Last edited for ’23-24. This paradigm tries to be expansive as possible a) to avoid a slew of questions pre-round (it’ll happen anyway bc people have stopped reading these) and b) because most judges really aren’t transparent at all and I do have real preferences.

For Districts (GA): it's nat-quals, big stuff, do whatever you need to do to earn a win with high marks. Won't penalize certain strategies, will penalize execution of certain strategies (i.e., if you feel the need to read truth-testing, please see my thoughts on related strategies before I miss a NIB). I consider myself a reasonably good flow, but if it's not on my flow, it does not exist.

About: Did 4 years of LD at a high school you’ve never heard of, ended up learning circuit debate independently, currently a senior* at UGA (studying what is basically just K lit) and not doing college CX but still actively judging and coaching LD—this means I'm familiar with the rez.

- Pronouns: they/she (basically anything that isn’t masculine)

- I don’t shake hands, pls don’t try and shake my hand after the round (thanks for your understanding) - like pls don't

Speaks (Numbers n Stuff):

- Go as fast as you want, just be clear, and slow down on interp texts, advocacy texts, and standards plz

- I won’t listen to arguments asking for extra speaks, I also tend to not disclose speaks

- I want to be on the chain, no need to ask: chansey.agler@uga.edu

- I typically try to average ~28.5 relative to the pool, they’re always based off efficiency/strategy rather than the ableist method of evaluating “speaking ability” - though I tend to be on the higher side of speaks...

Prefs Cheat Sheet:

K, Policy: 1

Philosophy*: 2

Theory and Tricks: 4

Trad: Your call (I would place myself around a 2 for these kinds of rounds)

*I prefer genuine ACs/NCs to tricks—a “Korsgaard AC” is best read as Korsgaard and not 3 min of goobledygook

TL;DR: engage, clash, and read substantive arguments that are well-thought out and you should be fine

Here are the most common things people look for, people have stopped reading paradigms:

- Paradigms are largely unhelpful bc they're all iterations of "fine with anything" and "do what you do best" - point blank, I do best with Ks and policy, understand philosophy which means I have a higher threshold for it (debate is so far removed from real philosophical deliberation that it hurts sometimes), and do not prefer tricks/friv theory - in general, I'm fine for arguments that are pedagogically responsible (warranted and have real value), bad for arguments that are frivolous

- A lot of my RFDs involve in-round explanation of some degree (in both directions)—well-warranted and explained arguments tend to fare better than meaningless walls of buzzwords and claims, and since debate is a communicative activity, I need to be able to understand and articulate your arguments (would love it if my RFD echoes the 2NR/2AR)—this also means I now will factor CX into my decision-making if you completely fumble on key issues

- I won't flow arguments if I can tell that they're generated by ChatGPT - debate is about making arguments and thinking for yourself, not letting AI do work for you - very low threshold for theory against chatGPT arguments, btw

- Method and framing evidence has been atrocious as of late—it's underhighlighted and doesn't warrant what's in the tag—if I can't piece together what you're trying to say with the highlighted portion alone, I'm not going to fill in the rest for you—blitz through this at your own risk

- I disclose the decision + other stuff post-round but: I don't disclose speaks (goofy), it either takes me like two seconds or 45 min to figure out the round, I try my damndest to give the "right" decision (quality decisionmaking + feedback = really really important), but I am not receptive to aggressive postrounding…

- Misgendering, general misconduct (like being racist or sexist) is a reason for me to damage your speaks at best, if you continue to do it, try to impact turn it, and/or willfully ignore it, neither one of us will like the end result; I am probably more willing than other judges to consider independent voters (especially misgendering, racism, and other arguments that, intentional or not, result in exclusion in debate)

- Discourse violations are better read as kritiks than theory but I will vote on both (I tend to be slightly annoyed by the team/debater that used harmful discourse to begin with, so no need to worry about how you go about this)

- To add to the above: pls let me know if you have any accommodations that need to be met before the round (slower spreading than normal, preferred pronouns, etc.) to make the round as safe and inclusive as possible, debate is for everyone—I care a lot about student well-being and any accessibility concerns should be relayed in a manner you feel comfortable with (getting my attention or emailing me, whatever you need to do)

- Weighing is good. please do it. thx in advance <3

Lincoln Douglas

Kritiks

- Good K debates are the best types of rounds, but bad K debates are frustratingly difficult to resolve (i.e., pre-scripted 2NRs loaded with buzz terms that don’t frame anything for my ballot)—know your lit base (theory of power, topic links…the whole shebang), make it meaningful

- Fav lit bases are queer and feminist lit but if you don’t know these lit bases, they can also make me v sad

- I find material explanations of the alt and ToP more persuasive, but I understand abstract interpretations of power or identity to often be necessary, just explain it and we're good

- Do impact analysis/weighing bc these debates can otherwise become messy, also do lots of link and alt work and don’t just talk past the Aff—lack of engagement and poor alt work are two ways to a good old-fashioned L

- Non-T Affs are always great but be ready for generic responses (and just make sure the Aff does ‘something’…I don’t really care what that ‘something’ is though)

- T-FW should engage with the Aff and explain what it means to affirm (“must defend only a policy” is a terrible argument and does not explain what it means to affirm), DAs to models of debate are underrated—tailor it to the Aff (ngl, I don't really take a definitive stance on what T-FW should look like, just make it good), similarly, I think the Aff should at least define what debates should look like as a departure from the squo

- Aff FW v. K: a) just bc you win that you weigh case, doesn’t mean you’ll win the round, b) state engagement good needs to be contextualized to the specific criticism, otherwise you should just debate at the link level—also, most state engagement good cards are really underhighlighted/underwarranted c) extinction outweighs is often a link but I’ll go either way on this one, d) only makes sense in policy v. K rounds tbh

- K v. K – always welcome but can be very difficult to evaluate without effort on your behalf, K aff v. cap K is usually pretty easy to resolve imo but other debates (especially identity debates) need weighing, ToP analysis, and probably a lot of perm work

- I don't like the perm double bind - saying "either the alt is strong enough to..." is basically telling me to my face "I know perfectly well the Aff links but nonetheless I'll pretend it doesn't" - good framing wins debates, but bad framing hurts my heart

- I do think that debaters should be held accountable for their discourse in-round—I prefer only going for discourse links when the link is egregious (like calling an immigrant an 'illegal alien'), and also think that word PIKs can be policing (basically: tread carefully, do this when it's necessary)

- Performances: can really matter in terms of how the Aff frames its engagement w/ debate + the world, but if it’s a 5-10 second “land acknowledgment” that takes place in your constructive and never gets brought up again, then idrc—performances have as much meaning as you articulate them to have, and can be as simple as playing background music to as complex as layering personal anecdotes/poetry in the round—you do you, I’m here for it

Policy/Util

- Sure, did this for a while and it’s probably the most common type of round I judge, fine with however you carry out policy rounds though I much prefer topic-specific ptx positions and impact turns to generics like “x is the actor, extinction”

- Weighing = necessity (and beyond just “magnitude” if there are two competing extinction scenarios), I really like “even if”/relativistic claims to be made in these rounds (it’s never absolute…trust me) and doing evidence comparison/weighing is super helpful

- Case debate is great debate - contest the scenarios, solvency, and other details too beyond just impact D, especially on the JF24 topic I find that solvency is highly contestable and makes for very rewarding rounds

- I do not default to judge kick, 2NR needs to tell me to do it, low threshold for "it's a lose-lose for the Aff so don't do that"

- If you can read CP texts and plan texts at conversational speed, that’d be fantastic

- The 1AC probably needs to at least mention Util/SV (even if it’s just a one-liner), the 1NC should exploit Affs that don’t

- Extinction is overused in debate (won’t hack against it but like…do we need to be mentioning extinction on “standardized tests?”)

- I like tests of competition more than theory debates (plan v. CP perm debates are underrated), but if you go with theory, pls weigh against 1NC procedurals

- Less a fan of limits/fairness for the sake of limits—overlimiting is a thing, I prefer topic lit implications and warrants (and similarly this constrains semantics impacts), especially on the JF '24 topic, I think one-country plans make a lot of sense semantically, but random country ACs could be abusive - doing a lot of work on "there's enough lit about Israel to make it a debate but the US doesn't even have presence in Cyprus, how am I supposed to make args here" is a good strat

Phil/FW

- Losing influence in the meta, I did study philosophy for some of college and still actively keep up with philosophy,I prefer real-world style philosophical argumentation to shenanigans based on my experiences in actual philosophical inquiry

- I prefer sensical ACs/NCs to nonsense, not a fan of tricks disguised as philosophy, generally quick to understand what you're reading but many debaters do a very poor job of in-round explanation (just keep that in mind)

- FW justifications need real warrants - a lot of them like "performativity" are like really circular and never explain why the FW is actually true

- A lot of phil contentions don't actually align with their framing - Kantian philosophy, for example, would not conclude "taxation is impermissible under the criterion"

- Don’t quote things like source Kant (Korsgaard is cooler anyway)

- TJFs—mixed feelings, most of them aren’t fantastic arguments but I’m fine voting on them

- I heavily dislike AFC/ACC (debate is about clash lol), not fond of Truth Testing ROBs in place of FW debates

Traditional LD (Trad)

- I would consider myself a reasonably competent judge; I can evaluate whatever you’re doing just fine—traditional rounds are easier to evaluate if you weigh, give clash, and give voters at the end, but are more difficult to resolve in the absence of crystallization in latter speeches

- Trad v. circuit rounds are a dilemma because every judge has different feelings here, but I tend to err on the side of circuit debater should slow a bit (70-80% speed), read an educational position like 2-3 policy off or a good but common K (setcol, security, fem, etc.), and the trad debater should be willing to adapt to tough situations - if we're in a bubble or elim round, do whatever it takes to win

- Please don't read arguments like "we must follow what is in the constitution and only what is in the constitution" as "this is ethical" - consider that you're reading an argument weaponized against queer people in front of an openly queer judge

- Counterplans are a good thing for debate, but many counterplans read in lay debates do not make sense

- Please say the name of the card BEFORE you start reading off the actual card—this makes it so much easier for me to flow (i.e., “Jones 20: blah blah”)

- I’m not a parent judge who cares about “speaking well” or “the values debate” – you should debate impacts instead of framework if the two don’t clash with each other

- "spreading bad" is a bad arg if you have the doc and even worse if you use it to clap back after you misgendered your opponent (I cannot believe I had to put this in my paradigm)

- Words in the rez =/= abstract principles of good

- The Aff must provide solvency to some extent (implied solvency doesn’t exist)

- “Where’s the statistic for x” is only a legitimate argument when dealing with utilitarian impacts

- I view the rez as a fluid idea—I don’t hack against any given arguments (except obv problematic ones), which includes “circuit arguments” (also, as a heads up: if your opponent is reading a kritik, you should probably not call it “[a] theory” or say “they didn’t have a value/VC” – these two things will tank your speaks)

Theory

- Full disclosure here - my ability to eval these rounds is entirely dependent on execution - if you actually do weighing (between standards, paradigm issue warrants, etc.), we're fine, if the opponent concedes something, make that the center of attention, if these things don't happen, brace for impact (aka presumption)

- Overall: good for policy-type theory (condo, warranted spec theory like aspec, CP theory, etc.), bad for friv theory, won’t vote on out-of-round violations (beyond disclosure, which similarly needs a clear violation or I won’t vote on it) or theory where there is no in-round abuse

- Won’t evaluate arguments about your opponent’s appearance or other ad hom-type theory (please don’t), similarly have a very high threshold when theory is deployed to shut out hard convos, it’s bad for debate

- People need to SLOWWW DOWN when reading the interp text (conversational speed would be amazing)

- Reading more than 2 shells in-round (on either side) will usually lead me to question your strategic decisions

- I don’t apply defaults in theory rounds—read paradigm issues pls and thx

- Reasonability is always an option (please?) – similarly, I think it’s actually quite strategic to read reasonability as a paradigm issue for accessibility-type theory (must not misgender opponent, accessibility formatting, etc.)

