In a debate round, I prefer to see a good amount of evidence followed by logic as to why this evidence is important. Make sure your speech is at a good pace so I can understand the arguments you are making.

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

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

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

Good luck!

mikeqc@gmail.com

I do not like prog args = do not run prog args.

Hello. I am a parent judge. This is my first year judging debate. I competed in what is now called Public Forum Debate and the individual events of Extemporaneous and Impromptu Speech at John F. Kennedy High School in Richmond, California. Our coach was David Dansky and during his 25 year tenure, Kennedy High teams won three state championships.

I have a professional background in law, originally as a litigator and then a transactional lawyer.

I value clarity in presenting one's points in debate rounds and curiosity in listening well to an opponent's points, thinking them through and responding to them.

It's been a while since I competed and thus I appreciate when students take care to spell out things at least once before proceeding to refer to them by debate jargon. My hope is that every student emerges from a round I judged feeling like they gave a great effort and had fun.

Lay Judge

Please be respectful and don't speak too fast.

tl;dr standard fyo flow, i will evaluate the round based on offense that is extended and warranted fully, and ideally comparatively weighed so i don’t have to intervene

about me

hi, i’m daniel! i use any pronouns. please add me to the email chain at dgarepis@uw.edu and if you’d like, check out my youtube channel at youtube.com/@danielgarepisholland. if you are a novice debater, please skip down to the novice section at the bottom.

pf for two years in middle school, two years of trad debate as palo alto gc. one year on the national circuit as palo alto gs. i got a couple bids and went to gold toc my senior year with my partner yash shetty, we also finaled ca states.

basics

speak as fast as you want (if you send a speech doc)

wear whatever you want

i will always give a verbal rfd and feedback/q and a if i can/have time

good analytics = good cards (and analytics >>>>> miscut cards)
extend clearly and collapse strategically on a few pieces of offense

do good weighing in the back half
gon't misgender people or be discriminatory, reserve the right to drop you for it
ideally disclose on the wiki or at the very least send cut cards in the email chain (not share a google doc!)
i will probably blisten to cross but extend in speech. if we skip grand both teams get 1m of prep

evidence

- paraphrase if you’d like, but don’t misconstrue. have cut cards and ideally send them in the doc.

- don’t steal prep when calling for cards, and give cards promptly when they’re called for

- ideally send a doc for constructive and rebuttal if possible. +0.2 if you do (doesn’t apply to novices)

back half

- first summary MUST extend offense (re-explain uniqueness, link chain and impact as well as frontlining) and respond to turns and terminal defense, ideally mitigatory defense as well if you’re going for that argument. ideally you should be collapsing to make this easier for you, you still need to respond to turns if you want to kick out

- i’m not the harshest stickler on extensions, it can be short — spend more time frontlining and weighing than extending. don’t spend all of summary repeating your case!!

- weighing should be done as early as possible. this can be changed with warranting, but sv > extinction > short-circuit > link-in > magnitude > timeframe (unless you give a good reason why) > probability. as annie chen said, "'nuke war is improbable' is not weighing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! it's a response w no warrant." don't give made up jargon and be comparative.

- in principle, defense is sticky. if someone drops terminal defense but extends the argument, say, into 2nd rebuttal, the argument is done. however, ideally you extend your defense in case i miss it on the flow.

theory

- default to competing interps no rvis. i sorta think rvis are dumb so i have a sorta high threshold to vote off an rvi but it's certainly possible

- i think disclosing and not paraphrasing are good norms so i have a low threshold for them. i have a medium threshold for round reports and other random shells. i have a low threshold for new k affs bad]

- in terms of cws. arguments like poverty or feminism do NOT need a content warning opt out form and there's an argument that doing this is actually bad. non-graphic discussions of sexual violence should have at least a content warning before you begin reading case. graphic descriptions of violence (which i've never actually heard read in round) MUST have an anonymous opt-out form, there's a chance i'll drop you regardless of theory

- another note on content warnings. after events at toc last year, if i find out that you read trafficking or some other possibly triggering argument and only provide an opt out form in front of flows but not lays, i reserve the right to still vote for the shell and tank your speaks

t

- yea ill vote off it

- t shell can be in paragraph form it's fine

k

- i'm by no means an expert at evaluating ks, but please run the argument

- i have a decent amount of experience with k affs, i have a decent understanding of the ideas and lit involved, and i enjoy hearing arguments that challenge normative assumptions

- i'm more comfortable evaluating cap, security, set col, etc. and identity ks than dense postmodernist lit. please warrant and explain rotb well if you want me to vote for the k aff, especially for a non-topical k

Hello there. (Congrats if you get that reference)

Here's my email for the email chain or evidence doc: ej82669@gmail.com

I'm a freshman UIUC debater who debated PF in high school.

