2023 James Logan Martin Luther King Jr Invitational
2023 — Union City, CA/US
Public Forum Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
my email is: email@example.com
background: currently a freshman @ uc berkeley - I competed in speech and debate for four years on both the league (coast forensic league) and national circuit, with my main events being parliamentary debate, policy debate, and congressional debate by the end of senior year. I finalled at two TOC bid tournaments and State my senior year, and qualified to the TOC in Congressional Debate.
Here are a few of my judging preferences:
1.speaking: first and foremost, be respectful in round, and in cross-examination. If you bring harm to the debate space in any way, I will drop you. You’re in the round to further your point to your side, and fully participate in the round. I don’t mind speed (I was a pretty fast speaker myself in round), as long as you don’t become indecipherable. Don’t use canned speeches or intros - I value original, unique, and nuanced arguments over delivery every time and will rank as such. Try to show some variety in the types of speeches you give (first few cycles vs. crystals)
2.cross-examination: don’t treat cx as throwaway time! I judge on the quality of all aspects of round engagement, including asking quality cross examination questions to further your argument, as well as poking holes on the other side. be present and engaged - it makes a huge difference!
3.argumentation: just to reiterate what I mentioned earlier: make original, unique, and nuanced arguments. please don’t rehash arguments late into the round. if you cite credible sources, tag them as such - they’re crucial to validating the argument you’re making.
I love clash and weighing (a lot)! please make an effort to integrate it in your nuanced argumentation. At the very least, be organized and understandable.
if you’re introducing a unique impact to the round, make sure to explain the link chain thoroughly; if you’re rehashing/validating a previous impact brought up on your side, make sure to be explicit for how your impact/argumentation is different from previous speakers. I don’t mind either, but the goal is to add depth to the round.
(For Congress) POs: I default to tournament rules on POs, but I tend to rank POs highly if they are well-paced, engaged, and prepared.
Look above for my prefs on argumentation
Don’t use time in between speeches for prep
Plans/evidence whatever you want to use is up to you!
make sure you properly cite sources & empirical examples
Don’t evidence dump in speeches, I’ll give more points for warranted reasoning/connecting to the larger ideas of your case (two world analysis in rebuttals)
Ask and answer AT LEAST 2 POIs in the constructive!
I don't mind fast rounds, be clear on taglines & condense off cases in later speeches
I am the parent of a current speech competitor. I have lot of experience in judging debates of various formats. I will make my evaluation based on the quality of the arguments and how well they are articulated.
UC Davis 2024
Email Chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
Please slow down on analytics. It is really hard sometimes to hear debates online so doing this is purely for your own benefit.
Debated in policy for four years at Damien High School in La Verne, CA. I had 5 career bids and I participated in the 2020 eTOC. I placed pretty well at some well-known national tournaments my senior year and I have been judging and coaching for College Prep for the last 3 years. I worked at the Cal National Debate Institute this past summer so I am pretty familiar with the topic area.
People that Shaped my Debate Philosophy
Christina Phillips, Mike Shackelford, Jon Sharp, Chris Paredes, Michael Wimsatt, Cade Cottrell, Christian Bato, Jyleesa Hampton, Nate Fleming, and Kelly Ye
Debate is a competition, but education is intrinsic to the discussion that takes place.
Line by line is important so please try to be organized. I do not have a perfect flow, but I will do my best to catch every argument. Please flow on paper if you can, especially if you are younger or really trying to improve. I get that the world is digital, but unless you are a savant at multitasking, it is much more effective to just flow on paper.
Write my ballot at the top of the 2NR/2AR and set the thresholds for victory or else I will try to piece together the round looking for the easiest way out sans calling for cards. Tech over truth within reason.
I will not vote on blatantly problematic arguments and will likely punish you via speaker point reduction if you make them. Anything that is done that jeopardizes the safety and well-being of everyone in the round will result in an auto loss and the necessary disciplinary actions will be taken.
Just do you and I will listen intently. Please just do your best and I will adjudicate as objectively and effectively as possible.
Thoughts on Specific Arguments Below:
Be explicit and clear in the impact debate. I want good and warranted impact comparison with tons of turns case/turns disad arguments at the top. I also want explicit link debating with an extension of warrants and not just a repetition of the tag for the link. Politics disads are great but I would like a somewhat coherent link that is topic or aff-contingent and not just a generic "new bill saps PC" or "new bill kills focus" argument.
I am all about good counterplan strategies that have great solvency evidence and finesse. I have grown tired of all the nonsense process, agent, and consult counterplans, and while I will vote for them, I prefer to hear one that is well-researched and actually has a solvency advocate for the aff. Regarding theory, most violations are reasons to justify a permutation or to lower thresholds for solvency deficits, not voters. Consult CPs are however the most sketchy for me, and I can be convinced to vote against them given good debating.
Love these debates, but sometimes people get too bogged down by the minutiae of the flow that they forget to extend an impact. Treating T like a disad is the best way to describe how I like teams to go for it. Please give a case list and/or examples of ground loss. Comparison of interps is important. I think that intent to exclude is more important than intent to define regarding predictability, but this is only marginal.
I think that up to 3 advocacies are fine for me. Anything more and I am more sympathetic to the aff. Don't get it twisted, if the neg screws up debating condo, I will vote aff.
I like Kritiks, but I really hate when teams do not do the work that is necessary to make a cogent argument. I think that the alternative is the hardest thing to win, and more often I vote for teams that invest a lot of time and good ink on the framework debate and one or two solid, specific pieces of link offense against the aff. The more specific link is obviously better. I also think that it is possible to win absent case defense, but only if you are winning the correct framework offense.
I think that my thoughts on the K apply here with a bit more nuance involved. I prefer that the aff be related to the topic and that it actually does something that is a departure from the squo. Framework is a good strategy, but if executed poorly, the aff will have an easy time getting my vote. The neg must also answer the aff because it will be hard to win framework without contesting the method of the 1AC. I am most likely to vote for whoever consolidates and focuses on a central point of offense and impacts it out better.
Feel free to ask me anything before the round. Most importantly compete, respect each other, and have fun.
I prefer a logical argument with voice that is understandable. Your ability to present convincingly your structure, arguments and cross will earn you speaker points.
I am a parent judge so please speak clearly and so I can understand what you are saying and why.
I will give full speaker points to all debaters who can do this.
I will ultimately vote for the team who can best use logic to support their case.
FOR STANFORD 2021 REFER TO: https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=65515
ignore below for Stanford 2021
I have judged for 5 years at HS level. I will be providing detail feedback including who won verbally right after the debate is over.
I care less for speaking style, but focus more on the content and logic. You can use debate jargon as well.
I am a parent judge and have been judging since September 2019. I have primarily judged LD but in the last 2 years I have judged PF, Parli Policy and Congress too. I do flow and take copious notes. I am not comfortable with spreading, so please speak at moderate speed so that I can understand your arguments. Please make sure you are polite to your opponent. Please provide sufficient evidence to substantiate your contentions and be able to provide evidence when asked by your opponent. Do not introduce new evidence in your final speeches or lie that arguments were dropped when they weren't. It will definitely count against you as I do flow. Overall enjoy the debate and have fun!
I’m a parent judge, and I’m very excited to hear your speeches. As always, please be respectful to your fellow competitors and be mindful of the rules and time. Thanks!
I'm a lay judge. I have kids who debates, so I've judged some local circuit tournaments, but that's it. Please do not speak too quickly. Please be clear and nice to your opponent.
Please don't use too much debate jargon.
Otherwise, have fun in the round, make me laugh, and let's debate!
tl;dr - be nice, no kritiks*. be careful with economics-based contentions.**
Judging preferences - Summary
Your number 1 job is to debate the topic. I want to hear about the topic. I like arguments about the topic, SIGNIFICANTLY MORE than arguments about the rules and how your opponent is messing up the debate because their arguments "didn't hold." I've found that in past years, everyone says that their opponent's case "didn't hold." Keep the debate educational, I know enough about the rules by now.
My favorite kind of debate is a slightly fast, intellectual Public Forum/LD debate. If I can't understand you due to speed or lack of pronunciation, your contention will not make it onto my flow. Or, I simply won't care enough to write it down. Far-reaching analyses of improperly used evidence may just result in my perplexion and the audience's confusion. However, evidence-based conclusions that show a deep understanding of the topic are always appreciated. I do NOT like Kritik arguments in high school debate. Do NOT run them unless you have NO OTHER OPTION.
Speed is whatever. I can handle spreading, but if your competitor asks you to go slower and you ignore them, I will be very annoyed. The purpose of the debate is to educate - not bulldoze. If you need to spread to win, I won't vote for you. Three strong arguments are better than 6 weak ones. If you want to spread, become a policy debater. A couple of my best friends in High School made it to Parli finals at the state championship without spreading, so please don't do it.
Flow Style is typically on an Excel sheet, so if you're speaking so fast that I can't type it and I miss a contention ... you're going too fast.
Evidence is the most critical component to me. To me, the best defense in debate is a strong defense. Well constructed arguments should have citations and explain to me why a case should win. However, evidence isn't everything. If you are concerned about recency or methodology, make it ONE point. Don't turn the debate into a squabble over those things because I stop listening. Evidence is concrete and empirically explains the case.
Theory is a stepping stone in policy. It's fun to listen to if it's thoughtful and enhances your case. However, if you're just throwing around debate jargon and my paper starts to look like a million arrows, then the theory point isn't worth it. Because I did LD for a while, I can follow inherency/solvency/topicality/harms. I think they have great potential to either make a great case phenomenal... or to give me a minor headache for the afternoon.
Attitude is key. Be kind or lose, it's just a tournament. Your opponent may be new and trying this out for the first time - don't be the person who ruins public speaking for someone. Don't be a dingus. A dingus is too fast, mean, demeaning, rude, etc. Keep it pleasant, no chair-throwing. :)
*Kritiks in HS Debate usually waste the hour. If you want your Kritik to win, ground it in evidence - but for the most part, I don't care for a Kritik. I don't recommend running one unless this is one of the worst debate topics ever generated. Please don't run them.
Kritiks in College Debate are fine, but I still don't like them very much.
About me ~
**I'm an Economics and International Relations double major. I appreciate evidence-heavy cases. If you have properly woven your sources into your case, I appreciate that. If you have multiple contentions, you're well researched, you know the ins and outs of your arguments, I appreciate that. Plus - I'm also a total geek for economics, so beware of mixing up your GDPs because I will notice - but I do love a good economics argument. Unless I can't understand you. See the statement above. I interned in the House of Representatives in Fall 2021, and I’ve worked in private wealth equity for 7 months.
I did Public Forum in high school for two years and Lincoln-Douglass debate at the collegiate level. Five Diamond competitor and Premier Distinction for some stuff I did with Informative/Expository Speaking. I now do private coaching.
Hello!! I am Grey Crawford (pronouns they/them) and I am super excited to be judging your round today. I competed in HS Speech and Debate for three years including two at the Varsity level from 2017-2020, including at this tournament twice. I've competed in PF, LD, Congress, and Parli, as well as several speech events. Right now I am not competing but I am studying Political Science at UC Davis. The 2023 MLK Invitational will be my second time judging debates like this.
With that being said, I wanted to get a few things out of the way to make this round as smooth and enjoyable as possible.
I am a huge believer in accessible debate. While I am familiar with debate lingo, I expect a stranger who knows nothing about debate or the topic area to be able to follow the debate. Speak clearly and at an intelligible speed. I will put my pen down if you are speaking too fast and I will not flow any arguments I cannot understand. I can only weigh arguments I can properly understand. If you are using any Kritical arguments, these also should be clearly explained. I shouldn't have to be familiar with debate to understand the arguments - it is antithetical to the purpose of this event. Please sign-post your arguments and rebuttals so it easy to keep up with what's going on.
Keep your cross examinations civil and on-topic. Listen to each other and don't spend your entire cross talking over each other or asking for cards.
I lean towards truth over tech. That is, every claim, warrant, and impact should pass a basic test of being plausible and "true." Of course, this has limits, but in general I am a big fan of solid evidence and well-communicated reason. Cite your evidence and feel free to ask for cards within reason. Fewer well-developed and persuasive arguments are better than a greater number of weaker arguments.
Finally, I will hold you to a high standard of sportsmanship. I don't like when people win on technicalities, instead, interesting discourse is much more pleasant to judge. I will assign speaker points accordingly. I will discount unfair or confusing interpretations of evidence, and I will not penalize you for failing to understand your opponent's confusing arguments. Be precise, logical, and mature.
Good luck and have fun! Feel free to ask me any questions before the round. :)
Mariel Cruz - Updated 9/20/2022
Schools I've coached/judged for: Santa Clara Univerisity, Cal Lutheran University, Gunn High School, Polytechnic School, Saratoga High School, and Notre Dame High School
I judge mostly Parliamentary debate, but occasionally PF and LD. I used to judge policy pretty regularly when I was a policy debater in college. I judge all events pretty similarly, but I do have a few specific notes about Parli debate listed below.
Background: I was a policy debater for Santa Clara University for 5 years. I also helped run/coach the SCU parliamentary team, so I know a lot about both styles of debate. I've been coaching and judging on the high school and college circuit since 2012, so I have seen a lot of rounds. I teach/coach pretty much every event, including LD and PF, but I have primarily coached parli the last few years.
Policy topic: I haven’t done much research on either the college or high school policy topic, so be sure to explain everything pretty clearly.
Speed: I’m good with speed, but be clear. I don't love speed, but I tolerate it. If you are going to be fast, I need a speech doc for every speech with every argument, including analytics or non-carded arguments. If I'm not actively flowing, ie typing or writing notes, you're probably too fast.
As I've started coaching events that don't utilize speed, I've come to appreciate rounds that are a bit slower. I used to judge and debate in fast rounds in policy, but fast rounds in other debate events are very different, so fast debaters should be careful, especially when running theory and reading plan/cp texts. If you’re running theory, try to slow down a bit so I can flow everything really well. Or give me a copy of your alt text/Cp text. Also, be sure to sign-post, especially if you're going fast, otherwise it gets too hard to flow. I actually think parli (and all events other than policy) is better when it's not super fast. Without the evidence and length of speeches of policy, speed is not always useful or productive for other debate formats. If I'm judging you, it's ok be fast, but I'd prefer if you took it down a notch, and just didn't go at your highest or fastest speed.
K: I like all types of arguments, disads, kritiks, theory, whatever you like. I like Ks but I’m not an avid reader of literature, so you’ll have to make clear explanations, especially when it comes to the alt. Even though the politics DA was my favorite, I did run quite a few Ks when I was a debater. However, I don't work with Ks as much as I used to (I coach many students who debate at local tournaments only where Ks are not as common), so I'm not super familiar with every K, but I've seen enough Ks that I have probably seen something similar to what you're running. Just make sure everything is explained well enough. If you run a K I haven't seen before, I'll compare it to something I have seen. I am not a huge fan of Ks like Nietzche, and I'm skeptical of alternatives that only reject the aff. I don't like voting for Ks that have shakey alt solvency or unclear frameworks or roles of the ballot.
Framework and Theory: I tend to think that the aff should defend a plan and the resolution and affirm something (since they are called the affirmative team), but if you think otherwise, be sure to explain why you it’s necessary not to. I’ll side with you if necessary. I usually side with reasonability for T, and condo good, but there are many exceptions to this (especially for parli - see below). I'll vote on theory and T if I have to. However, I'm very skeptical of theory arguments that seem frivolous and unhelpful (ie Funding spec, aspec, etc). Also, I'm not a fan of disclosure theory. Many of my students compete in circuits where disclosure is not a common practice, so it's hard for me to evaluate disclosure theory.