- I've voted on RVIs in the past, just not my favorite thing to evaluate bc everyone and their dog has different conceptions of "when do you get one" and "how does an RVI interact with layers" and aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa just go back to substance and push presumption :)

- I have judged several debates in which there is a “misdisclosure” violation and it devolves to “they said-they said” – please: a) collapse to something else most of the time, b) explain at like 60-70% speed “I asked for x before the debate, they said they would provide it, and then y happened” – basically, make the violation super clear to me, and c) take screenshots that are definitive evidence - this isn't to say "never go for it," it's more so to say "go for it if you think an outsider (me) will get it"

Disclosure

- Disclosure has made debate better, but reading disclosure theory is an attempt to mandate equality when we should be focusing on issues of equity—I lowkey really dislike disclosure theory debates so would prefer to adjudicate this only if necessary

- You don’t have to disclose performances

- Stop chronically reading disclosure against Black debaters—I don’t get why that is y’all’s go-to strat of all things

- Learning about disclosure norms is a topic for out-of-round discussion but not one I ever feel comfortable adjudicating (i.e., rounds where disclosure theory is deployed when one team doesn’t know how to use the wiki)

Tricks

- Genuine philosophical paradoxes (like stuff out of Socratic dialogues), innovative arguments, and creativity are okay—anything else is probably a non-starter for me, especially if it’s an argument that can be dismantled via any coherent thought (the key distinction is how much explanation is put into the argument…much like other styles in debate)

- I've realized as of late that I find it very difficult to flow a slew of analytics made in short spans of time (which is part of why I prefer Ks and policy since cards in these debates are usually longer so I don't have to delineate as much), if you're gonna read a bunch of analytics, give me time to get em down

- I understand ethical paradoxes within the time constraints of a debate round much better than logical formulae/dense logic equations—blitzing through a paragraph of “if p then q” will leave my head spinning and a mess on my flow

- I seriously dislike the way Truth Testing gets deployed in debate, especially if you use it against Ks or K Affs (it’s violent) – I do think that identity tricks are a valid response to violent practices, although you can (and should?) also go for it as a link

Misc/Defaults for LD

- FW Defaults: Comparative Worlds, Epistemic Confidence, I have no defaults on theory (make args lol)

- Permissibility and presumption both negate at face value, unlikely to vote on permissibility affirming (given ‘ought’ in the rez), presumption flips Aff if the Neg reads an advocacy, but I seldom vote on either one

- Don’t care if you sit or stand, just make it so I can hear and understand you

- If I am on a panel with two lay/parent judges, the fog is upon us

CONFLICTS:

Sequoyah HS, Perry HS, Ivy Bridge Academy, Dean Rusk MS

"historically incompetent" - aaron tian

i NEED all rhetoric, and all ev from constructive and rebuttal on the chain-- not adhering to this could be detrimental to your speaks. email: dylan.beach01@gmail.com

i will not intervene if i can help it

every round is decided by determining what the highest layer of offense is -> who links into that best

i don't think PF debaters execute theory or K debate well, so i think i would prefer you talk about the topic but i'm fine with whatever

full paradigm: i am the beach

Jeffrey Bile, Professor Emeritus Spalding University, PhD Rhetoric and Public Culture

Previously judged and coached debate at WVU, Ohio U, Akron, EIU, SIU, Utah, and for several high school programs

First, let's avoid sticker shock. I’m old. I’ve judged tournament debates in six decades. In college, I judged deep elims at NDT-CEDA-NFA-NPDA national tournaments. My teams exceeded expectations in all of those formats-and I coached CEDA national champions--but that was a long time ago.

I'd be a little careful about jargon and especially the valence you assume attaches to some god/devil terms in tournament debate (e.g., conditionality, dispositional, floating pic, perm, etc.) or the dominant culture (e.g., growth). It's debatable. The culture of debate has evolved a lot since 1971, but the distinction between better and worse argument has had a home in all those decades and in all of the “debate cultures” that I know (policy and non-policy, high school and college, 2-person and LD, off-topic and on, curricular, co-curricular and extra-curricular). It all comes back to argument in my experience.

I judged PF at the 2023 UK Tournament of Champions. I last judged high school policy on China engagement. I was last actively involved in debate on the 2015 Oceans policy topic (CX). On that topic, I worked with our debaters on ecological exploration and dolphin communication affirmatives and negative positions on a space exploration tradeoff and critiquing frontierism-discovery ideologies and anthropocentric worldviews.

This may give you a good sense of the genres of arguments that I am especially attuned to. It seems hard for me to "get" unidirectional risk "death penalty" procedurals. But I LOVE good, smart theory debate about who "owns" certain first links in arguments (affirming/negating). I also love good debate about last impact (is economic growth good?). First cause and last effect debates that most often need to happen in the rounds I judge often don't as academic debaters far too often become victimized by the same obsessions as the dominant culture and its clearly staked out assumptions. Academic debaters are allowed to find those debatable.

---

My first priority as judge is to respect the conditionality of my invitation. I will not want to behave inconsistently with any formal rule of this tournament, and I give some presumption to what can be most immediately inferred from those. Cultures, on the other hand, evolve. I give little heed to norm and “unwritten rules” -- those are always in flux. Argument makes them that way. As an argumentation educator and cultural citizen, I do have preferences about the direction of debate culture evolution. These manifest as assumptions/presumptions (there is some burden of proof in overcoming them). In order . . .

Until explicitly argued otherwise . . .

(1) There is an enormous presumption in favor of formal rules (time limits, topic, etc.). It is hard to imagine an argument that would overcome their priority. [Please explicate them as formal rules if your argument is premised on them]

(2) We were invited to a debate ABOUT something. Not to general disagreement in the abstract but only to a formally focused competition to which we have agreed to associate ourselves. I assume that the announced proposition is what we were invited to a debate ABOUT. I assume that the affirmative is tasked with affirming, and the negative with negating that proposition.

(3) Debate is a contest in collaborative argumentation. [see below*]

(4) I give substantial presumption to arguments that seem to be accepted by the other team.

(5) I do not assume that talking, ethos, pathos, persuasion, or performance are ends in themselves . . . but, at best, means to the ends of comprehensive debate (engaged rule-bound arguments of affirmation/negation).

(6) Outside of those required by #1, and perhaps in part #2, I don’t know a sufficient reason to privilege either side regarding rights and responsibilities. I presume bi-laterality of affirmative/negative procedural burdens/presumptions and equal access to argument. This seems simple enough, but I encourage you to think through some of the implications before planning your strategy (e.g., you need some offense to win). I don't presume change per se is worse that the status quo.

(7) I also assume that the weight I should accord to an argument in my decision is roughly assessed by multiplying outcome x probability. I want you to explicitly debate the relative importance (i.e., outcome, impact) of arguments (e.g., through criteria, decision rules, impact analysis, etc.) and find such weighing to be far more important than debaters generally realize. I don't mean that I want you to take time out from the flow for a new overview on "weighing" in rebuttals-- I mean I want you to construct complete relevant arguments (including impact), from the first constructive. I want you to extend the arguments you want, with impact. I want to know why you think the words that are coming out of your mouth matter in their real-time debated context.

(8) I try to flow. I don't listen as fast as I did when I was in better practice. This is not an aesthetic or educational preemption--just a disclosure that time has had effects. There are a lot of things I don't do as well as I used to--however hard I try. I flow arguments not words. I flow the anatomy of your argument not the wording of the evidence. What matters first is the relevance you are inferring from the evidence and the argument that constructs. If you are not crystal clear in communicating the anatomy of the argument you are constructing, in constructives, it doesn’t matter how slow you deliver your words. Construct in constructive speeches--rather than in rebuttal "weighing" overviews or other late, out-of-the-flow of debate, interruptions. And I definitely won't be using your written materials post-debate to construct your argument for you--only to resolve an extended claim contesting the content of a quotation or to clarify language for ballot. Construct arguments, in constuctives.

You will probably be able to tell from my non-verbal expressions if I have stopped flowing—which I may do if I have lost the structure of your argument or its place on the flow that you are intending it to be applied. I may try to flow even if I’m pretty lost so it is good practice to be redundant in reinforcing/signposting your argument’s anatomy so that I will have a better flow. If you don’t want me to flow some or all of the debate, make that argument.

(9) Of course, it is pretty much all debatable. Absent successful argument, I will default to these assumptions. I think these are pretty much in order, from strong presumption / burden of proof for #1 (hard to imagine me changing my mind) to weak presumption at #7 and 8 (all you need is an argument).

* On Argument

• If debate is a contest in argumentation, then the arguments are important. I privileged process over product models of argument, preferring dialectical processes that are as collaborative, comprehensive and critical as circumstances permit.
• At the product level, the best arguments are invitations to intellectual empathy since they share good reasons to believe what you are asserting. Better argument products have better reasons, more reasons, better support for those reasons, or are more substantively important.
• Evidence is support for your argument—it may ground a reason for affirming/negative—it is not itself the argument. What are you inferring from the evidence? Why is that relevant? What is your argument?

Something else? Just ask!

Congratulations and good luck. I hope everyone debates their best and has fun (in my experience, these usually go hand-in-hand).

I debated PF on the Minnesota local and national circuits for 4 years. He/they.

Please send speech docs to spencerburrisbrown612@gmail.com

1. This should go without saying, but I'm not going to tolerate any in-round racism, homophobia, transphobia, sexism, antisemitism, etc.
2. Read content warnings on graphic and potentially triggering arguments and provide a way to anonymously opt out. If you're unsure whether something requires a content warning, better safe than sorry.
3. If you have questions about my judging philosophies before the round, or about my decision after the round, don't be afraid to ask. Just be respectful if you're post-rounding.
4. I'm pretty tech > truth but, like all other judges who call themselves tech, I have lower thresholds for response if the arguments are under warranted or objectively false.
5. 10 second grace period and then I stop flowing. Please time and keep track of your own prep, also prep stealing is usually pretty obvious and will hurt your speaker points.
6. I will almost always call for cards if there is any clash on them and resolving that clash is relevant to my decision.
7. On a related note, evidence ethics are important to me and I think teams get away with far too much evidence misconstruction. Borrowed from Zach Dyar's paradigm, I will sometimes call for cards that aren't relevant to my decision but that sound potentially too good to be true. If the card is miscut or abusively paraphrased I will dock speaker points; this is my attempt at checking back against evidence misconstruction. If you send speech docs with cut cards (or with paraphrases and all of the cut cards underneath) I will boost your speaker points by 0.5.
8. While I think speech docs are good, I'm not going to flow off of one if I cannot understand you. I think spreading is an exclusionary and counterproductive practice, but I'll flow up to 250-275 wpm pretty comfortably if you're clear.
9. I require full extensions of any offense you want me to vote off of in summary and FF. "Extend our C1" isn't sufficient, I'm looking for a concise reiteration of whatever link story and impact scenario you collapse on.
10. Please be respectful and don't grandstand during crossfire. I won't vote off of cross absent a key concession that's implicated in the next speech but any rudeness or excessive grandstanding will hurt your speaker points. Bonus points if you make me laugh.
11. There's a fine line between being efficient and being blippy, I appreciate debaters who avoid crossing into the latter category. The blippier you are the higher the chances are that I miss something you say.
12. If 2nd rebuttal drops a response I will treat it as conceded assuming it's extended.
13. The more comparative, the better. Hearing non-comparative weighing makes me very sad and hearing "prefer our analysis because..." makes me very happy. Please do not force me to intervene.
14. I will evaluate theory providing it's not frivolous and try my best to correctly evaluate Ks; I think PIKs calling out offensive language/rhetoric and shells calling out exclusionary practices are particularly good for the debate space. Shells that I consider frivolous include 30 speaks theory and formal clothes / shoes theory. I won't evaluate tricks or NIBs.

Tech > Truth Judge.

I will instantly drop you for racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, bullying, or other personal attacks - L26

Contention:

I prefer clarity above all else. Please emphasize key terms (i.e, Impact). If people cannot follow what your saying, then the argument is pointless.

Crossfire:

Please give the opposing team a chance to speak and ask questions. Respect is key to anyone changing their mind in real life application; I believe that is very important in debate as well.

Rebuttal:

Let me know what argument you are specifically responding to. Signpost.

Summary:

Extend and go over what your opponent dropped. This is a quick way to take back power in the debate for your benefit.

Final Focus:

Tell me what I should judge the debate on and why the opponents' case should be dismissed. Confidence and clarity on why your case is the better choice can greatly affect my favor.

Speaker Points

26-26.9- You dropped your entire case, fell short on allocated time, and overall did not present debater skills.

27-28 I couldn't fully understand you (clarity) or your case. You dropped some points and may not have shown synergy with your partner.

28.1-29 You spoke clearly and barely dropped anything.

29.1-30 Had no notable flaws, and I don't have any speaking feedback to give.

Pronouns: (she/her)

Preferred name: Kat

I would like to be on the email chain: cazeaupatricia@gmail.com

*****IF YOU READ/REFERENCE SEXUALLY EXPLICIT/VIOLENT CONTENT I AM NOT THE JUDGE FOR YOU.*****

Debated at Liberty, and I debated policy for 4 years in high school (shout out to Long Branch High!).