If you’re here for speech, jump all the way down to the bottom. I’m sorry :((

There's sections for debate, PF, LD, and speech.

DEBATE

As a judge, consider me tech over truth. However, I coach middle schoolers and believe that debate is an educational event. Good research is a big part of that, so I won’t buy problematic arguments that seem to have no basis or understanding of the current situation. (eg US should increase military intervention for orientalist reasons) Otherwise, clean voters and collapses will always win me over. If this doesn’t happen, I will pick apart the flow (against my will), and no one is ever happy when the judge is forced to intervene.

That being said, I am also a debater, so I’ll vote on dropped arguments, dropped weighing, dropped framing, dropped whatever. I’ve always been a second speaker and love listening to rebuttals dumping 7 warranted responses to every single contention (it would be hypocritical for me not to). If there is genuinely no defense or clash, I default neg.

Evidence: Know the NSDA and CHSSA rules on evidence.

NSDA Evidence Rules

CHSSA Debate Rules and Regulations

If the opponents call you out on a card you definitely cut 30 seconds ago, I will allow evidence challenges or for them to clown you in all the rest of the speeches for bad evidence. I consider preventing access to a requested card as nonexistent evidence and will absolutely rules in favor of an evidence challenge in that context. I have no tolerance for distortion of the card or dates. Regardless of a challenge, I will drop the card on my flow.

General Points (that I will potentially drop your speaks for):

- Time: Time yourself. If you make the mistake of using a timer and start talking over the ringing, I will drop your speaks, because not only do you know you are going over time, you are consciously choosing to ignore it. Otherwise, I will be running a stopwatch and will put up my phone when you are going over. I will allow you to finish your point, but will not flow any new points.

- Speed: I can handle and almost prefer moderate speed. I can handle spreading, but you must be CLEAR and ENUNCIATE. Otherwise, expect to send me and your opponents a speech doc. If I catch you manipulating it, I will drop your speaks faster than you call your opponents for dropped arguments you didn’t actually make.

- Organization: Off-time roadmaps are great, but if its “I will start on my opponent’s first contention on small businesses, extend the turn, refute their second contention on policing, address the framework…” then no, they aren’t great. Signposting is a MUST. If I lose you on the flow, then good luck extending arguments that I can’t find.

- Clash: If you don’t clash, don’t expect speaks. Debate is the speaking event where opponents actually interact with each other, so I would like to see interaction.

- Weigh: Weigh…please, especially if you have a framework. Saying timeframe, magnitude, and scope is not enough. You can just choose one, and explain why it matters + how it links in to your opponent’s impacts. (eg If mass extinction occurs, you can’t have an economy.)

- Crossfire/Cross-Examination: I don’t flow crossfire/cross-examination. If something important happens, bring it up in your speech. That being said, I don’t tolerate aggressively speaking over the person or using cross as speech time. Cross can get heated, but there’s a difference between yelling at the other person.

I get this is a lot, but the tl;dr is be respectful to your opponent and me. The common courtesies in debate are to make it fun for everyone. For those of you who like being mean >:(, I give out low-speak wins pretty frequently anyway.

Public Forum: (my favorite :D )

Chances are, I have thoroughly researched and debated the topic you are doing, so I will know if you don’t have links or are making things up. That being said, I have a lot higher tolerance for “analysis” or “general knowledge”. I apologize ahead of time if you get an entire paragraph of rfd. I’ve primarily competed in PF, so I will definitely have opinions.

Besides the general time yourself, signpost, be nice in cross, and speed reminders, here are a few things I look for:

- Collapsing: While my fatal flaw is going for all of the 6 contentions on both sides of the flow, I’d rather you consolidate and do voters, especially in FF. Most of the time, I just vote off the later speeches. I will silently cry if you go line-by-line in FF.

- Frontlining: I expected second rebuttal to frontline. I believe defense is sticky, but a brief extension of it every time is best.

- Weighing: Weighing slaps. Enough said.

- New Arguments/Responses: That’s a no-no in 2^nd summary and FF. I will not flow it.

- Progressive Arguments: I am a sucker for topical Ks. I believe Ts are to prevent abuse and improve the debate space, but will not vote on friv T. Because of this, if you run friv T to win a round in JV/novice on a new non-circuit debater, I am not voting for that.
(I love the Robert Chen K though)

- Plans: No…I will drop them.