Basically, I prefer theory arguments that can point to actual in round abuse, versus theory args that just try to establish community norms. Since all tournaments are different regionally and by circuit, using theory args to establish norms feels too punitive to me. However, I know some theory is important, so if you can point to in round abuse, I'll still consider your argument.
Parli specific: Since the structure for parli is a little different, I don't have as a high of a threshold for theory and T as I do when I judge policy or LD, which means I am more likely to vote on theory and T in parli rounds than in policy rounds. This doesn't mean I'll vote on it every time, but I think these types of arguments are a little more important in parli, especially for topics that are kinda vague and open to interpretation. I also think Condo is more abusive in parli than other events, so I'm more sympathetic to Condo bad args in parli than in other events I judge.
Policy/LD/PF prep:I don’t time exchanging evidence, but don’t abuse that time. Please be courteous and as timely as possible.
General debate stuff: I was a bigger fan of CPs and disads, but my debate partner loved theory and Ks, so I'm familiar with pretty much everything. I like looking at the big picture as much as the line by line. Frankly, I think the big picture is more important, so things like impact analysis and comparative analysis are important.
This is my second year judging debates. So I am still relatively new to judging. It will be very helpful, if you speak clearly and at a slow to moderate pace.
Doing so will ensure the best understanding of your arguments, ultimately providing you the best chance to secure the winning ballot.
Looking forward to an exciting debate.
Hi, I am a parent judge and here are some of the things about how I judge rounds:
Your arguments should be clear (and avoid any ambiguity).
If you quote any data, back it by an evidence/reference/logic.
3 ) Content.
Be focused and adhere to the topic. You can throw anything, but if your opponent point it out I will take a note!
If you don't contest your opponent's argument, it will stay for me and will get the point.
If someone says sky is orange and you don't contest it; sky is orange for me!
5) Probable Impact
The argument having a larger impact (with greater probability of happening) will get the point.
An earthquake can have larger impact, but if the area is not earthquake prone, I won't buy it.
You can be fast, but please avoid spreading. If you think you might be too fast - you are.
Parent judge. I take notes during round - the most logical and most clearly explained arguments win. The accuracy of your arguments is highly important. Do not speak fast or yell: your speaking style will affect my decision. Quality of arguments/responses is more important than quantity. Truth>Tech.
- Written by my son
Hello there! If you're reading this, then I'm probably going to be your judge for an upcoming Lincoln Douglas round, and you'd like to get some advantage on your opponent by searching me up. Congratulations, you're an opportunist. You'll go far in life.
I have competed in Lincoln Douglas debate and speech events including Impromptu, Oratorical Interpretation, and Thematic Interpretation. I have been ranked in the top 40 Impromptu speakers in the nation in 2019-2020, 6th in CA Impromptu, and 20th in CA Thematic Interpretation. I've been to a fair few tournaments and seen my fair share of opponents and events, and my beliefs are thus:
Speak cleanly and with purpose. Spreading, in my mind, is dumb. Speaking with a punctual clarity goes to the heart of true debate, and allows for your opponent to comprehend and make substantive arguments for their side. That'll give you high speaker points in my eyes, as well as better performance overall.
Know your cards, and use them well. If you attempt to refute an argument without a card, I won't give it much weight. Backing up your arguments with evidence as much as possible is crucial. Without evidence, you're not a debater—you're simply another person with opinions. Quite frankly, there are a couple billion other people all with opinions in the world, and that's a bit too many already.
Don't drop an argument. If you do, that's a big detraction on your ranking. Responding to an argument is important, and I keep close note on which arguments are raised and which are responded to. If you believe your opponent has dropped something, call them out in speech and I'll take note of it. If you are accused of dropping something when you didn't, also feel free to call them out about it briefly, and I'll vindicate you.
That's about it. Don't be annoying, don't be rude, and keep in mind—this is a debate, not an argument. It's for the enrichment of the mind, not to be petty to win a clash of verbiage. Learn something, maybe even win something, and have some fun. If you've read to the end, include the word "susurration" in a speech of yours and I'll throw a speaker point or two your way.
Parent judge in 4th year of judging. Has judged almost entirely LD, with a 1-2 PF and Policy rounds as well.
Note for SVUDL Fall 2022:This is my first time judging parli. Please explain all debate jargon used or avoid it all together. I would still like to see cited evidence (see below) when possible, but understand that this can be difficult in Parli.
Truth > tech. I prefer realistic, well-warranted impacts over blippy extinction link chains. If I don't buy it, I won't vote on it. Avoid Ks, T, and all other "circuit" debate argumentation, I will not know how to evaluate them.
Logical responses are also important to me - if something your opponent says is simply illogical or contradictory, call them out on this, even if their argument is warranted. It shows that you are able to think critically and not just regurgitate evidence.
Evidence quality is very important to me. Please provide full author citations. Smith 19 doesn't tell me anything - Smith could be your neighbour for all I know. I love to see comparison and indicting of evidence as it shows me that you are well prepared and know the topic literature.
Please do not speak too fast and sign post clearly. I am flowing and will evaluate on argumentation, but if I cannot understand what you are saying I cannot flow or vote on it.
Please be respectful in round. It makes for a good debate experience for both the debaters and the judge. Speaks WILL be docked for rudeness.
learn to learn
make a difference
1. I am new to judging, so I would appreciate if you speak in normal pace (marginal slow or fast is ok) and clearly.
2. I am a big believer in fact, so please be correct in your facts.
3. Please be respectful towards your opponents- no mockery or intimidation.
Hey Everyone! I graduated from Presentation High School in 2021, where I spent my four years there mostly specializing in Congressional Debate, but I do have experience competing in PF, World Schools, LD, NX, and Impromptu.
To me, Congressional debate is the perfect marriage of Speech and Debate -- combining the best of both worlds. I value clash and refutations above all since it is, first and foremost, a debate event. That being said, your speaking skills and speech structure are also important. I always enjoy good rhetoric and when debaters drop bars or one liners because it is the perfect opportunity for you to show us your style.
Please use and cite your evidence! I vote mostly based on the warranting you present. Do not make your entire speech an emotional appeal -- you can incorporate some elements of pathos, but you definitely need logic, reason, and evidence to support and back up your claim. I prefer to rank debaters that demonstrate comprehensive understanding of topic knowledge and the impact of the legislation.
During authorships or sponsorships, please lay out the reason you need the legislation before explaining how it improves the status quo, and provide the framework for which to evaluate the debate. Every single speech after the authorship or sponsorship should have refutations. I love when debaters present a unique lens of analysis or perspective that changes the scope of the entire debate, especially during crystals. Congressional debate does not offer as many opportunities to directly engage with others, so cross-examination is crucial for asking methodical questions and providing quality responses that further your perspective or argumentation.
Most importantly, HAVE FUN and be kind to each other. You may refute the arguments of fellow debaters, but do NOT name call or be disrespectful. Always remember your oath to this country and your constituents -- the people who elected you into office to represent them.
Note to Presiding Officers: I expect you to know and adhere to proper procedures and protocols (Robert's Rules of Order) to run a fair and efficient chamber, while ensuring decorum. Do NOT abuse your power or attempt to manipulate procedure to drop others, etc. If you do a great job as a presiding officer, I will rank you.
...and on closing thoughts...Good Luck! & Dad jokes are punny :)
Public Forum Paradigm
Yes, I flow. Please provide me with a framework during the constructive speeches and establish why I should favor your framework over the other team's later in the round. That being said, you should still apply your case to both your own and the other teams' frameworks.
If you drop an argument in Summary, do not bring it up in Final Focus because I will not take it into account. I will also not consider any new constructive contentions brought up in Summary and Final Focus. Please show me what worlds look like in the affirmation and negation before you weigh them. You should be weighing and collapsing in Summary. Please terminalize your impacts! I love impact calculus and case turns. Your Final Focus needs to include voter issues; and, please explain their relevance; else what should I vote on?
I expect all debaters to participate in grand cross. I understand that you may want to use that time to prep, but cross examination is still important, even if it does not technically appear on the flow. Please bring up the points you win from cross examination during your speech. Back in my day, PF allotted for 2 minutes of prep time, but you have 3 minutes, so you should do your prep during that extra minute instead.
This goes without saying, but evidence is paramount, so please use and cite your evidence! Also, while my business professor will contend that Cash is King, here, Clash is Key. I appreciate when debaters thoroughly break down and address the warranting of their opponents' argument and prove it to be untrue rather than just tell me that their opponents are wrong. If both sides have evidence, why should I prefer your contention over theirs? Do not expect me to draw the lines for you.
Ultimately, Have a Great Round, be Respectful, and Good Luck!!
Hi, I am Ratan, and here are some of the things about how I judge rounds:
1) Speed: I am new to judging, so I would appreciate if you speak in normal pace (marginal slow or fast is ok) and clearly.
2) Evidences/References: If you quote any data, back it by an evidence/reference.
3) Content: Be focused and adhere to the topic.
4) Please be respectful towards your opponents- no mockery or intimidation.
5) Keep your volume level normal, try not to be too loud.
'Kyle' or 'Judge' (he/him)
2010-2014 LD & OO in Maine, 2014-2017 APDA at Yale
Current: Program Director & Head Coach at Palo Alto High School
Previous: St. Luke's School; The Spence School; Sidwell Friends
Experienced flow judge from a traditional background. Receptive to many arguments, styles, strategies, etc., but I'm less familiar with the most progressive parts of debate (e.g. performance, AFF Ks, high theory, etc.) Most familiar with/qualified to evaluate substantive, classic case debate. Tech & truth both matter, but one true argument made with good technique > several false arguments made with good technique. Fine with faster technical rounds, but I can’t keep up with high-speed circuit spreading w/ dense jargon. Your job is to give me clear, contextualized explanations for why I should prefer your side. My job is to vote for whomever does better comparative weighing of well-warranted offense. Above all, I expect you to be kind and respectful to others, and I hope you have fun! Ask me any questions/let me know if you need something to feel comfortable, safe, etc.
1 (love it!) - substantive, topical case
2 - critical topical arguments/lay Ks
3 - T, responsive theory, analytic philosophy
4 - non-topical Ks, dense postmodern Ks, AFF Ks, performance
5/strike (dislike it!) - opportunistic theory, frivolous theory, tricks
Kritiks – should be topically-relevant and well-explained; I'd prefer to hear a lot more 'critical topical arguments' and a lot less sporadically-cut, buzzwordy literature (assume I don't know it). Love a RoJ argument that makes the K more than an 'FYI' reading of a speech doc! I'm unlikely to vote against a K on a generic 'Ks bad' theory argument; I'm much more likely to vote against a K if someone makes a warranted argument for why I should prefer traditional, switch-sides, resolutional debate...especially if you show me why a permutation of the K involving substantive, critical arguments plus case is possible/preferable.
Theory – should be responsive to a specific in-round violation, not opportunistic as a general strategy. Not receptive to frivolous theory. Receptive to RVIs and reasonability. Much less receptive to theory in Parli/PF than in CX/LD given structure, speech times. I lean more truth > tech in evaluating theory, especially when it's obvious that a progressive circuit debater is leveraging theory to confuse/fluster a lay debater. Conversely, I don't think you should have to be a superior technical debater to beat an egregious violation, and I'd prefer not to vote for debaters simply because they're good at justifying being unfair.
Policy/Stock Issues – not from a CX background, but I think proving solvency and weighing advantages vs. disadvantages are the most important parts of most rounds, regardless of format, as this is where offense (reasons I should vote for your side) tends to be generated and won/lost. I understand the strategic value of multiple conditional CPs and layered theory/T arguments, but I'd prefer you don't run arguments that you simply intend to kick – as I find a limited number of well-developed arguments to be a lot more compelling.
Philosophy – the most neglected and under-appreciated type of debate! FYI I probably won't vote for moral skepticism/nihilism. There are many accessible, cogent contemporary ethicists and philosophers that I wish debaters would cite more often, such as: Thomas Nagel, Philippa Foot, Judith Jarvis Thompson, Joshua Greene, Peter Singer, Derek Parfit, Martha Nussbaum.
Performance – seen a few of these rounds, never judged one. Try it in front of me if you want/do it at your own risk.
- any argument endorsing bigotry/discrimination (probably an auto-loss & possibly a report to tab)
- any argument that debate is inherently/intrinsically bad
- any argument that I should vote for/against a student’s immutable identity
- any argument about something that happened before the round started, except disclosure
- fast > conversational > slow > spreading
- some jargon > no jargon > lots of jargon
- line-by-line + thematic voters > line-by-line > off-flow
- signposting + OTR > signposting > lost in the sauce
- cut cards > paraphrased cards
Wear whatever you want. Sit, stand, lie down, whatever is comfortable.
- be kind to people – being a jerk is both embarrassing to yourself and unpersuasive to everyone else
- ethics/fairness (evidence, prep/speech times, etc.) are basic table stakes – if you're unethical/unfair, I'll most likely drop you
- responsive, comparative weighing starting in constructives wins close rounds more than anything else
- establish a framework, then use it to show me which impacts to prioritize – only saying 'net benefits' is not framework, as it begs questions like, 'what is a benefit?' and 'whom should benefit?'
- please do link/warrant direct comparison: explain how to resolve conflicting evidence, contradictory analytics/logic
- develop, extend and terminalize your impacts: [action] impacts [group of people] by [specific effect(s) of action], which is important because [weighing analysis]
Please speak clearly. Speaking too fast may inhibit my ability to understand what you are saying, especially if you start mumbling (which sometimes happens when you try to speak too fast).
I value logical reasoning with relevant supporting evidence in an organized structure. Signposting is appreciated.
I do not flow cross-ex, so if you bring up a key point during cross-ex, please restate in your summary or final focus or I will disregard.
And please be respectful to each other.
Parent judge. Please speak slowly and clearly.
paradigm written by my son (leon huang)
don't read china bad (he will hack against)
Pays attention. Likes logic. If something doesn't make sense to him he won't like the argument (and might drop you). In other words, read warrants and slow explanations.
Ways to get higher speaks/make a better impression/probably win the round:
1. Be confident and assertive, but don't be rude.
2. Crossfire is cool.
3. Be confident during speeches.
If the tournament allows, I can provide you disclosure if you reach out.
I am a parent judge. I don't care about technicalities just do your best to be clear and try to convince me. I do take notes, but please don't run kritikal arguments.
No spreading otherwise you will lose.
I love judge instruction and giving me a clear path for the ballot.
Crossfire is important to me. I want to see competitors having equal speaking time with interaction between each other. Competitors should provide insightful and relevant questions and be respectful. In cross-fire I also want it to flow as well, i.e. the cross and responses have to be related and not orthogonal. In delivery, I want to see eye contact and deliberate clear speech (no rushing or spreading). Please address the judge clearly and confidently. I want to see flow of thought, not disjoint ideas and talking points strung together. For content, I value well-researched content with clear links and subpoints. Concise is always better. For the effort put in I take and send out detailed notes on all aspects of the debate: content, depth and quality, delivery, and crossfire.
I am a parent judge. I have judged Public Forum and LD high school rounds for 1 year. I will take notes so presenting your points in an organized manner will be particularly helpful. Also, I appreciate if participants can keep a steady pace and not speak too fast so I am able to follow the arguments.
I am a judge in PF for Dougherty Valley High School.