My credentials ig:

- 2021 NDT third team

- 2022 NDT First Round (TOP TEN YERRRR)

- First Liberty invite to the Kentucky Round Robin

- Long Branch High volunteer Policy Coach

- Judged Policy, LD, Parli, PF, and speech events

Kritiks:

I'm a black woman with an immigrant background. Do with that what you will.

If you're a K team, I'm a huge fan of K's! I'm familiar with: Cap K, Thoreau, Antiblackness, Afropess, Afrofuturism, Orientalism, Bataille, Nietzsche, Fem, Baudrillard, and I'm sure I'm missing others. Just bc I'm comfortable with these, don't be sure I'll know all of your buzz-words and theory. Explanations are good, detailed explanations are best.

If you win the following, you'll win the debate:

1.) Give me the Link. Just because I consider the truth doesn't mean that you could assert that the Aff is racist, sexist, neoliberal, or whatever without a specific link. If you can prove to me why the foundations of the Aff are suspect and make your impacts worse, you've done your job and the link debate is yours.

2.) Impact weighing. I need clash and impact comparison. Sure, tell me what your impact is and why it matters, but explain why it matters in relation to your opponent's impacts (ie: structural violence is happening now, extinction is far off. Immediacy outweighs).

3.) Alt explanation. I gotta know what it does. In explaining the Alt, you need to explain how it's different from the SQUO, and why a permutation wouldn't immediately resolve your impacts and the links. If you don't need to win the Alt, just gotta explain why not.

4.) Judge Instruction. Give it to be straight, what do you want me to do? What is my role in the discussion/in this competitive space? What are the implications of the ballot?

Do these things, and you're golden. :^)

K-Affs:

Do most of the same stuff as above, only difference is that you should have substantive answers to framework. Again, don't just assert that FW is sexist, racist, whatever WITHOUT a reason why. I jive with K-Affs, and I think performances could be powerful. Just make sure everything is done with a purpose.

Your counter-interpretation is the framing for my ballot as well as the model of debate you advocate for. I'll vote on any, esp if the other team drops it.

ROB's are muy importante in a framework debate.

I'm guilty of wildly-long overviews-- but for your sake pls no more than 2 minutes. Pls.

Policy, because I can't abandon my first love:

I love me some tasty DA's and CP's, as long as the internal link chain makes sense.

I'm sympathetic to Condo as an arg if it's 6+ off. Anything below that and you're on your own, my friend.

Impact turns are cool. I'll vote for anything as long as it isn't death/extinction good and structural violence/racism good.

Framework:

1.) FAIRNESS ISN'T AN IMPACT! It's an internal link to education.

2.) Clash is the most convincing impact to me.

3.) Predictability is sort of a toss-up. If you didn't prepare for Cap or other K's that you knew would come with the topic after the first few tournaments, that's on you. But I will vote for it if you tell me how predictability makes you all better debaters.

Please do not put me in any T or Theory debates. I can't do it.

***PF***

>Impact calc is MUY IMPORTANTE!!! Weigh between your and your opponent's impacts, please. Explain why you outweigh.

>Ask QUESTIONS in Cross-Fire! This is two-fold: 1. "[explains case]... what do you say to that?" isn't a question, and 2. Being POLITE when asking questions is key. Please don't bully the other team.

>Tell me how to write my ballot, and what you're going to win on in this debate.

>I'm a policy person so I don't see a problem with counterplans in PF. This being said, "This is PF, counterplans aren't allowed!" isn't an argument. Attack it instead.

>In addition, speed isn't a problem for me. But do recognize that if the other team makes it a voter, you have to justify your use of speed in that instance.

>And please, PLEASE, answer as many of the opponent's arguments WHILE extending your case. Chances are they didn't answer everything you said.

>Finally... have funsies. :^)

If you're racist, sexist, ableist, homophobic, rude, or discriminatory in any way toward your partner or opponent, I will stop the round and your speaks are getting docked. Behaviors like that make the debate space less hospitable. And, yes, that includes extremely 'punking' the other team.

Rhetoric is a voter. If it frames the debate and it's a big enough deal to potentially ruin your debate experience, I'll vote on it.

HAVE FUN!

Hello,

I go by Brian, and I am a Director of Ivy Bridge Academy. I don't need to be in the loop for email chain unless it is necessary: brianchoi627@gmail.com

I do keep track of time and flow on my own. With that said, every speech ought to meet or be as close to the allotted time.

Contention:

I prefer clarity above all else. Please emphasize key terms (i.e, Impact). No spread and no spam of contentions (C1-3 is preferable). Flay judge preference

Crossfire:

Please be respectful in giving the opposing team a chance to speak and ask questions. Don't read evidence pls. I will drop you if you don't respect the cross rules.

Rebuttal:

Sign post, sign post, sign post! Frontline is preferable for 2nd Rebuttal.

Summary:

My favorite part of the debate. Extend and go over what your opponent dropped. If you don't impact weigh, then you concede.

Final Focus:

I pay keen attention to what claims the opponent(s) dropped as well as emphasizing most of the FF on weighing cases and impacts. This is the speech to which I prefer to have the speakers tell me what I should judge the debate on and why the opponents' case should be dismissed. Persuasion is key!

Speaker Points

26-26.9- You dropped your entire case, fell short on allocated time (i.e, 2 minute rebuttals.. yes I have heard these at nationals before), and overall did not present debater skills.

27-28 I couldn't fully understand you (clarity) or your case. You dropped some points and may not have shown synergy with your partner (ie, grand cross and flow of debate).

28.1-29 You did well. This is what I usually give and you barely dropped anything.

29.1-30 Horrah! You did amazing. Had no flaws, and I don't have any speaking feedback to give.

I coach beginners (elementary/ MS) debate, so I'm very familiar with PF, but I work on a very novice level, i.e. 3rd- 8th graders and we typically do more simple topics.

I have a basic understanding of jargon, but you're better off putting things in lay terms. I'm not good with speed, I'll zone out and not process anything you're saying, so I'd suggest speaking a smidge above conversational pace if you want me to truly take in your case. I get it if you want to speak fast to get a lot in, just be sure to repeat the main things you want me to take away to ensure I've got it. If you want to take the risk, that's up to you! :) I really don't recommend it.

I'm usually swayed by more compassionate, emotional arguments and will typically vote for the side that helps more people in a more tangible way. I like when you tell me specifically what to vote based off of.

I don't judge very often, so I definitely am not a perfect judge, but I'll do my best! PLEASE don't expect me to be a tech judge. I am not! I flow, but I miss things at times. I don't have rules about what needs to be in what speech, but obviously you can't bring up something new at the end.

I'm easily charmed by a good public speaker, and have noticed that if someone is a good speaker I'm more receptive to their arguments. I try to keep it to the content when picking a winner, but I've noticed this about myself and am not always conscious of it, so I figured it's beneficial for you to know if I'm your judge.

I always figure it's best to be polite and professional. I think it reflects better on you if you stand for your speeches and keep your own time. It's not a make or break, but you'll come off a lot better in my eyes if you do these things.

If you have a specific question, feel free to ask! :)

I am an assistant director to Ivy Bridge Academy, and I started out as a novice Debate Coach. I understand the structure of the debate and terms, but you should explain the case to me as a Lay Judge.

I do not tolerate personal attacks, racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, or bullying.Please be respectful of your opponents and me as a judge. If you have an issue you should contact your coach.

For your cases, I value impacts and weighing, as well as clarity. Enunciate your words and speak in a moderate speed as to be heard clearly.

I will keep track of time and flow on my own, but you should be timing yourselves and reaching the time limit.

Speaker Points

26-26.9-You fell short of the time, you were unclear or I could not understand your case at all.

27-28-I couldn't understand the concepts in your case fully, you did not work well with your partner.

28.1-29-You did a good job and were understood, with clear concepts. You could develop your case further or be more persuasive.

29.1-30-I couldn't give anymore feedback, and your case was either near, or absolutely flawless.

I will give personalized feedback as necessary, verbally and over tabroom.

Hi,

I am an intermediate judge ( flay) . It would be nice if you kept communications easy and straightforward (avoid using jargons).

Please be respectful to all participants. Most importantly.. have fun !!

Email Chain: sunnyfan@gmail.com

I'm a parent judge. My daughter worked with me to write my paradigm. I'm most familiar with public forum, here’s what I expect:

Basic Expectations:

1. Make sure you introduce yourselves before you start.

2. I expect all debaters to know the rules and be respectful to one another.

3. Debaters should keep track of their own and opponents prep time and speech times. Prep time ends directly before the next speech starts.

4. If you guys are going to be disclosing your cases or sending cards, please send it to me also.

In Debate Expectations:

1. Be clear and communicate effectively. No spreading or jargon please). If I can't understand you, I will assume you don't know your topic. I give speaks on clarity and confidence.

2. Anything dropped in the round can not be responded to later in the debate. This means be clear as to what arguments you're responding to and what I should cross-apply.

4. Do lots of weighing in the Summary and Final Focus; you should make it clear to me who won the round, I shouldn’t have to do the weighing myself. Using frameworks or even explaining why your impacts are more relevant will give me the vote. (ex. why should I prefer economy over lives, or saving lives over poverty?) Quantifiable impacts like # of lives saved or

5. I'm normally tech>truth. This means things like why should your evidence? Why should I prefer your warrants?

Hello!

Yes include me on the email chain—Kalebhornedebate@gmail.com

I am a policy debater at Liberty University.

General things---

1. Tech over truth—-my job is to determine who did the best debating in round. I will vote for any argument regardless of personal convictions.
2. Quality over quantity—-I am much more persuaded by a few warranted arguments than by numerous blippy ones.
3. Line-by-line—- do it.
4. Judge instruction—-my goal is to have the least interventionist RFD, and telling me what my RFD should look like will go a long way
5. case/da turns are great
6. If you make me laugh, I will boost your speaks
7. Be kind, if you're racist, sexist, etc. I will vote you down
8. I'm fine with any arguments other than death good, just do what you're comfortable with

PF---

1. Make sure you extend the story of your arguments and answer theirs.
2. Speed is fine, make sure both sides are okay with it.
3. Keep track of your own speech times and prep.
4. Crossfire questions should be relevant to the arguments you are going to make.
5. Arguments in the last speeches should be in earlier ones.
6. Impact calculus is great. Tell me why I should vote on your impacts first.
7. Please give me a reason to care early in the debate.
8. If you tell me why to vote for you I probably will.
9. I don't believe in RVI's in PF, maybe you can impact turn T but I don't think that happens in PF.
10. I'm not sure that PF is debate.
11. Arguments should have a claim, warrant, and impact.
12. If you ask to preflow after start time, use prep time or I doc your speaks

Pronouns: she/her/hers

Email: juliaisabellhunter@gmail.com (please put me on the chain)

Background: I debated policy in high school at St Vincent de Paul High School in California, went to the University of Michigan and didn't debate there. I did a little bit of coaching/judging policy throughout college, and now I'm a coach at The Harker School.

TLDR for prefs: If you want to have a technically executed K debate, I'm your girl. I love a good framework debate. Classic substantive topic-based policy debate is great too. If you rely on theory tricks or are big on phil, I'm probably ~not~ your girl. Above all, be respectful and kind.

Lincoln Douglas: I judge Lincoln Douglas now. I coached at an LD camp (SJDI) a few years ago, but still be gentle with the quirks of the activity please. Some thoughts:

• If you want to persuade me on theory arguments, you're going to have to actually debate and explain the theory arguments. I'm not the best judge to go for conditionality in front of. This isn't to say I won't vote for theory arguments, because I will - just note that I have a low tolerance for bad theory arguments and theory debates that arent warranted and fleshed out. Any LD-specific theory arguments (tricks, etc) please take extra time on (or avoid).
• I love a good K debate, but note that my K background is in policy debate (gender, queer theory, high theory, identity stuff, cap, colonialism, etc etc) and I'm less familiar with LD phil stuff so you'll need to be clear/slow and really write my ballot for me.

• RVIs - I will not flow them. Not gonna happen for you. Goodnight moon, game over, no.

• There's a painfully bad trend in LD of sending analytics and then zooming through them in speeches as if they're card text. They're not card text! And I don't flow anything I can't understand! You should not be relying on judges flowing off the doc.

General thoughts:

Debate is a game. I will vote for literally anything* if you argue it well, frame the debate, and have good evidence supporting it. Techy line-by-line is the way to go always but especially in front of me. If someone drops an argument, don't just say they dropped the argument and move on. Explain how the dropped argument impacts the debate and why I should vote for you with it in mind. The same is true of critical moments in cross-ex. Framing in the last two speeches is incredibly important - write my ballot for me.

PLEASE slow down on taglines, analytics, theory arguments. If you are not clear I will let you know. If you don't adjust when I tell you you're not clear, speaker points will start to go down.