Lincoln Douglas:

I'm only getting used to college LD, but I work with novice LDers so I will also know if your arguments are very strange, to a lesser degree. Besides the general time yourself, signpost, be nice in cross, and speed reminders, I have stolen the following things from my coach’s paradigm (thanks schletz):

- New Arguments/Responses: No new arguments in 1NR and 2AR. I will not flow it. I'm fine with evidence though.

- Theory: Theory works, but I won’t vote on frivolous theory used to avoid responding to your opponent’s argument (especially not if you unabashedly break norms yourself). I view theory as a way of preventing abuse in the debate space and that it should only be used as such. I believe in RVIs so feel free to run them in response.

- Frameworks/VC: They slap. If you provide and defend one but don’t use it, I will evaluate it based on what vague instruction you’ve given me on how to evaluate using the framework…which probably won’t end well. I cannot emphasize enough: YOUR IMPACTS SHOULD ALIGN WITH YOUR FRAMEWORK.

- Kritiks + Phil:I love and appreciate them. Please slow down a bit if it’s super dense.

Speech

I love you guys…I promise. Most of my friends do speech.

A few warnings:

- Respectfulness: I don’t tolerate horsing around or loudly speaking during other competitors’ speeches. Whispering is okay, but do anything more disruptive and I will drop your speaks.

- Timing: Please time yourself. While I will be running a stopwatch, I am terrible at giving time signals. I will allow a stopwatch or someone else’s phone. Having a friend give time signals works too. Refer to tournament rules on grace periods.

- My instinct is to take notes while you’re speaking, so if I don’t look at you, I am so sorry. If I am judging you for IX or NX, your content will be scrutinized because I have a little too much background knowledge on politics.

If you’ve made it to the bottom, have fun and be a cool person. :)

Feel free to ask me questions. I like those.

hi! i'm sky.

please strike me if i've coached you before. i've marked many of you as conflicts, but it is impossible to get all of you when you attend multiple schools, debate academies, etc. i'll always report conflicts to tabroom.

email is spjuinio@gmail.com. add me to the email chain.

please try to have pre-flows done before the round for the sake of time. i like starting early or on time.

tech over truth. i don't intervene, so everything you say is all i will evaluate. be explicit; explain and contextualize your arguments. try not to rely too much on jargon. if you do use jargon, use it correctly. extend evidence properly and make sure that your cards are all cut correctly. tell a thoughtful and thorough story that follows a logical order (i.e. how do you get from point A to point E? why should i care about anything you are telling me? i should know the answers to these questions by the end of your speeches). pursue the points you are winning and explain why you are winning the round. remind me how you access your impacts and do NOT forget to weigh. giving me the order in which i should prioritize the arguments read in round is helpful (generally, this is the case for judge instructions). sounding great will earn you high speaks, but my ballot will ultimately go to those who did the better debating.

read any argument you want, wear whatever you want, and be as assertive as you want. any speed is fine as long as you are clear. i will yell "clear!" if you are not. my job is to listen to you and assess your argumentation, not just your presentation. i'm more than happy to listen to anything you run, so do what you do best and own it!

speeches get a 15-second grace period. i stop flowing after 15 seconds have passed.

don't be rude. don't lie, especially in the late debate.

rfds. i always try to give verbal rfds. if you're competing at a tournament where disclosure isn't allowed, i will still try to give you some feedback on your speeches so you can improve in your next round/competition. write down and/or type suggestions that you find helpful (this might help you flow better). feel free to ask me any questions regarding my feedback. i also accept emails and other online messages.

now, specifics!

topicality. it would behoove you to tell me which arguments should be debated and why your interpretation best facilitates that discussion. make sure your arguments are compatible with your interpretation. if you go for framework, give clear internal link explanations and consider having external impacts. explain why those impacts ought to be prioritized and win you the round.

theory. make it purposeful. tell me what competing interpretations and reasonability mean. i like nuanced analyses; provide real links, real interpretations, and real-world scenarios that bad norms generate. tell me to prioritize this over substance and explain why i should.

counter-plans. these can be fun. however, they should be legitimately competitive. give a clear plan text and take clever perms seriously. comparative solvency is also preferred. impact calculus is your friend.

disadvantages. crystallize! remember to weigh. your uniqueness and links also matter.

kritiques. i love these a lot. i enjoy the intellectual potential that kritiques offer. show me that you are genuine by committing to the literature you read and providing an anomalous approach against the aff. alternatives are important (though i have seen interesting alternatives to...alternatives. if you go down this route, you can try to convince me that your argument is functional without one. as with all arguments, explain your argument well, and i might vote for you). as aforementioned, tell me to prioritize your argument over substance and why.

cross. i listen, but i will not assess arguments made in crossfires unless you restate your points in a speech. try to use this time wisely.

