge assigned to your round, I ask the debaters to speak SLOWLY and CLEARLY, simply because: the more I understand you, the more I am convinced by you, and therefore, the more likely I would vote for you.

LAST BUT NOT THE LEAST, I AM NOT A NATIVE ENGLISH SPEAKER!!!

I’m a lay judge, explain everything clearly and with warranting. If you read theory or k’s I most likely will not know how to evaluate it.

truth>tech

Experienced Public Forum Debate judge for HS JV/Novice and Middle-School divisions.

I will vote based on the debaters' speaking clarity, providing sufficient research evidence, reasoning with logic, and finally weighing on impacts.

hi y’all

audrey (they/them)

add me to the chain: audreyzhou365@gmail.com

former ld debater mostly ran and engaged with trad args and now I do apda in college. also have tried pf and policy before too but experience is more limited

I’ll listen to any arguments as long as it’s well warranted and impacted out and obviously if it’s not racist/sexiest/homophobic etc

I catch what I can but if I can’t understand you I won’t flow you

be respectful and all should be good!