*Literally anything still has its limits. I will vote for "death good" type arguments, impact turns of critical arguments (heg good, war good), and really any silly argument that you win but I will NOT vote for any argument that defends racism, sexism, homophobia, or any other form of oppression, or for personal attacks on your opponents' character.

Ks: This is my wheelhouse (any and all). Note that this does not mean it will be easier for you to win a debate just because you read a K - because of my background in this type of debate I will hold you to a higher performance threshold. For the love of god please do line-by-line.

K affs: When I debated, I consistently read a K aff without a plan text. I also consistently went for framework/topicality against other planless K affs. My knowledge is strong on both sides of this debate, so if you're going to do it, do it well.

DAs/CPs: Not sure if I have anything special to say here. Make sure you do deep impact analysis and case turn work. I err neg on condo + counterplan theory most of the time.

T: Make sure your definitions aren't from silly sources. You have to do internal link and impact debate for topicality too. Topical version of the aff is huge.

Theory: As said above, this is probably my achilles heel in terms of debate knowledge. If you're going to go all in on theory arguments, go slow and explain things.

Public Forum:

I'm new to this, but thus far my policy and LD experience has served me well! A few important things:

1) If I am your judge you must have an email chain or google doc. Calling for cards is a waste of time -- send your speech docs before your speeches WITH YOUR EVIDENCE IN THE DOCUMENT! If you do not do this, I will be taking the time it takes you to find the evidence and send it to your opponent out of your prep time.I cannot emphasize this enough.

2) I don't want your "off time road map" to be a list of the arguments you're going to answer. Just tell me which flow goes where - a simple "our case, then their case" works fine.

3) CLASH IS KEY - in the final speeches I NEED some sort of impact and link comparison or else I end up having to intervene more than I like to. Draw lines through the entire debate - your speeches are not islands. Connect them.

Top 3 about Ms. D...(Funny Face Emoji)

1) My son is a TOC Champion

2) PF Debate when I was in High School and College = I feel your pain and understand the blood, sweat, and tears that go into this thing.

3) I am FLAY judge. Clear, enunciated arguments where you explain to me and the other team, why and how your evidence and argument is superior to your competitor will always get you the win. Don't tell me who to vote for. Make eye contact, be a team player, and COOK! (Chef Emoji)

Hey ya'll!

In High school I competed for Apple Valley High in Minnesota. Currently, I am competing on the college circuit for Western Kentucky University.

I am mostly an IE judge but if I am being honest...debate is more fun lol.

First of all, have fun and be respectful - enjoy every performance - these years will go by fast!

Speech Interp - I want to believe you, engage me - show me that your story DEMANDS attention.

Speech PA - How is your speech structured? Is it accessible and easy to follow? deliver your speech like it is the most pressing/important information I as your judge will hear all day.

Debate - Please do not spread to quickly, I don't like scrolling through your cards - I would rather just hear and flow your contentions based off what you are saying. I would consider myself a lay judge in debate - break it down for me - tell me WHY you should win.

If you have any questions about your ballots feel free to email me...

jonahsolomonjohnson@gmail.com

Would like participants to talk clearly. Not very fast.

Be respectful to opponents.

Follow the PF Debate Rules

Name: Lalit Kumar

Email: lalit.kumar.debate@gmail.com

I am a lay/parent judge. However, I do have knowledge of the LD and how it works. I have judged PF tournaments for over a year and got familiarity with LD debates. I have also researched the current topic in detail online.

I usually join a couple of minutes before the round to take questions about my paradigm. If you have clarity questions, please feel free to ask.

Key notes:

1. Respect - First, and foremost, debate is about having fun and expressing your creativity! Please be respectful to your opponents and your judges.

2. Document sharing - please share your speech/response docs ahead of time so I can follow along. Include me in the email chain (lalit.kumar.debate@gmail.com) Please ensure the subject is not blank and populated with tournament name and round.

3. Clarity - Please do not sacrifice clarity for speed. Your arguments should be clear and well-substantiated with evidence

4. Jargon - Jargon and abbreviations should be avoided and will lead to deductions. They cause a lack of clarity and can lead to misinterpretations. Please explain any technical jargon that you use.

5. Time - Going overtime will lead to deductions. I would recommend timing yourself and your opponents. In case you notice your opponent is overtime, feel free to raise your zoom hand to highlight this.

6. Signposting - I strongly recommend signposting so your opponents understand what you are responding to.

7. Theories and Ks - I have limited understanding of Theories and Ks; but I am okay to proceed as long as you break it down in simple and clear terms. You need to elaborate on how it correlates to the topic.

I'm a parent judge who has a student who competes in speech. I'm excited to get to hear some great debates! Please be sure to explain the topic to me and persuade me with the arguments, while also being good speakers

I am new to judging public forum debate and view myself as an inexperienced parent judge. I work in an university in the fields of biostatistics and public health.

As a judge, I take notes on both the content and delivery of the debate. While I can understand the debate at most speeds, I kindly request that you refrain from speaking too quickly. It may cause me to miss some of your key points.

I've been in the forensics world as a coach, and competitor for about 15 years. I started in Policy Debate, so I am familiar with most debate jargon, but have coached competitive Public Forum for about 8 years now. I have also taught LD, Parli, and Most speech events way way back when.

Overall:

1. Do you clash with the opposing positions?

2. Do you test/provide links and scenarios for your positions? Weighing on the links, the uniqueness, having strong topical internal links for your impacts will take you far with me. Don't lose the links in the mess of the Rebuttal/Summary.

3. Do you guide the flow and focus of the round and provide Extensions & impact calculus accordingly?

4. The Affirmative has the Burden to Prove. The Negative has the Burden to Disprove. If the Negative provides as much ground as the Affirmative zeroing out the Affirmative proofs of the resolution, the Negative wins the round. Remember the Affirmative Burden to prove the resolution. Of course the Affirmative also gets the first crack at interpreting what "defending the Resolution" means.

5. Topicality: Is an important procedural. It is not bad for PF for people to stay on Topic, it is not a policy debate only structure. That said, if you are going to argue T, do it right please. I need to have a clear interpretation, violation, and standard for the procedural.

6. Dropped / Kicked positions & arguments are conceded only in so far the links are concerned. Unless the impact is also conceded/kicked then the implications of a scenario can still be evaluated.

Some other Notes:

A. Tech over Truth: I don't care if what your saying is true in my book, I care if it is substantiated and structurally sound.

B. Delivery wins you Speaks, Not Rounds. I will not give the ballot to the better speaker, but to what I perceived to be the better proven/substantiated positions.

C. Offensive beats defense any day of the week. Very few rounds are won on terminal defense.

D. Don't be rude or combative when unnecessary. I won't make you lose because of it, but accessibility in debate is a high value. Let's not make this activity harder for those less aggressively inclined.

E. Link Debate > Impact Debate: Scenarios & Causality beats out "Nuclear War" any day. That said, have big impacts, and be able to playtest/provide analytics as well as evidence for them.

Kritiks:

I feel that most Ks are there to avoid clash in the debate. This does not mean I don't love a GOOD K, but I would argue they are few and far between. PF especially seems an odd place for most K debate, except at perhaps the highest levels of PF debate, primarily HS. As far as answering Kritiks, in PF if you can provide an interpretation that just says "TVA/N" then I will probably accept it unless well contested. Arguing that depth of topic analysis is better than randomized exposure to new ideas without disclosure also would work as an analytic (since many teams don't disclose in PF). In any case, K debate can be warranted, and should not be avoided IF NECESSARY or if it would actually make for the best CLASH and best EDUCATION in the round. In most debates this is not the case for PF.

A. Kritiks are improved by a direct link to the Affirmative Truth/position. The Kritik should directly indict the truth of the Aff case, positions, or advocacy. I like Kritiks less when the discussion starts to get into the "Role of the Ballot" but there are exceptions to this. Some issues are worth talking about over any topic links/case connections. That said, it is not my go to, so you have been warned. I am not against Affirmative Framework answers, but prefer direct CLASH between the initial case and the Negative Kritik. Neg teams should argue that Aff impacts are caused by the issues weighed in the Kritik, and that the Aff should defend those assumptions. If the K Aff is being discussed, things get a little messier for me, but most of the above discourse flips. That said, a K Aff does intrinsically fail to link to the Neg case in most PF rounds (unless run against a Neg Case that presented first, in that very niche scenario).

B. I think I'm less technical than some judges in evaluating K debates. Something another judge might care about, like dropping "fiat is illusory," probably matters less to me (fiat is illusory specifically matters 0%). I also won't be as technical in evaluating theory on the perm as I would be in a counterplan debate (e.g. perm do both isn't severance just because the alt said "rejection" somewhere--the perm still includes the aff). The perm debate for me is really just the link turn debate. Generally, unless the aff impact turns the K, the link debate is everything.

Background

I debated for Delbarton all four years, qualified to TOC junior and senior years, and broke senior year, so consider me more of a flow judge. I'm currently a first-year at NYU Stern.

Current affiliations:Delbarton School, NJ; Bergen County Debate Club, NJ

Past affiliations:Delbarton School, NJ (2018-2022); NJ World Schools Team (2020-2021)

Other:Summit Debate Staff (2022)

Pronouns: he/him/his

Email Chains:Teams should start an email chain as soon as they get into the round (virtual and in-person) and send full case cards by end of constructive. If case is paraphrased, also send case rhetoric. I will not accept locked google docs. Additionally, teams should send all new evidence read in rebuttal, but up to debaters.

The subject of the email should have the following: Tournament Name - Rd # - Team Code (side/order) v Team Code (side/order)
.

Please add both greenwavedebate@delbarton.org and emm10084@nyu.edu to the email chain.

PF Stuff

I evaluate the round based on the flow from an offensive/defense paradigm.

Tech>truth

I can handle moderate speed, but DO NOT sacrifice clarity for speed.

Cross: Crossfires are a unique way into the round, so if you want to bring something up in the round, do it in cross and make sure it is in speeches as well. As always, be nice in cross, we want people to continue this activity not quit it because crossfires become rude.

How you win my ballot:

1. Weigh, weigh, weigh (tell me why I should prefer your argument)

2. Collapse

3. Always warrant and extend

Evidence

Have cut cards if they are called.

I might ask for evidence after the round if needed.

Always tell me where you are on the flow (signpost), this applies for every speech after your constructive

Rebuttal

2nd rebuttal needs to frontline all defense and turns.

Start weighing as soon as possible. I won't evaluate new weighing or ev in 2nd summary or Final.

Summary

Extend offense and defense, this means case, turns, responses, etc--- nothing sticky.

Collapse

Final Focus

Should mirror summary

Do comparative weighing.

Other Things

I will disclose, not being able to do so stinks for me and the debaters.

I will only call for evidence if the round depends on the card or if you specifically tell me to call it.

If there's no weighing I evaluate the round based on who accesses their argument the most clearly.

I've debated and run some theory args and have decent experience with them but I will only evaluate them as such, so don't expect me to have a pristine understanding. I have a much much much higher threshold when evaluating Ks i have very little knowledge on them

If this paradigm is short here are some others I mostly agree with: Noah Mengisteab, Alex Sun, and Zach Dyar.

As a new parent judge, I haven't formed opinions or preferences yet. The only exception would be that I have trouble understanding rapid speech, and so would prefer a slower presentation.

UPDATED: 4/19/2023

MAURICIO PATINO

Western Kentucky University

My background:

• I started competing in forensics in college, have no middle or high school speech or debate experience.
• I have judged online debate before, but never in-person.
• I am currently a speech competitor at WKU going onto my senior year with very little debate experience.

The Basics:

• I like to be able to understand the arguments, so speed is fine, but keep it reasonably paced.
• Logical reasoning and sound argumentation guide my decisions, if I fail to make the connection between your arguments/your case/your position, I will likely not vote for you.
• Key word is connections. Help me understand how you reach your arguments. If I have to do mental gymnastics during your speeches, it won't weigh favorably for you.
• K debate is fine with me, again, just make sure your arguments make sense in the context of the debate.
• Last speeches are very impactful for me, so please be clear about why you think you won.

General Approach to Judging:

Please be respectful to your opponents in your round. I dislike when debaters resort to taunting or condescension during the debate. Of course, you can be impassioned just make sure it doesn't come across as rude or like a personal attack.

Debate is more than a logistical thing to me, I like to be able to enjoy the debate. Whether that be through entertaining delivery choices, interesting arguments, clear organization, use of humor, etc. This may come from my speech background, but if I can enjoy it, I'm more likely to remember it and thus be persuaded by what you say.

Assuming time allows, I am always happy to give feedback. One thing about me is I will never lie to you, I will always point out what you did well, and if you would like, what you could have done better. I am very easy to impress, as I know debate is difficult to do, so I will always have something positive to say.