evidence. again, please cut these correctly. i'll read your evidence at the end of the round if asked, if your evidence sounds too good to be true, or if your evidence is essential to my decision in some fashion. however, this is not an excuse to be lazy! extend evidence that you want me to evaluate, or it flows as analysis. make sure to identify the card(s) correctly and elaborate on their significance given the context of the round. don't be afraid to compliment your card(s). consider using your evidence to enhance your narrative coherence.

public forum debaters should practice good partner coordination, especially during summary and final focus. consider taking prep before these speeches because what you read here can make or break your hard work. arguments and evidence mentioned in the final focus need to have been brought up in summary for me to evaluate it. i flow very well and will catch you if you read new arguments, new evidence, or shadow extensions (arguments read earlier in the round that were not read in summary). none of these arguments will be considered in my ballot, so please do not waste time on them. focus on the arguments you are winning and please weigh, meta-weigh, and crystallize!

tl;dr. show me where and why i should vote. thanks :)

you are all smart. remember to relax and have fun!

My name is Sandeep.

As a new debate judge, I will evaluate based on the arguments presented, without letting my personal beliefs or biases influence my decision. The primary factors I will consider are logical reasoning, maturity of thought, and effective communication. Evidence should be used to support arguments, not replace them. I will strive to be objective and evaluate the round as a whole to determine whether the resolution is more likely to be true or false. Clear communication is crucial to me, and I will prioritize it in my evaluation.

crystal, she/her, junior

im debating for paly, if ur reading this its probs for practice rounds LMFAO

few points:

• please signpost, if you aren't going to do so at least do an OTRM
• please weigh!! if the point is washed, i will default neg
• i will time and let you know when your time is up (including 15 seconds grace period). i will do this every round unless you ask me not to.
• fancy jargon is ok as i probably have prepped the topic, but keep it on the dl
• speaking speed: not too fast but not too slow, ill be able to understand most of it!!
• i will drop if you're just straight inpolite. (ex, cussing, getting physical, threats...)

theories/ks/framework: please keep consistent, im ok if you run them just dont make them stupid... (i think paraphrasing is bad, disclosure is normally ok)

pls tw of ur talking abt anything too graphic

speaks start at 28 & will go down and up accordingly

please add me onto docs/email chains: licrystal0313@gmail.com

most of all: have fun & pls dont be too nervous !!

Parent debater of 1 year.

Please talk slowly, I do not like "theory" or "counterplan" in PF. Please be kind! I expect a very respectful space.

Lay/parent judge

English is not my first language so do not spread. Speak slowly and clearly.

Show good sportsmanship and don't get too aggressive on crossfire.

Most importantly, have fun!

I'm a parent judge. I'm an engineer with science background.

I like clear and articulate speeches. I like arguments supported by evidences. I don't have any pre-existing stance with pro or con. I make my final decisions primarily based on how well and strongly the teams support their contentions with evidences and convincing reasoning. Also I count how well the teams ask and answer all kinds of challenging questions for attacking and defensing purposes.

Show respect and be nice to each other. I will automatically vote for the other team if your team do the following,

1. show obvious disrespect for your opponent;

2. consistently interrupt your opponent when they are speaking.

I'm a parent judge with limited experience. I'm looking forward to a civilized debate. Please speak clearly and at a reasonable pace so that I can hear and understand your points. I don't prefer spreading. Thank you, and best wishes.

some ppls paradigms are getting too long...

• high school PF debater, flow judge (competed for 4ish years)
• Don't spread, I'll let you know if it gets super unclear.
• have your evidence prepared in cut cards
• not a huge fan of theory and Ks so don't run them unless you warrant them really really well. (not really applicable to novice)
• i will not flow cross (or listen that closely) - but be nice (ad hominem attacks are a big no). let ur opps answer ur questions and also give them questions
• Please signpost, off-time roadmaps would be greatly appreciated if you stick to them.
• I'm mostly tech over truth, but be reasonable.
• Please weigh!!

Bonus things to boost speaks/make me like you

• throwing in a cool metaphor
• quoting famous people/movies/songs
• correctly identifying a logical fallacy made by your opponents
• being funny/making jokes/doing anything to lighten the mood

For all debates regardless of event, I do flow but take into account both the flow and persuasion in my ballot.

PF: I'm a flay judge, and I ask that everyone remains respectful and polite throughout the round. I ask that you don't speak too fast as I will likely not understand you. I have been told about things such as theory, but I do not really understand them, so it'd be good if you didn't run any theory. PF jargon is fine, and I will generally understand it.

Parli: First time judging parliamentary-style debate, I also ask that everyone remains respectful and polite throughout the round. Parli jargon is fine, but as stated earlier, the most important thing is a respectful debate.