- Please do not speak fast, and try to be as clear as possible when you speak.
- You should be telling me how I should be weighing the round.
- Be polite to your opponent and be respectful.
I am a lay judge. I am not comfortable with spreading. I'd prefer that you speak clearly and at a moderate pace. Start speeches slowly.
Be polite when countering arguments and during cx. If you are overly aggressive, I will dock points. Win by your sound arguments, not your coercive attitude.
Provide a road-map before each speech.
Please don't run Ks, theory, topicality.
I like to hear a lot of statistics in evidence. Present sound arguments and explain thoroughly.
Clearly explain why you have won at the end.
I am a parent judge and new to debates.
Keep your delivery clear and at a moderate pace
Keep to your allocated time
Respect your opponents
hi! i'm sky.
email is email@example.com.
please have pre-flows done before the round for the sake of time. don't be late.
tech over truth. i won't do work for you. your arguments should have explicit explanations and contextualization. tell me a thoughtful and thorough story with substance. even if you sound pretty, 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. my job is to listen to you and assess your argumentation, not your presentation. i'm more than happy to evaluate anything you run, so do what you do best and own it!
do note that the only exception to this philosophy is if you make blatantly ignorant statements.
rfds. i always try to give verbal rfds. if you have any questions regarding my feedback, feel free to ask. i also accept emails and other online messages.
topicality. it would behoove you to tell me which arguments should be debated and why your interp best facilitates that discussion. if you go for framework, give me clear internal link explanations and consider having external impacts.
theory. make it purposeful. tell me what competing interps and reasonability mean. i like nuanced analyses; give me real links, real interps, and real-world scenarios that bad norms generate.
counter-plans. these can be fun. however, they should be legitimately competitive. give me a clear plan text and take clever perms seriously. comparative solvency is also preferred. impact calc is your friend.
disadvantages. crystallize! 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 provide an anomalous approach against the aff. judge instructions make my life easier and can win you the debate.
cross. i'll listen, but i won't evaluate arguments made in crossfire unless you restate your points in a speech. use this time wisely.
evidence. i'll read your evidence at the end of the round if you tell me to or if it sounds too good to be true. however, this isn't an excuse to be lazy. narrative coherence is very important to me.
public forum debaters should practice good partner coordination, especially during summary and final focus. arguments and evidence mentioned in final focus need to have been brought up in summary for me to evaluate it. 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!
- 2x North Dakota State Champion (Speech to Entertain, Novice Extemporaneous Speaking)
- Assistant Coach -- North Dakota, California
- IE/PD/LD Judge -- North Dakota, Minnesota, California
How do I judge Speech?
- The round begins before it begins. First impressions last. Be courteous. Conduct yourselves as young adults throughout.
- Please do not get up in front of the room until you are called. Judges are often still writing on the previous speaker and do not wish to be rushed. When we're ready, we will indicate.
- It is disrespectful to enter or leave a round while someone else is speaking. If a competitor AND/OR her/his spectators break decorum, this will be reflected in scores/rankings.
- Understand your selection. How is the character's voice different from your own? Be highly specific.
- Take risks, but justified. It's never a gesture for a gesture's sake, or atypical movement to be atypical. Incredible things never happen when you play it safe.
How do I judge Debate?
- Your presentation (PATHOS) must be on par with your arguments (ETHOS, LOGOS). Persuade us.
- Debate is not about overwhelming us with information. Rapid-fire speaking and fact bombs are exhausting. If we can't understand you, how do you expect us to ascertain the unintelligible? If we don't believe your conviction, how do you expect us to convince us? Say less = say more. Choose facts carefully. Flow clearly. Articulate.
- Always show respect for your opponents. Lack of civility damages credibility.
DEBATERS, PLEASE READ -- Feel free to time yourselves. But if you choose to time your opponents, 1) turn off your alarms, 2) refrain from telling your opponents "time" and 3) respect that the judge's time is the official time.
new to judging debate
I am a parent judge and I have judged a few tournaments. I won’t be familiar with the topic so please be clear and provide definitions. I do not flow, but will take notes. Please convince me why you should win and make sure to WEIGH. Please time yourselves. I most likely won’t understand Theory or Ks but if you explain well I will keep that in mind. In terms of speaking, make sure your words are coherent. In order to win, you need to draw me a clear path of why your arguments and impacts outweigh your opponents.
I run a software consulting firm here in Bay area. I judge for Dougherty Valley, and have judged in the past 2 years at a few tournaments in Lincoln Douglas, Public Forum, Speech, and Congress as well.
Things I would be judging will be based on the following criteria
- Make an complete argument (claim, warrant, and impact).
- Topic grounded strategies/demonstration of research and topic knowledge are good for speaks.
- I am the numbers guy and like to hear solid numbers or quantitative data for your arguments.
- Quality always trumps quantity.
- Evidence matters, but your explanation matters more. Great cards that are explained terribly won't get maximal weight.
- Clarity over speed
- Get to the point: focus on the core issues of the debate
- I have researched the topic to some extent but do not understand very nuanced arguments.
- I like when two teams have clash on their cases, but don't be overly aggressive or rude when pointing it out.
- Insults, rudeness, and swearing are not good and will be looked down upon .
- Respect your competitors, partner and the time everyone in the room puts into this activity.
- I like to vote for the team that made the world a better place. That is my very Important criteria for judging of debate rounds
Finally make the debate fun. Being nice is good. Smile and have fun. Winning and losing is a part of life so have fun and enjoy and do your best.
I like people debating with solid/strong points supported by the evidence. I would like to see people with passion in their debate, but does not encourage bullying other teams. I look for people making clear/concise statements with clear articulation. I try to be diligent in tracking/flow of contentions and arguments.
All the best!
I am fairly new to judging but I like to see good sportsmanship and strong, compelling speeches.
Volunteering for judging Public Forum debate with limited experience.
I'll be looking for balance, balance between well established arguments and well organized refutes, balance between team members on the contribution and how each would compliment each other over the rounds.
Gina Li is a strategy, merger and acquisition professional with 20+ years working experiences in various sectors. She was an expat working abroad for 15 years with global perspectives. She has been judging both Public Forum and Lincoln Douglas since 2018 at various events, in addition to facilitate local student-run speech and debate volunteer activities in the bay area.
She requires all contestants to speak clearly, not necessarily faster the better, try to maximize the given time to rationalize the best data and evidences to support the key arguments. While majority of the contestants are well prepared on their contentions, the winner normally possess the abilities in better framework, effective arguments to counter opponents positions during rebuttal, crossfires and closing. Also please RESPECT your opponents, try not to cut them off if possible.
Knowing everyone is working very hard on each tournament, I wish each contestant the best luck!
I am a new judge. I will flow in debate, and prefer a well-paced presentation, with clear logic behind evidence. Eye contact helps as well. Please be clear when speaking.
Hi all! Think of me as a flow judge but leaning towards flay. A few things to note:
-If you read a turn in rebuttal, tell me what the impact is or else I’ll only count it as defense. If you’re the second speaking team, address both sides of the flow during rebuttal (aka frontline). Also respond to any turns in rebuttal or it's conceded
-An unaddressed argument is essentially conceded, but any concessions made in crossfire must be brought up in a later speech. Explain the implications of the concession (why them agreeing to your point matters in the round)
-I was a 1st speaker when I did PF so I rly value summary speeches
--When extending an argument, u need to explain all 3: claim-warrant-impact (frontlined when necessary) for it to count. A tag or an author's name doesn't mean anything if the evidence or impact is unwarranted. On the flip side, saying your opponents "extended by ink" isn't a valid rebuttal.
--No new offense after the 1st summary, but anything I vote off of in your final focus must be here
-I try to be tech>truth but if I hear a repeated card that sounds too good to be true, I’ll call for evidence at the end of the round. If it’s misconstrued, it won’t affect my decision unless your opponents brought it up during the round. However, I will nuke your speaks so please don’t lie :/
-I have 0 experience with progressive arguments (plans, kritiks, theory, etc.)
-I can't handle too much speed. If you're spreading (please try not to), signpost clearly
-Don’t paraphrase evidence
-If your opponents call for cards and they don't receive it within 2 minutes, it may affect your speaker points and I'll allow your opponents to prep
Feel free to ask any questions before the round! You can also add me to any email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org. Looking forward to a fun round :)
I have very limited experiences in judging debate. I have a hard time to take note while listening, and may miss argument points when people speak too fast.
Affiliations: downtown magnets high school & Cal debate
For the most part I decide the debate through tech over truth. The baseline for speaker points is 28.5. Please don’t say anything racism, sexist, homophobic, ect…
Kaffs: I tend to think that having a strong link to the topic is better and more persuasive. If you want to run a kaff that doesn’t have a link then it would be best to give me reason for why that is important. Especially for the theory of power it is important to me that you explain the warrants behind the claims that you make.
Framework: You should definitely run it and I tend to think that whoever has a better articulation of their impacts tends to win the framework debate. I default that procedural fairness is an internal link to education but can be convinced otherwise. Giving examples when it comes to debating limits and grounds is especially key for me and for my emulation if the aff does explode limits. You should spend time and flush out your arguments beyond light extensions of the 1nc.
T: I tend to default to which interpretation creates better resolutional debates however can be convinced otherwise. An important note here is that a lot of teams should spend more time comparing impacts and giving me reasons why their model of debate is better than only focusing on standards.
DA/CP: Having great evidence is cool but you should spend more time impacting out why it matters. Oftentimes I think that there should be more work done on the internal links of your scenarios or explaining the process of the CP.
Have fun and do what you do best! :)
Email Chain: email@example.com
Competed in PF for four years from 2018-2022 on the national circuit under the codes University MN and University HM at University School in Ohio.
I will judge off the flow. Pls weigh. Have a nice narrative in the round. Feel free to ask me in the round if you have any questions or clarifications!
pls bring food for auto 30
Pls pls look at this it'll be the easiest round of ur life if you can follow the steps below
How I evaluate
-I look to who's winning the weighing debate
-If team x is winning the weighing I look to their case first
-if team x winning their case, the round is over
-if team x is losing case, I look at team y case
-if team y is winning case the round is over
-if team y is also losing case I presume neg
-bring food for auto 30 :/
Long: (copied from dan yan lmao)
1. Speed: Speed is fine unless you're unclear. Send a speech doc if you plan on going super fast. I won't flow based on the speech doc if I can't understand what you're saying at all.
2. Weighing: Please do comparative weighing and start it as early as possible! If you just say "we outweigh on scope" without explaining why I will be sad. If both teams do different types of weighing and do not meta-weigh then I will also be sad and have a headache. I will not default to prioritizing a certain weighing mechanism–I will simply tally up who has more.
3. Frontlining: You must frontline offensive arguments in second rebuttal including kicking out of turns. If you are biting a delink to get out of a turn, please explain how it delinks it. If you choose to frontline defense in second rebuttal on a certain argument, you must frontline all of it or else it's conceded.
4. First summary: First summary only needs to extend defense if it is frontlined in 2nd rebuttal.
5. Final focuses: All offense in final should be in summary. If you want something to be on my RFD, it must be in final focus.
6. Implications: Please implicate everything clearly! This is especially true for (but not excluded to): Overviews, cross-applications, turns.
7. DA's/ADV's: Call them like they are. If you say they are "turns" but they are clearly unrelated to the argument, I will be sad.
8. Turns: I like turns, especially if they are explained very well. I encourage you to go for them if it is strategic. However, be sure to fully extend the argument just like any other argument! (link, turn, impact)
9. Collapse: Please collapse only if it is strategic (Most of the times it is). If there is no reason for there to be 8 pieces of offense at the end of the round I will be sad and speaks will be lower.
10. Extensions: I care about good extensions. I will not appreciate it if you simply say "extend our Smith '18 response." You need to fully extend the response and implication. Same thing goes for case arguments. I will not consider poorly extended arguments only if the other team points it out–otherwise, I will grant bad extensions (unless it's 2nd final).
11. Analytics vs Evidence: Good warrants are good warrants even without evidence. In fact, I'll probably be more impressed by you if you can give well warranted analytics.
12. Evidence: I will try my best to not call for evidence and only judge off of what was said in the round. I will only call for evidence if the round is unresolvable without it where one team says it's good and the other says the opposite and you ask me to call for it. I will not call for your evidence just because you claim it is good and want me to look at it. IF I do end up calling for evidence and it indicts itself later, it will not factor into my decision unless the other team points it out.
13. Crossfire: Have fun & make me laugh. Use this time to ask clarifying questions and help yourselves– I'll only care if someone makes a critical concession and is brought up again in a later speech.
14. Progressive Arguments (I'll try my best)
I will most likely not understand anything beyond what I've mentioned so run them at your own risk.
Speaks: (I tend to give high speaks)
1. I'll be a big fan if you make a cool strategic decision (ie. weighing out of turns ect.)
2. Make me laugh... judging is boring
3. Don't sacrifice clarity for speed
4. Don't doc bot
5. Off-time roadmaps: Just tell me where you're starting and signpost idc about every little thing you're doing. If you do an elaborate roadmap and then don't follow it I'll be sad :(.
6. come preflowed please
Hi! My name is Jo, and I participated in primarily Lincoln Douglas debate and International Extemporaneous speech at the state and national level, and Impromptu at the state level. I have a pretty trad background (Central Valley forensics), but competed in progressive/circuit tournaments, so no issues with debate jargon in-round.
Please make sure to add me to email chains, firstname.lastname@example.org.Reading new cards that diverge from your constructive should also be sent throughout the round. If I or your opponents find that you are A) dismissive of someone’s identity, or B) attempt rudeness or blatant aggression when interacting, I’ll stop the round and you will lose by default, zero tolerance.
Kritiks, spreading, theory, etc. are all okay, just disclose before round. If you are able to successfully tie in Hot Cheetos to your speech, I will add one extra speaker point to your ballot.
For PF specifically, the same mostly applies, but I do appreciate clarity > spreading. Please do not run a kritik in Public Forum, it’ll impact how I judge. For Final Focus/ summary: extra brownie points if you are able to drive in the main crux of the debate and why you’ve won. I am an absolute sucker for a speech that has a clear road map of your thesis/links and crystallization! Looking at the larger picture of impacts and weighing is much more important to me than the nitty-gritty, whether your opponents dropped a small part of your speech or skimmed through your argument. Though defense in a debate is essential, when wrapping up your case, I prefer offense.
Really excited to judge all of you! At its core, debate is supposed to be an educational and fun activity. Don’t take it too seriously.
This is just a basic overall paradigm, feel free to ask me more specific questions during a round.
I have experience competing in college for the last few years in Parli and LD and I.E's. I've judged for the last few years of high school policy, LD, PF, Congress, some I.E's, and Parli.
I'd like to consider myself a flow judge meaning that I will examine every argument and evaluate the debate based on what is on the flow.
That being said I usually follow the rules of each syle of events whenever I'm judging unless I'm told otherwise in the debate as for examples why rules are bad.
In terms of speed/spreading, I'm ok with it since I can keep up with it. That being said I care more about accessibility into the round, meaning if you're going too fast for your opponents and they try clearing you or telling you to slow down, it is probably a good idea to try and adjust your speed in those situations.
I'm open to any type of argument. My only preference is that arguments are impacted out in the round. I'm a lazy person by nature and like to do the minimum amount of work, meaning I prefer when teams tell me exactly where and what to vote for on my flow. Don't assume I know which arguments you are going for at the end of the debate. I also tend to protect against new arguments in the final speeches. Additionally, treat me as someone who has no sense of direction and needs to be given clear instructions to any destinations that you need me to go to.