The better you help me understand where you are, the better. I enjoy organization and clarity, as mental labor/gymnastics will not weigh favorably for you. So please, tell me where you are on your arugment whenever possible, avoid jumping around, tell me what aspect of your opponen'ts case you are addressing. Don't just assume I know what you're directy refuting, so briefly summarize what your opponent said before addressing it.

Dropped arguments will weigh negatively for you. I'd rather you address it somewhat even if not that strongest argument than to just ignore it and hope I don't notice (I will). I enjoy ambitious debaters, I will always give credit where credit is due.

Speaker Points: I'm not the most generous in awarding speaker points. However, if your speeches are well-organized, well delivered, and overall effective, you can bet you'll score some good speaker points with me.

I have been debating competitively for around 10 years now. 2 For PF/LD, 2 in American Parli, 4 in British Parli, 3 as a coach/instructor for PF/LD.

I make decisions sticking to the flow of the round, but still exercise common sense discretion. Evidence must be properly explained and introduced, link chains need to be explained, and impacts weighed for me using the rounds framework. For example, chains leading to nuclear war and extinction require a lot of time, evidence, and analysis for me to weigh out.

I give credit to both practical and philosophical arguments as long as they are based within tangible impacts, examples, and/or logical chains.

I am against spreading as a tactic as the online space already makes understanding of cases difficult for some debaters and spreading is antithetical to the educational value of debate. I can understand and keep up with quick speed, but spreading is too much.

I also tend not to credit Kritiks or T-Shells unless fully and properly explained within the context of the round. Even then, engagement with the opponents case/argumentation is necessary.

Clash is necessary within a round, proper responses and engagement with opponents cases are needed. Blanket rebuttal or generalizations about a case are less accepted. Weigh arguments individually, unless you can prove they have mutual exclusivity to another argument you have already refuted.

Happy to answer clarifications on paradigm.

[last updated 3-16-2024]

Hi my name is Tanya, I competed in NPDA for three years at DVC and in NFA - LD at WKU for two years. I finished top 8 at NFA nats and was second place speaker at the Grand Prix national championship. I graduated in 2023, I'm assistant coaching debate at DVC now.

Add me to the email chain: tanyaprabhakar1@gmail.com (although I would prefer you use speechdrop to an email chain). Its really easy, you just make a room on speechdrop.net and everyone can upload their docs. You can still save your opponents' cases like this and it's way faster.

!!! IF YOU'RE IN PF SKIP DOWN TO THE PF SECTION AT THE BOTTOM PLEASE

How do you feel about speed?

On carded stuff/analytics in the doc I have a higher threshold for speed, if its not in the doc slow down on analytics that aren't in the doc.. You don't need to guess, I will slow you if you're too fast for me. I won't drop you or get mad at you for being too fast but I also won't pretend to have stuff written down that I don't have written down.

I'll vote on speed bad in novice and JV. If your opponent slows you on something not in the doc you should probably slow.

Disclosure

I am pro aff (wiki) disclosure. I am willing to vote on aff disclosure theory if it is not responded to properly. I also expect people to share docs in round, even if you aren't spreading.

Substance

I really don't buy consult or delay counter-plans. You can read them, just know the perm solves for me 99.99% of the time.

Disad and counter plan debate is cool, I enjoy watching it. I like a good advantage counter plan.

K

I like and will vote on Ks, but I won't pretend to understand an alt I don't get.

To vote aff I need you to win: offense against the alt OR a perm

To vote neg I need: the aff to not win that stuff

Also, make sure that there are clear, ideally carded, links to the aff. I probably won't vote on just a no link, but it's a pretty good justification for the perm, which I will vote on. Links of omission are generally a no go for me, unless you have a well warranted (ideally carded) explanation for why not considering X in policy making is uniquely bad.

Can I read non T affs?

Yeah that's fine, as long as it has a topic specific link. As a default T FW comes before the aff, especially in parli.

T

I like T. You can read T and not go for it. You can read multiple Ts. I don't care. I don't need proven abuse, but there does need to be some clear impact on the round/debate in general (ie link to fairness and education).

Theory/Procedurals -

I don't mind theory debate, and I don't need proven abuse. Again, default competing interps. You also have to win that kicking the arg doesn't resolve the offense. I think theory is frivolous based on the interp, not the amount of theory read (for example, time cube theory is frivolous even if its the only theory you read, but reading, like, diclosure and A spec and speed together isn't necessarily frivolous.

I don't vote on RVIs. Make sure your standards link back to your interpretation. Have fun and be yourself.

PF Only:

1 - I have the expectation that both debaters are on the same page about what kind of debate they'll be having. If you want to be really fast and really technical that's fine, as long as your opponent is okay with that. I will vote on speed bad.

2 - Evidence sharing: If I don't have your evidence, I cannot evaluate it, and if you don't have each other's evidence I can't trust you and your opponent to evaluate it. And at that point it's going to come down to drops and analytics. The easy way to resolve this is to send your docs to each other. If I don't have your evidence my cap for your speaks is gonna be a lot lower than it would be if I did, because for all I know you made everything.

3 - Progressive/technical debate: I understand that I would be considered a tech judge in most PF pools. However, I have few stipulations around tech in PF: Firstly, PF is a lay event. The norms on the circuit mean that most debaters have no idea how to respond to theory or the K and will lose even to awful theory or Ks because they don't know how to respond. You can still read these args, just know I will be much more likely to intervene if I think the argument is badly executed than I would be in LD or Policy, even if it is conceded/poorly responded to by the other team, simply because I think there's no educational value to bad technical debate in a lay event, and I don't want to incentivize that.

Secondly, a lot of technical args just don't translate well to PF, largely because of the lack of plan texts. T doesn't work, and neither does a significant amount of (the most compelling) theory. The lack of plan also means you can't have a counterplan or alt. Without alts the k loses all uniqueness and no longer functions. I'm not saying that you can't read any technical arguments but you also can't just read old LD or Policy backfiles as-is and expect me to vote on them.

lay judge

if you do plan to speak fast, please send a speech doc

add me to the e-mail chain: m2joyce@hotmail.com

please collapse in summary it makes everything a lot cleaner and easier for me to vote on

in final focus, write my ballot for me, if you don't make a connection/reason i won't do it for you

i'll time your speeches, so please don't exceed time limit

be kind

good luck and have fun!

Please use this email for speech docs and whatever. vrivasumana@tgsastaff.com

OK here's the deal. I did policy debate for 4 years in high school and two semesters in college (once in 2007 and recently in 2016 in Policy Debate). I have coached Public Forum for the last 12 years at various schools and academies including but not limited to: James Logan High School 17-18, Mission San Jose 14-17, Saratoga High School 17-19, Milpitas High School 17-present, Joaquin Miller Middle School 15-present.

Judged Tournaments up until probably 2008 and have not been judging since 2019. I judge primarily public forum rounds but do feel comfortable judging policy debate as it was the event I did in high school (primarily a policy maker debater as opposed to K/Theory) I also judged Lincoln Douglas Debate a few times at some of the national tournaments throughout california but it was not a debate I did in high school. For me my philosophy is simple, just explain what you are talking about clearly. That means if you're going to spread, be clear. If you are going to spread in front of me right now, do not go too fast as I have not judged in awhile so I may have hard time catching certain ideas so please slow down on your tags and cites. Don't think speech docs will fix this issue either. Many of you are too reliant on these docs to compensate for your horrible clarity.

Public Forum: please make sure Summary and final focus are consistent in messaging and voters. dropped voters in summary that are extended in final focus will probably not be evaluated. I can understand a bit of speed since I did policy but given this is public forum, I would rather you not spread. talking a bit fast is fine but not full on spreading.

UPDATE as of 1/5/24: If you plan to run any theory/framework arguments in PF, please refer to my point below for policy when it comes to what I expect. Please for the sake of my sanity and everyone in the round, slow down when reading theory. There is no need to spread it if you feel you are winning the actual argument. Most of you in PF can't spread clearly and would be put to shame by the most unclearest LDer or CX debater.

Policy wise:
I am not fond of the K but I will vote for it if explained properly. If I feel it was not, do not expect me to vote for it I will default to a different voting paradigm, most likely policy maker.
-IF you expect me to vote on Theory or topicality please do a good job of explaining everything clearly and slowly. a lot of times theory and topicality debates get muddled and I just wont look at it in the end. EDIT as of 1/28: I am not too fond of Theory and Topicality debates as they happen now. Many of you go too fast and are unclear which means I don't get your analysis or blippy warrants under standards or voting issues. Please slow the eff down for theory and T if you want me to vote on it.

LD:
I will vote for whatever paradigm you tell me to vote for if you clearly explain the implications, your standards and framework.
-I know you guys spread now like Policy debaters but please slow down as I will have a hard time following everything since its been awhile.

I guess LD has become more like policy and the more like policy it sounds, the easier it is for me to follow. Except for the K and Theory, I am open for all other policy arguments. Theory and K debaters, look above ^^^^

UPDATE FOR LD at Golden Desert and Tournaments moving forward. I don't think many of you really want me as a judge for the current topic or any topic moving forward. My experience in LD as a coach is limited which means my topic knowledge is vague. That means if you are going to pref me as 1 or 2 or 3, I would recommend that you are able to break down your argumentation into the most basic vocabulary or understanding of the topic. If not, you will leave it up to me to interpret the information that you presented as I see fit (if you are warranting and contextualizing your points especially with Ks, we should be fine, if not, I won't call for the cards and I will go with what I understood). I try to go off of what you said and what is on your speech docs but ultimately if something is unclear, I will go with what makes the most sense to me. If you run policy arguments we should be fine (In the order of preference, policy making args including CPs, DAs, case turns and solvency take outs, Ks, Topicality/Theory <--these I don't like in LD or in Policy in general as explained above). Given this information please use this information to pref me. I would say DA/CP debaters should pref me 1 and 2. anyone else should pref me lower unless you have debated in front of me before and you feel I can handle your arguments. Again if its not CP/DA and case take outs you are preffing me higher at your own risk. Given many of you only have three more tournaments to get Bids (if that is your goal for GD, Stanford, Berkeley) then I would recommend you don't have me as your judge as I would not feel as qualified to judge LD as I would judging most policy rounds and Public forum rounds. Is this lame? kinda. But hey I am trying to be honest and not have someone hate me for a decision I made. if you have more questions before GD, please email me at vrivasumana@tgsastaff.com

For all debaters:
clarity: enunciate and make sure you are not going too fast I cannot understand
explain your evidence: I HATE pulling cards at the end of a round. If I have to, do not expect high speaker points. I will go off what was said in the debate so if you do not explain your evidence well, I will not consider it in the debate.

Something I have thought about since it seems that in Public Forum and even in other debates power tagging evidence has become an issue, I am inclined to give lower speaker points for someone who gives me evidence they claimed says one thing and it doesn't. If it is in out rounds, I may be inclined to vote against you as well. This is especially true in PF where the art of power tagging has taken on a life of its own and its pretty bad. I think something needs to get done about this and thus I want to make it very clear if you are in clear violation of this and you present me with evidence that does not say what it does, I am going to sit there and think hard about how I want to evaluate it. I may give you the win but on low points. Or I may drop you if it is in outrounds. I have thought long and hard about this and I am still unsure how I want to approach this but given how bad the situation is beginning to get with students just dumping cards and banking on people not asking questions, I think something needs to be done.

anything else feel free to ask me during the round. thanks.

Updated for April 2023.

Tabroom has the option to specify pronouns for a reason. If a debater specifies certain pronouns by which they identify in a live update, ensure you know them. I have ZERO tolerance for deliberate misgendering because it makes the round unsafe. If you object to this, strike me.

A note on content warnings: I have seen the proliferation of potentially triggering arguments being tagged with content warnings before rounds. This is great. If someone doesn't read such a warning, I would be extremely receptive to claims about why that should mean I drop the debater immediately. However, I notice the execution of such warnings leaves much to be desired in some cases. A CW should have three components:

A. A clear indication of the general topic which will be discussed and whether it is graphic or not.

B. A google form wherein the competitors and judges in the round can anonymously indicate discomfort. Do not ask for someone to say whether the content is triggering or not aloud, it is extremely traumatizing and difficult for survivors of trauma to have to out themselves for the sake of your debate argument. Asking for this is immoral and at best will be met by me tanking your speaks and at worst lead to me dropping you immediately.

C. If someone does indicate discomfort, simply say you understand and will read a different argument. Do not pressure or guilt trip anyone for being unwilling to discuss these arguments. Regardless of how important these issues are to debate discourse, safety is definitely more important.