** I will not tolerate any form of -ism (ie: racism), discriminatory language or hate speech

No previous judging experience, doesn't like spreading, will look for good content and clarity of speech. Please say your names before you start.

Hi!

I am a parent judge who has judged parli debate for 6 years.

- Please make your arguments clear/logical.

- Use strong evidence and clearly explain your impacts. I highly take evidence and impacts into account, so this could really win you my vote!

- Be organized. Signpost! It is really helpful for me to flow your arguments if you tell me where you are on the flow. Off time roadmaps are also always helpful.

- No spreading. I need to be able to understand you if I am going to flow your arguments. I think speaking too fast is not only hard for me to understand but also completely unfair to your opponents who may have difficulty following your case as well.

- No theory, K, or other advanced debate strategies. I am not experienced in specific debate rules and I highly lean towards on case debate! If you run theory or K, I will still try and flow it but be warned that you will most likely lose the round.

- Please be respectful of your opponents.

Good Luck!

I'm a parent judge who has mostly judged debate rounds for the past year.

Before the round starts, please share your cases with me through email. (powercorp011@gmail.com)

I look for the following qualities in speakers:

• Confidence (both in body language and speech)
• Eye contact while speaking
• Respectful demeanor toward opponents
• Abidance to NSDA rules

Specifically for debate (PF), I expect the following criteria from speakers:

• Refutes that attack logic, not just quantitative data
• Signposting at the beginning of each speech
• Weighing (especially in summary and final focus)
• Speakers keep their own time

I prefer speakers to speak at a medium pace, making it easier for both the opponents as well as myself to understand the content of their speeches.

I look forward to judging you and good luck!

1. Please speak slowly. If you speak too quickly, your points may be missed.

2. Enjoy the experience and be nice!

add me to email chain: reba.prabhakhar@gmail.com

you don't have to ask if i'm ready before each speech, just assume I am

PF:

weigh

nothing new after summary

progressive args and spreading ok but don’t run disclosure. I do not care about disclosing at novice tournaments.

(if ur novice ask ur opponents before spreading on them, debate should be inclusive especially at the novice level)

extend all arguments, framework and defense that u want me to vote on - and explain why your arguments matter more (weigh)

Say the words "Aniket Mittal is a lifer" in round and I'll hack and boost speaks.

TLDR: Varsity PF @ Leland, standard tech, tabula rasa

This paradigm is awful so look at Leon Huang (except for speed and prog), Daniel Xie, and Sterling Xie also. If you got any questions go ahead and ask before round!

rayansg10@gmail.com for chain

Things I love:

• Having fun makes the activity more enjoyable, so do it
• Presumption args
• Prog (a little less K's but ill still vote for it)
• Weighing
• Actually good defense

PLEASE WEIGH

I'll always first look to the weighing to decide which case I am going to look at. If you win case and weighing you will probably win the round. If they are winning defense on your case then its a wash and I look to the other case. If they can win their case they win the round. If no one has offense I presume first speaking team (but will vote off of other args).

I'm a high school varsity PF debater.

Treat me like I'm a lay judge - please explain things thoroughly, speak clearly, don't spread, and avoid prog args. I will vote off of what I flow, and I can only flow what I understand. Signposting is a must or I likely won't be able to flow your speech. Note that I will not flow crossfire, so if there is something you would like me to pay attention to, please address it in your speech.

Things I like: good clash, comparative weighing, collapsing in the second half of the round. Respond to all turns!

Make sure you extend your argument through all speeches in the round. I will not vote for arguments brought up in Final Focus that were not in Summary.

Regarding evidence: I take evidence ethics seriously. Add me to the email chain and I'll check the ev myself if you call your opponents out in speech.

Please time yourself.

Lastly, please be respectful! No hate or discrimination of any kind will be tolerated. Have fun and enjoy the round!

I like to see evidence that leads to logical thinking. I prefer the participants to talk slowly. Please be polite and respectful to your opponent. Please track your own time.

Please send your cases to aravtewari@gmail.com. I would like to read along to the cases.

For PF: Speaks capped at 27.5 if you don't read cut cards (with tags) and send speech docs via email chain prior to your speech of cards to be read (in constructives, rebuttal, summary, or any speech where you have a new card to read). I'm done with paraphrasing and pf rounds taking almost as long as my policy rounds to complete. Speaks will start at 28.5 for teams that do read cut cards and do send speech docs via email chain prior to speech. In elims, since I can't give points, it will be a overall tiebreaker.