And finally, don't be jerks to your opponents.
So the bottom line is to do whatever you'd like to do, have fun and throw in a joke or 2, even make references to anime, European football, or anything for that matter.
I am a parent judge. I will be taking notes during the round.
Please speak clearly and a fast conversational pace is fine
Please be courteous to your opponent.
First Time Judging. Please speak slow. Good luck!
They/them ( Ask for other ppls in rounds pls!!)
You can call me whatever. Razeen, Judge, ご主人様.
email chain: email@example.com
As a judge I critique y'all with feedback. However, I feel judges can't be told about their competency. Especially with the position of authority. Please don't see me as an all-knowing authority figure. I am a student just like y'all. I sleep, go to school sometimes, and am a disappointment to my parents. I'm human not a debate robot. You can use this form to criticize my judging without having your name attached. Or say I'm not lame and I did well.
Note: everything cut down word wise so it takes less time. Hence bare bone wording. Pls ask for elaboration irl :) Based on average reading speed TLDR will take 1 minute, whole thing 6.5 minutes of reading. Immensely cut down from initially 20 min(egregiously long).
SHORT I DONT WANT TO READ AN ENTIRE THING OF NONSENSE BUT I WANT TO KNOW THE JIST:
Did HS PF debate+ college parli. was okay in HS pretty good in college now.
Mostly, Tech>Truth. However, don't use tech to bully. Still subconsciously influenced by bias. Uncontrollable. Some arguments I inherently understand more.
Pf 2nd rebuttal frontlines. No New Offense FF not in summary. Policy/LD don't know extension norms thus gonna be forgiving w/ extensions.
Generally against tech being topicality, Theory, and Ks Would consider non-disingenuously for real abuse/problematic rhetoric.
Spreading can't flow fast so it's bad. Don't sound like you are drowning.
Extinction big no no. Unless topic calls for it. No daylight savings causes extinction(real round)
Make sure not same impact scenario. Don't weigh Nuke war w/ Russia against Nuke war w/ Russia on magnitude. Compare links. Talk about uniqueness.
I prefer warranted low magnitude high probability vs high magnitude low probability. Even if an argument outweighs, if it isn't extended well and I can't explain it I won't vote off it. Argument understandability is a prereq to voting on any argument for me. I have ALOT of rounds where I vote for an impact cuz it's the only one explained.
Jargon pls no. I barely know prog debate.
Don't expect me to understand afro-anthropessimism pre-post modern feminist neo liberal hauntology @400WPM.I barely understand my college lecturers at 1/4th that speed. even at normal pace without accessible wording I won't get it. 100% have not read your arg lit before. Need slow good explanation for new concepts to me aka most of arguments.
Don't assume I remember what each author said. I don't remember 1/2 of UCSD debaters in a quarter. You think I'm gonna remember aiusdbh 13 from the 1NC 45 minutes ago.
I compete in college parli. I have no clue what the norms are in HS parli. College parli is basically policy without the cards. So that is how I see parli. Pls don't try to spread it's already painful to hear in college. If it's the norm I'm fine with topicality and Counterplans. Please don't read an aff K, and if that isn't a norm yet thank god. I am open to K arguments if it isn't used to shut out opponent and outspread them with complicated jargon.
I have won 4 college parli tournaments this past year so like I feel like I know what's up with parli.
I am an idiot
I'm stupid, not a humble statement. Don't let the absurd length fool you. It's a sign of insecurity, not knowledge. This is at the top for a reason. I make wrong decisions when forced to think myself. Verbally make a speech that I can nearly mimic in my RFD.
I'm not competing so don't assume I know topic-specific acronyms/words are. Common sense ideas to you aren't common sense to most people. I can't figure out push or pull doors don't think I can figure out your argument.
Debate jargon for prog is a no no. Just take the couple of extra seconds to explain. Don't assume arguments. Explain things like "fairness/education voter" and "reasonability means judge intervention" even though seems common sense explain why these are good/bad.
Fully explain all your args. The reasons why an argument is logically true beyond evidence.
Don't say extend from past speech. I already forgot that last speech bro. I have the short-term memory of a goldfish. Think of it this way, in your classes if your teacher says expanding on what was said 15 minutes ago, and doesn't somewhat reexplain there is simply confusion.
Don't use tech debate as a way to bully new debaters. Tech is meant to make debate fairer, and challenge knowledge. Instead, it's become a tool used by the privileged to win silly arguments with coach-made responses that less-resourced schools can't beat. Don't contribute to bad debate norms I will be sad.
HS PF+ College Parli. was mid in HS (4-3 STOC). College I got better & have won tournaments. College parli is budget policy w/out cards. However, I'm mostly a topical debater. Vaguely understand/use CPs/T/Ks/Theory.
In short, I will try to find the quickest way and clearest way to vote. If an argument is messy I'll likely vote off something way smaller that may not even outweigh. I want your last speeches to be what you want me to say in my RFD.
I am generally tech over truth with a couple of exceptions
- When tech is used as a means to exclude
- Dump low-quality args hoping for drops.
- Arguments are clipped
- Borderline false args e.g Nuke war good have low threshold for response.
Please send case. Allows me to flow. Flowing helps me keep track. More likely to vote for yall. Also just good practice.
Please try to signpost. By that I mean if you directly say, which response with things like " on x argument, their yth response about z we have x amount of responses. or if it's 1 response give the response.
Also, please don't say "no evidence, no warrant, no explanation" rather explain why the lack of a warrant means their argument is false and what it actually is like. Also, I am down for logical arguments. Not everything needs to be carded if it's analytical. If something is analytical like "no one wants to be nuked" and you say nO eViDenCe then there is no way I'm voting on the response.
Please voters. Frame independent reasons to vote rather than line by line. go reasons why you win, and cover defense/turns on their offense.
Line by line = Line w/out the ine.
While I try to exclusively flow. Directing me on the flow can make me interpret the flow in a better way for y'all. Will focus on what I'm told to. So focus on best args.
Pls collapse. 1 good arg>3 bad arguments. Either you collapse or my mental health collapses.
Don't say "extend (author)" or "extend my response on x argument." extend what the author says or the argument itself. If you don't explain your arguments and just assume I know them I won't vote for them!
Exceptions are topics that kinda rely on those ideas. Like Conflict for NATO/ great power conflict. Or climate change for PRC econ or enviro. Heavily prefer against it.
Fleshed-out arguments are rewarded. Don't go for the "risk of offense infinite magnitude extension multiply infinity." not gonna vote on that. arg of "risk of offense" means you aren't good enough to defend case. a low chance of your case to me is a 0 chance. However, the opponent needs to win probability claims.
Same/similiar impact weighing:
Make sure you aren't having exact same or similar impact to the opponent then OW on "magnitude"
Many topics have different sides same impact. Rather than weigh impacts you compare links or compare uniqueness. Uniqueness is the better route for me. 2 possible ways to deal w/ clash IMO.
1.Mostly look to Uniqueness 70% of time. Is SQUO going good or nah. If going well why fix something that isn't broken. Inversely, if things going wrong we need to take action to fix.
2. Distinguish impacts. Explain why your scenario uniquely links more. Maybe it's more specific. It affects more countries. It has bigger actors. Your link bigger than theirs. Whatever way to show e.x how your link into nuke war is better than theirs.
Structural Violence: Only prog argument I vibe with. Main it center of your narrative. Don't make it secondary defeats the purpose of prioritizing underprivileged if you deprioritize them by dropping arg on it.
Spreading: I can't follow it at all. I'll try to follow doc. Tell me what you cut from it. Heavily prefer not. Don't use as a way to shut out opponents. Will insta L.
Topicality:Don't read to add an extra layer. I will be sad. Don't make bad debate norms. Abusing new teams w/out resources to learn about debate in the meta sense is shameful. Only read if legit non-topical. If actually hurts ability to debate use it. Don't say "fairness/education voter" explains why. Default reasonability.
Kritik:I PROMISE I don't know your lit. I am stupid. keep it simple. Don't use area-specific lingo. If you have to have heard it before to know it don't read it. If you can't be simple w/ it that means you don't know it. Kinda troll nowadays become cancelling your opponent for "insert ism"
I have, lately, been more sympathetic to them in certain instances. I am fine with Kritiks on nuke war impacts, western construction of "terrorists," Orientalism on China impacts, Democracy promotion bad/ causes othering, AI deserving rights, Speed bad K, and tech debate bad K. Ultimately, I won't want to vote on a K that can be linked to anything and any topic. I feel that anything that is legit misunderstood and really messed up to the point where it shouldn't be "seen from both sides" is a place I would legit evaluate a Kritik.
K aff: No lol. screams "I'm not good enough to defend the topic, and I'm lazy." If you feel passionate anyway read it.
Theory:Frivolous theory will lead to AUTO L 25. Won't deal with it. Default RVIs. Minimal experience judging theory. The threshold for abuse is high. Must prove in-round abuse, not potential abuse.
Don't understand "new sheets" and flowing is hard. Though i try my best. Most decision focused on 1/2 AR/NR. Better to be honest it's hard for me than lie. Sorry! I will try to be as informed as possible by the round. Pls bear with my stupidity. Know I'm trying my hardest to give a good decision.
If you made it down here Idk why you wasted time reading this far lol
Yes, if tourney allows. Will try to be quick. Will try to be constructive as possible. If not being constructive lmk. Want to talk about strengths, improvement areas, the round itself, if you loss potential paths to the ballot. For winning team how to make more clear. A lot of apologizing. Pls if you have an issue bring it up w/ me directly rather than say stuff outside of round. I want to clarify and not "judge screw" as I had that as a debater I felt and ik the frustration. If you found RFD good bad you can give feedback on form.
If flight 1 goes quickly I will give feedback. If y'all troll with timing I'll just type my feedback. I assume y'all prefer to hear, just start the round ASAP.
If you disclose that's cool and awesome! However, I'm not receptive to disclosure theory in PF. In other events, if used to bully new debaters that won't be tolerated.
The presentation has a subconscious effect on everyone. Will try to prevent that.
No tolerance for rude debaters. Will drop if bad enough rudeness. Don't be overly rule stigent/ talk over people/ be snarky/make too many faces. Also, will lower speaks. Be nice! Isn't hard. Will give high speaks otherwise.
Pure tab judge is impossible and fake. IRL knowledge sphere is Marxism. not the "government does stuff" leftism though. Fine with being critical of America and the economy.
About myself and my judging style.
Judged in speech and debate events for two years.
Value content over presentation style.
Value Quality over Quantity. If I don’t understand the content, I can not give you credit for it. Please slow down if you are looking for better scores.
Expect teams to respect the time limit, play nice and be polite and respectful.
JLHS 2019, Cal 2023
UPDATED 2022-01-14 FOR THE JAMES LOGAN MARTIN LUTHER KING JR INVITATIONAL
Add me to the email chain at firstname.lastname@example.org
I did policy for 4 years at James Logan (Surveillance, China, Education, Immigration), mainly lay but I've had my fair share of circuit. Dabbled in lay PF/LD senior year. Full disclosure, I've been out of debate for 3 years at this point so my skill base is starting to atrophy. Especially given the online nature of tournaments for the near future, I would appreciate not going top speed, but some level of speed is perfectly fine. Feel free to email me before/after a round if you have questions.
- I have literally zero knowledge about this topic; explain the jargon. For reference, I looked it up last night.
- Not a particular fan of K affs or high theory Ks, but I'm not a stranger to it. Spend some speech time on the philosophy for a poor engineering major, would you?
- Otherwise don't really care about arguments, as long as they hold water.
- Warrant out extensions. Do not axiomatically declare that your evidence outweighs, I will not consider it.
- Write my ballot in the 2NR/2AR with respect to the role of the ballot
- Please attempt to make the round the best possible use of my 2 hours, be it a funny round or an enlightening one.
Would prefer as competitive/specific as possible.
Please impact out your DA. Turns preferred, offense ≫ defense.
Topicality debates are fine, just make sure to slow down since it's mainly an analytic debate.
Honestly, I'm not too fond of them, but if they're debated and warranted well enough I'll vote for them. Just be aware it'll take some more work on your end than it otherwise would; don't let this discourage you from running them.
This is probably what you're here for, so I'll get right into it. I was not a K addict when I debated, that was my partner's job (Foucault addict). I have experience with the cookie-cutter Ks like neolib, cap, etc. I'm fine with them on the neg, as long as you do the impact calculus well enough. If your K is deliberately high theory, please explain it to me, it will only help your ballot.
Same advice as with the Ks, I want them to outweigh the other team on some level beyond a pedantic gripe. If you can convince me that debate is broken with sufficient impacts, I'll weigh it.
Please do not say anything inappropriate, racist, homophobic, or anything offensive to your opponent. Please be kind & respectful to your opponent, and do not interrupt your opponent during cross-examination. No offensive terms or personal attacks
I consider evidence, and argument interaction very important. Evidence must be quantitive with clear and credible references. Supporting evidence is critical. I also pay attention whether opponents questions and contentions are addressed or not.
Please speak clearly. Also please define any acronyms you will be using throughout at the beginning. Make sure your key points and values are clear.
I am a parent judge, and this is my first year with debate. Consider me a flow judge.
I appreciate it when speakers talk clearly and introduce issues, and definitions or describe acronyms before using them.
Do speak confidently and in equal measure use logic and arguments to support your case.
I expect participants to be polite and courteous with the opposing team. Also, I expect participants to state what are the key facts I should consider, even when seemingly obvious. Do not assume that I will credit you for a mistake of the opposing team unless you highlight it.
I’m an inexperienced parent judge, so go slowly and please don’t use debate jargon. I’ll vote simply off of logical, well-defended arguments.
I’m going to emphasize the importance of going slowly. If you give me a four minute speech with a lot of really fast content, I will catch none of it and it would be a wasted four minutes. If you give me a slower, well explained speech, potentially with less content, I’ll be able to understand all of it and your 4 minutes will have been used very effectively.
Be respectful, present your side well, and have fun!
LES PHILLIPS NUEVA PF PARADIGM
I have judged all kinds of debate for decades, beginning with a long career as a circuit policy and LD coach. Speed is fine. I judge on the flow. Dropped arguments carry full weight. At various times I have voted (admittedly, in policy) for smoking tobacco good, Ayn Rand Is Our Savior, Scientology Good, dancing and drumming trumps topicality, and Reagan-leads-to-Communism-and-Communism-is-good. (I disliked all of these positions.)
If an argument is in final focus, it should be in summary; if it's in summary, it should be in rebuttal,. I am very stingy regarding new responses in final focus. Saying something for the first time in grand cross does not legitimize its presence in final focus.
NSDA standards demand dates out loud on all evidence. That is a good standard; you must do that. I am giving up on getting people to indicate qualifications out loud, but I am very concerned about evidence standards in PF (improving, but still not good). I will bristle and/or throw my pen if I hear "according to Princeton" as a citation. Know who your authors are; know what their articles say; know their warrants.
Please please terminalize impacts. Do this especially when you are talking about a nebulosity called "The Economy." Economic growth is not intrinsically good; it depends on where the growth goes and who is helped. Sometimes economic growth is very bad. "Increases tensions" is not a terminal impact; what happens after the tensions increase? When I consider which makes the world a better place, I will be looking for prevention of unnecessary death and/or disease, who lifts people out of poverty, who lessens the risk of war, who prevents gross human rights violations. I'm also receptive to well-developed framework arguments that may direct me to some different decision calculus.