Put me on the email chain: rubinmai@gmail.com.

If there's any way I can make the round more accessible, feel free to email me before the round and I will do my best.

TL;DR: Tech>truth, first speaking summary doesn't have to extend defense unless it's frontlined by second speaking rebuttal, in which case you have to respond to frontlines if you wanna go for it in FF. Second rebuttal does not have to frontline defense, but does have to frontline turns or disads. Defense isn't terminal unless you tell me why. I've been scarcely involved in debate for a few years and am rusty, adapt accordingly. Don't be more tech than you are. See point 5 if you're reading an anticapitalist argument.

Hello. I did PF for three years at Boca Raton High School ('17) and currently coach/judge circuit PF. I went to FSU until spring 2021 and am currently a third year law student at ASU. I’ve been around the national circuit, so I’ve seen my fair share of debating.

I have been much less involved in debate since 2021, however. Take all of the components of this paradigm with the caveat that I might have issues keeping up with overwhelmingly tech rounds due to being rusty.

I disclose, so if you have any questions about the round, be it the specifics of the flow or your performance as a speaker, feel free to ask me either during the disclosure or after the round if time permits on my part. If you have any questions about my paradigm or an RFD, feel free to ask before or after round (tournament permitting).

As for the paradigm:

1. Debate is a game (unless you compellingly argue otherwise in-round), call me tech>truth. I'll vote on any warranted argument insofar as it isn't unambiguously, maliciously offensive. In the latter case, you'll get an L0-20. I think intervention assassinates pedagogy and fairness because the round is decided by factors outside the control of debaters. To minimize intervention, I will presume the status quo in a scenario in a policy topic where: A. no one is accessing offense, or B. both teams are accessing offense without literally any analysis as to which args are more important and it is impossible for me to resolve the debate without intervening. In short, I presume in pretty much any scenario where it is impossible for me to resolve the round without having to introduce any of my own analysis that wasn’t in it. DO NOT ABUSE THAT. I presume first on non-policy resolutions. On that note, I believe defense is NOT terminal unless you tell me it is and why. I presume defense is mitigatory by default, and give very little weight to it if it is not implicated. This ensures people don't lose the round on presumption because of one piece of mitigation that was dropped and lacked implication.

2. First speaking summary doesn't have to extend defense, unless that defense is covered in second rebuttal, in which case, it must be frontlined in first summary and extended if you intend to go for it in FF. Likewise, if you're second speaking and frontline in second rebuttal and your opponents drop the frontline in first summary, you can extend the frontline straight to final focus without mentioning it in summary. I do not require second rebuttal frontlining for defense, but it is required for turns. However, it is probably strategic to do because defense is a lot harder to access if frontlined early. Beyond that, no new in the two. That includes new weighing in the 2FF, unless there was no prior weighing. Any argument must be responded to in the speech after it is introduced or else it is conceded, with the exception of first rebuttal defense that is not frontlined in second rebuttal. However, I do believe.

3. Regarding new applications of certain args, the way I handle them is that the part of the arg itself that was read before cannot be responded to if dropped. However, the new application can be responded to because it was never read before in the round and the other team had no way of knowing they needed to frontline. Too many teams keep pulling this super sus strat of reading entirely new applications of frontlines or defense to dropped args in the backhalf and reading entirely new implications that weren't in rebuttal. This is effectively a new argument because this articulation of the argument wasn't earlier in the round and the other team couldn't respond to it. There are two exceptions. Those are if 1FF is answering new arguments from second summary and/or if 2FF is refuting those answers. Second, if you're making a theoretical argument about some abuse committed late in the round. If it's the latter, you better spend a VERY significant chunk of your FF on the argument and warranting why the level of abuse is big enough to outweigh the fairness skew of an arg that is new in the two.

4. The only new frameworks that I feel comfortable with being introduced after summary, absent some argument telling me otherwise, are voters and reasons to prefer/weighing frameworks. Clarity of link weighing is fake news 99% of the time, I am not fooled by new attempts to read defense in FF.

5. Cool w/ progressive arguments if done properly and am tangentially familiar with stock K lit. I notice a lot of judges try to ascribe specific purposes to these types of args, like only being for checking back abuse. I think this is intervention. YOU decide and argue in round what the role of a progressive arg is and how that affects the round's outcome. Also, tell me why your args/standards are voters, especially for theory/T. Disclaimer: I have a college policy background, but a limited one, and I was also bad at it. If you're someone reading these types of args, I suggest dumbing them down by spending more time explaining/implicating them.

(NEW AS OF APRIL 2023) As an addition to the above, I have become more versed in anticapitalist literature since taking some distance from debate. With this, I have also grown disillusioned with how a lot of PFers read arguments based on that literature such as capitalism kritiks. Saying I should reject something solely because "it perpetuates capitalism" is oftentimes meaningless in the greater scheme of things within anticapitalist theory. That's not to say I won't vote on those args, because I will if they are accessed and weighed. But it is to say that I have an unavoidable internal bias against that variant of anticapitalist argumentation. However, I love capitalism arguments in PF when they're accompanied by rock solid uniqueness (i.e. reasons why capitalism is gonna collapse and the aff prevents/delays that, or reasons why the aff causes capitalism to collapse). I will do my best to restrain this bias, but it is there, and it is fair you be made aware of it.

6. Good w/ speed but notify me if you're gonna outright spread so I can flow on laptop. Send speech docs if spreading or I will not be happy. Slow on tags/authors/analytics. I will clear you.

7. Issues in CX need to be mentioned in a speech for me to evaluate them.

8. If a link turn links to a different impact than the argument it's turning, that impact MUST be weighed for me to evaluate it because these types of arguments don't inherently prevent or hijack impacts, meaning it doesn't function as defense either. Treat it like an impact from case.

9. If a card is disputed throughout the round or has something in it that spikes/responds to another arg, please extend the card name in summary and FF for clarity and signposting.

10. Please warrant new cards/arguments in summary, don't just read a claim that only ever gets warranted in FF.

11. Please weigh because it makes the round clearer and easier for me to judge. Line-by-line is important, but weighing is absolutely necessary. Most teams I've judged haven't weighed, or done so poorly. Weighing doesn't just entail saying why your link/impact is big. Tell me why it's comparatively greater than everything else in the round. Arg interaction is key. Clarity of impact/link weighing is fake news 90% of the time just because people throw those buzzwords at me and just say “we outweigh because our arg is true.” Just saying you outweigh because you access an arg is not weighing. Strength of link is fine with very good COMPARATIVE warranting rather than being a poorly veiled attempt to read new defense in FF.

12. Absent being told otherwise, I default to evaluating the round on several levels. In descending order: framework, comparative weighing, weighing, offense access. I'm open to some theoretical alternative to evaluating the round if it's proposed to me, I.e. procedural args like theory coming first.

13. If you plan on conceding an arg for strategic purposes, I like that because it’s smart. That said, such can be abusive if used at a point where it is nigh impossible for the other team to respond. I do not wanna intervene on this issue, so: it is fair to make strategic concessions, but only in the speech immediately after those args are made. For example, if someone reads terminal link defense alongside a ton of link turns in first rebuttal, your concession should be in second rebuttal. I won’t take this into account by default. This only comes into play if you argue why it’s abusive. If this happens and you do not make an arg about it, I evaluate it normally. I am VERY receptive to theory arguments on this issue, even in the final focus if and ONLY IF the abuse in question happened right before it.

14. As an extension of the above, I don't enter the round with any preconceptions about certain args being abusive. There are no abusive args unless you: A. tell me why the arg is abusive (most people are blippy on this), and B. why that means I shouldn't evaluate them, preferably grounded by some standard like education or fairness (often entirely absent). Or you could read theory, which is fine by me.

15. I tend to evaluate evidence as arguments, unless some arg in round is made that I should eval them otherwise or there is REALLY excessive abuse. That means a few things:

A. Just as I only evaluate arguments as you present them to me, I only eval ev as you present it to me. This means that the claim you present from the ev is how I eval it, and if I call the card and see some other application of the ev that wasn't articulated in round, I'm not gonna consider it.

B. I prefer not to call for cards unless I am told to. In fact, I ABSOLUTELY HATE having to do evidence comparison myself. Please do it for me, it likely won't end well for you if it comes down to this. There are exceptions to this rule for cards I deem important enough to call, and I will admit that metric is somewhat arbitrary. I think, however, that most would agree that such arbitrariness is fine if it leads to accountability. If I call your ev due to an indict, and the specific parts of the ev in question are problematic, my default response is to just drop the ev to minimize intervention. This, of course, can change if your opponents make some argument as to why this should impact the outcome of the round. I also might just call cards for clarification.

C. The only occasion in which I drop a team with the lowest speaks tab will allow for misrepresenting ev is if it is REALLY terrible and malicious, and the abuse is obviously super extreme, i.e. fabricating ev, distortion, or obvious clipping. I haven't had to do this in a round I myself have judged yet, so my threshold for this is very high, don't be alarmed.

16. The Jan 2019 topic has taught me that there are some parts of economics that I do not understand. Explain economics to me in round like I'm five, for both our sakes.

17. I evaluate embedded clash to an extremely limited extent in the absence of analysis/implication in the round itself, and I only do this when it has to be done to resolve the round. My standard for evalling embedded clash is that if the analysis/extension you read is 100% there and just not signposted in its application or is on the wrong part of the flow, I eval it. By 100% there, I mean I could literally cut and paste that verbatim statement on to the arg it clashes with and have zero issue. If I can't literally just add the phrase "On this argument..." to the analysis/extension that's there, I won't eval embedded clash in the absence of analysis. PLEASE do the analysis properly, I hate evalling embedded clash and your speaks will suffer.

18. In terms of theory, I default to competing interps, no RVI, and drop the debater, open to otherwise if argued in round. Likewise, if you read a theory shell instead of a PF-y argument about why a certain thing is abusive and shouldn't be evaluated, I will hold it to the standard of a theory shell. Extend the interp verbatim. The shell line-by-line doesn't need to be extended in rebuttal.

Speaker Points

To me, speaks aren't about presentation. I tend to give speaks based on one's strategic decisionmaking and argumentation in the context of a round. Cool strategic moves and good efficiency (especially in the backhalf) are the key to my heart. I’m not a fan of giving speaks based off stylistic performance, mostly because those tend to be informed by some pretty bad norms that disadvantage non-cishet white men. If your strategy is good, I don’t care how you speak, I will give you good speaks.

Here’s the breakdown:

30: You made the best possible strategic decisions and arguments in the context of the round.

29-29.5: You made smart strategic decisions and arguments. Only a few things you could have done better.

28-28.5: Solid argumentation and middle of the line strategic decisionmaking. What I give to the majority of decent rounds I judge.

27-27.5: Passable argumentation with several mistakes, and a noticeable absence of strategic decisionmaking. Round was way more unclear than it should be, and improvements are definitely needed.

26-26.5: Below average. Major mistakes or problems with the debate, definitely needs immediate improvement.

25-25.5: Very below average. Completely mishandled the round. Significant work needed on how the debate is handled.

<25: You probably said something quite offensive or tried to spread cards without sending a speech doc.

Mr. P. J. Samorian
Mr. Samorian is the Communications Department Chair at American Heritage Schools Palm Beach Campus. His teams compete in Lincoln Douglas, Public Forum, Congressional Debate and Individual Speech Events, Worlds School Debate with possible Policy Debate addition. AH Achievements: LD State Champion, Declamation State Champion, Sunvite PF Champion, Emory PF Champion, NSDA/NCFL Finalists in IE and Congress, Grapevine PF Champions, Bronx Congress RR Champion, Blue Key PF and LD Champions, GMU Congress Champion, Blue Key 3rd Place Sweepstakes, NSDA district champions. He is the former Director of Forensics at New Trier High School in Winnetka, Illinois. He was the Director of Forensics at Loyola Academy in Wilmette, Illinois for 18 years and before that was an Assistant IE Coach at Glenbrook South High School in Glenview, Illinois under the direction of William (Mark) Ferguson. He coached the NFL Poetry Reading National Champion (1993), NFL Congress(Senate) Runner-Up (2000), ICDA State Congress Champions (2000), IHSA State Congressional Debate Runner-Up (2008), and his team won one of five NCFL Eleanor E. Wright Debate Awards (2009). He has coached finalists and champions at Wake Forest, Grapevine, The Glenbrooks, Blue Key, The Barkley Forum, U.C.Berkeley, Sunvite and Harvard. Mr. Samorian is an NSDA Triple Diamond coach. He holds a B.A. from Northern Illinois University and a M.Ed. from Loyola University Chicago. He attended Glenbrook North High School in Northbrook, Illinois where he was involved with drama and music. He was involved with hosting five NCFL National Tournaments in Chicago, and was the President of the Chicago Catholic Forensic League and has served on both the Northern Illinois NFL District Committee as well as the IHSA State Debate Committee. He was the director of public forum for Millennial Speech and Debate (Georgetown and Boston College) and was the Co-Director for Public Forum Debate at the Harvard Summer Workshop. He has hosted NSDA webinars on different aspects of congressional debate. He has been the director of public forum at Georgetown as well as teaching and directing programs in Business, Stem, and Debate for Capitol Debate at Notre Dame Baltimore, American University Washington DC, Yale University, Babson College, Dartmouth College, The Hun School. He is currently the PBMSFL Treasurer and serves on the congress TOC advisory committee.