For Policy: Speaks capped at 28 if I don't understand each and every word you say while spreading (including cards read). I will not follow along on the speech doc, I will not read cards after the debate (unless contested or required to render a decision), and, thus, I will not reconstruct the debate for you but will just go off my flow. I can handle speed, but I need clarity not a speechdoc to understand warrants. Speaks will start at 28.5 for teams that are completely flowable. I'd say about 85% of debaters have been able to meet this paradigm.

I'd also mostly focus on the style section and bold parts of other sections.

---

2018 update: College policy debaters should look to who I judged at my last college judging spree (69th National Debate Tournament in Iowa) to get a feeling of who will and will not pref me. I also like Buntin's new judge philosophy (agree roughly 90%).

It's Fall 2015. I judge all types of debate, from policy-v-policy to non-policy-v-non-policy. I think what separates me as a judge is style, not substance.

I debated for Texas for 5 years (2003-2008), 4 years in Texas during high school (1999-2003). I was twice a top 20 speaker at the NDT. I've coached on and off for highschool and college teams during that time and since. I've ran or coached an extremely wide diversity of arguments. Some favorite memories include "china is evil and that outweighs the security k", to "human extinction is good", to "predictions must specify strong data", to "let's consult the chinese, china is awesome", to "housing discrimination based on race causes school segregation based on race", to "factory farms are biopolitical murder", to “free trade good performance”, to "let's reg. neg. the plan to make businesses confident", to “CO2 fertilization, SO2 Screw, or Ice Age DAs”, to "let the Makah whale", etc. Basically, I've been around.

After it was pointed out that I don't do a great job delineating debatable versus non-debatable preferences, I've decided to style-code bold all parts of my philosophy that are not up for debate. Everything else is merely a preference, and can be debated.

Style/Big Picture:

• I strongly prefer to let the debaters do the debating, and I'll reward depth (the "author+claim + warrant + data+impact" model) over breadth (the "author+claim + impact" model) any day.

• When evaluating probabilistic predictions, I start from the assumption everyone begins at 0%, and you persuade me to increase that number (w/ claims + warrants + data). Rarely do teams get me past 5%. A conceeded claim (or even claim + another claim disguised as the warrant) will not start at 100%, but remains at 0%.

• Combining those first two essential stylistic criteria means, in practice, many times I discount entirely even conceded, well impacted claims because the debaters failed to provide a warrant and/or data to support their claim. It's analogous to failing a basic "laugh" test. I may not be perfect at this rubric yet, but I still think it's better than the alternative (e.g. rebuttals filled with 20+ uses of the word “conceded” and a stack of 60 cards).

• I'll try to minimize the amount of evidence I read to only evidence that is either (A) up for dispute/interpretation between the teams or (B) required to render a decision (due to lack of clash amongst the debaters). In short: don't let the evidence do the debating for you.

• Humor is also well rewarded, and it is hard (but not impossible) to offend me.

• I'd also strongly prefer if teams would slow down 15-20% so that I can hear and understand every word you say (including cards read). While I won't explicitly punish you if you don't, it does go a mile to have me already understand the evidence while you're debating so I don't have to sort through it at the end (especially since I likely won't call for that card anyway).

• Defense can win a debate (there is such as thing as a 100% no link), but offense helps more times than not.

• I'm a big believer in open disclosure practices, and would vote on reasoned arguments about poor disclosure practices. In the perfect world, everything would be open-source (including highlighting and analytics, including 2NR/2AR blocks), and all teams would ultimately share one evidence set. You could cut new evidence, but once read, everyone would have it. We're nowhere near that world. Some performance teams think a few half-citations work when it makes up at best 45 seconds of a 9 minute speech. Some policy teams think offering cards without highlighting for only the first constructive works. I don't think either model works, and would be happy to vote to encourage more open disclosure practices. It's hard to be angry that the other side doesn't engage you when, pre-round, you didn't offer them anything to engage.

• You (or your partner) must physically mark cards if you do not finish them. Orally saying "mark here" (and expecting your opponents or the judge to do it for you) doesn't count. After your speech (and before cross-ex), you should resend a marked copy to the other team. If pointed out by the other team, failure to do means you must mark prior to cross-ex. I will count it as prep time times two to deter sloppy debate.

• By default, I will not “follow along” and read evidence during a debate. I find that it incentivizes unclear and shallow debates. However, I realize that some people are better visual than auditory learners and I would classify myself as strongly visual. If both teams would prefer and communicate to me that preference before the round, I will “follow along” and read evidence during the debate speeches, cross-exs, and maybe even prep.

Topicality:

• I like competing interpretations, the more evidence the better, and clearly delineated and impacted/weighed standards on topicality.

• Abuse makes it all the better, but is not required (doesn't unpredictability inherently abuse?).