Teams don't get to decide that they want to skip grand cross (or any other part of the round).
I am happy to vote on well warranted theory arguments (or well warranted responses) and am receptive to Kritikal arguments in PF.
LES PHILLIPS NUEVA PARLI PARADIGM
I have judged all kinds of debate for decades, beginning with a long career as a circuit policy and LD coach. I have judged parli less than other formats, but my parli judging includes several NPDA tournaments, including two NPDA national tournaments, and most recent NPDI tournaments. Speed is fine, as are all sorts of theoretical, Kritikal, and playfully counterintuitive arguments. I judge on the flow. Dropped arguments carry full weight. I do not default to competing interpretations, though if you win that standard I will go there. Redundant, blippy theory goo is irritating. I have a fairly high threshold for deciding that an argument is abusive. Once upon a time people though I was a topicality hack, and I am still more willing to pull the trigger on that argument than on other theoretical considerations. The texts of advocacies are binding; slow down for these, as necessary.
I was trained in formats where the judge can be counted on to ignore new arguments in late speeches, so I am sometimes annoyed by POOs, especially when they resemble psychological warfare.
Please please terminalize impacts. Do this especially when you are talking about The Economy. "Helps The Economy" is not an impact. Economic growth is not intrinsically good; it depends on where the growth goes and who is helped. Sometimes economic growth is very bad. "Increases tensions" is not a terminal impact; what happens after the tensions increase?
When I operate inside a world of fiat, I consider which makes the world a better place, I will be looking for prevention of unnecessary death and/or disease, who lifts people out of poverty, who lessens the risk of war, who prevents gross human rights violations. "Fiat is an illusion" is not exactly breaking news; you definitely don't have to debate in that world. I'm receptive to "the role of the ballot is intellectual endorsement of xxx" and other pre/not-fiat world considerations.
LES PHILLIPS NUEVA LD PARADIGM
For years I coached and judged fast circuit LD, but I have not judged LD since 2013, and I have not coached on the current topic at all. Top speed, even if you're clear, may challenge me; lack of clarity will be very unfortunate. I try to be a blank slate (like all judges, I will fail to meet this goal entirely). I like the K, though I get frustrated when I don't know what the alternative is (REJECT is an OK alternative, if that's what you want to do). I have a very high bar for rejecting a debater rather than an argument, and I do not default to competing interpretations; I would like to hear a clear abuse story. I am generally permissive in re counterplan competitiveness and perm legitimacy. RVIs are OK if the abuse is clear, but if you would do just as well to simply tell me why the opponent's argument is garbage, that would be appreciated.
I work in the Technology Sector in the Bay Area. I judge for Dougherty Valley, and though I am quite novice at judging, I have watched a lot of rounds and have a good understanding of the format and logistics.
As a heads-up, I plan to take notes during the debate, but it is better if you treat me as a "lay" judge.
I have a good amount of general knowledge on the topics provided for these events, but may not know the specifics of your topic.
a) Speak loudly and clearly. Please no "spreading". I will not be able to understand what you are saying, so speaking slower will allow me to process your arguments more clearly.
b) Be polite and fair to your opponent. If you are outright rude (ie. yelling, mocking, laughing, cutting opponents off) you will not get good speaks. Also, please note that team work is key and I find that the best debaters can work together efficiently.
c) Explain arguments thoroughly. Remember I do have some background in topics but not in debate so terms such as "uniqueness" should be more elaborated upon. Another important aspect is organization so try to state clearly what you will be talking about. (ie. Next, lets talk about the first contention.)
I will try to be as fair as possible and explain my decision in the best way I can using the above criterion as well as the debate itself. I will not carry personal biases into the round.
I will vote for the team that explains their warrants and why their impacts matter to me.
If your arguments are too complicated to be understood by the average person, then I will probably be less likely to vote for you.
Additionally, presentation will probably also influence my decision. Be confident, if you make it seem like you are losing then I will think that.
I expect teams to time their speeches themselves. But, if you want me to time, I can do that as well.
If you think that I should look at your/your opponent's evidence, please let me know.
I am a parent judge and I have judged for 2 years. I prefer logic in debates with clear understanding of the topic.
Please speak at a moderate pace with clarity
2 years of Parli, 1 year Extemp, Expos, OR
new to other forms of debate
I am a parent judge. I look for the data and and evidence supported arguments during the debates.
I'm currently an undergrad at UC Berkeley and an assistant Speech and Debate coach. I'm a former debater who mainly competed in Parliamentary debate for Claremont High School. Alongside that, I've competed in and/or judged LD, PF, Worlds, BQ, Congress, and several speech events (mainly Impromptu/Extemp). I always appreciate a competitive and respectful round so I'm looking forward to hearing what you have to say!
General Debate Notes
Please focus on your links! I believe they are just as/more important than your cards/impacts. Arguments that depend on well-thought out logic are always more interesting to listen to than a random card without much analysis from the debater. I weigh magnitude and probability heavily, meaning I will not vote for your nuclear holocaust argument just because you tell me to based on a 0.0000000001% chance. Please provide a roadmap and signpost in each speech! I want to be able to flow your case/refutations as accurately as possible and it's difficult when you spew random facts at me for 7 minutes. Remember, you could have the most beautiful argument to ever be conceived of in human history, but if I don't know where/how to flow it I can't give you credit. Lastly, be respectful! Especially during POIs and cross. That also means avoid making faces or facepalming while your camera is on, I'll probably tank speaks if a debater is being disrespectful throughout the round.
Kritiks & Theory
I'm open to hearing these arguments as long as you can justify them. There are definitely rounds where these arguments are necessary and will impact my decision. I'm not the most familiar with K's so please explain each component to me! If there's one thing I hate more than spreading, it's frivolous theory/k's that you wrote at camp 5 months ago and decided to shoe into your case. Make sure the K actually makes sense for the specific round, not one that you already decided to run before the topic is even announced. (It's an exclusionary tactic against new debaters and makes me sad ). Don't feel pressured to run these arguments either, you don't need to use jargon or this structure to explain why a definition or argument is abusive!
I'm pretty generous when it comes to speaks. If you make me laugh I'm probably going to boost your speaks too. Be respectful to your opponents, being rude is an easy way for me to dock your speaks without feeling very bad. Don't Spread, Don't Spread, Don't Spread.
If you have any other questions feel free to ask them in round! :)
hi! i did nat circuit pf at dougherty valley
PREFLOW BEFORE THE ROUND
please let me know (email, messenger, before/in round) if there is anything i can do to make the round more accessible & safe for u
i've barely debated progressive arguments. if you think there's a huge abuse in the round & theory is necessary then go for it, i’ll try my best to evaluate it. same goes for Ks
read content warnings with an opt out if you're discussing anything sensitive i'll be very upset if you don't + i'd be very happy to hear trigger warning theory after. if ur not sure what constitutes a sensitive topic, totally ask me before the round
i'm cool with speed but i can't handle spreading - u cld send me a doc but i hate flowing off those & i probably won't be able to copy everything from it so just slow down
find ur cards in less than 2 mins or i'll drop ur speaks
you should frontline (at least what ur going for + turns) in second rebuttal
defense isn't sticky
signpost!! or else i'll miss stuff
i'll only call for evidence if you tell me to (pls make sure ur evidence is cut properly and says what u say it does)
make sure ur weighing is comparative. i think rebuttal is the best time to start weighing
i have no tolerance for overly aggressive or rude behavior in cross. if ur worried that u might be being mean, u probably are. i'll happily tank speaks/drop a team if they exhibit problematic behavior or are excessively rude
i presume first (plsss never make me presume)
i don't think i'm a very tech-y judge. i prefer slower debate with a good narrative & good clash over a fast debating dumping a bunch of arguments.
don't aggressively post-round (the ballot is literally already submitted) but pls ask any real questions u have about my decision & any questions in general, i'd love to help
debate is a game, have fun!! lmk if you have any questions :)
I've judged LD & PF since 2 years. I don't mind you speaking fast, but speak clearly and generally do not prefer spreading. I like clear & logical arguments!
I wouldn't mind if you want to briefly explain your case before starting!
Please attack only the arguments of your opponent and do not be rude or aggressive towards them. Prefer respectful attitude.
Have coherent arguments. Every argument should explain exactly how you win the debate.
Enjoy your debate! Be willing to take risks and be confident.
Co-Director: Milpitas High Speech and Debate
Myers Park, Charlotte N.C.
(85-88) 3 years Policy, LD and Congress. Double Ruby (back when it was harder to get) and TOC competitor in LD.
2 Diamond Coach (pretentious, I know)
Email Chain so I know when to start prep: email@example.com
Summer 87: American U Institute. 2 weeks LD and congress under Dale Mccall and Harold Keller, and 2 more weeks in a mid level Policy lab.
St. Johns Xavierian, Shrewsbury, Mass
88~93 consultant, judge and chaperone
Summer 89 American U Coaches institute (Debate)
Milpitas High, Milpitas CA
Side note/pet peeve: It is pronounced NUUUUUU-CLEEEEEEE-ERRRRRRRRR (sorry this annoys the heck outta me, like nails on the blackboard)
ALL EVENTS EXCEPT PARLI NEED TO KNOW NSDA RULES OF EVIDENCE (or CHSSA RULES OF EVIDENCE) OR DO NOT EXPECT ME TO COUNT IT(NSDA MINIMUM IS "NAME" AND "DATE" ****READ IN ROUND****) Anything else is just rhetoric/logic and 99% of the time, rhetoric vs card mans card wins.
If you put conditions on your opponent getting access to your evidence I will put conditions on counting it in my RFD. Evidence should be provided any time asked between speeches, or asked for during cx and provided between speeches. Failure to produce the card in context may result in having no access to that card on my flow/decision.
Part of what you should know about any of the events
13-14 NSDA tournament Operations manual
All events, It is a mark of the competitors skill to adapt to the judge, not demand that they should adapt to you. Do not get into a definitional fight without being armed with a definition..... TAG TEAM CX? *NOT A FAN* if you want to give me the impression your partner doesn't know what they are talking about, sure, go ahead, Diss your partner. Presentation skills: Stand in SPEECHES AND CX (where applicable) and in all events with only exception in PF grand.
ALL EVENTS EXCEPT PARLI NEED TO KNOW NSDA RULES OF EVIDENCE (or CHSSA RULES OF EVIDENCE) OR DO NOT EXPECT ME TO COUNT IT(NSDA MINIMUM IS "NAME" AND "DATE"****READ IN ROUND****) Anything else is just rhetoric/logic and 99% of the time, rhetoric vs card means card wins.
P.S.: there is no official grace period in PF. If you start a card or an analytic before time, then finish it. No arguments STARTED after time will be on my flow.
While I was not able to compete in public forum (It did not exist yet), the squad I coach does primarily POFO. Its unlikely that any resolution will call for a real plan as POFO tends to be propositions of fact instead of value or policy.
I am UNLIKELY to vote for a K, and I don't even vote for K in policy. Moderate speed is fine, but to my knowledge, this format was meant to be more persuasive. USE EVIDENCE and make sure you have Tags and Cites. I want a neat flow (it will never happen, but I still want it)
I WANT FRAMEWORK or I will adjudicate the round, since you didn't (Framework NOT introduced in the 1st 4 speeches will NOT be entertained, as it is a new argument. I FLOW LIKE POLICY with respect to DROPPED ARGUMENTS (if a speech goes by I will likely consider the arg dropped... this means YES I believe the 4th speaker in the round SHOULD cover both flows..)
Remember, Pofo was there to counteract speed in Circuit LD, and LD was created to counter speed, so fast is ok, but tier 3 policy spread is probably not.
ALL EVENTS EXCEPT PARLI NEED TO KNOW NSDA RULES OF EVIDENCE (or CHSSA RULES OF EVIDENCE) OR DO NOT EXPECT ME TO COUNT IT(NSDA MINIMUM IS "NAME" AND "DATE" READ IN ROUND ) Anything else is just rhetoric/logic and 99% of the time, rhetoric vs card mans card wins.
PLANS IN PF
If you have one advocacy, and you claim solvency on one advocacy, and only if it is implemented, then yeah that is a plan. I will NOT weigh offense from the plan, this is a drop the argument issue for me. Keep the resolution as broad as possible. EXCEPTION, if the resolution is (rarely) EXPLICIT, or the definitions in the round imply the affirmative side is a course of action, then that is just the resolution. EXAMPLE
September 2012 - Resolved: Congress should renew the Federal Assault Weapons Ban
the aff is the resolution, not a plan and more latitude is obviously given.
If one describes several different ways for the resolution to be implemented, or to be countered, you are not committing to one advocacy, and are defending/attacking a broad swath of the resolution, and this I do NOT consider a plan.
ALL EVENTS EXCEPT PARLI NEED TO KNOW NSDA RULES OF EVIDENCE (or CHSSA RULES OF EVIDENCE) OR DO NOT EXPECT ME TO COUNT IT(NSDA MINIMUM IS "NAME" AND "DATE" ****READ IN ROUND****) Anything else is just rhetoric/logic and 99% of the time, rhetoric vs card mans card wins.
If your plan is super vague, you MIGHT not get to claim your advantages. Saying you "increase" by merely reading the text of the resolution is NOT A PLAN. Claiming what the plan says in cx is NOT reading a plan. Stop being sloppy.
I *TRY* to be Tabula Rasa (and fail a lot of the time especially on theory, Ks and RVI/fairness whines)
I trained when it was stock issues, mandatory funding plan spikes (My god, the amount of times I abused the grace commission in my funding plank), and who won the most nuclear wars in the round.
Presentation skills: Stand in SPEECHES AND CX (where applicable) and in all events with only exception in PF grand.
Please don't diss my event.
Glassification of toxic/nuclear wastes, and Chloramines on the H2O topic
Legalize pot on the Ag topic
CTBT on the Latin America topic.
In many years I have never voted neg on K (in CX), mainly because I have never seen an impact (even when it was run in POFO as an Aff).(Ironic given my LD background)
I will freely vote on Topicality if it is run properly (but not always XT), and have no problem buying jurisdiction......
I HAVE finally gotten to judge Hypo-testing round (it was fun and hilarious).
One of my students heard from a friend in Texas that they are now doing skits and non topical/personal experiece affs, feel free, BUT DON'T EXPECT ME TO VOTE FOR IT.
I will vote on good perms both ways (see what I said above about XT)
SPREAD: I was a tier B- speed person in the south. I can flow A level spread *IF* you enunciate. slow down momentarily on CITES and TAGS and blow through the card (BUT I WILL RE TAG YOUR SUBPOINTS if your card does not match the tag!!!!!!)
If you have any slurred speech, have a high pitched voice, a deep southern or NY/Jersey drawl, or just are incapable of enunciating, and still insist on going too fast for your voice, I will quit flowing and make stuff up based on what I think I hear.
I do not ask for ev unless there is an evidentiary challenge, so if you claim the card said something and I tagged it differently because YOU slurred too much on the card or mis-tagged it, that's your fault, not mine.
I WILL JUDGE NSDA RULES!!!! I am NOT tabula rasa on some theory, or on plans. Plans are against the rules of the event as I learned it and I tend to be an iconoclast on this point. LD was supposed to be a check on policy spread, and I backlash, if you have to gasp or your voice went up two octaves then see below... Topicality FX-T and XT are cool on both sides but most other theory boils down to WHAAAAAAHHHH I don't want to debate their AFF so I will try to bs some arguments.