FOR ALL DEBATE EVENTS, the flow is so important. You have to listen and make note of what your opponents are saying. I am flowing, so you should be as well. Then it is important that you DO something with that information.

I am open to any argument you may make and then ask that you support that idea.

If you are going to spread, please sign post and accent key terms you want me to get down on my flow.

I work hard to not let any of my personal opinions have any place in the round.

I prefer that debaters be strong in their conviction but not be abusive in their treatment of others.
I also require you to be truthful. Present accurate evidence. I have been witness to false information and it really bothers me that you would just present it as though it is true and keep going until someone questions it.

Persuade me that you are right and your opponents are not.

I DO NOT SHAKE HANDS AT THE END OF A ROUND (Obviously in person debate) This was posted BEFORE Covid and still applies now.

LINCOLN DOUGLAS
I prefer that contestants stick to the philosophical arguments in the round. It bothers me when LD turns to a plan of action. (With exception of a topic that requires a plan...) While topics are sometimes hard, I am looking for the theory that is supporting what you are saying. To this end, you may consider me "old school" when it comes to LD. Yes, I do think that Locke, Hobbes, Rousseau and others should provide foundation for the direction you are going. That doesn't mean I am not open to other theories and philosophies, however if you do run theory or other arguments, know why you are running them. Please don't run them because you do that at every tournament so you don't have to prep each topic!!! An entire round of arguments not related to the topic will not win my ballot. Ignoring a judge who says "clear" when you are spreading, will not win my ballot. Clear, persuasive arguments will win my ballot. Arguments that are constructed and carried through the debate will win my ballot. Weighing at the end or your final rebuttal could win my ballot. I do not shake hands at the end of a round.

PUBLIC FORUM
I like the original intention of this event that it should be a debate that would take place in a public setting and would have ideas and delivery that any person off the street could understand. To this end, I don't want you to be a policy debater. While I do want structure to what you are saying and evidence to support your ideas, it is the PUBLIC approach that I prefer. Are you clear? Do your points make logical sense? Are you able to persuade me that your side is the side that is best for our current population? I have been extremely bothered in the past few years with students who are falsifying evidence. I judged a semi-final where one team built an entire case around one key piece of evidence. Their opponents called for the evidence during the round, but it was never produced. The judge next to me called for the evidence after the round and sure enough, they were blatantly misquoting the evidence. I have also researched evidence that simply does not exist. Have some integrity. Do the work needed to prepare yourself for the topic. I do not shake hands at the end of a round.

CONGRESSIONAL DEBATE
Yes, I was around when the event was called Student Congress and it has been an honor to have been a part of the evolution of the activity. I think there are many roles that congressional debaters play. To that end, there are many styles of speeches that I enjoy when judging a congress round. The authorship should explain the legislation and set the tone and standard for the round. The first con should be equally as strong. Both should have strong supportive evidence and equally strong explanations. Every speech after that should further debate with new evidence and should also extend or refute previous speakers. For me, politics are a waste of time. That being said, I also don't like it to be a speech competition. It should be a series of debate speeches on both sides so that at the end of debate on each piece of legislation, I have a better idea of the issues and in a sense; I have been persuaded to one side or the other. If you are speaking near the end of the debate, then a top-notch crystallization is in order and very much enjoyed when done well. If you are a presiding officer, I want it to run so smoothly and fairly that I never have to step in. A good PO brings energy to the room and fosters an atmosphere of healthy debate. I enjoy students who have their own unique style and don't just copy what everyone else is doing and saying. Play to your strengths. Recent developments in more complicated scenarios have been interesting as has the development of 30 second questioning periods (direct questioning). Traditional questioning is one question one person, it should not be called indirect questioning.... Congressional Debate is still evolving and I think we should enjoy the growth. Some styles work better than others, but I am not convinced there is just one way to speak or preside. I enjoy some of the regional and league differences. I serve on the TOC Congressional Debate Advisory Committee. I do not shake hands at the end of a round. Can we please put an end to frowning chairs? Congress does not have an equal number of speeches for or against a piece of legislation so why should we. It is natural that one side will have more than the other. So stop frowning. If you cannot extend, refute, or produce new arguments, then don't rehash, vote to move on to the next legislation and speak early on that. EVERYONE SHOULD BE PREPARED ON BOTH SIDES. Then strategically you should choose which side will benefit you the best and speak on that side.

INDIVIDUAL EVENTS
I don't think anyone checks the wiki for IE philosophy. LOL I mean, its not like you could change your cutting of speech because I am in the back of the room. IE was my first love and passion. Do well in performance. Be honest and true and you will win me every round. I often write an IE ballot as though I am coaching you. So, if I give you ideas and then see you a month later and have to just write the same exact ballot again, what did you learn and do my notes even matter at that point. IE students often try to read the judge. You can't really read me. I may be writing feverishly to give you as many suggestions for improvement as possible, I may be writing how much I am enjoying every moment, or a may stop writing because I don't have much to say because you are so amazing. I also rank as I go so there is no advantage or disadvantage to your speaking order.

ONLINE SPEECH AND DEBATE - At first, I had enjoyed moving to online speech and debate. I was involved in rules development, ideas for communicating online and framing ideas. I worked all summer with online speech and debate and so understand glitching etc but you also need to make sure no other devices in your home are on and that your framing doesn't include anything moving, like a ceiling fan, as they will detract from the strength of your signal. FOR DEBATE EVENTS, I prefer that you present your speech seated. I think in person standing is fine, but when you stand online we often lose facial expression, gestures are hard to see, walking off camera isn't good, and your voice may drop off. FOR SPEECH EVENTS-For many, ok, most, events you must stand and that is perfectly fine. Have fun and enjoy that we are still able to keep our activity vibrant and growing. 2022 Update - I am tired of being online and I am crossing fingers we will soon return to in person speech and debate. I AM IN FAVOR of students who are finding creative ways to perform online and I am not in favor or adults making new online rules that limit creativity. (Ex: Moving toward or away from the camera for emphasis)

My Background:
I have recently started judging public forum debate and consider myself an amateur "parent judge."
I have a background in Business and Finance.

My Requests:
I request the contestants to speak a little slowly - I am a novice judge.
I request you to track your time. I would like the teams to strictly follow their allocated time to keep the debate fair.
I request the debaters to provide their contentions in a written bullet form as it will ensure that I fully understand and track their arguments. I request you to not provide details, just the title of your contentions.

I'm working on restructuring this. We're all aware it looks a bit silly. So some parts might be out of place, but I want to put them in here.

Some updated things to know:
No, you don't have to adapt your strategy to be more K heavy because my paradigm has a furby. In fact, I will be annoyed if you seem to pander.
Along this vein - I wouldn't consider myself a K hack. I find more and more that I am very comfortable voting on conceded procedurals. To me, "this theory argument doesn't matter/isn't good" as a one-sentence response with no warrants is categorically conceding it.
I prefer flowing off the speech unless I can't, so I might not notice clipping. Feel free to challenge.
If you are going for a K, the 2NR should make some commitment to explaining your alt.
My topic knowledge is literature-heavy, jargon, not so much. This is to say, please don't rename their DA to another name you've heard for it because this gets a bit confusing to me during roadmaps. Just call it what it was in the 1NC and I will be a happy camper.
I really like weighing debates, especially at the impact level. Link debates I feel require intervention far more often.
More and more I feel like being a good judge means being a lazy judge - not as far as flowing, I try to take the flow extremely seriously. I more find that the more I consider my own philosophy in a decision, the more I worry I'm intervening. That being said, tabula rasa probably isn't possible - my philosophy is a bit less predictable than other judges. I have tried to annotate the consequential things up here. If you're completing TOC preps and have questions, feel free to email.

Last Update 04/17 - Policy debaters, you're in the right spot. PF, scroll down to the bottom for the relevant section.

Sections:
(1) About Me; (2) a section about keeping debates safe; (3) how I give speaker points; (4) a disclaimer about my side bias for neg; (5) my thoughts on K's; (6) general thoughts on evidence/weighing; and (7) a PF section. If you don't care about these things specifically, there is no reason to read the rest of my paradigm. Unless maybe you're bored, but I'd say a game of chess would be a better way to alleviate that. lichess.org is a good place for that.

TLDR: I'll find the cleanest path to the ballot on the flow. Tech >>> Truth. Don't be violent, make debate an educational activity and I'll probably be a good judge for you.

abigailnspencer[at]gmail.com.

(1) About Me
Coaching: University of Chicago Lab, South Shore, *Potomac Debate Academy (*PF)
Formerly: McDade Classical, Lindblom, Phillips Exeter, SWSDI

Competed in NDT/CEDA policy debate and AFA-NIET speech (Arizona State). Top 10 NSDA point earners '20. I've done most events. I can flow. I did a lot of hybrid partnerships, so I've run arguments across the spectrum. Performance, trad, it's all cool.

I am always flowing. I have carpal tunnel syndrome (ouch) so sometimes I need to take breaks and sometimes I use keyboard shortcuts or other tools I've created for myself. If I'm not actively typing, that's because I've got it on the flow through other means.

(2) PLEASE BE A GOOD HUMAN
Disclaimer: I do not give you a W or higher speaker points for respecting pronouns. I think that respecting pronouns is a good way to make debate a safe and welcoming space. If you want to know my values, read my debate background. I am tired of being treated like a judge who will vote for you just because you asked for your opp's pronouns.

that being said, you should use they/them pronouns for anyone who has not disclosed otherwise in your round. I'm seeing an influx of trans debaters cling to this activity as a safe space - don't be what shatters that.

there's also an unspoken imbalance in the accessibility of pronoun disclosure. it takes 10 seconds to update your bio to tell the homies you're cis. for trans debaters this decision carries all the weight in the world and isn't always instantaneous. not disclosing pronouns does not mean you do not care. it is often because it is not safe to do so.

make debates safe before you make them winnable. your words may just change someone's life.

(3) Things that I give high speaks for:
Argumentative and strategic consistency and awareness- in every cross or speech you give, I can identify a clear understanding of your case and strategy. You're not just reading each speech in front of you, you're thinking about the round as a whole.

Also, I am always impressed by good topic knowledge. I don't expect this, since topics are broad and you're not required to be an expert, but for me I will definitely bump up speaks if you clearly know a lot about this topic from your research.

Finally, I don't really care about how you speak/where you speak in the room. I don't care about eye contact. What I consider to be good for "professionalism" is being accountable for prep time, speech times, and cross times. I won't be upset if you take a second to get ready when you are about to start your speech. But if you're consistently ending prep and speaking very promptly after, I will reward that with higher speaks since I do kind of dislike when people "end prep" and then very clearly continue to read through their speech and mentally prep until they start talking.

Be kind to your partners. Do not be overly cocky.

(4) am I BIASED??? (not clickbait)
I've been voting neg a lot recently. I'm not a neg hack, but I think a lot of affs forget how easy it is to vote neg and not intervene when the aff isn't weighed against the status quo. Please extend your impacts! An overview that's even 30 seconds in the 2AR is critical to explaining why the aff is a good idea if you want me to vote for it.

I am finding more and more debates decided during the last speech on each side. I think debates can totally be won or lost earlier, but I'm just not seeing that at the hs level. This is all to say - frame, frame, frame. Cool debaters have cool voters. I vote on the flow and I don't necessarily care that a card or two were dropped, unless you want to explain why it loses the debate. Spend less time extending cards and more time telling me why you win and they lose - I crave judge intervention less than you do, trust me.

(5) Your name makes you sound like a neolib, but you have college policy experience...can I read my K?
I fall into the category of K debater that appreciates a good K but has a visceral reaction to a bad one. I don't see the same novelty most judges do in your performance, I'm sorry. I hit a sex worker/call girl rage performance in college and since then I've realized that anything can happen in these rounds. Please don't assume that me having K experience means reading a K is the best strategy. I will totally vote for your K, but I will hold you to defending it properly and explaining how you solve your impacts - especially if you want me to accept a non-traditional ROB, like "always vote for this K, no matter what."