• Treat it like a disad, and go from there. In my opinion, topicality is a dying art, so I'll be sure to reward debaters that show talent.

• For the aff – think offense/defense and weigh the standards you're winning against what you're losing rather than say "at least we're reasonable". You'll sound way better.

Framework:

• The exception to the above is the "framework debate". I find it to be an uphill battle for the neg in these debates (usually because that's the only thing the aff has blocked out for 5 minutes, and they debate it 3 out of 4 aff rounds).

• If you want to win framework in front of me, spent time delineating your interpretation of debate in a way that doesn't make it seem arbitrary. For example "they're not policy debate" begs the question what exactly policy debate is. I'm not Justice Steward, and this isn't pornography. I don't know when I've seen it. I'm old school in that I conceptualize framework along “predictability”; "topic education", “policymaking education”, and “aff education” (topical version, switch sides, etc) lines.

• “We're in the direction of the topic” or “we discuss the topic rather than a topical discussion” is a pretty laughable counter-interpretation.

• For the aff, "we agree with the neg's interp of framework but still get to weigh our case" borders on incomprehensible if the framework is the least bit not arbitrary.

Case Debate

• Depth in explanation over breadth in coverage. One well explained warrant will do more damage to the 1AR than 5 cards that say the same claim.

• Well-developed impact calculus must begin no later than the 1AR for the Aff and Negative Block for the Neg.

• I enjoy large indepth case debates. I was 2A who wrote my own community unique affs usually with only 1 advantage and no external add-ons. These type of debates, if properly researched and executed, can be quite fun for all parties.

Disads

• Intrinsic perms are silly. Normal means arguments are less so.

• From an offense/defense paradigm, conceded uniqueness can control the direction of the link. Conceded links can control the direction of uniqueness. The in round application of "why" is important.

• A story / spin is usually more important (and harder for the 1AR to deal with) than 5 cards that say the same thing.

Counterplan Competition:

• I generally prefer functionally competitive counterplans with solvency advocates delineating the counterplan versus the plan (or close) (as opposed to the counterplan versus the topic), but a good case for textual competition can be made with a language K netbenefit.

• Conditionality (1 CP, SQ, and 1 K) is a fact of life, and anything less is the negative feeling sorry for you (or themselves). However, I do not like 2NR conditionality (i.e., “judge kick”) ever. Make a decision.

• Perms and theory always remain a test of competition (and not a voter) until proven otherwise by the negative by argument (see above), a near impossible standard for arguments that don't interfere substantially with other parts of the debate (e.g. conditionality).

• Perm "do the aff" is not a perm. Debatable perms are "do both" and "do cp/alt"(and "do aff and part of the CP" for multi-plank CPs). Others are usually intrinsic.

Critiques:

• I think of the critique as a (usually linear) disad and the alt as a cp.

• Be sure to clearly impact your critique in the context of what it means/does to the aff case (does the alt solve it, does the critique turn it, make harms inevitable, does it disprove their solvency). Latch on to an external impact (be it "ethics", or biopower causes super-viruses), and weigh it against case.

• Use your alternative to either "fiat uniqueness" or create a rubric by which I don't evaluate uniqueness, and to solve case in other ways.

• I will say upfront the two types of critique routes I find least persuasive are simplistic versions of "economics", "science", and "militarism" bad (mostly because I have an econ degree and am part of an extensive military family). While good critiques exist out there of both, most of what debaters use are not that, so plan accordingly.

• For the aff, figure out how to solve your case absent fiat (education about aff good?), and weigh it against the alternative, which you should reduce to as close as the status quo as possible. Make uniqueness indicts to control the direction of link, and question the timeframe/inevitability/plausability of their impacts.

• Perms generally check clearly uncompetitive alternative jive, but don't work too well against "vote neg". A good link turn generally does way more than “perm solves the link”.

• Aff Framework doesn't ever make the critique disappear, it just changes how I evaluate/weigh the alternative.

• Role of the Ballot - I vote for the team that did the better debating. What is "better" is based on my stylistic criteria. End of story. Don't let "Role of the Ballot" be used as an excuse to avoid impact calculus.

Performance (the other critique):

• Empirically, I do judge these debate and end up about 50-50 on them. I neither bandwagon around nor discount the validity of arguments critical of the pedagogy of debate. I'll let you make the case or defense (preferably with data). The team that usually wins my ballot is the team that made an effort to intelligently clash with the other team (whether it's aff or neg) and meet my stylistic criteria. To me, it's just another form of debate.