-CIRCUIT LD REFER to policy prefs above in relation to non topical and performance affs, I will TRY to sometimes eval a plan, but I wish they would create a new event for circuit LD as it is rarely values debate.
- I LOVE PHILOSOPHY so if you want to confuse your opponent who doesn't know the difference between Kant, Maslow and Rawls, dazzle away :-).
Clear VP and VC (or if you call it framework fine, but it is stupid to tell someone with a framework they don't have a VC and vice versa, its all semantics) are important but MORE IMPORTANT is WHY IS YOURS BETTER *OR* WHY DO YOU MEET THEIRS TOO and better (Permute)
IF YOU TRY TO Tier A policy spread, or solo policy debate, you have probably already lost UNLESS your opponent is a novice. Not because I can't follow you, but because THIS EVENT IS NOT THE PLACE FOR IT!!! However there are several people who can talk CLEARLY and FAST that can easily dominate LD, If you cannot be CLEAR and FAST play it safe and be CLEAR and SLOW. Speaker points are awarded on speaking, not who wins the argument....
Sub-pointing is still a good idea, do not just do broad overviews. plans and counter-plans need not apply as LD is usually revolving around the word OUGHT!!!! Good luck claiming Implementation FIAT on a moral obligation. I might interrupt if you need to be louder, but its YOUR job to occasionally look at the judge to see signals to whether or not they are flowing, so I will be signalling that, by looking at you funny or closing my eyes, or in worst case leaning back in my chair and visibly ignoring you until you stop ignoring the judge and fix the problem. I will just be making up new tags for the cards I missed tags for by actually listening to the cards, and as the average debater mis-tags cards to say what they want them to, this is not advisable.
PLANS IN LD
If you have one advocacy, and you claim solvency on one advocacy, and only if it is implemented, then yeah that is a plan. I will NOT weigh offense from the plan, this is a drop the argument issue for me. Keep the resolution as broad as possible.
EXCEPTION, if the resolution is (rarely) EXPLICIT, or the definitions in the round imply the affirmative side is a course of action, then that is just the resolution. EXAMPLE
September 2012 - Resolved: Congress should renew the Federal Assault Weapons Ban
the aff is the resolution, not a plan and more latitude is obviously given.
If one describes several different ways for the resolution to be implemented, or to be countered, you are not committing to one advocacy, and are defending/attacking a broad swath of the resolution, and this I do NOT consider a plan.
I repeat, Speed = Bad in LD, and I will not entertain a counter-plan in LD If you want to argue Counterplans and Plans, get a partner and go to a policy tournament.
GOOD LUCK and dangit, MAKE *ME* HAVE FUN hahahahahah
Hello Speech and Debaters, I'm Raja Sengottaiyan (he/him). I'm a parent judge with knowledge in both speech and debate.
I'm am looking for a fair and proper debate. Please be respectful for when your opponent is speaking. If the debaters choose to take prep time, please use prep time fairly. Clearly state your contentions and your sub-points. During rebuttal please speak clearly and format your speech in a easy to understand manner. I will take cross into consideration so please be respectful and do not talk over each other. Crystalizing your case will be very helpful. Please do not bring up new evidence in your final speech.
In speech I expect that you speak within the time limit. For Extemp, I would prefer that you speak everything for memory. For Orginals, I lean towards people who exude confident and present themselves well. For Interpertation, preform to your best and draw me into your speech. Regarding Impromptu, I anticipate a proper speech that sticks with the topic.
Cant wait to judge, hope you all have a wonderful debate/speech.
I am a parent judge. Explain all arguments clearly to me, please no spreading. I will determine the winner based on strong argumentation, presentation of each side's points, etc. I'm a lay judge, but I will be taking notes during the debate and weighing both sides according to how much arguments are introduced & responded to. Please be respectful and polite to each other during cross-examination, and remember to have fun! :)
I have started participating in debate tournaments as judge since 2021. I have judged LD and Parli in CFLs. I like debate participants finding weak point in their opponents argument and exploiting that to prove their point. I get to learn a lot through debate and topics getting discussed. I enjoy the seriousness of time keeping and structured format. Looking forward to judging more.
Did PF for 4 years, won nat quales, top 4 at nats.
how to get my ballot:
- DEBATE THE TOPIC
- weigh when you can
- Run theory at your own discretion, if I suspect that you don't understand what you're saying, I will 25 spks you
- if arg not in summary it should not be in final focus
- don't be a menace, but clashing during cross is good
- 2nd rebuttal should have frontlines
- don't lose
I am a lay parent judge.
Speak slowly and have coherent arguments, no spreading.
If I can not flow it, I will not vote on it.
Do not be disrespectful, competitors will be dropped for disrespecting their opponent or the judge.
- I did high school debate in my junior and senior year.
- I competed in LD, Parli, PF, and Policy, among other events.
- I went to TOC in PF and I was ranked 10th in the nation for Parli.
- Run any argument you want
- Be kind and polite
- Tell me how and why you win this round
- Make up evidence
- Drop arguments
- Forget to have fun
Arguments to run:
I have little preference to what arguments you choose to make. I am always open to hearing about new, unique, or unorthodox arguments. This is a space for you to learn; freely experiment with your rhetoric. That said, I am more familiar with some arguments more than others. Below is my level of familiarity with each kind of argument, starting with most familiar.
1.) Case / Policy debate.
5.) Anything else.
How I evaluate arguments:
Case / Policy Debate
I really enjoy listening to and judging this kind of debate. I am very comfortable judging this kind of debate and love to see a good debate in this style.
From the affirmative, I want to see
a.) unique and fleshed out advantages with strong inherency, links, and impacts
b.) a well developed plan
c.) bulletproof solvency with evidence that absolutely confirms the plan's efficacy
d.) a brief underview that neatly summates your affirmation of the resolution.
From the negative, I want to see
a.) disadvantages to the plan, with links specific to the aff and significant impacts
b.) a competitive counterplan that gives an alternative to the aff's plan and avoids the status quo
c.) a potent deconstruction of the affirmative's solvency advocates
d.) an underview that explains why negating the resolution / affirmation is the best idea.
This style of debate is largely self explanatory. Just tell me why the policy is good or bad. Prove it with evidence.
I can appreciate a good theory debate. I cannot appreciate a bad theory debate. Before you use theory, consider:
1.) is it frivolous?
2.) is it because of something outside of the round?
3.) can you meaningfully continue the debate without theory?
If you answered yes to any of these, do not run theory. I do not entertain frivolous theory as I believe it kills the educational value of debate. I cannot accurately judge theory based on events external to the round, as I was not there. I will only accept theory if you cannot meaningfully continue the debate without using theory. If you evade my limits on using theory, here is how I evaluate theory.
a.) Give me an interpretation, violation, standards, and voters.
b.) Show me why it is so critical to add this meta-layer to the debate.
c.) I believe in RVIs. Though, convince me why the other team should lose if they lose the theory shell.
I don't mind theory. I just so desperately want it to be valid and not an unnecessary detraction from the debate. Follow my preferences, both in spirit and text, and I'll evaluate it to the best of my ability.
A good kritik debate is always enjoyable. I am not as familiar with the literature and the arguments stemming from them, so I will need you to explain the thesis analytically throughout the debate. Here is what I would like to see in a kritik debate.
1.) I want a good link to the affirmative. Give me a direct line or proposed impact from the aff that links to your kritik.
2.) Give me real and quantifiable impacts. I understand the difficulty due to the esoteric nature of many kritiks, but if you can give me something I could weigh objectively, it makes my evaluation much easier.
3.) Alternatives should be grounded in some reality. Telling me to vote neg is a terrible alternative. Give me either a proposed shift in thought or action, something avoids the harms of the affirmative.
4.) Affirmatives should be topical. That doesn't mean no aff k's, just topical aff k's. If you can do this, I will evaluate it to the best of my ability.
5.) ROTB's are interesting, but really sell me on it. I am less persuaded by my ballots significance the further away we are from the finals.
I love kritikal debates, I am just not very familiar with it. Give me explanations throughout the debate, as I find the literature to be very dense and difficult to understand the first time it is yelled to me at 400 wpm.
These debates are perhaps the most interesting to me. I am currently pursuing a philosophy minor, so I find these debates to be very enjoyable and entertaining. Yet, I ranked this lower on my scale of familiarity, since I have found the way debaters to use philosophy to be bizarre and alien. Ideally, you explain a philosopher's ideas, how it is relevant to this round, and why it supports your symbolic affirmation or negation of the resolution. In practice, it is used as a "gotcha" to scare unfamiliar debaters with dense and confusing literature. If you are to use philosophy in your debate, here are my rules.
1.) explain, thoroughly, what the philosopher's ideas are
2.) demonstrate why these ideas are relevant to this round
3.) show me why these relevant ideas would give me reason to affirm or negate the resolution.
That is all. Philosophy is a way of understanding and making sense of the world and our place in it, helping us to question our assumptions and beliefs, and to gain a clearer and deeper understanding of ourselves and the world around us. Use it earnestly and use it wisely.
I have been a judge of speech and debate for about two years experience.
For debaters, please show your solid logic and reasoning, advocate a position, utilize evidence, and communicate clear ideas using professional decorum.
For speakers, please demonstrate your clear organization, reasoning analysis, and effective delivery.
Hope you have a great event!
New judge here-- so I am "lay" in the truest sense, although I have appeared before many Article 3 judges in my other life.
I am a first time parent judge. I prefer that participants speak slow and make strong points rather than rattling off a lot of words fast. I Don’t understand debate jargon and I will vote based on strong effective well articulated reasoning rather than fast spoken and voluminous content.
Be confident, be respectful and most importantly have fun.
I am the coach for Mission San Jose. I believe that speech & debate is first and foremost an educational activity, and much of my paradigm is framed through that lens. I have a few simple rules regarding conduct and content of the debate.
1) Proper debate cannot exist without clash. If you make a contention in constructive but never mention it again I'm dropping it from my decision. I don't judge strictly on the flow (more on that in point 4), but if none of you thought the point was important enough to bring up again, it must not be important enough for me to judge on.
1a) Spreadatyourownrisk. I will be flowing the debate and will do my best to follow you, but you run the risk that I might miss something important if you do.
2) Deeply engage the topic. I'd much rather see a few well-developed points with thoughtful analysis and solid foundational evidence than a "shotgun" approach where you throw out as many loosely-articulated arguments as possible and see what sticks.
2a) I enjoy creative arguments. As a coach I hear a lot of the stock arguments over and over, so if you run something a bit more unusual you'll get my attention. I'm not going to vote for a squirrely case that redefines the motion in a really weird way, but feel free to run off-the-wall arguments in your case (just make sure you can prove they're relevant to the topic).
2b) I don't generally respond well to theory arguments and meta-gamesmanship; I'd much rather judge an actual debate on the topic at hand. This is especially true of case disclosure theory -- Aff already has a burden of presumption weighing against them (see point 4a), so if you feel like you can't prepare a decent counter argument without knowing the opponent's exact arguments ahead of time, you either need more prep or more practice. That said, I will listen to your theory case, but I probably won't vote for it unless the opponent is doing some particularly egregious.
3) I'm not going to do your work for you. My job is to judge the arguments as presented, not do my own analysis to prove you right or wrong. I will assume evidence is truthful and will not call for cards unless the opponent gives me reason to believe otherwise.
3a) If you try to make a point that is obviously factually incorrect (e.g. "Dubai is the capital of Pakistan") or wildly outlandish (e.g. "veganism will lead to nuclear war"), you will loose credibility and will cause me to view the rest of your arguments with more skepticism. And yes, those are actual statements I've heard in rounds.\
3b) I probably will not flow anything said in cross examination. I may take some notes to clarify what I've already written down, but if you want me to factor something said in cross into my decision you need to point in out in your next speech. However, I do consider how well you handle cross ex when awarding speaker points.
4) My judgement will be based on what is presented in the debate. Don't expect me to bring in other information that wasn't presented to fill in the blanks for you. While my ballot comments may mention things that weren't presented in the debate, that information is intended to help you refine your arguments and did not factor into my decision.
4a) In final focus, tell me what to weigh and why I should vote for you. By default I will judge on whether I am led to believe that the Aff case as presented accomplishes more for the greater good than the status quo. If Neg runs a counter (non-negation) case or a counter-plan (assuming it's allowed), I'm going to judge it on balance with the Aff case/plan, meaning I will decide which case I believe leads to overall better outcomes for the greater good within whatever scope/scale we spent the most time discussing during the debate. If both sides agree on a framework for deciding the winner, than that's what I'll vote on instead.
5) This is a debate, not a sound bite contest. That said, if you want maximum speaker points, vary your vocal dynamics to help emphasize your speech, employ some clever rhetoric (alliteration, allegory, etc.), and/or incorporate some classic rock or science fiction references. I'll usually award speaker points in the 27-28.9 range, with 29-30 reserved for speakers that I found particularly engaging and those who make especially good use of cross ex.
6) Respect your opponent and your fellow humans. Academic debate is no place for sexism, racism, religism, or any other prejudicial and marginalizing -isms. Use your CX time wiseley to clarify the opponent's argument and find holes to exploit later in argumentation, or to perhaps plug up a hole you didn't realized you'd missed, not show off how much you can talk over the other person. And if you feel a need to resort to ad hominem attacks, you've lost me and we're done.
For Policy I am largely a policy and stock issues judge. While I am not an absolutist (meaning if you're not 100% on these I reject your case) I do largely want your case to fulfill the burdens of the topic within a reasonable plausibility or ability. This means I want clear eloquent presentations and do not like arguments that are NOT related to the actual topic.
I then focus on the policy itself looking at the advantages and disadvantages of a case. This means that if you like to throw in "game theories" those will be entertained if they accept and help argue the topic and the team can prove that "blowing up the moon" will have a net positive impact on the case.
If you are going to spread, then you should email be a copy of your case so that I can look for the issues you are arguing.
I am a new parent judge for Nueva. For me, please clearly explain your arguments, talk slowly and make it easy for me to follow the flow of your speeches. I don't know Ks/T/theory so will have a hard time evaluating it but if you want to go ahead but make sure it is clear. I'll keep track of time but you should as well. I wont evaluate arguments outside of speech time unless you are finishing a sentence. Otherwise just be nice to each other and have fun!
Email - firstname.lastname@example.org.
Overview - 1) I judge all debate events; 2) I agree with the way debate has evolved: progressive debate and Ks, diversity and equity, technique; 3) On technique: a) Speed and speech docs > Slow no docs; b) Open CX; c) Spreading is not a voter; 4) OK with reading less than what's in speech doc, but send updated speech doc afterwards; 5) Clipping IS a voter; 6) Evidence is core for debate; 7) Dropped arguments are conceded but I will evaluate link and impact evidence when weighing; 8) Be nice to one another; 9) I time speeches and CX, and I keep prep time; 10) I disclose, give my RFD after round.
Lincoln-Douglas - 1) I flow; 2) Condo is OK, will not drop debater for running conditional arguments; 3) Disads to CPs are sticky; 4) PICs are OK; 5) T is a voter, a priori jurisdictional issue, best definition and impact of definition on AFF/NEG ground wins; 6) Progressive debate OK; 7) ALT must solve to win K; 8) Plan/CP text matters; 9) CPs must be non-topical, compete/provide NB, and solve the AFF or avoid disads to AFF; 10) Speech doc must match speech.