Essentially, debate the way you want to and I'll evaluate accordingly.

THE DEFAULT IS debate is a game, you win on the flow. You can read another interp though, I'll evaluate whatever you tell me debate is.

(6) The other, less interesting debate stuff you should know.
I will warn that coming from Policy I'm a bit sussed out by why the one card they dropped is more important than all the other work they did on your flow. Do not expect me to do the work for you. I'm looking for the cleanest path to the ballot, but please explain why I should vote on something. Conceded offense probably isn't great for you, but if you just extend a dropped turn that wasn't ever fleshed out and they're winning case, it comes down to who does the better comparative. Framework debates are cool.

You make my job so much easier when you define an aff world against a neg world. What actually happens when the resolution is "passed"? I don't want to re-read your link story after the round, and I'm more likely to believe it hearing it in summary and final focus than I am when critically evaluating my flow. Extend impacts, they won't do it by themselves (trust me).

Speed's cool with me if it's cool with all debaters in the round. I'd personally send out a speech doc after 300wpm because of the likelihood of lag in online settings. In general, if you want your arguments on my flow make sure you're loud and clear. I flow everything on its own sheet, so off-time road maps are cool. Signposting is even cooler.

Don't use unnecessary jargon. Unless this is visibly a higher level tech round, I do believe you should be doing everything in your power to make sure everyone in round has access to the same education you do.

Make debate educational, above all else. Accessibility is a pre-requisite to education. Exclude, you lose.

(7) PF gets a tiny lil spot here
1. I coach/teach classes in ES and MS PF - even though I judge policy more often, I'm very familiar with PF as an event and don't expect you to act like high schoolers or policy debaters. Don't get overwhelmed by my paradigm! I can judge you.

2. Weighing arguments in summary/final focus is essential for me, more than any other thing. Weighing just means comparing your case to theirs and specifically telling me why I vote for you and not them. Just because your arguments are good isn't enough; I need to know why they're better.

3. Crossfire is not a speech, so if you make a good attack on their argument in cross that you want me to evaluate on the flow, bring it up in your next speech.

4. Extensions can be simple, I just need to know you haven't forgotten your case - like, you don't have to rexplain your whole case in every speech, but it also doesn't look good if you spend so much time responding to what they ay that you don't talk about your case after constructive.

(8) I know I didn't put this in my roadmap, so this is a top secret section...Middle School Debate!
Who am I kidding...middle schoolers don't read paradigms. But then again, does anyone anymore?

Call me "Josh" or "jsp"

joshuasp.debate@gmail.com - yes put me on the chain, i want an email chain set up before each rounds start time

Recent Coaching/Debating Affiliations: Ivy Bridge Academy, Georgia State University, Thomas Kelly College Prep

Bottom line: I am a 3rd year out debater doing policy, I did 4 years of LD in high school and I have been coaching PF at Ivy Bridge Academy. I can follow technical debating and jargon from across those 3 events so just you do you - I have coached/debated/judged/voted on tricks, theory, kritiks, plan, phil, trad and lay (insert whatever non-descriptive 1 word shorthand you like). Whatever you are doing will likely not be new to me in all honesty. Some people call me a tabula rasa judge even though I think the phrase tabula rasa is a conservative debate dogwhistle (I spend a lot of my time thinking about why we do what we do in debate, I think this makes me decent at judging method debates).

---

Quick Prefs:

1 - K, Plans, Case Debate, Lay, T/T-FW

2 - DA's/CP's, Theory, Narratives

3 - Phil

4 - Tricks

Strike - Out of round violations, frivolous arguments

---

Translation for PF Debaters: this means I am a "tech judge". Speed is fine and prog is cool. Just don't be a jerk, be a sensible person.

---

I have given myself 5 things to say about how I evaluate debates, no more, no less:

1. I need pen time, i flow on paper and by ear

2. I will not vote for arguments that had no warrant/signaling. Such as ur fiat K's that ngl was not even in the block

3. It must have been in your final speech for me to vote for you on it (including extending case vs T)

4. I evaluate impact level first usually unless told otherwise (whether its education or nuke war, etc)

5. My ballot will likely be determined off who i have to do the least work for, i do not usually vote on presumption

---

Evidence shenanigans:

this is the only stuff that will change how I vote directly, everything else is flexible.

Put me on the email chain, i do like to read evidence because no one compares the evidence themselves. I prefer ev to be send before speeches and in cut cards. Your speaks are capped below 29.5 if there is no doc and below 28 if when you send evidence there is not evidence in cut card format. Paraphrasing is fine if you have cut cards to go along with it AND you send them out BEFORE. I make exceptions to this if you are part of a small program which has no way knowing how to cut cards and this is in novice.

If you send your case as a google doc, copying perms needs to be on. This is because I need to create a stable copy of your evidence, anything that you can edit without sending a new doc risks being problematic (ie changing highlighting mid round or adding ev and claiming to have read it). Strike me if how I deal with ev ethics is a problem.

---

How I vote

I will only vote on what was in the final speech and what is implicated to be in the final speech as the reason to vote for you. That is the only hard line I draw. (this includes you must extend case against a 2nr on T). Every form of debate is full of brain rot and I genuinely care about voting for people who are capable of thinking of why they do the norms they partake, not only does it make you a better debater but also a better person. Idc what it is or how it got there, just get to the finish line. Any arg is a voting issue if made to be that way. I only vote on complete arguments. Stock args are very strategic in front of me because I am not better for random arguments but for good arguments you can defend well. The frontlines and weighing wins you the round, not the constructive.

Background: Masters student at University Nebraska Lincoln studying Communication Rhetoric with an emphasis on critical theory and film. Former 2021 NFA-LD National Champion, 2019 Missouri State Policy Champion, 2018 NCFL LD Quarterfinalist.

While I will likely vote for almost anything if you have the proper framework to justify it. I am a former critical anti-blackness debater. I believe debate is more than a game and my experience in the activity has obviously informed my love for critical debate. Critical education is a cornerstone of this activity that I love to explore. However, you can read just about anything in front of me but you should know my strengths and weakness as a judge. Don't think reading critical stuff is a auto-win, far from it, I'll hold you to a somewhat higher standard because I know what good K debate looks like and I understand it.

I'm not super well versed in the intricacies of policy argumentation despite my 10 years in this activity. I just ask you to meet me where I'm at. I love a good policy debate whenever the story of the AC is CLEAR and EXTENDED throughout the entirety of the debate. Your AR's shouldn't just be extension and tech, I need overviews and clear articulations of what the AFF does, what it solves and why it matters. Run your heg/econ/war policy AFF, just do it well. If you do run policy, do it well. However, I draw the line at any death/extinction good arguments. It's weird and privileged asf. If you think your opp can be construed as accelerationist or fascist, call it out as so and you will likely win. I'm tired of hearing "all humans need to die". I won't auto-down vote but if your opp impacts out your genocidal rhetoric, you're cooked tbh.

Policy NC's: In order, I prefer K's, Case Turns, DA's, CP's, Topicality, and Theory. I expect the AFF to cover all negative positions unless AR theory says otherwise. I will vote for topicality on policy AFF's but it will be an uphill battle reading framework against a non-T critical AFF. If it feels exclusionary, and the aff wins that it is, good luck.

Test your critical sauce in front of me, I will vote for K's/Critical AFF's them or give in depth feedback on how to improve them. I have a moderate/deep knowledge of most identity/class based critical literature and surface level understanding of po-mo crit lit. Run your critical/non-T AFF if you can win the topicality/methods debate, run the K if you know the actual links to the AFF. Rebuttal articulation is EVERYTHING.

If you're reading a non-T critical AFF, I would like your evidence to be rooted in the topic through the lens of your critical theory . I will be more sympathetic to well-crafted (rare) framework against non-T AFF's that are filled with backfile cards that have been read ad-nauseam in nearly all debate communities since 2000-2010 or even worse, cards that aren't even about the topic or identity. I'm not asking for you to role play the state, that's whack asf, i'm just asking you to innovate. I don't wanna hear the same afropess, be gay do crime and cap K cards that have been circulating in the community for decades. I want you to apply contemporary critical theory to the specific resolution at hand, you don't have to affirm the resolution but please, have to 1/3 or 1/2 or 2/3 of your AFF cards use same language used in the topic. There are scholars of all identities writing about Nuclear War, find them and amplify their voice. Framework is always an uphill battle in front of me but it's much easier when the AFF is not engaging with critical lit rooted in the topic.

K's: You need to clearly articulate why and how the AFF specifically links, and clearly isolate these links in the rebuttals. Explain why the perm isn't possible. Do not read afropess if you're not black. If you read links of omission, you better hope your opponent does not have a good response to why links of omission aren't real because I find those arguments persuasive. Links should be predicated off AFF action, language, impacts, politics, advantages etc.

Theory: Sure, I guess. I don't know much about condo/dispo/presumption, etc., so just try to explain them a little more than you'd usually have to for judges like me. I am less hesitant to vote for theory if it comes from an affluent or white team running frivolous theory interps against marginalized debaters/small schools. I encourage smaller teams to run disclosure theory against their opponents. If you're in policy, I may not be familiar with certain theory arguments.

Speed: I'm comfortable with speed if you go slow on tags and share docs. I flow on my laptop for most debates. Since I flow on my laptop, flash all docs and if you can, analytics too. Extra speaks for flashing analytics.

How to Get My Ballot: Win thesis-level claims and tell me where to vote and why. Exploit concessions (with warrants).

Feel free to email me at andre.j.swai@gmail.com for additional thoughts after the round and questions about college debate.

I have been involved with speech and debate since my son competed from 2009-2013 and have judged on and off since about 2011. My experience is mostly in speech, but have also watched a little bit of both high school and college debate. I’ve also seen a decent amount of Congress, but it is a bit more difficult for me to keep track of so many students at once. Part of my background is in theater and choir so I firmly believe in the power of public speaking. Additionally, my career was in print production so organization is of the utmost importance to me when I judge rounds. Furthermore, as someone who worked for a decade as a video producer, I have grown to appreciate well-prepared research and commitment to performance.

I consider myself to be a lay judge. Here are some general rules I follow:

• I wouldn’t suggest running theory/Kritiks. I prefer substance.
• be nice. If you are mean or derogatory towards someone I will take off speaker points.
• Don’t spread! Don’t sacrifice clarity for speed.

PF: I vote mainly on the voters you give me, if you dont have clear voters then I will vote on what i think is important and it may not be what you think it is (if one side has voters and the other side doesn't then im going to lean more toward the side with voters). Go down the flow it makes it much easier for me to flow all of your agruments in the right spot. Don't spread if I dont know exactly what you said I wont write it down.

LD: Make your Framework very clear so I understand exactly what it is but dont make it a framework debate. Dont spread if I dont know what you said I wont write it down. I vote mainly on voters, if you dont have clear voters then I will vote on what i think is important and it may not be what you think it is (if one side has voters and the other side doesn't then im going to lean more toward the side with voters).

Congress: I've done alot of PF so I like reliable sources. Be ready to speak on either side of the bill. Try and fill all of your time in your speach but if you have nothing new to add then just leave it at what you have and ask questions. questions are important to me it shows you are still engaged in the round and will give you extra points.

IPDA: jsut try to fill all your time have a good ofense and defense, and be sure to speak well. good luck

Parent judge.

I consider myself a lay judge, but I will attempt to flow during the round. Here are a few of my preferences to keep in mind:

• Please be clear and concise. You should be explaining your arguments (and context) in-depth. Give me a clear link that I can follow. As always, I need to hear good warranting in case AND hear it be extended.

• NO SPREADING. If I don’t understand an argument, I’m not voting for it.

• Organization matters, please signpost.

• Do comparative weighing. Give me something tangible to vote for. Tell me what is most important, and why I should be valuing this over everything else.

• It is easier for me to follow along if you could send the rhetoric of your case(s). My e-mail is treeonrock3@gmail.com

• Finally, the best debate rounds are inclusive and respectful. Be a good, kind person. You can be skilled and assertive without being rude.

Best of luck everyone!

I am a parent judge. I have some things written down here to answer any questions and to get the round started as soon as possible in case there is a delay.

• Speed. Delivery is very important. Don’t read so fast that no one can understand a word you are saying. Keep fluency errors to a bare minimum.
• Regular timing for speeches. It's a good idea to time yourselves, but I am the official timekeeper.
• Crossfire/Cross Examination. All four debaters MUST participate in the grand crossfire.

Other notes.

Follow your flow and don’t skip around.

Stay on the topic. If you run arguments that are way too progressive like counter plans, you will lose me and possibly the round.

Don’t hang out in the room when your debate ends. We need to keep the tournament on time.

Have fun and good luck!