• However, I do have some trouble in some of these debates in that I feel most of what is said is usually non-falsifiable, a little too personal for comfort, and devolves 2 out of 3 times into a chest-beating contest with competition limited to some archaic version of "plan-plan". I do recognize that this isn't always the case, but if you find yourselves banking on "the counterplan/critique doesn't solve" because "you did it first", or "it's not genuine", or "their skin is white"; you're already on the path to a loss.

• If you are debating performance teams, the two main takeaways are that you'll probably lose framework unless you win topical version, and I hate judging "X" identity outweighs "Y" identity debates. I suggest, empirically, a critique of their identity politics coupled with some specific case cards is more likely to get my ballot than a strategy based around "Framework" and the "Rev". Not saying it's the only way, just offering some empirical observations of how I vote.

I will bring a commitment to impartiality, rigorous analysis, and clarity in my decision-making. My goal is to assess each argument based on its merit and relevance to the resolution, giving weight to the use of evidence and logical reasoning. I believe in providing equal opportunities for both sides to present their case, and I will strive to maintain a fair and impartial approach in all my evaluations. I prioritize the depth and quality of analysis over the quantity of arguments presented. I value well-developed arguments that demonstrate a thorough understanding of the topic, achieved without the reliance on speed reading techniques.

in my opinion, traditional ld debate is the best kind of ld debate. i love traditional debate, clear speaking, framework debate, and impact weighing. please allow me to judge a wonderful, traditional ld round. thank you for your consideration. also i'm a speaks fairy when i'm happy :D

hi i am katelyn (kat, not kate), and i like cats. pronouns are she/her!

i want to be on the email chain: zhoukatelyn@gmail.com

time yourself. time yourself? time yourself.

affiliations + debating history

silver creek high school class of 2023 (2019-present)

policy debate @ silver creek 2020-2021

debated for public forum @ silver creek in 2019, helping out w/ public forum @ silver creek 2020-2023

ld debate @ silver creek 2019 - 2023

svudl 2019 - present

officially retired from hsld on 03-24-2023! at the end of these four years: 1x LD bid, 2x rr + a few bid rounds. loved debating (especially in person my last year), but it was rough for me overall and i am so proud of all of you for even showing up to tournaments.

top level

everyone should grow into the habit of reading paradigms, so... if you're reading my paradigm, you should tell me by putting a cat at the top of your first speech doc. +0.3 speaker points.

be nice to your opponents or i will be sad along with your opponents.

never read anything that's morally repugnant (ie, racism sexism good). it will be an auto-lose.

i was forced to make actual pref shortcuts by lynbrook or smth: these reflect what i think i'm good at evaluating, not what i particularly enjoy reading.

for ld debate

1 -- k, k affs (either kvk, or k v t-fw, etc, i don't hack), trad debate / lay debate / you're tired and don't want to spread for a round

2 -- larp, theory, cheaty cps <3

3 -- topicality, tricks, phil

4 -- tricks predicated on your opponent missing something because i might miss them but if i don't and they're warranted i guess it's fine

strike -- arguments that are offensive.

if you spread against someone who asked you to not spread, i will give the lowest speaks possible. if they don't ask, but tell you mid-round, you may finish your current speech spreading but must adjust for the next speech.

things slightly relevant but really not (for ld)

although i have indeed read everything from spikes and tricks to literal policy debate and i love theory debate when people see my pairing and go to my wiki they're like "oh. i'm hitting a [insert k name] debater." really.

policy debate

Please please please have an email chain!

In general, I like a balance of quality and quantity of arguments.

Your speaker points will be better if you understand the difference between offense and defense.

Weigh!

cp debate: i am likely to buy the perm but if and only if it is articulated well. also i like theoretical reasons to reject counterplans, not saying that i don't like counterplans but i'm saying that i'm persuaded on theory against specific counterplans.

after debating the beginning of the 2022 season i have to say that i am so fond of PICs, not when i'm on the receiving end of them though.

da debate: weigh weigh weigh please! i'm not too fond of da debate but often b/c the link chains are kind of sketchy. if you can prove the link chain isn't sketchy, i'll be very happy.

k debate: case outweighs k is valid if you prove to me that it's true. j because i read ks often doesn't mean i automatically believe that k outweighs anything else. other than that, fpostal when responding to ks! i specialize in only a few Ks (usually pessimism critiques and psychoanalysis), and have read and gone for berlant sometimes, have gone for cap a few times.

pf paradigm

i do not know your topic in depth at all, please don't assume that i can fill in the dots for you. please weigh!

if i ever get to judge any other event, i'll add my paradigms for those here.

what i read:

honestly, everything! things i've read recently: k affs, ks, phil, tricks, pics

things i've read less recently: theory, t, other cps, das