Policy - 1) I flow; 2) Condo is OK, will not drop team for running conditional arguments; 3) Disads to CPs are sticky; 4) T is a voter, a priori jurisdictional issue, best definition wins; 5) Progressive debate OK; 6) ALT must solve to win K; 7) Plan/CP text matters; 8) CPs must be non-topical, compete/provide NB, and solve the AFF or avoid disads to AFF; 9) Speech doc must match speech; 10) Questions by prepping team during prep OK; 11) I've debated in and judged 1000s of Policy rounds.
Public Forum - 1) I flow; 2) T is not a voter, non-topical warrants/impacts are dropped from impact calculus; 3) Minimize paraphrasing of evidence; I prefer quotes from articles to paraphrased conclusions that overstate an author's claims and downplay the author's own caveats; 4) If paraphrased evidence is challenged, link to article and cut card must be provided to the debater challenging the evidence AND me; 5) Paraphrasing that is counter to the article author's overall conclusions is a voter; at a minimum, the argument and evidence will not be included in weighing; 6) Paraphrasing that is intentionally deceptive or entirely fabricated is a voter; the offending team will lose my ballot, receive 0 speaker points, and will be referred to the tournament director for further sanctions; 7) When asking for evidence during the round, refer to the card by author/date and tagline; do not say "could I see your solvency evidence, the impact card, and the warrant card?"; the latter takes too much time and demonstrates that the team asking for the evidence can't/won't flow; 8) Exception: Crossfire 1 when you can challenge evidence or ask naive questions about evidence, e.g., "Your Moses or Moises 18 card...what's the link?"; 9) Weigh in place (challenge warrants and impact where they appear on the flow); 10) Weigh warrants (number of internal links, probability, timeframe) and impacts (magnitude, min/max limits, scope); 11) 2nd Rebuttal should frontline to maximize the advantage of speaking second; 2nd Rebuttal is not required to frontline; if 2nd Rebuttal does not frontline 2nd Summary must cover ALL of 1st Rebuttal on case, 2nd Final Focus can only use 2nd Summary case answers in their FF speech; 12) Weigh w/o using the word "weigh"; use words that reference the method of comparison, e.g., "our impact happens first", "100% probability because impacts happening now", "More people die every year from extreme climate than a theater nuclear detonation"; 13) No plan or fiat in PF, empirics prove/disprove resolution, e.g., if NATO has been substantially increasing its defense commitments to the Baltic states since 2014 and the Russian annexation of Crimea, then the question of why Russia hasn't attacked since 2014 suggest NATO buildup in the Baltics HAS deterred Russia from attacking; 14) No new link or impact arguments in 2nd Summary, answers to 1st Rebuttal in 2nd Summary OK if 2nd Rebuttal does not frontline.
Cultural Competency Certificate
Working in a small business in Silicon Valley
Please make your contention clearly.
Slowly speech is appreciated.
parent who has never done debate
please talk slowly and explain everything very clearly without using complex vocabulary
don't be rude
dont abuse asking for cards to prep
be efficient with time when speakers switch / cx
I have three and a half years of competitor experience under my belt between 2016 and 2019, doing primarily PF, policy, and extemp. Was a coach for speech and PF during the 2021-2022 season.
I competed in policy for one year during the 2017-2018 season. Since I am a little out of practice with policy make sure you speak clearly for your tag lines and anything you need me to flow. Feel free to spread the body of your evidence I don't want you to be unable to read your cases because of a slow judge.
I'm also unaware of the current topic. Assume I know the bare minimum and take the time to explain some of the less-than-obvious things if you're going deep into the weeds.
I don't have any strict opinions on the arguments you run. If done well enough I'll vote on about anything, but some things will be harder to get a ballot from me than others:
-K AFFs better have a really good link and you better have a very good answer to topicality/framework when it inevitably comes up.
-I'm a scientist by trade, so I'd greatly prefer a mix of both tech and truth in your arguments. I'll accept tech over truth, but if the round is close being on the side of truth will be advantageous to you.
I expect logic in your argumentation, don't just apply a card and move on, spell it out for me.
I leave bias out the door when it comes to any -ism you may run in a K so don't worry about that.
Above all make sure you're polite to your opponents in round. I will be paying attention during cross x and between speeches of your demeanor towards your competitors. We're all here to have fun, so let's be kind.
Least familiar with this format, but having experience in policy and PF I'm comfortable if the debate space becomes traditional or progressive. With that being said, please still present a value-criterion debate. See policy section if you want more details.
Be polite, know your cases, and make sure you refute arguments with logic instead of just applying a card to what they said and moving on. Don't spew nonsense louder than your opponent hoping for a ballot.
Entertain me, fill your time, organize your speech well, and make every word count. Extempers, bring 3 sources minimum. I'd like to see 5 if not more.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Hi, I competed for about three years at Mountain House High & graduated in 2020. While I erred towards speech/interp, I have some experience in PF and LD(rudimentary at most). Please consider me lay! I’ll try my best to adapt to progressive debate and keep an open eye on things.
Most of what I know about debate is from my Iron 3 Fade Main 30% HS Rate God-Tier Util Slinging Gunfight Taking coach & friend Arshita Sandhiparthi.
Add me to the chain: gmail @ elligenetolentino
I’d like to preface that I have a learning disability. As someone in the midst of comprehending what I couldn’t before diagnosis & treatment, I’m able to flow, but I will have a tough time keeping up. Some advice:
Signposting, reading the tagline & card name slowly, & tldr-ing your points can make or break whether I’m able to follow.
If you’re referencing/cross-applying cards during neg block, 1AR(at any point for that matter, really), it would be nice to point out which speech it came from.
If you use jargon, don’t assume I know or can infer what it means. Take what you can from this paradigm & err on the side of caution.
TLDR; My working memory is shot. Do anything & everything in your capacity that you think would help you and I figure out what’s happening in the debate(i.e.: Don’t shadow-extend because I’ll probably miss it)
General Debate Paradigm:
I’m ambivalent about spreading; I find that spreading makes debate more inaccessible to newer debaters. So:
Keep it at a minimum if you choose to.
Inevitably, I’ll miss a thing or two. I’ll say “clear” if I need you to slow down/enunciate slower(skill issue tbh).
I’d like to emphasize that clear link chains and impacts matter more to me. Articulate, clarify, and make understanding your warrants easier so I can get a better read on where the debate’s headed. That being said, I attempt to be tech but end up erring truth in-round*.
This article best explicates my thought process on judge impartiality. “To all truth judges I ask you to consider this: Is my decision based on a specific articulation of a clearly marked argument made by a debater, or am I drawing information and inferences from my own knowledge?” Look, I will objectively retain more salient, intuitive arguments, but I’ll try my best to override this.
I don’t mind warrant debate, but I ask you not to get too hyper-fixated on it. Whether you indict evidence or yours post-dates it would be cool to hear a refutation anyways(given time)
Norms(specifically on disclosure & open source theory)
From my friend Vishnu’s paradigm:
“Breaking norms in most cases is not abuse. I'll go by what is in the explicit CHSSA/NSDA rules. Besides, how do you expect a debater to know about these norms at their first invitational?”
I’m certainly not absolute on this, so if you prove to me why certain norms must be abided by for newer competitors alike, I’m more than happy to hear.
I think I enjoy it?
I don’t fully understand framework debate, but here’s what I can say.
If possible, weigh between your links to fairness & education
I’m more convinced that fairness is an internal link vs. an impact, but that doesn’t necessarily delineate it as bad/less preferable than an impact(nuclear war can be an internal link to anything)
I’m inexperienced and thus impartial to competing interps vs. reasonability. Explain as best as you can!
I dislike condo, but I wouldn’t mind(and am very much open to) hearing substantive debate on it.
I’m cool with Ks, but I’d like an explanation/a short thesis on what you’re running if it’s super niche.
Please establish the solvency mechanism for your K. I prefer for it to be topical to res, but I won’t rag on you for running something wild.
My threshold for (most) Planless Affs is high.
Please eventually crystallize/give me a big picture. Line by line makes my life easy, but following it pedantically only serves to muddy the debate for me.
I plead that you write my ballot by summary & from what you’ve collapsed(and do collapse), reiterate what you find most valuable in FF.
I will not keep time; I expect the debaters to do that. I’m usually chill on this, but I will give an auto-loss for clear abuse.
*note: I believe this to be an unintentional byproduct of my disability.
Yes here's my card brah, I’m linking a research article: “To save mental effort, individuals with ADHD might not base their decisions on a comparison of EVs but use easier decision-making heuristics instead. Using heuristics, parts of information are ignored to increase efficiency (Gigerenzer & Gaissmaier, 2011).” The cognitive load of weighing can be intrinsically complex for me, so just know that how you outweigh may not supersede how you clash.
- I'm a lay judge.
- Please speak clearly and not too fast.
- Please explain any technical jargons before using it will be good if you could avoid them
- Please time yourselves and please be courteous to your opponent.
- I’ll be taking notes.
- It’ll be helpful if you wind up by offering weighing or voting issues, at the end of summary and final focus.
I am a mom of 3 and one of them is in public forum. I like proper understandable speaking. I do ask that you speak a little slower than you are used to so that I can understand. If you bring up complicated topics make sure you explain them to me and I also take some notes. I weigh mainly based off who wins the debate and I award based off skill. I also judge off your confidence. I don't time speeches.
Background: PF @ Mountain House High School '19, Economics @ UC Berkeley '22, incoming @ Berkeley Law '26. This is my 4th year judging.
THREE ABSOLUTE ESSENTIALS BEFORE YOU READ THE REST OF MY PARADIGM:
Add me to the email chain: email@example.com
Preflow before the round. When you walk into the room you should be ready to start ASAP.
I will NOT entertain postrounding from coaches. This is absolutely embarassing and if it is egregious I will report you to tab. Postrounding from competitors must be respectful and brief.
I am a former PF debater and I still think like one. That means I highly value simple, coherent argumentation that is articulated at at least a somewhat conversational speed.
In my view, debate is an activity that at the end of the day is supposed to help you be able to persuade the average person into agreeing with your viewpoints and ideas. I really dislike how debate nowadays, especially LD, has become completely gamified and is completely detached from real life. Because of this, I am not partial to spread, questionable link chains that we both know won’t happen, theory (unless there is actual abuse) or whatever debate meta is in vogue. I care more about facts and logic than anything else. You are better served thinking me of a good lay judge than a standard circuit judge
That doesn’t mean I do not judge on the merits of arguments or their meaning, but how you present them certainly matters to me because my attention level is at or slightly above the average person (my brain is broken because of chronic internet and social media usage, so keep that in mind).
I will say tech over truth, but truth can make everyone’s life easier. The less truth there is, the more work you have to do to convince me. And when it’s very close, I’m probably going to default to my own biases (subconscious or not), so it’s in your best interest to err on the side of reality. This means that you should make arguments with historical and empirical context in mind, which as a college educated person, I’m pretty familiar with and can sus out things that are not really applicable in real life. But if you run something wild and for whatever reason your opponent does not address those arguments as I have just described, I will grant you the argument.
You should weigh, give me good impact calculus (probability, magnitude, scope, timeframe, etc), and most importantly, TELL ME HOW TO VOTE AND WHY! Do not trust me to understand things between the lines.
More points that I agree with from my friend Vishnu's paradigm:
"I do not view debate as a game, I view it almost like math class or science class as it carries tremendous educational value. There are a lot of inequities in debate and treating it like a game deepens those inequities.
Other than this, have fun, crack jokes, reference anecdotes and be creative.
There is honestly almost 0 real world application to most progressive argumentation, it bars accessibility to this event and enriches already rich schools.
Basically: debate like it's trad LD."
SPEAKER POINT SCALE
Was too lazy to make my own so I stole from the 2020 Yale Tournament. I will use this if the tournament does not provide me with one:
29.5 to 30.0 - WOW; You should win this tournament
29.1 to 29.4 - NICE!; You should be in Late Elims
28.8 to 29.0 - GOOD!; You should be in Elim Rounds
28.3 to 28.7 - OK!; You could or couldn't break
27.8 to 28.2 - MEH; You are struggling a little
27.3 to 27.7 - OUCH; You are struggling a lot
27.0 to 27.2 - UM; You have a lot of learning to do
below 27/lowest speaks possible - OH MY; You did something very bad or very wrong
Weighing and spelling out to me as a judge why your arguments are more important than your opponents is significant and holds worth for the outcome.
It would be much preferred if each speaker spoke clearly and at a slower pace. The faster the pace, the harder it gets to process everything of significance, therefore, speaking slower has more advantages. However, I do not mind if the pace is still slightly fast.
I expect a clean, respectful round where both teams hold true to being mindful of their attitude and tone. While I love to see clash in a round, I hope that nothing gets too aggressive. I like to see strong arguments thoroughly presented with evidence that backs them up.
While I am not new to the Bay Area Speech and Debate scene with CFL, this is my first year judging Public Forum.
I look for thoughtfully reasoned ideas, the logical flow of the arguments, and the augmenting evidence presented to support the team's position. I also think a good use of time (running down the clock to take advantage of the allocated time) demonstrates a higher level of preparedness and comfort in dealing with the topic.
I have been a judging PF from 2018 onwards. I have judged varied tournaments from Novice to Varsity levels.
Present your story clearly. My preference will be clarity over ambiguity.
I don't mind if you speak fast.
I also weigh based on maturity of the thought, clear communication and metrics relating to your argument
Consider me a lay judge, and do not spread.
NO bullying, racism, or harassment of any sort.
Prior experience as varsity LD and Congress.
I use to debate policy over 20 years ago. I no longer can understand spread. Please be polite to each other.
I am a parent judge. I will try to take notes on key parts or your speeches so please sign post and speak clearly/at a normal pace. I will judge based on 2 key factors:
1. Logic: whichever team has the most logical links between claims and provide reasoning (warranting) behind their claims
2. Weighing: proving which impacts have the most political, health-wise, etc. impact in different ways
Thanks and good luck!
I'm a parent judge. This is my second year judging.
Please don't go too fast. I have lived in the US for almost 30 years now and am very familiar and interested in all kinds of political topics.
I will try my best to take some notes, so please signpost.
Thanks! Good luck!
Lowell '20 || UC Berkeley '24 || Assistant Coach @ College Prep || she/her/hers
Add me to the email chain - firstname.lastname@example.org
Please format the chain subject like this: Tournament Name - Round # - Aff Team Code [Aff] vs Neg Team Code. Please make sure the chain is set up before the start time, or you will not like your speaks.
I think about debate in the same way as this guy. (He's probably the person I talk to the most when it comes to strategies and execution, it would be fair to say that if you like the way that he judge then I am also a good judge for you).
I debated for four years at Lowell High School. I’ve been a 2A for most of my years (2Ned as a side gig my junior year). Qualified to the TOC & placed 7th at NSDA reading arguments on both sides of the spectrum. I'd say my comfort for judging rounds is Policy vs. Policy > K vs. Policy > K vs. K.
I learned everything I know about debate from Debnil Sur - his paradigm is 1000x more nuanced and thought-out than mine will be.
Please don't start until you see my camera on!
If you're not wearing headphones with a microphone attached, it is REALLY hard to hear you when you turn away from your laptop. Please refrain from doing this.
I would also love if you slowed down a tiny tiny tiny tiny bit on your analytics. I will clear you at most 3 times, but I can't help it if I miss what you're saying on my flow ;(.
I'll vote on anything.* I think there is certainly a lot of value in ideological flexibility.
*Outside of the blatantly offensive arguments, but I think that's obvious.
Tech >>>>>>>>> truth: I'd rather adapt to your strategies than have you adapt to what you think my preferences are. The below are simply guidelines & ways to improve speaks via tech-y things I like seeing rather than ideological stances on arguments.
Looooove judge instruction - I’m lazy, please write my ballot for me. Top level framing and cleaning up the debate for me >>>>>>>>. This makes it infinitely easier for me to resolve debates, but I'm seeing less and less of this in 2NRs/2ARs that I've judged recently. You will be rewarded with inflated speaker points for simple framing at the top that includes phrases like "You're voting aff this round because x, y, z" or "Even if they're winning x, y is true."
I think evidence quality is important, but I value good spin more because it incentivizes smart analysis/contextualization - I personally believe that a model of debate where rounds are adjudicated solely based on evidence quality favors truth more than technical debate skills. As a result, I tend not to look at evidence after the round unless it was specifically flagged during speeches. With that being said, I’ll probably default to reading evidence if there’s a lack of evidence indicts or resolving done by teams in round. You probably don't want this because I feel like its opens up the possibility for more intervention -- so please just help me out and debate warrants + resolve the biggest points of clash in your 2NR/2ARs.
Obviously I'm fine with speed, but it seems like people have forgotten to sign post or slow down on tags/analytics. I'll clear at most 3x, but if I'm missing important stuff you'd like on my flow, that's on you. I don't flow off speech docs, but I try to follow along when you're reading evidence to ensure you're not clipping. If I catch you clipping, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you don't know what you're doing. I will give you a warning, but drop you if it happens again. If the other team catches you and wants to stake the round on an ethics challenge, I doubt you're winning that one.
My biggest frustration when judging rounds is inaccurately flagging arguments the other team spent a substantial amount time answering as “dropped" - your speaks will reflect this frustration. Second to that is repeating “they dropped x” instead of explaining what the technical concession means for you.
Generally, I don’t think people do enough work comparing/explaining their competing models of debate and its benefits other than “they exclude critical discussions!!!!”
For the aff: Having advocacy in the direction of the topic >>>>>>>> saying anything in the 1AC. I’ll probably be a lot more sympathetic to the neg if I just have no clue what the method/praxis of the 1AC is in relation to the topic. I think the value of planless affs come from having a defensible method that can be contested, which is why I’m not a huge fan of “refusal” affs or advocacies not tied to the topic. Not sure why people don’t think perms in a method debate are not valid - with that being said, I can obviously be convinced otherwise. I prefer nuanced perm explanations rather than just “it’s not mutually exclusive”.
For the neg: I don’t really buy procedural fairness - I think to win this standard you would have to win pretty substantial defense to the aff’s standards & disprove the possibility of debate having an effect on subjectivity. I don't think I'd never vote on fairness, but I think the way that most debaters extend it just sound whiney and don't give me a reason to prefer it over everything else.I usually like to go 6-8 off against planless affs - one off framework debates are boring for me. If the aff says you can read topic disads - hold them to that and read a bunch in the 1NC. If not, there’s your abuse for framework.
Not much to say here - think these debates are pretty straight forward. Smart, nuanced link analysis/internal link explanation >>>> “our impact outweighs on [x] because [unwarranted assertion]!!11!!”. Detailed, subpointed link modules and link turns case analysis will make me and your speaks very happy.
Default to judge kick unless the 2ar is really convincing on why I should not/wins the thesis of condo.
I can't remember the last time I heard a really good counterplan. Process/agent/consult CPs are kind of cheating but in the words of the wise Tristan Bato, "most violations are reasons to justify a permutation or call solvency into question and not as a voter."
Smart solvency deficits >>>>
I think I tend to err neg on questions of conditionality & perf con but probably aff on counterplans that garner competition off of the word “should”. Obviously this is a debate to be had but also I’m also sympathetic to a well constructed net benefit with solid evidence.
Framework is sosososo important in these debates. I don’t think I really lean either side on this question but I don’t think the neg needs to win the alt if they win framework + links based on the representational strategy of the 1AC.
Nuanced link walls based on the plan/reps + pulling evidence from their ev >>>> links based on FIATed state action and generic cards about your theory.
To quote Debnil “I'm a hard sell on sweeping ontological or metaphysical claims about society; I'll likely let the aff weigh the plan; I don't think the alt can fiat structures out of existence; and I think the alt needs to generate some solid uniqueness for the criticism.“
I default to competing interps. Explanations of your models/differences between your interps + caselists >>>>> “they explode limits” in 10 different places. Please please please please do impact comparison, I don’t want to hear “they’re a tiny aff and that’s unfair” a bunch.
Questions of norms ≠ ethics violations. If you believe the ballot should resolve a question of norms (disclosure, open sourcing, etc), then I will evaluate it like a regular procedural. If you believe it's an ethics violation (intentionally modifying evidence, clipping, etc), then the round stops immediately. Loser of the ethics challenge receives an auto loss and 20s.
Evidence ethics can be really iffy to resolve. If you want to stake the round on an evidence distortion, you must prove: that the piece of evidence was cut by the other team (or someone affiliated with their school) AND there was clear and malicious intent to alter its meaning. If your problem isn't surrounding distortion but rather mistagging/misinterpreting the evidence, it can be solved via a rehighlighting.
I've never debated in PF, but I have judged a handful of rounds now. I will evaluate very similarly to how I evaluate policy rounds, which you can read about under the "General Things" section above.
I despise the practice of sending snippets of evidence one at a time. I think it's a humongous waste of time and honestly would prefer (1) the email chain be started BEFORE the round and (2) all of the evidence you read in your speech sent at once. Someone was confused about this portion of my paradigm -- basically, instead of asking for "Can I get [A] card on [B] argument, [C] card on [D] arg, etc...", I think it would be faster if the team that just spoke sent all of their evidence in one doc. This is especially true if the tournament is double-flighted.
If you want me to read evidence after the round, please make sure you flag is very clearly.
I've been in theory/k rounds and I try to evaluate very close to policy. I'm not really a huge fan of k's in public forum -- I don't think there is enough speech time for you to develop such complex arguments out well. I also don't think it makes a lot of sense given the public forum structure (i.e. going for an advocacy when it's not a resolution that is set up to handle advocacies). I think there's so much value in engaging with critical literature, please consider doing another event that is set up better for it if you're really interested in the material. However, I'm still willing to vote on anything, as long as you establish a role of the ballot + frame why I'm voting.
If you delay the round to pre-flow when it's double-flighted, I will be very upset. You should know your case well enough for it to not be necessary, or do it on your own time.
Be nice & have fun.
Arguments and rebuttals should be delivered slowly with emphasis on communication delivery.
Arguments may be grouped and should each be addressed individually.
Rebuttals should address the important issues and extend arguments individually.
No preference about evidence but prefer When/Who if possible and needed.
Hi, in order to make it easy for me to understand your case more thoroughly, please kindly speak at a reasonable speed since I am a parent judge. Thank you.
I hope that arguments are presented slowly and clearly. Claims should be backed by quality evidence. I do not take notes on the round, so be sure to communicate your main arguments well. I will judge arguments based on logic and how well spoken your speeches are.
I am a parent judge. Please speak clearly and slowly.
Please be respectful and courteous to your opponents - I have low tolerance to disrespectful behavior and it will be reflected in your speaker points.
this is taken from melody luo's paradigm, but we basically have the same thoughts:
Think of me as a flow judge but leaning towards flay. A few things to note:
-If you read a turn in rebuttal, tell me what the impact is or else I’ll only count it as defense. If you’re the second speaking team, address both sides of the flow during rebuttal (aka frontline). Also respond to any turns in rebuttal or it's conceded
-An unaddressed argument is essentially conceded, but any concessions made in crossfire must be brought up in a later speech. Explain the implications of the concession (why them agreeing to your point matters in the round)
-I was a 1st speaker when I did PF so I rly value summary speeches
--When extending an argument, u need to explain all 3:claim-warrant-impact (frontlined when necessary) for it to count. A tag or an author's name doesn't mean anything if the evidence or impact is unwarranted. On the flip side, saying your opponents "extended by ink" isn't a valid rebuttal.
--No new offense after the 1st summary, but anything I vote off of in your final focus must be here. i will not consider args in ff if dropped in summary
-I try to be tech>truth. misconstrued cards will only be taken into account for my decision if the opponent brings it up to me.
-I have 0 experience with progressive arguments (plans, kritiks, theory, etc.) chances are i wont get it if you run them
-I can't handle too much speed. always signpost clearly
my other thoughts:
- if it's a wash, i default status quo
- impact is really important to me, but if you can't access the impact with a good warrant, i can't judge off of it.
- i need impact analysis in the end. tell me why your impact is more important than your opponents. <--- super important pls plspls give me impact analysis
I am a lay judge with five years of combined Parli and PF judging experience.
- Be polite, especially in cross. Don't shout at each other, please.
- Speak clearly. Don't spread.
- Take the time to explain complex arguments.
Former pf/policy k debater, judging mostly policy, other events scroll to bottom.
TLDR: do what you do, make my life judging easy and I will boost speaks/affect the ballot. I like to see good preround strategy and understanding of what arguments will win you the round. Flexibility is a double-edged sword, and I like to see debaters who comfortably commit to their strongest arguments. Open to some level of postrounding, but is intended to be productive for you debaters. I won't pretend to be a slate, but I doubt any idea I strongly hold will affect my ballot. I am not good at sugarcoating rfds, do know that I respect every debater and their efforts and wish only the best to anyone in debate seeking to improve.
Everything below is how I perceive policy debate, take the implications for your round in particular with a grain of salt, I have a bad habit of being very fluid in my judging and it's hard to extrapolate judging intuition I’ve developed to concrete overarching views. I tend to shy away from debate jargon as much as possible, I think policy has evolved lots of buzzwords that I hold my nose voting on. I think there's more interesting ways to debate beyond prewritten "fairness, clash, education" blocks. I think about interesting arguments beyond a single round etc. I dislike the norm of the burden of a judge to be a calculator of sorts.
Obligatory evidence ethics blip here. I may judgekick args dependent on egregiously read cards. It shouldn't be a burden of the other team to call out bad ev, but I will reward teams that do so. It really shouldn't be my responsibility either, if you haven't read your own cards beyond highlights, it's on you. Sad cards = sad judge :(
I tend to think condo leans neg. the winning aff on condo sufficiently points out to how neg limits the ability of aff to have any offense anywhere. Perms test competition, group redundant ones, it makes my life easier. I think aff has much stricter burdens, probably lean towards judge kicking 90% of the time. 1NC cardless cps annoy me.
Link debate goes on top of K and if I don't see links in the 2ar/2nr something has probably gone quite wrong. Framework tends to be more boring to judge than link debate. Make the K do the work, not fw. The K should directly indict and answer questions typically debated on fw. Role of judge and role of ballot mostly go over my head. They usually just blanket some claims to obligatory debate ethics without addressing the other.
I get irritated by affs that are wishy washy with separating barriers in the squo from actualizing the ballot. "Debate space" "model" args have gotten quite meta but I constantly get the feeling that debaters would rather debate about that than debate in said debate spaces.
I don't judge performance affs that much, that said, I have no implicit reasons against voting for one.
Don't give me a subpar spreaded philosophy lecture posing to be relevant to the ballot please.
Run T like a DA, I like good T debate as much as the next guy. TVAs are fun, call out lazy K affs. That said when it comes to definition/contextual comparison please put in legwork to contextualize why I should take a certain card at face value. I dislike seeing carded definitions come out from completely irrelevant contexts (on this topic the most funny so far is citing unclos for "in the areas" when it refers to physical land) to push some abusive model to moot the aff. Theory should be a serious callout; I like efficient responses to trivial theory (E.g. running disclosure against a generic aff). I haven't yet dropped anyone on condo or disclosure absent it being completely dropped so if that's your "strats" maybe strike me.
Terminology and jargon is the bane of persuasive debate. I’m not caught up on a lot of jargon and it is my belief that it shouldn’t matter. make the purpose of your argument clear, and anything else should be irrelevant.
I think spreading to some extent has become a necessary evil to lots of debaters. prewritten blocks/theory/T etc a lot of the time will feel like it misses the spirit of whatever type of argument. it seems to me a crutch to avoid adaptation to any round, although the better teams I’ve judged seem to have a good grasp on both. TLDR technical debate should not be treated as a crutch for understanding how to be persuasive. It is substantially easier to debate something that is true/you feel is true. I will usually not intervene on the ballot for truth level claims, but I will think about them.
Go fast if you must, but I may lose things time to time especially if things get tacked on during speeches out of order. Emphasize card transitions and which off well and I will be happy. Quality>Quantity of args.
Not timing anything unless it’s an issue and any other questions you can just ask me. CX is very flexible, partners feel free to chime in. do whatever during your prep time and if everyone is ok with it, I have no issues.
I’m not a super finicky person about particulars like sending docs on time, missing x seconds of prep, etc. I find it hard to believe that teams doing this gain real advantages, and I’ve yet to judge a round where stealing time or trying to penny pinch small advantages really changes the debate in a substantial way. that said call out ridiculous violations and I’ll be all ears.
3 cards or less sent in body are fine unless super long, probably don't need a marked copy for <2 cards. I take evidence ethics seriously, arguments that depend on questionably cut cards will probably end up dropped unless you can justify it post round. I will rely on my potential circumstantial knowledge of current events if I hear something that sounds blatantly outdated and intervene if it is critical enough.
I'm not a speaks goblin, but I think they are arbitrary. >29 and I probably really liked how you debated/spoke etc. Anything less is probably just a placeholder/vaguely relevant to presentation/execution outside of the ballot.
Remember to have fun and be nice
Assume no topic knowledge, well informed overall so probably will have some biases, very few relevant hard stances so persuade me otherwise. If something sounds contradictory to what I know about current affairs, I will probably go snoop in the cards or discard relevant analysis unless I am shown otherwise.
Will probably disclose out of habit unless tab tells me not to.
Make it clear what you think wins you the round and it’s probably an easy ballot, tech is for ceremony but understand that winning an argument technically may have 0 relevance to my ballot if there isn't legwork to explode it./missed point. some stuff in Misc: may apply.
I have no idea what order and times LD speeches go, feel free to remind me where you're at, especially if there's a timeskew/related voter floating around. Simplify jargon for me, if it doesn't make sense to me I won't vote on it. LD now gives me the impression of partnerless policy with weird speech times, theory isn't run as much in policy so make it simpler for me to understand.
I used to be a pf debater. Treat it half as a speech focused event. Presentation should matter, convince me of something. In the spirit of the event, I value technical aspects of debate much less than being consistent, credible, and reasonable. Be a little creative with world-building and rhetoric and keep it traditional. Make my ballot easy and I will be happy. If you run disclosure I will probably drop you and your speaks. I know prog when I see prog. Condense for me, FF is 2 minutes, wrap everything up. Easiest way to condense is to not bring along baggage.
I probably cannot judge PF the same way a parent/layperson would, but I think that is the core of what judging in PF should look like, do not take me as some “technical judge” that you can progwalk on or have a “tech round.” I'm personally calloused to presentation/rhetoric, but I will try my best.
Card/evidence sharing in PF is a nightmare, I don't care to look at cards unless someone points it out in specific. If a card is written in bad faith enough I may just kick it straight up or drop the violating team. I think you can get by a lot with general topic knowledge/analytics>delusions about current events or outdated cards.
Skip the "order is our case their case weighing" (and variations) roadmaps.